a. Introduction
The defendants Karl Brandt, Handloser, Rostock, Schroeder, Genzken,
Gebhardt, Rudolf Brandt, Mrugowsky, Poppendick, Sievers, Rose,
Becker-Freyseng and Hoven were charged with special responsibility for
and participation in criminal conduct involving typhus experiments (par.
6 (J) of the indictment). In the indictment, “spotted fever” was used
for the German word “Fleckfieber”, but later this was translated as
“typhus”. (_See also judgment, Vol. II._) On this charge the defendants
Handloser, Schroeder, Genzken, Rudolf Brandt, Mrugowsky, Sievers, Rose,
and Hoven were convicted, and the defendants Karl Brandt, Rostock,
Gebhardt, Poppendick, and Becker-Freyseng were acquitted.
The prosecution’s summation of the evidence on the typhus experiments is
contained in the final briefs against the defendants Mrugowsky and
Schroeder. Extracts from them are set forth below on pages 508 to 528.
The extract of the prosecution brief against Mrugowsky summarizes
evidence concerning experiments with old blood plasma, blood
transfusions, and withdrawal of blood from inmates of the Buchenwald
concentration camp for the purpose of manufacturing a typhus
convalescent serum. A corresponding summation of the evidence by the
defense on these experiments has been selected from the closing brief
for the defendant Rose and the final plea and closing brief for the
defendant Mrugowsky. These appear below on pages 528 to 554. This
argumentation is followed by selections from the evidence on pages 555
to 631.
b. Selections from the Argumentation of the Prosecution
_EXTRACTS FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST DEFENDANT MRUGOWSKY_
_Typhus and Other Vaccine Experiments_
The attack against Russia in 1941 gave rise to many military medical
problems, not the least of which was typhus. The disease reached serious
proportions in the fall of 1941, and typhus vaccines were so scarce that
only doctors, nurses, and other medical personnel in exposed positions
could be given inoculations. (_Tr. pp. 3160-3161._)
One of the most important problems with respect to the increased
production of typhus vaccines was the effectiveness of the so-called
Cox-Haagen-Gildemeister vaccine, which was produced from egg-yolk
cultures. The effective Weigl vaccine, produced from the intestines of
lice, was available, but its manufacture was expensive and complicated.
The egg-yolk vaccine was relatively simple to produce but its protective
qualities were not regarded as having been sufficiently proved.
(_NO-732, Pros. Ex. 451._)
The entry for 29 December 1941 in the Ding diary proves that a
conference was held on that date between Handloser, as Army Medical
Inspector; Conti, of the Ministry of Interior; Reiter, of the Public
Health Department; Gildemeister, of the Robert Koch Institute; and
Mrugowsky, of the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS. (_NO-265, Pros.
Ex. 287._)
At the conference it was decided that the typhus vaccine from egg yolks
was to be tested on human beings to determine its efficacy. On the same
day an earlier conference was held which discussed the same problem. It
took place at the Reich Ministry of the Interior, and was attended by
Bieber of the Interior; Gildemeister; representatives of the General
Government in Occupied Poland; officials of the Behring Works of I. G.
Farben, and Oberstabsarzt Scholz, of the Army Medical Inspectorate. The
minutes of this conference state that:
“The vaccine which is presently being produced by the Behring
Works from chicken eggs shall be tested for its effectiveness in
an experiment. For this purpose Dr. Bieber will contact
Obersturmfuehrer Dr. Mrugowsky.”
Since Mrugowsky was not present at this conference, it is obvious that
other conferences took place in which this matter was discussed with
him, which is corroborated in the entry of the Ding diary referred to
above.
As a result of the decision reached at these conferences, the
experimental station in the Buchenwald concentration camp under SS
Sturmfuehrer, later Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Ding-Schuler (hereinafter
referred to as “Ding”) was established. (_NO-265, Pros. Ex. 287; Tr. p.
1154._) The charts drawn by the defendant Mrugowsky, among other proof,
show that the experimental station in Buchenwald was subordinated to the
Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS under Mrugowsky from the date of its
establishment until the end of the war. (_NO-416, Pros. Ex. 22_;
_NO-417, Pros. Ex. 23_.)
In the beginning of 1943, the research station in Buchenwald was
officially called the “Department of Typhus and Virus Research” of the
Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS. The experiments were carried out in
Block 46, the so-called Clinical Block, with the exception of a few
experiments early in 1942. In the autumn of 1943 a vaccine production
department was established in Block 50. Both Blocks 46 and 50 were part
of the Division for Typhus and Virus Research. The defendant Hoven was
the deputy to Ding in both blocks. (_NO-265, Pros. Ex. 287; Tr. pp.
1155-1156._)
Criminal experiments on concentration camp inmates without their consent
were carried out in Block 46 to test typhus, yellow fever, smallpox,
typhoid, para-typhoid A and B, cholera, and diphtheria vaccines.
The typhus experiments in Buchenwald were carried out on a very large
scale and resulted in many deaths. The manner of execution and the
results of the experiments are proved in great detail by the Ding diary
and the testimony of Kogon as well as other evidence. The first
experiment began on 6 January 1942 with the vaccination of 135 inmates
with the Weigl, Cox-Haagen-Gildemeister, Behring Normal, or Behring
Strong vaccines. All vaccinations were completed by 1 February. On 3
March 1942, all of the vaccinated subjects and 10 inmates who had not
been vaccinated (known as the “control group”) were artificially
infected with virulent virus of Rickettsia-Prowazeki furnished by the
Robert Koch Institute. The experiment was concluded on 19 April 1942.
Five deaths occurred, three in the control group and two among the
vaccinated subjects. (_NO-265, Pros. Ex. 287_; _Mrugowsky 10, Mrugowsky
Ex. 20_.)
In later experiments the number of experimental subjects usually varied
between 40 and 60, but the proportion of control subjects was increased.
Approximately two-thirds of the experimental subjects were vaccinated
while one-third remained without protection. A few weeks after
vaccination, all experimental subjects were artificially infected with
typhus. The course of the disease was then observed in the protected and
control groups and the effectiveness of the vaccine was determined.
(_Tr. p. 1168._) Therapeutic experiments were conducted in the same
manner with various drugs. For example, between 24 April and 1 June
1943, experiments were performed to test the effect of acridine
granulate and rutenol on typhus. Of a total of 39 inmates used, 21 died.
(_NO-582, Pros. Ex. 286._)
Artificial infection was accomplished in various ways. In the beginning
the skin was lacerated and infected with a typhus culture. Contagious
lice were used to a limited extent. For the most part, however,
infection was brought about by the intravenous or intramuscular
injection of fresh blood containing the typhus virus. For the sole
purpose of maintaining a constant source of infected fresh blood, 3 to 5
inmates per month were artificially infected with typhus. The use of
these so-called “passage persons” began at least as early as April 1943
and continued until March 1945. Substantially all of them died. These
victims were so much “a matter of course” that their fatalities were not
included by Ding in his diary. (_Tr. pp. 1168-1171._)
An analysis of the Ding diary proves that a total of 729 inmates were
experimented on with typhus, of whom 154 died. To these figures must be
added the passage persons, of whom between 90 and 120 died.
So much for the cold statistics of the experiments. Block 46, where the
experiments were carried out, was a horror for every inmate of the
Buchenwald concentration camp. Everyone selected for the experiments
expected to die a slow and frightful death. The man-to-man passage of
the typhus virus created a form of “super” typhus. (_Tr. p. 1168._)
While typhus normally has a mortality of about 30 percent in unprotected
cases, in an experiment on 13 April 1943 five out of six persons
infected died. (_NO-265, Pros. Ex. 287._) Many of the experimental
subjects became delirious. (_Tr. pp. 1172, 1173._) In the experiments
with acridine and rutenol, the subjects vomited up to seven times a day.
Bronchial pneumonia, nephritis, intestinal bleeding, subcutaneous
phlegmones below the larynx, parotitis, gangrene of the shank,
furunculosis, bronchitis, and decubital sores developed as a result of
this treatment. (_NO-582, Pros. Ex. 286._) Experimental subjects who
survived and had a lighter course of the disease because the vaccine
with which they were vaccinated was effective were forced to watch the
death struggle of their fellow inmates. There was an iron discipline in
Block 46, the cat-o’-nine-tails ruled supreme, and the experimental
subjects were completely deprived of the last vestige of personal
freedom which they had in the camp. (_Tr. pp. 1172, 1173._)
It is hardly necessary to state that the experimental subjects used in
the typhus, as well as all other experiments in Buchenwald, were not
volunteers. One does not normally volunteer to be killed. In the first
series of typhus experiments, a number of inmates were duped into
submitting after being told it was a harmless affair and that they would
get additional food. They were not informed that they would be
artificially infected with typhus nor that they might die. (_Tr. p.
1162_; _see also the testimony of Kogon in Case 4,[57] Tr. pp. 731, 732;
NO-3680, Pros. Ex. 536_.) These subjects cannot be described as
volunteers. After the first few experiments, it was no longer possible
to deceive inmates into offering themselves for the experiments.
Thereafter, up until about the fall of 1943, experimental subjects were
chosen arbitrarily from among the inmates, whether criminals, political
prisoners, or homosexuals. Intrigue among the prisoners themselves
sometimes played a role in the selection. In the fall of 1943, the camp
administration no longer desired to take the responsibility for the
selection of the experimental subjects. Ding no longer was satisfied
with verbal orders from Mrugowsky to carry out the experiments and he
asked for written orders. He approached Mrugowsky with the request that
the Reich Leader SS should appoint the experimental subjects. According
to a directive from Himmler to Nebe of the Reich criminal police, only
those inmates were to be used who had been confined for 10 years or
more. Thereafter, most of the experimental subjects were habitual
criminals, many of whom were transported to Buchenwald from other camps.
But political prisoners were still included because they were in
disfavor with the camp administration or because of camp intrigues. None
of the experimental inmates had been condemned to death, except a few
Russian prisoners of war who had not been tried or sentenced. They were
from some 9,500 Russian prisoners of war who were killed in Buchenwald.
The experimental subjects were generally in good physical condition.
(_Tr. pp. 1162, 1163._) The experimental subjects included not only
Germans, but also Poles, Russians, and Frenchmen, as well as prisoners
of war. The testimony of Kogon is applicable not only to the typhus
experiments but to the other experiments in Buchenwald as well. (_Tr. p.
1167._)
This testimony of Kogon is corroborated by the letter from Himmler to
the Chief of the Security Police dated 27 February 1944. He said:
“I agree that professional prisoners be taken for experiments
with the typhus vaccine. But only those professional criminals
should be chosen who have served more than ten years in prison;
that is, not with ten prior convictions but with a total penalty
of ten years.
