A.- Let's say around the 25th of May.
Q.- And you did discuss with him your typhus vaccine work?
A.- I think wo talked about that, too, as far as I recall. But primarily we discussed the business of my acquiring experimental animals, and we discussed general scientific questions that might have interested Prof. Schroeder.
Q.- On the animals, do you use mice in carrying out laboratory experiments with Rickettsia prowazeki virus vaccine?
A.- No, for that you use guina pigs.
Q.- You use nice only with the murine vaccine?
A.- That's right.
Q.- Now, if you were carrying out preliminary laboratory tests with a vaccine preparatory to using it on human beings, what sort of experiments would you carry out on animals to satisfy yourself that it was safe to use this vaccine on human beings?
A.- This question is of such a technical nature, Mr. Prosecutor, that I am afraid that I cannot make it immediately clear to a layman. I believe we should have to discuss this with an expert. However, I shall make an effort to make it clear. In an animal you can carry out important investigations and observations. For example, you can observe the immunizing capacity of a vaccine and you can test it. The test for tolerability of the vaccine can only be carried out on human beings. That is a general fact, because the animals' reactions are entirely different from those of a human being. Permit me to give you an example. Let's take the variola vaccine, namely, the virus with which we vaccinate persons against smallpox. This vaccine virus causes in human beings only slight symptoms of illness. Every one of us, including you, Mr. Prosecutor, have been innoculated against smallpox several times and you know the typical symptoms, and if we take this vaccine, which is not dangerous and nonpathogenic for human beings and inject it into rabbits, they fall deathly ill, depending on how they are inoculated, If we rub this vaccine virus into the skin of the rabbits they suffer a very grave skin disease, of which they finally die, because the infection finally embraces their whole bodies.
If we inject the vaccine into their brains they fall ill of a very serious inflammation of the brain, and if we inject it at other places as for example in the testicles, they have other serious inflammations. Let us take the yellow fever virus, which is not dangerous for human beings. If we inject it into mice they die of inflammation of the brain. If we take the virus of psittacosis, which is a very dangerous virus, we observe the parrot has symptoms in his abdominal organs, but if the germ is given to a human being, his symptoms take place in the lungs and he gets a serious pneumonia. From all of these examples you can see that the affinity of the germ for the various species is quite different in the case of human beings and animals. Now that applies to the vaccinations in question. The last proof of the tolerability of a vaccine can only be carried out on a human being, and that is recognized in all science. Those are roughly the biological reasons.
Q I see. Really, I didn't ask you for the reason why. And while you have given us a very interesting talk for five minutes, you haven't told me how you determined in the case of your living virus vaccines that it was not going to kill the first person you innoculated with it; and I also suggest to you that -- and I think I am correct without being a technical expert -- that murine typhus and Rickettsia prowazeki are pathogenic both for animals and for human beings; and while there may be a difference in reaction, I might say to you that I would have some hesitancy in letting you vaccinate me with a living virus vaccine after you had innoculated a mouse or a guinea pig and they had died; I don't think that you could persuade me very rapidly that this laboratory test had simply proved that your virus vaccine was pathogenic for animals but you could guarantee me that it wasn't going to kill me. Do you get the point of my inquiry, Professor? I want to know how you satisfied yourself that you weren't going to seriously damage or kill some of these test persons by your laboratory experiments on animals?
A This final proof takes place by the first innoculations of volunteers. This is already the mutated virus which we test on volunteers, and in the case of prewazeki virus, I carried out the first innoculation on myself.
Q Professor, you must have satisfied yourself that even when you were using yourself as a test person that you weren't running a very large risk in killing yourself or putting yourself in bed for a few months. Now didn't you actually conduct some animal tests on mice and guinea, pigs from which you could draw some sort of conclusions bout this?
A That is very difficult, because during the mutation of the virus, the components that make it pathogenic for animals do not disappear. That was so in the other cases also, and however, we have no hesitation in vaccinating human beings with it. How, if after breeding the virus, I am persuaded that it has mutated and become attenuated and has become so it can be used for vaccinating, then I carried the vaccination further.
