1947-02-27, #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 Nuernberg, Germany, on 27 February 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.

THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom 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 courtroom.

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, will you ascertain that the defendants are all present in court.

THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honor, the defendants are all present with the exception of the defendant Oberheuser who is absent due to a continuation of her illness.

THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary General will note for the record the absence of the defendant Oberheuser on account of illness and I will file the doctor's certificate with the Secretary General. Counsel may proceed.

OSKAR SCHROEDER — Resumed CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued)

BY MR. McHANEY:

Q: General, I want you to make clear two other points to the Tribunal with respect to Becker-Freyseng. It is true, is it not, that all research assignments made by the Luftwaffe came-through the office of Becker-Freyseng, irrespective of whether or not they dealt with aviation medicine?

A: Yes, I explained that yesterday. I explained that because of office technical reasons all research assignments were dealt with in the department of Becker-Freyseng, but it should not be understood that those assignments which, had nothing to do with aviation medicine, for instance, in the field of hygiene, or dental care, or other things, were also worked on in that department, but they were only worked on down there in an office technical manner. As I explained yesterday, in order to deal with such assignments certain formalities had to be abided by. These things were well known in the department of Becker-Freyseng and since the mass of these assignments came from the sphere of aviation medicine this department already before the time I came there received the office work with reference to all of these assignments.

With reference to the contemplated assignments which remained in the department we could see at all times what agency of my department was actually working on the scientific questions.

Q: The technical reasons you mentioned, it was also true, was it not, that all reports made by scientists working on research problems for the Luftwaffe flowed back through the office of Becker-Freyseng, irrespective of whether they dealt with problems of aviation medicine?

A: I cannot say that with certainty but I would imagine and in order to choose an example, a report about paradentosis research did not go to Becker-Freyseng at all but was dealt with immediately after it was receive by the mail and was assigned to the man working on it. I cannot say that exactly. That is a matter of mail distribution which was not supervised by me in any way.

Q: Well, General, don't you know as a matter of fact that with respect to the work of Haagen on typhus, and assuming he sent a report in to the Luftwaffe, didn't that report as a matter of fact pass through the office of Becker-Freyseng? Of course, I admit it was undoubtedly sent along to Rose, but didn't it go through the office of Becker-Freyseng?

A: I would doubt that very much. Any work of Haagen was clearly recognizable in the registration office as a field which belonged to the framework of hygiene, so it would not be handed to Becker-Freyseng because that would have been a wastage of time which was completely unnecessary to give the work to Becker-Freyseng and then have it sent on to Rose. I would imagine that this was sent immediately to the expert working on it, either Rose or Atmer.

Q: The office of Becker-Freyseng was one central place where you could tell the status of all research assignments by the Luftwaffe. He wasn't advised as to these reports, then how did you tell anything by looking at the files except that in the year 1942, for example, the re search assignment had been made by Haagen?

Don't you know as a matter of fact that these reports came back through his office so he could keep track of what was being done on these research assignments?

A: The list of research assignments, as I said before, were kept in the department of Becker-Freyseng, but all the field which did not belong in the sphere, such as hygiene and other fields, on the basis of the assignment were supervised by those experts who were competent to do so. That is to say, that it was completely sufficient if the respective experts received such a work, that he merely had to inform Becker-Freyseng or telephone him, "Mr. Becker-Freyseng, the work is being done," and we received the final report and the report as such did not have to be submitted to Becker-Freyseng at all.

Q: When were you promoted to the rank of Generaloberstabsarzt?

A: On the 1st of January, 1944.

Q: When were you promoted to the rank of general?

A: On the 1st of June, 1940.

Q: Do you remember when you were promoted to the rank of Oberstarzt?

A: Yes, on the 1st of August, 1938.

Q: Holzloehner served with you during the campaign in the West, didn't he?

A: Yes.

Q: I don't believe you told the Tribunal yet about the conversation you had with Holzloehner on his freezing experiments, have you?

A: What experiments do you mean? What discussions do you mean? Do you mean in the year 1940?

Q: General, you know as a matter of fact there apparently is some dispute between the prosecution and yourself about the precise date, but you knew during the course of the war that Holzloehner, Finke, and Rascher had carried out experiments on concentration camp inmates at Dachau?

A: Yes, I learned that in my office in 1944, as I said here before.

Q: And, I am suggesting to you after you learned that Holzloehnor had been implicated in those experiments you called him in and talked to him?

