You have a right to do that ordinarily in cross-examination; but when you are approaching the problem from this standpoint it just provokes a long answer or a long explanation that is time consuming. Will you ask your question and inquire whether or not he agrees with you that he did so testify; If he does not, you have the record.
MR. NEWMAN:I will ask the question right now.
THE PRESIDENT:Yes. BY MR. NEWMAN:
Q.Is it now true that before Farben acquired title to the plants, namely, in October 1938, that you contemplated the production of Hexachlorethane and other raw materials in the Aussig-Falkenau plants?
A.Would you please repeat the question? I didn't quite understand it. Aren't you referring to the time before 1939?
Q.Isn't it true that you contemplated the production of Hexachlorethane and other raw materials in the Aussig-Falkenau plants before Farben had even acquired title to the plants, namely, in October 1938?
A.When I began my service at Aussig representatives from various Reich agencies soon visited me, particularly people from the Four-Year Plan, in order to inspect the plant. At that time a number of gentlemen voiced opinions as to whether this or the other could be done. Throughout the time of my Commissar activity, and this is entirely in accordance with what I testified, I constructed no factories and I invested not one Pfennig for any such production. The only products that were continued were the products which were already in existence before. I assume that you refer to a statement I gave in 1945?
Q.No, I did not. Did you take the position in October 1938 that because of the favorable location the plants at Aussig and Falkenau were predestined for transformation of their manufacture along lines of interest to military economy and in keeping with the purposes of the Four-Year Plan?
A.That might be. It might have been written down at that time. I don't remember it now.
Q.Now, then, we introduce NI-15077, which will go in as our Exhibit 2152. This is a letter signed by the two Commissars Kugler and Brunner, of October 26, 1938, to the Reich Ministry of Economics. I particularly refer to No. 3 of the first enclosure attached to this letter. And I have no further questions.
MR. SPRECHER:Mr. President, I have only one or possibly two questions.
THE PRESIDENT:Very well.
MR. SPRECHER:I shall have to have two in view of your recent instruction which I intend to obey.
THE PRESIDENT:Well, that's no iron-clad instruction, General; we were just trying to save a little time by evading long answers if we could.
MR. SPRECHER:Yes.
CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued) BY MR. SPRECHER:
Q.Mr. Kugler, as I understood you, you testified that you were not present in the middle of May 1938 when Seebohm had this conference in Berlin along with Frank-Fahle and some other persons from NW-7. Is that correct?
A.Yes.
Q.And that later on you reproached both Frank-Fahle and Seebohm for holding a conference on this matter without your knowledge, is that correct?
A.Yes.
Q.Now, when did you reproach both Frank-Fahle and Seebohm?
A.I can't fix the date. I assume that I voiced my displeasure about that meeting toward Frank-Fahle on the occasion of the Commercial Committee meeting which took place approximately on 25 May, I think. Whether I telephoned Mr. Seebohm from Frankfurt or whether I discussed it with him when I came to Reichenberg next time I can't say today.
Q.No further questions.
THE PRESIDENT:Does that conclude the cross-examination of the witness?
MR. SPRECHER:Yes, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT:Does counsel for this defendant desire to interrogate him further with reference to the matters gone into by the prosecution?
DR. HENZE:Your Honors, we have received a number of documents and have not yet been in a position to study them all and I have not been in a position to prepare the relevant questions. For that reason I should like for your permission to postpone the examination of my client a little while.
THE PRESIDENT:Would you be able to indicate, counsel, approximately how much time you will need to familiarize yourself with the contents of these documents so that we can conclude this examination as promptly as possible?
DR. HENZE:I believe that we shall not have many questions. I think that we shall need about twenty minutes.
THE PRESIDENT:Very well. Perhaps we can go along with the case and at the first break that we have in the routine after you have examined the documents, we can recall this defendant to the stand and conclude this matter. Are there any other questions from other defense counsel before we excuse this witness temporarily?
Apparently not. Mr. Defendant, you may step aside and we will move to the next matter. Now, counsel, except for your re-direct examination does this conclude your presentation on behalf of your defendant?