I vaccinate myself and others with it and ascertain its tolerability. If I ascertain in addition that it is not causing typhus, then proof of its efficacy has been proved.
Q Let me put just a hypothetical question to you. Suppose in the case of your Rickettsia prowazeki living vaccine, you vaccinated ten nice, or ten guinea pigs, and eight of them died. Now, would you walk out of the laboratory" and inject that vaccine into the first human being that walked along and said, "I volunteer"?
A I should like to answer that question hypothetically. If you see a laboratory experiment that mice or rabbits already innoculated with vaccine virus die, would you then have the courage to have yourself vaccinated with that virus? I think that is the best way that I can answer your hypothetical question, namely, with another hypothetical question.
Q Well, I didn't get any hypothetical answer. You put another question, and I will answer you, "No, I wouldn't let you vaccinate me with this vaccine, after I had seen you kill eight out of ten animals." And I want to ask you if in spite of that fact you would vaccinate somebody with it? What is the answer, yes or no?
A Yes, I would because I, as a specialist, would know the background and basis and pre-conditions for this whole business.
Q And you are satisfying yourself that the virus is sufficiently attenuated, that is based upon the mechanical calculations concerning the number of animals, passages cf virus, and statistical and mechanical calculations concerning, the length of storage of the vaccine, is that right?
A Yes, but I have to repeat that the final testing can only be carried out on human beings, and as I have already said, on myself and other volunteers, and that is the way it was done.
Q And animal experiments don't help you out in determining the dangerousness cf this new living vaccine?
AAnimal experiments in these diseases, whether they are small pox, typhus, yellow fever, or whatever -- animal experiments do not help us in achieving the final goal.
Q Tell us who Meier was again. What did he do for you?
A Meier was the inspector in the National Medical Research Institute and worked for me to this extent, as took care of the providing of laboratory animals. That was his main job. He also kept the accounts. That also was one of his main jobs.
Q He was killed in an air raid in 1944, was he not?
A Yes.
Q Has Meier in a position to know about your typhus experiments?
A No, because he was never in my laboratory. My dealings with him took place in my office, or in my outer office, or his office.
Q Your dealings with him didn't sufficiently concern the typhus experiments, really, for him to know what you were doing, is that right?
A No, he could act have known that under any circumstances.
Q On your vaccinations in Schirmeck again, as I understood it, those were just single vaccinations. You didn't carry out multiple vaccinations as you did in Natzweiler?
A That is so, and yesterday I told you the reasons.
Q You did not carry out the 1, 2, 3 vaccination series in Schirmeck?
A No, in Schirmeck I vaccinated only with the murine vaccine, because at the time my scientific knowledge hadn't progressed so far.
Q And you were all through with your vaccinations there in May 1943?
A May 1943, yes.
Q The Ibsen vaccine from Copenhagen about which the defendant Rose wrote to you was a murine vaccine, was it not?
A It was a dead murine vaccine, yes.
Q And it had already been tested for its compatability on human beings, had it not?
A I do not know how the Ibsen vaccine was tested, and do not know that well enough to be able to tell you any details about it. I myself have had no experience with that vaccine.
Q Well, you will recall that you got a letter from Rose on his trip to Copenhagen. This was apparently in the latter part of September, 1943, you remember that?
A Yes, yes.
Q And you will recall -- that is Rose Document No. 22. That is in Rose Document Book No. 2. I don't -- well he states in this letter, and I am quoting -- I will pass it up to you so your defense counsel won't object, and you can read it. I marked the passages on Pape 17 of the document book, and you can read it either in English, or I suggest that you read it in English and they can translate it into German. It appears in English there.
A You want me to read paragraph 4?
Q I want you to read the paragraph I marked in pencil on pages 17 and 18.
