VII. Extracts from Argumentation and Evidence of Prosecution and Defense (part 4)

“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 impossible in a concentration camp and as I did not ask them anything of the kind, I cannot make any exact statement regarding the nationality of the individual gypsies. I did not ask them because the gypsies were very primitive people, and some of them did not even know their own birthdays.”

The witness Mettbach stated when questioned by Dr. Steinbauer (Tr. p. 9729):

“Dr. Steinbauer: What language did you speak among yourselves?

“Witness Mettbach: Mostly gypsy language.

“Q. What was the citizenship of the individual experimental subjects?

“A. Mostly they were Germans. There were a lot of Austrians and a lot of them came from East Prussia and Upper Silesia and the Burgenland [Province bordering Austria-Hungary].”

When questioned by counsel for the prosecution the witness Mettbach stated (Tr. pp. 9737-8):

“Mr. Hardy: Were there any foreign nationals—that is, men other than Germans—used in these experiments?

“Witness Mettbach: Austrians and Burgenlaender and some from Upper Silesia and East Prussia.

“Q. No Czechs?

“A. No.

“Q. No Russians?

“A. No.

“Q. No Poles?

“A. A couple of them talked Polish but I think they came from Upper Silesia or East Prussia. That very often happens. Lots of Upper Silesians can talk Polish.”

When questioned by counsel for the prosecution the witness Joseph Vorlicek stated (Tr. p. 9388):

“Mr. Hardy: Do you know the nationality of the various subjects?

“Witness Vorlicek: For the most part I do.

“Q. Can you tell the Tribunal the nationality of the various subjects, as near as you can recollect?

“A. There were Czechs, Poles, Hungarians, Austrians, and Germans.”

During direct examination the witness Vorlicek stated (Tr. p. 9388):

“Mr. Hardy: Well, did they ever volunteer for any special detachment or some such thing?

“Witness Vorlicek: Well, this is how it happened. Since I know the Slavonic language, and there were some Czechs among them, I spoke to them.”

Therefore, the defendant’s statement, that the persons concerned were Slovaks from the Bratislava area (Bratislava is the capital of Slovakia) is not without foundation.

The Rations of the Gypsies

The defendant states that the persons subjected to the experiments got the Luftwaffe flight rations before the experiments, and the same rations after the experiments, and that there was a hitch only once due to the bombing of the provisions warehouse. During the experiments, the persons got shipwreck rations. The Englishman, Ladell also says that he gave his soldiers shipwreck rations during the experiments. On this point, see extract from Beiglboeck 20, Beiglboeck Exhibit 8:

“* * * In all the experiments the food given was the ‘shipwreck diet’; this comprises 1 ounce each per day of biscuits; sweetened condensed milk; butter, fat, or margarine; and chocolate.”

That food was provided is evident from two documents. (Beiglboeck 26, Beiglboeck Ex. 13; Beiglboeck 27, Beiglboeck Ex. 14.)

The witness Massion states in his affidavit (Beiglboeck 31, Beiglboeck Ex. 12):

“Before beginning the experiment, the experimental subjects were given the same food as that supplied to the flying personnel of the Luftwaffe, that is to say, a very nutritious diet of sardines, butter, cheese, milk, meat, etc. During the experiment, 4 persons assigned to the thirst group received no food whatsoever, the others received sea-emergency rations, with chocolate, etc. I know that on one occasion difficulties arose in the food supply which possibly were connected with an air raid. I was sent to Frankfurt with the urgent order to obtain sea-emergency rations there.”

The Treatment of Gypsies

Beiglboeck treated the experimental subjects in a humane manner. It is natural that he insisted the strict observance of the whole experiment was not to be a farce. The whole experiment was a constant struggle against the understandable attitude of the experimental subjects who wanted to save themselves by cheating the director of the experiment (by secretly drinking water and pouring away the urine), and by obtaining special favors, in particular cigarettes, which in 1944 were hard to get—and that not only in the concentration camps.

In regard to this point I refer to a document in which Professor Dr. Dennig writes (Beiglboeck 29, Beiglboeck Ex. 15):

“While the people are able for the first few days successfully to fight their thirst with good grace, their strength of will is insufficient during the later stage; they devise extremely subtle means of obtaining water, e. g., the case of Juergensen.”

Witness Ernst Mettbach states in regard to this point when questioned by Dr. Steinbauer (Tr. p 9722):

“Dr. Steinbauer: The professor forbade your bringing them water. Did you nevertheless bring them water? Now, be honest.

“Witness Mettbach: Several times I brought my relative, Mettbach, water to drink.

“Q. Where did you give it to him?

“A. Sometimes I smuggled it in to the experimental station myself. Sometimes I stuck it through the fly screen on the window which was a little bit loose.”

Later we shall speak in detail about the secret drinking of water. At this point I just want to say in general that every drop of water which was consumed in secret not only diminished the scientific value of the experiments, but is also of greatest significance from the point of view of criminal law, because it decreased the feeling of thirst. As I said before, the treatment of the experimental subjects was a humane one. In regard to this point compare the statement of Dr. Lesse (Bieglboeck 14, Bieglboeck Ex. 20):

“Q. What was his attitude to the prisoners in general?

“A. Very humane and benevolent.”

Witness Massion states in his affidavit (Beiglboeck 31, Beiglboeck Ex. 12):

“Dr. Beiglboeck treated the prisoners as humanly as ordinary patients. He was rough to them only when they obtained drinking water contrary to orders. I know definitely that none of the experimental subjects were turned over to the SS for punishment because of any offenses.”

Witness Pillwein states in his affidavit (Beiglboeck 32, Beiglboeck Ex. 21):

“Q. How did Beiglboeck treat the inmates?

“A. Beiglboeck treated the patients well, which was a striking contrast to the treatment which we inmates received from the SS. Beiglboeck only became very angry when the gypsies lied to him regarding the drinking of water, and when he found out about it from the blood test.”

d. Evidence

Prosecution Documents

Pros.

Doc. No. Ex. No. Description of Document Page

NO-184 132 Letter from the Technical Office of the Reich Minister of Aviation (Goering) to Himmler’s office, 15 May 1944, concerning methods to render sea-water potable.

NO-177 133 Minutes of conference at the Reich Ministry of Aviation, 20 May 1944, concerning methods for making sea-water potable.

NO-185 134 Letter from Schroeder to Himmler and Grawitz, 7 June 1944, requesting subjects for sea-water experiments.

NO-183 136 Teletype from Rudolf Brandt to Grawitz, undated, concerning experimental subjects.

NO-182 137 Letter from Sievers to Grawitz, 24 July 1944, concerning experiments on the potability of sea-water.

Defense Documents

Doc. No. Def. Ex. No. Description of Document

Becker-Freyseng 42 Becker-Freyseng Ex. 29 Affidavit of Dr. Ludwig Harriehausen, 9 January 1947, regarding use of patients in sea-water experiments.

Testimony

Extracts from the testimony of prosecution witness Karl Hoellenrainer

Extracts from the testimony of defendant Beiglboeck

Extracts from the testimony of defense expert witness Dr. Franz Vollhardt

TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-184
PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 132

Letter from the Technical Office of the Reich Minister of Aviation (Goering) to Himmler’s Office, 15 May 1944, Concerning Methods to Render Sea Water Potable

[Stamped] Secret

[Letterhead]
Reich Minister of Aviation
and Commander in Chief of the Luftwaffe
Technical Office
Ref. Nrs. 91a, 0016 GL/C-E (51V)
No: 26 773 secret
(In your answer to the above
reference, please give date and
short summary.)

Berlin W 8, 15 May 1944
Leipziger Strasse 7
Cable address: Reichsluft Berlin
Phones: Local: 520024
218241
120047
Long distance: 218011
Extension: 4335

Re: Rendering sea-water potable.

Reference: Letter of the Reich Leader SS

No. 39/4/44 secret of 17 January 1944.

To: Reich Leader SS and Chief of the German Police,

Personal Staff.

Berlin

With reference to the interoffice conference between Oberstingenieur Christensen and Haupsturmfuehrer Engineer Dohle regarding the above-mentioned matter, it is announced that two processes have been worked out by the office to render sea-water potable:

1. The I. G. method, using mainly silver nitrate. For this process quite a large plant needs to be set up, which would require about 200 tons of iron and cost about 250,000 RM. The amount of the product needed by the Luftwaffe and Navy requires 2.5 to 3 tons of pure silver a month. Besides, the water which is rendered potable by this preparation has to be sucked through a filter in order to avoid absorption of precipitated chemicals. These facts make the application of this process practically impossible.

2. The second process which was worked out is the so-called Berka method. According to this method, the salts present in the sea-water are not precipitated, but are so treated that they are not disagreeable to the taste. They pass through the body without oversaturating it with salts and without causing an undue thirst. No special plants are necessary for producing preparations needed for this process; nor do the preparations themselves consist of scarce materials.

It can be presumed that this method will be introduced in the Luftwaffe and the navy in a short time. Now that German technical science has actually succeeded in rendering sea-water potable for people in distress at sea, in accordance with the above, the knowledge as to how foreign countries intend to solve this problem is no longer of prime importance. Naturally the office is very much interested in ascertaining how, above all, the United States has solved this problem, and it is requested that this information be sought, without, however, compromising any person or any office too much.

Should the office there be interested in the Berka method, let us know. Samples can then be delivered.

The cube dispensed is not a preparation to render sea-water potable, but a milk cube such as is already familiar to the offices.

[Signature illegible]

Enclosure: [Notation: both crossed out]

1 Milk cube

TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-177
PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 133

Minutes of Conference at the Reich Ministry of Aviation, 20 May 1944, Concerning Methods for Making Sea Water Potable

Personal Staff RF-SS.
Filing Department, File No./220/5

Technical Office
GL/C-E 5 IV No. 26860/44 secret

Berlin, 23 May 1944
[Handwritten] W 29.6

[Handwritten]:

Just received
for reading given
to RF [Himmler]

[Signature] R. Br. [Rudolf Brandt]

Reichsarzt SS 4/July

Minutes of the conference on 20 May 1944 re methods for making sea-water drinkable

Present:

10. Oberstingenieur Christensen German Air Ministry—

GL/C-E 5 IV 120047/28

11. Stabsingenieur Dr. Schickler dto. 120047/4335

12. Stabsingenieur Berka E-Tra Vienna

B 23566

13. Stabsarzt Dr. Becker-Freyseng Chief Medical Service 278313

14. Unterarzt Dr. Schaefer Luftwaffe Medical

Research Institute 27 83 13

I. On 19 May 1944 a preliminary discussion was held at the Reich Air Ministry—GL/C-E 5 IV. Present were the following persons:

GL/C-E 5 IV Obersting. Christensen

dto. Stabsing. Dr. Schickler

E-Tra. Stabsing. Berka

L. In. 14 Major Jeworrek

Chief of the Medical Service [Office] Stabsarzt Dr. Becker-Freyseng

dto. Unterarzt Dr. Schaefer

Herr Pahl.

At this meeting Captain (med.) Dr. Becker-Freyseng reported on the clinical experiments conducted by Colonel (med.) Dr. von Sirany and came to the final conclusion that he did not consider them as being unobjectionable and conclusive enough for a final decision. The Chief of the Medical Service is convinced that, if the Berka method is used, damage to health has 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 N. C. O. (med.) Dr. Schaefer—will finally result in death after not later than 12 days.

External symptoms are to be expected such as drainage, diarrhea, convulsions, hallucinations, and finally death. As a result of the preliminary discussion it was agreed to arrange a new series of experiments of short duration. A commission was to be set up for the arrangement of these series of experiments. This commission should be set up together with the High Command of the Navy at the conference on 20 May 1944.

The series of experiments should include the following:

1. a. Persons to be given sea-water processed with Berka method.

b. Persons to be given ordinary drinking water. [Shorthand notation]:

One copy to be submitted

to the ministry.

c. Persons without any drinking water at all.

d. Persons given water treated according to the present method. (0.7 liters of drinking water for 4 persons and 4 days.)

For the duration of the experiments all persons will receive only an emergency sea diet such as is provided for persons in distress at sea.

Duration of experiments: Maximum 6 days

In addition to these experiments a further experiment should be conducted as follows:

2. 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—have to be expected, as experimental subjects such persons should be used as will be put at the disposal by the Reichsfuehrer SS.

Herr Pahl reports that due to the latest improvements in the I. G. Farben method, smaller quantities of iron are needed for the construction of the manufacturing equipment than were originally provided for and estimated by I. G. Herr Pahl reports further that if the Wofatit equipment which has to be constructed could not be used later for the manufacturing of the sea-water preparation another use would be quite possible. As to the silver problem GL/C-E 5 IV will check whether the necessary quantities of silver are available.

With GL/C-B 5 it is to be determined whether the same quantities of the preparations will be required as heretofore.

II. At the main conference on 20 May 1944, Stabsingenieur Dr. Schickler will report on work done since the last conference, especially re the results of the preliminary discussion described in part I.

The navy emphasizes that it is considered to be of great importance to obtain a method which under the given conditions could be introduced at once without undue delay. In the opinion of the navy the results obtained at the clinical experiments are sufficient, since they are mainly interested in being able to nourish their men 3 to 5 days with the preparation. A longer nourishing period up to 12 days would probably only be necessary in very few cases. But in spite of this the High Command of the Navy agrees that the series of experiments, as proposed by the Chief of the Medical Service in paragraph 1, should still be carried out.

These series of experiments should be finished and reported on not later than the end of June. During this period all preparations are to be made for the commencement of production according to the Berka method at a date not later than July 1st 1944, and also, if the I. G. method should be introduced, for the start of the construction of the necessary manufacturing equipment by the I. G.

The commission which has to determine the conditions for the series of experiments still to be conducted is composed as follows:

Professor Eppinger, Vienna, Representative of the Chief of the Medical Service of the Air Force

Representative of the German Air Ministry GL/C

Representative of the High Command of the Navy

Stabsarzt Dr. Becker-Freyseng is being contemplated as representative of the Chief of the Medical Service. Stabsingenieur Dr. Schickler and Stabsingenieur Berka as representatives of GL; and Professor Orzichowski as representative of the High Command of the Navy.

It was decided that Berlin, Reich Air Ministry GL/C-E 5 IV should be the meeting place of the commission. (The originally proposed meeting place was changed from Munich to Berlin after a telephone call from Dr. Becker-Freyseng); and that the meeting should be on 25 May 1944 at 10:00 a. m.

It was decided that Dachau was to be the place where the experiments should be conducted.

Stabsarzt Dr. Becker-Freyseng would invite Professor Eppinger and would get in touch with the Reich Leader SS. The High Command of the Navy would invite Professor Orzichowski.

Distribution:

High Command of the Navy—Medical Department

High Command of the Navy, Department for Research, Inventions and Patents

Research Operation of the Reich Ministry for Aviation and High Command of the Luftwaffe

For information of:

Medical Experimentation and Instruction Division of the Air Force Jueterbog

E-Office Rechlin (E med)

Institute for Aviation Medicine,

D. V. L., Berlin-Adlershof

L. In. 14. 1. Abt. 2 Abt., Gruppe 3, KTB

Reich Leader SS

Technical Academy, Vienna

[Signature] C. Christensen
[Handwritten]
A—
RSHA. Through asocial gypsies
Gerhabdt.

[Stamp]
Personal Staff RFSS—enclosures received on: 12 June 1944
Journal No. 39/4/44g.
to:

TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-185
PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 134

Letter from Schroeder to Himmler and Grawitz, 7 June 1944, Requesting Subjects for Sea-Water Experiments

[handwritten] Top Secret

Chief Medical Service of the Luftwaffe
File: 55 Nr. 510/44 top secret (2F).

Saalow, 7 June 1944
ueber Zossen/Land
2 Copies—1st copy

To the Reich Minister of the Interior and Reich Leader SS through Reich Physician SS and Police

Berlin W, Knesebeckstr. 51

Highly respected Reich Minister!

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.

Direction of the experiments is to be taken over by Stabsarzt Dr. Beiglboeck, civilian; Chief Physician of the Medical University Clinic in Vienna, Professor Dr. Eppinger. After receipt of your basic approval, I shall list by name the other physicians who are to participate, in the experiments.

Due to the enormous importance which a solution of this problem has for shipwrecked men of the Luftwaffe and navy, I would be greatly obliged to you, my dear Reich Minister, if you would decide to comply with my request.

Heil Hitler!
[Signature] Schroeder

TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-183
PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 136

Teletype from Rudolf Brandt to Grawitz, Undated, Concerning Experimental Subjects

[stamp] Top Secret

Teletype:

To the Reich Physician SS and Police SS Obergruppenfuehrer Dr. Grawitz, Berlin

Subject: Experiments by the Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe.

Reference: Your letter of 28 June 1944—Journal Number 13/44 secret

Obergruppenfuehrer!

The Reich Leader SS has decided that in accordance with the suggestion of SS Gruppenfuehrer Nebe, gypsies should be used for the experiments. In addition, three other prisoners will be made available.

Heil Hitler!
[Signed] Brandt
SS Standartenfuehrer

TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-182
PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 137

Letter from Sievers to Grawitz, 24 July 1944, Concerning Experiments on the Potability of Sea Water

Reich Leader SS
Personal Staff “Office-A”

(13a) Waischenfeld/Ofr.
No. 135, Tel. No. 2
24 July 1944

Secret

SS Standardtenfuehrer Ministerialrat Dr. Brandt, for Information.

To SS Obergruppenfuehrer Reich Physician SS and Police Dr. Grawitz

Berlin W 15, Knesbeckstr. 51

[Handwritten remark]
Gbl 29.7

Subject: Experiments on the potability of sea-water.

Refer: Your letter of 11 July 1944, Journal No. 13/SS top secret

Dear Obergruppenfuehrer!

I want to inform you about my talks with SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Ploetner and Chief Physician Beiglboeck in Dachau on 20 July. There will be employed: 1 person in charge, 3 medical chemists, 1 female assistant, 3 ranks for supervision. Prospective time: 3 weeks. In our research station only the 40 experimental persons can be accommodated, otherwise there is absolutely insufficient room since the Ploetner section is fully occupied and work cannot be interrupted. Our laboratory is insufficiently equipped, since some essential equipment is wanting. In spite of serious difficulties, the following agreement was arrived at: 1. In the Ploetner section a desk will be reserved (in the laboratory). 2. The remaining rooms will be placed at our disposal in our Entomological Institute for a period of 3 weeks. Equipment needed must be provided by the Luftwaffe. Thus it will be assured that the female assistants can work in Dachau too, because the Entomological Institute is located outside the concentration camp. 3. Billet must be arranged between Chief Physician Dr. Beiglboeck and the commandant’s office, since we have no billets at our disposal. 4. SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Ploetner will give his assistance, help, and advice. He was, however, not selected for internal guidance, because this is being done by the Luftwaffe physicians themselves.

The experiments are to begin on July 23 if experimental persons are available by then and the camp commandant is in possession of the required order of the Reich Leader SS. Dr. Beiglboeck himself wanted to get in touch with SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Frowein, Adjutant of the Reich Physician SS, on this subject.

I hope that this arrangement may permit a successful conduct of the experiments. When the results are reported at the proper time, please arrange to point out the participation and assistance of the Reich Leader SS.

With best regards and
Heil Hitler!
[Signature] Sievers
SS Standartenfuehrer

Partial Translation of Becker-Freyseng Document 42 Becker-Freyseng Defense Exhibit 29

Affidavit of Dr. Ludwig Harriehausen, 9 January 1947, Regarding Use of Patients in Sea-Water Experiments

Dr. Schroeder, as my superior, often visited the hospitals in my charge, especially the Luftwaffe hospital in Brunswick of which I had been medical superintendent since 1942.

I recall very well that I was once asked whether it would be possible to carry out control experiments with sea-water, made drinkable by various methods, on patients suffering from minor complaints and the slightly wounded in the Luftwaffe hospital in Brunswick which was under my supervision. Whether Professor Dr. Schroeder or one of his representatives put this question to me, and at what exact time, I cannot recall exactly. It could have been in June 1944. I had to refuse the undertaking of such experiments, as I had strict orders to send all patients and wounded who could be released back to the troops; thus I did not have at my disposal hospital inmates suitable for these experiments. Furthermore, the hospital was overcrowded at this time and was, therefore, not suitable for scientific experiments. I can also recall clearly that, at a later time, I again spoke to Professor Dr. Schroeder about this matter, and that he expressed his regret on this occasion that these experiments could not be carried out in the Luftwaffe hospital in Brunswick which was under my direction.

Extracts from the Testimony of Prosecution Witness Karl Hoellenrainer

DIRECT EXAMINATION

Mr. Hardy: Now, Witness, for what reasons were you arrested by the Gestapo on 29 May 1944?

Witness Hoellenrainer: Because I am a gypsy of mixed blood.

Q. And after your arrest you were sent to the Auschwitz concentration camp?

A. Yes.

Q. How long did you remain in Auschwitz?

A. About 4 weeks.

Q. And then where were you placed?

A. I was sent to Buchenwald.

Q. How long did you stay in Buchenwald?

A. I only stayed there for a few days.

Q. And then what happened to you?

A. I was in Buchenwald, and suddenly our numbers were called. Forty men were called out, including me, and we were told that we were going to Dachau to work. As soon as we arrived at Dachau we were put in a quarantine block. One day an SS man came and wrote down our numbers, and then we were X-rayed. Afterwards they sent us to the surgical department of a certain Luftwaffe doctor. I am afraid I can’t remember the physician’s name. I know that he was in the Luftwaffe and that he was an Austrian. He examined all of us, and then we were divided into groups for a sea-water experiment.

Q. Just a moment, Witness. I now want to ask you some brief questions concerning what you have just told us. You state that you went to Dachau to work. Did you consider going to Dachau to be good fortune?

A. Yes; a friend of mine, a gypsy, had already been to Dachau, and he told me that the situation was much better and that we would get better food. But that was not the case.

Q. Well, did you understand what you were to do when you went to Dachau, what type of work was it, bomb disposal or removal?

A. Yes. We went there to work.

Q. Did you understand that you were going to Dachau to volunteer for sea-water experiments?

A. No, never.

Q. Now, upon arrival in Dachau you then went to the quarantine block, is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. You stayed there for a day or two and were given a physical examination?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you also get an X-ray examination?

A. Yes.

Q. And then you were transferred to the experimental block?

A. Yes.

Q. And there you met a professor or a doctor?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you think you would be able to recognize that doctor if you saw him today?

A. Yes, immediately. I would recognize him at once.

Q. Would you kindly stand up from your witness chair, take your earphones off, and proceed over to the defendants’ dock, and see if you can recognize the professor that you met at Dachau?

(Witness leaves the stand.)

Q. Walk right over, please.

(Witness attempts assault on the defendant Beiglboeck.)

Mr. Hardy: The prosecution apologizes for the conduct of the witness, your Honors. Due to the manner of this examination, the prosecution will have no further questions, your Honors.

Presiding Judge Beals: The marshal will keep the witness guarded before the Tribunal.

Dr. Steinbauer (counsel for the defendant Beiglboeck): I have no questions to put to the witness.

Presiding Judge Beals: Will the marshal bring the witness before the bar of this Court? Will an interpreter come up here who can translate to the witness?

Witness, you were summoned before this Tribunal as a witness to give evidence.

Witness Hoellenrainer: Yes.

Q. This is a court of justice.

A. Yes.

Q. And by your conduct in attempting to assault the defendant Beiglboeck in the dock, you have committed a contempt of this Court.

A. Your Honors, please excuse my conduct. I am very excited.

Q. Ask the witness if he has anything else to say in extenuation of his conduct.

A. Your Honors, please excuse me. I am so worked up. That man is a murderer. He has ruined my whole life.

Q. Your statements afford no extenuation of your conduct. You have committed a contempt in the presence of the Court, and it is the judgment of this Tribunal that you be confined in the Nuernberg prison for the period of 90 days as punishment for the contempt which you have exhibited before this Tribunal.

A. Would the Tribunal please forgive me. I am married and I have a small son. This man is a murderer. He gave me salt water and he performed a liver puncture on me. I am still under medical treatment. Please do not send me to prison.

Q. That is no extenuation. The contempt before this Court must be punished. People must understand that a court is not to be treated in that manner. Will the marshal call a guard and remove the prisoner to serve the sentence which this Court has inflicted for contempt? It is understood that the defendant is not to be confined at labor. He is simply to be confined in the prison, having committed a contempt in open court by attempting to assault one of the defendants in the dock.

Mr. Hardy: At this time, your Honor, the prosecution will request a brief recess, if your Honors please.

Presiding Judge Beals: Very well, the Tribunal will be in recess for a moment.

(A recess was taken.)

The Marshal: The Tribunal is again in session. [1 July 1947.]

Mr. Hardy: The prosecution wishes to recall the witness Karl Hoellenrainer to the witness stand, your Honors.

Presiding Judge Beals: The marshal will summon the witness Hoellenrainer.

(The witness Karl Hoellenrainer took the stand.)

Judge Sebring: You will raise your right hand and be sworn. I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.

(Witness repeated the oath.)

Presiding Judge Beals: Counsel may proceed.

DIRECT EXAMINATION

Mr. Hardy: Witness, your name again is Karl Hoellenrainer?

Witness Hoellenrainer: Yes.

Q. Witness, at the close of your testimony the other day, you were proceeding to tell the Tribunal about your activities after your arrival at the Dachau concentration camp?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, when did you arrive for the first time at the Dachau concentration camp?

A. That was about the middle of July.

Q. And then you stayed at the camp hospital for a period of 1 or 2 days?

A. In Auschwitz?

Q. No, in Dachau, after your arrival?

A. Yes, yes, in Dachau.

Q. And then you were examined physically and also X-rayed?

A. Yes.

Q. After you had been physically examined and X-rayed, what happened to you?

A. Then, we came into the so-called surgical department. We were 40 men. Then a Luftwaffe doctor came and examined us. We had to take our clothes off and stand in line. Then he said, “Well, you will be given good food, such as you have never had, and then you won’t get anything to eat at all, and you will have to drink sea-water.” One of the prisoners whose name was Rudi Taubmann jumped up and refused. He was in an experiment, a cold-water experiment, and he didn’t want to be in any more experiments. The doctor from the Luftwaffe said, “If you are not quiet, and want to rebel, I will shoot you on the spot.” The doctor from the Luftwaffe always had a pistol, and then we were all quiet. For about one week we got cookies, rusks, and brown sugar. There were about 21 little cookies, and three or four little pieces of dextrose. Otherwise, we got nothing. The 8 days—

Q. Just a moment. Did you at any time volunteer for these experiments?

A. No.

Q. Were you asked whether or not you wished to volunteer for the experiments?

A. No.

Q. Were any of the other inmates asked if they would like to volunteer?

A. No.

Q. Was the young Mettbach a volunteer, the youngest Mettbach?

A. I know only one Ernst Mettbach from Fuerth, but I don’t know whether he volunteered.

Q. Was Ernst Mettbach in the experiments throughout; that is, did he complete the experiments?

A. No, he was only there a short time, 2 or 3 days maybe. Then, the doctor from the Luftwaffe put him out, and where he went I don’t know.

Q. Now, did the professor ask anyone for his approval before he was subjected to the sea-water experiments?

A. No.

Q. Did the professor or any of the other Luftwaffe physicians talk to the inmates and advise them as to the hazards of the experiment prior to the commencement of the actual experiments?

A. No.

Q. Now, will you, in detail, tell the Tribunal just what food the experimental subjects received prior to the experiments, during the course of the experiments, and after the experiments, and in doing so, Witness, kindly talk very slowly and distinctly so that the interpreters will be able to translate you more efficiently.

A. Yes. At first we got potatoes, milk, and then we got these cookies and dextrose and rusks. That lasted about 1 week. Then we got nothing at all. Then the doctor from the Luftwaffe said, “Now, you have to drink sea-water on an empty stomach.” That lasted about 1 or 2 weeks. This Rudi Taubmann, as I already said, got excited and didn’t want to participate; and the doctor from the Luftwaffe said, “If you get excited and mutiny, I will shoot you,” and then we were all quiet. Then we began to drink sea-water. I drank the worst kind, that was yellowish. We drank two or three times a day, and then in the evening we drank the yellow kind. There were three kinds of water, white water, and yellow water [two kinds]; and I drank the yellow kind. After a few days the people became raving mad; they foamed at the mouth. The doctor from the Luftwaffe came with a cynical laugh and said, “Now it is time to make the liver punctures.” I remember one very well.

Q. Talk more slowly, Witness. Thank you.

A. Yes. The first row on the left when you came in, the second bed, that was the first one. He went crazy and barked like a dog. He foamed at the mouth. The doctor from the Luftwaffe took him down on a stretcher with a white sheet over him, and then he stuck a needle about this long (indicating) into his right side, and there was a hypodermic needle on it, and it bled, and it was very painful. We were all quiet and excited. When that was over, the other inmates took their turn. The people were crazy from thirst and hunger, we were so hungry—but the doctor had no pity on us. He was as cold as ice. He didn’t take any interest in us. Then, one gypsy—I don’t know his name any more—ate a little piece of bread once, or drank some water; I don’t remember just what he did. The doctor from the Luftwaffe got very angry and mad. He took the gypsy and tied him to a bed post and sealed his mouth.

