A. Medical Experiments (continued 14)

In the first room there were a few men playing cards; Ding told me that these were typhus convalescents who had survived typhus and who were to be released. I talked to them and found that their state of health was good and that the usual after-effects of typhus were no longer in existence. There were about five or six persons.

In the second room I saw about three patients lying in bed. I examined them and spoke to them. They had been transferred to Buchenwald a short time before from other camps. I think one of them was ill even when he arrived and the others had fallen ill shortly after their arrival in Buchenwald, and then were transferred to the typhus station. We are here concerned with people who fell ill spontaneously. According to Ding’s entry, there was no series of experiments carried on at that time.

Q. When visiting Buchenwald, didn’t you talk to Dr. Ding about his various series of typhus experiments?

A. No. At that time he had concluded the experimental series number VII with Asid vaccines as I can see from this document. This was a series which had a number of fatalities as its result. It is in line with Ding’s character that he did not speak to me about such a series of experiments, since he knew what my basic attitude towards this question was.

Q. Didn’t you discuss the typhus experiments with Ding on the occasion of your visit?

A. No. We didn’t discuss that matter. Our conversation merely dealt with the work carried on in Block 50 for the production of vaccine, which was really the purpose of my visit. I think we discussed a number of other hygienic questions concerning the vicinity of Buchenwald. I knew that there was a lack of water there from my previous activity; and I am sure that this was a subject which was discussed. I spent the evening with Ding in his flat where I met Dr. Hoven, the camp physician of Buchenwald, and his wife. Mrs. Ding was there, too. It is a matter of course that we didn’t discuss any technical questions in that circle. We certainly did not speak about any experiments on human beings.

In this connection I may perhaps say that this was the only time that I saw Hoven, who was allegedly Ding’s representative. This was ten days before Hoven had to end his activity as a camp physician in Buchenwald.

Q. Were you of the opinion that the typhus experimental series had been concluded?

A. Yes. I held that opinion, since it becomes evident from the documents here that the experimental series of that time had not led to any disease. The reason was that the strain coming from the Robert Koch Institute was not pathogenic. Ding did not say that he sent any reports to Berlin about it; and I, therefore, did not know anything about the way he worked in Buchenwald as far as it did not concern Block 50. I was of the opinion that after the second series of experiments, which was concluded at the end of 1942, no further experiments were planned.

Q. Well, if you believed that the typhus experiments had been concluded, the main activity of Dr. Ding would also have had to come to a conclusion?

A. No. That is not the case. Seen from my point of view, he was a bacteriologist; and I was anxiously awaiting the end of this special mission by Grawitz when Ding would again be fully at my disposal. At that time, in 1943, he had to carry out the preparations for vaccine production at Buchenwald. Therefore, the building work had to be supervised. Block 50 was a bacteriological institute furnished in a very modern style with a number of special pieces of equipment. Animals had to be obtained and accommodation made ready for them. There was not only one kind of animal but four different kinds. It was necessary to obtain fodder for them. Then a number of other organizational activities were necessary, which made Ding’s stay in Buchenwald absolutely necessary.

Q. Ding maintains that he sent a report about the series number VIII of the typhus experiments. Did you see that in Berlin? It was to have been sent on the 13th of June 1944.

A. Well, I heard about this series of experiments only by looking at the document here. I hadn’t seen or heard of it before.

Q. In the last entry of his diary, Ding says: “By order of the Chief Hygienist of the Waffen SS, dated the 12th of August 1944, it was to be established whether the course of a typhus illness can be mitigated by a typhus vaccine through intravenous or intramuscular injections.” Did you ever issue such an order?

A. No. I repeatedly pointed out that on the basis of the entire organizational set-up of the Medical Institute of the Waffen SS, neither as the Chief of the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS, nor as the consulting hygienist of the Reich Physician SS and Police, could I order any experiments to be carried out on inmates because I had just as little influence on the medical service of the concentration camp as any other member of the Waffen SS. The matter with which we dealt was completely different. In the Crimea, in one of the hospitals in the East, I saw that the internist there was treating typhoid illnesses with injections of dead typhoid vaccines; and this procedure resulted in fever in many of the cases. At that time I remembered that literature dating back to the last World War, when a number of papers were written on the very same subject, showed that there were similar methods in the treatment of typhus and typhoid entailing the injection of vaccines.

During the course of these years when I had to deal closely with, typhus, I had developed a very definite opinion about the origin and development of typhus. I was, therefore, of the opinion that in the case of this illness, which clinically is very close to para-typhus, it would be quite feasible to make an experiment with that kind of treatment. The clinical symptoms of typhus and typhoid and stomach typhus are very similar. If a cure can be achieved with one method, it is to be assumed that all other types of illnesses of that nature could also be treated with success using that method. After my return, therefore, I established contact with a number of internes belonging to the hospitals which I knew, and wrote them that I had gathered, like experiences. I quoted passages from literature on that subject, and I said that our new experiences were the same as our old. I made the suggestion that the same method be used in the case of typhus by injecting with a protective typhus vaccine. One might consider that at that time we had just as little means of combating the severe disease as we have today. We, therefore, were medically justified in searching for new methods of treatment.

Q. Were these to be a series of experiments in the sense in which Ding carried them out?

A. That is completely out of the question. There was no reason to do that at all. In order to perform such an experiment, one could make tests on a typhus inflicted person using this method, and the worst that could happen would be that it would not help; but it certainly would not be necessary to make a certain series of experiments, and I certainly never gave any such order.

Q. Did you write to Ding in that sense?

A. At that time I informed my assistants about this therapy in the case of contagious diseases, and I am sure that it was a matter of course that, as epidemic specialists, we had to be informed about such a possibility, and in this manner we also received knowledge of it.

Q. You were saying that there would not have been justification for the experimental theory?

A. No.

Q. Well, did you or did you not order such a series of experiments from Dr. Ding?

A. Never, at no time.

Q. Are you of the opinion that Ding started these experiments on his own initiative?

A. That is possible. At any rate he did not receive orders from me, and I don’t know where else he could have received an order.

EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENSE WITNESS DR. EUGEN HAAGEN^[66]

DIRECT EXAMINATION

Dr. Tipp: Now, Professor, we are coming to the last and perhaps the most decisive count of the indictment—namely, the typhus experiments, as the prosecution calls them. Professor Schroeder and Professor Becker-Freyseng are charged with responsibility for such typhus experiments. There are two groups of them, according to the prosecution. On the one hand, those performed in Buchenwald concentration camp by Dr. Ding-Schuler and to a lesser extent by the defendant Dr. Hoven. The second group is alleged typhus experiments that you carried out in the Natzweiler concentration camp. Before we turn to the individual experiments, Professor, please tell the Tribunal what the hazards of typhus were during the war, especially in the years 1943, 1944, and 1945 when this problem became acute? Describe it only to the extent necessary in order to make your work understandable.

Witness Haagen: I shall try to be brief, but in order to understand this whole problem, one must be given some general information. Typhus is a very serious infectious disease which, in international medical circles, is included among the diseases which are of general danger, and it is consequently subject to international control. In cases of such hazardous and dangerous diseases, every state felt the moral obligation to do everything to prevent the outbreak of an epidemic because it is very difficult to combat and to eliminate the epidemic once it has broken out. This point of view was embraced, of course, not only by the government officials, but also by the responsible and interested scientists and physicians; because we all, of course, knew how prodigious the danger of typhus is, not only for the waging of the war but also for the civilian population of the entire world. Typhus is not only a war epidemic, but it has taken root in the country. It is also a peacetime epidemic which is enormously difficult to combat.

Presiding Judge Beals: Counsel, the Tribunal is quite aware that typhus is a very dangerous disease, that it is a great menace to humans, and that it was a menace to Germany during the last war, a great danger. I don’t think it is necessary to elaborate that again. We have heard it from several witnesses. It’s not denied.

Dr. Tipp: Witness, you heard the Tribunal’s wish. In the opinion of the Tribunal, the typhus danger for Germany has already been sufficiently proved. Please go on to the subject itself now. Perhaps you could speak of the usual preventive measures which are used against typhus, particularly vaccines.

Witness Haagen: There are, in general, two procedures to prevent typhus. One is what I might call the mechanical procedure, and the other the biological procedure. In the mechanical procedure we are concerned with combating the lice—I shall not go into that—but in the biological procedure we are interested in a protective vaccine. There are various vaccines available. Now, to get down to the crux of the matter, I must say that the typhus vaccines which are made from dead typhus virus do not provide absolute protection against the disease. They may lead to a milder form of the disease, but the infection itself is not prevented. Dead typhus vaccine, in other words, has no absolute anti-infectious effect, which, however, is the main point of any vaccine.

We developed a live vaccine, not on the basis of our own experiences and research, but we made use of the experiences of others. I should like to mention primarily the work of the French typhus research scientists, Blanc, Baltasar, and assistants Legrer and Lecolle. When vaccinating, a vaccine must be used which gives anti-infectious protection, and in general, in the case of virus diseases, successful vaccination is also achieved only with live virus. Let me mention the examples of smallpox, influenza, and yellow fever. In all these cases the vaccines are made from a live virus, but it is true that this virus is mutated, that is, it is no longer pathogenic to human beings. Its pathogenic characteristics have been suppressed and have disappeared, but the virus retains its anti-infectious efficacy. This change is accomplished in two ways, either by passing the virus through an animal—this is frequently done—and sometimes effects mutation in the virus and sometimes weakens the virus. I need not go into that; it would take up too much time.

