Chapter D: V. L., Berlin-Adlershof (3)

On 24 June 1944, Gutzeit wrote to Haagen that he was also requesting Schreiber to assign Dohmen to Haagen. He went on to state that he was making preparations for experiments on human beings and he wanted Haagen to supply him with his virus material. (_NO-124, Pros. Ex. 193._) Haagen replied to Gutzeit’s letter on 27 June 1944 stating that he was glad that Dohmen would be assigned to him as of 15 July. He further stated that he was working with Kalk, Buechner, and Zuckschwert, all officers of the Luftwaffe, on jaundice problems and that he had arranged with Kalk to conduct human experiments with his material. (_NO-125, Pros. Ex. 194._) On the same date Haagen wrote to his collaborator Kalk, who was attached to the staff of the defendant Schroeder, stating as follows:

“In the enclosure I send you a copy of a letter from Gutzeit and
my reply. We must proceed as soon as possible with the
experiments on human beings. These experiments, of course,
should be carried out at Strasbourg or in its vicinity. Could
you in your official position take the necessary steps to obtain
the required experimental subjects? I don’t know what sort of
subjects Gutzeit has at his disposal, whether they are soldiers
or other people.” (_NO-126, Pros. Ex. 195._)

The remark about “other people” is an obvious reference to concentration camp inmates, upon whom Haagen had long since been experimenting with virulent typhus virus, while the reference to “Strasbourg or in its vicinity”, indicates the concentration camp Natzweiler. (See typhus experiments _supra_.) Herr Kalk and his chief, the defendant Schroeder, were well advised on how to procure concentration camp inmates for medical experiments because only a few weeks before Schroeder himself had requested inmates from Himmler for the sea-water experiments. (_NO-185, Pros. Ex. 134._)

The record shows that Dohmen did in fact go to Strasbourg to work with Haagen on the direct orders of Schreiber. (_Tr. p. 2752._) Handloser was advised of this collaboration of Dohmen and Haagen. (_Tr. p. 2757._)

Still another series of jaundice experiments was planned with which Handloser was connected. On 29 January 1945 Mrugowsky wrote to Grawitz as follows:

“Hauptsturmfuehrer Professor Dr. Dresel, Director of the
Hygienic Institute of the University of Leipzig, has cultivated
a virus from persons suffering from hepatitis and succeeded in
transplanting it on animals.

“It is necessary to make experiments on human beings in order to
determine the fact that this virus is indeed the effective virus
hepatitis epidemica. The plenipotentiary for research on
epidemics in the Reich Research Council therefore addressed
himself to me with the request to carry out the above
experiments.

“I am asking you to obtain authorization from the Reich Leader
SS to carry out the necessary experiments on 20 suitable
prisoners who have hitherto never suffered from hepatitis
epidemica, at the typhus experimental station of the
concentration camp in Buchenwald.” (_NO-1303, Pros. Ex. 467._)

The plenipotentiary for research on epidemics in the Reich Research Council who requested these experiments on concentration camp inmates was Generalarzt Schreiber, at the same time commander of Lehrgruppe C of the Military Medical Academy under Handloser. (_Tr. p. 5402._) Schreiber had been designated by Handloser for the very purpose of coordinating jaundice research, and the meeting in Breslau was called to that end.

In view of this evidence outlined above, it can only be concluded that the jaundice experiments were carried out by subordinates of the defendant Handloser with his knowledge and approval.

* * * * *

_EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST DEFENDANT
SCHROEDER_

* * * * *

_EPIDEMIC JAUNDICE EXPERIMENTS_

In June 1944 a conference of experts was called for the purpose of coordinating jaundice research. This conference took place at Breslau and was presided over by Schreiber. (_Tr. p. 2752._) Handloser, Gutzeit, and Haagen were all present at this conference. (_Tr. p. 2717._) Haagen admitted during cross-examination that experiments on human beings were discussed. That criminal experiments on concentration camp inmates were discussed is clear from the fact that Schreiber in January 1945 personally requested Mrugowsky to make available inmates for hepatitis experiments by Dr. Dresel. (_NO-1303, Pros. Ex. 467._) Schreiber assigned groups of physicians to work together on jaundice problems. Dohmen, Gutzeit, and Haagen were assigned to one of these groups. (_Tr. p. 2717._) On 12 June 1944 Haagen himself requested Schreiber to assign Dohmen to work with him. Generalarzt Schreiber at that time was commander of the Military Medical Academy under Handloser. (_NO-229, Pros. Ex. 190._) Schreiber complied with this request. (_NO-300, Pros. Ex. 191._)

