1947-06-20, #1: Doctors' Trial (early morning)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 19 June 1947. 0930-0945, Justice Beals, presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal 1.
Military Tribunal 1 is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the courtroom.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, will you ascertain that the defendants are all present in Court?
THE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honors, all the defendants are present in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary General will note for the record the presence of all the defendants in Court.
I was under the impression that counsel for Defendant Hoven had requested that he be excused from attendance today. I don't know whether he desires to be excused or not. The court gave him permission to be absent to consult with his counsel. I don't see his counsel present but when he comes, he may state his wishes in the matter.
Counsel may proceed.
MR. McHANEY: May it please the Tribunal, Professor, at the end of the session yesterday, I put to you certain excerpts appearing in Document NO-807; which was Prosecution Exhibit No. 185.
DR. TIPP: Mr. President, I already said yesterday that we do not know about this Document that Mr. HcHaney is about to put in. I brought No. 9 with me and I ascertain that Document NO-807, as put in by the Defense, is not the same document as Mr. McHaney is putting to the witness. In our Document Book, Document NO-807 is on page 18, that corresponds to the page number in the document book. This Document NO-807 is simply an interrogation of Hauptsturmfuehrer [Captain] Kramer before a military court in Strasbourg on 27 July, 1945.
Mr. McHaney, however, has put an entirely different document to the witness under the Number NO-807 or at least a part of another document, a document which the defense does not have. I do not know what the reason for this is, but I reiterate the defense is not acquainted with this document Mr. McHaney is putting to the witness under No. NO-807. If Mr. McHaney wants to discuss this document here, either he must give it his own exhibit number or at least, according to the rules of procedure, he must make a translation of this document available to us. I therefore object to the admission of this document, which the Prosecution has. We have not received either the French or the translation.
MR. McHANEY: If the Tribunal please, the document which I have put to the witness, NO-807, was introduced as prosecution exhibit No. 185. It consisted primarily, and it was offered primarily, of pictures of the so-called Jewish skeleton collection made by French authorities when they captured Strasbourg. This book also contained a sworn statement taken from Camp Commander Kramer of the concentration camp Natzweiler and additionally contained excerpts taken from captured German documents in Natzweiler. Unfortunately, when the document was translated, for some reason the Translation Department failed to translate in full the small excerpts which appear in this. They are made reference to in the translation, which the Tribunal has, but they don't actually translate them. Apparently the same deficiency appears in the German mimeograph copy. Of course, they could not very well copy the pictures. So obviously all that appears in the German copy is the certificate by the French Government plus the affidavit by Kramer, however, I should have thought that a photostatic copy of this was furnished to the Defendant's Information Center. In any event when I complete examining the witness on this Document, I shall be very happy to give Dr. Tipp my photostatic copy here.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the book and page number in which this document is found?
MR. McHANEY: Document book 7, page —
MR. TIPP: Document book 9, isn't it?
MR. McHANEY: I don't think so, it probably originally was marked document 9. I think we remarked it No. 7. It is the skeleton collection document book.
THE PRESIDENT: On what page of the document book is it?
MR. McHANEY: It appears on page 20, it is the last document in the book.
THE PRESIDENT: You state, counsel, that this complete translation of the document was furnished to the Defendant's Information Center?
MR. McHANEY: No, Your Honor, I said I assumed that possibly a photostatic copy was furnished, but I am not certain of that. I merely make the statement on the basis of the proposition that we did attempt to furnish them with photostatic copies of each document, I don't know and it may be this was overlooked. I don't state that it was furnished. Anyway, I will be glad to give them my photostatic copy when I am finished with the witness.
DR. TIPP: Mr. President, I am sorry, but this statement of Mr. McHaney is not sufficient. In our document book according to the running page numbers there is a Document 807 but this is merely an interrogation of Hauptsturmfuehrer Kramer and nothing else. There is reference, to be sure, to a few pictures, but I don't place any importance on these pictures; I don't need them. However, I do want to say that part of the document that concerns itself with typhus, and which Mr. McHaney discussed with the witness yesterday, is not contained in our document book at all. I could not know that the prosecution understands, under the number 807, something quite different from what the defense received under that number. That is the reason why I am objecting to this, Perhaps Mr. McHaney would be so kind as to show me the original document that he intends to discuss with the witness.
