Q We can, of course, find out, I thank, rather easily what the serums of this strain you obtained from the Pasteur Institute was. Let me put this question to you. Do you think it would have been safe to have taken some of the blood from some of the guinea pigs carrying this strain when you first received it and inject it into a person?
A I don't quite understand time question. May I ask you to be kind enough to repeat it?
Q Suppose you had injected a human being with the strain which you received fron Giraud would it have resulted in a serious typhus illness or not?
A That again is a question, Mr. Prosecutor, which is of a more hypothetical nature, I think the great probability is that it would have come to a mild infection but I could not say with a hundred per cent certainty, but the experiences which we have gained indicate that it would have been only a mild case. That is a hypothetical question again which I can only answer in a hypothetical way.
Q Well pursuing the hypothetical question further, you insist on testifying to this Tribunal that you could not have possibly brought on a serious case of typhus illness if you had tried to do so, is that right?
A That is correct, because I had tried out that material already in experiments on ourselves and the quality of being apathogenic to humans was proved by that.
Q Do you remember document No. 127, that is your letter to Hirt of 27 June 1944, asking for an additional 200 persons, that is Prosecution Exhibit 306?
A Page 96, to Professor Hirt.
Q Now you had already carried out your experiments in December and January, 1943 and 1944, respectively, on 80 persons, is that right?
A Yes.
Q Now in June again you asked for an additional 200 and you stated, however, in the subsequent innoculations with virulent typhus which are to be made for the purpose of testing the protective vaccine, one must count on sickness, particularly in the control group which has not received the protective vaccine.
Why were you pursuing these tests? You have explained that as being nothing more than a subsequent vaccination. You carried out such experiments on the 80 persons in the winter of '43 - '44. Why did you want another 200 to carry out the same experiments?
A This is no longer an experiment as it is usually understood here in this court room, but a series of vaccinations with a vaccine that is already known. That I requested another certain number of people to be vaccinated is explained by the fact that my possibility for production were limited, but here in this case we believed that we would be able to manufacture sufficient vaccine for 200 persons.
Q Well, but you draw the distinction in this letter between the experiments you had carried out so far and the one which you proposed in this letter, yet I put it to you that according to your own testimony here now your plans were no different at all. You simply say that again, you were going to carry out subsequent vaccinations not subsequent infections. You had already done that on this first hundred, the first eighty experimental persons. What was the reason for doing it again, Professor?
A I stated already that my intention was if possible to vaccinate the entire camp for their protection, but at first I could only take 200, but since here again I intended to make scientific observations concerning the compatibility of the vaccines, I made these two distinctions here, and the one group which again should be vaccinated on the arm by scarification, I designated as subjects of control innoculation, and I said also that I know that in other places work was done on typhus vaccines. Therefore, I mentioned again these control innoculations in order to make it clear. These are the only reasons.
Q. This is nothing then but a repetition of what you did on the 80 experimental subjects?
A. I explained that already yesterday, it was the same as the vaccinations I carried out in the winter of 1943-44.
Q. Now, did you actually carry out any vaccinations after the vaccinations in December and January on the 80 persons? Did you carry out any more vaccinations in Natzweiler?
A. No, I did not. There were no more vaccinations carried out.
Q. You didn't vaccinate anyone during the course of the epidemic? I should have thought that they would have been eager to let you vaccinate those people. Here they were crying for you to come in when there was no epidemic to keep an epidemic off and then they get an epidemic and you vaccinate nobody, how do you explain that?
A. No, these people were no longer vaccinated and I explained that already yesterday that in the summer I had to make so many official military trips that I could not carry this out anymore.
Q. Then you made no vaccinations on anyone in Natzweiler after January 1944, is that right?
A. There were no vaccinations carried on after these vaccinations in December 1943 and January 1944.
Q. How did they combat the epidemic?
A. The epidemic was combated by delousing all the inmates as possible and the request of the camp physicians I myself saw to it that they received the equipment to do that. I know that the capacity of the decontamination equipment was too limited so that due to the impossibility of a perfect delousing the epidemic was increased.
