1947-01-07, #4: Doctors' Trial (late afternoon)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
Q: Witness, in the diary of the Section 4 Typhus and Virus Research which you know of, and on the 2nd of January 1942, there is an entry, "Investigation of Typhus Vaccines, Concentration Camp Buchenwald Selected". Was this determination still in effect at the period when you were in Buchenwald?
A: As far as experiments were carried out at Buchenwald, that is correct. If, in excess of this, from the Hygienic Institute of the Waffen SS at Berlin and from the medical office of the Waffen SS or from other organizations of the SS, experiments were carried out, this came to my knowledge.
Q: I should like to know about typhus vaccine research, and as far as that goes it was the same during your period as in the beginning of 1942?
A: Yes.
Q: Is it true; is it correct if I say that the Section 4 Typhus and Virus Research in Buchenwald received from the firms and other places, institutes, vaccine which was still being developed, that is, still required investigation?
A: The description "Department for Typhus and Virus Research" was an internal SS description. The agencies which wanted to have their vaccines tested, no matter if they were being developed or if they had already been perfected, never turned to the Department of Typhus and Virus Research at Buchenwald. The directive for the execution of experiments always came from the Hygienic Institute of the Waffen SS at Berlin, in particular from Oberfuehrer Mrugowsky.
Q: But it is probably correct that where a typhus vaccine was completely developed and had been used for years with success, there was no need to use Buchenwald either directly or through Berlin?
A: Such vaccines were only used for control purposes and were only furnished for that purpose, for example the vaccines of Cracow.
Q: That is what I wanted to find out. As far as the Weigel typhus vaccine from the Typhus and Virus Research Institute of the OKH in Cracow is concerned, this was a vaccine which was not sent to be tested but which Dr. Ding ordered from Cracow.
A: Either Dr. Ding ordered it from Cracow directly or Dr. Ding did through the Hygienic Institute of the Waffen SS at Berlin.
Q: Now is there is a connection between the section in Buchenwald and the OKH Institute in Cracow, that is true of Dr. Eyer as far as typhus vaccine is concerned, may I not assume that this connection was instigated by Buchenwald or Berlin. In other words, that the interest was only on the side of Buchenwald, the Hygienic Institute of the Waffen SS?
A: I have never known of any fact which might prove the contrary.
Q: Now this morning you testified that to test the effect in preventive vaccination, lice were ordered from Cracow, and you expressed the assumption or you said positively, I don't remember exactly -- that this is a shipment from Eyer's institute, is that correct?
A: It was a shipment of the OKH from the Institute at Cracow. Experimental series in Buchenwald did not only take place in order to test the effectiveness of typhus vaccine, but also to test the effectiveness of infectious material. I have already pointed out on several instances that this infectious material came from the Robert Koch Institute at Berlin and also from other places, and that this infectious material hardly had any effect on the experimental subjects. In the case of lice infecting experiments in Block 46, an attempt was made to find out if through direct infection by infected lice from Cracow an infection could be caused at Buchenwald. Infectious material from the Robert Koch Institute at Berlin had proven itself ineffective because the cultures apparently had lost their virulence.
Q: Did you yourself experience this?
A: No.
Q: Then how do you know that this was a shipment of infected lice from Cracow?
A: I know that from two different sources. The first source consisted of my political friends in the prisoner's hospital who were there at the time the experiments were carried out and who on their own part had the closest contact with the Capo Arthur Dietsch. The second source was the discussions with Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Ding during the time when I was with him. As I have already previously mentioned he had a number of so-called scientific works which he was preparing and which repeatedly dealt with the effect of the infection. The question of the modus of the infection has been very thoroughly discussed in the presence of specialists from Block 50. Then although the experiment with infected lice was discussed, I was told by Dr. Ding that these lice had been sent from Cracow. As far as the first source is concerned I have also discovered that the lice were burned immediately after the conclusion of the first experiment. That was in two cases because there were two shipments.
Q: What you say is also in Ding's diary, only from your testimony this morning one might have come to the conclusion that you had experienced that yourself, that you had your own knowledge. The diary says: Before the entry about the testing of the effect by means of the lice, that from the Typhus Research Institute Von Behring at Lomberg, lice and typhus vaccine was sent, and following that testing of exact infection with typhus infected lice would be undertaken. Since Cracow and Lemberg are more or less identical and since there were these institutes in both cities, I want to learn whether there might not be a mistake, which was that these lice could have come from Lemberg. Can you with certainty maintain what you have said or do you think it is possible as it seems to be indicated in the diary that it came from the Behring Works?
