A How were we to know that?
Q Then, it can't be recorded here that the vaccinations were performed during the incubation period.
A No, of course not.
Q Then again, witness, if I understood you correctly, you mean that this record could not have been made by a scientifically trained assistant.
A No, we didn't have the material for that.
Q Then, if we assume hypothetically that this entry is correct assuming that you really knew that the people were infected with typhus, assuming that you knew they were vaccinated during the incubation period --1 go on -- thirteen became sick in the period from 29 May to 9 June; of those, two died; after four weeks the others had the following titer. Assume that this entry is true. Can it be determined whether the people died, the people who were already in the incubation period, whether they died from the vaccinations or from the real typhus which they had already contracted previously. Can one see that here?
A Thirteen became sick in the period 29 May to 9 June. This does not show clearly when the incubation period was. We would have to consider the incubation period here. It is only stated that the first apparently became sick on the 29 of May, and the vaccinations were on the 25th of May, 1944. It is also said that these people wore already in the incubation period. Even assuming it as a hypothetical answer, merely assuming that we vaccinated in the incubation period, it cannot be determined whether it was a spontaneous case of the disease or whether it was an infection after the vaccination.
Q And can you see from this record, Professor, whether these alleged deaths was the result of the disease or the result of the vaccination?
A No, that is not clear. No date is given; I can't find any date as to when they died.
Q Note the last sentence, Professor: "After four weeks the other eleven had titer......" . hat does the photostat say?
A It looks to me like the other 17, after four weeks, had titer 9 or G, I don't know what that is, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Nine. That moans a total who had titer: three, 1:100; one, 1:200; one, 4:100. That makes four. Three, 1:.... ---. I can't read that, but it must be less than a thousand.
Professor, perhaps I can help you with tho copy. Tho copy I have reads as follows:
"The other 11, after four weeks, had the following titer: Nine had no titer. Three had a titer of 1:100." That makes twelve. "One had a titer of 1:200." That makes thirteen. "One, 1:400." That makes fourteen. "Two, 1:800." That makes sixteen. That means, of the remaining 11, 16 had the following titer.
A I don't agree with you on the figures. I read, that as 17. And as to the last one, I would say that was 3. That would make 17 altogether. However, the important thing is very low titer, which indicates neither a real typhus injection nor a vaccination with a living vaccine.
Q Then you say the formulation in tho titer values does not agree with your scientific experience and your knowledge of tho personality of Miss Crodell? Is that correct?
A Yes, that is correct. This record is in such a form that it would not conform with laboratory experiments. If we have typhus patients and the agglutination titer is calculated, the values are much, much higher. Everyone who has ever worked with typhus know that, everyone who knows titer values.
However, if of 17 persons nine --- even if some had been vaccinated -- had no titer and the other eight had an average titer of one to one nine four, that is very unlikely, to say the least.
Q Witness, you say that on the 25th of May, 1944, you did not perform any vaccinations at Natzweiler. Is that right?
A Yes, that is right.
Q Second, you say the entry itself shows that this is not correct, that it was not made by an export.
A Yes. that is right.
Q Now, witness, this morning Mr. McHaney put another entry to you from this document which refers to a Mr. Meyer. This part of the document is not in the Gorman copy; I don't know whether the Tribunal has it, I believe not.
Would you please tell us, witness, in what connection is the name "Meyer" mentioned in this document?
AAfter the name Meyer I read "Oekonom"; that would be an administrative official. Mr. Meyer was an administrative official in the Medical Testing Institution, and I said, that he had no connection with our scientific work. The prosecutor showed me the document and had me confirm that it was addressed to Mr. Meyer, but he did not give me an opportunity to make any explanation. This is a list of serological tests of tho blood of sick persons which was sent to us. This was the test of the Medical Testing Institution. According to tho epidemic laws, such tests had to be made by the Testing Institution and registered, because reports were sent to the health officers about contagious diseases.
We had to make those serological tests of the typhus cases, and then on this list we gave tho figures, and a list of results was also sent down. Then later we got back the money for the Medical Testing Institution.
Institution.
