At the beginning of the campaign in the east the duties in the field of hygiene and epidemic control suddenly arose enormously. The assistants in Hygienic Institutes in Germany, who had been drafted into the Waffen SS, was a very small number; they were mostly very young and had only seen training in bacteriology. If we wanted to take over such a definite task as vaccine production, that is it we wanted to compete with industry, we had to have experienced men.
Where could we get these men? I knew that among the prisoners in various concentration camps there were foreign bacteriologists and quite well-known people. Dr. Horn, for example, mentioned the Czech professor, Thomaschek. He is a professor at the Czech University, a very well-known man in Europe. There were various other people under arrest.
At that time through Lolling I inquired of all the concentration camp doctors, and about ten to fifteen bacteriologists were reported. I said to myself, "If we do not have enough bacteriologists now, then there is the possibility that these bacteriologists who have a great deal of experience can participate in this work." I had another thought in the back of my head, too. In the first part of the war the prisoners who had previously studied medicine were not allowed to work as doctors. They were employed in the stone quarries and so forth. That is a terrible physical and mental effort for a man who is not used to such work.
I tried in this way to give them an opportunity to work in their own specialty again, not only as doctors but in their own specialized fields. That coincided with my own desire to have vaccine produced, although we did not have enough of our own SS doctors for this purpose and there was no opportunity to train people thoroughly enough.
Q That's enough on that line. Now, in your Document Book Number 1, Page 104, which is Mrugowsky Exhibit 19, the last paragraph states: "On request of Ministerialrat Dr. Bieber, it is also stipulated that in a large-scale experiment, agreed upon by the Robert Koch Institute and the Hygienist of the SS, Dr. Mrugowsky, both Weigl's vaccine and the vaccine of the Behring Works shall be included." What is this large-scale experiment?
A That refers again to the testing of the vaccine which is mentioned in the Bieber document which you submitted as a prosecution exhibit in connection with the discussion between Demnitz and myself. That's the same thing. It is called large-scale experiment apparently because it is a question of hundreds and thousands of vaccinations. One of my documents -- I believe it comes from Dr. Demnitz -- shows that as early as September, I believe it was, 1941, we informed the Behring Works of our need in respect to the Germans to be settled in the Eastern areas, whom I estimated at the time at 20,000.
That was really a large-scale experiment; and I think that is what this word refers to? not experiment but test.
Q Well, summing up this discussion of the conferences, you do suggest that you had meetings or a meeting with Schreiber and Gildemeister. Now, was that meeting in the office of Schreiber in the Army Medical Inspectorate?
A Yes, that is correct. It must have been earlier. I remember that there was no snow at the time; and that would not have been the case in December. It must have been in the late fall.
Q You exclude the possibility that Dr. Ding was there; is that right?
AAt this discussion which is mentioned?
Q Yes.
A Yes, he certainly was not there.
Q However, you do admit to this Tribunal that in answer to a question in an interrogation on November 1st, 1946, by Mr. McHaney, regarding the statement by Ding on Page 1 of his diary, as to whether or not it was accurate, you answered, "I remember that meeting; and it occurred to me that there were present Schreiber, Gildemeister, Ding, and myself. It is possible that Rose and Reiter were present, too? but Handloser and Conti I don't remember as being present. I think that the meeting took place in a room of Schreiber's in the Army Medical Inspectorate." You admit that you said that in an answer to a question that Mr. McHaney propounded to you on November 1st, 1946, do you not?
A It is true that I said that? but I point out that it had been five years since the meeting and that my memory was not necessarily quite accurate and that it is much better to base one's opinion on the documents which speak quite clearly.
Q Now, you have stated here that you never issued orders to Dr. Ding regarding experimentation. I wish to call your attention to Document Number NO-257, which Prosecution Exhibit Number 283, on Page 10 of Document Book Number 12, wherein Dr. Ding states as follows: This is an affidavit of Dr. Dinb. "At the end of 1942 I took part in a conference of the Military Doctors' Academy in Berlin. The topic of discussion was the fatality of gas burn-serum on wounded. Now, Kilian and Mrugowsky gave reports of soldiers who had seen gas edema serum in high quantities up to 1500 c. c. an hour afterwards out of complete recuperation."
