1947-04-21, #1: Doctors' Trial (early morning)

Official transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 21 April 1947, 1015, Justice Beals presiding.

THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court room will be seated.

The Honorable Judges of Military Tribunal I.

Military Tribunal I is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.

There will be order in the court.

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, will you ascertain if all the defendants are present?

THE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honor, all the defendants are present in court.

THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary General will note for the record the presence of all the defendants in court.

The Secretary General will also note for the record that Tribunal I convened this morning at 10:15 o'clock due to delay in the broadcasting system.

Counsel may proceed.

GERHARD ROSE — Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION (continued)

BY DR. FRITZ (Counsel for the defendant Rose):

Q: Professor, at the end of the session on Friday I had read you some commentaries which Mr. McHaney had made on entries in the Ding Diary. The last one was about an entry of 26 January 1943. I have two brief questions on this subject. On the 26th of January, l943, were you Vice President of the Robert Koch Institute?

A: No, my appointment as Vice President was either on the 1st of March or the 1st of April, 1943. I myself was informed of it only later because at that time I was with the Wehrmacht and, in effect, this appointment never was in operation because my service with the Wehrmacht took all my time.

Q: Did you learn that the Robert Koch Institute delivered typhus virus for infection?

A: No, I did not learn that. Therefore, I cannot even say whether the entry is correct or not, and, therefore, I do not know whether the head of the typhus department, Professor Gildemeister, was informed for what purpose the virus was to be used which he delivered, assuming that he did deliver any and that the entry is correct.

Q: Professor, on Friday you had already told the Tribunal your experience when you visited Buchenwald. Now, I should like to come back to this visit. I ask you what conclusions did you draw from this visit of yours to Buchenwald and what you saw there?

A: That was in part described by the testimony of the witness Mrs. Block. After my return to Berlin I had State Secretary Conti's office called up and informed that I had been in Buchenwald, and, at the suggestion of Professor Gildemeister I had watched the typhus experiments. I asked State Secretary Conti for an appointment for a personal consultation. Dr. Conti had my private secretary given an appointment. I went to see the State Secretary and I told him briefly what I had seen, but then I said that I had not come about the details of these experiments but about the fundamental problems connected with this question. Gildemeister had told me, I said, that the experiments were made at the instigation of State Secretary Conti. Now, human experiments in infectious diseases were nothing new, of course, but to make the admissibility of certain vaccines dependent on their use in human experiments deviated from all tradition of testing vaccines if the experiment was a matter of life and death. For four decades hygiene knew the problem of testing vaccines and the traditional procedure was to test the compatibility and protective effect of a vaccine by animal experiments. If these experiments were satisfactory, then the tolerance in human beings was tested and the dose to be used determined in these experiments. Then, with serological and cutaneous reactions, an attempt is made to determine what change has occurred.

Although one knows exactly that these reactions are not a reliable measurement of immunity, then one waits for a natural exposure of the vaccinated persons to determine the epidemiological success, and this epidemiological success is measured by comparing the effects on vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. Earlier, artificial infections may have occurred here and there may have been undertaken here and there exceptions, but not in diseases which might be fatal. In such a definite change from previous procedure, I would have considered it necessary that at least the authorities of the field in question that is, in this case typhus — Gildemeister, Otto, Eyer, Haagen, Bickhardt, Bieling and Wohlrab — that they should be asked first whether they considered such a very significant step absolutely essential.

Q: Now, what was State Secretary Conti's answer?

A: First, Conti asked me whether Gildemeister knew that I was coming or whether Gildemeister had sent me. I said "no". Then Conti said in answer that he too had had misgivings before he had decided to take this step. The seriousness of the danger of typhus, however, made extraordinary measures necessary. In the Government General, that is, in Occupied Poland a serious typhus epidemic had already broken out. The Russian prisoners of war had, to a considerable extent, brought typhus into the Reich territory. In all posts, camps and prisons within the Reich there had already been local epidemics. How it was in the Wehrmacht I had to know better than he, he said, but he had had rather extremely disturbing news from that source too. According to the experience of the Ministry, hundreds of thousands of human lives were at stake and he, the State Secretary, and not the scientists had the responsibutlity for the measures which had to be taken. In view of this emergency, he had had to subordinate his misgivings which he had had just as I had. He could not wait for epidemiological statistics which might give a clear answer only after years or perhaps only after decades according to experience. He could not wait so long if there was a possibility, with a small price of human lives, to learn the correct measures to protect hundreds of thousands.

He was a doctor just as well as I and valued human life just as highly as I, but in wartime, when millions of the best and completely innocent must sacrifice their lives, the parasite of society must also be required to make his contribution to the general welfare. Now, as for my suggestion that the specialists be consulted, he had considered it sufficient to have his staff inform him about the whole matter but, in the future, he would be glad to remember my suggestion in suitable cases.