This is a financial matter and not a scientific experiment in any sense, as the prosecutor no doubt assumed. He meant to indicate that I was in contact with Mr. Meyer in that connection.
Q Well, Professor, if I understand you correctly you say that you told Hr. Meyer the number of tests made. He was the administrator who was in charge of the money and he was to collect the money; is that right?
A Yes? Mr. Meyer was in charge of the office of the Medical Testing Institution. He registered all the tests and he obtained the necessary funds.
Q Now, witness, by way of precaution, another question. You said that neither in October 1943 in Schirmeck nor in Hay 1944 in Schirmeck did you carry out vaccinations. Now, this morning the prosecutor spoke to you about this ominous "S" in the entry of the 25th of Hay 1944. and drew the conclusion that this "S" meant Schroeder. Now tell me, witness, when Schroeder visited Strassbourg did he go to Natzweiler with you?
A No, he did not go to Natzweiler with me; he was in Strassbourg only a few hours. As far as I can recall, ho arrived about noon and left in the evening. I believe the train for Karlsruhe left at 7:19. I often used the same train. First of all, he ate lunch? second, ho visited my institute? third, he visited the surgical clinic? fourth, he inspected the general installations of the hospital? fifth, he ate supper with me. Therefore, there was no time at all to go out to Natzwciler. If we deduct the meal times, he had about three or four hours, which he spent inspecting the institute and the clinic, and so forth. He also visited the car clinic, I forgot that before, I was present myself.
Q Now be careful, witness. You said this morning to the prosecutor tha.t it was about the 25th. Professor Schroeder happens to know where he was on the 25th of May? it was at some birthday party. Perhaps Court No. I, Case I (Int.
von Schon) I will submit an affidavit on that subject later.
Can you remember that it was on the 25th, or night it have been on tho 26th or the 27th that Schroeder visited you?
A It might have been the 24th, 25th, 26th, or 27th, I don't know. In any case, it was the end of May. It might have been on the 25th, I don't know.
Q Now, Professor, my final question. Yesterday in your direct examination you said that you submitted two papers for publication. Is that correct?
A Yes.
Q Now, can you turn to document book 12, document NO-128? It is a letter headed "Medical Academy of the Luftwaffe, Instruction Group, Science and Research, 7 July 1944", page 95. Subject: "Approval of tho memorandum of Oberstabsarzt Professor Dr. Haagen and B. Crodell: Experiments with a new dried typhus vaccine, second report."
That is at page 95 in the English, 97 in the German. I repeat. Subject: "Approval of the memorandum of Oberstabsarzt Professor Dr. Haagen and B. Crodell: Experiments with a new dried typhus vaccine, second report."
Is it correct, Professor, if I assume that this second report was the last one?
A Yes.
Q The work approved on the 7th of July, 1944. We don't have that, but from document NO-123 we can see when you sent the paper in. That is your letter to tho SS Main Office through Dr. Hirt on 9 May 1944, page 88:
"I enclose herewith a carbon copy of a paper on our experiments with typhus vaccine. The paper was sent as a manuscript to tho Chief of the Luftwaffe Medical Service with the request for permission to publish it."
Professor, the paper mentioned in tho document of 9 May 1944, is that tho second report mentioned in the document of the 7th of July?
A Yes.
Q Then, on the 9th of May, 1944, you had only finished this report. This paper was sent as a final report to the Medical Inspectorate. This could not have included the vaccinations of the 25th of May 1944 recorded in this report here, not even if they had been performed. Is that correct?
A Yes.
Q Did you ever send reports to the Medical Inspectorate or report in any way about deaths?
A No; I was not able to report any deaths, because there were no deaths.
DR. TIPP: Thank you. No further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Any other defense counsel any questions to propound to this witness?
BY DR. FRITZ (For Defendant Rose)
Q. Professor, I have only one question in connection with the question put to you this morning by the Prosecutor. Is it not correct that in the case of living vaccine the question has often been discussed whether the non-pathogenic germs can become virulent again? I may remind you of a discussion which took place on the occasion of the Luebeck disaster, the tuberculosis vaccinations.