Q. Witness, do you mean that he put adhesive tape over this gypsy’s mouth?

A. Yes.

Q. Go ahead, continue.

A. Then a gypsy, he was lying on the right, a big strong, husky fellow, he refused to drink the water. He asked the doctor from the Luftwaffe to let him go. He said he couldn’t stand the water. He was sick. The doctor from the Luftwaffe had no pity, and he said, “No, you have to drink it.” The doctor from the Luftwaffe told one of his assistants to go and get a sun. Naturally, we didn’t know what a sun was. Then one of his assistants came with a red tube about this long (indicating) and thrust this tube first into the gypsy’s mouth and then into his stomach.

Q. Just a moment. That tube was how long? How long would that be, a half a meter long?

A. About this long (indicating).

Q. That will be about a half a meter?

A. Yes, about a half a meter. And then the doctor from the Luftwaffe took this red tube and put it in the gypsy’s mouth and into his stomach. And then he pumped water down the tube. The gypsy kneeled in front of him and beseeched him for mercy but that doctor had none.

Q. Witness, during the experiments was your temperature taken?

A. Yes.

Q. Who took your temperatures?

A. There were two Frenchmen, one tall thin and one short blond one; and they took the temperatures and the doctor from the Luftwaffe took the temperatures, too.

Q. When you say “the doctor from the Luftwaffe” you mean the man you referred to as the “professor.” The professor and the doctor from the Luftwaffe are the same or are they two different people?

A. Yes.

Q. I see. Thank you. Now, who performed the liver punctures?

A. The doctor from the Luftwaffe carried out the liver punctures himself. Some people were given liver punctures and at the same time a puncture in the spinal cord. The doctor from the Luftwaffe did that himself. It was very painful. Something ran out at the same time at the back. It was water or something—I don’t know what it was.

Q. Well, did you receive a liver puncture?

A. Yes.

Q. Did the professor tell you for what reason he gave you that liver puncture?

A. The doctor from the Luftwaffe came to me and said, “Now, Hoellenrainer, it’s your turn.” I was lying on the bed. I was very weak from this water and from not having anything to eat. He said, “Now, lie on your left side and take the clothes off your right side.” I held on to the bedstead on top of me and the doctor from the Luftwaffe sat down next to me and pushed a long needle into me. It was very painful. I said, “Doctor, what are you doing?” The doctor said, “I have to make a liver puncture so that the salt comes out of your liver.”

Q. Now, Witness, can you tell us whether or not the subjects used in the experiments were gypsies of purely German nationality or were there some Polish gypsies, some Russian gypsies, Czechoslovak gypsies, and so forth?

A. Yes, there were about seven or eight Germans and the rest of them were all Poles and Czechs, Czech gypsies and Polish gypsies.

Q. Were any of the experimental subjects ever taken out of the station room to the yard outside the experimental barracks?

A. Yes, at the end when the experiments were all finished; and three people were carried out with white sheets over them on a stretcher. They were covered with sheets but I don’t know whether they were dead or not. But we, my colleagues and I, talked about it. We never saw these three again, neither at work nor anywhere in the camp. We often talked about it and wondered where they were. We never saw them again. We thought that they were dead.

Q. Do you know where they were taken?

A. No, I don’t know.

Q. Well, during the course of the experiments were you weighed every day?

A. Yes. We were weighed, too.

Q. Was that every day or every other day?

A. I don’t remember exactly.

Q. Well, now, after the completion of the experiments in early September what happened to you?

A. When we had finished the experiments?

Q. Yes.

A. I told you that already. We were sent to the hospital and the doctor from the Luftwaffe came and said we were to take our clothes off and we lined up and were divided into three groups. The doctor from the Luftwaffe said, “Now you will be given good food. You have never had such good food.” We were given potatoes, dextrose, cookies, milk—

Q. Just a minute, Witness. I am referring to the end of the experiments, after the experiments were all completed. Could you tell us what date your experiments were completed and you were transferred from the experimental station?

A. The experiment lasted, maybe, 4 or 5 weeks altogether. I don’t know the date.

Q. Well, then, they were completed in early September. Is that correct? You arrived—

A. Yes.

Q. Now, after the experiments were completed did you then return to the camp proper or to the camp hospital?

A. No, to the camp, into Block 22. We couldn’t walk. We all had to support each other. We were exhausted. I forgot to tell you one thing. Before we began the experiments and we had this good food for about one week, the doctor took us out into the courtyard near the hospital. The doctor from the Luftwaffe came. He had a little bottle in his hand and we all had to line up. There was some liquid in the bottle and he put a number on our chest. I had number “23.” It burned a lot. Then we went back into the block. On every bed there was a number, the same number we had on our chests. One man—but I don’t remember who it was—one of the inmates, said: “That is what they call the death number.” I was pretty scared and the inmates said, “Yes, that is the death number so that the doctor of the Luftwaffe will know right away who is dead.”

We didn’t want to go on with the experiments but what choice did we have? We were just poor prisoners. Nobody bothered about us. We had to let them do with us what they wanted. We couldn’t resist. I haven’t got the power to relate everything as it—

Q. All right. Just a moment. Was your bed number “23”?

A. Yes.

Q. Then you were considered to be experimental subject number 23?

A. Yes.

Q. Were you sick during the course of the experiments, Witness?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, Witness, after the completion of the experiments in early September were you then called in and weighed to determine your weight about 2 weeks later?

A. No, not after 2 weeks.

Q. Were you called in and weighed 1 week after you had completed the experiments? Do you remember?

A. I don’t remember. But we were weighed.

Q. You were weighed every day during the experiments?

A. Yes.

Q. What I want to know is, were you weighed after the completion of the experiments? For instance, you were weighed every day during the experiments; then the experiments were completed; then you were not weighed again for a period of 1 or 2 weeks. Did you get weighed 1 or 2 weeks after the completion of the experiments?

A. When the experiment was all finished? No.

Q. Well, now after you left the experimental block and went to the camp how long was it before you were able to resume work?

A. A few days. Then we were sent in a detachment to a farm in Feldmochingen. We had to work hard and the food was better than in the camp but, you know, if you are a prisoner, what did the farmers give you? A little bread, some soup—but, in any case it was better than in the camp; and then every evening we came back to our block and then we got the regular camp food.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

Dr. Steinbauer: When you were examined the first time you said that you had no previous convictions. Do you maintain this assertion?

Witness Hoellenrainer: No, I have been convicted.

Q. Then why did you lie?

A. I did not lie. I meant from the experiments.

Q. The question was whether before you came to the Gestapo you had ever been convicted and punished by the police. Nothing was mentioned about experiments at that time. That’s an excuse. Do you admit that you lied? It’s much better for you.

A. No. I did not lie.

Q. Well, you have been convicted?

A. Yes.

Q. For theft?

A. Yes.

Q. For fraud?

A. Yes.

Q. For assault?

A. Yes.

Q. For blackmail?

A. What do you mean by that?

Q. Well, coercion.

A. No.

Q. For using a false name?

A. No. I never used a false name.

Q. You have to speak more slowly. We will come back to that. You were arrested then for desertion?

A. Yes.

Q. You were prosecuted for desertion?

A. Yes.

Q. You refused to obey your draft order?

A. Yes.

Q. Isn’t that why you were sent to the concentration camp?

A. No, I was sent to the concentration camp merely because I am a gypsy. My brothers were in the war and they came back from Russia and were sent to Sachsenhausen and were murdered there, because there weren’t supposed to be any more gypsies in the German Army.

Q. What kind of a badge did you wear in the camp?

A. A black one.

Q. You and your wife, too, have stated that you participated in malaria, phlegmon, typhoid, and sea-water experiments?

A. No, only this one experiment, no malaria.

Q. Do you admit that you lied to the young doctor who talked to you?

A. No, I didn’t lie to the doctor. I just told him the exact truth. My wife and I weren’t allowed to marry. My wife had a child from me and it was cremated in Birkenau. My sister was cremated and both her children.

Q. Don’t get excited. I asked you whether you told the young doctor that you were in four different experiments. All you have to say is yes or no.

A. I told the doctor I drank salt water.

Q. Listen, Herr Hoellenrainer, don’t be evasive as gypsies usually are. Give me a clear answer as a witness under oath. Did you tell the doctor that you participated in other experiments, yes or no?

A. No. I just drank salt water.

Mr. Hardy: Your Honor, the testimony of this doctor is not in evidence before this Tribunal. I don’t understand what Dr. Steinbauer is referring to.

Dr. Steinbauer: You said you were in Auschwitz?

Witness Hoellenrainer: Yes.

Q. Were you in the Birkenau extermination camp?

A. Yes.

Q. Were the gypsies in a big camp there?

A. Yes.

Q. Were there women and children there?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you have a wife there?

A. Yes, my fiancee, Ida Schmidt. She was gassed. She was burned to death. I never saw her again.

Q. Didn’t you once beat your wife until the blood spurted out on to the wall?

A. No.

Q. Did you ever beat her?

A. No.

Q. I asked you whether what I have just read to you is true, that you were divided up and your numbers were called out, etc.?

A. We weren’t asked at all. Forty of us were collected together and we were sent to Dachau.

Q. Now, I have to tell you that your countryman—he is from Fuerth too, called Mettbach—said that he talked to you and particularly said that he wanted to go to Dachau because it was nearer Fuerth than Buchenwald; is that true?

A. That might be. I didn’t mind going to Dachau either because my brother lived in Munich.

Q. Then you did go voluntarily?

A. No, I did not.

Q. How does it happen that Laubinger said something else? Laubinger said you were deceived, that is why you volunteered?

A. No, I never volunteered. I certainly wouldn’t volunteer for these death experiments.

Q. Well, you went to Dachau?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know the old Herzberg?

A. No.

Q. You don’t remember the gypsy from Bratislava?

A. No.

Q. Who was the oldest gypsy?

A. I don’t remember.

Q. You were with your comrades for weeks and don’t know their names?

A. No.

Q. It is possible that Mettbach did not know all the names then, isn’t it?

A. How should I know? I did not have time to ask everybody what his name was.

Q. When the experiments were to begin, did the professor explain the purpose? That it was for rescuing people from shipwrecks, and that it was a sea-water experiment?

A. Yes, of course.

Q. Did he explain that you would be very thirsty?

A. Yes, he did first.

Q. And that thirst was very unpleasant?

A. Yes.

Q. Witness, the thirst dried out the mouth?

A. Yes.

Q. How can you explain that these people foamed at the mouth?

A. They had fits and foamed at the mouth, they had fits of raving madness.

Q. I am just asking you how there can be foam on a mouth which is completely dried out?

A. I don’t know.

Q. You don’t know. Then some became mad?

A. Yes.

Q. You gypsies stick together, don’t you?

A. Yes, of course.

Q. Then you must be able to tell me who became mad?

A. I don’t remember.

Q. You must know. If a friend of mine—I was a soldier twice—and if a friend of mine had gone mad then I would have noticed it.

A. It was a tall man who was in the first row. He was the first one to start. He became raving mad and had fits and thrashed around with his hands and feet. He was a tall slim gypsy.

Q. You said that you were weighed?

A. Yes.

Q. Isn’t it possible that after the experiment, when you received good food again and plenty of water, you were re-weighed?

A. No.

Q. But then they had a chart showing where you were weighed every day?

A. I don’t know.

Q. Were you weighed standing up or lying down?

A. Standing up.

Q. Were some of the people weighed lying down?

A. I don’t remember.

Q. Were the scales ones on which people could be weighed lying down?

A. I don’t know.

Q. What did these scales look like?

A. Well, they were big scales. You had to stand on it. There was an indicator which showed the weight.

Q. The man who had his mouth sealed, did he have a tube in his stomach too?

A. I don’t remember.

Q. Your liver was punctured?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you have a scar?

A. A scar? I don’t know.

Q. Don’t you ever look at your body?

A. Yes. You want to see it?

Q. No. I am just asking you if you have a scar?

A. You mean a little mark?

Q. Have you a little round scar there?

A. I did not look as carefully as that.

Q. Well, do you think you have one or not?

A. I don’t know. I didn’t bother with these camp matters any more, otherwise I would go crazy. I don’t want to hear anything more about the camp. We suffered long enough.

Q. Witness, do you think you are mad or mentally retarded?

A. No. I don’t think I am mad. I said, I’d very soon go mad if I thought about these things at the camp.

Q. Do you think there is something wrong with you mentally?

A. No.

Q. You say you are going crazy?

A. Well, if I keep thinking of that camp.

Mr. Hardy: I object to this line of questioning, your Honor.

Dr. Steinbauer: Well, your liver was punctured?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know whether you have a scar, yes or no?

A. I don’t know.

Q. What was the nationality of the people in the camp who were experimental subjects?

A. Poles and Czechs.

Q. How many Germans were there?

A. Seven or eight, who spoke German.

Q. Were there some Hungarians and Burgenlaender?

A. No. I don’t know.

Extracts from the Testimony of Defendant Beiglboeck

CROSS-EXAMINATION

Mr. Hardy: Do you have any ability to write shorthand, Doctor?

Defendant Beiglboeck: Yes, I know shorthand.

Q. Are these your stenographic notes on the back of Document C-23?

A. Yes.

Q. Would you kindly read those to the Tribunal—transcribe them? Would that be too difficult, or would you like to have me give you my transcription of them to aid you?

A. It says: “The thirst acquires forms which are difficult to bear. The patient is apathetic.”

Q. Pardon me, Doctor. It might be helpful if you used this transcription. I have had experts transcribe the notes; and then the interpreters can follow us more readily. I have the English copies also for the Tribunal to follow you, and if you have any discrepancy to point out with transcription as set out in the English—

Judge Sebring: Are you offering this, Mr. Hardy?

Mr. Hardy: That is a problem, your Honor. I want to have him transcribe the notes, and when the Tribunal settles who will offer this document into evidence, either the defense or prosecution, at that time, if necessary, I will give this a document number. I think we will have to wait to clarify that point later.

Q. Would you check that transcription, Professor?

A. That is correct, except in the first line it says—

Presiding Judge Beals: You have read your own stenographic notes, have you not?

Defendant Beiglboeck: Yes, and I have compared them with this transcription.

Q. What you should now read is your own version of these shorthand notes as you say they are correctly read. You understand that? You can read them from that, as you corrected it. You can read them from shorthand direct or from the typewritten transcription, as you please. Read slowly, too, please.

Mr. Hardy: While he is reading that, your Honor, I suggest that he stop at the correction he wishes to make and we can correct our English copy and the interpreters can correct the German copy.

Presiding Judge Beals: He will call attention to the corrections which you make.

Defendant Beiglboeck: “The thirst assumes forms difficult to endure.” The second version reads: “already unendurable”. My notes do not read like that.

“The thirst assumes forms difficult to endure. The patient lies there quite motionless with half-closed eyes. The patient lies apathetically. He takes little notice of his surroundings. He asks for water only when he awakes from his somnolent condition.

“The appearance is very bad and shows signs of a decline. The general condition gives no cause for alarm.

“Respiration somewhat flatter, moderately frequent.

“Respirations 25 per minute.

“The eyes are deeply hollowed”, it should read “deeply”. Here it says “often”.

“The turgor of the skin greatly reduced.

“Skin dry, tongue completely dry, whitish coating in the middle fairly free.

“The mucous membranes of the mouth and the lips dry, latter covered with crusts. Lungs show slight very dry bronchitis, lower border VI-XI.” It is supposed to read “XI”. Originally it said “XII” and apparently I corrected it to read “XI.”

“Sharpened vesicular”, the word “breathing” is omitted here, of course.

“Sharpened vesicular breathing”—that is a medical expression.

“Heart beats very low, barely audible. Pulse weak. Filled. Palpability of the pulse worse.” Here it says that the pulse is “felt” and it should be “filled”. The pulse is less full.

Then this which is described here as undecipherable reads: “The cell walls are somewhat thickened.” Here I probably said “more strongly thickened”.

“Liver 2½-3 fingers below sternal margin, rather soft, moderately sensitive to pressure.”

“Spleen soft” is wrong. It says: “Spleen reutoric, enlarged in a ring form, slightly enlarged.”

“Musculature hypotonic. Joints can be extended excessively. Calves slightly sensitive to pressure.” Then what is described here as illegible reads: “Indication of horizontal welt formation strong welt vertical formation.” That refers to the reaction of the muscle upon knocking, the so-called ideo-muscular welt.

Q. Would you kindly start that paragraph again and read it as it is written?

A. It reads here: “Musculature hypotonic. Joints can be extended excessively. Calves slightly sensitive to pressure. Indication of horizontal welt formations. Strong vertical welt formations.” Up to this point, that is how it reads in the text; then in order to explain it, I added that we were concerned with the so-called ideo-muscular welt.

Further the text continues: “Reflexes” with two little crosses, that is, they react strongly. “Abdominal reflexes”, also two little crosses. “Romberg” as it says here. “Babinski negative”.

“Left”—here it says “Leif” “phenomenon”. Here on the left, “phenomenon of Becher”. “Oppenheim negative”. “Rosselimo negative”. “Bulbous reflex bad”. “Tonus of the bulb of the eye bad”. “Bulbous reflex” with a little cross—that is positive.

[Interruption.]

Q. Now, Professor Beiglboeck, looking over these stenographic notes in the sentence in the first paragraph, which will be the third sentence, which states: “He takes little notice of his surroundings”, has an erasure been made in the stenographic notes in that sentence?

A. No. I can’t see any.

Q. In place of the word “little” which appears in the present text on the back of C-23, was there originally a symbol, stenographic symbol for the word “no” and then the word “no” was erased and replaced by the word “little”?

A. I see here that actually something else had been written there; probably at the time I wrote over it. I don’t see anything erased.

Q. Now, in the sentence in the same paragraph, the first paragraph, the fourth sentence where it states: “He asks for water only when he awakes from his somnolent condition”, did another word appear in the same place as the character for “somnolent condition”? Did another word appear in the same place as the character for “somnolent” now appears, and can you make out whether or not that other character that has been erased was the word “semiconscious” and has now been replaced by “somnolent”? I think the original character can be well recognized to read “semiconscious”.

A. What is legible under here says: “Numb”.

Q. After the sentence that I have just read: “He asks for water—”

Presiding Judge Beals: I did not understand the witness’ explanation of that last double reading of the shorthand. What was your explanation, Witness?

Defendant Beiglboeck: The German word “benommen”, numb.

Q. Numb? Not unconscious?

A. Numb.

Mr. Hardy: In the first instance, in the sentence: “He takes little notice of his surroundings”, is an erasure noticeable there, in that the word “no” has been replaced by the word “little”?

Defendant Beiglboeck: Something has been written over.

Q. Will you show that to the Tribunal, please, that character that has been written over? Would you point that out to them, Doctor? Point out the character in that sentence: “He takes little notice of his surroundings”, and point that out, this character here (indicating) on the second line of characters.

Mr. Hardy: Here it is, your Honor, the last character on the page.

Q. Now, would you show the Tribunal also where the word “semiconscious” or “numb” appeared and that has also been written over? That is the last character on the third line.

A. Yes, here (indicating).

Q. Now, after the sentence: “He asks for water only when he awakes from his somnolent condition,” which is the fourth stenographic line on the back of chart C-23, we notice that an entire line or half line has been erased. This half line had previously contained stenographic symbols but they are now no longer identifiable. Is that correct?

A. Yes. Something has been erased here.

Mr. Hardy: Your Honors can see the red erasure that has been used to erase that half line of characters; the impression of the eraser is still obvious there.

Q. Now, Professor, in the sentence in the next paragraph of stenographic notes, the second sentence reads: “The general condition gives no cause for alarm.” Is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, throughout your writing of these characters, between each word you usually leave a space to indicate another word, do you not? That is very clear throughout your transcription. You have left spaces between each character signifying words. Is that correct?

A. No. It varies. Sometimes the words are written closer together, quite closely, for example here (indicating).

Q. Well now, here in this sentence where it says, “The general condition gives no cause for alarm”, the word “no”—that is, this character here—does not have the spaces between it that all the other characters on the sheet have, does it? In fact, the symbol for “no” touches the previous symbol for “general condition”, leaving no spacing. Did you add the word “no” at a later date in a different pencil?

A. No. I do that quite frequently. When something is written above the line in shorthand I raise the adjoining sign as well.

Q. Now, if you will turn to the sentence in the third paragraph which reads: “Respiration somewhat flatter, moderately frequent”. The word “is” appeared instead of “somewhat” originally, did it not, before an erasure was made? Didn’t it read originally “Respiration is flatter, moderately frequent”?

A. It still says so: “somewhat frequent; moderately frequent.” I wrote that twice.

Q. Well, now, how does that sentence read?

A. “Respiration somewhat flatter, moderately frequent; respiration 25 per minute.”

Q. Did the word “is”, the character for the word “is”, appear in that sentence before a change was made?

A. Which word?

Q. “Is”—“i-s”.

A. No.

Q. Can’t you clearly see in that sentence that the word “is” has been erased and in its place the word “somewhat” has been written, the character “somewhat”?

A. No.

Q. You can’t see that. Did you look at it through the glass, Doctor?

A. In shorthand I write the word “is”—

Q. Now, later in this same sentence, Dr. Beiglboeck, after the word “flatter”, didn’t the word “hardly” appear originally in place of the word “moderately”? The word “hardly” was erased and replaced by “moderately” and then crossed out twice.

A. Here it said “troublesome”.

Q. It says, “respiration flatter”. It could say “hardly frequent” before the changes, couldn’t it?

A. “Hardly moderately” it says here. That means: “Hardly moderately frequent”.

Q. Has the character been changed at all?

A. I said already originally it read “troublesome”.

Q. Have any erasures been made in that sentence?

A. It was written over.

Q. And then crossed out?

A. Yes.

Q. What word was written over? Is that word there that is written over, that is now legible, the word “moderately” or is that the word “hardly”?

A. It didn’t read “hardly”. It read: “troublesome”.

Q. Well, which character said “troublesome”, the one that is legible now or the one that has been written over?

A. It is legible; it was “troublesome”.

Q. Well now, in the sentence which starts out in the eighth paragraph with the words: “Heartbeats very low, poorly audible,” in that sentence has a character been erased and another one written over? Has the character “scarcely” been erased and replaced by “poorly”? I believe the marks of the original symbol for “scarcely” can still be clearly distinguished, can they not?

A. Yes, that is correct.

Q. Who made these changes, Doctor? Did you make them yourself?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. When did you make them?

A. I am no longer able to tell you exactly when I made them.

Q. Did you make them at Dachau?

A. No.

Q. Did you make them in Nuernberg?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you erase these shorthand characters that appear on the fourth line here in Nuernberg?

A. Yes, I did that too.

Q. Now, Doctor, you have had the opportunity to think over during the course of last evening your examination yesterday, and you have told this Tribunal that these stenographic notes were altered by yourself here in Nuernberg; are you prepared to tell this Tribunal now just why it became necessary for you to alter these stenographic notes?

A. I ask permission to be allowed to make the following explanation. I changed these notes before these sheets were handed in, that is, after they had been returned from Professor Vollhardt. I only made some changes in these stenographic notes, and then I told my defense counsel, whom I had not informed about this—this I want to emphasize—I said to him we should withdraw the weight chart, because I was immediately sorry that I had changed something. I originally intended to submit the weight charts of these persons, because I believe from the changed weights alone one can see on the whole how this experiment developed. And then, when I had committed this thoughtless action, my conscience immediately bothered me, and I told my defense counsel that I should not submit it. But I want to state that I did not make any changes in the rest of the report on the course of the experiments; that in the urine amounts, as well as in the temperatures, and especially in the case of the weights, they are definitely the original values, as also in the case of the blood pressure. So in what you see here, on the front pages of the chart, nothing has been changed since these charts arrived here.

Q. Could you tell us just what was your reason for changing some of the stenographic notes?

A. Because a person who does not know the condition of thirst would receive a stronger impression of the condition from the description as it was here than the actual condition really was.

Q. Do you have anything further to say about those alterations, Doctor? You may at this time explain to the Tribunal anything else in connection with those alterations if you wish.

A. Well, I want to state again that I am very sorry that I did it. As I said, I only intended to submit the charts to show the weights, and not because of the other results of the medical examinations, because I am of the opinion that from the weight charts one can definitely recognize, first, how much weight the experimental subject lost; secondly, they reveal unequivocally on which days water was drunk; thirdly, they reveal clearly that immediately after the conclusion of the experiment there was a gain in weight in the case of all the experimental subjects; and, fourthly, one sees that when the persons were discharged in most cases they had again reached their original weight.

Judge Sebring: Well, Doctor, how do you explain the fact that names have been erased from many of these charts?

Defendant Beiglboeck: This erasing of names must have been done before. I did not do that here. I did not change anything on the front pages of these charts. It is possible that this already happened in Dachau. I can’t tell you that. It is possible that I erased them later on in Tarvis. I did not erase them here.

Extracts from the Testimony of Defense Expert Witness Dr. Franz Vollhardt

DIRECT EXAMINATION

Dr. Marx: Please, would you briefly tell the Tribunal what your scientific activities have been and in what special field you have taken a particularly great interest, and since when?

Witness Vollhardt: I am Professor of Internal Medicine at Frankfurt and predominantly I have dealt with the questions of circulation, metabolism, blood pressure, and kidney diseases.

Q. Which are the German universities where you have been a lecturer?

A. Halle and Frankfurt.

Q. Are you an author of scientific works regarding this special field of activity?

A. Yes.

Q. Have they been circulated and translated in foreign countries and in foreign languages?

A. Yes, they have been translated into Russian, behind my back.

Q. Considering the facts you have just stated, it would be right to say that you have had honors allotted to you in this country and abroad; so would you please tell the Tribunal what types of decoration you have received abroad?

A. I really have to?

Q. Which foreign academies and foreign societies have you been a member of? Professor, I really want you to answer my questions because my questions pursue certain purposes.

A. I am Honorary Doctor of the Sorbonne, Paris, of Goettingen and Freiburg; and, as far as societies are concerned, there are a lot of them, Medical Society at Edinburgh, at Geneva, at Luxembourg. I am an Honorary Member of the University at Santiago, and so on and so forth.

Q. Thank you very much. Then I would be interested to hear from you whether you had connections with the NSDAP and what sort of connections they were and whether the Party persecuted you in any way. Perhaps you might answer the last question first.

A. When I was lecturing in Spanish in South America, and when I was giving a lecture in Cordoba, Argentina, before a medical congress, I received a telegram to the effect that I had been relieved from my office and the reason given was lack of anti-Semitic attitude.

Q. When was that?

A. 1938.

Q. And since when have you been reinstated and active again?

A. Since 1945.

Q. As a full professor?

A. Yes, as full professor for internal medicine at the University of Frankfurt.

Q. Now, Professor, a few questions regarding your own research work. You have dealt particularly with hunger and thirst treatment in the case of kidney diseases. Is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. So that you have personal medical and scientific experience regarding the observation of human beings when they undergo hunger and thirst treatment?

A. Yes.

Dr. Marx: Mr. President, before continuing with the examination of this expert witness, I should like to permit myself to make a suggestion. There are two types of possibilities for the examination of Professor Vollhardt regarding questions which interest us here. One possibility, the one which I myself consider the correct one, is that Professor Vollhardt should give us a continuous expert opinion regarding the entire complex of questions which are of interest here, and that at the end I would then permit myself to put a few concluding questions to the expert here as, of course, any defense counsel and prosecutor is entitled to do, too. The other possibility would be that I put a number of individual questions to the expert which would deal with the subject chronologically and technically from a medical point of view. But, that would distort the context and would not give as clear a picture of the situation as would the first possibility. I should like therefore, Mr. President, for you to make a decision whether the expert is to give an opinion in the form of a lecture first.

Presiding Judge Beals: If counsel would propound to the witness a hypothetical question covering the basic facts which here are at issue, and if the witness would answer that hypothetical question without further question from counsel and make his response brief and to the point, and without enlarging too much upon the fact that salt water is not fit to drink and is injurious, which the Tribunal very well knows, we might proceed as suggested by counsel. The hypothetical question should cover the facts here at issue, that experiments were tried upon a group of people, a control group, a noncontrol group, and others, then the witness may answer that question without further interruption by counsel if his answer is, as I said, brief and not enlarging too much on generalities.

Dr. Marx: Very well, Mr. President.

Q. Now, Professor, have you sufficient insight into the planning and carrying out of the so-called sea-water experiments to give an expert opinion on that subject?

Witness Vollhardt: Yes.

Q. What documentary evidence did you have?

A. I had the original records prepared by Beiglboeck.

Q. I shall first of all deal with the character and type of the experiments. Are there differences between the character of these sea-water experiments and experiments with artificial infection with malaria and cholera and if there are differences, what are they?

A. You can’t compare the two at all, because in the case of the sea-water experiments you have things so perfectly under control and can interrupt so instantaneously, and because the experiments take such a short time that the danger of injury could be excluded with absolute certainty. In the case of artificial infection you cannot do that.

Q. You are saying that in the case of sea-water experiments, providing they are interrupted in time, danger to health and body can be avoided with certainty or bordering on certainty.

A. Not the latter. I said with absolute certainty.

Q. I shall now come to the planning of these experiments. I suppose you know of the meeting of 25 May 1944, which was decisive for the planning of the experiments. Did the presence of Professors Eppinger and Heubner guarantee the purely scientific and medically proper treatment of the problem?

A. Undoubtedly it did. Professor Heubner is a leading scientist and an extremely critical person, and Professor Eppinger was one of the leading clinicians in the world and a most outstanding expert, and I assume both of these gentlemen had reasons for allowing these experiments to be carried out, presumably in order to strengthen the medical men, vis-a-vis, the technicians. Secondly, Eppinger’s idea apparently was that under such stringent experimental conditions, the kidney would suffer to an unusual degree and that Berkatit, which contains vitamins, might assist the work of the kidney.

