1947-04-18, #3: Doctors' Trial (afternoon)

AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1400 hours, 18 April 1947)

THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court room will please find their seats. The Tribunal is again in session.

GERHARD ROSE — Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION (continued)

BY DR. FRITZ:

Q: Professor, will you please continue with your explanation of the excerpts from the meetings which are before you?

A: When I stopped speaking I was dealing with Rose Exhibit #10, Document #39, which is contained in Document Volume #3.

JUDGE SEBRING: Doctor, is it possible, when you refer to the number in the German document book, to also give the Tribunal the number in the English document book, or do you have before you the English document book?

WITNESS: No, I only have the German document book. The pages are nearly identical.

BY DR. FRITZ:

Q: In Document Books 1 and 2, I have examined them, and the pages correspond exactly with the German text. In Document Book 3 I have not checked it yet.

A: I stopped on page 6 of that document which is page 45 in Document Book #3 in the German as well as in the English. (The interpreter just kindly gave me an English copy.)

On page 113, there is a remark about disinfection of carriers of protozoa in the intestines and my experience regarding its treatment.

Then, on the next page, there are a few remarks about the danger of malaria to the German population from returning malaria infected soldiers.

This continues for a number of pages. There are some remarks made about field latrines.

I skip pages 49, 50, 51, and 52. These are not remarks made by me. We shall later use these excerpts when dealing with the count of the indictment of malaria.

This brings me to Rose Exhibit #11 which is Rose Document #39, to be found in Document Book #3 on page 53 in the German as well as the English. We are here dealing with the fourth Meeting of the Consulting Physicians. At first, there is a very detailed lecture by me about the causes of danger to health originating from aerial warfare. This was the lecture to which Professor Hoering already referred to in his testimony yesterday. On page 17 of that original document, or 70 of the document book in the English as well as in the German, the discussion of the professional groups of hygiene and tropical hygiene are starting in which I, at that time, was chairman. At first, there are my introductory remarks regarding Gesarel and Gix. These were the two most important DDT preparations which were available to us in Germany. Then there are a number of lectures by other scientists on that same subject. On page 71 there is a further discussion remark on that subject by me. On page 72 there is a discussion of the lectures on delousing, with DDT preparations. On page 73 there is a discussion of the importance of DDT preparations when combatting the flea plague and a few remarks which I made regarding the lectures by other scientists with reference to the importance of DDT preparations when combatting bugs. On page 74 there are remarks regarding diphtheria and scarlet fever vaccination, and on pages 75 and 76 there is a short report about the experiences we made in the Luftwaffe with these vaccinations.

On page 77 there is another discussion remark on the same subject and, at the end of my introductory remarks, you find remarks about pappataci fever which is sand fly fever. Then there is a remark made by another lecturer who refers to my reports.

Q: Do these four documents, Professor, contain everything that you ever reported yourself at these meetings of consulting physicians or everything that you remarked during discussions about lecturers or everything that was said about you or your lectures at these meetings?

A: Yes, I looked through those four books exactly — page after page — and I made excerpts in every case where I said something personally during these meetings, or whenever other people made any remarks about my utterances during these meetings. I can hardly imagine that I missed anything when going through these documents.

Q: At the Fourth Meeting of Consulting Physicians you yourself were the Chairman in the Section for Hygiene and Tropical Hygiene? Did you have anything to do with setting up the program?

A: Yes, in collaboration with the competent referent at the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service, and in collaboration with a number of specialists known to me with the competent Wehrmacht agencies, I drafted a program for my section. This program later had to undergo a few alterations by the Wehrmacht Medical Service which, in effect, meant that a few subjects to be dealt with were stricken out. In addition, after the meeting, I compiled the excerpts and the draft for printing purposes and then transmitted it to the referent with the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service for further working.

Q: Professor, I come back to my previous question very briefly; You mean, of course, that these excerpts contained everything with the exception of your remarks which were not printed made after Ding's lecture?

A: Yes, that is what I said when discussing the printed part very briefly.

Q: At earlier meetings did you have any part in setting up the program?