A: Yes, oh yes. I know when you mean now, yes. There are two things which play a part here. I said yesterday already that Holzloehnor in the year of 1940 had furnished the Aid Station at Witze, the Rescue Station at Witze, where he first gained experience, people who were rescued from the sea then I lost sight of Holzloehnor, since I left the west in the year 1941, and I saw him again for the first time in the year of fall of 1944, which for some reason that I do not know, visited a gentleman of my office. At that time I spoke to him shortly and since I had learned in the meantime that he was conducting experiments in Dachau, I asked him briefly whether that was correct or how he was doing it, and I remember at that time he told me that he was conducting experiments which were based on his old experiences which he gained at the coast and he was supplanting these experiments by conducting experiments on human beings in Dachau. At that time, he was speaking about 6 or 7 criminals who had been condemned to death and who were put at his disposal for that purpose; he, at that time, said nothing about any fatality. At that time, I gained the impression that the entire manner of the experiment and impressed him mentally. I had the feeling that he did not like to speak about it; his suicide later confirmed that.

Q: Well, General, I think this is all rather significant. I think you should have probably made some mention of it before this date. When was this meeting with Holzloehnor?

A: I said that during my interrogation; I think that was in the fall of 1944. I cannot remember the exact date any longer. It could have been November 1944. I am not quite sure.

Q: Well, this was after you had initiated the sea-water experiments, then; is that right?

A: Considerably later, yes.

Q: And, as I recall, you also said in this interrogation that you had seen this report by Holzloehner, which I understand, you to have denied heretofore; now, had you seen Holzloehner's report, or not?

A: No, nor did I ever say that I had. He reported to me on this, but he not show me a report.

Q: Now, General, I am reading from a summary from an interrogation of you made on 21 October 1946, and one paragraph reads as follows:

Schroeder also knows about the Sea-not and Winter-not reports from which he could conclude that human beings were used for experiments. This could also be concluded from Holzloehner's report on the Freezing Experiments, and at could furthermore be seen from the comments which Dr. Rascher wrote on the above matter. Schroeder learned about these matters in 1944.

Now, is this summary inaccurate?

A: Very inaccurate.

Q: All right, let us get it straight. In the first part of 1943; you received a report on the Nurnberg meeting, did you not?

A: Yes.

Q: In May 1944, Becker-Freyseng told you that Holzloehner, Finke, and Rascher, had carried out experiments on concentration camp inmates at Dachau, did he not?

A: That is not the way to put it. He said that Holzloehner had made the experiments; nothing was said to me about Rascher and Finke. I did not know them up to that time.

I heard their names only since I was imprisoned.

Q: You mean you had not heard up to then that Rascher had worked with Holzlochner on these experiments; is that right?

A: No, I did not say that. I heard Rascher's name for the first time in the report of 1945 while I was imprisoned.

Q: Well I do not know, General, but I am going to look in just a minute; I think Rascher's and Finke's names are mentioned in this report which you get in the first part of 1943 on the Nurnberg meeting. You do not recall that?

A: No.

Q: And, I very well remember, that Rascher had made a comment on the rather long lecture by Holzlochner, from which it could clearly be seen that Rascher, himself, was experimenting with Holzlochner; do you not remember that?

A: I can say that now, because in the meantime I have seen those reports, Sea-not and Winter-not, and have road them through carefully and acquainted myself with the various names, and I know that in this report there is an extensive report by Holzlochner and after that a short discussion remark by Rascher. I did not pay any attention to it at that time because I had no connections with Rascker, nor did I saw any reason why I should; but, I did interest myself in Holzloehner's report because I knew him from my working with him on the French coast.

Q: Well, we will come back to the report in just a moment, but right now I want to go on with your discussion with Holzlochner. Can you tell us, more or less, exactly what he told you?

A: That is a little too much to ask, a short remark that I made in 1944 on the occasion of a fast visit, that I should recall it now, I do recall the Holzlochner was not by me in my barracks, and I asked him to step in a moment and then asked him regarding the experiments.

He answered me briefly and then our talk was at an end. The only thing that struck me was that Holzlochner, who previously had been a very lively and fresh person seemed now very depressed and worn out. I attributed that to the five years of war that had take place by that time. That there were other reasons, perhaps, for this, I could only adduce later from the tragic demise. It could be that I made remarks to my adjutant on this subject. I am not sure at the moment, but I think it is quite possible because Augustinick know Holzlochner very well, and liked him. Perhaps Augustinick can be asked about that later.

Q: You said a moment ago you got the impression that Holzlochner did not want to talk about those experiments, and you also had beem dabbling in Dachau experiments, yourself. I think under those circumstances, it might be expected that you would have questioned Holzlochner rather closely with what went on in his experiments. You did not do that?