Q: Did you say anything more?

A: I emphasized again that I was interested in the fundamental question and that I could not change my views on that, and I added that I did not believe that the results at Buchenwald would be very different than the results of the animal experiments. I must say expressly that I said this to Mr. Conti at that time but that the later course of events proved clearly that I was wrong in this assumption. The Buchenwald experiments gave considerable information in addition to what we knew at the time on the basis of animal experiments. The State Secretary then dismissed me with the words that even though he could not agree with my views, he wanted to thank me for having come to him. He much preferred hearing objections than always to be surrounded by "yes-men".

Q: Did you report to Professor Gildemeister about your discussion with Conti?

A: Yes, that was my official obligation. I had to report regularly to my immediate superior about every conference which I had with higher offices. Therefore, I reported this conference subsequently to President Gildemeister. He was very much annoyed because it was about a fundamental question and a question which was his special field. He said that I had overstepped my authority and that I had intervened in things which were none of my business. He also made further rather violent reproaches at the time and said that I was presumptuous, that I thought I had better ethics than my colleagues and that my discipline and my understanding for authority in general questions were not satis factory.

I had no sense for authority or for colleaguality.

Q: Why didn't you discuss your visit to Conti beforehand with Professor Gildemeister?

A: That President Gildemeister had a different view than I was obvious from our first discussions on the subject and also from the discussions in the evening on the visit to Buchenwald. It was clear to me that if I told Gildemeister of my intended visit to Conti that he would forbid it. He had the right to do so. He was my superior. I was only a department director at the institute at the time. From the point of view of civil service, Gildemeister was quite correct. It was true, that I had gone over his head and that I had interferred with my criticism in a field with which I had nothing to do in the institute. Typhus was Gildemeister's field, not mine, but in the whole matter, as I told Conti, I was not interested in the problem of typhus especially, but the fundamental problem of experiments on human beings and I felt that I was concerned and I felt justified in speaking.

Q: Did you not have to expect Conti to reproach you for going over Gildemeister's head and talking to him?

A: No, this danger didn't exist. I had met Conti for the first time during the resettlement. The health service of the resettlement project was directly under him, and in individual cases I had seen clearly that Conti placed great value on being in direct contact with subordinate doctors and definitely was not interested in whether the intermediate authorities liked it or not. Conti was anything but a bureaucrat. He was in definite opposition to Gildemeister on such questions. Gildemeister was very much concerned with observing the correct form and going through channels. Moreover, it was such an important matter that I would not have cared much for a violation of form. I knew from the beginning that Gildemeister would object.

Q: I have another question about your visit to Buchenwald. At that time didn't you wonder where such a large number of criminals conned to death came from; there were nearly 150 people?

A: Now, of course, this question seems quite justified, but at that time I had been given the information by an authority I considered absolutely trustworthy. I had no occasion to doubt it at the time. As for the number, one must consider that we were living under martial law at the time; and in Germany so many infractions were punishable by death under the special laws that I was not at all surprised. I can give so many examples; crimes taking advantage of a black-out; violations of the rationing laws; blackmarketing; plundering during air raids; refusal to serve in the Army, espionage, and a great many other things. And not a word was said in Buchenwald at the time that the experimental subjects were old prisoners of the camp. The only two whose personal affairs were discussed were the two people who came from the prison at Moabit, where they had typhus, and for the others I assumed also that they had been taken to Buchenwald for the experiments. One must conduct such, experiments somewhere in a camp under guard. In an ordinary hospital people who are condemned to death would immediately break out, and in a normal prison, a penitentiary with its cells, one cannot carry out such an experiment. That the experiments were conducted in a concentration camp seemed quite reasonable to me, because the block which I had seen was arranged just like a hospital. It was a strong building with large rooms. It was quite shut off from the rest of the camp as far as I could judge.

Q: And then later did you talk to Professor Gildemeister about the experiments in Buchenwald?

A: I cannot remember that. As far as I know after our dispute about my visit to Conti on my own initiative, the visit to Buchenwald and my experiments were not discussed again. After that time until the time whom my section was permanently disassociated from the institute and turned into a Luftwaffe Unit I saw Mr. Gildemeister only quite rarely. Those few meetings were always about matters of my department, the question of the transfer of my department for reasons of air security, also complaints that I could not give enough supervision to my department. Mr. Gildemeister was of the opinion that in my department everyone did what he wanted to. He wanted to appoint a permanent representative for me or attached my personnel to another department. Those are all the differences which finally occasioned me to turn my department into a Luftwaffe Unit in order to get rid of the unpleasantness. Any talk with Professor Gildemeister turned into a quarrel since I became vice-president against his wish.

