THE PRESIDENT: No, it isn't all right, but let's take the answer. Let the witness answer.
A The possibility is rather small, unless certain circumstances prevailed, in other words, certain connections of this business manager with his employees in the factory where the concentration camp inmates were being used, and it depended furthermore on the close connections of the member of the factory with the concentration camp inmates. That is, if he himself found out certain decisive facts. The fact of the employment of concentration camp inmates naturally had to become known to him, because he had to apply for these inmates through the SS-WVHA.
BY DR. FROSCHMANN(for Defendant Mummenthey):
Q Witness, how could protective custody inmates, as you said, come into political contact with the business manager?
A There were many possibilities for that. The business manager, for instance, could seek out contact with the inmates if he was interested, and from a given moment on, he started turning against National Socialism and to be sorry about requisitioning concentration camp inmates.
Q In other words, it was possible only in regular business channels; is that correct?
AA business manager, for instance, as everybody knows, could go to any place in the plant. He could go to the workshops, not necessarily only to the offices.
Court No. II, Case No. IV.
Q Wasn't it known to you that the inmates were not permitted, and neither were the business managers, to speak with each other, that is, to hold private conversations?
A There was very little that was not prohibited in the National Socialist State. The man who actually wanted to contribute to the position did. The SS WVHA or the Reich or the RSHA could prohibit anything they wanted to.
Q In the course of your direct examination you mentioned Berlstedt. It was a small town, is that correct?
A Yes.
Q Did protective custody inmates of the concentration camp of Buchenwald work there?
A Yes.
Q In what factory there?
A In the DEST factories.
Q What was produced there?
A What was being produced there? I know that clay was being produced there and was also being made there.
Q How many miles or kilometers was Berlstedt and Buchenwald apart?
A I already said that in the direct examination, that according to my opinion it was approximately three kilometers north of Buchenwald.
Q I understand it was considerably farther off, in other words, between fifteen and twenty kilometers. Is it possible?
A From the windows of Block 50 one could see Berlstedt. I did not stick to these three kilometers, of course. That would also depend on the fact which routes and which roads were chosen in order to get to Berlstedt. If you take the direct line in the air it would be approximately three kilometers.
Q Do you know that they had a special work outside of Berlstedt?
A You mean an outside camp of Buchenwald? Yes.
Q Do you know that place Berlstedt and the factory Berlstedt had Court No. II, Case No. IV.
modern machinery?
A No, I do not.
Q Were you in Berlstedt yourself one time?
A Only after the liberation I was in Berlstedt once.
Q Did you see the production places there?
A I only saw the building from the street. I did not go in order to visit the factory.
Q In other words, you cannot say anything about the machines, the installations there, can you?
A No. There are quite a few living witnesses who could testify to that effect.
Q Concerning these installations, regardless of whether they existed or not, did you ever discuss them with your inmates at the time, co-inmates at least?
A I only discussed it with the comrades who had been put in a punitive detail in the clay pits in Berlstedt. I discussed the situation there, but I didn't discuss the machinery and the installations in the factory that possibly existed there.
Q From the tale of your comrades, was it known to you that in the clay pits there were great big pumps in order to remove the water which was being accumulated there when it rained?
A Yes, I heard about that. I heard there were such pumps in those clay pits.
Q Do you know that the clay masses that were being produced in that clay pit were pulled out by certain chain wagons and pushed to the production places?
A No, I don't.
Q Witness, in your book, which has been mentioned here repeatedly, on Page 220, you asserted with all certainty that in the clay pit of Berlstedt incredible conditions prevailed there, and that the protective custody inmates were being used there to work in the worst of weathers, sometimes they sank knee-deep into the water. May I draw from your state Court No. II, Case No. IV.
ment so far, that these statements of yours in your book are based on reports from the comrades of yours who were being employed there?
AAbsolutely.
Q May I furthermore assume that when you publish your second edition of the book you will also mention this fact or rectify this fact which is not true, which is not true because this machinery was there?
A I cannot see a contradition between the installment of pumps at a certain given moment, or of instruments with which the clay was being removed from the clay pit, and what my comrades told me about the factual conditions there. I can have pumps and still sink into the water up to my stomach when it is bad weather. Therefore, I do not know if I have to rectify that in the second edition.
