1947-06-20, #3: Doctors' Trial (early afternoon)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1400 hours, 20 June, 1947)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may continue.
EUGEN HAAGEN — Resumed
CROSS EXAMANATION — Continued
BY MR. McHANEY:
Q: With the permission of the Tribunal, I would like to direct a few additional questions to the witness concerning the last exhibit. This is prosecution exhibit 521 for identification which has again been handed to the witness.
Professor, will you turn to page 13 of the Exhibit?
This, if the Tribunal please, also does not appear on the translation. The notes before you — the translation before you simply concerns the note book. This chart was attached to the note book and consequently is included in the same exhibit.
Do you find a chart there, Professor, on page 13?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you recall your testimony to the effect that Meyer was not in a position to know anything about typhus work?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: Do you find this chart was drawn up by Miss Crodell, your assistant?
A: This is certainly a record that Miss Crodell drew up.
Q: And what dates does this chart cover?
A: From the 24th of May —
Q: Will you repeat the date, please. 24 May to what?
A: 24 May to 6 July 1944.
Q: And this shows the Weil-Felix reaction tests?
A: Yes, the Weil-Felix reaction was undertaken.
Q: Will you read the name which appears across the top of the chart?
A: Herr Meyer.
Q: No further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Any redirect examination of this witness?
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY DR. TIP:
Q: Professor, the cross examination by Mr. McHaney makes a few questions necessary.
First of all, we will discuss the old documents put in by the prosecution sometime ago then the new ones.
First of all, a preliminary question, Professor. In your direct and also cross examination you described Becker-Freyseng's visit to you in Strasbourg. I should be interested to know, what you can say about whether Becker-Freyseng came to Strasbourg in order to visit you or whether his purpose for the trip was another and whether his visit to you was only incidental to this other purpose?
A: I have already said that Becker-Freyseng, on orders from Professor Schroder, was to, if possible, meet my wishes regarding experimental animals. I told him what my wishes were. I believe I remember that Becker-Freyseng visited another institute, however, namely the Pharmacological Institute and the director there, Professor Schlemmer.
Q: Thank you.
Please take document book 12 up again, Professor, and take a look at Document NO. 127 on page 94. This is your letter to Hirt of 27 June 1944 which contains the infamous concepts "control persons" and "subsequent infection." You said that in the parallel group of persons not vaccinated you could count on cases of sickness particularly in that group. In my opinion, you didn't explain clearly enough in the cross examination, why precisely in this control group you felt that you had to count on cases of sickness. Perhaps you could clarify that. Please do not go into the problem of subsequent infection at the moment.
A: I shall confine myself to the interpretation I gave yesterday.
Sickness in this case means nothing more than reaction to the vaccination. As I said before, this letter was directed to laymen who wouldn't have understood more complicated terminology. That I pointed this out, the reason for that was that vaccination with injections are generally known. There have been hundreds of thousands of cases of that, so that I didn't have to point out specifically that fact, but vaccination through scarification of the skin had not been the subject of much experience heretofore. Therefore, I had to refer to my vaccinations of December and January. Therefore, for these reasons, I felt that I should point out that there would be stronger reactions, but, as I said, I did this for my own protection, so to speak.
Q: Then, if I can sum up what you have said, the control group, as it is here called, was to be vaccinated only once by a scarification process whereas the other group of 150 persons was to be given preliminary vaccinations in the usual and well-known way by intra-muscular injection, and in this regard you are saying that more severe reactions must be expected in that control group which was vaccinated only by scarification of the skin.
Now, we must turn to the documents that have been put to you by the prosecution. Perhaps, Mr. McHaney would be so good as to give me the photostatic copy that was discussed this morning. I mean the photostatic copy of Document 807. Apparently, the photostat is not here at the moment, Professor. In the meantime, we can take up another document.
I have the photostat copy now, so we can continue in our discussion of it.
You recall this document don't you? This is the document with the letterhead "Camp Physician — Concentration Camp Natzweiler." It contain these individual sentences that Mr. McHaney put to you this morning and regarding which he asked you whether these individual sentences, referred to your work. I want to clear this thing up, because in some cases I am not clear in my mind whether you think that certain of the sentences really do refer to your work.
