I heard here from Gutzeit, from his testimony, that as far as I can remember that the ring also included Gutzeit and Dohmen and also Hagen. I know that especially between Hagen and Dohmen difficulties existed, probably also in the conference of the German Society for Internal Medicine October 1943 in Vienna, it was not the Military conference. For this reason it was without any doubt a success on the part of Schreiber as if he succeeded by means of this working group procedure to remove these difficulties that existed.
Q Do you know whether Haagen and Dohmen conducted experiments on human beings at Strasbourg?
A No, I do not know anything about it.
Q Well, you talked to Haagen at the meeting at Breslau in 1944, didn't you?
A I have not understood your question.
Q Did you talk to Haagen yourself at the meeting in Breslau in 1944?
A I do not believe that I have spoken with Haagen at Breslau. I may have welcomed him just like all the other people there, but I'm not quite certain of that either.
Q Didn't you receive any reports on jaundice research?
A I did receive reports about jaundice from my own consultants but not in excess of that.
Q Did you receive none from Haagen?
A No.
Q Well, Dohmen was one of your subordinates, he was attached to the Military Medical Academy. Didn't you ever get a report from Dohmen?
A I have already previously stated that Dohmen was one of fifty, sixty or seventy medical officers of the scientific group, and I have not received any report from Dohmen because Dohmen was, first of all, subordinated to the chief of the medical scientific group and then to the head of the Academy and whenever reports were submitted then they first of all went either to the consultant of the medical inspectorate or the medical inspector, (this was Gutzeit or they went to my scientific department in the medical inspectorate, without my being directly informed about it. Gutzeit himself has repeatedly personally reported to me on a large scale about the epidemic jaundice. Of course, that was his natural duty because the problem played a major part. However, your question if I had received any reports from Dohmen I must answer in the negative.
Q Do you know of any experiments on human beings with jaundice?
A No.
Q Well, General, in view of the testimony of Gutzeit that jaundice was medical problem of major proportions, and in further view of his testimony that it was not a serious disease, how do you explain the fact that no experiments were carried out on human beings to determine whether in fact you had isolated a jaundice virus?
A I can only explain this through the fact that research was still under way and that at the Breslau Conference, with the utmost variety of scientists present, one of the scientists still disputed with the other if this was the cause at all. I can tell you further that I did not even know anything about the fact, that I was never told, that Gutzeit had carried out an experiment on himself. I can explain the fact in the way that we had not yet succeeded in finding the virus. There were only assumptions and some of the scientists believed they had found it. However, the fact had not yet been established.
Q Well, but General, as early as the middle of 1943 Grawitz was stating that it was necessary to have animal to man virus experiments. Now, in view of the importance of the problem how is it that no experiments were carried out on human beings?
A I cannot tell you anything about it. However, I believe that Grawitz opinion was not decisive for me because, without any doubt, he had handled some problems which were not ripe for discussion yet, while we, in the Wehrmacht, maintained the point of view that one should be very careful in all these cases.
Q General, you have testified that you attended the meeting of the consulting physicians at the Military Medical Academy in May, 1943. Is that right?
A. Yes.
Q You have also testified that you heard the report by Gebhardt and Fischer at the meeting. Is that right?
A I have stated that it can be assumed that I attended this conference.
Q I asked you if you heard the report by Gebhardt and Fischer at this meeting?
A I assume so, yes.
Q Well, do you remember whether you heard it? Did it make any impression on you?
A No, I cannot remember that at all. I must tell you that I have not shown any special interest in these reports or that they did not make any special impression because, otherwise, I would be able to remember them.
Q Well, wasn't it made clear in this report that they had performed experiments on concentration camp inmates?
A In my opinion, as far as I know, it has been stated here that prisoners who had been condemned to die and those who had been pardoned were concerned.
Q Well, General, you saw these women, these Polish women who came here to testify. You saw how their legs were mutilated. Will you tell the Tribunal what you think about sulfanamide experiments at Ravensbrueck? Do you think they were all right?
A I can only repeat again that in the lecture certainly the subject of concentration camp prisoners was not concerned. It was not discussed because one or the other of the words would have remained in my memory. I am quite certain that no female prisoners were discussed. I have seen the Polish women here and I have also seen the scars. That is the subsequent result. However I cannot state exactly what was done to them and the explanation was not given by Dr. Alexander here. He has only given a diagnosis and if I were to tell you what I think about these experiments then I must ask you that I can postpone this statement until I have heard the people who carried out the experiments and who will describe how they carried them out. I do not know anything about it because I cannot remember the lecture.