Q. If I understand you correctly, Witness, your aim as a scientist was to develop a vaccine from live virus; in other words from a nonpathogenic virus which could not cause the disease, but which, nevertheless, had the antigenic effect, namely the effect of protecting the vaccinated person against contracting the disease later by infection. Is that so?

A. Yes. That is correct.

Q. Now, Witness, nobody is reproaching you for having produced vaccines, but it is said that you tested the effectiveness of your vaccines in a concentration camp. The prosecution called these virulent and you say they were nonpathogenic. At any rate, that is the way I understood the reproach of the prosecution; but first before you go into this, Witness, will you please tell the Court how it happened that you came into contact with the concentration camp Natzweiler in this matter?

A. The development of typhus throughout the war was such that typhus no longer became purely a war epidemic, but because of the many refugee camps, PW transports, and military transports, typhus was brought into Germany itself. In the overcrowded camps, especially with lack of sanitary installations, there was considerable danger from typhus, particularly where people assembled who came from the East. I have only to say that in the Auschwitz camp, for example (but also in many other prisoner camps in the east), there had already been extensive epidemics. Typhus pressed further and further into Germany. Every closed community such as a camp is, in itself, a great source of danger of typhus, not only the danger of an epidemic within the camp, but also an epidemic that spreads to the surrounding civilian population. Most of the concentration camp inmates worked outside the camp in factories and they came into contact with the civilian population, so you can easily see the danger of contagion. Now, in brief, the camp commandant and the camp doctor in the course of the spring of 1943 asked me whether they could have my assistance in combating this danger.

Q. Witness, a preparatory question first. Did you have any connection with the SS, with the concentration camp, as such?

A. I had no connection with the SS or with the concentration camps, or with any office in charge of them.

Q. Why did the camp commandant and the camp physician of the Natzweiler concentration camp turn specifically to you?

A. As director of the Hygiene Institute I had a rather large sphere of activity in Alsace, and, of course, it was known in the concentration camps, too, that my offices were in Strasbourg. For this reason the camp turned to me for help in many matters, including the obtaining of vaccines and help in the disinfection of the camp, and so forth, matters which perhaps we shall deal with later.

Q. You say then that the camp turned to you because you were the hygienist in the Alsatian district around Strasbourg?

A. That is correct.

Q. You said also that the camp commandant or doctor asked for your assistance?

A. Yes, that was an obvious thing for him to do, because I was right there in Strasbourg.

Q. You said further that it was roughly in the spring of 1943 that these requests for assistance were made to you; was there an epidemic in the camp already at that time, or why did they think they needed your help?

A. At that time there was no epidemic in the camp, but the general epidemiological situation was such that an outbreak of typhus was expected at any moment, especially since transports were continually coming from the East. These transports were infected with lice and contained people who were already infected with typhus, and other camps in the neighborhood had already had their first cases of typhus.

Q. Professor, what means did you have available to help these camp physicians? Please limit yourself, first of all your vaccines?

A. I have already said that there are various vaccines available made from dead virus, and also those made from live and attenuated virus. It was very difficult to procure virus at that time. The superior officers simply could not make the effective vaccines available, and in order to carry out any plans, all sorts of decrees and orders existed in Germany for the planning of systematic vaccination should the danger of typhus arise.

Q. Now, Witness, you have described your work in the field of vaccine production, namely, that of producing a live pathogenic virus; did you begin this developing and working on your own initiative, or did some other agency refer the problem to you?

A. Live typhus virus was being manufactured in foreign countries at that time in great quantities, particularly in France where they had had a great deal of experience with such live virus. I have already mentioned Blanc, Baltasar, Lecolle, and Legrer. During the war, protective vaccines were also made with such live virus in North Africa. There had already been millions of such vaccinations and, of course, this permitted experience to be gathered. The fact is that the French, who saw this great danger, also saw the necessity of such large-scale vaccines, and they had also had a few fatalities. As I said, we had to use a virus strain for these vaccinations which, it is true, was alive and still pathogenic to animals. In other words, a virulent virus, the pathogenic effect of which on human beings was suppressed to a large extent; and that is the essence of all live vaccine manufacture, and it must occupy the central position in our considerations here. You bring about such mutation only by passing the virus through animals. Every specialist knows that when the virus is passed through animals it is attenuated there more than by being cultured or bred, for instance, in chicken yolks or by being preserved in a vacuum, or at very low temperatures and only somewhat attenuated in strain.

Q. Witness, you still haven’t answered my question fully, that is, whether you carried out this work on your own initiative or on the basis of an order, directive, or assignment which came to you from elsewhere?

A. In developing this live typhus vaccine—

Presiding Judge Beals: Witness, you can answer that question in a very few words. Just answer the question propounded to you by your counsel.

A. This was a research assignment, as I just said, there was no military or other directive.

Dr. Tipp: Witness, you have already described this morning how research assignments were distributed, and you told us that, in general, the assignment was made on the application of a scientist for such an assignment; now what was the case here, did you work on this problem first and then receive an assignment or was there already an assignment in existence and did you then begin to work?

A. All this work was done entirely on my own initiative. I also saw to it that I got the necessary research assignment so that I could have the necessary funds for the work from the Reich Research Council, and then from the Medical Chief of the Luftwaffe. That is where I obtained my assignment.

Mr. Hardy: Your Honor, before we adjourn may I inquire from counsel how long the examination will continue, and how long other defense counsels will take in their examination of the witness Haagen?

Dr. Tipp: I have already said I will need roughly a day and a half. We have already eliminated some of the questions; I don’t know if I can finish this afternoon, but I shall not need so much time tomorrow morning. I cannot tell you how much time my other colleagues will need.

Mr. Hardy: Do I understand Dr. Tipp is going to take the rest of the day, in spite of the fact that we sit until 5 o’clock?

Dr. Tipp: I shall use all of today. Yes.

Presiding Judge Beals: Does any other defense counsel desire to examine this witness while he is on the stand?

Dr. Tipp: Dr. Nelte just tells me that he will need a quarter of an hour, and my colleague Krauss for Rostock, fifteen minutes.

Dr. Fritz: Mr. President, I cannot say definitely now how long I shall need because I do not know how many of the questions I intend to put to the witness will be made unnecessary by Dr. Tipp’s examination.

Presiding Judge Beals: The Tribunal is only asking for an estimate.

Dr. Fritz: One hour.

Presiding Judge Beals: Counsel, during the noon recess will you instruct your witness to answer your questions directly and simply without expostulating on matters about which, while scientific and important, the Tribunal has already been advised. Kindly instruct him and explain to him how to answer these questions.

Dr. Tipp: Professor, before the recess you said that you began your work in the field of typhus on your own initiative, and that in the course of this work you obtained research assignments from the Medical Inspector of the Luftwaffe as well as the Reich Research Counsel; now I ask you, in your applications made before the various assignments were issued, were any details given about the work which you planned to carry out or the work which you had already carried out?

Witness Haagen: No details were given, of course, merely the problem as such was dealt with.

Q. You have already described to the Tribunal your work on this problem; it was to find a vaccine produced from live virus, a virus no longer pathogenic to human beings which, however, contained the qualities of the virus.

A. Yes. That is true. Our work was limited to the development of a live vaccine, and this work was based on the great experiences of foreign scientists, especially the French scientist Blanc; the technical side was always carried out in animal experiments.

Q. Now, Witness, did you succeed in finding a vaccine of the type described?

A. Yes. We did succeed in developing such a vaccine from a so-called murine typhus virus strain, that is, from rat typhus. The weakening was brought about through animal experiments, through cultivation in chicken eggs, and thirdly through a conservation process.

Q. Was this vaccine then tested for its effectiveness and if so, how?

A. Yes. The vaccine was tested for its effectiveness. First, of course, by animal experiments for its immunizing qualities. After this quality had been proved, the first vaccinations were undertaken in order to test the effectiveness and the tolerance on human beings. This was done on volunteers.

Q. Where did you get these volunteers, Professor?

A. First of all I served myself, then the members of my institute and a number of students from the university.

Q. Now, will you please tell us the purpose of these experiments?

A. When one has produced a new vaccine one must test not only its effectiveness, but also its tolerability. This can only be done on human beings; animal experiments are not sufficient. At a certain stage it always becomes necessary to test it on human beings.

Q. In these vaccinations on members of the institute and students, you tested the tolerability of the vaccine; the immunizing effect of the vaccine, if I understood you correctly, could not be proved by these experiments?

A. Yes. The immunizing effect can also be determined. One merely needs to make the Weil-Felix reaction, which has been mentioned in this trial. That is, to ascertain whether the blood serum already contains protective bodies against the typhus germ. This test (I mention this because mistakes have been made here) is used not only to diagnose the disease, but also, since it is a definite immunity reaction, to find the protective bodies after vaccination.

Q. We will come back to that later, Witness. Now when did you achieve your aim, when did you have a vaccine of the type described, and when did you develop it far enough to be used?

A. In the spring of 1943.

Q. And when was this vaccine first actually used on a large scale, or when was it first used at all?

A. The first vaccinations were carried out in May 1943 in the Schirmeck internment camp, which belonged to the Natzweiler concentration camp. The vaccinations were performed on persons in special danger.

Q. This morning, Witness, you mentioned the request of a camp doctor of the Natzweiler concentration camp, and Schirmeck was no doubt under him; may I ask whether these Schirmeck vaccinations go back to the request of the camp physician?