A: No, in the case of the three former meetings I was not asked to participate in working out the program. I am in no position to give any information as to how the procedure was applied at that time. That is, when I was Chairman at the Fourth meeting at the Hygiene Section. Then I prepared the program as I considered it to be expedient. I received no directives, there were no regulations. As a chairman I worked it out as I would have done in the case of a civilian meeting. The assignment for this lecture on malaria in the case of the second meeting I received directly from the medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe. I don't know who at that time initiated my being called upon to lecture and before that meeting I did not know who else would speak about malaria. My utterances during that meeting had to be adapted to what other gentlemen said about malaria during that meeting. These gentlemen partly made similar remarks which caused me to change my lecture in order not to make repetitions.

Q: Now please explain briefly the contents of what went on in the Hygiene Group under your chairmanship at the 4th meeting.

A: This green book containing the reports of the 4th meeting was made available here by the Prosecution and I am therefore in a position to say that the record of the Section Hygiene and Tropical Hygiene are in pages 159 to 205 of the printed daily report. The three main subjects of this section dealt with, first of all, the combatting of insects, especially by using DDT preparations when combatting insects. These were reports made on the basis of laboratory experiences and practical experiences. Lectures held by these various scientists are found on pages 159 up to 189. The second subject dealt with the results of physicians against diphtheria, and scarlet fever. Only practical experiences and the application and results of these vaccinations on troops were reported on. None of the lecturers was a member of the SS, therefore no physician of any concentration camp was participating so that no experiences could have been reported about vaccinations carried out in concentration camps. The third main subject was the Pappataci fever (sand fly fever). In the green book this is found in pages 197 to 205. Here only clinical experiences on the sick bed were reported on its practical combatting. Here again the use of DDT preparation was put into the foreground. One of the lecturers was Professor Hoering.

Q: At this 4th meeting you also held a lecture at the general session for all participants in the meeting. What did this lecture deal with?

A: When discussing the document I already mentioned it briefly. This lecture was the results of a year's work about damages to health resulting from aerial warfare. It contains my own observations. It furthermore speaks about the evaluation of the experience reports from various groups of physicians who were assigned to the various Luftgaus [air fleets] in order to study these questions. Furthermore, therein is contained the results of scientific papers written by specialists on the subject who were working on single problems in this entire complex.

Q: And what did you hear at these meetings about experiments on human beings?

A: I only heard the lecture by Dr. Ding, which was repeatedly mentioned here, which gave rise to my protest. However, I think it would be more expedient to discuss this matter when dealing with typhus.

Q: Did you hear that other participants spoke about the lectures of Professor Gabhardt and Dr. Fischer?

A: No, I myself was not present during that lecture, and I did not hear it discussed afterwards. Probably I must have read it afterwards, in the form as it is printed in the report of the meeting. At that time, however, I did not notice that this was a question of intentional infections on human beings. Of course today, after knowing the entire connection, one could perhaps conclude something like that from reading the diary. At that time, however, I did not notice it or at least I overlooked the entire lecture because, perhaps for reasons of time, I did not read all the lectures which were held in the surgical section. I can no longer say that today with any amount of certainty.

Q: Did you hear Professor Holzloehner at the second meeting of consulting physicians?

A: No, I did not hear Holzloehner's lecture during the second meeting of consulting physicians. I only went to the Hygiene Section when participating in the meeting of consulting physicians and was not always present during the general meeting. These general meetings I sometimes failed to visit in cases when the subjects did not interest me in particular and I had more urgent work to do elsewhere. For instance, I sometimes used that opportunity in order to speak to a number of hygienists who had just come from the Front to participate in this meeting.

Q: Now I come to the subject of typhus. You are charged with special responsibility for typhus experiments in the concentration camps Buchenwald and Natzweiler. Please tell the Tribunal first of all, to what extent, in your professional training, you came into contact with typhus at all.

A: During the war of 1914 to 1918 I saw no typhus whatsoever since I was only committed in the west where typhus did not prevail. After the war, however, I had opportunity, during my studies and as an intern at Breslau, to see a few cases of typhus which, as a result of the war, appeared in Silesia. In the institute where I received my first training in hygiene, typhus was either not dealt with at all, apart from the execution of the so-called Weil-Felix reaction, or I was busy in another department, as in the case of the Robert Koch Institute. During my years in China I received practical contact with typhus, because on many occasions I was asked to help in the combat of typhus, in cases of smaller epidemics which broke out in prisons, in the case of soldiers, or refugee camps. These, however, were very rare occasions. Chekiang is south of the Jangtse and in the south of China typhus does not occur frequently. At any rate, it sufficed to get myself infected. At that time I spent 4 weeks in a hospital, suffering from typhus. From a scientific point of view not much was done on typhus in my institute because it played no particular part in the province in which I was residing and where we had many more important parasitological problems.

Q: Then during this time you were connected only with the practical combatting of it?

A: I just had to deal with the combatting and not with the scientific work connected with it.

Q: Did you become acquainted with any typhus institutes on your trips?

A: In Peking a Typhus Vaccine Institute was founded during the time I was in China where the Weigl procedure was adopted. However, I had no opportunity to visit that institute. During my stay in the South Seas, that is, in British Malaya, I got into contact with the specialists there about their work and about the tropical typhus, when traveling through Northern American, upon recommendation of the Rockefeller Foundation, I visited the Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever Institute which is in Hamilton, Montana. There I was vaccinated with the vaccine produced there. I looked at the laboratories; I looked at patients located in a neighboring hospital; and I generally had the local situations shown to me where such infections occurred. During my journey through Africa I visited the specialists at Pretoria and Johannesburg who had to deal with tick-bite fever, which belongs to the group of typhus.

Q: Were you especially interested in typhus at that tine because you visited such typhus research workers especially?

A: The ricketsia, the typhus ricketsia, are the most important epidemics that exist. During my journeys I took every opportunity to inform myself of the work done by important researchers. In that way, for instance, I visited important animal epidemical institutes although I am not a veterinarian and in practice never got into contact with animal epidemics.

Q: After your return to Germany did you work with typhus?

A: Not in the laboratory. When in the year 1937 I took over the tropical department of the Robert Koch Institute, nobody in that institute was working on typhus. For decades such work was carried out there by Otten, who was the only person in Germany who dealt with typhus research during the period between the two great wars. Otten in the meantime had left for Frankfurt where he continued his work. Then in the year 1939 controversy arose between Gildemeister and Haagen on the one hand and myself on the other. I had accepted Professor Moeller's request to write a few chapters about typhus for a new edition of a hygiene textbook. The other two gentlemen accused me of thereby interfering in their competency and they said that, even if at the time they were not working on typhus, typhus at the same time belonged in their sphere of work, viz., belonged in virus research, and they said I did not have the right to accept any such assignment and for reasons of comradeship should have ceded it to those two gentlemen who wore know to be the virus research workers in that institute,

Q: Why did Professor Moellers, who should have known that, come to you and not to one of the other two gentlemen?

A: Moellers was a personal friend of mine and often had me tell him of my journeys. He wanted that the Exotic Ricketsia be given some consideration in that new edition, whereas before only the European lice typhus had been dealt with.

Q: Does one have to be a specialist to write such an essay for a medical textbook?

A: One doesn't have to be such a specialist for that. A textbook intended for students is, as a rule, quite brief, and it often becomes necessary that one write merely on the basis of the study of literature in fields where personally one is not a specialist. For instance, I wrote articles in textbooks merely on the basis of literature regarding South American illnesses although I never actually saw them and never in my life had any opportunity to travel in South America. This is a phenomenon which occurs in the case of all scientists who are writing textbooks. At any rate, in a textbook of hygiene for students the combatting of epidemics is the most important thing there and I had considerable experience in the case of typhus.

Q: Then during the last war did you have anything to do with typhus?

A: Yes. My first contact came about when the racial Germans were resettled on the basis of the German-Soviet Pact in the year 1939. At that time I was entrusted with heading the health service in the Soviet controlled territory since the resettlement started from the epidemic typhus areas in eastern Poland and because there was great suffering for refugees in these territories as a result of the war in 1939, and therefore the combatting of typhus constituted at that time our main worry.

Q: Then why were you picked out as a tropical medical specialist? Were no specialists available on that subject?

A: Naturally there were a few typhus specialists from the First World War who were still alive but these gentlemen usually were of 60 to 80 years of age and in addition, with the exception of Otten, had not dealt with typhus for a period of twenty years. It could not be assumed that these old gentlemen could spend two months on the road in Russia in a cold of 40 degrees. The young gentlemen like Eyer, Wohlrab, and Haagen knew very much about the laboratory problem but they had no experience in practical combat. In the final analysis we were not only concerned with typhus alone as to that resettlement, but we were concerned with a migration of population with all their medical problems. I was well acquainted with such refugee problems and camp questions.

In China I had much to do with such mass problems in case of floods and famines. At the same time I had the advantage, of course, of having been afflicted with typhus once and therefore not being in so much danger. These were probably the reasons it was asked I be relived from the Luftwaffe for those two months. I am a general hygienist from the start and only later did I study tropical hygiene without giving up general hygiene work. In the Luftwaffe I was the consultant for general hygiene and not tropical hygiene alone.

Q: Did you work in the laboratory on typhus questions?

A: No, I never dealt with typhus research in the laboratory. During my entire scientific career I never had one ricketsia culture in my laboratory and I never produced one centimeter of typhus vaccine myself.

Q: Did you have anything to do with testing typhus vaccines?

A: Never in my life did I myself test typhus vaccine or have it tested by one of my collaborators or any other person.

Q: During the war in Germany state regulations were issued as to the testing of typhus vaccine. Did you have anything to do with working out those regulations?

A: No, nothing whatever. I never participated in conferences concerning these regulations, nor was I invited to participate. I never gave any expert opinion about them. I knew such regulations existed but to this date I have not seen them. Since I never participated in these conferences, I do not know for certain who it was that worked out these regulations although I could make some assumptions since I knew who in Germany actually dealt with typhus.

Q: But Mr. McHaney called you the closest collaborator of Professor Gildemeister in connection with typhus vaccine, on page 1176 of the German transcript.

A: That is a very erroneous assumption on the part of Mr. McHaney. It is entirely incorrect.

DR. FRITZ: Mr. President, I would like to offer two affidavits from Rose Document Book No. 2. That is Document 16 on page 1 to 3 as Rose Exhibit 12.

This is an affidavit dated February 3, 1947, by the present director of the Robert Koch Institute, Geheimer Obermedizinalrat [Senior Medical Officer] Professor Dr. Otto Lentz, Berlin. I should like to read, this affidavit beginning with paragraph 2 of page 1:

Professor Rose was not the 'typhus expert' of the Robert Koch Institute nor did he work on typhus there, but he was the chief of the Department of Tropical Medicine and was in this capacity, with the exception of one research job about the transmission of dysentery and typhus bacilli by insects, exclusively concerned with tropical diseases and health parasites (insects). The typhus expert of the institute was rather Professor Haagen, the chief of the Virus Department. After his departure following his appointment to the Chair of Hygiene at Strassbourg University, Professor Gildemeister, then president of the Institute, continued the research on typhus.

Thus various physicians, among them Dr. Ding, received instruction on typhus from Professor Haagen in the Virus Department, but not from Professor Rose.

Owing to the destruction by air raids of many of the files of the Robert Koch Institute, I can no longer ascertain whether Professor Rose was associated with regulations for testing typhus. Several of the men who were at that time departmental chiefs, however, assured me unanimously that this had not been the case.

Professor Rose was never engaged in the preparation of yellow fever vaccine at the Robert Koch Institute, either. For, although yellow fever is a tropical disease, it was dealt with in the virus department, as it is caused by a virus. The special installations necessary for modern virus research, such as, for instance, a high vacuum pump and an intense coding installation, did not exist at all in the Department of Tropical Medicine. Research work on yellow fever too at the Robert Koch Institute was in the hands of Professor Haagen until 1941 and afterwards in the hands of Professor Gildemeister.

The research on hepatitis at the Robert Koch Institute was also exclusively carried out by the Virus Department (Haagen-Gildemeister). Thus Stabsarzt [Staff Surgeon] Dr. Domen was detailed to Gildemeister's department and he is not known to have had any connections with Professor Rose or with members of the Department of Tropical Medicine.

Finally, nothing is know of Professor Rose's having had the opportunity to be aware of Geheicrat Lockemann's chemo-therapeutical work (Chemotherapy of abdominal typhoid with Otrhemin). The only research on abdominal typhus carried on in Rose's department consisted of the experiments on the role of the house fly in the transmission of dysentery caused by bacteria and of abdominal typhus.

I am the present Director of the Robert Koch Institute in Berlin.

Berlin 5 February 1947

Then follows the signature and certification.

Doctor —

THE WITNESS: May I shortly interrupt? On Page 2 of this Document in the English Document Book, it says and this is exactly how it was read by the interpreter:

Whether Professor Rose was associated with the decisions taken on typhus experiment.

I may point out to you that it says in the German original Document, "Whether Professor Rose had something to do with the regulations for testing typhus." Regulations for testing refers to the state regulation for the testing of typhus vaccines, about which you asked me a few moments ago wherein the English translation here awakens the impression as if the Robert Koch Institute carried on negotiations about typhus experiments. In the English translations of the Document Books there are really very surprisingly few errors but unfortunately there is a mistake here on a very decisive question and I think an official correction will have to be made.

THE PRESIDENT: Repeat that slowly, will you?

THE WITNESS: This is Page 2, fifth and sixth line in the English book and in the German book it is the second page and the sixth and seventh line.

JUDGE SEBRING: Read, if you please, what you think the correct English translation should be.

THE WITNESS: According to my knowledge of English it should read, "Whether Professor Rose took part in setting up regulations for testing, regarding typhus, regulations for testing regarding typhus."

MR. HARDY: Your Honor, may I request whether the Interpretation Department in the court room concur with Dr. Rose's interpretation of this sentence?

THE INTERPRETER: Your Honor, if I could look at the German Document book I could tell you.

THE WITNESS: I give as translation: "Whether Professor Rose took part in setting up regulations for testing regarding typhus."

THE INTERPRETER: Your Honor, I think this seems to be a correct translation.

JUDGE SEBRING: The one suggested by Professor Rose or the one appearing in the book.

THE INTERPRETER: The one suggested by Professor Rose, Your Honor.

JUDGE SEBRING: will the witness read once more his version of the translation?

THE WITNESS: "Whether Professor Rose took part in setting up regulations for testing regarding typhus."

BY DR. FRITZ:

Q: In this connection, I am offering the following Document, Document Book Rose No. 2, No. 17, as Rose Exhibit No. 13. This is an affidavit by the Regierungs [Government] Medizinalrat [Medical Councilor], Dr. Emil Wohlrab, dated 11 February 1947 to be found on pages 4 and 5 of the Document Book Rose No. 2. I should like to read this affidavit into the record; on page one starting from the second paragraph:

I was formerly a scientific senior assistant with the State Institute for Experimental Therapy (Paul Ehrlich Institute) Frankfurt on Main, and I am at present in the capacity of epidemiologist as Regierungs-Medizinalrat (Government Medical Counsel) in the Ministry of Public Health and Welfare of the Province of Lower Saxony, Hanover.

Professor Rose was the department chief of the department for tropical medicine of the Robert Koch Institute and was never regarded among German scientists who worked on experimental typhus research in the laboratory, as a typhus expert of the Robert Koch Institute.

I was myself a scientific assistant at the Robert Koch Institute in the year 1935 and after that I was a scientific senior assistant at the Ehrlich Institute at Frankfurt on Main, and I know that in both institutes, for reasons of good collaboration, special research was in each particular case undertaken by one department alone, unless there were special working groups. Typhus research at the Robert Koch Institute was carried out by Professor Gildemeister, who started the research together with professor Haagen at the beginning of the war. No experimental scientific work by Professor Rose about typhus problems has come to my knowledge. This statement does not refer to Professor Rose's activities in the field of the general campaign against typhus, to which he most probably had to attend within the framework of his activities as a medical officer.

It is dated Hanover, 11 February 1947, then follows the signature and certification.

Professor, in the Ding Diary on the first page a session of 29 December 1941 is mentioned as the meeting from which the Buchenwald experiments originated. In that meeting you are not mentioned as a participant; but the Prosecution has submitted an affidavit of Kapo Dietsch, who was repeatedly described in the Documents as a murderer and who was working in Block 46 at Buchenwald, wherein you are mentioned as a participant in that meeting. Then Kapo Dietsch says, however, this meeting took place in November of 1941. Did you ever take part in any such meeting in November or December of 1941 and if not, did you hear about any such meeting taking place?

A: At first, the question of my participation: I neither was present during this meeting of 29 December 1941 nor can I remember ever having participated in a meeting which dealt with typhus at all, that is one during which the Under Secretary of State Conti and General oberstabsarzt [Chief Medical Officer] Handloser participated together.

Any such meeting where those two highly played chiefs were present would have been a big affair, which I could hardly forget, because at that time I was only an Oberstabsarzt. At any rate, the record of the meeting of 29 December 1941 is available as Exhibit No. 454 for the Prosecution and it becomes apparent from that Document that I was not present.

It says there that the Robert Koch Institute was represented by Professor Dr. Gildemeister. Naturally during the course of the years I took part in many meetings where typhus was discussed, but I am quite sure that I never took part in a meeting which had the alleged contents of the meeting which is mentioned here.

In addition, Gildemeister when at first telling me about the plans for Buchenwald, and that was at the beginning of March 1942, he never told me anything about some such meeting. He only said that Conti was the one that was representing that plan. In the same way, Conti, during my lecture after the visit to Buchenwald, did not say anything about any such meeting or about any participation of Professor Handloser. At that time I considered the whole matter something to be dealt with by the civilian sector and this can also be seen from the fact to whom I turned with my objection. If at that time I had hoard of any participation of the army, I certainly would have gone to General oberstabsarzt Dr. Handloser with my objections; even though I was not subordinated to him, this matter would have been important enough to me to go to the chief of another section of the armed forces, and that I did not do this, which proves very clearly at that time I was of the opinion that the army was net all participating.

Perhaps I may now point out that the names of the participants during that meeting in both lists were obviously compiled by persons who did not have sufficient knowledge of the Berlin Ministerial competencies and personnel relations as they prevailed at the end of 1941. I know the situation as it existed on the civilian as well as the military side, and looking at these lists, I notice a number of discrepancies as follows: Schreiber at that time was not at all with the Army Medical Inspectorate, that is, on the 29th of December, 1941. He at that time was the hygienist with the Army Physician. In this capacity he represented Handloser as a "Heeres-arzt" [Army doctor] whenever he went to Berlin from headquarters. Therefore, during the entire time in question, it never occurred that Handloser and Schreiber appeared in Berlin at the same time.

In Dr. Professor Handloser's testimony I was quite surprised that he didn't refer to this fact of which he must be quite well aware. At least one of these two gentlemen was at all times in headquarters. A Berlin meeting at the end of 1941 with Schreiber and Handloser together as participants is quite impossible. In addition to that, I may point out that, in particular, at that particular time in December 1941; the terrible plight prevailed in the Medical Service in Russia, to which repeated reference was made in this courtroom, and it follows from that that the hygienist with the Heeres-arzt certainly had other worries than interfering in the business of the Army Medical Inspectorate, which was competent for any such question dealing with typhus vaccines. Schreiber only later became the Chief of the Department I. G. and it was the matter of this Chief to accompany the Army Medical Inspectorate when dealing with such matters. Generalarzt [General Physician] Mueller was the Chief of I. G. in the year of 1941. The hygiene referent who also should have been present was Oberstabsarzt Schmidt. His representative was Oberstabsarzt Scholtz who is also mentioned in the record of the meeting which actually took place on the 29th of december 1941. The most capable typus expert of the Army was Professor Eyer. The consulting hygienist of the Army at that time was Professor Sartorius.

Of all these gentlemen who reasonably could have been expected to participate in such a meeting on the 29th of December, 1941, not one was mentioned. Of course, it is quite thinkable that anyone who knows of the important position which Professor Schreiber held one year after that would make that mistake if reconstructing any such meeting and would, therefore, list him as a participant.

The second point I want to mention with reference to the civilian sector is the following: Undersecretary of State Conti, naturally, would never have visited any such meeting without being accompanied by one of the three referents. These referents, however, are left out in the case of both lists.

For Reiter as well as Gildemeister did not belong to the Ministry but rather belonged to Reich Institutions, or Reich agencies, which were outside the Ministry, agencies which had no executive duties but gave only scientific opinions for the benefit of the highest Reich authorities. In that connection it may be pointed out that professor Reiter was president of the Reich Health Office and had nothing whatsoever to do with vaccines. For vaccines and infectious diseases experts of the Robert Koch Institutes were always used. If, however, these experts were used for such a meeting, always at least one of these three referents was present, as during the actual conference on 29th December 1941 Professor Bieber is mentioned as being in charge and he was the oldest one of these three referents for epidemic questions.

Thirdly, referring to my own person, General-Oberstabsarzt Handloser at the end of 1941 had not yet been the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service. Therefore, he could only represent the Army and not the Wehrmacht. Naturally, a conference of the Ministry of the Interior without the participation of the other branches of the Wehrmacht is quite assumable. If, however, you invite the highest level of the health authorities of the military and civilian sectors to any such meetings, and if, in addition to that, you invite the Luftwaffe, then certainly one does not invite the consulting hygienist of the Luftwaffe but the medical chief of the Luftwaffe.

He would either appear in person or he would send his chief of staff as his representative, if he for some reason could not come.

It is possible that he would bring his consulting man along, but he certainly wouldn't send him along alone, in particular since he only holds the rank of an Oberstabsarzt.

For the other participants in this meeting know very well that this consulting man has no executive functions whatsoever and, therefore, it not at all in a position to make any binding statements during any such meeting where responsible chiefs are debating; firstly, because he has no executive functions; secondly, because as a scientist cannot overlook the possibilities as they refer to executive questions. In addition, in asking the Luftwaffe to participate alongside with the Army, it was always customary to invite the Navy, too. In the case of both lists, there is no mention at all made of the Navy. Considering these discrepancies, both entries received a stamp of improbability.

Q: In any case, you heard nothing about a meeting where the testing of vaccines at Buchenwald was supposedly decided upon?

A: No. Neither did I personally take part in any such meeting, nor did I at any time hear of any such meeting. The meeting dated the 29th of December, 1941, a record of which was submitted here, only came to my knowledge owing to the document of the Prosecution.

Q: Then how did you come into contact at all with the testing of typhus vaccines on human beings in Buchenwald? You were in Buchenwald, weren't you?

A: Yes. On one occasion I was there together with Professor Gildemeister. This visit came about in the following manner: when visiting the Robert Koch Institute, probably in early March, 1942, I spoke to Professor Gildemeister. When mentioning what period of time it is, I have to state that this is a mere estimation on my part which is given support by the statements made in the Ding Diary. I know the difference of time when I had my conversation with Gildemeister and my visit to Buchenwald, but I neither know the exact date when I was in Buchenwald nor do I know the exact date when I had my conversation with Gildemeister; and if I am now saying "early in March", I am only doing that because I assume that this date is correct, namely, the 17th of March.

However, I don't know.

Professor Gildemeister on the occasion of this visit told me that upon investigation of Dr. Conti, the protective value of the various typhus vaccines was to be tested by making experiments on human beings at Buchenwald in the vicinity of Weimar. He said that the reason for these experiments was the difference of opinions on the part of the experts dealing with that question which could not be overbridged regarding the value of the various procedures of production.

Gildemeister said that the experiments are to be carried out on criminals who had been condemned to death. I was very surprised at hearing that, and impulsively rejected that plan. I offered my opinion to the effect that this plan was not in accordance with what should be used in the case of vaccine procedure. It was not in accordance with the tradition of vaccine procedure and in addition to that I thought that animal experiments were completely sufficient in the case of typhus vaccine investigation.

I was rather indignant and I said if this procedure was to be custom we could hand over to an executioner all of the immunity science or a department for executions at our institute. Gildemeister obviously was rather indignant about the severity of my reaction since our personal relationship was not friendly. He told me that he had been invited to look at how these experiments were progressing at Buchenwald, and he said that before making any utterances of that nature I should at first convince myself exactly what was happening there and how it was happening there; and he said he would see to it that I would get permission to enter the camp in order to look at it. A few days later he telephoned me and told me the date of the journey, as well as that he had to permission for me to enter the camp. Gildemeister neither at that time, nor on any other occasion, told me that he was actively participating in the planning and executing of the experiments.

Q: Did you accept this invitation?

A: Yes, a few days after this telephone conversation I took a train to Weimar together with Professor Gildemeister and from there went to Buchenwald by car. Here we were lead through the camp by a physician into a hospital which was separated by some barbed wire. There we were lead through a number of stations. I don't know the name of the physician or the names of any other persons who were introduced to me at Buchenwald, I cannot remember. I am sure however it was not Dr. Ding because it was said that he; had infected himself while carrying out these experiments and had fallen ill of typhus. The accompanying physicians stated that the individual groups had been treated with a number of typhus vaccines and were later injected with typhus virus. He said that one group was infected without previously being vaccinated. The patients of the group that was not vaccinated made a very ill impression The entire station represented a picture of a typical station with patients who were suffering from severe typhus. The [illegible] impression in the case of other stations that of less ill patients. In the laboratory we were shown the fever charts of the individual patient. There the difference of the course of the illness with or without vaccination could easily be recognized from looking at these favor charts.