Then our institute extended that equipment and transferred it to Natzweiler. That increased the capacity to delouse inmates to twice the amount and that prevented many typhus cases.
Q. When had you completed this third vaccination in the series on the 40 test persons in December and January?
A. That must have been during the course of January, the precise date I can not tell you any longer.
Q. How far separated was one vaccination from the other?
A. Well, the two first vaccinations were made at an interval of approximately one week. The third one which was designated as subsequent infection four weeks after the last vaccination.
Q. And was this third vaccination any different from the first vaccination except that you applied it through scarification rather than injection?
A. There was no other difference except that, of course, the amount used for scarification was smaller than that used by injection.
Q. Did the persons get sick when you made the first injection in the series of three?
A. I don't quite understand that question. After the first injection of the series of three what injections?
Q. Did your experimental subjects get ill or sick after the first vaccination of the three which you gave the 40 test persons?
A. The test persons received only one single scarification on the arm. That was only the simple vaccination made by one scarification.
Q. I thought we had two groups, the group of 40 which received 3 vaccinations in a series, the first two being given by injection, the last one being a scarification vaccination and at the same time the 40 control persons were given a similar scarification vaccination, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. That's all I wanted to know. Now then, when you gave the first vaccination to the 40 persons, disregarding the control persons now, did they get sick?
A. They got the normal reactions of a vaccination but they didn't get typhus.
Q. Well, why do you draw a distinction in your letter of 27 June that one must count on sickness in the control group. The control group in this case got nothing more than the other group - so why draw the distinction between sickness in the control group as compared with the immunized persons? You didn't give this group anything more serious that you gave the other group you vaccinated, indeed you gave them something much less serious, as compared, with the three times. Now, why was there sickness in the control group after one scarification vaccination?
A. This morning I have already explained that that letter was read by laymen and probably decided upon by laymen, and here in mentioning the normal reactions to be expected after the vaccination I spoke of sickness but it would be quite erroneous to assume that I meant typhus. As I have said already this morning I just referred to the normal reaction after vaccination.
Q. Then the control group didn't get any more severe reaction than the ones that were not controlled, did they doctor?
A. The reactions as far as I can still recall them were no more serious then with those who had previously been vaccinated by injection. In other words, no signs of a manifest typhus disease.
Q. So you really were saying something that was utter nonsense when you talked about sickness in the control group? Weren't you?
A. How was that, please?
Q. I say, your talk of sickness in the control group is just nonsense then, because there can be no distinction here between your control group here and your other group?
A. If I understand you correctly, Mr. Prosecutor, I don't know if I understood that question correctly. There were in the first group reactions to the vaccination among the first 40 that had been vaccinated and such reactions of vaccination we also had in the second group of 40 that were vaccinated, but we had no cases of typhus.
Q. I am agreeing with your proposition, Professor, that you didn't subsequently infect anybody even though you say so. But, I can't for the life of me understand how you can speak of a control group in this letter and speak of expecting illness in the control group when the control group didn't get any thing more than a, vaccination. The other group got a similar vaccination and two others, yet you are indicating to, Mr. Hirt, that we can expect some illness in the control group. That's nonsense, isn't it?
A. Up that is not nonsense. I have explained yesterday already what the purpose of that control group was. That was with reference to serological reaction which we wanted to examine in connection with those who had been vaccinated various times. I said already this morning that already after the vaccination the agglutination tita in the serum were reduced and we wanted to put these two groups into relation to each other as far as these values were concerned. And this group which was vaccinated by scarification was a comparative group in the sense of a control test for the serological reaction.
And, if I mention cases of sickness in this letter then I meant the normal effects of the vaccination.
Q. Professor, we are having great difficulty getting on the same ground. Let me put one final question to you. Was there any reason to expect any more serious reaction to the vaccination in the control group as compared with the other group?
