d. Evidence
_Prosecution Documents_
Doc. No. Pros. Ex. No. Description of Document Page NO-429 281 Extract from the affidavit of defendant 555 Hoven, 24 October 1946, concerning typhus and virus experiments. NO-265 287 Diary of the division for typhus and 557 virus research at the Institute of Hygiene of the Waffen SS, 1941 to 1945 (Ding diary). NO-257 283 Extract from the affidavit of Dr. Erwin 572 Schuler, 20 July 1945, concerning typhus experiments. NO-571 285 1943 work report for department for 573 typhus and virus research. NO-121 293 Letter from Haagen to Hirt, 15 November 578 1943, concerning prisoners to be used as experimental subjects for tests with typhus vaccine. NO-122 298 Letter dictated by Rose, addressed to 579 Haagen, 13 December 1943, concerning experimental subjects for vaccine experiments. NO-123 303 Letter from Haagen to Hirt, 9 March 1944, 580 concerning experiments conducted with typhus vaccine and requesting experimental subjects. NO-139 317 Letter from Dr. Grunske to Haagen, 7 581 March 1944, concerning reports on yellow fever virus experiments requested by a Japanese medical officer.
_Defense Documents_
Doc. No. Def. Ex. No. Description of Document Page Rose 16 Rose 12 Extracts from the affidavit of Professor 581 Otto Lenz, director of the Robert Koch Institute in Berlin. Rose 46 Rose 20 Extract from a certified statement, 4 582 March 1947, of J. Oerskov, M. D., director of the State Serum Institute in Copenhagen.
_Testimony_
Extracts from the testimony of prosecution witness Eugen Kogon 583 Extracts from the testimony of defendant Rose 586 Extract from the testimony of defendant Mrugowsky 595 Extracts from the testimony of defense witness Dr. Eugen Haagen 606
TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-429 PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 281
EXTRACT FROM THE AFFIDAVIT OF DEFENDANT HOVEN, 24 OCTOBER 1946, CONCERNING TYPHUS AND VIRUS EXPERIMENTS
I, Waldemar Hoven, being duly sworn, depose and state:
* * * * *
_Typhus and Virus Experiments_
4. In the latter part of 1941 an experimental station was established in the Buchenwald concentration camp in order to determine the effectiveness of various typhus vaccines. This section was called the “Typhus Experimental Station—Division for Typhus and Virus Research” and was under the direct supervision of Dr. Ding, alias Schuler. This experimental station was set up in Block 46 of the camp. The Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS in Berlin, under the command of Dr. Joachim Mrugowsky, received all the reports of these activities and Dr. Ding took orders from Mrugowsky. In the early days, that is, between 1941 and the summer of 1943, Dr. Ding had many meetings in Berlin with Dr. Karl Genzken concerning his work at Buchenwald in connection with the typhus experiments. Dr. Ding told me that Dr. Genzken had a special interest in these matters and that he sent him reports at various times. Dr. Ding also said that Dr. Karl Genzken was one of his superiors. From my association with Dr. Ding, I understood that the chain of command in the supervision of the typhus experimental station was as follows: Reichsarzt SS Grawitz, Genzken, Mrugowsky, and Ding.
5. I can recollect that Dr. Genzken gave orders to Dr. Ding in January 1943 to enlarge the experimental station. At this time Block 60 was cleaned out and made into a station for the production of the various vaccines to be used in the experiments at Block 46. From this time on the experimental station was known as the “Division for Typhus and Virus Research of the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS”. Then in the summer of 1943, Dr. Genzken turned all his duties over to Dr. Mrugowsky, and from that time on Genzken no longer actively participated in these matters. I can recall meeting Dr. Mrugowsky in the home of Dr. Ding on one of his visits to Buchenwald.
6. Inasmuch as I was constantly associated with Dr. Ding at Buchenwald, we became very friendly. I frequently discussed matters with Ding and visited his experimental station from time to time. As a matter of fact, Dr. Ding had to go to Berlin for discussions with Dr. Mrugowsky and others nearly 3 days out of every two weeks, and on such occasions I was in charge of the typhus institute. However, when Ding went to Berlin the experiments were discontinued until he returned.
7. The experiments in Block 46 in the Buchenwald concentration camp were conducted as follows: One group of victims was first vaccinated with the typhus vaccine and then infected with the typhus virus. In order to contrast the effectiveness of the vaccine, another group of inmates was merely infected with the typhus virus without previous vaccination. Between the autumn of 1942 and the summer of 1943 about 500 inmates of the Buchenwald concentration camp were used in these experiments. During my time about 10 percent of the total number of the inmates used, died as a result. I heard that a larger number of the victims died after my time, that is, about 20 percent.
8. The selection of inmates to be used for the purposes of medical experiments in Block 46 by the Division for Typhus and Virus Research was as follows: Whenever Dr. Ding needed human beings for his work, a request was made to the office of the camp commandant and referred to me for action. Usually a man named Schober, an SS Hauptsturmfuehrer, notified me to select the necessary number of prisoners for these purposes. In accordance with this request I selected various inmates, at random, from the roster of the camp. They were placed on a list over my signature and returned to Schober, who often removed certain names from the list for political reasons. In the event of particular prisoners being removed from the list, I was requested to select substitutes in order to provide Dr. Ding with the desired number of victims. After I returned the completed list to Schober, it was given to Dr. Ding for approval. He made a final check to ascertain, from a medical point of view, the physical condition of the selected inmates and to determine whether or not they met with his requirements.
* * * * *
TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-265 PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 287
DIARY OF THE DIVISION FOR TYPHUS AND VIRUS RESEARCH AT THE INSTITUTE OF HYGIENE OF THE WAFFEN SS, 1941 TO 1945 (DING DIARY)
_29 Dec 41_:
Conference between Army Sanitation Inspection [Inspector], General Chief Surgeon Professor Dr. Handloser; State Secretary for the Department of Health of the Reich, SS Gruppenfuehrer Dr. Conti; President Professor Reiter of the Health Department of the Reich; President Professor Gildemeister of the Robert Koch Institute (Reich Institute to Combat Contagious Diseases) and SS Standartenfuehrer and Lecturer [Dozent] Dr. Mrugowsky of the Institute of Hygiene, Waffen SS, Berlin.
It has been established that the need exists to test the efficacy of, and resistance of the human body to, the typhus serum extracted from the egg yolks. Since tests on animals are not of sufficient value, tests on human beings must be carried out.
_2 Jan 42_:
The concentration camp Buchenwald is chosen for testing the typhus vaccines. SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Ding is charged with these tests.
_5 Jan 42_:
Preliminary test A:
Preliminary test to determine the surest and most practical way of infecting human beings artificially. Five experimental subjects received intramuscular and subcutaneous injections of vitelline membrane diluted 1:25 with an emulsified Rickettsia-Prowazeki strain from the Robert Koch Institute in doses of 1 cc. Infection was not possible.
DR. DING SS Hauptsturmfuehrer
_10 Jan 42_:
Preliminary test B:
Preliminary test to establish a sure means of infection: Much as in smallpox vaccination, 5 persons were infected with vitelline membrane culture virus (strain Rickettsia-Prowazeki, Robert Koch Institute) through 2 superficial and 2 deeper cuts in the upper arm.
All experimental subjects used for this test fell ill with genuine typhus. Incubation period 2 to 6 days.
_20 Jan 42_:
Preliminary report of reactions to vaccinations. Through continuous blood pictures a strong surplus of neutrophile myelocytes was discovered.
_20 Feb 42_:
Case history and charts of the preliminary tests to establish a sure means of infection sent to Berlin.
1 death out of 5 sick.
DR. DING SS Hauptsturmfuehrer
_6 Jan 42_:
_1 Feb 42_:
_Typhus Vaccine, Research Series I_
Vaccination for immunization against typhus using the following vaccines:
1. 31 persons with Weigl vaccine from the intestines of lice from the Institute for Typhus and Virus Research of the Army High Command, Krakow.
2. 35 persons with vaccine from vitelline membrane cultures made by the Cox, Gildemeister, and Haagen process.
3. 35 persons with vaccine “Behring Normal” (1 egg in an emulsion of 450 cc. vaccine. Mixture of 70 percent Rickettsia Mooseri and 30 percent Rickettsia-Prowazeki).
4. 34 persons with “Behring Normal” “Behring Strong” (1 egg emulsified in 250 cc. solvent).
5. 10 persons for control.
_3 Mar 42_:
All persons vaccinated for immunization between 6 Jan 42 and 1 Feb 42, and the 10 control persons were infected with a virus culture of Rickettsia-Prowazeki in the presence of Professor Gildemeister. SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Ding infected himself in the process (laboratory accident).
_17 Mar 42_:
Visit of Professor Gildemeister and Professor Rose (Head of the Department for Tropical Medicine in the Robert Koch Institute) to the experimental station. All persons experimented on fell sick with typhus except two who, as was established later, had already had typhus during an epidemic at the police prison in Berlin. SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Ding fell sick with typhus and is in the hospital in Berlin. SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Hoven, station medical officer of the Waffen SS in Weimar, is supervising the stations in the meantime (Blocks 44 and 49).
_19 Apr 42_:
Final report on the 1st typhus vaccine research series: Stone Block 46 will be made available for the purpose of these typhus experiments.
5 deaths (3 control persons, 1 “Behring Normal”, and 1 “Behring Strong”).
DR. DING SS Hauptsturmfuehrer
_19 Aug 42_:
_4 Sep 42_:
_Typhus Vaccine, Research Series II_
Vaccination for immunization against typhus using the following vaccines:
1. 20 persons with vaccines made by the Durand and Giroud process (Pasteur Institute, Paris) from rabbit lungs.
2. 20 persons with vaccine made by the process of Combiescu, Zotta, and collaborators from dog lungs. (Producer: Cantacuzino, Bucharest.) This vaccine was made available by Professor Rose, who received it from Naval Doctor Professor Ruge from Bucharest.
_15 Oct 42_:
Artificial infection of all persons vaccinated for immunization between 19 September 1942 and 4 October 1942, and 19 persons for control with vitelline membrane virus (Rickettsia-Prowazeki).
_25 Oct 42_:
Infection has started with all persons experimented on.
_20 Nov 42_:
Charts and case history sent to Berlin.
4 deaths of control persons.
DR. DING SS Hauptsturmfuehrer
_10 Sep 42_:
_10 Oct 42_:
Unit of SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Ding ordered to the Pasteur Institute in Paris to Professor Giroud.
_22 Oct 42_:
_5 Nov 42_:
_Typhus Vaccine, Research Series III_
Vaccination for immunization against typhus of 20 persons with vaccine made according to the process of Giroud, Paris. (This vaccine was brought from Paris by SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Ding immediately after production.)
_30 Nov 42_:
Artificial infection with vitelline membrane material from the Robert Koch Institute of the 20 persons vaccinated for immunization and of 6 control persons. This research series was observed for 6 weeks and then abandoned without results, as no sickness broke out in the control group.
DR. DING SS Hauptsturmfuehrer
_27 Oct 42_:
_8 Nov 42_:
_Typhus Vaccine, Research Series IV_
Vaccination for immunization of 20 persons with a vaccine from intestines of lice made by the Weigl process (sent by lecturer Dr. Haas of the typhus institute “Emil v. Behring” in Lvov),
_30 Nov 42_:
To test the effect of the immunization, the infection is to be carried out with lice suffering from typhus. The lice and their cages must be burnt immediately, as the latter became leaky during transport, and therefore represent a danger of epidemic in Buchenwald camp.
_3 Dec 42_:
Newly sent lice applied to 15 persons (5 immunized and 10 persons for control). The lice must again be destroyed, as the cages are not tight.
Report made that infection with live typhus lice is not possible because the danger to the camp inmates is too great.
_4 Jan 43_:
Due to infection by lice on 3 December 1942, five persons show short nontypical illness.
The research series is concluded.