Q Was it not clear even from the summary of this lecture in your report of this meeting that the experimental subjects had been artificially infected?
A Then I would have to read them over once more.
Q Well, let's do that. I'll have to read this to you, General, as I'd seem to have the German here. This is Document NO. 923, Prosecution Exhibit 436. After Gebhardt and Fischer gave their report they had a little discussion and a man by the name of Schreus had the following to say: "As far as I perceived, Gebhardt's and Fischer's experiments do not qualify for an immediate comparison with animal experiments as performed by myself and others because ligature of vessels eliminated larger muscular parts and prevented the influence of para-orally administered sulfanilamide."
This fellow has already pointed out that they tied off some blood vessels in Gebhardt's and Fischer's experiments, hasn't he?
A Larger muscular parts were included in this or were removed.
Q He goes on to say: "The range of locally administered sulfanilamide, especially of non-soluble ones, must not be over-estimated because the conditions of diffusion are not sufficient due to poor solubility. Especially morphinal has to be considered in this respect." Then he says: "The poor takes of infections with gas gangrene, which is stressed by the lecturer, coincides completely with the findings in animal experiments." Now, General, isn't he saying very clearly that they artificially infected these human beings with gas gangrene?
A That cannot be deducted from this text. They only speak about the bad results of the gangrene infection and anybody that doesn't exactly know what has happened and who knows that the infection was to have been artificially caused, cannot deduct this, in my opinion. It only states here about the bad results of gangrene infection and I as a known surgeon, and not a bacteriologist could not have reached any conclusions in that sense or could have deducted anything as you have just suggested.
Q General, my English translation reads "the poor takes of infections with gas gangrene." I can only conclude one thing by that and that is that the lecturer was pointing out that they had trouble getting gas gangrene infections they had trouble making them "take." Now what other conclusion can be drawn?
A Well I cannot draw that conclusion from it because that is a discussion between two people and one person refers to his experiments and I do not know to what extent this comparison is correct. I am not enough of a specialist in order to judge that. I can only say that if I were to read this report today, after everything I have heard, and if I were to read it over without Knowing anything in particular about the subject, then it certainly would not draw my particular attention.
Q All right, General. I take it you made no investigation to this experiment after this report since it made no impression on you. Is that right?
A The important factor in this case is, because after all one must consider the circumstances, that although 300 to 400 people participated and all of them were consulting physicians, that is to say all of them were specialist that at no time during the lecture or after the lecture or during the intervals or even later on, nobody even discussed this question orally or in writing or through some other means. Nobody suggested that something did not seem to be in order here. Therefore I did not have any cause to make any special investigation with regard to the subject.
Q But General, one can draw two conclusions from your statement. One, which you have just drawn, which you justify your inaction by. The other is that everybody there just had no reason to object to these experiments; they knew that it was an accepted policy of your organization to experiment on concentration camp inmates so they said nothing. You can also draw that conclusion, can't you?
A I must repeat once more that I doubt that the words "concentration camp" or "concentration camp prisoners" were mentioned at all.
Q Very well. I think if we had proved here that there was an objection at this very lecture that you would conveniently have been outside the room at that time. Now I put to you that at this same meeting in May 1943 there was an objection by our defendant Roser to Ding's report on Typhus experiments and your man schreiber was chairman of the meeting at which Ding spoke. You say you were not there but you also have testified on this stand that you heard nothing about that objection.
A I and not only I but it has already repeatedly been stated here and it has also been seen by the documents which were presented here, that this was a conference of 12 different specialist groups, and that the individual specialist groups had individual meetings and that it would have been completely impossible to be in 12 different places at the same time. I have stated under ?ath on various occasions here that I did not attend the conference of the Hygienist Group where Ding was present. Even Schreiber has not told me anything about Rose's objection which has been mentioned here. Gebhardt's lecture took place in the large auditorium after I had given the opening speech and after the conference had been opened within the framework of surgery. The bacteriological hygienist specialists held a conference by themselves at some other place. I can only repeat once more that I was not present.
Q General, I am not present downstairs in the Milch Trial but I think if anything unusual happened down there and most particularly if anybody was killed down there I think not only that I would hear about it up here but I think even you would, and I am asking you if it isn't a bit strange that when an important man like Rose gets up in a meeting of an institution of which you were the commander, and objects to what he terms to be murder, I ask you, isn't it passing strange that Schreiber or someone else did not say anything to you about it?
