1947-06-19, #2: Doctors' Trial (late morning)

THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.

May it please your Honors, the defendant Porkorny having been excused by the Tribunal yesterday is now absent from the Court.

THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary General will note the absence of the defendant Porkorny pursuant to excuse by the Court on request of his counsel.

The Tribunal now desires to announce that the Tribunal will be in session all day Saturday of this week. Some time ago the Tribunal made an estimate of the time that would be necessary to finish the taking of testimony in this case. That estimate has now been exceeded and the end is not yet. The Prosecution informs us that they have five more witnesses to call in rebuttal, and the Tribunal, while feeling it necessary to expedite the taking of testimony, and while not desiring to hamper either the Prosecution or the Defense, the Tribunal will hear the witnesses who are offered, but it may even be necessary due to circumstances beyond anyone's control that the Tribunal will even proceed to hold night sessions, but in any event the Tribunal will be in session all day Saturday of this week for the usual hours, and preparations will be made to have luncheon served in the Courthouse as usual on ordinary court days.

Counsel may proceed.

DR. HAAGEN (Resumed)
DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued)

BY DR. TIPP:

Q: Professor, we come now to your final reports. In what form did you make these final reports?

A: I did not submit any specific final reports, but when the results seemed to be worth publication I submitted a manuscript for approval, and the contents of the manuscript were at the same time the final report.

Q: And how many manuscripts, that is, now many final reports were submitted by you, Professor?

A: As far as the typhus work was concerned, two manuscripts of that kind were submitted as final reports, one was published subsequently, that is, at the beginning of 1944, the other study, which concerned. vaccinations with the louse vaccine, was published at the end of 1944.

Q: And where were your papers published, Professor?

A: "Zentralblatt fuer Pathologie." (The Central Journal for Pathology).

Q: These papers have not yet been submitted in this trial, only various documents referring to them, witness. First of all the document of the Prosecution NO-128, Exhibit 307, that is in Document Book No. 12 on page 95 of the English and 97 of the German book. It is the letter with the heading: "Medical Academy of the Luftwaffe" Training Group Science and Research, 7 July, 1944, and it is signed by Oberstarzt [Colonel, Medical Corps.] Professor Dr. Luxenburger, Witness, from that document I should like to discuss merely one point with you, and that is the following: It is mentioned here, about the middle of the page, that one has to compare the results or vaccines with the average fever charts of the experimental on the one hand and the control persons on the other hand. May I ask you to tell us, you know the contents of your papers, what control persons are referred to in connection with that work?

A: That study contains the results of vaccination with a living virus, and the most essential point was the fever charts were attached to these manuscripts originally. They are charts of average figures which later, for reasons of saving space, had to be omitted. I should like to emphasize in this connection that the original author, the man who wrote this paper, put inoculation and infection or the same level.

Professor Rose has also already spoken about that point in detail. As far as the central subjects mentioned, are concerned, that is the one group of vaccinees who were only treated with the scarification method. I believe that is about the most important thing I want to mention in that connection.

Q: Now, witness, the main points in this connection could be soon from your study — that your vaccinations or experiments as we can read from this document were carried on in a concentration camp and on concentration camp inmates.

A: No, of concentration camps nothing was said here. The vaccinations, as I have said, were in connection with a typhus epidemic in a concentration camp, and there was a duty to keep such matters secret, as I have already pointed out. I may also refer to my publication where I mentioned vaccination in a unit in order to act according to instructions.

Q: The fact, therefore, that you had made vaccinations in concentration camps could not be seen from this study?

A: That could not be seen from it.

Q: Witness, then there is another document from which it can be seen that the Reichsfuehrer-SS, the SS Wirtschafts-Verwaltungshauptant [Economic and Administrative Principal] and, also the Institute for Military Scientific Research was to be mentioned in this study. That remark is in Document NO-129, Exhibit 308, page 97 of the English and 98 of the German Document Book. That remark might lead the reader of that study to believe that your research was in some connection with the SS or the administration of concentration camps.