A: I know from a certain lecturer, Dr. Hass, who was corresponding with Dr. Ding later on, I believe in the year 1943, was ordered to report to the Institute at Lemberg, and according to my knowledge, Sturmbannfuhrer Dr. Ding only from that period of time on had some more intensive correspondence with Lemberg.
I have never heard anything about it, that the infected lice had come from Lemberg, and to the contrary I have only heard that they had been obtained from Cracow.
MR. McHANEY: If it please the Tribunal, I would like to ask that in the future when a portion of the diary is being put to the witness in an effort to undertake to shake his memory, that the excerpt from the diary be read aloud and not paraphrased in the language of the attorney. Also it would be helpful to the Prosecution if we are given the date of the entry so that we can also follow the cross examination.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection by counsel of the Prosecution is well taken. Whenever the diary is quoted from hereafter counsel will please read the entry in the diary and give particular reference to the dates, and counsel should refer in reading from the diary to the page of the record in which the matter is contained. It would facilitate counsel following it.
We suggest that when reference is made to the diary that the witness be furnished with a copy of the German document so that he can refresh his recollection from the diary.
DR. NELTE: Mr. President, shall I repeat everything or should that be a rule for the future?
THE PRESIDENT: I think you can proceed from where you left off without repetition.
BY DR. NELTE:
Q: Then I only want to establish that this testimony which you gave regarding the obtaining of the lice was not based on your own knowledge but on information from a third person.
A: Yes sir.
DR. NELTE: I have no further questions to put to this witness.
BY DR. FRITZ:
Q: Witness, you described to us this morning what you knew about the protest of Professor Rose at the third Military Medical Meeting.
You also described to us that Dr. Ding was very much excited for days about this and called Dr. Rose such names that you do not want to report them here. You also said that you still cannot understand the contradiction to be seen in the protest of Professor Rose, the latter assignment which ostensibly came from him. Now, I should like to ask you a question, only one question, but before you answer this question I must let you know about a statement of Professor Rose without the knowledge of which you will not be in a position to answer the question properly. First the question. It is as follows:
Do you consider it possible in view of Dr. Ding's anger that he would follow a recommendation of Professor Rose to use the Copenhagen vaccine for human experiments in the Buchenwald Concentration Camp; that he changed this for a recommendation to use humans for experiments in Buchenwald?
Before you answer I shall inform you of the following statement of Professor Rose, which I shall have to prove later; In the fall of 1943 Professor Rose had negotiations in Copenhagen to begin vaccine production there. On this occasion he learned of the new vaccine which was highly recommended to him by Posen. He passed on this recommendation and effected the use of the vaccine but since it was a completely different type of vaccine than had been heretofore used, the actual vaccine exports opposed it, but Professor Rose did not participate in this altercation. Then when the source suggested the testing of this vaccine in human experiments, the name of Rose, however, remained connected with the vaccine because he recommended it. Now I shall repeat my question: In view of Dr. Ding's anger, do you consider it possible that he changed his recommendation of Professor Rose to use the Copenhagen vaccine against typhus to a recommendation to use this vaccine for human experiments in the concentration camp Buchenwald?
A: From the statements of Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Ding, such a problem has not become apparent at all. As far as the character or Dr. Ding-Schuler is concerned, I would consider it quite possible that he might have done something of this kind. The circumstances, however, were such that such a request to test the Ibsen vaccine at Buchenwald was not even taken to him personally. He received a directive from Berlin to carry out such a series of experiments.
As a result of this, the problem could not appear objective as far as he was concerned. He only told me triumphantly that the fact that Professor Rose had advocated that this vaccine be tested on human beings in the Buchenwald Concentration Camp meant that Rose had given in. In my opinion, therefore, the difference is in answering the question. According to my knowledge, Ding-Schuler, subjectively might have been able to do something of this kind; objectively, in my opinion he was not in the position to do so.
Q: The order to test that vaccine in human experiments did not came from Professor Rose at all?
