1947-06-19, #4: Doctors' Trial (late afternoon)
THE MARSHALL: The Tribunal is main in session.
EUGEN HAAGEN — Resumed
CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued)
BY MR. MCHANEY:
Q: Document No. 3450, the Statement of Expenditures in connection with the Influenza Research Assignment by Haagen will be marked for identification as Prosecution Exhibit No. 519.
Professor, you testified that you know nothing about Hirt's gas experiments or Bickenbach's gas experiments; is that right?
A: That is correct.
Q: Did you ever carry out any gas experiments?
A: I have never carried out any such experiments.
Q: The affiant Schuh in Document No. 885, Prosecution Exhibit 314, which you have already read, states in paragraph 7 that he learned from Meyer that Haagen together with Professor Hirt made some trials of combat gas — Lost — in Natzweiler on Jewish prisoners; do you deny that?
A: Yes, I have to deny it because such trials were never made by me.
Q: Then you know nothing about any such trials, whether made by you or other persons?
A: I did not know anything about such trials.
Q: You don't know that Hirt was interested in gas at all; is that right?
A: At that time I did not know it.
Q: Did you have any information about the work of Hirt at Strasbourg?
A: I knew very little about what Hirt did in his institute.
Q: You did not hold any faculty meetings in Strasbourg?
A: Yes, we had those in the same manner as in any university.
Q: It was my understanding that at other universities they discuss one another's work and pretty generally are advised on the work of their colleagues; that was not true at Strasbourg?
A: I do not believe that each individual professor speaks about his work with his colleagues; that is not only the case in Strasbourg but at all universities and I assume that Professor Hirt had reasons why he did not speak about his work.
Q: Well, I can appreciate that. He probably would not have spoken about his gas experiments on inmates at Natzweiler to an ordinary person, but on the other hand it occurred to me that it might be possible, if not probable that a man who himself went to Hirt to have concentration camp inmates made available to him for experiments might know something about Hirt's experiments on concentration camp inmates too, but you say that is not so?
A: I am sorry, but I have to say again that Hirt had not told me anything about his work.
Q: You may have noticed that the affiant Wagner in Document No. 881, Prosecution Exhibit 280, says in paragraph 2:
For Professor Haagen, I had to make a chart of about 2 x 1 meters, on which were listed the various combat gasses with their chemical formulas, and which gave indication on the dangers that men could encounter. I have deducted that experiments had been made on human beings.
Do you know anything about that?
DR. TIPP: May I ask that the Document be also shown to the witness and that it be put to him. That has always been done and I know Professor Haagen does not have the document in front of him right now.
THE PRESIDENT: It seems that the document should possibly be submitted to the witness.
MR. McHANEY: I can submit it to him in English, I understand he reads English. I do not have it in German. I understand he has been shown the document by Wagner as I understand that he is here. You read English, don't you, Professor?
THE WITNESS: Yes, I do.
BY MR. McHANEY:
Q: You will find this under paragraph 8. Did you read the paragraph?
A: Yes, I have seen it. Wagner writes here that he drew up a chart for me and that he was told to draw up a 2 x 1 meter chart where various combat gasses with their formulas were given and also indications of the danger which human beings would encounter. He concluded from that the experiments on human beings had been made.
I personally do not know anything about a chart or a table of that kind.
I can not recall that I ever gave Wagner an assignment of that nature and in my lecture I never spoke about gas, combat gasses, so that I can not imagine today that I should ever have given an assignment for a chart of that kind. I mentioned before that I did not know Wagner.
Q: Then you deny Wagner's statement is true, is that right?
A: Well, I cannot remember ever having ordered a chart of that kind.
Q: If you ordered a chart which concerned gas warfare and experiments on human beings, you would remember it, wouldn't you, Professor?
A: I certainly would remember it, of course.
Q: So you must testify that Wagner was not telling the truth in his affidavit, mustn't you?
A: Certainly, certainly, because I knew nothing of that chart.
Q: I just want to make the record clear about your position. I don't want to have the record show that you might have forgotten this. Wagner knew you as distinguished from Hirt. He wouldn't confuse you with Hirt?
A: But one would have to assume that I should remember a man like Wagner if I had given him an assignment.
Q: I was asking whether Wagner could possibly have made any mistake as between you and Hirth. That is not very likely, is it?
A: I don't know, but I have seen from other passages of the transcript that I was carried there as an assistant of Hirt's, so it is possible that there may be a mistake of that kind.
Q: Well, Professor, I don't want to argue with you about these Lost gas experiments, but on the other hand I want you to be advised so that you can make statements now that Mr. Mollis, whom you say you do not remember, that he was an inmate in Natzweiler, and it says he was assigned to you as an assistant in 1944. Pardon me, that is incorrect. I am speaking of another witness now. He says that you supervised autopsies of persons who had been killed in these poison gas experiments in Natzweiler in the early part of 1944.
THE PRESIDENT: Whom are you referring to, counsel? Whom does "he" refer to?
MR. McHANEY: Mollis, Your Honors. Pardon me. Now let me get this straight. Let's go to the witness Boegars first.
DR. TIPP: May it please the Tribunal. Mr. McHaney refers apparently to a statement made by the witness. In the witness' testimony, I cannot remember that a testimony of this kind had been introduced in this trial up to now. So far it has been the custom that such documents could only be used in the cross examination if they had been submitted previously. Perhaps Mr. McHaney will be kind enough to submit the document to us before he discusses it with the witness.
