A. The signature on any letter wherein a report is made about a financial matter could not be made by any departmental chief but only by the chief of staff and in many cases only by the chief of the medical service. This means that during the days of the 20th or so I must have submitted a letter to my departmental chief which would probably have corresponded to Paragraph 1 of the letter which is before us here. The departmental chief then kept this letter in order to in his turn submit it to the chief of staff.
Q. May I put an additional question to you in that connection, witness? This really simple letter was prepared for you ready for signature, wasn't it? You must have attached file notes and file index numbers, etc?
A. Yes, that was customary in the case of such letters.
Q. Well now continue to describe this document?
A. Everything else I only assume but I think my explanation is very probable. During the last few days another letter by the Hygiene Referent must have been submitted to the departmental chief, bearing the contents of roman II, III, and IV. Since all of these four points were addressed to the very same man, Professor Haagen in Strassbourg, and since in the final analysis all these four points concerned the same thing, namely typhus production, either the departmental chief or the chief of staff amalgamated these two separate letters and produced the letter which is before us now.
Q. The next letter, witness, is Haagen's reply. This is document of the Prosecution No. 132, Exhibit 310. This is in document volume 12 on page 99 of the English text. It is entitled: "Chief of Staff Surgeon, Oberstabsarzt Professor Dr. 3. Haagen, dated Strassburg, 19 September, 1944." It bears the designation "secret" and is directed to the High Command of the Luftwaffe, Chief of the Medical Service. Do you know that letter?
A. I do not remember it. It is possible that I saw it. If I did I deduced no more than that there was a typhus epidemic in a village called Natzweiler about which I didn't know anything and that this epidemic was introduced from the outside.
In other words, this was a matter which did not concern me officially nor scientifically. I had nothing to so with any such reports and if this letter actually did come to my referat I would have had to add that this famous remark did not concern me and would have sent it to the Hygiene referent, but I think this is highly probable, that because all letters after all had to go over the departmental chief before they were distributed among the referents. The departmental chief, of course, knew exactly what his seven or eight referents were doing and certainly wouldn't have sent me such a letter as the referent for aviation medicine. He certainly wouldn't have sent me any report about a typhus epidemic of which he knew I had nothing at all to do.
Q. In order to summarize, witness, you are asserting you had nothing to do with typhus vaccines and typhus production?
A. At any rate not before this trial started.
Q. The Prosecution has submitted a document in this connection from which the representative of the prosecution has drawn a contrary conclusion. This is in document book 12 on page 86 of the English document book. It is document No. 302, and bears also Exhibit No. 302. As it becomes apparent from the signature it is a letter written by the Oberstabsarzt, Dr. Eugen Haagen, dated the 27 April 1944, and is directed to the minister of Aviation and Commander-in-Chief of the Luftwaffe, L In. 14, Saalow. Counsel for Prosecution when submitting this document on the 9 January 1947, on page 1349 of the English record, has stated the following and I may quote:
"The next document 302, No. 302, which is being offered as Prosecution Exhibit 302, is a report by Haagen to the Commander in Chief of the Luftwaffe, dated 27 April 1944. It refers to a letter of the 8 January 1944. Here the Tribunal will see and will note code No. L In 14, 2-B, which t that time designated the office of the defendant Becker Freyseng." Accordingly, the prosecution thinks that this establishes the connection between you and the Haagen typhus experiments. What can you say .bout that? Is this conclusion on the part of the Prosecution correct?
A. This conslusion for many reasons is erroneous, firstly, on the 27 April 1944, Professor Anthony was still the referent. If there was any connection at all it would have been Anthony's office, but it wasn't even Anthony's office, because in reality the file reference number is completely different from ours. During my interrogations and also in my affidavit I explained exactly what the registration number was that belonged to the referat for aviation medicine.
Q. In order to simplify matters for the Tribunal I may point out that the code letters can be found in the affidavit which was made by the defendant on the 24 October 1946. This can be found in document book I, part I, correction, document book III, part I, regarding freezing on page 7 of the German and English text and bears the number 448, Exhibit No. 81. Now witness, would you please continue.