The first sentence reads, the date is 25th October, 1942, and I quote:
In addition there is the now scientific experimental series that is going to begin in the next few days which will make particular demands on us.
Can you tell us Professor, whether this sent one refers to your work?
A: That sentence comes from a report of 1942 so that sentence does not refer to my protective vaccinations.
DR. TIPP: When I look at this document, your Honors, I see a number of points in it that will be of very considerable probative importance. There are clippings. I see that the letterhead, with the date, is on an extra sheet of paper and the text thereunder is on a different sheet of paper. Therefore, you cannot even see from this document what dates belong to what entries. That is quite obvious from the photo copy. I do not know whether the Tribunal has a photo copy of this document. At any rate, it can very clearly be seen in my copy that the letterhead and the dates are not on the same piece of paper as the entries. Perhaps Mr. McHaney can explain that, but in the form that I have it here I can see no probative value in this document whatsoever. Perhaps I may be permitted to show the document to the Tribunal. Here, for example, and perhaps Mr. McHaney will confirm this, this is supposed to be a letterhead. Now this is written on the slant, by another typewriter, and then the entry thereunder is obviously another piece of paper cut out from somewhere.
MR. McHANEY: It seems to me we have had considerable discussion about this document. It is quite clear that the excerpts here were cut out of a report made by the camp doctor, the report covering other matters than those in issue here and which were not included by the French authorities who prepared this. Now, of course, if you cut the bottom or middle paragraphs out of a report, it is not going to show the date on that piece of paper which is excised from the full report. Consequently, I think the obvious explanation is that the French authorities who prepared this, as far as this top line goes, apparently took off the letterhead of the report and then excised a paragraph further down in the text in the context of it and then photographed the two together. As far as the second excerpt goes, it seems they did not even do that. They just cut out the particular paragraph which they wanted to reproduce in the full report and then apparently typed in the date of the report on some other machine, contemporaneous with preparing this exhibit.
All this will be quite clear on the original exhibit itself, that is to say, the album of pictures. It is rather difficult to very specifically analyze this photostatic copy, but since the document has been authenticated as genuine by the proper French authorities, and has been admitted into proof, I take it that this material is admissible and can be put to the witness and can be used for whatever value appears.
DR. TIPP: From this document, as it is put together, and from individual sentences which taken by themselves are incomprehensible, it cannot be seen where this sentence really was in the original document. These are individual slips of paper in a row, one after the other, and they have been photo-stated, without its being possible to know what any particular sentence belongs to. That the sentence really belongs under the date which is written alongside it is not to be seen from this document. This is, at any rate, the first document of this sort that has ever been put into evidence here in such a form. It is quite possible for the Prosecution to cite certain sentences in a document, but heretofore it was always usual for the entire document to be put in and if individual sentences were extracted from it, their context was comprehensible.
MR. McHANEY: If the Tribunal please. There are two questions open here. Is the document admissible? That question depends upon the authenticity of the document and its probative value. Now this document has been properly authenticated by the appropriate French authorities and has long ago been admitted into evidence. Now the second question is materiality. I put these excerpts to the witness and he has conceded that it is possible, if not probable, that certain of the excerpts applied to him. Others, he said, did not. I take it that this is some proof and that it can be considered by the Tribunal. Dr. Tipp's efforts now are to have the Tribunal rule that this portion of the document is not admissible and that no questions can be put to the witness, whereas the witness, himself, has already conceded the possibility that certain of the excerpts do apply to his experiments.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will reserve the ruling upon this point until the photostats are prepared and distributed and can be examined. Meanwhile, counsel may proceed with the redirect examination.
BY DR. TIPP:
Q: Since there is still the possibility that this document will be admitted in its present form, I must still go over certain points that it involves. Now on 25 October 1942 there is the sentence:
In the roll-call that the professor conducting the experiments called, only 14 suitable persons could be found. Treatment reduced those who had scabies to 4. Further measures to improve the general level of health are under way.
As I say, this is dated 25 October 1942. In your opinion, could this roll-call or examination refer to the one that you referred to in your direct examination? Perhaps I could read the next sentence, to make this clearer.
The gypsies provided by Ahnenerbe [Ancestral Heritage] for Natzweiler from Auschwitz on 12 November have after medical examination been released from the concentration camp as unsuitable. On 12 December 1943 some other gypsies were sent from the concentration camp of Auschwitz. Experiments are not yet under way.