A. I do not quite understand your question.

Q. Please tell me whether the vaccinations performed in Schirmeck originated with the request of the camp physician?

A. Yes. Schirmeck and Natzweiler belong together. My vaccinations there were in connection with all the work of the camp.

Q. Then you used this vaccine for the first time in May 1943 in Schirmeck. How many persons did you vaccinate?

A. Twenty-eight persons were vaccinated altogether.

Q. Did you have any influence on the selection of these persons; that is, did you select these persons, or who selected them?

A. I did not have any direct influence on the selection of these persons, only to the extent that I told the camp administrator and the camp doctor that we could only vaccinate people who were in a more or less good state of health, since if this were not the case it would not correspond to our German vaccination laws. To that extent I did have some influence.

The selection was made according to the point of view that persons were selected who were in special danger of typhus, persons who were in the so-called “east block” of the camp. New transports were always coming from the East, lice infected, for the most part, so that one could count on a considerable typhus danger. In this part of the camp the danger was greater than in those parts of the camp, housing Germans and Alsatians who did not come from the East.

Q. You said, Witness, the persons were selected from the group of prisoners in special danger of contracting typhus. You just mentioned the east block. Can you tell us what nationality these persons were?

A. As far as I can remember they were of various nationalities. There were quite a number of them who spoke German and one could converse with them easily.

Q. Now, Witness, I should like to ask you to describe how these vaccinations were carried out. Perhaps a preliminary question first. Why did you vaccinate only 28 persons? Why did you not vaccinate all the inmates of the camp there?

A. At first I could only produce the vaccine in very small quantities. My laboratory facilities were very limited. If I had wanted to vaccinate a whole camp I would have had to have a production workshop. That is why we only vaccinated a small number of people.

Q. Now, Professor, please describe how the vaccinations were performed.

A. Vaccinations were performed on 28 persons altogether, in several groups. The first vaccination was of eight persons. They were given one injection of 0.5 cc. of the vaccine into the breast muscle in the customary manner. The second group consisted of 20 persons, divided into two subgroups of ten each. The first group—let’s call this group A—was also given 0.5 cc. of the vaccine intramuscularly. Subgroup B, the last ten persons, were first given a vaccination of 0.5 cc. of a dead typhus vaccine produced in the Robert Koch Institute. Then, eight days later, there was a second vaccination with a live vaccine, again 0.5 cc. intramuscularly. I should like to say that the first vaccination with the dead vaccine, which I have just mentioned, was performed for two reasons: First of all, in order to be able to see whether this preliminary examination produced more protective bodies; and, in the second place, to see whether this preliminary examination with dead vaccine might reduce the reactions of the living vaccine.

At the same time, I carried out protective vaccinations on persons outside the camp, on volunteers. They were again performed in such a way that there were three injections this time: the first, 0.25 cc., the second, 0.25 cc., and the third injection 0.5 cc. of the live vaccine.

Q. The Court will be especially interested, Witness, in the reactions of the persons after this vaccination. Can you tell us that?

A. In the first group of eight persons who were given 0.5 cc. of the living vaccine only once, three had a reaction consisting of a short fever of over 39 degrees. The rest of the persons, however, had no reaction.

In the second group, among the ten persons in group A, there were no noticeable reactions. In the other group there were very negligible symptoms, in some cases only a headache and depression. Typical symptoms of typhus, brain symptoms or vessel symptoms, and other symptoms, did not appear in any case.

The same was true of the third group. Here again there was no reaction. I must say in this connection that I used a vaccine produced from dead typhus virus. I must point that out because later, in Natzweiler, I used the classic epidemic or louse typhus virus vaccine.

Q. Professor, after the vaccination did you watch the well-being of the persons vaccinated?

A. Yes, of course. After the vaccination I was frequently in the camp. I looked at the persons who had been vaccinated and was shown their temperature charts. After four weeks a final blood sample was taken to perform the Weil-Felix reaction in order to see what degree of immunity they had developed.

Q. * * * Were there any deaths in the course of these vaccinations at Schirmeck?

A. No. There were no deaths from the vaccinations at Schirmeck.

Q. Witness, your testimony is in contradiction to the testimony of a prosecution witness whom we heard here. This was George Hirtz, who testified here on the 8th of January. His testimony is on page 1310 of the German and page 1293 of the English record. Hirtz said that at Schirmeck you injected 20 to 25 persons and during the following days these people developed a high temperature. The temperature is said to have started after 36 to 48 hours, and two of these people died. The witness also said you had vaccinated him, the head of the camp, and the Kapo in the sick bay. Will you explain the differences between your testimony and the testimony of Hirtz?

A. It is true that these three people, the camp head, the Kapo [inmate trusty], and the nurse, that was Hirtz, were vaccinated with the customary vaccine on the basis of an order to the effect that if there was any danger of typhus, the camp personnel had to be vaccinated regularly against this disease. Now, the personnel was in much less danger than the inmates themselves; so in order to help the camp doctor, I supplied the vaccine and vaccinated these three persons, but I reserved the live vaccine for the persons who were in real danger. Those were the reasons why these seeming distinctions were made.

Q. The witness Hirtz also testified that he did not medically examine these 20 people before they were vaccinated. Is that correct?

A. When the prisoners came to the camp they were carefully examined by the camp doctor. This was necessary in the interest of preventing disease in the camp. Therefore, here I merely had to observe whether they were free from external symptoms of disease and to determine how strong they were.

Q. Then if I understand you correctly, you say that the medical examination was performed by the camp doctor, who made them available to you for vaccination?

A. Yes, the camp doctor and the head of the camp, together.

Q. Now, Professor, is the statement of the witness Hirtz correct to the effect that after 36 to 48 hours these persons had a temperature of up to 40° Centigrade, 104° Fahrenheit?

A. I have already said that aside from the first group there was no special reaction. Hirtz himself did not know the first group, he says so himself. In the second group, I have just testified that there were no temperature reactions or any other reaction.

Q. But you said, Witness—oh, that was the first group.

A. Yes. And even here the reactions were quite the usual ones which occur in other vaccinations, too.

Q. But Hirtz also says that after the temperature—seven to eight days, the persons developed some kind of disturbance and they had some impediment in their speech and in three or four cases they stuttered. Do you know anything about that?

A. When I visited these persons I did not observe any such symptoms. None of them complained, and I am sure that if any one found that he had developed such symptoms he would immediately have gone to the doctor. Everyone was interested in getting rid of these symptoms. I did not observe any disturbances or stuttering. If Hirtz had seen them at the time, I am convinced he would have reported them to me. He was the nurse for these persons and was responsible for them; I cannot imagine that he would have served the interests of these prisoners by keeping these things secret.

Q. You say that you did not observe such symptoms nor did Hirtz report them to you. Now, Witness, Hirtz also said that after two days two of these experimental subjects, as he calls them, or vaccinated persons, as you call them, died. Did you observe this, Witness?

A. I have already said that in the smaller experimental group no one died, because I am sure I would have noticed it when I visited these persons who had been vaccinated. I would certainly have ordered an autopsy in the case of such deaths to determine when the person died. Not only would I have ordered or carried out this autopsy, but the camp administration would have ordered it. People might think that these persons perhaps died of typhus. I must say that after a two-day incubation period—that was the period between inoculation and death—no one ever died of typhus. The shortest time for typhus deaths, that is the incubation period plus length of disease, is ten days to fourteen days. And these early deaths are supposed to be cases with a high pathogenic virus originating directly from human beings. For this reason alone it is quite impossible.

Q. Witness, you said that in such cases you would doubtless have had an autopsy performed. You said you heard nothing about the deaths, and that, therefore, there was no autopsy; is that right?

A. Yes. That is correct.

Q. I should like to remind the Tribunal of the testimony of Hirtz. (Tr. p. 1298.) He said that he immediately wrapped the bodies in paper and had them burned in the crematorium at Natzweiler. Not even the prosecution witness was able to say, or perhaps did not want to say, how Professor Haagen reacted to these deaths. Now one more question about this witness Hirtz. Here on the witness stand Hirtz was asked, “Now Witness, you realized that these experiments performed on the 20 to 25 persons were experiments for the determination of typhus in connection with typhus disease?” A. “Yes, I had not the slightest doubt about it. I have fifteen years of practice behind me.” I do not know, Witness, what this testimony means. Perhaps I am not enough of a specialist to judge, but I may assume that you can explain what the content of these statements is.

A. I can only say that I cannot understand Mr. Hirtz’ statement at all. I have no idea what experiments to determine typhus in connection with this disease are supposed to be. First of all, there were no experiments to determine typhus since there was no typhus. And I don’t know any method for performing experiments on human beings to determine typhus. If by experiments, one means the removal of blood in the Weil-Felix reaction, that is something else, but that is not what he is talking about here. As reason for his expert knowledge the witness states that he has been a pharmacist for 15 years. That he has such a long practice behind him and so considers himself an expert in the field of contagious diseases. I can’t quite understand that either. But I think one can expect that from a pharmacist—after all, pharmacists do sell vaccines for public diseases in pharmacies—one would really expect him to know what vaccine reactions are and what a real disease is. And then in the first group where a reaction did appear, he didn’t know that group at all.

Q. You have already said, Witness, something about Mr. Hirtz’ testimony that the prisoner Atloff told him about what Mr. Hirtz described was the second experiment. It seems to me that supports your statement that Mr. Hirtz knew nothing about the first group, that is the eight persons. Can you tell us anything else, Professor, to explain the contradiction between your testimony and that of Mr. Hirtz?