A It may seem very strange to you but I can only repeat the fact once more that nobody told me what the reasons were for the people that attended to fail to object and I cannot state anything with regard to Rose because I did not hear him.
Q Were any military medical measures taken on the basis of Gebhardt's sulfanilamide experiments?
A Yes, a measure was taken; the conclusions which were reached in the end were changed into directives just as they are stated, as final conclusions which were approved by all the medical men who attended.
Q Well, in other words, as a result of the experiments of Gebhardt, medical instructions were issued, is that right?
A The phrase "new instructions" goes perhaps to far. Perhaps there were about 10 lectures and the results of the subsequent discussions were summarize and a part of them referred to the results achieved by Gebhardt. That was the actual reason for the conference so that the people should know what the result were with regard to the conference of all the specialists. That was not always something positive, but very frequently in other problems the question remained open, that a large number of physicians outside the country were to be given clarity that the leaders of the medical service and the consulting physicians were constantly and at all times trying to find a solution to all the question which had still remained open, in order to help all the wounded.
Q General, that makes what we are talking about the same thing. Did the Army Medical Inspectorate issue instructions on a piece of paper to the physician working in the field stating that in case cases of shock due to prolonged exposure to cold you should treat the patient in the following manner and been outline the manner of treatment? Did the Army Medical Inspectorate issue that kind of instructions or not?
A Yes. First of all they are the instructions and secondly it is also a part of the reports of the conference of the consulting physicians.
Q I asked you if those instructions concerning the treatment of wound infections were changed or influenced by the talk of Gebhardt and Fischer. Yes or No, that is all we need. I don't care how they were changed, just a yes or no--were they changed or weren't they changed?
A That was no change. That was an addition to the previous results. This result was also added--these results which had been achieved by the discussions.
Q Well, precisely what was added to the instructions which you gave to field medical officers on treating infections of wounds?
A The instructions begin with the following, with a short review. There are about 1, 2, 3, 4, 6-1/2 lines here about the experiments which were carried out by Gebhardt and then from the next lecture are the results of sulfonamides, then application, then the clinical results, and then it states the following rules are to be added for the praxis. Therefore what has been added here now, that states that the development of an inflammation caused by banal causes and the internal and external cannot be prevented by the internal and external application of sulfonamides. Then it states about the inflammation the important part of this that also in this case of warning had to be issued to the surgeons outside that the experiments had shown that they could not solely depend on these sulfonamides but that they would remain and maintain their surgical treatment. This was a very important point that only in some cases they should add sulfonamides.
Q. General, would your organization, your staff, make such additions to medical instructions without investigating precisely what had been done during the course of experiments upon which these new instructions were based? That's a pretty important problem, isn't it?
A. That would not be the task of my staff, but it would be the task of the specialists, and the reason for this conference and everything that has been newly discovered since 1943 was that several dozen leading scientist could read and that they could consult about these instructions which were issued here. Neither I nor normally people of my staff participated during this conference, but the procedure was that on the very last day before this meeting was disbanded, the 12 or 14 different specialist groups announced the text of these instructions. And in this case it was to be asked once more if there was any further discussion, and if not, then these instructions were accepted. They were printed as quickly or as slowly as this could be done, and then they were sent to the front.
Q. Well the, General, I take it that these specialists groups investigated the conditions of the experiments which were reported on with great care; is that right?
A. Yes. Naturally you will have considered in that respect under what medical forms; that is, in this case bacteriological forms or surgical forms these experiments had been carried out; that is to say, how the results were achieved can be seen by the case histories and the person who has carried them out will answer the questions here which were put to him, because after all, a number of physicians are not always of the same opinion.
Then various questions were asked and they were discussed and we also have instructions with various things that were not added and where people were arguing what procedure should be followed, and that, as a result of the discussions we saw a big advantage.
Q. Rostock was a member of the surgical group, wasn't he? He was primarily concerned with this sulfanilamide problem?
A. All of us were interested in the sulfonamide experiments -- problem
Q. Well, was he a member of this group of specialists which investigate very carefully these reports because they were going to issue medical instructions based on those reports, and they wanted to be sure that their instructions were right and that the reports were correct; and now I am asking you was Rostock a member of this specialist group?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you remember Document NO-257, Prosecution Exhibit 283, which is affidavit of Dr. Ding telling about his meeting with Mrugowsky and Schreiber at the Military Medical Academy at the end of 1942 on gas burn edema?