Q. I gladly admit that there is a certain difficulty regarding these numbers since the registration numbers have been subject to a double change. Hay I repeat briefly: the referat for aviation medicine before my entry in the autumn of 1941 until approximately the middle of 1943 bore the registration number 2, II.-B. Ever since the middle of 1943 until approximately April 1944 the entire agency only had a registration number consisting of two figures and the referat for aviation medicine was designated 2, which was all.
Then came the last designation, lasting from May, 1944, to May, 1945, which again was composed of three figures. And then the Referat for Aviation Medicine was 2 IIA. The corresponding Referat for Hygiene during these same periods was designated 2-1-B; then 2-B, and at the end again the designation of three figures 2-I-3. These two registration numbers which are found in Document No. 302, Prosecution Exhibit No. 302 once under "Reference" and the second time under "Subject" are in the first case 2B, which was the Referat designation for the Referat Hygiene, as of 3 January 1944. The second is the registration number 2-1-B, which is the registration number as of 25 June 1943. Both of these designations belong to the Referat Hygiene, and this is confirmed by two further points in that letter. At first you have the entire contents of the letter. All this is concerned with the production of vaccines from chicken eggs. I never understood anything about that matter and any such procedure was never worked upon within the Referat for Aviation Medicine.
The second point, which seems to correspond with the Referat designation for Hygiene is the file number. This file reference is menioned twice, once under "Reference" and the second time under "Subject" We are concerned with the number 49rl2F. This, as I know now, but I consider something which I didn't know before, is the file reference for typhus. In order not to allow any more misunderstandings I may point out that this file number 49r12F belongs together. If it is separated skillfully and the two last letters or figures are separated from the rest of that reference, you will suddenly find the result of 2F, which in the meantime was the Referat for Aviation Medicine. I would like to correct this misunderstanding at this point, or I should say, the possibility for any such misunderstanding.
Q In other words, what you are saying, witness, is that the Referat designation, the file reference 39 had nothing to do with the Referat for Aviation Medicine, just as little as the Referat designation IIB and IB. These were matters for the Referat Hygiene.
A Correct. In addition, I may point out that there is not the slightest hint contained in that document that any experiment on s human being was contemplated. However, that isn't important in this connecttion.
Q The file references which I just mentioned can be found in a number of other documents, and it can be assumed that the Prosecution, on the basis of these file references, intends to incriminate the defendant Becker-Freysing with these documents. The first of these documents, again, can be found in Document Book No. 12 on Page 114 of the English Document Book. It is the document NO. 310, Prosecution Exhibit 318. The second document, bearing the same file reference, is also in Document Book No. 12, and it is document NO 130, Exhibit 319; Page 120 of the German and English document book. The first letter I mentioned is by Oberstabsarzt Dr. Haagen, consulting hygienist to Airfleet Reich, and is addressed to the Air Fleet Physician Reich at BerlinDahlem. Mr. Haagen writes that he is enclosing the copy of a letter to the Reich Minister of Aviation and supreme commander of the Luftwaffe wherein he suggests the establishment of the typhus vaccine production center at the Hygiene Institute or Reich University at Strassbourg.
You have, already clarified, witness, that the file reference 49-r and the Referat reference 2-B which is contained in this letter has nothing whatsoever to do with the Referat for Aviation Medicine. In spite of all that, witness, let me ask you whether you at any time saw this letter, and can you perhaps tell me how any connection with an experiment on human beings can be established as a result of that letter?
A This letter is a typical matter for the Hygiene Referat, and obviously deals with the establishment of a vaccine production center. The number of rooms for guinea pigs, sterilization rooms, packing rooms, are discussed and I can see no indication for any planned, executed, or intended experiments on human beings or experiments.
JUDGE SEBRING: Dr. Tipp, has your defendant stated for the record how many Referats there were in his department and the names of them or designations?
I don't recall.
DR. TIPP: I beg your pardon, Your Honor. The question doesn't seem to be quite clear. What I heard was that the defendant was to say how many Referats there were in his department. In this way the question is not intelligible.
JUDGE SEBRING: Did he not say this morning or yesterday, in making the distinction between Referent, Referat, and Abteilung that there was a -- that the Referat was, in effect, a subdepartment? Isn't that what he said? Now then he has been continuously referring to the fact that this communication having to do with vaccines was not a matter for his Referat. Isn't that what he said? How many Referats were there in the Institute or in that phase of it?