A: He told me briefly that his observations from the English channel coast could be checked an experiments being carried out on criminals condemned to death in Dachau, and that these experiments had been described in the report which he had submitted. That made it perfectly clear with what was going on and why should I ask anything further. I was not particularly interested in going into that specific result.

Q: Well, were the sea-water experiments over at that time?

A: Yes, a long time ago, and for that reason, it must have been that Holzlochner came to me because those experiments had been concluded long previously.

Q: You did not have any one in the nature of representative at the Nurnberg meeting in October 1942?

A: No.

Q: Now, you mentioned this report which you received on that meeting; that is Document NO-401, Prosecution's Exhibit 23. You stated that you did not know that Rascher and Finke were working with Holzlochner. I found a statement on page 11 of this report which reads as follows:

The relevant statement, with the cooperation of Stabsarzt Dr. Rascher and Stabsarzt Dr. Finke, they refer to a stay in water of 2 to 12 degrees.

That statement indicates very clearly that Rascher and Finke were working with Holzloechner, does it not?

A: Yes.

Q: Now, I think you stated to your own Defense Counsel that it was impossible for you to conclude from this report that experiments had been carried out, but rather, you thought they were clinical observations made on people fished out of the North Sea; is that right?

A: Yes, I based my statement, my testimony, solely on Holzloechner report which was the only thing that interested me. There were reports by Rose and others but I did not read them. I glanced over them briefly but gave me further attention to them because I did not know the people who had drawn them up. I could go over all the verifications later.

Q: Let's just look briefly at one or two points here and see if they right not indicate to you, if you thought about it a little bit, that these were really experiments and not clinical observations on people who accidentally fell into the sea. For instance, on page 11 of the translation it states as fellows:

The rapidity with which numbness occurs is remarkable. It was determined that already five to ten minutes after falling in an advancing rigor of the skeletal muscles sets in, which renders the movement of the arms especially, increasingly difficult. This affects respiration also. Inspiration is deepened, and expiration is delayed. Besides this, heavy mucous secretions occur.

Now, when you read that little paragraph about a man who had been in the water five to ten minutes where it said that he had rigor of the skeletal muscles, where his inspiration is deepened and his expiration is delayed and where there is a heavy mucous secretion, did you imagine that they had Dr. Holzloehner in a lifeboat in the North Sea making those observations on some aviator who had fallen in accidentally? Did you think that, General?

A: Yes, that's what I thought. You don't know the local situation at Visson. There was a beach and dunes; and on the dunes always stood a guard of the aid rescue station, who kept an eye on the water and that part of the country, particularly when flights to England were taking place so that it actually did happen that fliers bailed out and fell into the water just in front of the shoreline. Rescue boats were ready at that time and went out immediately into the ocean, so that it was altogether possible that fliers who fell into the water close to the coast could very shortly be observed and rescued. Those are the facts of what took place at that rescue station at that time.

Q: On the same, page they have this remark:

With the drop of the rectal temperature to 31 degrees, a clouding of consciousness occurs, which passes to a deep, cold-induced anesthesia if the decline reaches below 30 degrees.

Now, do you suppose that they pulled this aviator in and inserted a rectal thermometer and found his temperature at 31 degrees and then tossed him back in and let it drop another degree, all the time watching closely a clouding of consciousness, and then hauled him back in when it was 30 degrees and noted a deep, cold-induced anesthesia?

A: No, nor is that the correct way to put it. This is one of the observations that was new to us and to which we paid a great deal of attention as an explanation of those incomprehensible fatalities, namely, the fact that when the people were removed from the water their temperature still dropped and exactly at the time when their temperature dropped there took place the fatal collapse of the heart. This was one of the fundamental and new observations on our part; and I must repeat again and again that this rescue house was a small place, but it did have the apparatus for observing these people very exactly. That was the sense of the whole thing.

Q: General, you've already covered yourself a little bit by saying you didn't read these discussions after Holzloehner's lecture very carefully; but I want to read you the one by Rascher in any event and see if you won't admit that if you had read this little comment by Rascher that there could have been no doubt whatsoever in your mind that experiments were carried out and not observations on aviators in the North Sea. This is on Page 15 of the translation; and Rascher has said:

Supplementing the statements of Holzloehner, there is a report on observations according to which cooling in the region of the neck only, even if it lasts for several hours, causes merely a slow low sinking up to one degree centigrade of the body temperature without changing the blood sugar level or the heart function. Checking of the rectal temperature was carried out by taking the temperature in the stomach, and showed complete agreement. After taking alcohol body temperature decreases at a quicker pace. After taking dextropur, the decrease is slower than with the experiments in both sober and alcoholic condition. Hot infusions (10% dextro-solution, physiology. Table salt-solution, tutofusin, physiolog. Table salt-solution with pencortex) were successful only for a time.