If you look at these two sentences again, Professor, which of these two sentences refers to the group of persons which, according to your testimony in direct examination, were examined by you and found to be unsuitable?
A: As I said in my cross-examination, the situation was as follows: If the persons mentioned in paragraph two were provided for my vaccinations, then I can repeat what I have already said — that these persons were really in a state of health such as made it impossible to vaccinate them. To that extent there is a connection between the fact and this statement here.
Q: Just a moment, witness. In paragraph three it says:
on 12 November 1933 prisoners sent from Auschwitz were released, as unsuitable.
That is 12 November 1933. That date corresponds to the date given in your letter to Hirt, in which you stated that you examined this group of gypsies. Do you want to say that this paragraph refers to your experimental group?
A: Yes, but I was explaining the second paragraph.
Q: Then you think that under the circumstances the second paragraph too might refer to your experiments?
A: In the cross-examination today I said that I cannot be sure whether or not these were the gypsies I was going to use for my vaccinations. If these are the same gypsies that are mentioned in the third paragraph, then the whole matter is perfectly clear, because it says here that the people were unsuitable for vaccination.
After careful medical examination they were released from the experimental station. Instead of them, on 12 December 1933, another 89 gypsies were sent in from Auschwitz.
That is the continuation here in the document.
Q: In other words, witness, the two paragraphs could refer to your intended vaccinations and, if I understand you correctly, this is certainly true of the third paragraph?
A: Yes, that is the way it is.
Q: Now the fourth paragraph in this document — I should like to ascertain the following from the document. Here is a little slip of paper, apparently a letterhead on which stands:
Camp Physician, Concentration Camp Natzweiler, 23 January 1933.
That is all there is to that slip of paper. This slip of paper obviously partially covers another slip of paper, the text of which it is very difficult to read. The first line is altogether covered and the second line reads:
Part of the additional dressings needed were taken from the SS drug-store and the rest from the medical military department of the Anatomical Institute of the University of Strasbourg.
Is it your opinion that this sentence refers to your experiments or your vaccinations?
A: No, that is out of the question, because the date proves, namely, January 1943, that that was not possible. Moreover, this date refers to an altogether different letter, as you can see here.
DR. TIPP: Then let me state in order to clarify the probative value of this document that in the third paragraph of this document the date of 12 November 1943 is mentioned and then as continuation there is a date of 25 January 1943. These dates alone show how carelessly this document was put together.
Q: Now there follows a slip of paper with the letterhead:
Camp Physician, Natzweiler Concentration Camp, 1 February 1944
This slip of paper is again alone another slip of paper. However, attached to it is another slip which doesn't seem to be the same piece of paper but another:
Experiment Stations in Ahnenerbe have not yet started 89 experimental subjects, namely gypsies. Of the 89 experimental subjects (gypsies) 1 has in the meantime died; 40 have been vaccinated for a typhus experiment.
If we assume, Professor, that the date is in order—namely, 1 February 1944 — do you then believe that these 40 gypsies who must have been vaccinated in the meantime were your first experimental group?
A: So far as the last line of this paragraph is concerned, it says that 40 gypsies were vaccinated for a typhus experiment. That, of course, is probable, but I don't believe that any German doctor would use the wrong gender for the German word "experiment" which is done in this document; as far as the time element is concerned, it does seem to be in order.
Q: Then there is the last sentence in the last paragraph of this document. This, too, again is two different slips of paper as the photo copy shows. The first one says:
Camp Physician, Concentration Camp, Natzweiler, 22 March 1944
— and the next fragment of the sheet of paper carries the number "10" and says:
As last reported in the last monthly report, there were two vaccinations in the experimental station, followed by the vaccinations proper after which blood analysis and temperatures were taken.
Let me say the following regarding this. Here there is mention of the last monthly report and then it says after two typhoid vaccinations there followed the third vaccination.
Am I correct in thinking that when they speak of the last monthly report they are speaking of the report from the month of February which we don't have here?
A: The lapse of time would have had to be about two months so that, apparently, one report is missing here, a report that was made in that period of time?