A: Dr. Ding-Schuler brought the order from one of his numerous visits to Berlin. How it originated, escaped my knowledge. This is another reason for the fact that I, myself, could not cope with the striking influence.
Q: The last question, Witness, this morning you said that the order came directly from Mrugowsky?
A: To Dr. Ding-Schuler. Ding-Schuler told me that he had been given the order by Mrugowsky.
Q: You personally cannot say objectively Professor Rose asked Professor Mrugowsky to start this series of experiments?
A: Beside the statement of Dr. Ding-Schuler, no.
DR. FRITZ: Thank you.
I have no further questions.
DR. FLEMING: Attorney Flemming for the Defendant Mrugowsky.
Q: Witness, you said that in Peril, 1943, you came to Dr. Ding as clerk?
A: That is correct.
Q: You also said that at the end of 1942 or the beginning of 1943? Dr. Ding made a suggestion to produce typhus vaccine. Is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: I must point out to you that Dr. Ding, as early as the end of 1941? was at the Robert Koch Institute. He was ordered there in order to study Gildemeister's method for the production of typhus vaccine. Do you know about that?
A: Yes.
Q: But, if at the end of 1942? or at the beginning of 1943? he was ordered to Gildemeister for this purpose, then the decision to produce typhus vaccine must have been made long before the end of 1942 or the beginning of 1943.
A: I see a difference in the assignment of Dr. Ding-Schuler to start a typhus vaccine, and in a decision to test typhus vaccine and to produce it practically in the concentration camp at Buchenwald. Dr. Ding-Schuler had not only been ordered to report to Gildemeister at Berlin, but on two occasions, he was also sent to the Pasteur Institute at Paris. That was once in the year 1941. The second time was also before the establishment of Block 50 at Buchenwald.
Q: You, yourself, came to Dr. Ding only in April? 1943?
A: Yes.
Q: How do you know about events before that time?
A: I know that from statements of Dr. Ding-Schuler himself and also from diary notes which he personally made for himself. May I point out that Dr. Ding-Schuler, during the last half year before our liberation, requested that I write a history of his person for his family.
In order to do this he gave me all documents which he had at his disposal and from these documents I was supposed to write that. From these documents, I was able to see all of the difference things that had occurred before my time.
Q: Then these documents did not show that the order to report to the Robert Koch Institute and the Pasteur Institute in Paris had not been issued to learn the effect of typhus vaccine, but to study the production of typhus vaccine.
A: It was shown by the documents.
Q: Why did Dr. Ding explain to you at the end of 1942 and 1943, long before the time when according to your assumption, the decision to produce vaccine was made, the express purpose of studying the production of typhus vaccine?
A: I believe that there is different concept between the defense counsel and myself as to the word "production". There is a little different conception. By production I mean the direct immediate production; not the preparation for the production. Therefore, when I stated the decision for the production, I meant and I still mean the decision to establish this department, with a sub-department for the production of vaccine. I did not refer to the preparatory study of Dr. Ding so he theoretically would become acquainted with the question of producing the vaccine.
Q: You just said that Dr. Ding, when you were to write his life history, gave you his diary. The Prosecution, yesterday, shaved you a diary. Is this the diary which you just mentioned, or was that another one.
A: There is a striking difference between the two diaries. The diary which was presented to me yesterday is the one which Dr. Ding-Schuler started. That is the diary of Block 46 which was executed under his super vision. The diary to which I am now referring consisted of yearly calendars in which Dr. Ding almost daily made various sorts of entries for a period of years. These entries consisted of private and official matters.
Q: When did you see the official diary of the Section for Typhus and Virus Research in Buchenwald for the first time?
A: The diary which was presented to me yesterday, is the Diary of Block 46. I had seen that for the first time after I had moved to Block 50. And that, under no circumstances, is before the 15th of August, 1943.
Q: What did the diary look like the first time you saw it? Were loose leaves fastened together in the folders? What did it look like?
A: It had exactly the same form as today.
Q: Could one see whether this diary was kept constantly or whether it was written all at once?
A: I know the history of this diary from the statements of Dr. DingSchuler himself, and also from the statements of Capo Arthur Dietsch; as well as the physician's clerk in Block 46, a certain Gadczinski. I also know on the basis of the documents which were started from the very beginning of the establishment of that block and on the basis of the personal notes which Dr. Schuler made in his private diary. He dictated as far a I can recall the first half of 1942. He dictated the diary of Block 46 until the period of time and all at the same time. From the time on, the diary was filled regularly from experiment to experiment.