Q Not exactly rectify your position, or rather add something to it at the suggestion of the defense counsel of this Tribunal, I don't want you to change anything in your book or add something to your book on the basis of what I have said, but I assume that you, in the interest of the objective truth, will see yourself compelled, with reference to the conditions in Berlstedt, to re-examine them personally. That is only on the side. Now, a different question. The business manager, who in order to discuss inmates thus would visit a commandant of the concentration camp, could he simply enter the camp without any trouble?
A No, he had to have a special permit by the commandant himself.
Q If he had that permission, was he allowed to go through the camp then?
A Only if the commandant permitted it, and in company of an SS man.
Q May I deduct from that that the business manager would first report to the commander in his office?
A Yes.
Q If this visit by the business manager only referred to the conversation with the commander of the camp, would the business manager have the possibility to hear or see that gruesome acts were being carried out Court No. II, Case No. IV.
in the concentration camp?
A I can only answer the question generally speaking the way it was, but in other words, again generally speaking, basically yes, because these inmates of the concentration camp also worked outside of the barbed wire fence and particularly in the commandant area. It has repeatedly occurred.
Q Witness, may I interrupt you? You didn't quite understand my question. I wanted to know if a business manager who only enters the office and has a discussion there with a camp commandant, if he from that building could see gruesome acts, shootings and abuses and all that. Could he see that?
A Only while going to and coming back from the office, but he only could see general abuse, mistreatment, and I am sure he couldn't see shootings. It would seem to me it would be quite a coincidence that he would notice a remarkably bad situation there, that is remarkably bad compared with the general conditions in the camp.
Q Witness, one more question, to what period of time does your statement referring to Berlstedt refer to, that is the one you have in your book?
AApproximately to the period of time from 1941 or 1942 up to the very end, in other words, until spring, 1945, particularly, however, approximately '43, at which time comrades who were very close comrades of mine were sent to the clay pits in Berlstedt from Buchenwald for a period of six months.
Q You are speaking of the punitive details into those clay pits. Do you know that the WVHA repeatedly gave orders to the camp commandants and a directive in which no more punitive details were to be compiled or set up?
A I only knew that the erection of such punitive companies approximately from 1942 on were stopped, that actually though punitive commandos existed, and without exaggeration many of them did. Particularly punitive transfers from the Stamm-camps actually occurred when Court No. II, Case No. IV.
people were transferred to particularly bad commandos.
Q My last question, do you know that the business managers by the WVHA had been prohibited to employ such punitive commandos in their factories?
A No.
DR. FROSCHMANN: No further questions to the witness.
BY DR. HAENSEL (For Defendant Goerg Loerner)
Q Witness, I have one question in the field of clothing. You said yesterday, and I think I wrote it down verbatim that concentration camp inmates mostly received wooden Dutch-like shoes?
A I also remembered that on certain given moments, I can't remember the date exactly, other shoes were also issued, in the first years mostly wooden shoes, that is in the first years of my experience only wooden shoes, and wooden shoes until the end of the concentration camps.
Q My question goes to the effect to find out if wooden shoes were given out as you said, mostly Dutch wooden shoes. It is known that the Dutch wooden shoes are very uncomfortable.
A For years mainly Dutch wooden shoes were given out, at least as far as Buchenwald was concerned, and at Buchenwald we had a work shop for Dutch wooden shoes up until April, 1945.
Q. In your book "The SS State", on page 44, you write -- and I quote: "Particularly catastrophical were the shoes. Comrades, particularly those who received wooden shoes, could hardly walk after a few days. He who received Dutch wooden shoes were worse off than anybody else, particularly when persons were not used to wearing them without socks because they had very sharp edges, and one could hardly walk, and particularly not firmly."
I am asking you now, witness, don't you think, also, that if, as you said yesterday, mostly Dutch shoes were given out-- or would have been given out--that then the concentration camp inmates of the concentration camp of Buchenwald, from the economic and industrial point of view, could not have worked in the shortest period of time?
A. If, actually, I said the word "mostly used," or if I used it in the book--I do not wish to use it in such a strict manner. My remark in the book was referring to the time of my early experience in the concentration camp and, at that time, there was no such thing as a built-up armament industry to which these concentration camp inmates were being transferred by the SS.
Q. You did not use the word "mostly" in your book, but you used the word yesterday in your statement.
A. Yes, well I do not wish to keep it up in this manner.
DR. HAENSEL: No further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Any further cross-examination by any of the Defense counsel? Re-direct, Mr. McHaney?
MR. McHANEY: Yes.
RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. McHANEY:
Q. Witness, you have been put a number of hypothetical questions by various of the Defense counsel. Let us add a few facts to these hypothetical questions and see if it changes your answers any. Suppose this business manager had a factory or an operation like Berlstedt where the death rate was somewhat high, and there was a substantial turn-over in labor.
Does that fact lead you to believe that the conditions, the working conditions in Berlstedt would have come to the attention of the business manager?
A. The working conditions and the death rates in such a camp or in such a factory were normally reported to the SS administration of the Stamm camp, and that happened regularly. And, as an illustration, had to report to the supervisory position if the business manager in the SS-WVHA. Then he found out the whole thing by itself. If he worked at the working place itself, then he could see it almost daily.
Q. Thus, if we say that this business manager was a member of one of the Amtsgruppe of the WVHA, and let us exclude Amtsgruppe D, then that would also change your answer considerably--wouldn't it?
A. No. It would not because the business manager would belong to the SS itself. Then he had all possibilities in order to inform himself of those things, and he was informed concerning the death rates and the general conditions in the camp.
Q. Well, I think that was the answer which I was asking for. And if we further add to the hypothetical question that this business manager, who was in Berlin -- and not in Berlstedt, or not in the Klinker Works at Auschwitz -- and then went to see Odilo, Blubotschnick, in Lublin, would you say that probably that business manager knew what went on in concentration camps and in his factories in which concentration camp inmates worked?
A. Surely. His knowledge at least would have been sufficient in order to alarm him -- that is, if he had a human feeling in him. And if he didn't think that all these conditions were correct and necessary ever since the beginning.
Q. Do you know who Glubotschnick was, witness?
A. Glubotschnick, you mean?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes, Glubotschnick was an Austrian who, according to my recollection, from '38 to '39, after the capture of Austria, became Gauleiter -- or, rather, was Gauleiter-- then was transferred to the SS due to some corruption.
In other words, he had to withdraw from the position as Gauleiter and climb very fast to a higher commando position in the SS. If I am not wrong, he became a Gruppenfuehrer.
Q. And you also know that Glubotschnick was the SS and Police Leader in the area of Lublin, and had supervision over the death camps of Treblinka, Maidanek?
A. This fact, namely, the Higher SS and Police Leader that he became Higher SS and Police Leader, and that he was connected with the mass liquidation in Maidanek; I believe, Treblinka, also. I was told during my time, in my concentration camp, by inmates who came on transports.
Q. Now, will you tell us just briefly what, for what reasons a man was assigned to a penal company?
A. The reasons why a concentration camp inmate was transferred or assigned to a penal company or penal commando were of various kinds just exactly as it applied to the case of other punishments. Part of the inmates were sent to those penal companies from the beginning because, for instance, they were Communists. At certain times it used to be in the following manner in the concentration camp, namely, that every inmate and every prisoner who was turned in was sent to penal companies for three months -- or sometimes even longer in those companies. Violations of discipline which were considered heavy violations by the SS -- that is, discipline that had become used in our camps or that sometimes they could be absolutely funny reasons why people were assigned to those.
Q. Do you know whether children were incarcerated in concentration camps?
A. Yes, I know that in Buchenwald at the time of the liberation of the concentration camp, there were approximately 900 children.
I believe that the exact figure is 877 who were prisoners there.
Q. How young were they?
A. The youngest child was approximately three and a half, and the highest limit amongst these juveniles was approximately 12 or 13 years of age.
Q. What were they -- dangerous criminals, or political inmates?
A. Well, they can only be children. The question is rather difficult to answer. These children were also considered children of state enemies of some sort, and sent to concentration camps. Their presence in the concentration camp was seen from every point of view as so senseless that one could assume that, as children who were children of state enemies, they would be destroyed and annihilated. The fact remains that many transports of children were sent to Auschwitz for gassing, also from Buchenwald.
Q. Do you know whether any of these children were degraded and morally corrupted by the conditions in the camp?
A. Yes; those juveniles in the camp were submitted to the greatest moral dangers. Part of them were either destroyed morally, that is.
Q. Now, to one question on Action 14-F-13: those were the transports to Bernburg. Did any of those transports take place after March 3, 1942?
A. Yes, in autumn of 1942, some more transports lists for this purpose were compiled. Through the intervention of members of the illegal camp administration Buchenwald we succeeded through the camp doctor, to receive a postponement for those transports so that then I believe there were three or four of them, consisting of 90 men each, transferred in March or April -- perhaps even in January 1943 released for transport.