DR. DING SS Hauptsturmfuehrer
_15-18 Dec 42_:
Unit of SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Ding ordered to the opening of the typhus research institute “Emil v. Behring” in Lvov in the General Government (lecturer Dr. Haas).
_28-31 Dec 42_:
Vaccination for immunization against diphtheria of the Reserve Battalion of the Leibstandarte SS “Adolf Hitler” (approx. 2,500 men), because of the outbreak of an epidemic.
Inspection of quarters and advice to the medical officer on the fighting of the epidemic.
DR. DING SS Sturmbannfuehrer _1943_
_1 Dec 42_:
_20 Dec 42_:
_Typhus Vaccine, Research Series V_
To determine the immunization effect, 20 persons are being actively vaccinated for immunization with “EM” vaccine of the Behring Works—Dr. Demnitz—(vaccine in which vitelline membrane as well as chicken embryos were used).
_26 Jan 43_:
Artificial infection with vitelline membrane virus OP No. 223 and 226 (Rickettsia-Prowazeki—strain from Robert Koch Institute).
DR. DING SS Sturmbannfuehrer
_9 Jan 43_:
By order of the Chief of the Medical Service of the Waffen SS, SS Gruppenfuehrer and Major General of the Waffen SS Dr. Genzken, the typhus research station at the Buchenwald concentration camp becomes the “Division for Typhus and Virus Research.” The head of the division will be SS Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Ding. During his absence, the station medical officer of the Waffen SS, Weimar, SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Hoven, will supervise the production of vaccines. The Chief of the WVHA, SS Obergruppenfuehrer and Lt. General of the Waffen SS, Pohl, has ordered the extension of the block of stone buildings.
SS Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Ding is at the same time appointed chief departmental head for special missions in office XVI (Hygiene), of office group D (medical affairs of the Waffen SS) of the SS Main Operational Headquarters.
_10 Jan 43_:
_Therapeutic Experiments with Acridine and Methylene Blue_
At the suggestion of the I. G. Farbenindustrie A. G. the following were tested as typhus therapeutica:
_a._ Preparation 3,582 “Acridine” of the chemical pharmaceutical and sero-bacteriological department in Frankfurt-on-Main, Hoechst, Professor Lautenschlaeger and Dr. Weber.
(Therapeutic experiment A)
_b._ Methylene Blue, tested in an experiment on mice by Professor Kiekuth, Elberfeld.
(Therapeutic experiment M)
_26 Jan 43_:
Artificial infection with vitelline membrane virus OP Nos. 223 and 226:
20 persons for therapeutic experiment A: Acridine.
20 persons for therapeutic experiment M: Methylene Blue.
7 persons for control.
_20 Feb 43_:
The control persons from the typhus infections of the 26 January 1943 show no typical typhus symptoms; in the groups, vaccine “EM” of the Behring Works, Acridine, Methylene Blue, about ¼ are also not sick, the remainder have medium typhus.
The research series was designated to the manufacturer as “negative,” since the persons for control could not be infected properly.
One death in therapeutic experiment Acridine.
DR. DING SS Sturmbannfuehrer
_10 Jan 43_:
_Yellow Fever Vaccine Tests_
The Behring Works, Marburg-Lahn, the Robert Koch Institute, Berlin, and the Institute for Typhus and Virus Research of the Army High Command in Krakow were commissioned by the Army High Command to manufacture the yellow fever vaccine of Beltier and collaborators. Since a live virus is being handled, a test is to be performed on 5 persons for safety’s sake from each vaccine charge.
At the same time 50 persons are to be vaccinated _once_ with OP No. 25 of the Robert Koch Institute, which has already been tested for its harmlessness, to determine the decrease of working capacity.
The results of the yellow fever vaccine tests are to be sent to office XVI in the SS Main Operational Headquarters, in duplicate, who will forward one to the manufacturer, and one to the Army High Command, attention: Oberstabsarzt Dr. Schmidt, Army Medical Inspectorate.
_List of Tested OP Numbers_
Manufacturer │ │ No. 1. Behring Works, Marburg. │1, 2, 4. │13 Jan-26 Jan 43. 2. Robert Koch Institute, │28, 30, 37, 38, │11 Jan-26 Jan 43. Berlin. │ 39. │ 3. Robert Koch Institute, │46, 47, 48, 49, │30 Jan-8 Feb 43. Berlin. │ 50. │ 4. Behring Works, Marburg. │4, 5, 6, 7, 8, │30 Jan-8 Feb 43. │ 9, 10, 11, 12,│ │ 13, 14, 15, │ │ 16, 17, 18, │ │ 19, 20, 21, │ │ 22, 23. │ 5. Army High Command, Krakow. │19, 21, 22, 23, │9 Feb-22 Feb 43. │ 25, 26, 27. │ 6. Behring Works, Marburg. │24, 25, 26, 27, │11 Feb-22 Feb 43. │ 28, 29, 30, │ │ 31, 32, 33. │ 7. Behring Works, Marburg. │34, 35, 36, 37, │25 Feb-7 Mar 43. │ 38, 39, 40, │ │ 41, 42, 43. │ 8. Army High Command, Krakow. │28, 29, 30, 32, │25 Feb-7 Mar 43. │ 34. │ 9. Robert Koch Institute, │54, 55, 57, 58. │25 Feb-7 Mar 43. Berlin. │ │ 10. Behring Works, Marburg. │54, 55, 56, 57, │6 May-17 May 43. │ 58, 59, 60, │ │ 61. │
Production is being abandoned for the time being because of the military situation.
DR. DING SS Sturmbannfuehrer
_3 Feb 43_:
_Sterility Experiment with an Egg Vaccine_
A package was sent to us with a small bottle of 20 cc. typhus vaccine from egg-yolk cultures. Op No. 35 of 15 October 1942. A second injection on 8 December 1942, a third injection on 13 December 1942, of a typhus vaccination for immunization was carried out on Sister Lilli Boehm, born on 3 April 1912, by resident surgeon Dr. von Eysmond. Towards evening a temperature of 104° F. (40° C.). Forty-eight hours after the last vaccination, death in coma in the German clinic in Kovno.
_Section protocol_: Typhus (No. 2033, University of Kovno, pathological institute, Dr. Starkus).
_Investigation_: Material vaccinated on
1. 2 percent Schraegagar } 2. Bouillon } 3. 2 percent Glucose Bouillon} 4. Tarrozzi } No growth after 48 hours 5. Blood slide } 6. Klauberg slide }
During animal experiments, guinea pigs and mice were vaccinated intraperitoneally and under the skin of the back. No pathological symptoms at all.
_Results_: The vaccine not responsible for the death. Vaccination took place during the incubation period.
DR. DING SS Sturmbannfuehrer
_8 Feb 43_:
Visit of Oberstabsarzt Dr. Eyer from the Institute for Typhus and Virus Research of the Army High Command in Krakow and Oberstabsarzt Dr. Schmidt from the Army Medical Inspectorate.
_22 Feb 43_:
_Examination of Unknown Bacteriological Material_
During August 1942 Soviet parachutists were dropped in the Marienburg district; they carried in their baggage amphiole material, which was turned over by the RSHA (Dept. IV A/2 Book No. 2152/439 on 25 Feb 1943). They were dysentery bacteriophaga which could be clearly diagnosed by animal and culture experiments; this can be used for therapeutic purposes in cases of diarrhea.
DR. DING SS Sturmbannfuehrer
_28 Feb 43_: _6 Mar 43_:
Unit of SS Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Ding ordered to Paris to procure laboratory material for the Division for Typhus and Virus Research, and the Institute of Hygiene.
_23 Mar 43_:
Conference between SS Sturmbannfuehrer Barnewald, SS Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Ding and SS Hauptscharfuehrer Schlesinger of department W 5, W V H A concerning the breeding of rabbits, guinea pigs, and mice as experimental animals for the experimental department.
_25 Jan 43_: _28 Feb 43_:
_Typhus Vaccine, Research Series VI_
To determine the immunization effect, the following were actively vaccinated for immunization:
20 persons with vaccine “Zuerich” from the hygiene institute of the University of Zuerich (lungs of mice), and
20 persons with vaccine “Riga” from the serum institute of the University of Riga (Professor Darsin, from vitelline membrane cultures).
_31 Mar 43_:
Artificial infection with egg Rickettsia (Rickettsia-Prowazeki) of the Robert Koch Institute, Berlin.
_11 Apr 43_:
The infection of 31 March 1943 has not resulted in any sickness so far.
_28 Apr 43_:
Experimental series abandoned.
DR. DING S Sturmbannfuehrer
_7 Mar 43_:
Examination of the water and inspection of the concentration camp Vught, near Hertogenbosch.
_8 Mar 43_: _10 Mar 43_:
Inspection of billets in Apeldoorn-Arnhem and vicinity. Advising chief surgeon of the commander of the Netherlands re a diphtheria epidemic in Apeldoorn.
DR. DING SS Sturmbannfuehrer
_24 Mar 43_: _20 Apr 43_:
Carrying out of a large scale experiment on 45 persons by the process of the hygiene institute of the Waffen SS by SS Standartenfuehrer Lecturer Dr. Mrugowsky.
Vaccinations were made on 8 different days within 4 weeks against smallpox, typhoid, paratyphus A and B, cholera, typhus, and diphtheria.
Compatibility was generally good. Exact records and report were delivered on 27 April 1943 to department chief of office XVI.
It led partly to a strong decrease in working capacity, loss of strength, increase of temperature, and swelling of the lymph glands. Typhoid and smallpox were not vaccinated on the same side of the body, otherwise great swelling of the lymph glands takes places.
The diphtheria adsorbat vaccine led to about 20 cases of strong formation of abcesses. Where still in the camp, the persons were again vaccinated for smallpox within ¼ year.
DR. DING SS Sturmbannfuehrer
_31 Mar 43_:
_Therapeutic Experiments “Acridine Granulate” and “Rutenol”_
For the therapeutic experiments “Acridine Granulate” (A. Gr) and Rutenol (R), 40 persons were infected with egg Rickettsia.
_11 Apr 43_:
After observation lasting several weeks, no sickness started. Report to SS Standartenfuehrer Lecturer Dr. Mrugowsky and President Professor Gildemeister. The strain “Matelska” of the Robert Koch Institute, which was highly virulent until a year ago, apparently is no longer pathogenic to humans. A new means of artificial infection must therefore be found, which will lead to typhus with certainty.
DR. DING SS Sturmbannfuehrer
_11 Apr 43_:
Preliminary Experiment C:
To determine a sure means of infection, experiments with fresh blood from persons stricken with typhus were made. Infection took place as follows:
3 persons—2 cc. each of fresh blood intravenously.
2 persons—2 cc. each of fresh blood intramuscularly.
2 persons—2 cc. each of fresh blood subcutaneously.
2 persons—after scarification.
2 persons—with a vaccinating scalpel cutaneously.
Those infected intravenously contracted typical, serious typhus and died from failure of the circulatory system. The other experimental subjects complained only of minor discomfort, without becoming hospital cases.
DR. DING SS Sturmbannfuehrer
_13 Apr 43_:
Preliminary Experiment D:
The following were infected:
6 persons with 2 cc. each of fresh blood intravenously.
6 persons with 2 cc. each of fresh blood intramuscularly.
6 persons with 2 cc. each of fresh blood subcutaneously.
6 persons by scarification.
6 persons by means of vaccinating scalpel cutaneously.
The 6 _intravenously_ infected persons again contracted very serious typhus; 5 died.
Of the 6 infected intramuscularly, one person contracted medium typhus. The others had no serious complications, and were not hospital cases.
The surest means of infection to produce typhus in humans is, therefore, the intravenous injection of 2 cc. fresh typhus-infected blood.
DR. DING SS Sturmbannfuehrer
_13 and 14 Apr 43_:
Unit of SS Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Ding ordered to I. G. Farbenindustrie A. G., Hoechst. Conference with Professor Lautenschlaeger, Dr. Weber, and Dr. Fussgaenger concerning the experimental series “Acridine Granulate and Rutenol” in the concentration camp Buchenwald.