Let me ask you, did your work, your study, have that notation already when it was submitted for approval for publication?

A: No, that can be seen beyond doubt from the dates. Document 128, which contains approval for publication of my study, was dated 7 July 1944, whereas the document just mentioned, where that passage can be found, dates from 10 July 1944. So that that footnote was added later because one couldn't help but comply with that request.

Q: In summarizing, Professor, may I say, therefore, that interim reports were made only at irregular intervals and did not contain any details regarding your work? Your final reports consisted in submission of scientific studies designed for publication? And from neither kind of report could one see that your work was conducted in a concentration camp, is that correct?

A: Yes, that is correct.

Q: Now, unfortunately, concerning those reports I have to put to you a witness testimony which does not entirely agree with your statement. That is the testimony of the witness Olga Eyer who was examined on 15 January 1947. Her testimony is on page 1761 of the German and 1759 of the English transcript. Could you tell us first what the position of Fraulein Eyer was in your institute?

A: Fraulein Eyer, as I have already said, was my secretary in the Hygienic Institute at Strasbourg and was entrusted with the care of my correspondence based on stenographic notes, as is usually the case. She sat in the anteroom before my office.

Q: That witness said here, Professor, that on your experiments at Natzweiler quarterly reports were sent to the Medical Inspectorate. She furthermore stated that from what could be seen from these reports fifty prisoners had been vaccinated with virulent typhus virus. Can you say any more, or tell us with whom you had correspondence by way of reports, etc.

A: I had to send reports only on my research assignments and that, as I have mentioned before, to the Reich Research Council and the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe, These were reports which I made in my capacity as a research man or director of the Hygienic Institute.

Then I also had to submit reports, beginning with the middle of 1943 particularly, in my capacity as Consulting Hygienist, to the Air Fleet Physician and those, as I have said already, were mostly reports on experiences which were passed on to the Medical Inspectorate. My correspondence, as you can imagine, was very extensive and it may be assumed that in fact every three months a report of some sort or other was made, either to the Medical Inspectorate or to the Reich Research Council. Considering the large number of assignments I had that was quite possible, but it is not correct that regularly every three months I reported to the Medical Inspectorate about vaccinations, because that was hardly possible, since altogether vaccinations were administered only twice — in May 1943 and in the winter, that is December 1943 to January 1944. It is incorrect that from any report it could have been seen that I had inoculated fifty prisoners with virulent typhus virus. The witness Eyer no doubt refers to the document previously discussed here, where I requested another 200 prisoners for vaccination, and where I mentioned the fifty control persons. That letter I dictated to her. I have also discussed that here already. The witness apparently from this request drew the conclusion which she presented here.

Q: Professor, the witness furthermore told us that from your report it appeared quite obvious that those experiments had been conducted on human beings, specifically on inmates of concentration camps. Could you say anything about that?

A: Yes, I have already elucidated this point, and reports are available; if the witness mentions my letter to Hirt, She is right, but I have to object to the expression "experiments on human beings" in the sense which is understood in this trial.

As far as reports to the Medical Inspectorate and the Reich Research Council go she is mistaken; or her recollection is not quite correct.

Q: You mean to say, Professor; that the witness confused your letter to Hirt with the reports to the Medical Inspectorate and the Reich Research Council?

A: Yes, I could not think of another explanation — that must be a mistake.

Q: In this connection may I refer the Tribunal to the fact that the witness Eyer in cross-examination — on page 1770 of the English transcript — was forced to withdraw in part her statement made in direct examination. She had to admit once that she did not understand much about the contents of these reports because she was not a specialist in that field. And she furthermore had to admit that as far as the contents of the report to the Medical Inspectorate are concerned she may have been mistaken, that she did not have exact knowledge about that.

Professor, there are two more points to clear up. First, your connection with Professor Hirt. You have already, if we may say so, explained what kind of correspondence you had with Dr. Hirt. Were you in any relation to Hirt? Did you work together with him in a scientific field? Did you participate in Hirt's experiments at Natzweiler?