DR. FLEMMING: Mr. President, I object to the use of this affidavit by Dr. Ding. I objected to it when it was submitted. Dr. Ding is dead. It is, therefore, no longer possible to call on him for cross examination. Written testimony of dead persons may not be used in the trial for this reason. I object to the use of this testimony.
MR. HARDY: I won't comment, your Honor. The document has been admitted into evidence; and I feel that I can use it in cross examination.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection is overruled. The document may be used for purposes of cross examination of the witness.
Q I'll repeat. In substance this affidavit states that in 1942 a conference was held in the Military Medical Academy in Berlin. Those present were Schreiber, Mrugowsky, Ding and apparently Kilian. Now, you have submitted an affidavit of Kilian here in which Kilian states that such a meeting took place. Do you remember attending that meeting?
A Yes.
Q The topic of discussion was gas burn serum, was it not?
A Yes, that is right.
Q Now, Dr. Ding states in his affidavit: "Mrugowsky suspected that the phenol content brought about the fatal results of the consolidation of the separate injections." Was that true?
A Yes.
Q Now, Ding goes on to say, "In the presence of the other gentlemen Mrugowsky, commanded me to take part in the 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." If I understand it correctly, you deny that you ever commanded Ding to do such a thing; is that correct?
A It is very fortunate for me that Ding made this statement in the form in which he did. The other person present at this meeting, Prof, Kilian, says quite clearly in his document that in his presence no such assignments were mentioned. That refutes the statement of Ding. I have no necessity to do so either. We learn about phenol deaths in the pharmacology at the University; and we fail in the examination if we don't know about it.
Q Well, in this regard, how would you determine the tolerance of a serum containing phenol, unless you experimented with phenol or unless you experimented with the scrum? Isn't there a problem there which should have been given consideration by the members of this meeting?
A Yes, that is true. There wore two things to be considered; first, the symptoms of poisoning themselves were very well-known and did not require any investigation. It is known that death from phenol and damages to health can occur, such as appeared here after the use of gangrene serum; and it was a question of figuring out how much phenol is contained in 400 c. c. of gas gangrene serum. For example, that is 2 c. c. of concentrated carbolic acid; and tho human body cannot stand that without harm being done. In the second place the possibility was discussed of testing this thing once more by experiments. Prof. Kilian speaks about this in his document. In the conference he reported that, I believe, four or five of his associates, assistants at his clinic in Breslau, had injected into their arteries a solution of phenol and table salt, and then all suffered certain symptoms of phenol poisoning. The situation was cleared up by this. There was no need for further experimentation.
This experiment had taken place before the meeting. Kilian reported about it. I said to Ding: "Orientate yourself about phenol poison as such it may become important in course of the war in cases of large doses of scrum being given." I told him where literature was to be found at Jena. I said that because I was responsible for Ding's training as a hygienist and a bacteriologist, I am responsible to the state for training my assistants. At the end of their specialized training, I had to give a certificate that they had been properly trained.
For that reason I took advantage of all the opportunities which arose by accident to demonstrate to my assistants rather complicated questions in our field. For that reason I went to this meeting with Ding. I wanted to induce him to think about this question of gangrene, and it is better to do this on the basis of experience rather than on the written orders.
Q One last question, Doctor. As a result of this meeting, Ding then returned to Buchenwald and killed people with phenol injections. You deny that you commanded him to do that, and do you state that Ding did that on his own initiative? Is that your defense to Ding's statement?
A I certainly do deny that, yes. I had nothing whatever to do with it.
MR. HARDY: I believe this is a good breaking point, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess until 1:30 o'clock.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours.)
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 Nurnberg, Germany, on 2 April 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court room will please find their seats.
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 court room.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, will you ascertain that the defendants are all present in court?
THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honor, all the defendants are present in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary General will note for the record the presence of all defendants in court. Counsel may proceed with the examination of the witness.