MR. McHANEY: Does the Tribunal have the translation of this document before it?
JUDGE SEBRING: I don't think so.
THE PRESIDENT: It is very incomplete.
MR. McHANEY: If the Tribunal please, I can explain it briefly. Do you have the document that was given to you — the translation?
THE PRESIDENT: We have a very sketchy document.
MR. McHANEY: Well, if the Tribunal will turn to page 2 they will see translations of captions of photographs. On that list there are some 14, 17, 21 pictures. Immediately under the translations of the captions you will find "I-A", "II-B", "III-B". "Note: Documents found in the Struthof Concentration Camp." That is the French word for Natzweiler Concentration Camp.
I-A is a list of phone numbers. They did not list the phone numbers in this translation; they appear in the original.
II- B is an extract of the monthly report from the camp doctor saying that experiments have been done on sixteen gypsies and that three deaths have resulted. I have now been in the process of putting certain of these extracts listed here under II-B, which I am quite ready to confess were unfortunately not translated, but they do appear in the original.
While defense counsel has undoubtedly been taken by surprise, for which we are quite sorry, nonetheless I don't think that is sufficient reason for not permitting the prosecution to put these documents to the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Will the Secretary ascertain if a photostatic copy is available in the Defense Information Center?
DR. TIPP: Mr. President, what Mr. McHaney says is true, and I can add the following. In our document book there is contained only the interrogation of this Kramer before the French military court, but not the first page of the document which, as I see from the photo copy, contains excerpts from some report on the part of the camp doctor. It is precisely this part of the document, which we do not have in our document book, that Mr. McHaney is putting to the witness to cross-examine him on.
I can only reiterate that the document that the prosecution gave us is not a true copy of the document he is about to put to the witness. There is an essential part of this document missing in our version. I don't think that saying this was a mistake is sufficient. If the prosecution has made such a mistake, it must abide by the rules of procedure and make available to the defense the part of the document that is missing before putting it to the witness. That is the ruling of the Tribunal, and I do not believe there is any necessity for deviating from that ruling.
THE PRESIDENT: If you are allowed five minutes to examine the prosecution's copy of that document, could you familiarize yourself with it — five minutes or ten minutes?
DR. TIPP: That would suffice, yes, but of course I should like to read the photo copy before Mr. McHaney cross-examines the witness on it.
THE PRESIDENT: The prosecution has no other subject of cross examination that would take time until the morning recess when counsel could examine this document?
MR. McHANEY: Well, we have further cross examination, Your Honor, and I will be glad to proceed. If it doesn't take him until the recess, perhaps I can put this to him. I would prefer to put this document to him before going very much further.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand, but defense counsel's position is correct. They are entitled to have an opportunity to examine this document before the witness is cross-examined concerning it.
MR. McHANEY: That is quite true, Your Honor. I will let him have the document now. As soon as he has indicated that he has read it sufficiently, if he will turn it back to me I will put it to him.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
BY MR. McHANEY:
Q: Herr Professor, I had discussed with you yesterday Document NO 127, Prosecution Exhibit 306. That was your letter of 27 June 1944 to Dr. Hirt.
JUDGE SEBRING: What Book, Mr. McHaney?
MR. McHANEY: Book 12, Your Honor.
BY MR. McHANEY:
Q: Do you find that document, in which you ask for—
A: (Interposing) Yes, I have it.
Q: — in which you ask for 200 experimental persons, 150 to be used for protective vaccines and 50 for control inoculations?
You will recall that on your direct examination you somewhat ridiculed the testimony of Fraulein Schmidt on the ground that she was talking of 150 to 200 experimental persons, whereas you said in fact that you experimented only on some 80 in December and January of 1944. I suppose you will concede, as a hypothetical proposition, that, if you in fact carried out the experiments which you speak of in Prosecution Exhibit 306, then Fraulein Schmidt's testimony is rather accurate under that hypothetical proposition, is it not, Herr Professor?
