1947-03-27, #3: Doctors' Trial (afternoon)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1400 hours 27 March 1947)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. HARDY: The Tribunal: It has been called to my attention that the defendant Hoven intends to call a witness named Dr. Horn, a Czechoslovakian citizen, as a voluntary witness, and I haven't heard any further reports. The original intention was to call him tomorrow and I would like to know at this time whether or not they intend to call Dr. Horn tomorrow and interrupt the Examination of the defendant, Mrugowsky, so that Dr. Horn can return to Czechoslovakia. If so, the Prosecution is perfectly agreeable to such a procedure and I want to announce that and find out whether they intend to call him tomorrow.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has not been advised of any such procedure.
MR. HARDY: Then will I be lead to understand we will not have the witness Horn tomorrow?
THE PRESIDENT: No, and if there is any occasion for calling him and it can be done without unduly interrupting the procedure, depending somewhat on how long is testimony will be, it might be allowed, but I do not remember any information being conveyed to the Tribunal, that such a program was in contemplation. There as one called the other day for the witness Hoven out of order.
MR. HARDY: That is correct. I had notification of another one he intended of all if he intends to call another one tomorrow I would like to have the opportunity of preparing for the witness.
DR. FLEMMING: I could say that Dr. Gawlik has not progressed so far with is preparations as to know whether he can call the witness tomorrow, perhaps we will find out this afternoon, but I do not know yet whether or not he will ready tomorrow morning.
THE PRESIDENT: Will counsel for the defendant, Mrugowsky, have any objection of interrupting his case for the calling of this witness on behalf of the defendant Hoven, if it is desired to do so.
DR. FLEMMING: Since the witness will also testify regarding matters which took place in Buchenwald I will have no objection to that.
MR. HARDY: Thank You.
JOACHIM MRUGOWSKY — Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION (continued)
BY DR. FLEMMING:
Q: Will you please draw the necessary deductions from what we have now discovered about Ding's diary?
A: The various erroneous entries in this document and the facts which the handwriting experts have discovered prove that this document is not a diary in which entries were made from time to time. Rather there are long periods of time that are missing, sometimes periods of more than one year before the entries were made. Pages 1 to 3, I believe, were written all at the same time, and also the subsequent pages. The document has 27 pages — were written down at only a few times. That is testified to by the handwriting expert's statement. This explains the various discrepancies between the entries and the actual facts; for instance, of calling the Robert Koch Institute a Reich Institute, when it wasn't, etc. The testimony of a prosecution witness Balahowski corroborates this affidavit.
Q: This affidavit is in Document Book 12 as Document 484, Prosecution Exhibit 291. Balahowski said, under number 29:
The file notes that were copied into the diary shortly before the collapse give the precise number of the pages and the number of the experiments.
Now please continue.
A: In these words Balahowski corroborates the fact that this diary, namely, this diary of Block 47, was drawn up shortly before the collapse, apparently on several days, consequently the difference in the typewriters used. Now, as to why he did this I can only conjecture — I do not know. That there was some reason for making the entries in this form would appear to be obvious.
Q: For the explanation why Ding wrote this diary on Block 46 let me remind you of Kogon's testimony, namely, that Ding after 1943 was sure that the war would be lost.
A: Yes, that is true. Kogon testified during his testimony often that Ding from the beginning of 1943 on made efforts to cover himself.
He also said that from that moment on the oral assignments that he received were not sufficient but that he must insist on receiving written orders. All the more remarkable is it then that in the so-called diary, this Document 265, says only very infrequently who initiated the various lines of experimentation. And, if I recall correctly, he does not once say who ordered them.
Q: Then do the contents of this diary meet the requirements that one makes of a scientist's diary?
A: The diary of a scientist has the purpose of setting down the precise course of the work undertaken. Consequently, all efforts regarding the initiation and course of experiments should be set down. That is a perfectly comprehensible custom in all institutes because subsequently the evaluation of the experiments is based on entries in the scientific institute's diary. In his Document 265, however, which is allegedly such a diary of Block 46, there is not one entry regarding the actual course of the experiments; not even the results of the experiments are set down there. That is really the least that you could ask of such a diary. Dr. Kogon, to be sure, thought that the number of fatalities which are set down with clear precision were a result, to be sure, an unhappy result, of these experiments. That these events are found lamentable can hardly be disputed but it is a false point of view if one orients oneself on the basis of this result toward something, the purpose of which was entirely different. The real experimental result can be seen in the following: As a consequence of the protective vaccination what happens during a subsequent case of infection is that the period of incubation is prolonged, namely, that period of time that lapses between the actual infection and the first appearance of the disease. Secondly, the period of fever is shortened, whereas usually the period of fever in typhus is 17 days. This protective vaccination reduces it to 12, 10, and even 6 days, depending on the strength of the protective vaccine. At the same time the height of the fever, or temperature, is reduced. In other words, the symptoms that are associated with fever that effect the blood circulation and the heart, as well as those that effect the central nervous system, are after the protective vaccine less pronounced or altogether absent.
There are various other small clinical indications which a doctor readily recognizes as a result of the protective vaccine and it must be said that as the result of less serious clinical manifestations the number of fatalities from typhus is smaller. That is not a direct but an indirect consequence of vaccination. Therefore, when Ding asserts in this Block Diary of Block 46 that the most important result of the experiments was the number of fatalities, then every doctor will recognize this as such an erroneous and distorted statement that even if it is on the part of a doctor so reliable as Ding it is completely unworthy of credence.
Q: I now show you Mrugowsky Document 9 which is on page 81 to page 85 of the document book and I put it in as Mrugowsky Exhibit 23. It is a photo copy of a paper by Dr. Ding on the protective action of various vaccines on human beings and the course of typhus after immunization. I do not wish to read the document but simply bring it to the attention of the Tribunal. Would you care to make any statement whether the inadequate way in which this diary was worked on? Would you like to say that perhaps Ding was not in a position to carry on such work?
A: This paper is 13 pages long. First there is the manner of the patient's tolerance for the vaccine, then the individual points that I just mentioned as the consequences of the protective vaccination are gone into. Tables are presented which give statistics in these matters. On page 85c of the document book there are eight sketches in which there are graphs showing the results and at the very bottom on the next to the last page, in the next to the last paragraph, there are three lines which say that the fatalities in the cases of those vaccinated were fewer in number than among those who were not vaccinated. That is all mentioned in the summary — there is a final summary. This is also an indication that he was perfectly capable of carrying on scientific work. I should like to point out that at the top of this paper it is mentioned that this work was done in by institute in Berlin.
I knew that as an indication that I laid no stress on keeping these matters secret in any way or that which it was my point of view that these experimental results/had been achieved on the most expensive of all material, namely, human beings, should be carried through to conclusion and that results of them should be made available to all those who were interested.
Q: The Prosecution also charges you with the fact Ding infected persons in Buehewald who had not previously received the protective vaccination. Would you like to make a statement in that subject?
A: The following cases come into question here. On the basis of Ding's diary entries. First of all, there are the so-called "preliminary experiments". In Document 265, four [illegible] such preparatory experiments are mentioned on unvaccinated persons. These were done in order to as certain what way was possible in order to artificially infect human beings with typhus. I always found that the lay person who had never concerned himself with these matters assumes it to be a matter of course that it is always possible to infect a human being with a disease. That, however, is by no means the case. Even in the case of such a toxic material as the typhus germ, successful infection can only occur if if is not directed directly into the blood stream. Unless another way is chosen it is usually impossible to bring about the induction with such a disease. Consequently, when such experiments are to be carried out on human beings, and this is a point of view that I express without any reference to my own person, then such preliminary experiments cannot be dispensed with. The second case are the so-called "controlled cases".
Q: Did you know anything of these preliminary experiments?
A: No, I found out about them only through the diary.
Q: Ding says in his diary under the 20th of February, 1942:
Case histories and curves on the preliminary experiments were sent to Berlin.
Did you receive this report?
A: No, nor do I believe Ding sent it to me because he was not subordinate to me in these experiments and it seems, therefore, more probable to me that he sent them to Grawitz. I, at any rate, did not see them.
Q: How can this be reconciled with your letter of 5 May 1942 to Conti and others which I put in evidence this morning as Document No. 10, Exhibit Mrugowsky 20, and which is to be found on page 86 of the document book?
A: This letter corroborates what I have just testified to because the report on this series of experiments was sent to Grawitz and I received Ding's report to Grawitz from Grawitz with the order to rewrite it in a suitable form since Grawitz did not wish that outside persons could see, without any further trouble to themselves, that these were really experiments on human beings with artificial infection. He know that, to some extent, I could master the style that he used in his official communications, whereas he did not know whether Ding could or not. Consequently, he commissioned me to take Ding's original report and, for the purpose of making communications to the manufacturing firms, to cast it in a suitable form. This I did and the result is this document on page 86 of 5 May 1942.
Q: Your letterhead here is Reichsarzt and Police Chief Hygienist. In other words, this is one of the cases in which Grawitz made use of you when you still belonged to the medical staff of the Waffen SS?
A: Yes.
Q: Why didn't Grawitz rephrase the letter himself?
A: There may have been two reasons for that. First, Grawitz was not a hygienist but an internist and since the letter was being sent to specialists; namely, these who manufactured the vaccines, he wanted to be sure that everything would be in the letter which they needed to know and, on the other hand, no more than they needed to know, and secondly, this is quite in line with his customary manner of working; namely, to let his collaborators write letters that dealt with their particular sphere of work, and for this reason, he commissioned me to write this letter.
Q: On this occasion did you not once again express objections to Grawitz regarding experiments on human beings?
A: That I did not do because this series of experiments had been concluded and because I knew that they had been carried out on Himmler's specific orders. This was the first series of experiments that had ever been carried out and it was the reason for my very violent show-down with Grawitz at that time. I assumed that this job was now completed and I had no reason to raise further objections.
Q: Were the vaccines of the Behring Works, when Dr. Ding used them in his experiments, in an experimental stage?
A: No, these vaccines had already been tested in the plant to persons' tolerance for them. All such preparations of the Behring Works, before they were sent out into the world, were worked on in their own laboratories.
DR. FLEMMING: I submit to the Tribunal Mrugowsky Document 44, to be found on page 96 of Document Book 1, and I put it in as Mrugowsky Exhibit 24. This is an affidavit by Dr. Demnitz, the manager of the Behring Works, regarding she way in which the vaccines of the Behring Works were developed and how they were tested in the institute itself. On the fourth page, namely page 99 of the Document book, No. 5 reads:
Naturally, the Behring Works also carried out tests to establish whether the vaccines agreed with human beings for(a) it was necessary to vaccinate these people working in the typhus laboratories in order to protect them against typhus infection; (b) it was necessary to protect those people who attended the experimental animals, (c) the undersigned himself was on several occasions vaccinated against typhus with vaccines of the Behring Works.
These vaccinations had to be repeated from time to time. This concerned both and Russian assistants. In our typhus department, about 20 to 25 persons were employed.
And Number 6:
The animal experiments according to Otto proved: (a) the harmlessness and (b) the effectiveness or insufficient effectiveness.
Previously, in No. 4 on Page 99, it stated:
the question, Whether the animals showed a positive reaction, is incomprehensible.
It stated also that animal experiments were carried out in the Behring Works. I submit this document to prove these were not vaccines which had not been previously proved, but were vaccines which had gone through the necessary preliminary and effective testing.
BY DR. FLEMMING:
Q: Do you remember Kogan's testimony that volunteers were used in the first two series of experiments? This testimony is on page 1162 of the English record and on page 1197 of the German record. If we base our assumptions on Ding's diary, what two series of experiments must these have been for which volunteers were used?
A: If we base our statements on Ding's diary we can only consider that these two series were, first of all, the preliminary series A which began on 5 January and the first series of vaccine experiments with 145 persons regarding which the letter that was previously read — Mrugowsky Document 20 — of 5 May 1942 concerns itself. This series began on the next day; namely, on 6 January 1942. Any other experiments took place at a later date, Thus, when Kegan's say that two series of experiments were carried out with volunteers, it can only be these two series of experiments.
Q: The experiments about which the letter of 5 May concerned itself were carried out on volunteers?
A: Apparently they were.
Q: Can you remember the communication of 11 April 1943; that the Mateska serum could no longer be used for experiments?
A: No, I don't remember that and I consider it out of the question that I ever received any such communication. In all bacteriology, particularly in virology, there have been efforts for centuries to breed living germs which are no longer pathogenic which do not make human beings sick, in or to use these living germs for the manufacture of vaccine, namely vaccines with living attenuated strains because these are a complete protection against the disease.
Q: In other words, you want to say that if you had received this communication then you would have seen to it that further experiments were carried out with this no longer so virulent serum?
A: I should not like to put it quite that way but I should certainly had got in touch with the person whose institute had developed this strain, that was the Robert Koch Institute, Professor Gildemeister. However, I never spoke to him about this matter and I should like to believe that he found out nothing about this matter because Gildemeister was one of our best virus researchers and was very familiar with what value such a really unique occurrence would have had.
Q: Did you see reports on the C and D series of experiments, regarding the discovery of a safe method of infection, which were said to have taken place on the 11th and 13th of April?
A: No, I found out about them only here, while looking through this document, and also saw that Ding does not assert that he sent a report on this to Berlin.
Q: On what further typhus experiment series did you then see report
A: In the diary of Block 46, Document 265, Ding says that only in the of a few experimental series did he send reports to Berlin, namely of the new experimental series, Series I, II, VII and VIII. The report on Series I saw, having received it from Grawitz, and as I said before, I rephrased it in another form and it constitutes the document here submitted.
Series II was carried out with the vaccine of Durant-Giroud of the Parisian Institute. That was the vaccine that we intended to produce in our own institute. I really cannot recall ever having seen this report but it is possible that was informed of it by Grawitz because I remember that Grawitz one day told me that he was convinced of the effectiveness of this vaccine and had no further objection to my suggestion that we manufacture the vaccine according to that process. The immunization in the course of this series was carried on by Ding between 19 August till 4 September 1942. From 10 September to 9 October he was in Paris with Professor Giroud, to learn his method, and who he returned he infected persons and sent the charts to Berlin on 20 November. It is probably then, toward the end of the year 1942, that Grawitz spoke to me about this matter.
Q: Ding was ordered to report to Giroud in Paris in the autum of 1942 although, as you have stated, it was already decided at the end of 1941 to manufacture your own vaccines according to Giroud's process. Now how do you explain this delay?
A: In the infections carried out in Series I on 3 March 1942, Ding info himself and fell seriously ill of Typhus, despite his protective vaccination. Subsequently he went on leave to recover and when his health was somewhat restored then the business of going to Paris was discussed, which was only possible in the autumn.
Q: There were 4 specific fatalities in the control cases. Now you say that Grawitz probably discussed this matter with you. Did you do nothing about the fact that there had been fatalities?
A: When Grawitz spoke to me about this matter I could do nothing because the series of experiments had already been concluded. But I do remember pretty clearly the situation in his office there. I remember that I brought up the matter of these 4 fatalities and told him that that would probably be the last series that he instigated. He answered that Himmler had ordered these experiments and I myself had specifically objected to being included in this matter, and consequently no longer had any right to interfere in his [illegible].
Q: The report on the typhus experimental series VII was concluded on 7 September 1943 and when finished a report was sent to Berlin on 9 September, according to Ding's Deary.
Did you see this report?
A: No.
Q: But according to Ding's work report you were on the 3rd of September, at a time when this series was completed but the report not yet written, you were, according to this diary, in Buchenwald, visiting Ding. Did you talk about this matter then?
A: This entry is apparently correct. This was the period in which Block 50 was being prepared for the production of the vaccines. Ding writes in one of his documents that on the 10th of August this block was occupied and that work in producing the vaccine was begun. Kogon corroborated that in his testimony. Then 3 weeks after the beginning of this work I went to Buchenwald to look over the laboratory and to see how his work was getting along. Kogan also described at some length how I inspected the institute, how I went into every room. It was a rather extensive inspection. I asked many questions, had many conversations with the inmates there; he further testified that I was with Ding in his room for only a very brief period of time, and that is also correct. In other words, at that time he did not send to me any material
Q: Did you know anything else about this experimental series VII?
A: This series was carried out with a vaccine similar to the Behring vaccine, manufactured by a different firm. I knew nothing of this experimental series.
Q: I submit to the Tribunal as the next document, Document Mrugowsky 12. It is in the document book on page 92 and I put it in evidence as Mrugowsky Exhibit 25. This is an affidavit by Dr. Karl Ludwig Wolters of Hamburg of the Azid Works. The statement reads, after the customary introduction:
The above person requested the notary to draw up an affidavit and declared and deposed the following in lieu of an oath and after having been duly informed of the meaning of an affidavit:
1. The production of typhus vaccines based on the egg culture process began as early as 1941. Later on the prescribed process according to Gildemeister and Hagen was introduced.
2. Experiments on animals for the purpose of testing the manufactured vaccines were taken up simultaneously with the beginning of the production and were carried out continuously. The results of the animal experiments were not always clear. The vaccine tolerance was tested by protective vaccinations of employees; all employees connected with the typhus department or who came in contact with employees working were vaccinated. Besides, all other employees had the privilege of receiving protective vaccination against typhus on their demand and without charge. In the course of time about one thousand employees have been vaccinated against typhus.
Numbers 3 and 4 I simply draw to the attention of the Tribunal. Number 5 reads:
5. As far as I know, there was no correspondence between the firm of Azid Serum Institute G.m.b.H., Dessau, on the one hand, and the former Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS or the Institute for Typhus and Virus Research at Buchenwald or its chief, Dr. Ding, or the Grawitz Agency, on the other hand.
6. I made the acquaintance of Dr. Ding during a trip from Berlin to Cracow.
7. How the test of the typhus vaccines in question has materialized I could not say. In any case, as far as Court I know, I never discussed that question with Prof. Mrugowsky, nor did I forward the vaccines to him for the purpose of testing. It is quite possible that the vaccines reached Dr. Ding through Prof. Gildemeister of the Robert Koch Institute in Berlin, who received them in his capacity as expert consultant of the Ministry for the Interior for the fight against epidemics.
8. During a discussion with Prof. Mrugowsky in the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS in Berlin, I talked only about general questions of hygiene with regard to the occupied eastern territories and I asked for assistance in the work of developing the serum Institute at Kiew. At the same time the organization of de-lousing by the Asid Serum Institute Koenigsberg was discussed. There also may have been a discussion of general questions in connection with active immunization, especially against scarlet fever, diphtheria and tetanus.
Then there is the usual conclusion and signature.
BY DR. FLEMMING:
Q: It can be seen from this that the vaccines for this series did not go via you from Ding; is that true?
A: Yes
Q: According to Dr. Ding's work report, which is Document NO-571, Exhibit 285, you were present with him on the 3rd of September in Buchenwald. Did you visit Block 46?
A: Yes. Ding asked me and Invited me to take a look at Block 46. I went over there with him; and I remember quite well that I was led to a stone building, to the lower floor of a stone building, where there were a number of room-like partitions.
In the first room there were a few men who were playing cards; and Ding told me that these were typhus convalescents who had survived typhus and who were to be released. I talked to them and found out that their state of health was good and that the usual after-effects of typhus were no longer in existence. There were about five or six persons.
In the second room I saw about three patients lying in bed. I examined them and spoke to them. They had been transferred to Buchenwald a short time before from other camps. I think one of then was ill even when he arrived and the others had fallen ill shortly after their arrival in Buchenwald and then were transferred to their typhus station. We are here concerned with people who spontaneously fell ill. According to Ding's entry there were no series of experiments carried on at that time.
Q: When visiting Buchenwald, didn't you talk to Dr. Ding about his various series of typhus experiments?
A: No. At that time he had concluded the experimental series Number 7 with Asid vaccines as I can sec from this document. This was a series which had a number of fat fatalities as its result. It is in line with Ding's character that he did not speak to me about such a series of experiments since he know what my basic attitude towards this question was.
Q: Didn't you discuss the typhus experiments with Ding on the occasion of your visit?
A: No, we didn't discuss that matter. Our conversation merely dealt with the work carried on in Block 50 on the production of vaccine, which really was the purpose of my visit. I think that we discussed a number of other hygienic questions as they concerned the vicinity of Buchenwald. I knew that there was a lack of water there from my previous activity; and I am sure that this was a subject that was discussed. I spent the evening with Ding in his flat where I met Dr. Hoven, the camp physician of Buchenwald, and his wife. Mrs. Ding was there, too. It is a matter of course that we didn't discuss any technical questions in that circle. We certainly did not speak about any experiments on human beings.
In this connection I may perhaps say that this was the only time that I saw Hoven, who allegedly was to have been Ding's representative. That was ten days before [illegible] had to end his activity as a camp physician in Buchenwald.
Q: Were you of the opinion that the typhus experimental series had been concluded?
A: Yes. I held that opinion since it becomes evident from the documents here that the experimental series of that time had not led to any disease. That is for the reason that the stain coming from the Robert Koch Institute was not pathogenic. Ding did not say that he sent any reports to Berlin about it; and I therefore did not know anything about the way he worked in Buchenwald as far as it did not concern Block 50. I was of the opinion that after the second series of experiments which was concluded at the end of 1942 no further experiments were
Q: Well, if you believed that the typhus experiments had been concluded, the main activity of Dr. Ding would also have had to come to a conclusion?
A: No, that is not the case. Seen from my point of view, he was a bacteriologist; and I was anxiously awaiting the end of this special mission by Grawitz so that Ding would again be fully at my disposal.
At that time, in the year of 1943, he had to carry out the preparations for the vaccine production at Buchenwald. Therefore, the building work had to be supervised. Block 50 was a very modernly furnished bacteriological institute with a number of special pieces of equipment. Animals had to be obtained and accommodations gotten ready for them. There was not only one kink of animal but four different one. It was necessary to obtain fodder for them. Then a number of other organizational activities were necessary, which made King's stay in Buchenwald absolutely necessary.
Q: Ding maintains that he sent the report about the series Number 8 of the typhus experiments. Did you see that in Berlin? It was to have been sent on the 13th of June 1941.
A: Well, I heard about this series of experiments only by looking at the document here. I hadn't seen or heard of it before.
Q: In the last entry of his diary Ding says:
By order of the Chief Hygienist of the Waffen SS, dated the 12th of August 1941, it was to be established whether the course of a typhus illness can be mitigated by a typhus vaccine through intravenous or intramuscular injections.
Did you ever issue such an order?
A: No. I repeatedly pointed out that on the basis of the entire organizational set-up of the Medical Institute of the Waffen SS I could not as the leading hygienist of the Waffen SS, with the title of Chief Hygienist. I entered the camp and was therefore not in a position to order any experiments to be carried out on inmates because I had just as little influence on the medical service of the concentration camp as any other member of the Waffen SS.
The matter with which we dealt was completely different. In the Crimean in one of the hospitals in the East I saw that the internist there was treating typhoid illnesses by injections of dead typhoid vaccines; and this procedure resulted in the seizure by fever in many of the cases. At that time I remembered that it became apparent from literature dating back from the last world War when a number of papers were written on the very same subject that there were similar treatments regarding typhus and typhoid carried on by the injection of vaccines.
During the course of these years when I had to deal closely with typhus I had developed a very definite opinion about the origination and development of typhus. I was, therefor, of the opinion that in the case this illness, which clinically is very close to para-typhus, it would be quite feasible to make an experiment with that kind of treatment. The clinical symptoms of typhus and typhoid and stomach typhus are very similar. If cure can be achieved with one method, it is to be assumed that all other [illegible] of illnesses of that nature could also be treated with success using that method. After my return, therefore, I established contact with a number of internees belonging to the hospitals which I knew, and wrote them they had gathered like experiences. I quoted passages from literature on that subject, and I said that our new experiences were the same as our old. I made the suggestion that the same method be used in the case of typhus by injecting with a protective typhus vaccine. One might consider that at the time we had just as little means of combating the severe disease as we have today. We, therefore, were medically justified to search for new meth ods of treatment.
Q: Were these to be a series of experiments in the sense in which Dr. Ding carried them out?
A: That is completely out of the question. There was no cause to do that whatsoever. In order to combat such an experiment, one could use in a typhus inflicted person a test by this method and the worse that can happen is that it would not help, but certainly would not be necessary to make certain series of experiments, and I certainly never used any such order.
Q: Did you write to Ding in that sense?
A: At that time I informed my assistants about this therapy in the case of contagious diseases, and I am sure that it was a matter of course that as epidemic specialists we had to be informed about such a possibility and in this manner also receiving knowledge of it.
Q: You were saying that there would have been or would not have been justification for the experimental theory?
A: No.
Q: Well, did you or did you not order such a series of experiments to Dr. Ding?
A: Never at no time.
Q: Are you of the opinion that Ding started these experiments on his own initiative?
A: That is possible: At any rate he did not receive orders from me, and I don't know where else he could have had an order from.
Q: That brings me to another point. You were saying before that in the case of experiments which were carried out on human beings by order the State, which persons that the State placed at the disposal of these experiments the State must be held responsible; whoever carried out such experiments is only responsible for the manner of the execution of these experiments; accordingly, Dr Ding would have to be held responsible for the manner in which these typhus experiments were conducted; I, therefore, was to examine these two questions with you: First, did Dr. Ding carry out these experiments for which he in any way could be held to blame; second did you have to assume any responsibility for the experiments which Ding did carry out. First, did Ding carry out these experiments in an orderly manner?
A: I already emphasized when discussing the experimental series No. that Ding only used thirty persons for their theory, and later that he decreased that number. If one agrees to such experiments, generally, one certainly should not use this small amount of experimental subject, if expects any results to be achieved. Ding only examined from vaccine for single time, and he did not examine them any more frequently than that. The only exception was Weigel's vaccine, which comes through lice intestines. There one can not speak of an examination which certainly would not have been necessary, since its effectiveness was already known. The effectiveness of other vaccines, which were unknown so far would have to be compared withe effectiveness if that vaccine. I don't believe, therefore, that one could in any way reprimand Ding for the manner in which he was carrying out these experiments, if one agrees to such experiments, generally.
Q: How was the clinical treatment of the experimental subject carried out?
A: The documents of the Prosecution already contain a number of statements with reference to the clinical treatment on experimental subject. Kogon and Malachowsky did not object. Kirchheimer when testifying has state that he was employed for the specific purpose to carry out hydro-therapocal measures. In one of Ding's reports about his agredene experiment, which is Prosecution's Document No.582, and Exhibit No. of the Prosecution 286, states in great detail what the manner of the block circulation treatment was. He described the various drugs which he introduced into the patients which manner he did it, and with reference to that point I had a question to one of our most famous internists, and in the document, which later am going to submit anyway, from the point of view of the internal medicine, there can be no objection raised against that type of treatment.
DR. FLEMMING: In this connection, Your Honor, I submit document Mrugowsky No. 23. This can be found in the Document Book No. 1-A, on page 161. I offer it as Mrugowsky's Exhibit No. 26. This is an affidavit of former SS judge, Dr. Conrad Morgan. I'll repeat, page 161, Document No. 23 Exhibit No. 26. Dr. Morgan, after the customary introduction, says, and I quote:
In connection with my activity as SS judge I established the following in the concentration camp Buchenwald:
In the fight between the so-called greens and reds, that is, between the criminal and political prisoners, the strong suspicion was raised that both parties frequently instigated and achieved that hated opponents were put on the lists of persons selected for the typhus experiments in order have them exterminated under the cover of the experiments.
As a result of my demonstrations the German Criminal Police Bureau December 1943 made these proceedings impossible. It was decided that from then on the selection should be made directly by the German Criminal Police Bureau. The selection was to be made by Kriminalrat Otto. He selected the experimental persons from the heavy criminals of the camp Buchenwald, and then went to Buchenwald himself. There he inquired at the camp commanders office about the selected heavy criminals.
He also conferred with the individuals selected in order to test them. By adopting this method it was made impossible for the greens or reds to continue their practice to put hated persons on the lists of the persons selected for the experiments in order exterminate these persons by using the experiments as a cover."
Block 46 in Buchenwald was a building with quite modern equipment with the most modern hygienical installations. They had enough trained personnel there. I gained the impression that the treatment and supply of the sick persons was careful and good in every respect. According to the impression I gained, the sick persons were treated similar to those in a good military hospital. Against disturbances of the circulatory system, coffee and [illegible] were available among other remedies.
This is as far as I want to read that Document.
BY DR. FLEMMING:
Q: I remind you of the affidavit of Dr. Walachowsky, which in document bock 12; it is document N0-484, Prosecution Exhibit 291. You know that Dr. Walachowsky was very angry about experiments in block 46 and disapproved of them; would you talk about that?
A: Dr. Walachowsky did not work in block 46, but in block 50, which is about five hundred meters away from block 46. He himself does not maintain that he ever was in block 46, he, however, states his sources of information. It can be seen from this that he does not report on his own knowledge at all, but that he merely refers to hear-say.
He makes a number of other statements, which are extremely peculiar. For instance, he speaks about a so-called supreme committee to which a number of gentlemen allegedly belonged. Such a supreme committee never existed. This is something completely new to me. He says that all experiments were ordered by a so-called section 5 in Leipzig. He furthermore states that all reports were sent there. That in itself contradicts Dr. Kogon's statement here and there is no reason to accept that statement as being credible for it is based on nothing.
I know of no section 5 in Leipzig. He furthermore says that a special inspector was appointed in order to check the results of the experiments on human beings and furthermore makes the assertion that I was that inspector. I heard about that activity of mine through Dr. Walachowsky for the first time and I can say under oath here that no special inspector ever existed, at least I never received any knowledge of his existence and I certainly was not it. All these are assertions which Walachowsky cannot have gained from his own knowledge. A number of assertions were made by him which can be discussed later, which indicate a very subjective point of view on the part of Dr. Walachowsky and lack of any objective judgment.
From a human point of view I well understand his statements, because he is speaking as an inmate, looking at the affair from the prospective of an inmate. I actually was a prisoner of war for a number of years and I know how distorted any such a picture is.
Q: When examining the question whether Dr. Ding in any way failed in the manner in which he conducted his experimental series, it is necessary to ascertain whether the control persons were necessary which he infected in the case of everyone of his series; you know in the case of Dr. Ding's typhus experiments he infected a number of persons who did not receive any protective vaccine and in the case of therapy experiments a number of persons were not treated with the drug which was the subject of the examinations. These were the so-called control persons; was that necessary?
A: In biological experimental science such control is needed and is necessary in the case of all experiments. They are necessary, contrary to physical or chemical experiments. The factors in biology are much more numerous and more complicated. If I want to examine one of these factors of biology, it is necessary for me to have some material where this factor is not present in order to compare the other factor and it is only then that I can come to any conclusion as to the results. Whenever there is necessity for experiments on human beings, which are biological experiments, this is then a very logical conclusion which of necessity must be derived; namely that such controls cannot be dispensed with Applying this to Ding's experiments, one must state that the experimental series 3, 4, 5 and 6 and the therapy experiments with agredine, menthelene, agredine granulate, and ruthen 1 were not used in the case of the control persons that is the reason browse the strains which were used were not pathogenic.
If any such control persons had not been used, this failure of the appearance of a disease, after the infection, one would have arrived at the conclusion that this was not due to the therapeutical drug, but merely that the strain had failed. In that case a completely false conclusion would have been made. It can be seen therefore that controls have really a practice value.
Q: Did Dr. Ding limit his control persons as was humanly possible?
A: Generally yes, he kept them as low as possible. For instance, in the case of the first series of experiments when he used 145 persons, only ten were used as controls.
Q: Did he also try to combine experimental series in order to save control persons?
A: That is correct. He tried to start a number of experimental series simultaneously in order to use the same control persons for all of them. That was possible because the strain for both series was the same.
Q: Then it is your opinion that Dr. Ding, when carrying cut his experiments, acted according to scientific principles, that he cannot be reprimanded for the manner in which he executed these experiments.
A: In my opinion he cannot be so accused as to the manner in which he carried out the experiments with which he had been entrusted. I don't believe that any violations against the so-called experimental science took place. I am always assuming the prerequisite that such experiments are permisable.
Q: I now turn to the agredin and ruthenol experiments. During your pre-trial interrogation in 25 July 1946 you answered the questions No. 45 by Mr. Barr, namely whether you ever did anything which was against your medical conscience and you mentioned a typhus experimental series with agredin and ruthenol; would you please state your views on that?
A: When I was interrogated at that time I could only very vaguely remember this series of experiments. On the other hand, I remember it very well that no such experimental series was started with agredin and ruthenol. Furthermore, I was in a position to recall the conversation which Grawitz, however, it was all very vague in my mind, but my memory had been refreshed only a short time before by a newspaper clipping being shown to me, which contained a clipping from the London Times in which the subject was reports about human experiments in Buchenwald by a French scientist. I think the French scientist who wrote that report was Dr. Walachowsky. He mentioned an experimental subject with ruthenol and agredine and said that 53% to 56% of fatalities had occurred.
I think these were the figures that he used. It was under this impression that I gave my answers during that interrogation and it was my opinion at that time that I had something to do with that series of experiments.
The interrogation took place in Nurnberg, and when I was afterwards transferred to a camp, I had an opportunity to think about my statements and doubts began to arise in my mind, and shortly before the beginning of this trial, I was in a position to look at the documents, I found a paper by Ding regarding ruthenol and agredin experiments. This is Prosecution document 582.
A: Then the entire situation once more became very clear in my mind, and the investigation which we made now has helped to clear this matter even further. According to my present knowledge, therefore, in referring to the material available to me from the I. G. Farbon Industry at Hoechst and this paper by Ding, I can say that my statements made at that time were not correct, it was a deception of my memory.
Q: I must interject here that I shall submit the material received from the I. G. Farben Industry at Hoechst at a later date in the form of supplemental volume. At the moment it is not ready to be submitted.
Would you please continue; did you speak to Dr. Grawitz about this ruthenol and agredin matter?
A: Yes. This is how the matter originated, and the document that was announced by Defense Counsel will prove it in detail. On the 10th of September 1942, two gentlemen came to me from the Berlin Bureau of I. G. Farben and the Behring Works. We discussed various serum and vaccine questions, and in that connection typhus questions came up for discussion, and generally we had spoken about other vaccines. On that occasion one of these gentlemen, Dr. Weber, said that the I. G. Farben in Hoechst had produced a new drug which they wanted to have examined on sick persons. They asked me whether I had any patients that I was treating and whether I would agree to using that preparation. I said that I would because I was naturally very much interested in that question. At that time, however, I planned an official trip, and I, therefore, acquainted these gentlemen with one of my co-workers, Dr. Motum, and then gave him the necessary directives as to what was to happen to the preparation which we expected to arrive within the next few days.
DR. FLEMMING: May I interject here? Dr. Motum was approved to me as a witness and will at a later date be examined.
A: (Continuing) We then used this preparation in various hospitals on sick soldiers but without any clinical result being achieved. Moreover, there was a difficulty connected with it since that preparation did not agree very favorably with the patient.
In the beginning of August 1943, that is, one year after our first conversation, a second discussion took place on the occasion of which I was asked what my experiences with that had been. I communicated my experiences to them, and they then declared that they had improved that drug which made it more agreeable and told me that they would deliver it to me in a granulated form, which is a coarse powder form.
Q: Did you speak to Grawitz about these ruthenol matters?
A: I discussed that with Grawitz, and I told him that this was a new preparation for the combating of typhus, but unfortunately its tolerance was not very good. He then said that that was a very important matter and told me that "We are doing everything in order to get clarity as to whether this drug can be used or not." I said that the unfavorable tolerance of that drug prohibited us from applying it on patients since it would have no success.
Q: On the basis of documents which I have yet to submit to the Tribunal, the conversations with the gentlemen of the I. G. Farben Industry took place on the 10th of September 1942, and on the 19th of February, 1943. Do you now remember these conversations on the basis of the material which is available to you, and would you please speak about that?
A: Well, I already said — yes, that is all taken care of.
Q: Did you put this drug at the disposal of Dr. Ding in a granulated form?
A: I neither furnished him with that drug in its original form nor in the granulated form. The first series of experiments by Ding started on the 10th of January 1943. However, the drug was only discussed on the 19th of February. As a result of that conversation I just mentioned, the contingent left Marburg on the 19th of February, whereas on the 20th of February the series of experiments by Ding had already been finished. Therefore, the preparation could not have been given to him by me since I only received it after the series of experiments had been concluded. I neither gave him the drug in a granulated form, but I think that I sent it to Prague and Berlin in order to have it used on patients of the SS hospital.
The experimental series of Ding's only started on the 31st of March 1943. On the basis of the documents from I. G. Farben it becomes evident that Dr. Ding had asked for ten bottles of granulate six days before. This would not have been necessary if I had already given it to him, for I received the granulate at the beginning of February but for a different use.
Q: According to the entries in Ding's diary, a third series of experiments with agredin and ruthenol was carried out on the 24th of April until the 4th of June 1943. Did you initiate that series of experiments?
A: No, I did not. I only found out about it after looking through Ding's paper which he wrote about it, and which has been submitted here as a document. Well, I, rather — not through this document, but through looking at the paper.
Q: The publication of Dr. Ding about his experience with agredin and ruthenol which were submitted by the Prosecution as Document NO-571, Exhibit 284, mentioned the work of Roller and Halleischek who used the sane preparation. These two persons maintained that they had good experience with that preparation.
Q: How do you explain the difference?
A: This is a typical example of how dangerous it is if one only reports on results of very few cases. If I have ten persons, it is quite likely that I have success in the case of two persons. In spite of that the drug would be wrong because it failed in the case of eight persons. If, on the other hand, I only used two persons, accident nay have it that in the case of these two persons the drug is effective whereas in the case of the next one hundred twenty or one hundred no result would be achieved. Therefore, in my opinion, this paper has no value whatsoever.
Q: It is your opinion today that your testimony during the pre-trial interrogation of the 25th of July 1946, had been incorrect?
A: Yes. The document from the I. G. Farben Industry proved that I was mistaken at that time and that I was mistaken to my disadvantage.
DR. FLEMMING: The next document I want to offer —
THE PRESIDENT: It is time for our recess. I desire to state in regard to the conversation between Counsel and the Court concerning a witness who was to be called this week if present that an order was signed to call the witness and the order provided that the witness would be heard if he appeared this week. I had not been advised whether' or not the witness was available and had come to Nurnberg, and I had forgotten that witness was called by the Defendant Hoven, but that is the fact. If the witness is available tomorrow, the witness will be hoard and put upon the stand, but I do not know whether or not the witness is here and will be available tomorrow.
DR. FLEMMING: Mr. President, are you speaking of the witness that was discussed by the Prosecution before?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. FLEMMING: Or are you —
DR. GAWLIK: Mr. President, I ask to have permission to call the witness, Horn, on Monday. The witness horn told me that he was exhausted as a result of his journey and he had to deal with a number of formalities here. I, therefore, had not any opportunity as yet to speak to the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, now, Counsel, what is the name of the witness that you mentioned?
DR. GAWLIK: Dr. Horn.
THE PRESIDENT: As I remember it, the witness who was summoned by the Tribunal was Dietsch.
DR. GAWLIK: The witness, Dietsch, was called by my colleague, Dr. Flemming.
DR. FLEMMING: Dietsch is the former Capo of Block 46, and I asked for him. Up to this point I have received no information telling me that the witness has arrived. The witness however, that the Prosecution talked about at the beginning of the session was not Dietsch, but it was the witness, Dr. Horn about whom Dr. Gawlik was just speaking. This Dr. Horn has already arrived here, but Dietsch has not arrived as yet.
MR. HARDY: May it please Your Honor, the sun and substance of my request earlier in the day is simply this: Dr. Horn I assumed was to return immediately to Czechoslovakia because of his business or some other such reason, and if they want Dr. Horn to take the stand on Friday, that is tomorrow, either after direct examination of Mrugowsky or in between time, I am perfectly agreeable. However, if I start cross-examination of Mrugowsky on Friday afternoon — and I am sure it will run into Monday — I do not wish to be interrupted during the course of the cross-examination this time in the manner that I was the last time. Of course, if the Tribunal rules that I may be interrupted — but I will not agree to be interrupted, and if Horn is here and they want to put him on the stand — Defense Counsel has had all day today to talk to him — I don't see why he couldn't take the stand tomorrow and return to wherever he has to go.
THE PRESIDENT: I would ask Counsel for Defendant Hoven if the witness Horn can be used sometime tomorrow prior to the opening of the cross-examination of the Defendant, Mrugowsky.
MR. HARDY: In addition to that, Your Honor, the Delegate of the Czechoslovakian Legation just tells me that Dr. Horn has specifically requested to depart from here on Saturday.
DR. GAWLIK: Mr. President, I am not going to interrupt the cross-examination of the Prosecuting Attorney.
With agreement of the Tribunal and the Prosecution, I shall either call the witness, Horn, before the cross-examination or after the cross-examination.
DR. FLEMMING: Mr. President, in that connection I may say that the direct examination will probably take up all of Friday.
THE PRESIDENT: Then Counsel for the Prosecution advises all present, all concerned, that the witness is requested to return to Czechoslovakia Saturday. I understood Counsel for Defendant Mrugowsky to state that he was willing that his examination should be interrupted tomorrow for the hearing of this witness.
DR. GAWLIK: Mr. President, I spike to the witness this morning, and according to what the witness told me, it is now absolutely necessary for him to return on Saturday. It would be all right, he said, to return on Monday, but, at any rate, I shall either examine him before the cross-examination or after the cross-examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Very well. Well, now, just one moment. Yesterday Counsel for Defendant Mrugowsky had several exhibits identified that were not offered in evidence. They received numbers. I would suggest that at the opening of tomorrow's session those exhibits be formally offered because the Tribunal now has available the supplementary document book, and can note their entries as exhibits upon that book.
The Tribunal will now be in recess until nine-thirty o' clock tomorrow morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 0930 hours, 28 March 1947.)