A. Yes. "The testing of the vaccine on human beings has heretofore caused no more serious reactions than were expected. In view of the experiments so far with such a strong concentration, the reactions correspond practically to those in the case of the four vaccines that were used in the Wehrmacht. Nevertheless in animal experiments, the liver vaccine proved itself vastly superior to the lung vaccine; whereas the lung vaccine when tested proved itself..." There must be a typographical error here.
Q Can you read it in English?
A "When tested white, w-h-i-t-e."
Q That must be a mistake. Just continue reading, I don't think that is the important part anyway. Did you read the part where Rose said, on page 18, that something to the effect about the efficacy of the vaccine?
A "Only if it has been tested first, which proved its efficacy by improvement in the mortality rate, and the liver vaccine if used in a similar way, protection is 100%; 30 vaccinated mice survived without exception, whereas 30 trial cases died without exception. We have had no extended experience regarding the efficacy of the liver vaccine in human beings. Two members of the laboratory staff contracted laboratory infections purposely with the Rickettsia-prowazeki, which led to very mild cases, and could only be subsequently ascertained by serological examinations."
Q That is quite sufficient. Now Rose told you, in effect, in this report, that the compatibility of this vaccine had been tested on human beings and that it had no stronger reactions than were expected and compared in that connection with the Wehrmacht vaccines in use; and he went on to show some interest in the question of the immunity or efficacy of the vaccine in warding off the disease of typhus, did he not, professor?
A First of all, I do not recall ever having had this report. It is possible, out I cannot remember. If I understand your question correctly, you are referring to the laboratory infections, are you not?
Q No, I am just trying to establish the fact and get you to admit it - I do not think it is so terribly important - that we weren't concerned with compatibility questions in connection with the Ibsen vaccine. As Rose tells you in the report, its compatibility was all right. It compared with the 4 Wehrmacht vaccines in use. He goes on to talk about the efficacy of the vaccine, meaning its anti-infectious properties. That is what he was interested in, wasn't it?
A That I cannot tell you. I cannot tell you what interested him. From the letter that I received I cannot see that. When I look at this document I see primarily its information on immunizing properties as regards mice.
Q Whether you know about it or not, didn't you, in fact, propose that you would carry out infection experiments with the Ibsen vac cine?
Didn't you tell Rose that you might do that?
A No. I never wanted to carry out any sort of infection experiments in connection with the Ibsen vaccine - never had that idea.
DR. MCHANEY: If defense counsel has sufficiently perused the document I was about to put to the witness earlier, I would like to do so at this point.
DR. TIPP: I have perused the document sufficiently and have no objections to Mr. McHaney putting it now to the witness.
Q Now, Herr Professor, do you find a Series of extracts under the letter 3-B? I think that is on the right hand side of the page 3-B. Now the first one of the Series of 3 which have a pencil checkmark to the left - the date, as you will see is very faint on the photostat but it reads 23 November 1943 -- that is the first extract which I have checked in that series of extracts and I would like for you to read that aloud.
A "In addition there is the experimental series that is to begin in the next few days which makes special demands in view of the medical activities that will take place then."
DR. TIPP: I have some misgivings about the formal admissibility of this document. If the Tribunal will look at the document it will see that from a document, without any inter-connection between them, individual sentences have been taken out and made into a new document. In my opinion, both the witness, who must answer questions about it, and the defense, have a right to see the whole document. He just read a passage that you heard and, as you have observed it, it is completely arbitrary for the prosecution to assume that this new research series, the Ahnenerbe research institute in Natzweiler, has anything to do with typhus experimentation. There is nothing to that effect in that sentence. We know from other documents that, let us say, Hirt or Bickenbach, at a time that we do not know, carried out a whole series of experiments in Natzweiler. In my opinion that document is admissible as evidence only if it is self explanatory, that is, if the sentences which the prosecutor is going to discuss state exactly what experiments are being referred to.
If I were to tell Mr. McHaney that these were Hirt experiments that were discussed in the sentences, I do not think he could prove the opposite. I believe that the document, in the way it is about to be put in, does not meet the rules of documentary evidence such as have been observed heretofore in this Tribunal. If the document is to be admitted, then let the whole document be admitted, but not just a few sentences that have been torn from their context and which are not comprehensible in themselves. Therefore I object to the admission of this document unless the document from where these sentences were taken is put in as a whole.