On 24 June 1944 Gutzeit wrote to Haagen that he was also requesting Schreiber to assign Dohmen to Haagen. He went on to state that he was making preparations for experiments on human beings and he wanted Haagen to supply him with his virus material. (_NO-124, Pros. Ex. 193._) Haagen replied to Gutzeit’s letter on 27 June 1944 stating that he was glad that Dohmen would be assigned to him as of 15 July. He further stated that he was working with Kalk, Buechner, and Zuckschwert, all officers of the Luftwaffe, on jaundice problems and that he had arranged with Kalk to conduct human experiments with his material. (_NO-125, Pros. Ex. 194._) On the same date Haagen wrote to his collaborator Kalk, who was a consultant to defendant Schroeder and a specialist on hepatitis (_Tr. p. 3632_), stating as follows:

“In the enclosure I send you a copy of a letter from Gutzeit and
my reply. We must proceed as soon as possible with the
experiments on human beings. These experiments, of course,
should be carried out at Strasbourg or in its vicinity. Could
you in your official position take the necessary steps to obtain
the required experimental subjects. I don’t know what sort of
subjects Gutzeit has at his disposal, whether they are soldiers
or other people.” (_NO-126, Pros. Ex. 195._)

The remark about “other people” is an obvious reference to concentration camp inmates, upon whom Haagen had long since been experimenting with virulent typhus virus, while the reference to “Strasbourg or in its vicinity”, indicates the concentration camp Natzweiler. The witness Olga Eyer, secretary to Haagen, testified that prisoners were requested for the epidemic jaundice experiments. (_Tr. p. 1759._) Haagen would have the Tribunal believe that he referred to Freiburg and Heidelberg which are 60 and 100 kilometers respectively from Strasbourg, while Natzweiler was only a few kilometers away. (_Tr. p. 9579._)

Herr Kalk and his chief, the defendant Schroeder, were well advised on how to procure concentration camp inmates for medical experiments because only a few weeks before Schroeder himself had requested inmates from Himmler for the sea-water experiments. (_NO-185, Pros. Ex. 134._)

* * * * *

c. Selection from the Argumentation of the Defense

_EXTRACT FROM THE FINAL PLEA FOR DEFENDANT
HANDLOSER_[54]

* * * * *

_Epidemic Jaundice_ (_Hepatitis_)

The problem of experiments in the field of hepatitis research consists in finding the most efficient treatment of the disease and identifying the virus in order to evolve a vaccine.

Discussions of this problem were extensive during this trial. The indictment on this point applies only when experiments on human beings, as understood by the prosecution, such as infection with jaundice germs, could have effects detrimental to health. On this the experts, Professors Gutzeit and Rose, have expressed their opinions. Professor Gutzeit, as one of the foremost specialists for problems connected with epidemic jaundice, on the basis of his extensive practical clinical experience and experiments on his own person, has described the effects as follows:

“As far as I, as clinical physician, can judge, the development
of vaccines, and of experiments to gain these vaccines, is
harmless. This harmlessness is shown by the fact that
spontaneous outbreaks of jaundice are not dangerous in
themselves. Like every other vaccine, a potential vaccine which
is being developed for or against hepatitis may cause harmless
local reactions on the place of vaccination.”

Furthermore he said, “it (epidemic jaundice) is a harmless disease” (_German Tr. p. 2761_); “it has no damaging after-effect on the liver.” (_German Tr. p. 2763._) Professor Rose has expressed his expert opinion in the following words: “Hepatitis epidemica as such is not considered a dangerous disease by hygienists.” (_German Tr. pp. 5433, 5434._) Then he continues that naturally, just as in the case of a nasal cold, so in the case of hepatitis, complications may arise as after-effects, “but no one would consider hepatitis as a dangerous disease for that reason.” (_German Tr. p. 6454._) As to the experiments, Professor Rose says:

“In Germany, experiments with hepatitis virus have been carried
out by Eppinger, Vogt, Esser, and Lembel and no incidents
occurred. All experiments took place without ill effects. This
is, of course, very limited experimental material, but material
concerning hundreds of cases which permit a more accurate
judgment has been published in England and America. Up to date I
have knowledge of about 60 experiments on human beings for
hepatitis and no single incident has been reported yet.”

