Q. With reference to Block 46 would you consider that Dr. Morgen's statement was correct, that Block 46 was furniched just as any modern army hospital and that patients were cared for as they would be cared for in any army hospital?
A. The impression which I gained after my short visit there was extremely favorable. The distance from one bed to another was about one meter and a half, that is the customary distance as it is to be found in hospitals. Beds were covered with white lines; on the tables there were table cloths; and I had a very favorable impression in that regard.
Q. How about the furnishings in Block 50? What were the work conditions there?
A. Block 50 was modernly equipped laboratory. It had all the special equipment which could be required. The walls of the laboratory were painted and there was running cold and warm water. The equipment had electrical current as is the case in every well furnished institution. The inmates who were employed there had numerous liberties. In particular it was not necessary for thorn to attend the camp roll calls. Because of danger of infection they received additional nourishment and not one member of Block 50 who was examined here has asserted that he personally fared badly. They were well nourished and had any literature at their disposal they desired and I know that literature of a professional nature, as well as fiction, was sent to them from the university library at Jena.
Q. Were the questions of the Tribunal answered?
JUDGE SEBRING: Yes.
Q. You were just saying that the inmates were well nourished. In that connection I want to point out to you that Kogon testified that the inmates working in Block 50, because of hunger, had prepared the rabbits used for experiments for eating. Is that correct?
A. I am convinced that this testimony is correct and there is really nothing to it. The rabbits are infected starting from the nose; there is only an inflammation in the lung to be registered but never a general infection of the animal. The lung us taken out in order to be used for the production of vaccine. The carrier of typhus reacts very quickly to temperature. By mere boiling every bacteria is killed with absolute certainty. If the meat of that rabbit is thoroughly boiled there is not the least danger of any infection. I may point out that in all countries where there is food legislation and food rationing meat of animals who fell ill of tuberculosis is always admissible for human consumption. That is true of a number of other illnesses.
Q. Thank you. That is sufficient. When did the delivery of vaccines from Buchenwald start?
A. The production started in August 1943, when the first preparations were made. The real large-scale production started at the end of 1943.
Q. What were the amounts of vaccine produced monthly?
A. On the average 30 to 50 and up to 50 liters were produced.
Q. How many portions of vaccinations would you say that was?
A. 50 liters of vaccine represent 25,000 portions.
Q. 50 liters, 25,000 portions. That means that about 25,000 portions of vaccine were delivered monthly?
A. That is right.
Q. Kogon testifies that the inmates sabotaged the production of vaccine and only produced a good vaccine for themselves, that was a small circle, but otherwise produced a product which was not harmful but was not useful either. What do you know about that?
A. This is one of the most peculiar remarks I heard here. If a vaccine is being produced it is being done for the purpose of protecting people in danger against illness and death.
Especially in the case of concentration camp inmates it had to be known how extensive the typhus danger was, not only in the camps but also in the army and the throughout Germany. Especially in Block 50 there were a number of inmates who were transferred from Auschwitz to Buchenwald since they were specialists and had to work there. Auschwitz was one of the largest typhus infected places which we had in Europe. We had greatest difficulties to become master of this epidemic. These typhus specialists who came to Buchenwald-and it is not to be assumed that they did not realize the extensive danger of typhus-were told repeatedly that the reason for the production of vaccines was this danger of typhus. If they now assert that they sabotaged the production of vaccine and produced a preparation which while not harmful was not useful in any way, this, in my opinion, represents an attitude which has nothing to do with the concepts of humanity as is being expressed by the so gentlemen today.
Q. Kogon gave the reason for this sabotaging that one of the specialists in Block 50 had found out that the viruses contained in that vaccine were not Rickettsia Prowazekia but other viruses. Would you please shortly state your opinion whether Rickettsia Prowazekia is recognizable or easily changeable?