A. Hirtz speaks only of one injection, not of two. The vaccinated persons whom he took care of all had two injections at intervals of several days. If he had really been interested in the vaccination, he must have known that two injections were performed. That is one point. Then he says that the needles were not changed. He seems to have overlooked something there again; that for every injection a new injection needle was used which was brought from Strasbourg already sterilized, and that the technical assistant changed them. Anybody who knows anything about scientific work knows that in such important work, one does not use the same needle for several persons, quite aside from the fact that this would not be in accordance with one of the most elementary demands of asepsis. Here again he probably didn’t observe very carefully.

Q. Now, Professor, we are interested in the question of whether in the camp of Schirmeck, you wanted to produce typhus through artificial injection of pathogenic virus. Did you perform such experiments at Schirmeck?

A. No. No such experiments were performed. I don’t know what the purpose would have been.

Q. Then if I may sum up, Professor, you were introducing a vaccine into practice after it had already been tested in animal experiments, in self-experiments, and in experiments on volunteers. But experiments such as I have just described were not performed at Schirmeck, is that correct?

A. Yes. That is correct. We were merely introducing a vaccine which was already being used on a large scale in other countries. Perhaps I may add that at first I intended to perform further vaccinations in the Schirmeck camp in order to protect this camp as far as possible, but that in the course of the next month, I realized that the Natzweiler camp was entirely different in its whole structure and that there was much greater danger of typhus in this camp. Therefore, I shifted my interest from Schirmeck to Natzweiler.

Q. Now before we go on to the work at Natzweiler, Witness, I should like to clarify the following point with you. Mr. Hirtz testified here that the prisoners used for vaccination were not volunteers; but you say, Professor, that your point of view is that experimental subjects should be volunteers. Can you please clearly answer this question and explain the points of view which are important in your opinion in vaccinations particularly?

A. The prisoners whom we vaccinated were not volunteers. I would like to say the following on that point: As I have already said, I share with most scientists the point of view that the prerequisite for any experiment is the self-experiment. This was not merely a theory in my case. Everyone who knows my work or saw my work knows that I performed a number of self-experiments and contracted a number of infections. I need not go into that now, but of course I tested all vaccines on myself. If we dispensed with the element of voluntariness in this present case, I must state that according to our rules and laws in Germany, vaccinations are ordered wherever there is danger of an epidemic. This situation existed in Schirmeck and Natzweiler. There was a decree for this camp from the SS-WVHA, and decrees were sent out by the chief doctor of concentration camps. Our vaccinations were performed within these legal regulations. In the records of trial, I find again and again the point of view that I had taken poor, helpless prisoners and treated them with murderous germs. But if one knows my work well, one can see that, on the contrary, I was combating these diseases. There can be no question of any criminal experiments here. I want to object very definitely to being called a criminal when I was merely fighting diseases.

Q. Well, Professor, you say that in this case you dispensed with volunteers because it was not an experiment, but rather a vaccination, and because it is your point of view that for vaccinations it is legally permissible to make them compulsory—that you were merely carrying out a legal measure under international law?

A. Yes. This was a vaccination with a vaccine which was already being used elsewhere in the world within the framework of general vaccinations carried out on the basis of the existing regulations.

Q. When did you begin your work in Natzweiler proper?

A. It was my intention to begin vaccination in the Natzweiler camp in the summer of 1943, but then unexpected difficulties arose which I must go into—I think they are of significance for this trial. Professor Hirt, whose name I believe has been mentioned here repeatedly, the director of the Anatomical Institute in Strasbourg, was a member of the SS and a research worker of the Ahnenerbe. As an SS officer he had discovered through the camp that I wanted to perform vaccinations there. He then intervened because he thought that if persons outside the SS or the WVHA wanted to work in the camp in some form or other we had to have approval for this, quite aside from the fact that I had been asked to perform these vaccinations, etc. Professor Hirt told the camp doctor and myself that he was ready to get this approval and asked me to make a request to this effect to the Institute for Military Scientific Research. I had no connection with the SS or any suborganization of the SS, nor did I know the inner organization of the SS. The application was made in the summer of 1943. I cannot remember the wording of the application exactly, but Hirt sent it on to the agency in question. I only know that the application said that I had asked for permission to vaccinate a certain number of camp inmates. One had to make a limitation because I could only produce the vaccine in small quantities since the technical conditions did not yet exist at the institute for large-scale production. In this letter to Hirt, I pointed out that there was no danger in vaccination with the new vaccine, but that we had to expect a more or less strong reaction, especially a temperature reaction in accordance with the variances in the individuals. I also pointed out that the people to be vaccinated had to be in good physical condition, so that they should be in more or less the same physical condition as our soldiers. I said this in order to conform with the general vaccination regulations. After some time I received an announcement from the Institute for Military Scientific Research to the effect that my request would be granted.

Q. Professor, will you please look at Document NO-120, which is Prosecution Exhibit 297. It is a letter from the Reich Leader SS, Personal Staff, Institute for Military Scientific Research, dated 30 September 1943. It is signed by Sievers, and it is addressed to the Director of the Institute for Hygiene of the Reich University, Strasbourg. Herr Sievers writes:

“I confirm receipt of your request of 16 August 1943. I shall be glad to help you and have accordingly contacted the proper source to have the desired personnel placed at your disposal.”

Is this the letter you meant, Witness, when you said that you were given approval in principle to carry out these vaccinations?

A. Yes, this letter created the basic prerequisities for performing the vaccinations. If we disregard the fact that for epidemiological reasons the vaccinations were justified and even necessary, this letter, I believe, gives us a justification to perform them.

Q. Now, were you able to carry out the vaccinations?

A. No. It wasn’t as simple as that unfortunately—I say “unfortunately” because precious time was lost and I was interested in protecting the camp as soon as possible, at least insofar as there was no longer any danger of typhus. I informed the camp doctor of the contents of this letter and asked to be allowed to commence the vaccinations. A considerable time passed, however, and not until November did I receive notice that we could begin with the vaccinations. The whole affair had not been helped by Hirt’s intervention, therefore, but had even been delayed. Then when I received the first hundred prisoners, I looked at them and found that they were in no condition at all to be vaccinated. They were in very poor shape. I must say that they were prisoners who came from Auschwitz on the transport; I think eighteen of the people had already died. One really had no right to perform a vaccination on such a group. I did not do so and refused for medical reasons.

Q. And what did you do then, Witness?

A. I informed Hirt of this. I wrote to him frankly that these people were out of the question for vaccination and I asked for men in good physical condition.

Q. Professor, will you please look at Document NO-121, Prosecution Exhibit 293? It is a letter from you to Professor Hirt, dated 15 [13] November 1943. Did you mean this letter when you say that you wrote to Hirt? I shall read briefly:

“On the 13th of November 1943, an inspection was made of the prisoners who were furnished to me by the SS-WVHA, in order to determine their suitability for the tests which have been planned for typhus vaccines.”

Is this the letter?

A. Yes. This is the letter of 13 November 1943. I may point out in this letter that I asked for a hundred prisoners in good physical condition. Only in this way could I expect results which could be used for purposes of comparison.

Q. Professor, I have something to put to you from this document which is perhaps a contradiction—or which may be interpreted as a contradiction—of your testimony. You say that you wanted to vaccinate these people and the first sentence of the document seems to indicate that. You write, “their suitability for the typhus vaccinations.” Further down, however, in the document you speak of testing a new vaccine. Again, further down, “material which can be compared.” One might conclude that these are not vaccinations but experiments. Is this not in contradiction of your testimony?

A. No. That is not in contradiction of my statements. It is apparently necessary for me to supplement my statements by saying the following: as I said, in the Natzweiler camp I wanted to vaccinate a fairly large number of prisoners. The vaccine was ready as far as the laboratory was concerned; it had been tested in animal experiments; it had been tested in self-experiments, and on a small group of volunteers. I, therefore, knew that it no longer involved any danger for the persons vaccinated and that the use of this living vaccine did not bring about any manifest disease. But when a new vaccine is used for the first time in practice it is to a certain degree an experiment, since the tolerance still has to be determined and that can only be determined on a large number of people. The dose still has to be determined and the result of the vaccination still has to be checked on a large number of people. So I admit it is no doubt true that the use of a new vaccine for the first time in practice on a large number of people could still be considered an experiment. I should like to add that in the first large-scale application the titer values and blood were examined. Of course, temperature was taken and all other observations were carefully made in order to get a definite final impression of the effectiveness and tolerance of the vaccine. We had to do this; it was our duty. It was a big responsibility to introduce a new vaccine like this, even if one had already gained experience in a small experiment on oneself and volunteers. But in this trial the word, “experiment,” has been grossly misused. In this sense our vaccinations were not “experiments”, they were tests and not experiments with any uncertain goal or purpose. One can hardly speak of criminal experiments here. And in every medical journal in the world, on almost every page, we find experiments at the sick bed, and I don’t think anyone has any objection to this word. And as far as human experiments are concerned, I should like to refer to advertisements which show the public attitude of an American firm—in picture magazines which I have seen myself. Antiseptics such as Listerine, where they speak of human beings on whom tests have been made, who were used as guinea pigs. For this reason alone I think the word; “experiment”, is used in different senses.