MR. McHANEY: I think there is a remote possibility that if I am permitted to put a few questions to the witness he will admit that those extracts pertain to his work. I have been trying to do that for about 30 minutes. These extracts here, I think, the witness may very well concede, concern his experiments.
THE PRESIDENT: May I ask the witness if he is aware whether or not that extract just read refers to any particular experiment and if so, what experiment?
A This is a note of 25 October 1942.
Q I did not ask you to road that one. I want you to read the next one and then tell the Tribunal whether it has reference to your activities in Natzweiler - the one immediately under that - the first one checked.
A Then the second paragraph. "At the examination which the professor carrying out the experiment conducted, only 14 gypsies could be found who were suitable. The number of gypsies affected with scabies could be reduced to 4. General measures to improve the general situation are under way." Isn't that the paragraph you mean?
Q Yes; and is the date - very faint on the photostatic copy is the date 25 November 1943?
A That is probably connected with the first group of 100 gypsies who have been mentioned in the documents here.
Q That is what I thought, professor, so this reference which reads "Only 14 gypsies were found fit during the examination by the professor directing the experiments" -- that concerns the 100 gypsies you got in the latter part of November 1943, doesn't it, professor?
A I am not 100% sure whether this has reference to me or someone else but if I am right, this is the group that I declared not suitable for vaccination.
Q Now will you read the next one? This is dated 1 February 1944. It is the very next one which is checked in pencil.
A I first have to find out whether I am able to read it. Yes. "On 12 November 1943 gypsies from Auschwitz were made available for the Ahnenerbe Experimental Station; after subsequent medical examination they were dismissed from the experimental station as unsuitable. Instead of them, on 12 December 1943, another 80...." or 89, - I cannot read this - ...."persons were made available from Auschwitz. Experiments are not yet under way." Shall I continue?
Q I am lost at that point but does that excerpt you read apparently apply to your second group?
A That is possible. This is simultaneous with my vaccinations.
Q Now do you find one there dated 1 February 1944 where it said "Experiments at the Ahnenerbe Experimental Station are still not under way. 1 of the 89 human experimental prisoners died with pleura empyemia during the period covered by the report; 40 gypsies received prophylactic innoculations for a typhus experiment." Is that the way it reads?
A Yes. That is the last sentence and certainly refers to my vaccinations. Whether the first sentence also does, that I cannot tell you. At any rate, the person who died of pleura empyemia can not have belonged to that group.
Q You say that they didn't....You don't think that the 40 gypsies who received the prophylactic innoculations for typhus oxperi ments were part of the 89 mentioned in the same paragraph?
A I cannot say that for sure because I do not know what sort of prisoners arrived at Natzweiler from Auschwitz; but so far as the time element is concerned, there could be some connection. This sentence that mentions somebody who died of pleura empyemia, however, makes me wonder a bit. That could not have had anything to do with my vaccinations. The last sentence is tho one that refers to typhus vaccinations.
Q Will you read the next excerpt which is checked?
A That is 22 March 1944? "As stated in the last official report, after 2 typhus vaccinations in the experimental station Ahnenerbe there took place the actual typhus vaccination, after which temperature measurements and blood analysis were carried out."
Q Doesn't it say, actually, "As already reported in the last monthly report, the typhus innoculation proper was now performed at the Ahnenerbe Experimental Station after a two-fold prophylactic typhus innoculation? It doesn't say the third one was a typhus vaccination, does it, professor? Does he use the word "impfungen" there?
A: Yes, it does - "the third and actual typhus vaccination was followed by taking of temperature and blood analysis."
Q: You contend that this third one was still another vaccination and not an innoculation of infection with typhus?
A: No, that was not an infection with typhus. In the course of my examination here, I have explained that at great length and explained why it couldn't have been.