“SS Gruppenfuehrer Nebe is to supervise the disposal of these
inmates. I don’t wish the physician to pick out inmates without
my counter-control.” (_NO-1189, Pros. Ex. 471._)
The same document shows that Mrugowsky received a copy of this decision
on change in procedure and that it had been arrived at after a
conference between Mrugowsky and Nebe.
The testimony of Kogon is further corroborated by the witness
Kirchheimer (_Tr. pp. 1321-1332_) and the affidavit of Hoven. (_NO-429,
Pros. Ex. 281._)
The defense has contested the authenticity of the Ding diary. It is
impossible to determine from the record precisely what their position is
in that regard. That the diary does not consist of entries made day by
day is obvious from the face of the document itself. It is rather a
document which periodically summarizes the experiments which in many
cases lasted several months. Ding also kept a daily diary and work
reports. (_Tr. p. 1226._) These obviously form the basis of the diary in
evidence. The defense lays great stress on the fact that page one of the
diary was typed with an older ribbon than pages two et seq., and hence
was probably typed later. The prosecution has no quarrel with that.
Kogon gave the very obvious explanation that the page was probably
re-typed when the name of the experimental station was designated as the
“Department for Typhus and Virus Research”. (_Tr. p. 1228._) At best,
the reasons for re-typing pages are now a matter of sheer speculation.
No valid inference can be drawn from that fact alone. The Ding diary was
taken by Kogon from Buchenwald. It was in his exclusive possession until
delivered to the Office of Chief of Counsel for War Crimes. He testified
that he did not alter the document in any respect and that the
signatures of Ding, and later Schuler, are genuine. (_Tr. pp.
1164-1166._) He had no motive for changing the diary. The document was
authenticated by the prosecution as being in the same condition as when
received.
The experts of the defense established that the document was written on
the same typewriter with the same kind of paper. Mrugowsky admitted that
Ding’s signature is on substantially all of the pages of the diary.
(_Tr. p. 5410._) There is no contention they have been forged. A
comparison of the admittedly genuine signature of Ding on a vaccination
chart (_NO-578, Pros. Ex. 284_), and of Schuler on an affidavit signed
by him after the war (_NO-257, Pros. Ex. 283_), with the signatures of
Ding-Schuler in the diary prove beyond any doubt that the signatures are
authentic.
The defense has not established a single inaccuracy in the Ding diary.
The prosecution, on the other hand, has proved the detailed accuracy of
the diary time and again by the introduction of independent documents.
It will suffice to cite a few examples. The work report of the “Division
for Typhus and Virus Research” for the year 1943, which was sent to
Mrugowsky, substantiates the corresponding entries in the diary in every
detail. (_NO-571, Pros. Ex. 285._) The paper written by Ding on the
treatment of typhus with acridine derivatives, approved by Mrugowsky,
checks to the last detail with the experiment reported by the entries in
the diary for 24 April and 1 June 1943. (_NO-582, Pros. Ex. 286._)
Mrugowsky’s letter of 5 May 1942 to Conti, Grawitz, Genzken,
Gildemeister, Eyer, and Demnitz reporting on a typhus vaccine experiment
is in fact a description of the first experimental series in Buchenwald
as given in the diary. This was a document submitted by the defense.
(_Mrugowsky 10, Mrugowsky Ex. 20._) Mrugowsky admitted he was reporting
on that experiment. (_Tr. p. 5414._) The entry in the diary for 19
August 1942 concerning the testing of the Bucharest [Cantacuzino]
vaccine made available by Rose, is corroborated by Mrugowsky’s letter to
Rose, dated 16 May 1942, asking for the vaccines. (_NO-1754, Pros. Ex.
491._) The entry for 8 March 1944 concerning the experiments with the
Ipsen [Copenhagen] vaccine, which the diary shows were suggested by
Rose, is substantiated by Rose’s letter to Mrugowsky of 2 December 1943
(_NO-1186, Pros. Ex. 492_), and by Lolling’s letter to Grawitz of 14
February 1944. (_NO-1188, Pros. Ex. 470_; _see also, NO-1189, Pros. Ex.
471_.) The yellow fever vaccine experiments reported in the diary on 10
January 1943 are dealt with in a letter from the Behring Works to
Mrugowsky dated 5 January 1943. (_NO-1305, Pros. Ex. 469._) The
phosphorus bomb experiments are noted in the Ding diary under the dates
of 19 to 25 November 1943. The report on these experiments dated 2
January 1944 shows the burning of inmates began on 19 November and ended
on 25 November 1943. (_NO-579, Pros. Ex. 288._) As to the conference
held on 29 December 1941 reported in the Ding diary, Mrugowsky made the
following statement in a pre-trial interrogation: “I remember that
meeting and it occurred to me that there were present Schreiber,
Gildemeister, Ding, and myself.” Mrugowsky admitted in open court having
made such a statement. (_Tr. p. 5380._)
The above analysis of the authenticity and accuracy of the Ding diary,
while not exhaustive, suffices to show that the defense objection to
this document is completely without merit. There is scarcely a line in
the whole diary which has not been substantiated either by documents or
testimony. The diary must be accepted as accurate in its entirety. There
is no basis whatever for accepting some entries and rejecting others.
The defense has presented no credible evidence of _any_ inaccuracies.
The living record of the deceased Ding is the best evidence of what
actually happened.
Other vaccine experiments were carried out in the experimental station
in Buchenwald. On request of the Medical Inspectorate of the Army,
yellow fever vaccine containing a live virus was tested in a large-scale
experiment on inmates which began on 10 January 1943. The arrangements
were made by Schreiber through the defendant Mrugowsky. (_NO-1305, Pros.
Ex. 469._) A very large number of inmates were vaccinated between 13
January and 17 May 1943 at which time production of the yellow fever
vaccine was abandoned because of the military situation in North Africa.
The results of these experiments were sent to Amt XVI in the SS
Operational Headquarters, which was the hygiene office under Mrugowsky,
and to the Army Medical Inspectorate. (_NO-265, Pros. Ex. 287._)
In the first part of 1943, Mrugowsky conferred with Handloser concerning
multiple vaccinations. (_Tr. p. 3064._) There can be no doubt that this
was the motivation for the large scale vaccination experiments on 45
inmates of Buchenwald between 24 March and 20 April 1943, as set forth
in the Ding diary. Each person was vaccinated on eight different days
within four weeks against smallpox, typhoid, typhus, para-typhoid A and
B, cholera, and diphtheria. The report on these experiments was sent to
Mrugowsky’s office. Kogon testified that the experimental subjects were
given para-typhoid bacilli in potato salad. He also stated that the
experiments in Buchenwald with diseases other than typhus resulted in
deaths, although relatively fewer. (_Tr. pp. 1182, 1183._)
Mrugowsky would have the Tribunal believe that he is in no way
responsible for the experiments carried out by Ding and Hoven in the
Buchenwald concentration camp. He testified, in effect, that Ding was
directly subordinated to Grawitz as far as the experiments were
concerned. (_Tr. p. 5067._) While he did admit that Ding was
subordinated to him for purposes of vaccine production in Block 50 in
Buchenwald, he said he had nothing whatever to do with the experiments
carried out in Block 46. The same contention was made by the defendant
Genzken. Mrugowsky testified that he was outraged by the idea of
experimenting on human beings since he was of the opinion that human
life is sacred. (_Tr. p. 5066._)
The proof, however, is overwhelming that Mrugowsky ordered the
experiments carried out by Ding in Buchenwald. In his own pre-trial
affidavit Mrugowsky stated that the Division for Typhus and Virus
Research of the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS in Buchenwald was
established in the beginning of 1942 by Genzken. He admitted that as
Chief of Amt XVI (hygiene) in the SS Operational Headquarters and as
Chief of the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS, he was the immediate
superior of Ding. He stated further that experiments on inmates were
carried out by Ding in order to determine the effect of various typhus
vaccines. He admitted he obtained full knowledge of the work of Ding;
that he received reports from him on the experiments, including the
death rates, and that he informed Genzken. (_NO-423, Pros. Ex. 282._)
The two charts drawn by the defendant Mrugowsky clearly show that the
experimental station in Buchenwald under Ding was directly subordinated
to Mrugowsky from the time of its establishment until the collapse of
Germany. (_NO-416, Pros. Ex. 22_; _NO-417, Pros. Ex. 23_.) Mrugowsky
admitted Ding’s connection with the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS
on cross-examination. (_Tr. p. 5371._)
The pre-trial affidavit of the defendant Hoven who was deputy to Ding
and certainly in a position to know the facts, states that the Hygiene
Institute of the Waffen SS under Mrugowsky received all the reports on
the experiments in Block 46 and that Ding received orders directly from
Mrugowsky. Hoven outlined the chain of command as: Grawitz, Genzken,
Mrugowsky, and Ding. Ding went to Berlin for discussions with Mrugowsky
nearly every second week. Mrugowsky visited the home of Ding on one of
his trips to Buchenwald. (_NO-429, Pros. Ex. 281._)
Kogon testified that Ding reported personally to Mrugowsky on the
experiments, and when he did not go to Berlin himself, he reported
regularly every three months in writing. (_Tr. pp. 1155-1186._) The
reports on the experiments carried out in Block 46 were sent to
Mrugowsky in Berlin. (_Tr. p. 1160._) Ding’s official correspondence was
primarily with Mrugowsky. (_Tr. p. 1157._) The instructions for the
execution of the experiments came from Mrugowsky. (_Tr. pp. 1163,
1219._) In the late summer of 1943 Mrugowsky became the sole chief of
Ding and issued all orders to him. (_Tr. p. 1202._) Mrugowsky occupied
such an important position that it would have been dangerous for Ding to
contact Grawitz over his head. (_Tr. p. 1241._) Mrugowsky visited the
experimental block in Buchenwald on several occasions. (_Tr. pp. 1244,
1245_; _Tr. p. 1329_.)
The proof outlined above as to Mrugowsky’s responsibility is repeatedly
supported by documentary evidence. Ding’s work report for the year 1943,
which lists the experiments carried out in Block 46, was sent to
Mrugowsky and carried the letterhead “Hygiene Institute of the Waffen
SS, Division for Typhus and Virus Research, Weimar-Buchenwald.”
(_NO-571, Pros. Ex. 285._) This work report covers the experiments in
Block 46 and the production of vaccines in Block 50, which conclusively
proves that Mrugowsky’s assertion that his responsibility was limited to
Block 50 is completely false. The same report shows that Mrugowsky
inspected the Division for Typhus and Virus Research in Buchenwald on 3
September 1943, and that Ding had several conferences with Mrugowsky.