JOACHIM MRUGOWSKY - Resumed EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR. NELTE (Defense Counsel for defendant Handloser):
Q. Witness, the last question I put to you yesterday was my question where Dr. Ding was on the 29th of December, 1941. You answered that he was working at the Hygiene Institute, but simultaneously had been assigned to the Robert Koch Institute for the purpose of his training there. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. I attach importance to clarify how it could have been possible that in Ding's diary there is an entry of the 29th of December 1941 concerning a conference in which Professor Handloser allegedly participated. According to Ding's activity and his position on the 29th of December, 1941, did Dr. Ding have knowledge about the conference on 29 Dec. 1941 in the Reich Ministry of the Interior?
A. I don't know that exactly for I personally did not know about that conference. I know, however, that Ding, after his detail to the Robert Koch Institute, maintained a relatively close contact with Professor Gildemeister. It is quite possible that Gildemeister told him the contents of that conference. It is possible that Ding, however, mixed up the contents of what Gildemeister told him and came to a wrong entry.
Q. Mr. President, in Document NO-1321, under Figure 3, it is said that a copy about the conference Bieber, about the conference of the 29th of December, 1941, went to the institute for infectious diseases, the Robert Koch Institute. I wanted to mention that in this connection in order to clarify what the aim of my questioning was. The prosecutor, during his cross-examination of Professor Handloser, on page 3114 of the German transcript, put the following questions...
MR. HARDY: May it please your Honor, I object to this form of cross-examination by Dr. Nelte. Is he now pleading his case or is he examining Dr. Mrugowsky?
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may proceed. Objection over-ruled.
BY DR. NELTE:
Q. This question as to what interest the SS could have in that egg yolk vaccine was put to Professor Handloser, but I am submitting that question to you because you will be in a better position to answer it.
A. We naturally had a great interest to find out something final about that vaccine. In all our formations we had already used thousands of portions of that vaccine which we received from industry or from the Robert Koch Institute. It is the same situation here as in military life. No weapon is being used unless one knows it exactly. The same applies to the combat of epidemics. As physicians, we don't like to use weapons which we don't knew. Therefor, we had great interest in finding out the value of the new vaccine.
Q. The sense of my question was what your own interest was. What you have just stated would mean to say that this was a general interest. I an interested, however, in your own interest.
In what you did on your own initiative.
A. In order to find out what the value of vaccines was I intended to use them on a large scale to discover their value. This research had already been started in December and it became apparent from Dr. Denmitz' statement that already on the 22nd of December, 1941 that is 8 days before the conference, I had received five hundred portions of vaccines.
Q. That one can see from Dr. Denmitz! report. Now, in Document 64, which was submitted to you, Dr. Zahn is speaking about a large scale experiment, whereas in Bieber's report, an experimental plan is mentioned.. Are we concerned there with the same thing?
A. They are different words meaning the some thing.
Q In Dr. Zahn's report on Page 104 which you submitted, which is Document Mrugowsky 64, it is stated Professor Gildemeister maintains that 2700 portions of his vaccine had been used without any ill effects resulting. Professor Kuhne reported that in the months of October and November he used 3,000 portions of the vaccine of the Behring Works without any failures having occurred. Do I understand you correctly if I say that this plan for the experiment, or this large-scale experiment was to be carried out with typhus vaccines which had already been tested out to some considerable extent and had been found to be effective?
A That is correct. It is true that the first experiments had already started by the producers. It becomes apparent from the various statements that German industry only since 1941, that is the year we are speaking about, concerned itself with the manufacture of vaccines of that nature. The typhus period starts in November and December and finds its peak in June. Therefore, up to December we couldn't have practically gathered any experiences regarding that vaccine because the period of epidemics was only just reaching the increased stage. One would have to wait before arriving at any conclusion.
Q Everyone who participated in that meeting in the Reichs' Ministry of the Interior on 29 December 1941 and heard what was being said must assume that one was concerned with a plan for epidemiological experiments on a large scale intended by you with vaccinations against typhus.
A Nothing else could have been mentioned. That is the customary channel used up to that point.
Q Was there any connection between your plan of experiment and the experiments as they were carried out later at Buchenwald?
A No, not at all. This plan was much older, at least four to six weeks older.
Q Is it true that this epidemiological experiment was carried out by you completely independent of the experiments at Buchenwald?