Q. One term has not yet been cleared in this document, the last words, “comparable material.” Can you please explain what that means? What did you mean by “comparable material”?

A. That means that the investigations indicated had already been made and that the results were to be compared with one another, so that one could have really useful results. The individual values of every immunologist vary considerably according to the constitution and general physical condition. That was one of the reasons why I was very careful to obtain only those persons in good physical condition for vaccination, since persons in a poor condition react quite differently. Besides, I must point out that according to the general vaccination regulations, vaccinations of any type can only be performed on healthy people, and I wanted to observe this rule strictly.

Dr. Tipp: Now, Witness, I turn to the next document, NO-122, Prosecution Exhibit 298. It is a letter from Rose to you dated 13 December 1943. In this letter the frequently mentioned Copenhagen vaccine is again mentioned. Herr Rose writes here that the testing of many vaccines simultaneously gives a clearer picture of better or worse results of a method than the testing of one vaccine alone. Furthermore, there is mention of the experiments in Buchenwald. Let me ask you first of all, Professor, when you received this letter in December 1943, what did you know about these Buchenwald experiments?

Witness Haagen: I only heard the details about these Buchenwald experiments from the documents in this trial. Moreover, Dr. Ding’s report at the consulting conference in 1943 must be mentioned. I heard of Professor Rose’s protest against these human experiments at that time.

Q. You had no connection then with these Ding experiments?

A. I never worked with Ding and knew of his work only from the report at this consulting conference.

Q. The prosecution has deduced regarding these Buchenwald experiments that the efficacy of the vaccine was tested by subsequent infection with pathogenic virus. Will you please say what you have to about that?

A. This attitude on the part of the prosecution ignores the fact, as I said several times, that I never had a strain of virus which is pathogenic to human beings, consequently, I could not carry out an infection such as the prosecution seems to assume. I never thought of carrying out such subsequent infection with a virus pathogenic to human beings, because I was working as a scientist with my own material, and wasn’t testing mixture for other vaccines at all.

As I have already said, on the occasion of Aherinesliev, I vaccinated some of the inmates there, with an attenuated virus in order to minimize the reactions to the vaccine. I thought that in the next vaccination I would carry out these primary vaccinations with dead vaccine and I wanted to use such a vaccine that used a dead virus. In the meantime, between Schirmeck vaccines and the new vaccinations in Natzweiler, I had carried my work to the point where I no longer needed a dead vaccine. But the previous history was this: Professor Rose, by sending me this Copenhagen vaccine, thought he was supporting and helping me. And he suggested that I include this dead vaccine in my series of vaccines. Let me say regarding this Copenhagen vaccine that it was a liver vaccine which is said to be much more effective than the other dead vaccines, particularly more so than the lung vaccine; and from it, in dead form, a better protection could be expected. Now, it was my point of view that if we distributed it over 100 persons again and did not get other persons, there would not be enough vaccinations to be of value for comparisons. So, I didn’t see any reason for introducing the Copenhagen vaccine. I told this to Professor Rose and Professor Rose answered in the form we have seen in the letter which constitutes this document. This would have given some basis for comparison between the two vaccines. However, I didn’t use it because I was no longer interested in it since, in the meantime, we had succeeded somewhat in attenuating our own virus so that we could do without it. I heard no more from Professor Rose about this vaccine and never received the Copenhagen vaccine.

Q. Then you say, Professor, that this was a dead vaccine, namely the Copenhagen vaccine, and there was also your own dead vaccine which was to be used for a preliminary vaccination to reduce the reaction to the live vaccine. However, this plan although originally intended, was never carried out?

A. Yes. That is so.

Q. Now, Professor, we were talking about your letter to Professor Hirt of 15 [13] November 1943, in which you ask him to make other prisoners available. Was this request met later and were you able to carry out vaccinations in Natzweiler later with your new vaccine?

A. Yes. I received the persons I had requested, and in December of 1943 and January of 1944 we were able to carry out these vaccinations. I performed them in two groups of 40 persons each with my live attenuated virus which is no longer pathogenic to human beings, and this I want to state explicitly.

Q. Professor, please describe these vaccinations briefly to the Tribunal.

A. First, a group of 40 persons was vaccinated. The first vaccination was done with one cc. intramuscularly. One was a vaccine made of murine typhus virus vaccine. In no case did local reactions of temperature or other symptoms occur. The second vaccination took place a week later. This was again one cc. of vaccine introduced intramuscularly. This was no longer pathogenic to human beings. To complete the story I have to say that between the Schirmeck vaccinations in May and these vaccinations, I had turned to the production of a louse typhus vaccine; this vaccine contained live virus. Before it was used in Natzweiler as a vaccine, we tested it on ourselves, that is, with some collaborators, to ascertain the tolerability and effects. We were roughly ten persons, members of the institute and also students. Only then did we use the vaccine on the prisoners in Natzweiler. Four weeks after the last vaccination there were the usual serological examinations. The Weil-Felix reaction was used. The average titer value, let me say, was better than in the vaccinations with the rat virus. It was, namely 2,000. I need not go into these details. The general reactions were normal reactions to inoculation, temperature, and headaches; but there were no manifestations of actual typhus as a result of inoculations.

Q. You are speaking of a first group, so I assume there must have been a second group. How did you carry out the vaccination of the second group?

A. It occurred to me that instead of injecting the vaccine, the vaccination could be performed by scarifying the skin in the same way as you scrape the skin to make a smallpox vaccination. Therefore, as with the first group, with the same living virus vaccine, I vaccinated 40 additional persons with scarification of the skin. Let me point out that the experiments on myself and on my assistants were carried out in the same way, with scarification of the skin. The reactions were comparatively mild, corresponding roughly to the reactions to vascular typhus vaccine, so that we had no misgivings about undertaking this kind of vaccination.

Q. You described the reactions of yourself and the volunteers as very slight. Now, the reactions of the prisoners were stronger, were they not?

A. Yes. They were stronger again. And this we can only explain by believing that the general state of health among the prisoners was lower than among my associates; but there was no such thing as a natural manifestation of typhus or any fatalities.

Q. But, Professor, to this statement I shall have to put to you something which was said before this Tribunal and which is quite different from what you have just said. I am referring to the testimony of the witness, Edith Schmidt. On 9 January 1947 (Tr. p. 1371), she said that you had carried out vaccination experiments on 100 to 150 persons in Natzweiler, and out of these experiments roughly 50 are said to have died from the control group. Fraeulein Schmidt stated that she knew this from notes which your technical assistant, Miss Crodel, had made about the typhus experiments at Natzweiler. Can you please tell the Tribunal to which notes Fraeulein Schmidt was referring—in other words, how do you explain her testimony?

A. It is utterly impossible for Fraeulein Schmidt to have seen records of notes of my vaccinations in Natzweiler in which fatalities occurred because as I have already said no one died following the vaccinations. These notes of Fraeulein Crodel’s which Fraeulein Schmidt saw do not refer to the vaccinations. That can be seen from the numbers mentioned, by Fraeulein Schmidt, because I only vaccinated 80 persons at Natzweiler, not 150 to 200 as the witness stated. The witness apparently took this number and the concept of a control group from later writings, which are to be discussed hereafter; but I can imagine to which note she could have been referring.

Q. Please continue, Witness.

A. The witness states correctly when these notes were made, because she says the sun was shining on the pages. That must have been in the spring or summer of 1944. This corresponds with the time when the typhus epidemic was raging in the camp. Thus I assume that Fraeulein Schmidt really did see genuine notes of some sort.

Q. Then, Witness, you are saying that these were notes which were made in the course of an epidemic that took place in Natzweiler, can you tell us when this epidemic broke out?

A. So far as I can state from memory, the epidemic broke out in February or March of 1944. Gradually the number of cases became very large, and in the summer the very considerable figure of roughly 1,200 was reached.

Q. Let me point out in this connection that this epidemic is confirmed by two prosecution witnesses: Grandjean on 6 January (Tr. p. 1099) and the witness Holl on 3 January 1947 (Tr. p. 1058). Both witnesses stated that in the spring of 1944 and also in the summer following, there was a severe typhus epidemic in Natzweiler. The witness Grandjean gave the number as 1,200 to 1,400 cases, as I remember, thus this would agree with what you have just said, Witness. Now, the most important question in this connection is, did the outbreak of this epidemic have any connection with your vaccinations—what I mean is, were your vaccinations the cause of this epidemic?

A. No. There was no connection between the epidemic and our vaccinations. Our vaccinations had already been concluded in January 1944, and the first typhus cases occurred in February or March, and they were brought into the camp from outside, either by transports or from other camps. Let me repeat that the sick people were taken from outside camps to Schirmeck where they were treated in a special department, because there was no way of isolating them in the outside camps.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

Mr. McHaney: Let’s pass on to the notebook. Now, what does the notebook show? What is this notebook?

Witness Haagen: That is a control book in which the experiments with the typhus vaccine on the animals were recorded.

Q. Does that notebook concern your typhus experiments?

A. As far as I can see now, it looks as if that was the current laboratory work which we were carrying out. That is what it looks like, but I’d have to see all of it first.

Q. Now, Professor, you must be able to tell the Tribunal who wrote this book.

A. The technical assistant kept it, and from the handwriting, it looks as if she made these entries; but I can’t interpret every record after such a long time. I have to study it first. We did not only have vaccinations, but also scientific work.

Q. But to the best of your memory, you can state that this notebook was written by Fraeulein Crodel, and it concerns the experiments carried out by you?