A: I can say the following. Professor Hirt and myself were faculty colleagues. And our relations were of course those of colleagues. He was the expert on anatomy at the University of Strasbourg and I was the hygienist. That already shows that our fields of work were entirely different.

No close cooperation on any scientific or any similar field ever took place with Professor Hirt. In particular, we never made any scientific studies together at Natzweiler.

Q: Then you were at no time an assistant of Professor Hirt in his work, as the Prosecution alleges?

A: No, I was never an assistant of Hirt.

Q: The last point which still needs to be clarified is the question of the vaccinees, or, as the Prosecution calls them, the experimental subjects. You told us that the vaccinees were members of various nationalities. Now, we have had three witnesses here who said literally the same thing; that is to say, that these vaccinations in Schirmek were made only on Poles. That was stated by the witness Eyer, as well as by the witness Hirtz, and that statement is also contained in an affidavit by a Dr. Schuh of the 18th of November, 1946, and all three of these witnesses have testified that they protested to you against these experiments at Schirmek, and the assistant at that time, Dr. Graefe, had stated that there were no misgivings against this work because the experiments would not be conducted on human beings but on Poles. Could you say anything about the assertions of these three witnesses?

A: It seems to me quite impossible that these three people, at the same time or one at a time allegedly protested to me in almost the same words. I am of the opinion that the statements of these three witnesses were, in fact, put in their mouths for obvious reasons. A protest of that kind was never expressed to me, and I have never made a statement in such poor taste; that Poles were not human beings. I consider it quite impossible that Dr. Graefe said anything similar.

Q: The last question, witness, that is concerning the experimental subjects. That is to say, the vaccinees. You told us that your vaccinees at Schirmek were not volunteers. May I ask you, were your vaccinees at Natzweiler volunteers, and if they were not volunteers, why did you believe that you could waive the principle of their being volunteers?

A: In this case may I again refer to what I have described briefly before. The vaccinees were not volunteers. They were selected by the camp command, and the only influence I had in their selection was that I could stress the medical points of view.

That is to say, whether the persons selected to be vaccinated were healthy enough and whether their physical condition was such that they could be used for vaccinations, because other people I did not want, I could not use, and I was not supposed to use for vaccinations. As I have already explained, these were protective vaccinations which, first of all, were to protect the vaccinees themselves, and then also protect the rest of the inmates, and, in case of an epidemic, if the camp could have been vaccinated to a large extent it would have been a great advantage to the entire population, because you know that typhus is a highly contagious disease and hard to combat. These inoculations which were made within the scope of vaccinations which had already been ordered. There were many decrees in the German armed forces as well as with the civilian health offices that, in case of danger of an epidemic, a general vaccination should be carried out against that particular disease, and for the concentration camps there existed a special decree that, in case of danger of typhus epidemic, all inmates were to be vaccinated. These were the legal foundations which made these vaccinations possible. Furthermore, these were no longer experiments, but the practical introduction of a vaccine which already had been tested, within the scope of a general vaccination program. Besides, I should like to state that each inmate knew what danger typhus represented for his own life, and he certainly knew what grave consequences typhus would bring about for him personally. Therefore, had we asked the inmates whether they would volunteer for the vaccination, I am sure that we would have got not only the number required, but many more, but I did not have any more vaccine at my disposal. I believe also that in the face of the danger they would have accepted the reactions that I described. Furthermore, I conducted my vaccinations with the active assistance of the inmate physicians, and I am quite sure that they would have resisted the vaccinations if it had been some criminal undertaking; there were two inmate physicians of whom I can say that they certainly had high ethical standards.

One was a Professor Paulsen from Oslo. In summary of all the statements I have made about my work which are called experiments here, I may say: If this work is considered a criminal undertaking, then that can only have been due to lack of specific knowledge and ignorance of the true facts; once these questions have all been clarified, this assertion can no longer be maintained. I am firmly convinced that, on the basis of my statements, the true can be separated from the false, the good from the evil, and if I may say so, true science from false science; I, have attempted, in the twenty-five years of my being as scientist, to serve scientific truth only.