The prosecuting counsel furnished no proof in this trial that infection experiments with jaundice organisms on unwilling persons took place at all in the concentration camps. Whereas in the case of the other facts the prosecution produced medical records or a witness to prove that such experiments had been carried out, this was not possible with regard to epidemic jaundice. Proof was limited to the presentation of documents which one must admit might have given any layman, or even a doctor who was not a hygienist or a clinical physician, the impression that the experiments in question must have been dangerous. The letter of Dr. Grawitz dated 1 June 1943 to Himmler (_NO-010, Pros. Ex. 187_) contains the sentence, “We must expect deaths.”

According to the expert opinions expressed by Rose, Gutzeit, and Hoering this view is incorrect and incomprehensible. The experts exclude in practice all possibility of death. Rose declares (_German Tr. p. 6455_):

“Grawitz, who had only concerned himself for years with the
business of administration, did not have sufficient
understanding of the matter,” or “that he was cautious to an
exaggerated degree * * *.”

Professor Gutzeit (_German Tr. p. 2764_) says of Document NO-010, Prosecution Exhibit 187:

“The only way I can explain it to myself is that Grawitz himself
was not sufficiently informed about this jaundice, the course of
the disease, and its danger. Certainly Grawitz was no specialist
on this matter, this jaundice, and has for a considerable time
been out of touch with practical medicine.”

Professor Gutzeit gives the mortality figure for jaundice as less than 0.1 percent; finally he declares (_German Tr. p. 2762_) that severe pain and suffering, such as mentioned in the indictment, do not occur when a patient is injected with jaundice organisms. A layman can also understand that over-injection can only produce at the most the disease itself, the effects of which have already been represented as harmless.

As already stated, the prosecution furnished no concrete assertions that the intended experiments were made in Sachsenhausen. Here we are speaking of the time from June 1942. At this time Stabsarzt Dr. Dohmen was allowed to work in the concentration camp at Sachsenhausen in accordance with permission given by Himmler. Professor Gutzeit worked together with Stabsarzt Dr. Dohmen insofar as he conducted the hepatitis research work from the clinical side, while Dr. Dohmen was occupied with basic bacteriological research, in the Robert Koch Institute where he was stationed at the time in question and worked under Professor Gildemeister. Evidence was given by Professor Rose (_German Tr. p. 6468_) and Dr. Lentz. (_Rose 16, Rose Ex. 12._)

As a result of the mutual exchange of experience which took place, we must assume that Professor Gutzeit was informed about Dohmen’s research work in this field. Gutzeit also testified upon oath what Dohmen had reported to him about his activity in Sachsenhausen. According to this, Dohmen was only able to escape pressure from Himmler and Grawitz to leave him his breeding stocks by apparently acceding to the offer that he should conduct experiments in Sachsenhausen, but in actual fact undertaking experiments only on prisoners of concentration camps which could be carried out without any risk of bodily harm or loss of life.

In like manner the prosecution was obliged to furnish proof with regard to the experiments asserted to have been made on concentration camp prisoners in Natzweiler. The only witness provided by the prosecution for this, a woman by the name of Eyer, did _not_ confirm what the prosecution affirmed, namely that experiments intended by Professor Haagen in the research into hepatitis had been carried out in the concentration camp at Natzweiler. (_German Tr. p. 1765._)

Dr. Cording testified in an affidavit submitted by Professor Rose:

“For my training in the study of hygiene and bacteriology I was
detailed in February 1944 to the Hygiene Institute of Strasbourg
University where I was engaged, until the military occupation of
the town on 23 November 1944, almost exclusively on work
connected with hepatitis (series of inoculations of mice and
proof of virus in the organs of mice) under Professor Haagen.”

* * * * *

“It did not come to my ears that during the time I was in
Strasbourg experiments with hepatitis were made on human beings
within the framework of this cooperation. In the middle of July
1944 Stabsarzt Dr. Dohmen went from Giessen to visit Professor
Haagen in Strasbourg for about 2-3 days. During this time he saw
for himself in the Institute the results obtained from our
research work in hepatitis. He confirmed that the results of his
experiments had been similar but that all his research material
had been destroyed in an air raid on Berlin. At present he was
busy in Giessen making a fresh start with his own experiments.

“I know for a fact that Dr. Dohmen was not in Natzweiler during
the time of his visit to Strasbourg. I know nothing of any
further cooperation between Professor Haagen and Dr. Dohmen.”