Q. Professor, what is your opinion about the individual experimental groups?

A. I think that scientifically speaking the planning was excellent and I have no objection to the entire plan. It was good to add a hunger-and-thirst group because we know by experience that thirst can be borne less well than hunger, and if people are suffering from hunger and thirst too, they do not suffer from hunger, but do suffer from thirst; and that resembles what shipwrecked persons would be subjected to because they only suffer from thirst. It was excellent that Wofatit was to be introduced into the experiments too, although it was expected from the beginning that this wonderful discovery would show its value. It turned out that groups given sea-water treated according to the Schaefer method reacted similarly to a group that was subjected to a reasonable hunger treatment and did not suffer any great discomfort. In the hunger treatment of 12, or, we should say 8 days, because the people still ate during the first 4 days, that is a minor affair, and we carry that out innumerable times for medical reasons. There exists a sanitarium where people are made to go without food for 4 weeks, and as long as they get water in the shape of fruit juice, they still carry on well and often with enthusiasm. Group 2 was Schaefer’s group, groups 3 and 4 were the groups that received 500 cc. of sea-water, once without and once with Wofatit. Group 3 was the one which drank 1,000 cc. of sea-water. That one could only use volunteers for this group is an obvious fact, since the cooperation of the experimental subject is indispensable; without his good will such an experimental arrangement is impossible. That sufficient volunteers could be found for a case was a matter of course, since a period of 10 days of excellent food before and after the experiment was before them, and since one could assure them with the best of confidence that there would not and could not be any danger.

Q. We will come to that, Professor. You have just started to speak about food, nourishment. What is your opinion about the food before, during, and after the actual experiments?

A. Well, before the experiments it was splendid. During the experiments it was meager, corresponding to that of shipwrecked persons and afterwards quite excellent. In my opinion during such brief experiments nourishment doesn’t play any part.

Mr. Hardy: May it please the Tribunal, might I inquire whether the witness is now testifying to facts as he has ascertained them from studying graphs and charts made by Professor Beiglboeck or is he testifying from hearsay that food was given to these inmates, or what is the basis of his knowledge that he is eliciting here?

A. I was giving my testimony based on the records which I have studied.

Mr. Hardy: Thank you.

A. But I don’t attach any importance to the meager food served during the experiments because that is an insignificant point which as I have said we have allotted to others many times.

Presiding Judge Beals: Witness, when you referred to this examination of the records, state briefly just what records you examined.

A. The original records.

Dr. Marx: Professor, how do you judge the individual examinations carried out by Professor Beiglboeck? Were they adequate for the solution of the practical question whether Berkatit was sufficiently useful and preferable to thirst treatment, and was it sufficient to judge the daily condition of the experimental subjects so that the right time to interrupt the experiments could be ascertained?

Did you get my question?

A. Yes. I got it. I thought that the arrangement of these experiments was splendid from the scientific point of view, and Beiglboeck apparently devoted himself with tremendous industry and great responsibility to carrying out of these experiments which he had been ordered to do.

Q. Would it be right to say that a personality such as Beiglboeck, as a professor of internal medicine and chief medical officer at a clinic for many years on the basis of daily examinations and through his personal consideration and examination of the experimental subject, would be in a position to recognize any threat to the health of the person before such a threat could actually become serious?

A. That was a matter of course. Beiglboeck is an excellent internal medical man and the great care with which he carried out these experiments shows that he was fully conscious of his responsibility. Only, it’s hard to imagine that, during such brief experiments, serious damage could have occurred at all.

Q. Professor, a little earlier you briefly dealt with the question of starving, of hunger or of thirst for the purpose of treatment, and I now want to ask you whether the administration of hunger and thirst cures of several days is a medically recognized fact, and also how long would you consider that hunger and thirst with complete refusal of food and liquid could take place without putting someone’s health in jeopardy?

A. It depends who it is. Initially, I recommended hunger and thirst treatment in the case of acute inflammation of the kidneys, but there people have a great deal of water in their system and the water is absorbed during such a cure. Astonishing as it may seem, a cure is effected very rapidly. In such cases, three, five, seven, and even more days of hunger are employed. In other cases, where no water surplus is in existence, we would only apply 6 days of hunger treatment. During the time when I had to be interested in these particular experiments, there were four women in my clinic, all of whom were there because of high blood pressure. They were aged 50, 51, 53, and 63 years. One had a blood pressure of 210/100, and 6 days later it had been reduced to 170/100. The third had a blood pressure of 280/160 and 6 days later it dropped to 180/100. The loss of weight amounted to 3 or 4 kilograms and the patients naturally, during those days, suffered from thirst and felt weak at the end of the sixth day, but they were so happy about the improved condition that they considered the unpleasantness of the recent days as being worth forgetting.

Q. Is it correct that when water is withdrawn, nourishment should also be withdrawn?

A. It’s easier to suffer thirst when you are also hungry because the supply of nourishment makes claims upon the kidneys and, if you exclude salt in the nourishment, the water loses further humidity. Thus, appetite disappears when you are thirsty. Therefore, it is definitely better to be hungry and thirsty simultaneously.

Q. Professor, is it right to observe the individual doses in order to prevent diarrhea, and, if individual quantities of less than 300 cc. are admitted, can you prevent diarrhea?

A. In the case of sea and bitter water you only suffer from diarrhea if you drink a large quantity at once. If you distribute it over a day you suffer from constipation.

Q. Yes, but you didn’t quite answer my question. I inquired about the individual doses.

A. Yes, well, I’m trying to say that if you spread it out over a day, giving smaller individual doses instead of giving it all at once, then there isn’t any danger of diarrhea.

Q. Can you describe sea-water as poisonous at all?

A. Absolutely not. There is a trend towards treatment with sea-water which is increasing, and people drink half a liter of sea-water every day for weeks. There can’t be any question of any poisonous quality. In fact, people say they feel splendid. The only difference is that in the case of such cures fresh water is administered, too, in the manner of tea, coffee, and soup, so that the dehydrating effect of the sea-water is counteracted.

Q. Professor, I wonder if you would speak a little more slowly and make a pause after individual answers in order to enable the interpreters to follow.

Has there been an experiment during which a dose of 500 to 1,000 cc. of sea-water daily was taken and is it to be described as dangerous, providing the experiment is discontinued as soon as there is a threat of danger to health?

A. There can’t be any question of there being any danger to health during the first few days. The only question is, how long can the body stand up to this continued deprivation of humidity? Sea-water has a three-percent salt water content. Generally speaking, at least so far, we have assumed that the kidneys cannot deal with such a salt concentration. This means that salt will remain in the system, collecting water from the tissues. In the beginning, this is of no importance, but after 6 or 7 or 8 days, this becomes unpleasant and it is to be expected that after the twelfth day there is some danger. There have been cases of sea rescue when even 17 or more days afterwards recovery was achieved, but I would say that I would never dare to continue such an experiment beyond the twelfth day, and in this case with which we are concerned, all experiments were discontinued after the sixth day, so that danger to health during that period was out of the question.

Q. Could the aim of these experiments have been achieved with a semipermeable membrane?

A. I don’t understand how one can imagine this. What we are concerned with is the question of how long the human body can survive without water and under the excess quantity of salt. Now, that is subject to the water content of the body and it depends first of all, upon whether water is only used by the intermediary tissues or whether the cell liquid too is being used up. In the latter case, there is a danger which becomes apparent through excess potassium quantities, and this was also continuously observed and checked during such experiments, and there were no excess potassium quantities such as can be expected after 6 days.

Q. Nor would it be right to say that these experiments were not planned scientifically and medically, is that correct?

A. Absolutely not.

Q. Could they have been planned differently?

A. I couldn’t imagine how.

Q. Were these experiments in the interests of active warfare, or in the interests of the care of shipwrecked sailors or soldiers?

A. The latter.

Q. In other words, for aviators and sailors who were shipwrecked or might be shipwrecked?

A. Towards the end of the war there was an increase in the number of pilots shot down as well as of shipwrecked personnel, and it was, therefore, the duty of the hygiene department concerned to consider the question of how one could best deal with such cases of shipwrecked personnel; that was the reason for this conference. Previously Schaefer, as we heard yesterday, had recommended that no liquid should be taken. When, together with I. G. Farben, he succeeded in eliminating salt and bitter salt from sea-water through Wofatit, the problem was really solved scientifically. There were, however, considerable technical difficulties, and it isn’t exactly simple to equip each flier with so much Wofatit in addition to everything else he has to carry in order to protect him against the danger of shipwreck. That is no doubt why Eppinger and Heubner were in favor of the experiment, and it was unfortunate that Mr. Berka appeared with Berkatit at the same time, and impressed the technicians because his method was more simple and cheaper.

Q. Professor, was there any reason to expect symptoms of injury which might appear later than 10 days after the end of the experiment?

A. It was entirely out of the question, even after the seventh day. Later injury is out of the question, because the duration of the experiments is too short.

Q. To what do you attribute the loss of weight during such experiments?

A. That is almost entirely the loss of water. As I have already told you, the excess salt supply in the body deprived the body of water. The body must have a supply of water if it is to supply salt. In other words, if the body is not receiving any other water than sea-water, an attack on the water held by the body must take place, and therefore loss of weight is bound to occur which, however, can be made up very quickly.

Q. What would you say was to be expected in the way of the loss of substance of the body and how much loss of water?

A. I would say the bulk is the loss of water, but to split this up is something I consider impossible to do with certainty. You might possibly compare just how much was lost during the time applied by Schaefer when there was considerable hunger and how much was lost in the case of Berka.

Q. Does the speed with which the loss of water takes place play an important part?

A. Yes, of course, a tremendous part. The colored nostras is a well-known example, during which disease the most tremendous loss of water and salt takes place during 24 hours. I knew a case where 10 liters of water and 150 grams of salt had to be added intravenously through the veins, the skin, and through the stomach in order to save the life of a person suffering from such an acute loss of water. If, on the other hand, this is spread out over a period of days and if you do not have to expect such a dangerous loss of salt, then the body can stand up to it for a much longer period. I might perhaps add that the loss of salt is just as dangerous as excess quantities of salt, and also in the event of the loss of salt which is always connected with loss of water, considerable losses of weight are suffered. It is well known that an expedition on the mountain Monte Rose lost 5 kilograms of salt and water in weight, and that the weight could not be replaced in spite of the addition of water when salt was also added.

Q. Professor, according to the documents at your disposal were these experiments sufficiently well prepared?

A. It was my impression that they were extremely well prepared, and I was particularly impressed by the fact that Beiglboeck had sufficiently examined the participants carefully and had considered the use of three of them to be unsuitable since he found a defect of the lungs.

Q. I also want to deal with such preparations—

Mr. McHaney: I do not think by any stretch of the imagination this witness can testify from the records that Beiglboeck conducted an examination or rejected three experimental subjects. In my opinion it does not appear from the records, and he can only testify what Beiglboeck told him. Unless he can say it does appear in the records, I think it should be stricken.

Presiding Judge Beals: Counsel has an opportunity of cross-examining the witness at the close of his testimony.

Dr. Marx: Professor, would you not say that regulations for these experiments also mean that certain experiments, such as experiments on one’s self and animal experiments, printed regulations, if you like, must have been in existence or was that true of this case?

A. Yes, a report from Beiglboeck about an experiment carried out upon himself is in existence which describes most efficiently the condition in which he found himself during a sea-water experiment, and this description tallies to the highest possible degree with what my volunteers who submitted themselves to these experiments described. I might deal with that later.

Q. What opinion do you have regarding the experiments which were carried out by Sirany in Vienna?

A. There appeared to me to be a lack of critical attitude. I think Schaefer had the same impression yesterday.

Q. Are symptoms recognizable regarding the planning of these experiments which would go beyond the absolutely essential practical purposes and which would lead to considerable pains or painful feelings or might have led to that?

A. Of course it isn’t fun to be thirsty, and that is the major complaint in these cases. These people are increasingly thirsty, and they are disappointed to find that drinking sea-water doesn’t decrease but increases their thirst, and towards the end of the experiments there are disturbances of the muscles, and the temper doesn’t exactly improve. It is the same in the salt water experiments where there are cramps of the calf because of the lack of water, but the characteristics of that are that these symptoms disappear instantaneously at the very moment when the first glass of water is drunk.

Q. Would you consider it possible that disturbances of the nerve end might appear? Temperature?

A. Temperature doesn’t happen at all, and I can’t imagine there being disturbances of the nervous system at all.

Q. How about fits?

A. In the case of insane people there may appear insane fits, maybe, but not in the case of normal human beings.

Q. If you yourself had been placed in this position, and considering your attitude toward medical ethics, would you have objected to carrying out the same type of experiment as was carried out here, if healthy, strong, young men had been at your disposal?

A. I actually did it. Since I was interested in connection with sea-water experiments, I called for volunteers among my young doctors, and five of them volunteered, among them my youngest son, and they drank synthetic sea-water, having the exact salt content of real sea-water, drinking up to 500 cc.; they got a little food, because they were to continue on duty during the experiment. The loss of weight varied and was around one kilogram a day. At the end of the experiment, my son was pretty thin, but after having a cup of tea was fine. Two days later he had regained his lost weight fully. All five participants described the experiment in the same way as Beiglboeck described the experiment carried out on himself. Four of these subjects interrupted the experiment after 5 days. One carried it out for 6 days, and apart from continuous thirst, he had no complaints. Any serious disturbance or damage is out of the question, and the extraordinary fact was the speed with which all symptoms of thirst disappeared after water had been taken.

Q. Now, Professor, the experiments we were talking about; did they have a practical valuable aim and did they show a corresponding result?

A. Yes, that is correct. For instance an important observation was made which Eppinger had expected; he wanted to see if the kidneys did concentrate salt under such extreme conditions to an even higher extent than one expected previously. One thought that it would be something like 2.0 percent but 2.6 or 2.7 percent and record figures of 3.0, 3.5, 3.6, and 4 percent are shown, so that the fortunate man who is in a position to concentrate 3.6 percent or 4 percent of salt would be able to live on sea-water for quite a long period.

Presiding Judge Beals: Witness, after a question is propounded to you by your counsel, would you pause a moment before giving your answer so that the question may be translated and conveyed and when you begin to make your answer, would you speak a little more slowly?

A. Finally, one unsuspected fact was shown which may be connected with this, and that is that the drinking of small quantities of sea-water up to 500 cc. given over a lengthy period turned out to be better than unalleviated thirst.

Dr. Marx: What do you think of Wofatit generally?

A. It is a wonderful thing.

Q. Is it correct to say that sea-water really assumes the character of drinking water through it?

A. Yes, the only difficulty would appear to be to obtain the drug in sufficiently large quantities for a man who is shipwrecked and did not have his luggage; but it is a wonderful discovery.

Q. So, you think that the result of these experiments is not only of importance in wartime, but is also of importance for the problems of seafaring nations?

A. Quite right, it is a wonderful thing for all sea-faring nations.

Q. So that both the experiments with Wofatit, as well as the experiments made regarding the symptoms when such a drink was not available, were important to show, for instance, the result of the consumption of sea-water in certain given doses.

A. That is quite correct.

Q. That was only discovered by these experiments?

A. Quite correct.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

Mr. Hardy: On what precisely is your testimony with respect to the experiments by Beiglboeck based?

Witness Vollhardt: On the records and the descriptions that Beiglboeck gave of the experiments.

Q. Precisely what records have you seen of these experiments?

A. The records that the defense counsel had in his hand yesterday or today.

Q. Doctor, I will have passed up to you a set of records which are numbered from 1 to 44 in red pencil, and I ask you, did you have those records before you and did you make a study of them?

A. Yes, I had these records, and I asked one of my collaborators who took part in these experiments to read through these records and to make excerpts from them. He happens to be here also.

Q. Who was this collaborator?

A. One of my assistants by the name of Werner. He is in the audience at the moment.

Q. You said something about his having participated in experiments; you don’t mean the Dachau experiments, do you?

A. No. In experiments that I carried out with my students.

Q. Did you personally examine these records at all?

A. I saw them, but I didn’t study every one of them. I left that up to the young man.

Q. And what did the young man do?

A. He gave me a very exhaustive report on them.

Q. Your testimony, then, is based upon a summary made by your assistant, is that correct?

A. Yes. That is so.

Q. Now what other records were made available to you upon which your testimony is based here?

A. The charts that were filled out in pencil with figures.

Q. Now, were there any other records that you got which we have not heard about, on which your testimony here is based?

A. I cannot say at the moment. I would have to confer with—

Q. I believe that the defense had reports by Becker-Freyseng and by Beiglboeck?

A. These were reports on the whole development of the question.

Q. Well, Professor, what sort of reports were they? We have not seen them, you know, and we would like to know on what you are basing your opinion before this Tribunal.

A. Descriptions of the whole course that the matter took regarding the conference, how the decision was reached, how the experiments were planned, and then Beiglboeck’s report on his own experiments on himself, which is a very careful description and corresponds exactly to what my subjects experienced when they carried out experiments on themselves.

Q. Did you read and study these experiments carried out by Becker-Freyseng and Beiglboeck?

A. Of course.

Q. And they influenced your testimony before this Tribunal; you relied on them in making your testimony here?

A. From these I had an idea of the situation as a whole; in order to form my own opinion I performed experiments myself.

Q. And your testimony here is based in part upon the reports made by Becker-Freyseng and Beiglboeck; that is true, isn’t it, Doctor?

A. Yes.

Q. And these records made by Becker-Freyseng and Beiglboeck were not contemporaneous records of these experiments, were they, Professor?

A. I don’t believe so.

Q. They were, rather, essays or reports which they have written up since their arrest and incarceration; isn’t that true, Professor?

A. That is very possible.

Q. How old a man is this assistant of yours, Professor?

A. Twenty-six.

Q. Twenty-six years old?

A. Twenty-seven.

Q. Twenty-seven years old; has he studied medicine?

A. Of course.

Q. Where did he study?

A. Heidelberg.

Q. Herr Professor, I will ask you to testify from your own memory, and if the defense counsel wishes to put your assistant on the stand, they are privileged to do so; but I am interested primarily in knowing what you know about your assistant. Now, you did not know he studied at Heidelberg until he told you just now?

A. I have 40 to 50 young men at the clinic, and it is impossible for me to know of each one where he studied, but I made his acquaintance at the clinic. He is a very industrious and intelligent person and for that reason I asked him to do this work and take some work off my shoulders.

Q. How long has he been working with you?

A. More than a year.

Q. Working with you about a year, and since that time you have conducted these sea-water experiments yourself?

A. We carried them out shortly before Shrove Tuesday.

Q. Of 1947?

A. Yes, this year.

Q. How did you happen to carry out these experiments; were you requested to do so by defense counsel?

A. No. I had been asked very often to interest myself in this matter, and I was interested to see for myself the effect of sea-water on the experimental subjects. This was interesting to me because I already had considerable experience in the field of hunger and thirst.

Q. Were you approached at all with respect to this case before the time you started these sea-water experiments?

A. Yes, that is why I started to interest myself in the matter, because I was asked to appear here as a witness, but I carried out these experiments entirely spontaneously, without outside interference and for my own interest.

Q. But the fact that you were approached to come here and testify influenced your decision to carry out these experiments, is that right?

A. Of course, of course.

Q. And did you make any effort to have these experiments coincide with the conditions which you were told existed in the Dachau experiments?

A. Yes, we made only one distinction in this, namely, that the experimental subjects received roughly 1,600 calories a day, because they were not to interrupt their work. To be sure, as the experiment went on they ate less and less of the 1,600 calories, because thirst made them lose their appetite.

Q. Now how many experimental subjects did you use in your experiments?

A. Five of them.

Q. And you say that they were volunteers, your assistants, is that right?

A. Yes, they were all doctors, volunteers, and, as I said, also included my youngest son who also happens to be here.

Q. And precisely what happened during these experiments?

A. These persons were assembled in one room, received the same amount of salt each and more or less continued their work. They drank 500 cc. of sea-water, and one of them drank 1,000, and they stuck pretty closely to the provisions set down for the experiment.

Q. You say four of them drank 500 cc. of sea-water per day and the fifth one drank 1,000 cubic centimeters of sea-water?

A. The fifth drank on one day, on the last day I think, an additional 500 cc. because he was very thirsty.

Q. When did you start the experiments?

A. On the Monday before the beginning of Lent.

Q. And how long did they run?

A. As I said, four broke off the experiment after four days because of the carnival season and one of them stuck it out for six.

Q. Well, you spoke of four days, do you know how many hours they were under the experiments?

A. Five times twenty-four in general and the other one six times twenty-four.

Q. Well, I misunderstood you, or else your testimony has changed; you said four of the students stayed on the experiments for four days and one went on for six days. Is that right?

A. No, four did it for five days, four broke off at the end of the fifth day, and one stayed until the end of the sixth day.

Q. And you are prepared to testify it was five times twenty-four, is that right, 60 hours [sic]?

A. I would have to check on that for sure in the record, whether it was five times twenty-four or four times twenty-four, or sixteen or eighteen. Those things didn’t seem very important to me. I was interested primarily in seeing how greatly the persons suffered under the experiments, but the man who did it for six days did do it for six times twenty-four hours. However, I don’t want to make a statement for certain under oath regarding the number of hours.

Q. Well this little experiment conducted by you, as I take it, had as its purpose to find out how much a man suffers, is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. You didn’t know that before you conducted this experiment, is that right?

A. I assumed that they would be very thirsty, but I wanted to see what the subjective sensations or feelings of the experimental subjects were. What was most important to me was to know whether these experiments could be characterized as cruel or inhumane or brutal, and if they were experiments which led to a pretty strong sense of discomfort, namely, thirst, but did not do any damage to health, that is what I wanted to know.

Q. And your testimony before this Tribunal is based upon those experiments; is that right?

A. No, on both, of course, both on those carried out by Beiglboeck and on my own.

Q. Well, your judgment was also influenced by what Beiglboeck told you about how much the experimental subjects suffered, is that right?

A. Beiglboeck drew up his own report on his own experiment on himself and a general report on whatever complaints the subjects uttered.

Q. What is the experiment that Beiglboeck conducted by himself? You mean he has been undergoing an experiment back in the prison?

A. No, before the experiments began, he carried out a sea-water experiment on himself.

Q. Where did these experimental subjects of yours stay during this experiment? I seem to recall you said they continued their work or something of that sort.

A. They all stayed in one room where they ate and slept, and this was done to make the conduct of the experiment easier, as they were to receive special rations.

Q. Well, now all five experimental subjects were in one room during the whole course of the experiment, is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. And what did they do?

A. They went from this room to wherever they had to work, but they returned to the room for sleeping and eating.

Q. Well, Doctor, we are having great difficulty in really getting a clear picture about how this experiment went on. Now you mean to say they carried on their work about the clinic? They didn’t stay in this room the whole time, is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. They actually only ate in the room and slept in the room; is that right?

A. That is correct.

Q. Did they leave the clinic at all?

A. I believe that they did not during those days.

Q. But you don’t know?

A. I can’t swear to it.

Q. You can’t swear that they didn’t go to a local cinema during the course of the experiments for example?

A. No, I can’t swear to that. I just don’t know.

Q. In other words, they had their normal daily life available to them during these experiments?

A. They carried on their daily work and in this case it is perfectly certain that they did not drink any fresh water. They knew perfectly well what the point of the experiment was.

Q. How much food did they get, again?

A. 1,600 calories.

Q. And do you know what the food was?

A. Yes, that is also in the record. It was meat, fat, and what not, but I can’t tell you that from memory. However, I could give you the record in writing.

Q. In what record? Have we any record on these experiments?

A. Yes. There was a record.

Q. Now, they got absolutely no fresh water during the course of the experiments, is that right?

A. No.

Q. Did they get any other water or fluid other than salt water?

A. No, that was the whole purpose, that they should receive no other fluid and that is why they lost their appetite later.

Q. They got no milk and no fruit juices?

A. No, no, that would have violated the whole experiment, and then they would not have lost so much weight.

Q. I can appreciate that, Professor. Where did you get the sea-water that these experimental subjects drank?

A. We manufactured it carefully in the chemical laboratory according to a chemical analysis of sea-water that can be found in many text books. I have a chemist who was in charge of the laboratory and he made this sea-water according to the formula. We couldn’t get any natural sea-water for this experiment.

Q. Now, you didn’t keep any of your experimental subjects without any water whatever, did you?

A. Five hundred cc. of sea-water was the liquid they received.

Q. Well, were there not some experimental subjects at Dachau who did not get any water at all, sea-water or otherwise?

A. Yes, the first group fasted and thirsted. I have already spoken about that and said that thirst can more easily be tolerated if one is fasting at the same time, so that the kidney has as little as possible to do; thus the body is able to retain more water.

Q. But you can’t testify to the Tribunal about what pain and suffering those experimental subjects were subjected to, can you? You didn’t run any similar experiments yourself?

A. I do not understand you. I carried out these experiments to know what sort of suffering the experimental subjects went through.

Q. But you didn’t carry out one where a man fasted for 5 or 6 days without either food or water. They did carry out such an experiment in Dachau. So you have no basis to testify about pain and suffering to which that group of experimental subjects were subjected, do you?

A. I mentioned that at the same time I was having four women fast and thirst who had come to the clinic with very high blood pressure and for six whole days these women fasted and thirsted. This so improved their condition that they consequently forgot the unpleasantness involved in the fasting and thirsting. I also mentioned among them one woman who weighed only 51.7 kilo, and who lost 3. However, her blood pressure went down from 245/125 to 185/100. I carried out such experiments almost daily in the clinic. That is done by the hundred. And, in the case of persons with kidney disease, that is the accepted method so that during the war people from the fronts went through thousands of such hunger and thirst cures. I didn’t have to have any control experiment in this; that was furnished daily by the clinic.

Q. And these women went without food and water for 4 days?

A. Six days without food and water.

Q. And what was the result on them aside from their blood pressure? Did they suffer much pain?

A. There is no question of pain in such cases. They simply felt thirst. Strangely enough they do not complain of being hungry. The body water that still remains is enough to keep the body metabolism supplied with the necessary chemicals. However, there is a lack of sodium nitrate in the body which, however, can be overcome by giving sodium nitrate. They never complain about hunger, only thirst. Sometimes they complain of a feeling of weakness but fasting for 6 days is nothing very special. As I said, some people carry out hunger cures for 4 weeks. To be sure, they drink fruit juice during such a long cure. We also make use of it for therapeutic purposes. They will receive fruit juice but that is by no means so unpleasant as an 8-day long hunger and thirst cure.

Q. And you gave them no compensation for going without food and water whatever? You gave them no injections of any sort?

A. No, no. My whole purpose is to eliminate from the body all the unnecessary fluids in the blood so that the blood pressure will drop. I gradually bring these people over to a form of nourishment without any salt.

Q. Now you say that four out of five of your experimental subjects broke off on the fifth day?

A. Yes. For external reasons only, not because they could no longer tolerate it. It just happened that four of the men had dates on the 5th day, but the 5th one stayed on until the sixth day and I asked him specifically whether he felt particularly tortured or in pain and he said no. He said that with the first drink of water he took all unpleasantness and discomfort vanished. I observed my son myself. As soon as he drank a cup of tea, he was perfectly all right and 2 days after the experiment he had recovered all the weight he had lost. He had lost roughly one kilo a day.

Q. You say these four men had a date on the 5th. You mean they had an engagement with a young lady?

A. I do not know what details were planned for the carnival celebration. I could simply draw the regrettable conclusion that their interest in the carnival was a little greater than their interest in the experiment. But this does indicate that the experiments did not have a very deleterious effect on them, otherwise they could not have gone to the carnival and enjoyed it.

Q. Well, it might also indicate that they didn’t regard the experiments as being very serious and that, even though several men in this dock are quite interested in the results of this particular experiment, your four young assistants didn’t regard it as serious enough to refrain from going out on a date. Isn’t that about the size of it?

A. I can’t deny that. I wasn’t too pleased by their behavior.

Q. Were these men informed of the seriousness of this undertaking?

A. No.

Q. And what reason did you advance to them for undergoing the experiments?

A. Of course, I told them, and they knew, that such sea-water experiments were an issue, but I was perfectly convinced that these experiments could by no means be called inhumane or brutal and consequently we didn’t approach the experiments in too tragic a manner. All we wanted to know was how unpleasant such an experiment was.

EXAMINATION BY THE TRIBUNAL

Presiding Judge Beals: Professor, these subjects upon whom you conducted an experiment in your institute were very excellent subjects for such an experiment, were they not?

Witness Vollhardt: They were characterized by the fact that they were medical men who understood the meaning of the experiment and that I could rely on them. Physically, they certainly were no better-conditioned, according to the photographs at least, than those rather well nourished experimental subjects.

Q. I was not thinking so much of their physical condition, but they were men who were interested in this work, were they not?

A. Yes.

Q. The results of the experiment—each upon himself and upon each of his associates—would be interesting to each one, would it not? Is that not true?

A. I would assume so, yes.

Q. Each one was entirely controlling his own participation in the experiment, was he not?

A. Yes.

Q. If, at any time, any one of the subjects felt that the conditions which he was undergoing in the experiment were becoming too heavy for him, he would have been released from further participation upon his request, would he not?

A. No doubt he would have reported and he would have said, “I want to step out. This is too much for me.”

Q. That’s what I meant. He would have asked to be released and he would have been immediately released? Well, is it or is it not a fact that a human being will voluntarily undergo hunger, thirst, pain, discomfort, and stand it better when he knows that he is doing it under his own volition with a scientific objective, than a person of equal physical condition will stand such an experiment when, insofar as he is concerned, he has no personal interest whatsoever?

