1947-04-02, #1: Doctors' Trial (early morning)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal I in the matter of the United States of America, against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 2 April 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court room will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal I.
Military Tribunal I is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the court room.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, will you ascertain that the defendants are all present in court?
THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honor, all the defendants are present in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary General will note for the record the presence of all defendants in court. Counsel may proceed with the examination of the witness.
JOACHIM MRUGOWSKY — Resumed EXAMINATION (Continued)
BY DR. NELTE (Defense Counsel for defendant Handloser):
Q: Witness, the last question I put to you yesterday was my question where Dr. Ding was on the 29th of December, 1941. You answered that he was working at the Hygiene Institute, but simultaneously had been assigned to the Robert Koch Institute for the purpose of his training there. Is that correct?
Q: I attach importance to clarify how it could have been possible that in Ding's diary there is an entry of the 29th of December 1941 concerning a conference in which Professor Handloser allegedly participated. According to Ding's activity and his position on the 29th of December, 1941, did Dr. Ding have knowledge about the conference on 29 Dec. 1941 in the Reich Ministry of the Interior?
A: I don't know that exactly for I personally did not know about that conference. I know, however, that Ding, after his detail to the Robert Koch Institute, maintained a relatively close contact with Professor Gildemeister. It is quite possible that Gildemeister told him the contents of that conference. It is possible that Ding, however, mixed up the contents of what Gildemeister told him and came to a wrong entry.
Q: Mr. President, in Document NO-1321, under Figure 3, it is said that a copy about the conference Bieber, about the conference of the 29th of December, 1941, went to the institute for infectious diseases, the Robert Koch Institute. I wanted to mention that in this connection in order to clarify what the aim of my questioning was. The prosecutor, during his cross-examination of Professor Handloser, on page 3114 of the German transcript, put the following questions —
MR. HARDY: May it please your Honor, I object to this form of cross-examination by Dr. Nelte. Is he now pleading his case or is he examining Dr. Mrugowsky?
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may proceed. Objection over-ruled.
BY DR. NELTE:
Q: This question as to what interest the SS could have in that egg yolk vaccine was put to Professor Handloser, but I am submitting that question to you because you will be in a better position to answer it.
A: We naturally had a great interest to find out something final about that vaccine. In all our formations we had already used thousands of portions of that vaccine which we received from industry or from the Robert Koch Institute. It is the same situation here as in military life. No weapon is being used unless one knows it exactly. The same applies to the combat of epidemics. As physicians, we don't like to use weapons which we don't know. Therefore, we had great interest in finding out the value of the new vaccine.
Q: The sense of my question was what your own interest was. What you have just stated would mean to say that this was a general interest. I am interested, however, in your own interest— in what you did on your own initiative.
A: In order to find out what the value of vaccines was I intended to use them on a large scale to discover their value. This research had already been started in December and it became apparent from. Dr. Denmitz' statement that already on the 22nd of December, 1941 that is 8 days before the conference, I had received five hundred portions of vaccines.
Q: That one can see from Dr. Denmitz' report. Now, in Document 64, which was submitted to you, Dr. Zahn is speaking about a large scale experiment, whereas in Bieber's report, an experimental plan is mentioned. Are we concerned there with the same thing?
A: They are different words meaning the same thing.
Q: In Dr. Zahn's report on Page 104 which you submitted, which is Document Mrugowsky 64, it is stated Professor Gildemeister maintains that 2700 portions of his vaccine had been used without any ill effects resulting. Professor Kuhne reported that in the months of October and November he used 3,000 portions of the vaccine of the Behring Works without any failures having occurred. Do I understand you correctly if I say that this plan for the experiment, or this large-scale experiment was to be carried out with typhus vaccines which had already been tested out to some considerable extent and had been found to be effective?
A: That is correct. It is true that the first experiments had already started by the producers. It becomes apparent from the various statements that German industry only since 1941, that is the year we are speaking about, concerned itself with the manufacture of vaccines of that nature. The typhus period starts in November and December and finds its peak in June. Therefore, up to December we couldn't have practically gathered any experiences regarding that vaccine because the period of epidemics was only just reaching the increased stage. One would have to wait before arriving at any conclusion.
Q: Everyone who participated in that meeting in the Reichs' Ministry of the Interior on 29 December 1941 and heard what was being said must assume that one was concerned with a plan for epidemiological experiments on a large scale intended by you with vaccinations against typhus.