Q: You say that Dr. Ding dictated the beginning of the diary about the middle of 1942?
A: In the first half of that year
Q: In the first half of 1942. Thank you.
Then I must point out the following contradiction:
The Diary bears the heading "Diary of the division for research of spotted fever and virus at the Institute of Hygiene of the Waffen-SS."
Do you have that place in the diary?
A: Yes,
Q: Would you please look at the entry of 9 January 1943? There you will read "By order of the surgeon general of the Waffen-SS, SS-Gruppenfuehrer and Major General (Generalleutnant) of the Wafen-SS, Dr. Genzken, the hitherto existing spotted fever research station at the concentration camp Buchenwald becomes the Department for Spotted Fever and Virus Research." Is that correct.
A: That is correct.
Q: This shows up to that date the section had the title we just read. The title of the diary bears this name which is given more than a year later. You came to Buchenwald only in April, 1943?
A: No. That is when I came to Dr. Ding.
Q: To Dr. Ding, yes. And in August, 1943, according to what you said, you saw the diary for the first time. Your information is that if was written in the first half of 1942. You have that information from a third party?
A: The last part of your three or four questions -- is right.
Q: It is correct that you did get the information from the third party, and the other point was right too?
A: I must make some more explicit statements on that point. The title, "Department for Typhus and Virus Research" was, as far as I know suggested by Dr. Ding himself. It was not perhaps suggested to him by SS-Gruppenfuehrer Genzken. He had not been ordered to adopt that name. The relationship of Genzken and Ding was not like that. The initiative in things of that kind came from Ding.
Long before the concrete establishment of this department, Ding occupied himself with a plan of an institute which was not only to be an experimental station which was later on the clinical department, but he wanted a large independent basis in order to reach great importance under the auspices of the Hygienic Institute of the Waffen-SS. I do not know, but I consider it possible in this connection that the plan for a department for virus and typhus research was not only composed one-half year before the actual establishment of the department by Ding, but already one year previously, and it may even be longer.
There is another circumstance which entitles me to that concept. Dr. Ding knew the Crakow Institute of the OKH. If Dr. Ding perhaps toward the first half of 1942 dictated that diary, then at that time, he may already been thinking of that title. However, I am even seeing the possibility that Dr. Ding at a later period of time after the establishment of the department, but before my activity with them, had the first page of the diary written.
Such a practice would have been possible. The activities of Block 46 were not destined for external purposes or for Berlin, but only for Block 46 itself. After all, it does not bear any other official description.
The diary if it had been destined for Berlin or any other SS authorities, it would have had to bear the title which all reports to Berlin had to bear. I therefore consider it possible that Dr. Ding, as I have already emphasized, may have had the first page re-written with a new title.
Q: Witness, you were just speaking of the customary designation which all reports in these matters to Berlin had, but you did not say what designation you meant. Will you please tell us that?
A: We submitted many kinds of reports to Berlin and when they dealt with excerpts of a diary of an official nature for the Berlin Central Agencies, then on the upper left side, we have to put the notice, "Secret Diary, Number So and So" and we must also include the file mark of the kind of document and a description of the person who was dictating, and the person who was writing.
Q: Did matters concerning typhus experiments in Buchenwald bear a secret or top secret stamp?
A: It was always classified as "secret".
Q: Witness, you were just saying when you sent excerpts from a diary of an official nature to Berlin, this designation was put on the letter or other excerpts. Up to now we have mentioned two diaries. One is the private diary of Dr. Ding which was on a number of calendars -
A: Not a number of calendars, but in yearly calendars.
Q: The second is the diary which was shown to you yesterday, and which you have before you now. You just told us that this diary you have before you is not an official diary. Would you please tell the court what other diaries there were besides these two in Block 50 and Block 46? Who kept these diaries?
A: I have never said that this diary we are discussing here was not an official diary.
Q: Let me interrupt you. You just told us that you consider it possible that the first page of this diary was rewritten and that is quite possible. That would have been permissible because it was not an official diary.