A: I don't believe you have to put that as a hypothetical question; I believe you can put it as a direct question because these vaccinations of the 200 people were never carried out.
Q: And there were no vaccinations of any kind on any inmates of the Natzweiler camp after January 1944, is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Let's turn to Document NO-131, Prosecution Exhibit 309, in Document Book No. 12.
THE PRESIDENT: At what page, counsel?
MR. McHANEY: Page 98, Your Honor.
BY MR. McHANEY:
Q: You will find that is a letter from Kahnt to you dated 29 August 1944 in which he asks you, under paragraph 3, whether the typhus epidemic prevailing in Natzweiler is connected with the vaccine research. Having read Rose's testimony, I suppose you remember that he stated that he also sponsored this letter signed by Kahnt and, as a matter of fact, had drafted a somewhat longer letter to you on this subject.
I am asking you now how Rose and Kahnt could possibly have thought that your vaccine research in Natzweiler had anything to do with the epidemic.
A: I cannot say what motives these gentlemen had. I assume that for reasons of precaution they asked me this question. However, let me remark that a great number of the first cases of the disease did not come from the camp itself but from outside, from outside camps which did not have any hospitals of their own, so that the Natzweiler camp had to concentrate the treatment of all sick persons in itself.
There can be no connection between this and my vaccinations because, first, while the vaccinations were being given, the vaccinated persons did not come into contact with the other inmates; and secondly, they were completely free of lice; and thirdly, transmission of typhus is possible only during the period of incubation and in the very first days of the disease. Since no typhus cases occurred among those vaccinated, I believe this problem is solved. These were exclusively spontaneous cases of typhus that broke out.
Q: You say that your vaccinated persons did not come in contact with any of the other inmates. I assume you are speaking of the persons vaccinated by you in December of 1943 and January of 1944, is that right?
A: Those are the people I am talking about, yes.
Q: And where were they confined?
A: They were accommodated in the hospital, as I believe I have already said at another time.
Q: You had 40 in one room and 40 in another room?
A: There were 80 in all who, as I remember, were all accommodated in one barracks.
Q: And how long were they confined?
A: Until I had tested the serological reaction and ascertained the degree of immunity.
Q: And when was that?
A: I cannot give you the precise date, of course, since I have no documents here, but I should say it was at the most four weeks after the vaccinations.
Q: Well, in other words, certainly during the month of February you completed that?
A: I could have been January or it could have been February.
Q: Now, going back to this inquiry of Kahnt, as I understand your testimony, you don't know why they asked you this question and you can't think of any reason other than precaution, is that so?
A: It think they did it for reasons of caution, yes.
Q: Now, Rose said that he thought your vaccine might have suddenly become virulent or pathogenic for human action and cause cases of typhus. That is ridiculous, is it not?
A: That is not ridiculous, but the fact that no typhus cases occurred proves that this was not the case.
Q: Well, you reported to the Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe and to Herr Rose that you had carried out these vaccinations and you gave them the results of your test, did you not?
A: I issued a report in the form of a manuscript, as I described it yesterday.
Q: And you of course reported in this manuscript that there were no cases of illness, and you gave the results of your vaccination tests and reported, I suppose, that they were successful; is that right?
A: That's right.
Q: You did all of this before June, 1944? didn't you, Professor?
A: I can't tell you the date for sure, but it is in the documents here, and I think it was May. It could have been June when this manuscript was submitted.
Q: At least they had it before they wrote you this letter on 29 August 1944? and I ask you again how any reasonable person could write you and ask you if your tests had caused an epidemic in Natzweiler when they already had your report in hand that your vaccine experiments had been successful and that there were no illnesses, and I state again to you, it is a little ridiculous that Roas would state on the stand that he thought your typhus vaccine had become pathogenic. If you vaccinated these persons in January, completed your examination in February, and made a report in May or June, how is it that somebody can testify that he thought your vaccine had become pathogenic and possibly had something to do with an epidemic?
A: Mr. Prosecutor, I have already told you that no single case of typhus occurred in those who had been vaccinated —
Q: Just a minute, Professor. I am not accusing you of having started the epidemic at Natzweiler. I am asking you how Rose and Kahnt and the Chief of the Luftwaffe could write you a letter in August 1944 asking you any such question as that when you had already reported to them about your vaccine tests in Natzweiler. They had already been through for five months.