A: Nothing else could have been mentioned. That is the customary channel used up to that point.
Q: Was there any connection between your plan of experiment and the experiments as they were carried out later at Buchenwald?
A: No, not at all. This plan was much older, at least four to six weeks older.
Q: Is it true that this epidemiological experiment was carried out by you completely independent of the experiments at Buchenwald?
A: It was started independently and was carried out independently.
Q: You know that on the 5th of May, 1942, that is Document 10 Mrugowsky, a letter was sent to Dr. Conti and Dr. Grawitz and Dr. Genzken under the heading, "Testing of Vaccines." It was also sent to the Robert Koch Institute and the Army Typhus Research Institute at Krakow, as well as the Behring Works. You also sent this letter to Professor Eyer, who was an O. K. H. official at Krakow. Let me at first ask you, could the recipient of this letter gain the impression that he was here concerned of necessity with the result of the experimental plan which was discussed on the 29th of December, 1941?
A: It can only be seen from this letter that these vaccines, that were discussed, were actually tested. They were tested on a relatively small amount of persons, I think thirty or thirty-five people. No more could be derived from that letter. There can be no question of large scale experiments with that vaccine, because thirty persons cannot be considered a large-scale experiment. There was no question of any artificial infections. For that was just the reason Grawitz ordered me to change Ding's original report. It could not be derived from that.
Q: I understand that. But you are speaking about experiments because of an epidemic?
A: There were innumerable epidemics at that time.
Q: At any rate Professor Eyer had to conclude, or rather not conclude that any experiments were being carried out at Buchenwald.
A: He couldn't conclude that in any way. The recipient could only come to the conclusion that the person mentioned in the report had merely compared a few vaccines with one another. He took notice of that and that probably was all.
Q: This letter dated the 5th of May, 1942, could give a third party the impression as if Professor Eyer were sending a vaccine, the Weigl vaccine, for the purpose of its being tested. Was that the case?
A: No, no, that was not the case. I already said yesterday there was a general directive to the effect that S. S. units and agencies could only be supplied by their own medical depot in the SS.
Q: On the basis of the contents of this circular and the result of this test, could Professor Eyer receive a hint to report anything about that to the Army Medical Inspectorate?
A: I cannot say that. Had I received any such letter I certainly wouldn't have done anything. I would have merely acknowledged the letter and then filed it away.
Q: Let us assume which was not done that Professor Eyer sent this letter to the Army Medical Inspectorate, and let us further assume that they submitted that letter to Professor Handloser. With reference to Handloser's knowledge of things in which he didn't participate, I want to ask you the following. Could he conclude from this circular as it is formulated that there was any possibility of any impermissible experiments on human beings?
A: No, I already said that, that he couldn't do that, because that was the purpose of the circular.
Q: Looking at your letter dated the 5th of May, 1942, and looking at the order of Grawitz, I am asking you was this form of report, this form of a camouflaged report, a result of the orders for secrecy that no reports were to reach the outside of what was going on in SS camps and concentration camps?
Q: In Dr. Rudolf Brandt's statement correct that there was a special order by Himmler according to which the physicians active in concentration camps were obliged to keep a strict secrecy towards every third party, even including S. S. physicians who were not active in the concentration camps?
A: That did not only refer to the physicians, but to every member of the staff of concentration camps. This order already originates from a time prior to the war.
I may refer to Dr. Horn's testimony here yesterday who very clearly stated that even members of the SS and Waffen-SS could not enter concentration camps. That was the reason. His testimony was correct.
Q: Do you know for what reason Professor Eyer and Dr. Schmidt went to Buchenwald on the 8th of February, 1943?
A: Yes, we were then concerned with the pending commitment of SS divisions in the German Africa Corps. Extensive preparations were made in the medical field. I already testified during my direct examination that the protective vaccines against yellow fever played a particular part there. This was technically somewhat difficult since the vaccine had to be kept in a very cooled state. That is naturally very difficult in a warm climate.
A special transport vessel had been developed which was under low pressure. It was rather difficult to handle because it could easily be broken when not handled skillfully. In order to instruct the physicians to handle this container, Dr. Eyer was in Buchenwald, and Dr. Schmidt. Dr. Schmidt said that many physicians were there whom he instructed in the use of that vessel.
Q: When Prof. Eyer instructed —
A: Yes, Professor Eyer was instructing the physicians about that technique.