That can be seen because as an official diary it would have the notation "secret" and other indications-
A: There is a little misunderstanding here which can be clarified very easily. Let us first of all agree to the description of "Official". Dr. Ding was the department chief and the chief of Block 46. If he gave the order to keep a diary, and if be even dictated this diary himself, and this diary was an official diary as far as Block 46 was concerned -it had no connection with superior agencies-- it was a internal official diary. It was not a private diary of Dr. Ding-Schuler. Whenever we had some correspondence with Berlin and the description, and secret diary number so and so, was placed at the upper left corner of the letter, then the reference referred, at all times, to the so-called postal diary.
The mail, which arrived and which left, was segregated according to number; that was with a short summary of its contents like in any other plant. It was provided with a summary of its contents and this number of the postal diary or the secret diary was placed in the left upper corner and the word secret diary number showing. Now, if a diary of Block 46, which is under discussion here, had served as a document for Berlin in such a way that there might have been an official reference to it, then every time that some reference was made to it, I would have had to enter into the secret postal diary that this document would have gone into the diary in the form of a secret diary number.
Q: The diary itself, even if it was only an internally official diary, was a record of the agency and it would have to have the notation "secret"?
A: In Block 46 there was nothing that was not secret. If the diary at any period of time, or for any purpose, had been sent outside of Block 46 or Block 50, then naturally it would have had the classification of secret.
Q: In Block 50, witness, the typhus vaccine was produced; is that right?
A: Yes that is correct.
Q: The correspondence about the production of the typhus vaccine is not entirely, at least to a large extent as the correspondence shows, was not secret; is that right?
A: As far as fully technical organizational things were concerned, that is right. For example, the ordering of writing paper or other things from firms, in these cases the secret stamp was not applied. When reports about the amounts of vaccines or the production of vaccines or similar items were concerned, this correspondence was always classified as secret.
Q: As a matter of course, in every section there are things which bear the stamp secret, but, witness, you just said that in Block 46 everything had been secret and in Block 50 not everything was secret. You told us yesterday that you from time to time got the diary from Block 46 in order to make entries from it for reports; is that right?
A: Yes, that is correct.
Q: The diary then came out of Block 46 from time to time, which had only secret matters and went to Block 50 which also had other records.
A: Yes,
Q: Did not the diary alone, in view of the fact that from time to time it went to Block 50, would it not have to have the notation secret?
A: It would not have had to have top secret, because it was only Dr. Ding-Schuler who could bring it personally from block 46 to Block 50 and he was very, very careful. He only gave it to me for one hour or perhaps one and one half hours and then demanded it back again.
Q: I believe that we can leave this point. You said before that the diary in Block 46 was kept by the clerk Gadczinski?
A: Gadczinski.
Q: Would you please spell the name?
A: G-A-D-C-Z-I-N-S-K-I.
Q: Can you give me Gadczinski's present address?
A: I have asked for the present resident of Gadvzinski, who survived the camp and I have discovered that he has returned to Poland. His address can be obtained through the Polish Red Cross with U.N.R.R.A. in Karlsruhe, Roggenbachstrasse 5. He is corresponding with the Poles there.
Q: The U.N.R.R.R.A. in Karlsruhe?
A: Roggenbachstrasse with two g's.
Q: The number?
A: Five.
Q: Thank you. Witness, yesterday in your examination you said that you made reports about the experiments in Block 46, which generally went to Mrugowsky. Please tell the Tribunal where the reports went that did not go to Mrugowsky?
A: In one case, or in two cases, part of direct correspondence in which foremost reports took place between Dr. Ding and agencies, which were not identical with the office of Dr. Mrugowsky. On one occasion with the Zere Bacteriological Surgical Laboratory of the I. G. Farber works and in I can recall, the first report about the activities of Sturmbannfuehrer Varnet was not sent to Mrugowsky, but it was submitted directly to Oberfuehrer Poppendick.
Q: Thank you. Yesterday, witness you said that aside from typhus, experiments were carried out in Buchenwald with yellow fever, small-pox, dyptheria, typhoid A and B, etc., etc. What kind of experiments were they; were they protective vaccinations?
