A. It probably means that it was stored for two weeks, yes.
Q. And then you go on, and it reads, “1 plus two point two for six mice,
point five, I. P. All injected again, six point six immune, only two out
of four of the controlled died,” right?
A. Yes. That is right.
Q. Then, the next is 26 May, “four weeks, three dash six,” what does
“three dash six” mean, Professor?
A. “Four weeks, three to six,” only I can’t tell you at the moment. I’d
have to reconstruct what the assistant wrote.
Q. Well, passing that for the moment. It continues to read, “point 5 per
person and six mice point five I. P., five dead after ten, fourteen
days. The rest after four weeks.” What does “the rest” refer to, the one
mouse? Does that refer to those unidentified persons?
A. No. That refers to the mice. It was simply a mouse experiment. It
says “five dead.” We should have all the information on the mice. This
is only an extract.
Q. But this is May 1943, when you were vaccinating people in Schirmeck,
and this entry says “three dash six, point five per persons”. Now you
are not suggesting to the Tribunal that the “persons” are referring to
the mice? It continues to say—
A. But when it says “six mice” with “point five”, that was the serum, I
suppose, because we were also testing the immunizing effect on mice. I
can’t interpret it differently at the moment. “Four weeks”, that means
the vaccine had been stored for four weeks. “Point five per persons”
were vaccinated. That might mean that it was a comparison experiment,
that the effectiveness was to be tested on mice. At the moment I can’t
give any exact interpretation. I’d have to study the document very
carefully.
Q. What does this “per person” refer to? Talking about human beings,
aren’t they?
A. Yes. It is very possible that that was the vaccine which we had
injected into the persons in Schirmeck in May of ’43; and then in
parallel experiments, we tested it on mice. It was still pathogenic to
mice. It was the murine typhus virus.
Q. But not pathogenic to human beings. It killed the mice, but you were
sure it wouldn’t kill any human beings, is that right?
A. Yes. The vaccination showed that.
Q. Let’s see what it showed. Let’s look at the entry for 6 July, and you
will recall that this is right about the time that our witness, Hirtz,
was testifying. On 6 July, “drawings of blood, Schirmeck, 10 persons, 3
had fever, Weil-Felix,” and then under number 1 to 8, indicating persons
1 to 8, you give the serum titer count, and then comes a little phrase,
“the other two were not here anymore.” Professor, what about these other
two persons out of the ten? You remember that the witness Hirtz
testified that he personally sewed two bodies up in a paper bag, which
were delivered to the crematorium after you had injected your vaccine.
Doesn’t this, “the other two are not here anymore”, rather substantiate
what the witness Hirtz testified to?
A. No. I wouldn’t say that. In my direct examination, I said that on
checking these vaccinated persons, no one was missing. Whether later
perhaps—these serological examinations were in May, two months
before—whether some of the prisoners went in the meantime, I don’t
know. If anyone had died there would have been an entry somewhere in the
record, I should think.
Q. Doesn’t that entry say, “the two weren’t here anymore”? Where were
these serological examinations in May? I don’t see that in your records.
Does it show any serological examinations in May?
A. In the institute. And this is a later check on the immunity through
the Weil-Felix experiments.
Q. We will proceed, Professor. Now you testified you did not conduct any
vaccinations after May 1943 in Schirmeck, and I must have given you an
opportunity at least five times to make that perfectly clear. And even
on the last document I put to you, you still insist you did not make
any. The next entry reads, “4 October 1943, six months, inoculated 20
persons in Schirmeck, tube plus 2 cc. distilled water, 0.5 per person”.
Do you want to change your testimony now, Professor?
A. First I have to read it carefully. There is a figure here, “six
months”. I have to interpret that “20 persons inoculated in Schirmeck”.
Those are probably the 20 people we vaccinated in May, whom the witness
here mentioned. “Two cc. distilled water, then 0.5 cc. per person.” I do
not know even today that we carried out vaccinations in Schirmeck in the
fall of 1943. Then there is an entry on the 27th of January, 1944, “nine
months”.
Q. That is right. That gives you the length of time you had this vaccine
stored, does it not, Professor? On 4 October 1943 you had it stored six
months? You inoculated 20 persons in Schirmeck on 4 October, did you
not, as you stated in your letter to Rose on the same date: “the
inoculations are now progressing,” or words to that effect? You remember
you said to Rose in a letter of 4 October 1943, which I put to you, that
was just a plan that you would do that. This entry indicates you did do
it, does it not, Professor?
A. I must stress what I said before. Afterwards it suddenly says
“January 1943”. That is a time much farther back.
Q. Yes, it is further back. It is obviously a mistake, Professor, as you
well know. Sometimes people running from December over into January make
a mistake and put the last year, you know, and that is obviously what
happened in this case because he could not write a contemporaneous entry
for January 1943 and then have it appear up above that entry, entries
for October, July, and May and April 1943, could he, Professor? You will
agree with me that the date should read 27 January 1944, when the
vaccine had been stored nine months dating from 30 April 1943, is that
not right, Professor?
A. I cannot remember that we vaccinated anybody in Schirmeck later; I am
very sorry.
Q. You remember that you did not vaccinate anybody after May, Professor?
A. Yes. That is right.
Q. On 27 January 1944, which is the next entry, “nine months, mixed with
the same amount as 21 May distilled water plus tube, 20 persons 10 cc.
each”. Those were in Schirmeck, too, were they not, Professor?
A. It says 1 cc., 1 point 0 cc. It does not say anything about
Schirmeck. I cannot say. I must assure you once more that I actually
know nothing about these vaccinations. I am very sorry.