MR. McHANEY: If the Tribunal please, the prosecution is rather in the middle. I suppose that if we call witnesses, which we certainly intend to do, to testify about Haagen's activities in Natzweiler, and they testify about his Lost gas activities, there that then the defense counsel will complain that Haagen should be recalled and be given an opportunity to answer that. Now I am anticipating that certain witnesses whom we have interviewed will testify concerning Lost gas experiments with which this witness was allegedly connected. Now if he wants to say that is impossible, that he never had anything to do with Lost gas experiments, we can go on.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel merely requested that the document which the prosecution was referring to be exhibited to him. That is as far as his request went.
MR. McHANEY: We have no document, Your Honor, of any probative value whatever. We have a little memorandum here made by a person who interviewed these witnesses.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal was not aware of what memorandum you had.
DR. TIPP: Mr. President, may I also emphasize the following: Mr. Hardy asserts here that Haagen had made experiments with Lost gas and he wants to question him on that. He could do that if Haagen were a defendant here, but Haagen, as far as I remember, is a witness specifically, a witness for Schroeder and Becker-Freyseng.
Up to now the prosecution has never asserted — it is not to be found in the Indictment or in the presentation of evidence — that Becker-Freyseng and Schroeder participated in Lost gas experiments. I do not know, therefore, against whom the prosecution wants to submit this evidence on Lost gas experiments. In my opinion, a witness can only be heard on matters for which he can be a witness and which are included in the Indictment. That is not the case here. The Lost gas experiments, at any rate, have not been presented as evidence against Schroeder and Becker-Freyseng. Therefore, one cannot speak of a responsibility for experiments which allegedly the witness carried on. I do not know where this is going to lead to. If the prosecution wants to extend that parts of the Indictment against Becker-Freyseng, maybe he can hear Haagen as a witness on this point; but at any rate there must be an assertion by the prosecution first, otherwise we will experience the same thing as in the case of the Wittenau experiments, which have also been mentioned by the witness here. When Mr. Hardy was asked by Judge Sebring whether he includes these experiments in the Indictment, he said, No, that wasn't so. The same applies, in my opinion, to the Lost experiments. They are not a subject in the Indictment — at any rate, not against Schroeder and Becker-Freyseng — and I do not know in fact what intentions Mr. McHaney has: what he wants to prove by questioning the witness on that point as far as this trial and these defendants are concerned.
MR. McHANEY: I have two very valid, purposes in directing these questions to the witness. In the first place, I think that if I can contradict and show that he did participate in the Lost gas experiments, it might have some affect on his credibility with respect to the typhus experiments; in the second place, if we can show that the Luftwaffe through Haagen, and as we have already shown through the Stabsarzt [Staff Surgeon] Wimmer, participated in these Lost gas experiments, we will certainly use them for any purpose against any of the defendants in the dock which are permitted by the Indictment.
We would certainly use it for whatever it's worth.
THE PRESIDENT: On cross examination, counsel may test the credibility of the witness. In this case, of course, if questions propounded by the prosecution to the witness, if answering those questions would tend to incriminate the witness in any way, the witness can refuse to answer. But the cross examination has not gone beyond the field of proper cross examination. Counsel may proceed. Counsel in propounding certain of these questions should put them in the hypothetical form; say, if the witness says this about a certain matter, calling it to his attention if that would be correct or incorrect. Counsel may proceed.
BY MR. McHANEY:
Q: Witness, did you or did you not witness the performance of any autopsies on experimental subjects killed during the course of gas experiments at Natzweiler?
A: I never witnesses that.
Q: You do remember the name Georges Boegarts as being an inmate surgeon at Natzweiler, is that right?
A: Yes, I remember.
Q: You know nothing of any autopsies performed by Boegarts, is that right?
A: Of these autopsies, I knew nothing.
Q: And you were not interested in the fact that the lungs of the victims were so swollen that the anterior triangle of the heart, which is usually not covered by the lungs, was completely covered and obliterated by the swollen lungs in this case? You know nothing about that?
A: No, I know nothing about that.
Q: You spoke of typhus epidemics in Auschwitz. What information do you have about any such epidemics?
A: Information of that kind we received, for instance, through inmates who came from Auschwitz and had already fallen ill from typhus when they arrived at Natzweiler.
Q: When did you speak to these inmates?
A: On the occasion of my visit to the camps, I spoke to the inmate physicians and they told me that inmate prisoners had arrived from Auschwitz and other camps already ill.
Q: Do you remember the month this was?
A: Well, the first case of typhus in my recollection was in February or March 1944.
Q: So your information is based upon what the inmate doctors told you about what happened in Auschwitz?
A: I saw the patients.
Q: The was the camp commander in Natzweiler in 1943?
A: In 1943? that was Hauptsturmfuehrer [Captain] Kramer who was camp commandant.
Q: How long did he remain there?
A: The exact date I could not tell you. I assume that was spring '44. It must have been spring '44 when a new camp commandant was assigned.
Q: What was his name?
A: His name was Hartgenstein.
Q: Who was the camp commander at Schirmeck?
A: That was Hauptsturmfuehrer Buck.
Q: And how long did he stay there, to your knowledge?
A: That I could not tell you with any certainty how long he stayed there; at any rate, when vaccinations against typhus and against influenza were made — that was in 1943 — at that time he was camp commander. For how long and whether he was still there in '44, I could not tell you.
Q: Who was the camp doctor at Schirmek?
A: In Schirmek itself there was, to the best of my knowledge, no camp physician but the medical care was administered by the camp physicians of Natzweiler.
Q: Who was the camp physician at Natzweiler?
A: There were three, in sequence, I met three of them. One was a Dr. Krieger, then Dr. Platzer and the third was a Dr. Rode. Those were the three physicians I met.
Q: Did all these gentlemen impress you as good, honest men?