A. The laboratory work, as far as I can see at the moment. I would like to make that restriction.

Mr. McHaney: The prosecution asks that Document NO-3852 be marked as Prosecution Exhibit 521 for identification.

Now, Professor, we have covered the chart of the test on the two mice. Let’s go to the notebook itself. And in order to follow my questions, I will ask you to observe the pencil numbers which I have written on this photostatic copy down at the bottom right-hand corner of each page. Do you find that?

A. Yes.

Q. Will you turn to page 3?

If the Tribunal, please, it will be necessary to renumber the pages appearing on your translations. This applies equally to the defense counsel. When the translation was made, they took some pages off the reverse side of the photostatic copy, and because of the two pages appearing for one photostatic copy, they had to be renumbered. Page 5 on the translations should be marked page 3.

Do you find the entry for 30 April 1943, Professor?

A. 30 April ’43, yes.

Q. And that says, “S, plus, plus, 9, Sch.” That is Schirmeck, isn’t it, Professor? “Sch.”?

A. No. That means ninth passage. It is supposed to be “pas.”, ninth passage.

Q. It says “Sch.”, what does “Sch.” mean?

A. It doesn’t look like “Sch.” to me.

Q. What does it look like to you?

A. In German, I think it looks like a “p”, a German “p”.

Q. And you think it should read what?

A. First, I said it is probably “passage—ninth passage”.

Q. All right. Let’s go down to the entry, the next one for 14 May. In parenthesis “two weeks,” does that mean the vaccine had been stored for two weeks?

A. Where is that? I can’t find it.

Q. 14 May, immediately—

A. It probably means that it was stored for two weeks, yes.

Q. And then you go on, and it reads, “1 plus two point two for six mice, point five, I. P. All injected again, six point six immune, only two out of four of the controlled died,” right?

A. Yes. That is right.

Q. Then, the next is 26 May, “four weeks, three dash six,” what does “three dash six” mean, Professor?

A. “Four weeks, three to six,” only I can’t tell you at the moment. I’d have to reconstruct what the assistant wrote.

Q. Well, passing that for the moment. It continues to read, “point 5 per person and six mice point five I. P., five dead after ten, fourteen days. The rest after four weeks.” What does “the rest” refer to, the one mouse? Does that refer to those unidentified persons?

A. No. That refers to the mice. It was simply a mouse experiment. It says “five dead.” We should have all the information on the mice. This is only an extract.

Q. But this is May 1943, when you were vaccinating people in Schirmeck, and this entry says “three dash six, point five per persons”. Now you are not suggesting to the Tribunal that the “persons” are referring to the mice? It continues to say—

A. But when it says “six mice” with “point five”, that was the serum, I suppose, because we were also testing the immunizing effect on mice. I can’t interpret it differently at the moment. “Four weeks”, that means the vaccine had been stored for four weeks. “Point five per persons” were vaccinated. That might mean that it was a comparison experiment, that the effectiveness was to be tested on mice. At the moment I can’t give any exact interpretation. I’d have to study the document very carefully.

Q. What does this “per person” refer to? Talking about human beings, aren’t they?

A. Yes. It is very possible that that was the vaccine which we had injected into the persons in Schirmeck in May of ’43; and then in parallel experiments, we tested it on mice. It was still pathogenic to mice. It was the murine typhus virus.

Q. But not pathogenic to human beings. It killed the mice, but you were sure it wouldn’t kill any human beings, is that right?

A. Yes. The vaccination showed that.

Q. Let’s see what it showed. Let’s look at the entry for 6 July, and you will recall that this is right about the time that our witness, Hirtz, was testifying. On 6 July, “drawings of blood, Schirmeck, 10 persons, 3 had fever, Weil-Felix,” and then under number 1 to 8, indicating persons 1 to 8, you give the serum titer count, and then comes a little phrase, “the other two were not here anymore.” Professor, what about these other two persons out of the ten? You remember that the witness Hirtz testified that he personally sewed two bodies up in a paper bag, which were delivered to the crematorium after you had injected your vaccine. Doesn’t this, “the other two are not here anymore”, rather substantiate what the witness Hirtz testified to?

A. No. I wouldn’t say that. In my direct examination, I said that on checking these vaccinated persons, no one was missing. Whether later perhaps—these serological examinations were in May, two months before—whether some of the prisoners went in the meantime, I don’t know. If anyone had died there would have been an entry somewhere in the record, I should think.

Q. Doesn’t that entry say, “the two weren’t here anymore”? Where were these serological examinations in May? I don’t see that in your records. Does it show any serological examinations in May?

A. In the institute. And this is a later check on the immunity through the Weil-Felix experiments.

Q. We will proceed, Professor. Now you testified you did not conduct any vaccinations after May 1943 in Schirmeck, and I must have given you an opportunity at least five times to make that perfectly clear. And even on the last document I put to you, you still insist you did not make any. The next entry reads, “4 October 1943, six months, inoculated 20 persons in Schirmeck, tube plus 2 cc. distilled water, 0.5 per person”.

Do you want to change your testimony now, Professor?

A. First I have to read it carefully. There is a figure here, “six months”. I have to interpret that “20 persons inoculated in Schirmeck”. Those are probably the 20 people we vaccinated in May, whom the witness here mentioned. “Two cc. distilled water, then 0.5 cc. per person.” I do not know even today that we carried out vaccinations in Schirmeck in the fall of 1943. Then there is an entry on the 27th of January, 1944, “nine months”.

Q. That is right. That gives you the length of time you had this vaccine stored, does it not, Professor? On 4 October 1943 you had it stored six months? You inoculated 20 persons in Schirmeck on 4 October, did you not, as you stated in your letter to Rose on the same date: “the inoculations are now progressing,” or words to that effect? You remember you said to Rose in a letter of 4 October 1943, which I put to you, that was just a plan that you would do that. This entry indicates you did do it, does it not, Professor?

A. I must stress what I said before. Afterwards it suddenly says “January 1943”. That is a time much farther back.

Q. Yes, it is further back. It is obviously a mistake, Professor, as you well know. Sometimes people running from December over into January make a mistake and put the last year, you know, and that is obviously what happened in this case because he could not write a contemporaneous entry for January 1943 and then have it appear up above that entry, entries for October, July, and May and April 1943, could he, Professor? You will agree with me that the date should read 27 January 1944, when the vaccine had been stored nine months dating from 30 April 1943, is that not right, Professor?

A. I cannot remember that we vaccinated anybody in Schirmeck later; I am very sorry.

Q. You remember that you did not vaccinate anybody after May, Professor?

A. Yes. That is right.

Q. On 27 January 1944, which is the next entry, “nine months, mixed with the same amount as 21 May distilled water plus tube, 20 persons 10 cc. each”. Those were in Schirmeck, too, were they not, Professor?

A. It says 1 cc., 1 point 0 cc. It does not say anything about Schirmeck. I cannot say. I must assure you once more that I actually know nothing about these vaccinations. I am very sorry.

Q. Let us proceed to page 4, Professor. It is apparently another series on Schirmeck. Do you find the entry on page 4? Your Honors should change page 6 to page 4.

Presiding Judge Beals: Our pages are numbered 1 and 2. You are referring to the numbers on the original document?

Mr. McHaney: Yes, your Honor, page 6 on our translation. Page 6 of the original, should be changed to read page 4 of the original.

Now, Professor, do you find an entry on page 4 before you, of 10 October, “five months, inoculated ten persons in Schirmeck”? Do you find that, Professor?

Witness Haagen: Yes.

Q. That indicates you inoculated some after 4 October 1943, vaccinations which you mentioned in your letter to Rose, and which are confirmed by this notebook.

And then, under the entry for 10 October, you find 27 January 1944. Does it appear 1944 on the original?

A. 27 January 1944, yes.

Q. Eight months?

A. Eight months, yes.

Q. You speak of inoculating 20 persons there, do you not, Professor? Can you tell the Tribunal that those were done in Schirmeck?

A. I do not know that vaccinations were performed in Schirmeck at this time. We were only vaccinating in Natzweiler at this time, and I did not hear that such vaccinations were carried out. I am sorry.

Q. All right.

A. I am trying to interpret the document.

Q. Professor, let us go on to page 5. Do you find page 5, Professor?

A. Yes.

Q. This mentions another series of inoculations in Schirmeck, “13 July 1943, approximately seven weeks, Schirmeck, 0.5 cc. per person and six mice before the inoculation”.

Let us drop down lower on the page. Do you find the entry for 14 October?

Professor, do you find that?

A. Yes.

Q. “Ten persons inoculated for the third time with 1 cc.” Professor, I thought you told us that you did not carry out multiple vaccinations with your murine vaccine in Schirmeck.

A. I have already testified that the only vaccinations in Schirmeck were in May 1943. I do not know from where this record came. In the fall of 1943 we were only working in Natzweiler. I am sorry, I cannot give any explanation.

Q. This entry, though, Professor, indicates an inoculation for the third time on a series of ten persons. That was your “Infektions-Versuche,” was it not, Professor?

A. No. I know nothing about it; I am sorry.

Q. But your series of three vaccinations was what you referred to as the “Infektions-Versuche,” was it not, Professor?

A. But these were vaccinations which were carried out in Natzweiler, Mr. Prosecutor.

Q. The book says they were carried out in Schirmeck, and about four days before, on the 4th of October 1943, you wrote to Rose and said, “We have to carry out infection experiments.” Professor, is it possible that you really meant by “infection experiments” something other than your three-times vaccination which you had concluded on 14 October 1943?