Q: Now, did this extract apply to your experiments?
A: (N.T.) The expression "prophilactic vaccinations" as far as I know.
DR. TIPP: Mr. President, regarding the formal aspect of this document, something occurs to me. Mr. McHaney doesn't notice this because he can't follow the German interpretation and can't analyze the German document but this is a German document and there is mention in it of a "Typhus Impfung," typhoid vaccination. The German word for typhus is not "typhus" but "Fleckfieber" whereas the English word "typhus" me as typhus. If that is an original German document written by a German, I cannot understand how all of a sudden in such a document there is mention of using the word "Typhoid fever" and not the word "Fleckfieber." I don't know. that I have made this exactly clear. Since there is difficulty besides in the German language, perhaps we could see the English translation. The German original document is completely nonsensical for a German who understands German. The word used here is the word used for typhoid fever and not the word for typhus.
MR. MCHANEY: This witness after all, is supposed to be the greatest expert in the world, I understand, and he has conceded that the first tracts he read which are in the German language applies to his experiments. If he warts to quarrel about the language in them, he is at liberty to do so, but I would rather he would do it under redirect than now.
THE PRESIDENT: I didn't understand that the witness made the direct admission of that which you state.
The Tribunal will new be in recess.
During this recess period the document will be studied, and the Tribunal is not yet advised as to the history of this document or there it came from -- we haven't seen it -- or there it was found; or it's history as far as this trial is concerned.
The Tribunal will now be in recess.
(Whereupon a recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel:
DR. GAWLIK: For the Defendant, Hoven.
Mr. President, I did not ask for the defendant Hoven today but for day before yesterday in the afternoon and he was excused and I talked to him.
THE PRESIDENT: That was my mistake. My recollection was at fault, counsel, very well.
MR. McHANEY: Does the Tribunal wish a short statement about the origin of the document which has been put to the witness?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, if the matter is to be the subject of further interrogation by all means.
MR. McHANEY: I will pass up to the Tribunal document No. NO-807, which was introduced as Prosecution Exhibit 185. This was in effect an exhibit which was prepared by French authorities and consists primarily of pictures made in the anatomical institute at Strasbourg by the French after that city was captured and shows certain bodies which were found in the basement of the building of the anatomical institute, and it is contended by the Prosecution and supported by the evidence I think that these pictures are those of the so-called skeleton collection being assembled by Hirt. Following the pictures in this album are various other exhibits which are a part of the same document and consist of various things. I think Your Honor has opened the page now with which we are concerned. Do you find the sheet marked 3-B?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
Mr.McHANEY: 3-B consists of a photostatic copy of extracts taken from German records purportedly captured in Natzweiler. Those are single paragraphs taken from different monthly reports made by the camp doctor in Natzweiler. The extracts taken from these documents which appear in this exhibit purport to be subject matter dealing with experiments in Natzweiler, and my questions have been directed to the witness to ascertain whether or not those extracts apply to his typhus work in Natzweiler.
The difficulty which has arisen was occasioned by the unfortunate ommission on the part of the translation department to translate those extracts which are a part of this exhibit which has been admitted and also their failure to type them in the mimeograph copy which were distributed to defense counsel, that has occasioned an element of surprise to Dr. Tipp and other defense counsel which is unfortunate.
THE PRESIDENT: You will see that there is a complete translation made and furnished?
Mr. McHANEY: Yes, I will, Your Honor. Now there are a number of different extracts there and I was in the process of proceeding down them one by one and asking the witness whether they apply to his experiments.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
BY Mr.McHANEY:
Q.- Professor, I think we had agreed that the extract under the date 25 November 1943, which reads: "Only 14 gypsies were found fit during the examination by the Professor directing the experiments. The number of scabies infected gypsies was reduced to four by intensive scabies treatment. Further measures are taken for raising the general state of health." Now Professor, don't you think that this excerpt from the doctor's reports in Natzweiler applied to the first group of 100 persons who were made available for vaccination and which you found to be unsuitable?