A. This question can be answered with several examples. For example, variola vaccine virus. For 150 years ago it was adapted to the calf and never changed again to become pathogenic to human beings and produce true smallpox, a second example is hydrophobia, a living vaccine obtained from rabbits is used. I am not aware of any person contracting hydrophobia from vaccination. A third example is the yellow fever vaccine which is produced by various procedures and has no doubt been used in millions of vaccinations. It has not been observed that it has reverted and became pathogenic to human beings, .and as fares we have any experience with living, attenuated typhus vaccine from literature, I cm thinking of the experiments, or rather vaccinations of Blanc, one cannot speak of any mutation. As a scientist, to be quite honest, I have nothing to conceal. I admit that our experience is not great enough yet. One must have millions of vaccinations before one can take the responsibility for this decision. To explain, a decision of the Reich Ministry of the Interior, I believe it was in 1934, was discussed a great deal in Germany at the time whether compulsory vaccination would be abolished or whether a different type of vaccination should be introduced, that is, tissue culture vaccine. The Ministry was of the point of view we know tho old vaccine. It has been used in billions of cases, but we do net yet know, even though many vaccinations have been performed what may develop from this vaccine. That is, I think, against either myself or any other scientists.
I say quite openly that we are here quite openly at the limit of our knowledge.
Q From your answer I conclude , Professor, that you concede that it is not absurd for an expert to discuss the possibility of a germ becoming pathogenic for human beings again.
A Yes, that can be discussed, of course. In practice I know nothing positive about it.
DR. FRITZ: No further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there questions by any other defense counsel? Apparently there are none.
RECROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. MC HANEY:Professor, a hypothetical question.
If one innoculates two persons of similar physical ability and health, one with 1/2 cc. of vaccine, by inter-muscular or intravenous injection and the other by 1/2 cc by scarification, in which person would you expect there to be the more serious reaction to the vaccination?
A You said if one vaccinated two people, and I didn't quite understand with vaccine? Would you mind repeating what you said? Intramuscularly and intravenously, you said. And a third person -
Q Let's start again, Professor. We have two persons. We vaccinate one with 1/2 cc of typhus vaccine and just for simplicity we will make it your typhus vaccine, by injection. The other person we vaccinate with the same vaccine and the same quantity, namely, 1/2 cc by scarification. In which of these two persons would you expect the stronger reaction?
A If we inject 1/2 cc. of the vaccine intramuscularly, we know exactly the amount which has been introduced, but if as you say, Mr. Prosecutor, we introduce 1/2 cc. by scarification, I must tell you that that is not a quantitative vaccination. Only very small quantities of the vaccine are used in scarification. It is a superficial method.
It doesn't even bleed. It is in the epidermis, and 1/2 cc. can't be introduced that way.
Q Then you can't answer my hypothetical question?
A If you insist on 1/2 cc. I cannot answer the question.
Q Let's change the quantity to one which you could introduce by scarification.
A If we vaccinate by scarification we can expect that the effect of the vaccination will be the same as if we inject subcutaneously or intramuscularly.
Q In other words, the method of applying the vaccine would have no effect on the reaction of the person vaccination.
A It is again a hypothetical answer. You asked a hypothetical question. It can be assumed that the reactions will be the same.
Q I understood your testimony on direct examination yesterday that in your group of 40 test persons in Natzweiler, the first and second vaccination; is that correct?
A That the scarification vaccination was reaction after intramuscular injection? Did I understand you?
Q No, Now I am asking you about the quantity of vaccine, and I understood your testimony to be that you gave them a larger quantity of your vaccine in the first two vaccinations by injection than you gave them on the last vaccination by scarification; am I correct?
A Yes, that's right.
Q This was the same vaccine used for the three vaccinations?
A It was the same vaccine for the three vaccinations; yes.
Q It is very clear. Thank you. Now I will pass up again Document NO 3852, Prosecution Exhibit 521 for identification.
DR. TIPP: Mr. President, I object to the use of this document. This morning Mr. McHaney concluded his cross examination. I believe in re-examination he can only go into questions developing out of the redirect examination. I don't believe he can bring up new questions and new documents.