Mrugowsky’s own secretary admitted that Ding’s reports about his
experiments on inmates went via the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS
to Grawitz. (_Mrugowsky 38, Mrugowsky Ex. 13._)
Mrugowsky received Ding’s report on the treatment of typhus with
acridine derivatives. (_NO-582, Pros. Ex. 286._) This report speaks of
clinical tests on human beings who were afflicted with typhus, but
Mrugowsky knew that Ding experimented by artificially infecting the
subjects. (_Tr. p. 5066._) The report shows on its face that 21 of the
experimental subjects died and that the inmates who survived had to
fight severe complications of the disease. This same experimental series
is reported in the Ding diary under the entries for 24 April and 1 June
1943.
The first experimental series on typhus carried out in Buchenwald
between 6 January and 19 April 1942 in which 145 inmates were used as
experimental subjects was the basis of a report by Mrugowsky to Conti,
Grawitz, Genzken, Eyer, and Demnitz, dated 5 May 1942. (_Mrugowsky 10,
Mrugowsky Ex. 20._) Five of the subjects died as a result of these
experiments. (_NO-265, Pros. Ex. 287._)
The experiments with the Cantacuzino vaccine from Bucharest, reported in
the Ding diary under the entry for 19 August 1942, were ordered by
Mrugowsky. This vaccine was furnished by the defendant Rose, who
requested Mrugowsky to arrange for the experiments. On 16 May 1942
Mrugowsky wrote to Rose stating that Grawitz had consented to the
execution of the experiments and that the vaccine should be sent to him
(Mrugowsky). He also agreed to conduct experiments to determine whether
the louse could be infected by a vaccinated typhus patient. This, of
course, necessitated the infection of the experimental subject with
typhus. (_NO-1754, Pros. Ex. 491._) As a result of these experiments,
four of the subjects died. (_NO-265, Pros. Ex. 287._)
The typhus experimental series No. VIII, during which the Ipsen vaccine
from Copenhagen was tested, was also ordered by the defendant Mrugowsky.
On 2 December 1943 Rose asked Mrugowsky to have the Ipsen vaccine tested
in Ding’s experimental station in Buchenwald. (_NO-1186, Pros. Ex.
492._) Mrugowsky expressly denied, during cross-examination, that he was
ever approached by Rose to have the Copenhagen [Ipsen] vaccine tested in
Buchenwald. He stated that: “If he had come to me I would have sent him
on to someone else. I would have said: ‘My dear man, that does not have
anything to do with me.’” (_Tr. pp. 5434, 5435._) On 21 February 1944
Mrugowsky was notified that 30 “appropriate gypsies” would be made
available for testing the Ipsen vaccine. (_NO-1188, Pros. Ex. 470._)
Mrugowsky was further advised on 29 February 1944 that the experimental
subjects would be designated by the office of Nebe of the Reich criminal
police. (_NO-1189, Pros. Ex. 471._) The Ding diary proves that the
experiments with the Ipsen vaccine began on 8 March 1944 with 30
experimental subjects, of whom six died as a result of the experiments.
On 12 August 1944 the defendant Mrugowsky ordered Ding to carry out
experiments to determine the infectious character of blood of slight
cases of typhus compared with that of serious cases. (_NO-1197, Pros.
Ex. 472._)
Mrugowsky ordered a series of experiments to determine whether the
course of typhus could be tempered by intravenous or intramuscular
injection of typhus vaccine. Of the 25 experimental subjects used, 19
died. This experiment was carried out between 11 November and 22
December 1944. (_NO-265, Pros. Ex. 287._)
* * * * *
_Experiments with Old Blood Plasma and the Production of Blood Plasma and
the Typhus Serum_
Experiments with old blood plasma were conducted on inmates in
Buchenwald by order of Mrugowsky at the request of the Military Medical
Academy. Blood transfusions were carried out in order to determine
whether old blood plasma could be used without danger, especially
without danger of shock. Several series of experiments were performed,
each with 10 to 20 experimental subjects. Some of the victims died,
probably due to the combined effect of shock and poor physical
condition. Mrugowsky received reports on these experiments. (_Tr. pp.
1190-1192_; _NO-265, Pros. Ex. 287_.)
The entries for 26 May and 13 October 1944 in the Ding diary show that
blood was withdrawn from inmates recovering from typhus for the purpose
of making a typhus convalescent serum. The witness Kogon testified that
this work was done by SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Ellenbeck on order from
Mrugowsky. Ellenbeck obtained the blood from typhus convalescents in
Block 46 from the summer of 1944 until the spring of 1945. Blood was
taken from these experimental subjects regularly, usually in amounts
between 250 and 350 cubic centimeters. Taking the blood from the
convalescent patients meant an extraordinary burden on them and a number
died. While the precise cause of death could not be definitely
ascertained under the circumstances, there is no doubt that the
withdrawal of blood was a contributing factor. (_Tr. pp. 1192, 1193._)
Kogon further testified that Ellenbeck, on orders from Mrugowsky,
systematically selected invalids and old persons, especially Frenchmen,
who were in the so-called “little camp” of Buchenwald, for the purpose
of withdrawing blood to be used in making blood plasma. The horrible
conditions in the “little camp” were vividly described. The blood was
demanded from the victims and was taken from them. Sometimes extra food
was given to these starving patients. (_Tr. pp. 1194-1196._) Upon being
asked whether any of these blood donors in the “little camp” in
Buchenwald died from this blood-letting, Kogon replied:
“The question shows that it is very difficult to gain a real
concept of the ‘little camp’ at Buchenwald. The people died
there in masses. During the night corpses were lying in the
blocks naked because they were thrown out of the bunks by the
other prisoners so that they would have a little more space.
Even the smallest pieces of clothing were torn off by those who
wanted to survive. It is impossible to determine if anybody died
as the direct and immediate result of the taking of blood,
because many people fell and died while walking around in the
‘little camp’.
“But it is beyond doubt to anyone who knew the conditions there,
that the taking of blood—even if a small measure of strength
was given to these people as far as food was concerned—was a
considerable contributing factor in the death of very many of
them.” (_Tr. p. 1196._)
Ellenbeck also conducted research concerning the oxygen content of the
blood of human beings in various stages of exhaustion and artificially
produced starvation oedema. Mrugowsky gave his approval to these
experiments. (_Tr. pp. 1257-1266._)
_EXTRACTS FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST
DEFENDANT SCHROEDER_
* * * * *
_Typhus and Other Vaccine Experiments in the Natzweiler Concentration
Camp_
The appearance of Haagen as a defense witness requires consideration of
his testimony on these experiments.
Haagen testified that in the summer of 1943 the defendant Rose, as
consulting hygienist to the Chief of the Medical Service of the
Luftwaffe, prevailed upon him to resume active status as consulting
hygienist to the Air Fleet Physician Reich. Haagen also accepted a
typhus research commission from the Luftwaffe and as a result of this
commission and his position in the Luftwaffe, he carried out certain
typhus experiments. (_Tr. pp. 9564, 9565._)
Haagen stated that Stabsarzt Graefe was assigned to him at the Hygiene
Institute of the University of Strasbourg in 1942 by the Luftwaffe and
that Graefe acted as his assistant. Graefe was militarily subordinated
to Luftgau Physician 7 but technically subordinated to Haagen. (_Tr. p.
9582._) Haagen was also militarily subordinated to Luftgau Physician 7.
(_Tr. p. 9563._)
Haagen had developed a murine typhus (rat typhus) vaccine which
contained an attentuated virulent (living) virus. (_Tr. pp. 9596,
9597._) Haagen testified that he performed compatability tests with this
vaccine on 28 inmates of Schirmeck concentration camp, which was a
sub-camp of Natzweiler. Eight inmates were vaccinated with .5 cc. of
this virulent vaccine, ten with .5 cc. [of virulent vaccine], and ten
with a dead vaccine plus .5 cc. of the virulent vaccine. Three
additional inmates were vaccinated with a dead vaccine for purposes of
comparison. He stated that no serious reactions occurred as a result of
these vaccines. (_Tr. p. 9603._) All of these vaccinations were carried
out in the month of May 1943 and no vaccinations occurred after that
date, according to Haagen. (_Tr. p. 9636._) In the fall of 1943 Haagen
transferred his activities to Natzweiler on the alleged ground that he
felt a typhus epidemic was more likely there than in Schirmeck. (_Tr. p.
9603._) He requested through Hirt that 100 concentration camp inmates be
put at his disposal in Natzweiler for purposes of these experiments.
These inmates were transferred from Auschwitz to Natzweiler during the
month of November 1943, 18 of whom died on the way. Haagen found the
remainder unsuitable for his purposes and requested an additional 100
which were made available during December 1943. He testified that of
these, 40 inmates were subjected to a series of two vaccinations by
injection to bring about immunity and a third vaccination by
scarification to test the immunity. For purposes of comparison, a second
group of 40 inmates designated as “controls” was given only the third
scarification vaccination. The same vaccine was used for all of these
alleged vaccinations and was a new vaccine containing an attenuated
virulent Rickettsia-Prowazeki virus (louse typhus). The scarification
vaccine applied to both groups of subjects contained a smaller quantity
of vaccine than the first two injection vaccinations given to the group
immunized. In the first group the injected vaccine produced what Haagen
described as the normal vaccine reaction. Substantially the same
reaction occurred in the control group which received only the third
scarification vaccine. The reaction was no more serious than in those
who were vaccinated by injection. (_Tr. pp. 9615-7._)
Haagen admitted that the subjects used by him both in Schirmeck and
Natzweiler were of many different nationalities, among whom were gypsies
and Poles. (_Tr. p. 9607._) He further testified that these inmates were
not volunteers because, as he said, he was only carrying out protective
vaccinations. (_Tr. pp. 9541-2._)
Haagen stated that the only reason he performed these vaccinations in
Schirmeck and Natzweiler was because he was asked to do so by Kramer,
camp commandant in Natzweiler. He and Kramer were disturbed about the
possibility of a typhus epidemic in the middle of 1943, although he
testified that in fact no typhus cases actually occurred until March
1944. (_Tr. pp. 9594-5._) He went to Schmireck only because he and
Kramer feared an epidemic. (_Tr. p. 9600._)
Haagen’s testimony, as outlined above, is completely incredible on its
face as well as in view of the documents which were submitted by the
prosecution and available to Haagen at the time he testified. Firstly,
it is utterly ridiculous to credit his statement that he went to
Schirmeck and Natzweiler only because he feared an epidemic. It is
ridiculous to suppose that a concentration camp commander, on his own
initiative, sought medical assistance from doctors in the towns
surrounding a concentration camp. The WVHA, to which all concentration
camps were subordinated, had a very elaborate medical system and it is
unthinkable that a local camp commander would ask aid from an outsider.
Secondly, it is ridiculous to suppose that Haagen, out of the kindness
of his heart and the fear of an epidemic spreading beyond the confines
of the camp, would use his precious typhus vaccine to protect the
miserable wretches who were imprisoned in the concentration camps.
