Haagen stated that the only reason he performed these vaccinations in Schirmeck and Natzweiler was because he was asked to do so by Kramer, camp commandant in Natzweiler. He and Kramer were disturbed about the possibility of a typhus epidemic in the middle of 1943, although he testified that in fact no typhus cases actually occurred until March 1944. (Tr. pp. 9594-5.) He went to Schmireck only because he and Kramer feared an epidemic. (Tr. p. 9600.)
Haagen’s testimony, as outlined above, is completely incredible on its face as well as in view of the documents which were submitted by the prosecution and available to Haagen at the time he testified. Firstly, it is utterly ridiculous to credit his statement that he went to Schirmeck and Natzweiler only because he feared an epidemic. It is ridiculous to suppose that a concentration camp commander, on his own initiative, sought medical assistance from doctors in the towns surrounding a concentration camp. The WVHA, to which all concentration camps were subordinated, had a very elaborate medical system and it is unthinkable that a local camp commander would ask aid from an outsider. Secondly, it is ridiculous to suppose that Haagen, out of the kindness of his heart and the fear of an epidemic spreading beyond the confines of the camp, would use his precious typhus vaccine to protect the miserable wretches who were imprisoned in the concentration camps. Haagen himself stated that he had very little typhus vaccine. (Tr. p. 9613.) It has been repeatedly testified to during the course of this trial that typhus vaccines were critically short in Germany during the war and that there were not even sufficient quantities to vaccinate doctors, nurses, and other personnel exposed to special danger. That this vaccine would be used to protect concentration camp inmates is unthinkable. Thirdly, it is ridiculous to suppose that any scientist could have possibly thought that vaccinating 28 inmates in Schirmeck and 80 in Natzweiler could have had any possible effect on the likelihood of a typhus epidemic.
That Haagen perjured himself with respect to what he was really doing in Natzweiler during the course of his typhus experiments is clearly evident from his own letter of 27 June 1944 to Hirt. In a letter of 9 May 1944 to Hirt, Haagen requested that an additional 200 persons be furnished to him for his experiments. (NO-123, Pros. Ex. 303.) Supplementary to this request, he stated in his letter of 27 June 1944 that, “in the subsequent inoculations with virulent typhus which are to be made for the purpose of testing the protective vaccine, one must count on sickness particularly in the control group which has not received the protective vaccines. These after-inoculations are desirable in order to establish unequivocally the effectiveness of the protective vaccines. This time 150 persons will be used for the protective vaccine and 50 for the control inoculations.” (NO-127, Pros. Ex. 306.)
It should be noted specifically that in the letter quoted above, Haagen pointed out to Hirt that sickness was to be expected in the control group which had not received the protective vaccine. Haagen testified that this additional group of 200 inmates requested by him was merely for the purpose of vaccination, just as he had done in December 1943 and January 1944 on the 80 experimental subjects. He added that in May he had enough vaccine for 200 more persons and he was merely trying to increase the protection in the camp. (Tr. p. 9613.) The falsity of Haagen’s testimony is clearly apparent from the statement in the letter that sickness was expected in the control group. He had previously testified that there was no reason whatever to expect any more serious reaction to the scarification vaccination in the control group than to the injected vaccine in the immunized group. (Tr. p. 9618.) Indeed, there was every reason to expect that the vaccine injected in the immunized group would bring about a more serious reaction since more vaccine was given by injection than by scarification. Haagen applied a much larger quantity of the vaccine in the first two injections of the immunized group than in the scarification vaccination of both the immunized and the control group. The same vaccine was used throughout. (Tr. p. 9710.) The method of vaccination, whether by injection or scarification, has no effect on reaction to the vaccine. Haagen specifically testified that “if we vaccinate by scarification we can expect that the effect of the vaccine will be the same as if we inject subcutaneously or intramuscularly.” (Tr. p. 9710.)
