1947-04-18, #2: Doctors' Trial (late morning)

THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.

GERHARD ROSE - Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION (continued)

BY DR. FRITZ:

Q: Professor, two short questions. The Persecutor, for reasons unknown to me, has made the subject of your evidence, the fact that you were a beard and miss Schmidt said you didn't have a beard when she saw you, is that right, or did you always were a beard?

A: For twenty-one years, from 1922 until 1942, I wore a mustache. From 1929 until 1936 I wore a full one which was famous on the whole Chinese coast and of a caricature was made of me then the mustache was the main point. In 1942 I removed it. Now in the Nuernberg prison I have let it grow again because when I came here the razor is taken away from the prisoners to prevent suicide and we were shaved every ten days at that time and if I have to run around with a beard nine days out of ten, I thought I might as well grow a beard.

Q: Another question, the Prosecution when examining the witness, Schmidt, had her tell him how you treated her during an exhibition in Strassbourg. Was that customary at all times?

A: No, only when I was in uniform. What the witness described rather accurately was the prescribed salute for military personnel in the German Wehrmacht in closed rooms without head covering. The witness no doubt saw that salute frequently during the German occupation in Strasbourg.

Q: When the war broke out were you drafted into the Wehrmacht?

A: Yes, the Luftwaffe.

Q: Would you please describe the development of your official work after being drafted into the army?

A: Immediately after I was drafted on the 26th August, 1939 I was offered the position of a consulting hygienist under the medical inspectorate of the Luftwaffe. I remained in this position until the end of the war, only formally a few changes took place during the war at a time which I no longer recall. The name "consulting hygienist" was changed and made " consulting hygienist and tropical hygienist." When the position of the medical inspector was changed to the chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe my title was also changed.

Also when the group of consulting physicians was [illegible] abandoned in 1944; a second consulting hygienist under the chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe was appointed.

Q: What was the military rank you held?

A: I was drafted as Oberarzt [Senior Physician] of the Reserve, equivalent to 1st Lieutenant; in 1940 I became Stabsarzt [Staff Surgeon], equivalent to Captain; in 1941 Oberstabsarzt [Chief Medical Officer], equivalent to Major; in 1942 Oberfeldarzt [Senior Medical Officer], equivalent to Lt. Colonel; in 1943 Oberstazt, equivalent to Colonel; and finally about eight days before the collapse, 1 May 1945, I became Generalarzt [General Physician] which is equivalent to Brig. General, Medical Reserve Corps.

Q: How much time did your military activities take up

A: That changed considerably in the course of time. In the beginning of 1939 I was only claimed for a very minor period of time. Most of my time I could still devote to work in the Institute and to my lectures. At the request of State Secretary Conti I was assigned as Hygienist to Resettlement in the winter of 1939-1940. during the campaign in France in 1940 I had no military duties but after this campaign it was again proposed at the end of 1940 for three months to be assigned to resettlement to Bessarabia and Bukowina and in 1941 there was a decisive change. My duties for the Luftwaffe became so demanding that I had to work all day at my Luftwaffe office.

Q: Why was this change?

A: There was a basic change in the organization in the Hygiene Service of the Luftwaffe. Originally the practice had been hygiene as territorial affair and territorial affairs were to be settled for the Army by the Luftwaffe at the same time. During the War this practice proved to be unfeasible. The Hygiene Service of the Army was so over-burdened that it could take care only of its own interests. The Theater of War kept expanding.

Africa, Italy, Balkan, Crete, Greece were added. In the summer of 1941 there was added the Russian front too. The Luftwaffe was often commissioned in areas where it was alone or where it was preponderant. The extent of the hygiene duties increased. The [illegible] physicians had offices for hygienists under them which had existed only under air Fleet physicians. There was the necessity of having our own bacteriological laboratories for the Luftwaffe set up — the so-called motor field laboratories. Also, measures against lice in the Luftwaffe were assigned to the Medical Service. Tropical Hygiene which in 1941 had been insignificant suddenly became important. Since the Luftwaffe did not have old regular hygiene offices this whole organization had to be built up during the War with reserve officers. Of course, that made a great deal of basic work for the central office. In addition questions of Tropical medicine were completely new for the troop physicians. That made a great many official trips necessary, to hold lectures and to instruct the officers or to investigate conditions among the troops.

Q: How could you combine your strong military duties with your civilian activity?

A: During my absence for several months in 1939 to 1940 for Racial Gorman Resettlement I assigned work in my section in the Robert Koch Institute to my assistants who had to work more or less independently according to my long range instructions. In the lectures I had my assistants organized to represent me. I had dictated manuscripts of all my lectures. Of course, there were individual difficulties but during the War one had to make concessions in many fields. Other offices, too, were unable to go on a peace time basis. Besides, I had the special good fortune to have two experience tropical doctors as my assistants in my section who were not obligated to the Military service.

That made things a little easier. In addition I had to increase the amount of work which I did myself. I had to subordinate all personal matters. I had to work in the evening and at night. Very many other people did the same thing during the war. We all know that we were fighting for our existence.

Q: Well, how was your work and practice?