A: Well, I did not notice anything in particular when I was there.
Q: What sort of a man did Kramer impress you as being?
A: Well, I did not come to know Kramer very intimately. We only had conversations on the combatting of typhus so I should not like to pass any judgment on Kramer because my knowledge of his character is too slight — too limited.
Q: Was it Kramer who invited you to go to Schirmek?
A: It was Kramer, yes, who came to me.
Q: And when was that, to the best of your recollection?
A: In the course of the year 1943.
Q: And he told you that he was afraid of a typhus epidemic?
A: I think that was on the initiative of the camp physician. The camp physician had explained the situation to Kramer. I do not know the background but at any rate both gentlemen came to see me and asked me for my support.
Q: And you were admitted to Schirmek on the order of Kramer?
A: To Schirmek? On order? Well, one could not speak of giving an order. Hauptsturmfuehrer Buck just let me in.
Q: Was there any contact with Berlin in connection with your work in the camp?
A: No, no. I personally had no contact with Berlin.
Q: Well, you testified about the WVHA yesterday. It occurs to me that you have a pretty good working knowledge of the concentration camp system.
Did you ever have any contact with the W.V.H.A.?
A: I had no immediate contact. The correspondence went via Hirt.
Q: And where did Hirt pass it on? It went to the defendant Sievers then?
A: I think so. He intended to go to Sievers. Sievers gave me the information later that I would get the approval to carry on with vaccinations.
Q: And Sievers sent it to Pohl of the W.V.H.A. — is that right?
A: Well, these connections within the SS I do not know. I am not informed about them.
Q: Did you ever have any contact with Lolling, in Amtsgruppe [Office Group] D of the W.V.H.A.? Dr. Lolling was the chief doctor.
A: I met Dr. Lolling once, in the summer of 1944, on the occasion of the epidemic at Natzweiler. That is —
Q: Was it customary, so far as you know, for camp commanders, like Kramer, to go out in the surrounding villages and towns and solicit the aid of people there in connection with the problems in the camp?
A: I do not know how I am to understand that question.
Q: We will pass that. You say the typhus vaccine you tested in Schirmek in 1943 was a murine typhus vaccine?
A: Yes.
Q: And that, as we laymen understand it, murine typhus is rat typhus — that is right, isn't it?
A: Yes, rat typhus, yes.
Q: And that is not quite so dangerous as the so-called louse typhus or the Rickettsia prowazeki virus, is it?
A: Well, I believe that it is very difficult to determine or decide that; both are varieties of typhus, the rat typhus as well as the louse typhus. There are others but whether rat typhus is milder I do not know. There are statements to that effect in medical literature but there are also very serious vases of rat typhus so I think that it is quite difficult to decide or determine that.
Both are varieties of typhus.
Q: And this murine typhus vaccine had an attenuated avirulent virus, did it not?
A: That vaccine contains, if it is living, an attenuated virus, virulent virus, which is no longer pathogenic to human beings.
Q: Do I understand that you regard the word avirulent virus as designating a dead virus or merely a weakened live virus?
A: Any dead virus is avirulent and every live virus which still has any effect, is virulent.
Q: So that it would be incorrect to speak of an attenuated avirulent virus — is that right?
A: It is not logic but some laymen, non-specialists, put them on the same level, that is, avirulent and dead virus. At any rate, it is correct, if one speaks of a live virus to consider it virulent and then to make the distinction to determine whether it is pathogenic to human beings or not.
Q: Well, maybe I misunderstood, but I thought that the defendant Rose spoke for three or four days and used the term "attenuated avirulent virus" and I certainly did not understand him to be using the word avirulent as designating a dead vaccine. Perhaps we can check the record and establish that. Did you read the record of Rose's testimony?
A: Yes, I have read the record of his testimony but I should like to have it put to me again if it should become subject to discussion.
Q: Well, it is not necessarily an important point but did you notice, when you were reading, that Rose used the phrase"attenuated avirulent virus"?
A: Yes, I read that.
Q: Do you feel that the defendant Rose made a grievous mistake there?
A: Well, it is an inaccuracy, but even today we find studies were the term "avirulent" is used in the same meaning as harmless — not dangerous.
Q: Of course, it makes your documents look a little bit nicer if we follow your definition, doesn't it, that a virulent virus does not necessarily mean anything except a living virus and it might be attenuated or might be regarded by Rose and the rest of us up to now as an attenuated avirulent virus?
A: Well, maybe I can explain that again. As long as the virus is alive and active it is virulent; but we have to examine its effect in connection with the species where it causes a disease. A virulent virus may be highly pathogenic for animals but not for human beings. Then we have a virus which is not pathogenic to human beings but virulent and we find that designation also in other countries.
Q: Now, you state that before you went to Schirmek you tested this murine virulent vaccine on yourself and members of your institute, is that right?
A: I did not try it out on myself. I tried out the prowazeki virus on myself; I stated that yesterday. There were other members of the institute who were inoculated with that vaccine. I inoculated myself with prowazeki virus and, unfortunately, it is only possible to carry out one vaccination if one wants to obtain results, because two vaccinations, of course, would have disturbing effects on each other because the first vaccination is supposed to create immunization. But I had vaccinated a number of volunteers — five or six volunteers.
Q: With this murine virulent vaccine?
A: With that murine virulent vaccine.
Q: How many people?
A: There were eight altogether, I believe, eight persons.
Q: Well, did that satisfy— What was the purpose of this vaccination of these eight people? Were you testing merely for compatibility?
A: That was the test for compatibility which always previously had been made.
Q: Did you make a Weil-Felix reaction test?
A: The Weil-Felix reaction test was also made.