A. This observation of Mr. Fleck is quite understandable. There is hardly one bacteria in the field of bacteriology which is as changeable in its exterior for as the typhus virus. Herr Fleck in Cracow and Lemberg was dealing with Rickettsia that were bred in the louse and they naturally looked much different than the Rickettsia which were bred in animal lungs. Those differences are set down repeatedly in literature and it is therefore to be understood quite easily. I should like to revert to the production of the vaccine itself and I must say that we had two types of vaccine at our disposal.
From the point of effectiveness they did not differ but they only differed because of the fact that the electricity worms in Weimar had been damaged because of air attacks and we therefore had no electrical current at our disposal in Buchenwald. That is why our refrigerators discontinued working. Now if vaccine is kept too warm it changes its color but really does nothing to the effectiveness or tolerance. It is only a question of exterior appearance. Dr. Ding designated especially that vaccine which became discolored and failed to designate in any particular way the other kind of vaccine. This, perhaps, may be the reason why two different types of vaccines are being discussed. However, there was no difference in the effectiveness and it is technically not possible because it originates from the same phase of production.
Q. Could you exercise any influence on the distribution of the vaccine?
A. Generally, no. The vaccine was sent to the central depot of the Waffen-SS at Berlin. This was done because all the requests for vaccine and drugs were directed to this central depot by all physicians and it was from there that distribution was carried out. I may point oat that only part of the vaccine, I think a third, was used for purposes of the Waffen-SS, whereas the larger part, about two-thirds of the entire production, was placed at the disposal of the concentration camps and was distributed among inmates for their protection--naturally only in those camps that were endangered by typhus.
Q. I am submitting to the Tribunal, document Mrugowsky 25, which can be found on page 164 of the Document Book 1-A, Mrugowsky 26, page 164.
I offer it as Exhibit Mrugowsky 44. This is an affidavit by Karl Heinrich Wehle, the head of the Main Medical Depot of the Waffen SS. I only submit it for the notice of the Tribunal.
At the same time I refer to Document Mrugowsky 26, which is to be found on page 167, which I already submitted as Mrugowsky Exhibit 6, and I shall quote from page 170, paragraph 7, which so far was not read. This is the affidavit of Dr. Karl Blumenreuther and paragraph 7 reads as follows, and I quote:
" . By far the greatest proportion of the typhus vaccines produced in Buchenwald and of the additional typhus vaccines procured through the central medical service depot was transferred to the concentration camps and could be so transferred because the vaccinations ordered to be carried out in the military SS divisions, so far as these were subordinate to the armed forces during their mobilization, were undertaken by the medical service of the armed forces."
I further submit an excerpt from the testimony of Generalarzt Dr. Schreiber which he made on 26 August 1946 before the International Military Tribunal. This can be found in the German transcript of the International Military Tribunal on page 15747. This is Mrugowsky Document No, 27 and can be found on page 173 of the document book. I offer it as Exhibit Mrugowsky No, 45. Answering the question, "What scientific value did the experiments of the specialist Ding have?" Generalarzt Dr. Schreiber answered, "In my opinion they had no scientific value at all because during the war we had already gained much experience and collected a great deal of data in this field. We were thoroughly acquainted with the composition and qualities of our vaccine and no such tests were required any longer. Many of the vaccines examined by Ding were not used any more at all and were rejected."
Would you define your position to that statement?
A. I do not know how Schreiber can express that opinion, nor do I know whether he is in possession of full knowledge of the results of this work.
I never discussed this question with him and I therefore cannot examine it. That much is clear, however. Schreiber is speaking of a later period of time for the vaccines that were no longer produced were not produced because the experiments of Ding had proven their inferiority. The epidemilogical examination of the various vaccines during the war only originates from a later period of time, in particular the years 1943 and 1944. T'he exploitation of these experiences only originates from the last years of the war and it is therefore my opinion that this testimony of Schreiber is incorrect.
Q. I interrupt you and I shall have Exhibit Handloser 14 show to you, from Handloser Document Book 3. We are here concerned with an excerpt of a scientific thesis by Geheimrat Otto. Do you know Geheimrat Otto?
A. Yes, I know Geheimrat Otto. He is probably the best typhus expert of not only Germany but Europe, who dealt with typhus throughout his life.
Q. From this excerpt you will see that Geheimrat Otto says, still in 1943:
"While the efficacy of lice vaccines has already been tested on a large scale in Poland, Ethiopa, and China, and the vaccine has proved its value, it is still necessary to gather large scale practical experiences with lung and vitelline sac vaccines. In animal experiments they have proved of equal value with the former."
Would you say something on that?
A. Professor Otto is saying here that even in the year 1943 the chicken egg vaccine and the vaccines from lungs of animals were not sufficiently know. That confirms what I have just testified and that is in answer to Dr. Schreiber's statement.
Q. The witness Berhardt Schmidt, who was interrogated here, stated that human experiments were superfluous for the purpose of testing vaccines and that the value of the individual typhus vaccines could have been ascertained through an epidemiological way. What is your point of view in that connection?
A. This is my opinion also. It is my opinion that thest tests could, have been carried out in an epidemiological manner. I represented that point of view before Grawitz and Himmler from the very beginning.
Q. You stated already yesterday that when testing this natter in an epidemiological way a large number of persons would have to be vaccinated and to be compared with a large number of persons who were not vaccinated. Would such a long experiment have been possible considering the circumstances as they prevailed during the war?
A. Such a test would have been possible. It was actually introduced by me within the framework of the ministry. It is a matter of course, however, that the results can only be collected at a very late date and can only be exploited at a much later date. In the case of the entire experiment we were concerned with bridging over this space of time.
Q. In carrying out this examination one could have found out that one vaccine has only a very small effectiveness, as was acutally found out in the case of the Behring vaccine. In that case would you say that the mortality of persons vaccinated with the inferior vaccine would have been much greater than the entire amount of fatalities as they occurred in Buchenwald? You know that the statement regarding the fatality figures fluctuated between 100 and 120.
A. That could be assumed to be the case with certainty. Comparison is the manner in which all tests are carried out in this field. I shall give you a few examples for that. When Emil von Behring in the year 1890 discovered the Lesser (Int.
Rammler-)
diptheria serum it was at first used by a physician of the Berlin Charite in the case of dipteria infected children. He treated about 1200 children suffering from dipteria with that serum. He registered a mortality rate in the case of these children, in spite of the treatment, of approximately 22 percent. Just as many children did not receive the serum but were treated in a different manner In this groupe the mortality rate was double, approximately 44 percent. These 240 or 250 children who died and who were in that control group certainly could have been saved if they had been giver the blessing of that diptheria serum. But that w as in reality the purpose of that test and one had to take into account that a larger ratio of mortalities would result in the control group and that then the value of the serum would be recognized.
Q. I think that this example will suffice. In that case you are really admitting that an objection against experiments in Buckenwald could not be justified?
A. During the war I did not work on any disease as ardently as on typhus. I treated thousands of patients who fell ill of typhus and examined them. I believe that in the case of such an experience one gains some knowledge of the disease. I often considered that question and I hold the opinion that my objection at the time was perhaps not justified by events. On the other hand it is my opinion that in the case of every task one has to keep the question in mind whether one is In a position to execute that task. I must admit even today that in spite of the success of the experiments, which cannot be denied, I would act similarly in yet another position and would assume the same attitude as I assured at that time.
Even today i would rot prepared to carry out any such exper 5193(a) LESSER (Int.
Rammler) iments personally or have them carried out upon my responsiblity, although a success would cone about undoubtedly.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, it seems to me that Dr. Mrugowsky has ably covered the typhus field now; we have heard ail about vaccines of all sorts and the theory of typhus; the question here is whether or not he artificially injected anyone with virulent virus, one of the main reasons for him being here. I think we could curtail this examination considerably if we consider that this background material now is sufficient.
DR. FLEMMING: The question which I just out was the last question in the typhus field. I an now going over to the yellow fever vaccine, which is described in the Ding Diary.
THE PRESIDENT: While there w as some testimony on the part of the witness on the stand possibly not particularly relevant, the Prosecution introduced the Ding Diary in evidence in its entirely and it is pertinent for the defendants to attack the reliability of the diary any way they can. In any event, counsel for the defendant Mrugowsky has now finished, according to his statement, this particular phase of the evidence. Counsel ray proceed.
5193(b)
Q. You know the entry in Ding's diary dated the 10th of January 1943 regarding the yellow fever tests. Did you kn w of these experiments?
A. Yes, I knew of these experiments. I knew about the test of the vaccine. They really were not experiments. They were tests of vaccines. I suggested that to Grawitz and he ordered it.
Q. Far what reason did you initiate that test?
A. I initiated that test because at that tine new German divisions, among them divisions of the Waffen SS, were being committed to the Africa Corps. The intended campaign of the Africa Corps was to aim at Dacar and would have landed us into yellow fever danger spots. Therefore, in the framework of all other preparations of this campaign we carried out preparations concerning protective vaccination against yellow fever. The entire preparation was in the hands of Grawitz who was concerned with planning.
Q. Was any danger to the vaccinated persons connected with the yellow fever tests?
A. No. This vaccine is produced by virus which is no longer in a position to bring about pathogenesis in the human being. In Germany we have no yellow fever virus at our disposal which is pathogenic to human beings. This vaccine, however, is in a position to bring about immunization to yellow fever. A danger to one's self is out of the question from the start.
Q. Was the yellow fever vaccine a new vaccine or was its tolerance and effectiveness known?
A. The vaccine was produced according to a proven French process. All colonial troops in central Africa and large Parts of the population of Central America were vaccinated with the same vaccine. The entire expeditionary corps of America which entered central Africa had to be vaccinated with a similar vaccine. It is a natter of course that throughout the times millions of such vaccinations were carried out and not one danger to one's self became know.
Q. Why did you initiate a test of that vaccine if it was so well known?
A. We had no personal experience about that vaccine. Dr. Schmidt testified here that it was difficult to transport because it has to be kept cold and frozen. A special transport vessel had been developed for that purpose and in order to overcome the technical difficulties in dealing with that vessel it was necessary that the physicians become acquainted with the technicalities concerned with that vaccine.
Q. Were infections carried out in order to carry out the effectiveness of that vaccine?
A. No, I already stated that we ha.d no pathogenic virus in Germany and, therefore, could not carry out any infections. In this case only two or five cubic centimeters of blood were drown in order that in this manner the immunity might be discovered for experiments on man.
Q. Did you get reports from Ding about results of these tests?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know whether volunteers were used for these tests?
A. Yes, only volunteers were used. Ding states that in his own declaration, which is No. 275, Exhibit 283, and he says that he knows of a list and that in such cases many hundreds of volunteers could be found for such vaccines since they did not have to work for four weeks and since they received better nourishment as a result.
Q. I now turn to the gas gangrene experiments. When examining the defendants Handloser, Rostock, Schroeder, Genzken, and the witness Bernhard Schmidt, we have heard to what extent gas gangrene became prevalent at the front. I refer you to the Document 578, Prosecution Exhibit No. 248, which is before you in Document Book 12. I shall have it submitted to you. Would you please tell the Tribunal whether, in connection with gas gangrene, there was an extreme necessity in concentration camps and in the army in order to discover protective means to combat this disease?
A. It was pointed out frequently that no infection can be taken so seriously in the surgical field as the infection by gas gangrene since the mortality in case of these injuries was very high. In concentration camps, as Noeling told me, we often had cases of gas gangrene.