A It was started independently and was carried out independently.
Q You know that on the 5th of May, 1942, that is Document 10 Mrugowsky, a letter was sent to Dr. Conti and Dr. Grawitz and Dr. Genzken under the heading, "Testing of Vaccines." It was also sent to the Robert Koch Institute and the Army Typhus Research Institute at Krakow, as well as the Behring Works. You also sent this letter to Professor Eyer, who was an O. K. H. official at Krakow. Let me at first ask you, could the recipient of this letter gain the impression that he was here concerned of necessity with the result of the experimental plan which was discussed on the 29th of December, 1941?
A It can only be seen from this letter that these vaccines, that were discussed, were actually tested. They were tested on a relatively small amount of persons, I think thirty or thirty-five people. No more could be derived from that letter. There can be no question of largescale experiments with that vaccine, because thirty persons cannot be considered a large-scale experiment. There was no question of any artificial infections. For that was just the reason Grawitz ordered me to change Ding's original report. It could not be derived from that.
Q I understand that. But you are speaking about experiments because of an epidemic?
A There were innumerable epidemics at that time.
Q At any rate Professor Eyer had to conclude, or rather not conclude that any experiments were being carried out at Buchenwald.
A He couldn't conclude that in any way. The recipient could only come to the conclusion that the person mentioned in the report had merely compared a few vaccines with one another. He took notice of that and that probably was all.
Q This letter dated the 5th of May, 1942, could give a third party the impression as if Professor Eyer were sending a vaccine, the Weigl vaccine, for the purpose of its being tested. Was that the case?
A No, no, that was not the case. I already said yesterday there was a general directive to the effect that S. S. units and agencies could only be supplied by their own medical depot in the SS.
Q On the basis of the contents of this circular and the result of this test, could Professor Eyer receive a hint to report anything about that to the Army Medical Inspectorate?
A I cannot say that. Had I received any such letter I certainly wouldn't have done anything. I would have merely acknowledged the letter and then filed it away.
Q Let us assume which was not done that Professor Eyer sent this letter to the Army Medical Inspectorate, and let us further assume that they submitted that letter to Professor Handloser. With reference to Handloser's knowledge of things in which he didn't participate, I want to ask you the following. Could he conclude from this circular as it is formulated that there was any possibility of any inpermissible experiments on human beings?
A No, I already said that, that he couldn't do that, because that was the purpose of the circular.
Q Looking at your letter dated the 5th of May, 1942, and looking at the order of Grawitz, I am asking you was this form of report, this form of a camouflaged report, a result of the orders for secrecy that no reports were to reach the outside of what was going on in S. S. camps and concentration camps?
A Yes.
Q In Dr. Rudolf Brandt's statement correct that there was a special order by Himmler according to which the physicians active in concentration camps were obliged to keep a strict secrecy towards every third party, even including S. S. physicians who were not active in the concentration camps?
A That did not only refer to the physicians, but to every member of the staff of concentration camps. This order already originates from a time prior to the war.
I may refer to Dr. Horn's testimony here yesterday who very clearly stated that even members of the S. S. and Waffen S. S. could not enter concentration camps. That was the reason. His testimony was correct.
Q Do you know for what reason Professor Eyer and Dr. Schmidt went to Buchenwald on the 8th of February, 1943?
A Yes, we were then concerned with the pending commitment of S. S. divisions in the German Africa Corps. Extensive preparations were made in the medical field. I already testified during my direct examination that the protective vaccines against yellow fever played a particular part there. This was technically somewhat difficult since the vaccine had to be kept in a very cooled state. That is naturally very difficult in a warm climate.
A special transport vessel had been developed which was under low pressure. It was rather difficult to handle because it could easily be broken when not handled skilfully. In order to Instruct the physicians to handle this container, Dr. Eyer was in Buchenwald, and Dr. Schmidt. Dr. Schmidt said that many physicians were there whom ho instructed in the use of that vessel.
Q When Prof. Eyer instructed
A Yes, Professor Eyer was instructing the physicians about that technique.
Q In other words, you are confirming what Dr. Bernard Schmidt said on the witness stand?
A Yes, I think that is correct.
