A. Medical Experiments (continued 11)

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^[54]

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 DocumentPage

NO-371186Affidavit of defendant Rudolf Brandt, 14 October 1946, concerning experiments to determine the cause of epidemic jaundice.503

NO-011188Note from Himmler to Grawitz, 16 June 1943, concerning epidemic jaundice experiments at concentration camp Sachsenhausen.504

NO-299190Letter from Haagen to Schreiber, 12 June 1944, concerning epidemic jaundice experiments.505

NO-125194Copy of letter from Haagen to Gutzeit, 27 June 1944, concerning epidemic jaundice experiments on human beings.506

Testimony

Extract from the testimony of defendant Karl Brandt506

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 Police4 Copies

Berlin3d 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,^[55] 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^[56]

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,^[57] 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.