Therefore, the Asid Works suggested to apply vaccine in the same manner as in the case of diphtheria. This was carried out by these works sometimes in cases of tetanus. Such vaccine against gas gangrene was produced by Behring Works and was applied on students at Marburg University at first, about which a publication is available. I received a small part of this gas gangrene toxin in order to protect people in danger. This gas gangrene toxin I gave to Noeling and he used it at Buchenwald. The chart is available about persons where this vaccine was used and this is to be found in Document Book 12, and it becomes evident from that that there is even an increase in temperature in the case of that vaccination and that we are here concerned with a completely harmless project which has nothing at all to do with an infection.
Q. Dr. Ding in an affidavit, Document 257, Exhibit 283, in Document Book 12, which is before you, stated that at the Military Medical Academy a conference took place on the question of gas gangrene serum. What do you know about that?
A. It is correct that such a conference had acutally taken place. Whenever gas gangrene occurred a large amount of gas gangrene serum had to be used for treatment in order to insure success. That does not only include ten or fifteen cubic centimeters but four to eight hundred cubic centimeters which is introduced into the patient in the course of a few days. In Germany all serums which are obtained from animals, mostly horses, in order to maintain them bettern receive phenol and carbol acid, and that 0.5% - i.e., in the amount of 400 cubic centimeters I added a concentration of two cubic centimeters phenol acid. This amount is, of course, far above the tolerance in the case of human beings. Carbol acid is one of the strongest acids we possess. When treating people with gas gangrene serums a number of cases of death had occurred. It was discussed whether we were concerned with cases of serum death which came as a result of the serum or whether we were concerned with the phenol addition. Ding and I participated in that conference with others.
THE PRESIDENT: It is now time for recess. The Tribunal will be in recess until 0930 Monday morning.
(The Tribunal recessed until 0930 hours, 31 March 1947.)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal I in the matter of the United States of America, against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Murnberg, Germany, on 31 March 1947, 0930, Justice Seals presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court room will please find their scats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal I.
Military Tribunal I is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the courtroom.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, you ascertain that the defendants are all present in court.
THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honor, all defendants are present in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will note for the record the presence of all the defendants in court.
JOACKIM MRUGOWSKY - Resumed
MR. HARDY: May it please your Honor, I have several matters to call to the attention of the Tribunal. One is concerning the case of the Defendant Wolfram Sievers. I received notice on Saturday that the Defendant Wolfram Sievers is calling four witnesses, one a Dr. Edmund Mai who will testify as to the defendant's participation in the malaria and sea-water experiments. The prosecution, of course, was no objections to calling of that witness. The second witness is a Dr. Frederic Hilscher who is to testify as to the defendant's activities in the resistance movement. The prosecution has no objection to the calling of that witness. However, defense counsel has expressed the intentions of calling two witnesses named Dr. Franz Borgenau and Dr. Edward Topf. Those two witnesses, your Honor, are to testify, as it states on the notice received by the prosecution, as to the personality and political activity of the witness, Dr. Frederic Hilscher.
Now, I submit that this is a most unusual procedure, that is, calling two witnesses to testify as to the character and activity of another witness. Hilscher is not on trial here, and we would like to object at this time to the calling of the last two witnesses in the case of tho Defendant Wolfram Sievers; and my reason for doing it at this time is so they won't be going through the burden of bringing those two witnesses to Nurnberg and not having them testify here.
Therefore, I request a ruling from tho Tribunal in connection with those two witnesses.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has not yet received the formal application for the calling of these witnesses.
DR. WEISGERBER (Counsel for the Defendant Sievers): Mr. president, in my opining speech I pointed out that an essential argument in tho defense of my client is his membership in a resistance movement against the Nazi regime. I realize that this line of defense particularly has to be handled with groat conscienciousness, and I also realize that there is not inconsiderable scepticism in this respect. If not before this court, at least in other trials before German courts today, membership in a resistance movement is frequently referred to and for that reason I was of the opinion that this line of defense for my client would have to be given such a firm foundation that tho Tribunal would be put in tho position to get an objective and clear picture. I have called the witness Dr. Hilscher for the activity of my client in the resistance group which ho directed. Now, it is my argument that in respect to this witness particularly, the court should be informed about the extent, the development, the nature, and tho significance of his resistance activity in order to be able to judge whether the activity of my client within this resistance group had tho significance necessary for judicial judgement and, there, I am of the opinion that to give a firm foundation to the activities of the witness Hilscher these other two witnesses must absolutely appear here before tho court. I believe that this is more easily possible since for these two witnesses, Mr. Topf and Borgenau, I will need at the most one morning or one afternoon session, and I consider those two witnesses so important that I ask the court to approve my application.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will rule upon this question a.t tho opening of this afternoon's session.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I have another question concerning Dr. Horn, the witness that we discussed on Friday last.