Visit to Geheimrat Otto and Professor Prigge in the Institute for Experimental Therapeutics in Frankfurt/Main.
_24 Apr 43_:
_Therapeutic Experiments Acridine Granulate (A-GR2) and Rutenol (R-2)_
To carry out the therapeutic experiments Acridine Granulate and Rutenol, 30 persons (15 each) and 9 persons for control were infected by intravenous injection of 2 cc. each of fresh typhus-infected blood. All experimental persons contracted very bad typhus.
_1 Jun 43_:
Charts and case history completed.
The experimental series was concluded.
21 deaths (8 with Acridine Granulate, 9 with Rutenol, 5 control).
DR. DING SS Sturmbannfuehrer
_27 Apr 43_: _1 May 43_:
Unit of SS Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Ding ordered to Paris to procure laboratory material for the Division for Typhus and Virus Research and the Hygiene Institute.
_10 Jun 43_:
_Typhoid-Therapeutic Experiment “Otrhomin”_
At the suggestion of the Robert Koch Institute, Berlin (Professor Dr. Lockemann) the effect of a new therapeuticum of the Rhoda series—Otrhomin is to be tested on humans. For this purpose, 20 persons of the series “Otrhomin” and 20 persons for control (10 immunized, 10 not immunized) were infected on 10 June 1943 and on 18 June 1943 with 2 cc. each of typhoid bacteria in a physical salt solution, given in potato salad. Of the 40 persons, 7 became slightly sick, 23 more seriously. Furthermore, there were 6 ambulatory cases. Four persons did not show any symptoms.
_28 Jul 43_:
Charts and case history of the series “Otrhomin” completed and sent to Berlin.
_5 Aug 43_:
Charts and case history of the control series completed and sent to Berlin.
_10 Aug 43_:
Delivery of the records to Reich Senior Medical Counsellor Christiansen in the Reich Ministry of the Interior. The experimental series was concluded.
1 death (control not immunized).
DR. DING SS Sturmbannfuehrer
_28 May 43_: _18 Jun 43_:
_Typhus Vaccine, Experimental Series VII_
Carrying out of typhus vaccination for immunization with the following vaccine:
1. 20 persons with vaccine “Asid”.
2. 20 persons with vaccine “Asid Adsorbat” of the Anhaltinischen Serumwerke G. m. b. H., Berlin 7.
3. 20 persons with vaccine “Weigl” of the Institute for Typhus and Virus Research of the Army High Command, Army (OKH) Krakow (Eyer).
_27 Aug 43_:
Infection of—
20 persons in the series “Asid”.
20 persons in the series “Asid Adsorbat”.
20 persons in the series “Weigl”.
10 persons for control by intravenous injection of ¼ cc. each of fresh typhus-infected blood, strain Bu II, Passage I.
All experimental persons got very serious typhus.
_7 Sep 43_:
Chart and case history completed. The experimental series was concluded—
53 deaths (18 with “Asid”, 18 with “Asid Adsorbat”, 9 with “Weigl”, 8 control).
_9 Sep 43_:
Charts and case histories delivered to Berlin.
DR. DING SS Sturmbannfuehrer
_8 Nov 43_: _17 Jan 44_:
_High Immunization Experiment with Fraenkel Vaccines_
According to an immunization plan of the Fraenkel high immunization for humans, the compatibility of Fraenkel-Formol-Toxoid (Formol-Toxin of bacterium perfringens) of humans was tested.
At first 15 experimental subjects were vaccinated 3 times at intervals of 14 days with 1 cc. Fraenkel-A1. F. T. (Fraenkel-Toxoid absorbed in aluminum hydroxide).
After an interval of 14 days, vaccinations with Fraenkel-Formol-Toxoid (Formol-Toxin of bacterium perfringens) as follows:
20 Dec 43 1 cc. subcutaneously left upper arm. 26 Dec 43 2 cc. subcutaneously right upper arm. 31 Dec 43 4 cc. subcutaneously left upper arm. 3 Jan 44 6 cc. subcutaneously right upper arm. 6 Jan 44 9 cc. subcutaneously right and left chest. 10 Jan 44 12 cc. subcutaneously both upper arms. 14 Jan 44 15 cc. subcutaneously right and left chest.
_17 Jan 44_:
Observation of vaccination reactions completed and sent away.
DR. DING SS Sturmbannfuehrer
_19 Nov 43_: _25 Nov 43_:
_Phosphorus-Rubber Incendiary Bomb Experiment_
To test the preparation “R 17” on fresh phosphorus burns and to test “Echinacine” ointment and “Echinacine extern” for the later treatment of wounds from phosphorus burns (all from the Dr. Madaus Works in Dresden-Radebeul), burning tests were carried out on five experimental subjects on the above-mentioned dates with phosphorus, matter taken from an English incendiary bomb found near Leipzig.
_5 Jan 44_:
Records delivered to the Reich medical officer of the SS with the request to forward it to the Dr. Madaus Works.
DR. DING SS Sturmbannfuehrer
_30-31 Dec 43_:
_Special Experiment on 4 Persons in the Koch-Hoven Case_
By order of SS Gruppenfuehrer Nebe, the experiment was carried out in the presence of Dr. Morgen and Dr. Wehner.
DR. DING SS Sturmbannfuehrer
_21 Dec 43_: _16 Jan 44_:
_Control of Blood Plasma_
By order of the Military Academy of Medicine, Berlin, 18 capsules of blood plasma were tested on 18 experimental persons for their compatibility on humans.
_17 Jan 44_:
Test records sent away.
_25 Jan 44_: _19 Feb 44_:
_Control of Blood Plasma_
By order of the Military Academy of Medicine, Berlin, 30 more capsules of blood plasma were tested on 30 experimental persons for their compatibility on humans.
_22 Feb 44_:
Test papers sent to Reich medical officer of SS by courier.
DR. DING SS Sturmbannfuehrer
_22 Jan 44_: _31 Jan 44_:
_Vaccine Preliminary Experimental Series “Weimar”_
To test compatibility and the immunization effect, five persons were immunized by three vaccinations with typhus vaccine “Weimar” (producer: Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS, Division for Typhus and Virus Research). On 22 Jan 44, 0.5 cc., on 27 Jan 44, 1.0 cc., on 31 Jan 44, 1.0 cc. were injected subcutaneously in the left or right upper arm.
For comparison, 5 persons were immunized on the above-mentioned dates with 0.5 cc., 0.5 cc., and 1 cc. of typhus egg-culture vaccine “Asid” (Anhaltinische Serumwerke, Berlin) and 5 persons were immunized with typhus vaccine “Giroud” (produced by the Pasteur Institute, Paris, from rabbit lungs), 1 cc. each.
_25 Feb 44_:
Twenty persons (15 immunized and 5 for control) were infected by subcutaneous injection of 1/20 cc. fresh typhus-infected blood.
Donor: G * * * Nr 713, 36 years old (6th day of sickness)
Strain Bu IV/Passage 13.
All those infected fell sick with slight to serious typhus.
_5 Apr 44_:
Chart and case history completed.
_25 Apr 44_:
The experimental series was concluded—
5 deaths (1 Asid, 1 Weimar, 3 Control).
DR. DING
_8 Mar 44_: _18 Mar 44_:
_Typhus Vaccine, Experimental Series VIII_
Suggested by Colonel M. C. of the Air Corps, Oberstarzt Professor Rose the vaccine “Kopenhagen” (Ipsen-Murine vaccine), produced from mouse liver by the National Serum Institute in Copenhagen, was tested for its compatibility on humans.
20 persons were vaccinated for immunization by intramuscular injection into the Musculus Glutaeus Max. on the following dates: 8 Mar 44, 0.5 cc.; 13 Mar 44, 0.5 cc.; 18 Mar 44, 1.0 cc.
10 persons were contemplated for control and comparison.
4 of the 30 persons were eliminated _before_ the start of the artificial injection, because of intermittent sickness.
_16 Apr 44_:
The remaining experimental persons were infected on 16 Apr 44 by subcutaneous injection of 1/20 cc. typhus sick fresh blood. Donor: W * * * No. 763, 27 years old (6th day of sickness)
Strain Bu VII/Passage 1.
The following fell sick:
_a._ 17 persons immunized; 9 medium, 8 seriously.
_b._ 9 control persons; 2 medium, 7 seriously.
_2 Jun 44_:
The experimental series was concluded.
_13 Jun 44_:
Chart and case history completed and sent to Berlin.
6 deaths (3 Kopenhagen, 3 Control).
DR. DING
_26 May 44_: _12 Jun 44_:
_Taking of Blood to Produce Typhus Convalescent Serum (FFRS)_
To produce FFRS, 6,500 cc. blood were taken from 15 typhus convalescents between the 14th and 21st day after the fever had subsided, and sent by courier to the SS Main Operational Headquarters, office group D, office XVI (blood conservation) attn: SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Ellenbeck, in Berlin-Lichterfelde.
DING
_22 May 44_: _16 Jun 44_:
_Control of Blood Plasma_
By order of the Military Academy for Medicine, Berlin, 44 capsules of blood plasma were tested on 44 experimental persons for their compatibility on humans.
_19 Jun 44_:
Test protocol sent to the senior hygienist of the Reich Medical Office of the SS and Police, Berlin.
DING
_17 Jul 44_: _27 Jul 44_:
_Typhus Vaccine, Experimental Series IX_
The typhus vaccine “Weimar”, produced by the Division for Typhus and Virus Research of the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS, Weimar-Buchenwald, was tested according to orders for its efficacy on humans.
This vaccine was produced from rabbit lungs according to the process Durand-Giroud. It contains virus (Rickettsia-Prowazeki) of self-isolating types deadened and suspended in 2/00 Formol.
20 persons were immunized on the following dates with 1 cc. each: 17, 22, 27 July 1944.
The vaccinations were made subcutaneously on the right or left upper arm.
For comparison 20 persons were immunized at the same time with “Weigl” vaccine, produced from lice by the Army High Command in Krakow according to regulations.
Furthermore, 20 persons were provided for control purposes.
_6 Sep 44_:
The 60 experimental persons were infected by subcutaneous injection of 1/10 cc. fresh typhus-infected blood each into the right upper arm.
All persons fell sick as follows:
_a._ “Weimar”—9 slightly, 7 slightly to medium, 4 medium.
_b._ “Weigl”—6 slightly to medium, 8 medium, 6 seriously.
_c._ Control—1 medium, 19 seriously.
_17 Oct 44_:
The experimental series was concluded.
_4 Nov 44_:
Chart and case history completed.
24 deaths (5 “Weigl”, 19 Control).
DR. SCHULER
_13 Oct 44_: _31 Oct 44_:
_Taking of Blood to Produce Typhus Convalescent Serum (FFRS)_
To produce FFRS, 20.8 liters of blood were taken from 44 typhus convalescents between the 14th and 21st day after the fever had subsided, and sent by courier to the SS Main Operational Headquarters, office group D, office XVI (blood conservation)—SS Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Ellenbeck, Berlin-Lichterfelde.
SCHULER
_26 Oct 44_:
Special experiment on 6 persons according to instructions of SS Oberfuehrer Lecturer Dr. Mrugowsky and RKPA (report on this orally).
SCHULER
_13 Nov 44_:
_Therapeutic Experiment with Typhus Vaccine_
By order of the senior hygienist of the Waffen SS of 12 August 44, it is to be determined whether the course of typhus can be tempered by the intravenous or intramuscular injection of typhus vaccine.
For the experimental series 20 persons were considered, of these, 10 for intravenous injection (Series A), 10 for intramuscular injection (Series B) and, in addition, 5 persons for control.
On 13 Nov 44, the 25 experimental persons were infected by subcutaneous injection of 1/10 cc. each fresh typhus-infected blood. All persons fell sick as follows: Series A—10 serious; Series B—1 medium 9 serious; Control—5 serious.
_22 Dec 44_:
The experimental series was concluded.
_2 Jan 45_:
Chart and case history completed.
19 deaths (9 Series A, 6 Series B, 4 Control).
DR. SCHULER
TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-257 PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 283
EXTRACT FROM THE AFFIDAVIT OF DR. ERWIN SCHULER, 20 JULY 1945, CONCERNING TYPHUS EXPERIMENTS
* * * * *
_Hoven’s Share in Block 46_
In February 1942 the order to conduct typhus experiments came through. I was chosen to carry out these experiments. Since I had my office in Berlin, a deputy had to be appointed for my absence in Buchenwald. Reichsarzt SS Dr. Grawitz, in agreement with the leading doctor of the concentration camps, Lolling, appointed SS 1st Lt. Dr. Hoven as station doctor at Buchenwald. My presence in Buchenwald always lasted only a few days, while the experiments and the typhus epidemic lasted about 10 weeks.
Dr. Hoven had orders to get the prisoners (professional criminals sentenced to death), who had been released for the experiments from the Reich Security Office and the chief of the concentration camps, for vaccination or infection after an examination of their physical fitness.
As deputy, he often ordered Dr. Plaza to take over the guard of Block 46. Dr. Plaza, in addition, continued to work independently under Kapo Dietzsch.
For experiments that did not result in death, such as the effectiveness of yellow fever vaccine, 200 to 300 volunteers stood in readiness. This I know from rosters that Dietzsch showed me once. Such experiments did not only take place in the block but also, in a certain case, in the camp itself. For that experiment about 80 Dutchmen were taken; they did not have to work and they were given extra rations. For that they had to have their temperature taken three times daily and every two days they had to give 10 cc. blood for a blood count.
Hoven worked as my deputy until my permanent entrance into Buchenwald in August 1943. In September he was arrested.
In the year 1942 he had to work a lot by himself, since I contracted typhus and after that was sent to a rest home. Immediately after that I was detailed to the Pasteur Institute in Paris. During this time the sick reports bore the signature of Hoven or Plaza.
[Signed] DR. SCHULER
TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-571 PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 285
1943 WORK REPORT FOR DEPARTMENT FOR TYPHUS AND VIRUS RESEARCH
Weimar-Buchenwald, January 1944.
Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS Department for Typhus and Virus Research
_Work Report for the Year 1943_
I. _Division for Typhus and Virus Research, Clinical Section_
1 December 42 to 20 Experiment with typhus vaccines “EM” of the Behring February 43 Works, carried out on 20 experimental subjects. 10 January to 20 Experiment with typhus therapeutics, Acridine and February Methylene Blue, carried out on 47 experimental subjects. 10 January to 17 May Tests with yellow fever vaccines, carried out on 435 experimental subjects. 25 January to 28 Experiment with typhus vaccines “Riga” and April “Zuerich,” carried out on 40 experimental subjects. 24 March to 20 April Performance of a large-scale experiment according to the scheme of the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS, carried out by SS Standartenfuehrer Lecturer Dr. Mrugowsky, with smallpox, typhoid, paratyphus A and B, cholera, typhus, and diphtheria, on 45 experimental subjects. 31 March to 11 April Experiment with typhus therapeutics Acridine Granulate and Rutenol, carried out on 40 persons. 11 April to 24 May Preliminary experiments with fresh blood infected with typhus for the purpose of investigating an infallible method of infection, carried out on 41 persons. 11 April—not yet Infections with typhus so far applied to 47 persons. terminated 24 April to 1 June Experiment with typhus therapeutics Acridine Granulate (2) and Rutenol (2) carried out on 40 experimental subjects. 28 May to 9 Experiment with typhus vaccines “Asid,” September “Asid-Adsorbat,” and “Weigl” carried out on 70 persons. 10 June to 8 August Experiment with typhoid therapeutics “Otrhomin,” carried out on 40 experimental subjects. 8 November—not yet Gangrene—high immunization experiment, carried out terminated on 15 experimental subjects. 19 November—not yet Experiments with burns by means of phosphorus rubber terminated incendiary bombs carried out on 5 persons. 21 November—not yet Control of blood conservation. terminated 23 December to 31 Special experiment carried out on 4 persons. December
II. _Division for Typhus and Virus Research, Production of Vaccines_
10 August Termination of the exterior alterations on the prisoners’ Block 50 in Buchenwald concentration camp. 16 August Opening of the Division for Typhus and Virus Research. Transfer of the head of the department, SS Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Ding to Buchenwald. Beginning of the preliminary work for production. 20 September First infection of 3 guinea pigs with typhus-infected blood, strain Bu I. Up to the end of the year 8 successful infections from this strain and positive adaptation of the strain to mice (with only 2 infections due to lack of these experimental animals), as well as to the lungs of rabbits through mice with the brains of guinea pigs as starting material. 24 September Isolation of the strain Bu II on 3 guinea pigs with typhus-infected blood. After successful adaptation at the end of the year 8th infection. Performance of 4 infections of mice. Great quantities of standard type Rickettsia. Furthermore successful adaptation of the strain Bu II to the lungs of rabbits through mice. 9 October Due to lack of mice experiment to adapt the mixed strains Bu I and Bu II directly from infected brains of guinea pigs to the lungs of rabbits. At the end of the year this strain is contained fully virulent in the 6th infection of rabbits. Since the 5th infection, particularly, great quantities of Rickettsia on the lungs of rabbits. The results of the direct adaptation experiments are being checked by pathogenic and skin virulence tests. 12 October Reported to the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS that the experiments for the breeding of Rickettsia strains on the lungs of rabbits were successful and production was only handicapped by the lack of the refrigerator and of the Calabeius meat-triturator model. 22 October Isolation and transfer to guinea pigs of the strain Bu IV of subjects infected with typhus after strain Bu III had died during the first infection. In this case the lack of mice was once more especially noticeable. First half of Outbreak of an epidemic among 375 recently supplied November mice to which 289 animals succumbed within a few days. As the remaining mice were not healthy either, they were killed. 11 November Vaccination of rabbits with infected lungs of mice. Later on, performance of two more infections of rabbits. Experiments are a complete success; large quantities of Rickettsia with well-developed bacilli-shaped elements on the lungs of the rabbits. 30 November Successful direct adaptation of the strain Bu IV from the brains of infected guinea pigs to the lungs of rabbits. After performance of another infection of rabbits, mixing of the strain with the strain Bu I and Bu II. All infections continue to be successfully carried out. 4 December Experiment, by making use of the night frosts and by using the handshake technique without refrigerator and without Calabeius, to produce the first sample of vaccine. For this purpose, lungs of rabbits of the 5th or 6th infection series of the mixed strain Bu I and Bu II, which are rich in Rickettsia, were used. 14 December Centrifugation of the suspension produced on 4 December. 15 December Starting of the refrigerator which had arrived in the meantime. Result of the examination of the sediment of the vaccine produced on 4 December: after 2 hours of centrifugation great quantities of Rickettsia (bacilli-shaped, point-shaped, dumbell-shaped). The sterility control proved the suspension free from bacteria. 17 December 4 guinea pigs were given intraperitoneal injections of 1 cc. of vaccine each, in order to check whether the vaccines produced on 4 December agreed with them. The guinea pigs did not show any alterations of voracity nor of temperature and were still alive at the end of the year. 24 December Vaccination of a series of 10 guinea pigs, with our own vaccine and Giroud vaccine, in order to infect them later on with typhus-infected blood. 29 December The reactions for skin virulence according to Giroud show a virulence of the suspension at a dilution of 1:2.000 to 1:4.000.
For the performance of the breeding experiments 56 mice, 134 guinea pigs, and 112 rabbits were used up to the present date.
In the serological department 1226 proteus OX 19 agglutinations, 3 Gruber-Widal tests, and 4 Takata-Ara reactions were performed for the SS infirmary and Buchenwald concentration camp and its branch camps.
For our own requirements up to this date, about 1,500 cubic cm. of typhoid-paratyphus B deposits have been produced, in order to reduce the power of resistance of the experimental animals.
III. _Inspections of the Division for Typhus and Virus Research_
8 February Inspection of the clinical section by Oberstabsarzt Dr. Eyer of the Institute for Typhus and Virus Research of the Army High Command, Krakow and by Oberstabsarzt Dr. Schmidt of the Army Medical Inspectorate. 24 August Inspection of the department by the Director of the Central Building Section of the Waffen SS and Police, SS Obersturmfuehrer Huehnefeld, and discussion of necessary improvements. 26 August Inspection by the Higher SS and Police leader in Kassel, SS Obergruppenfuehrer and General of the Waffen SS, the Prince of Waldeck and Pyrmont, and by the commandant of Buchenwald concentration camp. 3 September Inspection by the head of the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS, SS Standartenfuehrer Lecturer Dr. Mrugowsky. 29 September Inspection by the Chief of Office D III in the SS Economic and Administrative Main Office (WVHA), SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. Lolling and Professor Dr. Schenk.
IV. _Official Trips by the Head of the Division for Typhus and Virus Research_
28 February to 6 SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. Ding ordered to Paris March for the purchase of laboratory equipment for the Division for Typhus and Virus Research Weimar-Buchenwald, and for the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS. 27 April to 1 May Once more on detached service to Paris for the same purpose. 25 June to 15 August Ordered sick leave at Sellin on Ruegen. 27 August Conferences with the Zeiss firm at Jena, with the Landesgewerbearzt and in the University Library. 4 September Inspection in the village of “X” with the Head of the Hygiene Institute, SS Standartenfuehrer Lecturer Dr. Mrugowsky, with the Standortarzt of the Waffen SS Weimar-Buchenwald, and with the adjutant of the commandant of the Buchenwald concentration camp. 8 September Another inspection in the village of “X”. 16September Purchase of laboratory requisites at Jena, conference with the Zeiss firm concerning the alteration of 2 microscopes. 23 September Purchase of laboratory requisites at Erfurt. 29 September to 4 Conference in Berlin with the Head of the Hygiene October Institute of the Waffen SS, SS Standartenfuehrer Lecturer Dr. Mrugowsky. 13 October Inspection at “Dora” and “Laura” with the commandant of the Buchenwald concentration camp. 21 October Inspection of the branch commands Leipzig Wernigerode, Schoenebeck, and “Dora” with the camp commandant. 25 October to 15 On detached service with the German Hygiene November Institute for the Eastern Territories in Riga, and subsequently conference with the Madaus firm in Dresden at the instance of SS Obergruppenfuehrer and General of the Waffen SS von Woyrsch.
SS Sturmbannfuehrer.
TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-121 PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 293
LETTER FROM HAAGEN TO HIRT, 15 NOVEMBER 1943, CONCERNING PRISONERS TO BE USED AS EXPERIMENTAL SUBJECTS FOR TESTS WITH TYPHUS VACCINE
15 November 1943 _Secret_
To: Professor Dr. Hirt Anatomical Institute of the Reich University Strasbourg
On 13-11-43, an inspection was made of the prisoners that were furnished to me in order to determine their suitability for the tests which have been planned for the typhus vaccines. Of the 100 prisoners that have been selected in their former camp, 18 died during transport. Only 12 prisoners are in such a condition that they can be used for these experiments, provided their strength can first be restored. This should take about 2-3 months. The remaining prisoners are in such a condition that they cannot be used at all for these purposes.
I might point out that the experiments are for the purpose of testing a new vaccine. Such experiments only lead to fruitful results when they are carried out with normally nourished subjects whose physical powers are comparable to those of the soldiers. Therefore, experiments with the present group of prisoners cannot yield usable results, particularly since a large part of them are apparently afflicted with maladies which make them unsuitable for these experiments. A long period of rest and of good nourishment would not alter this fact.
I request, therefore, that you send me 100 prisoners, between 20-40 years of age, who are healthy and who are so constituted physically that they furnish comparable material.
Heil Hitler! STABSARZT PROF. DR. E. HAAGEN
TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-122 PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 298
LETTER DICTATED BY ROSE, ADDRESSED TO HAAGEN, 13 DECEMBER 1943, CONCERNING EXPERIMENTAL SUBJECTS FOR VACCINE EXPERIMENTS
Professor Rose, Chief Surgeon.