Thus it is proved that Dr. Dohmen was not at the Natzweiler concentration camp and did not take part in any experiments on human beings there in this particular branch of medicine. In correcting his affidavit (_NO-371, Pros. Ex. 186_) the defendant Rudolf Brandt declared upon oath that he had no knowledge that these experiments had been carried out in Sachsenhausen and that some of the prisoners died. In like manner he revoked his evidence concerning the cooperation of Dr. Dohmen and Dr. Haagen in the Natzweiler concentration camp and declared that no facts were known to him about this. (_German Tr. pp. 1990-1993._) Finally Rudolf Brandt declared in his affidavit (_Handloser 11, Handloser Ex. 35_) that no facts were known to him from which could be deduced that the defendant Handloser had any knowledge of the experiments in Sachsenhausen and Natzweiler.

If one also takes into consideration Professor Gutzeit’s testimony that Professor Handloser had reported nothing about Dohmen working in the concentration camp in Sachsenhausen or of his activity there, the following emerges: Professor Handloser’s answer is correct that he had no knowledge that experiments with epidemic jaundice were conducted on human beings in the concentration camps of Sachsenhausen and Natzweiler.

On the other hand Professor Handloser declares that he had a considerable interest in the hepatitis research work, as it is also established that not only his consulting physician Gutzeit but also numerous other offices had concerned themselves with hepatitis research. Professor Handloser gave reasons, confirmed by Professor Gutzeit, why he, as medical officer responsible for the management of health matters in the army, had the duty to give importance to the research in order to find out what caused epidemic jaundice. As far as Handloser knew, this research was carried out in accordance with recognized medical practice, i. e., by experiments on animals and on the persons of the experimenters themselves; likewise by unobjectionable clinical examinations of human beings.

This also emerges from the hepatitis meeting of June 1944 in Breslau. Professor Gutzeit also reported about this meeting and declared upon oath that six or seven different hepatitis research workers had given reports on their experiments and the results obtained. Nothing was said about experiments on human beings. From this Professor Handloser, who took part in the meeting which included the military and civilian sector, must have gained the impression that research into hepatitis was conducted in a generally recognized medical fashion.

As it could not be established at this meeting whether the organisms bred by the various offices were identical, or whether it was a question of different viruses (_German Tr. p. 2737_), the suggestion made by Generalarzt Dr. Schreiber, who as the delegate of the Reich Research Council for the combat of epidemics was the chairman of the meeting, was to the point and served the purpose. His suggestion was that various working groups for hepatitis research be formed in order that results obtained on each side might be compared. On both direct and cross-examination, Professor Gutzeit gave a convincing explanation for his letter of 24 June 1944 (_NO-124, Pros. Ex. 193_), in which he speaks of the experiments “_crucis ad hominem_.” He declared that he had prepared with his students and candidates a vaccination with the virus material placed at his disposal in Breslau. (_German Tr. pp. 2739-2740._)

Dr. Dohmen’s visit to Strasbourg, which was requested by Haagen, was to have been made in compliance with the suggestion of Dr. Schreiber to form a circle of research groups.

* * * * *

d. Evidence

_Prosecution Documents_
Pros. Ex.
Doc. No. No. Description of Document Page
NO-371 186 Affidavit of defendant Rudolf Brandt, 14 503
October 1946, concerning experiments to
determine the cause of epidemic jaundice.
NO-011 188 Note from Himmler to Grawitz, 16 June 1943, 504
concerning epidemic jaundice experiments
at concentration camp Sachsenhausen.
NO-299 190 Letter from Haagen to Schreiber, 12 June 505
1944, concerning epidemic jaundice
experiments.
NO-125 194 Copy of letter from Haagen to Gutzeit, 27 506
June 1944, concerning epidemic jaundice
experiments on human beings.

_Testimony_

Extract from the testimony of defendant Karl Brandt 506

PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-371
PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 186

AFFIDAVIT OF DEFENDANT RUDOLF BRANDT, 14 OCTOBER 1946, CONCERNING
EXPERIMENTS TO DETERMINE THE CAUSE OF EPIDEMIC JAUNDICE

I, Rudolf Brandt, being duly sworn, depose and state:

* * * * *

_Experiments to Determine the Cause of Epidemic Jaundice_ (_Hepatitis
Epidemica_)

3. About the middle of 1943, Dr. Grawitz, Reichsarzt SS, wrote to Himmler that Dr. Karl Brandt wished to obtain prisoners for experimentation on the causes of a jaundice epidemic. He had been doing research on this problem with the assistance of Dr. Dohmen, a medical officer attached to the Army Medical Corps and the Robert Koch Institute. Experiments had thus far disclosed that contagious jaundice is transferred by a virus and human beings were desired for inoculation with germs which had been cultivated in animals. Grawitz advised that death of some of the experimental subjects must be expected. He wanted to know if Dr. Dohmen could be permitted to carry out the experiments at the Sachsenhausen concentration camp, as desired by Dr. Karl Brandt.