Q: Well, was there— Did you go to Schirmek then to inoculate these other persons — vaccinate them with any view in mind of studying further this typhus vaccine, or were you satisfied that it was all right as a result of your eight experiments or vaccinations on persons in your institute?
A: Well, it was sufficient, in order to gain an impression on the compatibility, if one vaccinated eight persons for that purpose it was entirely sufficient, and practice afterwards proved it.
Q: Well, did you expect to get any valuable scientific data as a result of the vaccinations on the inmates at Schirmek?
A: Well, that question could be answered in the affirmative, but a large amount of experience was available already in other places experiences with these vaccines. I have yesterday already spoken about vaccinations with these vaccines. Such experiences had already been gained by French researchers.
Q: Well, we can say than that the real purpose of your going to Schirmeck was simply to accommodate the came commander Kramer, who was worrying about a possible typhus epidemic?
A: The camp commander certainly worried but I myself was worrying a great deal more because every typhus epidemic in a camp constitutes a danger to the civilian population in the vicinity of the camp.
Q: That is the reason you went to Schirmeck?
A: That is the reason I went to Schirmeck.
Q: Now, how did you determine the efficacy of this murine typhus vaccine?
A: By applying the Weil-Felix reaction test.
Q: And you did that, both on your volunteers and the persons at— Schirmeck, is that right?
A: It was done in the case of all these vaccinated, regularly.
Q: Well, did that give you a reliable and definite result of the effectiveness of this murine typhus vaccine?
A: That is not quite so easy to say, what it will give us we will gain an idea of the effect of this living virus compared to the effect of a dead murine virus. The aggenbinations tita which we obtain with the dead virus are limited and serological examinations of the sera of people vaccinated have shown that the murine live vaccine leads to much better results. The tita values in the sera of those who are vaccinated with live virus are much higher than those who have been vaccinated with dead virus.
Q: Well did you in any way test this murine vaccine as to its anti-infectious effect other than by running the Weil-Felix reaction test?
A: No, that we also further examined in animal experiments whether that vaccine had an anti-infectious effect. That can easily been seen in animal experiments.
Q: What other anti-infectious experiments could you have carried out on this murine vaccine?
A: Well, I believe that is a hypothetical question which I can only answer with a hypothetical answer. The first possibility, of course, is the one which was used, was applied, by the French researches who vaccinated these persons first and then subjected them to artificial infection, a regular artificial infection. We find statements in medical literature to prove that.
The second possibility is to wait until an epidemic breaks out. If the persons vaccinated remain healthy, while during a large epidemic many people fall ill in the immediate vicinity, one can conclude that there is a good anti-infectious protection.
The third possibility is the one which I have described yesterday already, that of comparative serological examination. I don't know whether you were here yesterday when it was mentioned. I would be quite willing to explain it once more. Do you want me to do that?
Q: Well, I am not sure. Is this something different from the Weil-Felix reaction?
A: It is the Weil-Felix reaction which is carried out, before and after a subsequent vaccination.
Q: But you did or did not do that in connection with the murine vaccine?
A: I mentioned already that is a hypothetical question which I can only answer hypothetically. I did not do that.
Q: Why not?
A: In these cases it did not seem necessary.
Q: In other words, the third type of test which you put is the vaccination plus post vaccination. You explained the words "subsequent infection" in some of the documents later on in November and December 1943?
A: Yes.
Q: You explain the words "subsequent infection" by stating that in fact it was a post or second vaccination.
A: It was a third vaccination. The subjects were vaccinated twice.
That concluded the immunization. The third, the additional vaccination, served the purpose to prove the immunity which was caused by the protective vaccinations and I had no misgivings to use the word "infect" instead of "vaccinate." We find that also in medical literature, that both words are used to express the same and I already set forth that any vaccination with a live virus an infection [illegible].
Q: Well, would I be living a proper example if I say that really what you meant was like vaccinating a man with a small pox vaccine and then, say two months later, giving him another small pox vaccine which doesn't take and you therefore conclude that he has been immunized against small pox? Is that right?
A: That question, Mr. Prosecutor—may I formulate it slightly different so that I should be in position to answer it? In the case of this research we are concerned with the serological reaction, not a physical reaction. That is to say, I vaccinate with small pox, then a certain degree of immunity is achieved, and the second vaccination does not take. That is what you meant, isn't it? Well, it is not really right to compare this, to put this to the same level scientifically. Basically, what you mean and want I mean is the same. The only thing is that what mention-one is the physiological proof and the other one is the serological proof. I hope I have expressed myself clearly enough.
Q: And why did you not carried out that type of test in connection with the murine vaccine?
A: That had its reasons essentially in the fact that only in the course of serological studies after that time I conceived the idea to use these research letters in order to establish the anti-infectious effect of the vaccinations. We have frequently found out that during the illness already before the end of the convalescent period a reduction of the titer values in the serum can be found and since I have conducted similar research with small pox I intended to extent that study also to typhus.
Q: Now, you testified that in May 1943 you vaccinated 28 persons in Schirmeck.
Eight with five-tenths of a cubic centimeter of the vaccine, ten with five-tenths of a cubic centimeter of the vaccine, and ten with a dead vaccine plus five-tenths of a cubic centimeter of the murine vaccine. Is that right?
A: If I understood you correctly, 0.5 cubic centimeters? That is correct, that is right.
Q: That should be one-half cubic centimeter.
A: One-half? Well, that is five-tenths. Yes that is right.
Q: A total of 28. Did you vaccinate any more in Schirmeck at any time?
A: No, no, no, only with the dead virus — three persons.
Q: Three additional persons with a dead vaccine?