O. U., 13 December 1943.
Stabsarzt Professor Haagen Institute of Hygiene of the Reich University Strasbourg, Alsace, Adolf Kussmaulstrasse 3
Dear Herr Haagen,
Many thanks for your letter of 8 December. I regard it as unnecessary to make a renewed special request to the SS Main Office in addition to the request you have already made. I request that, in procuring persons for vaccination in your experiment, you requisition a corresponding number of persons for vaccination with the Copenhagen vaccine. This has the advantage, as also appeared in the Buchenwald experiments, that the testing of various vaccines simultaneously gives a clearer idea of their value than the testing of one vaccine alone.
With best wishes, Heil Hitler! Yours (Dictated by Prof. Rose and signed after his departure) By order [Signed] SCHWARZE Private, 1st Class (Med. Corps)
TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-123 PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 303
LETTER FROM HAAGEN TO HIRT, 9 MARCH 1944, CONCERNING EXPERIMENTS CONDUCTED WITH TYPHUS VACCINE AND REQUESTING EXPERIMENTAL SUBJECTS
9 May 1944
Main Office SS through Professor Dr. Hirt Anatomical Institute of the Reich University Strasbourg
I enclose herewith a carbon copy of a paper on our experiments with a dry typhus vaccine. The paper was sent to the Chief of the Luftwaffe Medical Service as a manuscript, with the request for permission to publish it. It constitutes a report concerning further experiments with a typhus vaccine which has not been made sterile by chemical agents or by heating. As may be seen from the results, it has been possible to produce a vaccine which provides not only an antitoxic immunity but also a definite anti-infection immunity which is of particularly practical significance. However, it is clearly pointed out that vaccination is followed by a rather long fever reaction and, therefore, its introduction cannot yet be recommended. Further tests are now in progress to alter the vaccine so that, without losing its antigenic property, it will produce so weak a reaction that no general indisposition will result. These tests will be made by reducing the dose or by storing the vaccine for a longer interval.
To carry out this research, experimental subjects will again be needed. I, therefore, again request that subjects be furnished to me for this purpose. In order to obtain results which are accurate and which can be statistically evaluated, I ask that 200 persons be furnished to me for inoculation. I may point out that they must be in a physical condition similar to that of members of the armed forces.
It is highly desirable that I again be permitted to carry out these experiments at camp Natzweiler.
PROFESSOR DR. E. HAAGEN
TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-139 PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 317
LETTER FROM DR. GRUNSKE TO HAAGEN, 7 MARCH 1944, CONCERNING REPORTS ON YELLOW FEVER VIRUS EXPERIMENTS REQUESTED BY A JAPANESE MEDICAL OFFICER
High Command of the Navy Flottenarzt Dr. Grunske
Berlin, 7 March 1944 Landgrafenstr. 12 Tel: 24 9591 Ext 241
To: Professor Dr. Haagen Strasbourg Hygiene Institute of the University
Dear Professor:
In connection with my letter of 26 February and your long distance telephone call of 6 March, I must advise you that the Japanese Oberstabsarzt has in the meantime contacted Oberstarzt Professor Dr. Rose of the Luftwaffe Medical Service, and that the latter has promised to secure for him from Strasbourg all the accounts concerning the yellow fever virus experiments which are important to him. Therefore, Oberstartz Dr. Rose will give you further details. I therefore ask that the matter be considered closed between us.
With fraternal esteem and Heil Hitler! Respectfully yours [Signed] DR. GRUNSKE Flottenarzt
TRANSLATION OF ROSE DOCUMENT 16 ROSE DEFENSE EXHIBIT 12
EXTRACTS FROM THE AFFIDAVIT OF PROFESSOR OTTO LENZ, DIRECTOR OF THE ROBERT KOCH INSTITUTE IN BERLIN
* * * * *
Professor Rose was not the “typhus expert” of the Robert Koch Institute, nor did he work on typhus there. But he was the Chief of the Department of Tropical Medicine, and was in this capacity, with the exception of one field of research, (that of the transmission of dysentery and typhoid bacilli by insects) exclusively concerned with tropical diseases and parasites (insects).
The typhus expert of the institute was rather Professor Haagen, the Chief of the Virus Division. After his departure, following his appointment to the Chair of Hygiene at Strasbourg University, Professor Gildemeister, the then President of the Institute, continued the research on typhus.
Thus, various physicians, among them Dr. Ding, received instruction on typhus from Professor Haagen in the Virus Division, but _not_ from Professor Rose.
Owing to the destruction by air raids of many of the files of the Robert Koch Institute, I can no longer ascertain whether Professor Rose was associated with the decisions taken on typhus experiments.
Several of the men who were at that time departmental chiefs, however, assured me unanimously, that this had _not_ been the case.
* * * * *
Finally, nothing is known of Professor Rose’s having had the opportunity to become aware of Geheimrat Lockemann’s chemo-therapeutical experiments (chemo-therapy of abdominal typhoid with otrhomin). The only research on abdominal typhoid carried on in Rose’s department consisted of the experiments on the role of the house fly in the transmission of dysentery caused by bacteria and of abdominal typhoid.
* * * * *
TRANSLATION OF ROSE DOCUMENT 46 ROSE DEFENSE EXHIBIT 20
EXTRACT FROM A CERTIFIED STATEMENT, 4 MARCH 1947, OF J. OERSKOV, M. D., DIRECTOR OF THE STATE SERUM INSTITUTE IN COPENHAGEN
* * * * *
In answer to questions asked us about the visit of Professor Rose, I can say the following:
to 1. Did Professor Rose, when he visited the Institute at the end of September 1943, request the Copenhagen Institute to take up the production of the typhus vaccine from R. pr. in order to help overcome the great shortage of typhus vaccine? Yes.
to 2. Was this request refused by Director Oerskov for valid reasons? Yes.
to 3. Was R. then taken to visit Dr. Ipsen’s section?
I do not remember this, but it is apparent from Dr. Ipsen’s experimental records that Professor Rose actually was in Dr. Ipsen’s laboratory on 24 September and probably discussed these problems with him. Unfortunately, Dr. Ipsen is at present in America on a study trip and will not return before June or July. It is, however, apparent from our records that if Profesor Rose ever received samples of our vaccine it could only have been a small quantity, and neither I nor Dr. Ipsen’s colleagues have ever heard anything of the possible effects of our vaccine.
Through the Danish Red Cross we sent our vaccine to Danish as well as to Norwegian prisoners of war camps, so that the vaccine was given only to Danish or Norwegian colleagues. We heard from Danish colleagues that the effect of these vaccinations was good.
I can add that I am grateful to Professor Rose because he probably helped to prevent our Institute’s being compelled to take over the production of typhus vaccine. It is entirely unpredictable what calamities might have arisen if we had been forced to take up the production of this vaccine.
[Signed] J. OERSKOV Director of the State Serum Institute Not. K. J. No. 1974/47 EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF PROSECUTION WITNESS EUGEN KOGON[63]
_DIRECT EXAMINATION_
* * * * *
MR. MCHANEY: Now, will you please explain to the Tribunal in your own words exactly how these typhus experiments were carried out.
WITNESS KOGON: After 40 to 60 people, sometimes up to 120, had been detailed for a series of experiments, one-third of them were separated, and the other two-thirds were either vaccinated with a protective treatment, or it was otherwise administered to them, if it was a chemical therapeutical treatment. Those people who were protected against typhus remained in Block 46 for several weeks until their infection with Rickettsias Prowazeki, the typhus agent. The first selection, that is to say, the first third, was also infected together with them. They served as so-called control persons, with the help of whom it was possible to ascertain whether the infection took and what course the disease took in their cases, so that this course could be compared with that of those who had been vaccinated and then infected. The infection was performed in various ways. Either typhus was transferred through fresh blood injected intravenously or intramuscularly. At the beginning, too, by scratching the skin, or by making a small incision in the arm. In the initial stages, two cubic centimeters of fresh blood infected with typhus were used for the infection, unless the infection concerned was one with an infectious solution. Two cubic centimeters of fresh blood containing typhus were then usually injected into the veins. Later on that dosage was reduced to 1/20 of 1 cubic centimeter because the large quantity of 2 cubic centimeters would penetrate any security achieved by the vaccination. Even 1/20 of a cubic centimeter of fresh blood containing typhus was usually enough to produce a very high degree of typhus if injected into the veins. In the course of years the typhus cultures used at Buchenwald had been cultivated from man to man and had increased their strength, their virulence to a considerable degree, so that the very smallest quantity was sufficient. I suggested to Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Ding in 1944 that in order to increase the scientific value he should reduce the quantity of these injections to the extreme minimum so that the so-called threshold value could be ascertained—in other words, so that the artificial infection should be as similar to normal infection by lice as possible. He turned this suggestion down because he believed that then no convincing proof could be achieved of the real strength of the protective treatment used. A third category of the experimental persons was used to maintain the typhus cultures. Those were the so-called passage persons, amounting to three to five persons per month. They were merely infected for the purpose of ensuring a constant supply of fresh blood containing typhus. Very nearly all those persons died. I do not think I am exaggerating if I say that 95 percent of these cases were fatal.
Q. Witness, do you mean to say that they deliberately infected three to five persons a month with typhus just to have the viruses alive and available in blood?
A. Just for that particular purpose.
Q. Can you tell the Tribunal approximately how many of those persons died who were infected just to keep the viruses alive?
A. From the so-called passage persons, as I have already said, between three to five were used per month, that is, when I was working for Dr. Ding-Schuler—every month until the end of the Buchenwald concentration camp. That is to say, from April 1943 until March 1945. As far as the previous period is concerned, I only know that passage persons had been used, but I do not know the figures.
Q. Now, Witness, were experimental persons also infected with lice?
A. As far as I know, only one single experiment took place in Buchenwald where an original infection with typhus was performed with lice. The infected lice were brought from the OKH Institute in Krakow by a courier and were taken to Block 46. There they were kept in small cages which were applied to the thighs of the experimental persons, and a number of persons, I do not know how many, were infected. Some of our comrades let a few lice escape in a room of Block 46, but they kept them under control and reported to the Kapo that infected lice had escaped from the cages. Kapo [inmate trusty] Arthur Dietzsch immediately reported this to the camp physician, Dr. Hoven, who was deputizing at that time for Dr. Ding-Schuler. Dr. Hoven, following Dietzsch’s advice, then ordered the destruction of these infected lice. A second delivery from Krakow was also burned because it was not desired that experiments should be performed which entailed such danger for the camp.
* * * * *
Q. Can you tell the Tribunal whether these experimental subjects suffered to any appreciable extent during the course of these typhus experiments?
A. There we must draw a strict dividing line between the general mental condition of such experimental persons and the physical condition caused by this disease. Every man in the camp knew that Block 46 was a dreadful place. Only a very few people in the camp had an exact idea of what was going on in Block 46. A dreadful horror seized anyone who was brought into any kind of connection with this block. If people were selected and taken to Block 46 through the sick bay, then they knew that the affair was a fatal one. The untold horror which was attached to this block made things even worse. Apart from this, it was generally known in the camp that Kapo Arthur Dietzsch exercised iron discipline in Block 46. There the cat-o’-nine-tails really ruled supreme. Everyone, therefore, who went to Block 46 as an experimental person did not only have to expect death, and under certain circumstances a very long drawn out and frightful death, but also torture and the complete removal of the last remnants of personal freedom. In this mental condition these experimental persons waited in the sick bays for an unknown period of time. They waited for the day or for the night when something would be done to them; they did not know what it would be, but they guessed that it would be some frightful form of death. If they were vaccinated, then sometimes the most horrible scenes took place, because the patients were afraid the injections were lethal. Kapo Arthur Dietzsch had to restore order with iron discipline. After a certain period, when the actual illness had set in after the infection, ordinary symptoms of typhus would appear, which, as is well known, is one of the most serious illnesses. The infection, as I have already described to you, became so powerful during the last two and a half years that the typhus almost always appeared in its most horrible form. There were cases of raving madness, delirium, people would refuse to eat, and a large percentage of them would die. Those who experienced the disease in a milder form, perhaps because their constitutions were stronger or because the vaccine was effective, were forced continuously to observe the death struggles of the others. And all this took place in an atmosphere hardly possible to imagine. Just what happened to those people who survived the typhus was something which they did not know during the period of convalescence. Would they remain in Block 46 to be used for other purposes? Would they be used as assistants? Would they be feared as surviving witnesses of the experiments on human beings and therefore killed? All this was something which they did not know and which aggravated the conditions of these experiments.
EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT ROSE[64]
_CROSS-EXAMINATION_
* * * * *
MR. MCHANEY: When did you first learn that Haagen was conducting experiments on concentration camp inmates?
DEFENDANT ROSE: That Haagen was performing experiments on concentration camp inmates? I don’t believe that even today, but I knew that he carried out vaccinations in concentration camps. I cannot remember when I first learned of it—probably in 1943.
Q. Well, you remember the letter in December 1943?
A. I certainly must have known it by then because there I refer to it.
Q. Well, did you know about this sordid occasion when Haagen had 18 men who had been assigned to him die on transport?
A. I never learned anything about that at the time. I found it out from the files. I never knew that prisoners were especially taken to these concentration camps in order to be vaccinated.
Q. What would you have done if you had known about it? Wouldn’t that have given you an indication that maybe things were not so nice in the concentration camp, or maybe proper care wasn’t being taken of the inmates in these experiments?
A. If I had learned anything about it I probably would have reacted exactly as Haagen did. The documents he wrote to the SS office prove that one cannot conduct any experiments of any consequence on such unfortunate people. The record is in the documents here. If I had learned about it, I would probably have reacted in exactly the same way, perhaps more violently.
Q. Well, I should have hoped so.
A. I beg your pardon. I didn’t understand you.
Q. I should have hoped you would have reacted somewhat more violently than Haagen apparently did.
A. That is possible. Our temperaments are different.
Q. You recall Fraeulein Eyer testified that Haagen sent reports every three months to the Medical Inspector of the Luftwaffe. Do you agree to that testimony?
A. I heard the testimony. Yesterday in my direct examination I commented on it. If Haagen had reported every three months I certainly wouldn’t have forgotten it. I had many things on my mind during the war, but such an exemplary condition of reporting would certainly have impressed itself on my memory. It is quite out of the question that the Medical Inspectorate received a report from Haagen every 3 months. I said yesterday that I consider Fraeulein Eyer’s testimony quite credible, because in view of the number of offices with which Haagen was in connection, and from which he received reports, there were so many reports and accounts necessary that it is a marvel that Fraeulein Eyer didn’t say she had to write a report every month. I explained with the aid of the documents what obligation to report is apparent from the documents alone. You probably haven’t had an opportunity to read the record yet, but as soon as the record is ready you will be able to see that. I don’t think there is any purpose in holding up the proceedings with that any further.
Q. And you are quite clear that Haagen never suggested to you that he was going to carry out infection experiments with typhus after vaccination?
A. That is not known to me.
Q. Let’s have a look at Document NO-1059. This will be marked as Prosecution Exhibit 490 for identification. Now, will you please read this letter in a loud and resonant voice?
A. Perhaps I may see the photostat.
Q. Will you read the letter aloud, please?
A. (Reading)
“29 November 1943—Registered “To Oberstarzt Professor Dr. Rose “Inspectorate of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe “Saalow (Post Office Zossen-Land) “Dear Herr Rose:
“Enclosed I am sending you the report about our experiments with dehydrated typhus vaccine which I promised you several days ago. As I intend to publish the findings, I have already written the report in manuscript form. After it has been reviewed, I would like it to be submitted to the competent authorities for their approval of its publication in the ‘Zentralblatt fur Bakteriologie’ [Central Periodical for Bacteriology].
“One hundred persons from a local concentration camp were put at my disposal for immunization and subsequent infection. Unfortunately, these people were in such a poor physical condition that eighteen of them already died during transport; the remainder were likewise in such bad physical shape that they could not be used for inoculation purposes. In the meantime I have requested 100 additional persons from the SS Main Office, who should, however, be in a normal physical and nutritional condition, so that the experiments can be carried out on material which at least approaches the physical condition of our soldiers.
“For the time being, we will concentrate on an epidemic culture in the form of a virus, which we have received from Giroud in the meantime. This seems to be a very good culture.
“With best regards, “Heil Hitler! “Yours—
“Enclosure: one report.” And no signature.
This is the matter which I discussed yesterday. Haagen’s plan to test the inoculation reactions to his live and virulent dry vaccine by prevaccination with dead vaccine to weaken the reaction. That is the same matter.
Q. I thought you said about two minutes ago that you didn’t know of the incident where eighteen of the inmates put at Haagen’s disposal had died during transport.
A. Yes, that’s true. That’s what I said. I had forgotten about it. I thought that I had learned it for the first time from the records. If I had remembered it, I would, of course, not have exposed myself by denying it. But now I see this letter. It is obviously a carbon copy. I must assume that on 29 November 1943 the mail was still fairly normal, and that I received the letter, since a report is mentioned which I was to deal with. It was apparently one of Haagen’s papers on his dry vaccine, on which my knowledge is based and on account of which I can give any information here at all as to Haagen’s experiments. This knowledge of mine goes back to these papers of his which he wanted to publish.
Q. It would appear that in spite of your fiery temperament your reaction was even less significant than Haagen’s himself, wouldn’t it?
A. Since I was not concerned in the matter, as it was something between Haagen and the concentration camp, there was no reaction in this case. If somebody else tells me that he has had direct contact with abuses, then there is no occasion for me to interfere, since that is settled between the persons concerned. I had nothing to do with the concentration camps. I did not have to carry out any inoculations there.
Q. And you insist that the words, “one hundred persons from a local concentration camp were put at my disposal for immunization and subsequent infection” really don’t mean subsequent infection at all, but a subsequent immunization?
A. With the live and virulent dry vaccine, yes.
Q. Well, that is certainly an inarticulate way of saying that, isn’t it?
A. This is correspondence between experts, and they know what it’s about.
Q. You state yourself that you are still not sure exactly what Haagen did, although you were down there in the middle of 1943 and got him back on the pay roll of the Luftwaffe, and you knew he was staying at the laboratory and you knew he was going to work on typhus vaccines, but you now sit here and say you don’t know exactly what he was doing.
A. Yes. That is true. I have given considerable information here about Haagen’s work, and I have gone to considerable pains to get it all together; but of course I can’t give you complete information, simply because all these experiments were not under our direction and supervision.
Q. Herr Professor, the first time the question of subsequent infection came up was in a letter dated 1944, and you spent the best part of a day rationalizing “subsequent infection” as meaning something entirely different—that it was simply a subsequent vaccination, after the man had already been vaccinated by the dead vaccine. Now, if you were told on 29 November 1943 that he was going to carry out immunization and subsequent infection experiments, you certainly would have known as a matter of fact what he was doing, and you would not need to speculate on this stand as you did yesterday. These words are entirely susceptible to the meaning that they mean exactly what they say.
A. At this stage of his experiments Haagen did not yet have a fully developed vaccine. He was working exclusively on the problem of weakening the reaction to this live virulent vaccine. That was the problem he was dealing with at the end of 1943 and the beginning of 1944. He was looking for various methods of achieving this aim.
Q. What does he mean in the last paragraph when he says, “For the time being, we will concentrate on an epidemic culture in the form of a virus, which we have received from Giroud in the meantime”?
A. That means that up to that time he had worked with a murine strain, and that now for the development of the dry vaccine he wanted in addition to use a strain of Rickettsia-Prowazeki.
Q. Well, I now want to point out to you again that I am having considerable difficulty in construing the word “infection” to mean vaccination.
A. Yes. I admit that many of these documents are written in a confusing way, but I believe that I can remember the whole matter adequately enough to know what the problem is. The vaccine was not developed enough to be used in vaccination without reaction and then to determine the effect. There were strong fever reactions, and the problem was how to avoid this fever reaction.
Q. Well, why call that infection?
A. That is a similar condition biologically. An injection of a live, a virulent vaccine, from the biological point of view, is an infection. This expression is used often enough, but it is an infection which one can absolutely control.
Q. And after receipt of this letter, you then wrote him on the 13th of December—and this is Document NO-122, Exhibit 298—you sent him the Copenhagen vaccine, didn’t you, and asked him to test it in his experiments on his concentration camp inmates, didn’t you, just as they did in Buchenwald, as you put it?
A. I beg your pardon?
Q. You sent him the Copenhagen vaccine after receiving this letter of 29 November, and asked him to test that in his experiments on concentration camp inmates.
A. When this discussion of the Copenhagen vaccine took place, Haagen was specially interested in it, because it was a murine vaccine; and since he could not yet control fever reaction with murine vaccine—he only succeeded in doing that at the beginning of 1944 by storing the vaccine for a considerable time—he was no longer interested in this Copenhagen vaccine. But at the end of 1943, when he still had the same difficulties as Blanc with the reactions with the live murine vaccine, he was considerably interested in the Copenhagen vaccine. For it was the only vaccine from murine virus available in Europe at the time.
Q. You sent it to him, told him to test it just like they did in a series of experiments in Buchenwald, didn’t you?
A. I don’t remember that.
Q. Well, you remember mentioning Buchenwald to Haagen in your letter of 13 December 1943?
A. Oh, that’s what you mean. Yes, I pointed it out as a parallel, because several vaccines were tested in Buchenwald for their effect against infection, and Haagen in Strasbourg wanted to test various vaccine for their reaction effect.
Q. You sent that Copenhagen vaccine to Buchenwald also to be tested?
A. No.
* * * * *
Q. Herr Professor, did Mrugowsky ever request you to give him vaccines for use in typhus experiments?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever discuss the question as to whether the louse could be infected by a vaccinated typhus patient with the defendant Mrugowsky?
A. That could be possible. This question played an important role for a time in the discussion about the vaccines and their effectiveness. We had some old Polish observations available to the effect that if vaccinated persons received typhus in spite of the vaccination, no further illnesses could be transferred by such persons. It is possible throughout, since this question was of considerable importance that something like that could well have been discussed by Mrugowsky and myself. We talked a lot about that question.
Q. Did you ever negotiate with Mrugowsky concerning vaccines to be tested in Buchenwald?
A. No.
Q. Let’s look at Document NO-1754.
(Document submitted to the witness.)
MR. MCHANEY: I will ask that document NO-1754 be marked as Prosecution Exhibit 491 for identification.
Q. (Continuing) Herr Professor, will you read this document aloud?
A. “Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS; Journal No. 795/42
“Berlin W 15, Knesebeckstrasse 43/44; 16 May 1942
“To Oberfeldarzt Professor Dr. Rose; Berlin N. W., Foehrerstrasse 2
“Robert Koch Institute “Dear Professor:
“The Reich Physician SS and Police has consented to the execution of experiments to test typhus vaccines. May I therefore ask you to let me have the vaccines?
“The other question which you raised, as to whether the louse can be infected by a typhus patient vaccinated for protection, will also be dealt with. In principle, this has also been approved. There are, however, still some difficulties at the moment about the practical execution, since we have at present no facilities for breeding lice.
“Your suggestion to use Olzscha has been passed on to the personnel department of the SS Medical Office. It will be given consideration in due course.
“With kind regards, and
“Heil Hitler! “Yours “Dr. MRUGOWSKY, SS Obersturmbannfuehrer.”
There is a footnote to this letter, and I quote:
“According to telephone inquiry, Dr. Mrugowsky asks to be called by telephone after Professor Dr. Rose’s return. Dr. Mrugowsky will not be in Berlin in June. His deputy, Dr. Ding, is informed. 20 May 1942.”
This letter shows that Dr. Mrugowsky once informed me that the Reich Physician SS and Police had consented to the testing of typhus vaccines. He then asks me to send him these vaccines. I cannot recall what vaccines he is speaking of.