Q: I thank you.

Mr. President, I have no further questions to this witness.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Fritz for the defendant Rose may examine the witness.

BY DR. FRITZ (Defense counsel for the defendant Rose):

Q: Professor, due to the very detailed examination by my colleague, Dr. Tipp, a large portion of the questions which I intended to put to you are no longer necessary. Therefore, I should like to put only those questions to you which I have to put to you in the interests of my client Dr. Rose.

Then you were examined by Dr. Tipp, Professor, you stated that Professor visited you in Strasbourg in 1943. Was he frequently in Strasbourg?

A: Professor Rose was in Strasbourg once more. That was in the summer of 1944 or the spring of 1944.

Q: No further visits by Professor Rose took place?

A: No, no further visits took place.

Q: You mentioned in your direct examination the report — that is Document NO. 138, which is on page 84 of the document book #12 of the Prosecution.

A: 84?

Q: In the German Document Book, 82 in the English Document Book, Your Honor.

The report of the 21st of January 1944 to the President of the Reich Research Council. I have only one question concerning this report — whether it was also sent to the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe or to Professor Rose?

A: No, I do not recall that. That was a report which, in no way, concerned the Medical Inspectorate, only the Reich Research Council.

Q: Now, to come to another subject, Professor.

If you, according to your statement, did not carry out any infection with typhus virus pathogenic to humans, then, as a typhus specialist, you certainly know that such experiments were carried out. Part of the Indictment, for example, deals with experiments of that kind at Buchenwald. Were these Buchenwald experiments, of which you must know through the publication by Dr. Ding in the Journal for Hygiene and Infectious Diseases, the first of this kind in typhus research?

A: No, prior to that similar studies had been made. I believe I mentioned at least one study by the French scientist, Blanc, and in medical literature there are quite a number of articles concerning artificial infection of human beings. If you are interested, I may tell you the more important ones.

A: Yes, please do, Professor.

Q: There are two groups of studies. One, with the sole purpose, by artificial infection of human beings, to determine how the transmission of typhus takes place. They started a long time ago — these studies. The other group is the one where vaccinations took place and then the immunizing effect of these vaccinations was tested by subsequent infection with a virus pathogenic to humans. Of course, my list of medical literature is not complete. One may say there are several classical studies here. One by Jersin and Vasalle. Vasalle was one of the discoverers of the plague germ.

Q: Excuse me, Professor, may I ask you to distinguish between these two groups I have just mentioned?

A: Yes, yes. I will just speak about those made with artificial infections. One is from 1908 made by the two Frenchmen, where they tried transfer by human blood and even undertook a human passage. First an Indo-Chinese Coolie was infected with typhus blood, and as he became sick, his blood was transferred to a healthy person, and both became sick. If you are interested in the data of the literature, I can state them, but I think we can leave that out if you agree.

Then we have a second study by Otero from Mexico, who also infected a person by transferring typhus blood, and the person fell ill after eleven days. That study is from the year 1907.

Then there is a study by Sergeant Folli, and Violetta, which is concerned with the transfer of the disease by lice; infected lice were placed on healthy persons, or the crushed lice were injected into human beings in Algeria, and typhus was caused.

There is also a study by Veitano, who made the transfer by dog ticks, and another study by a Turkish Doctor, who used many experimental subjects and transferred the disease by transfer of the blood from diseased persons to healthy ones; he had quite a number of fatalities. Altogether 310 persons were infected with 174 cases of disease and 49 fatalities.

Then there is also an English study by Mitchell and Richardson, who also infected with typhus blood. Then a study by McCalla and Breritton, that is an American study, where the purpose was to determine the contagion of Rocky Mountain spotted fever by ticks. Rocky Mountain spotted fever is a variety of typhus.