THE PRESIDENT: Just what document is this? I understand this has been under considerable discussion all afternoon.
DR. TIPP: I beg your pardon. I misunderstood the number.
THE PRESIDENT: Am I correct, counsel?
MR. MC HANEY: Yes. This is the notebook on the -
THE PRESIDENT: We have taken considerable time on that.
MR. HC HANEY: Yes. I am about to conclude right now.
BY MR. MC HANEY:
Q Will you turn to page 3? Do you find the entry for 14 May?
A 14-5.
Q 14 May, yes.
A The second entry, yes.
Q And you see in parenthesis two weeks?
A Yes.
Q That means the period of time this vaccine had been stored, namely, dating from 30 April 1943, doesn't it?
A Yes. I can assume that.
Q And for 26 May four weeks means that it is four weeks it has been stored, is that correct?
A That must be right, according to the dates.
Q And for October 43, parenthesis six months, that is six months dating from roughly the first of May, isn't it?
A That's right. It says six months, yes.
Q If you drop down to the next entry which reads 27 January 1943, parentheses 9 months, that is nine months dated from the first of May 1943, isn't it, Professor?
A That's right, yes.
Q So that indicates quite clearly that Miss Crodell had that same failing which most of us do have and carried over the date of the old year during the first month of the new year, isn't that right, professor?
A Yes, but afterwards there is an entry, 27 January, 1944, and it says 9 and 8 months. That's right.
Q But she did make a mistake at that time, isn't that correct, doctor?
A I don't know. I can't see that from the document. There are so many inaccuracies in here that I can't be definite about anything in this document.
MR. MC HANEY: No further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Now that we have referred to that document again, there are apparently differences between the English and the German. Under the entry on page 4, 14 May 1943 there is an omission indicated by a question mark in the English, while there are the figures 7.5 in the German. And in the last paragraph of the document which has been under discussion it seems that there are some words in the German which have no equivalent in the English. I might be wrong about that, as I am not familiar with German, but I wish those translations to be checked and the English and German compared.
MR. MC HANEY: We shall do that.
THE PRESIDENT: Any further examination of this witness?
The witness is excused from the stand.
The Tribunal will now be in recess until 0930 o'clock tomorrow Saturday morning.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is now in recess until 0930 o'clolck tomorrow morning.
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 21 June 1947, 0930, Justice Beals, presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom 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.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, have you ascertained if the defendants are all present in court?
THE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honor, all the defendants are present in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary General will note for the record the presence of all defendants in court. Do I understand that the witness Ernst Mettbach is available this morning?
MR. HARDY: Yes. It is my understanding that at the completion of Mettbach's testimony, the defendants Hoven's case will be heard.
DR. STEINBAUER: (Attorney for Defendant Beiglboeck) I ask permission, if it may please the Tribunal, to call the witness Ernst Mettbach to the stand.
THE PRESIDENT: The Marshall will summon the witness Ernst Mettbach.
ERNST METTBACH, a witness, took the stand testified as follows:
BY JUDGE SEBRING:
The witness will stand, raise his right hand and be sworn:
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(the witness repeated the oath.)
JUDGE SEBRING: You may be seated.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may proceed with the examination of the witness.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. STEINBAUER: (Attorney for Defendant Beiglboeck)
Q Witness, what is your name?
A Ernst Mettbach.
Q When and where were you born?
A 30 April, 1920, in Fuerth.
Q Where do you live?
A Eschenau 10.
Q What is your profession?
A Merchant.
Q What nationality are you?
A German.
Q What is your religion?
A Catholic.
Q Were you in a concentration camp?
A Yes, from 6 June, 1944, I was arrested in Fuerth by the Gestapo, and was taken to the police prison in Nurnberg. Five days later I was taken to Auschwitz. About six weeks later I went in a transport of roughly a thousand gypsies to Buchenwald.
Q How were you accommodated in Buchenwald?
A We were in a tent camp; the accommodations were very poor because there were many people in Buchenwald; and we were glad when we were put in the transport because we had to sleep on the ground and had only a few blankets.
Q How did it happen that you took part in the sea water experiments?
AAt a roll call at Buchenwald we were asked whether fifty volunteers -- whether forty volunteers would care to go to a special commando to Dachau. I thought this over; Dachau is nearer Fuerth than Buchenwald; perhaps I would get a better set-up, perhaps more food and more freedom, so I and thirty-nine others volunteered for the commando to Dachau.
Q.- What did you think this commando would be?
A.- We thought this would be a bomb commando because there were lots of bombs dropped around Munich; at that time we thought we would be employed excavating bombs.
Q.- Did you think this would be dangerous?
A.- We know that excavating bombs was dangerous, but we nevertheless wanted because we knew we would receive more food and more freedom.
Q.- How many gypsies were there when this request went out?
A.- There were in total one thousand who wont from Auschwitz to Buchenwald.
Q.- Then, there were a thousand men there, of whom forty applied; is that right?
A.- Yes.
Q.- Was any duress put on these forty persons?
A.- No. Every one was very eager to be among those forty. Hundreds and hundreds approached this man urging him to accept them, and I was fortunate enough to have been chosen for this commando.
Q.- How and when did the transport from Buchenwald to Dachau take place?
A.- On the 8th or 9th of August we arrived at Dachau on a special transport; we spent the night in the bathhouse; the next day we were deloused; and we were given clean clothing and were sent to the quarantine station.
Q.- How were you accommodated for these days when you were in Dachau, before you went to the sea water station?
A.- In the quarantine station every one had his own bed and received regular camp food.
Q.- Were you given a medical examination and x-rayed?
A.- On the next day we did receive a special medical examined and also were x-rayed; then we were sent back to the quarantine camp.
Q.- Where did you go from there?
A.- On the next day we went to the hospital station I/1.
Q.- How did you like this station?
A.- We were very pleasantly surprised by the cleanliness there, and above all we were happy that every one had his own clean bed.
Q.- Did you make the acquaintance of one Professor Doctor Beiglboeck?
A.- Yes, on the next day Dr. Beiglboeck came to us.
Q.- What did he tell you?
A.- He introduced himself; he told us that this was an experiment-if a flier falls into the water, he has to live on the water for some length of time; he told us we had to drink sea water for a while; that we would receive good care so that we would recover; afterwards ho told us we would be very thirsty, but that we need have no fear, nothing would happen to us; no one would die; and then he told us that he himself had drunk sea water himself. Then, we talked this over among ourselves and felt we had confidence in the Professor, and declared our willingness to participate in the experiment.
Q.- Did the Professor then give you another physical examination?
A.- Yes, he examined every one from tip to toe.
Q.- Did he make substitutions?
A.- Yes, as I remember, he did make substitutions for two or three who were too weak. He wanted to make a substitution for me, too, but I asked him particularly to keep me in the experiments because I wanted to stay with my relatives who were there and, moreover, I didn't want to lose the promise privileges we were promised.
Q.- Then you had relatives in there? There was another Mettbach in the experiment ?
A.- Yes, that was a relative of mine.
Q.- Would, you recognize the professor if you say him again?
A.- Yes.
DR. STEINBAUER: Mr. President, may I ask the witness to see if he can see the professor among the defendants?
THE PRESIDENT: The witness may stand up and see if he can pick out the professor, defendant Beiglboeck. If he cannot from his witness chair, he may step out in front of the dock.
A.- Yes, I see him. There he is over there, this short fellow here.
THE PRESIDENT: Indicate to the Tribunal the position of the defendant whom you identify as Beiglboeck in the dock by counting from your right.
A.- He is in the second row, the third man from the right. First there is a woman and then another gentleman and then Professor Beiglboeck.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness may be seated. The record will show that the witness had correctly identified the defendant Beiglboeck.
BY DR. STEINBAUER:
Q.- What sort of food did you get?
A.- For three or four days we received the regular camp diet and then from then on we lived like kings. In the morning we got marmalade, margarine, coffee, sugar, 250 grams of black bread.