Then the question is discussed about lice being infected by typhus patients vaccinated for protection.
I admitted that a possibility exists, and I said that this question was at one time discussed with me.
The final paragraph says that one of my assistants had been drafted into the Waffen SS and that I endeavored to have him used in the hygiene service.
Q. Herr Professor, let’s go to the footnote first. What are the initials “B. L.” at the end of that footnote for? Isn’t that Frau Block?
A. Yes, that would be Frau Block, yes.
Q. And Frau Block has been in touch with Dr. Mrugowsky. She notes that Dr. Ding, who I suppose you will admit is Dr. Ding, has been informed. In view of this note we can pretty well disregard the testimony of your witness Frau Block before this Tribunal, can’t we? She testified that you had not corresponded with Mrugowsky, didn’t she?
A. She said that she could not recollect any correspondence with Mrugowsky, but you will see from my documents which you have before you, that this correspondence in effect was so small that it is quite understandable if she does not remember it in detail. It is a result of my express order that you have these documents available. I ordered that in my institute at Pfaffenrode no documents should be destroyed under any circumstances. There is a written document available to show that I gave such an order.
Q. Herr Professor, this letter is in response to one which you wrote to Mrugowsky, isn’t it?
A. That’s possible.
Q. And in the letter that you wrote to Mrugowsky you asked him to have the Bucharest vaccine tested in Buchenwald, didn’t you?
A. I told you before in great detail that I could not remember this matter about the Bucharest vaccine. If you have a letter before you about this matter, it would, of course, give me a possibility to refresh my memory.
Q. I should think this letter would refresh your memory, Herr Professor, particularly in view of the Ding diary, which has an entry shortly following the date on this letter where Ding carries out his experiments with the Bucharest vaccine among others, and says in the diary that the vaccine was obtained from you; and Mrugowsky in this letter asked you to send him the vaccines which you have mentioned in your previous letter. There’s really no doubt about it, is there, Professor?
A. This possibly becomes apparent.
Q. And was this person Olzscha mentioned in the letter? Was he to assist in Buchenwald?
A. He was to be used in the hygiene service. Since he particularly dealt with entomological questions, I asked that he should work on these questions there.
Q. You got a report from Ding, too, on these experiments testing the Bucharest vaccine, didn’t you, Professor?
A. I cannot remember that, and I already told you once that had I received any such report, I would have drawn the conclusions from it; and since I did not do that, I think it is improbable that I received such a report.
Q. In view of this letter, Doctor, do you want to go back and change your testimony about the Copenhagen vaccine? Didn’t you also suggest those experiments, and didn’t you also supply the Copenhagen vaccine for the experiments in Buchenwald?
A. No. I have no intention of doing that.
Q. Well, in that event I will ask that Document NO-1186 be passed up to you, and this will be marked as Prosecution Exhibit 492 for identification. Will you read this letter aloud please?
A. “Oberstarzt Professor Rose
“O. U., 2 December 1943
“To Standartenfuehrer Dr. Mrugowsky, “Head of the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS “Berlin-Zehlendorf 6 “Spanische Allee 10 “Dear Herr Mrugowsky:
“At present I have at my disposal a number of samples of a new murine virus typhus vaccine which was prepared from mice livers and proved in animal experiments to be quantitatively a thousand times more effective than the vaccine prepared from mice lungs. In order to decide whether this first-rate murine vaccine should be used for protective vaccination of human beings against lice typhus, it would be desirable to know if this vaccine showed in yours and Ding’s experimental arrangement at Buchenwald an effect similar to that of the classic virus vaccines. Would you be able to have such an experimental series carried out? Unfortunately, I could not reach you over the phone. Considering the slowness of postal communications I would be grateful for an answer by telephone. My numbers, all of which go through the same switchboard, are: Berlin 278313; Rapid Exchange Berlin 90, Zossen 559; Luftwaffe Exchange 72, there you ask for RLM, L In 14.
“With best regards
“Heil Hitler! “Yours “Rose”
The signature which you see on this photostatic copy is, in effect, my signature. This letter shows that I also informed Mrugowsky about the Copenhagen vaccine, which I did not remember up to this point.
Q. And you asked him to test the vaccine in Buchenwald didn’t you?
A. The question of whether this vaccine can be tested in Buchenwald is dealt with here.
Q. Do you see the name “Ding” written at the bottom of the letter?
A. Yes, it is at the bottom of the page.
Q. And it appears that the testimony of Kogon was very precise, wasn’t it, because Ding got a copy of this letter, didn’t he?
A. Yes. Ding’s utterances do not only refer to my memorandum but also to the correspondence between Mrugowsky and myself. Apparently it was then transferred to the Reichsarzt SS.
Q. Is the date on this letter 2 December 1943 or 12 February 1943—and I direct your attention to the receipt stamp on the letter which is 21 February 1944?
A. The difference between the two dates can be explained by the fact that a considerable time had elapsed between the sending of my letter and when this letter finally reached Ding. During this time the competent agency dealt with the matter of the approval and execution of the experiments on human beings.
Q. So you maintain that 2 December 1943 is the correct date on the letter?
A. Certainly. That is certainly the correct date.
Q. On the basis of the two letters which I have exhibited to you, you will concede that the Ding diary was precisely accurate in what it said, won’t you?
A. No, one can’t conclude that just like that. The order to carry out experiments in Buchenwald could not be issued by me in any way.
Q. That’s very clear—
A. That vaccines were requested from me seems to be evident from one letter. I didn’t remember it and I still don’t remember it now, but on the basis of this letter one has to consider that fact proved. Then it also becomes evident that in this case I drew the attention of Herr Mrugowsky to this vaccine, and that I mentioned a discussion dealing with human experiments regarding these vaccines.
* * * * *
Q. Professor, 6 persons died in this experiment with the Copenhagen vaccine, didn’t they?
A. Yes. These were 6 persons who were furnished by the Reich Criminal Police Office through the regular channels after they were chosen by the competent agencies.
EXTRACT FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT MRUGOWSKY[65]
_DIRECT EXAMINATION_
* * * * *
DR. FLEMING: Will you please draw the necessary conclusions from what we have discovered about Ding’s diary?
DEFENDANT MRUGOWSKY: The various erroneous entries in this document and the facts which the handwriting experts have discovered prove that this document is not a diary in which entries were made from time to time. Rather there are long periods of time that are missing, sometimes periods of more than one year before the entries were made. Pages 1 to 3, I believe, were all written at the same time, and also the subsequent pages. The document has 27 pages, which were written down on only a few occasions. That is testified to by the handwriting expert. This explains the various discrepancies between the entries and the actual facts; for instance, calling the Robert Koch Institute a Reich Institute, when it wasn’t, etc. The testimony of a prosecution witness, Balachowsky, corroborates this affidavit.
Q. This affidavit is Document NO-484, Prosecution Exhibit 291. Balachowsky said, under number 29: “The file notes which were copied into the diary shortly before the collapse, give the precise number of the pages and the number of the experiments.” Now please continue.
A. In these words Balachowsky corroborates the fact that this diary, namely, this diary of Block 46, was drawn up shortly before the collapse, apparently on several days, consequently the difference in the typewriters used. Now, as to why he did this I can only conjecture—I do not know. That there was some reason for making the entries in this form would appear to be obvious.
Q. For the explanation of why Ding wrote this diary on Block 46 let me remind you of Kogon’s testimony, namely, that after 1943 Ding was sure that the war would be lost.
A. Yes. That is true. During his testimony Kogon often stated that from the beginning of 1943 on, Ding made efforts to cover himself. He also said that from that moment on, the oral assignments that he received were not sufficient, but that he must insist on receiving written orders. All the more remarkable is it then that the so-called diary, this NO-265, says only very infrequently who initiated the various lines of experimentation. And, if I recall correctly, he does not once say who ordered them.
Q. Then do the contents of this diary meet the normal requirements of a scientist’s diary?
A. The diary of a scientist has the purpose of setting down the precise course of the work undertaken. Consequently, all efforts regarding the initiation and course of experiments should be set down. That is a perfectly comprehensible custom in all institutes because subsequently the evaluation of the experiments is based on entries in the scientific institute’s diary. In this Document NO-265, however, which is allegedly such a diary of Block 46, there is not one entry regarding the actual course of the experiments; not even the results of the experiments are set down there. That is really the least that you could ask of such a diary. Dr. Kogon thought that the number of fatalities which are set down with clear precision were a result, to be sure, an unhappy result, of these experiments. That these events are found lamentable can hardly be disputed, but it is a false point of view if one orients oneself on the basis of this result toward something, the purpose of which was entirely different. The real experimental result can be seen in the following: as a consequence of the protective vaccination, what happens during a subsequent case of infection is that firstly, the period of incubation is prolonged, namely, that period of time which lapses between the actual infection and the first appearance of the disease. Secondly, the period of fever is shortened, whereas usually the period of fever in typhus is 17 days. This protective vaccination reduces it to 12, 10, and even 6 days, depending on the strength of the protective vaccine. At the same time, the height of the temperature is reduced. In other words, the symptoms that are associated with fever, which effect the blood circulation and the heart, as well as those which effect the central nervous system, are less pronounced or altogether absent after the protective vaccine. There are various other small clinical indications which a doctor readily recognizes as a result of the protective vaccine, and it must be said that as the result of less serious clinical manifestations, the number of fatalities from typhus is smaller. That is not a direct but an indirect consequence of vaccination. Therefore, when Ding asserts in this block diary of Block 46 that the most important result of the experiments was the number of fatalities, then every doctor will recognize this as such an erroneous and distorted statement that even if it is made by a doctor so reliable as Ding, it is completely unworthy of credence.
Q. I now show you Mrugowsky 9 and I put it in as Mrugowsky Exhibit 23. It is a photostat of a paper by Dr. Ding on the protective action of various vaccines on human beings and the course of typhus after immunization. I do not wish to read the document but simply desire to bring it to the attention of the Tribunal. Would you care to make any statement about the inadequate way in which this diary was worked on? Would you like to say that perhaps Ding was not in a position to carry on such work?
A. This paper is 13 pages long. First, there is the manner of the patient’s tolerance for the vaccine, then the individual points which I just mentioned as the consequences of the protective vaccination are gone into. Tables are presented which give statistics in these matters. There are eight sketches giving graphs showing the results; and at the very bottom on the next to the last page, in the next to the last paragraph, there are three lines which say that the fatalities in the cases of those vaccinated were fewer in number than among those not vaccinated. That is all mentioned in the summary—there is a final summary. This is also an indication that he was perfectly capable of carrying on scientific work. I should like to point out that at the top of this paper it is mentioned that this work was done in my institute in Berlin. I say that as an indication that I laid no stress on keeping these matters secret in any way or that it was my point of view that these experimental results which had been achieved on the most expensive of all material, namely, human beings, should be carried through to conclusion and that results should be made available to all who are interested.
Q. The prosecution also charges you with the fact that Ding infected persons in Buchenwald who had not previously received the protective vaccination. Would you like to make a statement on that subject?
A. The following cases come into question here on the basis of Ding’s diary entries. First of all, there are the so-called “preliminary experiments”. In Document NO-265, four such preparatory experiments are mentioned on nonvaccinated persons. These were done in order to ascertain what method was possible in order to artificially infect human beings with typhus. I always found that the lay person who had never concerned himself with these matters assumes it to be a matter of course that it is always possible to infect a human being with a disease. That, however, is by no means the case. Even in the case of such a toxic material as the typhus germ, successful infection can only occur if it is not directed directly into the blood stream. Unless another way is chosen, it is usually impossible to bring about infection with such a disease. Consequently, when such experiments are to be carried out on human beings—and this is a point of view which I express without any reference to my own person—then such preliminary experiments cannot be dispensed with. The second case is the so-called “controlled cases”.
Q. Did you know anything of these preliminary experiments?
A. No. I found out about them only through the diary.
Q. Ding says in his diary under the 20th of February 1942: “Case histories and curves on the preliminary experiments were sent to Berlin.” Did you receive this report?