A. No doubt that is correct, and I am perfectly convinced that Professor Eppinger tried everything he could in order to obtain such volunteers. He was most uncomfortable about the fact that these experiments were carried out in Dachau. He would much rather have seen them carried out in Vienna on his own students but, at that time, there weren’t any students any more. They had all been called up, and medical officers were very scarce so that there was no question of obtaining volunteers. Hence, in this very tense and difficult time, no subjects could be found, to carry out such a series of experiments as was planned here, in a hospital or clinic of any kind. It would have been better, more practical and more sensible, by all means, if the experiments had been carried out at that time upon medical students, but, unfortunately, that was impossible.

Q. You prefaced your statement, Doctor, by saying that Dr. Eppinger had this sentiment. How do you know that?

A. Because, during the conference, it was mostly Professor Eppinger who was in favor of these experiments being made and, since Professor Eppinger had earmarked his favorite pupil, Beiglboeck, for the carrying out of these experiments, it is a matter of course that Eppinger would have liked nothing better than that these experiments should be carried out under his own control in Vienna.

Q. You are assuming that Eppinger would have felt as you would have felt under similar circumstances, is that correct?

A. I know that all those who were interested in these experiments were making efforts to find places where these experiments could be carried out in a military hospital on soldiers or convalescent patients or other persons, but, unfortunately, everything turned out to be impossible. You can only imagine the situation if you know how every hospital bed and every doctor was being utilized in this time. That was the final period of the war.

Q. You prefaced this last statement by saying, “I know.” Now, how do you know? By any other method than assuming that these gentlemen would have felt as you felt?

A. No. I recollect that I read that in one of the reports, that an attempt had been made to carry out the experiments elsewhere and that one had come across locked doors everywhere. For instance, one had Brunswick in mind, I know that by chance, the Luftwaffe hospital at Brunswick, and that was impossible. Thus, all inquiries had negative answers.

Q. I gathered from your answer to one of my questions a short time ago—I would like to return to that subject—that a person of intelligence will endure more discomfort, pain, and suffering, pursuing a voluntary experiment which he knows he can terminate at any moment than a person, probably of less intelligence, would display upon undergoing an experiment which he could not stop at his own volition. Is that correct?

A. Well, there is no question but that, for those persons in Dachau, the only bait was the good food before and afterwards and the cigarettes that they had been promised. That was not possible in the case of my doctors. They did it because they were interested and, of course, that would have been by far the best solution if it had been possible.

Q. And, insofar as the subjects at Dachau, if any of them, at any time during the course of the experiments, believed that the pain or discomfort or whatever it might be called, which they were suffering would not be compensated by cigarettes, or other promises which had been made to them, they would be very anxious then to be released from prosecution of that experiment. Is that true?

A. Certainly. That’s why quite a number of experimental subjects secretly drank water, because the strict course didn’t please them too much.

Q. Well, unlike the experimental subjects in your institute, those subjects would not be particularly interested in the result, would they? They had no scientific interest in the result, did they?

A. No, no. None at all. None whatever.

8. Epidemic Jaundice Experiments

a. Introduction

The defendants Karl Brandt, Handloser, Rostock, Schroeder, Gebhardt, Rudolf Brandt, Mrugowsky, Poppendick, Sievers, Rose, and Becker-Freyseng were charged with special responsibility for and participation in criminal conduct involving epidemic jaundice experiments (par. 6 (H) of the indictment). During the trial the prosecution withdrew this charge in the case of Sievers, Rose, and Becker-Freyseng. On this charge only the defendant Karl Brandt was convicted, and the defendants Handloser, Rostock, Schroeder, Gebhardt, Rudolf Brandt, Mrugowsky, and Poppendick were acquitted.

The prosecution’s summation of the evidence on the epidemic jaundice experiments is contained in its final briefs against defendants Handloser and Schroeder. Extracts from these briefs are set forth below on pages 494 to 498. A corresponding summation of the evidence by the defense on these experiments has been selected from the final plea for the defendant Handloser. It appears below on pages 499 to 503. This argumentation is followed by selections from the evidence on pages 503 to 508.

b. Selections from the Argumentation of the Prosecution

Extract from the Closing Brief Against Defendant Handloser

Epidemic Jaundice

Following the attack on Russia, epidemic jaundice (hepatitis epidemica) became a disease of major proportions for the German Wehrmacht. (Tr. p. 2707.) In some units, casualties up to 60 percent were reported from this disease. (NO-010, Pros. Ex. 187.) Accordingly, an intensive effort was made to discover the causes of and vaccinations against epidemic jaundice. Dohmen and Gutzeit of the Army Medical Inspectorate and Haagen of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe were among the doctors working on this subject.

Dohmen and Gutzeit were attached to the Military Medical Academy and directly subordinated to Schreiber. (Tr. p. 2752.) The Military Medical Academy was, of course, subordinated to Handloser as Army Medical Inspector. (Tr. p. 2740.) Gutzeit was also consulting internist to Handloser. (Tr. p. 2700.) Dohmen was one of the first to isolate a virus which was claimed to be the cause of jaundice. This was accomplished by inoculating animals with germs taken from human beings suffering from the disease. (Tr. p. 2695.) However, considerable divergence of opinion still existed as to whether jaundice was caused by bacteria or a virus. (Tr. p. 3045.) On 1 June 1943, Grawitz, Reich Physician of the SS, requested Himmler to make concentration camp inmates available for infection by Dohmen with his virus. He stated that cases of death among the experimental subjects were to be anticipated. (NO-010, Pros. Ex. 187.) It was not stated whether the deaths were to be brought about for the purpose of performing autopsies (as in the cases of the high-altitude experiments), or whether they were to be expected from the disease itself (as in the cases of the typhus experiments).

Himmler consented to the use of eight Polish Jews, who had been condemned to death in the Auschwitz concentration camp, and to Dohmen’s conducting the experiments. (NO-011, Pros. Ex. 188.) The experiments were carried out by Dohmen in the Sachsenhausen concentration camp, and according to the affidavit of the defendant Rudolf Brandt, some of the experimental subjects died as a result. (NO-371, Pros. Ex. 186.) Even the defense witness Gutzeit, who collaborated closely with Dohmen, admits that Dohmen worked in Sachsenhausen, but stated that this was merely a ruse to avoid turning over the jaundice virus to Grawitz, and in reality no infection experiments were performed. (Tr. p. 2722.) Gutzeit did not explain, however, why Dohmen, who was in no way subordinated to Grawitz, should have engaged in such ridiculous scientific “horseplay.” (Tr. p. 2758.)

In weighing the credibility of the testimony of Gutzeit, consideration should be given to the fact that he was a member of the SS himself and that he was closely associated with Dohmen in his work. (Tr. p. 2760.)

In June 1944, a conference of experts was called by Handloser for the purpose of coordinating jaundice research. This conference took place at Breslau and was presided over by Schreiber. (Tr. p. 7252.) Handloser, Gutzeit, and Haagen, a consulting hygienist of the Air Fleet, were all present at this conference. (Tr. p. 2717.) Schreiber assigned groups of physicians to work together on jaundice problems. Dohmen, Gutzeit, and Haagen were assigned to one of these groups. (Tr. p. 2717.) On 12 June 1944, Haagen himself requested Schreiber to assign Dohmen to work with him. Generalarzt Schreiber at that time was commander of the Military Medical Academy. (NO-299, Pros. Ex. 190.) Schreiber complied with this request. (NO-300, Pros. Ex. 191.)

On 24 June 1944, Gutzeit wrote to Haagen that he was also requesting Schreiber to assign Dohmen to Haagen. He went on to state that he was making preparations for experiments on human beings and he wanted Haagen to supply him with his virus material. (NO-124, Pros. Ex. 193.) Haagen replied to Gutzeit’s letter on 27 June 1944 stating that he was glad that Dohmen would be assigned to him as of 15 July. He further stated that he was working with Kalk, Buechner, and Zuckschwert, all officers of the Luftwaffe, on jaundice problems and that he had arranged with Kalk to conduct human experiments with his material. (NO-125, Pros. Ex. 194.) On the same date Haagen wrote to his collaborator Kalk, who was attached to the staff of the defendant Schroeder, stating as follows:

“In the enclosure I send you a copy of a letter from Gutzeit and my reply. We must proceed as soon as possible with the experiments on human beings. These experiments, of course, should be carried out at Strasbourg or in its vicinity. Could you in your official position take the necessary steps to obtain the required experimental subjects? I don’t know what sort of subjects Gutzeit has at his disposal, whether they are soldiers or other people.” (NO-126, Pros. Ex. 195.)

The remark about “other people” is an obvious reference to concentration camp inmates, upon whom Haagen had long since been experimenting with virulent typhus virus, while the reference to “Strasbourg or in its vicinity”, indicates the concentration camp Natzweiler. (See typhus experiments supra.) Herr Kalk and his chief, the defendant Schroeder, were well advised on how to procure concentration camp inmates for medical experiments because only a few weeks before Schroeder himself had requested inmates from Himmler for the sea-water experiments. (NO-185, Pros. Ex. 134.)

The record shows that Dohmen did in fact go to Strasbourg to work with Haagen on the direct orders of Schreiber. (Tr. p. 2752.) Handloser was advised of this collaboration of Dohmen and Haagen. (Tr. p. 2757.)

Still another series of jaundice experiments was planned with which Handloser was connected. On 29 January 1945 Mrugowsky wrote to Grawitz as follows:

“Hauptsturmfuehrer Professor Dr. Dresel, Director of the Hygienic Institute of the University of Leipzig, has cultivated a virus from persons suffering from hepatitis and succeeded in transplanting it on animals.

“It is necessary to make experiments on human beings in order to determine the fact that this virus is indeed the effective virus hepatitis epidemica. The plenipotentiary for research on epidemics in the Reich Research Council therefore addressed himself to me with the request to carry out the above experiments.

“I am asking you to obtain authorization from the Reich Leader SS to carry out the necessary experiments on 20 suitable prisoners who have hitherto never suffered from hepatitis epidemica, at the typhus experimental station of the concentration camp in Buchenwald.” (NO-1303, Pros. Ex. 467.)

The plenipotentiary for research on epidemics in the Reich Research Council who requested these experiments on concentration camp inmates was Generalarzt Schreiber, at the same time commander of Lehrgruppe C of the Military Medical Academy under Handloser. (Tr. p. 5402.) Schreiber had been designated by Handloser for the very purpose of coordinating jaundice research, and the meeting in Breslau was called to that end.

In view of this evidence outlined above, it can only be concluded that the jaundice experiments were carried out by subordinates of the defendant Handloser with his knowledge and approval.

Extract from the Closing Brief Against Defendant Schroeder

EPIDEMIC JAUNDICE EXPERIMENTS

In June 1944 a conference of experts was called for the purpose of coordinating jaundice research. This conference took place at Breslau and was presided over by Schreiber. (Tr. p. 2752.) Handloser, Gutzeit, and Haagen were all present at this conference. (Tr. p. 2717.) Haagen admitted during cross-examination that experiments on human beings were discussed. That criminal experiments on concentration camp inmates were discussed is clear from the fact that Schreiber in January 1945 personally requested Mrugowsky to make available inmates for hepatitis experiments by Dr. Dresel. (NO-1303, Pros. Ex. 467.) Schreiber assigned groups of physicians to work together on jaundice problems. Dohmen, Gutzeit, and Haagen were assigned to one of these groups. (Tr. p. 2717.) On 12 June 1944 Haagen himself requested Schreiber to assign Dohmen to work with him. Generalarzt Schreiber at that time was commander of the Military Medical Academy under Handloser. (NO-229, Pros. Ex. 190.) Schreiber complied with this request. (NO-300, Pros. Ex. 191.)

On 24 June 1944 Gutzeit wrote to Haagen that he was also requesting Schreiber to assign Dohmen to Haagen. He went on to state that he was making preparations for experiments on human beings and he wanted Haagen to supply him with his virus material. (NO-124, Pros. Ex. 193.) Haagen replied to Gutzeit’s letter on 27 June 1944 stating that he was glad that Dohmen would be assigned to him as of 15 July. He further stated that he was working with Kalk, Buechner, and Zuckschwert, all officers of the Luftwaffe, on jaundice problems and that he had arranged with Kalk to conduct human experiments with his material. (NO-125, Pros. Ex. 194.) On the same date Haagen wrote to his collaborator Kalk, who was a consultant to defendant Schroeder and a specialist on hepatitis (Tr. p. 3632), stating as follows:

“In the enclosure I send you a copy of a letter from Gutzeit and my reply. We must proceed as soon as possible with the experiments on human beings. These experiments, of course, should be carried out at Strasbourg or in its vicinity. Could you in your official position take the necessary steps to obtain the required experimental subjects. I don’t know what sort of subjects Gutzeit has at his disposal, whether they are soldiers or other people.” (NO-126, Pros. Ex. 195.)

The remark about “other people” is an obvious reference to concentration camp inmates, upon whom Haagen had long since been experimenting with virulent typhus virus, while the reference to “Strasbourg or in its vicinity”, indicates the concentration camp Natzweiler. The witness Olga Eyer, secretary to Haagen, testified that prisoners were requested for the epidemic jaundice experiments. (Tr. p. 1759.) Haagen would have the Tribunal believe that he referred to Freiburg and Heidelberg which are 60 and 100 kilometers respectively from Strasbourg, while Natzweiler was only a few kilometers away. (Tr. p. 9579.)

Herr Kalk and his chief, the defendant Schroeder, were well advised on how to procure concentration camp inmates for medical experiments because only a few weeks before Schroeder himself had requested inmates from Himmler for the sea-water experiments. (NO-185, Pros. Ex. 134.)

c. Selection from the Argumentation of the Defense

Extract from the Final Plea for Defendant Handloser

Epidemic Jaundice (Hepatitis)

The problem of experiments in the field of hepatitis research consists in finding the most efficient treatment of the disease and identifying the virus in order to evolve a vaccine.

Discussions of this problem were extensive during this trial. The indictment on this point applies only when experiments on human beings, as understood by the prosecution, such as infection with jaundice germs, could have effects detrimental to health. On this the experts, Professors Gutzeit and Rose, have expressed their opinions. Professor Gutzeit, as one of the foremost specialists for problems connected with epidemic jaundice, on the basis of his extensive practical clinical experience and experiments on his own person, has described the effects as follows:

“As far as I, as clinical physician, can judge, the development of vaccines, and of experiments to gain these vaccines, is harmless. This harmlessness is shown by the fact that spontaneous outbreaks of jaundice are not dangerous in themselves. Like every other vaccine, a potential vaccine which is being developed for or against hepatitis may cause harmless local reactions on the place of vaccination.”

Furthermore he said, “it (epidemic jaundice) is a harmless disease” (German Tr. p. 2761); “it has no damaging after-effect on the liver.” (German Tr. p. 2763.) Professor Rose has expressed his expert opinion in the following words: “Hepatitis epidemica as such is not considered a dangerous disease by hygienists.” (German Tr. pp. 5433, 5434.) Then he continues that naturally, just as in the case of a nasal cold, so in the case of hepatitis, complications may arise as after-effects, “but no one would consider hepatitis as a dangerous disease for that reason.” (German Tr. p. 6454.) As to the experiments, Professor Rose says:

“In Germany, experiments with hepatitis virus have been carried out by Eppinger, Vogt, Esser, and Lembel and no incidents occurred. All experiments took place without ill effects. This is, of course, very limited experimental material, but material concerning hundreds of cases which permit a more accurate judgment has been published in England and America. Up to date I have knowledge of about 60 experiments on human beings for hepatitis and no single incident has been reported yet.”

The prosecuting counsel furnished no proof in this trial that infection experiments with jaundice organisms on unwilling persons took place at all in the concentration camps. Whereas in the case of the other facts the prosecution produced medical records or a witness to prove that such experiments had been carried out, this was not possible with regard to epidemic jaundice. Proof was limited to the presentation of documents which one must admit might have given any layman, or even a doctor who was not a hygienist or a clinical physician, the impression that the experiments in question must have been dangerous. The letter of Dr. Grawitz dated 1 June 1943 to Himmler (NO-010, Pros. Ex. 187) contains the sentence, “We must expect deaths.”

According to the expert opinions expressed by Rose, Gutzeit, and Hoering this view is incorrect and incomprehensible. The experts exclude in practice all possibility of death. Rose declares (German Tr. p. 6455):

“Grawitz, who had only concerned himself for years with the business of administration, did not have sufficient understanding of the matter,” or “that he was cautious to an exaggerated degree * * *.”

Professor Gutzeit (German Tr. p. 2764) says of Document NO-010, Prosecution Exhibit 187:

“The only way I can explain it to myself is that Grawitz himself was not sufficiently informed about this jaundice, the course of the disease, and its danger. Certainly Grawitz was no specialist on this matter, this jaundice, and has for a considerable time been out of touch with practical medicine.”

Professor Gutzeit gives the mortality figure for jaundice as less than 0.1 percent; finally he declares (German Tr. p. 2762) that severe pain and suffering, such as mentioned in the indictment, do not occur when a patient is injected with jaundice organisms. A layman can also understand that over-injection can only produce at the most the disease itself, the effects of which have already been represented as harmless.

As already stated, the prosecution furnished no concrete assertions that the intended experiments were made in Sachsenhausen. Here we are speaking of the time from June 1942. At this time Stabsarzt Dr. Dohmen was allowed to work in the concentration camp at Sachsenhausen in accordance with permission given by Himmler. Professor Gutzeit worked together with Stabsarzt Dr. Dohmen insofar as he conducted the hepatitis research work from the clinical side, while Dr. Dohmen was occupied with basic bacteriological research, in the Robert Koch Institute where he was stationed at the time in question and worked under Professor Gildemeister. Evidence was given by Professor Rose (German Tr. p. 6468) and Dr. Lentz. (Rose 16, Rose Ex. 12.)

As a result of the mutual exchange of experience which took place, we must assume that Professor Gutzeit was informed about Dohmen’s research work in this field. Gutzeit also testified upon oath what Dohmen had reported to him about his activity in Sachsenhausen. According to this, Dohmen was only able to escape pressure from Himmler and Grawitz to leave him his breeding stocks by apparently acceding to the offer that he should conduct experiments in Sachsenhausen, but in actual fact undertaking experiments only on prisoners of concentration camps which could be carried out without any risk of bodily harm or loss of life.

In like manner the prosecution was obliged to furnish proof with regard to the experiments asserted to have been made on concentration camp prisoners in Natzweiler. The only witness provided by the prosecution for this, a woman by the name of Eyer, did not confirm what the prosecution affirmed, namely that experiments intended by Professor Haagen in the research into hepatitis had been carried out in the concentration camp at Natzweiler. (German Tr. p. 1765.)

Dr. Cording testified in an affidavit submitted by Professor Rose:

“For my training in the study of hygiene and bacteriology I was detailed in February 1944 to the Hygiene Institute of Strasbourg University where I was engaged, until the military occupation of the town on 23 November 1944, almost exclusively on work connected with hepatitis (series of inoculations of mice and proof of virus in the organs of mice) under Professor Haagen.”

“It did not come to my ears that during the time I was in Strasbourg experiments with hepatitis were made on human beings within the framework of this cooperation. In the middle of July 1944 Stabsarzt Dr. Dohmen went from Giessen to visit Professor Haagen in Strasbourg for about 2-3 days. During this time he saw for himself in the Institute the results obtained from our research work in hepatitis. He confirmed that the results of his experiments had been similar but that all his research material had been destroyed in an air raid on Berlin. At present he was busy in Giessen making a fresh start with his own experiments.

“I know for a fact that Dr. Dohmen was not in Natzweiler during the time of his visit to Strasbourg. I know nothing of any further cooperation between Professor Haagen and Dr. Dohmen.”

Thus it is proved that Dr. Dohmen was not at the Natzweiler concentration camp and did not take part in any experiments on human beings there in this particular branch of medicine. In correcting his affidavit (NO-371, Pros. Ex. 186) the defendant Rudolf Brandt declared upon oath that he had no knowledge that these experiments had been carried out in Sachsenhausen and that some of the prisoners died. In like manner he revoked his evidence concerning the cooperation of Dr. Dohmen and Dr. Haagen in the Natzweiler concentration camp and declared that no facts were known to him about this. (German Tr. pp. 1990-1993.) Finally Rudolf Brandt declared in his affidavit (Handloser 11, Handloser Ex. 35) that no facts were known to him from which could be deduced that the defendant Handloser had any knowledge of the experiments in Sachsenhausen and Natzweiler.

If one also takes into consideration Professor Gutzeit’s testimony that Professor Handloser had reported nothing about Dohmen working in the concentration camp in Sachsenhausen or of his activity there, the following emerges: Professor Handloser’s answer is correct that he had no knowledge that experiments with epidemic jaundice were conducted on human beings in the concentration camps of Sachsenhausen and Natzweiler.

On the other hand Professor Handloser declares that he had a considerable interest in the hepatitis research work, as it is also established that not only his consulting physician Gutzeit but also numerous other offices had concerned themselves with hepatitis research. Professor Handloser gave reasons, confirmed by Professor Gutzeit, why he, as medical officer responsible for the management of health matters in the army, had the duty to give importance to the research in order to find out what caused epidemic jaundice. As far as Handloser knew, this research was carried out in accordance with recognized medical practice, i. e., by experiments on animals and on the persons of the experimenters themselves; likewise by unobjectionable clinical examinations of human beings.

This also emerges from the hepatitis meeting of June 1944 in Breslau. Professor Gutzeit also reported about this meeting and declared upon oath that six or seven different hepatitis research workers had given reports on their experiments and the results obtained. Nothing was said about experiments on human beings. From this Professor Handloser, who took part in the meeting which included the military and civilian sector, must have gained the impression that research into hepatitis was conducted in a generally recognized medical fashion.

As it could not be established at this meeting whether the organisms bred by the various offices were identical, or whether it was a question of different viruses (German Tr. p. 2737), the suggestion made by Generalarzt Dr. Schreiber, who as the delegate of the Reich Research Council for the combat of epidemics was the chairman of the meeting, was to the point and served the purpose. His suggestion was that various working groups for hepatitis research be formed in order that results obtained on each side might be compared. On both direct and cross-examination, Professor Gutzeit gave a convincing explanation for his letter of 24 June 1944 (NO-124, Pros. Ex. 193), in which he speaks of the experiments “crucis ad hominem.” He declared that he had prepared with his students and candidates a vaccination with the virus material placed at his disposal in Breslau. (German Tr. pp. 2739-2740.)

Dr. Dohmen’s visit to Strasbourg, which was requested by Haagen, was to have been made in compliance with the suggestion of Dr. Schreiber to form a circle of research groups.

d. Evidence

Prosecution Documents

Pros. Ex.

Doc. No. No. Description of Document Page

NO-371 186 Affidavit of defendant Rudolf Brandt, 14 October 1946, concerning experiments to determine the cause of epidemic jaundice.

NO-011 188 Note from Himmler to Grawitz, 16 June 1943, concerning epidemic jaundice experiments at concentration camp Sachsenhausen.

NO-299 190 Letter from Haagen to Schreiber, 12 June 1944, concerning epidemic jaundice experiments.

NO-125 194 Copy of letter from Haagen to Gutzeit, 27 June 1944, concerning epidemic jaundice experiments on human beings.

Testimony

Extract from the testimony of defendant Karl Brandt

PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-371
PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 186

Affidavit of Defendant Rudolf Brandt, 14 October 1946, Concerning Experiments to Determine the Cause of Epidemic Jaundice

I, Rudolf Brandt, being duly sworn, depose and state:

Experiments to Determine the Cause of Epidemic Jaundice (Hepatitis Epidemica)

3. About the middle of 1943, Dr. Grawitz, Reichsarzt SS, wrote to Himmler that Dr. Karl Brandt wished to obtain prisoners for experimentation on the causes of a jaundice epidemic. He had been doing research on this problem with the assistance of Dr. Dohmen, a medical officer attached to the Army Medical Corps and the Robert Koch Institute. Experiments had thus far disclosed that contagious jaundice is transferred by a virus and human beings were desired for inoculation with germs which had been cultivated in animals. Grawitz advised that death of some of the experimental subjects must be expected. He wanted to know if Dr. Dohmen could be permitted to carry out the experiments at the Sachsenhausen concentration camp, as desired by Dr. Karl Brandt.

4. Himmler wrote Grawitz that Dr. Dohmen had his permission to conduct the experiments at Sachsenhausen, and for that purpose he had Oswald Pohl of the WVHA allocate a number of prisoners to be used as experimental subjects. I know that these experiments were carried out and that some of the prisoners died as a result.

5. Dr. Eugen Haagen, Oberstabsarzt and consultant in hygiene for the Luftwaffe, had also been doing research work at the Natzweiler concentration camp in an effort to discover an effective inoculation against epidemic jaundice. As I recall, Dr. Dohmen collaborated with Haagen in 1944 at Natzweiler and experiments on involuntary human beings were conducted which resulted in deaths.

6. These experiments were of course well known to Karl Brandt as he was personally furthering them. Handloser and Schroeder must also have known of them because Dohmen and Haagen were doctors in the Medical Services of the Army and the Luftwaffe respectively. Generalarzt Paul Rostock was also well informed on all research work of this nature.

I have read the above statement in German, consisting of two (2) pages, and it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I have had the opportunity to make any changes and corrections in the foregoing statement. This statement was given by me freely and voluntarily, without promise of reward and I was subjected to no duress or threat of any kind.

[Signed] R. Brandt

TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-011
PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 188

Note from Himmler to Grawitz, 16 June 1943, Concerning Epidemic Jaundice Experiments at Concentration Camp Sachsenhausen

The Reich Leader SS
Day Book No 1652/43, RF/BN

XIa-/-43
Field H. Q., 16 June 1943

Subject: Investigation of the cause of the infectious jaundice (hepatitis epidemica)

Reference: Yours of 1 June 1943—Az.: 420/IV/43—Diary No. 6/43 g.Kdos.

Top Secret

Reich Physician SS and Police 4 Copies

Berlin 3d Copy

I acknowledge the receipt of your letter of 1 June 1943.

1. I approve that eight criminals condemned in Auschwitz (eight Jews of the Polish resistance movement condemned to death) should be used for experiments.

2. I agree that Dr. Dohmen should make these experiments in Sachsenhausen.

3. I agree with your opinion that a real fight against infectious jaundice would be of unheard [of] value.

[Signed] H. Himmler.

2. SS Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl, Berlin

Carbon copy forwarded with request that you will duly note.

[Signature] SS Obersturmbannfuehrer

TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-299
PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 190

Letter from Haagen to Schreiber, 12 June 1944, Concerning Epidemic Jaundice Experiments

12 June 1944

Generalarzt Professor Dr. Schreiber
Academy of Military Medicine
Berlin NW

Dear Generalarzt:

Enclosed I am sending you my hepatitis report for further use. At the same time I would like to use this opportunity to renew my invitation to Stabsarzt Dohmen. Since I do not know his present address, may I direct this invitation to you and suggest that Dr. Dohmen be assigned to me for several weeks so that we may discover and possibly work on questions we have in common. This would probably be the quickest way to determine whether we have the same virus or not. A satisfactory date for Dohmen’s visit to begin would be 15 July.

At the same time I should like to approach the subject of your negotiations for mice. My supplies, and particularly my cultures, are so depleted that they absolutely must be rejuvenated and refilled. You told me in Hohenlychen that it is possible for you to secure mice, even in large numbers. May I ask you to endeavor to secure for me several thousand mice of both sexes, preferably only young animals.

Thirdly I would like to ask whether the hepatitis research will be carried on in future out of funds of the Reich Research Council? My funds for this branch are now exhausted and I am faced with the question as to whether to apply for further funds to my Medical Chief of the Luftwaffe or to you. I would be grateful to you to be informed about this shortly.

With kindest greetings and compliments,
Heil Hitler!
Very devotedly yours,
[Signed] Haagen

TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-125
PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 194

Copy of Letter from Haagen to Gutzeit, 27 June 1944, Concerning Epidemic Jaundice Experiments on Human Beings

Oberstabsarzt Professor Dr. E. Haagen,
Consulting Hygienist to the Air Fleet Physician Reich

Strasbourg, 27 June 1944

To: Oberstarzt Professor Dr. Gutzeit
Consulting Physician to the Army Medical Inspector,
Medical Clinic of University of Breslau, Hobrechtufer 4

My dear colleague Gutzeit,

Many thanks for your letter of 24/6/44. I am glad that Herr Dohmen will come here on 15 July. We shall then review all common hepatitis questions and perhaps also set up the experiments together.

I cannot at present definitely answer your inquiry about human experiments. As you know, I am working with Herr Kalk, Herr Buechner, and Herr Zuckschwert. Naturally, I have already arranged with Herr Kalk that we shall undertake that type of experiment with our material. I must therefore first determine the point of view of the others concerned.

I shall be very glad to begin work on the nephritis material from your Oberstarzt K (?) [sic].

With best greetings,
Heil Hitler!
Yours

Extract from the Testimony of Defendant Karl Brandt

DIRECT EXAMINATION

Dr. Servatius: The indictment mentions experiments with hepatitis. A letter from Grawitz to Himmler says that you furthered these experiments. Did you yourself do any clinical work on this question?

Defendant Karl Brandt: I never did any work in connection with hepatitis epidemica, for that would have been during the war, as before the war this disease was not given much importance in Germany. During the war I did not deal with this question because I was too busy with other things, and also because such a purely internal disease, although perhaps of interest to the hygienist, was relatively uninteresting to me as a surgeon.