Haagen himself stated that he had very little typhus vaccine. (_Tr. p.
9613._) It has been repeatedly testified to during the course of this
trial that typhus vaccines were critically short in Germany during the
war and that there were not even sufficient quantities to vaccinate
doctors, nurses, and other personnel exposed to special danger. That
this vaccine would be used to protect concentration camp inmates is
unthinkable. Thirdly, it is ridiculous to suppose that any scientist
could have possibly thought that vaccinating 28 inmates in Schirmeck and
80 in Natzweiler could have had any possible effect on the likelihood of
a typhus epidemic.
That Haagen perjured himself with respect to what he was really doing in
Natzweiler during the course of his typhus experiments is clearly
evident from his own letter of 27 June 1944 to Hirt. In a letter of 9
May 1944 to Hirt, Haagen requested that an additional 200 persons be
furnished to him for his experiments. (_NO-123, Pros. Ex. 303._)
Supplementary to this request, he stated in his letter of 27 June 1944
that, “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 vaccines. These after-inoculations are desirable
in order to establish unequivocally the effectiveness of the protective
vaccines. This time 150 persons will be used for the protective vaccine
and 50 for the control inoculations.” (_NO-127, Pros. Ex. 306._)
It should be noted specifically that in the letter quoted above, Haagen
pointed out to Hirt that sickness was to be expected in the control
group which had not received the protective vaccine. Haagen testified
that this additional group of 200 inmates requested by him was merely
for the purpose of vaccination, just as he had done in December 1943 and
January 1944 on the 80 experimental subjects. He added that in May he
had enough vaccine for 200 more persons and he was merely trying to
increase the protection in the camp. (_Tr. p. 9613._) The falsity of
Haagen’s testimony is clearly apparent from the statement in the letter
that sickness was expected in the _control group_. He had previously
testified that there was no reason whatever to expect any more serious
reaction to the scarification vaccination in the control group than to
the injected vaccine in the immunized group. (_Tr. p. 9618._) Indeed,
there was every reason to expect that the vaccine injected in the
immunized group would bring about a more serious reaction since more
vaccine was given by injection than by scarification. Haagen applied a
much larger quantity of the vaccine in the first two injections of the
immunized group than in the scarification vaccination of both the
immunized and the control group. The same vaccine was used throughout.
(_Tr. p. 9710._) The method of vaccination, whether by injection or
scarification, has no effect on reaction to the vaccine. Haagen
specifically testified that “if we vaccinate by scarification we can
expect that the effect of the vaccine will be the same as if we inject
subcutaneously or intramuscularly.” (_Tr. p. 9710._)
Haagen was quite unable to reconcile his statement in his letter to Hirt
of 27 June 1944 that “one must count on sickness, particularly in the
control group” with his testimony that there was no difference in the
reaction to the vaccine as between the immunized and control groups.
Indeed, the only possible interpretation of his letter is that instead
of vaccinating the immunized and control groups by scarification, he, in
fact, infected them with typhus. Haagen knew that the unprotected
control subjects would become ill with typhus. Haagen also had no
explanation for the letter of Kahnt, Chief of Staff to Schroeder, of 29
August 1944, in which he was asked “whether it may be assumed that the
typhus epidemic prevailing at Natzweiler at present is connected with
the vaccine research.” (_NO-131, Pros. Ex. 309._) He testified that he
had completed his vaccinations of the 80 experimental subjects during
January 1944 and that all of his serological examinations were finished
no later than February 1944 and that the experimental subjects were
released from confinement. Haagen submitted a report to the Luftwaffe no
later than May or June 1944 to the effect that the vaccine had been a
success. (_Tr. pp. 9627-9._) There was no reason whatever for Kahnt and
Rose to address such an inquiry to Haagen when he had long since
completed his experiments, according to his testimony, and submitted a
success report to the Luftwaffe at least two months before the inquiry.
It is quite impossible that vaccine tests which caused no typhus in the
vaccinated persons could cause typhus in other persons, as suggested by
Rose during his examination. Moreover, it should be noted that Kahnt’s
letter clearly indicated an understanding on his part that Haagen’s
vaccine research in Natzweiler was contemporaneous with the epidemic.
This, Haagen testified, he could not understand. Haagen also had
considerable difficulty explaining why, in his letter of 19 September
1944, in reply to Kahnt’s inquiry, he didn’t state that he had conducted
no vaccinations or experiments in Natzweiler since January 1944 and that
his vaccinations had caused no illness in the subjects, let alone caused
a typhus epidemic. Haagen simply stated in his letter that, “We hereby
inform you that no connection existed between the cases of typhus in
Natzweiler and the examinations dealing with typhus vaccine _that is to
be tested_.” [Emphasis added.] (_NO-132, Pros. Ex. 310._) Indeed, Haagen
himself stated in his reply that the vaccine was still under test,
contrary to his testimony before this Tribunal.
Haagen would have the Tribunal believe that he had no typhus virus
strain which was pathogenic to human beings, that he could not have
brought on a serious case of typhus even had he tried to do so. (_Tr.
pp. 9608, 9612._) In the very same breath he testified “that there was
considerable danger of infection in working about the laboratory and
that he gave his assistants a “risk bonus.” (_Tr. p. 9608._)
Haagen testified that he performed no vaccinations after January 1944.
He reiterated this time and again during the course of his examination.
(_Tr. pp. 9614-5._) When asked his reason for not vaccinating during the
typhus epidemic in Natzweiler in the spring and summer of 1944, which
offered an opportunity to test the anti-infectious effect of his vaccine
under natural conditions, he lamely answered that he had to make so many
official military trips that he had no time. (_Tr. p. 9614._) Although
he had sufficient vaccine to justify his asking for 200 additional
experimental victims in May 1944, his only effort in the typhus
epidemic, according to his testimony, was to send them decontamination
equipment. (_Tr. p. 9614._) It is not readily apparent, to say the least
of it, just why some other doctor or an assistant of Haagen could not
have performed the vaccinations which Haagen would have the Tribunal
believe he was so anxious to have done for the protection of the camp.
All of the above contradictions and falsifications appear upon the face
of Haagen’s testimony as well as from the documents which he had so
carefully studied before his appearance. The documents submitted to him
during cross-examination reveal his testimony to have been perjurious
from start to finish. Haagen repeatedly testified that he carried out no
vaccinations in Schirmeck after May 1943. He stated that in Schirmeck he
only performed a single vaccination and not the series of vaccinations
to test “anti-infectious immunity” because at that time his “knowledge
hadn’t progressed so far.” (_Tr. p. 9636._) In connection with the Ipsen
vaccine, about which Rose had corresponded with him, he especially
denied that he ever proposed to Rose that experiments be carried out
with it. Haagen’s letter to Rose of 4 October 1943 squarely contradicts
him on both of these significant points. (_NO-2874, Pros. Ex. 520._) He
stated in his letter that:
“I already reported to you the numeral results of experiments on
human beings. _The serum titer is considerably higher, also
after a single vaccination, in comparison with three
vaccinations with deactivated vaccines._ I regret that it was
not possible so far to perform infectious experiments on the
vaccinated persons; I requested the Ahnenerbe of the SS to
provide suitable persons for vaccination, but have not received
an answer yet. _We are now performing a further vaccination of
human beings_; I shall report later about the result. I guess we
will then have reached the point of being able to recommend the
introduction of our new vaccine for the time being without
infectious experiments.” [Emphasis added.]
* * * * *
In this same letter of 4 October 1943, Haagen discussed Rose’s report
concerning the Ipsen vaccine from Copenhagen. He concluded his letter by
stating: “If we can get experimental subjects from the SS for test
vaccinations, it would be an opportunity to test the liver vaccine as
well on its anti-infectious effect. I would then suggest that our
material be used parallel with the Ipsen tests.” Thus, Haagen testified
falsely when he said that he did not propose experiments with Ipsen
vaccine. In his letter he very specifically proposed performing
anti-infectious experiments with the Ipsen vaccine as well as his own
vaccine. This again proves that the use of the phrase “infectious
experiments” could not possibly mean multiple vaccinations with living
typhus vaccine. The Ipsen vaccine was a dead vaccine; it contained no
attenuated virulent virus. Three vaccinations with a dead vaccine could
not be designated an “infectious experiment” even by Haagen. (_Tr. p.
9655._) Moreover the defense’s own proof shows that the Ipsen vaccine
had already been tested for tolerability and found comparable with other
vaccines used by the Wehrmacht. This is clear from Rose’s letter to the
Behring-Works and Haagen, among others, dated 29 September 1943. (_Rose
88, Rose Ex. 21._) It is quite clear that the only type of experiment
left open for the Ipsen vaccine was precisely the kind that Haagen
proposed, namely, after-infection of the vaccinated and control subjects
with typhus.
Haagen was further impeached by the notes kept on his typhus experiments
by his assistant, Miss Crodel. (_NO-3852, Pros. Ex. 521._) Haagen
definitely identified these notes as having been written by Miss Crodel.
(_Tr. p. 9691._) Miss Crodel had been an assistant of Haagen’s for many
years and he found her most reliable. (_Tr. p. 9701._) He conceded that
Miss Crodel was very careful in her work. (_Tr. p. 9697._) On page three
of the notebook appears a series of entries dating from 30 April 1943 to
27 January 1944 concerning a series of experiments in Schirmeck. The
entry for 19 May 1943 shows that two out of four mice injected with his
vaccine died. The entry for 26 May reads: “(4 weeks) 3-6, 0.5 _per
person_ and 6 mice 0.5 i. p., 5 dead, after 10, 14, 14 days, the rest
after 4 weeks.” This entry proves that on that date human beings were
inoculated with Haagen’s vaccine. To say the least of this entry, five
mice who were similarly vaccinated died as a result. The phrase “the
rest after 4 weeks” can obviously refer also to deaths among
experimental persons since it is quite impossible that this phrase could
be used to refer to the one remaining mouse. The entry for 6 July
indicates that on that date Haagen and his assistants appeared in
Schirmeck for the purpose of withdrawing blood from ten persons, who had
been previously vaccinated, for a Weil-Felix reaction test. The entry
gives the serum titer value of eight of the experimental subjects. The
entry is ended with the laconic note, “the other two were not here
anymore.” This entry is conclusive corroboration of the testimony of the
witness, George Hirtz, who stated that Haagen had tested his vaccine at
Schirmeck in the summer of 1943. Approximately 20 Polish inmates were
used in these experiments and, following the inoculations, two of the
experimental subjects died. Hirtz testified that he himself sewed up the
bodies of the inmates in paper bags and delivered them for cremation.