Q: That is apparently the report at the end of February and in this report which is missing it is reported what took place in January; and there it says that after two typhoid vaccinations the typhoid vaccination proper took place.
Q: Witness, do you think we can assume that this sentence, as it now stands, refers to typhoid which we, of course, should really understand to be typhus vaccinations in Natzweiler?
A: Yes, I think so because every general physician who has anything to do with inoculations knows what an inoculation is and this expression can hardly be confused with anything else. The date also remember, please, that the reports are not given at regular intervals and that on 22 March the camp physician already knew the results of the vaccination. It isn't stated precisely when that third vaccination was made but it certainly was done before 22nd of March.
Q: You, apparently, are overlooking, witness, that it says here in this document:
As already reported in the last monthly report.
Therefore, that statement must have been made in a February report. Don't you agree with me to that extent?
A: (reading)
As it was already stated in the last monthly report, there were two vaccinations followed by the typhus vaccinations proper which in turn was followed by blood analysis and temperature taking.
That is what it says. But, I think the number "3" here was wrong. Number "2" would be right. It is badly printed here. I read it "number 3" and I am trying to correct it. It should have been "2". If it says two vaccinations here, they everything is in order. There followed thereupon the third vaccination.
Q: If I understand you correctly, witness, you are saying that this sentence of the report refers to your vaccinations in December and January. Your series of three vaccinations. Now let's take a look at NO 3450, Exhibit 519. This is the list with the letterhead statement of expenditures, with bills and receipts included, for influenza research assignment, et cetera.
A: I don't have the document here.
Q: One question about this, witness; Mr. McHaney has said that you said that you did no vaccinating for the Medical Inspectorate. Nevertheless, you made many trips to Natzweiler and Schirmeck and many telephone calls and included the charges for that in the statement of expenditures for the influenza research. Let me ask you the following about this, witness; were the individual expenditures in research assignment sharply kept separate or was the general policy that the funds could be spread around for the individual assignments and the funds for one assignment could be used to make up for deficits in the other assignment?
A: Yes, that was customary. If you had several funds and one fund had just been exhausted or was about to be exhausted, and if you had money in the other funds, and if the same person was using both of these funds, that came from the same place, then you took the money from the one fund without question and used it for the other fund.
On the occasion of the conversation I had with Kwenzel during which I told him that the funds for one research assignment were exhausted, Kwenzel told me explicitly that I could take funds to make up for that lack from the other fund. In a laboratory where many things are being worked on, that is quite a customary procedure. That is something that everybody does and in saying this I base my statement on what Kwenzel told me himself. I believe others here could substantiate that.
Q: Then you say that these trips and telephone calls to Schirmeck were included in this statement of expenditures for influenza research but that this does not prove that the trips and phone calls were made actually in connection with this influenza research for the Medidal Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe but this was done for purely practical or formal reasons?
A: Yes, that's so.
Q: Do you have the next document, witness, 2874, your letter to Rose of 4 October 1943?
A: No, I don't.
Q: I will have the document put to you. First, one little question about the document 3450 we have just been discussing: it strikes me that there are a large number of phone calls to Schirmeck listed here which really must be phone calls that were made to Natzweiler. Wasn't the situation this, witness — Natzweiler didn't have it's own telephone exchange; consequently, all phone calls for Natzweiler had to go through the exchange at Schirmeck, so that you couldn't keep these two things separate in the bill at all?
A: That I cannot tell you because the connections were always made by my secretary but you will see that in parentheses you will see the name "Natzweiler" after the word "Schirmeck 108". Consequently, these can only have been phone calls to Natzweiler.
Q: In document No. 3450, under 18 March there is a phone call listed, Schirmeck 108 (Natzweiler). Now, witness to document No. 2874, exhibit 524, your letter to Dr. Rose from 4 October 1943, the Prosecutor put to you three points in this letter. The first thing he put to you is on page two of this document, in the original it is toward the end of the second paragraph. You are speaking here of Serum Titer Values in connection with your, and I will quote:
The Serum Titer is considerably higher, even after a single vaccination, in comparison with triple vaccinations with dead vaccines.
The Prosecutor said that you said nothing in your direct examination about a triple vaccination, and when discussing the vaccinations with Schirmeck you didn't say any such vaccination took place; what is this reference then to the triple vaccinations and the Serum Titer?