The other study is to be mentioned by Sparrow and Lumbroso, who infected human beings by using infected brains of guinea pigs, but it only came to a mild disease.

They are the studies which are based on the artificial infection of human beings by pathogenic material. Then, in answering your question, the subject of subsequent infections after protective vaccination, there are various studies here, too.

I shall only mention the most important ones. In Mexico, a study by Sanchez Casco in 1932, who first vaccinated and then subsequently infected with a murine typhus virus; of eleven subjects so vaccinated, three fell ill with typical typhus. This author then states that three persons who had not previously been vaccinated were infected as control subjects, of whom only two fell ill.

Then there is the study by Vontemillas from 1939; here also, vaccinations were first carried out and then an infection was brought about with typhus rickettsia. Here also it came to an outbreak of the disease. Finally there is to be mentioned a study by Blanc and Baltazard, who inoculated several persons with a virus mixed with gall and thus attenuated. Subsequently they were infected with pathogenic virus to determine the degree of immunity. Non-vaccinated control persons were also infected.

Then there is another study to be mentioned, which belongs in the first group, either by Blanc or Baltazard, one or the other, I cannot say at the moment which one of the two. They also carried out a pure infection on four or five paralytics. Those are all the studies I know on the subject.

Then, concerning the question itself, the question of the experiments at Buchenwald, —

Q: Well, Professor, I am interested to know whether you as an expert can answer the question as to whether the experiments of Ding had any importance for the development of vaccines in the field of typhus research?

A: If I am to answer this question as an expert, then since these experiments are known, I would say the following. These comparative studies about the immunizing effect of various commercial killed typhus viruses had great practical value, because they made it possible to eliminate vaccines which are not effective, and doubtless by eliminating these less effective vaccines, many lives were doubtless saved in typhus epidemics.

These experiments confirmed the experience made in practice that with attenuated virus no anti-infectious effect could be achieved, but that the disease was merely made milder and fatalities reduced. That is about the answer I would give in making a statement as an expert.

Q: The final report then, did it also show the importance of the research work that you carried on in Strasbourg; that is that the use of killed virus would not protect against infection?

A: Yes, that is true, we made that observation during the war.

Q: Then, again I have to refer to your relations with Professor Rose and to ask you, were you ever in any form subordinate to the Consulting Hygienist of the Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe, that is to say, Professor Rose?

A: I was never subordinate in a military way to Professor Rose, who was Consulting Hygienist with the chief of the Medical Service. My office was an entirely different one. I was Consulting Hygienist with the Air Fleet Physician. That was my superior from the military point of view.

Q: Did you have to report to Professor Rose immediately; that is to say about your work as consultant or your work in carrying out research assignments?

A: My reports as consultant went to the Air Fleet Physician, as I have mentioned already, and then through channels to the Inspectorate. A direct report could not take place, because there was no subordination. Also as far as my scientific and research work was concerned there was no relation as between the subordinate and superior in any way.

Q: Then, may I assume that Professor Rose did not have to supervise the manner in which your research was carried out?

A: No, he did not have to do that in any manner.

Q: Was there frequent correspondence between you and Professor Rose?

A: No, it was not very extensive; I can remember possibly five or six letters.

Q: And that infrequent correspondence, as you may call it, was that of an offical or a scientific nature?

A: Well, it did not have an official nature; it was correspondence, I should like to say, between colleagues engaged in the same profession where matters of the same profession are discussed. That can be seen from the documents at hand.

Q: Did Professor Rose at any time visit the camps at Natzweiler and Schirmek?

A: Professor Rose was never in Schirmek or Natzweiler with me, and I never heard that he had ever been at either of these camps.

Q: One last question, Professor, which I should like you to answer in your capacity as a bacteriologist, because you have worked in that capacity for decades in this country and abroad; what do you know about international customs in cases where vaccines, germs, or disease carriers are transmitted?

