1947-02-18, #1: Doctors' Trial (early morning)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 18 February 1947, 0930-1630, Justice Beals presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the Court Room will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal 1.
Military Tribunal 1 is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, have you ascertained if the defendants are all in Court?
THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honors, all defendants are present in the Court Room.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary General will note for the record the presence of all the defendants in Court.
Counsel may proceed with the cross examination of the witness.
MR. McHANEY: May it please the Court.
SIEGFRIED HANDLOSER — Resumed CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued)
BY MR. McHANEY:
Q: General, isn't the utilization of material and personnel in the field of medical research a common problem of all branches of the Wehrmacht? I will repeat the question, General. Isn't the utilization of material and personnel in the field of medical research a common problem of all branches of the Wehrmacht, requiring a coordinated and planned direction?
A: The question never confronted me.
Q: Well, whether it confronted you or not, wasn't the utilization of material and personnel in the field of medical research a common problem of all branches of the Wehrmacht?
A: The personnel was distributed in such a way as was practicable for the individual institutions and agencies; and the constant requirements of material which they had were settled automatically according to the demands, which I did not have in my hands.
Q: General, you'll recall that the Fuehrer Decree of July 1942 vested you with jurisdiction ever problems concerning the utilization of material and personnel. You remember that?
A: Yes, it was the material and personnel coordination; and the reason for this was that at a central office for reasons of economy the strength of the individual branches of the Wehrmacht was to be distributed according to the size and the requirements of the individual branches.
Q: Well, now, General, we understand that; but we are trying to give some content to these general words "material" and "personnel"; and I'm asking you if the utilization of material and personnel in the field of medical research wasn't a common problem, requiring coordination, which fell with in your jurisdiction under the decree of July 1942.
A: I can only say that in practice — and that is the most important this question did not even come up in my staff and within my field of competence. Nothing was ever submitted to me with regard to the distribution of material or personnel where I would have had to make a decision because there were different difficulties in this respect and that is the most important.
Q: General, you'll remember that I read part of your speech to the consulting physicians at the meeting held from 30 November to 3 December 19???
A: Yes.
Q: That was Document No-922, Prosecution Exhibit 435. In that speech, General, you said in part that:
it is not a question of marching separately and battling together, but marching and battling must be done in unison from the beginning in all fields. As a result, as concerns the military sector, Wehrmacht medical service, and with it the chief of the medical services of the Wehrmacht, came into being. Not only in matters of personnel and material even as far as this is possible in view of special fields and special tasks which must be considered, but also with the view to medical, scientific education and research, our path in the Wehrmacht medical service must and will be a unified one.
A: Yes.
Q: Aren't you saying there, General, that the coordination of scientific research was one of your jobs as chief of the medical service of the Wehrmacht?
A: Yes, it was in all the fields where this was required and necessary.
Q: General, did you have any interest in the treatment of wounds cause by gas of various types?
A: Of course I was interested.
Q: What research was done, to your knowledge, on this question?
A: In the Wehrmacht we had two separate fields. They were the military field about the use of chemical warfare agents and the medical field for the treatment of injuries sustained because of such chemical agents. Accordingly, there were two separate regulations. There was one regulation which referred to the military use; and there was one regulation which referred to the treatment. These were the army regulations Number 395 and a printed regulation Number 396. That was the medical regulation. During the war it was completely reproduced on two or three occasions. I have always shown a special interest in this service regulation. In connection with this the most emphasis was placed on the question of the burning chemical warfare agents, mainly lost gas; and as far as I can remember the first World War, this was a field of special interest, not only with us but also in all countries.
Q: Well, did you know of any gas experiments carried out on human beings?
A: Yes. We had a laboratory, an institute, in the academy which had always had the assignment and which was also given the assignment by me to try finally to find a very practicable method of treatment; as we called it, to find a decontamination procedure; and this assignment was very zealously carried out. It finally resulted in the fact that in the course of the year 1943 we found an excellent skin decontamination procedure. Experiments were carried out on animals. Then they were carried out on voluntary officer candidates. They were medical students in our military medical academy. They were furthermore carried out on soldiers in the army chemical warfare service school where the training took place for the gas protection offices.
