1947-02-27, #4: Doctors' Trial (late afternoon)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl, counsel for the defendant Oberhauser, I would like to see you, Dr. Seidl, in my office at four-thirty o'clock, after the recess, Dr. Seidl, counsel for the defendant Oberhauser.
Counsel will proceed.
BY BY DR. SERVATIUS
Q: Witness, I have had given to you two charts, NO-418 and NO-419 that is Exhibits No. 12 and Exhibit No. 13. These are two charts which signed as an affidavit. Witness, these two charts were drawn up at different times, the first one was November 1941 to December 1943, and, the second chart was effective 1 January 1944 until 1 April 1944. Witness, what is the reason for these differences in time?
A: A change of organization in the Aviation Ministry.
Q: Yes. Does this distinction refer to the office of Karl Brandt which is at right of the top of both charts?
A: No.
Q: That must be excepted?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Then the plan is incorrect to that extent?
A: (Looks at charts)
Q: Now you made a difference in the drawing of the office of Karl Brandt on the two charts. To what planned difference does the different charts which you made apply?
A: I may say that this drawing was only partly done by me. Other people had prepared it, and I had to put in parts of the Aviation Ministry.
Q: Witness, then the plan does not affect the provisions in the office of Karl Brandt, is that true?
A: No, that was only about the secondary purpose of this chart.
Q: Witness, now one more point about these charts. If you look through the explanation there are various signs which are used, straight lines, dotted lines, and lines of periods, and hyphens, and line of X's, there are three marks: first, organizational on the list of subordination organization orders and technical; second one is technical only, and the third one is technical.
Will you explain the distinction that is made between technical specialized and merely technical. These are all signs which occur in Brandt's office?
A: I can speak of the organization of this plan. The principal [illegible] of the sums of the lines —
Q: Witness, I don't need this explanation. You are only asked whether you can explain the difference in this distinction by means of chart?
A: Yes, that is what I am trying to explain. The investigators in these offices were subordinate for the benefit of order, and I had to explain that was not so, simply; in the course of the conversation we set up this distinction, and these same plans are all in jointly and are correct, and that plain line across the ring, and so on, is to distinguish it, which I affixed to the strict subordination, and which was a rather loose relationship. That is what was pointed out. I said at the time that does not give the right impression, and would be correctly submitted only if one made an explanation of the said plan, otherwise, there would be misunderstanding, such as we are explaining right now.
Q: Then, the chart in itself is not clear?
A: Yes, it is not clear; that is what I said at the time.
Q: Hew about the distinction between technical and merely technical subordinates?
A: No, that was the lack of clarity at the time, to give a true picture.
Q: Then, it is not clear?
A: Yes.
Q: Now, will you please go to chart No. 419. Does the lack of clarity apply to that chart also?
A: Yes, here again there is a solid line from Brandt to Handloser, from Handloser to Schroeder. When the interrogator interpreted that, Brandt gave orders to Handloser, and Handloser gave orders to Schroeder, that Handloser could dismiss Schroeder, and that Handloser gave orders to the technical office. That has to be cleared up in some way.
Q: Now, witness, it was certainly clear that he was your superior?
A: Yes, to me, but not to the interrogator.
Q: You, as Generaloberartz, did you have a Generalarzt as your superior? Was that customary in the Wehrmacht, for a Generaloberarzt to be under a Generalarzt?
A: Yes, you are speaking of the old rank, are you not?
Q: Generaloberstabsarzt and Generalarzt?
A: Yes, the Generalarzt was the lower rank, the higher one was the Generaloberarzt.
Q: Then, it is not possible the other way around?
A: No.
Q: Please look at your chart, at the top there is a solid line. Look at the chart and you will see that the superior you have, Generalarzt Rostock; isn't that right according to the chart?
A: That was something that was crossed out; that was one of the mistakes that was put there.
Q: But, that is on the chart here, Witness; that must be correct then?
A: Yes, that was one of the things that had to be explained.
Q: Then, as far as Karl Brandt's office was concerned these two charts are valueless?
A: Yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: I have no further questions.
EXAMINATION BY DR. KRAUSS (for the defendant Rostock)
Q: Professor I refer to No. 8 of your affidavit of 25 October 1946, that is document No. 449, Exhibit 130. This paragraph refers to your statement about a knowledge of Karl Brandt, Handloser, and Rostock on various things. You have already testified that this statement is not in exact reproduction of what you said, and in particular what you intended to say. In view of this fact, you made a correction in the affidavit of 27 January 1947; that is, Rostock's document No. 11, Exhibit 10. I shall show you this affidavit and I shall ask you briefly to confirm whether it is correct.
(The affidavit was handed to the witness.)
A: Yes, that is right.
Q: I thank you.
DR. KRAUSS: Mr. President, I have no further questions.
EXAMINATION BY DR. TIPP (for the defendant Becker-Freyseng)
Q: Professor, I have a few questions to put to you. During the direct examination we have discussed the position of Becker-Freyseng on your staff. At that time you described the position as a technical expert, and you answered my question by saying that Becker-Freyseng was not your advisor in questions of general research. In the examination by the Prosecution, this question came up again, and your answer confused the clear state of affairs somewhat. Therefore, I want to ask you: Was Becker-Freyseng as referent, as technical expert, your advisor? I emphasize your only advisor on the questions of high altitude research and cold research; that is, on the Luftwaffe research in general?
A: No, as I had already said.
Q: Was Becker-Freyseng your advisor or your only advisor in other colds of research?
A: No.
Q: Very well, thank you. Then, I should like to ask you some questions about the problem which was discussed last by the Prosecution, that is, sea-water experiments. First, the question which is very important: What persons were to be used as experimental subjects? You said that you were thinking of soldiers who had been sent to a concentration camp, and once very briefly you mentioned a soldier unworthy of bearing arms. Can you tell us, if not, please answer the question in the negative, how does a soldier lose his worthiness to bear arms?
A: Through the judgment of a court.
Q: Only through the judgment of a court?
A: Yes, not by any other way.
Q: Then, if you spoke of soldiers unworthy of bearing arms, you could only think of soldiers who had been regularly condemned by a courts martial; who had lost their qualifications for bearing arms and had been sent to a concentration camp?
A: Yes.
Q: That was the kind of soldier you were thinking of?
A: Yes.
Q: Now, very well, another question about the sea-water problem, which is connected with what the Prosecution said today. You have already said why the sea-water experiments were necessary. This question was not brought out as clearly as I should like to have it brought out for my defendant Becker-Freyseng; therefore, can you briefly, in two sentences, say why, to clear up this question, experiments were necessary at the time. The question was: Can the Berka process be introduced or must we use the Schaefer method of procedure: Why were these experiments necessary?
A: The experiments were necessary because amongst scientists there was no agreement on the two procedures, and no agreement could be reached by discussions, so that the application of the Berka procedure was carried out. Eppingger and that problem cleared up by experiments; that the introduction of the Berka procedure, at least, for a matter of days, in case of a distress at sea would be possible, in order thus to save the raw materials which the Schaefer procedure would use in large quantities.
Q: Then, the Berka procedure had technical advances which made its introduction desirable and your office, however, had objections or misgivings from a medical reason, and that leading specialists were of the opinion that your misgivings might not be justified?
A: Yes.
Q: Then, the experiments were definitely necessary?
A: Yes.
Q: Now, one little question which came up in the examination of the Prosecution today: This was on your orders, your instructions, who decided when the experiments with the Berka water were to be stopped and had to be stopped. Was this decision up to the experimental subjects or the person, that is, the doctor in charge of the experiments?
A: The subjects.
DR. TIPP: Mr. President, I have no further questions.
EXAMINATION BY DR. FLEMING (for the defendant Mrugowsky)
Q: Professor, in the cross examination you were told of an interrogation in which you said the position of Mrugowsky in the Waffen-SS was the same as that of Rose, and with me. In another place in your interrogation, you said that you did not know Mrugowsky. Is the latter true?
A: That is true.
Q: You also said that you had no inside information as to the organization of the Waffen-SS; is that true?
A: That is true.
Q: Then, you had no exact knowledge of the position and activities of Mrugowsky?
A: I knew it only from regulations which said at the bottom, the distribution, which also had the Hygienist of the Waffen-SS.
Q: But, the activities of Mrugowsky in the Hygienic Institute, you did not know any of the details?
A: No, from the title of chief hygienist I deduced that was more or less the same as the consulting hygienist with us.
Q: Then I may understand your statement to mean that what you said in your interrogation meant that you did not know Mrugowsky's position in detail, only on the basis of the information given in distribution lists, and you assumed that his position was the same as that of Rose with you and that answer in the interrogation was given on the basis of this assumption?
A: Yes.
DR. FLEMMING: I have no further questions.
EXAMINATION BY DR. GUSTAV STEINBAUER (for defendant Wilhelm Beiglboeck)
Q: Witness, you have said that my client Beiglbock reported to you before the experiments began. Was this interview very long or very short?
A: Very short.
Q: Did you not wish him luck and tell him he would get directives from Oberstabsarzt Dr. Merz or Becker-Freyseng?
A: Yes.
DR. STEINBAUER: Thank you.
EXAMINATION BY DR. HEINZ FRITZ (for defendant Gerhard Rose)
Q: Professor, yesterday or the day before I asked you a few questions concerning the position of your consulting hygienist Prof. Rose with reference to other consulting hygienists in the German Wehrmacht, and I had referred to your affidavit Number 449; and you had agreed with your co-defendants Handloser and Rostock. Then in cross examination Mr. McHaney discussed the same questions once more, and I have the impression that this matter is not quite clear yet. Therefore, I should like to ask you one question on the subject.
I believe that you can answer it on the basis of your knowledge of the facts with yes or no. Did Prof. Rose, in his capacity as your consulting hygienist and tropical hygienist, have the right and the duty of supervision over Prof. Haagen in his capacity as consulting hygienist of Air Fleet Reich and as the person in charge of certain research assignments for the Luftwaffe?
A: You mean he had to interfere?
Q: Whether he had the right or the duty of supervision over Prof. Haagen.
A: No.
DR. FRITZ: Thank you.
EXAMINATION BY THE TRIBUNAL (Judge Sebring):
Q: General Schroeder, can you tell the Tribunal briefly if you knew by what military process or other military or governmental procedure Jehovah Witnesses, Mennonites, Quakers, or other persons in Germany who had been called or drafted for military service and who were conscientious objectors on religious grounds were placed in jails, prisons, or concentration camps because of refusal to bear arms?
A: I can say nothing except what Pastor Jentsch said yesterday. At the beginning of their service if they refused to bear arms they were turned over to the court martial as far as they were in the Wehrmacht.
Q: And then in the Wehrmacht charges were preferred against them because of refusal to carry out orders of military superiors?
A: Yes.
JUDGE SEBRING: Thank you.
EXAMINATION BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q: Witness, assuming a group of human beings anywhere from one hundred to three hundred in number who were selected as experimental subjects for experiments such as we've heard of here, say typhus experiments, for instance; and if you saw a list of those experimental subjects divided into groups and one of the groups was indicated as the control group, what would that phrase mean to you?
A: In the form as you have just stated it, Mr. President, it would be control persons who were not subjected to any protective measures, such as the others were. The assumption probably was that the others were protected in some way by vaccination or something like that. The control group would be unprotected.
Q: I understood you to say yesterday when you saw that phrase in some paper that came to you during the year 1944 that the phrase "control group" had not suggested anything to your mind. Possibly I misunderstood you.
A: I do not know at the moment in what connection that could have been said.
Q: The matter is clear to me now. I would also ask you, Witness, did I understand you to say this morning that if a person would drink seawater and nothing but seawater for a period of six days at least that that person would suffer no permanent harm.
A: Yes, that is true. I gave an example of what I experienced in the Mediterranean. The man was adrift six days and seven nights.
Q: During that time did he drink seawater?
A: Yes. By accident the entire emergency equipment had been lost so that he could drink only what his environment brought him. That was seawater and a little dew which collected on the raft during the night.
Q: Have you any information as to the quantity of seawater that this man drank per day or during the period?
A: As a standard he took the cartridge case of a flare. They are of a rather large caliber; perhaps they would hold forty cubic centimeters. In the course of the day he drank from that from time to time. He tried to drink as little as possible. That's what he told me when I saw him two days later. But he drank several such cartridge cases full; two or three hundred cubic centimeters, certainly.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any further examination of this witness?
(Pause)
Then the witness may be excused.
DR. MARX: With the permission of the Tribunal I now call the witness Dr. Augustinick to the witness stand.
THE PRESIDENT: The Marshall will summon the witness Augustinick.
DR. HERBERT AUGUSTINICK, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
THE PRESIDENT: Hold up your right hand and be sworn. Please repeat after me the following oath:
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath)
THE PRESIDENT: You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY DR. MARX:
Q: Witness, your name is Dr. Herbert Augustinick?
A: Yes.
Q: When and where were you born?
A: On the 7th of April 1909 in Karlsruhe.
Q: Where do you live at the present time.
A: In Tauberhischofsheim.
Q: What is your profession now and what was it formerly?
A: Now I am an official physician with the Health office. Formerly I was a Wehrmacht officer.
Q: Were you an active officer?
A: An active Wehrmacht medical officer.
Q: You studied medicine and are a doctor of medicine?
A: Yes.
Q: When did you study?
A: 1929 to 1934.
Q: Now, will you please give the Tribunal a brief sketch of your career?
A: After the State examination in 1934 I was assistant for clinics in Dortmund and Karlsruhe until 1937. In 1937 I took maneuvers with the Wehrmacht.
On the first of October 1937 I became assistant oberstabarzt of the reserves On the first of January 1938 I became an active officer in the Wehrmacht.
Q: Now, how were you employed in the Wehrmacht?
A: Until the beginning of the War I had various positions as troop physician.
Q: Were you always with the Luftwaffe?
A: Yes.
Q: Now, when did you come to the office of Generaloberstabsarzt Schroeder?
A: On the 26th of September 1940.
Q: And in what capacity?
A: As adjutant.
Q: How long did you remain in this position?
A: Until 30 April 1945.
Q: Now, will you please briefly describe to the Tribunal the position and duties of an adjutant?
A: Yes. The adjutant of the Fleet physician is a close co-worker of Fleet Physician. He must look over the incoming mail and present it to the Fleet Physician. Everything directly connected with the office has to be taken care of by the adjutant.
He must prepare his official trips. In short, everything that happens in the office — he must work on.
Q: Were you usually present at discussions which Professor Schroeder held?
A: Not usually, but frequently.
Q: Now what else did you do?
A: I remained adjutant in the various theaters of War.
Q: Did you not accompany Professor Schroeder on his official trips?
A: Yes.
Q: Now was anything changed in your duties when you went with Professor Schroeder to the Medical Inspectorate in Berlin?
A: Yes.
Q: How was that?
A: I became technical expert referent. Like all the other technical experts and consequently, we naturally did not work quite so closely together.
Q: But did you not continue to be in close contact with Professor Schroeder?
A: Yes.
Q: From then on how was the incoming mail dealt with? As long as you were adjutant you received the mail. Who received it now?
A: The Chief of Staff.
Q: What did he have to do?
A: He looked it over. He decided how urgent it was and he either dealt with it himself or he turned it over to the section chiefs or to the medical chief — it depended.
Q: Did the section chiefs retain this mail or did they pass it on to the technical expert?
A: The section chiefs looked the mail over and then gave it to the technical expert?
A: The section chiefs looked the mail over and then gave it to the technical expert to be dealt with.
Q: Witness, now let us go back to the time when Professor Schroeder was Fleet physician. Can you give the Tribunal a brief description of the duties of a Fleet Physician?
A: The Fleet Physician is responsible for his Fleet. He was the supervisory medical authority. He was in charge of claiming hospitals, he directed the hospitals, he directed the removal of the wounded, the replacement of drugs and dressings, and all such things.
Q: Can you tell me anything about the extent of the duties, first in the West, and second in the South, and then where Air Fleet Two was used in the East?
A: The Fleet included 100,000 or several hundred thousand men. In the West it included Air District Belgium, Northern France, and Air District Holland, Air District Six, and Air District Eleven.
In the East it was the so-called central sector. In the south Italy, Sicily, Crete, and the North African area.
Q: How many men were in such an Air Fleet, the maximum?
A: I don't know exactly — several hundred thousand.
A: Perhaps you will speak of the time in the end of 1942 or in the start of 1943, what was your office like then?
A: In the spring of '43 the coming collapse in North Africa could already be seen. There was a great deal of work of all kinds to be done. For the very difficult communication system we had to improvise and get along as well as we could.
Q: Witness, you just said that Professor Schroeder frequently went on official trips?
A: Yes.
Q: Was he often at the Medical Inspectorate in Berlin?
A: No, not frequently.
Q: How often do you think he was in Berlin?
A: How often he went to Berlin from the West I cannot say — I don't know. From the East he went to Berlin once as far as I know. I think that was the beginning of November 1941. In the South — two or three times.
Q: Well, then from the second area, that was from December 41 to December 43?
A: Yes.
Q: In your opinion he was there in Berlin two or three times?