A: It has always been the custom that institutes, government agencies and recognized scientists exchanged bacteriological materials which includes vaccines. On request the vaccine or bacteriological material was supplied free of cost, without inquiring what it was needed for, because one had to assume that scientific work was being carried out on which the person concerned would not give any information. It was the general practice for us in Germany to get material from America, England, France, Sweden, etc. Even during the war I received highly infectious material from France and Sweden — from Sweden for example, poliomyelitis virus, that is, infantile paralysis.

Q: Is it true, Professor, that a person who sends such material by sending it does not assume any responsibility for the type of work which the recipient carries out with that material?

A: That is correct, because if I send material from my institute to a reputable institute or scientist, the minute the material leaves my office and the other receives it I do not assume further responsibility for it.

DR. FRITZ: Thank you. Your Honor, I have no further questions.

THE PRESIDENT: If Dr. Nelte on behalf of the defendant Handloser has some questions he may proceed.

BY DR. NELTE:

Q: In the direct examination you have already told us that if in the fields of your research you had any requests to make you turned to the Reich Research Council or the Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe. Furthermore, you have stated, and I believe I do not have to put that in the form of a question, that reports on these experiments were sent by you to those offices from which you had received research assignments. Is that correct?

A: Yes, that is correct.

Q: In supplementing the questions concerning Professor Handloser, I should like to ask you, did you ever receive a research assignment from Professor Handloser as Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service?

A: I never received an assignment of that kind.

Q: Did you ever send a report to the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical service about experiments which you carried out for the Reich Research Council or the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe?

A: I believe I may say that such reports were never made, because direct reports which only concerned the Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe I could not have made to the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service. That would have had to go through official channels. Reports concerning research assignments from the Reich Research Council never went to Professor Handloser.

Q: Did Professor Handloser ever inspect your institute at Strasbourg?

A: No, that was never the case.

Q: My colleague, Dr. Tipp has already referred to the statements made by the witness Eyer, and quoted "that reports on experiments were to the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe, to the Reich Research Council, as wall as to an office of the Luftwaffe at Barlin-Dahlem." That statement, by Fraulein Eyer is Document 883, Exhibit 320, Now Fraulein Eyer adds literally, I quote:

I may add that I also had to send reports to the OKW.

When the witness was questioned in the witness box she could not state to what office of the OKW there reports allegedly sent. Nor could she state when these reports were sent to the OKW. Therefore, I ask you, did the OKW, that is apart now from the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service regularly receive copies of reports which you sent to the Reich Research Council or the Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe?

A: To the OKW, if you make that distinction, I had no connection whatsoever. There was no office where I could and should have reported. Apart from the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service, and in this case I have already said that this did not occur.

Q: To the question of hepatitis you have given us sufficient answers already, but concerning hepatitis I should like to ask you, at the conference on hepatitis in June 1944 at Breslau did anyone of the lecturers report on experiments on human beings within the scope of hepatitis research?

A: There were six or seven scientific reports, and not one of the gentlemen mentioned anything about experiments on human beings. I explained yesterday that in Germany I had not heard of any experiments of that kind. That of course also applied to the Breslau conference.

Q: Would you please tell me briefly what was the purpose of the "Arbeitsring" [Labor Ring] S formed at Breslau on the initiative of Professor Schreiber?

A: The purpose of these Arbeitsring study groups was that various specialists who were interested in the question of hepatitis got together, so that by this combined work positive results could be obtained more quickly and more easily. That system had proved itself in the case of my study group. I said that I worked with four or five gentlemen together, and in this manner we progressed very far and ver rapidly in the field of hepatitis research.

Q: Now, your work with Professor Dohmen, how about that, the short visit in Strasbourg, and the fact that he was not in Natzweiler; since it was already dealt with in the direct examination I believe I do not have to speak about that. On the 19 April 1944 you sent a memo to the Commander in Chief of the Luftwaffe, that is to say to the next superior officer to yourself, that is Exhibit 318, Document NO 310, which concerns the establishment of an institute to produce typhus vaccine connected with the Hygiene Institute of the University of Strasbourg; do you remember that memo and the events which lead up to it; it is in the Document Book, which you should have before you — on page 114, that is the German Document book.