A. No.
Q. So, there was no reason whatever for you drawing Hirt's attention to the possibility of sickness in the control group? Isn't that the point, Professor? There is no point to it unless you really intend to infect the control group with a virulent virus as you stated?
A. No. I beg your pardon, Mr. Prosecutor. I have already told you that this sickness was effects of the vaccination, normal reactions of the vaccination end I had heard from Lolling, chief physician of the camp, specifically that it was not desired that people were lost for work. Therefore, I covered myself and said it is possible however that such reactions of the vaccination will occur and if I have to repeat again I used the word sickness in this document in order to express that reactions of the vaccination will have to be expected. I am sorry but I have no other explanation than this.
Q. Let me put a document to you before we adjourn. Do you read French? Professor?
A. Yes a little, but I do not speak it fluently but I know it sufficiently.
Q I am putting to the witness Document NO 807; Prosecution Exhibit 185. Professor; do you see the point at which I have made pencil marks on the photostatic copy of the document?
A 25th of January; 1943?
Q One minute; Professor.
DR. TIPP: Mr. President, I only ask, Mr. President, where the document is that was put to the witness. I should like to read it also and be able to compare it. Mr. Hardy told me the document book and did not give me the page of the document. I should like to know where the document is located unless it is a new one.
MR. McHANEY: It is an old one. It can be found in the skeleton collection document book. Document Bock # 7. It is on page 23 of the English document book, Document NO 807, Prosecution Exhibit 185. This is primarily book of pictures concerning Hirt's skeleton collection; but there are also in this document extracts taken from original German records found in the Natzweiler concentration camp concerning, as the prosecution says, Haagen's typhus experiments, and I am now asking him to read three excerpts which appear in this document.
DR. TIPP: I don't believe, Mr. President, that there is a French document in our document book. Mr. Haagen said that his French was not fluent and that he only knew French, and I think it is very dangerous to submit to a witness a document in language in which he is not quite fluent. Mr. HcHaney is no doubt in a position to submit that document in German and I should like to ask him to do so.
MR. McHANEY: I assume that defense counsel has the document in German. THE PRESIDENT: Evidently the document is not immediately available. Could you read that portion of the document which you refer to in English and have it translated into German?
BY MR. McHANEY:
Q Very easily and if the witness will follow either the English or the German he can tell us if it is correct.
The first extract that I wished him to read is taken from a report of the camp doctor of Natzweiler concentration camp, File. 14B8344. Then appears the initials "KR" obviously standing for Dr. Krieger whom the witness testified he know. Dated Natzweiler, 1 February 1944. It reads:
"Experiments at the Ahnenerbe - experimental st ticn arc still not under ary. One cf the 89 human experimental prisoners (Gypsums) died aith pleurae nyshyca..." I can't make th-t cut -- "... duran' one Period covered by the report. Forty Gypsies received nrophyl ti.c innocui-ti n for a typhus cxprinent."
Were you able to fellow that, Professor? That's the excerpt I checked -- 1 February 1944.
A. 1st February 1944 -- "experiments in the experimental station Ahnenerbe". Is that it?
Q That's it. That's where you were working isn't it, Professor?
A I did not work in the Ahnenerbe.
Q Did you know where the Ahnenerbe station was in Natzweiler?
A. In Natzweiler I cannot remember having seen the special designation Ahnenerbe when I worked there.
Q Then you can't testify you didn't a work in the Ahnenerbe, can you, Professor? Have you found this excerpt?
A Yes, yes, I have it here.
"Experiments in the experimental station Ahnenerbe have not yet started. Of the 80..." That is very difficult to read here. "Of the 80 experimental subjects, inmates, Gypsies, one died from ploura caupiaenina in the meantime. 40 Gypsies were vaccinated for the purpose of a typhus experiment."
Q If the Tribunal wishes to adjourn, we will continue with this document tomorrow. I'll ask that the witness pass it back.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness will return the document.