Q. Let us proceed to page 4, Professor. It is apparently another series
on Schirmeck. Do you find the entry on page 4? Your Honors should change
page 6 to page 4.
PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Our pages are numbered 1 and 2. You are referring
to the numbers on the original document?
MR. MCHANEY: Yes, your Honor, page 6 on our translation. Page 6 of the
original, should be changed to read page 4 of the original.
Now, Professor, do you find an entry on page 4 before you, of 10
October, “five months, inoculated ten persons in Schirmeck”? Do you find
that, Professor?
WITNESS HAAGEN: Yes.
Q. That indicates you inoculated some after 4 October 1943, vaccinations
which you mentioned in your letter to Rose, and which are confirmed by
this notebook.
And then, under the entry for 10 October, you find 27 January 1944. Does
it appear 1944 on the original?
A. 27 January 1944, yes.
Q. Eight months?
A. Eight months, yes.
Q. You speak of inoculating 20 persons there, do you not, Professor? Can
you tell the Tribunal that those were done in Schirmeck?
A. I do not know that vaccinations were performed in Schirmeck at this
time. We were only vaccinating in Natzweiler at this time, and I did not
hear that such vaccinations were carried out. I am sorry.
Q. All right.
A. I am trying to interpret the document.
Q. Professor, let us go on to page 5. Do you find page 5, Professor?
A. Yes.
Q. This mentions another series of inoculations in Schirmeck, “13 July
1943, approximately seven weeks, Schirmeck, 0.5 cc. per person and six
mice before the inoculation”.
Let us drop down lower on the page. Do you find the entry for 14
October?
Professor, do you find that?
A. Yes.
Q. “Ten persons inoculated for the third time with 1 cc.” Professor, I
thought you told us that you did not carry out multiple vaccinations
with your murine vaccine in Schirmeck.
A. I have already testified that the only vaccinations in Schirmeck were
in May 1943. I do not know from where this record came. In the fall of
1943 we were only working in Natzweiler. I am sorry, I cannot give any
explanation.
Q. This entry, though, Professor, indicates an inoculation for the third
time on a series of ten persons. That was your “Infektions-Versuche,”
was it not, Professor?
A. No. I know nothing about it; I am sorry.
Q. But your series of three vaccinations was what you referred to as the
“Infektions-Versuche,” was it not, Professor?
A. But these were vaccinations which were carried out in Natzweiler, Mr.
Prosecutor.
Q. The book says they were carried out in Schirmeck, and about four days
before, on the 4th of October 1943, you wrote to Rose and said, “We have
to carry out infection experiments.” Professor, is it possible that you
really meant by “infection experiments” something other than your
three-times vaccination which you had concluded on 14 October 1943?
A. Let me see exactly what it says here, page 5, “10 October-14 October,
ten persons, three times point five,” it says again. It only says it is
a vaccination, if this document is right.
Q. Does the document say, “Vaccinated ten persons, inoculated for the
third time”? Is that what it said?
A. Yes. It says so. In May at Schirmeck in the control group we
vaccinated three times. That is not impossible; but what I notice on
this document, if you want to connect it with the Ipsen vaccine, is that
it does not say anything about the Ipsen vaccine; I have not found that
yet, but it does say Gildemeister.
Q. I have not mentioned anything about Ipsen vaccine. Let us proceed,
Professor, so that we get through before the noon recess. Remember, you
testified you had not carried out any vaccinations in Natzweiler after
January 1944. Professor, will you turn to page 7 of this little notebook
on your experiments, and while this is not the only entry which shows
that you carried out vaccination experiments in Natzweiler after January
1944, I think it will be sufficient for our purposes. Do you have page
7? Will you find the entry?
A. Yes. I have page 7.
Q. Will you find the entry for 25 May 1944?
A. Yes.
Q. Does that read, “Together with S inoculated, used up five tubes of MI
in Natzweiler; two ampules distilled water, three to four cubic
centimeters per ampule vaccine, 0.5 cc. The inoculation took place
during the incubation period, a transport also containing sick people,
13 became sick in the period from 29 May to 9 June; of those, two died.”
Then it continues to give the titer value of some of the others.
Professor, don’t you have to change your testimony about vaccination in
Natzweiler?
A. No. I cannot change it. I know nothing about this.
Q. Professor, let us look at words “together with S”. What do you
understand “together with S” to mean? It is 25 May 1944?
A. I have no idea what “S” means.
Q. You testified that the defendant Schroeder visited you and you fixed
the date, 25 May 1944. Is there any possibility that that “S” could mean
Schroeder?
A. No. That is quite impossible. Impossible. Professor Schroeder never
carried out any experiments with me nor did any work in my laboratory.
He was not with me in Schirmeck or Natzweiler.
Q. He was not with you in Natzweiler?
A. No.
* * * * *
-----
[57] United States _vs._ Oswald Pohl, et al. See Vol. V.
[58] Not introduced in evidence.
[59] Final plea is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 17 July 1947,
pp. 11049-11074.
[60] United States _vs._ Friedrich Flick, et al. See Vol. VI.
[61] United States _vs._ Oswald Pohl, et al. See Vol. V.
[62] Passage is the passing of a disease carrier through a human being
or through an animal.
[63] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 6, 7, 8,
9 Jan. 1947, pp. 1151-1883.
[64] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 18, 21,
22, 23, 24, 25 April 1947, pp. 6081-6484.
[65] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 26, 27,
28, 31 March 1947, pp. 5000-5244.
[66] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 17, 18,
19, 20 June 1947, pp. 9409-9713.