Q. Now, witness, you have been accused, I think rather seriously in this court room of having forged a piece of evidence used by the prosecution -- and I have reference to Document NO-265 which is the Ding Diary, and has been introduced in this case as Prosecution Exhibit 219.
And I think that in about fifteen minutes we can perhaps clear this matter up to some extent at least. You have been confronted with certain statements by Artur Dietsch. Is it correct that Dietsch was the Carpo in Block 46?
A. Yes.
Q. Is it correct that Dietsch personally participated in the experiments in Block 46 which led to the deaths of several hundreds of inmates?
A. Yes.
Q Will you tell the Tribunal what the reputation of Dietsch was in in the concentration camp of Buchenwald?
A The Capo Artur Dietsch in the concentration camp of Buchenwald with reference to its inmates who knew him, was hatred. He was also feared. He was a hard man who knew no mercy. The few members of the Camp Illegal Administration worked together with Dietsch partly in order to save comrades who were endangered through the SS, to save them through Block 46. In other words, to take them away from the hands of the SS party, I mean the camp administration. As they worked together with him they had certain considerations, general with reference to Artur Dietsch. They put them entirely aside. I do not know one single friend of Artur Dietsch from that whole period of time which I was in the concentration camp.
Q Doctor, Defense Counsel has read from an affidavit they have obtained Artur Dietsch. Where is Dietsch now, incidentally?
AArthur Dietsch at the present moment is amongst these indicted in the Buchenwald trial in Dachau.
Q Do you know for what reason he was indicted?
A I have already appeared before the court in his case. He has been acused of murder.
Q Murder? Because of his participation in the typhus experiments?
A He has been indicted under murder on participation in those experiments on human beings in Block 46 in Buchenwald.
Q Is the Ding Diary being used against him in that case?
A Yes.
Q Now the prosecution also has an affidavit from Artur Dietsch and it has been introduced in evidence before Tribunal No. 1 in Case No. 1. If there is a slight difference between the affidavit given to the prosecution and the one given to the defense and for your information the big difference is that he wasn't indicted at the time he gave the prosecution an affidavit. This is Document NO-1314, which was Prosecution Exhibit 433 in the medical case, and, Doctor, I would like to read a couple of paragraphs from this affidavit and then ask you if the statements agree with your understanding of certain happenings in Block 46 and then I will also ask you if you find any contradiction in this earlier affidavit of Dietsch and the one which he has given defense.
In paragraph 5 of the affidavit given to the prosecution, he says, "In January, 1942, typhus stations were established in Blocks 44 and 49 in the Buchenwald concentration camp. In January, a preliminary experiment was performed on about five persons. At the beginning of February, the first of March, experiments took place which involved about 150 persons. These persons were divided into five groups. Four groups received protective vaccines which were administered by the nurses of the stations. One received Weigl, one group Behring 1, and one group the Behring 2 vaccine. I cannot recall the name of the vaccine used for the fourth group. The fifth group received no protective vaccines and served merely as a control group. At that time a medical commission came to Buchenwald which inspected also the typhus station headed by Dr. Ding. As far as I recall this commission consisted of three to four people, (which is characteristic.) I asked Dr. Ding for the names of these gentlemen. Of those names I still remember the following: Professor Gildemeister, President of the Robert Koch Institute in Berlin, and Professor Rose, Medical advisor to the Registery in Berlin. Since at that time Dr. Ding was not sufficiently familiar with typhus infection Professor Gildemeister carried it out himself. The infections made for the above described experiments came from the Robert Koch Institute in Berlin and consisted of Rikettsia cultures cultivated in an egg yolk. In these first experiments Jews were used almost exclusively." Is that a reasonably accurate description of the first experiment in January, February, 1942?
A Yes, it is.
Q The second experiment you find described in this original of the Ding Diary which I hand you and the Tribunal will find the Ding Diary in Document Book No. 9, page 7.
A Yes, it is identical with the experimental sera that has been described in the Diary, Typhus Vaccine Experimental Theory I.
Q I don't think I need to read all of this affidavit, but he goes on to state that he read certain entries in the secret files of Dr. Ding and he describes a matter of a commission in November 1941 in which Professor Handloser, Schreiber, Gildemeister, Mrugowsky, Rose and Ding took part and where it was decided to perform vaccine experiments on human beings. Is that the first entry you find in the Ding Diary before you, Dr. Kogon?