A: Yes, with a dead vaccine.
Q: How many trips did you make to Schirmeck with these vaccinations?
A: According to my recollection there were four trips.
Q: Four trips?
A: Yes, I think so—yes.
Q: There were no serious reactions to this vaccine?
A: No, no serious reactions.
Q: Thy is it that you transferred your activities to Natzweiler?
A: That had it's reason in the location with regard to epidemics. Schirmeck, as I said already, was a camp for security detention and there the type of people was quite different from those at Natzweiler. Therefore the conditions with regard to hygiene and immunology were such that Schirmeck seemed to be loss endangered than Natzweiler as far as any epidemic was concerned.
Q: And then through whom did you arrange this transfer of your activities?
A: That I did on my own, from my own knowledge of the locations.
Q: Isn't it a fact that you didn't carry out after infectious experiments with your murine vaccine because you had to obtain prisoners furnished by the SS and they would not permit you to carry out your experiments on these 28 persons you vaccinated?
A: No, no under no circumstances, because there were no experiments in the manner in which they are interpreted in this trial for that purpose. That was for the purpose of protecting these people.
Q: Isn't the reason you went to Hirt because you had to have experimental subjects on whom you could carry out your planned after infection experiments to test the vaccine?
A: In the first place I did not originally turn to Hirt because the camp commander negotiated with me without Hirt's knowledge. I would have carried out this vaccination within the scope of the general vaccination program were it not for the fact that Hirt had intervened at the time, and the result of this interference is the points which you can find in the documents, among the documents.
Q: For what reason did Hirt interfere?
A: Specific reasons I could not tell. I do not know, but Hirt believe — and I have told the camp physician and the camp commander that I could not obtain sufficient amounts of the customary vaccine, the commercial vaccine — there was not enough of that in Strasbourg, and that I would start to vaccinate with the new vaccine which was manufactured in my place. And, Hirt heard about that and thought probably that this was a new thing which required approval of the superior officer and he told me then that it was probably better if I ask the approval, and as known from the documents, obtained that approval.
Q: When was the last time you were in Shirmeck?
A: I could not say; I could not tell you the accurate date. The last time when I performed a vaccination there was at the time when the influenza vaccinations were made — must have been in 1943, the late fall of 1943.
Q: And, as an expert, you testify to the Tribunal that vaccinating these 28 persons with the murine vaccine was a real contribution to fighting to possibility of a typhus epidemic in Shirmeck; is that right?
A: I did not say that in that form, did I; I don't think so.
Q: I am at a loss to understand how you could feel that the vaccination of 28 people in Shirmeck, and 200, or I think you said 80 in Natzweiler, could have any effect whatever on the likelihood of a typhus epidemic. There was some 12,000 inmates in Natzweiler, was there not, Professor?
A: There were a great many, but I explained yesterday already that first I had to slowly because the laboratory means at my disposal I could not manufacture a sufficient amount of vaccine.
I regretted that very much, of course, and for that reason my work took very long.
Q: What was the nationality of these 100 inmates that were shipped from Auschwitz?
A: The nationalities, I could not tell you; later I was informed that they were Gypsies.
Q: Do you not know the general appearance of a Gypsy? Is he dark in color or do you not think you would recognize one if you saw a Gypsy?
A: Yes, but not all Gypsies look alike. If it is the real, the typical Gypsy, then one could say that, but I have to say that I am not enough of an Anthropologist, and if I am confronted with 80 or 100 people, it is not so easy to tell whether they are all Gypsies, Poles, Slavss and so forth, Hungarians, or Italians, which were amongst them, or other dark haired types. I could not make that distinction.
Q: Did you personally examine these 100 inmates shipped in for your vaccinations? The first 100 in November or the first of December, 1943?
A: Well I looked at the first subjects that were sent to me, and one could already see that they were in such a bad condition that vaccinations regardless of what kind, could not be applied anymore?
Q: And, eighteen of them died on the transport; is that right?
A: That was what I was told.
Q: That is rather so or did isn't it?
A: Yes, indeed, and I also made no secret of my opinion of that when I spoke to Hirt.
Q: You knew that these 100 men had been shipped in on your request, didn't you?
A: No, I did not know that before, because I was of the opinion that they were or would be inmates who were already in the camp. The background conditions — for instances, that people had been brought from Auschwitz to Natzweiler for this purpose I did not know.
Q: But, you knew it after it happened, didn't you?
A: After it happened, after I heard about it, I knew it, yes.
Q: And, you requested another 100 and they were also shipped in weren't they?
A: That I could not tell you whether they were shipped or whether they were inmates who were already in the camp. I have no knowledge of that. I could not tell you.
Q: You knew that in the first case, but you don't know in the second case; is that right?
A: No, I don't know it.
Q: Well, this second 100 you examined them, didn't you?
A: I looked at them, yes. I examined them together with the prison physicians, and we found out that they could be vaccinated.
Q: Some of them were Gypsies, were they not?
A: According to my recollection they were of many different nationalities; not only Gypsies, no, no.
Q: Some of them were Poles?
A: Well, today it is hard for me to tell in detail what nationality they belonged to; it is quite impossible now.
Q: Witnesses from Strasbourg testified here that you tended to justify your work in the camp by saying that no Alsatians were used, only Poles, but I want to know whether you remember if there were some Poles among the persons you were going to vaccinate?
This must be a mistake. You mean Schirmeck; don't you? The questions was discussed in connection with the inmates vaccinated in Schirmeck, not in Natzweiler.
Well, you may he correct. Were any Poles in Schirmeck?
A: There were. Not all of them were Poles, at any rate. I noticed — I could speak, I conversed with some of them. At any rate, they belonged to different nationalities, they were not all Poles.
Q: Did you make the remark attributed to you by several of the witnesses here?
A: No, I did not make it, no.
Q: It strikes me that you were a bit persistent with your vaccinations when you ordered hundred men after the first 100 turned out to be in bad shape. Was there any reason why you could not tell the camp commander. "Let us use 100 men right here; right here in the camp now. All I want to do is vaccinate them to protect them from typhus. Why do we need 100 men shipped from Auschwitz?" Did you say anything like that?
A: No, I did not do that; and, I told you already that I did not know about the transport from Auschwitz before it had arrived, and even if there had been new arrivals from Auschwitz, as far as I know they were large transports coming in all the time from Auschwitz and from other camps, and they again were camp inmates, and just as vulnerable as the others in the camp.
Q: You testified yesterday that the persons working in your laboratory were vaccinated against typhus and you mentioned some danger in connection with the laboratory work. Will you tell the Tribunal what that danger was?
A: Well, when working with typhus, there is always the possibility of an infection brought about in the laboratory, and one has to talk all precautionary measures to make sure that such an infection does not take place.
Q: Did you pay your laboratory assistants a risk bonus?
A: Yes, two assistants, employees of the laboratory who were particularly endangered were paid a bonus.
Q: I thought you also testified on two or three occasions that you had no virus strains which were pathogenic to human beings; is that right?
A: That is right.
Q: And, what was the danger which arose to the laboratory workers?
A: Well, that is from the fact that sometimes we do not know everything about the biological matter. Sometimes a strain might become pathogenic for human beings, that is not excluded.
In every laboratory one can make that observation once in a while. With all virus where ever they may be kept they may be kept and where ever they may appear it is quite understood that all precautions have to be taken, precautionary measure have to be taken.
Q: But, you relied very heavily upon the fact that you had no pathogenic strains and you set that up as a big defense against the possibility that you carried out after-infection experiments with a virulent virus and you pooh-poohed the possibility that there was any danger to the test persons, and I am having some difficulty reconciling the great danger to the laboratory assistants, but no danger to persons who where subject to the vaccinations?
A: I believe one cannot interpret this in that manner because sometimes even in the laboratory we are confronted with matters which we cannot quite control. Therefore, it is always better to be careful if one handles material of that kind, than to be negligent.
Q: But you excluded the possibility that any of your test persons could have been harmed in the slightest way by these vaccinations?
A: In the preliminary experiments we could find that out and that is already the best test if that can be found, out, whether there is a danger apparent or not.
Q: Then you took the guinea pigs to Natzweiler to permit the inmates to breed, them, is that right?
A: That is correct and there was the chief of the hospital who was very much interested in animal breeding and I brought him mice, as well as guinea pigs, so that he could, start his animal breeding.
Q: You were short of rabbits and mice but not of guinea pigs, is that right?
A: Yes, guinea pigs we would have needed, considerably and we hoped to get more.
Q: Professor, you testified yesterday and I quote the translation:
When I say "subsequent infection" I am referring to subsequent vaccination with living virus vaccine, the third vaccination which I carried out in this group.
Wasn't there any word which you could have used instead of "subsequent infection" to convey somewhat more clearly what you meant to do?
A: I said yesterday already that the word "subsequent infection" which was used, but that it had nothing to do with the vaccination for the purpose of protection, but that a third vaccination was made in order to examine the degree of immunity or the fact of immunity and to make that distinction between these two actions I speak first of the real vaccination for the purpose of protection and I call the next vaccination the "subsequent infection."
Q: And you think that the use of the word "subsequent infection" is better than, for example, than "Nachimpfung" [booster vaccination]?
A: Yes, one could use the word "Nachimpfung" I believe since the same material is used. There is no basic difference and in medical literature the word "infection" or "re-infection" is also used in the sense of "Nachimpfung", subsequent infection. One does not have to consider that infection means something at any rate dangerous.
Q: When you use in conjunction with the word vaccination or immunization the word "subsequent infection" which has something of a bit of color in it, doesn't it, Professor?
A: No, I don't think one could say that.
Q: Well you concede that the Prosecution's interpretation of the word "subsequent infection" as meaning infection with a virulent typhus virus of the type carried out in Buchenwald is equally consistent with the interpretation you put on it?
A: If one interprets it that way, one has to consider what material was used for that subsequent infection. As far as I am informed now in Buchenwald and also in other places, an infection was carried out by human passage, that is with the blood of diseased persons, which is highly infectious, and with that blood human beings were infected. That is of course an entirely different matter than to take an attenuated virus and vaccinate with it.
Q: You have to start with a fully virulent virus though, don't you, before you wind up with an attenuated virus, don't you, Professor?
A: That is correct.
Q: But you never had any such fully virulent virus, is that right?
A: I had a virus strain which had been bred for a long time on the lungs of a rabbit but by Professor Giraud in Paris and which we continued to breed in a plant, and doubtlessly that was already an attenuated strain.
Q: We can, of course, find out, I thank, rather easily what the serums of this strain you obtained from the Pasteur Institute was. Let me put this question to you. Do you think it would have been safe to have taken some of the blood from some of the guinea pigs carrying this strain when you first received it and inject it into a person?
A: I don't quite understand time question. May I ask you to be kind enough to repeat it?
Q: Suppose you had injected a human being with the strain which you received from Giraud would it have resulted in a serious typhus illness or not?
A: That again is a question, Mr. Prosecutor, which is of a more hypothetical nature, I think the great probability is that it would have come to a mild infection but I could not say with a hundred percent certainty, but the experiences which we have gained indicate that it would have been only a mild case. That is a hypothetical question again which I can only answer in a hypothetical way.