A: As the name of my office shows my activity was that of an advisor. I gave advice orally and in writing. This was not limited to the Medical Inspector himself, he was also advisor for the whole office, anyone who wanted to have my opinion on a question the inspector, his Chief of Staff, and Section Chiefs could call me in for personal discussion. The referents could come to see me. The questions were presented and I gave my opinion. Simple matters were sometimes settled by telephone, or documents, reports from two doctors of other agencies were sent to me with a request for a written opinion or for a comprehensive opinion to be worked out. Or, I was called upon to prepare drafts and memorandum for instructions concerning my specialized field. I was also sent drafts made by other consulting physicians, perhaps from consulting internists or consultants for skin and venereal diseases to supplement such points in them which referred to hygiene. In addition I was also sent important reports for my attention even if no opinion was required from me so that I would be informed about the matters discussed in them.

Q: What questions were worked on by you?

A: In principle all the scientific side of the field of hygiene and tropical hygiene, unless in individual cases other specialists were called in for consultation by the Inspectorate.

Also from 1943 on the field of causes of death in air war and the prevention and reduction of health damages and death among the civilian population in air raids. Some time from the middle of 1943 to the middle of 1944 on that was the field which took most of my time, after basic clarification of the most important points in this field had been achieved, as my lecture in 1944 in Hohenlychen indicates, the amount of work in this field was lessened for me so that I could devote more time to hygiene questions.

Q: In addition to working on such assignments did you have any other tasks?

A: I also had to give many lectures which were made according to special instructions for post graduate courses for Luftwaffe Doctors in Berlin. Also, training courses organized by the Air Fleet or Airgau physicians where I was asked to hold lectures. I also gave a series of [illegible] lectures to students of the Medical academy of the Luftwaffe after they completed their studies. I often had to hold lectures to non-military audiences on non-air raid measures. On tropical medicine I also lectured for training courses of the army at special request. I have only mentioned the important fields and there were quite a number of others.

Q: You were adding something before when describing your field of activity in that you were dealing with the entire field of hygiene and tropical hygiene. It must be said then, as far as you know, other specialists were used. What does this limitation mean?

A: That means that in limited fields the Medical Inspectorate did not call upon me but another specialist for advice.

That could be done for three reasons, first that I had too much work and myself asked that the work be given to some one else. That was for example the reason a second hygienist was appointed in the beginning of 1944 because I had too much to do with the problem of damage from air warfare and my DDT work.

Secondly, that might happen if the Inspector was of the opinion that, for a certain question, he had a better specialist working under him or if I myself said that in certain fields I had no practical experience and that some one else would be better. In the third place, that happened if the Inspectorate did not agree with my opinion but did not want to act on its own initiative against my advice but wanted a second opinion.

Q: Can you cite any examples for that?

A: For example, the training of the Luftwaffe medical service in decontamination questions. I was eliminated from that. The reason was that when this arrangement was created in questions of gas decontamination I had represented a basically different point of view then the Inspector Professor Hippko who did not agree with me. Therefore, all those courses were turned over to the consulting hygienist of Air Fleet 5 who agreed with the Inspector. Another example, in the creation of our bacteriological laboratories for the Luftwaffe, I had opposed them. I had said we should rely on the Army laboratories. When the decision fell out against me because Medical Inspector Hippko wanted to make himself independent to a large extent, I continued to hold the point of view that one needed at least the normal equipment of an Army laboratory. Here again the Inspector wanted a solution for the Luftwaffe alone. Since I made difficulties, this duty was also assigned to another consulting hygienist.

Q: In such cases you could no longer influence those matters. could you?

A: No, I did occasionally receive reports about them for my knowledge, but no longer offered any advice in this field. One scientific advisor is normally sufficient. Then it requires merely the executive decision. Only by exception, when there are doubts, does one seek for a second opinion. I was, moreover, so overworked that I did not have any ambition to have an absolute monopoly on advice in my field. Generally, I was very happy if the work was done by some other specialist even if it was done differently than I would have done it. I am old enough to know that there are many roads to Rome and that very often one can do a thing in several ways and the final result will be the same.

Q: Were your suggestions of any influence to the Inspector? Did he abide by them of necessity?

A: My advice was in no way binding on the Inspector. The examples which I have mentioned show that there were differences of opinion on basic questions where sometimes exactly the opposite was done from what I had advised. Of course, there were exceptions. In general, my advice was accepted and my drafts. Perhaps they were revised and adjusted to the needs of the troops. If he had not considered my work in general useful, in spite of isolated cases of differences of opinion, I would hardly have remained in the same position during the whole war.

Q: Well then, how were the drafts of your suggestions worked on after you submitted them?

A: After the commanding officer of the Group Science and Research had taken notice of them and signed them, they went in writing to the Medical Inspectorate.

There they were treated like incoming mail from outside; that is, according to significance and contents they were sent to the Chief of Staff or to one of the section chiefs and were dealt with by the referent concerned according to Instructions.

Q: Did the Inspector always receive personal notice of your attitude in those questions?

A: No, only if I had officially or expressly noted that on the opinion or if the Chief of Staff or the section chief considered the matter important enough to submit it to the Inspector himself. Whether that was done I did not learn in individual cases or I learned it only if there were inquiries or the Inspector called me for an oral report.

Q: Mr. President, in this connection I offer Rose Document No. 6 which is Rose Exhibit No. 6, the affidavit of Professor Dr. Walter Schnell, dated the 1st of March, 1947. This can be found in Rose Document Book No. 1 on pages 15 to 19. I should like to read a part of this affidavit. I am starting to quote from the third paragraph of page 15 of this document book.