A. Let me see exactly what it says here, page 5, “10 October-14 October, ten persons, three times point five,” it says again. It only says it is a vaccination, if this document is right.

Q. Does the document say, “Vaccinated ten persons, inoculated for the third time”? Is that what it said?

A. Yes. It says so. In May at Schirmeck in the control group we vaccinated three times. That is not impossible; but what I notice on this document, if you want to connect it with the Ipsen vaccine, is that it does not say anything about the Ipsen vaccine; I have not found that yet, but it does say Gildemeister.

Q. I have not mentioned anything about Ipsen vaccine. Let us proceed, Professor, so that we get through before the noon recess. Remember, you testified you had not carried out any vaccinations in Natzweiler after January 1944. Professor, will you turn to page 7 of this little notebook on your experiments, and while this is not the only entry which shows that you carried out vaccination experiments in Natzweiler after January 1944, I think it will be sufficient for our purposes. Do you have page 7? Will you find the entry?

A. Yes. I have page 7.

Q. Will you find the entry for 25 May 1944?

A. Yes.

Q. Does that read, “Together with S inoculated, used up five tubes of MI in Natzweiler; two ampules distilled water, three to four cubic centimeters per ampule vaccine, 0.5 cc. The inoculation took place during the incubation period, a transport also containing sick people, 13 became sick in the period from 29 May to 9 June; of those, two died.”

Then it continues to give the titer value of some of the others. Professor, don’t you have to change your testimony about vaccination in Natzweiler?

A. No. I cannot change it. I know nothing about this.

Q. Professor, let us look at words “together with S”. What do you understand “together with S” to mean? It is 25 May 1944?

A. I have no idea what “S” means.

Q. You testified that the defendant Schroeder visited you and you fixed the date, 25 May 1944. Is there any possibility that that “S” could mean Schroeder?

A. No. That is quite impossible. Impossible. Professor Schroeder never carried out any experiments with me nor did any work in my laboratory. He was not with me in Schirmeck or Natzweiler.

Q. He was not with you in Natzweiler?

A. No.

10. EXPERIMENTS WITH POISON

a. Introduction

The defendants Genzken, Gebhardt, Mrugowsky, and Poppendick were charged with special responsibility for and participation in criminal conduct involving experiments with poison (par. 6 (K) of the indictment). Only the defendant Mrugowsky was convicted on this charge.

The prosecution’s summation of the evidence on the experiments with poison is contained in its closing brief against the defendant Mrugowsky. An extract from this brief is set forth below on pages 631 to 632. A corresponding summation of the evidence by the defense on these experiments has been selected from the final plea for the defendant Mrugowsky. It appears below on pages 633 to 634. This argumentation is followed by selections from the evidence on pages 634 to 639.

b. Selection from the Argumentation of the Prosecution

EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST DEFENDANT MRUGOWSKY

Poison Experiments

Poison experiments were carried out in the Buchenwald and Sachsenhausen concentration camps by order of the defendant Mrugowsky (Tr. pp. 1183-6). The first series of the experiments was carried out in December 1943 in order to determine the fatal dosage of poisons of the alkaloid group. These experiments were requested by the SS judge, Morgen, who investigated the criminal case against Koch, camp commander of Buchenwald, and the defendant Hoven. Hoven was suspected of having killed a witness against Koch and himself by means of poison. Four Russian prisoners of war were experimented upon by Ding. The poison was administered to the experimental subjects in their food without their knowledge. All four survived, but were strangled in a crematorium of the concentration camp in order that autopsies could be performed. (Tr. pp. 1183-6; NO-265, Pros. Ex. 287.) Since Ding was subordinated to Mrugowsky, this experiment could not have been performed by Ding without Mrugowsky’s approval.

On 11 September 1944 Mrugowsky and Ding carried out an experiment with aconitine nitrate projectiles in the Sachsenhausen concentration camp. The projectiles were filled with crystallized poison and five experimental subjects were shot in the upper part of the left thigh with these projectiles. In two cases, no effect of the poison could be observed. In the other three cases, the suffering of the experimental subjects was terrible. All three died after approximately two hours of agony. The poison bullets used in the experiments were allegedly of Russian origin. (NO-201, Pros. Ex. 290.)

The experimental subjects were Russian prisoners of war. (Tr. p. 1186; see also Kogon’s testimony in Case 4.^[67]) Mrugowsky admitted his participation in these experiments. He defended himself on the ground that he was the legally appointed executioner in this case. Assuming the truth of this absurd statement, it cannot be held legal to torture to death prisoners of war even if they had been validly sentenced to death.

On 26 October 1944 still another poison experiment was carried out by Ding in Buchenwald. The entry in the Ding diary for that date states: “Special experiment on 6 persons according to instructions of SS Oberfuehrer Lecturer Dr. Mrugowsky and RKPA. (Report on this orally.)” Kogon testified that Ding told him the Russian prisoners of war used in the experiments died in a short time. They were later dissected and burned. Ding reported to Mrugowsky orally. These experiments were connected with the poison bullet experiments in the Sachsenhausen concentration camp. (Tr. pp. 1185-1186.)

c. Selection from the Argumentation of the Defense

EXTRACT FROM THE FINAL PLEA FOR DEFENDANT MRUGOWSKY^[68]

In respect to the poison experiments, I proved in my written statement that Ding’s assertion that Mrugowsky had ordered him to be present at a euthanasia killing by phenol is not correct. Professor Killian, who according to Ding’s statement, was present when the order was given, said that this statement of Ding’s was incorrect. It showed that the examination of the question of whether the noxious effect of serums containing phenol can be proved by the comparative use of serums with and without phenol, and also a series of experiments with serums containing phenol was never carried out.

The experiments with pervitin were carried out on the initiative of Dr. Morgen and Dr. Wehner, according to the Ding diary. I proved that no harm was caused to the health of the experimental subjects by these experiments. The experiments were performed with pervitin which can be obtained in any chemist’s shop without a prescription and consequently is not a poison. In the experiments it was used together with a narcotic because the authority wanted to determine whether, as a result of this treatment, the effect was increased one way or the other. The only effect was that the experimental subjects fell into a disturbed sleep for up to 20 hours. This pervitin experiment was not ordered by Mrugowsky; he did not participate therein in any way, and the prosecution did not even contend that he knew of it. No responsibility under criminal law may be deduced against him from this experiment.

With regard to the special experiment on 6 persons mentioned in Ding’s diary, it is again solely the witness Kogon who gave details. In my closing brief I pointed out that, in this case too, Kogon gave contradictory testimony in the Pohl trial^[69] and the doctors’ trial about the origin of this experiment. Thus his evidence has no probative value. Moreover, Kogon’s description of this experiment, except for the sealing and the burning of the prescription, is only based on Ding’s statements. In respect to this special experiment, there is no evidence whatsoever to show the type of poison used, the manner in which the special experiment was performed, and the aim of the experiment. After the collapse, Ding told the defendant Sievers that towards the end of 1944 in Buchenwald he had filled 80 phials with prussic acid in order to commit suicide, but he unfortunately took none of them with him.

No one can prove whether Ding carried out his “special experiment” with these prussic acid capsules because Ding left no report about the course of the special experiment.

The Ding diary states that the experiment was performed by order of Mrugowsky and the Reich Criminal Police Office. Because the diary has such little probative value, the truth of this contention cannot be proved by this document alone. No other evidence has been submitted to show that Ding poisoned 6 prisoners by order of Mrugowsky. Therefore there is no conclusive evidence to prove that Mrugowsky ordered this experiment or that he even knew about it.

The prosecution further indicted Mrugowsky because of an execution performed at Sachsenhausen in which ten bandits sentenced to death were executed with bullets poisoned with aconitine. I have proved that Mrugowsky attended this execution only as the usual doctor present at an execution. I further demonstrated that the execution took place because, in an attempt on the life of a high-ranking civil servant in the General Government, Russian revolver ammunition had been used in which hollow bullets had been filled with aconitine poison. This use of poisoned Russian bullets, and Henderson’s book which described the preparation for the use of poisoned bullets in the First World War, had increased the concern that poisoned bullets would shortly be used at the front. I proved that poisoned ammunition was used at the execution to determine whether pure aconitine or a poison mixture had been used in the bullets, and how much time would be available in case of need to administer antidotes.

I proved that all executions in the concentration camps were ordered by the Reich Criminal Police Office, and that the presence of a doctor at such executions was prescribed. The execution at Sachsenhausen was ordered by the Reich Criminal Police Office. No charge under criminal law can be deduced against Mrugowsky from his attendance as a doctor at the execution. I have explained this in detail in my closing brief.

d. Evidence

Prosecution Documents

Pros. Ex.