A Yes.
Q December 1941, instead of November?
A The date just mentioned here by Artur Dietsch on which the conversation took place reads 29 December 1941.
Q The Tribunal will find that on Page 7 of the Document Book No. 9 in English, and Dietsch states in paragraph 8, "altogether about 1000 persons were used for the experiments. About 100 of them died. These figures include all the experiments carried out at the typhus station. To these experiments belong to typhus, typhoid fever, phosphorus burns, test of a combined inoculation for small pox, typhus, typhoid fever, jaundice, diphtheria, and various other vaccines." Does that conform pretty well to what you have testified here, except the lists of the death is a little lower in Dietsch's statement, which I think we can all understand.
A Yes, with the exception of the figure of the death rate, all the other statements made by Artur Dietsch are correct. They are identical with my own statements.
Q Now, this second affidavit of Dietsch taken after he was indicted apparently is that you forged that diary at some time after April 1945. We haven't been given a copy of the affidavit, but that is the connection. I want you pick up the affidavit and look through it and look at the color of the typewritten print on each page.
A I cannot understand the end of the question.
Q I want you to look at the color of the type on each page and see if you don't find a variation in the color of the type.
A Yes, I can see changes of the color where the typewriter ribbon, and to be exact on pages 1, is lighter that is compared with all the other pages, page 13 is lighter than the other pages. Then page 17, 18, 19 again are the same, but they are not the same as the other pages. Page 20 is different, 21 is the same, 22 is different again, 23 is a different colors; 24 again is the same as 23, and 25 as the page before, 26 the same, 27 is darker, in other words, a frequent change.
Q I will ask the clerk to pass the document up to the Tribunal and I will also call the Tribunal's attention to the fact that this man in Case No. 1 produced an affidavit of two experts as he classed them who went through this diary with a fine toothed comb and came up with several exciting discoveries about this diary, but one finding was that it was all typed on the same machine. They drew attention to the fact that the pages 1 and 13 were in a lighter color than the type of pages 2 to 12 and from 14 on to about 16, 17 and put it that page 13 was written at a different time than pages 2 to 12 and 14 on. In other words, 13 was written at a latter date. Now, Doctor, I ask that if you falsified this document, it must have been done between the 2d of April and when was it the camp was captured by the Americans?
A On the 12th of April 1945.
Q Between the 2d and 12th of April, 1945. Now it is all done on the same typewriter. What was the reason that you wanted to change the ribbon as you wrote along when you falsified this document. Can you suggest a reason for that?
A Well, I could have forged the diary later on too, because, after all, I didn't turn it over to the American authorities on the 12th of April, but a little bit later. It isn't very easy for me, although I am a writer, to see all the criminal reasons behind this, as it were, criminal book mystery story which would enduce me to use different typewriter ribbon in order to carry out such a falsification, because I really didn't even have one in the whole thing.
That is why at the present moment, I can't find a motive for me, why I must have changed the typewriter ribbon.
Q Let's test the accuracy of this so-called forged document against other separate documents which we have on some of this typhus experiments and I pass you now the Prosecution Document Book No. 9 in German and I will ask you to turn to the Ding Diary, which is the second document in it and for the Tribunal Prosecution Exhibit 218 is the first document in this book. It is a work report for the year 1943 of the Typhus and Virus Institute at Buchenwald.
THE PRESIDENT: What book?
MR. MC HANEY: Document Book No. 9.
Now, this work report covers just the year 1943. The diary, of course, covers from the year 1942 to 1945. I'm going to read out certain notes at random from the work report for 1943 and ask the witness if the corresponding entry does not appear in the Ding diary for the corresponding date. These two documents are, of course, entirely separate. I suppose that defense counsel don't exclude the possibility that the witness also falsified the work report; but for present purposes the prosecution is going to assume that they didn't do so.
THE PRESIDENT: Who made the work report?
MR. McHANEY: The work report, your Honor, is a captured document. It is unsigned, as I recall, but obviously was prepared by Ding. It has at the end of it "SS Sturmbannfurhere". It has a pencil note on the top of the first page, "To Mrugowsky."
BY MR. McHANEY:
Now, Witness, in the Ding Diary can you find an entry dated 10 January to 20 February concerning experiments with spotted fever therapeutics, acridine, and methylen, carried out on forty-seven experimental persons? I ask you turn to Page 12. I think you'll find it there in the Ding diary.