Now, General, if you had read that, wouldn't it have been perfectly clear that these were experiments?

A: Today, of course, after this whole question had been exposed to light, I should; but at that time I never suspected the possibility from that report that these were a special group of human being experiments. I can say that here under oath; and I should like to reiterate it. That was my attitude toward the matter at that time and it has only been change by what I have discovered here.

Q: I might also point out to you that Bensinger's comment expressly speaks of Holsloehner's experiments repeatedly; but I assume that also made no impression on you?

A: I can say one thing to that. My comrade, also the medical inspectors in my office at that time in Italy, did not have any notion either that human experiments were the basis for these reports. Never was one single word said about such thing on the occasions of my inspecting visits. Of course, during my visits to the Mediterranean such matters were brought up; but I never heard any indication that those reports were the result of a long series of experiments on human beings. In other words, others, too, did not see so clearly as it is being pointed out here that these were human being experiments

Q: And you heard no rumors in the air force at all about those experiments, although there had been a large meeting at Nurnberg in October, with considerable comment there about these experiments? Holzloehner had later made a lecture before all the consulting physicians, at least those who attended the meeting on internal medicine where he spoke. He gave another report there on those experiments. You never heard any rumors in the air force about those things; is that right?

A: No.

Q: You never talked to Finke about these experiments, did you?

A: I have often said I don't even know Finke.

Q: And I think you have already commented on your statement that Weltz only experimented on animals. That statement of yours is just based on what Weltz himself told you; isn't that right?

A: Yes.

Q: Since you don't knew anything really about Holzloehner's Rasher's, and Finke' experiments, you can't swear to this Tribunal that Wetlz wasn't in Dachau working with them, can you?

A: These things happened long before my time. I can only state here what I heard because I had nothing to do with it officially.

Q: Well, I repeat then, you can't state that Weltz didn't in fact cooperate with Rascher, Holzloehner, and Finke, can you?

A: Only from the reports of the individuals which the gentlemen gave me. I had nothing to go with it officially. I can only base my testimony on reports that those gentlemen in question, Becker-Freyseng, or Weltz or someone else gave me.

Q: Well, you never talked to Weltz about Holzloehner's experiments, did you?

A: No. During our imprisonment, yes, but not at this time.

Q: On the sulfanilamide experiments you state that you know nothing about these?

A: Yes.

Q: Did you read the report on the meeting of the consulting physicians in May, 1943?

A: I don't remember. I don't know anymore. I do not recall the report as such, though I may have had it in my hands.

Q: Who were the consulting surgeons of the Luftwaffe in 1943. Did you know any of them?

A: Yes. The doctor was chief of the medical inspection, Prof. German in Berlin. Then Buerkel, my adviser at my flee Then there was Prof. Zuckschwerdt, in another fleet, Prof. Haebler, Prof. Reich, and a few others. Prof. Buerkel De La Camp was nearer to me in the fleet at that time, etc air fleet, that is.

Q: I assume some of these gentlemen attended this meeting of physician in May, 1943, don't you?

A: Well, they must certainly have been there, yes.

Q: But none of them ever reported anything about this meeting to you?

A: Professor Buerkel De La Camp probably came as an adviser because he was my adviser at the fleet and I must assume that he was there by he never told me anything of these sulfanilamide experiments. They could not have made any impression on him. Otherwise, he would have reported on there.

Q: You mean that your consulting surgeon with air fleet No. 2 went to this meeting, is that right?

A: I believe that must be true, because I took every occasion possible to send him to such meetings or conferences.

Q: He was your representative there?

A: Not my representative, but as consulting surgeon he was present at consulting conferences when various air or army physicians got together in conferences in the interest of science and for their own specific work they received indications of what to do at these conferences.

Q: Well when he came back to air fleet No. 2 of which you were flight physician, it was his duty to report to you about what went on at these meetings, wasn't it?

A: Of course, he told me regarding the conference what seemed important to him personally.

Q: Now, let's move on to jaundice, General, do you remember Document No. 125, which is Prosecution Exhibit 194, that is a letter from Haagen to Gutzeit. Here he says:

My dear Colleague Gutzeit:

Many thanks for your letter of June 24, 1944. I am glad that Herr Domen wild come hero on 15 July. We shall then review all common hepatitis questions and perhaps also set up the experiments together.

I cannot at present definitely answer your inquiry about human experiments. As you know, I am working with Herr Kalk, Horr Butchner and Herr Zuckschwert. Naturally, I have already arranged with Herr Kalk that we shall undertake that type of experiment with our material.

I must therefore first determine the point of view of the others concerned.

