1947-03-26, #3: Doctors' Trial (afternoon session)

AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 26 March 1947.)

THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.

MR. HARDY: May it Please the Tribunal, during the presentation —

THE PRESIDENT: Just a minute, Mr. Hardy. The Secretary General will file for the record a medical certificate in regard to the defendant Oberhauser's condition. Proceed.

MR. HARDY: During the presentation of the defense thus far to date of the other defendants it has been more or less the practice to put in the documentary evidence during the course of the examination of the defendant, but it has been true that most of the defense counsel have limited that to documents which are important for the purpose of the examination. I should request that Dr. Flemming refrain from trying to introduce all of his documentary evidence during the course of his examination. The purpose of the examination is to ask pointed Questions, facts, to the defendant and to save his documentary evidence to be introduced separately, inasmuch as in some instances it is absolutely unconnected with the testimony of the defendant and I think it would be more expeditious than the manner in which he is beginning to follow now taking document after document in his document book. I request the Tribunal to rule on the suggestion of the prosecution.

DR. FLEMMING: Mr. President, I am only going to submit documents as they refer to the count of the prosecution and as I am asking defendant Mrugowsky regarding that document. I would consider it in that case to be more expedient to submit this document during the examination rather than submitting document after document after the examination, which would be completely out of its context.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, documents which tend to elucidate the testimony of the witness may be offered during his examination but only if they are particularly pertinent to the matters on which the witness is being interrogated. Documents of a general nature should be reserved until after the testimony of the witness is completed, but when counsel deems it of importance to present certain documents during the examination he may do so.

JOACHIM MRUCOWSKY — Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION — (Continued)

BY DR. FLEMMING:

Q: I am not going to read any more from the medical report than what I have already read. I will now ask you: Do you maintain this high concept of your profession as before, or did you have strong reason in the meantime to revise it?

A: As before, it is my opinion that only that person has a right to call himself a physician who also feels the religious side of his profession and who is taken up with his physical task.

Q: How was your book accepted in the circles of your superiors, a book which had nothing at all to do with the SS spirit?

A: I had to submit that book to Grawitz before its publication for his approval. Grawitz then sent it to Himmler and Himmler rejected the thoughts contained in that book and prohibited this book being distributed to SS physicians.

Q: After the court has learned your concept of ethical questions, after having read a few pages of that book, I want to speak to you about medical experiments on human beings. Do you consider it permissible that a physician under certain circumstances violates the request put to a physician to cure patients and not to cause damage?

A: This question is very hard to answer briefly since it concerns the wide field of philosophy and the study of ethics. These views, as are all other views of human thought, are dependent on timely currents. It is my opinion that when answering that question one has to differentiate between two different cases.

The first case is the following: A patient comes to a physician and submits himself trustingly to his treatment. This is a case which is not mentioned in any count of the indictment and I am only touching upon it in order to clarify the second case. I think that it is absolutely not permissible that a physician would do any medical experiments with a patient, who confidentially approached him for the purpose of being cured, without the express approval of that patient.

This holds true of every operation and of every other activity of the physician in relation to his patient. This relation of confidence of Physician to Patient is fully applicable to medical ethics in the classical sense, as before, and that will certainly also hold true of all times.

But all experiments which are here the subject of the indictment were not carried out on patients who put themselves into the hands of a physician with confidence but these were inmates of concentration camps. These men were entirely healthy and that in my opinion is the second case. They were not Patients of the physician in the sense of medical ethics and in reference to the concept of the relationship between the Physician and patient, and therefore what we understand by medical ethics can only conditionally be applied in this case.

Q: Wherein do you see the basic difference between experimentation by physicians on patients or inmates of a concentration camp?

A: The patient approaches the physician voluntarily, and the important thing is the relationship of confidence between him and his physician. It is entirely different in the case of the inmates that are being discussed here. To enter a concentration camp, in itself, could only be done by the approval of the concentration camp central administration at Oranienburg. I myself, for instance, was never in possession of a permanent pass and, therefore, couldn't enter a concentration camp whenever I felt like it. Only as far as I know the leading physician of concentration camps held such a permanent pass, and a close circle of his working staff. Whenever a visitor entered a concentration camp, he had to report to the commandant's office, and whenever there were people of high rank, they had to report to the commandant himself. They were not allowed to move freely within any camp, but they had to be accompanied. Those escorts only allowed them to see the places which were necessary for them to execute their orders. In that case apart from the actual camp physicians, no other physician even had the possibility to get into contact with the inmates in the concentration camps, and there we find a very essential difference between the voluntary confidential relationship of patient to physician on the one hand, and the relationship of the physicians, who are indicted here, and the inmates on the other hand.

Q: You know that at home and abroad a number of medical experiments were carried out on inmates asylums who also weren't patients of the physician who was carrying out these experiments. In your opinion, were such experiments on patients of insane asylums synonymous with experiments on inmates of the concentration camps?

A: No. This physician would in every case establish contact with the head of the insane asylum who himself was a physician, too, and would get everything necessary from him such as space and equipment. In the case of the concentration camp there was no such contact possible, contact between one physician and another. Whatever would have been necessary for the execution of experiments had to be made available to him by the commandant's office which was an agency of State. Above all, he could only get the inmates for these experiments of an order by the Chief of the German Police had been issued, and, naturally, that Chief of Police is an organ of the State.