The Tribunal will now be in recess until 9:30 o'clock tomorrow morning.
(A recess was taken until 0930 hours, 20 June 1947)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 19 June 1947. 0930-0945, Justice Beals, presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal 1.
Military Tribunal 1 is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the courtroom.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, will you ascertain that the defendants are all present in Court?
THE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honors, all the defendants are present in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary General will note for the record the presence of all the defendants in Court.
I was under the impression that counsel for Defendant Hoven had requested that he be excused from attendance today. I don't know whether he desires to be excused or not. The court gave him permission to be absent to consult with his counsel. I don't see his counsel present but when he comes, ho may state his wishes in the matter.
Counsel may proceed.
MR. MCHANEY: May it please the Tribunal, Professor, at the end of the session yesterday, I put to you certain excerpts appearing in Document NO-807; which was Prosecution Exhibit No. 185.
DR. TIPP: Mr. President, I already said yesterday that we do not know about this Document that Mr. HcHaney is about to put in. I brought No. 9 with me and I ascertain that Document NO-807, as put in by the Defense, is not the same document as Mr. McHaney is putting to the witness. In our Document Book, Document NO-807 is on page 18, that corresponds to the page number in the document book. This Document NO-807 is simply an interrogation of Hauptsturmfuehrer Kramer before a military court in Strassbourg on 27 July, 1945.
Mr. McHaney, however, has put an entirely different document to the witness under the Number NO-807 or at least a part of another document, a document which the defense does not have. I do not know what the reason for this is, but I reiterate the defense is not acquainted with this document Mr. McHaney is putting to the witness under No. NO-807. If Mr. McHaney wants to discuss this document here, either he must give it his own exhibit number or at least, according to the rules of procedure, he must make a translation of this document available to us. I therefore object to the admission of this document, which the Prosecution has. We have not received either the French or the translation.
MR. MCHANEY: If the Tribunal please, the document which I have put to the witness, NO-807, was introduced as prosecution exhibit No. 185. It consisted primarily, and it was offered primarily, of pictures of the so-called Jewish skeleton collection made by French authorities when they captured Strassbourg. This book also contained a sworn statement taken from Camp Commander Kramer of the concentration camp Natzweiler and additionally contained excerpts taken from captured German documents in Natzweiler. Unfortunately, when the document was translated, for some reason the Translation Department failed to translate in full the small excerpts which appear in this. They are made reference to in the translation, which the Tribunal has, but they don't actually translate them. Apparently the same deficiency appears in the German mimeograph copy. Of course, they could not very well copy the pictures. So obviously all that appears in the German copy is the certificate by the French Government plus the affidavit by Kramer, however, I should have thought that a photostatic copy of this was furnished to the Defendant's Information Center. In any event when I complete examining the witness on this Document, I shall be very happy to give Dr. Tipp my photostatic copy here.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the book and page number in which this document is found?
MR. MCHANEY: Document book 7, page.........
MR. TIPP: Document book 9, isn't it?
MR. MCHANEY: I don't think so, it probably originally was marked document 9. I think we remarked it No. 7. It is the skeleton collection document book.
THE PRESIDENT: On what page of the document book is it?
MR. MCHANEY: It appears on page 20, it is the last document in the book.
THE PRESIDENT: You state, counsel, that this complete translation of the document was furnished to the Defendant's Information Center?
MR. MCHANEY: No, Your Honor, I said I assumed that possibly a photostatic copy was furnished, but I am not certain of that. I merely make the statement on the basis of the proposition that we did attempt to furnish them with photostatic copies of each document, I don't know and it may be this was overlooked. I don't state that it was furnished. Anyway, I will be glad to give them my photostatic copy when I am finished with the witness.