DR. HENZE:The examination has been concluded, Your Honors. I asked for a witness who has been approved by the Tribunal but who unfortunately has not yet arrive in Nuernberg. He resides in Austria and up to this time he has not been able to cross the border. If I should succeed in getting him here I ask for permission to call him in the course of next week.
THE PRESIDENT:Very well. It may be necessary, in view of the situation, we are in, to ask you to take the witness to the commissioner, if you succeed in getting him here. But we will meet that problem if it arises. Dr. Pribilla, we may have to ask you to wait just a few minutes until we get our document books. We will send for them right now. Are we correct that what you want are Books 3 and 4?
DR. PRIBILLA:And 5 Your Honors, the small appendix.
THE PRESIDENT:They will be here presently. We will not hold you up very long.
Dr. Pribilla, we have your Books 3 and 4. 5 has not been delivered but we are sending a note out for it now and perhaps you can get along until it comes. It should be here this forenoon. Can you use three and four in the meantime?
DR. PRIBILLA:Your Honors, fortunately I have a few copies of Book 5 in English. I could loan them to the Tribunal. Five is the supplemental volume which is still missing from the first part of my submission and I really would ordinarily have to start with Book 5.
THE PRESIDENT:If you could spare us two copies so that we could use them until ours come and then we shall return them to you. We have your supplemental book now so we are ready to hear you.
DR. PRIBILLA:Your Honors, I shall now commence the second part of the presentation of evidence on behalf of the defendan t Prof.Lautenschlaeger. I have already dealt with the subject matter of the Marburg Plant (Marburger Werke). A number of documents are still to be submitted in that connection.
I first refer to Book 3, Page 3. That is document 36. I already submitted that for identification and I shall now submit it properly into evidence, the book being available. It will become Lautenschlaeger Exhibit Number 1. From Book 4, Page 3, I should like to submit Lautenschlaeger Document Number 54. It was already submitted for identification when it received Exhibit Number 5. I shall now offer it properly into evidence.
From the annex, Document Book 5, I should like to submit the first document, an excerpt from the official transcript of the American Military Tribunal Number I, Nuernberg, Lautenschlaeger Document Number 70. At the time it was assigned Exhibit Number 7 for identification. I offer it now properly into evidence. The Tribunal may remember that at that time I already quoted the relevant passages.
MR. SPRECHER:Mr. President, shouldn't that remain for identification as a matter for your judicial notice. I mean not that I am a stickler for -
THE PRESIDENT:Counsel, I think that is true so far as the judgement is concerned. The judgement is available without there being a document. But that perhaps is not true so far as bringing before this Tribunal the evidence of proceedings of the IMT. We understand, Dr. Pribilla, that that is your Exhibit 7 now?
DR. PRIBILLA:Yes, Your Honors.
THE PRESIDENT:Very well.
DR. PRIBILLA:From the same book I shall submit the next document. Lautenschlaeger Number 71. It will now finally receive Exhibit Number 8. The Tribunal may also remember that document which played some part during the examination of Dr. Demnitz. This is the report on the concluded typhus experiments which, on 5 May 1942, was sent from Mrugowsky's office to the Behringwerke among others.
29 -M-MW-4-1-Mills (Int.Ramler) I have received the next document subsequently, which is Document 68 in Book 5. It is to receive Exhibit Number 39. This is a statement of the Rector of the Philipps University, Marburg, with regard to Professor Lautenschlaeger.
I shall now present Book 3. On page 1, the first document is not being submitted. It deals with an insignificant subject.
THE PRESIDENT:You mean your Document 35, I assume.
DR. PRIBILLA:Yes, Your Honors. The next document is already in evidence. On page 7 there is Document Lautenschlaeger Number 37 which will receive Exhibit Number 40. It is an affidavit of the affiant, Dr. Julius Weber. From his own knowledge he discusses the foreign worker question. Particularly he discusses medical care which Professor Lautenschlaeger gave the foreign workers.
The next document on page 10 brings us to the actual medical questions or the Hoechst Plant. The Tribunal will remember that in the prosecution's submission of evidence the typhus medicinal drugs of the Hoechst Plants have played a decisive role. In this Document Number 38, which is to receive Exhibit Number 41, the beginning of the clinical testing of the Hoechst medical drugs is shown. I beg your pardon, Your Honors. I have made a mistake. There is one document to be submitted before that. I apologize. Lautenschlaeger Number 38, will become Exhibit 41 and this is a copy of the Ministerial Gazette for the Prussian Interior Administration. It refers to the fact that in Germany, according to legal provisions, medical drugs, before their wholesale application, must be tested on human beings in public hospitals.
Then we come to Lautcnschaleger Document Number 39 on page 12 which will bear Exhibit Number 42. What I said before applies to that document. This document shows the beginning of the clinical test of a medicinal drug produced by the Hoechst Plant. I am referring to the typhus drug 3582. This is a so-called expose. This leaflet was handed for information and observation to the persons testing the preparation. It contains a full description of the composition and structure of the preparation, of the result of experiments on animals, directives for the application to human beings, and experience gained in the application on persons suffering from typhus and other diseases.
The last page of this document contains a graphic chart showing the application of the preparation on medical experiments on animals. It shows that the mortality of mice infected with typhus which were not treated amounts to 91.6 percent. In the case of mice treated with the preparation 3582, the mortality amounted to only 48 percent. Let me point out in particular that this leaflet starts with a very serious and important sentence. I quote: "Chemo-therapeutical remedies for genuine typhus of any specific efficacy are unknown up to now." The leaflet goes on to show in detail and very conscientiously what tests have been made in the laboratory during experiments on animals, and on page 16 it arrives at the result, and I quote: "In view of the many chemo-therapeutical experiments in connection with experimental typhus, which have up to now nearly always proved negative, this success justifies a clinical experiment on the use of the preparation in the application of this drug and of this method have proven successful in cases of genuine typhus." On page 21 I now turn to Lautenschlaeger Document Number 40 which will bear Exhibit Number 43. The prosecution again and again has assorted that the application of this medical drug was never justifiable. For that reason this and the following documents represent an excerpt from the large men of experience and of reports and experiments made by the Hoechst Plant at that time with respect to this preparation. This statement applies to Documents 40 up to and including 48. The index may be of help in that connection because these are rather technical and difficult reports. These are reports by physicians who tested the drugs -- the preparations -- in their clinics. These are experiences and evaluations, which were made at the Hoechst Plant on the basis of reports by the practicing physicians. The first document, Number 40, Exhibit 43 shows tests by Professor Dr. Lehmann-Facius.
On page 23 there follows Document Number 41 bearing Exhibit Number 44. This is an experience report by the examiner Dr. Buergel.
On page 24 there is Document Number 42, Exhibit 45. This is a report by the testing physician, Dr. Hans Bruno Sauter.
On page 25, Document Number 43 Exhibit 46, there is a test report by a Professor Dr. Holler, Vienna.
On page 38, Document #44, Exhibit 47, there are also reports by Professor Dr. Holler, Vienna. On page 42, Document #45, Exhibit 48, there are further experience reports by the testing physician, Professor Dr. LehmannFacius, Frankfurt.
At page 45, we have Document #46, Exhibit 49. This is testing physician "Oberarzt" Dr. Michl, Munich.
On page 47 there is Document #47, Exhibit 50. This is the testing physician Dr. Nonnenbruch.
On page 48, Document 48, Exhibit 51, is a report by the testing Professor Sylla, Halle.
On page 50 we have Document #49 which is to bear Exhibit Exhibit #52. This is a scientific publication by the already mentioned Professor Dr. Holler of the periodical "Medizinische Klinik" #17 of 1944. I shall uote briefly from page 50. Let me state first of all that this publication was not only written by Professor Holler but also by his assistant physician Professor Zajitschek. This publication plays a considerable part and I shall revert to it later. Here again it is stated in the first sentence: "In the pertinent literature, various remedies and methods have been commended as efficient in cases of typhus. However, none of them has been able to assert itself as really successful." Page 51, paragraph 5, states: "after a thorough re-check, we recommend this typhus thereapy, developed by us successfully as shown above, for general use, because we have gained the impression that we have now a remedy available - particularly in he shape of Nitroacridin 3582 - by which we are able to overcome even serious cases of the disease, if it is applied in the proper way."