Therein I see a very clear distinction between the two types of experiments.

Q: What conclusions are to be derived regarding the permissibility of carrying out medical experiments on inmates from the fact that the State had to place these inmates at the disposal of the physician for the purpose of these experiments?

A: If the inmates are put at disposal for these experiments by the State, one can conclude clearly that there was at least an approval by the State for the planned experiment. In most cases the State was even the party that initiated these experiments and ordered them.

Q: In your opinion, did the State have the right to dispose of the health and lives of the inmates by placing them at the disposal of medical experiments, as a result of which permanent disturbances of their health or even death could occur?

A: In normal times the State certainly does not have that right. But the experiments which are here the subject of the indictment were carried on during the war. In Germany, just as in England, a total war effort applying to the entire people was ordered, that is to say, the State in Germany as well as in England reserved the disposal over its citizens in every case. Not only did the State provide such commitment for men, but also for non-soldiers, even women. The State also ordered the manner in which the citizens of the State would suffer loss of health or even death, such as in the Navy by drowning in water, or in the Air Force by crashing a plane, in the armament industry by poisoning. That also holds true for the women who were committed in that war effort, and that is true, therefore, for the entire German people. These circumstances of a total war are naturally quite unusual. Under these very unusual circumstances where the State exercises jurisdiction over its entire citizens, I don't think that inmates of concentration camps cannot be excepted. Now when the State orders the execution of medical experiments because some question regarding the combatting epidemics had to be settled as quickly as possible, I would imagine that the State has the right to select persons for that special purpose because in that case the State is doing nothing also that it is not doing with its soldiers and other population.

Q: Under what circumstances would you say that the speedy settlement of any question is of highest medical importance?

A: In order to remain within the scope of the indictment, I think there is such a case when some foreign epidemic is starting, which so far was not found within the Reich territory, and where a large number of deaths is to be reckoned with, so that the speediest settlement becomes necessary. It is important to find out whether a certain drug or a certain vaccine can control this danger.

Q: When making these presumptions, do you think that a physician is entitled to carry out experiments on human beings using new drugs or new vaccines, even if he knows that the life of the experimental subject is being endangered by that procedure?

A: I don't think that a physician is justified to do that when we are concerned with his own initiative. I think, however, that he is obliged to obey the order given by his State when the highest responsible official of the State is or ordering such experiments for any specific purpose and defines expressly the circle of persons to be used. It is the duty of the State to keep his citizens from danger as far as possible. It is the duty of the respective highest official of a State organization to take the necessary measures and to find now ways for newly appearing cases.

Q: Now let us assume the case that a physician had received the order from the State to use healthy persons in order to clarify a question of highest medical importance and infect them with bacteria as a result of which they become ill, and a certain number, let us say 1/3 would most likely die, what would the attitude of this physician be in a case of war emergency?

Q: In that case I would make the further assumption that this physician is a soldier and was receiving this order from his superior agency.

A: The physician has to judge for each case what his activity towards this order has to be. If he realized that necessity and if be affirms it, then he will immediately obey that order. The responsibility for that order rests with the agency which had issued the order. The physician himself bears the responsibility for the execution of that order. If he believes however, that there is no urgent necessity for that undoubtedly unusual order, he would have to inform his superior of his misgivings, and in cases where no agreement is reached, he only has one alternative, namely, to report that matter to a yet higher superior. If in that case too the necessity of that experiment is affirmed, that is, against his own convictions, then he would have to obey that order, that is when his superior insists upon the execution of that order. Understanding superior, however, would not insist that just the one should execute such an order who has any inner objection to it. They would probably select other subordinates who are fully of their own opinion.

Q: Do you think that it is justifiable that a physician who received the order to carry out experiments on human beings, should be treated differently than a chemist or any other expert who receives orders by the State, during the war, as a result of which his life or the life of other citizens is being endangered?

A: In times of war it frequently occurs that research workers, chemists, technicians, et cetera, have to carry out experiments which are not only endangering themselves, but also endangering their environment. For example, in the explosive industry, numerous explosions occur, as a result of which many persons die. If the chemist who is concerned with the accident cannot be accountable for that disaster.

He is naturally not guilty. Whenever a fire guard officer has to remove a bomb from the street which came down as a dud, and if this dud exploded, the fire guard naturally cannot be held to account, and I may say that in large cities prison inmates were used for that purpose by the State in many cases and as a result suffered injury or died. One can see numerous examples at the front in the case of officers, where the officer could not overlook whether the order he had received is absolutely necessary, and where he often has to execute a military order without having to be convinced of it's necessity. This officer is certainly not guilty of having brought about the death of soldiers of his company, but it is the superior agency which bears the responsibility. That is very clear in military life.

Q: What would be the consequence if the physician refuses to carry out such experiments on human beings?

A: In time of war every medical officer is subordinate to the military law. Every country which has an army has military law and there one always finds the paragraph referring to refusal to obey orders. Even if he did refuse and then receive a court martial nothing would have been done to prevent the intention of the State, for another person would come into his place who probably would act with less expert knowledge in carrying the matter through.

Q: Let us assume that the physicians for the reasons mentioned desires to carry out that infection, what kind of persons would he select for his experiments?

A: We cannot select any persons because he has none at his disposal. These experimental subjects must be put at his disposal by the State or some other source.

Q: And what kind of persons would come into consideration in your opinion?