How could they write you and ask you about such a thing as this?
A: Mr. Prosecutor, I have already said that I do not know their reasons and that the only explanation I can give is that these gentlemen were very cautious and careful and wanted me to confirm the fact that the epidemic bore no relationship to my vaccinations. I can give you no other explanation.
Q: Let 's look at your letter in response of 19 September 1944; Document No. 132, Prosecution Exhibit 310, on page 99 of the English Document Book. In response to this rather startling inquiry and, at least to the Prosecution, unreasonable inquiry, if we assume the truth of what you have testified to here, you simply write back and state that you tests of the vaccines did not cause the epidemic. What reason can you give us for not having told them that you had conducted no vaccinations of any kind since January, 1944?
Q: I probably put it this way, because in Document 309 there was no inquiry as to whether I had undertaken the second series of vaccinations, so I of course referred to the fact that we had carried out vaccinations and right here that there is no connection between the cases of typhus at Natzweiler and the examinations dealing with the typhus vaccine that is to be tested.
Q: But, Herr Professor, I think you will agree that a reasonable person might draw the conclusion from Kahnt's letter to you of 29 August that they were under the impressions that you were still carrying out examinations of some sort in Natzweiler, examinations contemporaneous with the epidemic.
A: However, no such investigations were carried out, and I do not know what could have given those gentlemen this impression. I think this can be seen simply from the fact that I did no reporting of any sort.
Q: It didn't occur to you to tell them that their inquiry was baseless because, firstly, you hadn't conducted any vaccinations at Natzweiler since January, 1944, and, secondly, that in any event they certainly had no cause for alarm because you had no pathogenic virus to infect anybody if you had wanted to.
Why didn't you tell them that?
A: I made my letter so brief as it is because the matter was so crystal clear to me that I didn't feel that any further explanations were necessary.
Q: You have testified that General Stabsarzt [Staff Surgeon] Schroeder was in Strasbourg in the latter part of May, 1944. Didn't you tell him anything about this epidemic and give him to understand that if he had any fears about it that you work had nothing to do with it?
A: When Professor Schroeder was with me in Strasbourg that was at the end of May. At that time he certainly knew nothing about this inquiry, which is dated August, and regarding such matters as had no connections with my vaccinations, there was no discussion. I can't imagine what interest Prof. Schroeder could have had in that epidemic in Natzweiler.
Q: Well, we won't argue about that very much. It might have occurred to him that since there was an epidemic there, it was a good opportunity for you to test your vaccine. That seems reasonable, doesn't it?
A: I said yesterday that I had no further opportunity to carry out vaccinations. Of course, I should have liked to immunize' the camp as soon as possible, that was my chief task but external circumstances prevented that.
Q: You had enough vaccine in June, 1944, to ask for another 200 people. Why didn't you use that?
A: Because I had no time. I explained that yesterday. Through the events of the war I was kept away from Strasbourg so much of the time that I had no time to carry out these vaccinations.
Q: You don't remember the precise date in May on which Schroeder made his visit, do you?
A: Let's say around the 25th of May.
Q: And you did discuss with him your typhus vaccine work?
A: I think we talked about that, too, as far as I recall. But primarily we discussed the business of my acquiring experimental animals, and we discussed general scientific questions that might have interested Prof. Schroeder.
Q: On the animals, do you use mice in carrying out laboratory experiments with Rickettsia prowazeki virus vaccine?
A: No, for that you use guinea pigs.
Q: You use mice only with the murine vaccine?
A: That's right.
Q: Now, if you were carrying out preliminary laboratory tests with a vaccine preparatory to using it on human beings, what sort of experiments would you carry out on animals to satisfy yourself that it was safe to use this vaccine on human beings?
A: This question is of such a technical nature, Mr. Prosecutor, that I am afraid that I cannot make it immediately clear to a layman. I believe we should have to discuss this with an expert. However, I shall make an effort to make it clear.