On page 53 we have a document #50. This is to have Exhibit #53. Professor Holler, Vienna, who is one of the foremost researchers of typhus, has submitted an affidavit for the use of these proceedings.
The affidavit confirms everything which has been stated before with respect to the favorable experiences with drug 3582. Professor Holler attached five Scientific dissentations to his affidavit. These papers were not mimeographed by me. I have confined myself, on pages 55 and 56, to listing the titles as well as the authors and thereby bring them to the attention of the Tribunal. All these papers are rather lengthy and complicated and I thought that it would suffice if I only listed the names of the titles. Naturally, and interested party can always look up the various publications. At the bottom of page 53 and on page 54 we find that this expert scientist has studied the minutes of the interrogation of the examination of Professor Butenandt who appeared before this Tribunal on behalf of the defendant Hoerlein. He states that the definitions of the terms which are subject to argument here, are made by him in the same way as Professor Butenandt did when testifying before the Tribunal. I think that his statement is important and significant not only because two scientists hold the same opinion, but also because I believe that these strict definitions shall be helpful to us for the further proceedings in this case.
On page 57 we have an affidavit of a Dr. Aloys Auer which is to be Lautenschlaeger Document #51 to bear Exhibit #54.
THE PRESIDENT:I believe we got the reverse of your numbers. It's Document 51 and has Exhibit 54, is that correct?
DR. PRIBILLA:Yes, that is correct. It is on page 57. Whereas the last mentioned documents scientific statements, scientific statements by testing experts who have already tested the preparation at the time, this affidavit is a personal statement drawn up as a result of a close personal observation of Professor Lautenschlaeger. Dr. Auer is the Chief Physician and Director of the Medical Clinic of the Municipal Hospital Frankfurt/Main - Hoechst.
That, as it is known was Professor Lautenschlaeger's residence with the dye stuffs plants. Therefore, there was a particularly close collaboration between these two gentlemen and Dr. Auer emphasizes that since having taken over the Municipal Hospital in Hoechst in 1924, until 1945, he was constantly collaborating with Professor Lautenschlaeger. The clinical tests of such preparations were started with particular care by Professor Lautenschlaeger and the Hoechst plant.
DR. BERNDT:Your Honor, may I state the following matter to the Tribunal. Before the Commissioner the witness Dr. Goldschmidt was to be heard yesterday. It couldn't take place because the witness had to be interrogated yesterday afternoon. The meeting was postponed until 10:00 o'clock this morning. There is no other witness whom we could take before. The matter could not be continued because Mr. Minskoff cannot appear before the Commissioner, but has to be here. Would you please decide what we are to do because this afternoon I, in turn, cannot appear before the Commissioner because the Francolor case is to be heard before this Tribunal. As far as I know, this morning only documents will be presented.
THE PRESIDENT:We'll hear what Mr. Minskoff or counsel for the prosecution has to say about this dilemma.
MR. SPRECHER:Mr. Minskoff can go over. I think there's been some misunderstanding.
THE PRESIDENT:Explain that to Dr. Berndt. Perhaps that will solve the problem. Just a moment. Let's make sure we have the problem solved before we proceed. We understand that Mr. Minskoff is available for your examination, Dr. Berndt. Does that solve your problem now?
DR. BERNDT:Thank you very much. It does.
THE PRESIDENT:I wish all problems were so easily solved. Proceed, Dr. Pribilla.
DR. PRIBILLA:Your Honor, I shall now continue with the presentation of Document #51, Exhibit 54.