A.- I have already said, Mr. McHaney, that the dates agree more or less, but as other work was carried on in Natzweiler I cannot say for certain whether by coincidence there were the same conditions in some other group. I said yesterday that of the first 100 persons who were presented to me I believe 18 had died on the way and the rest who were presented to me in Natzweiler, I gave them a medical examination and discovered that they were out of the question for vaccination.
They did not conform to the German legal qualifications but whether that is identival with the group we had I cannot say, of course.
Q.- Very well, now the second excerpt to which I directed your attention was dated the 24 December, 1943. In other words, approximately one month later than the excerpt which I have just put to you, the excerpt of the 24 December, 1943, reads as fellows: "The gypsies transferred on 12 February, 1943, from Auschwitz concentration camp to the Ahnenerbe experimental station were again released from the experimental station, having been found unsuitable in a strict medical examination. On 12 December, 1943, 89 other gypsies were transferred from Auschwitz camp as replacements." Do you think that this extract applies to the second group of experimental test persons received by you for vaccination?
A.- Here again I can't say definitely whether this refers to the persons whom I vaccinated. As far as the date goes it seems very probable and I see no reason why I shouldn't admit the possibility.
Q.- Now, the third extract is the one dated Natzweiler 1 February, 1944, and it reads: "Experiments at the Ahnenerbe experimental station are still not under way. One of the 89 human experimental prisoners, gypsies, died with Pleura epyemia during the period covered by this report. 40 gypsies received prophylactic innoculations for a typhus experiment." Does that extract apply to your typhus vaccination?
A.- From this extract I gather in the last sentence that 40 gypsies were vaccinated for a typhus experiment, that is what it says in German. The date agrees again. It says that I carried out the vaccinations before the 1st of February because this report apparently was written on the 1st of February.
Q.* Now, the next extract in which there may be a translation difficulty or a mistake on the port of the camp doctor is dated March 8, 1944, and reads: "As already reported in the last monthly report the typhus innoculation proper was now performed at the Ahnenerbe experimental station after a two-fold prophylactic typhus innoculation.
Subsequently temperature is checked daily and blood analysis effected regularly." Now, first, does that extract apply to your typhus vaccinations and secondly, did you have any difficulty with the usage of the German words in that extract? I call your attention to the use of the word "Typhus Impfung", and I am suggesting to you it really refers to your typhus vaccination, although I recognize that a strict translation might indicate typhoid vaccination.
A.- I was so confused with the English and German before that I accepted this word typhus as typhus, but if we look at the report I notice the German text, itself says "40 gypsies were vaccinated for a typhus experiment."
That is the first thing I noticed. The second thing is that certainly the camp doctor doesn't know, he writes twice in the last paragraph vaccination for typhus Impfung, which really means typhoid.
One might make that mistake once but twice seems to be improbable. The important thing in the last paragraph seems to me that he is speaking about innoculation and to a German practicing physician like Dr. Krieger, that is synonomous with vaccination.
The third thing I notice in considering this document, it is supposed to be a medical report but it is signed by the camp doctor of the concentration camp Natzweiler, and then there is a signature which is Kramer, who was an SS Hauptsturmfuehrer, and as far as I know Dr. Krieger was a sturmbannfuehrer at that time and this signature cannot be read as Dr. Krieger's. It looks like Kramer.
Q Well, Kramer might make a mistake in writing "typhus Impfung" when he really meant "Fleckfieber Impfung", might he not?
A I don't think it's likely. He would never convuse typhoid and typhus but as it says on the document then SS-Hauptsturmfuehrer Kramer didn't sign it. If the camp doctor had signed it, it would be Dr. Krieger.
Q Do you know of any typhoid inoculations or experiments in the Natzweiler Concentration Camp around this time?
A I knew nothing about it - that typhoid experiments were carried out. But, I know that in 1944 there was a typhoid epidemic in Natzweiler. That's all I know about it.
Q Do you know that your experiments were carried out in the Ahnenerbe Experimental Station?