Q. Did you allocate research assignments on this subject? How about Dr. Dohmen?

A. I do not know why I should have given a research assignment to Dr. Dohmen. Of course the question of hepatitis was a question which interested everyone, for it was encountered everywhere in the East. But, for that reason I would not have given special attention to that disease. It had no relation to other things which were of more interest to me as a surgeon. I know the letter. I was told about it last year. I saw it here again for the first time this year. It says that I had asked Grawitz to have special hepatitis work carried out by Dr. Dohmen. Dr. Dohmen, the letter goes on, was to obtain seven or eight prisoners for that purpose and the lives of these prisoners would be endangered. It is not clear to me in what connection, and for what reason, my name was mentioned as the instigator of hepatitis research, for in all the rest of the correspondence, and in all the other documents, there is not even the slightest hint that I had any particular interest in this question, or that I was so interested that I would have started the research. I never really knew that the experiments were actually carried out, and I never received any report of results. There are indications contrary to the sense of this letter, especially when it says these experiments are to be carried out on persons condemned to death. Hepatitis epidemica is not a disease as dangerous as all that. I have inquired meanwhile, and know that compared with malaria, for example, it is only about a fifth or a tenth as dangerous. I have already discussed today my relationship with Himmler and with Grawitz. I did not invent that; that was actually the truth. On the other hand, it is interesting to note that in all the correspondence concerning hepatitis, one year later, after the first letter failed to have the desired effect, Professor Schreiber sought a way to approach Himmler in order to have hepatitis research work continued.

Schreiber was the deputy for epidemic control in the Reich Research Council, so that I may assume that, for some reason which is not quite dear to me, Grawitz possibly confused Schreiber and me in the first letter. That is conceivable. The letter is dated 1 June 1943. A short time before that there was a meeting of the Military Medical Academy, and probably Grawitz, who was present, talked to Schreiber as well. In any case I am not able to give any information about this question of hepatitis, and certainly not about any experiments which actually took place. I have no information; I received no report; and I have not heard from any other source even now that these experiments were really conducted. It seems to me significant that the witness Schmidt, who was heard here, testified that the experiments were certainly not conducted in Strasbourg, as Dohmen, who wanted to conduct them, was there for only two or three days himself.

9. Typhus and Other Vaccine Experiments

a. Introduction

The defendants Karl Brandt, Handloser, Rostock, Schroeder, Genzken, Gebhardt, Rudolf Brandt, Mrugowsky, Poppendick, Sievers, Rose, Becker-Freyseng and Hoven were charged with special responsibility for and participation in criminal conduct involving typhus experiments (par. 6 (J) of the indictment). In the indictment, “spotted fever” was used for the German word “Fleckfieber”, but later this was translated as “typhus”. (See also judgment, Vol. II.) On this charge the defendants Handloser, Schroeder, Genzken, Rudolf Brandt, Mrugowsky, Sievers, Rose, and Hoven were convicted, and the defendants Karl Brandt, Rostock, Gebhardt, Poppendick, and Becker-Freyseng were acquitted.

The prosecution’s summation of the evidence on the typhus experiments is contained in the final briefs against the defendants Mrugowsky and Schroeder. Extracts from them are set forth below on pages 508 to 528. The extract of the prosecution brief against Mrugowsky summarizes evidence concerning experiments with old blood plasma, blood transfusions, and withdrawal of blood from inmates of the Buchenwald concentration camp for the purpose of manufacturing a typhus convalescent serum. A corresponding summation of the evidence by the defense on these experiments has been selected from the closing brief for the defendant Rose and the final plea and closing brief for the defendant Mrugowsky. These appear below on pages 528 to 554. This argumentation is followed by selections from the evidence on pages 555 to 631.

b. Selections from the Argumentation of the Prosecution

Extracts from the Closing Brief Against Defendant Mrugowsky

Typhus and Other Vaccine Experiments

The attack against Russia in 1941 gave rise to many military medical problems, not the least of which was typhus. The disease reached serious proportions in the fall of 1941, and typhus vaccines were so scarce that only doctors, nurses, and other medical personnel in exposed positions could be given inoculations. (Tr. pp. 3160-3161.)

One of the most important problems with respect to the increased production of typhus vaccines was the effectiveness of the so-called Cox-Haagen-Gildemeister vaccine, which was produced from egg-yolk cultures. The effective Weigl vaccine, produced from the intestines of lice, was available, but its manufacture was expensive and complicated. The egg-yolk vaccine was relatively simple to produce but its protective qualities were not regarded as having been sufficiently proved. (NO-732, Pros. Ex. 451.)

The entry for 29 December 1941 in the Ding diary proves that a conference was held on that date between Handloser, as Army Medical Inspector; Conti, of the Ministry of Interior; Reiter, of the Public Health Department; Gildemeister, of the Robert Koch Institute; and Mrugowsky, of the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS. (NO-265, Pros. Ex. 287.)

At the conference it was decided that the typhus vaccine from egg yolks was to be tested on human beings to determine its efficacy. On the same day an earlier conference was held which discussed the same problem. It took place at the Reich Ministry of the Interior, and was attended by Bieber of the Interior; Gildemeister; representatives of the General Government in Occupied Poland; officials of the Behring Works of I. G. Farben, and Oberstabsarzt Scholz, of the Army Medical Inspectorate. The minutes of this conference state that:

“The vaccine which is presently being produced by the Behring Works from chicken eggs shall be tested for its effectiveness in an experiment. For this purpose Dr. Bieber will contact Obersturmfuehrer Dr. Mrugowsky.”

Since Mrugowsky was not present at this conference, it is obvious that other conferences took place in which this matter was discussed with him, which is corroborated in the entry of the Ding diary referred to above.

As a result of the decision reached at these conferences, the experimental station in the Buchenwald concentration camp under SS Sturmfuehrer, later Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Ding-Schuler (hereinafter referred to as “Ding”) was established. (NO-265, Pros. Ex. 287; Tr. p. 1154.) The charts drawn by the defendant Mrugowsky, among other proof, show that the experimental station in Buchenwald was subordinated to the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS under Mrugowsky from the date of its establishment until the end of the war. (NO-416, Pros. Ex. 22; NO-417, Pros. Ex. 23.)

In the beginning of 1943, the research station in Buchenwald was officially called the “Department of Typhus and Virus Research” of the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS. The experiments were carried out in Block 46, the so-called Clinical Block, with the exception of a few experiments early in 1942. In the autumn of 1943 a vaccine production department was established in Block 50. Both Blocks 46 and 50 were part of the Division for Typhus and Virus Research. The defendant Hoven was the deputy to Ding in both blocks. (NO-265, Pros. Ex. 287; Tr. pp. 1155-1156.)

Criminal experiments on concentration camp inmates without their consent were carried out in Block 46 to test typhus, yellow fever, smallpox, typhoid, para-typhoid A and B, cholera, and diphtheria vaccines.

The typhus experiments in Buchenwald were carried out on a very large scale and resulted in many deaths. The manner of execution and the results of the experiments are proved in great detail by the Ding diary and the testimony of Kogon as well as other evidence. The first experiment began on 6 January 1942 with the vaccination of 135 inmates with the Weigl, Cox-Haagen-Gildemeister, Behring Normal, or Behring Strong vaccines. All vaccinations were completed by 1 February. On 3 March 1942, all of the vaccinated subjects and 10 inmates who had not been vaccinated (known as the “control group”) were artificially infected with virulent virus of Rickettsia-Prowazeki furnished by the Robert Koch Institute. The experiment was concluded on 19 April 1942. Five deaths occurred, three in the control group and two among the vaccinated subjects. (NO-265, Pros. Ex. 287; Mrugowsky 10, Mrugowsky Ex. 20.)

In later experiments the number of experimental subjects usually varied between 40 and 60, but the proportion of control subjects was increased. Approximately two-thirds of the experimental subjects were vaccinated while one-third remained without protection. A few weeks after vaccination, all experimental subjects were artificially infected with typhus. The course of the disease was then observed in the protected and control groups and the effectiveness of the vaccine was determined. (Tr. p. 1168.) Therapeutic experiments were conducted in the same manner with various drugs. For example, between 24 April and 1 June 1943, experiments were performed to test the effect of acridine granulate and rutenol on typhus. Of a total of 39 inmates used, 21 died. (NO-582, Pros. Ex. 286.)

Artificial infection was accomplished in various ways. In the beginning the skin was lacerated and infected with a typhus culture. Contagious lice were used to a limited extent. For the most part, however, infection was brought about by the intravenous or intramuscular injection of fresh blood containing the typhus virus. For the sole purpose of maintaining a constant source of infected fresh blood, 3 to 5 inmates per month were artificially infected with typhus. The use of these so-called “passage persons” began at least as early as April 1943 and continued until March 1945. Substantially all of them died. These victims were so much “a matter of course” that their fatalities were not included by Ding in his diary. (Tr. pp. 1168-1171.)

An analysis of the Ding diary proves that a total of 729 inmates were experimented on with typhus, of whom 154 died. To these figures must be added the passage persons, of whom between 90 and 120 died.

So much for the cold statistics of the experiments. Block 46, where the experiments were carried out, was a horror for every inmate of the Buchenwald concentration camp. Everyone selected for the experiments expected to die a slow and frightful death. The man-to-man passage of the typhus virus created a form of “super” typhus. (Tr. p. 1168.) While typhus normally has a mortality of about 30 percent in unprotected cases, in an experiment on 13 April 1943 five out of six persons infected died. (NO-265, Pros. Ex. 287.) Many of the experimental subjects became delirious. (Tr. pp. 1172, 1173.) In the experiments with acridine and rutenol, the subjects vomited up to seven times a day. Bronchial pneumonia, nephritis, intestinal bleeding, subcutaneous phlegmones below the larynx, parotitis, gangrene of the shank, furunculosis, bronchitis, and decubital sores developed as a result of this treatment. (NO-582, Pros. Ex. 286.) Experimental subjects who survived and had a lighter course of the disease because the vaccine with which they were vaccinated was effective were forced to watch the death struggle of their fellow inmates. There was an iron discipline in Block 46, the cat-o’-nine-tails ruled supreme, and the experimental subjects were completely deprived of the last vestige of personal freedom which they had in the camp. (Tr. pp. 1172, 1173.)

It is hardly necessary to state that the experimental subjects used in the typhus, as well as all other experiments in Buchenwald, were not volunteers. One does not normally volunteer to be killed. In the first series of typhus experiments, a number of inmates were duped into submitting after being told it was a harmless affair and that they would get additional food. They were not informed that they would be artificially infected with typhus nor that they might die. (Tr. p. 1162; see also the testimony of Kogon in Case 4, Tr. pp. 731, 732; NO-3680, Pros. Ex. 536.) These subjects cannot be described as volunteers. After the first few experiments, it was no longer possible to deceive inmates into offering themselves for the experiments. Thereafter, up until about the fall of 1943, experimental subjects were chosen arbitrarily from among the inmates, whether criminals, political prisoners, or homosexuals. Intrigue among the prisoners themselves sometimes played a role in the selection. In the fall of 1943, the camp administration no longer desired to take the responsibility for the selection of the experimental subjects. Ding no longer was satisfied with verbal orders from Mrugowsky to carry out the experiments and he asked for written orders. He approached Mrugowsky with the request that the Reich Leader SS should appoint the experimental subjects. According to a directive from Himmler to Nebe of the Reich criminal police, only those inmates were to be used who had been confined for 10 years or more. Thereafter, most of the experimental subjects were habitual criminals, many of whom were transported to Buchenwald from other camps. But political prisoners were still included because they were in disfavor with the camp administration or because of camp intrigues. None of the experimental inmates had been condemned to death, except a few Russian prisoners of war who had not been tried or sentenced. They were from some 9,500 Russian prisoners of war who were killed in Buchenwald. The experimental subjects were generally in good physical condition. (Tr. pp. 1162, 1163.) The experimental subjects included not only Germans, but also Poles, Russians, and Frenchmen, as well as prisoners of war. The testimony of Kogon is applicable not only to the typhus experiments but to the other experiments in Buchenwald as well. (Tr. p. 1167.)

This testimony of Kogon is corroborated by the letter from Himmler to the Chief of the Security Police dated 27 February 1944. He said:

“I agree that professional prisoners be taken for experiments with the typhus vaccine. But only those professional criminals should be chosen who have served more than ten years in prison; that is, not with ten prior convictions but with a total penalty of ten years.

“SS Gruppenfuehrer Nebe is to supervise the disposal of these inmates. I don’t wish the physician to pick out inmates without my counter-control.” (NO-1189, Pros. Ex. 471.)

The same document shows that Mrugowsky received a copy of this decision on change in procedure and that it had been arrived at after a conference between Mrugowsky and Nebe.

The testimony of Kogon is further corroborated by the witness Kirchheimer (Tr. pp. 1321-1332) and the affidavit of Hoven. (NO-429, Pros. Ex. 281.)

The defense has contested the authenticity of the Ding diary. It is impossible to determine from the record precisely what their position is in that regard. That the diary does not consist of entries made day by day is obvious from the face of the document itself. It is rather a document which periodically summarizes the experiments which in many cases lasted several months. Ding also kept a daily diary and work reports. (Tr. p. 1226.) These obviously form the basis of the diary in evidence. The defense lays great stress on the fact that page one of the diary was typed with an older ribbon than pages two et seq., and hence was probably typed later. The prosecution has no quarrel with that. Kogon gave the very obvious explanation that the page was probably re-typed when the name of the experimental station was designated as the “Department for Typhus and Virus Research”. (Tr. p. 1228.) At best, the reasons for re-typing pages are now a matter of sheer speculation. No valid inference can be drawn from that fact alone. The Ding diary was taken by Kogon from Buchenwald. It was in his exclusive possession until delivered to the Office of Chief of Counsel for War Crimes. He testified that he did not alter the document in any respect and that the signatures of Ding, and later Schuler, are genuine. (Tr. pp. 1164-1166.) He had no motive for changing the diary. The document was authenticated by the prosecution as being in the same condition as when received.

The experts of the defense established that the document was written on the same typewriter with the same kind of paper. Mrugowsky admitted that Ding’s signature is on substantially all of the pages of the diary. (Tr. p. 5410.) There is no contention they have been forged. A comparison of the admittedly genuine signature of Ding on a vaccination chart (NO-578, Pros. Ex. 284), and of Schuler on an affidavit signed by him after the war (NO-257, Pros. Ex. 283), with the signatures of Ding-Schuler in the diary prove beyond any doubt that the signatures are authentic.

The defense has not established a single inaccuracy in the Ding diary. The prosecution, on the other hand, has proved the detailed accuracy of the diary time and again by the introduction of independent documents. It will suffice to cite a few examples. The work report of the “Division for Typhus and Virus Research” for the year 1943, which was sent to Mrugowsky, substantiates the corresponding entries in the diary in every detail. (NO-571, Pros. Ex. 285.) The paper written by Ding on the treatment of typhus with acridine derivatives, approved by Mrugowsky, checks to the last detail with the experiment reported by the entries in the diary for 24 April and 1 June 1943. (NO-582, Pros. Ex. 286.) Mrugowsky’s letter of 5 May 1942 to Conti, Grawitz, Genzken, Gildemeister, Eyer, and Demnitz reporting on a typhus vaccine experiment is in fact a description of the first experimental series in Buchenwald as given in the diary. This was a document submitted by the defense. (Mrugowsky 10, Mrugowsky Ex. 20.) Mrugowsky admitted he was reporting on that experiment. (Tr. p. 5414.) The entry in the diary for 19 August 1942 concerning the testing of the Bucharest [Cantacuzino] vaccine made available by Rose, is corroborated by Mrugowsky’s letter to Rose, dated 16 May 1942, asking for the vaccines. (NO-1754, Pros. Ex. 491.) The entry for 8 March 1944 concerning the experiments with the Ipsen [Copenhagen] vaccine, which the diary shows were suggested by Rose, is substantiated by Rose’s letter to Mrugowsky of 2 December 1943 (NO-1186, Pros. Ex. 492), and by Lolling’s letter to Grawitz of 14 February 1944. (NO-1188, Pros. Ex. 470; see also, NO-1189, Pros. Ex. 471.) The yellow fever vaccine experiments reported in the diary on 10 January 1943 are dealt with in a letter from the Behring Works to Mrugowsky dated 5 January 1943. (NO-1305, Pros. Ex. 469.) The phosphorus bomb experiments are noted in the Ding diary under the dates of 19 to 25 November 1943. The report on these experiments dated 2 January 1944 shows the burning of inmates began on 19 November and ended on 25 November 1943. (NO-579, Pros. Ex. 288.) As to the conference held on 29 December 1941 reported in the Ding diary, Mrugowsky made the following statement in a pre-trial interrogation: “I remember that meeting and it occurred to me that there were present Schreiber, Gildemeister, Ding, and myself.” Mrugowsky admitted in open court having made such a statement. (Tr. p. 5380.)

The above analysis of the authenticity and accuracy of the Ding diary, while not exhaustive, suffices to show that the defense objection to this document is completely without merit. There is scarcely a line in the whole diary which has not been substantiated either by documents or testimony. The diary must be accepted as accurate in its entirety. There is no basis whatever for accepting some entries and rejecting others. The defense has presented no credible evidence of any inaccuracies. The living record of the deceased Ding is the best evidence of what actually happened.

Other vaccine experiments were carried out in the experimental station in Buchenwald. On request of the Medical Inspectorate of the Army, yellow fever vaccine containing a live virus was tested in a large-scale experiment on inmates which began on 10 January 1943. The arrangements were made by Schreiber through the defendant Mrugowsky. (NO-1305, Pros. Ex. 469.) A very large number of inmates were vaccinated between 13 January and 17 May 1943 at which time production of the yellow fever vaccine was abandoned because of the military situation in North Africa. The results of these experiments were sent to Amt XVI in the SS Operational Headquarters, which was the hygiene office under Mrugowsky, and to the Army Medical Inspectorate. (NO-265, Pros. Ex. 287.)

In the first part of 1943, Mrugowsky conferred with Handloser concerning multiple vaccinations. (Tr. p. 3064.) There can be no doubt that this was the motivation for the large scale vaccination experiments on 45 inmates of Buchenwald between 24 March and 20 April 1943, as set forth in the Ding diary. Each person was vaccinated on eight different days within four weeks against smallpox, typhoid, typhus, para-typhoid A and B, cholera, and diphtheria. The report on these experiments was sent to Mrugowsky’s office. Kogon testified that the experimental subjects were given para-typhoid bacilli in potato salad. He also stated that the experiments in Buchenwald with diseases other than typhus resulted in deaths, although relatively fewer. (Tr. pp. 1182, 1183.)

Mrugowsky would have the Tribunal believe that he is in no way responsible for the experiments carried out by Ding and Hoven in the Buchenwald concentration camp. He testified, in effect, that Ding was directly subordinated to Grawitz as far as the experiments were concerned. (Tr. p. 5067.) While he did admit that Ding was subordinated to him for purposes of vaccine production in Block 50 in Buchenwald, he said he had nothing whatever to do with the experiments carried out in Block 46. The same contention was made by the defendant Genzken. Mrugowsky testified that he was outraged by the idea of experimenting on human beings since he was of the opinion that human life is sacred. (Tr. p. 5066.)

The proof, however, is overwhelming that Mrugowsky ordered the experiments carried out by Ding in Buchenwald. In his own pre-trial affidavit Mrugowsky stated that the Division for Typhus and Virus Research of the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS in Buchenwald was established in the beginning of 1942 by Genzken. He admitted that as Chief of Amt XVI (hygiene) in the SS Operational Headquarters and as Chief of the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS, he was the immediate superior of Ding. He stated further that experiments on inmates were carried out by Ding in order to determine the effect of various typhus vaccines. He admitted he obtained full knowledge of the work of Ding; that he received reports from him on the experiments, including the death rates, and that he informed Genzken. (NO-423, Pros. Ex. 282.) The two charts drawn by the defendant Mrugowsky clearly show that the experimental station in Buchenwald under Ding was directly subordinated to Mrugowsky from the time of its establishment until the collapse of Germany. (NO-416, Pros. Ex. 22; NO-417, Pros. Ex. 23.) Mrugowsky admitted Ding’s connection with the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS on cross-examination. (Tr. p. 5371.)

The pre-trial affidavit of the defendant Hoven who was deputy to Ding and certainly in a position to know the facts, states that the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS under Mrugowsky received all the reports on the experiments in Block 46 and that Ding received orders directly from Mrugowsky. Hoven outlined the chain of command as: Grawitz, Genzken, Mrugowsky, and Ding. Ding went to Berlin for discussions with Mrugowsky nearly every second week. Mrugowsky visited the home of Ding on one of his trips to Buchenwald. (NO-429, Pros. Ex. 281.)

Kogon testified that Ding reported personally to Mrugowsky on the experiments, and when he did not go to Berlin himself, he reported regularly every three months in writing. (Tr. pp. 1155-1186.) The reports on the experiments carried out in Block 46 were sent to Mrugowsky in Berlin. (Tr. p. 1160.) Ding’s official correspondence was primarily with Mrugowsky. (Tr. p. 1157.) The instructions for the execution of the experiments came from Mrugowsky. (Tr. pp. 1163, 1219.) In the late summer of 1943 Mrugowsky became the sole chief of Ding and issued all orders to him. (Tr. p. 1202.) Mrugowsky occupied such an important position that it would have been dangerous for Ding to contact Grawitz over his head. (Tr. p. 1241.) Mrugowsky visited the experimental block in Buchenwald on several occasions. (Tr. pp. 1244, 1245; Tr. p. 1329.)

The proof outlined above as to Mrugowsky’s responsibility is repeatedly supported by documentary evidence. Ding’s work report for the year 1943, which lists the experiments carried out in Block 46, was sent to Mrugowsky and carried the letterhead “Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS, Division for Typhus and Virus Research, Weimar-Buchenwald.” (NO-571, Pros. Ex. 285.) This work report covers the experiments in Block 46 and the production of vaccines in Block 50, which conclusively proves that Mrugowsky’s assertion that his responsibility was limited to Block 50 is completely false. The same report shows that Mrugowsky inspected the Division for Typhus and Virus Research in Buchenwald on 3 September 1943, and that Ding had several conferences with Mrugowsky. Mrugowsky’s own secretary admitted that Ding’s reports about his experiments on inmates went via the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS to Grawitz. (Mrugowsky 38, Mrugowsky Ex. 13.)

Mrugowsky received Ding’s report on the treatment of typhus with acridine derivatives. (NO-582, Pros. Ex. 286.) This report speaks of clinical tests on human beings who were afflicted with typhus, but Mrugowsky knew that Ding experimented by artificially infecting the subjects. (Tr. p. 5066.) The report shows on its face that 21 of the experimental subjects died and that the inmates who survived had to fight severe complications of the disease. This same experimental series is reported in the Ding diary under the entries for 24 April and 1 June 1943.

The first experimental series on typhus carried out in Buchenwald between 6 January and 19 April 1942 in which 145 inmates were used as experimental subjects was the basis of a report by Mrugowsky to Conti, Grawitz, Genzken, Eyer, and Demnitz, dated 5 May 1942. (Mrugowsky 10, Mrugowsky Ex. 20.) Five of the subjects died as a result of these experiments. (NO-265, Pros. Ex. 287.)

The experiments with the Cantacuzino vaccine from Bucharest, reported in the Ding diary under the entry for 19 August 1942, were ordered by Mrugowsky. This vaccine was furnished by the defendant Rose, who requested Mrugowsky to arrange for the experiments. On 16 May 1942 Mrugowsky wrote to Rose stating that Grawitz had consented to the execution of the experiments and that the vaccine should be sent to him (Mrugowsky). He also agreed to conduct experiments to determine whether the louse could be infected by a vaccinated typhus patient. This, of course, necessitated the infection of the experimental subject with typhus. (NO-1754, Pros. Ex. 491.) As a result of these experiments, four of the subjects died. (NO-265, Pros. Ex. 287.)

The typhus experimental series No. VIII, during which the Ipsen vaccine from Copenhagen was tested, was also ordered by the defendant Mrugowsky. On 2 December 1943 Rose asked Mrugowsky to have the Ipsen vaccine tested in Ding’s experimental station in Buchenwald. (NO-1186, Pros. Ex. 492.) Mrugowsky expressly denied, during cross-examination, that he was ever approached by Rose to have the Copenhagen [Ipsen] vaccine tested in Buchenwald. He stated that: “If he had come to me I would have sent him on to someone else. I would have said: ‘My dear man, that does not have anything to do with me.’ ” (Tr. pp. 5434, 5435.) On 21 February 1944 Mrugowsky was notified that 30 “appropriate gypsies” would be made available for testing the Ipsen vaccine. (NO-1188, Pros. Ex. 470.) Mrugowsky was further advised on 29 February 1944 that the experimental subjects would be designated by the office of Nebe of the Reich criminal police. (NO-1189, Pros. Ex. 471.) The Ding diary proves that the experiments with the Ipsen vaccine began on 8 March 1944 with 30 experimental subjects, of whom six died as a result of the experiments.

On 12 August 1944 the defendant Mrugowsky ordered Ding to carry out experiments to determine the infectious character of blood of slight cases of typhus compared with that of serious cases. (NO-1197, Pros. Ex. 472.)

Mrugowsky ordered a series of experiments to determine whether the course of typhus could be tempered by intravenous or intramuscular injection of typhus vaccine. Of the 25 experimental subjects used, 19 died. This experiment was carried out between 11 November and 22 December 1944. (NO-265, Pros. Ex. 287.)

Experiments with Old Blood Plasma and the Production of Blood Plasma and the Typhus Serum

Experiments with old blood plasma were conducted on inmates in Buchenwald by order of Mrugowsky at the request of the Military Medical Academy. Blood transfusions were carried out in order to determine whether old blood plasma could be used without danger, especially without danger of shock. Several series of experiments were performed, each with 10 to 20 experimental subjects. Some of the victims died, probably due to the combined effect of shock and poor physical condition. Mrugowsky received reports on these experiments. (Tr. pp. 1190-1192; NO-265, Pros. Ex. 287.)

The entries for 26 May and 13 October 1944 in the Ding diary show that blood was withdrawn from inmates recovering from typhus for the purpose of making a typhus convalescent serum. The witness Kogon testified that this work was done by SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Ellenbeck on order from Mrugowsky. Ellenbeck obtained the blood from typhus convalescents in Block 46 from the summer of 1944 until the spring of 1945. Blood was taken from these experimental subjects regularly, usually in amounts between 250 and 350 cubic centimeters. Taking the blood from the convalescent patients meant an extraordinary burden on them and a number died. While the precise cause of death could not be definitely ascertained under the circumstances, there is no doubt that the withdrawal of blood was a contributing factor. (Tr. pp. 1192, 1193.)

Kogon further testified that Ellenbeck, on orders from Mrugowsky, systematically selected invalids and old persons, especially Frenchmen, who were in the so-called “little camp” of Buchenwald, for the purpose of withdrawing blood to be used in making blood plasma. The horrible conditions in the “little camp” were vividly described. The blood was demanded from the victims and was taken from them. Sometimes extra food was given to these starving patients. (Tr. pp. 1194-1196.) Upon being asked whether any of these blood donors in the “little camp” in Buchenwald died from this blood-letting, Kogon replied:

“The question shows that it is very difficult to gain a real concept of the ‘little camp’ at Buchenwald. The people died there in masses. During the night corpses were lying in the blocks naked because they were thrown out of the bunks by the other prisoners so that they would have a little more space. Even the smallest pieces of clothing were torn off by those who wanted to survive. It is impossible to determine if anybody died as the direct and immediate result of the taking of blood, because many people fell and died while walking around in the ‘little camp’.

“But it is beyond doubt to anyone who knew the conditions there, that the taking of blood—even if a small measure of strength was given to these people as far as food was concerned—was a considerable contributing factor in the death of very many of them.” (Tr. p. 1196.)

Ellenbeck also conducted research concerning the oxygen content of the blood of human beings in various stages of exhaustion and artificially produced starvation oedema. Mrugowsky gave his approval to these experiments. (Tr. pp. 1257-1266.)

Extracts from the Closing Brief Against Defendant Schroeder

Typhus and Other Vaccine Experiments in the Natzweiler Concentration Camp

The appearance of Haagen as a defense witness requires consideration of his testimony on these experiments.

Haagen testified that in the summer of 1943 the defendant Rose, as consulting hygienist to the Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe, prevailed upon him to resume active status as consulting hygienist to the Air Fleet Physician Reich. Haagen also accepted a typhus research commission from the Luftwaffe and as a result of this commission and his position in the Luftwaffe, he carried out certain typhus experiments. (Tr. pp. 9564, 9565.)

Haagen stated that Stabsarzt Graefe was assigned to him at the Hygiene Institute of the University of Strasbourg in 1942 by the Luftwaffe and that Graefe acted as his assistant. Graefe was militarily subordinated to Luftgau Physician 7 but technically subordinated to Haagen. (Tr. p. 9582.) Haagen was also militarily subordinated to Luftgau Physician 7. (Tr. p. 9563.)