DR. TIPP: May I clarify that matter briefly, Your Honor? The Medical Inspectorate had as its head the Chief of the Medical Services. Under him, in turn, there were two departmental chiefs, each of whom had one departments Each one of these departments could be subdivided into a number of Referats. Here we are concerned with the so-called first and second department. In addition to other Referats the second department included the Referat for Hygiene and the Referat for Aviation Medicine. The Referat in the Referat for Aviation Medicine was until 1944 Professor Anthony, and after him the witness Prof. Dr. Becker-Freyseng. Does that answer your question, Your Honor?
JUDGE SEBRING: Yes, I understand that. But then am I to understand when the witness Becker-Freyseng keeps remarking that these communications do not pertain to his Referat that he means by that that they did pertain to the only other Referat under the second department chief, to wit, the Hygiene Referat?
DR. TIPP: Yes. And to make it clear, in case the testimony didn't come through right, all those Referats which bore the number 49 referred to the Referat for Hygiene.
BY DR. TIPP:
Q Witness, those theoretical discussions about the numbers of the various Referats, of course, aren't very pleasant, neither for the Tribunal nor for us, but I think they are somewhat necessary. Let us perhaps, cease speaking about Referats, but discuss the name of the particular Referent, for purposes of clarification. Could you tell us what referent, within the Medical Inspectorate, dealt with the natters which bore the number 49?
A. During my time it was a Stabsarzt (Captain in the Medical Corps), Atmer.
Q In other words, Stabsarzt Atmer was the Referent for Hygiene?
A Yes, that is true.
Q Now I shall turn to the next document in this connection.
DR. TIPP: Mr. President, I am being reminded that I just misunderstood something. Perhaps I misunderstood Judge Sebring. I understood somebody to say that Judge Sebring asked how many Referats there were in the second department. Would Judge Sebring be good enough to tell me whether I misunderstood him?
JUDGE SEBRING: I id n't precisely say that, but you say there were only two?
DP. TIPP: I beg your pardon, Your Honor. There were two departments. The first was the Organizational Department, and the second was the Medical Department. This trial here is only concerned with the second department. The subdivisions of these departments were the Referats. Concerned here are the Referat Hygiene, under Stabsarzt Atmer; and the Referat for Aviation Medicine under Professor Anthony, later under Professor Becker-Freyseng. In addition, there were a number of other Referats in this department which, so far, have played no part in this trial.
THE WITNESS: According to my memory, there were eight Referats altogether in that department.
MR. HARDY: That answers my question, Your Honor. I had a question similar to Judge Sebring's in that I understood and I thought perhaps this was tho reason why the Judge was asking: that question - that they mentioned yesterday some twenty or twenty-five referats. Maybe defense counsel could clear that up.
DR. TIPP: I certainly can. In the entire Medical Inspectorate - that is, in the first department and in the second department, plus Referat Budget, which was independent, plus Referat Pharmacy, which was independent too there were altogether twenty to twenty-five Referats.
I As allowed yesterday to submit a chart or a sketch about this entire organization, which would make the matter still easier.
BY DR. TIPP:
Q Witness, let us turn to the next document in that connec tion which again bears the file reference 49, and the Referat designation 2-B. According to your description, this was a matter for Stasarzt At or, the Referent for Hygiene. This is Document NO-130, bearing the Exhibit No. 319, and can be found in Document Book No. XII, on page 120 of the German and English texts. It is a letter from Oberstasarzt Professor Dr. Haagen, who was tho Consulting Physician to the Air Fleet Physician Reich. The title rends: "Report on the Successes with T.A.B. Chol. Vaccines."
In order to experite natters, I may, perhaps, point out that I asked professor Hoering, who testified on behalf of Professor Rose, about this report on tho 17th of April 1947. The corresponding replies of tho witness can be found on page 6050 of tho English record. Herr Hoering, at that time, stated that this document was a collective report of the Court.
No. 1 consulting hygienist to the Air Fleet, which was compiled from the reports of the individual Air Fleet physicians.
It concerns their experiences with a now vaccine, which is the T.A.B. Chol. Vaccine.
In that connection, witness, may I ask you whether this opinion of Professor Hearing is correct?