In an animal you can carry out important investigations and observations. For example, you can observe the immunizing capacity of a vaccine and you can test it. The test for tolerability of the vaccine can only be carried out on human beings. That is a general fact, because the animals' reactions are entirely different from those of a human being. Permit me to give you an example. Let's take the variola vaccine, namely, the virus with which we vaccinate persons against smallpox. This vaccine virus causes in human beings only slight symptoms of illness. Every one of us, including you, Mr. Prosecutor, have been inoculated against smallpox several times and you know the typical symptoms, and if we take this vaccine, which is not dangerous and nonpathogenic for human beings and inject it into rabbits, they fall deathly ill, depending on how they are inoculated, If we rub this vaccine virus into the skin of the rabbits they suffer a very grave skin disease, of which they finally die, because the infection finally embraces their whole bodies.
If we inject the vaccine into their brains they fall ill of a very serious inflammation of the brain, and if we inject it at other places as for example in the testicles, they have other serious inflammations. Let us take the yellow fever virus, which is not dangerous for human beings. If we inject it into mice they die of inflammation of the brain. If we take the virus of psittacosis, which is a very dangerous virus, we observe the parrot has symptoms in his abdominal organs, but if the germ is given to a human being, his symptoms take place in the lungs and he gets a serious pneumonia. From all of these examples you can see that the affinity of the germ for the various species is quite different in the case of human beings and animals. Now that applies to the vaccinations in question. The last proof of the tolerability of a vaccine can only be carried out on a human being, and that is recognized in all science. Those are roughly the biological reasons.
Q: I see. Really, I didn't ask you for the reason why. And while you have given us a very interesting talk for five minutes, you haven't told me how you determined in the case of your living virus vaccines that it was not going to kill the first person you inoculated with it; and I also suggest to you that — and I think I am correct without being a technical expert — that murine typhus and Rickettsia prowazeki are pathogenic both for animals and for human beings; and while there may be a difference in reaction, I might say to you that I would have some hesitancy in letting you vaccinate me with a living virus vaccine after you had inoculated a mouse or a guinea pig and they had died; I don't think that you could persuade me very rapidly that this laboratory test had simply proved that your virus vaccine was pathogenic for animals but you could guarantee me that it wasn't going to kill me. Do you get the point of my inquiry, Professor? I want to know how you satisfied yourself that you weren't going to seriously damage or kill some of these test persons by your laboratory experiments on animals?
A: This final proof takes place by the first inoculations of volunteers. This is already the mutated virus which we test on volunteers, and in the case of prowazeki virus, I carried out the first inoculation on myself.
Q: Professor, you must have satisfied yourself that even when you were using yourself as a test person that you weren't running a very large risk in killing yourself or putting yourself in bed for a few months. Now didn't you actually conduct some animal tests on mice and guinea, pigs from which you could draw some sort of conclusions bout this?
A: That is very difficult, because during the mutation of the virus, the components that make it pathogenic for animals do not disappear. That was so in the other cases also, and however, we have no hesitation in vaccinating human beings with it. How, if after breeding the virus, I am persuaded that it has mutated and become attenuated and has become so it can be used for vaccinating, then I carried the vaccination further.
I vaccinate myself and others with it and ascertain its tolerability. If I ascertain in addition that it is not causing typhus, then proof of its efficacy has been proved.
Q: Let me put just a hypothetical question to you. Suppose in the case of your Rickettsia prowazeki living vaccine, you vaccinated ten nice, or ten guinea pigs, and eight of them died. Now, would you walk out of the laboratory" and inject that vaccine into the first human being that walked along and said, "I volunteer"?
A: I should like to answer that question hypothetically. If you see a laboratory experiment that mice or rabbits already inoculated with vaccine virus die, would you then have the courage to have yourself vaccinated with that virus? I think that is the best way that I can answer your hypothetical question, namely, with another hypothetical question.
Q: Well, I didn't get any hypothetical answer. You put another question, and I will answer you, "No, I wouldn't let you vaccinate me with this vaccine, after I had seen you kill eight out of ten animals." And I want to ask you if in spite of that fact you would vaccinate somebody with it? What is the answer, yes or no?
A: Yes, I would because I, as a specialist, would know the background and basis and pre-conditions for this whole business.