A: In such a case one, of course, thinks of volunteers first. If, however, it is not possible to find any volunteers and the State, in spite of that, thinks that the execution of the experiment is necessary, any human beings would have to be ordered to submit themselves to experiments. The State has the power to do that for the same reason as the State has the power to commit its soldiers at the front. On the other hand the State has the possibility to get a number of its citizens which it cannot use during war and which it cannot use either at the front or us workers, and these are the criminals. In Germany, military service is considered an honorable service. Serving penal servitude results in being no longer regarded fit for military service. From this circle the State would choose its experimental subjects if it decides to perform such experiments in view of some acute danger.

Q: In your opinion, is the physician to be held responsible for this furnishing of experimental subjects?

A: In my opinion, no. He exercises no influence whatsoever in this manner.

Q: In your opinion, isn't the physician obliged to make sure before the beginning of the experiments that the experimental subject actually comes from the circle, from which they should come, according to the order of the State?

A: As far as we are concerned with inmates of concentration camps, the physician wouldn't be in a position to exercise any such control. The personnel files of the inmates are not at his disposal. Therefore, he could not look at them.

He merely can believe and accept what he is being told officially by the competent agency.

Q: According to an affidavit made by Dr. Morgen, former SS Judge, which I am going to submit at a later date in a different connection, political inmates had also been smuggled into these series of experiments.

The witness Kogan testified to the same effect, and what is your opinion now in that respect, as regards the responsibility?

A: What I said before naturally only refers to criminals of German citizenship. It is not my opinion that a deviating political opinion represents crime. Political inmates, therefore, cannot be considered as criminals, not even when they are communists. I am of the opinion, therefore, that if it is correct that political inmates had been included in that circle of criminal persons, the agency would have to be responsible for this which was responsible, fir the furnishing of these inmates.

Q: Let us apply that situation in the case of Buchenwald. Who, in your opinion, must be made responsible for the order of the experiments?

A: In every case it is the agency which issues the order. In all cases which I can over-look it is Dr. Grawitz in his position as Reichsarzt SS, or his immediate superior Himmler.

Q: Who is responsible that the inmates, who were furnished for that purpose from Buchenwald, were selected from that circle of persons according to Himmler's orders?

A: So far I hadn't known about that since I am not informed about internal working of the concentration camps. I myself had never belonged to any staff of a concentration camp, or any other staff of that nature, and I, therefore, didn't know anything about these matters; but on the basis of the documents which I have seen here now and it became apparent to me that in the case of Buchenwald the furnishing of the inmates was done by two agencies at different times. During the first period of time it was done by the local camp administration and, at a later date, after the year 1943, it was done centrally by the Reich Criminal Police Office, which is the State Agency which is exclusively competent for criminal prisoners.

Q: And what, in your opinion, is Dr. Ding's responsibility?

A: He is responsible for the proper execution of experiments with which he had been entrusted.

Q: I shall speak about your own responsibility a little later. I should not like to turn to the high altitude experiments. You know that you are indicted because of high altitude experiments, too. Did you know Dr. Rascher?

A: No.

Q: Did you know that high altitude experiments were carried out in the concentration camp of Dachau?

A: No.

Q: Did you hear a report about high altitude experiments in Dachau on the occasion of a meeting of Consulting Physicians?

A: No.

Q: Before your arrest did you on any occasion hear or were informed about high altitude experiments?

A: No.

Q: Did you know the defendants Ruff and Romberg?

A: No.

Q: Did your official activity have any connection with the questions which were to be clarified by the use of high altitude experiments?

A: No, not in the least.

Q: And, now I turn to the cold experiments. Did you hear about the cold experiments which were conducted by Dr. Rascher at Dachau?

A: Not before the beginning of this trial.

Q: The Prosecution, when submitting the report about the cold conference in Nurnberg, which is Document NO-401, Prosecution Exhibit 93 to be found on page 312 of the English record and page 355 of the German transcript, has stated that the Waffe-SS was represented as No. 33 of the list of the participants in this meeting whereby the name of Obersturmbannfuehrer [Lieutenant Colonel] Motthum of the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen—SS was mentioned. The Prosecution pointed out that the Hygiene Institute was subordinate to you and Dr. Genzken. Did you send Dr. Motthum to that meeting?

A: Yes.

Q: For what reasons did you send Dr. Motthum to that meeting?

A: Motthum, who will testify here in detail at a later date, was an experienced front line physician. He participated in the first severe Russian winter. A second Russian winter was pending and the question came up whether the wounded at the East front could be protected against freezing in any better manner than during the last winter. As far as I remember the SS was also invited to participate as a branch of the Wehrmacht, but somebody was to be sent there who himself knew the problems that the Russian winter brought with it. Only such a person could have learned something positive for the troops, and it is for that reason that Dr. Motthum went there.

Q: You yourself did not participate in that cold conference in Nurnberg in the year 1942?

A: No.

Q: What did Dr. Motthum report to you about that cold conference?

A: I remember that situation very exactly. He returned and reported to me very briefly that on the two days of that meeting a number of problems had been discussed but that nothing, however, was mentioned which could directly be exploited in practice for the benefit of the Waffen-SS. That sufficed and in that manner his purpose had been fulfilled.

Q: Did your official activity have anything to do with the question of cold?

A: No.

Q: According to the document submitted by the Prosecution, that is, the affidavit of Romberg, Prosecution Exhibit No. 40, the high altitude experiments started in the beginning of May 1942 and lasted until the end of May 1942. The cold experiments, according to the affidavit of Rudolf Brandt, Prosecution Exhibit No. 80 laster from August 1942 until April 1943. Were you in Dachau during that time?

A: I don't believe so. However, in the spring of 1943 I participated in a conference in Dachau which dealt with nourishment question. As I remember that occurred in May, that is, after the experiments. It is possible, however, that was in April. I do not know that anymore.

Q: Were you in the concentration camp on that occasion?

A: No.

Q: Mr. President, in that connection I am submitting the Document Mrugowski No. 2. It is an affidavit made by Oswald Pohl which can be found on page 35 of the document book. I offer it as Mrugowski Exhibit No. 10. I should only like to quote the second paragraph which can be found on page 35:

Mrugowsky in spring 1943 took part in a conference on food questions, which took place in a building of the Medicinal Herb Gardens at Dachau. All participants in this conference were billeted in hotels in Munich. They were taken to the conference by buses and automobiles and were taken back to the hotels in a group. Mrugowsky, too, with all other participants was taken back to Munich in the same way. Consequently he had no opportunity to set foot in the concentration camp at Dachau. Furthermore, such a visit was not planned.

During your stay in Dachau did you speak to any of Dr. Rascher's coworkers?

A: No.

Q: The Prosecution, during the session of 13 of December 1946 as Prosecution Exhibit 124, submitted a file notation of your co-defendant Sievers which concerned the conference of 21 October 1942. Among others it says:

The collaboration was discussed not only in the field of combatting insects but also in the field of the work of Rascher and regarding the use of Gasteiner water in case of freezing.

Do you remember that conference with Sievers and what did he tell you about Rascher's research work?

A: The conference was only very brief. I can remember it very well. There was no mention made about Rascher's research field.

Q: Mr. President, in this connection I should like to submit an affidavit made by the co-defendant Sievers which is Document Mrugowski No. 3 and can be found on page 37 of the Document Book. I offer it as Exhibit Mrugowski No. 11. I should like to omit the first paragraph and I read:

The defense counsel of the co-defendant Mrugowsky has asked me about the remark I made on 16 December 1942, Document No. 647, Exhibit No. 124, —

MR. HARDY: May it please, your Honors, in due course the defendant Wolfram Sievers will take the witness stand. It seems to he that defense counsel for Mrugowski can put this question to Wolfram Sievers at that time and can dispense with the admission into evidence of this document. I object to the admission into evidence of this document affidavit of Wolfram Sievers

DR. FLEMMING: Mr. President, may I say in this connection —

THE PRESIDENT: Objection by Prosecution is over-ruled.

DR. FLEMMING: (Reading)

The defense counsel of the co-defendant Mrugowsky has asked me about the remark I made on 16 December 1942, Document No.647 Exhibit No.124, concerning the discussion of 21 October 1942 between Mrugowski and myself about Rascher's activity. I can state the following about it "When, by order of Himmler, an entomological department was establish at the Military Scientific Research Institute of the Waffen-SS and Police, under direction of Dr. May, Mrugowsky, as Chief of the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen-SS, which also dealt with entomological research, asked me what task of the new department was to be, I informed him of Himmler's establish ment order, and told him that the Institute would be exclusively concerned with the development of methods of fighting animal pests, especially in the insect sphere by breeding diseases peculiar to insects, but not diseases relayed to human beings by insects so that there was no question of overlapping with the Hygiene Institute.

An immediate discussion with Dr. May regarding details would be expedient. This I arranged, and it took place in Mrugowsky' quarters at the Institute of Hygiene on 20 November 1942.

On that occasion, we discussed briefly the other departments in the Military Scientific Research Institute, and who was in charge of them. I pointed out to Mrugowsky that the Institute for Military Scientific Research combined those departments in whose research Himmler took a personal interest. He had founded the Institute because he did not want any other authority to engage in the work of these departments.

Himmler, in his order concerning the execution of experiments, (Prosecution Exhibit No. 79), had also commissioned Rascher with experiments on curing partial freezing and added: 'for example with Gasteiner Water Compresses).' According to No. 5 of Himmler's letter, the procurement of equipment needed for the experiments should be discussed with the offices of the Reich Physician SS, the Main Economic and Administrative Main Office and the Ahnenerbe.

I was to get a continuous supply of Gasteiner water fresh spring for Rascher's experiments. Since I had no idea about the organization of the office of the Reich Physician SS and Police, I asked Mrugowsky in this connection if an office of the Reich Physician SS could help me with the supply of the Gasteiner Water.

We did not discuss any other questions about Rascher's experiments. I would also not have been in a position to give any information about them. But in the course of this discussion I pointed out to Mrugowsky, that collaboration between the Institute for Hygiene and the institute for Military Scientific Research of the Waffen SS required in every case personal permission from Himmler, who had reserved these decisions for himself.

I have only just found out that, in my note of 16 December 1942 the words "that is" were left out between the words "Rascher's sphere of research and the words "with regard to the use." It should read: "We discussed collaboration not only in the sphere of past control but also in Rascher's sphere of research, that is with regard to the use of Gasteiner Water in cases of freezing."

Because we walked about collaboration in Rascher's sphere of research only with reference to the supply of Gasteiner Water, in fact, not about collaboration with Mrugowsky's Hygiene Institute, but about which office of the Reich Physician SS could help with the supply of the Gasteiner Water.

And then follows the signature and the certification.

Q: I come now to the malaria experiments. You are also charged with having carried out malaria experiments. Did you know Professor Schilling?

A: No.

Q: Then you never spoke with him?

A: No.

Q: Did you know that he carried out malaria experiments in Dachau?

A: At the beginning, no; but one day I received from Grawitz a handwritten note of Schilling's regarding his work. It could be seen from this note that he was engaged in experiments to achieve immunity from malaria. That was one of Schilling's old research problems on which he had written several papers. It turned out that general immunity from malaria could not be achieved, but only immunity against one particular form of that infection. Such partial immunization, of course, does not play any role at all in nature because in every region infected with malaria there is not just one brand of malaria but a great number. Consequently, when I gave my opinion on this report of Schilling's, I stated that so far there had been no success and could not be expected because, in my opinion, the whole matter had been incorrectly handled, and I added that I would ask the Reichsarzt [Reich Physician] SS to take care of such experiments.

Q: Did you have anything else done?

A: I could have nothing else done because, as far as I know, these experiments of Schilling's were discussed immediately by him with Conti and Himmler, and Grawitz took a part in them only later. At that time I did not belong to Grawitz' staff, but to Dr. Genzken's staff in the Main Office, so that I had no opportunity to interfere. I could simply tell him my opinion and point out that I was of a different opinion in this matter, and that I did.

Q: Did you yourself over concern yourself with malaria?

A: Within the sphere of epidemic control I did concern myself rather extensively with malaria since in Southern Russia and in parts of the Reich and in Upper Italy we had many cases of malaria. I also delivered a lecture on the subject of Malaria in Southern Russia.

Q: Now, as Document No. 37 I submit an excerpt from the report on the second meeting of consulting physicians from 30 November to 3 December 1942 in Berlin. It is to be found on page 40 of the document book, and I submit it as Mrugowsky Exhibit No. 12. I bring it to the notice of the Tribunal and can dispense with reading it into the record.

We come now to the sulfonamide experiments with which you are also charged. Did you ever concern yourself with sulfonamide or its use?

A: No.

Q: Did you know the defendants Oberheuser and Fischer?

A: No.

Q: Did you know Rosenthal or Schiedlowsky who are said to have participated in these experiments?

A: Rosenthal I did not know and, at that time, I didn't know Schiedlowsky either.

Q: You knew Professor Gebhardt?

A: Yes, but only by sight.

Q: When did you make Schiedlowsky's acquaintance?

A: At the beginning of 1945 in Buchenwald.

Q: Dr. Gebhardt stated on the witness stand that he did not discuss his sulfonamide experiments in Ravensbruck with you. Is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: Did you know anything about the fact that these experiments were being carried out?

A: No.

Q: The Hygienic Institute of the Waffen SS, of which you were in charge, is said to have delivered the gas gangrene bacilli which were used in these sulfonamide experiments in Ravensbruck. What do you know about that?

A: That is possible because the Institute was to fill the interests of other SS units. The delivery of cultures for scientific purposes was one of the normal and customary functions of a bacteriological laboratory. We had such exchanges with many bacteriological institutes. The deliveries of bacilli were not so important a matter that they were anything out of the ordinary.

That fell within the competence of the departmental chiefs.

Q: At a later time I shall submit to this a statement from the Robert Koch Institute in Berlin, which I have not yet received, but it shows deliveries of cultures without telling the chief of the institute.

After your return from the trip you made at that time, were you told nothing about these bacterial cultures?

A: No.

Q: In an affidavit of the co-defendant Fischer of the 19th of November 1945, Document No. NO-228, Prosecution Exhibit 206, it is said that, on the basis of correspondence with you and a conference with your assistants, it was decided upon to change the type of bacteria cultures. What do you know about this correspondence which, according to Fischer's testimony on the stand, took place roughly between the 7th and 10th of August, 1942?

A: Regarding this correspondence between my institute or me on the one hand and Professor Gebhardt on the other hand, I know nothing. In June and July I was on an official trip in the East and returned from this trip at the end of August. Consequently, at the time that this correspondence took place I was not present in Berlin, and I could not have written these letters. If this letter was written at all, which I have not been able to clarify as yet, the copy had certainly already been filed away before I returned at the end of August, so that I did not see it. I found out nothing about it.

Q: In an affidavit on the part of the co-defendant, Fischer, Fischer states further that the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS had arranged various combinations of gas gangrene bacilli for the experiment. Do you know anything about that?

A: No.

DR. FLEMMING: Mr. President, at this point I should like to read Mrugowsky Document No. 38 to be found on page 48 of the document book and which I shall put in evidence as Mrugowsky Exhibit No. 13, paragraph 9 on page 52. This is an excerpt from an affidavit by Susanne Dumont, Mrugowsky's former secretary. The first paragraph is the usual introduction. No. 9 sets forth:

I still remember that Mrugowsky went on a lengthy official trip to the East in 1942 and again in 1943 together with the Chief of the Department for Climatology and Kultur-Geography, Dr. Kurt Scharlau, and was absent during June, Jnly and August. In 1942 Mrugowsky did not return until August, after the date fixed for the end of the trip had already elapsed. I still remember that at the time Mrugowsky was rather sharply reprimanded by his superior, Dr. Genzken. Mrugowsky was very annoyed and told me about it.

I remember the incident very well because, contrary to his usual custom, Mrugowsky did not celebrate his birthday (15 August) in the Institute, and I could not congratulate him on the actual day. As far as I can remember, he did not return until several days later.

I submit this as proof that Mrugowsky was not in Berlin at that time.

BY DR. FLEMMING:

Q: Professor Gebhardt has testified on the stand that Grawitz caused the bacterial cultures to be sent from the Hygiene Institute. What were the usual channels for such transmissions and in the Hygiene Institute who was responsible for them?

A: The shipment of cultures of living bacteria was in the hands of the Chief of the Bacteriological Department. In the middle of 1942 the person who was in charge of this department frequently changed because to a greater and greater extent we were fixing up field laboratories for the army and men had to be taken from my institute to fill those positions. Consequently I do not know who, in June or July, was chief of that department.

Q: Mr. President, in document book MRUGOWSKY, Mrugowsky Document No. 4 is an extract from the Reich Law Gazette 1917. I do not want to read this at this time because the passage is not herein contained. In other words I shall do so later but not at the moment.

Was Professor Gebhardt one of the scientists to whom such gas gangrene cultures would be sent without further ado if he requested them?

A: In this Reich Law Gazette which you just mentioned there is printed a law regarding the shipment of bacterial cultures which was valid in Germany since 1917. Here it says that chiefs of clinics and hospitals were permitted to receive such cultures. It is a matter of course that Professor Gebhardt, as chief of a hospital clinic of 1,000 beds, was among those permitted to receive then. Consequently there was no need for police permission, which a lay person would have had to have, nor did we have to inquire to what use these cultures were to be put.

It is the custom in German clinics that scientific work is carried on animals, and frequently, of course, bacteria and germs of other sorts are used. When the chief of so large a clinic asks for cultures, no bacteriologist would consider it necessary to inquire more precisely in to the use to which these cultures were to be put. That would certainly have been construed as a scientific indiscretion.

Q: You know that the witness Sofia Maczka testified that Veronika Kraska died of tetanus. This is on 1436 of the English record and 1447 of the German record of 10 January 1947. Were tetanus cultures bred by the Hygienic institute?

A: We had a considerable collection of cultures in our institute including tetanus cultures which we acquired from another institute. They were in powder form in little glass test tubes and were never opened. We did not engage in the breeding of such tetanus bacilli. We used the Meuser method of investigating tetanus and not the method involving bacteriological cultures if the question ever arose.

Q: Gebhardt and Fischer on May 1943 at the 3rd Conference of the consulting physicians reported on their experiments Did you hear this report?

A: No, I did not hear these reports.

Q: Why not? Weren't you at the conference?

A: I was present but at the same time there was a meeting of the hygienic sector which I attended. Dr. Gebhardt's report took place in the large meeting room of the surgical department, and since we were discussing problems ourselves, I believe about typhus I attended it rather than Professor Gebhardt's lecture.

Q: I come now to the sea-water experiments, of which you are also accused. Did you take any part in these sea-water experiments?

A: No, no part at all.

Q: When did you first hear of these experiments?

A: On the day of the arraignment.

Q: You know that the Prosecution, in the cross-examination of Professor Karl Brandt, mentioned the committee for drinking water utensils. What was the task of this committee?

A: This committee was part of the Reich Ministry for Armaments and War Production. The purpose of it originally was to make uniform the drinking water utensils for sterilizing water for the troops. Many power firms produced their own equipment and it was no longer possible to keep using these many types of drinking water equipment nor to use them. Consequently, unification was to be undertaken and for this reason this drinking water committee was formed. However, I did not concern myself with this problem in general, but turned to a special problem.

Q: You concerned yourself with a special problem. What was that special problem?

A: This was the problem of purifying water which had been poisoned during an imaginary combat and this making it potable for the population of cities without endangering their health. Particular attention was given to the question of mustard gas poisoning, and the question was debated in what form this mustard gas, which had been put into drinking water, could be made harmless. At that time, from the Reich Department for Water, Land, and Air Hygiene, there was a test in this matter which was to be carried out on German water systems. The committee I mentioned concerned itself with this problem.

Q: You were a member of this committee?

A: Yes.

Q: Did it meet often?

A: As far as I know, it met twice.

Q: Did the conferences of this committee have anything to do with making sea water potable?

A: Not the slightest.

Q: In your official activities did you have anything else to do with seawater, or with making it potable?

A: No, nothing.

Q: Were there any connections between the Committee and the sea-water experiments?

A: I knew of none.

Q: Mr. President, I submit now Mrugowsky Document No. 5, which is on page 45 of the document book, as Mrugowsky Exhibit 14. This is an affidavit by Dr. Werner Hasse in Berlin-Friedenau.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, did you give the last exhibit to which you referred — I think it was Mrugowsky Document Number 4 — the number 14? Did you offer that? Did you offer Number 14?

DR. FLEMMING: Not yet, no.

THE PRESIDENT: Should not this exhibit you are now offering then be Number 14?

DR. FLEMMING: Yes, the one I am now submitting should be Number 14. Let me repeat. Mrugowsky 37 is Number 12; 38, the third from the bottom in the table of contents, is Number 13; and Mrugowsky 5 now becomes Mrugowsky 14.

THE PRESIDENT: And I understood you to give this exhibit number as 15. Possible I misunderstood you.

DR. FLEMMING: No, 14. I may omit reading the first two paragraphs of Document Mrugowsky No. 5 of this affidavit and begin With the words "Prof. Dr. Mrugowsky" on page 45, third paragraph:

Professor Dr. Dr. Joachim Mrugowsky, the director of the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS in Berlin, and I, together with other gentlemen, were members of the Commission for Drinking Water Equipment.

This commission is supposed to have been founded by order of Professor Dr. Karl Brandt in the Reich Ministry Speer.

The commission met only twice in all. The only problem which was discussed was the protection of the central water system of the large cities in case of gas warfare and the provision of portable drinking water installations. The commission never dealt with the question of making sea water potable or any other questions concerning sea water.

Q: You know the Document Number NO-154, Prosecution Exhibit Number 446, in which poisoned water is tested after it has been made harmless. Can you say something about that?

A: So far as I remember, this is a report of the president of the above-mentioned Reich Department for Water, Land, and Air Hygiene in Berlin on the question of rendering drinking water non-toxic, and it was not known to me that any testing of this was carried out in concentration camps.

I am not mentioned in this document nor did I have anything to do with that matter.

Q: Was it here in the trial that you saw that document for the first time, or had you known of it before?

A: I saw it for the first tine here.

Q: Professor Brandt testified on the stand that you had delivered a lecture at the meeting of the Commission for Drinking Water Installations Could you say something about that?

A: I spoke once there, but that was not really a lecture. The originator of this process wanted to introduce his process as a monopoly and I stated my point of view about this and said that it was dangerous in times of air warfare to rely on only one process; on the contrary, several procedures for the same purpose should be developed, to one of which, of course, one could give precedence, but one should not rely on just one. That's all I said.

Q: Now I come to the experiments with epidemic jaundice with which you are also charged. Did you participate in any way in experiments in epidemic jaundice?

A: No.

Q: When did you first hear of these experiments?

A: When the indictment was presented to me.

Q: Did you know Dr. Dohmen?

A: No.

Q: Did you know Professor Haagen in Strassbourg?

A: I knew him slightly.

Q: Did you yourself collect any data on hepatitis, that is, epidemic jaundice?

A: The persons affected with hepatitis were, next to typhus and malaria, the greatest concern to German physicians during this war. Dr. Gutzeit has already said that the number of persons who fell ill of this disease rose into the millions. It is a matter of course that I as a doctor should have had to concern myself with this problem because every clinic with a hospital for epidemic cases received hundreds of such cases.

In other words, I concerned myself clinically with the treatment of this disease, and I calculated on the basis of statistical data that there were few cases but sufficient that fell to me. There were roughly a thousand but I did not concern myself with the germ that causes this disease, nor was there any equipment in my institute for breeding that virus. You need special technical equipment for that which we did not have.

Q: Did you concern yourself with how the sickness arises?

A: No.

Q: Professor Gutzeit in his interrogation as a witness on the 10th of February 1947 said that he had seen you occasionally at conferences and so knew you. Did you ever talk about jaundice experiments when you met him there?

A: No, not a word.

DR. FLEMMING: Mr. President, I now submit Document Mrugowsky 6.

MR. HARDY: May it please Your Honor, this Document Number 6 of Professor Gutzeit's on page 47 in Mrugowsky's document book is dated 23 January 1947, and since that time Gutzeit has appeared here as a witness and was examined by defense counsel. I think it will only be cluttering the record to admit this into evidence. Therefore, I object to the admission of this document.

THE PRESIDENT: Does counsel desire to read the document into the record or simply submit it as an exhibit?

DR. FLEMMING: I simply wanted to put it in evidence. I asked Gutzeit when he was on the stand at that time whether what he had said here in this affidavit was true, so I simply bring the Bench's attention to the document.

THE PRESIDENT: The document will be admitted in evidence.

DR. FLEMMING: It will be Document 371, Exhibit Number 186, that Dr. Grawitz had direct negotiations with Himmler in order to get experimental subjects for Dr. Dohmen.

Did Dr. Grawitz talk about this to you?

A: No, no one spoke to me about the jaundice problem.

Q: Then I can state that you neither participated in jaundice experiments nor before your arrest did you know anything about them?

A: That is correct.

Q: I come now to the sterilization experiments. Before your imprisonment did you know anything of experimentation in sterilization?

A: No, I had heard nothing about it.

Q: You know Rudolf Brandt's affidavit, Document 440, Prosecution Exhibit Number 141, in Document Bock 6, in which it is said that Himmler after a conference about sterilization problems specifically ordered that the whole sterilization question should be treated with the utmost secrecy. Were you ever present at conferences on sterilization?

A: No, never.

Q: Did you know Professor Klauberg?

A: No.

Q: Professor Hohlfelder?

A: I saw him once in Grawit's anteroom but did not speak to him.

DR. FLEMMING: Mr. President, from Susanne Dumont's affidavit, which is on page 48 and which formerly was Exhibit Number 13, I should like to read Numbers 18 and 19 on page 56:

Number 18. I was also asked whether I had ever heard in the Institute or from Mrugowsky anything about:

(a) Luftwaffe high altitude experiments at Dachau carried out by Dr. Rascher, (b) Luftwaffe freezing experiments at Dachau carried out by Dr. Rascher, (c) Professor Schillings malaria experiments at Dachau, (d) Hepatitis experiments at Natzweiler and Sachsenhausen, (e) Typhus experiments at Natzweiler, (f) Sterilization experiments, (g) Luftwaffe experiments at Dachau on rendering sea water potable.

I have definitely never heard anything about experiments of this kind. If such experiments had been discussed verbally or in writing in the Institute, then I am convinced I should have heard about them.

Regarding the Luftwaffe experiments on rendering sea water notable, I should like to add that the question of water supply and drainage in concentration camps and their outlying posts was dealt with in the Institute, but it was purely a matter of water supplied from underground sources, never of sea water.

Q: So I can you state that you knew nothing about sea water experiments nor about sterilization experiments?

A: That is true.

Q: I come now to the typhus experiments. Please describe to the Court what typhus really is.

A: Typhus is a disease which is not normally an epidemic within the German Reich. In Europe there is a considerable source of this epidemic, with the center point in White Ruthenia in Russia, and this area in which the typhus epidemic is extends about the middle of Poland. There were only a few isolated cases of typhus in normal years before the war in Germany. The isolated cases of typhus in normal years before the war in Germany. The German doctors, in other words, had no knowledge of this epidemic, or this disease. It is known that this typhus always appears in large groups of people that are impoverished, and that the presence, therefore, of typhus is a specific wartime epidemic, and always appears when famines occur, or when the population is, as said, impoverished, and it was first known by the name of "Hunger Typhus."

Presenting those fields or areas in which the German troops were operating at the beginning of the Eastern campaign, typhus played a great role, and also it played a great role when Napoleon invaded Russia, because this campaign collapsed because of typhus and not because of cold weather. In order to do away with this epidemic since 1900, in other words, almost half a century, there has been in Germany sharp measures to combat it. For the whole field of contagious diseases we have divided Germany into two groups. The larger part we characterize as contagious diseases, whereas, a few diseases which usually do not occur in Germany but are brought from outside, and are consequently bringing fear are characterized as commonly danger us diseases, and are regulated by a special law, Of all these six epidemics, typhus is one.

DR. FLEMMING: In this matter I would like to submit Mrugowsky's Document No. 21, which is Document Book No. 1-A, not yet presented to the Court, on page 153. I do not know whether I should already new identify it, or to wait to give it a number when I put the document in evidence. I think it would be better if I did so now, for the sake of a better sequence.

THE PRESIDENT: Unless you find it necessary to read some portion of the document now, I should suggest you wait until the document is offered in evidence.

DR. FLEMMING: No, I don't want to read anything new, but simply call the Court's attention to it.

THE. PRESIDENT: Then you may wait until the document is read in, and then offer it in evidence at that time.

DR. FLEMMING: Thank you.

BY DR. FLEMMING:

Q: Is typhus painful?

A: Clinically, typhus results from a group of typhus diseases, as the word "typhus" means, fog, and has reference to numbness. In reference to the disease, it is characteristic of these various symptoms, or, at least, typhus takes place while this patient is in this stupor, or numbness. Typhus in general does not cause pain, an that is characteristic of all of this group of diseases, which can be diagnosed usually by the fact that the man has fever, and feels poorly but otherwise cannot say that he hurts anywhere, or cannot really say what is really wrong with him. That it is a rule that in such cases you diagnose typhus and spotted fever.

DR. FLEMMING: At this point I shall submit Mrugowsky's Document No. 19, which is also in Document Book No. 1-A, which I wish to introduce when that document book is available. Witness, can you state under oath — no, leave that out which refers to the document.

BY DR. FLEMMING:

Q: Witness, what was the reason why typhus occasionally appeared in Germany with almost medieval violence?

A: It is an old common saying on the part of epidemics, that those epidemics that are especially harmless, like mumps, or measles, scarletina, become very dangerous if they strike a receptive population which is not used to them. If such an epidemic occurs, then in the first fury after it arises the most serious cases occur, and so it occurred as a result of the Russian campaign where I for the first time saw these most dangerous cases of typhus. There were cases of men who went to work in the morning, and then fainted, and became unconscious while working, were brought unconscious to the doctor, and died within one or two days without recovering consciousness.

Similar cases were found in Naples by the American Typhus Commission under General Fox. People died there in the streets. And that is typical of the first appearance of an alien epidemic in a population that is receptive to it, and, of course, that is the most serious danger in which a threatened population could find itself.

Q: Was combatting of typhus under these conditions of greatest importance both from a medical and military reason, so far as a civilian population was concerned?

A: Epidemics draw no distinction between civilian and soldiers, consequently, it is obvious that the control of one of the oldest epidemics of the world was one of our prime tasks, as soon as such an epidemic made its appearance.

DR. FLEMMING: Mr. President, I should like to ask a few questions of Dr. Ding, but first I should like to point out a mistake in the interpretation, which was just called to my attention. The witness said when referring to the penal sentence in bringing out a statement that, "A criminal is not allowed to be a member of the army," and the interpretation was that "A person not fit for military service is either a worker or is put in prison." That, of course is a non-sensical mis-interpretation, and I should like it set down in the record that Mrugowsky said, "That every German in a prison alone with a criminal record cannot be inducted into the army."

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, before entering upon that subject which you referred to a moment ago, that will be postponed for tomorrow morning's session. The Tribunal now will recess until 9:30 tomorrow morning.

(The Tribunal adjourns until 27 March 1947 at 0930 hours.)