I shall be very glad to begin work on the nephritis material from your Oberstarzt K.

/s/ Haagen.

Tell the Tribunal who Koch was again, will you?

A: Kalk you mean, not Koch. Kalk was consultant with me and a particular expert on the hepatitis question.

Q: He was a Luftwaffe doctor, wasn't he?

A: Yes, he was.

Q: And Buchner?

A: Buchner was consulting pathologist of the Luftwaffe.

Q: And Zuchswerdt?

A: Zuchswerdt was consulting surgeon for air fleet No. 3 in the West

Q: And, of course, Haagen himself, was a Luftwaffe man, wasn't he?

A: Yes.

Q: So we had all four men of the Luftwaffe, doctors, and as he said here in the letter they were arranging to undertake experiments on human beings, doesn't he?

A: No.

Q: Well, what is your explanation of the letter then, General?

A: First, as I said yesterday, it is not a question of who belonged to the Luftwaffe, rather Haagen had for his hepatitis job collected men around him who could advise him in this field. There was Gutzeit from the army, and another man, Domen, from the army, and then from our sphere those who were experienced in the hepatitis question; in pathology Professor Buchner, and also as it happened from our sphere a man who knew a great deal about hepatitis, namely, Kalt. These gentlemen who were not chosen according to their membership in a branch of the army, but according to the knowledge and experience in the field of hepatitis research, they had form a working community for this work, professor Gutzeit has already told the Court about this and this had nothing to do with different individual branches of the Wehrmacht, but with the research of the hepatitis question.

Q: Well, General, you haven't answered my question. I can only draw the conclusion from this letter that at a minimum these four Luftwaffe men were preparing to make experiments on human beings with jaundice. Now you have indicated a contrary view, but I am asking you to explain the language in here, such as:

I cannot at present definitely answer your inquiry about human experiments.

And then:

Naturally, I have already arranged with Herr Kalt that we shall undertake that type of experiments,

— referring to human experiments —

with our material.

Now what is your explanation for those words unless it means what is says, that they are getting; ready to experiment on human beings with jaundice, these four Luftwaffe men?

A: First, I can only base my statements on the document because this whole business was not something which was communicated to us by the Luftwaffe. It can be seen from the document that the hepatitis research was resigned by the research institute and was not under control of the Luftwaffe. If I can return to my previous testimony I shall repeat that a working circle was built with no regard to membership in the individual Wehrmacht branches. In the affidavits that have been submitted in the document books it can be ascertained that neither Buchner nor Kalk made any preparations for human experiments or intended to carry such out.

Q: Now, General, I can appreciate you have some difficulty with the question I put to you, but let's keep going along the line of your responsibility, what these men did, which I understand you deny or refuse to assume. I am also not interested in what Kalk and Buchner have to say their affidavits. I am just interested in this one letter, and I am asking you if it is not true that the only conclusion which can be drawn from this letter on its face is that these men were preparing experiments on human beings with jaundice.

A: No, you cannot draw that conclusion because it says there the question put to Gutzeit regarding human experiments cannot at this time be answered. In other words, they were simply under consideration or discussion of this problem, but there was no decision to carry out these experiments on human beings.

Q: No can agree then at least that they were considering the matter. isn't that right, General?

A: That is true, yes.

Q: Look at the next letter, one page beyond, General, that is Document No. 126, Prosecution Exhibit No. 195, and this is a letter from Haagen to his collaborator Oberstarzt Professor Dr. Kalk, with the Chief the Luftwaffe Medical Service, Saalow:

Dear Herr Kalk:

In the enclosure I send you a copy of a letter from Gutzeit and my reply. I must proceed as soon as possible with the experiments on human beings. These experiments, of course, should be carried out in Strassburg or is its vicinity.

And I might say parenthetically, General, they could get their subject from Eltzweiler, since sent was so close to Strassburg, and it goes on:

Could you in your official position take the necessary stops to obtain their required experimental subjects? I don't know what sort of subjects Gutzeit has at his disposal, whether they are soldiers or other people.

/s/ Haagen.

Now, General, doesn't this letter indicate they had a fixed intention to carry out experiments on human beings under subordinate Kalk, Haagen, Zuchswert and Buchner, isn't that right, General?

A: No, it simply says here that Haagen had the intention, but there I no word saying that Buchner or Kalk wants that. It is only Haagen's point of view, and he referred to the fact that Gutzeit is thinking along somewhat the same lines.

Q: Well, General, I put it to you that this jaundice was a very serious problem, and I also want to call your attention to the date, that is June 27, 1944, and that was only, let's see, seventeen days after your letter to Himmler asking him for experimental subjects at Dachau?