That was located at Zelle.
Q: Did you know of any gas experiments carried out on concentration camp inmates?
A: No.
Q: You testified that you knew nothing about August Hirt's lost experiments? Is that correct?
A: No, I did not know anything about them.
Q: You probably remember Herr Brandt and I discussing the experiments of Bickenbach which Brandt described as being carried out on animals, phosgene experiments, I think? Do you know anything about the experiments of Bickenbach?
A: No.
Q: Did you have an officer by the name of Wirth, W-i-r-t-h, working on gas problems in the Army Medical Inspectorate?
A: I cannot remember the name Wirth at all.
Q: Why I thought you were calling Wirth here to testify in your behalf?
A: I have not had Wirth called here.
Q: The name is Wirth.
A: Yes, Wirth. I have not had Wirth called here.
Q: And you don't know him?
A: Of course I know him. I have known him for years. He was a specialist in the Military Medical Academy.
Q: That is what I am trying to get at. Will you tell us what Wirth was and what he did?
A: Wirth was a student of Fluri and Wirth was the successor of Munsch who had worked on chemical warfare agents for many years and who had written books which can be found in any book store about chemical warfare agency. Wirth was the head of the Pharmacological Institute Department in the Military Medical Academy in whose field he dealt. Among other things with the service regulation No 396 which has been mentioned before He had been assigned by my predecessor, Dr. Waldmann, to improve the decontamination drugs and during the entire time which I held office I have kept on working on this assignment.
Q: Well, in your opinion, Wirth would probably be informed on all gas research in Germany, wouldn't he?
A: I have not said with all gas research in Germany but I said that he was head of the Institute at Berlin and that he was special consultant in the field, that he was special consultant for the Wehrmacht, or the Army, in the field of chemical warfare agents.
Q: Well, he was your foremost authority on gas problems, was he not?
A: I would not call him the first authority but it rather is my opinion that the first authority would be his teacher, the well known Professor Fluri.
Q: What is Wirth's first name, do you know?
A: No. I assume that his first name begins with "W". I think on one occasion I read W. Wirth, but I am not sure.
Q: Did you know if Wirth ever worked with Bickenbach?
A: No, I cannot tell you that.
Q: Wirth is the man who recommended to Karl Brandt experiments for the decontamination of water poisoned with lost, isn't he?
A: I have read that here for the first time in the document which you have presented here.
Q: That was in Document N0-154, Prosecution Exhibit 446, for identification. You will remember that document contained the paragraph which read as follows:
The third series of experiments were carried out with the agent of the lost group, the asphixiating gas lost, in accordance with suggestion made by Oberarzt Dr. Wirth at the conference 4 December 1944 with Reich Commissioner Dr. Brandt.
Those experiments were carried out on concentration camp inmates, weren't they General?
A: I cannot give you any information at all about that. I do not know anything about the session, which is mentioned in the document, nor can I tell you the reasons for it.
Q: Does it strike you as a little strange that one of the officers in the Army Medical Inspectorate would be recommending experiments on concentration camp inmates unless he knew that practice was approved by his superiors?
A: I cannot judge if Professor Wirth made this suggestion that such experiments be carried out on concentration camp persons. I don't know anything about that.
Q: I was just asking you if you wouldn't find it strange that an Army officer would suggest or participate in experiments on concentration camp inmates unless he knew that his superiors had no objection to it.
Wouldn't you find it strange if he did that?
A: Professor Wirth could not have believed that I would agree to this because we have never discussed this question at any time.
Q: Did you know Dohmen?
A: I knew Dohmen very slightly. I can remember him because in one of our meetings he gave a very good lecture about epidemic jaundice. I can remember that on the occasion of some meeting which I attended when I welcomed all the people attending. I asked one of them, "Where are you working and who are you?" And Gutzeit told me "That is Stabsarzt Dohmen." I did not have any personal contact with Dohmen. I can only remember him because he gave an excellent lecture about the jaundice and about the little incident with Gutzeit.