A I have no personal knowledge about this particular letter, and I am no hygienist. Since, as a member of the Luftwaffe, however, I was personally vaccinated with this vaccine, I can say what any internee or physician would say, that this is a very simple experience report on the application of a vaccine.
Q In other words, this document has no connection with any experiments on human beings?
A Certainly not.
DR. TIPP: In this entire problem, Mr. President, tho question of file references plays a considerable part because, in tho case of typhus, tho Prosecution always referred tho Tribunal to file references in order to prove tho responsibility of Dr. Becker-Froyseng.
In Document Book No. II, on page 152, I inserted a document under the number 35, which I will give the Exhibit No. 22.
THE PRESIDENT: That is your Document Book No. II?
DR. TIPP: Yes, No. II.
THE PRESIDENT: On what page?
DR. TIPP: Page 152. This document will receive Exhibit No. 22. It is a directive for typhus and booster shots. Its heading is, and I quote: "The Reich Secretary for Aviation and Supreme Commander of the Luftwaffe, File Number 49r, 12F, No. 25969", dating from tho year 1942, (L In 14 2-I-B). It is dated 16 September 1942.
I am only submitting this document, Mr. President, because this shows very clearly that those file numbers do not refer to the Referat of Aviation Medicine.
One could hardly assert that typhus booster shots would be a natter for the Referat of aviation Medicine.
I shall not quote any part of this document, Your Honor. I shall now continue with the discussion of these documents, which I only have to do because of the Prosecution's continual reference to the defendant Dr. Becker-Freyseng.
BY DR. TIPP:
Q Now, would you please turn to document NO-137, which is Exhibit 938? This is the request by Professor Haagen which was repeatedly mentioned - to the Director of the Reich University at Strasbourg, dated the 7th of October 1943. Counsel for the Prosecution, when dealing with typhus, said on the 9th of January 1944, on page 1387 of the English record the following:
THE PRESIDENT: What document is that?
DR. TIPP: Document NO-137.
Q (Continuing): I shall quote counsel for the Prosecution: "On the next page we shall find a document which we have already submitted to the Tribunal. This is Prosecution Exhibit 189. ..s you nay well remember, this is Haagen's report where he refers to the fact that this concerns the repeatedly mentioned urgent research assignment. I should like to draw your attention to the part which deals with typhus. Here we have the well-known code numbers and letters, 2-II-B, which is the office of Dr. Becker-Froyseng."
I think, witness, that this question of file reference has now been clarified, but would you please once more define your attitude towards this point?
A In this connection I nay perhaps point out briefly that this letter originates from the 7th of October, 1943.
I, on the other hand, became the afferent on the 15th of May 1944. If there was any connection with any one office it would be the office of Anthony. My general competence as to the handling of research assignments can be seen from Exhibit No. 136 of the Prosecution, the letter of Professor Rose to Professor Haagen of the 9th of June 1943, in Document Book XII, page 77 of the German book, and page 74 of the English.
Perhaps I nay also draw your attention to yet another little error. On the 9th of January 1947, on page 1397 of the German and page 1387 of the English record, counsel for the Prosecution stated, and I quote: "Professor Rose had knowledge about the activity and plans of the Chief of the Medical Department of the Research Institute belonging to the Luftwaffe. This was Anthony, whose deputy was Bocker-Freyseng."
The Medical Department of the Research Institute of the Luftwaffe can only be the Referat of aviation Medicine, Referent Anthony, whoso assistant referent I was.
DR. TIPP: Mr. President, I have a number of further questions on this complex, which will take some considerable time. I think it would be expedient to adjourn at this tine in order to conclude this natter tomorrow morning.
THE PRESIDENT: I call the attention of the Secretary General to an extra page from Document Book IV that was sent up here. Some other document might be short without that.
The Tribunal will now be in recess until 9:30 o'clock tomorrow morning.
(At 1530 hours, 21 May 1947, a recess was taken until 0930 hours, 22 May 1947).
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal I in the matter of the United States of America against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany on 22 May 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 arc present in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will note for the record the presence of all the defendants in court.
Counsel may proceed.
MR. HARDY: May it please the Tribunal, it has been called to my attention by defense counsel that next Sunday and Monday are German holidays, namely, Whitsuntide. The defense counsel desires to have the court adjourn on Monday that they may observe this holiday.