A: Yes, I had already mentioned that the Luftwaffe intended to establish its own vaccine production, and that they had approached me for that purpose, with a request to establish that production site and to be in charge of it.

Q: How come the Luftwaffe was interested in the production of vaccines? You know, don't you, that the branches of the Wehrmacht could get vaccines from the main medical pool?

A: That is correct. The central distribution office for the Wehrmacht was the Central Medical Depot, but the amounts of vaccine that could be obtained were not large enough to cover the demand. Therefore there was always a shortage, and for that reason it was understandable that the Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe wanted to have an additional source, and the simplest thing, was of course, to establish its own production as the Army had done.

Q: Therefore, the fundamental reason was the effort of the Luftwaffe to become somewhat independent as far as priority or urgency was concerned from the distribution, that came from the other source?

A: That is right, particularly since there was still additional vaccine available from the quota which the Luftwaffe received from the main medical depot.

Q: If I understood you correctly in the direct examination, and if I remember a statement made by Prof. Rose, you were of the opinion that vaccine production, as such, in principle was not to have anything to do with your proper activities. Who, in your opinion, was intended to supervise the production of vaccines?

A: I have always emphasized that production is not the task of a research institute or a scientist, but that it is a matter for the vaccine industry, as for instance the Behring Works, or the Saxonian Serum Works.

Q: Then in your opinion the pharmaceutical industry was supposed to manufacture the necessary vaccines. Do you happen to know what Professor Handloser's opinion was on this point?

A: I could not tell you that. We did not happen to discuss that.

I do not know it. *

Q: There is another letter in Document Book 12, page 77, which has already been mentioned by my colleague Dr. Tipp. It is Document NO-306, Exhibit 296, and it is a letter from Professor Rose to you.

I have drafted a suggestion to the Inspector of the Luftwaffe on the basis of which I ask you to support the demand that typhus vaccine be manufactured in the East for the entire Wehrmacht.

What are the events which led to that letter?

A: As far as they concerned the Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe and the Wehrmacht, I do not know. I only know of this letter where Professor Rose informed me that the demand had been put to the Chief of the Medical Service of the Wehrmacht to have typhus vaccine manufactured for the entire Wehrmacht in the East.

Q: Was that suggestion realized?

A: No, it was never carried out, and I do not know how far it went at all between these two offices.

Q: You received neither a positive nor a negative decision?

A: That is correct.

Q: That correspondence from the year 1943 and 1944 which deals with the manufacture of typhus vaccine — did that have anything to do with typhus research as such?

A: No. One is a research assignment; the other would have been a production assignment.

Q: Who was your superior as Oberstabsarzt [Chief Medical Officer] of the Luftwaffe?

A: As I pointed out already, that was the Air Fleet Physician Reich.

Q: Was Professor Handloser as the Chief of the Medical Service of the Wehrmacht in a position to give you any orders?

A: No. As far as I know military channels, that was not possible.

Q: Now, if he had wanted to get some information about something which you might have been in a position to tell him, what would have been the right way for him to find out?

A: He had the choice between two methods, either through official channels through the Chief of the Medical Service of the Wehrmacht, Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe, and down to me, and I would have had to pass on this information through the same channels the other way around. The other method, which would be much simpler and would probably have been used, would have been for the Chief of the Medical Service of the Wehrmacht to have written to me:

My dear colleague, I would appreciate it if you could give me that and that information.

That is to say, simple correspondence between two colleagues, two doctors.

Q: Then officially he would have had to go through the Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe?

A: Yes, that is my opinion. Whether it is quite correct I do not know.

DR. NELTE: Thank you. I have no further questions to this witness.

THE PRESIDENT: Are there any other questions to be propounded to the witness by any defense counsel?

BY DR. WEISSGERBER (For the defendant Sievers):

Q: Professor, since when do you know Sievers?

A: I saw Sievers for the first time here in Nuernberg. That was in 1945-46.