Q: As I recall you testified that you knew nothing about Dohmen's experiments in Sachsenhausen on concentration camp inmates, is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you call the Breslau conference on jaundice in 1944?
A: When I opened the conference in 1944 I states, and that is contained in my opening address, that I had given orders that all German hepatitis scientists, regardless if working in the Wehrmacht or civilian center, to hold a meeting in the near future in order to give them the opportunity to exchange their experiences and, above all, to compare the cultures which they had discovered, to compare them and to test them.
Q: Did you attend the Breslau conference?
A: Yes.
Q: Didn't you know of the collaboration of Hagen and Dohmen in Strassburg?
A: I did not know anything about that. I know they worked together in this field. I only knew one time about it — that was Schreiber presiding over the meeting. I know that in the course of the meeting he had the very fortunate idea to suggest that various working groups should be formed so that at least these working groups could exchange their experiences.
I heard here from Gutzeit, from his testimony, that as far as I can remember that the ring also included Gutzeit and Dohmen and also Hagen. I know that especially between Hagen and Dohmen difficulties existed, probably also in the conference of the German Society for Internal Medicine October 1943 in Vienna, it was not the Military conference. For this reason it was without any doubt a success on the part of Schreiber as if he succeeded by means of this working group procedure to remove these difficulties that existed.
Q: Do you know whether Haagen and Dohmen conducted experiments on human beings at Strasbourg?
A: No, I do not know anything about it.
Q: Well, you talked to Haagen at the meeting at Breslau in 1944, didn't you?
A: I have not understood your question.
Q: Did you talk to Haagen yourself at the meeting in Breslau in 1944?
A: I do not believe that I have spoken with Haagen at Breslau. I may have welcomed him just like all the other people there, but I'm not quite certain of that either.
Q: Didn't you receive any reports on jaundice research?
A: I did receive reports about jaundice from my own consultants but not in excess of that.
Q: Did you receive none from Haagen?
A: No.
Q: Well, Dohmen was one of your subordinates, he was attached to the Military Medical Academy. Didn't you ever get a report from Dohmen?
A: I have already previously stated that Dohmen was one of fifty, sixty or seventy medical officers of the scientific group, and I have not received any report from Dohmen because Dohmen was, first of all, subordinated to the chief of the medical scientific group and then to the head of the Academy and whenever reports were submitted then they first of all went either to the consultant of the medical inspectorate or the medical inspector, (this was Gutzeit or they went to my scientific department in the medical inspectorate, without my being directly informed about it. Gutzeit himself has repeatedly personally reported to me on a large scale about the epidemic jaundice. Of course, that was his natural duty because the problem played a major part. However, your question if I had received any reports from Dohmen I must answer in the negative.
Q: Do you know of any experiments on human beings with jaundice?
A: No.
Q: Well, General, in view of the testimony of Gutzeit that jaundice was medical problem of major proportions, and in further view of his testimony that it was not a serious disease, how do you explain the fact that no experiments were carried out on human beings to determine whether in fact you had isolated a jaundice virus?
A: I can only explain this through the fact that research was still under way and that at the Breslau Conference, with the utmost variety of scientists present, one of the scientists still disputed with the other if this was the cause at all. I can tell you further that I did not even know anything about the fact, that I was never told, that Gutzeit had carried out an experiment on himself. I can explain the fact in the way that we had not yet succeeded in finding the virus. There were only assumptions and some of the scientists believed they had found it. However, the fact had not yet been established.
Q: Well, but General, as early as the middle of 1943 Grawitz was stating that it was necessary to have animal to man virus experiments. Now, in view of the importance of the problem how is it that no experiments were carried out on human beings?
A: I cannot tell you anything about it. However, I believe that Grawitz opinion was not decisive for me because, without any doubt, he had handled some problems which were not ripe for discussion yet, while we, in the Wehrmacht, maintained the point of view that one should be very careful in all these cases.
Q: General, you have testified that you attended the meeting of the consulting physicians at the Military Medical Academy in May, 1943. Is that right?
A: Yes.