A. No.
Q. What is gas edema?
A. Gas edema is a disease which is caused by wounds and injuries, whenever a certain type of virus, and in this case they are bacteria, are introduced into the wound. The word edema can be translated into German, with a certain swelling, since this disease is characterized by a swelling, and at the same time by a formation of gas which is caused by these bacteria. Then it is called gas burn or gas edema. It is one of the most feared complications which we can find in the field after injuries and the mortality rate of such people is terrifyingly high. Furthermore, this disease is very often characterized by the fact that the surgeon is forced, in order to try to save the life of the afflicted person, he has to carry out very large amputations, or perhaps he has to amputate a limb from the joint of the hip? of the shoulder.
Q. That will be sufficient, I think, General, Now, did you have a gas edema serum in Germany?
A. Yes.
Q. Did it ever come to your attention that soldiers treated with gas edema serum died suddenly after apparent recuperation?
A. Yes. As far as I know this came from the fields of professor Kil? If any success was to be achieved at all with this gas serum it had to be given repeatedly in very large doses, and somebody finally had the idea that these fatalities which could not be properly explained might perhaps be tra? back to the phenol components which were contained in the serum.
Q. And this gas edema was the topic of one of your conferences at the Military Medical Academy, was it not? Didn't you have a report by consulting physicians on this topic at one of your meetings?
A. My predecessor directed the first conference during the past war. That was in 1940. It was held by Dr. Waldmann after the campaign in Poland had been completed and already one of the main lectures was given about the gas problem. Ever since that time the importance of this problem has always been discussed with regard to gas edema.
Q. Well, let's go back to this Ding affidavit, Document NO-257, Prosecution Exhibit 283. You have described this gas edema problem just about the same way that Dr. Ding did. It reads: "At the end of 1942 I took part at a conference in the Military Doctors' Academy in Berlin. The topic of discussion was the fatality of gas burn serum on wounded. Attendants, General Dr. Professor Schreiber, SS Brigadier General Professor Mrugowsky, a medical officer who was unknown to me who was a surgeon, myself as section leader of the Central Institution in Berlin for Fighting Epidemics. Kalian whom you have already mentioned... "and Mrugowsky gave reports of soldiers who had received gas edema serum in high quantities, up to 1500 cubic centimeters, and hours afterwards, after complete recuperation died suddenly without any visible reason. Mrugowsky suspected that the phenol content brought about the fatal result of the consolidation of the separate injection. In the presence of the other gentlemen, Mrugowsky commanded me to take part in euthanasia with phenol in a concentration camp and to describe the result in detail, since neither I nor Mrugowsky ever saw a case of death through phenol."
Q. Did Schreiber over tell you anything about that?
A. No.
Q. Schreiber didn't tell you very much about anything, did he?
A. Schreiber reported very much to me, and I have worked together with him for many years.
Q. How does it happen he never told you about these little disagree incidents of killing of concentration camp inmates by Dr. Ding?
A. I do not know the reasons which Schreiber had for doing that. I also do not know to what extent Schreiber was informed.
Q. Did you know of Keitel's order that the Wehrmacht was to have nothing to do with experiments on human beings?
A. In this form, I do not know anything about it in the form in which it has been stated in some place here. I can only say that this was an old point of view of the Wehrmacht and that perhaps Keitel brought this up once again at some place but I do not know it in the connection in which it has been mentioned here.
Q. What do you mean that's an old view of the Wehrmacht? What's an old view of the Wehrmacht?
A. I have understood you to say that Keitel had stated that no experiments should be carried out on human beings on behalf of the Wehrmacht.
Q. That statement is contained in Document NO-1309, Prosecution Exhibit 326, which is a memorandum on a meeting between Professor Klieve and Professor Blome concerning biological warfare and proposed experiments on human beings, dated 23 February 1944. "Blome had reported that he had until now made no experiments in the field of human medicine. These, however, are necessary and he plans to make them. A new institute under his control is being built near Posen in which biological weapons are to be studied and tested. Field Marshal Keitel has given the permission to build. Reichfuehrer SS and Generalarzt Professor Brandt have assured him of vast support. By request of Field Marshal Keitel the armed forces are not to have a responsible share in the experiments since experiments will also be conduct on human beings." That's what Keitel had to say.
A Well, that would be a general disapproval. That is quite possible, but I have never discussed it with Keitel. Therefore, I cannot give you any judgement to that effect.