Q: Well pursuing the hypothetical question further, you insist on testifying to this Tribunal that you could not have possibly brought on a serious case of typhus illness if you had tried to do so, is that right?
A: That is correct, because I had tried out that material already in experiments on ourselves and the quality of being apathogenic to humans was proved by that.
Q: Do you remember document No. 127, that is your letter to Hirt of 27 June 1944, asking for an additional 200 persons, that is Prosecution Exhibit 306?
A: Page 96, to Professor Hirt.
Q: Now you had already carried out your experiments in December and January, 1943 and 1944, respectively, on 80 persons, is that right?
A: Yes.
Q: Now in June again you asked for an additional 200 and you stated, however, in the subsequent inoculations with virulent typhus which are to be made for the purpose of testing the protective vaccine, one must count on sickness, particularly in the control group which has not received the protective vaccine.
Why were you pursuing these tests? You have explained that as being nothing more than a subsequent vaccination. You carried out such experiments on the 80 persons in the winter of '43 — '44. Why did you want another 200 to carry out the same experiments?
A: This is no longer an experiment as it is usually understood here in this court room, but a series of vaccinations with a vaccine that is already known. That I requested another certain number of people to be vaccinated is explained by the fact that my possibility for production were limited, but here in this case we believed that we would be able to manufacture sufficient vaccine for 200 persons.
Q: Well, but you draw the distinction in this letter between the experiments you had carried out so far and the one which you proposed in this letter, yet I put it to you that according to your own testimony here now your plans were no different at all. You simply say that again, you were going to carry out subsequent vaccinations not subsequent infections. You had already done that on this first hundred, the first eighty experimental persons. What was the reason for doing it again, Professor?
A: I stated already that my intention was if possible to vaccinate the entire camp for their protection, but at first I could only take 200, but since here again I intended to make scientific observations concerning the compatibility of the vaccines, I made these two distinctions here, and the one group which again should be vaccinated on the arm by scarification, I designated as subjects of control inoculation, and I said also that I know that in other places work was done on typhus vaccines. Therefore, I mentioned again these control inoculations in order to make it clear. These are the only reasons.
Q: This is nothing then but a repetition of what you did on the 80 experimental subjects?
A: I explained that already yesterday, it was the same as the vaccinations I carried out in the winter of 1943-44.
Q: Now, did you actually carry out any vaccinations after the vaccinations in December and January on the 80 persons? Did you carry out any more vaccinations in Natzweiler?
A: No, I did not. There were no more vaccinations carried out.
Q: You didn't vaccinate anyone during the course of the epidemic? I should have thought that they would have been eager to let you vaccinate those people. Here they were crying for you to come in when there was no epidemic to keep an epidemic off and then they get an epidemic and you vaccinate nobody, how do you explain that?
A: No, these people were no longer vaccinated and I explained that already yesterday that in the summer I had to make so many official military trips that I could not carry this out anymore.
Q: Then you made no vaccinations on anyone in Natzweiler after January 1944, is that right?
A: There were no vaccinations carried on after these vaccinations in December 1943 and January 1944.
Q: How did they combat the epidemic?
A: The epidemic was combated by delousing all the inmates as possible and the request of the camp physicians I myself saw to it that they received the equipment to do that. I know that the capacity of the decontamination equipment was too limited so that due to the impossibility of a perfect delousing the epidemic was increased.
Then our institute extended that equipment and transferred it to Natzweiler. That increased the capacity to delouse inmates to twice the amount and that prevented many typhus cases.
Q: When had you completed this third vaccination in the series on the 40 test persons in December and January?
A: That must have been during the course of January, the precise date I can not tell you any longer.
Q: How far separated was one vaccination from the other?
A: Well, the two first vaccinations were made at an interval of approximately one week. The third one which was designated as subsequent infection four weeks after the last vaccination.
Q: And was this third vaccination any different from the first vaccination except that you applied it through scarification rather than injection?
A: There was no other difference except that, of course, the amount used for scarification was smaller than that used by injection.
Q: Did the persons get sick when you made the first injection in the series of three?
A: I don't quite understand that question. After the first injection of the series of three what injections?
Q: Did your experimental subjects get ill or sick after the first vaccination of the three which you gave the 40 test persons?
A: The test persons received only one single scarification on the arm. That was only the simple vaccination made by one scarification.
Q: I thought we had two groups, the group of 40 which received three vaccinations in a series, the first two being given by injection, the last one being a scarification vaccination and at the same time the 40 control persons were given a similar scarification vaccination, is that right?
A: Yes.
Q: That's all I wanted to know. Now then, when you gave the first vaccination to the 40 persons, disregarding the control persons now, did they get sick?
A: They got the normal reactions of a vaccination but they didn't get typhus.
Q: Well, why do you draw a distinction in your letter of 27 June that one must count on sickness in the control group. The control group in this case got nothing more than the other group — so why draw the distinction between sickness in the control group as compared with the immunized persons? You didn't give this group anything more serious that you gave the other group you vaccinated, indeed you gave them something much less serious, as compared, with the three times. Now, why was there sickness in the control group after one scarification vaccination?
A: This morning I have already explained that that letter was read by laymen and probably decided upon by laymen, and here in mentioning the normal reactions to be expected after the vaccination I spoke of sickness but it would be quite erroneous to assume that I meant typhus. As I have said already this morning I just referred to the normal reaction after vaccination.
Q: Then the control group didn't get any more severe reaction than the ones that were not controlled, did they doctor?