Concerning the position of the "consultants" of the Luftwaffe, I have personal knowledge since I myself was a consulting hygienist in an air fleet, without, however, being able to quote verbally the service regulations for consultants, which incidentally, were also available in print. The consultants were, in the Medical Inspectorate as well as in the various air fleets, purely scientific experts who had no powers of command or operational powers whatsoever.

As far as I know, the official position of the consultants in the Medical Inspectorate was exactly the same. They were not, say, superiors of the consultants of the various air wings; in fact, they had not even any direct contact with them. If any important sanitary events in an air fleet had to be reported, the consulting hygienist made his report to the wing physician who, in turn, passed the report on to the Medical Inspectorate. Whether the Chief of the medical service — or his chief of staff decided to include the consulting hygienist of the medical Inspectorate in the ensuing discussions or not, was left to his own judgment. When the consulting hygienist was included in the discussions, his opinion was by no means decisive but it merely represented an export opinion before the Medical inspectorate.

My experience — reports and special reports for the Medical Inspector to which had to be presented at fixed periods, had to be routed via the wing physician and were passed on to the Chief of the Medical Service, and not to the consulting hygienist of the Medical Inspectorate.

On one occasion when I wanted to carry out large-scale measures to combat malaria from airplanes in a territory particularly subject to malaria, I first contacted Professor Rose directly by telephone to win his assistance for the work planned by me. I did that although I know the above described division of functions within the medical inspectorate, and it was immediately obvious that even though Professor Rose agreed with me on the merits of the matter, he could not help me, nor did he know anything about my reports about the hygienic case in question.

He referred me to the official channels via the Air Wing physician and the Medical Inspectorate. This can be explained by the fact that there was a sharp division between the administrative field and the field of the scientific consultants, within the medical inspector to.

Thus, there was within the inspectorate proper, also a hygienics expert who, as the execution agent of the chief of staff or of the department head, dealt with the day by day flow of hygienic matters, whereas the consulting hygienist only was called upon to deal with special scientific assignments, expert opinions, etc. There were no official channels between the consulting hygienist of the Medical Inspectorate and the consulting hygienist of the Air wing.

The consulting hygienist of the Medical Inspectorate, Professor Rose, and after 1944 also Chief Physician Dr. Muhlert — were in no way my superiors, and I was not their subordinate, although both hold higher rank than I. They had no right to direct or supervise me in any way. The consultant of the Air wing was subordinated solely to its Air wing physician.

On official visits to Berlin I always reported personally to, and had discussions with, the chief of the Medical Service, the department heads and the sub-department heads, without the consulting hygienists of the Inspectorate, Professor Rose or Dr. Muhlert, taking part. If possible, however, I visited Professor Rose also in order to exchange views with him. It was not my duty to report to him. I regarded the visits as a matter of professional courtesy.

Mr. President, I shall revert, at a later period, to the further contents of this affidavit. However, at the same time I should like to offer the next document in the document book of Rose which is Rose No. 7 which will become Rose Exhibit No. 7. This is an affidavit of Dr. Ferdinand Muhlert who was repeatedly mentioned in the affidavit which I have just read. This affidavit bears the date of February, 1947. You can find it on pages 20 to 23 of my document book 1. The date is the 25th of February, 1947. Considering the importance of this matter I should also like to read this affidavit in part.

MR. HARDY: May it please Your Honor, this question as to the duties and functions of a consulting physician in either the Wehrmacht or the Luftwaffe, has been most elaborately explained to the Tribunal by Professor Handloser and Professor Schroeder, and it seems to me that it is unnecessary for any burdening of the record with reading the fact that a consulting physician did not have the authority to issue orders as such, this his position was merely one of suggestion, etc. That is the whole point of taking up the time here now with discussion of consulting physicians and I feel certain that the Tribunal is well aware of the position of the consulting physician. Therefore I object to any further details concerning the capacity of a consulting physician.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has had no opportunity to read the affidavit. If counsel for the prosecution agrees with these statements taken by Defendant Rose as the facts stated in this affidavit, there would be no use in reading it.

MR. HARDY: The Prosecution has no objection to the affidavit, as such, Your Honor.

JUDGE SEBRING: Do you agree, Mr. Hardy, that the position taken by this defendant and prior defendants in regard to the scope and authority of consultants is as maintained by them?

MR. HARDY: No, Your Honor, the Prosecution does not agree. However, the Prosecution submits that these details have been fully explained to the Tribunal at great length and, as a matter of fact, Dr. Handloser submitted nearly a treatise explaining the position of consulting physicians.

JUDGE SEBRING: Which you say you do not agree with?

MR. HARDY: We do not whole-heartedly agree, no, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDENT: The objection will be overruled. Counsel may read such portions of the affidavit as he deems particularly relevant with due regard to the matter of time.

DR. FRITZ: Mr. President, may I make one fundamental remark regarding this problem, because we shall, in the future, often revert to this matter of a consultant. He is not quite in agreement with the statements made by a number of the co-defendants or witnesses and especially since he is also responsible with Haagen in Haagen's actions, who was also a consulting physician with the Luftwaffe, he has to speak about these matters.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal understand that, Counsel. That is the reason for the overruling of the objection made by Prosecution. Counsel may proceed and read such portions of this affidavit as he deems important to his defense.

BY DR. FRITZ:

I shall at first quote from Page 1 of that document, reading the eighth sentence of Paragraph 2:

From the outbreak of war until 1944 I was consulting hygienist with the Air Fleet Physician of Air Fleet No. 2. In 1941 I became consulting hygienist with the Chief of the Luftwaffe Medical Services in addition to Professor Rose and remained in this position until the end of the war.

I shall now read from Page 2 of that document, starting from the third paragraph:

Professor Rose was never my superior, neither in the medical service nor with the troops. I was therefore not his subordinate.

As consulting hygienist of Air Fleet No. 2 I was subordinate to the Air Fleet Physician, his subordinate. As consulting hygienist of Air Fleet No. 2 I was subordinate to the Air Fleet Physician. Neither did Professor Rose have any supervisory power over my activity with the Luftwaffe.

When I became consulting hygienist with the Chief of the Luftwaffe Medical Services, I also had no supervisory powers over other consultants, and was not their superior. There was no Luftwaffe service regulation which obliged or entitled the consulting physicians of the Medical Inspectorate to supervise their colleagues amongst the Air Fleet physicians. The consulting physicians of the Medical Inspectorate were entitled to report personally to the Chief of the Luftwaffe Medical Services. They had to give their expert opinions on questions about which they were consulted. They had no power to issue orders and no right to give directives; they were also not entitled to ask for reports. They could not carry out any inspections without a special order, because such inspections would necessarily encroach on the sphere of command of an Air Fleet physician, who had his own consulting physicians.

The military rank bestowed on the consulting physicians was to increase their authority in scientific medical matters in contrast to army doctors and other offices. For this reason, special regulations existed for the promotion of consulting physicians.

My own reports, which I had to make as consulting hygienist of Air Fleet 2, went through the Air Fleet Physician, even if they were designed for the Inspector of the Medical Services. In the Luftwaffe no reports were made to the consulting physicians with the Chief of the Medical Services.

It can be assumed that my reports from Air Fleet 2 were also directed to Professor Rose for his expert opinion, for information, and for exploitation. When I became consulting hygienist — in addition to Professor Rose — with the Chief of the Luftwaffe Medical Services, I also received reports from consulting physicians and other medical offices sent by the office of the Chief of the Luftwaffe Medical Services, with a request to express my opinion, to make suggestions, or to compile the experiences from a large number of such reports from various sources into a critical complete report. As mentioned above, this happened only very occasionally.

I do not know how my views and reports were further utilized.

While I was consulting physician with Air Fleet 2, Professor Rose repeatedly made official visits into my sphere. They were made on special orders from the Medical Inspectorate and the Air Fleet physician was notified. The object of those visits was not to supervise my activities but either to lecture at post graduate courses for physicians, or to see personally the conditions amongst the troops, and therefore not to be completely dependent on written reports.

I accompanied Professor Rose on only one of these trips, because at that time he was particularly occupied with the malaria problem in the Mediterranean, and as a specialist for tropical medicine he had greater experience in this special sphere than I.

End of quote.

Mr. President, the Defendant Rose pointed out to me that in the affidavit Schnell, Rose Document No. 6, which I read before, there is a mistake in the English copy, since the word "Luftflotte" which often appears, was translated with "Wing". In order to be correct one should substitute "Fleet" for "Wing" — Air Fleet — Luftflotte Air Fleet.

In the same affidavit, the rank "Oberstarzt" was translated with "Chief Physician" whereas it should be "Colonel, Medical Corps." This is of some considerable importance.

THE PRESIDENT: It would be of assistance to the Tribunal if a corrected English translation of this document be furnished to each member of the Tribunal for his document book; also for the reserve copies in the offices of the Secretary General.

BY DR. FRITZ:

Q: Did you participate in the meetings of the consulting physicians?

A: May I remark that the difference between Wing and Fleet is competent, because a Wing is in German, Geschwader, and is under a Colonel, where Fleet is under a four or five star general. The rank and authority of the work in this office consequently differ considerably too.

Now, about the meetings, since the meetings of consulting physicians were hold as joint meetings of the three branches of the Wehrmacht, I was also appointed to attend these meetings. The second in 1942, the third in 1943, and the fourth in 1944. I also visited the meetings of civilian scientific societies, insofar as matters dealing with my specialized field were discussed there. At the 4th meeting of consulting physicians in 1944 in Hohenlychen I was the chairman of the action for hygiene and tropical hygiene.

Q: Did you have to make any official trips?

A: Yes, I was ordered to make official trips by the Inspectorate, and I would do them on my own initiative too, I would make application for them. The purpose of the trips was to investigate conditions among the troops in order to avoid passing judgment on the basis merely of written information. These trips were often connected with lectures. In the first years of the war those trips were mostly to the theaters of war outside the Reich. From the middle of 1943 the homeland problem was in the foreground, because I was primarily dealing with the damage resulting from air warfare.

Q: Did you have any other military duties or any further rights?

A: No, my position was the same as that of other consulting physicians. I could not issue any orders or instructions, only from the end of 1943 on was there one exception.

The section for fever therapy of the Luftwaffe was expressly under my command, and I could issue orders and instructions for it.

Q: Now, if you found any deficiencies during your official trips as a result of it, in your opinion the troops were in danger, wouldn't you issue orders right there and then in order to help remove these deficiencies?

A: No, that was not possible. If it were something very urgent I could inform the locally competent medical officer of my opinion. Whether he issued corresponding instructions was up to him. If they were basic questions I could report to the medical inspector after my return and I could make suggestions which were then worked out as I have already described.

Q: Did you have to exercise supervision over the consulting hygienist in the air fleet?

A: No, I did not exercise any such supervision. If the Medical Inspectorate considered it necessary I was merely given the written reports either merely for my information or for my knowledge.

Q: In that case you were not the superior of the other hygienists of the Luftwaffe?

A: No, I was in no way their superior.

Q: Professor, the question regarding your supervisory right or your duty to supervise Professor Haagen was the subject of repeated examination of Professor Schroeder on the part of the Prosecution. I now hand you the transcript of the 26 of February 1947, which deals with that point.

Now, if you will be good enough to look at the afternoon session you will find on page 3635, and this is the German transcript, a question propounded by Mr. McHaney:

It was Rose's duty that he would have to be continually informed about experiments in this field, isn't that right?

And Professor Schroeder's answer read:

Rose, according to the directives, which his Chief Hippko gave him probably concerned himself with these research assignments.

— and then the end of Schroeder's answer reads, and that is in answer to the next question of Mr. McHaney:

It could only be done in the way that he only exercised this inspection by order of his superior.

And I am now asking you, was it your duty to exercise supervision of research assignments which dealt with your field of work, and furthermore did you at any time receive an order, a special order in order to carry out an inspection of the research assignments either by Schroeder or Hippko?

A: To the first question, no. I did not even have the right or the duty to supervise the activities of the hygienists or consult hygienists in subordinate positions of the Luftwaffe. Of course, I did not have any such duty of supervision of activity which was not in the service of the Luftwaffe, but in their civilian positions, for which they received no instructions from the Luftwaffe, but merely financial support. To the second question I must also say, no. Neither from Professor Hippko, nor from Professor Schroeder did I ever receive any assignment to inform myself as to the value of work at a research assignment and to report on it, and therefore I never did so. Those who had the research assignments made their own reports. If they reported orally I was not called in. If they sent in a written report, this report was, in most cases, no doubt, sent to me either for my attention or for my comment.

Q: Professor, will you please look at the transcript of the morning session of the very same day and turn to page 3572, and the following sentence can be found in art answer made by Professor Schroeder, and I quote:

The consulting physicians had a right to obtain information.

What do you know about this right to obtain information?

A: This expression I heard for the first time in Professor Schroeder's testimony. I do not know what "right to obtain information" means, Informationsrecht; I do not know any service regulations concerning any such right of the consulting physicians, and at least I never exercised any such right.

Q: What was your relationship to the other consulting hygienists, I mean according to their rank and age?

A: At the beginning of the war the consulting hygienists with the airfleet, with one exception were all older than I and also my seniors in service. In most cases they had a higher rank than I did. I began as Oberarzt d. Reserve, which is equivalent to a First Lieutenant. The others were all Stabsaerzte, and Oberstabsarzte, or captains and majors. During the war this was changed insofar with the increase of a number of hygienists younger colleagues were appointed to such positions. That changed nothing in our official relationships, however. I did not become their superior. Only when I was promoted to Generalarzt, Brigadier General, on the 1st of May 1945, that is a week before the collapse, did I become a general hygienist of the Luftwaffe, but that does not mean that on the 1st of May 1945 I became the superior of the other hygienists.

Q: What staff was at your disposal in your position as consulting physician?

A: I had no staff. I had one and sometimes two clerical assistants, and I did not have any deputy. The position of consulting physician in the Luftwaffe was limited to the person of the consulting physician and his professional knowledge.

Q: Did you have to deal with any questions of aviation medicine?

A: No, I had nothing to do with aviation medicine. This specialized field was given special attention in the Luftwaffe, of course. There were quite a number of specialists in that field. As a special consultant for aviation medicine there were special deputies and also a consulting physiologist. These people were competent for such questions, and had to divide the various fields among themselves.

I was not concerned in this as a hygienist. Since I was working for the Luftwaffe, of course from personal interest, I read Dr. Ruff's book on aviation medicine, and I regularly locked at the magazine journal for aviation medicine, but I personally was never called on officially for this work.

Q: Did you yourself write any essays for the periodical for aviation medicine?

A: No, because I know nothing about it.

Q: But you once wrote an essay about the spread of epidemics on the basis of air traffic; that didn't have anything to do with aviation medicine?

A: I did write such an article in a textbook on hygiene, but this does not belong to aviation medicine. It is a specialized field of traffic hygiene. This is a spread of epidemic by ships or railroads. Hygienists and public health officers everywhere and a number of aviation medical experts deal with this question.

Q: Did research assignments given by the Medical Inspectorate of the Air Force in the hygienic field come under your supervision? I mean the hygienic field now.

A: No, the hygienic research assignments were not under my supervision either. Insofar as the persons holding such assignments submitted working reports, I was generally sent these reports for my attention or comment, at least in the later years of the war, from 1941 on. There were very few hygienic assignments in the Luftwaffe and the execution of the assignments was in the hands of the research workers given such assignments. I am not aware that any kind of supervision was carried out over the execution.

Q: If any such assignments were given, somebody must have had to supervise their execution.

A: I believe that the word assignment was misused considerably. It is therefore advisable to clarify what such an assignment amounted to and what its practical effects were. First of all, at least in the case of the hygiene assignments which I knew about, without exception the initiative came from the person who received the assignment. That is the director of the Hygienic Institute makes an application that he be given a so-called assignment about a certain problem. In peace tine I myself had the German research association give me such an assignment. The only reason was that I did not want to be dependent on the approval of my president for every minor detail, but needed certain means which I could dispose of by myself without any bureaucratic restrictions. The approval of the research assignment was necessary to secure a certain sum of money, as supervision was exercised over the use of this money so far as accounts had to be submitted, which were also checked from time to time, and work reports were demanded. If anyone had even imagined that through approval of such financial support he was undertaking penal and legal responsibility for all of the activities of the men to whom he was giving assistance, then there would certainly have been no one who would have undertaken to distribute this money. To stick to my own example, in 1938 I received a research assignment by the establishment and maintenance of an anopheles colony at the Robert Koch Institute.

The assignment was signed and approved by Professor Sauerbruch. Later he became head of the specialized department for medicine in the Reich Research Council. I am firmly convinced that Geheimrat [Privy Councilor] Sauerbruch even today has no idea what an anopheles colony is, or what was done with it, but he knows who I am. He knows that I wrote successful papers or literature; he no doubt assumed so because I held this position in the Robert Koch Institute. I do not believe that Sauerbruch ever read anything which I had written; therefore, he relied completely on the fact that the applicant personally offered adequate guarantee for the sincere use of this money. In any case I, as the recipient of such an assignment, was always convinced that by accepting this money I did not in any way become subordinate and that the person giving me the money acquired no other rights than that of regular accounting about the use of the money with a report, and that he assumed no other duties toward me than to supply the money furnished at the time promised. I have considered myself responsible for what I did.

Q: Did you take part in giving research assignments in the Luftwaffe in the hygienic field?

A: I was not called upon to assist in giving research assignments and I never made any suggestions for such research assignments.

Q: How was that really handled? How were these research assignments really given out?

A: I cannot say for sure in the Luftwaffe since I had nothing to do with it. I myself never received any such assignment from the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe. From my own general knowledge of the way business was conducted there I assume that the applicant presented his application in writing and no doubt orally at the same time. Either he could have taken it to the competent section chief, which would have been the best way, but of course he could also express his wishes to the Chief of Staff or to the Inspectorate personally, but that would have been a detour because the thing had to reach the section chief eventually.

The section chief passed the matter on to the referent, if the latter had not already been called to the conference. It was actually not necessary for the referent to carry the matter through, that could only follow knowledge of the suggestions, otherwise there was nothing to work on. Then, after the approval of the application, it was sent to the Department 11-F for formal issuance and then to the budget group, which had to take care of distributing the money. Becker-Freyseng no doubt knows more about these events but this is merely an assumption on my part. He will probably be able to make more exact statements.

Q: Were you not at all participating in these negotiations?

A: No, that is obvious. To decide whether influenza research is important, the section chief, after the matter has been presented to him by an expert, does not need an expert opinion from anyone else. From 1941 on, I no doubt generally received information after an assignment had been issued; then, as I have said, I received the work reports; if any were received, I no doubt generally received them.

Q: Did you not have to make any utterances about the value of that work?

A: In some cases I, no doubt, made a commentary on it when I handed a report back but the matter was as follows: If, for example, Professor Knorr received a subsidy for such research for work on a mobile drinking water apparatus, he applied for and received this assignment because for twenty years he had worked very specifically with drinking water questions, water filters, and water disinfection. He was the expert on this question and my opinion was of secondary value. If Professor Haagen reported on his work on yellow fever vaccines or typhus vaccines, then his report was justly more important in the eyes of the Medical Inspectorate than any comment I might have made. Professor Hoering testified here yesterday that in respect to yellow fever Professor Haagen was the only internationally recognized expert in Germany in that field.

Haagen was the most important virus specialist in Germany and for this reason received the subsidies which he applied for. These conditions resulted from the nature of the case.

Q: But in your letter to Professor Haagen, dated 9 June 1943, you are telling Haagen about his research assignment, are you not? The assignment to which he objected — this is Document of the Prosecution NO-306, to be found on urge 77 of Document Book No. 12, Prosecution Exhibit 296. How about that?

A: As the previous document 305, page 76 of document book 12 of the Prosecution Shows, Professor Haagen had given me some information out of friendliness; since he was not in Berlin but in Strassbourg he obviously took advantage of this opportunity to inquire how his business was coming along. Such brief inquiries about official matters are prohibited everywhere but they are equally customary everywhere, no doubt. I needed merely to call up the particular doctor, chief or referent and have the information in one minute. All I said in the letter was that the competent referent was on a trip, and that he would have to wait. That was just a matter of courtesy which happens every day. That happened almost every week in matters involving personnel affairs, that one got a letter from some acquaintance to investigate some matter or other, or to put in a good word with the referent, such requests, of sensible, I, of course, took care of although I had nothing to do with personnel matters. I discussed the matter briefly by telephone with the referent or called on him personally if I had something to do at the inspectorate any how and then I sent the required information to the acquaintance.

Q: Professor, the Prosecution accuses you of conspiracy for committing crimes of a criminal nature together with the rest of of the defendants. How were you connected with the other defendants?

A: Seven of my co-defendants were unknown to me until the beginning of the trial, either by name, position, or person. Those are Rudolf Brandt, Poppendick, Sievers, Romberg, Brack, Hoven, Beiglboeck, Porkorny, Oberheuser, and Fischer. By name and sight I know three of them, Gonsken, Gebhardt and Ruff. I had nothing to do with them either officially or otherwise and I did not talk to them or have any correspondence with them. That leaves eight. I know Karl Brandt, of course. He is a well known personality in his position as Reichs Commissioner. Twice I had something to do with him officially.

There is an affidavit on the subject. Then I saw him twice at public lectures, but did not speak to him. Professor Handloser I knew because of his office. I had official connection with him and his office, especially from 1944 on, I had to get opinions when they were required but these relations were not very extensive. It happened very rarely. Professor Rostock was known to me as the Dean of the medical Faculty of the University of Berlin. I had correspondence with him in matters dealing with the faculty and with lectures. I knew he was the office chief with the Reichs Commissioner. I had correspondence with him once in this capacity on questions of electronic microscopy, and I am sure I saw him at medical lectures, but aside from exchanging correspondence we did not talk because generally he stayed with the surgeons and I stayed with the hygienists. Professor Schroeder was Chief of Staff from 1939-1940 and later from 1944 on Chief of the medical Service of the Luftwaffe, and as such was my superior, as consulting hygienist, I had official as well as personal relations with him. Nevertheless, the questions under indictment here were never discussed between us before the collapse. After the collapse we were in the same internment camp for sometime and there we discussed this on the basis of reports from the press. I met Professor Blome during the war. As far as I recall I talked to him about three times personally, and Becker-Freysing I knew in his official position as auxiliary Referent under Professor Anthony, and later as his successor, Professor Weltz I saw twice in my life, once at the glider contest at the Rhoen in 1927, the second time at the Cold meeting in Nurnberg, in 1942, when he held a lecture on animal experiments. As far as I know I saw Mr. Sievers twice. I knew that he was studying the problem of removing salt from sea water by chemical means, but I, myself, had no official connection with this work and knew no details about his work. Our acquaintance was so superficial that, for example, I did not recognize him when I met him here and he had to remind me that I had seen him before.

Professor Mrugowsky I knew as a lecturer for hygiene from the Berlin Medical Faculty. Then I met him at large Hygiene Conferences. I was at his institute once when a delousing apparatus was to be demonstrated which he had had developed. Professor Mrugowsky is the only one of the co-defendants with whom, during the war, I discussed the problem of experiments on human beings. That was following the lecture of Ding on the experiments at Buchenwald, but I shall come back to that when we discuss the typhus experiments.

Q: The Prosecution described the meeting of the consulting physicians as a typical gathering of conspirators who were going to plan crimes. As you have testified, you yourself participated in three of such meetings. What was your impression of these meetings?

A: They were absolutely typical medical meetings of medical societies only in two respects, first, because the number of participants was limited, and that purely for reasons of space, and numerous specialized groups were called together for one meeting, where during peace time generally only two or three specialties had to coordinate their meetings. Otherwise, in contents and in form I saw no difference between these and the usual medical scientific congresses.

Q: But directives were sat up, weren't they?

A: That is also done in civilian medical meetings. There too it happens that such directives are set up and accepted by scientific societies as official, and then they are passed on to the authorities and to the legislative bodies and then binding regulations are made from such directives of the Congress.

Q: During such meetings there were lectures held on experiments on human beings in the case of two sections of such meetings?

A: That is done in exactly the same way as at public meetings of medical societies. I myself heard lectures about experiments on human beings at international meetings.

That is a matter of course. At congresses, especially important matters are reported, and experiments on human beings are in general made only in case of most vital problems.

Q: But here we are concerned with experiments on human beings who were condemned to death?

A: I advise you that only at the report of the meeting of the Manilla Medical association of Manilla, there you will find a number of similar lectures on similar experiments on persons condemned to death who were not volunteers and also on so-called volunteers, where from a purely ethical standpoint one could have different opinions about the degree of volunteering in which the audience were of different opinions.

Q: How did you know this judgment of the listeners in that case?

A: In my many years in East Asia I attended a number of international meetings and Congresses. In the Far East I was even Chairman at one of them, since the work of the American Health Administration in Manilla was for all of us of the greatest importance scientifically. It was, of course, discussed in detail in circles of specialists, and of course the question of the experimental subject is discussed. For example, the question how it comes about that at a certain time 29 people condemned to death are certainly available for an experiment.

Q: What part did you yourself play in these meetings of the consulting physicians at the military medical academy?

A: The role of a participant and auditor, as well as that of a lecturer. My reports on malaria at these meetings, has already been taken into the evidence submitted by the Prosecution.

DR. FRITZ: Mr. President, in my document book Rose No. 1, I have re-produced some of the printed excerpts from meetings of the consulting physicians which have been duly certified and simultaneously for the convenience of the Tribunal I have also reproduced the Exhibit No. 922 of the prosecution, or rather document No. 922 of the Prosecution which is Exhibit 435, which is an excerpt from the second work meeting of 1942.

The excerpts which I made were given the numbers Rose document No. 36, which is Rose Exhibit no. 8; then Rose document No. 37, which will be Rose Exhibit No. 9. I beg your pardon, Mr. President. These excerpts are to be found in my document book Rose No. 3, I beg your pardon.

THE PRESIDENT: Will you give us again those document numbers, counsel. Will you repeat those document numbers and Exhibit numbers?

DR. FRITZ: We are concerned with Rose Document No. 36, which is to be found on page 21 and 22 of Document Book Rose III which will be Rose Exhibit No. 8. Then follows in the same Document Book the following document of the Prosecution NO-922 which already has an exhibit number and I should, therefore, not like to give it another.

THE PRESIDENT: What is the Prosecution Exhibit No., counsel?