Q You remember that a contingent of lice supposedly arrived at Buchenwald from Krakow or rather two contingents of lice which were later destroyed. In this connection I went to ask you only whether you know Dr. Haas?
A Yes, I know Dr. Haas.
Q Where did Dr. Haas live? Where was he active, and what was the position he held?
A Dr. Haas came from the Behring Works at Marburg. He was a young lecturer on hygiene and bacteriology at Marburg, and later he became the herd of a branch of the Behring Works at Lemberg. This, of course, was private industry. It has nothing to do with the army. As far as I know, the Army was producing vaccines in Lemberg, too, at a laboratory of Professor Weigl. These two agencies, however, are not identical.
Q The submission of evidence has shown that Professor Weigl was attached from the ARMY MEDICAL INSPECTORATE to the Behring Works in order to train personnel there temporarily. We were here only concerned to find out whether these two institutes had anything to do with one another.
That is to say, whether the Behring Works at Lemberg had any official connection to the OKH institute at Lemberg.
A No. As far as I know, these were two separate institutions.
Q On the basis of an entry in Ding's diary regarding the results of tests on yellow fever vaccine, I am asking you the following: is it correct that you were sent these results and passed then on to Dr. Schmidt?
A The results of these tests were received by me, but as far as I remember, I transmitted them to our main medical depot which was actually supplying the vaccine and that include Ding. I don't remember having had any discussions or correspondence with Schmidt about or anyone else of the Medical Inspectorate.
DR. NELTE: This brings me to the end of my questions on behalf of the Defendant, Handloser, and I now ask the Tribunal to permit me to put two questions to the Defendant on behalf of Professor Brandt since I want to represent Dr. Servatius.
Q I am submitting to you the organization charts made by you concerning a description of the Medical Service of the SS. There you drew a direct relationship of subordination of Reichsarzt-SS Dr. Grawitz, and you placed him under Dr. Karl Brandt. Furthermore, I handed to you the decrees, which were often discussed, about the position of the Reich Commissioner for Health and Medical Services dated the 26th of July.
A I am sorry; I haven't got them.
Q Aren't they before you?
A Yes.
Q These are the documents NO-080, Exhibit of the Pros ecution No. 5, and Document 081, Exhibit of the Prosecution 6, and Document NO-082, Exhibit of the Prosecution 7. Could you derive from the decree of 1942 that Dr. Grawitz and therewith according to your chart; the entire Medical Service of the SS was subordinated to Professor Karl Brandt?
You find these questions of competence under paragraphs 5 and 6 of this decree, dated the year 1942.
A This decree of 1942 appoints the CHIEF OF THE ARMY Medical Services, for the Medical Services of the Army, Waffen-SS and organizations attached to the Army. This professional subordination is found at the entry in this chart. It would have been more correct if the line hadn't been drawn directly from Dr. Brandt to Dr. Grawitz but would have gone from Professor Handloser to Dr. Genzken only.
Q During the submission of evidence and according to your questions, it has become clear that this line from Professor Handloser to Genzken only refers to the subordination of the Waffen-SS divisions which were committed at the front.
A Yes, it says so here on the chart.
Q What I am asking you is whether there was a direct relationship of subordination Professor Brandt - Dr. Grawitz
A I don't think such a clear relationship of subordination can be derived from those charts, but I should like to say in that connection that these charts were drawn up during the later period of my preliminary interrogations. These charts brought about a discussion with the interrogating officer, and we really arranged that the actual situation should be noted down on paper. In that connection I thought it was necessary to point out that Grawitz never would have received any order from Professor Brandt or Handloser never would have accepted any such order because ho thought that he only had one Chief which was Himmler.
For some reason this fact was not noted down probably because this was, I think, my last interrogation, and there was not sufficient time to do that.
Q The second organization chart which you submitted is dated the 1st of September, 1943. Professor Karl Brandt 's position was established by the decree of the 5th of September, 1943, which is mentioned by you and noted down on the first box. On the second chart you can see the direct relationship between Professor Karl Brandt and Grawitz as Reich Physician-SS. Did the decree of 5 September 1943, change anything in Professor Brandt's relationship to Grawitz?