In the morning, at ten we got a half a liter of unskimmed milk with cakes, cookes -- 20 to 25 cookies. At moon, we received a half liter of soup, goulash, potatoes and one slice of bread. At four o'clock p.m. we got 250 grams of bread or five rolls, black coffee with sugar. In the evening we got an egg, a piece of cheese, 30 grams of good butter, potatoes with soup, black bread and tea.
Q.- How long did you get this sort of food?
A.- Exactly one week.
Q.- Do you know the nurse Max?
A.- Yes, he was the one that stole our food and when we complained about Max, the Professor removed him immediately.
Q.- Did Professor Beiglboeck concern himself personally about the food?
A.- Yes, he checked on the food daily. I can remember very clearly that once a can of meat came to us which was discolored, being black, and the professor immediately had it excahnged for another.
Q.- Now, before the experiment proper began did the professor carry out other examinations?
A.- Yes, there was daily blood, analysis. Urine was measured and stoll -- blood pressure -- and people were weighed daily.
Q.- Did this hurt?
A.- No, it didn't.
Q.- What did the scale look like? Could persons be weighed on it prostarate?
A.- No.
Q.- Were you weighed daily?
A.- Yes, every morning.
Q.- Who wrote down your weights?
A.- I think it was written down by two French medical students. They also measured urine and stool -- that is to say, wrote down the statistics on that.
Q.- Into how many groups did the professor divide them into?
A.- As far as I can recall, five.
Q.- After he had divided them this way, did he examine them again?
A.- Yes, they were all examined again.
Q.- What group were you in?
A.- I was in the Schaefer group, so far as I remember, and I had Experimental Number 9 and my relative had the number 10.
Q.- What's your relative's name?
A.- Mettbach, just like mine.
Q.- Could the persons who wore not in the experiments move around in the courtyard or did they have to remain in the barracks?
A.- In the preparatory period we could all take walks in the courtyard but during the experiment only those whose experiment had already been interrupted or concluded could walk around and these people had to eat in the courtyard so that the persons in the experiment wouldn't see them eating.
Q.- Did the professor himself drink sea water?
A.- I don't know for sure but I believe my comrades told me that before the experiment began the professor first drank sea water so that my comrades wouldn't have the idea it might be poison.
Q.- Well, did you ever actually get in the experiment yourself?
A.- No, I didn't, I dropped out of the experiment in the preliminary period. This was on the fourth of fifth day. I suddenly got a fever. I was taken right to the x-ray station and I was examined there for pneumonia. I received treatment and aspirin tablets. After two or three days I was taken to Station III/2 which was the internal station. There the professor asked about me the next day and asked me how things were going. Three days later I got up and met the professor in the corridor in front of the washroom. Ho greeted me and asked me whether I was in good health again. I told him that everything was going along all right and asked him whether I might not visit my comrades.
Beiglboeck allowed this and every day I was permitted to visit my friends.
Q.- But what conditions did he make when you visited your comrades?
A.- He told me that I should under no circumstances bring them any fresh water and I should behave because they weren't allowed to drink any fresh water but had to drink sea water.
Q.- Then where were you actually accommodated during the experiment?
A.- I was accommodated in Station III -- that was the station for internal diseases -- in Room 2.
DR. STEINBAUER: Your Honors, may I please ask the Tribunal to take the sketch which the witness Pillwein drew? This is the ground plan of the camp. It is important. This is Exhibit 21. It's important to ascertain how far the sea water station was from the station in which the witness Mettbach was accommodated. If the Tribunal would be so gracious as to look at this chart -
THE PRESIDENT: Will you give us the volume and page in which this chart may be found?
DR. STEINBAUER: This is page 125 of Document Book No. 2. That is Beiglboeck's Document No. 2, I assume.
Where the sea water station is we have already discussed. Now, the sick room is Block No. 1, right across from the sea water station. Then there is a blocked street and then you can see block No. 3 (internal station), Wards 2, 3 and A. The witness MEttbach has said that this is where he spent his nights. I further draw the attention of the Tribunal on this occasion to the fact that on the sketch, at the top, under the word "Appellplatz," which means "roll call courtyard," there is the sickroom, Surgical "A", to the right.
BY DR. STEINBAUER:
Q.- Now, witness, how far was your room in Block 3 from the sea water station?