A: That has nothing to do with this, that is altogether an artificial picture you are drawing.

This thing was never in my hands. It was not addressed to me. Haagen never received a commission to carry out hepatitis research from us. With that combination naturally you can do everything.

Q: General, you are the man jumping at conclusions. I was suggestion to you or about to suggest to you that since this was only a couple of weeks after you had written Himmler, Kalk could undoubtedly not have had any objection to carrying out such experiments himself since he had men in the Luftwaffe who had agreed to carry out such experiments, isn't that possible?

A: No. Kalk didn't know anything about the sea water experiments had nothing to do with them — and was also not part of my office. It was sent to Saalow because his house had been bombed out and mail went through us so we could forward it.

Q: Now, you have indicated that Haagen and Kalk and Zuckschwerdt and Buechner, in so far as they worked on hepatitis, had received their orders from — what agency did you say?

A: Neither Kalk nor Buechner — these were tow matters that overlapped. Haagen received no commission but rather did receive from the Reich Research Institute. This h 1 nothing to do with the Luftwaffe did that in the Hygienic Institute. And, as I said yesterday, consulting members were civilians and were subordinate only to the superior. Buechner was the consulting pathologist for the Luftwaffe and carried out the experiments for the Luftwaffe that fell to him. He had various work groups. There was one that concerned itself with pathology and hepatitis work. The liver punctuates were examined there. He concerned himself only with the hepatitis state of affairs in the Luftwaffe hospitals. He was in special charge of certain hospital statements in which certain cases of hepatitis were recorded. A report of this can be found in the document book. These two were entirely separated things.

Q: Now, Haagen was subject to the orders of the Luftwaffe, wasn't he?

A: As consulting hygienist only — in that capacity and none other.

Q: Now, General, I can understand that the Reich Research Council could supply funds to Haagen to carry out a certain experiment but, as Hostock himself has told us, the Reich Research Council couldn't issue orders to Haagen or anybody else. They just supplied funds to make it possible to do the thing. Now, this man was subject to your orders?

A: No. In this capacity he was not only in his capacity as consulting hygienist — not in the capacity as Director of Strassburg.

Q: Well, suppose he spent all his time doing research work for the Reich Research Council. Are you just impotent in that situation or can you send down an order and say "Haagen, drop your work for the Reich Research Council."

A: No, I could never have done such a thing because he was not subordinate to me as Institute Director. I had no influence over him. I could not have done such a thing.

Q: Well, I am a little confused about this. You mean to say that although he was an officer in the Luftwaffe that really you couldn't order him to do anything he didn't want to do; that he could be an officer in the Luftwaffe but he could spend all his time working for the Reich Research Council and carrying out his duties with the University of Strassburg. He didn't have to do anything for the Luftwaffe, is that right?

A: I testified yesterday and Handloser testified to the same effect regarding consulting doctors, that we sign certain compromises. It was often necessary for the consulting person to be retained for their work in the civilian sector. If we made too great demands on them in the Wehrmacht then they were made UK, that is, indispensable. And, in order to avoid that we had, as I said, to find certain compromise solutions to permit them as much civilian activity as possible — teachers or other matters, or not to make too great demands on them on the part of the Luftwaffe. As I have also said the supervisors were subordinate to the local civilian authorities in their capacity as supervisors and not to us and we had charge only in those fields in which we really had need of the. This is true of various people — Haagen, for example, who was both Institute- director and a teacher and Zucksckwert who had his own practice.

Q: And you don't think it correct that Haagen as a matter of practice supplied the Luftwaffe with results of his research work — that is, all of his research work. He didn't have to have a special assignment from you, did he? He was doing something along the same line for the Reich Research Council which you were interested in — don't you think he told you about it?

A: No. And, the document here clearly proves that his reports were sent to the Reich Research Council and not to us. The distribution is to be seen there — the place to which Haagen sent his reports. And, you must believe me about that — that the reports did not come to us. They were top secret and there is no reason they should have been shown to us. Matters that concerned the Wehrmacht are discussed in these reports, as in the case of the hepatitis research. Then, showing how to present hepatitis would have been clearly seen in the reports. However, since this did not exist there was no need to show us these reports.

Q: Who was the President of the Reich Research Council, witness?

A: I don't know. I know who the acting president was, that was Menzel. Reich Marshal Goering was the President. My office had nothing to do with that. I don't remember.

Q: Well, you mentioned his name — it was the Reich Marshal Goering. Tell the Tribunal what Goering -

A: Yes. I heard it here.

Q: Tell the Tribunal what Goering's position with the Luftwaffe was?

A: The High Commissioner of the Luftwaffe — Commander in Chief on the Luftwaffe.