I has been called to ay attention this morning by defense counsel for Koben that he would like to call Dr. Horn to the stand upon completion of the direct examination of tho Defendant Mrugowsky. Prosecution has no objection to that procedure either.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may proceed with tho examination of tho witness on the stand -- Just a moment. To the Secretary-General, I will return those applications for the calling of those witnesses for the Defendant sievers. If tho file can be completed this morning we Will rule on it at 1:30. see if tho file cannot be completed this morning.
Counsel may proceed.
DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR. FLEMING (Counsel for the Defendant Mrugowsky):
Q. On Friday, before we adjourned, we were speaking of tho discussion at the Military Medical Academy, which Ding mentioned in his affidavit, NO-257, prosecution Exhibit 223 in which occurrence of deaths after the application of gas gangrene serum at tho front were discussed. You said that tho phenol content of the gas gangrene scrum was discussed. The possibility was discussed that the phenol content in the largo doses of gas gangrene serum, which had to be given, approached tho limit of compatability. Did you give Dr. Ding an assignment on the basis of this discussion to test this phenol question?
A. Yes, I told him to study the literature and that he was to make use of the libraries of the pharmacological and legal medicine institutes in Jena. He had contact with those institutes.
Q. Did you give him the assignment to participate in euthanasia with phenol?
A. No. I never heard anything about them, about his having carried out such euthanasia, or of such killings having been carried out.
I could not, therefore, have given him any such order.
Q. You are aware that in an affidavit of your co-defendant Hoven it is stated that Ding himself carried out killings in Buchenwald with phenol. Had you given him an assignment to that effect?
A. No, I did not give him any such assignment, and there was no occasion to do so because death by phenol is well known in literature; simply reading the works on the subject would have sufficed.
DR. FLEMMING: Mr. President, I submit the Document Mrugowsky 28. I should like to submit it as Mrugowsky Exhibit Number 46. It is on page 174 of Document Book 1A, Mrugowsky 28, page 174, Exhibit 46. It is an affidavit of Professor Killian, who is a University professor at Halle/Saale. He says, "In 1941-1943 I was consulting surgeon with the 10th Army in the East. be had experienced numerous cases of death and damages to the circulation system due to the effects of gas gangrene serum. In my opinion, these bad effects cannot only be attributed to the inoculation of great quantities of unrelated serums, but also to the addition of one-half percent phenol, as is prescribed by law. Since up to 150 cbm of gas gangrene serum - sometimes even more than that - was injected intravenously in the field, in my opinion the total quantity of phenol added then approached a dangerous state. This became obvious after four of my collaborators had had themselves injected intravenously with phenol kitchen-salt solution of o.5% density. All of them showed typical signs of phenol poisoning to a different degree. In a letter to the medical inspectorate I called their attention to the disappointing effects of the gas gangrene serum and to the detrimental effect of phenol, and made proposals for a change. Consequently, I was officially ordered to report during my staying Berlin to Oberstarzt Professor Schreiber, who was a specialist on this matter.
Present at this conference were Professor Mrugowsky and a junior physician whose name I no longer remember. I did not know any of the three gentlemen; I saw and spoke to them then for the first time. Apart from a few general questions concerning bacterioloty, we discussed mainly the gas gangrene serum problem. I had to give an exact report about what rook place at the front and about the symptoms of poisoning. The discussion then took two directions: First, if it were possible for industry to substitute a harmless disinfectant for the dangerous phenol and which one of the many substances would be suitable for this purpose."
