Chapter D: V. L., Berlin-Adlershof (9)

A. Yes. They were stronger again. And this we can only explain by believing that the general state of health among the prisoners was lower than among my associates; but there was no such thing as a natural manifestation of typhus or any fatalities.

* * * * *

Q. But, Professor, to this statement I shall have to put to you something which was said before this Tribunal and which is quite different from what you have just said. I am referring to the testimony of the witness, Edith Schmidt. On 9 January 1947 (_Tr. p. 1371_), she said that you had carried out vaccination experiments on 100 to 150 persons in Natzweiler, and out of these experiments roughly 50 are said to have died from the control group. Fraeulein Schmidt stated that she knew this from notes which your technical assistant, Miss Crodel, had made about the typhus experiments at Natzweiler. Can you please tell the Tribunal to which notes Fraeulein Schmidt was referring—in other words, how do you explain her testimony?

A. It is utterly impossible for Fraeulein Schmidt to have seen records of notes of my vaccinations in Natzweiler in which fatalities occurred because as I have already said no one died following the vaccinations. These notes of Fraeulein Crodel’s which Fraeulein Schmidt saw do not refer to the vaccinations. That can be seen from the numbers mentioned, by Fraeulein Schmidt, because I only vaccinated 80 persons at Natzweiler, not 150 to 200 as the witness stated. The witness apparently took this number and the concept of a control group from later writings, which are to be discussed hereafter; but I can imagine to which note she could have been referring.

Q. Please continue, Witness.

A. The witness states correctly when these notes were made, because she says the sun was shining on the pages. That must have been in the spring or summer of 1944. This corresponds with the time when the typhus epidemic was raging in the camp. Thus I assume that Fraeulein Schmidt really did see genuine notes of some sort.

Q. Then, Witness, you are saying that these were notes which were made in the course of an epidemic that took place in Natzweiler, can you tell us when this epidemic broke out?

A. So far as I can state from memory, the epidemic broke out in February or March of 1944. Gradually the number of cases became very large, and in the summer the very considerable figure of roughly 1,200 was reached.

Q. Let me point out in this connection that this epidemic is confirmed by two prosecution witnesses: Grandjean on 6 January (_Tr. p. 1099_) and the witness Holl on 3 January 1947 (_Tr. p. 1058_). Both witnesses stated that in the spring of 1944 and also in the summer following, there was a severe typhus epidemic in Natzweiler. The witness Grandjean gave the number as 1,200 to 1,400 cases, as I remember, thus this would agree with what you have just said, Witness. Now, the most important question in this connection is, did the outbreak of this epidemic have any connection with your vaccinations—what I mean is, were your vaccinations the cause of this epidemic?

A. No. There was no connection between the epidemic and our vaccinations. Our vaccinations had already been concluded in January 1944, and the first typhus cases occurred in February or March, and they were brought into the camp from outside, either by transports or from other camps. Let me repeat that the sick people were taken from outside camps to Schirmeck where they were treated in a special department, because there was no way of isolating them in the outside camps.

* * * * *

_CROSS-EXAMINATION_

MR. MCHANEY: Let’s pass on to the notebook. Now, what does the notebook show? What is this notebook?

WITNESS HAAGEN: That is a control book in which the experiments with the typhus vaccine on the animals were recorded.

Q. Does that notebook concern your typhus experiments?

A. As far as I can see now, it looks as if that was the current laboratory work which we were carrying out. That is what it looks like, but I’d have to see all of it first.

Q. Now, Professor, you must be able to tell the Tribunal who wrote this book.

A. The technical assistant kept it, and from the handwriting, it looks as if she made these entries; but I can’t interpret every record after such a long time. I have to study it first. We did not only have vaccinations, but also scientific work.

Q. But to the best of your memory, you can state that this notebook was written by Fraeulein Crodel, and it concerns the experiments carried out by you?

A. The laboratory work, as far as I can see at the moment. I would like to make that restriction.

MR. MCHANEY: The prosecution asks that Document NO-3852 be marked as Prosecution Exhibit 521 for identification.

Now, Professor, we have covered the chart of the test on the two mice. Let’s go to the notebook itself. And in order to follow my questions, I will ask you to observe the pencil numbers which I have written on this photostatic copy down at the bottom right-hand corner of each page. Do you find that?

A. Yes.

Q. Will you turn to page 3?

If the Tribunal, please, it will be necessary to renumber the pages appearing on your translations. This applies equally to the defense counsel. When the translation was made, they took some pages off the reverse side of the photostatic copy, and because of the two pages appearing for one photostatic copy, they had to be renumbered. Page 5 on the translations should be marked page 3.

Do you find the entry for 30 April 1943, Professor?

A. 30 April ’43, yes.

Q. And that says, “S, plus, plus, 9, Sch.” That is Schirmeck, isn’t it, Professor? “Sch.”?

A. No. That means ninth passage. It is supposed to be “pas.”, ninth passage.

Q. It says “Sch.”, what does “Sch.” mean?

A. It doesn’t look like “Sch.” to me.

Q. What does it look like to you?

A. In German, I think it looks like a “p”, a German “p”.

Q. And you think it should read what?

A. First, I said it is probably “passage—ninth passage”.

Q. All right. Let’s go down to the entry, the next one for 14 May. In parenthesis “two weeks,” does that mean the vaccine had been stored for two weeks?

A. Where is that? I can’t find it.

Q. 14 May, immediately—

A. It probably means that it was stored for two weeks, yes.

Q. And then you go on, and it reads, “1 plus two point two for six mice, point five, I. P. All injected again, six point six immune, only two out of four of the controlled died,” right?