Q: You have also testified that you heard the report by Gebhardt and Fischer at the meeting. Is that right?
A: I have stated that it can be assumed that I attended this conference.
Q: I asked you if you heard the report by Gebhardt and Fischer at this meeting?
A: I assume so, yes.
Q: Well, do you remember whether you heard it? Did it make any impression on you?
A: No, I cannot remember that at all. I must tell you that I have not shown any special interest in these reports or that they did not make any special impression because, otherwise, I would be able to remember them.
Q: Well, wasn't it made clear in this report that they had performed experiments on concentration camp inmates?
A: In my opinion, as far as I know, it has been stated here that prisoners who had been condemned to die and those who had been pardoned were concerned.
Q: Well, General, you saw these women, these Polish women who came here to testify. You saw how their legs were mutilated. Will you tell the Tribunal what you think about sulfonamide experiments at Ravensbrueck? Do you think they were all right?
A: I can only repeat again that in the lecture certainly the subject of concentration camp prisoners was not concerned. It was not discussed because one or the other of the words would have remained in my memory. I am quite certain that no female prisoners were discussed. I have seen the Polish women here and I have also seen the scars. That is the subsequent result. However I cannot state exactly what was done to them and the explanation was not given by Dr. Alexander here. He has only given a diagnosis and if I were to tell you what I think about these experiments then I must ask you that I can postpone this statement until I have heard the people who carried out the experiments and who will describe how they carried them out. I do not know anything about it because I cannot remember the lecture.
Q: Was it not clear even from the summary of this lecture in your report of this meeting that the experimental subjects had been artificially infected?
A: Then I would have to read them over once more.
Q: Well, let's do that. I'll have to read this to you, General, as I'd seem to have the German here. This is Document NO.923, Prosecution Exhibit 436. After Gebhardt and Fischer gave their report they had a little discussion and a man by the name of Schreus had the following to say:
As far as I perceived, Gebhardt's and Fischer's experiments do not qualify for an immediate comparison with animal experiments as performed by myself and others because ligature of vessels eliminated larger muscular parts and prevented the influence of para-orally administered sulfanilamide.
This fellow has already pointed out that they tied off some blood vessels in Gebhardt's and Fischer's experiments, hasn't he?
A: Larger muscular parts were included in this or were removed.
Q: He goes on to say:
The range of locally administered sulfanilamide, especially of non-soluble ones, must not be over-estimated because the conditions of diffusion are not sufficient due to poor solubility. Especially morphinal has to be considered in this respect.
Then he says:
The poor takes of infections with gas gangrene, which is stressed by the lecturer, coincides completely with the findings in animal experiments.
Now, General, isn't he saying very clearly that they artificially infected these human beings with gas gangrene?
A: That cannot be deducted from this text. They only speak about the bad results of the gangrene infection and anybody that doesn't exactly know what has happened and who knows that the infection was to have been artificially caused, cannot deduct this, in my opinion. It only states here about the bad results of gangrene infection and I as a known surgeon, and not a bacteriologist could not have reached any conclusions in that sense or could have deducted anything as you have just suggested.
Q: General, my English translation reads "the poor takes of infections with gas gangrene." I can only conclude one thing by that and that is that the lecturer was pointing out that they had trouble getting gas gangrene infections they had trouble making them "take." Now what other conclusion can be drawn?
A: Well I cannot draw that conclusion from it because that is a discussion between two people and one person refers to his experiments and I do not know to what extent this comparison is correct. I am not enough of a specialist in order to judge that. I can only say that if I were to read this report today, after everything I have heard, and if I were to read it over without Knowing anything in particular about the subject, then it certainly would not draw my particular attention.
Q: All right, General. I take it you made no investigation to this experiment after this report since it made no impression on you. Is that right?
A: The important factor in this case is, because after all one must consider the circumstances, that although 300 to 400 people participated and all of them were consulting physicians, that is to say all of them were specialist that at no time during the lecture or after the lecture or during the intervals or even later on, nobody even discussed this question orally or in writing or through some other means. Nobody suggested that something did not seem to be in order here. Therefore I did not have any cause to make any special investigation with regard to the subject.