The Chief Physician of the Hoechst hospital who, naturally closely collaborated with the Hoechst plant, reports here from his experiences. He says what he knows about clinical tests of Hoechst drugs. He states that the Hoechst plant and Professor Lautenschlaeger carried out the clinical tests of those preparations with particular care. At the bottom of page 57 he says, and I quote: "The physician who conscientiously adhered to these directives could not harm his patients." On page 58 he says, second paragraph: "In more than twenty years of our mutual collaboration I have tested approximately 100 new preparations of Hoechst. At not time was there any serious incident with my patients in connection therewith. For the clinical tests the responsibility lies sloely with the physician; he conscientiously selects the patients, according to indications, to whom the new preparations are to be applied. In that connection, it is not customary to secure the express consent of the patients to this, no matter what class they are treated in, for the physician's objective judgment of the efficacy is often impaired by telling the patient of a preparation which is being tested. On the other hand, I have repeatedly called the patients' attention to the application of new preparations without ever encountering any objections from them, especially when the pharmaceuticals to be tested came from well-known industrial laboratories, as, for instance, the I.G. Farben Industry."
"4. The compatibility of a pharmaceutical compound differs greatly individually."
Dr. Auen then goes on to cite a number of examples to show that even in the case of the most conscientious application of tested drugs, a certain number of interferences with the well-being of the patient can come about. He refers to drugs such as Strophantine. At the end of paragraph 4 he states: "In spite of all this, no physician conscious of his responsibility can forego any of the medicinal drugs to which I could still add a great number - because the curative results far outweigh the drawbacks."
Paragraph 5: "These considerations also apply to the Nitroacridine preparation 3582. I personally have tested the Balkanol preparation from the Nitroacridine series, and have never experienced a serious incident in this connection."
I skip a sentence and continue: "I can confirm the decision of those physicians who tested the compound in the treatment of typhus. As a result of the careful preparation in the laboratory it could not cause any danger to life, nor a serious impairment to h alth. Aside from a passing indisposition, like headache, stomachache, dissiness, vomiting, etc., there as a greater prospect of tuning down the course of the disease, and even of a cure, which could only mean in view of the helplessness of therapeutics for typhus a valuable gain for medical science and for the progress of the patients."
On page 60, Dr. Auer reports on his personal experience with Professor Lautenschlaeger, second sentence of paragraph 6: "Throughout all the years of our collaboration I have known Professor Lautenschlaeger to be a physician of the highest character and ethics, to whom healing and helphing meant life itself. I know from my own experience in connection with the test of new medical preparations coming from Hoechst and through my nemerous scientific discussions with him that he was exaggeratedly conscientious. It was especially important for him to insure that no patient was endangered in the least through drug tests or through secondary reactions. This attitude became so natural that all his co-werkers and the examiners who currently worked with him, insisted on this very factor."
On page 62 we have Lautenschlaeger Document #52, Exhibit 55. This is an affidavit of Medical Prof. Dr. Otto Schaumann, Innsbruck, Austria.
Mr. Schaumann, from 1925 until 1945, was the head of the Pharmacological Laboratory of the Hoechst plant. He is an Austrian and is now the head of the pharmacognostic institute of the Innsbruck University. During the twenty years of his activities, Professor Lautenschlaeger was his immediate superior. On page 63 he makes some statements about the testing of Hoechst preparations: "A new preparation was only released for clinical testing when, after thorough experiments on animals, it had been ascertained that no danger could possibly arise in connection with application on human beings. I do not recollect a single case in which a patient ever suffered lasting physical harm in the course of the clinical testing. It was a matter of principle to select only those preparations for clinical testing which promised to furnish an advantage in the interest of the patients which had not been obtained yet in the past."
Professor Schaumann then gives us two examples which tend to show the particular conscientiousness of Professor Lautenschlaeger. Particularly interesting is the matter treated at the bottom of page 64 about which Pro fessor Schaumann reports as follows:
"The following incident may perhaps be especially apt to characterize Professor Lautenschlaeger's humane way of thinking. At the end of the war, the Luftwaffe made to him a suggestion to develop or to suggest a preparation able to increase the will of the pilots to fight by eliminating mental inhibitions. During a discussion how one could best keep out of it, Professor Lautenschlaeger said that in his opinion it would be absolutely abominable to rob a man of his free will in such a manner."
This concludes Book III. I shall now submit a document from Book V which arrived at a later date and belongs to the same subject matter. This is Document 69 which is to bear Exhibit #56. It is an affidavit by Professor Dr. Hermann Lehmann-Facius. The Tribunal will perhaps remember that during the presentation of evidence by the Prosecution the so-called compatibility tests in insane asylums played a considerable part. Professor Lehmann-Facius was in Frankfurt/Main where he was chief physician and lecturer at the university there. He says on page 1 of his affidavit: "The university psychiatric clinic in Frankfurt/Main, in the same way as other clinics, collaborated with the Farben Hoechst plant from a scientific point of view because they were the most recognized producer of medical drugs. This collaboration came into effect in such a way that Farben placed at our disposal medical drugs which had not yet been circulated commercially and which were then tested according to their therapeutic applicability as well as compatibility. This was also done with Respect to Nitroacridine 3582. This medical drug was tested in the psychiatric university clinic, Frankfurt/Main, not specifically against typhus, but also applied in cases of acute disturbances of the intestine. As it becomes apparent from the letter of Farben of 2 October 1942, this medical drug could prevent diarrhea in the case of our patients. According to the expose with respect to Preparation 3582, this had already been tested at length in animal experiments.
It had already been clinically applied on human beings and had then been recognized as being harmless. In addition, there were self-experiments by the producers themselves.As a result of these prerequisites, any harm to the health of the patients on whom this drug was applied, was out of the question from the start. We never had any incidents, apart from insignificant side symptoms like dizziness, vomiting, etc."
At the end of his affidavit he says: "The application of the Nitroacridine Preparation 3582 on our patients cannot be considered as an experiment, but rather it was a clinical test of a drug which had already been recognized as being harmless with respect to its compatibility and curative value."
Your Honor, this brings us to the end of Books III and IV.
THE PRESIDENT:Would you prefer to have your recess, Doctor, before you start on the other book?
DR. PRIBILLA:Yes.
THE PRESIDENT:We'll rise, gentlemen, for our morning recess.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL:The Tribunal is again in session.
DR.HENZE (Counsel for defendant Kugler): Mr. President, I take the liberty of making a suggestion which I believe will serve to expedite matters. I ask that my client, Dr. Kugler, be excused for the rest of the morning session so that he can talk with me about the documents, so that when my colleague, Dr. Pribilla, is finished with his case we may conduct the redirect examination. I believe that we could go outside with a guard for this conversation.
THE PRESIDENT:Very well; we have your room here and you may have its use to confer with your client. That will be satisfactory, and your client is now excused.
DR. HENZE:Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT:The defendant Ilgner may attend the Commissioner's hearing at one-thirty this afternoon, if he wishes.
You may continue, Dr. Pribilla.
DR.PRIBILLA (Counsel for defendant Lautenschlaeger): Mr. President, after concluding Books 3 and 5, I now turn to Book IV. This book deals with the contact which the Hoechst plant, and therewith the defendant Lautenschlaeger, had with the agencies and the men whose crimes are known. In contrast to the version given by the Prosecution, the Defense must show that there was no agreement or approval by the Farben men, and specifically Professor Lautenschlaeger.
The first document, on page 1, is Lautenschlaeger Document 53, Exhibit 57. This is an affidavit of Dr. (Med.) Alexander von Engelhardt, who worked for a long time at the Behring Werke; from 1929 on he worked for Bayer in Leverkusen. He had to mediate between the plants and the clinics regarding new drugs. In the affidavit he shows how naturally the contact with Dr. Mrugowsky arose. The relations had existed for a long time. He speaks specifically about a Prosecution affidavit which is mentioned, as well as what impression he had of Mrugowsky. He says, under No. 2, at the end:
"Scientific judgment on Dr. Mrugowsly's methods being positive, there was no objections to let him also test the typhus vaccines."
Dr. von Engelhardt in the next paragraph speaks about the contact with Hoechst, and says: "On the occasion of one of my visits to him, Dr. Mrugowsky asked me if we had a good therapeutic remedy against typhus, to which I replied that the Hoechst people might have something of the kind."
I omitted one sentence in between. He said that the typhus serum had apparently not been sufficiently effective up to that time.
Then Dr. von Engelhardt reported to Hoechst, and Hoechst sent the latest drugs to Mrugowsky.