A: The reactions as far as I can still recall them were no more serious then with those who had previously been vaccinated by injection. In other words, no signs of a manifest typhus disease.
Q: So you really were saying something that was utter nonsense when you talked about sickness in the control group? Weren't you?
A: How was that, please?
Q: I say, your talk of sickness in the control group is just nonsense then, because there can be no distinction here between your control group here and your other group?
A: If I understand you correctly, Mr. Prosecutor, I don't know if I understood that question correctly. There were in the first group reactions to the vaccination among the first 40 that had been vaccinated and such reactions of vaccination we also had in the second group of 40 that were vaccinated, but we had no cases of typhus.
Q: I am agreeing with your proposition, Professor, that you didn't subsequently infect anybody even though you say so. But, I can't for the life of me understand how you can speak of a control group in this letter and speak of expecting illness in the control group when the control group didn't get any thing more than a vaccination. The other group got a similar vaccination and two others, yet you are indicating to, Mr. Hirt, that we can expect some illness in the control group. That's nonsense, isn't it?
A: Up that is not nonsense. I have explained yesterday already what the purpose of that control group was. That was with reference to serological reaction which we wanted to examine in connection with those who had been vaccinated various times. I said already this morning that already after the vaccination the agglutination tita in the serum were reduced and we wanted to put these two groups into relation to each other as far as these values were concerned. And this group which was vaccinated by scarification was a comparative group in the sense of a control test for the serological reaction.
And, if I mention cases of sickness in this letter then I meant the normal effects of the vaccination.
Q: Professor, we are having great difficulty getting on the same ground. Let me put one final question to you. Was there any reason to expect any more serious reaction to the vaccination in the control group as compared with the other group?
A: No.
Q: So, there was no reason whatever for you drawing Hirt's attention to the possibility of sickness in the control group? Isn't that the point, Professor? There is no point to it unless you really intend to infect the control group with a virulent virus as you stated?
A: No. I beg your pardon, Mr. Prosecutor. I have already told you that this sickness was effects of the vaccination, normal reactions of the vaccination end I had heard from Lolling, chief physician of the camp, specifically that it was not desired that people were lost for work. Therefore, I covered myself and said it is possible however that such reactions of the vaccination will occur and if I have to repeat again I used the word sickness in this document in order to express that reactions of the vaccination will have to be expected. I am sorry but I have no other explanation than this.
Q: Let me put a document to you before we adjourn. Do you read French? Professor?
A: Yes a little, but I do not speak it fluently but I know it sufficiently.
Q: I am putting to the witness Document NO 807; Prosecution Exhibit 185. Professor; do you see the point at which I have made pencil marks on the photostatic copy of the document?
A: 25th of January; 1943?
Q: One minute; Professor.
DR. TIPP: Mr. President, I only ask, Mr. President, where the document is that was put to the witness. I should like to read it also and be able to compare it. Mr. Hardy told me the document book and did not give me the page of the document. I should like to know where the document is located unless it is a new one.
MR. McHANEY: It is an old one. It can be found in the skeleton collection document book. Document Bock # 7. It is on page 23 of the English document book, Document NO 807, Prosecution Exhibit 185. This is primarily book of pictures concerning Hirt's skeleton collection; but there are also in this document extracts taken from original German records found in the Natzweiler concentration camp concerning, as the prosecution says, Haagen's typhus experiments, and I am now asking him to read three excerpts which appear in this document.
DR. TIPP: I don't believe, Mr. President, that there is a French document in our document book. Mr. Haagen said that his French was not fluent and that he only knew French, and I think it is very dangerous to submit to a witness a document in language in which he is not quite fluent. Mr. HcHaney is no doubt in a position to submit that document in German and I should like to ask him to do so.
MR. McHANEY: I assume that defense counsel has the document in German.
THE PRESIDENT: Evidently the document is not immediately available. Could you read that portion of the document which you refer to in English and have it translated into German?
BY MR. McHANEY:
Q: Very easily and if the witness will follow either the English or the German he can tell us if it is correct.
The first extract that I wished him to read is taken from a report of the camp doctor of Natzweiler concentration camp, File. 14B8344. Then appears the initials "KR" obviously standing for Dr. Krieger whom the witness testified he know. Dated Natzweiler, 1 February 1944. It reads:
Experiments at the Ahnenerbe [Ancestral Heritage] — experimental station are still not under way. One of the 89 human experimental prisoners (Gypsums) died with pleurae nyshyca—
— I can't make that out —
during one Period covered by the report. Forty Gypsies received nrophylatic inoculation for a typhus experiment.
Were you able to fellow that, Professor? That's the excerpt I checked — 1 February 1944.
A: 1st February 1944 — "experiments in the experimental station Ahnenerbe". Is that it?
Q: That's it. That's where you were working isn't it, Professor?
A: I did not work in the Ahnenerbe.
Q: Did you know where the Ahnenerbe station was in Natzweiler?
A: In Natzweiler I cannot remember having seen the special designation Ahnenerbe when I worked there.
Q: Then you can't testify you didn't a work in the Ahnenerbe, can you, Professor? Have you found this excerpt?
A: Yes, yes, I have it here.
Experiments in the experimental station Ahnenerbe have not yet started. Of the 80—
That is very difficult to read here.
Of the 80 experimental subjects, inmates, Gypsies, one died from ploura caupiaenina in the meantime. 40 Gypsies were vaccinated for the purpose of a typhus experiment.
Q: If the Tribunal wishes to adjourn, we will continue with this document tomorrow. I'll ask that the witness pass it back.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness will return the document.
The Tribunal will now be in recess until 9:30 o'clock tomorrow morning.
(A recess was taken until 0930 hours, 20 June 1947)