Q: But General, one can draw two conclusions from your statement. One, which you have just drawn, which you justify your inaction by. The other is that everybody there just had no reason to object to these experiments; they knew that it was an accepted policy of your organization to experiment on concentration camp inmates so they said nothing. You can also draw that conclusion, can't you?
A: I must repeat once more that I doubt that the words "concentration camp" or "concentration camp prisoners" were mentioned at all.
Q: Very well. I think if we had proved here that there was an objection at this very lecture that you would conveniently have been outside the room at that time. Now I put to you that at this same meeting in May 1943 there was an objection by our defendant Roser to Ding's report on Typhus experiments and your man Schreiber was chairman of the meeting at which Ding spoke. You say you were not there but you also have testified on this stand that you heard nothing about that objection.
A: I and not only I but it has already repeatedly been stated here and it has also been seen by the documents which were presented here, that this was a conference of 12 different specialist groups, and that the individual specialist groups had individual meetings and that it would have been completely impossible to be in 12 different places at the same time. I have stated under oath on various occasions here that I did not attend the conference of the Hygienist Group where Ding was present. Even Schreiber has not told me anything about Rose's objection which has been mentioned here. Gebhardt's lecture took place in the large auditorium after I had given the opening speech and after the conference had been opened within the framework of surgery. The bacteriological hygienist specialists held a conference by themselves at some other place. I can only repeat once more that I was not present.
Q: General, I am not present downstairs in the Milch Trial but I think if anything unusual happened down there and most particularly if anybody was killed down there I think not only that I would hear about it up here but I think even you would, and I am asking you if it isn't a bit strange that when an important man like Rose gets up in a meeting of an institution of which you were the commander, and objects to what he terms to be murder, I ask you, isn't it passing strange that Schreiber or someone else did not say anything to you about it?
A: It may seem very strange to you but I can only repeat the fact once more that nobody told me what the reasons were for the people that attended to fail to object and I cannot state anything with regard to Rose because I did not hear him.
Q: Were any military medical measures taken on the basis of Gebhardt's sulfanilamide experiments?
A: Yes, a measure was taken; the conclusions which were reached in the end were changed into directives just as they are stated, as final conclusions which were approved by all the medical men who attended.
Q: Well, in other words, as a result of the experiments of Gebhardt, medical instructions were issued, is that right?
A: The phrase "new instructions" goes perhaps too far. Perhaps there were about 10 lectures and the results of the subsequent discussions were summarize and a part of them referred to the results achieved by Gebhardt. That was the actual reason for the conference so that the people should know what the result were with regard to the conference of all the specialists. That was not always something positive, but very frequently in other problems the question remained open, that a large number of physicians outside the country were to be given clarity that the leaders of the medical service and the consulting physicians were constantly and at all times trying to find a solution to all the question which had still remained open, in order to help all the wounded.
Q: General, that makes what we are talking about the same thing. Did the Army Medical Inspectorate issue instructions on a piece of paper to the physician working in the field stating that in case cases of shock due to prolonged exposure to cold you should treat the patient in the following manner and been outline the manner of treatment? Did the Army Medical Inspectorate issue that kind of instructions or not?
A: Yes. First of all they are the instructions and secondly it is also a part of the reports of the conference of the consulting physicians.
Q: I asked you if those instructions concerning the treatment of wound infections were changed or influenced by the talk of Gebhardt and Fischer. Yes or No, that is all we need. I don't care how they were changed, just a yes or no—were they changed or weren't they changed?
A: That was no change. That was an addition to the previous results. This result was also added—these results which had been achieved by the discussions.
Q: Well, precisely what was added to the instructions which you gave to field medical officers on treating infections of wounds?
A: The instructions begin with the following, with a short review. There are about 1, 2, 3, 4, 6-1/2 lines here about the experiments which were carried out by Gebhardt and then from the next lecture are the results of sulfonamides, then application, then the clinical results, and then it states the following rules are to be added for the praxis. Therefore what has been added here now, that states that the development of an inflammation caused by banal causes and the internal and external cannot be prevented by the internal and external application of sulfonamides. Then it states about the inflammation the important part of this that also in this case of warning had to be issued to the surgeons outside that the experiments had shown that they could not solely depend on these sulfonamides but that they would remain and maintain their surgical treatment. This was a very important point that only in some cases they should add sulfonamides.