A No, I don't know that and I don't know why it is called the Ahnenerbe here. I know nothing at the time about the Ahnenerbe or any connections that Hirt may have had with the Ahnenerbe. They were not carried out at the experimental station as such but in the hospital barracks.
Q Did you ever see Hirt in Natzweiler?
A No, I never saw him.
Q Did you know there was an Ahnenerbe Experimental Station in Natzweiler?
A No, I didn't know that.
Q Then you can't exclude the possibility that the place where you carried out your vaccinations was known also as the Ahnenerbe experimental station, can you?
A That I cannot say. It was the general hospital.
Q Now, I want to call your attention to one more extract on the document which you have. It's up or the same page, up on the upper part of the page under II b. Do you find that?
A II b, yes.
Q And you will see that the authorities who prepared this exhibit translated a paragraph from another monthly report by the camp doctor at Natzweiler from the German into French.
And you have before you an extract from a report of the camp doctor dated 30 June 1944. It is written in French. Do you read French well enough to translate that?
A Yes, I think so. It is a monthly report of the 30 June 1944 by the camp doctor. IV. Miscellaneous - the experimental section. During the period of the report experiments were carried out on 16 gypsies, 3 deaths were recorded.
Q Does that extract apply to your experiments in Natzweiler?
A No, it does not refer to my vaccinations in Natzweiler. It is a report of June. We carried out our vaccinations in December and January 1943 and 1944 and no one died.
Q All right, Professor. Let's turn to another document. Now, Professor you had testified in connection with my questions concerning the Ipsen vaccine that you never proposed to Rose that you would carry out tests on his Ipsen vaccine that he had sent to you or was suggesting that he would sent to you. You also testified that you did not conduct any vaccinations in Schirmeck after May 1943. I am putting to you document NO-2874 which is a letter dated 4 October 1943 directed to Oberstarzt Professor Dr. Rose and I ask you if this letter originated from you?
A May I first read the document?
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has not received German copies of this document.
BY HR. McHANEY:
Q Did you send this letter to the defendant Rose, Professor?
A The letter does not bear my signature. I cannot say whether the letter came from me but I remember that I corresponded with Professor Rose about the Ipsen vaccine and I assume that the letter is authentic.
Q You assume that the letter came from you?
A Yes, I assume so but I cannot say for certain. It does not bear my signature.
Q I offer this as Prosecution Exhibit 520 for identification. Let's read a little part of this letter, Professor. Let's turn to page 2 in the paragraph beginning at the top of that page. You speak of the report of Rose about the Ipsen vaccine. About the middle of that paragraph you state "As you know already from my reports, we used already unphenolized yolk-sack cultures for the production of vaccine. I already reported to you the numeral results of experiments on human beings. The Serum titer is considerably higher, also after a single vaccination, in comparison with 3 times vaccinations with deactivated vaccines. I regret that it was not possible so far to perform infectious experiments on the vaccinated persons; I requested the Ahnenerbe of the SS to provide suitable persons for vaccination, but did not receive an answer as yet. The are now performing a further vaccination of human beings; I shall report later about the result. I guess we will then have reached the point to be able to recommend our new vaccine to be introduced, for the time being without infectious experiments." Now, Professor, first I would like to observe that you used the word experiments yourself in this letter to Rose, didn't you?
A Yes, that's right. I had no misgivings about that. I often said that tests for comparison, etc., as long as a procedure is not definitely decided upon can be called experiments.
Q But, you have also insisted to this Tribunal that use of the word experiment in connection with what you did is a complete misnomer. Now you used the word experiments in connection with your work in Schirmeck, didn't you, Professor?
A I said expressly in the examination that in a certain sense one can speak of experiments but not in the interpretation the word is given hero in this trial.
Q Well, be that as it may. We will proceed a little bit. Now you say "I regret that it was not possible so far to perform infectious experiments on the vaccinated persons." Now hero you are telling Prof essor Rose that you really meant that you hadn't performed another vaccination on the vaccinated persons.