Chapter D: V. L., Berlin-Adlershof (4)

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The entries for 26 May and 13 October 1944 in the Ding diary show that blood was withdrawn from inmates recovering from typhus for the purpose of making a typhus convalescent serum.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.