Q: General, would your organization, your staff, make such additions to medical instructions without investigating precisely what had been done during the course of experiments upon which these new instructions were based? That's a pretty important problem, isn't it?
A: That would not be the task of my staff, but it would be the task of the specialists, and the reason for this conference and everything that has been newly discovered since 1943 was that several dozen leading scientist could read and that they could consult about these instructions which were issued here. Neither I nor normally people of my staff participated during this conference, but the procedure was that on the very last day before this meeting was disbanded, the 12 or 14 different specialist groups announced the text of these instructions. And in this case it was to be asked once more if there was any further discussion, and if not, then these instructions were accepted. They were printed as quickly or as slowly as this could be done, and then they were sent to the front.
Q: Well the, General, I take it that these specialists groups investigated the conditions of the experiments which were reported on with great care; is that right?
A: Yes. Naturally you will have considered in that respect under what medical forms; that is, in this case bacteriological forms or surgical forms these experiments had been carried out; that is to say, how the results were achieved can be seen by the case histories and the person who has carried them out will answer the questions here which were put to him, because after all, a number of physicians are not always of the same opinion.
Then various questions were asked and they were discussed and we also have instructions with various things that were not added and where people were arguing what procedure should be followed, and that, as a result of the discussions we saw a big advantage.
Q: Rostock was a member of the surgical group, wasn't he? He was primarily concerned with this sulfanilamide problem?
A: All of us were interested in the sulfonamide experiments — problem
Q: Well, was he a member of this group of specialists which investigate very carefully these reports because they were going to issue medical instructions based on those reports, and they wanted to be sure that their instructions were right and that the reports were correct; and now I am asking you was Rostock a member of this specialist group?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you remember Document NO-257, Prosecution Exhibit 283, which is affidavit of Dr. Ding telling about his meeting with Mrugowsky and Schreiber at the Military Medical Academy at the end of 1942 on gas burn edema?
A: No.
Q: What is gas edema?
A: Gas edema is a disease which is caused by wounds and injuries, whenever a certain type of virus, and in this case they are bacteria, are introduced into the wound. The word edema can be translated into German, with a certain swelling, since this disease is characterized by a swelling, and at the same time by a formation of gas which is caused by these bacteria. Then it is called gas burn or gas edema. It is one of the most feared complications which we can find in the field after injuries and the mortality rate of such people is terrifyingly high. Furthermore, this disease is very often characterized by the fact that the surgeon is forced, in order to try to save the life of the afflicted person, he has to carry out very large amputations, or perhaps he has to amputate a limb from the joint of the hip or the shoulder.
Q: That will be sufficient, I think, General, Now, did you have a gas edema serum in Germany?
A: Yes.
Q: Did it ever come to your attention that soldiers treated with gas edema serum died suddenly after apparent recuperation?
A: Yes. As far as I know this came from the fields of professor Kil? If any success was to be achieved at all with this gas serum it had to be given repeatedly in very large doses, and somebody finally had the idea that these fatalities which could not be properly explained might perhaps be traced back to the phenol components which were contained in the serum.
Q: And this gas edema was the topic of one of your conferences at the Military Medical Academy, was it not? Didn't you have a report by consulting physicians on this topic at one of your meetings?
A: My predecessor directed the first conference during the past war. That was in 1940. It was held by Dr. Waldmann after the campaign in Poland had been completed and already one of the main lectures was given about the gas problem. Ever since that time the importance of this problem has always been discussed with regard to gas edema.