THE PRESIDENT: That, I understand, is this coming Monday?
MR. HARDY: That is the 26th.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would be inclined to head the request of defense counsel if they desire that Whitsun Monday be observed as a holiday. The Tribunal will cooperate with them and hold no session next Monday.
Do you know, what the other Tribunals have done in connection with this matter?
MR. HARDY: I understand that Tribunal No. 2 downstairs will have no session on Monday as to the decision of the other Tribunals, i believe the Tribunal wherein Defendant Flick is being tried is having no session on Monday.
THE PRESIDENT: Tribunal will recess tomorrow evening until Tuesday morning in compliance with the request preferred by defense counsel.
Counsel may proceed.
HERMANN BECKER-FREYSENG - Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued)
DR. TIPP (Counsel for the Defendant Becker-Freyseng): Mr. President, some technical remarks first. My colleague, Dr. Marx, has returned today and has recovered sufficiently in order to again take over the case of his client, Dr. Becker-Freyseng. For technical reasons we have decided that I finish the question of typhus and yellow fever, and I think that after the morning recess Dr. Marx will come in and take over the seawater case.
THE PRESIDENT: Any arrangement satisfactory to the Defendant Becker-Freyseng and his counsel will be approved by the Tribunal. Dr. Marx may resume his active position as defense counsel when it is agreeable to him and to you.
DR. TIPP: Thank you, your Honor.
BY DR. TIPP:
Q Doctor Becker- when we concluded yesterday we had arrived at the question of the Chief of the Medical Department of the Research Institute who the Prosecution asserts was. I think you have clarified this point sufficiently and shall now pass over to another point upon which we have already touched on at one time. I want to talk about the material which you found in your Referat regarding Haagen's work. If I remember correctly you said that you only remember interim reports from Haagen. In that connection, however. I have to put to you a document from the Prosecution from which I think they concluded that you also had knowledge of Haagen's final report. This is Prosecution document from Book 12, on page 88 in the English copy. It was submitted under Document Number NO 123, and bears the date 9 May, and the Exhibit Number 303. It is a letter written by Dr. Haagen to the Hauptamt SS through Professor Dr. Hirt, Anatomical Institute of the Reich University Strasbourg. The letter starts, and I quote:
"I enclose herewith a carbon copy of a paper on our experiments with a dry typhus vaccine. The paper was sent as a manuscript to the Chief of the Luftwaffe Medical Service with the request for permission to publish it."
Obviously it is a final report of Haagen's in the form of a scientific publication, which was subsequently submitted to the Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe. Since we are here concerned with a research matter, I assume that the Prosecution will charge you with having had knowledge of this report. Did you know of this report or do you remember it?
A I do not remember this final report of Haagen. However, let me point to a number of matters in that connection. It becomes clear in this document presented by the Prosecution what I have already said about the reports made by the researchers who have received research assignments by the Chief of the Luftwaffe Medical Service. I said that the researchers mostly submitted their final reports in the form of manuscripts or in the form of reprints. Haagen says here specifically the paper was sent, the manuscript, for permission to publish it. Professor Haagen was a researcher and certainly wasn't as well familiar with the bureaucratic regulations as I, since I sat at a desk for almost five years in a. bureaucratic agency. Just as there was no Jauptamt SS, such as is mentioned in this document, the work of medical officers of the Luftwaffe did not have to be submitted to the chief for approval. That at any rate was not true in the year of 1944. The agency which carried cut, and which had to carry out the censorship of scientific work before its publication was the Lecture Unit for Science and Research at the Medical Academy of the Luftwaffe. This agency, to be sure, sent the purely aviation medical papers to the Referat Aviation Medicine for its information. All other papers, however, were not sent to the Referat Aviation Medicine but was handled by the Lecture Unit for Science and Research alone.
Perhaps it was sometimes sent to the consulting specialists for their attitude on that work. I may point to what Professor Rose testified in this witness stand. He said that he had read that paper and that he assumed a position on it. Furthermore, let me point to the document of the prosecution, NO-128, Exhibit 307, page 97 of the German. and page 93 of the English Document Book 12. This is a letter by the Medical Academy of the Luftwaffe, which I just mentioned, Lecture Unit for Science and Research, and constitutes the reply to Haagen's request in order to permit the publication of his paper as it is mentioned in the document before us. Since file references seem to play such a considerable part here, I may also draw your attention to that. This is file reference #5, which concerns all published literature. At no time was the file reference #5 handled by the Referat Aviation Medicine. In addition, it becomes evident from this letter that the work had been sent back to Dr. Haagen.