A. Yes. That is right.

Q. Then, the next is 26 May, “four weeks, three dash six,” what does “three dash six” mean, Professor?

A. “Four weeks, three to six,” only I can’t tell you at the moment. I’d have to reconstruct what the assistant wrote.

Q. Well, passing that for the moment. It continues to read, “point 5 per person and six mice point five I. P., five dead after ten, fourteen days. The rest after four weeks.” What does “the rest” refer to, the one mouse? Does that refer to those unidentified persons?

A. No. That refers to the mice. It was simply a mouse experiment. It says “five dead.” We should have all the information on the mice. This is only an extract.

Q. But this is May 1943, when you were vaccinating people in Schirmeck, and this entry says “three dash six, point five per persons”. Now you are not suggesting to the Tribunal that the “persons” are referring to the mice? It continues to say—

A. But when it says “six mice” with “point five”, that was the serum, I suppose, because we were also testing the immunizing effect on mice. I can’t interpret it differently at the moment. “Four weeks”, that means the vaccine had been stored for four weeks. “Point five per persons” were vaccinated. That might mean that it was a comparison experiment, that the effectiveness was to be tested on mice. At the moment I can’t give any exact interpretation. I’d have to study the document very carefully.

Q. What does this “per person” refer to? Talking about human beings, aren’t they?

A. Yes. It is very possible that that was the vaccine which we had injected into the persons in Schirmeck in May of ’43; and then in parallel experiments, we tested it on mice. It was still pathogenic to mice. It was the murine typhus virus.

Q. But not pathogenic to human beings. It killed the mice, but you were sure it wouldn’t kill any human beings, is that right?

A. Yes. The vaccination showed that.

Q. Let’s see what it showed. Let’s look at the entry for 6 July, and you will recall that this is right about the time that our witness, Hirtz, was testifying. On 6 July, “drawings of blood, Schirmeck, 10 persons, 3 had fever, Weil-Felix,” and then under number 1 to 8, indicating persons 1 to 8, you give the serum titer count, and then comes a little phrase, “the other two were not here anymore.” Professor, what about these other two persons out of the ten? You remember that the witness Hirtz testified that he personally sewed two bodies up in a paper bag, which were delivered to the crematorium after you had injected your vaccine. Doesn’t this, “the other two are not here anymore”, rather substantiate what the witness Hirtz testified to?

A. No. I wouldn’t say that. In my direct examination, I said that on checking these vaccinated persons, no one was missing. Whether later perhaps—these serological examinations were in May, two months before—whether some of the prisoners went in the meantime, I don’t know. If anyone had died there would have been an entry somewhere in the record, I should think.

Q. Doesn’t that entry say, “the two weren’t here anymore”? Where were these serological examinations in May? I don’t see that in your records. Does it show any serological examinations in May?

A. In the institute. And this is a later check on the immunity through the Weil-Felix experiments.

Q. We will proceed, Professor. Now you testified you did not conduct any vaccinations after May 1943 in Schirmeck, and I must have given you an opportunity at least five times to make that perfectly clear. And even on the last document I put to you, you still insist you did not make any. The next entry reads, “4 October 1943, six months, inoculated 20 persons in Schirmeck, tube plus 2 cc. distilled water, 0.5 per person”.

Do you want to change your testimony now, Professor?

A. First I have to read it carefully. There is a figure here, “six months”. I have to interpret that “20 persons inoculated in Schirmeck”. Those are probably the 20 people we vaccinated in May, whom the witness here mentioned. “Two cc. distilled water, then 0.5 cc. per person.” I do not know even today that we carried out vaccinations in Schirmeck in the fall of 1943. Then there is an entry on the 27th of January, 1944, “nine months”.

Q. That is right. That gives you the length of time you had this vaccine stored, does it not, Professor? On 4 October 1943 you had it stored six months? You inoculated 20 persons in Schirmeck on 4 October, did you not, as you stated in your letter to Rose on the same date: “the inoculations are now progressing,” or words to that effect? You remember you said to Rose in a letter of 4 October 1943, which I put to you, that was just a plan that you would do that. This entry indicates you did do it, does it not, Professor?

A. I must stress what I said before. Afterwards it suddenly says “January 1943”. That is a time much farther back.

Q. Yes, it is further back. It is obviously a mistake, Professor, as you well know. Sometimes people running from December over into January make a mistake and put the last year, you know, and that is obviously what happened in this case because he could not write a contemporaneous entry for January 1943 and then have it appear up above that entry, entries for October, July, and May and April 1943, could he, Professor? You will agree with me that the date should read 27 January 1944, when the vaccine had been stored nine months dating from 30 April 1943, is that not right, Professor?

A. I cannot remember that we vaccinated anybody in Schirmeck later; I am very sorry.

Q. You remember that you did not vaccinate anybody after May, Professor?

A. Yes. That is right.

Q. On 27 January 1944, which is the next entry, “nine months, mixed with the same amount as 21 May distilled water plus tube, 20 persons 10 cc. each”. Those were in Schirmeck, too, were they not, Professor?

A. It says 1 cc., 1 point 0 cc. It does not say anything about Schirmeck. I cannot say. I must assure you once more that I actually know nothing about these vaccinations. I am very sorry.

Q. Let us proceed to page 4, Professor. It is apparently another series on Schirmeck. Do you find the entry on page 4? Your Honors should change page 6 to page 4.

PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Our pages are numbered 1 and 2. You are referring to the numbers on the original document?

MR. MCHANEY: Yes, your Honor, page 6 on our translation. Page 6 of the original, should be changed to read page 4 of the original.

Now, Professor, do you find an entry on page 4 before you, of 10 October, “five months, inoculated ten persons in Schirmeck”? Do you find that, Professor?

WITNESS HAAGEN: Yes.

Q. That indicates you inoculated some after 4 October 1943, vaccinations which you mentioned in your letter to Rose, and which are confirmed by this notebook.

And then, under the entry for 10 October, you find 27 January 1944. Does it appear 1944 on the original?

A. 27 January 1944, yes.

Q. Eight months?

A. Eight months, yes.

Q. You speak of inoculating 20 persons there, do you not, Professor? Can you tell the Tribunal that those were done in Schirmeck?

A. I do not know that vaccinations were performed in Schirmeck at this time. We were only vaccinating in Natzweiler at this time, and I did not hear that such vaccinations were carried out. I am sorry.

Q. All right.

A. I am trying to interpret the document.

Q. Professor, let us go on to page 5. Do you find page 5, Professor?

A. Yes.

Q. This mentions another series of inoculations in Schirmeck, “13 July 1943, approximately seven weeks, Schirmeck, 0.5 cc. per person and six mice before the inoculation”.

Let us drop down lower on the page. Do you find the entry for 14 October?

Professor, do you find that?

A. Yes.

Q. “Ten persons inoculated for the third time with 1 cc.” Professor, I thought you told us that you did not carry out multiple vaccinations with your murine vaccine in Schirmeck.

A. I have already testified that the only vaccinations in Schirmeck were in May 1943. I do not know from where this record came. In the fall of 1943 we were only working in Natzweiler. I am sorry, I cannot give any explanation.

Q. This entry, though, Professor, indicates an inoculation for the third time on a series of ten persons. That was your “Infektions-Versuche,” was it not, Professor?

A. No. I know nothing about it; I am sorry.

Q. But your series of three vaccinations was what you referred to as the “Infektions-Versuche,” was it not, Professor?

A. But these were vaccinations which were carried out in Natzweiler, Mr. Prosecutor.

Q. The book says they were carried out in Schirmeck, and about four days before, on the 4th of October 1943, you wrote to Rose and said, “We have to carry out infection experiments.” Professor, is it possible that you really meant by “infection experiments” something other than your three-times vaccination which you had concluded on 14 October 1943?

A. Let me see exactly what it says here, page 5, “10 October-14 October, ten persons, three times point five,” it says again. It only says it is a vaccination, if this document is right.

Q. Does the document say, “Vaccinated ten persons, inoculated for the third time”? Is that what it said?

A. Yes. It says so. In May at Schirmeck in the control group we vaccinated three times. That is not impossible; but what I notice on this document, if you want to connect it with the Ipsen vaccine, is that it does not say anything about the Ipsen vaccine; I have not found that yet, but it does say Gildemeister.

Q. I have not mentioned anything about Ipsen vaccine. Let us proceed, Professor, so that we get through before the noon recess. Remember, you testified you had not carried out any vaccinations in Natzweiler after January 1944. Professor, will you turn to page 7 of this little notebook on your experiments, and while this is not the only entry which shows that you carried out vaccination experiments in Natzweiler after January 1944, I think it will be sufficient for our purposes. Do you have page 7? Will you find the entry?

A. Yes. I have page 7.

Q. Will you find the entry for 25 May 1944?

A. Yes.

Q. Does that read, “Together with S inoculated, used up five tubes of MI in Natzweiler; two ampules distilled water, three to four cubic centimeters per ampule vaccine, 0.5 cc. The inoculation took place during the incubation period, a transport also containing sick people, 13 became sick in the period from 29 May to 9 June; of those, two died.”

Then it continues to give the titer value of some of the others. Professor, don’t you have to change your testimony about vaccination in Natzweiler?

A. No. I cannot change it. I know nothing about this.

Q. Professor, let us look at words “together with S”. What do you understand “together with S” to mean? It is 25 May 1944?

A. I have no idea what “S” means.

Q. You testified that the defendant Schroeder visited you and you fixed the date, 25 May 1944. Is there any possibility that that “S” could mean Schroeder?

A. No. That is quite impossible. Impossible. Professor Schroeder never carried out any experiments with me nor did any work in my laboratory. He was not with me in Schirmeck or Natzweiler.

Q. He was not with you in Natzweiler?

A. No.

* * * * *

-----

[57] United States _vs._ Oswald Pohl, et al. See Vol. V.

[58] Not introduced in evidence.

[59] Final plea is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 17 July 1947, pp. 11049-11074.

[60] United States _vs._ Friedrich Flick, et al. See Vol. VI.

[61] United States _vs._ Oswald Pohl, et al. See Vol. V.

[62] Passage is the passing of a disease carrier through a human being or through an animal.

[63] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 6, 7, 8, 9 Jan. 1947, pp. 1151-1883.

[64] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 April 1947, pp. 6081-6484.

[65] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 26, 27, 28, 31 March 1947, pp. 5000-5244.

[66] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 17, 18, 19, 20 June 1947, pp. 9409-9713.

10. EXPERIMENTS WITH POISON

a. Introduction

The defendants Genzken, Gebhardt, Mrugowsky, and Poppendick were charged with special responsibility for and participation in criminal conduct involving experiments with poison (par. 6 (K) of the indictment). Only the defendant Mrugowsky was convicted on this charge.

The prosecution’s summation of the evidence on the experiments with poison is contained in its closing brief against the defendant Mrugowsky. An extract from this brief is set forth below on pages 631 to 632. A corresponding summation of the evidence by the defense on these experiments has been selected from the final plea for the defendant Mrugowsky. It appears below on pages 633 to 634. This argumentation is followed by selections from the evidence on pages 634 to 639.

b. Selection from the Argumentation of the Prosecution

_EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST
DEFENDANT MRUGOWSKY_

* * * * *

_Poison Experiments_

Poison experiments were carried out in the Buchenwald and Sachsenhausen concentration camps by order of the defendant Mrugowsky (_Tr. pp. 1183-6_). The first series of the experiments was carried out in December 1943 in order to determine the fatal dosage of poisons of the alkaloid group. These experiments were requested by the SS judge, Morgen, who investigated the criminal case against Koch, camp commander of Buchenwald, and the defendant Hoven. Hoven was suspected of having killed a witness against Koch and himself by means of poison. Four Russian prisoners of war were experimented upon by Ding. The poison was administered to the experimental subjects in their food without their knowledge. All four survived, but were strangled in a crematorium of the concentration camp in order that autopsies could be performed. (_Tr. pp. 1183-6_; _NO-265, Pros. Ex. 287_.) Since Ding was subordinated to Mrugowsky, this experiment could not have been performed by Ding without Mrugowsky’s approval.

On 11 September 1944 Mrugowsky and Ding carried out an experiment with aconitine nitrate projectiles in the Sachsenhausen concentration camp. The projectiles were filled with crystallized poison and five experimental subjects were shot in the upper part of the left thigh with these projectiles. In two cases, no effect of the poison could be observed. In the other three cases, the suffering of the experimental subjects was terrible. All three died after approximately two hours of agony. The poison bullets used in the experiments were allegedly of Russian origin. (_NO-201, Pros. Ex. 290._)

The experimental subjects were Russian prisoners of war. (_Tr. p. 1186_; _see also Kogon’s testimony in Case 4_.[67]) Mrugowsky admitted his participation in these experiments. He defended himself on the ground that he was the legally appointed executioner in this case. Assuming the truth of this absurd statement, it cannot be held legal to torture to death prisoners of war even if they had been validly sentenced to death.

On 26 October 1944 still another poison experiment was carried out by Ding in Buchenwald. The entry in the Ding diary for that date states: “Special experiment on 6 persons according to instructions of SS Oberfuehrer Lecturer Dr. Mrugowsky and RKPA. (Report on this orally.)” Kogon testified that Ding told him the Russian prisoners of war used in the experiments died in a short time. They were later dissected and burned. Ding reported to Mrugowsky orally. These experiments were connected with the poison bullet experiments in the Sachsenhausen concentration camp. (_Tr. pp. 1185-1186._)

* * * * *

c. Selection from the Argumentation of the Defense

_EXTRACT FROM THE FINAL PLEA FOR DEFENDANT
MRUGOWSKY_[68]

* * * * *

In respect to the poison experiments, I proved in my written statement that Ding’s assertion that Mrugowsky had ordered him to be present at a euthanasia killing by phenol is not correct. Professor Killian, who according to Ding’s statement, was present when the order was given, said that this statement of Ding’s was incorrect. It showed that the examination of the question of whether the noxious effect of serums containing phenol can be proved by the comparative use of serums with and without phenol, and also a series of experiments with serums containing phenol was never carried out.

The experiments with pervitin were carried out on the initiative of Dr. Morgen and Dr. Wehner, according to the Ding diary. I proved that no harm was caused to the health of the experimental subjects by these experiments. The experiments were performed with pervitin which can be obtained in any chemist’s shop without a prescription and consequently is not a poison. In the experiments it was used together with a narcotic because the authority wanted to determine whether, as a result of this treatment, the effect was increased one way or the other. The only effect was that the experimental subjects fell into a disturbed sleep for up to 20 hours. This pervitin experiment was not ordered by Mrugowsky; he did not participate therein in any way, and the prosecution did not even contend that he knew of it. No responsibility under criminal law may be deduced against him from this experiment.

With regard to the special experiment on 6 persons mentioned in Ding’s diary, it is again solely the witness Kogon who gave details. In my closing brief I pointed out that, in this case too, Kogon gave contradictory testimony in the Pohl trial[69] and the doctors’ trial about the origin of this experiment. Thus his evidence has no probative value. Moreover, Kogon’s description of this experiment, except for the sealing and the burning of the prescription, is only based on Ding’s statements. In respect to this special experiment, there is no evidence whatsoever to show the type of poison used, the manner in which the special experiment was performed, and the aim of the experiment. After the collapse, Ding told the defendant Sievers that towards the end of 1944 in Buchenwald he had filled 80 phials with prussic acid in order to commit suicide, but he unfortunately took none of them with him.

No one can prove whether Ding carried out his “special experiment” with these prussic acid capsules because Ding left no report about the course of the special experiment.

The Ding diary states that the experiment was performed by order of Mrugowsky and the Reich Criminal Police Office. Because the diary has such little probative value, the truth of this contention cannot be proved by this document alone. No other evidence has been submitted to show that Ding poisoned 6 prisoners by order of Mrugowsky. Therefore there is no conclusive evidence to prove that Mrugowsky ordered this experiment or that he even knew about it.

The prosecution further indicted Mrugowsky because of an execution performed at Sachsenhausen in which ten bandits sentenced to death were executed with bullets poisoned with aconitine. I have proved that Mrugowsky attended this execution only as the usual doctor present at an execution. I further demonstrated that the execution took place because, in an attempt on the life of a high-ranking civil servant in the General Government, Russian revolver ammunition had been used in which hollow bullets had been filled with aconitine poison. This use of poisoned Russian bullets, and Henderson’s book which described the preparation for the use of poisoned bullets in the First World War, had increased the concern that poisoned bullets would shortly be used at the front. I proved that poisoned ammunition was used at the execution to determine whether pure aconitine or a poison mixture had been used in the bullets, and how much time would be available in case of need to administer antidotes.

I proved that all executions in the concentration camps were ordered by the Reich Criminal Police Office, and that the presence of a doctor at such executions was prescribed. The execution at Sachsenhausen was ordered by the Reich Criminal Police Office. No charge under criminal law can be deduced against Mrugowsky from his attendance as a doctor at the execution. I have explained this in detail in my closing brief.

* * * * *

d. Evidence

_Prosecution Documents_
Pros. Ex.
Doc. No. No. Description of Document Page
NO-201 290 Report from Mrugowsky to the Criminological 635
Institute, 12 September 1944, concerning
experiments with aconitine nitrate
projectiles.

_Testimony_

Extract from the testimony of prosecution witness Dr. Eugen Kogon 637

PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-201
PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 290

REPORT FROM MRUGOWSKY TO THE CRIMINOLOGICAL INSTITUTE, 12 SEPTEMBER
1944, CONCERNING EXPERIMENTS WITH ACONITINE NITRATE PROJECTILES

Reich Physician SS and Police Berlin-Zehlendorf 6, The Chief Hygienist 12 September 1944 Journal No.: Secret 364/44 Dr. Mru./Eb. Spanische Allee 10-12

Top Secret

Subject: Experiments with aconitine nitrate projectiles To the Criminological Institute [Stamp] attn: Dr. Widmann

Berlin Criminological Institute
Department: Chemistry
received: 13 Sep 1944
Journal No. g 53/44
in charge:

In the presence of SS Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Ding, Dr. Widmann, and the undersigned, experiments with aconitine nitrate projectiles were conducted on 11 September 1944 on 5 persons who had been condemned to death. The projectiles in question were of a 7.65 mm. caliber, filled with crystallized poison. The experimental subjects, in a lying position, were each shot in the upper part of the left thigh. The thighs of two of them were cleanly shot through. Even afterwards, no effect of the poison was to be observed. These two experimental subjects were therefore exempted.

The entrance of the projectile did not show any peculiarities. Evidently the arteria femoralis of one of the subjects were injured. A slight stream of blood issued from the wound. But the bleeding stopped after a short time. The loss of blood was estimated as having been at the most ¾ of a liter, and consequently was on no account fatal.

The symptoms of the condemned three showed a surprising similarity. At first no peculiarities appeared. After 20 to 25 minutes a motor agitation and a slight ptyalism set in, but stopped again. After 40 to 45 minutes a stronger salivation set in. The poisoned persons swallowed repeatedly, but later the flow of saliva became so strong that it could not even be overcome by swallowing. Foamy saliva flowed from their mouths. Then choking and vomiting set in.

After 58 minutes the pulse of two of them could no longer be felt. The third had a pulse rate of 76. After 65 minutes his blood pressure was 90/60. The sounds were extremely low. A reduction of blood pressure was evident.

During the first hour of the experiment the pupils did not show any changes. After 78 minutes the pupils of all three showed a medium dilation together with a retarded light reaction. Simultaneously, maximum respiration with heavy breathing inhalations set in. This subsided after a few minutes. The pupils contracted again and their reaction improved. After 65 minutes the patellar and achilles tendon reflexes of the poisoned subjects were negative. The abdominal reflexes of two of them were also negative. The upper abdominal reflexes of the third were still positive, while the lower were negative. After approximately 90 minutes, one of the subjects again started breathing heavily. This was accompanied by an increasing motor unrest. Then the heavy breathing changed into a flat, accelerated respiration, accompanied by extreme nausea. One of the poisoned persons tried in vain to vomit. To do so he introduced four fingers of his hand up to the knuckles into his throat, but nevertheless could not vomit. His face was flushed.

The other two experimental subjects had already early shown a pale face. The other symptoms were the same. The motor unrest increased so much that the persons flung themselves up, and down, rolled their eyes and made meaningless motions with their hands and arms. Finally the agitation subsided, the pupils dilated to the maximum, and the condemned lay motionless. Masseter spasms and urination were observed in one case. Death occurred 121, 123, and 129 minutes after entry of the projectile.

_Summary._ The projectiles filled with approximately 38 mg. of aconitine nitrate in solid form had, in spite of only insignificant injuries, a deadly effect after two hours. Poisoning showed 20 to 25 minutes after injury. The main reactions were salivation, alteration of the pupils, negative tendon reflexes, motor unrest, and extreme nausea.

[Signature] MRUGOWSKY
SS Lecturer Oberfuehrer and Office Chief.

* * * * *

_Poison Projectile of a Russian 7.65 Caliber Pistol Cartridge_

(Perspective view, scale 10:1)

The projectile is cut open and ¼ of the lead core (1 segment) is removed. The lead seal at the bottom of the projectile is not shown in this illustration. The section is clearly visible on the right half of the jacket of the projectile.

Criminological Institute of the Security Police
Department: Chemistry
Journal No. g 15/44

_Russian 7.65 mm. Caliber Pistol Cartridge with Poison Projectile_

(Stamp on bottom of cartridge case: Geco)

Criminological Institute of the Security Police
Department: Chemistry

EXTRACT FROM THE TESTIMONY OF PROSECUTION WITNESS DR.
EUGEN KOGON[70]

_DIRECT EXAMINATION_

* * * * *

MR. MCHANEY: Do you know anything about experiments with poisons in the Buchenwald concentration camp?

WITNESS KOGON: I know of two such cases. The one case was about the turn of the year 1943-44 or in the late fall of 1943, and the second case was probably in the summer of 1944. In each case Russian prisoners of war were used for these experiments. In the first case various preparations of the so-called alkaloid series were put into noodle soup and administered to 40 of these prisoners of war who were in Block 46. They, of course, had no idea what was going on. Two of these prisoners became so sick that they vomited, one was unconscious, the fourth showed no symptoms at all. Thereupon, all four were strangled in the crematorium. They were dissected and the contents of their stomachs and other effects were determined. The experiment was ordered by the SS court, by the SS investigating judge, Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Morgen. It was carried out in the presence of Dr. Ding, Dr. Morgen, Dr. Wehner, SS Hauptsturmfuehrer and SS judges, and one of the three camp leaders, I do not know whether it was SS Sturmbannfuehrer Schubert or SS leader Florstedt. The second experiments—

Q. Witness, before continuing with the second experiment, I wonder if you could tell the Tribunal the reason why this poison experiment which you have just mentioned was carried out?

A. In the summer of 1943 the SS court in Berlin was trying the former commander of Buchenwald and later commander of the Lublin concentration camp in Poland, SS Standartenfuehrer Koch. The trial was reaching its climax. The investigation had led to very serious charges against Koch. Here I must mention that SS Obergruppenfuehrer Prince Waldeck, then head of the SS main district [Oberabschnitt] Fulda-Werra, was personally opposing Koch, and it was merely this personal antagonism of the two men which had brought about the trial. A man by the name of Koehler, a Hauptscharfuehrer in Buchenwald, was arrested by Dr. Morgen and kept in custody in the Buchenwald concentration camp. This Hauptscharfuehrer seemed to have testified against Koch. Two or three days later this Hauptscharfuehrer Koehler was found dead in his cell. A few hours before he had been quite healthy. He seemed to have taken strong poison. Dr. Morgen contended that Dr. Hoven, together with the guard, Hauptscharfuehrer Sommer, had killed Koehler. Koehler was dissected in the dissecting room in the presence of a scientist from Jena and two of my comrades. The head of the pathology section was also present. Drugs of the alkaloid series were found in the stomach of the dead man. The amount and the specific type was not known. In order to determine the fatal dosage of poisons of this type, the SS court ordered an experiment on four Russian prisoners of war. This is the experiment which I have just described in Block 46. On 20 September 1943, Dr. Hoven was arrested on Dr. Morgen’s orders and remained in the custody of the SS court until the end of March 1945. I know the date exactly because on that Saturday afternoon Dr. Hoven came to Block 50 on his motorcycle, asked me about Dr. Ding-Schuler, who was not there, and went away again quite depressed. Half an hour later I learned from the hospital, the prisoners’ hospital, that Dr. Hoven expected to be arrested himself.

Q. In other words, Hoven was suspected by Morgen of having done away with the witness against Koch, is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, will you explain to the Tribunal about his second poison experiment?

A. In the summer of 1944—I am not quite sure of the exact date—Dr. Ding, who was already called Schuler, came from Berlin at the time and told me that he had a very unpleasant task to perform. He said it was extremely secret and a few hours later, without my having asked, he told me details about it in his room.

I must point out that at this time there was really nothing at all private or official, that Dr. Schuler would not have told me in order to get my advice. He realized quite clearly that the cause of National Socialism was lost. He was only looking for safety.

He said, “Kogon, can you see any way of getting me out of this affair? I am supposed to test a poison here on Russian prisoners of war. I have to report on it immediately. It is a direct order from Mrugowsky. I don’t know how I can get out of it.”

He gave me the prescription, the chemical formula of this poison, and I was to put this prescription in an envelope and seal it in his presence. In my haste I was not able to read it. It had some code name. I put the prescription in the envelope and only said to him, because we were interrupted, “You know my point of view.” I must add here that in long conversations at night I had tried to explain to him that his only way out was to do as much as possible for the political prisoners, but that in serious cases he must, as a human being, refuse to carry out orders which violated the moral laws.

He laughed when I said that and replied, “I know your religious and moral ideas. You know I don’t believe in anything. This way is out of the question for me; all I can do is comply with the first suggestion and collaborate with the political prisoners.”

In this poison case, he went in great haste and excitement to the camp leader, Sturmbannfuehrer Schubert, whom he had informed beforehand by telephone, and the commander, Oberfuehrer Pister, who also knew about it and they all went—I don’t know whether the camp physician was also present—at any rate, they went to the crematorium, not to Block 46. The Russian prisoners of war, again, four of them, had been taken there into the cellar with the 46 hooks on the walls on which the people were strangled. These four Russians were given this poison. I do not know how it was administered. As Ding-Schuler told me later, they died in a very short time. Then they were dissected and cremated. Dr. Ding did not send a written report on this matter to Berlin. He told me he had to report on it to Mrugowsky orally. Ding was not only excited about this matter, but afterwards he was also very secretive about it. He did not want me to talk about it any more. From indications in his conversation I learned that there was some connection with experiments in the Sachsenhausen concentration camp near Oranienburg which Mrugowsky had performed in Ding’s presence. Prisoners must have been shot there with poisoned bullets, because Ding said that a Russian prisoner of war had succeeded in getting hold of a knife and attacking Mrugowsky, but that the prisoner had been immediately overpowered.

In any case, Ding did not want to have anything more to do with the matter, even in my presence. A short time later the prescription and the sealed envelope were burned by Ding in my presence. He held it over a candle in my presence and burned it. I could not find out what the contents were.

* * * * *

-----

[67] United States _vs._ Oswald Pohl, et al. See Vol. V.

[68] Final plea is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 17 July 1947, pp. 11049-11074.

[69] United States _vs._ Oswald Pohl, et al. See Vol. V.

[70] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 6, 7, 8 Jan 1947, pp. 1150-1300. See also testimony of defendant Mrugowsky, sec. VIII G, vol. II.

11. INCENDIARY BOMB EXPERIMENTS

a. Introduction

The defendants Genzken, Gebhardt, Mrugowsky, and Poppendick were charged with special responsibility for and participation in criminal conduct involving incendiary bomb experiments (par. 6 (L) of the indictment). The defendants were acquitted on this charge.

The prosecution’s summation of the evidence on the incendiary bomb experiments is contained in its closing brief against the defendant Poppendick. An extract from this brief is set forth below on page 640. A corresponding summation of the evidence by the defense on these experiments has been selected from the closing brief for the defendant Poppendick. It appears below on pages 641 to 643. This argumentation is followed by selections from the evidence on pages 643 to 653.

b. Selection From the Argumentation of the Prosecution

_EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST
DEFENDANT POPPENDICK_

* * * * *

_Incendiary Bomb Experiments_

Sturmbannfuehrer Ding-Schuler (hereinafter referred to as Ding) carried out incendiary bomb experiments in the Buchenwald concentration camp between 19 and 25 November 1943. (_NO-265, Pros. Ex. 287._) In order to ascertain the effectiveness of the drug R 17 and echinacine ointment and liquid for the treatment of phosphorus burns, five experimental persons were deliberately burned with ignited phosphorus which was taken from an incendiary bomb. The resulting burns were very severe, the victims suffered excruciating pain and permanent injury. The drugs to be tested were manufactured at the Dr. Madaus Works in Dresden-Radebeul. (_Tr. pp. 1187-90._)

The report on these experiments (_NO-579, Pros. Ex. 288_) was forwarded by Ding to the defendants Poppendick and Mrugowsky. (_Tr. pp. 1158, 1188._) The Research Department “V” (for Vonkennel) in Leipzig was also interested in these experiments. Correspondence by Ding with this department went through Poppendick. (_Tr. pp. 1158, 1175, 1247, 1267._) Research Department “V” was a laboratory run by Sturmbannfuehrer Vonkennel, with funds and material furnished by Grawitz. (_Poppendick 9, Poppendick Ex. 8_; _Tr. pp. 5589-5592_.) Poppendick was the expert in Grawitz’ office responsible for the work of that laboratory. (_Tr. p. 1267._) This testimony of Kogon is corroborated by letters from Vonkennel to Poppendick and Ding to Poppendick concerning typhus experiments. (_NO-1182, Pros. Ex. 477_; _NO-1184, Pros. Ex. 476_; _NO-1185, Pros. Ex. 478_.) The latter was actually typed by Kogon for Ding, as can be seen from the file notation.

* * * * *

c. Selection from the Argumentation of the Defense

_EXTRACTS FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF FOR
DEFENDANT POPPENDICK_

* * * * *

_Experiments with Incendiaries_

* * * * *

_Evaluation of Evidence_

The prosecution questioned the witness Kogon about the dispatch of reports on experiments with incendiaries. He stated:

“The photos were placed opposite each other, mounted in an
album, described in detail; the result sent in two copies to
Berlin, one to Professor Mrugowsky, the other—here I am not
quite sure—to Oberfuehrer Poppendick. I believe that
Oberfuehrer Poppendick certainly received one report concerning
this matter because Dr. Ding intended to publish a dissertation
on this in a medical journal.”

The prosecution then referred in this connection, to the entry in the so-called Ding diary under 5 January 1944 (_NO-265, Pros. Ex. 287_):

“Records dispatched to the Reich Physician SS with the request
that they be forwarded to the Dr. Madaus Works.”

The prosecution now thought they would be able to connect these two pieces of evidence with one another and wants to prove from this that Poppendick received a regular report, with photos, on experiments with incendiaries, and thus learned about criminal experiments with incendiaries in Buchenwald.

The defense first questioned the persons concerned in Leipzig, in the form of affidavits, about the previous history of the experiments with incendiaries—the affidavit of Dr. Koch from the Madaus Works (_Mrugowsky 103, Mrugowsky Ex. 97_), the affidavit of Kirchert (_Poppendick 7, Poppendick Ex. 9_), and the affidavit of von Woyrsch (_Mrugowsky 115, Mrugowsky Ex. 108_), all of these make similar reports on these events. Each one of these three witnesses, viewing this matter from different angles, was able to testify under oath that the correspondence between Dr. Ding and the firm of Madaus did not pass through Poppendick personally, and that the research section of Professor Vonkennel also had nothing to do with the whole matter as far as it took place in Leipzig, but that the connections were somewhat different in many respects from what might be concluded from the statement of Kogon.

For a person like Kogon, it was, of course, difficult to take in the connections as a whole, as he only occasionally received letters which had anything to do with the questions dealt with here. On the basis of letters still available, he can only draw certain retrospective conclusions today. Therefore, in the formulation of his statements, he exercises a certain caution, qualifying in advance things as they happened by remarks such as “I believe,” “certainly,” and so on. (_See also testimony, Pohl trial, 22 April 1947_;[71] _Poppendick 21, Poppendick Ex. 20_.) For these reasons the phrase “in this case I am not quite sure,” relating to Poppendick’s knowledge of illustrated reports on incendiaries, can only be taken as an indication of the fact that Kogon did not want Poppendick to be charged, through his sworn testimony, with the knowledge of these reports, with photographs concerning incendiaries. Poppendick has definitely declared that he would certainly have remembered such a report with photographs if he had received it. In this way then, the uncertain statement of Kogon is confronted by the definite statement of the defendant, who could not be accused of any unreliability in the course of his examination. The contention of the defendant is supported by the three above-mentioned affidavits which fully confirm this. Kogon then said, however: “A report, I think * * *”—then again with a certain limitation—“which Oberfuehrer Poppendick certainly received because Dr. Ding intended to publish a dissertation on this in a medical journal.”

Although this last statement was made with somewhat more emphasis, but still not with complete certainty, the following comment can be made on it:

It is certain that Kogon had access to the entire documentary evidence as introduced in this trial before making his statement. Without doubt he saw the manuscript of the Ding publication on typhus (_NO-582, Pros. Ex. 286_) with the stamp of approval “by order of Poppendick,” even if he did not see it while still in Buchenwald during his stay in the camp. From this he thought he could deduce that Poppendick must be the person responsible—in spite of the words “by order”—for the approval of scientific publications. Kogon knew from his work in Buchenwald that Ding meant to publish a pamphlet on the treatment of burns. He therefore took it for granted that the only way of getting official permission was via Poppendick, whereas actually Poppendick authorized these requests and signed them “by order of” in every case only when given special permission by Grawitz. Neither Kogon nor we know whether such a manuscript was ever actually sent in for publication. Even if it was actually sent in, it is not certain that Poppendick had to grant permission for its publication. If Poppendick actually authorized the publication of such a pamphlet “by order of”—a fact which cannot be proved—there is a 100 percent probability, taking the typhus manuscript (_NO-582, Pros. Ex. 286_) as an example, that in such a publication the question of artificially inflicting wounds on human bodies would not have been openly mentioned but would have been just as carefully veiled as was done in the manuscript concerning typhus treatment.

It is quite obvious, though, and even the prosecution will not dispute this, that Poppendick otherwise played no part whatever in the incendiary bomb experiments, and had no contact with the authorities responsible for them, such as the Madaus Works, Dr. Ding, etc., whereby he might have been informed of what was going on in Buchenwald also in regard to those incendiary bomb experiments.

* * * * *

d. Evidence

_Prosecution Documents_
Doc. No. Pros. Ex. No. Description of Document Page
NO-579 288 Extracts from a report on the findings 644
of 2 January 1944, on a skin
ointment—R 17—for phosphorus burns.
NO-1080 A, 219 A, E, F Exposures of the witness Maria 901
E, F Kusmierczuk who underwent
sulfanilamide and bone experiments
while an inmate of the Ravensbrueck
concentration camp. (_See Selections
from the Photographic Evidence of the
Prosecution._)
NO-1082 A, 214 A, C Exposures of the witness Jadwiga Dzido 903
C who underwent sulfanilamide and bone
experiments while an inmate of the
Ravensbrueck concentration camp. (_See
Selections from the Photographic
Evidence of the Prosecution._)

_Defense Documents_

Doc. No. Def. Ex. No. Description of Document Mrugowsky Mrugowsky Ex. Extracts from the affidavit of Udo von 647 115 108 Woyrsch, 3 May 1947, concerning experiments on combating injuries due to phosphorus incendiary bombs.

_Testimony_

Extract from the testimony of prosecution witness Eugen Kogon 648 Extract from the testimony of defendant Mrugowsky 651

PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-579
PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 288

EXTRACTS FROM A REPORT ON THE FINDINGS OF 2 JANUARY 1944, ON A SKIN
OINTMENT—R 17—FOR PHOSPHORUS BURNS

_EXPERIMENTS ON ANIMALS_

* * * * *

_EXPERIMENTS ON HUMAN BEINGS_

I. Application of the phosphorus-caoutchouc mixture and immediate removal—

1. With R 17.

_19 November._ The mixture was dropped on a smooth spot of skin on the forearm and immediately thereafter wiped off with a tampon dipped in R 17. R 17 quickly dissolved the phosphorus and the caoutchouc. Subsequent checks showed a complete cessation of phosphorescence. The spot of skin showed an increased temperature until 14 December, as the testers ascertained by placing the backs of their hands against it.

2. With CuSO_{4}.

_19 November._ The mixture, which had been applied to a smooth spot of skin on the forearm, was removed with a 2 percent solution of copper-sulphate. There appeared a blackish-brownish, strongly viscous mass with a metallic sheen which, when rubbed off, spread over the entire experimentation area. After an initial formation of black smoke (phosphorus fumes) and a strong glow, the phosphorescence, because of the formation of a copper-phosphate coating, ceased almost immediately. It seems to be possible that phosphorus, if it comes in contact with small skin wounds, is assimilated into the body by resorption. This spot of skin likewise showed an increase in temperature until 14 December.

3. With water.

_19 November._ It was always possible to remove the mixture from the skin by water. However, in this case pronounced phosphorescence lasting several minutes and phosphorus fumes were to be observed.

II. Lighting of the phosphorus-caoutchouc mixture and treatment:

1. With R 17.

_a. Immediate ignition._

_25 November._ The mixture was applied to a skin area of 6 × 3 cm. and immediately ignited. After burning for 20 seconds, it was extinguished with water and then wiped off with R 17. A burn appeared, with a yellowish induration of the skin. Later a thin scab formed. After 3 days, the wound was treated with _liquid echinacine_. On 11 December the scab fell off; the surface of the wound was dry and rosy red. Epithelium formed very rapidly; on 21 December only 1/5 of the surface remained without epithelium. On 29 December this spot too was almost healed.

_25 November._ The mixture was applied to a skin area of the same size (6 × 3 cm.) and immediately ignited. It burned for 55 seconds until it went out by itself. The burned spot was wiped off with R 17. There appeared a yellowish-brown burn which exhibited a cavity at the proximal end and a blister at the distal end. An elastic scab formed. On the fourth day the wound was treated with _echinacine ointment_. Thereupon, on 3 December, the scab began to slough off; on 10 December the wound was dry and closed; on 13 December only the edge of the wound still showed a scab and the main part of the wound was covered with fine granulation. The wound continued to become smaller until 29 December without healing over.

_b. Ignition after 30 seconds._

_19 November._ The mixture was applied to 2 sq. cm. of skin. After 30 seconds it was ignited and after burning for 40 seconds it was wiped off with R 17. A dry burn appeared. During the following days a small oedematous swelling developed. The wound was treated with _liquid echinacine_. Thereafter, the swelling subsided rapidly, so that on 1 December there remained a clear, dry wound without necrosis. Subsequently to this a broad zone of epithelization formed and by 29 December the wound had healed with the exception of 0.5 sq. cm. still lacking epithelium.

_19 November._ The mixture was again applied to 2 sq. cm. of skin, ignited after 30 seconds, but treated with R 17 only after burning 60 seconds. Here too a dry burn appeared, however with severe reddening and pain in the surrounding area. The wound formed a necrotic coating. On the third day it was treated with a 10 percent solution of cod-liver-oil ointment. On 19 December it was circumscribed and dry. A slow epithelization began. Later the wounded skin area became similar to the smooth surrounding area. On 29 December the wound had not yet healed over.

_c. Application to a piece of cloth covering the skin._