Q: Then you never saw Sievers in your Hygiene Institute at Strasbourg?

A: No, never.

Q: Do you happen to be informed about the fact that Sievers was at the camp of Natzweiler while you carried out your typhus vaccinations there?

A: No, I know nothing about that. At any rate, I never saw Sievers at Natzweiler.

Q: Did you ever send a report on your research work either to Sievers or to the Ahnenerbe [Ancestral Heritage] Society or to the Institute for Military Scientific Research?

A: Only the letters discussed here to Hirt, and Hirt on his part may have passed on these letters or made reports or included them in reports of his own, but as far as I was concerned, I never made any report to the Ahnenerbe or to Sievers personally.

Q: Who put the rooms and equipment at your disposal for your vaccination work at Natzweiler? Did these requests go through Sievers?

A: Well, special rooms or equipment were not put at my disposal. The vaccinations were administered in the hospital where the vaccines were quartered at that time.

Q: In answering a question put by my colleague Tipp, you have already stated that to carry out the typhus vaccinations you requested inmates as vaccinees. Now I should like to find out whom you approached for that.

A: I have already stated yesterday that these vaccinations were based on discussions which had taken place between the camp commandant and myself, that originally there had been no intention of having any other agency concerned in them, but that Hirt, when he heard about it, considered it necessary, since this was a new type of vaccination, to request special approval for it, and that started the entire correspondence.

Q: You also mentioned the reports on your work which you sent to the Reich Research Council. To whom were these reports addressed, as far as they went to the Reich Research Council?

A: The Reich Research Council.

Q: But did they go to the head of the specialized department (Fachspartenleiter), for instance to Generalarzt [General Physician] Schreiber, or what do you know about the way the correspondence was received there?

A: For years I had the habit of sending my reports to an administrative official whom I knew for many years, that was a Dr. Breuer, and he probably forwarded them to the official in charge of that particular subject; I assume that Dr. Breuer might have taken my reports together with others and given them to Schreiber, or whoever was dealing with that matter.

Q: Concerning the typhus vaccinations, may I then sum up that Sievers was of no importance as far as the execution of these experiments was concerned, and also as to the typhus research itself, and had no connection with it as far as you know?

A: With the work itself Sievers had nothing to do, of course, and as far as I understand it, Sievers only passed on my application with a recommendation. I believe there is a letter to me where Sievers informs me that he has passed on my request.

Q: The prosecution has submitted a Document NO 881, Exhibit 280. That is an affidavit by Rene Colomba Wagner, who was a scientific draftsman with Professor Hirt in Strasbourg. In this affidavit Wagner speaks of Sievers as being the superior of professor Hirt and says literally, and I quote:

Sievers was frequently in Strasbourg and was informed about the facts mentioned below. He received regular reports on all work conducted by Professor Hirt at the University of Strasbourg, and through Hirt he was also always informed about the work done by Professor Haagen. I myself frequently saw Sievers at Strasbourg in Hirt's office where I worked.

You were also a professor at the University of Strasbourg, were you not, and a colleague of Professor Hirt, as you have explained today? From your work at Strasbourg do you know that Sievers was the superior of Hirt, or did Hirt in conversation with you Speak of Sievers as his superior?

A: In his position as a professor and director of the Anatomical Institute Professor Hirt could not have been subordinate to Sievers.

Q: Did you know Hirt's office in the Anatomical Institute?

A: Yes, I did.

Q: Did you ever meet this Wagner there?

A: I cannot remember ever having seen him.

Q: Suppose you went to a conference in Hirt's office. Could Wagner find out about that?

A: Surely. Yes.

Q: Do you know where Wagner's room was?

A: No, I do not know that. But it is possible, of course, that one met in the corridor. That is not excluded. That is quite possible.

Q: By coincidence.

A: Yes, by coincidence, of course.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, how many more questions have you to propound to the witness?

DR. WEISSGERBER: I have approximately four or five questions, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now be in recess until one-thirty.

(A recess was taken until 1330 hours.)