DR. TIPP: Mr. President, I am sorry, but this statement of Mr. McHaney is not sufficient. In our document book according to the running page numbers there is a Document 807 but this is merely an interrogation of Hauptsturmfuehrer Kramer and nothing else. There is reference, to be sure, to a few pictures, but I don't place any importance on these pictures; I don't need them. However, I do want to say that part of the document that concerns itself with typhus, and which Mr. McHaney discussed with the witness yesterday, is not contained in our document book at all. I could not know that the prosecution understands, under the number 807, something quite different from what the defense received under that number. That is the reason why I am objecting to this, Perhaps Mr. McHaney would be so kind as to show me the original document that he intends to discuss with the witness.
MR. MC HANEY: Does the Tribunal have the translation of this document before it?
JUDGE SEBRING: I don't think so.
THE PRESIDENT: It is very incomplete.
MR. MC HANEY: If the Tribunal please, I can explain it briefly. Do you have the document that was given to you - the translation?
TEE PRESIDENT: We have a very sketchy document.
MR. MC HANEY: Well, if the Tribunal will turn to page 2 they will see translations of captions of photographs. On that list there are some 14, 17, 21 pictures. Immediately under the translations of the captions you will find "I-A", "II-B", "III-B". "Note: Documents found in the Struthof Concentration Camp." That is the French word for Natzweiler Concentration Camp.
I-A is a list of phone numbers. They did not list the phone numbers in this translation; they appear in the original.
II- B is an extract of the monthly report from the camp doctor saying that experiments have been done on sixteen gypsies and that three deaths have resulted. I have now been in the process of putting certain of these extracts listed here under 11-B, which I am quite ready to confess were unfortunately not translated, but they do appear in the original.
While defense counsel has undoubtedly been taken by surprise, for which we are quite sorry, nonetheless I don't think that is sufficient reason for not permitting the prosecution to put these documents to the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Will the Secretary ascertain if a photostatic copy is available in the Defense Information Center?
DR. TIPP: Mr. President, what Mr. McHaney says is true, and I can add the following. In our document book there is contained only the interrogation of this Kramer before the French military court, but not the first page of the document which, as I see from the photo copy, contains excerpts from some report on the part of the camp doctor. It is precisely this part of the document, which we do not have in our document book, that Mr. McHaney is putting to the witness to cross-examine him on.
I can only reiterate that the document that the prosecution gave us is not a true copy of the document he is about to put to the witness. There is an essential part of this document missing in our version. I don't think that saying this was a mistake is sufficient. If the prosecution has made such a mistake, it must abide by the rules of procedure and make available to the defense the part of the document that is missing before putting it to the witness. That is the ruling of the Tribunal, and I do not believe there is any necessity for deviating from that ruling.
THE PRESIDENT: If you are allowed five minutes to examine the prosecution's copy of that document, could you familiarize yourself with it - five minutes or ten minutes?
DR. TIPP: That would suffice, yes, but of course I should like to read the photo copy before Mr. McHaney cross-examines the witness on it.
THE PRESIDENT: The prosecution has no other subject of cross examination that would take time until the morning recess when counsel could examine this document?
MR. MC HANEY: Well, we have further cross examination, Your Honor.
and I will be glad to proceed. If it doesn't take him until the recess, perhaps I can put this to him. I would prefer to put this document to him Before going very much further.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand, but defense counsel's position is correct. They are entitled to have an opportunity to examine this document before the witness is cross-examined concerning it.
MR. MC HANEY: That is quite true, Your Honor. I will let him have the document now. As soon as he has indicated that he has read it sufficiently, if he will turn it back to me I will put it to him.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
BY MR. MC HANEY:
Q. Herr Professor, I had discussed with you yesterday Document NO127, Prosecution Exhibit 306. That was your letter of 27 June 1944 to Dr. Hirt.
JUDGE SEBRING: What Book, Mr. McHaney?
MR. MC HANEY: Book 12, Your Honor.
BY MR. MC HANEY:
Q. Do you find that document, in which you ask for-
A. (Interposing) Yes, I have it.
Q.--- in which you ask for 200 experimental persons, 150 to be used for protective vaccines and 50 for control inoculations?