A. No. Nor do I believe Ding sent it to me, because he was not subordinate to me in these experiments and it seems, therefore, more probable to me that he sent them to Grawitz. I, at any rate, did not see them.
Q. How can this be reconciled with your letter of 5 May 1942 to Conti and others which I put into evidence this morning as Mrugowsky 10, Mrugowsky Exhibit 20?
A. This letter corroborates what I have just testified to, because the report on this series of experiments was sent to Grawitz, and I received Ding’s report to Grawitz from Grawitz himself with the order to rewrite it in a suitable form, since Grawitz did not wish outside persons to be able to see, without any further trouble to themselves, that these were really experiments on human beings with artificial infection. He knew that, to some extent, I could master the style which he used in his official communications, whereas he did not know whether Ding could or not. Consequently, he commissioned me to take Ding’s original report and to cast it in a suitable form for the purpose of making communications to the manufacturing firm. This I did, and the result is this document dated 5 May 1942.
Q. Your letterhead here is “Reich Physician SS and Police, Chief Hygienist”. In other words, this is one of the cases in which Grawitz made use of you when you still belonged to the medical staff of the Waffen SS?
A. Yes.
Q. Why didn’t Grawitz rephrase the letter himself?
A. There may have been two reasons for that. Firstly, Grawitz was not a hygienist but an internist and since the letter was being sent to specialists, namely, to those people who manufactured the vaccines, he wanted to be sure that the letter contained everything they needed to know and, on the other hand, no more than they needed to know; secondly, this is quite in line with his customary manner of working, namely, to let his collaborators write letters which dealt with their particular sphere of work, and for this reason, he commissioned me to indite this letter.
Q. On this occasion did you not once again express objections to Grawitz regarding experiments on human beings?
A. That I did not do because this series of experiments had been concluded and because I knew that they had been carried out on Himmler’s specific orders. This was the first series of experiments which had ever been carried out and it was the reason for my very violent show-down with Grawitz at that time. I assumed that this job was now completed and I had no reason to raise further objections.
Q. Were the vaccines of the Behring Works in an experimental stage when Dr. Ding used them in his experiments?
A. No; these vaccines had already been tested in the plant as to a person’s tolerance for them. All such preparations of the Behring Works were worked on in their own laboratories before they were sent out into the world.
Q. I submit to the Tribunal Mrugowsky 44, and I put it in as Mrugowsky Exhibit 24. This is an affidavit by Dr. Demnitz, the manager of the Behring Works, regarding the way in which the vaccines of the Behring Works were developed and how they were tested in the institute itself. On the fourth page, it reads:
“Naturally, the Behring Works also carried out tests to establish whether the vaccines agreed with human beings for (_a_) it was necessary to vaccinate those people working in the typhus laboratories in order to protect them against typhus; (_b_) it was necessary to protect those people who attended the experimental animals; and (_c_) the undersigned himself was vaccinated against typhus on several occasions with vaccines of the Behring Works. These vaccinations had to be repeated from time to time. This concerned both German and Russian assistants. About 20 to 25 persons were employed in our typhus department.”
And Number 6: “The animal experiments according to Otto proved: (_a_) the harmlessness and (_b_) the effectiveness or insufficient effectiveness.”
It stated previously, “the question of whether the animals showed a positive reaction is incomprehensible.” It stated also that animal experiments were carried out in the Behring Works. I submit this document to prove these were not vaccines which had not been previously tested, but were vaccines which had gone through the necessary preliminary and effective testing. Do you remember Kogon’s testimony that volunteers were used in the first two series of experiments? This testimony is on page 1,162 of the English transcript and on page 1,197 of the German transcript. If we base our assumptions on Ding’s diary, what two series of experiments must these have been for which volunteers were used?
A. If we base our statements on Ding’s diary we can only consider that these two series were, first of all, the preliminary series A which began on 5 January, and the first series of vaccine experiments with 145 persons regarding which the letter of 5 May 1942 that was previously read concerns itself. (_Mrugowsky 10, Mrugowsky Ex. 20._) This series began on the next day, namely, on 6 January 1942. Any other experiments took place at a later date. Thus, when Kogon says that two series of experiments were carried out with volunteers, it can only be these two series of experiments.
Q. The experiments with which the letter of 5 May concerned itself were carried out on volunteers?
A. Apparently they were.
Q. Can you remember the communication of 11 April 1943 to the effect that the Mateska serum could no longer be used for experiments?
A. No, I don’t remember that and I consider it out of the question that I ever received any such communication. In all bacteriology, particularly in virology, there have been efforts for centuries to breed live germs which are no longer pathogenic (which do not infect human beings), in order to use these live germs for the manufacture of vaccine, namely vaccines with live attenuated strains, because these are a complete protection against the disease.
Q. In other words, you want to say that if you had received this communication, you would have seen to it that further experiments were carried out with this serum which was no longer so virulent?
A. I should not like to put it quite that way, but I should certainly have contacted the person whose institute had developed this strain, that was the Robert Koch Institute, Professor Gildemeister. However, I never spoke to him about this matter, and I should like to believe that he found nothing out about this matter because Gildemeister was one of our best virus researchers and was very familiar with the value such a really unique occurrence would have had.
Q. Did you see reports on the C and D series of experiments concerning the discovery of a safe method of infection, which were said to have taken place on the 11th and 13th of April?
A. No, I only found out about them here while looking through this document and I also saw that Ding does not assert that he sent a report on this to Berlin.
Q. On what further typhus experiment series did you then see reports?
A. In the diary of Block 46, Document NO-265, Ding says that only in the case of a few experimental series did he send reports to Berlin, namely the new experimental series, series I, II, VII, and VIII. I saw the report on series I, having received it from Grawitz, and as I said before, I rephrased it in another form, and it constitutes the document here submitted. Series II was carried out with the vaccine of Durand-Giroud of the Parisian Institute. That was the vaccine we intended to produce in our own institute. I really cannot recall ever having seen this report, but it is possible that I was informed of it by Grawitz, because I remember that Grawitz one day told me that he was convinced of the effectiveness of this vaccine and had no further objection to my suggestion that we manufacture the vaccine according to that process. The immunization in the course of this series was carried on by Ding between 19 August and 4 September 1942. From 10 September to 9 October he was in Paris with Professor Giroud to learn his method, and when he returned, he infected persons and sent the charts to Berlin on 20 November. It was probably then, toward the end of 1942, that Grawitz spoke to me about this matter.
Q. Ding was ordered to report to Giroud in Paris in the autumn of 1942, although, as you have stated, it was already decided at the end of 1941 to manufacture your own vaccines according to Giroud’s process. Now how do you explain this delay?
A. In the infections carried out in series I on 3 March 1942, Ding infected himself and fell seriously ill of typhus, despite his protective vaccination. Subsequently, he went on leave to recover, and when his health was somewhat restored, the business of going to Paris was discussed, which was only possible in the autumn.
Q. There were 4 specific fatalities in the control cases. Now you say that Grawitz probably discussed this matter with you. Did you do nothing about the fact that there had been fatalities?
A. When Grawitz spoke to me about this matter, [I] could do nothing because the series of experiments had already been concluded. But I do remember pretty clearly the situation in his office there. I remember that I brought up the matter of these 4 fatalities and told him that that would probably be the last series that he instigated. He answered that Himmler had ordered these experiments and that I had specifically objected to being included in the matter, and consequently no longer had any right to interfere in his business.
Q. The report on the typhus experimental series VII was concluded on 7 September 1943, and when finished a report was sent to Berlin on 9 September, according to Ding’s diary. Did you see this report?
A. No.
Q. But according to Ding’s work report, on the third of September, at a time when this series was completed but the report not yet written, you were in Buchenwald, according to this diary, visiting Ding. Did you talk about this matter then?
A. This entry is apparently correct. This was the period in which Block 50 was being prepared for the production of the vaccines. Ding writes in one of his documents that on the 10th of August this block was occupied and that work in producing the vaccine was begun. Kogon corroborated that in his testimony. Then 3 weeks after the beginning of this work, I went to Buchenwald to look over the laboratory and to see how his work was getting along. Kogon also described at some length how I inspected the institute, how I went into every room. It was a rather extensive inspection. I asked many questions, had many conversations with the inmates there; he further testified that I was with Ding in his room for only a very brief period of time, and that is also correct. In other words, at that time he did not submit any material to me.
Q. Did you know anything else about this experimental series VII?
A. This series was carried out with a vaccine similar to the Behring vaccine, manufactured by a different firm. I knew nothing of this experimental series.
Q. I submit to the Tribunal as the next document, Mrugowsky 12, and I put it in evidence as Mrugowsky Exhibit 25. This is an affidavit by Dr. Karl Ludwig Wolters of Hamburg, from the Asid Works. After the customary introduction the statement reads:
“The above person requested the notary to draw up an affidavit and declared and deposed the following under oath and after having been duly informed of the meaning of an affidavit:
“1. The production of typhus vaccines based on the egg culture process began as early as 1941. Later on, the prescribed process according to Gildemeister and Haagen was introduced.
“2. Experiments on animals for the purpose of testing the manufactured vaccines were taken up simultaneously with the beginning of the production and were carried out continuously. The results of the animal experiments were not always clear. The vaccine tolerance was tested by protective vaccinations of employees; all employees connected with the typhus department or who came in contact with employees working therein, were vaccinated. In addition, all other employees had the privilege of receiving protective vaccination against typhus on demand and without charge. In the course of time, about one thousand employees were vaccinated against typhus.”
To figures 3 and 4 I simply draw the attention of the Tribunal. Figure 5 reads:
“5. As far as I know, there was no correspondence between the firm of Asid, Serum Institute G.m.b.H., Dessau, on the one hand, and the former Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS, or the Institute for Typhus and Virus Research at Buchenwald, or its chief, Dr. Ding, or the Grawitz Agency, on the other hand.
“6. I made the acquaintance of Dr. Ding during a trip from Berlin to Krakow.
“7. I could not say how the test of the typhus vaccines in question materialized. In any case, as far as I know, I never discussed that question with Professor Mrugowsky, nor did I forward the vaccines to him for testing. It is quite possible that the vaccines reached Dr. Ding through Professor Gildemeister of the Robert Koch Institute in Berlin, who received them in his capacity as expert consultant of the Ministry of the Interior for the fight against epidemics.
“8. During a discussion with Professor Mrugowsky in the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS in Berlin, I only talked about general questions of hygiene concerning the occupied eastern territories, and I asked for assistance in the work of developing the serum institute at Kiev. At the same time, the organization of delousing by the Asid Serum Institute Koenigsberg was discussed. There also may have been discussion of general questions in connection with active immunization, especially against scarlet fever, diphtheria, and tetanus.”
Then there is the usual conclusion and signature.
It can be seen from this that the vaccines for this series did not go via you from Ding; is that true?
A. Yes.
Q. According to Dr. Ding’s work report, which is Document NO-571, Prosecution Exhibit 285, you were present with him on the 3d of September in Buchenwald. Did you visit Block 46?
A. Yes. Ding invited me to take a look at Block 46. I went over there with him; and I remember quite well that I was led to the lower floor of a stone building, where there were a number of room-like partitions.
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.
* * * * *
[57] United States _vs._ Oswald Pohl, et al. See Vol. V.
[58] Not introduced in evidence.
[59] Final plea is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 17 July 1947, pp. 11049-11074.
[60] United States _vs._ Friedrich Flick, et al. See Vol. VI.
[61] United States _vs._ Oswald Pohl, et al. See Vol. V.
[62] Passage is the passing of a disease carrier through a human being or through an animal.
[63] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 6, 7, 8, 9 Jan. 1947, pp. 1151-1883.
[64] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 April 1947, pp. 6081-6484.
[65] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 26, 27, 28, 31 March 1947, pp. 5000-5244.
[66] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 17, 18, 19, 20 June 1947, pp. 9409-9713.
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._)
* * * * *