Q: And you are satisfying yourself that the virus is sufficiently attenuated, that is based upon the mechanical calculations concerning the number of animals, passages of virus, and statistical and mechanical calculations concerning, the length of storage of the vaccine, is that right?
A: Yes, but I have to repeat that the final testing can only be carried out on human beings, and as I have already said, on myself and other volunteers, and that is the way it was done.
Q: And animal experiments don't help you out in determining the dangerousness of this new living vaccine?
A: Animal experiments in these diseases, whether they are small pox, typhus, yellow fever, or whatever — animal experiments do not help us in achieving the final goal.
Q: Tell us who Meier was again. What did he do for you?
A: Meier was the inspector in the National Medical Research Institute and worked for me to this extent, as took care of the providing of laboratory animals. That was his main job. He also kept the accounts. That also was one of his main jobs.
Q: He was killed in an air raid in 1944, was he not?
A: Yes.
Q: Was Meier in a position to know about your typhus experiments?
A: No, because he was never in my laboratory. My dealings with him took place in my office, or in my outer office, or his office.
Q: Your dealings with him didn't sufficiently concern the typhus experiments, really, for him to know what you were doing, is that right?
A: No, he could act have known that under any circumstances.
Q: On your vaccinations in Schirmeck again, as I understood it, those were just single vaccinations. You didn't carry out multiple vaccinations as you did in Natzweiler?
A: That is so, and yesterday I told you the reasons.
Q: You did not carry out the 1, 2, 3 vaccination series in Schirmeck?
A: No, in Schirmeck I vaccinated only with the murine vaccine, because at the time my scientific knowledge hadn't progressed so far.
Q: And you were all through with your vaccinations there in May 1943?
A: May 1943, yes.
Q: The Ibsen vaccine from Copenhagen about which the defendant Rose wrote to you was a murine vaccine, was it not?
A: It was a dead murine vaccine, yes.
Q: And it had already been tested for its compatibility on human beings, had it not?
A: I do not know how the Ibsen vaccine was tested, and do not know that well enough to be able to tell you any details about it. I myself have had no experience with that vaccine.
Q: Well, you will recall that you got a letter from Rose on his trip to Copenhagen. This was apparently in the latter part of September, 1943, you remember that?
A: Yes, yes.
Q: And you will recall — that is Rose Document No. 22. That is in Rose Document Book No. 2. I don't — well he states in this letter, and I am quoting — I will pass it up to you so your defense counsel won't object, and you can read it. I marked the passages on Page 17 of the document book, and you can read it either in English, or I suggest that you read it in English and they can translate it into German. It appears in English there.
A: You want me to read paragraph 4?
Q: I want you to read the paragraph I marked in pencil on pages 17 and 18.
A: Yes.
The testing of the vaccine on human beings has heretofore caused no more serious reactions than were expected. In view of the experiments so far with such a strong concentration, the reactions correspond practically to those in the case of the four vaccines that were used in the Wehrmacht. Nevertheless in animal experiments, the liver vaccine proved itself vastly superior to the lung vaccine; whereas the lung vaccine when tested proved itself—
There must be a typographical error here.
Q: Can you read it in English?
A: (reading)
When tested white,—
w-h-i-t-e.
Q: That must be a mistake. Just continue reading, I don't think that is the important part anyway. Did you read the part where Rose said, on page 18, that something to the effect about the efficacy of the vaccine?
A: (reading)
Only if it has been tested first, which proved its efficacy by improvement in the mortality rate, and the liver vaccine if used in a similar way, protection is 100%; 30 vaccinated mice survived without exception, whereas 30 trial cases died without exception. We have had no extended experience regarding the efficacy of the liver vaccine in human beings. Two members of the laboratory staff contracted laboratory infections purposely with the Rickettsia-prowazeki, which led to very mild cases, and could only be subsequently ascertained by serological examinations.
Q: That is quite sufficient. Now Rose told you, in effect, in this report, that the compatibility of this vaccine had been tested on human beings and that it had no stronger reactions than were expected and compared in that connection with the Wehrmacht vaccines in use; and he went on to show some interest in the question of the immunity or efficacy of the vaccine in warding off the disease of typhus, did he not, professor?