Q: Now, tell us all you know, General, about the experiments of Haagen with typhus vaccine in the years 1944-45?

A: It can be said in one word — nothing.

Q: Well, you knew he was doing some work with typhus vaccine, don't you?

A: I knew that he had a typhus vaccine but I had no information as what he was working on at that time.

Q: Why I thought you had already testified that you knew he was in the business of producing typhus vaccine, didn't you?

A: Yes I did. And it could be seen from the commission for the research that he had been commissioned to produce typhus vaccine. That the total extent of my knowledge of this matter.

Q: Do you know how much he produced? How many liters he produced down there?

A: No.

Q: Now, General, you know as a matter of fact that really his commission was to develop a good typhus vaccine through experimental study so that production could be instituted. You very well know that Haagen down there producing typhus vaccine on any scale, you know that, don't

A: No. I didn't know the details as I have already testified I had much more to do than concern myself with these matters that were unimportant to my real field of work. There were decidedly different task for me and worked day and night to concern myself with although these matters were interesting and important they belong in the academic room not in the actual office carrying on my business.

Q: You left these matters up to Rose, didn't you, doctor?

A: Rose and

Q: Will you tell me again when you visited Haagen in 1944?

A: About the 23 of May 1944 when I returned via Strassburg from France on an official trip and went to Berlin. I interrupted my trip in Strassburg to visit Zuckschwerdt who was director of the University Clinton and to see experiments that he was carrying on and that was the reason for my visit in Strassburg. My time was limited by the fact that the train was five to six hours late and I arrived not early in the morning but at noon and had to go on almost immediately. It was important to me, since the question of surgical care was very pressing to us in the West those weeks, to have a talk with Zuckschwerdt on this question. That was my own special field — my own special field was throat trouble. I was in to see a friend of mine in the Institute and it was so that I came to Haagen Institute and inspected the main halls of the laboratory — a tour the institute so to speak. That is the way I had a visit with Haagen.

Q: And you didn't take occasion to discuss what he was doing?

A: Yes, he told me of his vaccine experiments on animals. He told me about them previously.

Q: What vaccine was he working on then? The Dry Vaccine?

A: I can't say that for sure now. This visit was very superficial, and here also I was much more concerned with other matters. I have an image in my mind of the institute, a few laboratories, the animals' cages, and the fact that the work was being carried on there, but whether it was dry vaccine or some other vaccine I don't remember any more today.

Q: Was Rose with you?

A: No, my Adjutant, Agustinick, was with me and he can state his own opinion about this matter himself.

Q: Do you know whether your office received any typhus reports from Haagen?

A: A report that is among the documents here I received in which Haagen speaks of the production of vaccine, mainly vaccines from chicken embryos. How the question was discussed from a technical point of view I don't believe I have to discuss.

Q: Now, isn't it true that typhus problems were under the supervision of a central agency in Germany?

A: I don't understand what you mean.

A: Well, let me put to you part of your interrogation of the 2nd of October. You were asked this question:

Did Handloser, Rostock and Karl Brandt know that the Luftwaffe had given such orders to Professor Haagen; that Professor Haagen was working on such matters.

Your answer:

Well, I can only say that such orders had already been given earlier. The questions on spotted fever were questions in which the whole Wehrmacht was interested and these matters were not organized by us. They were distributed by the central authority and then one person would get one section and the other would get another and Haagen got that special section.

Question: "Did Doctors Brandt, Handloser and Rostock know about the experiments?"

Answer: "That was before my time. I believe that they know about it. I believe that the orders were distributed by the central office from Brandt to Handloser to the Wehrmacht and to the Luftwaffe; that they were all agreed that they had to work up this section and then said: 'Well, Haagen will undertake this matter'."

A: This is taken from an interrogation but I don't know what you are talking about — about the production of vaccine. The production of vaccine was arranged before my tine in such a way that the various branches took care of the production of it and delivered it. In this way there could be a supervision of the amount of vaccine available and how much was being produced.

Q: Well, if I understand the interrogation, you are saying that the central agency controlling typhus production matters was Brandt and Handloser and, later on, Rostock. Isn't that right?

A: No. Handloser did the distributing. It was probably worked out in this way — that Brandt was informed so that he would be in the picture.

Q: General, I want to put a document to you. It's already in the record. This is Document No. 122, Prosecution Exhibit 298. This is a letter from Rose, for whose activities you have assumed responsibility, and it's sent to Haagen. I just want to try to gain an admission from you that the Luftwaffe was implicated in the typhus experiments carried on by Haagen and that your office, and in particularly Rose, very well know what Haagen was doing. And Rose says in this letter:

Many thanks for your letter of 12 August. I regard it as unnecessary to make renewed special request to the SS Main Office in addition to the request you have already made.