MR. McHANEY : Now, if the Tribunal please, it is on Page 11 of the English Document Book, Number 9.
Q. Do you find it?
A. Yes, namely the entry, the 10th of January 1943. Are there two tests with acridine and methylen blue? Is that what you mean?
Q. Yes, they run to 20 February.
A. On the 20th of February 1943 this also refers to acridine and methylen blue.
Q. Was it carried out on forty-seven subjects?
A. Yes, on forty-seven human beings.
Q. Let's just take one more. Defense counsel can devote a little more time to it if they want to. Take 24 April to 1 June, experiments with spotted fever therapeutics, acridine, granulate, and rutenol, carried out on forty experimental persons.
Turn to Page 19 of your document book.
MR. McHANEY: If your Honor please, it is on Page 15 of your document book.
Q. Do you find that?
A. Yes. You mean the experimental series Number 9, that is, the experimental series on typhus, experiments from July 1944? I didn't hear the month. Was it July or June? What was it?
Q. 24 April, Page 19.
A. And the year?
Q. 1943.
A. 1943, I see. Yes, there is an entry here of 11 April 1943. To be exact there are two entries. On the 13th of April there is a preliminary test; on the 13th and 14th of April the special entry about Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Schuler in Frankfurt.
Q. On 24 April?
A. On 24 April 1943, therapeutical experiments. How long did it continue?
Q. 1 June.
A. On the 1st of June 1943 there is a further entry here which refers to the same experimental series. There is the remark on the experimental series being completed.
MR. McHANEY: Now, if the Tribunal please, I want to check the accuracy of this "forgery" with another document. This one was put in by the defendant Mrugowsky in Case Number 1. Document Number 10 for him. It is a letter dated 5 May 1942. Its subject is testing typhus vaccines. It is directed to Conti, Grawitz, Genzken, Gildemeister, Eyer of the OKH, and a Dr. Demnitz of the Behring Works.
In this letter which Mrugowsky so kindly put into the record, he says that the following experiments for typhus vaccines were made on human subjects. He said, "The following have been tested."
Here I ask the Tribunal to turn to Page 8 of the document book, and at the top of the page I will ask you to analyze the document which I am about to read as against the entries in Research Series Number 1. Do you find that?
THE PRESIDENT: What date is that?
MR. McHANEY: It is on Page 8 of the document book. The date is at the bottom of Page 7.
THE PRESIDENT: I am using the original German book here, and the paging is different. Can you please give me the date of the experiment?
Mr. McHANEY: It's on 6 January 1942 to 1 February 1942. It must be on the first of second page, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
MR. McHANEY: Now, in this document which Mrugowsky puts in, he says, first they tested typhus vaccines from Weigl; second, typhus vaccine according to a process Cox-Gildemeister-Haagen; third, a typhus vaccine known as Behring normal; fourth, vaccine known as Behring strong. Then he goes on in this document, this letter, to describe what happened; and I read from the document: "In the case of sick persons during a typhus epidemic who have not been vaccinated, the average duration of fever has been calculated to be seventeen days. The metabolism and the nervous system were considerably affected. The mortality was around thirty per cent." Does the Tribunal find the number of control persons used in this first series of experiments?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. McHANEY: Ten persons for control. It is the fifth entry on Page 8 of the English Document Book. If you will now drop down to the entry on the same page for 19 April 1942, you will find the entry of five deaths, three under control, and three is thirty per cent of ten. It goes on in this document to point out that none of the persons who had been protectively vaccinated with Weigl died; none died who had been protected with Gildemeister-Haagen vaccine; and it stakes that one each died who had been vaccinated with Behring strong and Behring normal, all of which checks perfectly with the entries in the Ding diary.
Q. Witness, did you ever see this letter which Mrugowsky wrote for these gentlemen? Did you have it available when you "forged" this Ding diary?
A. I never had any knowledge of and I never saw this document which has just been read or used, no.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the date of it, Mr. McHaney?
MR. McHANEY: The date of this letter is 5 May 1942; and incidentally if you will look at the English translation, the entry for 19 April 1942 reads: "Final report on the first spotted fever vaccine research series."
Q. Now, Witness, at the risk of beating a dead horse, I would like to call your attention to another document which makes you a very able "forger."
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. McHaney, I have the distress sign from the translator; and it is recess time.
THE MARSHAL: This Tribunal will be in recess for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken)