1947-04-16, #2: Doctors' Trial (late morning)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may proceed.
DR. WEISGERBER: You Honors, as the next document I submit is Sievers No. 27, Document Book I, pages 67 to 70, Sievers Exhibit No. 40. This is an affidavit by University Professor Dr. Gustav Schwantes. On page 69 I refer to the membership in a number of foreign scientific societies, and I should like to read the last paragraph of his statement, to be found on page 69.
Summarizing up, again and again I had the strong impression that this man Sievers inwardly nothing whatsoever to do with the actual power conscious and dictatorial National Socialism.
The next document is Sievers No. 28 on page 71 and 72 of Document Book I which I put in as Sievers Exhibit No. 41. This is an affidavit of the University Professor R. R. Schmidt.
Next is Sievers No. 31 on pages 78 and 79, Document Book I Sievers Exhibit No. 42. This is an affidavit of the former Georg Schruefer of Waischenfeld who here describes Sievers' activity when Sievers at the end of the War, while the American Forces were approaching, himself saw to it that the town of Waischenfeld was not defended, thus saving the lives both of German inhabitants and American soldiers.
I come not to a few documents from Document Book 2 and offer next Sievers Document 42, pages 1 to 5. The English translation has it on page 3 to 7. I offer this document as Sivers Exhibit 43. This is an affidavit by Dr. Rudolf Mentzel who was the Chief of the Business Committee of the Reich Research Council. I point out briefly his statement regarding Sivers' attitude, particularly toward foreign scientists who were in German concentration camps. Professor Seip is mentioned, Director of Oslo University, Professor Broegger of Oslo, and the case of the Norwegian students is mentioned here whom Sievers saved from the concentration camp. The case of the atomic physicist Niels Bohr is also mentioned, and I should like to point out briefly a passage to be found on page 3, page 5 of the English translation in the middle, I quote:
In 1942 I had the impression that Sievers intended to deviate from his present work,
and, finally, I point out the passages in this affidavit referring to Sivers' activity in the managing committee of the Reich Research Council.
As next document I put in Sievers 43, page 6, page 8 of the English translation. This I offer as Sievers Exhibit 44. This is an affidavit on the part of the same Dr. Rudolf Mentzel. It was drawn up subsequently as a result of the submission of Document NO.-1368A, Prosecution Exhibit 464, which was put in by the prosecution and which was to prove that Sievers had something to do with experiments with poison gas. Sievers explained this matter in his direct examination and I had this affidavit taken down from Dr. Mentzel in this same connection.
I offer now Sivers 44, page 7-9, pages 9-11 of the English translation, Sievers Exhibit 45. An affidavit on the part of Dr. Folf Punzengruber, who was prisoner in Dachau, who now tells of Rascher's activities particularly and Sievers' testimony that the experimental subject who was used in the freezing experiment where Dr. Hirt was also present was a hardened criminal, condemned to death.
The witness Punzengruber can make this statement under oath because he heard this conversation between Sivers, Hirt and Rascher.
The next document, is Sievers 45, on pages 12 to 17, which I put in as Sievers 46. This is an affidavit from Dr. Gisela Schmitz, who, from 1937 to 1945 was secretary in the Ahnenerbe [Ancestral Heritage], and as this affidavit states, she was never a member of the National Socialist Party or any of its organizations. She gives various testimony regarding the internal business affairs of the Ahnenerbe and further states that Sievers told her how unpleasant he found it that the Ahnenerbe came in touch with human being experiments on Himmler's orders. She says further that reports on Rascher's experiments in Dachau never appeared before her. If such reports had come to the Ahnenerbe she would certainly have seen it since she saw all incoming mail. I point out further her corroboration of the preliminary history of Hirt's being commissioned to collect a Jewish Bolshevist skull collection. Document No. 088, put in by the prosecution as Exhibit 182, was dictated by Dr. Beger, the same Dr. Beger who chose the inmates in the concentration camp of Dachau and this affidavit testifies to that affidavit. I point out also this affidavit's corroboration of Sievers' membership in the resistance movement. She can testify to this of her own knowledge because Sievers repeatedly spoke with her about all these matters.
The next document, Sievers 47, pages, 18 and 19, pages 20 and 21 of the English translation, Sievers Exhibit 45— pardon me correction, it is Exhibit 47. An affidavit on the part of Cohrs regarding the witness here heard today, Friedrich Hielscher.
The next to last document, Sivers 48, pages 20 to 22 respectively —
THE PRESIDENT: (interrupting) Counsel, that document has already been introduced in evidence as Sievers Exhibit 22.
DR. WEISGERBER: I beg your pardon, that is so. As the last document I put in Sievers 51, page 31 to 33 of the German transcript, pages 33 to 35 of the English translation. This will be Sievers Exhibit 48. This is an excerpt from the periodical "The American Review" of January, 1947. The article deals with the 20th of July, 1944, and contains a list of the various groups active within the German resistance movement, as well as a scrutiny of the question:
How it came about that even clergymen in the Christian faiths reached the point of condoning political murder as the only means of disposing of the tyranny of National Socialism.
The submission of this document concludes my presentation of evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, I note that there are some documents contained in your document books which have not been offered in evidence. It is your intention not to offer those documents, I understand?
DR. WEISGERBER: Intentionally I omitted Sievers 7 and 8 because, as I subsequently discovered, they had already been put in by the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: I just wanted to be sure there was no omission which would be sought to be corrected later. I understand that Defendant Sievers now rests his case?
DR. WEISGERBER: Yes. I shall only permit myself, at a later date, with the permission of the Tribunal, to put in a few more documents which are going to come to me from foreign countries but which have not yet been received.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand that, counsel. That permission has been granted you.
The Tribunal calls the case of the Defendant Rose.
MR. HARDY: May it please Your Honor, it has been called to my attention that Dr. Servatius will examine one of the witnesses that is coming here in behalf of Defendant Rose and at that time he will use Karl Brandt Document Book #3, which has recently been delivered to the Prosecution. When Dr. Servatius is using it I suggest that the Tribunal have it here also, inasmuch as it has been recently delivered.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary General will see that the Karl Brandt Document Book 3 is furnished to the Tribunal. I should like it noted down that the Secretary General's Office should see that Karl Brandt's Document Book 3 is reasonably delivered to the Tribunal.
Counsel may proceed.
DR. FRITZ (Counsel for the Defendant Rose): Mr. President, I intend to conduct my case for Rose in this way. First I shall call the witness Frau Block and the witness Professor Hoering, and then shall put the defendant himself in the witness box. During the examination of the defendant Rose I propose to offer several documents and at the conclusion of his examination to put in the rest of the documents.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may proceed with the defense in the manner indicated.
DR. FRITZ: Then I should like to call the witness, Mrs. Block, to the stand.
THE PRESIDENT: The Marshal will summon the witness, Lotte Block.
LOTTE BLOCK, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
BY JUDGE SEBRING:
Please raise your right hand and be sworn, repeating after me:
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.)
You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY DR. FRITZ:
Q: Please state your full name.
A: Maria Lotte Block, nee Schmidt.
Q: When and where were you born?
A: August 7, 1901, in Silesia.
Q: What is your present address?
A: Frankfurt-on-the-Main, Passerwandstrasse 6.
Q: What is your present profession?
A: Special Service employee in Frankfurt-on-the-Main.
Q: Please describe briefly to the Tribunal your career.
A: In 1919 I graduated from the Gymnasium and then studied national economy and law in Bonn and Heidelberg. In 1922 I married Regierungsrat [Civil Servant] Friedrich Block of the Culture Ministry in Berlin. During my marriage I worked, without salary, for a Catholic charitable organization, Caritas. In 1933 my husband had to resign, because of his Jewish ancestry, from his position as Oberregierungsrat [Senior Civil Servant]. In 1935 I took my State examination as nurse. Because of the political situation in Germany my husband and I wanted to emigrate and I wanted some practical training.
We never succeeded in emigrating and on the 11th of November, 1935, my husband was shot by the SA in Berlin.
Q: Your husband was Jewish?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you yourself suffer any disadvantages because you were married to a Jew?
A: On the day my husband was shot I returned from the city to our house and there found two SA men who told me that they had liquidated my husband for acts inimical to the State. I lost control of myself and made statements to the SA men that caused my immediate arrest. Then for nine months I was kept in the cellar of the Prinz Albrecht Gestapo prison in Berlin, in a dark small cell. At the end of August 1936 I was released, with the help of one of my husband's friends. In view of these occurrences I went to England for one year, in November of 1936, to visit relatives. After my return to Germany I lived in Berlin, without taking up any profession at first. At the beginning of 1939 I heard from a friend that Professor Rose in the Robert Koch Institute in Berlin, was looking for a private secretary. I applied for this position and was hired.
Q: Was Professor Rose aware of the events that you have just described?
A: Yes.
Q: Did Professor Rose continue to employ you after the police, within the framework of the supervision under which you found yourself, made representations to him?
A: Yes.
Q: During your employment under Professor Rose was any pressure exercised on you by the Robert Koch Institute that you should join the German Labor Front?
A: Yes. The President of the Robert Koch Institute, Professor Gildemeister, and the managing director, when I refused to join the German Labor Front, asked Professor Rose several times to require that I join the Labor Front or otherwise I should be fired.
Professor Rose refused both of these alternatives. In this connection I should like to remark that the competent German authorities, the Main Committee for the Victims of Fascism in Berlin, and a similar office in Frankfurt, have recognized me as a victim of Fascism.
Q: How long were you employed by Professor Rose as private secretary?
A: From 1939 to 1943. I worked in the Robert Koch Institute in the tropical medical department. Professor Rose was frequently absent and I worked in his own office, if only to be able to answer the two telephones there.
Q: What else do you have to say about your activity?
A: Professor Rose was often on official trips and mostly at his military office. Consequently I was well informed as to his official and private activities. I opened all his mail, informed him of its contents by phone, took care of the answers by dictation or on his telephonic instructions, and kept his files in the Institute. I also had to take care of his scientific work, take excerpts from scientific periodicals for him regarding his scientific field, etc. Finally, I also had to take care of those matters which concerned Rose's activities as coeditor of the Handbook for Tropical Diseases.
Q: Did Professor Rose work on typhus in his laboratory, or did his collaborators do so?
A: No, at my time there was no work on typhus. Nor did I never hear that occurred either subsequently or previously. The old work reports that I saw when I worked in the files had not mentioned in them of any work by Rose on typhus.
Q: What then did Professor Rose' department work on.
A: That can readily be seen from the annual reports of the Robert Koch Institute, which contained a summary of all the work in progress, even work that had not been concluded. Professor Rose's department was called the tropical disease department of the Robert Koch Institute. There was a great breeding activity going on there where mosquitoes, flies, and so on were bred. Also animal experiments were carried out. Above all there was mice, rats and cats, hedgehogs and such animals. Also there was an aquarium. Crabs and other marine animals were also bred and used for experiments.
Q: What sorts of diseases were experimented on in this Tropical Medicine Department?
A: Above all malaria. At first with dysentery, amoebic dysentery, and a disease that had something to do with snails, fish and crabs; particularly, there was work on the roll played by flies in transmitting intestinal diseases. Moreover the department delivered many mosquitoes infected with malaria to hospitals or clinics for their own research.
Q: Did Professor Rose take care himself of the work that had to do with malaria research?
A: At first when I was there he did it with intensity. Later when he came to the department only infrequently he had such questions, even if they were directed to him personally, turned over to the assistants. I read such reports to him over the phone and turned them over for immediate settlement, when, as often happened, Professor Rose was absent.
Q: Were patients treated in Professor Rose's department?
A: When I was first there Professor Rose did have patients with tropical diseases. Moreover many people came to be vaccinated. These inoculations were subsequently taken care of by the assistants. Patients treated by Professor Rose personally I had to turn away when they reported, and give them the address of the three other tropical medical institutes in Berlin, Professor Wernicke, Professor Haver, and Professor Siemann. Because he had so little time Professor Rose, when I was there, did not have any private practice. Patients who needed hospital care he turned over to the Virchow Hospital, but from 1943 on he had his own department with 20 beds. This department also he left in the care of two Army doctors with experience.
Q: Do you know whether Professor Rose, or his collaborators, carried out human being experiments?
A: That, as far as I know, happened only once. Professor Rose had discovered a new type of worm which caused epidermal diseases. When the gentlemen were unable to infect animals with this disease, Professor Rose and a few of his assistants, infected themselves, and the infection took in a few cases. Also a few of the assistants intentionally infected themselves with malaria. Moreover, all matters that had to do with malaria, all persons in his department who had to do with malaria fell ill with malaria at one time or another in the course of years. Moreover, mosquitoes infected with malaria were sent for research and therapy to the larger hospitals, but these were not experiments, but infections for other purposes of discovering treatment.
Q: And as to human being experiments outside the department you heard nothing?
A: No.
Q: You said before Professor Rose did not work on typhus?
A: No.
Q: Well, then who did work on typhus in the institute?
A: Professor Haagen, together with Professor Gildemeister, and later Professor Gildemeister alone. The typhus department was in a separate building of the Institute.
Q: Were there connections between Rose's department and the typhus department?
A: No. Professor Gildemeister forbade anyone entering the typhus department, because of the danger of infection. Moreover we had no other contact with Professor Gildemeister's co-workers, since we had our own housing, dining room, and so forth, there was no need for any connection between the two departments.
Q: In September 1943, Rose was in Copenhagen in connection with the question of increasing production of typhus vaccine; do you know anything about this?
A: Yes.
Q: Please tell us about it in detail?
A: The General of the Medical Service asked Professor Rose to negotiate directly with the serum manufacturer in Copenhagen. This is General Schrieber of the Wehrmacht, he asked to find out if there could not be produced typhus vaccines for the German Wehrmacht. This trip of Rose was without any consequences, because the Copenhagen Institute turned his request down. After his return Rose drew up a report on the trip, which he sent among others to Geheimrat [Privy Councilor] Otto in Frankfurt, to the Behring Werkes, and to Professor Gildemeister, as Chief of the Typhus Department in the Robert Koch Institute. Professor Rose brought back from Copenhagen a few samples of the typhus vaccine, or if he did not do so at any rate he received them immediately thereafter. Professor Rose transmitted these samples to the aforementioned persons, including Professor Gildemeister. Then Professor Rose concerned himself no further about the matter.
Q: Witness, I show you in this connection Document Book No. 12 of the Prosecution. On pages 36 to 56, Document 265, Prosecution Exhibit 287, there is a diary by one Dr. Ding regarding his human being experiments in the concentration camp of Buchenwald. Please turn to page 53 of this document book then under the date of 8 March 1944, you find the following entry. I quote:
Typhus vaccine, Experimental Series No. VIII. 8 March 1944. On Professor Rose's subject the Copenhagen vaccine (produced from mice livers) was tested for its protective qualities on human beings.
What do you have to say about that?
A: As I have already said, Professor Rose sent all the samples of vaccine that he had brought back or had received from Copenhagen, — whether he sent them to persons other than the three I mentioned I can no longer say under oath today, but most assuredly he sent no sample to a concentration camp or to an SS office or to any Dr. Ding, whose name I heard first in connection with this trial. If I had heard it I should certainly have recalled it. I am inclined to believe on the contrary that Professor Gildemeister was the one who sent these samples on, with an indication that he had received them from Rose to be tested in his laboratory. This is the only way I could explain this entry here, which is made only nine months after the Copenhagen trip.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, what was the date of the entry in the Ding diary to which you referred?
MR. HARDY: Page 49 of the English, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: We haven't it here.
DR. FRITZ: The date is 8 March 1944, until the 18 of March 1944.
THE PRESIDENT: In the description sheet of this witness it is stated she worked for the defendant Rose from 1939 until 1943, not 1944, is that correct?
BY DR. FRITZ:
Q: Yes, now I must say the following in this connection, Mr. President; first in my copy I cannot read the last digit in the identification of the year; it is one 4; I only assumed it is 1944, my copy being unclear; witness, can you clarify this?
A: After I left Professor Rose when he was in Berlin on business, I did work for him thereafter. From seeing the mail, I knew a little, but I never heard anything about this Dr. Ding or any such matter.
Q: The Copenhagen trip took place when?
A: The Copenhagen trip took place while I was working for Rose and at that time the vaccine was passed on.
Q: It occurs to us now that this entry is considerable later than that trip?
A: Yes; and I know that the Copenhagen trip was included in the file and stored and Professor Rose never asked about it again.
THE PRESIDENT: I desire that the matter be clarified.
BY DR. FRITZ:
Q: When did the Copenhagen trip take place; I have it down for September, 1943 in my notes?
A: Yes, autumn of 1943 was the date.
Q: You were then employed as private secretary by Professor Rose at that time?
A: Yes.
Q: And this entry that I have just put to you, but which you had not previously seen, refers to 1944 and I ask you what you, on the basis of your own knowledge of the year 1943, can say about this entry, and the words that interest me are:
On Professor Rose's suggestion such and such a series of experiments.
A: I cannot imagine what is going on here, because Professor Rose abandoned this whole matter in 1943 and as long as I was there, he never asked me about the business nor were any inquiries directed to us from outside on this question. Professor Rose did not interest himself in this question and I believe I can say from what I know about the affair that he undertook this Copenhagen trip because he was asked to do so and knew the set-up in Copenhagen and had two special vaccines. We hoped that we could augment our supply of vaccine but when the trip turned out to have been in vain, that finished the matter for Professor Rose.
Q: And now one more question; the vaccine samples that you mentioned which Professor Rose brought back with him or which were sent to him after the trip, did he pass them on while you were still employed by him?
A: Yes, whether that was done in writing or whether one of the assistants simply was asked to carry the samples over, that I do not know.
Q: Now another question; at the typhus department a number of foreign guests were introduced to the methods used; did these foreign guests also visit Professor Rose?
A: Occasionally gentlemen dropped in who said that they had worked at the typhus department and who wanted to be introduced to Professor Rose. I remember there was a Turk, who kept on coming back because he insisted on talking to Professor Rose, however, he did not speak to him at all, because at this time Professor Rose was on an extended official trip. We told the other gentlemen who dropped in that Professor Rose was too busy and he did not receive anyone in the institute.
Q: What were the relations in general between Gildemeister and Rose?
A: The personal relations between them was not auspicious, Professor Gildemeister was a very punctilious and bureaucratic man and it was of great importance to him that he should receive due respect as the superior, he concerned himself with every trifle. Professor Rose, on the other hand, was a very independent person, very generous and permitted great freedom in our work. These differences in character caused frequent friction between the two men. It also must be said that Professor Rose could become very excited and used very drastic language when he was annoyed by red tape and even when he was talking to the President, he did not restrain himself.
Q: How did you know that; were you present at such events?
A: Yes, Professor Rose only went very infrequently to Dr. Gildemeister and if possible settled everything by phone. When he made these phone calls, he did not want me out of the office, because I had to take notes, consequently, I frequently heard the conversations or at least his half of them. It was also his custom to have the personal conferences that he had with the President taken down immediately for the records so that at least their contents should be recorded. From this also I could see that there were very frequent differences of opinion between the two gentlemen.
Q: Now, at the beginning of 1943 Professor Rose became Vice President of the Robert Koch Institute; is that true?
A: Yes, on April 1st.
Q: How did this work out?
A: Practically it had no consequences, Professor Rose joined the air force and could not exercise his function as vice president It was said around the institute in those days that Professor Gildemeister had strenuously opposed Rose's appointment as vice president. The reappointment of a vice president at this time was in connection with the reorganization of the Prussian institute back for a Reich's institute on April 1, 1942, however, Rose's appointment occurred only on April 1, 1943. This delay was attributed only to Gildemeister's opposition.
Q: Here in this trial Professor Rose has been characterized by the Tribunal as Gildemeister's closest friend and collaborator, particularly in the field of typhus; is that so far as you know correct?
A: Now as I have already stated, the personal relations between the two men were not good and there never could have been anything such as a close friendship between the two, rather the contrary is true. Also there was no agreement in scientific matters between them insofar as I could judge as an untrained observer; on the contrary the two gentlemen frequently had altercations. Gildemeister did not work with Rose in the field of typhus, now was there any connection between the typhus department and the department for tropical medicine.
I never took down any dictation from which it can be seen that typhus experiments were discussed by the two men with one single exception, about which I will be subsequently examined. There was no connection or collaboration between the two departments or men and this shows that neither Professor Rose nor any employee in his department found out, except for the fact that someone felt ill when the laboratory assistants were one after the other injected by Gieldmeister in the typhus laboratory, despite the fact that they had received Protective vaccines.
Q: The Prosecution assets further and has submitted documents to the effect that Professor Gildemeister took part in the typhus experiments in concentration camps and that Professor Rose took part in the planning and carrying out of these experiments; do you have anything to say about that?
A: I can say most definitely that I knew nothing about that; if Professor Rose ever worked with Professor Gildemeister on typhus I should have certainly found out anything on that sort. There was scientific collaboration between the two men at all. Professor Rose simply submitted the official reports of his department that was all otherwise he worked completely independently in his department and not in connection with Gildemeister.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now be in recess until 1:30 this afternoon. I was in error, I forgot the Tribunal recesses until 10:10 tomorrow morning.
(A recess was taken until 10:10 Hours 17 April, 1947.)