You will recall that on your direct examination you somewhat ridiculed the testimony of Fraulein Schmidt on the ground that she was talking of 150 to 200 experimental persons, whereas you said in fact that you experimented only on some 80 in December and January of 1944. I suppose you will concede, as a hypothetical proposition, that, if you in fact carried out the experiments which you speak of in Prosecution Exhibit 306, then Fraulein Schmidt's testimony is rather accurate under that hypothetical proposition, is it not, Herr Professor?
A. I don't believe you have to put that as a hypothetical question; I believe you can put it as a direct question because these vaccinations of the 200 people were never carried out.
Q. And there were no vaccinations of any kind on any inmates of the Natzweiler camp after January 1944, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Let's turn to Document NO-131, Prosecution Exhibit 309, in Document Book No. 12.
THE PRESIDENT: At what page, counsel?
MR. MC HANEY: Page 98, Your Honor.
BY MR. MC HANEY:
Q. You will find that is a letter from Kahnt to you dated 29 August 1944 in which he asks you, under paragraph 3, whether the typhus epidemic prevailing in Natzweiler is connected with the vaccine research. Having read Rose's testimony, I suppose you remember that he stated that he also sponsored this letter signed by Kahnt and, as a matter of fact, had drafted a somewhat longer letter to you on this subject.
I am asking you now how Rose and Kahnt could possibly have thought that your vaccine research in Natzweiler had anything to do with the epidemic.
A. I cannot say what motives these gentlemen had. I assume that for reasons of precaution they asked me this question. However, let me remark that a great number of the first cases of the disease did not come from the camp itself but from outside, from outside camps which did not have any hospitals of their own, so that the Natzweiler camp had to concentrate the treatment of all sick persons in itself.
There can be no connection between this and my vaccinations because, first, while the vaccinations were being given, the vaccinated persons did not come into contact with the other inmates; and secondly, they were completely free of lice; and thirdly, transmission of typhus is possible only during the period of incubation and in the very first days of the disease. Since no typhus cases occurred among those vaccinated, I believe this problem is solved. These were exclusively spontaneous cases of typhus that broke out.
Q. You say that your vaccinated persons did not come in contact with any of the other inmates. I assume you are speaking of the persons vaccinated by you in December of 1943 and January of 1944, is that right?
A. Those are the people I am talking about, yes.
Q. And where were they confined?
A. They were accommodated in the hospital, as I believe I have already said at another time.
Q. You had 40 in one room and 40 in another room?
A. There were 80 in all who, as I remember, were all accommodated in one barracks.
Q. And how long were they confined?
A. Until I had tested the serological reaction and ascertained the degree of immunity.
Q. And when was that?
A. I cannot give you the precise date, of course, since I have no documents here, but I should say it was at the most four weeks after the vaccinations.
Q. Well, in other words, certainly during the month of February you completed that?
A. I could have been January or it could have been February.
Q. Now, going back to this inquiry of Kahnt, as I understand your testimony, you don't know why they asked you this question and you can't think of any reason other than precaution, is that so?
A. It think they did it for reasons of caution, yes.
Q. Now, Rose said that he thought your vaccine might have suddenly become virulent or pathogenic for human action and cause cases of typhus. That is ridiculous, is it not?
A. That is not ridiculous, but the fact that no typhus cases occurred proves that this was not the case.
Q.- Well, you reported to the Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe and to Herr Rose that you had carried out these vaccinations and you gave them the results of your test, did you not?
A.- I issued a report in the form of a manuscript, as I described it yesterday.
Q.- And you of course reported in this manuscript that there were no cases of illness, and you gave the results of your vaccination tests and reported, I suppose, that they were successful; is that right?
A.- That's right.
Q.- You did all of this before June, 1944? didn't you, Professor?
A.- I can 't tell you the date for sure, but it is in the documents here, and I think it was May. It could have been June when this manuscript was submitted.