Q Witness, you are now speaking about the last document which you just cited?
A Yes, I am speaking about Document NO-128, Exhibit 307. It says here "Annex - one manuscript, two copies". That Haagen sent more than two copies of this manuscript is highly improbable. It is thus very improbable that the Lecture Unit for Science and Research had sent a copy of this manuscript to the research files, for instance but even assuming that this rather impossible situation was true, I may add that if Professor Luxemburger, who was the director of this Lecture Unit, when censoring that work, had not had the suspicion that it dealt with something inadmissible, I am sure that no such suspicion would have arisen within me. Apart from that, I certainly would have hardly read any such specialized bacteriological paper from the beginning to the end since neither I nor anyone else in the world would have derived any benefit from that.
Q Witness, you were just speaking of the Document NO-128, this letter by the Medical Academy of the Luftwaffe, dated the 7th of July, and you mentioned the name of Dr. Luxemburger.
There is no such signature in the German document book and since I have not received the photostat copy I don't know whether any such signature is apparent in the English document book. I assume, however, that the original document does bear that signature. If then the Tribunal may have any doubts as to whether this document was actually signed by Dr. Luxemburger, I would ask the General Secretary to submit the photostat copy of the original to the Tribunal. Unfortunately, I was not in a position to obtain the photostat copy in the Information Center. It had been given out somewhere and I couldn't ascertain to whom.
THE PRESIDENT: If Counsel will inform the Secretary General the Clerk is absent at present - that the Tribunal desires that this document, the original photostat be produced before the Tribunal, the Tribunal will be obliged.
BY DR. TIPP:
Q Yes, Mr. President.
In this connection, Mr. President, let me offer as the next document the Becker-Freyseng Document #37 from Document Book #3. This can be found on Pages 156 to 138 of the Document Book and is an affidavit by the just mentioned Professor Dr. Luxemburger, dated the 24th of February, 1947. I shall quote briefly from this document.
THE PRESIDENT: What exhibit number do you assign to this?
BY DR. TIPP:
Q This will receive the Exhibit number Becker-Freyseng 23.
professor Luxemburger states, after the customary introductory formula:
"At present I am a nerve specialist at Munich, and consulting psychiatrist at the Catholic Institute for the Care of the Young.
"Until 1941 I worked at the German Institute for Psychiatric Research, the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute attached to the University of Munich. As I was considered politically unreliable By the Nazis, I had to leave this institute in 1941. In January, 1944, I was drafted to the German Luftwaffe, at first as an Assistant Physician.
After having been with the Medical Inspectorate of the German Luftwaffe in Berlin until 1944 as a psychiatrist, I became Instruction Group Commander at the Luftwaffe Medical Academy in Berlin in the summer of 1944, and at the same time, consulting psychiatrist under the Chief of the Luftwaffe Medical Service, with the rank of Oberstarzt."
The rest of Dr. Luxemburger's fate during the war does not interest us in that connection and I shall therefore skip the next few sentences. I shall continue to quote from paragraph 2 on page 2 of that document:
"Each medical-scientific work to be published as medical literature had to be submitted when ready for printing, to the Instruction Group of the Luftwaffe Medical Academy of which I was Chief. The checking, insofar as it was done by me, was carried out in the case of non-psychiatric works only from a military point of view. Special experts approved them as to their scientific content. The author of the work was informed, of the expert's criticism in full or in part, in a letter of approval or rejection, which I signed.
"3. Generally, these manuscripts did not have to be submitted to the Chief of the Luftwaffe Medical Service. Only works in the field of aviation medicine were regularly submitted to the office of 'Chief of the Medical Service'. The other works were only checked from the medical point of view by the appropriate consultants or other experts.
"4. From none of the manuscripts which were ever submitted to me in the course of my duties could I gather or assume that human experiments were being carried out on concentration camp inmates or, in any, case, on persons who were unwilling to act as subjects. Although my checking of non-psychiatric manuscripts extended only to military formalities and I could not judge them as an expert, I still think that clear and distinct reports on experiments which had been carried out forcibly would have struck me."