Number two is not important. And I can skip the next paragraph too. I come to the last paragraph:
"I well remember the substance of the discussions and declare that no mention was made of any experiments in a concentration camp or of achieving euthanasia by injecting phenol. Such considerations never even came up for discussion, let alone an order in my presence by one of the medical officers. This would certainly have remained in my memory. I may add that a reason for such experiments did not exist since the symptoms of phenol poisonings are well known and may be found in any book on pharmacology. Apart from this, the question had been sufficiently settled by the above-mentioned experiments which the physicians had carried out on themselves. I am convinced that Dr. Ding's statements are not true." Signed, Professor Killian, and certified.
Q. On the basis of the assignment to inform himself from literature about phenol poisoning - this assignment which you gave to him - what did Ding report? Was the question of gangrene serum and the deaths resulting from it settled?
A. Ding's report was given on this assignment. I waited for his report for some time and when it did not come I myself read up on this question. Then I was no longer interested in his report.
Q. On page 20 of the Ding Diary it says that a special experi ment on four persons on behalf of Gruppenfuehrer Nebe was carried out.
What do you know about that?
A. I have already mentioned the case of Hauptscharfuehrer Koehler who was at the hospital at Weimar, who died from poisoning. To his death and autopsy inaccurate statements were given. It was said that they occurred in the concentration camp Buchenwald which is not true. At the discussion of the autopsy findings in the Reich Criminal Police Office the opinion had been expressed that this death might have resulted from pervitin in connection with a sleeping drug. I participated in this discussion.
DR. FLEMMING: Mr. President, I have already submitted Document Mrugowsky 29, Exhibit 36, on page 177 of the Document Book 1A; Mrugowsky 29, Exhibit 36, page 177. When I submitted it I read the first one and one-half pages. I should now like to read the following portion on page 178, in the middle. "Professor Dr. Timm" -- that is, the forensic medical expert from Vienna who performed the autopsy on Koehler -- "came to the opinion that there were two possibilities existing: First, that a South American poison had been used which was totally unknown to us and which dissolves itself completely in the human body; second, that a combination of drugs had been used: one drug had excited the circulation until it brought it to the point of exhaustion, the other drug had acted as an antidote. Professor Dr. Timm spoke of the possibility that pervitin had been used together with a soporific. The idea that a South American poison had been used was rejected from a criminological point of view. From a technical point of view the second possibility would have been quite possible.
"I had to report the case to the Reich Main Security Office. Subsequently, a conference took place in the Reich Main Security Office at which quite a number of persons were present. The chief of the Reich Main Security Office, Gruppenfuehrer Mueller, presided. Gruppenfuehrer Nebe of the Reich Criminal Police Office was also present, as well as Professor Dr. Mrugowsky.
At the conference various persons, among others also Dr. Mrugowsky, pointed out that Pervitin was not a poison, that it could be obtained without a prescription. One of the gentlemen present pointed out that in America experiments were carried on where up to 100 tablets of pervitin were administered and the effects were not fatal. But no one present could answer the question of whether a combination of pervitin and a soporific would be harmless or whether it would lead to an increased reaction in any one direction. The latter appeared improbable to the experts. In order to settle this question Gruppenfuehrer Mueller ordered that an experiment be conducted. He ordered that Dr. Ding, whom he knew, should conduct this experiment in Buchenwald.
"It was ruled that in this experiment, which was to settle purely the criminal side of the question, only minute quantities of pervitin and soporific should be used since it would be impossible to give large quantities of pervitin and a soporific unobtrusively to a prospective victim of a crime. Moreover, larger quantities of these drugs would have been found in any case by means of a chemical analysis. The scientific theoretical problem concerning the harmfulness or even deadliness of maximum doses did not interest any one.
"I was present at the experiments at Buchenwald.