4. Himmler wrote Grawitz that Dr. Dohmen had his permission to conduct the experiments at Sachsenhausen, and for that purpose he had Oswald Pohl of the WVHA allocate a number of prisoners to be used as experimental subjects. I know that these experiments were carried out and that some of the prisoners died as a result.

5. Dr. Eugen Haagen, Oberstabsarzt and consultant in hygiene for the Luftwaffe, had also been doing research work at the Natzweiler concentration camp in an effort to discover an effective inoculation against epidemic jaundice. As I recall, Dr. Dohmen collaborated with Haagen in 1944 at Natzweiler and experiments on involuntary human beings were conducted which resulted in deaths.

6. These experiments were of course well known to Karl Brandt as he was personally furthering them. Handloser and Schroeder must also have known of them because Dohmen and Haagen were doctors in the Medical Services of the Army and the Luftwaffe respectively. Generalarzt Paul Rostock was also well informed on all research work of this nature.

I have read the above statement in German, consisting of two (2) pages, and it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I have had the opportunity to make any changes and corrections in the foregoing statement. This statement was given by me freely and voluntarily, without promise of reward and I was subjected to no duress or threat of any kind.

[Signed] R. BRANDT

TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-011
PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 188

NOTE FROM HIMMLER TO GRAWITZ, 16 JUNE 1943, CONCERNING EPIDEMIC JAUNDICE
EXPERIMENTS AT CONCENTRATION CAMP SACHSENHAUSEN

The Reich Leader SS Day Book No 1652/43, RF/BN

XIa-/-43
Field H. Q., 16 June 1943

Subject: Investigation of the cause of the infectious jaundice (hepatitis epidemica)

Reference: Yours of 1 June 1943—Az.: 420/IV/43—Diary No. 6/43 g.Kdos.

Top Secret

Reich Physician SS and Police 4 Copies Berlin 3d Copy

I acknowledge the receipt of your letter of 1 June 1943.

1. I approve that eight criminals condemned in Auschwitz (eight Jews of the Polish resistance movement condemned to death) should be used for experiments.

2. I agree that Dr. Dohmen should make these experiments in Sachsenhausen.

3. I agree with your opinion that a real fight against infectious jaundice would be of unheard [of] value.

[Signed] H. HIMMLER.

2. SS Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl,[55] Berlin

Carbon copy forwarded with request that you will duly note.

[Signature] SS Obersturmbannfuehrer

TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-299
PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 190

LETTER FROM HAAGEN TO SCHREIBER, 12 JUNE 1944, CONCERNING EPIDEMIC
JAUNDICE EXPERIMENTS

12 June 1944

Generalarzt Professor Dr. Schreiber Academy of Military Medicine Berlin NW

Dear Generalarzt:

Enclosed I am sending you my hepatitis report for further use. At the same time I would like to use this opportunity to renew my invitation to Stabsarzt Dohmen. Since I do not know his present address, may I direct this invitation to you and suggest that Dr. Dohmen be assigned to me for several weeks so that we may discover and possibly work on questions we have in common. This would probably be the quickest way to determine whether we have the same virus or not. A satisfactory date for Dohmen’s visit to begin would be 15 July.

At the same time I should like to approach the subject of your negotiations for mice. My supplies, and particularly my cultures, are so depleted that they absolutely must be rejuvenated and refilled. You told me in Hohenlychen that it is possible for you to secure mice, even in large numbers. May I ask you to endeavor to secure for me several thousand mice of both sexes, preferably only young animals.

Thirdly I would like to ask whether the hepatitis research will be carried on in future out of funds of the Reich Research Council? My funds for this branch are now exhausted and I am faced with the question as to whether to apply for further funds to my Medical Chief of the Luftwaffe or to you. I would be grateful to you to be informed about this shortly.