Haagen was quite unable to reconcile his statement in his letter to Hirt of 27 June 1944 that “one must count on sickness, particularly in the control group” with his testimony that there was no difference in the reaction to the vaccine as between the immunized and control groups. Indeed, the only possible interpretation of his letter is that instead of vaccinating the immunized and control groups by scarification, he, in fact, infected them with typhus. Haagen knew that the unprotected control subjects would become ill with typhus. Haagen also had no explanation for the letter of Kahnt, Chief of Staff to Schroeder, of 29 August 1944, in which he was asked “whether it may be assumed that the typhus epidemic prevailing at Natzweiler at present is connected with the vaccine research.” (NO-131, Pros. Ex. 309.) He testified that he had completed his vaccinations of the 80 experimental subjects during January 1944 and that all of his serological examinations were finished no later than February 1944 and that the experimental subjects were released from confinement. Haagen submitted a report to the Luftwaffe no later than May or June 1944 to the effect that the vaccine had been a success. (Tr. pp. 9627-9.) There was no reason whatever for Kahnt and Rose to address such an inquiry to Haagen when he had long since completed his experiments, according to his testimony, and submitted a success report to the Luftwaffe at least two months before the inquiry. It is quite impossible that vaccine tests which caused no typhus in the vaccinated persons could cause typhus in other persons, as suggested by Rose during his examination. Moreover, it should be noted that Kahnt’s letter clearly indicated an understanding on his part that Haagen’s vaccine research in Natzweiler was contemporaneous with the epidemic. This, Haagen testified, he could not understand. Haagen also had considerable difficulty explaining why, in his letter of 19 September 1944, in reply to Kahnt’s inquiry, he didn’t state that he had conducted no vaccinations or experiments in Natzweiler since January 1944 and that his vaccinations had caused no illness in the subjects, let alone caused a typhus epidemic. Haagen simply stated in his letter that, “We hereby inform you that no connection existed between the cases of typhus in Natzweiler and the examinations dealing with typhus vaccine that is to be tested.” [Emphasis added.] (NO-132, Pros. Ex. 310.) Indeed, Haagen himself stated in his reply that the vaccine was still under test, contrary to his testimony before this Tribunal.
Haagen would have the Tribunal believe that he had no typhus virus strain which was pathogenic to human beings, that he could not have brought on a serious case of typhus even had he tried to do so. (Tr. pp. 9608, 9612.) In the very same breath he testified “that there was considerable danger of infection in working about the laboratory and that he gave his assistants a “risk bonus.” (Tr. p. 9608.)
Haagen testified that he performed no vaccinations after January 1944. He reiterated this time and again during the course of his examination. (Tr. pp. 9614-5.) When asked his reason for not vaccinating during the typhus epidemic in Natzweiler in the spring and summer of 1944, which offered an opportunity to test the anti-infectious effect of his vaccine under natural conditions, he lamely answered that he had to make so many official military trips that he had no time. (Tr. p. 9614.) Although he had sufficient vaccine to justify his asking for 200 additional experimental victims in May 1944, his only effort in the typhus epidemic, according to his testimony, was to send them decontamination equipment. (Tr. p. 9614.) It is not readily apparent, to say the least of it, just why some other doctor or an assistant of Haagen could not have performed the vaccinations which Haagen would have the Tribunal believe he was so anxious to have done for the protection of the camp.
All of the above contradictions and falsifications appear upon the face of Haagen’s testimony as well as from the documents which he had so carefully studied before his appearance. The documents submitted to him during cross-examination reveal his testimony to have been perjurious from start to finish. Haagen repeatedly testified that he carried out no vaccinations in Schirmeck after May 1943. He stated that in Schirmeck he only performed a single vaccination and not the series of vaccinations to test “anti-infectious immunity” because at that time his “knowledge hadn’t progressed so far.” (Tr. p. 9636.) In connection with the Ipsen vaccine, about which Rose had corresponded with him, he especially denied that he ever proposed to Rose that experiments be carried out with it. Haagen’s letter to Rose of 4 October 1943 squarely contradicts him on both of these significant points. (NO-2874, Pros. Ex. 520.) He stated in his letter that:
“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 three 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 have not received an answer yet. We 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 of being able to recommend the introduction of our new vaccine for the time being without infectious experiments.” [Emphasis added.]