A: A triple vaccination was prescribed and we have the vast experience with dead vaccines that only limited agglutinative titer values resulted; that is what this sentence refers to, namely, the series of three vaccinations with the dead vaccines.
Q: Then, if I understand, you, witness, this is a statement of general experience which you have had with dead, vaccines and these do not refer to any vaccination or experiments that you carried out?
A: That is correct.
Q: You were also asked about the next sentence by the Prosecution:
I regret that it was not possible so far to perform infections experiments on the vaccinated persons; I requested the Ahnenerbe of the SS to provide suitable persons for vaccination, but did not receive an answer as yet.
Can you tell us what letter you are referring to when you say that you turned to the Ahnenerbe of the SS, but did not receive any answer?
A: Here I am referring to the application that I made through Professor Hirt, and apparently Professor Hirt forwarded this letter to the Ahnenerbe. To what extent the Ahnenerbe was competent or identical with the WVHA, that I do not know, but certainly this refers to that group of persons whom I requested for protective vaccination in Natzweiler.
Q: You are referring then, witness, to the group that you first asked for from Professor Hirt. We do not have this application here, but I can remind you of document No. 120, in document book 12, page 75, this letter mentions your request of 16 August 1943; signed by Sievers, it states that Sievers will be glad to help and has turned to the competent agency to see to it that the persons you wish will be made available. This letter of Sievers, is dated 30 September 1943; and document No. 2874, namely your letter to Rose is dated 4 October 1943, document 2874; is it not more than improbable that in view of the state of the mail at that time that on the 4th of October 1943, in Strasbourg, you could have received a letter sent from Waischenfeld, in Upper Frankonia on 30 September 1943?
A: That can be seen from my letter to Hirt. If I had received this letter by then, I would have referred to it. This is document 120 and the letterhead is, "Institute for Military Scientific Research", and if I had received it, I should have referred to it.
Q: That is what I mean, witness, but I am going to prove from the two dates involved, that on 8 October when you sent this letter to Rose, you could not yet have received the letter from Sievers on 30 September; in other words, you had no news from the Ahnenerbe; is that so?
A: Yes, that is.
Q: Then, witness, when in this last letter, 2674, you say that you had turned to the SS for carrying out infectious experiments, are you referring to the same thing, namely the carrying out of three vaccinations with reinstated living virus?
A: Yes, but I think I have to correct a detail here. I didn't turn to the SS in a matter of infection experiments but in the matter of protective vaccinations. You said that I turned to the SS in a matter regarding infections?
Q: I was simply using the same words you used in this letter. You write:
I regret that it was not possible so far to perform infectious experiments on the vaccinated persons.
A: That refers to the group that was subsequently to be post-vaccinated to ascertain the anti-infectious protection through Serological examination that would follow.
Q: Now, down here further I would like to discuss something with you — skipping one paragraph, toward the end, I quote:
According to our opinion of today regarding the course of infection in virus diseases, especially in their beginning, the Serological diagnosis for the classification of the immunity has again to be considered as of greater importance.
What do you mean by this Serological diagnosis when you are classifying, the state of immunity? Do you mean the Weil-Felix reaction and the hereby ascertained Serological result or what are you referring to?
A: Yes, that is right, the Weil-Felix reaction is of great assistance in ascertaining immunity and this agrees with what I have already said here about the ascertaining of anti infectious immunity by Serological means. When I am referring to virus diseases, I am referring to experiences that others have had in the general subject of other virus diseases.
Q: Now, witness, another question about this document. The Prosecutor compared the two concepts used in this document, You said you spoke of subsequent infectious experiments and in the last sentence, you say, I quote:
If we can get experimental subjects from the SS for test vaccinations—
are you referring to two different things on the one hand when you speak of test vaccinations and on the other hand, subsequent test infections, or do these both refer to the same thing. Are you using the two concepts simultaneously in the words you explained in your direct examination?
A: Yes, that is so. I am testing here the anti-infectious immunity after the protective vaccination.
Q: I believe that sufficiently clarified this document, witness. I shall turn now to the last document put to you, document NO. 3852.
THE PRESIDENT: Before starting examination on that documents Counsel, the Tribunal will be in recess for a few minutes.
(Thereupon a recess was taken.)