A: Yes
Q: Can you say whether Professor Schroeder ever represented Medical Chief Hippke?
A: No, he never did that.
Q: Who was the representative? The deputy?
A: Generalstabsarzt Neumueller, unless his chief of staff represented him.
Q: Between Professor Schroeder and the Medical Inspectorate in Berlin were there any close official relations?
A: No.
Q: Was there telephonic conversation two or three times a week with Hippke on one end and Schroeder on the other end?
A: No.
Q: Then if I understand you correctly the conversation was restricted to what was officially necessary?
A: Yes. That was true.
Q: Now, was Medical Chief Hippke ever at the office of Mr. Schroeder?
A: Yes.
Q: In Italy?
A: No not in Italy.
Q: Where?
A: In Russia — Smolensk once.
Q: And when Air Fleet Two was in Sicily he wasn't there at all?
A: No. I don't believe so.
Q: Now what were the relations between Schroeder and Hippke? It is alleged that there were very close relationship or friendship and comradeship and for this reason Hippke told Schroeder about everything that Hippke did.
A: That may have been the case formerly but as long as I was with Professor Schroeder, from the end of 1941 on, in my opinion there was a definitely cool feeling between the two gentlemen. That was probably due to things which have nothing to do with this trial. I do not wish to discuss them in detail but I can confirm that there was a definite alienation. I can also confirm that this alienation had its effect on the office, too. And, any necessary telephonic communication with Berlin was limited to what was absolutely necessary.
Q: You described the duties of Air Fleet Physician. Now can you please tell us whether these duties included dealing with research question?
A: No. There was not the time or space. The fleet physician, is a definite front position. It has nothing to do with research.
Q: Did the Air Fleet Physician have any office which dealt with research questions?
A: No.
Q: Now, will you please say whether Prof. Schroeder or his office received reports about research work carried out by the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe?
A: We received the memorandums for troop physicians. I believe that was the title, "Merkblaetter fuer Truppenaerzte", in which experiences made were presented in a tone and extent adapted to troop physicians with units at the front.
Q: Witness, you have said that from the Medical Inspectorate, that is, through Hippke, Schroeder did not receive any reports on research?
A: Certainly not.
Q: Can you say whether Prof. Schroeder in any other way received knowledge of research and experiments which were connected with the Medical Inspectorate?
A: One should not assume that.
Q: Is it not true that you personally would have had to know about it?
A: Yes, I should think so.
Q: Don't you think that Mr. Schroeder would have told you about it?
A: Yes.
Q: Perhaps you will remember that in October, 1942, in Nurnberg, there was a meeting about distress at sea and winter distress?
A: I heard about it later.
Q: Was the office of the Fleet Physician 2 represented at this meeting?
A: No, not to my knowledge, but I must add that from September, 1942 until January, 1943, I was in the Luftwaffe Hospital in Munich.
Q: Were you sick? Were you a patient there?
A: Yes.
Q: Can you say whether Prof. Schroeder or his office received a report after the meeting about what had taken place there?
A: A report?
Q: Yes, I mean a report. Any information, any report from some one who had participated?
A: That is hard to say.
Q: Or, let us formulate the question like this. When you came back nothing was said about this meeting at Nurnberg?
A: I don't know the time exactly but some times that was received.
Q: That isn't what I want to know. I'm coning to that. But I mean, for example, whether at luncheon or supper it was discussed?
A: No.
Q: The Medical Inspectorate later issued a report of this meeting.
A: Yes.
Q: It was distributed to the higher offices of the Luftwaffe. Do you remember whether the office of Air Fleet 2 received this report?
A: Yes, I believe that we did receive it. If I saw the original —
Q: (Interrupting) Can you remember when that was?
A: I can only figure out what time it must have been. It must have been the Spring of 1943.
Q: Why do you think that was the time?
A: If I hear that the meeting was in October it always took a few months until such a report reached the troops.
Q: Your chief said today that he read this report "Distress at Sea and Winter Distress" but he said it was only a very small excerpt. What was the situation? Let us assume it was in March or April, 1943?
A: On 10 May 1943 Tunisia, was lost. That is well known. When the Tunisian Theater of War was eliminated, in the days immediately beforehand, from the 5th to the 8th or 9th of May, we had so much work with removing the wounded from Tunisia that we had to time to do anything else. There were about 10,000 wounded over there.