DR. FRITZ: It is Exhibit No. 435, Mr. President. Then follows the excerpt from the Second Conference of the Consulting Specialists Rose No. 37, which will be Exhibit Rose No. 9, to be found on pages 36 to 38 in Rose Document Book III. Then, as Rose No. 38 I submit the excerpt from the Report of the Third Conference East of the Consulting Specialists of 24-26 May 1943, to be found on pages 39 to 52, which will become Rose Exhibit No. 10. And, finally I offer as Rose Document No. 39 the excerpts from the report about a fourth conference if the Consulting Specialists which is to be found on pages 53 to 77 of the Document Book Rose No. III. This document will receive Rose Exhibit No. 11.

MR. HARDY: May I inquire as to whether or not these four exhibits, 8-9-10-11, are from the report introduced by the Prosecution?

DR. FRITZ: Mr. President, the German Document Book III has not yet been mimeographed, at any rate it is not available to us as yet. I should, therefore, like to ask permission that I should hand them first to Professor Rose before giving them to the Secretary General. This is the only copy I have. No further copies have been mimeographed but as soon as Professor Rose is finished with it I shall hand it to the Secretary General.

THE PRESIDENT: You may use your copy in that manner.

DR. FRITZ: Mr. President —

THE PRESIDENT: Of course, in using this Document Book in this manner at this time it is understood later on that complete copies will be furnished to the Tribunal, counsel, and the Secretary General.

DR. FRITZ: Mr. President, the Secretary General already has them, I think. They are already in German. The Secretary General has three German copies for the Tribunal. Unfortunately, I haven't as yet received them.

BY DR. FRITZ:

Q: I have just sent these excerpts to you and I shall have Document No-922 of the Prosecution sent to you.

A: Thank you. It isn't necessary I have it.

Q: Now would you please describe these excerpts to the Tribunal very briefly, in particularly, the exhibit submitted by the Prosecution.

A: Perhaps I can change the order. This second meeting — the first meeting was not very important, the first conspiracy in May 1942, I was not present personally but my work was mentioned on page 77 by Mr. Klauberg who refers to the work — my work on the transfer of bacterial dysentery by flies. I may remark that this Mr. Klauberg is not identical with, nor does he have any connection with Gynecologist Klauberg who was repeatedly mentioned in the sterilization documents. This Professor Klauberg is a bacteriologist and is still in office today with the approval of the Military Government. About the second conspiracy the Prosecution has submitted my malaria reports. They are on page 30 of this document. No, I beg your pardon, 30 of the Document Book, page 3 of the document. I spoke about the effectiveness of alabrine prophylaxis.

Q: Mr. President, this is document of Prosecution No-922 to be found on pages 23-35 of Document Book Rose III. Please continue, Professor.

A: In my lecture on page 30 of the Document Book I spoke about atabrine prophylaxis. Then I spoke of malaria treatment doses, malaria relapses, then I discuss the scientific question of provocations in the course of treatment. Then I spoke of the significance of malaria in blood conserves and a self experiment is referred to which one of my assistants carried out which has a certain significance in literature.

And, then I deal with mosquito control. Mr. second lecture is this meeting dealing with the combating of anopheles by planes. Other participants in this meeting comment on my lecture. Mr. Menk speaks of what I said about atabrine dosage and is kind enough to confirm the correctness of my statements. Then Professor Rodenwaldt refers to my lecture and he says,"What Mr. Rose has stated about prophylaxis and therapy of malaria will be fully confirmed by everyone who has experience in tropical medicine, etc," That was very friendly of Mr. Rodenwaldt to support me with his authority.

Then in Document 37 on page 37 of this Document Book another participant at the meeting, Professor Hauer, refers to my statements and adds something. Then farther down the bacteriologist Klauberg again, who again refers to my work on flies and bacterial dysentery. The third conspiracy in May 1943 is on page 40 of the Document Book. There are discussion remarks by me — first the experiments of the Robert Koch Institute is reported compared to what Mr. Doetzer had previously reported. That is important for a document in this trial, Yesterday Professor Hagen was mentioned by the lawyer for Becker-Freyseng.

Q: You mean Professor Hoering?

A: Yes, Professor Hoering. I beg your pardon. And Becker-Freyseng's counsel asked Professor Hoering about a report which Professor Haagen had prepared on vaccine for typhoid and cholera. Mr. Hoering had considered this report a model or a conspiracy report of troop physicians but he said expressly that the vaccine used in that case was something quite old. Here it says, black on white, that several years before at the meeting of consulting physicians I said that for six years this method had been used at the Robert Koch Institute and that it was generally used throughout the world. Then the last remark to Mr. Ruge — the question whether with one single inoculation one can have the same success as with repeated inoculations. Then I report on scarlet fever and diphtheria vaccine.

Then I answer the question from Professor Schreiber as to whether passive inoculation is advisable in diphtheria. I say, "No." And I point out that it is forbidden in the Luftwaffe while it was recommended in the Army on my request — proof of the difference in technical regulations in the various branches of the Wehrmacht. Then there comes another speaker and it says my objection to a certain vaccine was wrong. He says he had good experience with it. Then comes another speaker who says "Rose is right." Then comes my remark on Ding's typhus report. This printed report of the meeting contains only what I said about the scientific significance of Mr. Ding's experiments. Since I intend to Discuss Ding's experiments in another connection I should like to go back to this at that time, and also the remark of Professor Uhlenhut.

THE PRESIDENT: Witness, at this time the Tribunal will be in recess until 2 o'clock. You may then continue.