Q: Well, let's go back to this Ding affidavit, Document NO-257, Prosecution Exhibit 283. You have described this gas edema problem just about the same way that Dr. Ding did. It reads:
At the end of 1942 I took part at a conference in the Military Doctors' Academy in Berlin. The topic of discussion was the fatality of gas burn serum on wounded. Attendants, General Dr. Professor Schreiber, SS Brigadier General Professor Mrugowsky, a medical officer who was unknown to me who was a surgeon, myself as section leader of the Central Institution in Berlin for Fighting Epidemics. Kalian whom you have already mentioned... and Mrugowsky gave reports of soldiers who had received gas edema serum in high quantities, up to 1500 cubic centimeters, and hours afterwards, after complete recuperation died suddenly without any visible reason. Mrugowsky suspected that the phenol content brought about the fatal result of the consolidation of the separate injection. In the presence of the other gentlemen, Mrugowsky commanded me to take part in euthanasia with phenol in a concentration camp and to describe the result in detail, since neither I nor Mrugowsky ever saw a case of death through phenol.
Q: Did Schreiber over tell you anything about that?
A: No.
Q: Schreiber didn't tell you very much about anything, did he?
A: Schreiber reported very much to me, and I have worked together with him for many years.
Q: How does it happen he never told you about these little disagree incidents of killing of concentration camp inmates by Dr. Ding?
A: I do not know the reasons which Schreiber had for doing that. I also do not know to what extent Schreiber was informed.
Q: Did you know of Keitel's order that the Wehrmacht was to have nothing to do with experiments on human beings?
A: In this form, I do not know anything about it in the form in which it has been stated in some place here. I can only say that this was an old point of view of the Wehrmacht and that perhaps Keitel brought this up once again at some place but I do not know it in the connection in which it has been mentioned here.
Q: What do you mean that's an old view of the Wehrmacht? What's an old view of the Wehrmacht?
A: I have understood you to say that Keitel had stated that no experiments should be carried out on human beings on behalf of the Wehrmacht.
Q: That statement is contained in Document NO-1309, Prosecution Exhibit 326, which is a memorandum on a meeting between Professor Klieve and Professor Blome concerning biological warfare and proposed experiments on human beings, dated 23 February 1944.
Blome had reported that he had until now made no experiments in the field of human medicine. These, however, are necessary and he plans to make them. A new institute under his control is being built near Posen in which biological weapons are to be studied and tested. Field Marshal Keitel has given the permission to build. Reichfuehrer SS and Generalarzt Professor Brandt have assured him of vast support. By request of Field Marshal Keitel the armed forces are not to have a responsible share in the experiments since experiments will also be conduct on human beings.
That's what Keitel had to say.
A: Well, that would be a general disapproval. That is quite possible, but I have never discussed it with Keitel. Therefore, I cannot give you any judgement to that effect.
Q: Well, how do you explain the fact that Keitel, who was not a medical man, was aware of experimentation on human beings while you were not, and that he had issued an order that the agencies under his control were not to participate in them? How do you explain that he knew about those experiments and you didn't?
A: I can explain this in this way that Keitel was in the Fuehrer's headquarters, that he has heard some reports or that he heard about some reports which did not come to my knowledge—I was not in the Fuehrer's headquarters—that the circle in the Fuehrer's headquarters was also very limited and probably always varied, and quite a few things may have been discussed at the Fuehrer's headquarters which did not come to the knowledge or other people.
I have not discussed experiments of human beings with regard—inside the Wehrmacht or outside the Wehrmacht with Keitel, and, therefore, in connection with—I cannot have any idea with anything like that in connection with me.
Q: If Keitel disapproval of them and issued an order that the Wehrmacht was not to participate in them, who would get the order? Wouldn't you get a copy as chief physician of the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht?
A: No. I did not receive any.
Q: What was your connection with the Blitzableiter Committee?
A: There was no connection at all.
Q: Weren't you in charge, as a matter of fact, of the study of human bacteriology in connection with biological warfare?
A: That was not my assignment, but it was the assignment of a physician by the name of Dr. Klieve and who had been ordered to study the medical literature of the foreign countries to the effect on what had been achieved in that field, and who further had to give medical advice to the Armament Office of the Army as specialist in this field, and he also had to act as a specialist when any questions were addressed to him.
Q: Who was in charge of animal?