And, General, I'll remind you parenthetically that we have those requests by Haagen which were sent first to Hirt and then Hirt requested prisoners to be made available to Haagen. Rose goes on:

I request that in procuring persons for vaccination in your experiment you requisition a corresponding number if 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.

Dictated by Professor Rose and apparently signed by his adjutant.

A: Please look at the heading — upper right — 13 December 1943. At that time I was not inspector and I am not acquainted with these experiments.

Q: Well, but General, don't you think you are cutting that a little close? After all from December 1943 you went into office the 1st of January, 1944 and Haagen, as I shall show you in a moment, was very well carrying out experiments in 1944. As a matter of fact, they were carried out before you made your visit in May, 1944. Now, doesn't this letter indicate that Rose and the Luftwaffe knew what Haagen was doing?

A: Please ask Rose about that personally. I am not informed about this. I don't know anything about it. I am testifying here under oath and so I can't answer.

Q: General, I just want to point out to you that this Copenhagen vaccine, which he mentions in here, is the one which he sent on to Buchenwald to have them test it too. This was in 1944 after you were in office.

A: I heard that here during the trial. I didn't know about it previously and I again ask you to ask Rose about this. I can say nothing about this. I heard it here only during the trial.

Q: Whether you knew about it or not, you have to assume responsibility for what he did after you took office.

A: No, I can't take over responsibility for things I knew nothing about — only for things that I knew about.

Q: Well, but General, that limits your responsibility rather closely. You are a very busy man. You can't be informed about all these little minor matters like experimenting on human beings.

I thought you had testified earlier that you were prepared to accept responsibility for what Rose did as a member of the Luftwaffe. Do I now understand that you refuse to accept responsibility for anything he did except those matters about which you knew?

A: I can only bear the responsibility for things that were directly connected with my work. It is erroneous to say "such minor matters as human experiments." At my opinion it is very serious. I think I can only take the responsibility if I know what's going on.

Q: Or if you should have known what was going on? How about that, General?

A: If I had found out that experiments were being carried out on human beings, such as they are being described here, with vaccinations and in a form that I repudiate, then I also would have known how to take measures against that.

Q: General, do you admit that, on the basis of the evidence here presented, Haagen carried out artificial infection experiments to test his typhus vaccines in the year 1944?

A: There is no proof of that at all. In the matter of typhus vaccine there is no proof whatsoever.

Q: I now show you Document No. 127, that is Prosecution Exhibit 316. This is another letter from Haagen to Hirt, dated 27 June 1944. The second paragraph reads:

However, in the subsequent inoculations with virulent spotted fever which are to be made for the purpose of testing the protective vaccine, one must count on sickness particularly in the control group which has not received the protective vaccine. These after-inoculations are desirable in order to establish unequivocally the effectiveness of the protective vaccines. This time 150 persons will be used for the protective vaccine and 50 for the control inoculations.

What's your comment on that, General? Doesn't that show he was getting ready to carry out artificial infection experiments in the year 1944 when you were Chief?

A: Yes, but not under my commission. That I can say. We knew not about this. I repeat that again and again. If it had been known I should have had opportunity to adopt an attitude on this matter and to take me against it. Moreover, this letter says — let me find the place — it does not say at all that infections were carried out. It says:

in supplementation of my report I inform you that in the inoculations themselves there will not be a very long period of reaction or so long a period of reaction as previously observed.

It says, in other words, that a vaccine ready and that it has been tried to a small extent, mainly in the institute (that is the regular practice in the case of new vaccines that they are tested.) Further, that there was no serious reaction — the people did not even miss a day's work. Then it says further that the infections that are to be carried out later, to test this vaccine, etc. — these subsequent infections are necessary in order to test the effectiveness of the dry vaccine; and to ascertain it the protective vaccine will be tried out on 150 persons and the other vaccines on 50 persons.

Let me also point out in the vaccines are being tried out only people whose physical condition is similar to that of corresponding Wehrmacht soldiers. In other words, this is not an experiment that was actually carried out but is simply a proposed that Haagen is making and when I note the date of this letter, the 27 of June 1944, I can see that this proposal never became a reality because in the next month the war events took such a turn as to make such experiment; impossible. It was a proposal that Haagen made to Professor Hirt which never came to the attention of my office. It was a proposal that was made month after I visited Haagen. In other words, these are matters of which I could know nothing and for which I can, therefore, not be held in any way responsible. That was outside my competence. Had I seen this proposal I should not have approved it in this form.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now be in recess.