A: First of all, I do not recall ever having had this report. It is possible, but I cannot remember. If I understand your question correctly, you are referring to the laboratory infections, are you not?
Q: No, I am just trying to establish the fact and get you to admit it — I do not think it is so terribly important — that we weren't concerned with compatibility questions in connection with the Ibsen vaccine. As Rose tells you in the report, its compatibility was all right. It compared with the four Wehrmacht vaccines in use. He goes on to talk about the efficacy of the vaccine, meaning its anti-infectious properties. That is what he was interested in, wasn't it?
A: That I cannot tell you. I cannot tell you what interested him. From the letter that I received I cannot see that. When I look at this document I see primarily its information on immunizing properties as regards mice.
Q: Whether you know about it or not, didn't you, in fact, propose that you would carry out infection experiments with the Ibsen vaccine?
Didn't you tell Rose that you might do that?
A: No. I never wanted to carry out any sort of infection experiments in connection with the Ibsen vaccine — never had that idea.
DR. McHANEY: If defense counsel has sufficiently perused the document I was about to put to the witness earlier, I would like to do so at this point.
DR. TIPP: I have perused the document sufficiently and have no objections to Mr. McHaney putting it now to the witness.
Q: Now, Herr Professor, do you find a Series of extracts under the letter 3-B? I think that is on the right hand side of the page 3-B. Now the first one of the Series of 3 which have a pencil checkmark to the left — the date, as you will see is very faint on the photostat but it reads 23 November 1943 — that is the first extract which I have checked in that series of extracts and I would like for you to read that aloud.
A: (reading)
In addition there is the experimental series that is to begin in the next few days which makes special demands in view of the medical activities that will take place then.
DR. TIPP: I have some misgivings about the formal admissibility of this document. If the Tribunal will look at the document it will see that from a document, without any inter-connection between them, individual sentences have been taken out and made into a new document. In my opinion, both the witness, who must answer questions about it, and the defense, have a right to see the whole document. He just read a passage that you heard and, as you have observed it, it is completely arbitrary for the prosecution to assume that this new research series, the Ahnenerbe [Ancestral Heritage] research institute in Natzweiler, has anything to do with typhus experimentation. There is nothing to that effect in that sentence. We know from other documents that, let us say, Hirt or Bickenbach, at a time that we do not know, carried out a whole series of experiments in Natzweiler. In my opinion that document is admissible as evidence only if it is self explanatory, that is, if the sentences which the prosecutor is going to discuss state exactly what experiments are being referred to.
If I were to tell Mr. McHaney that these were Hirt experiments that were discussed in the sentences, I do not think he could prove the opposite. I believe that the document, in the way it is about to be put in, does not meet the rules of documentary evidence such as have been observed heretofore in this Tribunal. If the document is to be admitted, then let the whole document be admitted, but not just a few sentences that have been torn from their context and which are not comprehensible in themselves. Therefore I object to the admission of this document unless the document from where these sentences were taken is put in as a whole.
MR. McHANEY: I think there is a remote possibility that if I am permitted to put a few questions to the witness he will admit that those extracts pertain to his work. I have been trying to do that for about 30 minutes. These extracts here, I think, the witness may very well concede, concern his experiments.
THE PRESIDENT: May I ask the witness if he is aware whether or not that extract just read refers to any particular experiment and if so, what experiment?
A: This is a note of 25 October 1942.
Q: I did not ask you to read that one. I want you to read the next one and then tell the Tribunal whether it has reference to your activities in Natzweiler — the one immediately under that — the first one checked.
A: Then the second paragraph.
At the examination which the professor carrying out the experiment conducted, only 14 gypsies could be found who were suitable. The number of gypsies affected with scabies could be reduced to four. General measures to improve the general situation are under way.
Isn't that the paragraph you mean?
Q: Yes; and is the date — very faint on the photostatic copy is the date 25 November 1943?
A: That is probably connected with the first group of 100 gypsies who have been mentioned in the documents here.
Q: That is what I thought, professor, so this reference which reads "Only 14 gypsies were found fit during the examination by the professor directing the experiments" — that concerns the 100 gypsies you got in the latter part of November 1943, doesn't it, professor?
A: I am not 100% sure whether this has reference to me or someone else but if I am right, this is the group that I declared not suitable for vaccination.
Q: Now will you read the next one? This is dated 1 February 1944. It is the very next one which is checked in pencil.
A: I first have to find out whether I am able to read it. Yes.
On 12 November 1943 gypsies from Auschwitz were made available for the Ahnenerbe Experimental Station; after subsequent medical examination they were dismissed from the experimental station as unsuitable. Instead of them, on 12 December 1943, another 80—
or 89, — I cannot read this —
persons were made available from Auschwitz. Experiments are not yet under way.
Shall I continue?
Q: I am lost at that point but does that excerpt you read apparently apply to your second group?
A: That is possible. This is simultaneous with my vaccinations.
Q: Now do you find one there dated 1 February 1944 where it said:
Experiments at the Ahnenerbe Experimental Station are still not under way. 1 of the 89 human experimental prisoners died with pleura empyema during the period covered by the report; 40 gypsies received prophylactic inoculations for a typhus experiment.
Is that the way it reads?
A: Yes. That is the last sentence and certainly refers to my vaccinations. Whether the first sentence also does, that I cannot tell you. At any rate, the person who died of pleura empyema can not have belonged to that group.
Q: You say that they didn't— You don't think that the 40 gypsies who received the prophylactic inoculations for typhus experiments were part of the 89 mentioned in the same paragraph?
A: I cannot say that for sure because I do not know what sort of prisoners arrived at Natzweiler from Auschwitz; but so far as the time element is concerned, there could be some connection. This sentence that mentions somebody who died of pleura empyema, however, makes me wonder a bit. That could not have had anything to do with my vaccinations. The last sentence is the one that refers to typhus vaccinations.
Q: Will you read the next excerpt which is checked?
A: That is 22 March 1944?
As stated in the last official report, after two typhus vaccinations in the experimental station Ahnenerbe there took place the actual typhus vaccination, after which temperature measurements and blood analysis were carried out.
Q: Doesn't it say, actually,
As already reported in the last monthly report, the typhus inoculation proper was now performed at the Ahnenerbe Experimental Station after a two-fold prophylactic typhus inoculation
? It doesn't say the third one was a typhus vaccination, does it, professor? Does he use the word "impfungen" there?
A: Yes, it does:
the third and actual typhus vaccination was followed by taking of temperature and blood analysis.
Q: You contend that this third one was still another vaccination and not an inoculation of infection with typhus?
A: No, that was not an infection with typhus. In the course of my examination here, I have explained that at great length and explained why it couldn't have been.
Q: Now, did this extract apply to your experiments?
A: (N.T.) The expression "prophylactic vaccinations" as far as I know.
DR. TIPP: Mr. President, regarding the formal aspect of this document, something occurs to me. Mr. McHaney doesn't notice this because he can't follow the German interpretation and can't analyze the German document but this is a German document and there is mention in it of a "Typhus Impfung," typhoid vaccination. The German word for typhus is not "typhus" but "Fleckfieber" whereas the English word "typhus" me as typhus. If that is an original German document written by a German, I cannot understand how all of a sudden in such a document there is mention of using the word "Typhoid fever" and not the word "Fleckfieber." I don't know. that I have made this exactly clear. Since there is difficulty besides in the German language, perhaps we could see the English translation. The German original document is completely nonsensical for a German who understands German. The word used here is the word used for typhoid fever and not the word for typhus.
MR. McHANEY: This witness after all, is supposed to be the greatest expert in the world, I understand, and he has conceded that the first tracts he read which are in the German language applies to his experiments. If he wants to quarrel about the language in them, he is at liberty to do so, but I would rather he would do it under redirect than now.
THE PRESIDENT: I didn't understand that the witness made the direct admission of that which you state.
The Tribunal will now be in recess.
During this recess period the document will be studied, and the Tribunal is not yet advised as to the history of this document or there it came from — we haven't seen it — or there it was found; or it's history as far as this trial is concerned.
The Tribunal will now be in recess.
(Whereupon a recess was taken)