There follows the signature on that document and the certification.
Witness, let us now go over to another point. Let us turn to the research list which has been so often mentioned here. This is Document NO-934, Prosecution Exhibit 458. The document is not contained in a document book. It was submitted to Professor Schroeder during his cross-examination. In this research list there are contained the research assignments by the Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe and Research Guidance of the Reich Ministry for Aviation and Supreme Commander of the Luftwaffe. As the reviser the Stabsarzt Dr. BeckerFreyseng is mentioned. On page 7 of that document under IV we find the title "Hygiene." Under 2 we find the assignment to Mr. Haagen. Let me quote this short paragraphs "The manufacture of typhus vaccine (secret). Hygienic Institute, Strasbourg, Oberstabsarzt Professor Dr. Haagen."
Witness, you know that the prosecution maintained and concluded during the cross-examination of Professor Schroeder that since this research assignment was kept secret there must have been some valid reason to keep it so, and the prosecution naturally assumes that the Medical Inspectorate knew that Haagen was carrying out experiments on human beings which, therefore, had to be kept secret. I have already discussed this list with Mr. Ruff on the 29th of April, 1947, on page 6716 of the German and 6622 of the English record. Since you are listed here as the expert dealing with that list I must ask you to give us your opinion about it and, in particular, why this research given to Dr. Haagen is listed as secret.
A. Well, lot me say at first that all the documents which have so far been submitted by the prosecution regarding Haagen's research assignment have shown time and again that this assignment was entirely open to the outside world. Now, suddenly we see this research assignment is secret. I cannot remember that this research assignment was suddenly changed over to a secret one, but perhaps professor Haagen personally will be able to talk about that when ho takes the witness stand.
Q. Let me interpolate a question in order to clarify this point: since you were the expert in that case, did you a directive to whoever was compiling this list to insert this assignment a secret or did you previously issue a general directive that this assignment be converted from open to secret?
A. IF anyone could have done any such thing this could only have been done by my department chief. I could have made a suggestion to that effect, but the research assignment had been issued a long time ago, and this would have been a subsequent change in the Summer of 1944, which I cannot remember.
Q. At any rate, you don't know, witness, how this word "secret" was inserted?
A. It is remarkable that the next assignment by Haagen, namely the manufacture of a yellow fever vaccine, is also designated as "secret" here. The Prosecution itself has submitted a document here which we shall later discuss, that this assignment for the manufacture of a yellow fever vaccine was stopped by the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe in the summer of 1944.
Q. For purposes of clarification I may say that the document which was just mentioned by the witness as the prosecution Document NO.
-297, Exhibit 316, and it can be found in Document Book 12 on page 112 of the German and the English text. As you were already saying, Dr. Becker, we shall revert to this document when discussing the yellow fever experiments.
A. Now, in the document which you have just designated it becomes evident that this assignment for the production of a yellow fever vaccine very clearly was a non-secret matter. In addition, not even the prosecution has asserted that subsequent to 1942 yellow fever experiments on human beings were carried out. If in the year 1944 this assignment, which had been stopped in 1943, is really designated as secret, then it either constitutes an error or there were certain reasons for that which certainly cannot indicate the planning or the execution of any experiments on human beings. But now lot us turn to the yellow fever vaccine assignment itself. Unfortunately it is not knows to me where the Prosecution received this document from. It bears no signature, the person who sent it is not mentioned, no recipient is mentioned, and it is quite impossible to conclude from where this list originated. I remember exactly that in the course of the summer of 1944 a similar list had been compiled, in my Referat. It was the ordinary list of all research assignments, which was usually available in the Referat and which had merely been brought up to date. Since I, in the meantime, had taken over Dr. Benzinger's work in the Research Guidance of the RLM, the medical research assignments of the Research Guidance of the RLM were also included in the list. The list, or the supplementation of the old list in its form as it is before us, was compiled by ay instructing my secretary, who was in the Research Guidance office in Berlin, to corns out to Saalow for a period of 2 or 3 days, which was about 15 kilometers outside Berlin, and I gave here all the research files, the entire material under file reference 55, and on the basis of this material and the old list she carried out the new compilation, bringing the list up to date.