On page 3 there follows a very thorough affidavit by Dr. Mrugowsky. This is Lautenschlaeger Document 54 which has already been offered for identification as Exhibit No. 5. I now offer it in evidence under this number. I received this affidavit at the end of the Medical case from Mrugowsky and it deals with all possible questions in connection with these problems. I shall quote only a few brief excerpts. The statement is especially interesting because Mrugowsky was the superier of Dr. Ding, and the highest doctor in the SS in the field of hygiene. From 1939 until the collapse he was the head of the Hygiene Bacteriological Research Center of the SS Office, and from 1941 on he was in charge of the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS, which developed from the other agency. He was also hygiene advisor in the Waffen SS Medical Office and Hygiene Advisor on the Staff of the Reich Physician SS and Police.
On page 4 Mrugowsky states, in the third paragraph: "I am not aware that at any time orders were issued to a camp doctor or that suggestions were made by members of I.G. or Behring werke concerning the tests with remedies and vaccines which were carried out in the Buchenwald and Mauthausen concentration camps, or that any one of them ever participated ac tively in such experiments with artificially infected persons or exercised any influence on such experiments.
I also do not know of the presence in concentration camps of representatives of these manufacturing firms. At no conference between myself and such representatives was there any mention of artificial infection experiments on human beings. Professor Lautenschlaeger was not known to me prior to my detention in Nurnberg prison. Personal relations between us never existed. In particular, no connection whatever existed regarding any experiments on human beings. I consider it impossible that I.G. or Behring Werke were informed about matters relating to concentration camps because these were kept extremely secret."
Then Mrugowsky describes very carefully the organization under him, especially under "B," the subordination of the phusicians working in concentration camps. He describes a conference with Dr. Weber which dealt with completely normal medical affairs.
On the top of page 8 he says: "In the spring of 1943 -- I do not recall the exact date -- I received Compound 3582 in granulated form and later had this compound administered to typhus patients in the contagious wards of the SS hospitals at Berlin, Prague and Cracow."
On page 9 of the book, at the bottom, under No. 4, he describes a meeting with Dr. Domnitz and Dr. von Engelhardt, and he says:
"After the beginning of the Russian campaign, the Reich Ministry for the Occupied Territories was established, in which I worked as a consulting hygiene expert..In this capacity I reported the large requirement of typhus vaccine for use among the German officials and employees of the Behring Werke working in the occupied regions. As I recall, it amounted to approximately 20,000 units."
The Tribunal hr.s no doubt noticed that Mrugowsky speaks of all questions. Here he is speaking of the vaccine of the Behringwerke mentioned before. Under No. 5 he speaks about the Gildemeister tests also connected with Behringwerke vaccine. His statement is especially interesting because the high SS doctor who was informed about everything is describing matters from the other side, so to speak.
He speaks under No. 6 about the origin of the Bing experiments, and at the end of his affidavit, on page 22 of the book, page 20 of the affidavit, he says once more expressly how secret all these experiments were kept, and that he could not imagine that Farben or the Behringwerke learned anything about it. He says, "By virtue of my thorough knowledge of the organizational structure of the medical service of the SS and the Channel of command, I consider it completely impossible that any influence would have been possible from this side." On page 24 there follows document Lautenschleger 55, Exhibit No. 58. This is a telegram of Dr. Ding, Hygiene Institute of the Waffen-SS, where he requests quite naturally from Hoechst the memoranda on Nitroacridine; he also asks for a telephone call. Subsequently Hoechst sent quite a number of preparations both to this Br. Bing and to Dr. Hoven.
The next two documents are the file index cards kept at the Hoechst plant about these two doctors. The people in the Hoechst plant were scientists and were very careful, and they kept a very accurate record of every letter and every telephone call. I shall offer these two documents, - on page 25, Lautenschlaeger Document 56 as Exhibit 59, and on page 27, the document 57 as Exhibit 60. These two index cards are the most important documents for my case. One must compare these two cards with the fact that on the 13th of April, 1943, Dr. Ding visitec Hoechst. The Tribunal will remember that the defense contention is that from this time on, relations between Ding and Hoechst were broken off at the instigation of the defendant Lautenschleger. If one looks at the file index card of Dr. Ding, this visit is entered as of 13 April 1943, Before that, one sees deliveries of the preparation.