Haagen had developed a murine typhus (rat typhus) vaccine which contained an attentuated virulent (living) virus. (Tr. pp. 9596, 9597.) Haagen testified that he performed compatability tests with this vaccine on 28 inmates of Schirmeck concentration camp, which was a sub-camp of Natzweiler. Eight inmates were vaccinated with .5 cc. of this virulent vaccine, ten with .5 cc. [of virulent vaccine], and ten with a dead vaccine plus .5 cc. of the virulent vaccine. Three additional inmates were vaccinated with a dead vaccine for purposes of comparison. He stated that no serious reactions occurred as a result of these vaccines. (Tr. p. 9603.) All of these vaccinations were carried out in the month of May 1943 and no vaccinations occurred after that date, according to Haagen. (Tr. p. 9636.) In the fall of 1943 Haagen transferred his activities to Natzweiler on the alleged ground that he felt a typhus epidemic was more likely there than in Schirmeck. (Tr. p. 9603.) He requested through Hirt that 100 concentration camp inmates be put at his disposal in Natzweiler for purposes of these experiments. These inmates were transferred from Auschwitz to Natzweiler during the month of November 1943, 18 of whom died on the way. Haagen found the remainder unsuitable for his purposes and requested an additional 100 which were made available during December 1943. He testified that of these, 40 inmates were subjected to a series of two vaccinations by injection to bring about immunity and a third vaccination by scarification to test the immunity. For purposes of comparison, a second group of 40 inmates designated as “controls” was given only the third scarification vaccination. The same vaccine was used for all of these alleged vaccinations and was a new vaccine containing an attenuated virulent Rickettsia-Prowazeki virus (louse typhus). The scarification vaccine applied to both groups of subjects contained a smaller quantity of vaccine than the first two injection vaccinations given to the group immunized. In the first group the injected vaccine produced what Haagen described as the normal vaccine reaction. Substantially the same reaction occurred in the control group which received only the third scarification vaccine. The reaction was no more serious than in those who were vaccinated by injection. (Tr. pp. 9615-7.)

Haagen admitted that the subjects used by him both in Schirmeck and Natzweiler were of many different nationalities, among whom were gypsies and Poles. (Tr. p. 9607.) He further testified that these inmates were not volunteers because, as he said, he was only carrying out protective vaccinations. (Tr. pp. 9541-2.)

Haagen stated that the only reason he performed these vaccinations in Schirmeck and Natzweiler was because he was asked to do so by Kramer, camp commandant in Natzweiler. He and Kramer were disturbed about the possibility of a typhus epidemic in the middle of 1943, although he testified that in fact no typhus cases actually occurred until March 1944. (Tr. pp. 9594-5.) He went to Schmireck only because he and Kramer feared an epidemic. (Tr. p. 9600.)

Haagen’s testimony, as outlined above, is completely incredible on its face as well as in view of the documents which were submitted by the prosecution and available to Haagen at the time he testified. Firstly, it is utterly ridiculous to credit his statement that he went to Schirmeck and Natzweiler only because he feared an epidemic. It is ridiculous to suppose that a concentration camp commander, on his own initiative, sought medical assistance from doctors in the towns surrounding a concentration camp. The WVHA, to which all concentration camps were subordinated, had a very elaborate medical system and it is unthinkable that a local camp commander would ask aid from an outsider. Secondly, it is ridiculous to suppose that Haagen, out of the kindness of his heart and the fear of an epidemic spreading beyond the confines of the camp, would use his precious typhus vaccine to protect the miserable wretches who were imprisoned in the concentration camps. Haagen himself stated that he had very little typhus vaccine. (Tr. p. 9613.) It has been repeatedly testified to during the course of this trial that typhus vaccines were critically short in Germany during the war and that there were not even sufficient quantities to vaccinate doctors, nurses, and other personnel exposed to special danger. That this vaccine would be used to protect concentration camp inmates is unthinkable. Thirdly, it is ridiculous to suppose that any scientist could have possibly thought that vaccinating 28 inmates in Schirmeck and 80 in Natzweiler could have had any possible effect on the likelihood of a typhus epidemic.

That Haagen perjured himself with respect to what he was really doing in Natzweiler during the course of his typhus experiments is clearly evident from his own letter of 27 June 1944 to Hirt. In a letter of 9 May 1944 to Hirt, Haagen requested that an additional 200 persons be furnished to him for his experiments. (NO-123, Pros. Ex. 303.) Supplementary to this request, he stated in his letter of 27 June 1944 that, “in the subsequent inoculations with virulent typhus which are to be made for the purpose of testing the protective vaccine, one must count on sickness particularly in the control group which has not received the protective vaccines. These after-inoculations are desirable in order to establish unequivocally the effectiveness of the protective vaccines. This time 150 persons will be used for the protective vaccine and 50 for the control inoculations.” (NO-127, Pros. Ex. 306.)

It should be noted specifically that in the letter quoted above, Haagen pointed out to Hirt that sickness was to be expected in the control group which had not received the protective vaccine. Haagen testified that this additional group of 200 inmates requested by him was merely for the purpose of vaccination, just as he had done in December 1943 and January 1944 on the 80 experimental subjects. He added that in May he had enough vaccine for 200 more persons and he was merely trying to increase the protection in the camp. (Tr. p. 9613.) The falsity of Haagen’s testimony is clearly apparent from the statement in the letter that sickness was expected in the control group. He had previously testified that there was no reason whatever to expect any more serious reaction to the scarification vaccination in the control group than to the injected vaccine in the immunized group. (Tr. p. 9618.) Indeed, there was every reason to expect that the vaccine injected in the immunized group would bring about a more serious reaction since more vaccine was given by injection than by scarification. Haagen applied a much larger quantity of the vaccine in the first two injections of the immunized group than in the scarification vaccination of both the immunized and the control group. The same vaccine was used throughout. (Tr. p. 9710.) The method of vaccination, whether by injection or scarification, has no effect on reaction to the vaccine. Haagen specifically testified that “if we vaccinate by scarification we can expect that the effect of the vaccine will be the same as if we inject subcutaneously or intramuscularly.” (Tr. p. 9710.)

Haagen was quite unable to reconcile his statement in his letter to Hirt of 27 June 1944 that “one must count on sickness, particularly in the control group” with his testimony that there was no difference in the reaction to the vaccine as between the immunized and control groups. Indeed, the only possible interpretation of his letter is that instead of vaccinating the immunized and control groups by scarification, he, in fact, infected them with typhus. Haagen knew that the unprotected control subjects would become ill with typhus. Haagen also had no explanation for the letter of Kahnt, Chief of Staff to Schroeder, of 29 August 1944, in which he was asked “whether it may be assumed that the typhus epidemic prevailing at Natzweiler at present is connected with the vaccine research.” (NO-131, Pros. Ex. 309.) He testified that he had completed his vaccinations of the 80 experimental subjects during January 1944 and that all of his serological examinations were finished no later than February 1944 and that the experimental subjects were released from confinement. Haagen submitted a report to the Luftwaffe no later than May or June 1944 to the effect that the vaccine had been a success. (Tr. pp. 9627-9.) There was no reason whatever for Kahnt and Rose to address such an inquiry to Haagen when he had long since completed his experiments, according to his testimony, and submitted a success report to the Luftwaffe at least two months before the inquiry. It is quite impossible that vaccine tests which caused no typhus in the vaccinated persons could cause typhus in other persons, as suggested by Rose during his examination. Moreover, it should be noted that Kahnt’s letter clearly indicated an understanding on his part that Haagen’s vaccine research in Natzweiler was contemporaneous with the epidemic. This, Haagen testified, he could not understand. Haagen also had considerable difficulty explaining why, in his letter of 19 September 1944, in reply to Kahnt’s inquiry, he didn’t state that he had conducted no vaccinations or experiments in Natzweiler since January 1944 and that his vaccinations had caused no illness in the subjects, let alone caused a typhus epidemic. Haagen simply stated in his letter that, “We hereby inform you that no connection existed between the cases of typhus in Natzweiler and the examinations dealing with typhus vaccine that is to be tested.” [Emphasis added.] (NO-132, Pros. Ex. 310.) Indeed, Haagen himself stated in his reply that the vaccine was still under test, contrary to his testimony before this Tribunal.

Haagen would have the Tribunal believe that he had no typhus virus strain which was pathogenic to human beings, that he could not have brought on a serious case of typhus even had he tried to do so. (Tr. pp. 9608, 9612.) In the very same breath he testified “that there was considerable danger of infection in working about the laboratory and that he gave his assistants a “risk bonus.” (Tr. p. 9608.)

Haagen testified that he performed no vaccinations after January 1944. He reiterated this time and again during the course of his examination. (Tr. pp. 9614-5.) When asked his reason for not vaccinating during the typhus epidemic in Natzweiler in the spring and summer of 1944, which offered an opportunity to test the anti-infectious effect of his vaccine under natural conditions, he lamely answered that he had to make so many official military trips that he had no time. (Tr. p. 9614.) Although he had sufficient vaccine to justify his asking for 200 additional experimental victims in May 1944, his only effort in the typhus epidemic, according to his testimony, was to send them decontamination equipment. (Tr. p. 9614.) It is not readily apparent, to say the least of it, just why some other doctor or an assistant of Haagen could not have performed the vaccinations which Haagen would have the Tribunal believe he was so anxious to have done for the protection of the camp.

All of the above contradictions and falsifications appear upon the face of Haagen’s testimony as well as from the documents which he had so carefully studied before his appearance. The documents submitted to him during cross-examination reveal his testimony to have been perjurious from start to finish. Haagen repeatedly testified that he carried out no vaccinations in Schirmeck after May 1943. He stated that in Schirmeck he only performed a single vaccination and not the series of vaccinations to test “anti-infectious immunity” because at that time his “knowledge hadn’t progressed so far.” (Tr. p. 9636.) In connection with the Ipsen vaccine, about which Rose had corresponded with him, he especially denied that he ever proposed to Rose that experiments be carried out with it. Haagen’s letter to Rose of 4 October 1943 squarely contradicts him on both of these significant points. (NO-2874, Pros. Ex. 520.) He stated in his letter that:

“I already reported to you the numeral results of experiments on human beings. The serum titer is considerably higher, also after a single vaccination, in comparison with three vaccinations with deactivated vaccines. I regret that it was not possible so far to perform infectious experiments on the vaccinated persons; I requested the Ahnenerbe of the SS to provide suitable persons for vaccination, but have not received an answer yet. We are now performing a further vaccination of human beings; I shall report later about the result. I guess we will then have reached the point of being able to recommend the introduction of our new vaccine for the time being without infectious experiments.” [Emphasis added.]

In this same letter of 4 October 1943, Haagen discussed Rose’s report concerning the Ipsen vaccine from Copenhagen. He concluded his letter by stating: “If we can get experimental subjects from the SS for test vaccinations, it would be an opportunity to test the liver vaccine as well on its anti-infectious effect. I would then suggest that our material be used parallel with the Ipsen tests.” Thus, Haagen testified falsely when he said that he did not propose experiments with Ipsen vaccine. In his letter he very specifically proposed performing anti-infectious experiments with the Ipsen vaccine as well as his own vaccine. This again proves that the use of the phrase “infectious experiments” could not possibly mean multiple vaccinations with living typhus vaccine. The Ipsen vaccine was a dead vaccine; it contained no attenuated virulent virus. Three vaccinations with a dead vaccine could not be designated an “infectious experiment” even by Haagen. (Tr. p. 9655.) Moreover the defense’s own proof shows that the Ipsen vaccine had already been tested for tolerability and found comparable with other vaccines used by the Wehrmacht. This is clear from Rose’s letter to the Behring-Works and Haagen, among others, dated 29 September 1943. (Rose 88, Rose Ex. 21.) It is quite clear that the only type of experiment left open for the Ipsen vaccine was precisely the kind that Haagen proposed, namely, after-infection of the vaccinated and control subjects with typhus.

Haagen was further impeached by the notes kept on his typhus experiments by his assistant, Miss Crodel. (NO-3852, Pros. Ex. 521.) Haagen definitely identified these notes as having been written by Miss Crodel. (Tr. p. 9691.) Miss Crodel had been an assistant of Haagen’s for many years and he found her most reliable. (Tr. p. 9701.) He conceded that Miss Crodel was very careful in her work. (Tr. p. 9697.) On page three of the notebook appears a series of entries dating from 30 April 1943 to 27 January 1944 concerning a series of experiments in Schirmeck. The entry for 19 May 1943 shows that two out of four mice injected with his vaccine died. The entry for 26 May reads: “(4 weeks) 3-6, 0.5 per person and 6 mice 0.5 i. p., 5 dead, after 10, 14, 14 days, the rest after 4 weeks.” This entry proves that on that date human beings were inoculated with Haagen’s vaccine. To say the least of this entry, five mice who were similarly vaccinated died as a result. The phrase “the rest after 4 weeks” can obviously refer also to deaths among experimental persons since it is quite impossible that this phrase could be used to refer to the one remaining mouse. The entry for 6 July indicates that on that date Haagen and his assistants appeared in Schirmeck for the purpose of withdrawing blood from ten persons, who had been previously vaccinated, for a Weil-Felix reaction test. The entry gives the serum titer value of eight of the experimental subjects. The entry is ended with the laconic note, “the other two were not here anymore.” This entry is conclusive corroboration of the testimony of the witness, George Hirtz, who stated that Haagen had tested his vaccine at Schirmeck in the summer of 1943. Approximately 20 Polish inmates were used in these experiments and, following the inoculations, two of the experimental subjects died. Hirtz testified that he himself sewed up the bodies of the inmates in paper bags and delivered them for cremation. The other experimental subjects had reactions such as high fevers, shock, and impairment of speech. (Tr. pp. 1293-1299.) His testimony is further corroborated by Haagen himself, who stated that two groups of ten inmates were inoculated by him in Schirmeck. The entry in the Crodel notes obviously has reference to one of these groups of ten, and upon arrival of Haagen and his assistants in the camp for the purpose of withdrawing blood, it was found that two of the subjects had died.

The entry for 4 October 1943 on page three of the Crodel notes reads “(six months) inoculated 20 persons in Schirmeck, Tube—2 cc. distilled water, 0.5 per person.” (NO-3852, Pros. Ex. 521.) This proves not only that Haagen testified falsely when he stated that he carried out no typhus vaccinations in Schirmeck after May 1943 but also that multiple vaccinations with his vaccine were performed. This entry bears the same date as Haagen’s letter to Rose, referred to above, which also stated that he was performing further vaccinations. The last entry on page three is dated on the original as 27 January 1943 and reads: “(9 months) mixed with the same amounts (as 21 May) distilled water tube, 20 persons 1.1 cc. each.” The date 1943 is obviously a mistake on the part of Miss Crodel in making the entry. This is proved by the fact that the period of time indicated in parentheses in the notes refers to the period of time the vaccine had been stored. Haagen so admitted. (Tr. p. 9711.) Thus the reference “(9 months)” means that the vaccine being used in that series of experiments had been stored for nine months since 30 April 1943, the date of the first entry on page three and the time the vaccine was first prepared. That 1943 in the original entry should really be 1944 also is apparent from page four of the notes wherein the last entry is for 27 January 1944. It is a common mistake for one to use the date of the old year during the first month of the new year.

Haagen inoculated another group of ten persons in Schirmeck on 10 October 1943 and 20 more on 27 January 1944 as seen from the entries on page four of the Crodel notes. Again on page five of the original, the entry for 14 October 1943 proves that ten persons were inoculated for the third time with 1.0 cc. of Haagen’s new vaccine. That this entry refers to the virulent murine vaccine and not to the Gildemeister dead vaccine can be seen from the preceding entry which speaks of four control persons being inoculated three times with Gildemeister vaccine. This fact is further apparent by comparing the quantity of the injections plus the amount of distilled water used per tube of Haagen’s new vaccine as set forth in other entries.

The entry for 25 May 1944 on page 7 of the Crodel notes states that 30 persons were inoculated in Natzweiler. “The inoculation took place during the incubation period (in a transport containing also sick people). Thirteen became sick in the period from 29 May to 9 June, of these, two died.” Haagen had repeatedly testified that he performed no vaccinations after January 1944 in Natzweiler. Not only did he perform experiments after January 1944, but as proved by the entry quoted above, subjects died during the course of such experiments. By his own testimony Haagen proves that these entries deal with an experiment during which the subjects were artificially infected with typhus. Although the entry euphoniously states that the vaccinations “took place during the incubation period,” Haagen testified, as had been repeatedly suggested by the prosecution, that it is impossible to know when persons are in the incubation period. The incubation period is that time between the infection and the first manifestations of the disease. Accordingly, it is impossible to know that a vaccination takes place during the incubation period unless the person has been artificially infected so that the date of infection is known. (Tr. pp. 9701-2.)

It is significant to note also that the chart on page 14 of Miss Crodel’s notes uses the word “nachimpfung,” meaning after-vaccination or re-inoculation, in connection with multiple vaccination experiments on two mice (both of which incidentally died), rather than the word “nachinfektion,” meaning after-infection or subsequent infection, which was repeatedly used by Haagen in his letters concerning experiments on human beings.

Haagen testified that the defendant Schroeder visited him on 25 May 1944, the very day on which he was carrying out experiments in Natzweiler. (Tr. p. 9632.) While it is, of course, entirely possible that Schroeder may have visited Haagen on 24 or 26 May, rather than on 25, the fact is quite clear that in any event Haagen’s very important experiments on typhus were discussed with Schroeder, contrary to the testimony of both men. The same is true with respect to the visit of the defendant Becker-Freyseng which took place shortly after that of Schroeder (Tr. p. 9569) and of Rose who visited Haagen both in 1943 and 1944. (Tr. p. 9570.) Haagen’s statement that Becker-Freyseng came all the way from Berlin to discuss with him the procurement of rabbits and mice is as incredible as the rest of Haagen’s testimony.

The defendant Schroeder testified that Haagen’s research assignment was not secret and attempted to argue on that basis that nothing criminal could have happened. (Tr. p. 3654.) Without pausing to point out the stupidity of such an argument, suffice it to say that Schroeder’s testimony was proved to be false by a list of research assignments issued by Schroeder’s office in 1944. Haagen’s typhus work was classified secret. (NO-934, Pros. Ex. 458.)

The testimony of the witness Nales corroborates the proof outlined herein above: That Haagen performed experiments to test the immunity of his vaccine by artificially infecting the subjects with typhus. Nales, a Dutch citizen, was arrested by the Gestapo in 1940 for allegedly participating in a resistance movement. Although he was tried and acquitted, he was committed to Buchenwald concentration camp in April 1941. In March 1942 he was transferred to Natzweiler and in November 1942 he became a nurse in the Ahnenerbe experimental station there. (Tr. pp. 10409-12.) He stated that in the latter part of 1943, 100 gypsies were sent to Natzweiler from Auschwitz for Haagen’s typhus experiments. Haagen found them physically unsuitable and thereafter an additional 90 gypsies were shipped in. These were divided into two groups and confined in separate rooms in the Ahnenerbe experimental station. One group was vaccinated against typhus. Approximately 14 days later, both groups were artificially infected with typhus. As a result, about 30 of the subjects died. Nales nursed the victims himself and saw the bodies. He talked to the subjects frequently and knows they did not volunteer, as indeed Haagen himself admitted on the stand. The gypsies were of various nationalities including Poles, Czechs, Hungarians, and Germans. (Tr. pp. 10419-23.)

Haagen’s long continued activity in Schirmeck and Natzweiler can be clearly seen from his account book on research tasks on yellow fever and typhus. His work in Schirmeck began as early as 20 April 1943. He was placing telephone calls to Schirmeck late in August 1944, over a year after Haagen’s alleged “last vaccination” there. These accounts were charged to the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe. (NO-3837, Pros. Ex. 542.) They were in such detail as to reveal on their face his activity in the concentration camps. (NO-3450, Pros. Ex. 519.)

Haagen admitted that by infection experiments one could mean only one of three things—(1) subsequent artificial infection with typhus, (2) vaccinations of large groups of people and then studying efficacy during a natural epidemic, and (3) Weil-Felix reaction tests carried out before and after a subsequent vaccination. (Tr. p. 9601.) He admitted that the prosecution’s interpretation of “infection experiments” and “subsequent infection” was equally consistent with his own. (Tr. p. 9611.) He admitted that the word “nachimpfung” (subsequent vaccination) could have been used as well as “nachinfektion” (subsequent infection). (Tr. p. 9611.)

There are no refined questions of documentary interpretation presented to the Tribunal. The simple issue is whether Haagen committed crimes during the course of his experiments. There is no dispute that these were “experiments”. Haagen repeatedly used the word in his own letters. There is no dispute that the inmates used as subjects were nonvolunteers, among whom were nationals of German occupied countries. Haagen admitted as much. The documents and the testimony prove that a substantial number of subjects were killed during the course of these experiments. Against this overwhelming proof stands the testimony of Haagen and Rose, both of whom perjured themselves repeatedly on the stand. Indeed, their own testimony is the best circumstantial proof as to the criminality of the experiments. One does not gratuitously testify falsely. Those who fear the light of truth commit perjury. These men regard their oaths as lightly as they did the lives of their helpless victims.

The guilt of Rose and Haagen is the measure of the guilt of Schroeder. As a medical officer of the Luftwaffe, Haagen was subject to his orders. (Tr. p. 3636.) The office of Schroeder issued the research assignments pursuant to which these experiments were carried out. It provided the funds with which to carry them out. It received reports on the experiments and knew they were performed on concentration camp inmates. (Tr. p. 1758.) Schroeder was himself in Strasbourg at the very time the experiments were going on. His guilt is clear and unequivocal.

c. Selections from the Argumentation of the Defense

Extract from the Closing Brief for Defendant Rose

Statements Regarding the Question of Responsibility of the Defendant Rose for the Typhus Experiments of Professor Eugen Haagen in the Concentration Camps at Schirmeck and Natzweiler and the Question of the Participation in These Experiments

In order to reach a decision on the question of whether punishable behavior on the part of the defendant Rose is established, the Tribunal will have to examine the following: Did Professor Rose, in his capacity as consulting hygienist with the Luftwaffe Medical Inspectorate, have any commanding authority or the right and obligation of supervision at all over Professor Eugen Haagen at the University of Strasbourg? Did the defendant Rose participate in a penally relevant form in the experiments with typhus vaccine conducted by Haagen in the concentration camps at Natzweiler and Schirmeck? If so, the question of whether Haagen made himself liable to punishment or not can be left completely undecided.

As far as the first question is concerned, one thing is certain. Above all, Professor Haagen was a full professor at the University of Strasbourg at the time and also director of the Institute for Hygiene at this University. At the same time he was consultant on hygiene for the civil administration of Alsace. (German Tr. p. 9526.) During the war, in addition to this, he was a part-time consulting, hygienist with an Air Fleet. Finally, he applied for so-called research assignments for his experiments, including his typhus experiments, that is, in practice, financial aid.

First of all, it must be ascertained in which of his many capacities Professor Haagen conducted his experiments. In this connection the facts are perfectly clear. As a witness, Professor Haagen himself explained that he requested and received the research assignments which made possible his experiments, not as an officer of the Luftwaffe, but as director of a civilian research institute. As usual, therefore, the initiative was taken by the scientist. (Becker-Freyseng 70, Becker-Freyseng Ex. 48; Tr. pp. 6251-3; German Tr. pp. 7941-2, 8399, 9583-5.) The correctness of this description can be seen from the letter of Professor Haagen, submitted by the prosecution, addressed to the rector of the University of Strasbourg, dated 7 October 1943. (NO-137, Pros. Ex. 189.) In this letter Haagen requests his civilian superior, the rector of the University of Strasbourg, for special privileges for the Institute for Hygiene of the University (i. e., a civilian institution) based on the research commissions assigned to him.

The fact that the position of Professor Haagen was also interpreted by the Luftwaffe in this manner can be seen, for example, from the style of the letters addressed to him in matters relevant to his research and vaccine production assignments. They are not clothed in the manner of military orders, but possess the character of correspondence with a civilian office which was not subordinate to the Luftwaffe, either in the matter of receiving orders or of being under its supervision. A number of those invested with such research assignments have described to the Tribunal how they accepted these assignments for opportunistic reasons, e. g., to obtain priority grading and to protect their personnel from being drafted to military service. However, the fact that no subordinate relationship or supervisory right arose through the acceptance of such an assignment, can be seen likewise from the numerous statements of the recipients of such Luftwaffe assignments. (Schroeder 30, Schroeder Ex. 22; Schroeder 31, Schroeder Ex. 23; Becker-Freyseng 79, Becker-Freyseng Ex. 63; German Tr. p. 6720.) Obligations arose solely with regard to the computation of the money allowed, the reporting of any possible results achieved, as well as the mention of assistance in the event of a scientific publication.

Moreover, such financial aid is in no way limited to Germany but is common in many countries. No responsibility for possible errors and crimes, which the recipients might commit, can result from such financial assistance. As a matter of fact, Haagen never received a special individual assignment to carry out a certain series of experiments, but he was accorded, as per request, assistance for “typhus research.” However, financial assistance for typhus research is something quite normal. Incidentally, Haagen not only utilized the means put at his disposal by the Luftwaffe, but also contributions from the Reich Research Council and, most important, the personnel and equipment of his institute. Therefore, his typhus research was not a part of his military activities but was carried out within the scope of his civilian activities. Also, the fact that a reserve officer of the Luftwaffe, namely, Staff Physician [Stabsarzt] Graefe, appears as a collaborator in his typhus research work, alters none of the facts of the case. It is true that Graefe was a reserve officer in the same way as Haagen. However, his main profession was that of assistant in the Institute for Hygiene of the University of Strasbourg, and in this capacity he was subordinate to Professor Haagen who was, of course, the director of this institute. He was in no way subordinate to Haagen in the military sense, but to the Air Force Area VII. (German Tr. p. 9718.) Staff Physician Graefe, who was drafted into the Luftwaffe, was transferred, therefore, for purposes of further training, to the civilian institute where he worked as an assistant in peacetime. Such incidents occurred quite frequently in order to enable research activities in civilian institutes to be continued in wartime. As a result of this assistance given in respect of personnel, these civilian offices did not fall under the command and supervision of the military authorities.

The fact that Professor Haagen felt himself to be completely independent in his research activities can also be seen unequivocally from the fact that he procured further assistance from other offices disregarding his subordinate position with respect to the military. This means, without going through the military channels which were prescribed as binding in military matters. In his capacity as Oberstabsarzt of the Luftwaffe, he could not deal with the Reich Research Council without informing his superior thereof. Even less could he deal with the Reich Leader SS, with other offices of the SS, or, for example, with the Generalarzt Schreiber, who belonged to the army. He was, however, well able to do all of this in his capacity as director of the Institute for Hygiene of the University of Strasbourg. The correctness of this statement is shown most clearly in the important point, namely the procurement of experimental subjects in the concentration camps. In this case he did not conduct negotiations through military channels via the Medical Inspection of the Luftwaffe, but through his civilian channels, through the mediation of his university colleague, Professor Hirt, via the Ahnenerbe. He never informed his military superiors of these negotiations nor asked for their assistance therein, for as matters were, there was no reason to do so. The files show quite clearly that Professor Haagen had already conducted his experiments on prisoners in Schirmeck in May of 1943 in the same way as he continued them until the middle of 1944. In May of 1943, however, Haagen was—in a military sense—on leave of absence, and as far as his activities were concerned he was in no way subject to the supervision of the Luftwaffe. His appointment as consulting hygienist did not ensue until after 14 July 1943, because the letter from the Reich Minister of the Luftwaffe dated 14 July 1943 was not addressed to Consulting Hygienist Haagen, but to Staff Physician [Stabsarzt] Haagen, who had been given leave to work in his institute. (NO-297, Pros. Ex. 316.) After his appointment as consulting hygienist, however, his research activities do not differ in any way from those which he performed before this appointment. They remained civilian research activities as formerly.

Further attention should be called to the fact that the Luftwaffe showed no special interest in Professor Haagen’s research work. The only real interest of the Luftwaffe might have been in the actual production of vaccine. They tried to influence him in this connection, but without practical success. The Luftwaffe received no typhus vaccine from Haagen. His research activities had no connection with the wishes of the Luftwaffe regarding production; they were even in conflict with these interests.

The prosecution, it is true, has submitted a number of accounts from which it can be seen that telephone calls to Schirmeck and Natzweiler were paid for from Luftwaffe funds. (NO-3450, Pros. Ex. 519; NO-3837, Pros. Ex. 542.) Even if one were to consider the fact proved that these calls were in connection with his work in concentration camps, the whole nature of the accounts shows that Haagen treated his research work as a unit and divided the costs according to his own point of view among the different funds which had been placed at his disposal. The purpose served by the telephone calls cannot be inferred from the accounts alone. The arbitrary division of costs can be seen, for example, from the fact that a whole series of expenditures entered under “Influenza Account” referred to his typhus work. The department receiving the expense sheets had no possibility of checking in detail the purpose to which each enumerated item was put, and who the participants in the telephone conversations were.

Sufficient facts have already been produced to show that, in general, the Luftwaffe bore no responsibility for the research activities of the University Professor Haagen. Nevertheless, it is proposed to examine the question of whether a responsibility on the part of the defendant Rose for Haagen’s research work can be deduced from the fact that Professor Rose was consulting hygienist with the Medical Chief of the Luftwaffe; because the prosecution is mainly attempting to construe responsibility on the part of the defendant Rose from (1) the existence of the research assignments given by the Luftwaffe; and (2) the fact that Professor Haagen belonged to the Luftwaffe as a reserve officer.

There can be no doubt that Haagen was the medical officer of the Luftwaffe. First of all, he was consulting hygienist with the Air Fleet 1 until the year 1941. Then he was given leave to work in his Institute for Hygiene until a certain time, which must have been shortly after 14 July 1943. Then he became consulting hygienist with the Air Fleet “Mitte” which was later renamed Air Fleet “Reich”.

However, he did not conduct his experiments in his capacity as consulting hygienist. The tasks of a consultant did not include scientific research. They lay in other fields. Professor Haagen was never subordinate to the defendant Rose even in this military position as consulting hygienist of an Air Fleet. On the other hand, the defendant Rose had neither commanding authority, and neither the right nor the duty of supervision as far as Haagen was concerned.

From a military standpoint Haagen was subordinate to his air fleet physician in every respect. Incidentally, the defendant Rose had no superior rights nor supervisory obligations either with respect to Professor Haagen or to all the other consulting hygienists of the Luftwaffe. His official duties were exclusively limited to consultations with the Medical Inspector, that is, the Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe. (Compare Rose 6, Rose Ex. 6; Rose 7, Rose Ex. 7; Rose 8, Rose Ex. 29; Handloser 12, Handloser Ex. 12; Tr. pp. 2987, 6259; German Tr. p. 3346.)

There is no need to comment further on the fact that the defendant Rose particularly did not possess such rights and obligations with respect to Haagen in his capacity as a research scientist and director of the institute of the University of Strasbourg, which was in no way subordinate to the Luftwaffe. The correctness of these statements was unequivocally confirmed on the witness stand during my examination, not only by Professor Haagen himself (German Tr. pp. 9679-80) but also by the defendant Schroeder, who, after all, should know, having been the former Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe. (German Tr. p. 3734.) These facts should be sufficient to show that the defendant Rose had neither the power of command and neither the right nor obligation of supervision over Professor Haagen.

We still have to examine the second question of the possible participation of the defendant Rose in Professor Haagen’s research work in the concentration camps at Natzweiler and Schirmeck.

It is incontestable that the defendant Rose was cognizant of the fact that the Luftwaffe gave several research assignments to Professor Haagen, and that the reports issued by Haagen within the framework of these assignments were sent to him for his information. However, these reports never contained details from which a criminal activity on the part of Professor Haagen could have been inferred or assumed. Even the prosecutor, Mr. McHaney, during his interrogation of the defendant Rostock, expressly declared that even he doubted whether Haagen would have disclosed such details. (German Tr. p. 3346.) This interpretation corresponds completely with the facts. Professor Haagen’s reports consisted purely of scientific research work which was designated for publication. No reader could gather that they were based on illegal experiments. A plan of experiments was never submitted by Haagen in detail.

As has already been stated, it is true that the defendant Rose knew of the research commissions which had been assigned to Professor Haagen by the Luftwaffe. According to the nature of his official position, however, he exercised no influence on the assignment of such commissions. There were no misgivings about the assignments as such, for nothing of a suspicious or objectionable nature could be seen from their formulation. (Becker-Freyseng 37, Becker-Freyseng Ex. 23.)

This situation is not altered by the fact that the defendant Rose visited Professor Haagen twice in Strasbourg during the course of the war, the first time in the year 1943 and the second time in 1944. Clearly outlined assignments were dealt with on both occasions. During the first visit the question was discussed whether Haagen wished to reassume in addition the functions of a consulting hygienist of an Air Fleet. The second visit resulted from the desire of the medical inspection of the Luftwaffe that Haagen should comply with the request repeatedly made to him, to take up the production of vaccine. This second visit further served the purpose of discussing the question of a particularly expensive but necessary installation for reproducing various climates for the rabbit hutch in Professor Haagen’s Institute.

The reasons just mentioned for these two visits will be substantiated by documents submitted. The question regarding Professor Haagen’s assumption of the functions of a consulting hygienist with the Air Fleet “Mitte” is mentioned in the letter from Rose addressed to Haagen, dated 9 June 1943, (NO-306, Pros. Ex. 296) the procurement of the climate installation in Document NO-2874, Prosecution Exhibit 520. Moreover, the first of these two documents just mentioned shows quite clearly that the defendant Rose had no influence on the assignment of research commissions to Haagen. In answering a question from Haagen relevant to this matter, Rose had to limit his reply to the statement that the competent expert was absent.

In examining the relationship between Rose and Haagen, their further exchange of correspondence must also be mentioned.

Rose met Haagen when they were both division chiefs at the Robert Koch Institute in Berlin from 1937 until 1941. Both were specialists in the field of research into infectious diseases. Haagen specialized in virus diseases including typhus. The defendant Rose specialized in tropical diseases, parasitology, and vermin control. This fact explains the existence of a scientific private correspondence, part of which can be found in the files. According to the testimony of the witness, Olga Eyer, this correspondence was extremely cursory and consisted of only five to six letters from 1941 to 1944, during which time Fraeulein Eyer was Haagen’s secretary. (German Tr. p. 1781.)

The prosecution is obviously in possession of the entire exchange of correspondence between Rose and Haagen. The letters the prosecution has submitted from this correspondence deal with two subjects: The first group consists of the two letters of 5 June 1943 and 9 June 1943 (NO-305, Pros. Ex. 295; NO-306, Pros. Ex. 296) which contain an answer to the questions on the production technique of typhus vaccine. Rose, who himself is not a specialist in this field, had requested technical information and had received it. (In passing, it should be stated that the 30 to 40 persons mentioned in this exchange of correspondence signified the required manpower figure and not possible experimental subjects, as the prosecution asserts.) (German Tr. p. 9063.)

The principal letter of Haagen to Rose, dated 4 June 1943, which is mentioned in Rose’s reply dated 9 June 1943, would clear up the matter absolutely unequivocally. Unfortunately, it has not been submitted by the prosecution.

The second part of the correspondence between Rose and Haagen concerns the attitude of Haagen to the Copenhagen vaccine. Among others, Rose had also informed Professor Haagen, one of the leading German typhus-research scientists, about the result of his conversation with Dr. Ipsen in Copenhagen, as can be seen from the distribution of the report on the Copenhagen trip. (Rose 22, Rose Ex. 21.) This second part of the correspondence developed as a result of the transmission of this strictly scientific information, and the following letters from it were introduced by the prosecution during the trial:

Letter from Haagen to Rose dated 4 October 1943 (NO-2874, Pros. Ex. 520).

Letter from Haagen to Rose dated 29 November 1943 (NO-1059, Pros. Ex. 490).

Letter from Rose to Haagen dated 13 December 1943 (NO-122, Pros. Ex. 298).

Professor Rose furnished a detailed explanation of this exchange of correspondence during his direct examination. At the time he was only in possession of his aforementioned letter to Haagen dated 13 December 1943, whereas the two other letters were still withheld by the prosecution. Although, as a result of this, he was put in the difficult position of having to testify regarding an exchange of correspondence which took place four years ago, only a part of which he had available for reference, the correctness of his statements was completely confirmed in the essential points by the two other letters which were not introduced until later in the trial. (Tr. p. 6281.) It can be seen quite definitely from the first paragraph of Haagen’s letter to Rose dated 4 October 1943 that the actual interest of the defendant Rose lay in inducing Professor Haagen to produce a proven vaccine.

The question hinged on the climate installation which was necessary for the production of the Giroud vaccine from the lungs of rabbits. It was only necessary to establish an additional production plant for the Luftwaffe because the vaccine concerned was obtained from dead typhus bacilli and had been introduced for some time. At the end of his letter Professor Haagen once more refers to this purely technical question of production. In his letter Haagen also expresses his opinion and valuation of the Ipsen method. The penultimate paragraph of this letter is particularly important. It describes the great importance Professor Haagen attached to the serological experiments in weighing the results of the vaccination and of the state of immunity. He writes in this connection:

“I generally regret that, in judging immunity, much too little consideration is being given to the serological reaction. My experiments with the nonphenolized vaccine particularly proved again that the titer of agglutination should be considered. No doubt, much greater importance must again be attached to the serological result when judging the state of immunity in accordance with our present opinion on the course of the infection of the virus diseases, especially in their initial stages.” (NO-2874, Pros. Ex. 520.)

At the end of his letter, Haagen suggests that his own vaccines and the Ipsen vaccine be compared by examination. This is unequivocal proof of the proposal having been made by Haagen. The defendant Rose had not the slightest reason to assume that Professor Haagen intended to perform an immunity check with a virulent virus causing disease in human organism, since the Professor particularly stressed the importance of serological methods when testing the condition of immunity. On the contrary, he had to assume that Professor Haagen considered such an infection superfluous.

The prosecution objects to the fact that Haagen, when discussing the planned experiments in his correspondence with Rose, used such terms as “experiments of infection” and “subsequent infection.” But Professor Rose knew that Haagen was engaged in the development of live vaccine nonpathogenic to human beings. He even mentioned this in his lecture on typhus and malaria at Basel in 1944. (Rose 25, Rose Ex. 31.) Every expert knows that the application of living virus for the purpose of protective vaccination is a procedure of infection.

He was aware that Haagen worked on the further development of the method evolved by the Frenchman Blanc. This, too, can be found in the same passage of his Basel lecture mentioned above. The fact that the term “subsequent infection” was used by Professor Haagen in distinguishing protective vaccinations from live and weakened vaccines could in no way surprise or startle him. (Rose 69, Rose Ex. 59; Rose 60, Rose Ex. 60; Tr. pp. 6295-6; German Tr. 9639.)

It must be pointed out in this connection that the notes of the Natzweiler camp physician himself distinctly describe the vaccination which Haagen had occasionally called “subsequent infection,” as “vaccination”. His entries of 22 March 1944 state that “the actual ‘vaccination’ will now be carried out after two protective vaccinations have taken place.” (German Tr. p. 9782.)

The report taken from the Tropical Diseases Bulletin which I introduced in this trial shows, however, quite clearly that these infections were not dangerous and could, in the main, be controlled. (Rose 58, Rose Ex. 58.)

This report states that the Blanc live typhus vaccine was used by the French Government in Algeria in 3.5 million cases to combat typhus, and that as a result of these protective vaccinations, real typhus illness was found in only 5-6 cases per thousand. If one compares this figure of 5-6 per thousand with the total number of the vaccinations, it appears that in the course of this vaccination action carried out by the French Government, 17,500 to 21,000 cases of typhus illness took place as a result of vaccination. This result may justly give weight to the assumption that the French Government considered these incidents a justifiable and tolerable risk in view of the extent of the threatened danger.

It would be unfair to blame the defendant Rose for having taken no steps at all on learning that another research scientist, namely Haagen (who was not subordinated to him) was using a method which he knew was widely practiced. He had much less reason to do so since it was Haagen who tried by preliminary vaccinations with dead vaccines to avoid and to reduce the extent of the vaccination reactions and the danger of sickness as a result of the vaccination. Haagen’s reports and publications only deal with this object of a preliminary vaccination with dead vaccines and of the subsequent vaccination with a live, virulent vaccine nonpathogenic to human beings (subsequent infection). This field, with which he was not so familiar, was described in detail by the defendant Rose in his direct testimony. When interrogated, Professor Haagen, as the actual originator of the plans, substantially enlarged and in some instances corrected this description.

It does not seem feasible to me to classify as criminal, experiments which tend to make more bearable and less dangerous a recognized method already applied on millions of people.

In addition, there is no reply from the defendant Rose to this letter from Professor Haagen of 4 October 1943. It is not certain whether he actually received it. However, the possibility that he did receive it cannot be denied.

Chronologically, the next letter in this correspondence is Haagen’s letter to Rose of 29 November 1943. (NO-1059, Pros. Ex. 490.) The defendant Rose cannot remember ever having received this letter.

It is true that after this letter had been submitted to him by the prosecution during cross-examination, Professor Rose assumed that he must have received it, judging by the date and the conditions of the postal service at that time. (Tr. p. 6428.) However, he was misled when making this statement by a mistake in the reproduction. Whereas this letter is actually dated 29 November 1943, the date on the letter is given as 29 November 1942 in the German mimeographed copies distributed by the prosecution in the course of the cross-examination. Thus it was sent at a time when large quantities of mail were destroyed in trains or at post offices by the heavy air raids on German towns and communications. According to the resultant state of affairs, it is probable that he actually did not receive this letter. In this very letter Professor Haagen mentions that 18 of the 100 inmates had already died en route. The answers the defendant Rose gave on cross-examination before this letter had been submitted to him show clearly that he could not remember such information. (Tr. p. 6424-5.) He would hardly have been able to forget such a gruesome report if he had actually received this letter.

It also cannot be stated that the defendant Rose could only have written his letter to Haagen of 13 December 1943 (NO-122, Pros. Ex. 298) after having received Haagen’s letter of 29 November 1943. Prosecuting counsel, Mr. McHaney, however, alleged this when cross-examining Rose (Tr. p. 6431) thus causing confusion in the mind of the defendant Rose. For, in reality, Rose’s letter of 13 December 1943 is the reply to a further letter from Haagen dated 8 December 1943, as appears clearly from the introductory sentence in Rose’s letter of 13 December 1943. From this state of affairs it can only be concluded that either Professor Haagen did not mail this letter at all—perhaps in view of the information contained therein about the unfavorable conditions of health of the inmates—or else the defendant Rose did not receive the letter because it was destroyed along with a lot of other mail of the same date in the heavy air raids. The prosecution, no doubt, would not have failed to introduce this letter into evidence if the defendant Rose had replied to Haagen’s letter dated 29 November 1943. Professor Haagen’s suggestion in his letter of 4 October 1943 that the Copenhagen vaccine be tested, is again dealt with in Rose’s letter of 13 December 1943. In this letter Rose exclusively speaks of the testing of vaccine, without mentioning infections at all. In the letter a parallel is drawn to the Buchenwald typhus experiments only insofar as he indicated the advantage of the simultaneous testing of several vaccines. On direct examination, that is, prior to the submission of other documents which give greater clarification to the whole matter, the defendant Rose stated quite clearly and in agreement with subsequent evidence and the later testimony of Haagen, that the point in question was the application of the Copenhagen vaccine for preliminary vaccination, aiming at the weakening of the vaccination reaction in connection with subsequent vaccination with a live, avirulent vaccine nonpathogenic to human beings.

The two biologically parallel conditions which are obvious to every layman, one, the weakening of a reaction following vaccination with a live vaccine, and two, the weakening of a natural sickness, were explained in detail by Professor Rose on direct examination. (Tr. p. 6281.)

Finally, it must be emphatically pointed out that the plan discussed in this correspondence to test the effect of the Copenhagen vaccine on the weakening of vaccination reactions followed by the application of the new live avirulent typhus vaccine pathogenic to human beings as compared with other vaccines, was not carried out at all. After Haagen had succeeded in weakening the reaction in another way, namely by long storage, he was no longer interested in the Copenhagen vaccine. (Becker-Freyseng 62; German, Tr. 9614-5.)

Therefore, there only remains the examination of the question of whether the defendant Rose was responsible for Haagen’s activities, knowing that Professor Haagen had performed experiments on inmates with live avirulent typhus vaccines still in the testing stage. Apart from the correspondence discussed just now (part of which did not deal with experiments at all, while the other part referred to the discussion of an experimental plan which had been temporarily under consideration), the defendant Rose was only informed of Haagen’s activities through the latter’s reports which were sent to him for information and comments by the chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe, through official channels. These, however, either contained simple information about the fact that Professor Haagen had asked for and received a commission for research, or else they were scientific publications containing nothing to which objections could be made.

The prosecution concluded from the letter of the Luftwaffe Medical Academy, dated 7 July 1944 to the Luftlottenarzt Reich [Air Fleet Physician Reich] that Haagen must have infected human beings with virulent typhus bacilli which were pathogenic to human beings because “control persons” were mentioned in this letter. (NO-128, Pros. Ex. 307.) This letter approves the publication of Professor Haagen’s work and that of his assistant Crodel: “Experiments with a New Dried Typhus Vaccine.” This work which had been submitted to the defendant Rose prior to publication actually shows clearly that these controls were meant to be a comparison of the results of serological examinations on patients from the camp epidemic with the serological examinations on persons protectively vaccinated. Haagen, whose main interest was in serological examinations, as already mentioned, had no reason whatsoever to perform artificial infections since the epidemic in the concentration camp at Natzweiler offered an abundance of persons for the purposes of comparison.

Finally it must be stated, in addition, that the experimental plans discussed in Haagen’s letter of 27 June 1944 to Professor Hirt never became known to the Luftwaffe Medical Inspectorate nor to Rose. (NO-127, Pros. Ex. 306.) Moreover, the general development of the situation (Haagen’s absence from Strasbourg, evacuation of the camp at Natzweiler, etc.,) shows that this planned experiment could never have been performed. The truth of this statement is further clearly proved by the testimonies of the witnesses Broers and Nales, according to which no more typhus vaccinations took place after April 1944.

Extracts from the Final Plea for Defendant Mrugowsky

The prosecution stated in its plea: If Grawitz were still alive, he would sit here as one of the principal defendants on the defendants’ bench. This is certainly true. But Grawitz passed sentenced on himself. And what does the prosecution do? It indicts Mrugowsky instead of Grawitz. It does not consider in its arguments that Mrugowsky was not a private person but a medical officer in the Waffen SS, that is a soldier, and that Grawitz and Himmler were his military superiors. It speaks of conspiracy but it does not examine thereby to what extent a conspiracy may be conceived when military subordination plays its part. In its summing-up, both written and oral, the prosecution merely submitted the original allegations of the indictment. It completely ignored the evidence produced by the defendants, and merely pointed out a little scornfully that this evidence was mostly composed of affidavits. But this is no fault of the defendants. They would have preferred to be able to produce counter-proof taken from their own records. But all the documents belonging to the defendants and to other offices, from which the prosecution evidence emanates, are in the hands of the prosecution. It merely submitted those parts of the documents which, torn from their context, seem to incriminate the defendants. On the other hand, the prosecution made it impossible for the defendants to find the records connected with the prosecution evidence which would ensure a complete elucidation of the true facts.

I would ask the Tribunal to consider in particular this difficult position of the defendants with regard to evidence. It places particular emphasis on the old legal principle that the defendant is considered not guilty until his guilt has been proved, and in doubtful cases the Court is to decide in favor of the defendant.

The charges against Mrugowsky are composed of three groups:

(1) The typhus experiments and the aconitine execution which did not concern volunteers. In these cases the Tribunal will have to consider whether state emergency contended by Mrugowsky really existed, and if so, if the typhus experiments and the aconitine execution were justified. If the answer is in the affirmative, then neither the typhus experiments nor the aconitine execution is criminal, since there is no objection raised as to the manner in which they were performed. If the question is answered in the negative, then the next consideration is, if and to what extent Mrugowsky participated in them and if he is responsible under criminal law.

(2) The second group consists of the actions of Ding which he performed on his own initiative, e. g., his participation in a killing by phenol and the poison experiment on 6 persons.

(3) The third group consists of the protective vaccinations for which volunteers were available, according to the evidence produced by the prosecution.

The defendant Mrugowsky is indicted first of all for his alleged participation in the typhus experiments at Buchenwald and in other medical experiments. In its submission of evidence, the prosecution treated these experiments as criminal and as experiments performed by doctors. During the examination of the experts, Professor Leibbrandt and Professor Ivy, the prosecution also treated these medical experiments as experiments performed by doctors and asked the experts if these experiments were to be considered as admissible from the point of view of medical ethics.

I am convinced that the experiments on which the prosecution bases its indictment were in no way experiments which originated from the initiative of the executive physicians themselves. The experiments were a form of research work necessitated by an extraordinarily pressing state emergency, and ordered by the highest competent governmental authorities.

Professor Ivy also admitted that there is a fundamental difference between the physician as a therapeutist and the physician as a scientific research worker. When asked by Dr. Tipp: “So you admit that to the physician as a therapeutist, the physician who cures, other rules and, therefore, other paragraphs of the oath of Hippocrates apply,” he gave the answer: “Yes, I do, very definitely.”

Consequently, experiments on human beings, performed for urgent reasons of a public character and ordered by the competent authorities of the state, cannot simply be considered as criminal merely because the experimental persons chosen by the state for the research work were not volunteers.

The prosecution ought to have brought additional evidence with regard to the individual experiments to prove why they were criminal, apart from the fact that the experimental persons were not volunteers.

The largest space in the indictment against Mrugowsky is taken up by the typhus experiments at Buchenwald. The prosecution does not contend that Mrugowsky participated in them personally, but I further think I have proved in my written arguments that he neither suggested nor ordered nor controlled these experiments; that he did not further them nor even approve of them.

Nevertheless for precaution’s sake, I also must prove that the experiments in question were not illegal and that under no aspect can they be considered as criminal since they were caused by an urgent state emergency. This proof can be produced in a particularly impressive manner in the case of the typhus experiments.

In the Flick trial, the prosecution submitted Document NI-5222 which I have offered to the Tribunal. (Mrugowsky, Ex. 99.) This document, which comes from the Labor Office Westphalia and is dated 3 February 1942, states that according to information from military quarters, until recently the number of Soviet prisoners of war dying of typhus was still 15,000 daily.

I think I need no longer emphasize that a most pressing state emergency is considered to exist if from one single epidemic there are, I repeat, 15,000 deaths daily in the camps for Russian prisoners alone.

On the other hand, the prosecution stated that from the beginning of 1942 until the beginning of 1945, a total of 142 persons died as a result of the typhus experiments at Buchenwald. I place these two figures intentionally at the beginning of my argument. They show that during the entire period of the experiments in Buchenwald, the number of fatalities amounted to one percent of the toll taken every day by typhus in the Russian prisoner camps alone in winter 1941-42. In addition to these victims in the Russian P. W. camps, one has to consider the enormous number of people who died of typhus among the civil population of the occupied eastern territories and the German Armed Forces.

It is clear that under these conditions drastic measures had to be taken. When judging the typhus experiments carried out in the concentration camp Buchenwald one must not forget that Germany was engaged in war at the time. Millions of soldiers had to give up their lives because they were called upon to fight by the state. The state employed the civil population for work according to state requirements. In doing so it made no distinction between men and women. The state ordered employment in chemical factories which was detrimental to health. It ordered work on the construction of new projectiles which involved considerable danger. When unexploded enemy shells of a new type were found at the front, or unexploded bombs of new construction were found after an air raid at home, it ordered gunnery officers to dismount such new shells or bombs with the aid of assistants in order to learn their construction. This implied great danger. Then the fillings of the new shells and bombs had to be examined by analytical chemists to determine their composition. In certain cases this work was detrimental to the health of the chemists and their assistants and always considerably dangerous.

In the same way the state ordered the medical men to make experiments with new weapons against dangerous diseases. These weapons were the vaccines. The fact that during these experiments not only the experimental persons but also the medical men were exposed to great danger was proved when Dr. Ding infected himself unintentionally at the beginning of his typhus experiments and became seriously ill with typhus.

With regard to such medical experiments, one has to agree on principle with the opinion of Professor Ivy and Professor Leibbrandt that such experiments may only be performed on volunteers. But even Professor Ivy admitted that there is a difference between those cases in which a scientific research worker starts such experiments on his own initiative and the cases in which the competent organs of the state authorize him to do so. He answered the question of whether the organ of the state is responsible in the affirmative; but he added that this has nothing to do with the moral responsibility of the experimenter towards the experimental subject.

If the experiment is ordered by the state, this moral responsibility of experimenter towards the experimental subject relates to the way in which the experiment is performed, not to the experiment itself.

The prosecution did not contest that the experiments at Buchenwald were carried out correctly. By way of precaution, I offered evidence for the correct execution in my closing brief.

In answer to a question by Dr. Sauter, Professor Ivy observed that he did not think the state could take the responsibility of ordering a scientist to kill a man in order to obtain knowledge.

The case with the typhus experiments is different. No order was given to kill a man in order to obtain knowledge. But the typhus experiments were dangerous experiments. Out of 724 experimental persons, 154 died. But these 154 deaths from the typhus experiments have to be compared with the 15,000 who died of typhus every day in the camps for Soviet prisoners of war, and the innumerable deaths from typhus among the civilian population of the occupied eastern territories and the German troops. This enormous number of deaths led to the absolute necessity of having effective vaccines against typhus in sufficient quantity. The newly developed vaccines had been tested in the animal experiments as to their compatibility.

I explained this in detail in writing.

The Tribunal will have to decide whether, in view of the enormous extent of epidemic typhus, in view of the 15,000 deaths it was causing daily in the camps for Russian prisoners of war alone, the order given by the government authorities to test the typhus vaccines was justified or not. If the answer is in the affirmative, then the typhus experiments at Buchenwald were not criminal, since the prosecution did not contest that they were carried out according to the rules of medical science. In this case, any responsibility of Mrugowsky for these experiments is excluded. If, on the other hand, the Tribunal answered the question in the negative and declared the typhus experiments at Buchenwald to be criminal, then examination would have to be made as to whether Mrugowsky was responsible for them in any way.

In my written statement I explained in detail that Block 46 at Buchenwald, where the experiments were carried out, was not subordinate to Mrugowsky, but that Dr. Ding worked under the immediate orders of Grawitz. Out of the extensive evidence I offered to prove this fact, I only want to stress, one, the letter addressed by Grawitz to Mrugowsky in which Grawitz declared explicitly on 24 August 1944 that he gave his consent for the series of experiments he mentioned in the letter to be performed in Block 46 at Buchenwald, and two, the letter addressed by Mrugowsky to Grawitz on 29 January 1945 in which he suggests the testing of a jaundice virus and writes: “Please obtain permission from the Reich Leader SS to perform the infection experiments in the typhus experimental station of the concentration camp Buchenwald.”

These two letters demonstrate that even in autumn 1944 and early in 1945 Mrugowsky could still only have performed a series of experiments in Block 46 with special permission. This refutes the assumption of the prosecution that Block 46 was subordinate to Mrugowsky.

But above all, I want to stress again the affidavit given by Dr. Morgen on 23 May 1947 in which he stated that when he investigated the occurrences in Block 46 at Buchenwald, Dr. Ding showed him an order signed by Grawitz in which Ding was commissioned explicitly to carry out the experiments.

Dr. Morgen has further stated that he had to report to Grawitz personally about the result of his investigations as an examining magistrate at Buchenwald. The results here, too, according to the affidavit given by Dr. Morgen showed that Grawitz ordered the experiments. On this occasion he called Dr. Ding “his man,” and said he would be very sorry if the investigation caused any charges to be brought against Dr. Ding, since he had employed him for the experiments. Morgen emphasized that the name of Mrugowsky was not mentioned in the course of his conversations with Ding and Grawitz. This clearly shows, I think, that Mrugowsky had nothing to do with Block 46 at Buchenwald. As further evidence that Ding was actually subordinate to Mrugowsky in Block 46, the prosecution referred to the sketches designed by Mrugowsky. (NO-416, Pros. Ex. 22 and NO-417, Pros. Ex. 23.) These pictures show that the Division for Typhus and Virus Research in Buchenwald was subordinate to Mrugowsky; Mrugowsky does not deny this. Division for Typhus and Virus Research was only Block 50. Block 46 was called as formerly “Experimental Station of the Concentration Camp Buchenwald.” Mrugowsky’s letter just quoted shows this. Block 46 was merely attached to the Division for Typhus and Virus Research without establishing thereby any relationship of subordination to Mrugowsky. This is described and proved in detail in my closing brief.

From the two sketches designed by Mrugowsky, showing that the Division for Typhus and Virus Research was under his control from its establishment to the end of the war, nothing can be deduced, therefore, about whether he was Ding’s superior in Block 46.

This fact and the further evidence brought in my closing brief demonstrate that Block 46 at Buchenwald was not subordinate to Mrugowsky. Therefore, Mrugowsky bears no responsibility for the typhus experiments in Block 46.

In this connection, I want to emphasize that Mrugowsky never denied that he knew the typhus experiments at Buchenwald were ordered by Grawitz and carried out by Dr. Ding. He never denied that he saw, for instance, the report about the series I of the experiments, which he rewrote in his letter of May 5, 1942, and that he saw Ding’s essay about acridine which Ding sent to Grawitz for approval to publish 18 months after the experiments were completed, and which Grawitz then gave to Mrugowsky to return to Ding. But from this knowledge, no responsibility on the part of Mrugowsky can be deduced for the typhus experiments. The experiments were ordered by Himmler and Grawitz as his highest military superiors. As a medical officer of the Waffen SS, Mrugowsky had no possibility at all of opposing these experiments ordered by his superiors. When Grawitz first suggested the experiments, he resisted at once, and induced him to ask for a decision from Himmler as the highest superior. Himmler decided against Mrugowsky. Under these conditions Mrugowsky could do no more. His opposition, however, resulted in the fact that he was not commissioned with the experiments, but that Ding received the order for execution.

Nor has the prosecution brought any evidence to show that Mrugowsky subsequently intervened in any way in the typhus experiments at Buchenwald; that he furthered them, or participated in them in any way. On account of the fact that Mrugowsky knew about the typhus experiments, no charge can be made against him under criminal law, because neither in law nor in fact had he any possibility of preventing the experiments or enforcing their cessation later on.

The prosecution further based its charge against Mrugowsky on the depositions of several witnesses to the effect that he had been Ding’s chief in Block 46, also insofar as the experiments carried out by Ding in Block 46 were concerned. I have energetically contested this. All the statements produced by the prosecution in this respect originate from Ding. None of these statements comes from anybody who worked in Block 46 himself. It is significant that the prosecution has not been able to submit one single order given by Mrugowsky to Ding for the execution of typhus experiments, although its witness, Balachowsky, stated that Kogon had managed to collect and secure extensive evidence which he had handed over to the American Army. If there had been any written orders from Mrugowsky to Ding, the latter would certainly not have destroyed them for the sake of his own protection, and Kogon would have given them to the American Army with his other documents. It is true that the witness Kogon (whose unreliability I shall prove later) maintains that Mrugowsky gave mostly only oral orders to Ding. But he further testified that from the year 1943 onwards, Ding was no longer satisfied with oral orders from Mrugowsky but asked for them to be given in writing. In spite of this, not a single written order from Mrugowsky to Ding concerning the execution of a series of typhus experiments was produced.