With kindest greetings and compliments,
Heil Hitler!
Very devotedly yours,
[Signed] HAAGEN

TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-125
PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 194

COPY OF LETTER FROM HAAGEN TO GUTZEIT, 27 JUNE 1944, CONCERNING EPIDEMIC
JAUNDICE EXPERIMENTS ON HUMAN BEINGS

Oberstabsarzt Professor Dr. E. Haagen, Consulting Hygienist to the Air Fleet Physician Reich

Strasbourg, 27 June 1944

To: Oberstarzt Professor Dr. Gutzeit Consulting Physician to the Army Medical Inspector, Medical Clinic of University of Breslau, Hobrechtufer 4

My dear colleague Gutzeit,

Many thanks for your letter of 24/6/44. I am glad that Herr Dohmen will come here on 15 July. We shall then review all common hepatitis questions and perhaps also set up the experiments together.

I cannot at present definitely answer your inquiry about human experiments. As you know, I am working with Herr Kalk, Herr Buechner, and Herr Zuckschwert. Naturally, I have already arranged with Herr Kalk that we shall undertake that type of experiment with our material. I must therefore first determine the point of view of the others concerned.

I shall be very glad to begin work on the nephritis material from your Oberstarzt K (?) [sic].

With best greetings,
Heil Hitler!
Yours
EXTRACT FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT KARL BRANDT[56]

_DIRECT EXAMINATION_

* * * * *

DR. SERVATIUS: The indictment mentions experiments with hepatitis. A letter from Grawitz to Himmler says that you furthered these experiments. Did you yourself do any clinical work on this question?

DEFENDANT KARL BRANDT: I never did any work in connection with hepatitis epidemica, for that would have been during the war, as before the war this disease was not given much importance in Germany. During the war I did not deal with this question because I was too busy with other things, and also because such a purely internal disease, although perhaps of interest to the hygienist, was relatively uninteresting to me as a surgeon.

Q. Did you allocate research assignments on this subject? How about Dr. Dohmen?

A. I do not know why I should have given a research assignment to Dr. Dohmen. Of course the question of hepatitis was a question which interested everyone, for it was encountered everywhere in the East. But, for that reason I would not have given special attention to that disease. It had no relation to other things which were of more interest to me as a surgeon. I know the letter. I was told about it last year. I saw it here again for the first time this year. It says that I had asked Grawitz to have special hepatitis work carried out by Dr. Dohmen. Dr. Dohmen, the letter goes on, was to obtain seven or eight prisoners for that purpose and the lives of these prisoners would be endangered. It is not clear to me in what connection, and for what reason, my name was mentioned as the instigator of hepatitis research, for in all the rest of the correspondence, and in all the other documents, there is not even the slightest hint that I had any particular interest in this question, or that I was so interested that I would have started the research. I never really knew that the experiments were actually carried out, and I never received any report of results. There are indications contrary to the sense of this letter, especially when it says these experiments are to be carried out on persons condemned to death. Hepatitis epidemica is not a disease as dangerous as all that. I have inquired meanwhile, and know that compared with malaria, for example, it is only about a fifth or a tenth as dangerous. I have already discussed today my relationship with Himmler and with Grawitz. I did not invent that; that was actually the truth. On the other hand, it is interesting to note that in all the correspondence concerning hepatitis, one year later, after the first letter failed to have the desired effect, Professor Schreiber sought a way to approach Himmler in order to have hepatitis research work continued.

Schreiber was the deputy for epidemic control in the Reich Research Council, so that I may assume that, for some reason which is not quite dear to me, Grawitz possibly confused Schreiber and me in the first letter. That is conceivable. The letter is dated 1 June 1943. A short time before that there was a meeting of the Military Medical Academy, and probably Grawitz, who was present, talked to Schreiber as well. In any case I am not able to give any information about this question of hepatitis, and certainly not about any experiments which actually took place. I have no information; I received no report; and I have not heard from any other source even now that these experiments were really conducted. It seems to me significant that the witness Schmidt, who was heard here, testified that the experiments were certainly not conducted in Strasbourg, as Dohmen, who wanted to conduct them, was there for only two or three days himself.

* * * * *

-----

[54] Final plea is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 14-15 July 1947, pp. 10818-10849.

[55] Defendant in Case of United States _vs._ Oswald Pohl, et al. See Vol. V.

[56] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Feb. 1947, pp. 2301-2661.

9. TYPHUS AND OTHER VACCINE EXPERIMENTS

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.