Since it is extremely difficult to compare 140 fever charts with one another, the individual charts of the various groups were summarized in order to, report the average charts of the various groups at night. Next morning these summarized charts were shown to us, and looking at these average charts the difference come to light in even much clearer way. We stayed over night in a barracks outside the camp, we were once more shown the patient on the next day. During that visit the physician of the hospital introduced two inmates who belonged, to the group that was not vaccinated but who had not fallen ill. This was at first a great surprise for the physicians who participated in the experiments, for 120 or however many were vaccinated, had all fallen ill. The renewed examination of the case history of those two patients had shown, however that they during their stay in prison in Berlin, had suffered typhus, that is while they were in Berlin and before they were sentenced. They however had said, that they fell ill of influenza when questioned before. The physician added that every one was quite upset about that at first because one intentionally only used German criminals for that experiments, for in case of criminals of the East one always had to take into account that at some earlier time they had already gone through typhus. In the case of Germans, however one thought there was no such possibility. In evaluating the experiments those two patients who had not fallen ill became especially important because it was proven through them that the natural immunity protected against the infection technique, while none of the vaccines actually protected any one against the infection. The vaccines only mitigated the course of the illness and prevented any fatalities. I took the noon train from Weimar to Berlin, Professor Gildemesiter on the other hand used a later train.

Q: In his commentary on Ding's diary on the 17 March, 1942 Mr. McHaney said, page 1179 of the German transcripts — I shall quote this passage:

Here we find that the defendant Rose with his friend and superior, Professor Gildemeister, visited Buchenwald and was present at the experiments, including injections performed on the inmates of concentration camps.

Now, I ask you, were you present when concentration camp inmates were injected?

A: No, it becomes clearly apparent from the entry in the diary that my visit occurred at a period of time when all experimental subjects already had fever. According to Dings diary, the infections were carried out on the 5 January 1942, for the first time, and on the 7 January 1942 for the second time, and on the 3 March 1942 for the third time the latter time, allegedly in the presence of Professor Gildemeister and that was the 4th day before my only visit to Buchenwald.

Q: Mr. McHaney said further in the same commentary, and I quote:

The defendant Rose will not wish to deny that he visited Buchenwald. He will admit that he was there.

Now I ask you did you ever deny that you visited Buchenwald or that you had knowledge of that first typhus experiments?

A: No, I never did. I never denied it. On the other hand, during my lecture in Basel on the 17 February l944, I said that I myself saw Ding's experimental subjects. The lecture will be submitted here as a document. I said that too during the third meeting of the consulting physicians on the occasion of Ding's lecture. In addition I said that when I was interrogated at Letimere in June 1945, and I stated that when interrogated for the only time here by the Prosecution in Nuernberg before I had any knowledge whatsoever about the existence of Ding's diary, or any other documents of the Prosecution.

Q: According to the transcript of the same session Mr. McHaney went on to say:

We saw that the Robert Koch Institute delivered the virus through the defendant Rose, with which these unfortunate victims were infected.

I ask you, did you deliver typhus virus for the infection of experimental subjects an Buchenwald?

A: You obviously mean the comment to the entry of the diary of the 26 January 1943, don't you?

Q: Yes, I beg your pardon, page 1182 of the German transcript.

A: No, I never delivered any such virus. I wouldn't have been in a position to do so because neither myself nor my department were in the possession of typhus virus. I never had typhus vaccine at my disposal and for that reason I never could have delivered any such virus to anyone else. The entry in the diary upon which Mr. McHaney commented reads as follows:

26 January 1943 artificial infection with egg yolk virus, operation No. 223 and 226, Ricketsia Prowazecki strain from the Robert Koch Institute.

The addition of my name to this entry obviously is based upon Mr. McHaney's knowledge. Where he got this knowledge from, however, I don't know. At any rate this knowledge cannot be reliable because this statement is incorrect.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal now will be in recess until 09:30 Monday morning.