Q.- At least they had it before they wrote you this letter on 29 August 1944? and I ask you again how any reasonable person could write you and ask you if your tests had caused an epidemic in Natzweiler when they already had your report in hand that your vaccine experiments had been successful and that there were no illnesses, and I state again to you, it is a little ridiculous that Roas would state on the stand that he thought your typhus vaccine had become pathogenic. If you vaccinated these persons in January, completed your examination in February, and made a report in May or June, how is it that somebody can testify that he thought your vaccine had become pathogenic and possibly had something to do with an epidemic?
A.- Mr. Prosecutor, I have already told you that no single case of typhus occurred in those who had been vaccinated -
Q.- Just a minute, Professor. I am not accusing you of having started the epidemic at Natzweiler. I am asking you how Rose and Kahnt and the Chief of the Luftwaffe could write you a letter in August 1944 asking you any such question as that when you had already reported to them about your vaccine tests in Natzweiler. They had already been through for five months.
How could they write you and ask you about such a thing as this?
A.- Mr. Prosecutor, I have already said that I do not know their reasons and that the only explanation I can give is that these gentlemen were very cautious and careful and wanted me to confirm the fact that the epidemic bore no relationship to my vaccinations. I can give you no other explanation.
Q.- Let 's look at your letter in response of 19 September 1944; Document No. 132, Prosecution Exhibit 310, on page 99 of the English Document Book. In response to this rather startling inquiry and, at least to the Prosecution, unreasonable inquiry, if we assume the truth of what you have testified to here, you simply write back and state that you tests of the vaccines did not cause the epidemic. What reason can you give us for not having told them that you had conducted no vaccinations of any kind since January, 1944?
Q.- I probably put it this way, because in Document 309 there was no inquiry as to whether I had undertaken the second series of vaccinations, so I of course referred to the fact that we had carried out vaccinations and right here that there is no connection between the cases of typhus at Natzweiler and the examinations dealing with the typhus vaccine that is to be tested.
Q.- But, Herr Professor, I think you will agree that a reasonable person might draw the conclusion from Kahnt's letter to you of 29 August that they were under the impressions that you were still carrying out examinations of some sort in Natzweiler, examinations contemporaneous with the epidemic.
A.- However, no such investigations were carried out, and I do not know what could have given those gentlemen this impression. I think this can be seen simply from the fact that I did no reporting of any sort.
Q.- It didn't occur to you to tell them that their inquiry was baseless because, firstly, you hadn't conducted any vaccinations at Natz waiter since January, 1944, and, secondly, that in any event they certainly had no cause for alarm because you had no pathogenic virus to infect anybody if you had wanted to.
Why didn't you tell them that?
A.- I made my letter so brief as it is because the matter was so crystal clear to me that I didn't feel that any further explanations were necessary.
Q.- You have testified that General Stabsarzt Schroeder was in Strasbourg in the latter part of May, 1944. Didn't you tell him anything about this epidemic and give him to understand that if he had any fears about it that you work had nothing to do with it?
A.- When Professor Schroeder was with me in Strasbourg that was at the end of May. At that time he certainly knew nothing about this inquiry, which is dated August, and regarding such matters as had no connections with my vaccinations, there was no discussion. I can't imagine what interest Prof. Schroeder could have had in that epidemic in Natzweiler.
Q.- Well, we won't argue about that very much. It might have occurred to him that since there was an epidemic there, it was a good opportunity for you to test your vaccine. That seems reasonable, doesn't it?
A.- I said yesterday that i had no further opportunity to carry out vaccinations. Of course, I should have liked to immunize' the camp as soon as possible, that was my chief task but external circumstances prevented that.
Q.- You had enough vaccine in June, 1944, to ask for another 200 people. Why didn't you use that?
A.- Because I had no time. I explained that yesterday. Through the events of the war I was kept away from Strasbourg so much of the time that I had no time to carry out these vaccinations.
Q.- You don't remember the precise date in May on which Schroeder made his visit, do you?