The other experimental subjects had reactions such as high fevers,
shock, and impairment of speech. (_Tr. pp. 1293-1299._) His testimony is
further corroborated by Haagen himself, who stated that two groups of
ten inmates were inoculated by him in Schirmeck. The entry in the Crodel
notes obviously has reference to one of these groups of ten, and upon
arrival of Haagen and his assistants in the camp for the purpose of
withdrawing blood, it was found that two of the subjects had died.
The entry for 4 October 1943 on page three of the Crodel notes reads
“(six months) inoculated 20 persons in Schirmeck, Tube—2 cc. distilled
water, 0.5 per person.” (_NO-3852, Pros. Ex. 521._) This proves not only
that Haagen testified falsely when he stated that he carried out no
typhus vaccinations in Schirmeck after May 1943 but also that multiple
vaccinations with his vaccine were performed. This entry bears the same
date as Haagen’s letter to Rose, referred to above, which also stated
that he was performing further vaccinations. The last entry on page
three is dated on the original as 27 January 1943 and reads: “(9 months)
mixed with the same amounts (as 21 May) distilled water tube, 20 persons
1.1 cc. each.” The date 1943 is obviously a mistake on the part of Miss
Crodel in making the entry. This is proved by the fact that the period
of time indicated in parentheses in the notes refers to the period of
time the vaccine had been stored. Haagen so admitted. (_Tr. p. 9711._)
Thus the reference “(9 months)” means that the vaccine being used in
that series of experiments had been stored for nine months since 30
April 1943, the date of the first entry on page three and the time the
vaccine was first prepared. That 1943 in the original entry should
really be 1944 also is apparent from page four of the notes wherein the
last entry is for 27 January 1944. It is a common mistake for one to use
the date of the old year during the first month of the new year.
Haagen inoculated another group of ten persons in Schirmeck on 10
October 1943 and 20 more on 27 January 1944 as seen from the entries on
page four of the Crodel notes. Again on page five of the original, the
entry for 14 October 1943 proves that ten persons were inoculated _for
the third time_ with 1.0 cc. of Haagen’s new vaccine. That this entry
refers to the virulent murine vaccine and not to the Gildemeister dead
vaccine can be seen from the preceding entry which speaks of four
control persons being inoculated three times with Gildemeister vaccine.
This fact is further apparent by comparing the quantity of the
injections plus the amount of distilled water used per tube of Haagen’s
new vaccine as set forth in other entries.
The entry for 25 May 1944 on page 7 of the Crodel notes states that 30
persons were inoculated in Natzweiler. “The inoculation took place
during the incubation period (in a transport containing also sick
people). Thirteen became sick in the period from 29 May to 9 June, of
these, two died.” Haagen had repeatedly testified that he performed no
vaccinations after January 1944 in Natzweiler. Not only did he perform
experiments after January 1944, but as proved by the entry quoted above,
subjects died during the course of such experiments. By his own
testimony Haagen proves that these entries deal with an experiment
during which the subjects were artificially infected with typhus.
Although the entry euphoniously states that the vaccinations “took place
during the incubation period,” Haagen testified, as had been repeatedly
suggested by the prosecution, that it is impossible to know when persons
are in the incubation period. The incubation period is that time between
the infection and the first manifestations of the disease. Accordingly,
it is impossible to know that a vaccination takes place during the
incubation period unless the person has been artificially infected so
that the date of infection is known. (_Tr. pp. 9701-2._)
It is significant to note also that the chart on page 14 of Miss
Crodel’s notes uses the word “nachimpfung,” meaning after-vaccination or
re-inoculation, in connection with multiple vaccination experiments on
two mice (both of which incidentally died), rather than the word
“nachinfektion,” meaning after-infection or subsequent infection, which
was repeatedly used by Haagen in his letters concerning experiments on
human beings.
Haagen testified that the defendant Schroeder visited him on 25 May
1944, the very day on which he was carrying out experiments in
Natzweiler. (_Tr. p. 9632._) While it is, of course, entirely possible
that Schroeder may have visited Haagen on 24 or 26 May, rather than on
25, the fact is quite clear that in any event Haagen’s very important
experiments on typhus were discussed with Schroeder, contrary to the
testimony of both men. The same is true with respect to the visit of the
defendant Becker-Freyseng which took place shortly after that of
Schroeder (_Tr. p. 9569_) and of Rose who visited Haagen both in 1943
and 1944. (_Tr. p. 9570._) Haagen’s statement that Becker-Freyseng came
all the way from Berlin to discuss with him the procurement of rabbits
and mice is as incredible as the rest of Haagen’s testimony.
The defendant Schroeder testified that Haagen’s research assignment was
not secret and attempted to argue on that basis that nothing criminal
could have happened. (_Tr. p. 3654._) Without pausing to point out the
stupidity of such an argument, suffice it to say that Schroeder’s
testimony was proved to be false by a list of research assignments
issued by Schroeder’s office in 1944. Haagen’s typhus work was
classified secret. (_NO-934, Pros. Ex. 458._)
The testimony of the witness Nales corroborates the proof outlined
herein above: That Haagen performed experiments to test the immunity of
his vaccine by artificially infecting the subjects with typhus. Nales, a
Dutch citizen, was arrested by the Gestapo in 1940 for allegedly
participating in a resistance movement. Although he was tried and
acquitted, he was committed to Buchenwald concentration camp in April
1941. In March 1942 he was transferred to Natzweiler and in November
1942 he became a nurse in the Ahnenerbe experimental station there.
(_Tr. pp. 10409-12._) He stated that in the latter part of 1943, 100
gypsies were sent to Natzweiler from Auschwitz for Haagen’s typhus
experiments. Haagen found them physically unsuitable and thereafter an
additional 90 gypsies were shipped in. These were divided into two
groups and confined in separate rooms in the Ahnenerbe experimental
station. One group was vaccinated against typhus. Approximately 14 days
later, both groups were artificially infected with typhus. As a result,
about 30 of the subjects died. Nales nursed the victims himself and saw
the bodies. He talked to the subjects frequently and knows they did not
volunteer, as indeed Haagen himself admitted on the stand. The gypsies
were of various nationalities including Poles, Czechs, Hungarians, and
Germans. (_Tr. pp. 10419-23._)
* * * * *
Haagen’s long continued activity in Schirmeck and Natzweiler can be
clearly seen from his account book on research tasks on yellow fever and
typhus. His work in Schirmeck began as early as 20 April 1943. He was
placing telephone calls to Schirmeck late in August 1944, over a year
after Haagen’s alleged “last vaccination” there. These accounts were
charged to the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe. (_NO-3837, Pros. Ex.
542._) They were in such detail as to reveal on their face his activity
in the concentration camps. (_NO-3450, Pros. Ex. 519._)
Haagen admitted that by infection experiments one could mean only one of
three things—(1) subsequent artificial infection with typhus, (2)
vaccinations of large groups of people and then studying efficacy during
a natural epidemic, and (3) Weil-Felix reaction tests carried out before
and after a subsequent vaccination. (_Tr. p. 9601._) He admitted that
the prosecution’s interpretation of “infection experiments” and
“subsequent infection” was equally consistent with his own. (_Tr. p.
9611._) He admitted that the word “nachimpfung” (subsequent vaccination)
could have been used as well as “nachinfektion” (subsequent infection).
(_Tr. p. 9611._)
There are no refined questions of documentary interpretation presented
to the Tribunal. The simple issue is whether Haagen committed crimes
during the course of his experiments. There is no dispute that these
were “experiments”. Haagen repeatedly used the word in his own letters.
There is no dispute that the inmates used as subjects were
nonvolunteers, among whom were nationals of German occupied countries.
Haagen admitted as much. The documents and the testimony prove that a
substantial number of subjects were killed during the course of these
experiments. Against this overwhelming proof stands the testimony of
Haagen and Rose, both of whom perjured themselves repeatedly on the
stand. Indeed, their own testimony is the best circumstantial proof as
to the criminality of the experiments. One does not gratuitously testify
falsely. Those who fear the light of truth commit perjury. These men
regard their oaths as lightly as they did the lives of their helpless
victims.
The guilt of Rose and Haagen is the measure of the guilt of Schroeder.
As a medical officer of the Luftwaffe, Haagen was subject to his orders.
(_Tr. p. 3636._) The office of Schroeder issued the research assignments
pursuant to which these experiments were carried out. It provided the
funds with which to carry them out. It received reports on the
experiments and knew they were performed on concentration camp inmates.
(_Tr. p. 1758._) Schroeder was himself in Strasbourg at the very time
the experiments were going on. His guilt is clear and unequivocal.
c. Selections from the Argumentation of the Defense
_EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF FOR DEFENDANT
ROSE_
_Statements Regarding the Question of Responsibility of the
Defendant Rose for the Typhus Experiments of Professor Eugen
Haagen in the Concentration Camps at Schirmeck and Natzweiler
and the Question of the Participation in These Experiments_
In order to reach a decision on the question of whether punishable
behavior on the part of the defendant Rose is established, the Tribunal
will have to examine the following: Did Professor Rose, in his capacity
as consulting hygienist with the Luftwaffe Medical Inspectorate, have
any commanding authority or the right and obligation of supervision at
all over Professor Eugen Haagen at the University of Strasbourg? Did the
defendant Rose participate in a penally relevant form in the experiments
with typhus vaccine conducted by Haagen in the concentration camps at
Natzweiler and Schirmeck? If so, the question of whether Haagen made
himself liable to punishment or not can be left completely undecided.
As far as the first question is concerned, one thing is certain. Above
all, Professor Haagen was a full professor at the University of
Strasbourg at the time and also director of the Institute for Hygiene at
this University. At the same time he was consultant on hygiene for the
civil administration of Alsace. (_German Tr. p. 9526._) During the war,
in addition to this, he was a part-time consulting, hygienist with an
Air Fleet. Finally, he applied for so-called research assignments for
his experiments, including his typhus experiments, that is, in practice,
financial aid.
First of all, it must be ascertained in which of his many capacities
Professor Haagen conducted his experiments. In this connection the facts
are perfectly clear. As a witness, Professor Haagen himself explained
that he requested and received the research assignments which made
possible his experiments, not as an officer of the Luftwaffe, but as
director of a civilian research institute. As usual, therefore, the
initiative was taken by the scientist. (_Becker-Freyseng 70,
Becker-Freyseng Ex. 48; Tr. pp. 6251-3_; _German Tr. pp. 7941-2, 8399,
9583-5_.) The correctness of this description can be seen from the
letter of Professor Haagen, submitted by the prosecution, addressed to
the rector of the University of Strasbourg, dated 7 October 1943.
(_NO-137, Pros. Ex. 189._) In this letter Haagen requests his _civilian_
superior, the rector of the University of Strasbourg, for special
privileges for the Institute for Hygiene of the University (i. e., a
civilian institution) based on the research commissions assigned to him.
The fact that the position of Professor Haagen was also interpreted by
the Luftwaffe in this manner can be seen, for example, from the style of
the letters addressed to him in matters relevant to his research and
vaccine production assignments. They are not clothed in the manner of
military orders, but possess the character of correspondence with a
civilian office which was not subordinate to the Luftwaffe, either in
the matter of receiving orders or of being under its supervision. A
number of those invested with such research assignments have described
to the Tribunal how they accepted these assignments for opportunistic
reasons, e. g., to obtain priority grading and to protect their
personnel from being drafted to military service. However, the fact that
no subordinate relationship or supervisory right arose through the
acceptance of such an assignment, can be seen likewise from the numerous
statements of the recipients of such Luftwaffe assignments. (_Schroeder
30, Schroeder Ex. 22_; _Schroeder 31, Schroeder Ex. 23_;
_Becker-Freyseng 79, Becker-Freyseng Ex. 63_; _German Tr. p. 6720_.)
Obligations arose solely with regard to the computation of the money
allowed, the reporting of any possible results achieved, as well as the
mention of assistance in the event of a scientific publication.
Moreover, such financial aid is in no way limited to Germany but is
common in many countries. No responsibility for possible errors and
crimes, which the recipients might commit, can result from such
financial assistance. As a matter of fact, Haagen never received a
special individual assignment to carry out a certain series of
experiments, but he was accorded, as per request, assistance for “typhus
research.” However, financial assistance for typhus research is
something quite normal. Incidentally, Haagen not only utilized the means
put at his disposal by the Luftwaffe, but also contributions from the
Reich Research Council and, most important, the personnel and equipment
of his institute. Therefore, his typhus research was not a part of his
military activities but was carried out within the scope of his civilian
activities. Also, the fact that a reserve officer of the Luftwaffe,
namely, Staff Physician [Stabsarzt] Graefe, appears as a collaborator in
his typhus research work, alters none of the facts of the case. It is
true that Graefe was a reserve officer in the same way as Haagen.
However, his main profession was that of assistant in the Institute for
Hygiene of the University of Strasbourg, and in this capacity he was
subordinate to Professor Haagen who was, of course, the director of this
institute. He was in no way subordinate to Haagen in the military sense,
but to the Air Force Area VII. (_German Tr. p. 9718._) Staff Physician
Graefe, who was drafted into the Luftwaffe, was transferred, therefore,
for purposes of further training, to the civilian institute where he
worked as an assistant in peacetime. Such incidents occurred quite
frequently in order to enable research activities in civilian institutes
to be continued in wartime. As a result of this assistance given in
respect of personnel, these civilian offices did not fall under the
command and supervision of the military authorities.
The fact that Professor Haagen felt himself to be completely independent
in his research activities can also be seen unequivocally from the fact
that he procured further assistance from other offices disregarding his
subordinate position with respect to the military. This means, without
going through the military channels which were prescribed as binding in
military matters. In his capacity as Oberstabsarzt of the Luftwaffe, he
could not deal with the Reich Research Council without informing his
superior thereof. Even less could he deal with the Reich Leader SS, with
other offices of the SS, or, for example, with the Generalarzt
Schreiber, who belonged to the army. He was, however, well able to do
all of this in his capacity as director of the Institute for Hygiene of
the University of Strasbourg. The correctness of this statement is shown
most clearly in the important point, namely the procurement of
experimental subjects in the concentration camps. In this case he did
not conduct negotiations through military channels via the Medical
Inspection of the Luftwaffe, but through his civilian channels, through
the mediation of his university colleague, Professor Hirt, via the
Ahnenerbe. He never informed his military superiors of these
negotiations nor asked for their assistance therein, for as matters
were, there was no reason to do so. The files show quite clearly that
Professor Haagen had already conducted his experiments on prisoners in
Schirmeck in May of 1943 in the same way as he continued them until the
middle of 1944. In May of 1943, however, Haagen was—in a military
sense—on leave of absence, and as far as his activities were concerned
he was in no way subject to the supervision of the Luftwaffe. His
appointment as consulting hygienist did not ensue until after 14 July
1943, because the letter from the Reich Minister of the Luftwaffe dated
14 July 1943 was not addressed to Consulting Hygienist Haagen, but to
Staff Physician [Stabsarzt] Haagen, who had been given leave to work in
his institute. (_NO-297, Pros. Ex. 316._) After his appointment as
consulting hygienist, however, his research activities do not differ in
any way from those which he performed before this appointment. They
remained civilian research activities as formerly.
Further attention should be called to the fact that the Luftwaffe showed
no special interest in Professor Haagen’s research work. The only real
interest of the Luftwaffe might have been in the actual production of
vaccine. They tried to influence him in this connection, but without
practical success. The Luftwaffe received no typhus vaccine from Haagen.
His research activities had no connection with the wishes of the
Luftwaffe regarding production; they were even in conflict with these
interests.
The prosecution, it is true, has submitted a number of accounts from
which it can be seen that telephone calls to Schirmeck and Natzweiler
were paid for from Luftwaffe funds. (_NO-3450, Pros. Ex. 519_; _NO-3837,
Pros. Ex. 542_.) Even if one were to consider the fact proved that these
calls were in connection with his work in concentration camps, the whole
nature of the accounts shows that Haagen treated his research work as a
unit and divided the costs according to his own point of view among the
different funds which had been placed at his disposal. The purpose
served by the telephone calls cannot be inferred from the accounts
alone. The arbitrary division of costs can be seen, for example, from
the fact that a whole series of expenditures entered under “Influenza
Account” referred to his typhus work. The department receiving the
expense sheets had no possibility of checking in detail the purpose to
which each enumerated item was put, and who the participants in the
telephone conversations were.
Sufficient facts have already been produced to show that, in general,
the Luftwaffe bore no responsibility for the research activities of the
University Professor Haagen. Nevertheless, it is proposed to examine the
question of whether a responsibility on the part of the defendant Rose
for Haagen’s research work can be deduced from the fact that Professor
Rose was consulting hygienist with the Medical Chief of the Luftwaffe;
because the prosecution is mainly attempting to construe responsibility
on the part of the defendant Rose from (1) the existence of the research
assignments given by the Luftwaffe; and (2) the fact that Professor
Haagen belonged to the Luftwaffe as a reserve officer.
There can be no doubt that Haagen was the medical officer of the
Luftwaffe. First of all, he was consulting hygienist with the Air Fleet
1 until the year 1941. Then he was given leave to work in his Institute
for Hygiene until a certain time, which must have been shortly after 14
July 1943. Then he became consulting hygienist with the Air Fleet
“Mitte” which was later renamed Air Fleet “Reich”.
However, he did not conduct his experiments in his capacity as
consulting hygienist. The tasks of a consultant did not include
scientific research. They lay in other fields. Professor Haagen was
never subordinate to the defendant Rose even in this military position
as consulting hygienist of an Air Fleet. On the other hand, the
defendant Rose had neither commanding authority, and neither the right
nor the duty of supervision as far as Haagen was concerned.
From a military standpoint Haagen was subordinate to his air fleet
physician in every respect. Incidentally, the defendant Rose had no
superior rights nor supervisory obligations either with respect to
Professor Haagen or to all the other consulting hygienists of the
Luftwaffe. His official duties were exclusively limited to consultations
with the Medical Inspector, that is, the Chief of the Medical Service of
the Luftwaffe. (_Compare Rose 6, Rose Ex. 6_; _Rose 7, Rose Ex. 7_;
_Rose 8, Rose Ex. 29_; _Handloser 12, Handloser Ex. 12_; _Tr. pp. 2987,
6259_; _German Tr. p. 3346_.)
There is no need to comment further on the fact that the defendant Rose
particularly did not possess such rights and obligations with respect to
Haagen in his capacity as a research scientist and director of the
institute of the University of Strasbourg, which was in no way
subordinate to the Luftwaffe. The correctness of these statements was
unequivocally confirmed on the witness stand during my examination, not
only by Professor Haagen himself (_German Tr. pp. 9679-80_) but also by
the defendant Schroeder, who, after all, should know, having been the
former Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe. (_German Tr. p.
3734._) These facts should be sufficient to show that the defendant Rose
had neither the power of command and neither the right nor obligation of
supervision over Professor Haagen.
We still have to examine the second question of the possible
participation of the defendant Rose in Professor Haagen’s research work
in the concentration camps at Natzweiler and Schirmeck.
It is incontestable that the defendant Rose was cognizant of the fact
that the Luftwaffe gave several research assignments to Professor
Haagen, and that the reports issued by Haagen within the framework of
these assignments were sent to him for his information. However, these
reports never contained details from which a criminal activity on the
part of Professor Haagen could have been inferred or assumed. Even the
prosecutor, Mr. McHaney, during his interrogation of the defendant
Rostock, expressly declared that even he doubted whether Haagen would
have disclosed such details. (_German Tr. p. 3346._) This interpretation
corresponds completely with the facts. Professor Haagen’s reports
consisted purely of scientific research work which was designated for
publication. No reader could gather that they were based on illegal
experiments. A plan of experiments was never submitted by Haagen in
detail.
As has already been stated, it is true that the defendant Rose knew of
the research commissions which had been assigned to Professor Haagen by
the Luftwaffe. According to the nature of his official position,
however, he exercised no influence on the assignment of such
commissions. There were no misgivings about the assignments as such, for
nothing of a suspicious or objectionable nature could be seen from their
formulation. (_Becker-Freyseng 37, Becker-Freyseng Ex. 23._)
This situation is not altered by the fact that the defendant Rose
visited Professor Haagen twice in Strasbourg during the course of the
war, the first time in the year 1943 and the second time in 1944.
Clearly outlined assignments were dealt with on both occasions. During
the first visit the question was discussed whether Haagen wished to
reassume in addition the functions of a consulting hygienist of an Air
Fleet. The second visit resulted from the desire of the medical
inspection of the Luftwaffe that Haagen should comply with the request
repeatedly made to him, to take up the production of vaccine. This
second visit further served the purpose of discussing the question of a
particularly expensive but necessary installation for reproducing
various climates for the rabbit hutch in Professor Haagen’s Institute.
The reasons just mentioned for these two visits will be substantiated by
documents submitted. The question regarding Professor Haagen’s
assumption of the functions of a consulting hygienist with the Air Fleet
“Mitte” is mentioned in the letter from Rose addressed to Haagen, dated
9 June 1943, (_NO-306, Pros. Ex. 296_) the procurement of the climate
installation in Document NO-2874, Prosecution Exhibit 520. Moreover, the
first of these two documents just mentioned shows quite clearly that the
defendant Rose had no influence on the assignment of research
commissions to Haagen. In answering a question from Haagen relevant to
this matter, Rose had to limit his reply to the statement that the
competent expert was absent.