Q: In other words, you are confirming what Dr. Bernard Schmidt said on the witness stand?
A: Yes, I think that is correct.
Q: You remember that a contingent of lice supposedly arrived at Buchenwald from Krakow or rather two contingents of lice which were later destroyed. In this connection I want to ask you only whether you know Dr. Haas?
A: Yes, I know Dr. Haas.
Q: Where did Dr. Haas live? Where was he active, and what was the position he held?
A: Dr. Haas came from the Behring Works at Marburg. He was a young lecturer on hygiene and bacteriology at Marburg, and later he became the head of a branch of the Behring Works at Lemberg. This, of course, was private industry. It has nothing to do with the army. As far as I know, the Army was producing vaccines in Lemberg, too, at a laboratory of Professor Weigl. These two agencies, however, are not identical.
Q: The submission of evidence has shown that Professor Weigl was attached from the Army Medical Inspectorate to the Behring Works in order to train personnel there temporarily. We were here only concerned to find out whether these two institutes had anything to do with one another.
That is to say, whether the Behring Works at Lemberg had any official connection to the OKH institute at Lemberg.
A: No. As far as I know, these were two separate institutions.
Q: On the basis of an entry in Ding's diary regarding the results of tests on yellow fever vaccine, I am asking you the following: is it correct that you were sent these results and passed them on to Dr. Schmidt?
A: The results of these tests were received by me, but as far as I remember, I transmitted them to our main medical depot which was actually supplying the vaccine and that include Ding. I don't remember having had any discussions or correspondence with Schmidt about or anyone else of the Medical Inspectorate.
DR. NELTE: This brings me to the end of my questions on behalf of the Defendant, Handloser, and I now ask the Tribunal to permit me to put two questions to the Defendant on behalf of Professor Brandt since I want to represent Dr. Servatius.
BY DR. NELTE:
Q: I am submitting to you the organization charts made by you concerning a description of the Medical Service of the SS. There you drew a direct relationship of subordination of Reichsarzt [Reich Physician]-SS Dr. Grawitz, and you placed him under Dr. Karl Brandt. Furthermore, I handed to you the decrees, which were often discussed, about the position of the Reich Commissioner for Health and Medical Services dated the 28th of July.
A: I am sorry; I haven't got them.
Q: Aren't they before you?
Q: These are the documents NO-080, Exhibit of the Prosecution No. 5, and Document 081, Exhibit of the Prosecution 6, and Document NO-082, Exhibit of the Prosecution 7. Could you derive from the decree of 1942 that Dr. Grawitz and therewith according to your chart; the entire Medical Service of the SS was subordinated to Professor Karl Brandt?
You find these questions of competence under paragraphs 5 and 6 of this decree, dated the year 1942.
A: This decree of 1942 appoints the Chief of the Army Medical Services, for the Medical Services of the Army, Waffen-SS and organizations attached to the Army. This professional subordination is found at the entry in this chart. It would have been more correct if the line hadn't been drawn directly from Dr. Brandt to Dr. Grawitz but would have gone from Professor Handloser to Dr. Genzken only.
Q: During the submission of evidence and according to your questions, it has become clear that this line from Professor Handloser to Genzken only refers to the subordination of the Waffen-SS divisions which were committed at the front.
A: Yes, it says so here on the chart.
Q: What I am asking you is whether there was a direct relationship of subordination Professor Brandt to Dr. Grawitz.
A: I don't think such a clear relationship of subordination can be derived from these charts, but I should like to say in that connection that these charts were drawn up during the later period of my preliminary interrogations. These charts brought about a discussion with the interrogating officer, and we really arranged that the actual situation should be noted down on paper. In that connection I thought it was necessary to point out that Grawitz never would have received any order from Professor Brandt or Handloser never would have accepted any such order because he thought that he only had one chief which was Himmler.
For some reason this fact was not noted down probably because this was, I think, my last interrogation, and there was not sufficient time to do that.
Q: The second organization chart which you submitted is dated the 1st of September, 1943. Professor Karl Brandt 's position was established by the decree of the 5th of September, 1943, which is mentioned by you and noted down on the first box. On the second chart you can see the direct relationship between Professor Karl Brandt and Grawitz as Reich Physician-SS. Did the decree of 5 September 1943, change anything in Professor Brandt's relationship to Grawitz?
A: The decree shows that Professor Brandt would centrally deal with the tasks of the entire Medical and Hygenies Services and direct them. This affected the SS to the extent that our medical quartermaster had difficulties in getting medical equipment directly from industry. We also were tied to whatever the plenipotentiary directed as far as the supply was concerned. It is possible, however, that this was only an accidental effect because the order was directed to industry, in the first place, from which we, in turn, received our supplies. If the industry then gave us only a limited amount of medical equipment, that was a very important matter for us.
Q: Do you mean to say that neither after the decree of the 28th of July, 1942, nor after the decree of the 5th of September, 1943, there was any relationship of command between Prof. Karl Brandt as the superior and Dr. Grawitz as a subordinate? Rather, that with the decree of the 5th of September, 1943, Prof. Brandt had received a task which became necessary because of the emergency situation, according to which he had to steer, according to directives? On the basis of German military phraseology, this does not mean that he had to give any orders?
A: That is correct. If any line was drawn there, it would have to be a broken line — subordination in technical matters.
Q: Doesn't this lack of material restrict to the essentially medical affairs?
A: I don't know whether Prof. Brandt would have been justified in giving such directives to Grawitz directly. It was an indirect relationship which came as a result of this task he was given.
Q: When it says in that decree that Prof. Brandt has the task of steering according to directives, it means that on the basis of directives of Hitler he would have to take certain measures, for each particular case, that is he had no individual powers to act on his own initiative; is that right?
A: Yes, that is absolutely correct.
DR. NELTE: Thank you. I have no further questions.
BY THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE SEBRING):
Q: Prof. Mrugowsky, in answers to questions propounded to you by Dr. Nelte, you have made some comment concerning what is meant in the decrees of 28 July 1842, 5 September 1943, and 25 August 1944, being Prosecution Documents No 080, -081, and -082.
Did you have any part in framing any of these decrees?
A: No, not in the least.
Q: Then from where do you derive your knowledge of the effect of these decrees, other than from the context of the decrees themselves?
A: I remember that I had repeated conversations at that time with our medical quartermaster concerning various questions. There was a very close relationship between us; and we discussed various questions of an official nature. For that reason, I know that he traced the cause of difficulties in getting the necessary medical equipment at that time, to this organizational change by virtue of the Fuehrer order. That is what I meant when, it was an indirect effect.
Q: But you never did discuss the meaning of these decrees with Hitler, Keitel, Lammers, or Bormann?
A: No, I never spoke to any of these at any time.
JUDGE SEBRING: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any other questions to be propounded to this witness by any of the defense counsel?
DR. HEINZ FRITZ: Dr. Fritz, counsel for the defendant Rose.
BY DR. HEINZ FRITZ:
Q: Professor, did Dr. Ding-Schuler ever tell you that he had relations of any kind to Prof. Rose or whether he was in any correspondence with him?
A: No, he didn't do that. After the objection raised by Prof. Rose on the occasion of the meeting of the consulting physicians in the year of 1943, he used very strong terms in speaking about Prof. Rose.
Q: Couldn't you tell me anything more about that?
A: He was very excited after Prof. Rose made his objection, something that he didn't expect. He repeatedly mentioned this incident for the next few days. I remember one thing in particular. He said "You probable are convinced yourself by now that I will no longer admit Prof. Rose into a concentration camp." I was never quite clear as to how he came to say that because every visitor to a concentration camp had to receive permission from a higher agency and not from Mr. Ding. Today, however, I think that his arm in this field was longer than I realized at that time.
Q: It can be seen from your answer that you were present during the meeting of consulting physicians in 1943?
Q: When Dr. Ding-Schuler was giving his well-known lecture. Can you confirm that Dr. Ding in his answer to Prof. Rose's objection stated that the experimental subjects were criminals condemned to death?
A: According to my memory this is how the situation was. After Prof. Rose's objections, Dr. Ding stood up and stated, firstly, that there was no reason for any excitement since the experiments were carried out on criminals who had been condemned to death and who had been furnished by Himmler for this particular purpose; secondly, that the entire affair was over and done with anyway.
Then as far as I remember, Prof. Schreiber got up and confirmed what Ding had said, namely, that the experiments had ended, and that the legal questions had been decided by the highest police chief. Obviously he was only repeating what Ding had said. He couldn't have spoken of his own knowledge. He furthermore forbade that this conversation should be recorded in the record.
Q: Did Dr. Ding ever tell you or did you find out in any other way that the Bucharest vaccine tested in Buchenwald was furnished by Prof. Rose?
A: No, I didn't know anything about that.
Q: During your activity as the chief hygienist with the Reichsarzt-SS Dr. Grawitz, did you ever see reports by Dr. Rose? Did you ever see any files which were directed to Prof. Rose?
A: No, I never saw anything like that. I never heard the name of Prof. Rose mentioned by Grawitz.
Q: Now, another subject very briefly. If I understood you correctly, you stated during your direct examination that you had seen an intermediate report by Prof. Schilling concerning his malaria work at Dachau.
A: Yes, that is correct.
Q: To whom was this report directed and from whom did you receive it?
A: That was a handwritten report written on a very abnormal size of paper, half size. It was written by hand, in Schilling's own handwriting; and it was addressed to Reichsfuehrer-SS Himmler. It said in its introduction:
Dear Reichsfuehrer: I should like to give you the first intermediate report on my experiments.
Then a few pages followed where he spoke of his experiments and his results. There were about eight or ten such pages in that letter. It was written in large letters. I received this letter through Grawitz. He made the remark that he received that letter from Himmler. Himmler wanted his attitude about it. He asked me to voice my opinion about the contents of that letter.
Q: What did you do with that report, Professor?
A: I read it. This was the first time I had heard about Schilling's experiments, and I know some of Professor Schilling's work from literature which concerned a similar subject, and I found out that the old problem was once more raised in this case, and that there was no positive result to be found in that report. I expressed that opinion; and I added, since one was obviously concerned with artificial infection on human beings, that Grawitz would stop any experiments of that nature.
Q: In that case you sent this report back to Grawitz?
Q: I observe from your statement that this handwritten report by Dr. Schilling was not mimeographed by Reichsarzt-SS, but typewritten?
A: No, no, I received the original.
Q: Thank you, I have no further questions.
BY DR. DUERR (Counsel for the defendant Poppendick):
Q: Professor, could Poppendick give you any orders or directives on the basis of his position on Grawitz's staff, or could he, on his own initiative, deal with you?
A: No, Poppendick couldn't give me any orders. He was a departmental chief, just as I was; we were both coordinated within the organization and he had no independent right to issue any orders to me.
Q: Who did Dr. Grawitz use for his correspondence before 1943?
A: He had a secretary, Miss Sommerfeld. She was sitting in his anteroom, and she was really Grawitz's right hand.
Q: Was there any change after the 1st of September 1943, — perhaps to the effect that Poppendick supervised the office activity?
A: On could hardly say that. There was only a change of secretaries because one secretary fell ill. I didn't observe that Poppendick exercised any influence on the secretary's activity. I am sure that is wrong.
Q: Whenever you reported to official conferences to Grawitz, did you deal with Grawitz personally, or were any other persons present?
A: No; generally, I was alone with Grawitz, and I know that this was Grawitz's habit in the case of other conferences. Only when any professional questions of any particular kind were discussed the competent man was asked to attend: for instance, concerning any field of vaccines or medical equipment where the man dealing with that question was always asked to attend.
Q: Where was Poppendick active, as far as you know; what was his main activity?
A: His main activity was not in the staff of Grawitz, but as meeting physician at the Race and Settlement Main Office. This is a completely different agency which even locally was separated from Grawitz's staff.
Q: How far apart were these two offices from one another, approximately?
A: I would say the classical situation there was very different, very hard to get from one point to another; I think it took about three-quarters of an hour by train; one had to make frequent changes.
Q: Well, let me pass on to another chapter. Did Poppendick participate in the planning or leadership of typhus experiments in any way?
A: I never heard anything about that. It is highly improbable.
Q: Did you discuss typhus experiments with him at any time?
A: No, at no time.
Q: Do you know whether Ding was sending reports to Poppendick?
Q: Do you remember the lecture given by Ding on the occasion of the meeting of the consulting physicians in the year 1943; was Poppendick present during that lecture?
A: No, he was not there.
Q: Were the participants limited to such an extent that you would have seen Poppendick had he been there?
A: There were about twenty-five to thirty gentlemen there, and one could overlook them very easily. Most of them I knew personally.
Q: I am going to hand over to you Ding's work about Rutenol and Acidin, with regard to typhus, which can be found on page 20 of the German Document No. 12. It is Document No. 582. I should like to point out a few passages in that paper. On page 12 you find some mention about therapy experiments. If you look at the second page you will find a footnote which was struck out but is still legible, where it says:
There can be no statements in greater detail about this epidemic.
This is Obersturmfuehrer [Lieutenant] Doctor Fleckau, on the staff for typhus. Then there is a paragraph which starts on the same page, where it says that in the month April to May 1943 the expression, the epidemics, started to be mentioned; and furthermore I should like to point out to you that there is a sentence where it says in consequence of strict measures of quarantine in the case of a number of diseases the day of infection could be found out.
As an expert I want to ask you the following question: Whenever a physician who has experiences in typhus questions — must he come to the conclusion that he was here concerned with artificial infections? What is your opinion about that?
A: This is not my opinion. I should like to say the following in that connection. During the course of the trial the possibility was repeatedly mentioned that the incubation period, namely, the period of the appearance of the infection until the symptoms, had to be established as exactly as possible. It was also mentioned here frequently that transports of inmates were carried out, then they were sent from one camp to another. Furthermore, it was pointed out that in the Eastern Ministry a number of Germans were sent into a typhus area to work there, who were vaccinated. These people were free of lice, and in most cases the discovery of a louse on their body was an event which they remembered.
If, at a later time they fell ill with typhus we could say with a high degree of probability that particular louse that had been found was the carrier of typhus. It is quite possible that inmates having no lice were included in a transport where there were people with lice. This transport usually took one day. The prisoners entered a camp and were generally immediately deloused. After some time a few inmates fell ill with typhus. One could say with certainty that the infection must have taken place during that transport on that particular day because there can be no typhus unless there are lice. Therefore, it is quite possible that such exact statement about the incubation period can be made in certain cases. That was possible because in many concentration camps there was a very close checkup on lice, as it was described by Dr. Horn yesterday.
This was a planned action, a planned control of lice, which were ordered, that was done, on the basis of my suggestion. This method was not initiated by the inmates but only carried out by them. I therefore had made a large number of such observations which always concerned epidemics, or cases of illnesses where the incubation period could always be put down exactly according to time.
Q: So there are no passages in this paper which could lead an unprejudiced export to conclude that any artificial injection had taken place?
A: No, I could not say that. I couldn't say that any such passages are there. Naturally, when one reads about an incubation period lasting about five or six days, one is surprised; one will ask oneself, "How is it possible to make such exact statements?" Every experienced physician knows that there is such a basic possibility.
Q: In the case of the paper we just discussed, are we concerned with the report of an experiment as it was maintained by the prosecution?
A: No, it is a scientific paper; it is a manuscript. It bears the letterhead of my institute because Grawitz wanted all young physicians to publish their work under the protection of scientific institutes. In many cases papers were published under the heading of my institute, which however I received from different people and this is one of the papers. My only participate was that I went through them and found out whether the paper was fit for publication. On that occasion an error was discovered. You read one paper where you mentioned Obersturmfuehrer Vetter which was then a struck out. This line had to be struck out, because this man did not die of typhus but is still alive today. It was an error on Ding's part, such papers had to be submitted to the competent medical chief for approval before publication.
Q: This paper was not sent to Poppendick directly?
A: No, I am sure that was not the case. I sent this paper to Grawitz eventually us the competent chief; that was after the reorganization of the medical service and this was certainly not sent to Poppendick. Grawitz must have agreed to that; whether Poppendick agreed or not was of little interest; the main leadership was Grawitz.
Q: Thank you; I have no further questions.
BY DR. MERKEL, (Counsel for the Defendant Gerzken):
Q: A few very general questions. If I understood you correctly, during your direct examination you stated that Grawitz, because of an organizational difficulty, had only a professional right to give directives and no order to issue commands; your testimony limited itself to his official duties as to the SS formation, which was subordinated to him?
A: Yes, one can only then speak of a professional right for him to issue directives.
Q: What was Grawitz' military tasks concerning his close tasks, his close staff and the institute which was immediately subordinated to him?
A: He naturally was the disciplinary superior of his staff and of the institute, which was subordinated to him because he was a member of the Waffen SS; he was the military superior.
Q: Now two brief questions with reference to the sulfanilamide experiments; on the basis of Grawitz' line of issuing directives in the professional field could he issue any orders for any strains to be issued to your institute without the approval of Dr. Genzken?
A: The right to issue directives in professional matters enabled him to issue professional commands of every kind to every member of the medical service of the SS; one could mention a number of special cases.
Q: Did you inform Dr. Genzken about the delivery or the strange delivery to Ravensbruck?
A: No, that was not possible because I did not know about it.
Q: Another subject; among other things you were saying that one of your collaborators by the name of Dr. Moton participated in the meeting with reference to the cold question in Nurnberg; was Dr. Genzken informed by you about the results of that meeting?
A: I am quite sure that I did not inform Dr. Genzken about that; I don't know if Dr. Moton informed him, but it is not possible from what I know. Dr. Moton told me that Luftwaffe questions were discussed during that conference, which were of little interest to us and would have brought no practical results.
Q: Now, a few questions regarding the typhus experiments at Buchenwald; who was Dr. Ding's superior at Block No. 46?
A: Dr. Grawitz.
Q: To whom was he subordinate as chief of the place of production in block 50?
A: In this place he was subordinate to me.
Q: Was there any difference in regard to time in his position of subordination?
A: The production place started on the 7th of August, 1943, which was sometime before the reorganization of the medical service and Dr. Genzken was really not concerned.
Q: After the end of August the Hygienic Institute was no longer subordinated to him?
A: Yes, that is right.
Q: Did the scientific reports of Dr. Ding go directly to Dr. Genzken?
A: I am sure that these reports were never submitted to Professor Genzken by me or by my order; that is only insofar as they went to me they were immediately put into another envelope in my office and it was written when the word "Genzken" was written.
Q: So that every participation of Dr. Genzken is excluded?
A: In my opinion, yes.
Q: It was repeatedly mentioned that Dr. Ding was giving a lecture about typhus vaccines on the meeting of consulting meeting; is that right?
Q: In April of 1943 you informed Dr. Genzken about the intended amount of vaccines to be produced by the SS; is that right?
A: Yes, that was done in the spring of 1943.
Q: Did this information have a special cause?
A: Yes, there were three causes. At that time I was the Hygenic Expert attached to Dr. Genzken and I had to inform him about all important matters in my field as they applied to the army. Dr. Ding was to hold a lecture during that meeting of the consulting physicians because of Dr. Grawitz' wish. He had prepared this lecture and sent it to Dr. Grawitz for his approval and Grawitz sent this manuscript to me in order to look through it and it bore the same contents, which I mentioned, as that of May 5, 1942. As Dr. Ding was later writing in a more extensive form, I think this can be found in my Document No. 10. This was my cause for informing Dr. Genzken about Dr. Ding's intention. He, as medical chief of the Waffen SS, had to be informed about the fact that a member of the Waffen SS was going to hold a lecture in that circle.
The second reason was that I wanted to inform him about the effectiveness of a number of vaccines, which was used for the troops.
Thirdly, I wanted to tell him when he could expect the first portions of vaccines for the SS and the amounts he could expect per month. I had to tell him that so he could gage his future for the vaccines accordingly. That were the three reasons why I reported to Dr. Genzken at the time.
Q: Did you discuss the question of the furnishing of prisoners in order to make observations about vaccinated and non-vaccinated people and their reactions?
A: The conference with Dr. Genzken was extremely brief. As far as I remember we were standing close to his desk. I told him that the various vaccines which I mentioned to him had a different effect; I told him that the effect varied as to the length of the temperature; and a reduction of fatalities and I told him that after having vaccinated the entire SS we could count on some protective effect for all soldiers. On that occasion I showed him a few charts which Ding had handed over to me at that time, the same charts which Ding reproduced in his paper, and I used these charts in order to explain the effectiveness of the vaccines to him.
Q: The mortality figures and the temperature figures could be derived from these charts, couldn't they?
A: Yes. If I remember correctly, on the heading of these charts the information was given what the day of the infection was. This entire conference was very brief and it is quite possible that Dr. Genzken—who was only concerned with the most important points which he had to know-it is quite possible that he overlooked that. I had no cause to point it out to him in particular since I was not reporting to him about Ding's series of experiments but was only reporting to him about the protective value of various vaccines which he, as medical chief, had to know. These were two completely different points of view.
THE PRESIDENT: I suggest to the witness that questions be answered a little more briefly. The question that was propounded to the witness-the question before the last one—could have been answered simply by "yes" or "no" which would have completely answered it.
The Tribunal will now be in recess.
(A recess was taken.)