Q: Now, the Prosecution has shown us that Generalstabsarzt Schroeder read this report very carefully and that he must have noticed the names of Rascher and Finke which are given in a note at the end of this report. Did you read the report yourself?
A: No.
Q: Did the names Rascher and Finke mean anything to you?
A: No.
Q: They were Stabsarzte of the Reserve. Are you of the opinion that a Stabsarzte of the Reserve would have to be noticed by the Medical Chief?
A: They might be. We had many Stabsarzte of the Reserve, who in civilian life, had a very high position.
Q: But one could not have said that of Rascher?
A: No, no.
Q: If Rascher had been a famous scientist, then one night have noticed this name?
A: Yes.
Q: But if a man's name is Rascher and he happens to be a Stabsarzte or the Reserve in the Luftwaffe, then he is not a very important man, is he?
When did the fighting in Sicily begin. Wasn't that May, 1943?
A: No. Both sides had to consolidate first.
Q: Can you say whether Professor Schroeder attended the meeting of consulting physicians in May, 1943?
A: No, he did not.
Q: You know that for sure?
A: Yes.
Q: He was in Italy, was he not?
A: Yes.
Q: And do you know whether he attended the meeting of consulting physicians in 1942?
A: 1942?
Q: Yes, 1942?
A: No, he did not.
Q: Where was he then?
A: He was with the office then. He attended only one meeting. In 1944, I believe it was.
Q: Yes, that is on the list.
Well witness, you have said that the office of the Air Fleet Physician received no reports about research connected with the Medical Inspectorate?
A: Yes.
Q: And that you consider it impossible that Professor Schroeder, in any other way, learned of research and experiments of this kind?
A: Yes.
Q: You conclude this from the fact that under the relations existing between you two he would have spoken to you about it.
A: Yes.
Q: Now, did you yourself hear anything about experiments on human beings connected with such research on high altitude, cold and typhus questions?
A: No, only now.
Q: Did Professor Schroeder say anything to you about it?
A: No. I heard that from a third party.
Q: Now, witness, you accompanied Professor Schroeder on an official trip to Paris?
A: Yes.
Q: I believe that was in May, 1944?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you go to Strasbourg?
A: Yes.
Q: Now what happened. Was Strasbourg on the original plan or why did you decide to stop at Strasbourg and whom were you visiting — whom was Professor Schroeder visiting?
A: The visit to Strasbourg was between the 20th and 30th of May 1944 two wees before the beginning of the invasion. We left Paris in the evening for Strasbourg; because of the air situation we arrived in Strasbourg several hours late. If I remember correctly, we were to arrive at 6:00 in the morning and we arrived about 11:00. Then we visited the surgical clinic; that took about 2 hours. Then we visited an accident hospital in the city; that took about 1 hour. Then we had lunch. After that we visited Professor Nussman at the Ear Clinic. Then we visited Professor Haagen in the Hygiene Institute then we went to the physical institute or some such institute. At 7:00 o' clock we left — 7:00 in the evening.
Q: Then you were in the Hygiene Institute of Professor Haagen. Did you meet Haagen personally?
A: Yes.
Q: And what happened? Did Haagen conduct you?
A: Yes.
Q: Were you there? Were you personally always there the whole time?
A: Yes.
Q: Now will you please describe this visit to the clinic of professor Haagen? Describe what took place — what did you see and what did you talk about?
A: The visit to the Hygiene Institute took about one hour. Professor Haagen took us to the lecture rooms, the laboratories, the study rooms, and we were shown an animal kennel. Because of the many trips I had been in a great many institutes, I had never seen such a large animal kennel. This helps my memory. It was something I had never seen before. There were 8 to 10 martens which were otherwise not used. There were very modern facilities for the animals.
Q: Now what was discussed?
A: The production of vaccine.
Q: And what else? Were the materials needed discussed?
A: If I remember right, we discussed the production of typhus vaccine from rabbit lungs.
Q: Did Professor Haagen say what else he was doing?
A: About the classes he held?
Q: No. Did he say anything about Natzweiler?
A: No.
Q: And then you took your leave after an hour?
A: Yes.
Q: Schroeder, after he had become Medical Chief, was he away from the office a great deal?
A: Not as frequently as before, when he was Fleet Physician; about 10 or 12 days a month sometimes.
Q: And for what purpose?
A: There were always difficulties to be overcome when hospitals were destroyed.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now recess until 9:30 tomorrow morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 28 February, at 0930 hours.)