A: These experiments took place at a time before my activities with Dr. Ding-Schuler. I know about them and a number of details about the experiments through him and I heard of them in part from other prisoner comrades. Beside the matter with the potato salad, Phosphorus Kantchuk experiments, which I have mentioned, I cannot make any precise statements on the subject, however, in excess of this, I know only the entries in the diary -- in the diary of Block 46, which you have just discussed. However I know that the yellow fever experiment series was discontinued because it was completely unsuccessful.
Q: Then, I may conclude that everything that you testified about these experiments yesterday, with the exception of the potato salad experiments, you know only from hear-say, from third parties.
A: I must state that I have never even been present in a single experiment, with the exception of the horticulture experiments, I was not in Block 46 as a spectator or as a participant. In this respect, I have always been connected with these things through Dr. Ding-Schuler or through a Document and I have obtained this knowledge, which however is very precise, through what I have heard from my comrades who were connected with these experiments.
Q: Did your comrades tell you anything about whether the vaccinations against small pox, etc., so called tetra vaccines, were with capsules as were used with vaccinations of the troops?
A: I can recall the expression, "Usual Capsules". I cannot say if it referred to the Pox inoculations.
Q: You know of the tetra vaccines?
A: Yes, but I cannot say with certainty if it referred to that
Q: Witness, you also said yesterday that Dr. Ding from about the fall of 1943 on no longer wanted to have oral instruction from Mrugowsky for experiments; do you remember that? You also told us yesterday that Mrugowsky during the period in which you worked in Block 50 in Buchenwald, that Mrugowsky was in Buchenwald two or at the most three times?
A: I did not say that. I have only stated that I personally wrote -- that I have seen Mrugowsky personally two times, and also perhaps even three times.
That you saw him two or three times; and the work report of the section for typhus or typhus research for 1943, which is in the document book on Page 13, on Page 4 of the work report on Page 16 of the document book, the visitors are listed. If you look at the next page, Page 5 of the work report, Page 17 of the document book, you will find about in the lower third the entry from the 4th of September, "Inspection in the Village of 'X' with the Head of the Hygiene Institute SS-Standartenfuehrer lecturer Dr. Mrugowsky, with the Standertarzt of the Waffen SS Weimer-Buchenwald and with the Standerstarzt of the Standertarzt of the Waffen SS Weimer-Buchenwald and with the adjutant of the commandant of the Buchenwald Concentration Camp." Do you find this entry?
A: Yes.
Q: That is the only entry about the visit of Mrugowsky to Buchenwald then -
THE INTERPRETER: Just a minute.
MR. McHANEY: If Your Honor, please, I wish to point out that is not the only entry, in fact it is not the entry in regard to Mrugowsky's visit to Buchenwald. It occurred on the 3rd of September in the section preceding what he was reading, Page 18 of the English document book, right at the top of the page.
Q: You will also find, Witness, on Page 5, the heading "Official Trips" under Roman Numeral IV, "Official trips by head of the Department for Spotted Fever and Virus Research," and you will find under this heading a single conference with Mrugowsky in Berlin; on Page 6, at the top, from the 29th of September to the 4th of October.
Did Dr. Ding ever say anything to you about when and on what occasion he got the oral orders from Mrugowsky for his experiments if he saw him so seldom, as the work report indicates?
A: The report which is in front of me, and to which you have referred, deals with the year 1943 -
Q: Yes.
A: But that is not 1944 or 1945.
A: He. 1943.
A: Well, 1943, but only the year 1943. I have not read all of the whole report now, but the fact is that in accordance with the entry here Mrugowsky visited Buchenwald on the 4th of September, and as I have already pointed out, he visited Buchenwald very rarely. I myself have only seen him two or three times, and I do not believe that he paid any more frequent visit. On the other hand Dr. Ding visited Berlin rather frequently. This may have happened as often as three or four times all year, however, it may have been six times, or even more. During the time before 1943--
Q: Let us stick to 1943.
A: He has even lived in Berlin. I am referring to Dr. Ding. In this report from the 28th of September until the 4th of October there is one of the conferences which seemed important to Dr. Ding. The report is not made with the same thoroughness and preciseness as a business report which might have been written about an experiment in Block 46, or it might have been sent to Berlin. The Sturmbannfuehrer that you have, that is in this case me, and the second clerk who wrote up the second report from the had of his private diary, he gave us the proper notes, and it was then summarized by the second clerk.