Doc. No.No.Description of DocumentPage

NO-201290Report from Mrugowsky to the Criminological Institute, 12 September 1944, concerning experiments with aconitine nitrate projectiles.635

Testimony

Extract from the testimony of prosecution witness Dr. Eugen Kogon637

PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-201

PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 290

REPORT FROM MRUGOWSKY TO THE CRIMINOLOGICAL INSTITUTE, 12 SEPTEMBER 1944, CONCERNING EXPERIMENTS WITH ACONITINE NITRATE PROJECTILES

Reich Physician SS and PoliceBerlin-Zehlendorf 6,

The Chief Hygienist12 September 1944

Journal No.: Secret 364/44 Dr. Mru./Eb.Spanische Allee 10-12

Top Secret

Subject: Experiments with aconitine nitrate projectiles

To the Criminological Institute[Stamp]

attn: Dr. Widmann

BerlinCriminological Institute

Department: Chemistry

received: 13 Sep 1944

Journal No. g 53/44

in charge:

In the presence of SS Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Ding, Dr. Widmann, and the undersigned, experiments with aconitine nitrate projectiles were conducted on 11 September 1944 on 5 persons who had been condemned to death. The projectiles in question were of a 7.65 mm. caliber, filled with crystallized poison. The experimental subjects, in a lying position, were each shot in the upper part of the left thigh. The thighs of two of them were cleanly shot through. Even afterwards, no effect of the poison was to be observed. These two experimental subjects were therefore exempted.

The entrance of the projectile did not show any peculiarities. Evidently the arteria femoralis of one of the subjects were injured. A slight stream of blood issued from the wound. But the bleeding stopped after a short time. The loss of blood was estimated as having been at the most ¾ of a liter, and consequently was on no account fatal.

The symptoms of the condemned three showed a surprising similarity. At first no peculiarities appeared. After 20 to 25 minutes a motor agitation and a slight ptyalism set in, but stopped again. After 40 to 45 minutes a stronger salivation set in. The poisoned persons swallowed repeatedly, but later the flow of saliva became so strong that it could not even be overcome by swallowing. Foamy saliva flowed from their mouths. Then choking and vomiting set in.

After 58 minutes the pulse of two of them could no longer be felt. The third had a pulse rate of 76. After 65 minutes his blood pressure was 90/60. The sounds were extremely low. A reduction of blood pressure was evident.

During the first hour of the experiment the pupils did not show any changes. After 78 minutes the pupils of all three showed a medium dilation together with a retarded light reaction. Simultaneously, maximum respiration with heavy breathing inhalations set in. This subsided after a few minutes. The pupils contracted again and their reaction improved. After 65 minutes the patellar and achilles tendon reflexes of the poisoned subjects were negative. The abdominal reflexes of two of them were also negative. The upper abdominal reflexes of the third were still positive, while the lower were negative. After approximately 90 minutes, one of the subjects again started breathing heavily. This was accompanied by an increasing motor unrest. Then the heavy breathing changed into a flat, accelerated respiration, accompanied by extreme nausea. One of the poisoned persons tried in vain to vomit. To do so he introduced four fingers of his hand up to the knuckles into his throat, but nevertheless could not vomit. His face was flushed.

The other two experimental subjects had already early shown a pale face. The other symptoms were the same. The motor unrest increased so much that the persons flung themselves up, and down, rolled their eyes and made meaningless motions with their hands and arms. Finally the agitation subsided, the pupils dilated to the maximum, and the condemned lay motionless. Masseter spasms and urination were observed in one case. Death occurred 121, 123, and 129 minutes after entry of the projectile.

Summary. The projectiles filled with approximately 38 mg. of aconitine nitrate in solid form had, in spite of only insignificant injuries, a deadly effect after two hours. Poisoning showed 20 to 25 minutes after injury. The main reactions were salivation, alteration of the pupils, negative tendon reflexes, motor unrest, and extreme nausea.

[Signature] Mrugowsky

SS Lecturer Oberfuehrer and Office Chief.

Poison Projectile of a Russian 7.65 Caliber Pistol Cartridge

(Perspective view, scale 10:1)

[Illustration]

The projectile is cut open and ¼ of the lead core (1 segment) is removed. The lead seal at the bottom of the projectile is not shown in this illustration. The section is clearly visible on the right half of the jacket of the projectile.

Criminological Institute of the Security Police

Department: Chemistry

Journal No. g 15/44

Russian 7.65 mm. Caliber Pistol Cartridge with Poison Projectile

(Stamp on bottom of cartridge case: Geco)

[Illustration]

Criminological Institute of the Security Police

Department: Chemistry

EXTRACT FROM THE TESTIMONY OF PROSECUTION WITNESS DR. EUGEN KOGON^[70]

DIRECT EXAMINATION

Mr. McHaney: Do you know anything about experiments with poisons in the Buchenwald concentration camp?

Witness Kogon: I know of two such cases. The one case was about the turn of the year 1943-44 or in the late fall of 1943, and the second case was probably in the summer of 1944. In each case Russian prisoners of war were used for these experiments. In the first case various preparations of the so-called alkaloid series were put into noodle soup and administered to 40 of these prisoners of war who were in Block 46. They, of course, had no idea what was going on. Two of these prisoners became so sick that they vomited, one was unconscious, the fourth showed no symptoms at all. Thereupon, all four were strangled in the crematorium. They were dissected and the contents of their stomachs and other effects were determined. The experiment was ordered by the SS court, by the SS investigating judge, Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Morgen. It was carried out in the presence of Dr. Ding, Dr. Morgen, Dr. Wehner, SS Hauptsturmfuehrer and SS judges, and one of the three camp leaders, I do not know whether it was SS Sturmbannfuehrer Schubert or SS leader Florstedt. The second experiments—

Q. Witness, before continuing with the second experiment, I wonder if you could tell the Tribunal the reason why this poison experiment which you have just mentioned was carried out?

A. In the summer of 1943 the SS court in Berlin was trying the former commander of Buchenwald and later commander of the Lublin concentration camp in Poland, SS Standartenfuehrer Koch. The trial was reaching its climax. The investigation had led to very serious charges against Koch. Here I must mention that SS Obergruppenfuehrer Prince Waldeck, then head of the SS main district [Oberabschnitt] Fulda-Werra, was personally opposing Koch, and it was merely this personal antagonism of the two men which had brought about the trial. A man by the name of Koehler, a Hauptscharfuehrer in Buchenwald, was arrested by Dr. Morgen and kept in custody in the Buchenwald concentration camp. This Hauptscharfuehrer seemed to have testified against Koch. Two or three days later this Hauptscharfuehrer Koehler was found dead in his cell. A few hours before he had been quite healthy. He seemed to have taken strong poison. Dr. Morgen contended that Dr. Hoven, together with the guard, Hauptscharfuehrer Sommer, had killed Koehler. Koehler was dissected in the dissecting room in the presence of a scientist from Jena and two of my comrades. The head of the pathology section was also present. Drugs of the alkaloid series were found in the stomach of the dead man. The amount and the specific type was not known. In order to determine the fatal dosage of poisons of this type, the SS court ordered an experiment on four Russian prisoners of war. This is the experiment which I have just described in Block 46. On 20 September 1943, Dr. Hoven was arrested on Dr. Morgen’s orders and remained in the custody of the SS court until the end of March 1945. I know the date exactly because on that Saturday afternoon Dr. Hoven came to Block 50 on his motorcycle, asked me about Dr. Ding-Schuler, who was not there, and went away again quite depressed. Half an hour later I learned from the hospital, the prisoners’ hospital, that Dr. Hoven expected to be arrested himself.

Q. In other words, Hoven was suspected by Morgen of having done away with the witness against Koch, is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, will you explain to the Tribunal about his second poison experiment?

A. In the summer of 1944—I am not quite sure of the exact date—Dr. Ding, who was already called Schuler, came from Berlin at the time and told me that he had a very unpleasant task to perform. He said it was extremely secret and a few hours later, without my having asked, he told me details about it in his room.

I must point out that at this time there was really nothing at all private or official, that Dr. Schuler would not have told me in order to get my advice. He realized quite clearly that the cause of National Socialism was lost. He was only looking for safety.

He said, “Kogon, can you see any way of getting me out of this affair? I am supposed to test a poison here on Russian prisoners of war. I have to report on it immediately. It is a direct order from Mrugowsky. I don’t know how I can get out of it.”

He gave me the prescription, the chemical formula of this poison, and I was to put this prescription in an envelope and seal it in his presence. In my haste I was not able to read it. It had some code name. I put the prescription in the envelope and only said to him, because we were interrupted, “You know my point of view.” I must add here that in long conversations at night I had tried to explain to him that his only way out was to do as much as possible for the political prisoners, but that in serious cases he must, as a human being, refuse to carry out orders which violated the moral laws.

He laughed when I said that and replied, “I know your religious and moral ideas. You know I don’t believe in anything. This way is out of the question for me; all I can do is comply with the first suggestion and collaborate with the political prisoners.”

In this poison case, he went in great haste and excitement to the camp leader, Sturmbannfuehrer Schubert, whom he had informed beforehand by telephone, and the commander, Oberfuehrer Pister, who also knew about it and they all went—I don’t know whether the camp physician was also present—at any rate, they went to the crematorium, not to Block 46. The Russian prisoners of war, again, four of them, had been taken there into the cellar with the 46 hooks on the walls on which the people were strangled. These four Russians were given this poison. I do not know how it was administered. As Ding-Schuler told me later, they died in a very short time. Then they were dissected and cremated. Dr. Ding did not send a written report on this matter to Berlin. He told me he had to report on it to Mrugowsky orally. Ding was not only excited about this matter, but afterwards he was also very secretive about it. He did not want me to talk about it any more. From indications in his conversation I learned that there was some connection with experiments in the Sachsenhausen concentration camp near Oranienburg which Mrugowsky had performed in Ding’s presence. Prisoners must have been shot there with poisoned bullets, because Ding said that a Russian prisoner of war had succeeded in getting hold of a knife and attacking Mrugowsky, but that the prisoner had been immediately overpowered.