A: I cannot tell you that. I only know that at the meeting with Blome in 1943 the General Veterinary, Dr. Richter, was present. However, I do not know if he was only there as Deputy Office Inspector or if he was only there in his specialist field. I do not know. I have never discussed the question with him.
Q: Didn't you know that Blome had suggested biological warfare experiments on human beings?
A: No.
Q: Let me read a paragraph to you out of Document NO-1308. That is Prosecution Exhibit 325. This is a report by Klieve dated 25 September 1943. It says:
Since it is not known under what conditions inhaled aerosol or dispersed droplets of certain pathogenic germs cause disease in man, Professor Blome has suggested experiments on human beings. Experimentation in the laboratories of the Academy of Military Medicine was rejected.
Now who could reject these experiments in the laboratories of the Academy of Military Medicine unless it was you or Schreiber?
A: Well, that may have been Klieve, for example. Klieve may have said that is completely out of the question for us, and I could imagine that there were laboratories without any clinical contacts at all. All this has been put together, and actually they are only laboratories which work on the reactions and which only concern themselves with experiments on animals.
Q: Do you deny any knowledge that experiments with biological warfare were carried out on human beings?
A: No, I do not know anything about them; but, Mr. Prosecutor, I would like to put one request to you. Now when you use the word "deny"—it was previously described as deny—in German when we say "deny" it means dispute, to argue, but if the word "deny" is used in that case, in German with us it would mean to state the untruth, and I am under oath here, and I certainly do not have the intention of stating any untruth, and perhaps could you please tell the interpreter so she will interpret that with the appropriate German word for it which is "abstreiten" and not to deny.
Q: Very well, General, what institutions were producing yellow fever vaccines in Germany?
A: I assume that the Behring Works concerned themselves with the production. For us it was the central agency for all these matters. In excess of that I have also heard here that they had received orders. I cannot say that I did not participate in these things before, but I did not know anything about them in detail. Also a third agency was mentioned which at the moment I cannot remember either. Furthermore, the yellow fever question in Germany was only discussed very temporarily and it only played a part as long as the campaign in Africa was acute.
Q: Now, General, we have the Behring Works at Marburg. Wasn't the Robert Koch Institute also producing yellow fever vaccines?
A: That may be quite possible.
Q: And the Typhus and Virus Institute of the OKH at Krakow?
A: Yes. I have read that here, and that is also quite possible?
Q: And you admit that you may have commissioned them to manufacture this vaccine?
A: I admit that this possibility is quite feasible.
Q: Was a live virus used in this vaccine?
A: Yes. It is usually described as a live virus. I also want to state that with the layman that causes the impression that this was a very dangerous matter, but there has never been a virus which is less dangerous than the one which we are just discussing. I can really put my hand into the fire with regard to the fact that no human being can suffer any damage from this vaccine.
Q: Well, what was the reason for desiring to test this vaccine?
A: I really cannot tell you that because as far as I was informed, it was a vaccine which had already been tested and which was really dependable, and I was very much surprised to see that there was a subsequent experimentation with it. I cannot explain this myself.
Q: Well, you recall that it says in the Ding Diary, which is Document NO-265, Prosecution Exhibit 287, that since the live virus is being handled for safety's sake, from each vaccine charge a test is to be performed on five persons.
You state you don't understand that?
A: No. I cannot possibly understand it. However, I want to state here that I am neither a serologist or a bacteriologist. I can only state that as far as my knowledge is concerned, I cannot understand the paragraph which is contained in the Ding Diary.
Q: And you never heard anything about these experiments at Buchenwald with these yellow fever vaccines?
A: No.
Q: Dr. Schmidt didn't tell you?
A: No.
Q: And who is Dr. Schmidt?
A: Dr. Schmidt was the hygienist in the Army Medical Inspectorate. He went through the French campaign with the Army Medical Inspector and in 1942 when I occupied my office in the Army Medical Inspectorate at Berlin he worked there under me until August, 1944.
Q: He never reported anything to you about this?
A: No.
Q: Is he the same Schmidt you are calling here to testify?
A: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: The Court will be in recess for a few moments.
(A recess was taken)