It is significant that it has not been stated in the entry of concrete conferences, Dr. Ding had at Berlin with Dr. Mrugowsky at this time. From late fall 1943 Dr. Ding has not contented himself with all instructions for the experiments, instructions which he used to bring along from Berlin, but he also demanded written orders.
Q: We have got away from my question, Witness. I asked you whether it is true that Dr. Ding was in Berlins as seldom as the work report indicates; I may point out to you --
A: Dr. Ding?
Q: Dr. Ding in Berlin. I may point out to you that in this work report comparative discussions and trips of comparatively less importance are entered.
A: The trips which Dr. Ding took to Berlin, especially after he got oral instructions and for his experiments would have been extremely important.
Q: But I hear from you that you did not write this work report yourself?
A: I wrote it on the typewriter.
Q: Did you set it up?
A: I had help to compose it.
Q: Then will you please explain to the Court for what reason you did not include the trips of Dr. Ding to Berlin in the work report, while other much less important trips were included?
A: The defense counsel overestimates the working procedure of the SS. The results of this procedure, however, cannot be taken seriously enough. This report was written only for one purpose, on the part of Dr. Ding, to give as extensively as possible report of his activity to Dr. Mrugowsky in Berlin. It is quite an extent of over-doing things, which has been shown in such reports. Secondly, if such important things as experiments on human beings had to be carried out, then this was in no way accomplished in such a seldom form as the defense counsel seems to assume.
At that period of time most of the SS leaders were quite unawares of the end of the War, and the fate that would await them, and there was relatively little speculating done to that effect. Instructions were frequently issued rather freely and I have seen discussions about the subject, in a casino tone, so that my ears are still standing on end today when I think about it, how the fate of human beings was being discussed. Dr. Ding may have been in Berlin, and at some suggestion he agreed on experimental series with his chief Mrugowsky. Only from 1943 on he became afraid to a quite considerable extent under my influence, and from then on he demanded written documents.
Q: Witness, you just told us that during 1943 Dr. Ding began to worry about the outcome of the War, is that right?
A: Yes. This work report, however, concerns the year 1943.
Q: It goes up to the end of the year 1943, and therefore must have been set up in 1944, is that right?
A: If it was not composed into two halves, then it was only composed in January 1944.
Q: Would you please look at the first page of the work report, the date?
A: Yes, it is stated here, "Weimar-Buchenwald, January, 1944."
Q: Yes, that's what I mean. You tell us that in 1943 already Dr. Ding was afraid about the outcome of the war?
A: Yes.
Q: In January 1944 he set up this work report?
A: Yes.
Q: Then he really should have put special value on it and you, who were his adviser, would have urged him that it was important to include the trips to Berlin in the work report so that you would be able to prove when and on what occasions he received his orders for the experiments?
A: I have not always adv**ed Dr. Ding, not at all in all matters. I have taken every opportunity which offered itself to me to influence him. Secondly, Dr. Ding-Schuler was an extraordinarily light hearted person. Even during the last months, prior to the end of the war and before the visible collapse, he could get away with a whistle over all risky things from case to case. This did not prevent him to be most deeply depressed at other times. However, the trend not to think over the approaching catastrophe seriously always get the better of him. Therefore, from the beginning of 1944 Schuler became more and more aware not to do any superfluous things anymore, and always to be covered by written orders. That this might have had an effect on the report for 1943, that he had construed documents for trial later on, that is completely out of question. About the possibility that some day he might be placed in front of a court he became aware of the first time in August, 1944 in the course of a long discussion between him and myself.
Q: Witness, in April 1943 you came to Block 50 as clerk?
A: That's right. Not in Block 50, no. In April 1943 I came as physician's clerk to Dr. Ding-Schuler in the department for pathology, because after all, he had not intended me for Block 46 and Block 50 had not been completed as yet.
In Block 50 as a building I came on the 15th of August 1943.
Q: Who was you predecessor in the position which you held from April, 1943 on?
A: There was no predecessor because the production of vaccines only began from that month on, and I was only his physician's clerk in Block 50, and that I would become a private secretary some week later was a matter for which no reasons actually existed in the camp.
Q: Yesterday, Witness, when you were describing how you got the diary when the records were destroyed, you said that you took a bundle of records out of the sack together with the diary. Would you please tell the Tribunal what kind of records they were?
A: May I first of all correct you slightly? If I remember correctly, I did not say that I had taken this diary with a bundle of records out of the sack, but that I took a bundle of records out of the bag and that I saw the diary lying there and that I also took it. These other records were in part, fever charts, and sickness charts and correspondence which I looked over later on.
Q: What has happened to these records?
A: I have turned all these records -- just like the diary -I have kept them with me and part of them, and I have placed part of them at the disposal of the American authorities whenever they requested it. I still have another part in my possession in my apartment at Oberursel, and most of them, for example, the case histories which shows the course of a disease with a patient or group of patients together with the original signature of the controlling SS physician in Block 46.
Q: Witness, do you know the name, Grawitz?
A: Yes. Grawitz was the Reich Physician of the SS.
Q: What connection was there between Dr. Grawitz and Dr. Ding
A: Dr. Grawitz was the supreme chief as Reich Physician SS. The medical officer of the Waffen SS, to which the Hygienic Institute of the Waffen SS belonged, was subordinated to him. Dr. Ding was departmental chief and until 1944 he was the chief department head in the medical office, and therefore was subordinated to the Reich Physician SS, Dr. Grawitz.
Q: Were there personal relations between Dr. Grawitz and Dr. Ding?
A: Dr. Ding told me on several occasions that he had also visited the Reich Physician SS in Berlin, and that he knew Dr. Grawitz and that under circumstances he might expect a certain amount of support from him, but however, this support was not so intensive as that which Genzken had given him, because Genzken was personally devoted to him. Furthermore, around this period of time that is, from the middle of 1943 on, Mrugowsky occupied such an important position that it appeared dangerous for DIng Schuler to go over the head of this immediate superior, Mrugowsky, and to have too much direct contact with Grawitz.
Q: You say too much direct contact. Was there an exchange of correspondence between Dr. Grawitz and Dr. Ding?
A: It is not quite easy for me to recall each and every one of these details, because almost every record which was sent to Mrugowsky bare the heading on the left top, "Reich Physician SS, the Chief Hygienist of the SS, Director of the Hygienic Institute of the Waffen SS, Professor Dr. Joachim Mrugowsky, SS Oberfuehrer". I almost wore out my fingers trying to constantly repeat this waterhead title. Therefore, I cannot state exactly anymore how often Ding wrote to Grawitz personally. However, it has happened.
Q: Did Ding get direct instructions from Dr. Grawitz?
A: I do not know any case of that kind.
Q: Do you know Grawitz personally or only by name?
A: I only know him by name.
Q: Was Grawitz never in Buchenwald?
A: I have already emphasized that I do not know exactly if Gruppenfuehrer Genzken or Gruppenfuehrer Grawitz made that particular visit at Buchenwald in the year 1943.
Q: Did Dr. Ding make any use of these experiments with typhus and other vaccines?
A: May I ask in what respect?
Q: That is, that the course and the results of these experiments were recorded?
A: Yes.
Q: Where were the results of these experiments recorded?
A: In the diary or in special books.
Q: Therefore, it is not a scientific use?
A: No notation. The documentary record is in case histories, fever charts and documents covering experimental series, and in the diary of Block 46. Furthermore, in the reports which were submitted to Mrugowsky at Berlin and to the other agencies which happened to be interested in them.
Q: You just said, Witness, that the results were recorded in the diary of Block 46. You have this diary before you. Would you show me a place in which results of the experiments were recorded? I do not mean that so and so many died as indicated in the diary, but what the result of the experiment was in regard to testing the vaccine; that is, the result?
A: Then we would have to reach an agreement about the concept of result because a corpse is also to me a sad result of an experiment. Therefore, it is the value which has been gained by the experiments and the evaluation which resulted for certain vaccines which had been applied after the experiment.
Q: Yes.
A: These evaluations can only be found from the overall records which were begun after every experimental series, and a large number of experimental series.
In particular, on one occasion, a large blackboard was built for evaluations and it was placed at the disposal of the hygienist, and one exemplary of it went to Block 46.
Q: In the diary these results were not recorded?
A: No.
THE PRESIDENT: At this time the Tribunal will recess until 9:30 o'clock tomorrow morning when the cross examination may be resumed.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 8 January 1947, at 0930 hours.)