In examining the relationship between Rose and Haagen, their further
exchange of correspondence must also be mentioned.
Rose met Haagen when they were both division chiefs at the Robert Koch
Institute in Berlin from 1937 until 1941. Both were specialists in the
field of research into infectious diseases. Haagen specialized in virus
diseases including typhus. The defendant Rose specialized in tropical
diseases, parasitology, and vermin control. This fact explains the
existence of a scientific private correspondence, part of which can be
found in the files. According to the testimony of the witness, Olga
Eyer, this correspondence was extremely cursory and consisted of only
five to six letters from 1941 to 1944, during which time Fraeulein Eyer
was Haagen’s secretary. (_German Tr. p. 1781._)
The prosecution is obviously in possession of the entire exchange of
correspondence between Rose and Haagen. The letters the prosecution has
submitted from this correspondence deal with two subjects: The first
group consists of the two letters of 5 June 1943 and 9 June 1943
(_NO-305, Pros. Ex. 295_; _NO-306, Pros. Ex. 296_) which contain an
answer to the questions on the production technique of typhus vaccine.
Rose, who himself is not a specialist in this field, had requested
technical information and had received it. (In passing, it should be
stated that the 30 to 40 persons mentioned in this exchange of
correspondence signified the required manpower figure and not possible
experimental subjects, as the prosecution asserts.) (_German Tr. p.
9063._)
The principal letter of Haagen to Rose, dated 4 June 1943, which is
mentioned in Rose’s reply dated 9 June 1943, would clear up the matter
absolutely unequivocally. Unfortunately, it has not been submitted by
the prosecution.
The second part of the correspondence between Rose and Haagen concerns
the attitude of Haagen to the Copenhagen vaccine. Among others, Rose had
also informed Professor Haagen, one of the leading German
typhus-research scientists, about the result of his conversation with
Dr. Ipsen in Copenhagen, as can be seen from the distribution of the
report on the Copenhagen trip. (_Rose 22, Rose Ex. 21._) This second
part of the correspondence developed as a result of the transmission of
this strictly scientific information, and the following letters from it
were introduced by the prosecution during the trial:
Letter from Haagen to Rose dated 4 October 1943 (_NO-2874, Pros. Ex.
520_).
Letter from Haagen to Rose dated 29 November 1943 (_NO-1059, Pros. Ex.
490_).
Letter from Rose to Haagen dated 13 December 1943 (_NO-122, Pros. Ex.
298_).
Professor Rose furnished a detailed explanation of this exchange of
correspondence during his direct examination. At the time he was only in
possession of his aforementioned letter to Haagen dated 13 December
1943, whereas the two other letters were still withheld by the
prosecution. Although, as a result of this, he was put in the difficult
position of having to testify regarding an exchange of correspondence
which took place four years ago, only a part of which he had available
for reference, the correctness of his statements was completely
confirmed in the essential points by the two other letters which were
not introduced until later in the trial. (_Tr. p. 6281._) It can be seen
quite definitely from the first paragraph of Haagen’s letter to Rose
dated 4 October 1943 that the actual interest of the defendant Rose lay
in inducing Professor Haagen to produce a proven vaccine.
The question hinged on the climate installation which was necessary for
the production of the Giroud vaccine from the lungs of rabbits. It was
only necessary to establish an additional production plant for the
Luftwaffe because the vaccine concerned was obtained from dead typhus
bacilli and had been introduced for some time. At the end of his letter
Professor Haagen once more refers to this purely technical question of
production. In his letter Haagen also expresses his opinion and
valuation of the Ipsen method. The penultimate paragraph of this letter
is particularly important. It describes the great importance Professor
Haagen attached to the serological experiments in weighing the results
of the vaccination and of the state of immunity. He writes in this
connection:
“I generally regret that, in judging immunity, much too little
consideration is being given to the serological reaction. My
experiments with the nonphenolized vaccine particularly proved
again that the titer of agglutination should be considered. No
doubt, much greater importance must again be attached to the
serological result when judging the state of immunity in
accordance with our present opinion on the course of the
infection of the virus diseases, especially in their initial
stages.” (_NO-2874, Pros. Ex. 520._)
At the end of his letter, Haagen suggests that his own vaccines and the
Ipsen vaccine be compared by examination. This is unequivocal proof of
the proposal having been made by Haagen. The defendant Rose had not the
slightest reason to assume that Professor Haagen intended to perform an
immunity check with a virulent virus causing disease in human organism,
since the Professor particularly stressed the importance of serological
methods when testing the condition of immunity. On the contrary, he had
to assume that Professor Haagen considered such an infection
superfluous.
The prosecution objects to the fact that Haagen, when discussing the
planned experiments in his correspondence with Rose, used such terms as
“experiments of infection” and “subsequent infection.” But Professor
Rose knew that Haagen was engaged in the development of live vaccine
nonpathogenic to human beings. He even mentioned this in his lecture on
typhus and malaria at Basel in 1944. (_Rose 25, Rose Ex. 31._) Every
expert knows that the application of living virus for the purpose of
protective vaccination is a procedure of infection.
He was aware that Haagen worked on the further development of the method
evolved by the Frenchman Blanc. This, too, can be found in the same
passage of his Basel lecture mentioned above. The fact that the term
“subsequent infection” was used by Professor Haagen in distinguishing
protective vaccinations from live and weakened vaccines could in no way
surprise or startle him. (_Rose 69, Rose Ex. 59_; _Rose 60, Rose Ex.
60_; _Tr. pp. 6295-6_; _German Tr. 9639_.)
It must be pointed out in this connection that the notes of the
Natzweiler camp physician himself distinctly describe the vaccination
which Haagen had occasionally called “subsequent infection,” as
“vaccination”. His entries of 22 March 1944 state that “the actual
‘vaccination’ will now be carried out after two protective vaccinations
have taken place.” (_German Tr. p. 9782._)
The report taken from the Tropical Diseases Bulletin which I introduced
in this trial shows, however, quite clearly that these infections were
not dangerous and could, in the main, be controlled. (_Rose 58, Rose Ex.
58._)
This report states that the Blanc live typhus vaccine was used by the
French Government in Algeria in 3.5 million cases to combat typhus, and
that as a result of these protective vaccinations, real typhus illness
was found in only 5-6 cases per thousand. If one compares this figure of
5-6 per thousand with the total number of the vaccinations, it appears
that in the course of this vaccination action carried out by the French
Government, 17,500 to 21,000 cases of typhus illness took place as a
result of vaccination. This result may justly give weight to the
assumption that the French Government considered these incidents a
justifiable and tolerable risk in view of the extent of the threatened
danger.
It would be unfair to blame the defendant Rose for having taken no steps
at all on learning that another research scientist, namely Haagen (who
was not subordinated to him) was using a method which he knew was widely
practiced. He had much less reason to do so since it was Haagen who
tried by preliminary vaccinations with dead vaccines to avoid and to
reduce the extent of the vaccination reactions and the danger of
sickness as a result of the vaccination. Haagen’s reports and
publications only deal with this object of a preliminary vaccination
with dead vaccines and of the subsequent vaccination with a live,
virulent vaccine nonpathogenic to human beings (subsequent infection).
This field, with which he was not so familiar, was described in detail
by the defendant Rose in his direct testimony. When interrogated,
Professor Haagen, as the actual originator of the plans, substantially
enlarged and in some instances corrected this description.
It does not seem feasible to me to classify as criminal, experiments
which tend to make more bearable and less dangerous a recognized method
already applied on millions of people.
In addition, there is no reply from the defendant Rose to this letter
from Professor Haagen of 4 October 1943. It is not certain whether he
actually received it. However, the possibility that he did receive it
cannot be denied.
Chronologically, the next letter in this correspondence is Haagen’s
letter to Rose of 29 November 1943. (_NO-1059, Pros. Ex. 490._) The
defendant Rose cannot remember ever having received this letter.
It is true that after this letter had been submitted to him by the
prosecution during cross-examination, Professor Rose assumed that he
must have received it, judging by the date and the conditions of the
postal service at that time. (_Tr. p. 6428._) However, he was misled
when making this statement by a mistake in the reproduction. Whereas
this letter is actually dated 29 November 1943, the date on the letter
is given as 29 November 1942 in the German mimeographed copies
distributed by the prosecution in the course of the cross-examination.
Thus it was sent at a time when large quantities of mail were destroyed
in trains or at post offices by the heavy air raids on German towns and
communications. According to the resultant state of affairs, it is
probable that he actually did not receive this letter. In this very
letter Professor Haagen mentions that 18 of the 100 inmates had already
died en route. The answers the defendant Rose gave on cross-examination
before this letter had been submitted to him show clearly that he could
not remember such information. (_Tr. p. 6424-5._) He would hardly have
been able to forget such a gruesome report if he had actually received
this letter.
It also cannot be stated that the defendant Rose could only have written
his letter to Haagen of 13 December 1943 (_NO-122, Pros. Ex. 298_) after
having received Haagen’s letter of 29 November 1943. Prosecuting
counsel, Mr. McHaney, however, alleged this when cross-examining Rose
(_Tr. p. 6431_) thus causing confusion in the mind of the defendant
Rose. For, in reality, Rose’s letter of 13 December 1943 is the reply to
a further letter from Haagen dated 8 December 1943, as appears clearly
from the introductory sentence in Rose’s letter of 13 December 1943.
From this state of affairs it can only be concluded that either
Professor Haagen did not mail this letter at all—perhaps in view of the
information contained therein about the unfavorable conditions of health
of the inmates—or else the defendant Rose did not receive the letter
because it was destroyed along with a lot of other mail of the same date
in the heavy air raids. The prosecution, no doubt, would not have failed
to introduce this letter into evidence if the defendant Rose had replied
to Haagen’s letter dated 29 November 1943. Professor Haagen’s suggestion
in his letter of 4 October 1943 that the Copenhagen vaccine be tested,
is again dealt with in Rose’s letter of 13 December 1943. In this letter
Rose exclusively speaks of the testing of vaccine, without mentioning
infections at all. In the letter a parallel is drawn to the Buchenwald
typhus experiments only insofar as he indicated the advantage of the
simultaneous testing of several vaccines. On direct examination, that
is, prior to the submission of other documents which give greater
clarification to the whole matter, the defendant Rose stated quite
clearly and in agreement with subsequent evidence and the later
testimony of Haagen, that the point in question was the application of
the Copenhagen vaccine for preliminary vaccination, aiming at the
weakening of the vaccination reaction in connection with subsequent
vaccination with a live, avirulent vaccine nonpathogenic to human
beings.
The two biologically parallel conditions which are obvious to every
layman, one, the weakening of a reaction following vaccination with a
live vaccine, and two, the weakening of a natural sickness, were
explained in detail by Professor Rose on direct examination. (_Tr. p.
6281._)
Finally, it must be emphatically pointed out that the plan discussed in
this correspondence to test the effect of the Copenhagen vaccine on the
weakening of vaccination reactions followed by the application of the
new live avirulent typhus vaccine pathogenic to human beings as compared
with other vaccines, was not carried out at all. After Haagen had
succeeded in weakening the reaction in another way, namely by long
storage, he was no longer interested in the Copenhagen vaccine.
(_Becker-Freyseng 62_[58]; _German, Tr. 9614-5_.)
Therefore, there only remains the examination of the question of whether
the defendant Rose was responsible for Haagen’s activities, knowing that
Professor Haagen had performed experiments on inmates with live
avirulent typhus vaccines still in the testing stage. Apart from the
correspondence discussed just now (part of which did not deal with
experiments at all, while the other part referred to the discussion of
an experimental plan which had been temporarily under consideration),
the defendant Rose was only informed of Haagen’s activities through the
latter’s reports which were sent to him for information and comments by
the chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe, through official
channels. These, however, either contained simple information about the
fact that Professor Haagen had asked for and received a commission for
research, or else they were scientific publications containing nothing
to which objections could be made.
The prosecution concluded from the letter of the Luftwaffe Medical
Academy, dated 7 July 1944 to the Luftlottenarzt Reich [Air Fleet
Physician Reich] that Haagen must have infected human beings with
virulent typhus bacilli which were pathogenic to human beings because
“control persons” were mentioned in this letter. (_NO-128, Pros._ _Ex.
307._) This letter approves the publication of Professor Haagen’s work
and that of his assistant Crodel: “Experiments with a New Dried Typhus
Vaccine.” This work which had been submitted to the defendant Rose prior
to publication actually shows clearly that these controls were meant to
be a comparison of the results of serological examinations on patients
from the camp epidemic with the serological examinations on persons
protectively vaccinated. Haagen, whose main interest was in serological
examinations, as already mentioned, had no reason whatsoever to perform
artificial infections since the epidemic in the concentration camp at
Natzweiler offered an abundance of persons for the purposes of
comparison.
Finally it must be stated, in addition, that the experimental plans
discussed in Haagen’s letter of 27 June 1944 to Professor Hirt never
became known to the Luftwaffe Medical Inspectorate nor to Rose.
(_NO-127, Pros. Ex. 306._) Moreover, the general development of the
situation (Haagen’s absence from Strasbourg, evacuation of the camp at
Natzweiler, etc.,) shows that this planned experiment could never have
been performed. The truth of this statement is further clearly proved by
the testimonies of the witnesses Broers and Nales, according to which no
more typhus vaccinations took place after April 1944.
* * * * *
_EXTRACTS FROM THE FINAL PLEA FOR DEFENDANT
MRUGOWSKY_[59]
The prosecution stated in its plea: If Grawitz were still alive, he
would sit here as one of the principal defendants on the defendants’
bench. This is certainly true. But Grawitz passed sentenced on himself.
And what does the prosecution do? It indicts Mrugowsky instead of
Grawitz. It does not consider in its arguments that Mrugowsky was not a
private person but a medical officer in the Waffen SS, that is a
soldier, and that Grawitz and Himmler were his military superiors. It
speaks of conspiracy but it does not examine thereby to what extent a
conspiracy may be conceived when military subordination plays its part.
In its summing-up, both written and oral, the prosecution merely
submitted the original allegations of the indictment. It completely
ignored the evidence produced by the defendants, and merely pointed out
a little scornfully that this evidence was mostly composed of
affidavits. But this is no fault of the defendants. They would have
preferred to be able to produce counter-proof taken from their own
records. But all the documents belonging to the defendants and to other
offices, from which the prosecution evidence emanates, are in the hands
of the prosecution. It merely submitted those parts of the documents
which, torn from their context, seem to incriminate the defendants. On
the other hand, the prosecution made it impossible for the defendants to
find the records connected with the prosecution evidence which would
ensure a complete elucidation of the true facts.
I would ask the Tribunal to consider in particular this difficult
position of the defendants with regard to evidence. It places particular
emphasis on the old legal principle that the defendant is considered not
guilty until his guilt has been proved, and in doubtful cases the Court
is to decide in favor of the defendant.
The charges against Mrugowsky are composed of three groups:
(1) The typhus experiments and the aconitine execution which did not
concern volunteers. In these cases the Tribunal will have to consider
whether state emergency contended by Mrugowsky really existed, and if
so, if the typhus experiments and the aconitine execution were
justified. If the answer is in the affirmative, then neither the typhus
experiments nor the aconitine execution is criminal, since there is no
objection raised as to the manner in which they were performed. If the
question is answered in the negative, then the next consideration is, if
and to what extent Mrugowsky participated in them and if he is
responsible under criminal law.
(2) The second group consists of the actions of Ding which he performed
on his own initiative, e. g., his participation in a killing by phenol
and the poison experiment on 6 persons.
(3) The third group consists of the protective vaccinations for which
volunteers were available, according to the evidence produced by the
prosecution.
The defendant Mrugowsky is indicted first of all for his alleged
participation in the typhus experiments at Buchenwald and in other
medical experiments. In its submission of evidence, the prosecution
treated these experiments as criminal and as experiments performed by
doctors. During the examination of the experts, Professor Leibbrandt and
Professor Ivy, the prosecution also treated these medical experiments as
experiments performed by doctors and asked the experts if these
experiments were to be considered as admissible from the point of view
of medical ethics.
I am convinced that the experiments on which the prosecution bases its
indictment were in no way experiments which originated from the
initiative of the executive physicians themselves. The experiments were
a form of research work necessitated by an extraordinarily pressing
state emergency, and ordered by the highest competent governmental
authorities.
Professor Ivy also admitted that there is a fundamental difference
between the physician as a therapeutist and the physician as a
scientific research worker. When asked by Dr. Tipp: “So you admit that
to the physician as a therapeutist, the physician who cures, other rules
and, therefore, other paragraphs of the oath of Hippocrates apply,” he
gave the answer: “Yes, I do, very definitely.”
Consequently, experiments on human beings, performed for urgent reasons
of a public character and ordered by the competent authorities of the
state, cannot simply be considered as criminal merely because the
experimental persons chosen by the state for the research work were not
volunteers.
The prosecution ought to have brought additional evidence with regard to
the individual experiments to prove why they were criminal, apart from
the fact that the experimental persons were not volunteers.
The largest space in the indictment against Mrugowsky is taken up by the
typhus experiments at Buchenwald. The prosecution does not contend that
Mrugowsky participated in them personally, but I further think I have
proved in my written arguments that he neither suggested nor ordered nor
controlled these experiments; that he did not further them nor even
approve of them.
Nevertheless for precaution’s sake, I also must prove that the
experiments in question were not illegal and that under no aspect can
they be considered as criminal since they were caused by an urgent state
emergency. This proof can be produced in a particularly impressive
manner in the case of the typhus experiments.
In the Flick trial,[60] the prosecution submitted Document NI-5222 which
I have offered to the Tribunal. (_Mrugowsky, Ex. 99._) This document,
which comes from the Labor Office Westphalia and is dated 3 February
1942, states that according to information from military quarters, until
recently the number of Soviet prisoners of war dying of typhus was still
15,000 _daily_.
I think I need no longer emphasize that a most pressing state emergency
is considered to exist if from one single epidemic there are, I repeat,
15,000 deaths daily in the camps for Russian prisoners alone.
On the other hand, the prosecution stated that from the beginning of
1942 until the beginning of 1945, a total of 142 persons died as a
result of the typhus experiments at Buchenwald. I place these two
figures intentionally at the beginning of my argument. They show that
during the entire period of the experiments in Buchenwald, the number of
fatalities amounted to one percent of the toll taken _every day_ by
typhus in the _Russian prisoner camps alone_ in winter 1941-42. In
addition to these victims in the Russian P. W. camps, one has to
consider the enormous number of people who died of typhus among the
civil population of the occupied eastern territories and the German
Armed Forces.
It is clear that under these conditions drastic measures had to be
taken. When judging the typhus experiments carried out in the
concentration camp Buchenwald one must not forget that Germany was
engaged in war at the time. Millions of soldiers had to give up their
lives because they were called upon to fight by the state. The state
employed the civil population for work according to state requirements.
In doing so it made no distinction between men and women. The state
ordered employment in chemical factories which was detrimental to
health. It ordered work on the construction of new projectiles which
involved considerable danger. When unexploded enemy shells of a new type
were found at the front, or unexploded bombs of new construction were
found after an air raid at home, it ordered gunnery officers to dismount
such new shells or bombs with the aid of assistants in order to learn
their construction. This implied great danger. Then the fillings of the
new shells and bombs had to be examined by analytical chemists to
determine their composition. In certain cases this work was detrimental
to the health of the chemists and their assistants and always
considerably dangerous.
In the same way the state ordered the medical men to make experiments
with new weapons against dangerous diseases. These weapons were the
vaccines. The fact that during these experiments not only the
experimental persons but also the medical men were exposed to great
danger was proved when Dr. Ding infected himself unintentionally at the
beginning of his typhus experiments and became seriously ill with
typhus.
With regard to such medical experiments, one has to agree on principle
with the opinion of Professor Ivy and Professor Leibbrandt that such
experiments may only be performed on volunteers. But even Professor Ivy
admitted that there is a difference between those cases in which a
scientific research worker starts such experiments on his own initiative
and the cases in which the competent organs of the state authorize him
to do so. He answered the question of whether the organ of the state is
responsible in the affirmative; but he added that this has nothing to do
with the moral responsibility of the experimenter towards the
experimental subject.
If the experiment is ordered by the state, this moral responsibility of
experimenter towards the experimental subject relates to the way in
which the experiment is performed, not to the experiment itself.
The prosecution did not contest that the experiments at Buchenwald were
carried out correctly. By way of precaution, I offered evidence for the
correct execution in my closing brief.
In answer to a question by Dr. Sauter, Professor Ivy observed that he
did not think the state could take the responsibility of ordering a
scientist to kill a man in order to obtain knowledge.
The case with the typhus experiments is different. No order was given to
kill a man in order to obtain knowledge. But the typhus experiments were
dangerous experiments. Out of 724 experimental persons, 154 died. But
these 154 deaths from the typhus experiments have to be compared with
the 15,000 who died of typhus _every day_ in the camps for Soviet
prisoners of war, and the innumerable deaths from typhus among the
civilian population of the occupied eastern territories and the German
troops. This enormous number of deaths led to the absolute necessity of
having effective vaccines against typhus in sufficient quantity. The
newly developed vaccines had been tested in the animal experiments as to
their compatibility.