A The decree shows that Professor Brandt would contrally deal with the tasks of the entire Medical and Hygenies Services and direct them. This affected the SS to the extent that our medical quartermaster had difficulties in getting medical equipment directly from industry. We also were tied to whatever the plenipotentiary directed as far as the supply was concerned. It is possible, however, that this was only an accidental effect because the order was directed to industry, in the first place, from which we, in turn, received our supplies. If the industry then gave us only a limited amount of medical equipment, that was a very important matter for us.
Q. Do you mean to say that neither after the decree of the 28th of July, 1942, nor after the decree of the 5th of September, 1943, there was any relationship of command between Prof. Karl Brandt as the superior and Dr. Grawitz as a subordinate? Rather, that with the decree of the 5th of September, 1943, Prof. Brandt had received a task which became necessary because of the emergency situation, according to which he had to steer, according to directives? On the basis of German military phraseology, this does not mean that ho had to give any orders?
A. That is correct. If any line was drawn there, it would have to be a broken line - subordination in technical matters.
Q. Doesn't this lack of material restrict to the essentially medical affairs?
A. I don't know whether Prof. Brandt would have been justified in giving such directives to Grawitz directly. It was an indirect relationship which came as a result of this task he was given.
Q. When it says in that decree that Prof. Brandt has the task of steering according to directives, it means that on the basis of directives of Hitler he would have to take certain measures, for each particular case, that is he had no individual powers to act on bis own initiative; is that right?
A. Yes, that is absolutely correct.
DR. NELTE: Thank you. I have no farther questions.
EXAMINATION BY THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE SEBRING):
Q. Prof. Mrugowsky, in answers to questions propounded to you by Dr. Nelte, you have made some comment concerning what is meant in the decrees of 28 July 1942, 5 September 1943, and 25 August 1944, being Prosecution Documents No080, -081, and -082.
Did you have any part in framing any of these decrees?
A. No, not in the least.
Q. Then from where do you derive your knowledge of the effect of these decrees, other than from the context of the decrees themselves?
A. I remember that 1 had repeated conversations at that time with our medical quartermaster concerning various questions. There was a very close relationship between us; and we discussed various questions of an official nature. For that reason, I know that he traced the cause of difficulties in getting the necessary medical equipment at that time, to this organizational change by virtue of the Fuehrer order. That is what I meant when, it was an indirect effect.
Q. But you never did discuss the meaning of these decrees with Hitler, Keitel, Lammers, or Bormann?
A. No, I never spoke to any of these at any time.
JUDGE SEBRING: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any other questions to be propounded to this witness by any of the defense counsel?
DR. HEINZ FRITZ: Dr. Fritz, counsel for the defendant Rose.
EXAMINATION BY DR. HEINZ FRITZ:
Q. Professor, did Dr. Ding-Schuler ever tell you that he had relations of any kind to Prof.
Rose or whether he was in any correspondence with him?
A. No, he didn't do that. After the objection raised by Prof. Rose on the occasion of the meeting of the consulting physicians in the year of 1943, he used very strong terms in speaking about Prof. Rose.
Q. Couldn't you tell me anything more about that?
A. He was very excited after Prof. Rose made his objection, something that he didn't expect. He repeatedly mentioned this incident for the next few days. I remember one thing in particular. He said "You probable are convinced yourself by now that I will no longer admit Prof. Rose into a concentration camp." I was never quite clear as to now he came to say that because every visitor to a concentration camp had to receive permission from a higher agency and not from Mr. Ding. Today, however, I think that his arm in this field was longer than I realized at that time.
Q. It can be seen from your answer that you were present during the meeting of consulting physicians in 1943?
A. Yes.
Q. When Dr. Ding-Schuler was giving his well-known lecture. Can you confirm that Dr. Ding in his answer to Prof. Rose's objection stated that the experimental subjects were criminals condemned to death?
A. According to my memory this is how the situation was. After Prof. Rose's objections, Dr. Ding stood up and stated, firstly, that there was no reason for any excitement since the experiments were carried out on criminals who had been condemned to death and who had been furnished by Himmler for this particular purpose; secondly, that the entire affair was over and done with anyway.