Q Well, how do you explain the fact that Keitel, who was not a medical man, was aware of experimentation on human beings while you were not, and that he had issued an order that the agencies under his control were not to participate in them? How do you explain that he knew about those experiments and you didn't?
A I can explain this in this way that Keitel was in the Fuehrer's headquarters, that he has heard some reports or that he heard about some reports which did not come to my knowledge--I was not in the Fuehrer's headquarters--that the circle in the Fuehrer's headquarters was also very limited and probably always varied, and quite a few things may have been discussed at the Fuehrer's headquarters which did not come to the knowledge or other people.
I have not discussed experiments of human beings with regard--inside the Wehrmacht or outside the Wehrmacht with Keitel, and, therefore, in connection with--I cannot have any idea with anything like that in connection with me.
Q If Keitel disapproval of them and issued an order that the Wehrmacht was not to participate in them, who would get the order? Wouldn't you get a copy as chief physician of the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht?
A No. I did not receive any.
Q What was your connection with the Blitzableiter Committee?
A There was no connection at all.
Q Weren't you in charge, as a matter of fact, of the study of human bacteriology in connection with biological warfare?
A That was not my assignment, but it was the assignment of a physician by the name of Dr. Klieve and who had been ordered to study the medical literature of the foreign countries to the effect on what had been achieved in that field, and who further had to give medical advice to the Armament Office of the Army as specialist in this field, and he also had to act as a specialist when any questions were addressed to him.
Q Who was in charge of animal ?
A I cannot tell you that. I only know that at the meeting with Blome in 1943 the General Veterinary, Dr. Richter, was present. However, I do not know if he was only there as Deputy Office Inspector or if he was only there in his specialist field. I do not know. I have never discussed the question with him.
Q Didn't you know that Blome had suggested biological warfare experiments on human beings?
A No.
Q Let me read a paragraph to you out of Document NO-1308. That is Prosecution Exhibit 325. This is a report by Klieve dated 25 September 1943. It says: "Since it is not known under what conditions inhaled aerosol or dispersed droplets of certain pathogenic germs cause disease in man, Professor Blome has suggested experiments on human beings. Experimentation in the laboratories of the Academy of Military Medicine was rejected."
Now who could reject these experiments in the laboratories of the Academy of Military Medicine unless it was you or Schreiber?
A Well, that may have been Klieve, for example. Klieve may have said that is completely out of the question for us, and I could imagine that there were laboratories without any clinical contacts at all. All this has been put together, and actually they are only laboratories which work on the reactions and which only concern themselves with experiments on animals.
Q Do you deny any knowledge that experiments with biological warfare were carried out on human beings?
A No, I do not know anything about them; but, Mr. Prosecutor, I would like to put one request to you. Now when you use the word "deny"--it was previously described as deny--in German when we say "deny" it means dispute, to argue, but if the word "deny" is used in that case, in German with us it would mean to state the untruth, and I am under oath here, and I certainly do not have the intention of stating any untruth, and perhaps could you please tell the interpreter so she will interpret that with the appropriate German word for it which is "abstreiten" and not to deny.
Q Very well, General, what institutions were producing yellow fever vaccines in Germany?
A I assume that the Behring Works concerned themselves with the production. For us it was the central agency for all these matters. In excess of that I have also heard here that they had received orders. I cannot say that I did not participate in these things before, but I did not know anything about them in detail. Also a third agency was mentioned which at the moment I cannot remember either. Furthermore, the yellow fever question in Germany was only discussed very temporarily and it only played a part as long as the campaign in Africa was acute.
Q Now, General, we have the Behring Works at Marburg. Wasn't the Robert Koch Institute also producing yellow fever vaccines?
A That may be quite possible.
Q And the Typhus and Virus Institute of the OKH at Krakow?
A Yes. I have read that here, and that is also quite possible?
Q And you admit that you may have commissioned them to manufacture this vaccine?
A I admit that this possibility is quite feasible.
Q Was a live virus used in this vaccine?
A Yes. It is usually described as a live virus. I also want to state that with the layman that causes the impression that this was a very dangerous matter, but there has never been a virus which is less dangerous than the one which we are just discussing. I can really put my hand into the fire with regard to the fact that no human being can suffer any damage from this vaccine.
Q Well, what was the reason for desiring to test this vaccine?
A I really cannot tell you that because as far as I was informed, it was a vaccine which had already been tested and which was really dependable, and I was very much surprised to see that there was a subsequent experimentation with it. I cannot explain this myself.
Q Well, you recall that it says in the Ding Diary, which is Document NO-265, Prosecution Exhibit 287, that since the live virus is being handled for safety's sake, from each vaccine charge a test is to be performed on five persons.
You state you don't understand that?
A No. I cannot possibly understand it. However, I want to state here that I am neither a serologist or a bacteriologist. I can only state that as far as my knowledge is concerned, I cannot understand the paragraph which is contained in the Ding Diary.
Q And you never heard anything about these experiments at Buchenwald with these yellow fever vaccines?
A No.
Q Dr. Schmidt didn't tell you?
A No.
Q And who is Dr. Schmidt?
A Dr. Schmidt was the hygienist an the Army Medical Inspectorate. He went through the French campaign with the Army Medical Inspector and in 1942 when I occupied my office in the Army Medical Inspectorate at Berlin he worked there under me until August, 1944.
Q He never reported anything to you about this?
A No.
Q Is he the same Schmidt you are calling here to testify?
A Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: The Court will be in recess for a few moments.
(A recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
BY MR. McHANEY:
Q. General, when was the typhus and virus institute of the OKH at Lemberg activated?
A. I cannot tell you that exactly. I only know that in the year of 1941, I think it was in June, I attended the institute during an inspection in Lemberg and that, at that time, it was fully activated.
Q. Now, General, I listened to your testimony concerning typhus and the possibility of your having been present at a conference on typhus on 29 December 1941, and I'm a bit confused by that testimony. Do you deny having been present at a conference with Conti, Reiter, Gildemeister, Mrugowsky or any one of them on 29 December 1941 concerning typhus vaccines and the testing thereof?
A. Already in Oberursel in September, 1945, I said that regarding the date, day, time and place and participants of such a conference I knew nothing because of the length of time which preceded it. I know nothing clearly in my recollection. I only know that at some time when typhus started to expand with us, that is the winter of 1941 or 1942, I drew attention to the civilian sector, and I think it was Conti, of the large losses of material regarding eggs and I remember the number of fifty or more per cent in that connection. At that time I already stated in Oberursel at the time when I didn't know everything that I know now I didn't know what it was really all about - that I had nothing to do with a conference in any way in connection with concentration camps or the use of inmates or the use of any methods which deviated from the ones employed so far, and I can only repeat that here.
Q. Well, General, since you mentioned this statement at Oberursel let's put it before the Tribunal. This is Document NO. 732 which we offer as Prosecution Exhibit 451 for identification. General, this is a copy of that statement you made in Oberursel, isn't it?
A. Yes, in Oberursel I made many such statements.
Q. Let's turn to paragraph 4 of this statement where it says:
"According to the statement of the interrogating American officer, I was supposed to have attended a meeting in 1941, at which Reiter, Conti and Mrugowsky were present, and to have suggested the carrying out of typhus research on human beings. I cannot recollect the date, place and participants, nor the course of such a meeting because of the many years that have passed and the numerous incidents that have occurred."
Paragraph 5:
"As far as the typhus problem is concerned, it may have been the following: Production of the known, very effective typhus vaccine, according to the method of Prof. Weigel of Lemberg, which was derived from lice, dragged far behind the actual demands, despite an increase. Typhus vaccine was also produced in the Robert Koch Institute, through cultures in chicken eggs; its dependable efficiency, however, was not sufficiently proved. To provide adequate protection for the combat areas, as well as for the zone of the interior against typhus, it became necessary to clarify the value of this vaccine at the earliest moment. It is therefore quite possible that in the course of a conference Dr. Mrugowsky might have been assigned to carry on studies about parallel tests, about dosage, compatibility and efficiency of this typhus vaccine on the human being.
"The purpose was to arrive at a final conclusion whether the vaccine produced by the Robert Koch Institute was adequately efficient and could be used in the Wehrmacht and in typhus areas on the Eastern Front with a considerable prospect of success."
Now, General, you can't deny that you participated in such a meeting on 29 December 1941, can You? There is that possibility, isn't there?
A. I said that I can say nothing about the time it took place and I have already testified here that, naturally, conferences took place about the typhus and vaccine question. When the interrogator at Oberursel asked me directly whether it couldn't be possible that I had spoken to Mrugowsky and that such a conference had taken place I told him that I was quite sure that many such conferences took place. What I was concerned with - I spoke about it before - was the testing of the chicken egg vaccine on a sufficient number of persons in a certain vicinity; that is, within an area where spotted typhus had already occurred or there was an imminent danger existing.