The only witness who might be able to state from his own knowledge anything about the order given to Ding in respect of the typhus experiments is the witness Dr. Morgen. I just indicated that Morgen saw the order given by Grawitz to Ding for the execution of the typhus experiments, and that Grawitz personally told Dr. Morgen that Ding was his man at Buchenwald and said he employed him there.

The error of the witnesses, who stated that Mrugowsky had been Ding’s chief, results from the fact that Ding was dependent on Mrugowsky in respect of the production of vaccine in Block 50 and also concerning his activity as a hygienist. I proved in my closing brief that from 1942 to 1945 Ding was only working on the typhus vaccine experiments for about 2½ months, if one adds up all the hours he worked on them. All the rest of his activity in approximately 3 years was devoted to the vaccine production and the work of a hygienist, that is, work in which he was Mrugowsky’s subordinate. It is comprehensible that during the approximate period of 33 months when he worked for Mrugowsky, he received many more orders from him than from Grawitz for the execution of the 13 typhus vaccine experiments. It is, therefore, comprehensible that the main part of his correspondence under these circumstances was carried on with Mrugowsky.

In consequence of the description of the prosecution which hardly spoke of anything except the typhus vaccine experiments, and only produced documents thereon, the impression was certainly given that the typhus vaccine experiments were Ding’s main activity at Buchenwald. That is not so. In his main activity at Buchenwald, Ding was Mrugowsky’s subordinate. Therefore, because his main correspondence was with Mrugowsky and he called Mrugowsky his superior, one cannot assume that also in respect of the typhus vaccine experiments there was some connection between Mrugowsky and Ding, and that Mrugowsky participated in these experiments in any way or was responsible for them. The prosecution did not deny that such double subordination, as it existed between Ding on the one hand and Grawitz and Mrugowsky on the other, is possible in a military organization and happened frequently. I can refer also in this respect to the statement in my closing brief.

The testimony of the witness Kogon and Ding’s diary (NO-265, Pros. Ex. 287) are the chief items of evidence submitted by the prosecution against Mrugowsky. This is why, in my closing brief, I explained in detail that neither Kogon’s statement nor the Ding diary furnish any substantial proof. As to Kogon’s testimony, I want to emphasize once more the principal points:

Kogon described on the witness stand the dramatic circumstances under which he pretends to have saved the so-called Ding diary. I needn’t point out that the particular occurrences which happened when he saved the diary would have impressed him so much that he would not forget them if his statement were true. Therefore, he couldn’t possibly give a different description of this event on several different occasions. In fact, in the doctors’ trial and in the Pohl trial, he gave two reports about the way he allegedly saved the diary. These reports differ so fundamentally and in a manner which could only be possible if his contention that he saved the diary is untrue, and the descriptions he gives of this event are pure invention.

Kogon stated in the doctors’ trial that Ding sorted the secret documents to be burned in Block 46. While Ding and Dietzsch went into the adjoining room for a moment, he threw the diary and a heap of papers into a box to save them from destruction. Two days later he had told Ding that he had saved the diary and a heap of other papers from being destroyed and received permission to fetch them from Block 46; otherwise, he wouldn’t have been able to get them out. He fetched them and kept them ever since. This description is quite plausible and would be hard to refute if there was not Kogon’s own testimony in the Pohl trial.

In the Pohl trial, the same Kogon testified about three months later that he was standing with Ding and Dietzsch at the same table when the secret documents were sorted for destruction. Suddenly Ding pushed the diary and other papers towards him. He took them and carried them to Block 50, together with Ding. Ding did not know at this time that Kogon had the diary and the other documents with him, but he told Ding this on the same day.

A more striking contradiction than these two statements about the saving of the diary is hardly possible. If Kogon had really saved the diary in the way he described in the doctors’ trial, then the moment when he threw the diary into the box and his reflections during the two days before he told Ding that the diary had not been burned would have remained indelibly in his memory. He would have remembered the way from Block 46 to Block 50 to fetch the diary and the way back with the diary so well, that a different description would be impossible. Also, if the preservation of the diary had occurred in the way described by Kogon in the Pohl trial, it certainly would have been recollected by him so clearly that a different description would also be impossible. So the two descriptions about the preservation of the diary, differing so fundamentally from each other, can only be explained in two ways. Either Kogon’s statement is untrue and he didn’t save the diary at all—in this case, if he told the Tribunal a falsehood about such an important point, then his whole testimony is unreliable—or Kogon must have such a bad memory that his contradictions in his testimony can be explained therefrom. In this case, too, his entire testimony would have no probative value on account of his bad memory.

The Dietzsch testimony submitted by me speaks against the correctness of Kogon’s statement on the saving of the diary. Dietzsch states that during the destruction of the secret documents in Block 46 Ding tore up the diary in his presence and threw it into the lighted stove where it was burned. Dietzsch declared explicitly that Ding made sure that all the documents were entirely burned after the destruction of the papers was finished.

I should say that Dietzsch’s statement combined with the contradiction between the two statements of Kogon’s proves that what Kogon said about the saving of the diary is a falsehood.

In my closing brief I dealt in detail with still further points on which the statements made by Kogon in the doctors’ trial and in the Pohl trial contradict each other in a similarly marked manner concerning the preservation of the diary. It will not be necessary to repeat all these arguments here. I should like to refer the Tribunal to them.

The second main evidence of the prosecution against Mrugowsky is the diary which is said to have been saved. The two fantastic descriptions of the saving of the diary given by Kogon are unreliable. Therefore, Dietzsch must be believed. He said that Ding burned the original diary of Block 46 in his presence. This statement is supported by the opinion given by the handwriting experts, Zettner and Nastvogel, treated in detail in my closing brief.

In the meantime the prosecution declared while discussing the Beiglboeck evidence that it could have handwriting examined to determine the date of its origin at an institute in Frankfurt and also documents investigated in every way. The prosecution thereupon stressed explicitly that I also had the Ding diary examined by experts.

The Ding diary is of importance for the prosecution for the charges against several defendants. Therefore, the prosecution ought to have found it more important to have the genuineness of the Ding diary examined rather than the Beiglboeck documents. Ding signed in ink. So the institute at Frankfurt would have been able to ascertain without any difficulty whether the signature on the first page is several years older than the signature on the last page. Furthermore, the institute could have ascertained without any difficulty whether the whole diary from the end of the year 1941 till spring 1945 was written on exactly the same paper or not. But the prosecution did not hand the diary to this institute for examination. This fact shows that it was itself convinced that such examination would not have given a result favorable to the prosecution.

In my opinion, this is a particularly strong argument for the assumption that the diary was really composed and written subsequently. I also want to refer the Tribunal to my closing brief with reference to this point. The probative value of a diary lies in the fact that the man who kept it cannot foresee the future development when making his entries. Therefore it is to be presumed that the entries portray the events objectively and in their entirety. If a document which is subsequently composed is given the external form of a diary, one can deduce therefrom the intention to influence the reader in a certain direction and also to deceive him for this purpose. That is the reason why any record written subsequently and made up in the form of a diary has no probative value.

The prosecution tried to show that the Ding diary is of probative value by comparing its contents with a number of documents having the same contents as the entries in the diary. In my closing brief I dealt with these documents in detail and proved that they all, without exception, came from Ding. All documents which the prosecution compared with the diary, Ding still had at hand when he made the belated compilation after the original diary had been burned. They are vouchers he used for the entries he made in the diary we have now. Therefore, it cannot be deduced from the conformity of these documents and the diary that the latter is good evidence.

One of the documents the prosecution compared with the diary is the so-called work report of Ding. This work report is really only a draft which was not signed and was not sent to Mrugowsky. I explained this in detail in my closing brief and offered evidence for it. According to Kogon’s statement, this draft of the report was written in Block 50 by the second compound clerk. Such draft has no probative value unless it is signed by the person who should sign it. In this instance, it would have been Ding. Mr. Hardy admitted that this work report was only prepared for signature by Ding. He thereby admitted that it was not signed. Therefore, the draft has no probative value. If these three main elements of evidence fail, Kogon’s statement, the work report, and the Ding dairy, the chief part of the evidence brought forward against Mrugowsky fails.

The prosecution contended in its summing-up that the experimental subjects volunteered neither for the typhus experiments nor for the other experiments at Buchenwald. In respect of the other experiments, this is not correct. I shall deal with this later. In respect to the typhus experiments, it may be correct that most of the experimental subjects did not volunteer.

On the other hand, the closing brief of the prosecution shows no allegation for the period up to the fall of 1943 that Mrugowsky had anything to do with the selection of the prisoners for the experiments. This is correct and was also put in in my closing brief. In autumn 1943 according to the contentions of the prosecution, again relying on Kogon’s testimony, Ding is said to have asked Mrugowsky for the experimental subjects to be chosen by the Reich Leader SS. This statement of Kogon’s is also untrue. I have pointed this out in detail in my written statement.

In this connection, the prosecution mentions Himmler’s order of 27 February 1944 relating to the selection of the prisoners by the Reich police agency. But this order of Himmler was not given pursuant to a suggestion made by Mrugowsky. It is really due to the attempts of Dr. Morgen. He explained this accurately in his affidavit of 23 May 1947, which I offered in evidence.

So it is an established fact that until autumn 1943 Mrugowsky had nothing to do with the selection of the prisoners, and that from this time on, the prisoners for the typhus experiments were chosen by the Reich criminal police agency pursuant to Himmler’s order suggested by Dr. Morgen, so that after this time Mrugowsky had also nothing to do with the choice of the prisoners.

The prosecution calls the typhus experiments criminal, in particular, because control persons were used and above all because of the alleged “passage persons”. As to the control persons, I explained at length in my closing brief that such vaccine experiments are impossible without the use of control subjects and lead to no practical result without them.

If one takes the Ding diary for information, it appears that in a number of test series the cultural virus used was no longer pathogenic to human beings. If no control persons had been infected, the fact that the experimental persons were not taken ill would have been explained as a consequence of the protection obtained by the vaccination. This would have led to entirely wrong deductions and to the use of inferior vaccines in practice. If one considers the typhus experiments as admissible, the use of control subjects is, therefore, indispensable. I explained this in detail in my closing brief.

On the other hand there was no justification for the use of passage persons who were infected merely in order to have live virus always on hand. I have demonstrated in my written arguments that such passage persons were never used. Until April 1943 there was no reason to use them. For until April 1943 it is stated explicitly in the Ding diary that in each series of experiments the infection was performed by means of cultural virus bred in the yolk sacs of hens’ eggs which Ding obtained from the Robert Koch Institute in Berlin. After 11 April 1943, Ding infected with fresh blood taken from persons suffering from typhus. But during this period, too, the use of passage persons was superfluous because Ding always had persons at his disposal who had contracted typhus spontaneously, and he could take the fresh infected blood from them.

If the prosecution had wanted to bring evidence to show that passage persons were used in Block 46, this could have been done best of all by Ding and Dietzsch. The prosecution produced statements from both in which the question of the passage persons is not mentioned. The prosecution knew from the examination of Mrugowsky on the witness stand that he denied the use of passage persons. When I said at the end of the presentation of my evidence that I did not call Dietzsch to the witness stand but only offered an affidavit from him, Mr. Hardy asked the Tribunal for permission to interrogate Dietzsch on certain facts.

However, he never produced a record of such an interrogation. This is further evidence that Dietzsch did not confirm the use of passage persons. All the witnesses who testified on the use of passage persons did not work in Block 46. They, therefore, know nothing from their own observation, but only through third persons. Dr. Morgen discovered nothing about passage persons during his investigations as an examining magistrate in Block 46 in Buchenwald. So there is no conclusive evidence of any kind to show that passage persons were used in Block 46. On the contrary, I proved in my closing brief that passage persons actually were not used.

If the Tribunal were, nevertheless, to assume that the use of passage persons was proved, there would be no guilt of Mrugowsky involved in the use of these passage persons because I demonstrated that Ding was not his subordinate in respect of his activity in Block 46, and also there is no evidence whatever to show that he even as much as knew about the use of passage persons.

In my written statements, I then dealt in detail with the experiments with acridine preparations within the framework of the typhus experiments. I proved that Ding did not obtain these preparations from Mrugowsky but from the I. G. Farbenindustrie A. G. There is no evidence whatever to show that Mrugowsky had any knowledge of these experiments performed by Ding.

Ding’s report on the acridine experiments submitted for publication was handed to Mrugowsky by Grawitz only about 18 months after the termination of the experiments. Therefore, no charge can be made against Mrugowsky under criminal law for the experiments with acridine preparations which caused a particularly high number of deaths.

Extract from the Closing Brief for Defendant Mrugowsky

Convalescence Serum, Blood Conservation, and Blood Serum Conservation
Convalescence Serum

In Ding’s diary (NO-265, Pros. Ex. 287) two entries are found concerning the taking of blood for the purpose of extracting convalescence serum. During the period from 26 May to 12 June 1944, 6,500 cc. of blood were taken from 15 defervescent typhus patients, and between 13 October and 31 October 1944, 20,800 cc. of blood were taken from 44 defervescent typhus patients. The blood was taken between the 12th [14th] and the 21st day following the disappearance of the fever. Thus an average of 465 cc. for each patient can be calculated. The witness for the prosecution, Kogon, has testified on this question. (Tr. pp. 1192-3.) His statement contains several serious misinterpretations. In the first place, it must be stressed that the taking of blood from a convalescent patient by no means constitutes an “experiment,” as indicated by Mr. McHaney. What would be the experiment in that case? The only thing to find out is whether the person in question is suitable or not for the taking of blood.

Even Kogon admits that the taking of blood from convalescent patients is an ordinary procedure. I have proved the same thing through Mrugowsky 14, Mrugowsky Exhibit 37. The same appears from the affidavit of the expert, Professor Dr. Siebeck. (Mrugowsky 15, Mrugowsky Ex. 38.) There it says:

“* * * It is correct that in the case of typhus, convalescence serum is frequently used for therapeutical purposes * * *.”

The expert, Professor Dr. Vollhardt, also confessed to the same opinion. It is then a fact that the taking of blood from former typhus patients during convalescence is, in principle, in accordance with medical usage.

It has been proved that no objections can be raised against the treatment in Block 46. Accordingly, it is very improbable that the physician in charge should have exposed particularly asthenic patients to the taking of blood. The witness Dorn has stated that the delivery of drugs to Block 46 took place through the prison hospital and that he personally discharged the deliveries twice a week. Furthermore, the examining judge, Dr. Morgen (Mrugowsky 23, Mrugowsky Ex. 26) demonstrated that even in 1944—

“* * * the treatment and supply of the sick persons was careful and good in every respect. According to the impression I gained, the sick persons were treated similar to those in a good military hospital.”

This is also confirmed through the indictment of Morgen against Koch. (NO-2366, Pros. Ex. 526.)

Consequently, there is no reason to doubt that they were in a condition favorable to the taking of blood and that this constituted no danger for them. Mrugowsky expressed his opinion on this question during his examination. (Tr. p. 5166.) He pointed out that the taking of blood in a quantity not exceeding 500 cc. is in complete compliance with medical regulations and that the convalescent patients received additional food as compensation for the loss of blood. In his affidavit Dr. Ellenbeck propounded his view concerning the extraction of typhus convalescence serum. (Mrugowsky 120, Mrugowsky Ex. 110.) From this it appears that Ellenbeck also received blood from patients belonging to the Waffen SS, consequently not exclusively from prisoners in the concentration camps. In the above-mentioned document (Mrugowsky 15, Mrugowsky Ex. 38) Professor Siebeck expressly points out:

“It is at least quite improbable, if not impossible, for human beings, who are in the convalescent stage of typhus, to be so harmed by a single bloodletting of 439 cc. that they die after a certain period has elapsed in consequence of the loss of blood.”

The same opinion is endorsed by Professor Dr. Vollhardt.

In face of this evidence no support is to be found for the assertion of Kogon that many convalescent patients died at that time, nor for his suspicion that they died as a consequence of the taking of blood. The result of this exposition then is that:

1. The taking of blood for the purpose of extraction of convalescence serum is not an experiment but a medical measure. It is not criminal but customary throughout the world.

2. The bleedings were carried out according to the regulations of medical science.

3. The quantities taken were below the usual limit, probably even very far below.

4. It is absolutely impossible that any person whatsoever died as a consequence of the taking of blood.

On the other hand, the blood pressure of persons convalescing from typhus, in particular, is often too low. Their blood vessels are still not as elastic as before. In such cases, a withdrawal of blood within the normal limits is very often a practiced method of relieving the circulation.

Preservation of Blood Serum

Furthermore, Kogon states that Dr. Ellenbeck carried out the taking of blood in the small camp to obtain a stock of blood serum. (Tr. p. 1192.) Kogon further states that in the part of the Buchenwald concentration camp, where blood was taken, there were enough volunteers and they received additional food. He answered the question as to whether anybody died as a consequence of the taking of blood as follows:

“* * * It is impossible to establish whether anybody died directly or indirectly as a consequence of the taking of blood * * *.”

Dr. Ellenbeck made the following statement concerning that question:

“From the fall of 1944 onwards, as far as I know by request of the leading physician of the concentration camps, the department for the conservation of blood produced a conserved blood serum to be used for the emergency treatment of prisoners since drugs became more and more scarce. I had nothing whatsoever to do with the drawing of blood and the supply. I had the blood sent to Berlin. On account of reasons to be found in the aerial warfare, the production of this conserved blood serum was only very small.

“Kogon maintained that SS medical personnel from Berlin drew the blood for this conserved blood serum. That is untrue. No SS medical personnel came from Berlin to Buchenwald in order to fetch blood, but ordinary couriers came who were not in a position to draw the blood.” (Mrugowsky 120, Mrugowsky Ex. 110.)

Therefore these amounts of blood, too, were only small. Ellenbeck can state positively that such stocks of serum were not made for other purposes in his laboratory. The medical officer of the concentration camp gave him the order. The stocks of serum he had prepared were made available to him again. * * *

“To the question as to whether people died after the removal of blood, I refer to the above-quoted statements of the specialists, Professor Dr. Vollhardt and Professor Dr. Siebeck.”

I would also like to point out that according to Kogon’s statement, Dr. Ellenbeck himself saw to it that the prisoners actually received their additional food after the removal of blood. The prisoners volunteered for the removal of blood and received additional food for it. That somebody died as a consequence of the removal of blood is a statement without any basis.

I cannot imagine how a criminal character can be attached to this removal of blood. The taking of blood from volunteers is not criminal in any way.

d. Evidence

Prosecution Documents

Doc. No. Pros. Ex. No. Description of Document Page

NO-429 281 Extract from the affidavit of defendant Hoven, 24 October 1946, concerning typhus and virus experiments.

NO-265 287 Diary of the division for typhus and virus research at the Institute of Hygiene of the Waffen SS, 1941 to 1945 (Ding diary).

NO-257 283 Extract from the affidavit of Dr. Erwin Schuler, 20 July 1945, concerning typhus experiments.

NO-571 285 1943 work report for department for typhus and virus research.

NO-121 293 Letter from Haagen to Hirt, 15 November 1943, concerning prisoners to be used as experimental subjects for tests with typhus vaccine.

NO-122 298 Letter dictated by Rose, addressed to Haagen, 13 December 1943, concerning experimental subjects for vaccine experiments.

NO-123 303 Letter from Haagen to Hirt, 9 March 1944, concerning experiments conducted with typhus vaccine and requesting experimental subjects.

NO-139 317 Letter from Dr. Grunske to Haagen, 7 March 1944, concerning reports on yellow fever virus experiments requested by a Japanese medical officer.

Defense Documents

Doc. No. Def. Ex. No. Description of Document Page

Rose 16 Rose 12 Extracts from the affidavit of Professor Otto Lenz, director of the Robert Koch Institute in Berlin.

Rose 46 Rose 20 Extract from a certified statement, 4 March 1947, of J. Oerskov, M. D., director of the State Serum Institute in Copenhagen.

Testimony

Extracts from the testimony of prosecution witness Eugen Kogon

Extracts from the testimony of defendant Rose

Extract from the testimony of defendant Mrugowsky

Extracts from the testimony of defense witness Dr. Eugen Haagen

TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-429
PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 281

Extract from the Affidavit of Defendant Hoven, 24 October 1946, Concerning Typhus and Virus Experiments

I, Waldemar Hoven, being duly sworn, depose and state:

Typhus and Virus Experiments

4. In the latter part of 1941 an experimental station was established in the Buchenwald concentration camp in order to determine the effectiveness of various typhus vaccines. This section was called the “Typhus Experimental Station—Division for Typhus and Virus Research” and was under the direct supervision of Dr. Ding, alias Schuler. This experimental station was set up in Block 46 of the camp. The Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS in Berlin, under the command of Dr. Joachim Mrugowsky, received all the reports of these activities and Dr. Ding took orders from Mrugowsky. In the early days, that is, between 1941 and the summer of 1943, Dr. Ding had many meetings in Berlin with Dr. Karl Genzken concerning his work at Buchenwald in connection with the typhus experiments. Dr. Ding told me that Dr. Genzken had a special interest in these matters and that he sent him reports at various times. Dr. Ding also said that Dr. Karl Genzken was one of his superiors. From my association with Dr. Ding, I understood that the chain of command in the supervision of the typhus experimental station was as follows: Reichsarzt SS Grawitz, Genzken, Mrugowsky, and Ding.

5. I can recollect that Dr. Genzken gave orders to Dr. Ding in January 1943 to enlarge the experimental station. At this time Block 60 was cleaned out and made into a station for the production of the various vaccines to be used in the experiments at Block 46. From this time on the experimental station was known as the “Division for Typhus and Virus Research of the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS”. Then in the summer of 1943, Dr. Genzken turned all his duties over to Dr. Mrugowsky, and from that time on Genzken no longer actively participated in these matters. I can recall meeting Dr. Mrugowsky in the home of Dr. Ding on one of his visits to Buchenwald.

6. Inasmuch as I was constantly associated with Dr. Ding at Buchenwald, we became very friendly. I frequently discussed matters with Ding and visited his experimental station from time to time. As a matter of fact, Dr. Ding had to go to Berlin for discussions with Dr. Mrugowsky and others nearly 3 days out of every two weeks, and on such occasions I was in charge of the typhus institute. However, when Ding went to Berlin the experiments were discontinued until he returned.

7. The experiments in Block 46 in the Buchenwald concentration camp were conducted as follows: One group of victims was first vaccinated with the typhus vaccine and then infected with the typhus virus. In order to contrast the effectiveness of the vaccine, another group of inmates was merely infected with the typhus virus without previous vaccination. Between the autumn of 1942 and the summer of 1943 about 500 inmates of the Buchenwald concentration camp were used in these experiments. During my time about 10 percent of the total number of the inmates used, died as a result. I heard that a larger number of the victims died after my time, that is, about 20 percent.

8. The selection of inmates to be used for the purposes of medical experiments in Block 46 by the Division for Typhus and Virus Research was as follows: Whenever Dr. Ding needed human beings for his work, a request was made to the office of the camp commandant and referred to me for action. Usually a man named Schober, an SS Hauptsturmfuehrer, notified me to select the necessary number of prisoners for these purposes. In accordance with this request I selected various inmates, at random, from the roster of the camp. They were placed on a list over my signature and returned to Schober, who often removed certain names from the list for political reasons. In the event of particular prisoners being removed from the list, I was requested to select substitutes in order to provide Dr. Ding with the desired number of victims. After I returned the completed list to Schober, it was given to Dr. Ding for approval. He made a final check to ascertain, from a medical point of view, the physical condition of the selected inmates and to determine whether or not they met with his requirements.

TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-265
PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 287

Diary of the Division for Typhus and Virus Research at the Institute of Hygiene of the Waffen Ss, 1941 to 1945 (Ding Diary)

29 Dec 41:

Conference between Army Sanitation Inspection [Inspector], General Chief Surgeon Professor Dr. Handloser; State Secretary for the Department of Health of the Reich, SS Gruppenfuehrer Dr. Conti; President Professor Reiter of the Health Department of the Reich; President Professor Gildemeister of the Robert Koch Institute (Reich Institute to Combat Contagious Diseases) and SS Standartenfuehrer and Lecturer [Dozent] Dr. Mrugowsky of the Institute of Hygiene, Waffen SS, Berlin.

It has been established that the need exists to test the efficacy of, and resistance of the human body to, the typhus serum extracted from the egg yolks. Since tests on animals are not of sufficient value, tests on human beings must be carried out.

2 Jan 42:

The concentration camp Buchenwald is chosen for testing the typhus vaccines. SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Ding is charged with these tests.

5 Jan 42:

Preliminary test A:

Preliminary test to determine the surest and most practical way of infecting human beings artificially. Five experimental subjects received intramuscular and subcutaneous injections of vitelline membrane diluted 1:25 with an emulsified Rickettsia-Prowazeki strain from the Robert Koch Institute in doses of 1 cc. Infection was not possible.

Dr. Ding
SS Hauptsturmfuehrer

10 Jan 42:

Preliminary test B:

Preliminary test to establish a sure means of infection: Much as in smallpox vaccination, 5 persons were infected with vitelline membrane culture virus (strain Rickettsia-Prowazeki, Robert Koch Institute) through 2 superficial and 2 deeper cuts in the upper arm.

All experimental subjects used for this test fell ill with genuine typhus. Incubation period 2 to 6 days.

20 Jan 42:

Preliminary report of reactions to vaccinations. Through continuous blood pictures a strong surplus of neutrophile myelocytes was discovered.

20 Feb 42:

Case history and charts of the preliminary tests to establish a sure means of infection sent to Berlin.

1 death out of 5 sick.

Dr. Ding
SS Hauptsturmfuehrer

6 Jan 42:

1 Feb 42:

Typhus Vaccine, Research Series I

Vaccination for immunization against typhus using the following vaccines:

1. 31 persons with Weigl vaccine from the intestines of lice from the Institute for Typhus and Virus Research of the Army High Command, Krakow.

2. 35 persons with vaccine from vitelline membrane cultures made by the Cox, Gildemeister, and Haagen process.

3. 35 persons with vaccine “Behring Normal” (1 egg in an emulsion of 450 cc. vaccine. Mixture of 70 percent Rickettsia Mooseri and 30 percent Rickettsia-Prowazeki).

4. 34 persons with “Behring Normal” “Behring Strong” (1 egg emulsified in 250 cc. solvent).

5. 10 persons for control.

3 Mar 42:

All persons vaccinated for immunization between 6 Jan 42 and 1 Feb 42, and the 10 control persons were infected with a virus culture of Rickettsia-Prowazeki in the presence of Professor Gildemeister. SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Ding infected himself in the process (laboratory accident).

17 Mar 42:

Visit of Professor Gildemeister and Professor Rose (Head of the Department for Tropical Medicine in the Robert Koch Institute) to the experimental station. All persons experimented on fell sick with typhus except two who, as was established later, had already had typhus during an epidemic at the police prison in Berlin. SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Ding fell sick with typhus and is in the hospital in Berlin. SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Hoven, station medical officer of the Waffen SS in Weimar, is supervising the stations in the meantime (Blocks 44 and 49).

19 Apr 42:

Final report on the 1st typhus vaccine research series: Stone Block 46 will be made available for the purpose of these typhus experiments.

5 deaths (3 control persons, 1 “Behring Normal”, and 1 “Behring Strong”).

Dr. Ding
SS Hauptsturmfuehrer

19 Aug 42:

4 Sep 42:

Typhus Vaccine, Research Series II

Vaccination for immunization against typhus using the following vaccines:

1. 20 persons with vaccines made by the Durand and Giroud process (Pasteur Institute, Paris) from rabbit lungs.

2. 20 persons with vaccine made by the process of Combiescu, Zotta, and collaborators from dog lungs. (Producer: Cantacuzino, Bucharest.) This vaccine was made available by Professor Rose, who received it from Naval Doctor Professor Ruge from Bucharest.

15 Oct 42:

Artificial infection of all persons vaccinated for immunization between 19 September 1942 and 4 October 1942, and 19 persons for control with vitelline membrane virus (Rickettsia-Prowazeki).

25 Oct 42:

Infection has started with all persons experimented on.

20 Nov 42:

Charts and case history sent to Berlin.

4 deaths of control persons.

Dr. Ding
SS Hauptsturmfuehrer

10 Sep 42:

10 Oct 42:

Unit of SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Ding ordered to the Pasteur Institute in Paris to Professor Giroud.

22 Oct 42:

5 Nov 42:

Typhus Vaccine, Research Series III

Vaccination for immunization against typhus of 20 persons with vaccine made according to the process of Giroud, Paris. (This vaccine was brought from Paris by SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Ding immediately after production.)

30 Nov 42:

Artificial infection with vitelline membrane material from the Robert Koch Institute of the 20 persons vaccinated for immunization and of 6 control persons. This research series was observed for 6 weeks and then abandoned without results, as no sickness broke out in the control group.

Dr. Ding
SS Hauptsturmfuehrer

27 Oct 42:

8 Nov 42:

Typhus Vaccine, Research Series IV

Vaccination for immunization of 20 persons with a vaccine from intestines of lice made by the Weigl process (sent by lecturer Dr. Haas of the typhus institute “Emil v. Behring” in Lvov),

30 Nov 42: