1947-05-21, #3: Doctors' Trial (afternoon)

AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 21 May 1947)

THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again session.

BECKER-FREYSENG — Resumed

DIRECT EXAMINATION — Continued

BY DR. TIPP:

Q: Dr. Becker, this morning we concluded the question of the freezing experiments, and now we come to a further charge against you. The indictment charges you to have participated in criminal experiments between June of 1942 to January 1945 in the concentration camps of Natzweiler and Sachsenhausen. I ask you now, witness — When did you first hear of the facts which the prosecution has here brought forward, namely, these alleged experiments?

A: I heard about them for the first time here in Nuernberg when I was arraigned.

Q: When did you hear the name, for the first time, of the man who had most to do with these experiments — to wit, Dr. Haagen, the Director of time Hygiene Institute of the University of Strasbourg, and also Consulting Hygienist with an Air Fleet after a certain date. I do not know on what, precisely, the prosecution bases its charge that you participated in a hepatitis experiment. It can only be that your responsibility is based on your activities as Referent, or Assistant Referent. Since Haagen was a medical research officer in the Luftwaffe I must assume that your connection with these experiments, and your activities, were with Haagen. Therefore, witness, I put to you, on the question of the hepatitis experiment, the document from Document Book VIII, page 6, Document NO-137, which was put in by the prosecution as Exhibit 189. This is Haagen's letter of 7 October 1943, to the Director of the University of Strasbourg. It concerns itself with the recognition of this Hygienic Institute of the University as a Military Institute. Look at No. 3 of this document. Here there is mention of a commission regarding hepatitis epidemica. Did you know anything of this research commission?

A: This commission was given by the Reich Research Council. It is number 5 in the Document. It is also a top secret research assignment. Thus, Haagen had not only no reason to tell us about this, but since it was a top secret matter he was forbidden to do so.

Q: Now, we know of the dual position which Haagen occupied, and which played a large role in this trial. He was Director of the Hygiene Institute of the University of Strassbourg, and, at the same time — from a certain date on — he was a Consultant Hygienist in the Air Fleet Reich. To which aspect of Haagen's dual activities does this letter refer?

A: Of course, it refers to his activities as Director of the Hygiene Institute of the University of Strassbourg — because it is directed to the Rector of the University of Strassbourg. It concerns itself with the fact that the Hygienic Institute is to be recognized as a so-called Military Institute, and it is signed by Prof. Dr. Haagen, and not Stabsarzt [Staff Surgeon] Haagen, and there is nothing in this letter concerning hepatitis.

Q: Now, one more question. Haagen was a medical officer in the Reserve Corps of the Luftwaffe. Did he not, as such, have an obligation to report on all work and all research commissions that he received from any office whatsoever?

A: If all medical officers had had to report on all the work that they did, we should have had to open up another Medical Inspectorate.

Q: In other words, there was no such obligation on their part?

A: No; there was never any mention of that, either.

Q: In the same context, witness, please look in the same Document Book, Number VIII, NO-299, Exhibit 190. It is on page 8. This is again a letter from Haagen to Dr. Schreiber at the Military Academy in Berlin, and it is addressed, "Honored Generalarzt [General Physician]." There is no signature, consequently we do not know in what capacity Haagen signed it. At any rate, from the heading, "Honored Generalarzt," it can be assumed that this is a military matter here, an affair which, perhaps, had some contact with the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe even though that may have been circuitously.

What can you say about it?

A: First of all, it can be seen from this letter that it did not come through channels. It went through the Medical Inspectorate. Moreover, there were no military relationships between Haagen and Schreiber. On the contrary, it is the University Professor Haagen who is writing to the University Professor Schreiber in Berlin, in this letter. By accident, one is Generalarzt, and the other, by accident, is Oberstabsarzt [Chief Medical Officer], of the Luftwaffe. It is purely fortuity — and plays no rule in this letter.

Q: Just to make it clear — who was this Professor Schreiber?

A: He was a research worker for the Reich Research Council on the question of epidemics.

Q: Now, what was his relationship in such work on epidemics and his research work, that is here under consideration.

A: What his relationship was — I should not like to say anything under oath about this. He was a deputy of the Reich Research Council, as I said, but since Haagen received commissions regarding typhus and hepatitis from the Reich Research Council, one must assume that he received them from Schreiber.

Q: You mean that Professor Schreiber, in the Reich Research Council, was working on this hepatitis question on a research commission?

A: That can be deduced from what Gutzeit said here, as Handloser's witness, but I know nothing about it myself.

Q: We know that the prosecution is putting in all these documents in order to prove the existence of certain experiments on human beings. Now, let me refer to another document in which the name Dohmen appears. Mr. Dohmen is mentioned here. In the first paragraph of this document there is mentioned of an invitation that Mr. Dohmen discussed this matter with you— or rather, with Haagen. Did you know anything of this planned work, involving Dohmen and Haagen?

A: No, I know nothing about that.

Q: furthermore, in this document, witness, in the next paragraph, it is aid that Haagen is approaching Schroiber for his assistance in procuring mice. This is the second paragraph — let me quote it-NO-299—Mr. Haagen writes:

At the same time I should like to approach the subject of your negotiations for mice. My supplies, and particularly my cultures, are so depleted that they absolutely must be rejuvenated and refilled. You told me in Hohenlychen that it is possible for you to secure mice, even in large numbers. May I ask you to endeavor to secure for me several thousand mice of both sexes, preferably only young animals.

Witness, to me as a lay-man this means nothing, and I can't imagine what this might have to do with experiments on human beings. How you a o no expert in the field of hepatitis but you are a doctor and perhaps you can just tell us what the connection is?

A: I can only say that I can find in this letter not the least intimation that there is any question here of experiments on human beings.

Q: Now, the last paragraph, which is of particular importance for you— Haagen writes in this paragraph:

Thirdly, I would like to ask whether the Hepatitis research will be carried on in future out of funds of the Reich Research Council.

My funds are this branch are now exhausted and I am faced with the question whether to apply for further funds to my Medical Chief of the Luftwaffe, or to you. I would be grateful to you to be informed about this shortly.

Now, does this show any connection between the Inspector of the Luftwaffe and the Referat which handles research assignments on the one hand, and hepatitis experiments of Haagen, on the other hand?

A: In agreement with the Document NO 137, Exhibit 189— it can be seen from this letter that the research for hepatitis was assigned by the Reich Research Council, and also financed by them. At least, until 12 June 1944 the Medical Inspector of the Luftwaffe had nothing at all to do with Haagen's hepatitis research.

Q: Did Haagen later turn to the Chief of the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe for a research assignment in hepatitis, which is, after all, a possibility?

A: I know of no such application on his part.

Q: In this document, witness, there is talk of collaboration concerning the hepatitis question between Buechner, Kalk, Haagen, and other research men. All these physicians, as we know from other documents, are members of the Reserve Corps of the Luftwaffe. These are research matters — and so I may ask you whether you know anything of this collaboration.

A: No.

Q: Witness — just to clarify this whole business — one interim question. These special fields that are here under discussion: Hepatitis, Yellow Fever, Typhus — and so forth. In other words — all these fields — were you, in these fields, a specialist?

A: No.

Q: You know of no such collaboration. Well, now on the question of hepatitis. Did you know anything about hepatitis work in Breslau, which played a considerable role here?

A: I heard of this hepatitis conference in Breslau for the first time here, and I nay recall that even Professor Rose as consultant hygienist of the medical chief of the Luftwaffe heard of this conference only after it was all over.

DR. TIPP: Your Honors, let me bring to your attention in this connection that regarding this collaboration with regard to Haagen, Buochner and Kalk, what was said in the case before by Dr. Schroeder, to wit, an affidavit of 9 January 1947 from Buechner, which was put in evidence and is in Schroeder's Document Book on page 58, Schroeder Document No. 18. It was given Exhibit Number Schroeder 17. Buechner, in this affidavit, explains just what the nature of that collaboration was to be.

BY DR. TIPP:

Q: Another hepatitis question, witness, based on Document NO-126, Exhibit 185, Document Book VIII, page 14. This is a letter from Oberstabarzt Haagen, of 27 June 1944, to — and I quote:

Oberstarzt [Colonel, Medical Corps.] Prof. Dr. Kalk, with the Chief of the Luftwaffe Medical Services.

This letter, then, according to what I just quoted, went to a member of your office, at least one can assume that. Did you know anything about this correspondence?

A: No; and I may say that this letter is addressed to Professor Kalk personally, and that the address, quote:

With the Chief of the Luftwaffe Medical Services Saalow

— unquote, is simply to inform the postal authorities where the letter was to be sent. At the end of June 1944 lots of inhabitants of Berlin had been bombed out, including Kalk; and to be sure that this letter reached Kalk it was addressed by Haagen's office with the hope that it would be forwarded. It was, however, personal, as can be seen from the heading — "Dear Herr Kalk."

Q: In the second part of the same letter Haagen says that experiments on human beings were to be carried out. And he says — I may quote the last sentence:

Could you in your official position take the necessary steps to obtain the required experimental subjects?

I don't know what sort of subjects Gutzeit has at his disposal -whether they are soldiers or other people.

Now, that is a question whether Kalk, in his official capacity, through the Chief of the Luftwaffe Medical service could take steps to get experimental subjects for intended experiments on human beings. Did you ever know that such experiments were planned, or did you know that your office was taking any steps in this direction?

A: I have no direct personal knowledge of that. I have no idea whether Kalk did anything about this request. I can refer briefly to various testimony on the part of witnesses here — first, what Prof. Gutzeit said here; but, above, all, what the prosecution witness, Fraulein Edith Schmidt said here on the 9th of January 1947, page 3181 of the German record, on page 1378 of the English record. And this prosecution witness Edith Schmidt said, perfectly clearly, that no human being experiments were carried out regarding the experiments of hepatitis.

Q: Let me point out, in addition, that Professor Kalk has also given an affidavit that has some bearing on this. It is Schroeder Exhibit 15. A further question, witness. The prosecution on the 10th of December 1946 made the statement that Dr. Haagen was active at the institute in Strassbourg and that Haagen had received his orders from the defendant Becker-Freyseng. What can you say about this Institute, and regarding the fact that you are alleged to have given him orders in hepatitis research?

A: First of all, I knew of no Institute for Medical Research in Strassbourg. From Fraulein Edith Schmidt or Olga Eyer, I did hear in this court that there was in effect some such institute and that it was part of the medical department of the University of Strassbourg. However, since I was not dean of the Medical Department of the University of Strassbourg, I was not in a position to issue any order to this institute. Secondly, Haagen was director of the Hygiene Institute of Strassbourg and was not a member of this Medical Research Institute. Then, moreover, I couldn't and didn't give Haagen any orders.

Q: In this connection, Your Honors, let me draw your attention to an affidavit by Zuckschwerdt of 21 January 1947, which is in Schroeder Document Book 19, Page 61, Schroeder Exhibit No. 18. For the convenience of the Court, I have included this document in the Becker-Freyseng Document Book. I don't want to put it into evidence again nor give it an Exhibit number, but it is in the document book on page 142, in Document Book No. 2. Let me point out that Dr. Zuckschwerdt, in his affidavit, declared:

The Institute for Medical Research in Strassbourg, as an integral part of the University, came under the Dean of the Medical Faculty. The head of the Luftwaffe Medical Service had nothing to do with it.

In connection with the hepatitis research, Mr. President, I have also to put in evidence Becker-Freyseng Document No. 33 on page 143 of the Document Book No. 2. This is something to supplement Dr. Kalk's affidavit. It is the report on the journey made by Professor Kalk on 10 March 1945 in his capacity as consulting intern, which was submitted to the Chief of the Luftwaffe Medical Service and which tells what was done by the Luftwaffe in the field of hepatitis. This will be Exhibit 19. I do not wish to quote anything from the document, but should like to draw it to the attention of the Tribunal. This concludes my treatment of the hepatitis question.

Summing up, witness, I may say that this entire subject was unknown to you at the time, and you have pointed out that the prosecution witness, Edith Schmidt, has stated that there were no human being experiments in hepatitis research.

Have I summed you up correctly?

A: Yes.

Q: I turn now to another subject, the subject of typhus. You are charge, witness, with special responsibility for and participation in typhus experiments from December '41 to February '45, in Buchenwald and in Natzweiler concentration camps. You have heard the prosecution's case in this matter, witness, and consequently you know that the experiments were carried out in Buchenwald by Dr. Ding-Schuler, and according to the prosecution, by your co-defendant Dr. Hoven. The experiments in Natzweiler, on the other hand, are connected with the name of Professor Dr. Haagen and his associates. The prosecution kept these two subjects apart. I shall follow their example and ask you what connections exist between you and your referat in the Medical Inspectorate and the experiments in Buchenwald.

A: None.

Q: Did you know anything about these experiments?

A: Nothing about the experiments, nor about Buchenwald, nor about Ding-Schuler or Hoven.

Q: You have heard how Professor Rose, who was also charged with this matter, spoke of the Buchenwald question and his participation in it. Therefore. I need only ask you regarding this matter; during your activity in the Medical Inspectorate, did you know anything of this aspect of Dr. Rose's activities?

A: No. Let me remind you that Professor Rose stated here on the stand that everything that he had done or written in this connection was done in his capacity as a member of the Robert Koch Institute.

Q: I now turn to the experiments which Haagen is alleged, by the prosecution, to have carried out in Natzweiler. Haagen was an Oberstabsarzt of the Luftwaffe, and from the end of '43 on he was consulting hygienist in the air fleet "Middle." What did you know about Haagen and his work during the war?

A: Of his work, I knew nothing. When I took over the referat in May 1944, I found out that Professor Haagen had a research assignment on the production of typhus vaccine.

Theretofore, I had nothing to do with these research assignments, and Professor Rose was kind enough to corroborate this for me in the prosecution document NO-306, Exhibit No. 296. Page 47 of the English Document Book.

Q: Witness, you have already said that all research assignments had the file note 55, and that for the sake of keeping things straightened out in the files, they were all worked on by the referat for Aviation Medicine; but actually only research assignments that really concerned aviation were worked on by your referat, the other ones were turned over to the referents who were concerned in the fields which were involved in the specific research assignments, is that correct?

A: Yes, it is.

Q: Now, in point of fact, which Referat competent to handle research assignments involving typhus research? Who was the competent fellow?

A: That was the referent for vaccines, namely, the referent for hygiene.

Q: Then you Aid have a separate referat for hygiene in the Medical Inspectorate?

A: Yes.

Q: Now, witness, since this file note number plays such a large role in this trial, what was the file number for the referat for hygiene?

A: 49, with a few numbers after it.

Q: That is the same file number that you talked about in the cage of the freezing research?

A: Yes.

Q: You said previously that as assistant referent, you had nothing at all to do with working on research assignments and that you came in touch with the formal aspect of research assignments only when you took over the referat as referent, namely in May 1944. So from that time on, you did work on the formal aspect or research assignment didn't you?

A: Yes.

Q: Now, which referat took care of the factual part or aspect of the research assignments?

A: I don't believe a man is to be blamed if he is working in aviation medicine and doesn't happen to know very much about hygiene, and if he therefore sends the research assignments that concern those matters over to the referat for hygiene.

Q: Now in May '44, when you took over the referat, you first got in touch with Haagen in these research matters, what documents or data did you find when you first came in touch with these problems?

A: I assume that the way we did our business in the office is the same way everyone else did his; at any rate, in the referat I simply found a, few documents in the files including a list of research assignments. And the other files and documents were in the central filing office and were taken from the central filing office only when needed.

Q: The documents that refer to Haagen concerning typhus, did you ever see them, having taken them from the central filing office?

A: Once, I certainly saw them; namely, when in the autumn of 1944 I sent all these documents to the instruction research group at Jueterbog, and it's possible that I saw them some other time too. But since this is a field in which I really had nothing to do, I can't remember that.

Q: But perhaps you do know, witness, just what these documents consisted of that you had given to you by the central filing office?

A: Without being able to go into details, these were probably several applications from Haagen to have himself given a research assignment; perhaps a copy of the research assignment itself and probably one or more interim reports from Haagen on the course of the experimentation. That is at any rate what would normally be found among the files recording a research assignment.

Q: So you don't actually remember those documents for certain, do you witness?

A: No.

Q: Do you remember from these documents it could be seen how Haagen was working, to be concrete and specific, was there anything in these documents to the effect that Haagen, as the Prosecutor asserted, was carrying out any sort of work in Natzweiler?

A: I have no recollection of that but I consider it out of the question, and I am supported in my recollection here by one or two affidavits which are to be put in evidence later.

Q: Now, your personal relations with Professor Haagen were what, did you know him?

A: Yes.

Q: Can you tell us when you made his acquaintance?

A: It happens that I can do so very precisely, about the third or 4th of July 1944 in an express train between Heidelberg and Freiburg. I was in the company of my Chief, Professor Schroeder, and was going to a conference at the German Academy for Aviation Research which was to take place in Buechner's Institute, and Haagen was on the same train and Professor Schroeder introduced me to him.

Q: Did you meet him again personally after that, and if so when and under what circumstances?

A: I saw Haagen for the second time in the last days of July 1944. I even at this time ventured into the lion's den itself, and saw him in his institute at Strasbourg. I had other business in Strasbourg. I will state briefly what that was. Shortly there-to-fore I had taken over the medical sub-department of the medical institute of the Air Ministry which Dr. Benzinger had previously represented. A few research commissions had been given by this office to gentlemen in the Strasbourg university, including the assignment to the Pharmaceutical Institute of Strasbourg, Professor Schlemmer. This research assignment concerned the artificial production of coffein.

Since the office of the Medical Inspector had a conference planned for the end of August 1944 on pervitin, benzedrin and coffein, I wanted to talk with Professor Schlemmer in order to see just what this work he was doing was, and whether it would be a good idea for him to participate in the conference, and to read a paper on his work, and actually he did come to the conference.

Q: You said, witness, that you didn't go to Strasbourg to see Haagen, but that you did visit him in his institute; on this occasion did you discuss Haagen's research assignments with him?

A: When I submitted my request for a day trip to my departmental chief, I also asked whether I might visit Haagen to discuss a few questions with him, to-wit, the question of the experimental animals. Then I visited Haagen in his institute. He showed me through part of his institute and he showed me the animal brooding stations, which the witness Angistiniok has already described here. I discussed at great length with him what amount and what sorts of experimental animals he needed. I was immediately concerned with the question of experimental animals officially, because for our enormous research institutes, I had to concern myself with their current needs for experimental animals and consequently had close connections with the persons in charge of breeding and dealing with these experimental animals.

Q: Witness, do you remember what sort of experimental animals Haagen asked you for at that time, mice, guinea pigs, what were they?

A: Above all it was mice and rabbits.

Q: Haagen then asked you to procure some experimental animals for him; could you meet his request for him or what did you do about it?

A: A few days thereafter I spoke with a competent man of the Luftwaffe in this matter and I asked this Dr. Suchalla to himself get in touch with Haagen because Haagen had very specific questions about the quality and nature of these experimental animals.

DR.TIPP: Mr. President, in this context I propose to put in a document from Becker-Freyseng Document Book 4. I do not know whether that volume has yet come into the hands of the Tribunal.

In any event the Secretary General has the English translation of these documents and I should be glad if he would give copies to the court, the Prosecution and Interpreter.

MR. HARDY: I will concede, Your Honor, I looked on my desk at noon and it wasn't there, and I do not have the document book.

THE PRESIDENT: Has counsel for the Prosecution this document now going offered?

DR. TIPP: Perhaps the secretary General would be so kind as to give a copy also to the interpreters.

Then Mr. President, from this Document Book 4, if I may put in Document 61, from page 319 of the document book. This will be exhibit 20. This is in—

THE PRESIDENT: Has counsel for the Prosecution read this document?

MR. HARDY: No, Your Honor. He may put it in at this time and I will follow it by any objections.

DR. TIPP: Thank you. This is an affidavit by Dr. Harry Suchalla, that Dr. Becker just mentioned. It was drawn up in Welbert Rheinland, and is correctly certified, drawn up on the 18 of April 1947.

THE PRESIDENT: Will you give me once more the number of this exhibits I didn't have the document when you gave it.

DR. TIPP: Exhibit 20, Your Honor.

In numbers 1 and 2 the affidavit describes first of all Dr. Suchalla's clerical and professional activities. In No. 2 he says that he was commissioned with the scientific control of the production of all Luftwaffe rabbit breeding:

About 500,000 Angora rabbits were kept for the production of Angora wool and the Luftwaffe supplied approximately 200,000 animals, as test rabbits.

I quote from No. 3:

After I had worked with the military rank of signaller as scientific expert at the Luftgau [Air District] command Berlin from January 1942 to July 1943, I was transferred to the Luftwaffe medical service as a medical orderly first class in August 1943 and sent to the aviation medical institute, Berlin. At the same time I was ordered by the Supreme Command of the Luftwaffe, Chief of medical services, to develop the Luftwaffe's breeding facilities for rabbits and also to supply mice, rats, guinea pigs and dogs for experimental purposes. In connection with this official task I was in constant touch with the consulting Stabsarzt Professor Dr. Anthony at the Medical Inspectorate, section aviation medicine until approximately May 1944; after that time, Dr. Becker-Freyseng became my competent supervising authority in connection with my official work.

4. At the end of July 1944 I had a discussion with Dr. Becker-Freyseng during which he drew my special attention to the necessity of supplying mice which were wanted by Professor Haagen for the manufacture of a typhus vaccine and he asked me to speak to Professor Haagen personally in order to find out his special requirements. Dr. Becker-Freyseng had himself previously spoken to Professor Haagen of which he particularly informed me but nevertheless he considered it essential for professor Haagen and myself to be in direct contact side he himself had no special knowledge of the manufacture of vaccines and could therefore not answer my specific questions about the particular requirements in connection with the test animals. Since professor Haagen left Strasbourg as early as August 1944 because of the war events in the west, this personal contact came about only in January 1945 at Oberschreiberhau where Haagen had meanwhile again opened a laboratory.

My various conversations with Dr. Becker-Freyseng about this matter convinced e that even after he had been personally instructed by Professor Haagen, he knew only about Haagen's animal experiments.

I may say something about the rest of the Document, specifically No. 3, let me quote from it:

Since daring the war it became more and more difficult to obtain experimental animals, Dr. Becker-Freyseng discussed with me in the summer of 1944 new possibilities of supplying the institutes of the Luftwaffe despite these difficulties through own breeding stations. I made appropriate suggestions, which were supported most generously by all members of the office of the chief of medical services. I then was given two research orders by the chief of medical services of the Luftwaffe, Generaloberstabsarzt [Chief Medical Officer] Professor Schroeder, each to the value of 50,000 Reichsmarks. The first order was concerned with breeding certain strains of mice for the production of typhus vaccine, the second order referred to the building up of an experimental animal farm for all the usual test animals such as mice, rats, guinea rigs, rabbits, cents and dogs.

I believe that I need not read the rest of the document. It is correctly signed and certified.

Witness, in connection with the typhus research, it is necessary to discuss a few Prosecution documents with you from which the Prosecution, when presenting its case drew the conclusion that you worked with Haagen and that consequently you knew of Haagen's activities in Natzweiler. As the first document of this sort, I should like to put to you from document book 8, correction, document book 12, page 98, document No. 121, Exhibit 308. This is a letter from the high Command of the Luftwaffe, Chief of the medical service, file No, 55, secret code (11-2-a), dated 39 August 1944 from Zossen. It carries the designation of your Referat, namely 11-2-a and it is of the time when you yourself were the Referent. The Prosecution bases on this letter the charge that you were intimately acquainted with Haagen's work.

Now please take up this document point by point; did it originate with you, or did you work with it or on it?

A: I knew Paragraph I of this document. This paragraph I is a typical explanation of the work which was carried on in the Referat Aviation medicine, which bore no actual aviation medicine character. In other words, a research assignment which had a non-aviation medical character, and it was for this kind of work that my referat carried out the purely organizational tasks. Under Paragraph III you find the Referat budget. In that case, Haagen probably requested financial aid for his research work and I must have discussed this request with the Budget Referent who was competent for that kind of work. This Budget and Referent, of course, had no financial misgivings and consequently this directive was issued, according to which 24,000 Reichsmarks was placed at the disposal of this work. As to the other parts of this letter, I had no idea and I thought here for a considerable period of time what it could mean.

Q: In order to summarize the contents of the other paragraphs briefly, you will find that under No. II it states: no decision can yet be made for the establishment of a production plant for vaccines, since the chief of the Army medical Service has not yet made the final decision. Paragraph III is a question whether the typhus epidemic at Natzweiler is connected with the vaccine research. Paragraph IV points out that a report of 21 June 1944, in which the investigations at Natzweiler ere mentioned should have been sent as secret matter.

These no doubt were technical questions concerning the field of typhus, which you did not handle as you stated before.

On the other hand, that letter bears the number of your Referat, therefore originates from it; could you please explain, witness, how it is that these three points are mentioned in that very letter?

A: I happen to be in a position to clarify that. First let me point out that the installation for a vaccine production place and the report about an alleged typhus epidemic are both extremely important points, which of course cannot be handled by everybody, but must be handled by the competent official referent. In particular, the field of the report of epidemics plays a considerable part in every central agency. In addition, let me point out that Professor Rose in this witness stand has explained on 23 April 1917 on page 5385 of the German transcript, that upon his instigation this question, as mentioned in paragraph III, had been put to Haagen, and since Professor Rose was the consulting hygienist his suggestions naturally went to the Referat Hygiene and not to the Referat aviation medicine. This letter was sent on 29 August 1944. It was customary in our office, as everywhere else, that the date was inserted at the time the signature was written.

Q: In this connection, I may point out, Mr. President, that in the photostatic copy, which is before me, the dace is not written by typewriter but was inserted by ink or pencil. That means that whoever signed that letter at the same time inserted the date.

THE PRESIDENT: Did the counsel for the Prosecution see the signature of the letter?

DR. TIPP: I am afraid that I did not understand your question.

MR. HARDY: I have the original here, Your honor.

BY DR. TIPP:

Q: The signature reads Kahnt. Without having to ask the witness, I may be able to say Kahnt was the chief of staff at that time.

A: Well, this letter was presented on 29 August 1944 to the chief of staff for his signature and according to our office procedure had been dictated perhaps one or two days earlier by the Referent. I happen to know that during these days, the 27th the 28th and 29th of August, 1944, I was certainly not in the office, but was somewhere else.

Q: Mr. President, in that connection, let me offer from Document Book Becker-Freyseng No. 34. This can be found on page 150 of the document book, I shall give it the exhibit No. 21. It is an affidavit by Dr. Hans Denzer, it was made in Altenhundem on 18 March 1947. Let me quote from Paragraph I.

l) On 28 and 29 August 1944 a discussion took place in Castle Welkersdorf in Silesia between the directors of the German Institute for Aviation Medicine.

2) On the following day, 30 August 1944, according to a Goerlitz hotel bill lying before me, a medical-scientific discussion with a larger attendance took place in Goerlitz, Silesia, about 35 kilometers away. The subject for discussion was: 'Methods for Increasing Efficiency'.

3) As a colleague of Prof. Strughold and head of the 'Schloss Welkersdorf' branch of the Aviation medicine Research Institute, I was in charge of the accommodation and catering for the participants in the two above-mentioned discussions. Dr. Becker-Freyseng, who was then Aviation Medicine Consultant with the Chief of the Luftwaffe Medical Service's, conducted both discussions.

4) Dr. Becker-Freyseng arrived at the latest on 26 or 27 august 1944 in Welkersdorf, and did not leave it until one or two days after the conference in Goerlitz, which took place on 30 august 1944, that is to say on 1 or 2 September 1944.

There follows the signature of the witness and the certification by the Notary.

Witness this proves that at the time this letter was sent off, on 29 august 1944, you were not present in your office. On the other hand, you told us before that the Roman Numeral One (I) originates from you and I am referring to Document 131; can you tell us how this letter came about before it was submitted for Mr. Kahnt's signature?

A: The signature on any letter wherein a report is made about a financial matter could not be made by any departmental chief but only by the chief of staff and in many cases only by the chief of the medical service. This means that during the days of the 20th or so I must have submitted a letter to my departmental chief which would probably have corresponded to Paragraph 1 of the letter which is before us here. The departmental chief then kept this letter in order to in his turn submit it to the chief of staff.

Q: May I put an additional question to you in that connection, witness? This really simple letter was prepared for you ready for signature, wasn't it? You must have attached file notes and file index numbers, etc?

A: Yes, that was customary in the case of such letters.

Q: Well now continue to describe this document?

A: Everything else I only assume but I think my explanation is very probable. During the last few days another letter by the Hygiene Referent must have been submitted to the departmental chief, bearing the contents of roman II, III, and IV. Since all of these four points were addressed to the very same man, Professor Haagen in Strassbourg, and since in the final analysis all these four points concerned the same thing, namely typhus production, either the departmental chief or the chief of staff amalgamated these two separate letters and produced the letter which is before us now.

Q: The next letter, witness, is Haagen's reply. This is document of the Prosecution No. 132, Exhibit 310. This is in document volume 12 on page 99 of the English text. It is entitled:

Chief of Staff Surgeon, Oberstabsarzt Professor Dr. 3. Haagen, dated Strassburg, 19 September, 1944.

It bears the designation "secret" and is directed to the High Command of the Luftwaffe, Chief of the Medical Service. Do you know that letter?

A: I do not remember it. It is possible that I saw it. If I did I deduced no more than that there was a typhus epidemic in a village called Natzweiler about which I didn't know anything and that this epidemic was introduced from the outside.

In other words, this was a matter which did not concern me officially nor scientifically. I had nothing to so with any such reports and if this letter actually did come to my referat I would have had to add that this famous remark did not concern me and would have sent it to the Hygiene referent, but I think this is highly probable, that because all letters after all had to go over the departmental chief before they were distributed among the referents. The departmental chief, of course, knew exactly what his seven or eight referents were doing and certainly wouldn't have sent me such a letter as the referent for aviation medicine. He certainly wouldn't have sent me any report about a typhus epidemic of which he knew I had nothing at all to do.

Q: In order to summarize, witness, you are asserting you had nothing to do with typhus vaccines and typhus production?

A: At any rate not before this trial started.

Q: The Prosecution has submitted a document in this connection from which the representative of the prosecution has drawn a contrary conclusion. This is in document book 12 on page 86 of the English document book. It is document No. 302, and bears also Exhibit No. 302. As it becomes apparent from the signature it is a letter written by the Oberstabsarzt, Dr. Eugen Haagen, dated the 27 April 1944, and is directed to the minister of Aviation and Commander-in-Chief of the Luftwaffe, L In. 14, Saalow. Counsel for Prosecution when submitting this document on the 9 January 1947, on page 1349 of the English record, has stated the following and I may quote:

The next document 302, No. 302, which is being offered as Prosecution Exhibit 302, is a report by Haagen to the Commander in Chief of the Luftwaffe, dated 27 April 1944. It refers to a letter of the 8 January 1944. Here the Tribunal will see and will note code No. L In 14, 2-B, which at that time designated the office of the defendant Becker-Freyseng.

Accordingly, the prosecution thinks that this establishes the connection between you and the Haagen typhus experiments. What can you say about that? Is this conclusion on the part of the Prosecution correct?

A: This conclusion for many reasons is erroneous, firstly, on the 27 April 1944, Professor Anthony was still the referent. If there was any connection at all it would have been Anthony's office, but it wasn't even Anthony's office, because in reality the file reference number is completely different from ours. During my interrogations and also in my affidavit I explained exactly what the registration number was that belonged to the referat for aviation medicine.

Q: In order to simplify matters for the Tribunal I may point out that the code letters can be found in the affidavit which was made by the defendant on the 24 October 1946. This can be found in document book I, part I, correction, document book III, part I, regarding freezing on page 7 of the German and English text and bears the number 448, Exhibit No. 81. Now witness, would you please continue.

Q: I gladly admit that there is a certain difficulty regarding these numbers since the registration numbers have been subject to a double change. May I repeat briefly: the referat for aviation medicine before my entry in the autumn of 1941 until approximately the middle of 1943 bore the registration number 2, II.-B. Ever since the middle of 1943 until approximately April 1944 the entire agency only had a registration number consisting of two figures and the referat for aviation medicine was designated 2, which was all.

Then came the last designation, lasting from May, 1944, to May, 1945, which again was composed of three figures. And then the Referat for Aviation Medicine was 2 IIA. The corresponding Referat for Hygiene during these same periods was designated 2-1-B; then 2-B, and at the end again the designation of three figures 2-I-3. These two registration numbers which are found in Document No. 302, Prosecution Exhibit No. 302 once under "Reference" and the second time under "Subject" are in the first case 2B, which was the Referat designation for the Referat Hygiene, as of 3 January 1944. The second is the registration number 2-1-B, which is the registration number as of 25 June 1943. Both of these designations belong to the Referat Hygiene, and this is confirmed by two further points in that letter. At first you have the entire contents of the letter. All this is concerned with the production of vaccines from chicken eggs. I never understood anything about that matter and any such procedure was never worked upon within the Referat for Aviation Medicine.

The second point, which seems to correspond with the Referat designation for Hygiene is the file number. This file reference is mentioned twice, once under "Reference" and the second time under "Subject" We are concerned with the number 49rl2F. This, as I know now, but I consider something which I didn't know before, is the file reference for typhus. In order not to allow any more misunderstandings I may point out that this file number 49r12F belongs together. If it is separated skillfully and the two last letters or figures are separated from the rest of that reference, you will suddenly find the result of 2F, which in the meantime was the Referat for Aviation Medicine. I would like to correct this misunderstanding at this point, or I should say, the possibility for any such misunderstanding.

Q: In other words, what you are saying, witness, is that the Referat designation, the file reference 39 had nothing to do with the Referat for Aviation Medicine, just as little as the Referat designation IIB and IB. These were matters for the Referat Hygiene.

A: Correct. In addition, I may point out that there is not the slightest hint contained in that document that any experiment on s human being was contemplated. However, that isn't important in this connection.

Q: The file references which I just mentioned can be found in a number of other documents, and it can be assumed that the Prosecution, on the basis of these file references, intends to incriminate the defendant Becker-Freyseng with these documents. The first of these documents, again, can be found in Document Book No. 12 on Page 114 of the English Document Book. It is the document NO. 310, Prosecution Exhibit 318. The second document, bearing the same file reference, is also in Document Book No. 12, and it is document NO 130, Exhibit 319; Page 120 of the German and English document book. The first letter I mentioned is by Oberstabsarzt Dr. Haagen, consulting hygienist to Air Fleet Reich, and is addressed to the Air Fleet Physician Reich at Berlin-Dahlem. Mr. Haagen writes that he is enclosing the copy of a letter to the Reich Minister of Aviation and supreme commander of the Luftwaffe wherein he suggests the establishment of the typhus vaccine production center at the Hygiene Institute or Reich University at Strassbourg.

You have, already clarified, witness, that the file reference 49-r and the Referat reference 2-B which is contained in this letter has nothing whatsoever to do with the Referat for Aviation Medicine. In spite of all that, witness, let me ask you whether you at any time saw this letter, and can you perhaps tell me how any connection with an experiment on human beings can be established as a result of that letter?

A: This letter is a typical matter for the Hygiene Referat, and obviously deals with the establishment of a vaccine production center. The number of rooms for guinea pigs, sterilization rooms, packing rooms, are discussed and I can see no indication for any planned, executed, or intended experiments on human beings or experiments.

JUDGE SEBRING: Dr. Tipp, has your defendant stated for the record how many Referats there were in his department and the names of them or designations?

I don't recall.

DR. TIPP: I beg your pardon, Your Honor. The question doesn't seem to be quite clear. What I heard was that the defendant was to say how many Referats there were in his department. In this way the question is not intelligible.

JUDGE SEBRING: Did he not say this morning or yesterday, in making the distinction between Referent, Referat, and Abteilung [department] that there was a — that the Referat was, in effect, a sub-department? Isn't that what he said? Now then he has been continuously referring to the fact that this communication having to do with vaccines was not a matter for his Referat. Isn't that what he said? How many Referats were there in the Institute or in that phase of it?

DR. TIPP: May I clarify that matter briefly, Your Honor? The Medical Inspectorate had as its head the Chief of the Medical Services. Under him, in turn, there were two departmental chiefs, each of whom had one department — Each one of these departments could be subdivided into a number of Referats. Here we are concerned with the so-called first and second department. In addition to other Referats the second department included the Referat for Hygiene and the Referat for Aviation Medicine. The Referat in the Referat for Aviation Medicine was until 1944 Professor Anthony, and after him the witness Prof. Dr. Becker-Freyseng. Does that answer your question, Your Honor?

JUDGE SEBRING: Yes, I understand that. But then am I to understand when the witness Becker-Freyseng keeps remarking that these communications do not pertain to his Referat that he means by that that they did pertain to the only other Referat under the second department chief, to wit, the Hygiene Referat?

DR. TIPP: Yes. And to make it clear, in case the testimony didn't come through right, all those Referats which bore the number 49 referred to the Referat for Hygiene.

BY DR. TIPP:

Q: Witness, those theoretical discussions about the numbers of the various Referats, of course, aren't very pleasant, neither for the Tribunal nor for us, but I think they are somewhat necessary. Let us perhaps, cease speaking about Referats, but discuss the name of the particular Referent, for purposes of clarification. Could you tell us what referent, within the Medical Inspectorate, dealt with the matters which bore the number 49?

A: During my time it was a Stabsarzt (Captain in the Medical Corps), Atmer.

Q: In other words, Stabsarzt Atmer was the Referent for Hygiene?

A: Yes, that is true.

Q: Now I shall turn to the next document in this connection.

DR. TIPP: Mr. President, I am being reminded that I just misunderstood something. Perhaps I misunderstood Judge Sebring. I understood somebody to say that Judge Sebring asked how many Referats there were in the second department. Would Judge Sebring be good enough to tell me whether I misunderstood him?

JUDGE SEBRING: I didn't precisely say that, but you say there were only two?

DP. TIPP: I beg your pardon, Your Honor. There were two departments. The first was the Organizational Department, and the second was the Medical Department. This trial here is only concerned with the second department. The subdivisions of these departments were the Referats. Concerned here are the Referat Hygiene, under Stabsarzt Atmer; and the Referat for Aviation Medicine under Professor Anthony, later under Professor Becker-Freyseng. In addition, there were a number of other Referats in this department which, so far, have played no part in this trial.

THE WITNESS: According to my memory, there were eight Referats altogether in that department.

MR. HARDY: That answers my question, Your Honor. I had a question similar to Judge Sebring's in that I understood and I thought perhaps this was the reason why the Judge was asking: that question — that they mentioned yesterday some twenty or twenty-five referats. Maybe defense counsel could clear that up.

DR. TIPP: I certainly can. In the entire Medical Inspectorate — that is, in the first department and in the second department, plus Referat Budget, which was independent, plus Referat Pharmacy, which was independent too there were altogether twenty to twenty-five Referats.

I was allowed yesterday to submit a chart or a sketch about this entire organization, which would make the matter still easier.

BY DR. TIPP:

Q: Witness, let us turn to the next document in that connection which again bears the file reference 49, and the Referat designation 2-B. According to your description, this was a matter for Stasarzt [state doctor] at or, the Referent for Hygiene. This is Document NO-130, bearing the Exhibit No. 319, and can be found in Document Book No. XII, on page 120 of the German and English texts. It is a letter from Oberstasarzt Professor Dr. Haagen, who was the Consulting Physician to the Air Fleet Physician Reich. The title reads:

Report on the Successes with T.A.B. Chol. Vaccines.

In order to expedite matters, I may, perhaps, point out that I asked professor Hoering, who testified on behalf of Professor Rose, about this report on the 17th of April 1947. The corresponding replies of the witness can be found on page 6050 of the English record. Herr Hoering, at that time, stated that this document was a collective report of the consulting hygienist to the Air Fleet, which was compiled from the reports of the individual Air Fleet physicians.

It concerns their experiences with a new vaccine, which is the T.A.B. Chol. Vaccine.

In that connection, witness, may I ask you whether this opinion of Professor Hoering is correct?

A: I have no personal knowledge about this particular letter, and I am no hygienist. Since, as a member of the Luftwaffe, however, I was personally vaccinated with this vaccine, I can say what any internee or physician would say, that this is a very simple experience report on the application of a vaccine.

Q: In other words, this document has no connection with any experiments on human beings?

A: Certainly not.

DR. TIPP: In this entire problem, Mr. President, the question of file references plays a considerable part because, in the case of typhus, the Prosecution always referred the Tribunal to file references in order to prove the responsibility of Dr. Becker-Freyseng.

In Document Book No. II, on page 152, I inserted a document under the number 35, which I will give the Exhibit No. 22.

THE PRESIDENT: That is your Document Book No. II?

DR. TIPP: Yes, No. II.

THE PRESIDENT: On what page?

DR. TIPP: Page 152. This document will receive Exhibit No. 22. It is a directive for typhus and booster shots. Its heading is, and I quote:

The Reich Secretary for Aviation and Supreme Commander of the Luftwaffe, File Number 49r, 12F, No. 25969

— dating from the year 1942, (L In 14 2-I-B). It is dated 16 September 1942.

I am only submitting this document, Mr. President, because this shows very clearly that those file numbers do not refer to the Referat of Aviation Medicine.

One could hardly assert that typhus booster shots would be a matter for the Referat of aviation Medicine.

I shall not quote any part of this document, Your Honor. I shall now continue with the discussion of these documents, which I only have to do because of the Prosecution's continual reference to the defendant Dr. Becker-Freyseng.

BY DR. TIPP:

Q: Now, would you please turn to document NO-137, which is Exhibit 938? This is the request by Professor Haagen which was repeatedly mentioned — to the Director of the Reich University at Strasbourg, dated the 7th of October 1943. Counsel for the Prosecution, when dealing with typhus, said on the 9th of January 1944, on page 1387 of the English record the following:

THE PRESIDENT: What document is that?

DR. TIPP: Document NO-137.

Q: (Continuing): I shall quote counsel for the Prosecution:

On the next page we shall find a document which we have already submitted to the Tribunal. This is Prosecution Exhibit 189— as you may well remember, this is Haagen's report where he refers to the fact that this concerns the repeatedly mentioned urgent research assignment. I should like to draw your attention to the part which deals with typhus. Here we have the well-known code numbers and letters, 2-II-B, which is the office of Dr. Becker-Freyseng.

I think, witness, that this question of file reference has now been clarified, but would you please once more define your attitude towards this point?

A: In this connection I nay perhaps point out briefly that this letter originates from the 7th of October, 1943.

I, on the other hand, became the referent on the 15th of May 1944. If there was any connection with any one office it would be the office of Anthony. My general competence as to the handling of research assignments can be seen from Exhibit No. 136 of the Prosecution, the letter of Professor Rose to Professor Haagen of the 9th of June 1943, in Document Book XII, page 77 of the German book, and page 74 of the English.

Perhaps I nay also draw your attention to yet another little error. On the 9th of January 1947, on page 1397 of the German and page 1387 of the English record, counsel for the Prosecution stated, and I quote:

Professor Rose had knowledge about the activity and plans of the Chief of the Medical Department of the Research Institute belonging to the Luftwaffe. This was Anthony, whose deputy was Becker-Freyseng.

The Medical Department of the Research Institute of the Luftwaffe can only be the Referat of aviation Medicine, Referent Anthony, whoso assistant referent I was.

DR. TIPP: Mr. President, I have a number of further questions on this complex, which will take some considerable time. I think it would be expedient to adjourn at this time in order to conclude this matter tomorrow morning.

THE PRESIDENT: I call the attention of the Secretary General to an extra page from Document Book IV that was sent up here. Some other document might be short without that.

The Tribunal will now be in recess until 9:30 o'clock tomorrow morning.

(At 1530 hours, 21 May 1947, a recess was taken until 0930 hours, 22 May 1947.)