MR. HARDY: May I please Your honors, the Prosecution has not objected to the defendant using notes to assist him in the course of his examination. However, it has become apparent Professor has each and every question answered in detail before him in writing. It seems to me he could use notes to refresh his memory to some extent, however, if he has each question answered in detail in writing beforehand it becomes apparent that Professor Rose could sign the so answers and turn them in in the form of an affidavit and dispense with the lengthy examination, because he has the answers all before him in detail, and is merely reading them.

THE PRESIDENT: It is, of course, a general rule that a witness may use notes in answering questions which may be asked him; but if a witness is merely roading answers, it would seem to the Tribunal those matters might be filed as included in an affidavit. Counsel of the Prosecution might cross-examine the witness as to who wrote the note, or the paper from which he is reading, but if the witness is merely reading those answers the Tribunal is of the opinion an affidavit would be just as good as the testimony of the witness from the stand.

MR. HANDY: I might suggest the Tribunal may look at the notes the defendant is using, and I think that he will see each question numbered and afterwards in German the word 'answer', and a rather elaborate answer given to each question, which appears to be just what the defendant is reading. If the Tribunal will peruse the sheets that the defendant is referring to you might see that they are in the form of an affidavit and he could sign them and use them here in lieu of this examination.

THE PRESIDENT: I will ask counsel for the defendant what he thinks about what the Tribunal has said, whether or not an affidavit would not be just as good as reading from the written paper, which amounts practically to an affidavit, simply all the statements under oath, instead of a written statement.

DR. FRITZ: Mr. President, as for the answers which the defendant has given, I fully agree that he should render them more freely. As for the questions, of course, in view of the difficulty of the material and since I myself am a layman in medical matters, I have had to discuss the questions, which I ask the defendant Rose, with the defendant beforehand.

THE PRESIDENT: That is perfectly natural, but if the witness has written out each word of his answer why would not the filing of that writing in the formof an affidavit be just as good as his oral testimony from the stand where he simply reads what he has already written?

DR. FRITZ: I shall then ask the Defendant Rose only to consult his notes which he has had to make because of dates, etc, and to answer my questions that way.

THE PRESIDENT: If the witness simply uses notes for that purpose he may continue testifying. If he is going to read page after page of what he has written the Tribunal sees no advantage in all the testimony over an affidavit.

DR. FRITZ: May I continue the examination of the defendant, Mr. President?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, if the witness will simply use what he has in the form of notes, such as dates and places, and so forth, the examination may continue.

Q: Did you never visit the typhus section of the Robert Koch Institute?

A: Perhaps I may make a comment on the objection and explain what I am doing. I have quite naturally thought over very carefully the questions which you worked out. For each question I compiled what I need for the answer, but I am not reading what I have written down here. I am not reading it word for word. I am using the notes to formulate my answers, but of course from time to time I look down at the notes in addition to your question to see what I have noted down as important for the answer which I must give to this questions.

Now, as to your question about my visits to the Typhus Departments of the Institute. In the time when work was done on all typhus during the war, I have never entered this department, because it was forbidden for people who did not belong to the department to enter it. This prohibition existed because of the danger of infection, and that is quite reasonable because in the course of time all the persons who worked in this department fell ill of typhus. In all such institutes people who have no business in the department are not allowed to enter it. The talks with Professor Gildemeister took place in his office, not in the department. He was called there from the typhus department, and generally in order to avoid wasting time, as Mrs. Block has already stated, I had an appointment made by nor beforehand, and then he was in his office at that time. The offices were for discussion, not the laboratories. I didn't let visitors into my laboratory either. I received them in my office.

Q: Did Professor Gildemeister never discuss his work with you?

A: I know Gildemeister's work only from his publication, from the annual reports of the institute. It is not customary in such large research institutes for the heads of the various departments to discuss their work with one another unless they happen to be working together. Scientists normally do not make their work and plans public before publication. His thoughts are his only scientific possession and he is generally over-anxious to protect them, thus he preserves secrecy even toward people working in another field than he himself, because these people too might by carelessness betray his secrets to others and thus do harm to him.

Q: Then you heard nothing more about any work of Professor Gildemeister at Buchenwald after the one visit which you paid to the camp?

A: No, I did not hear anything more about it, but also for example I did not learn that Professor Gildemeister had any part in the preliminary experiments, as the Ding Diary assets, and when we visited Buchenwald, Gildemeister did not tell me he had been there before and his conduct during this visit did not lead me to believe he had. It was surprising to me to see in Dr. Ding's diary how often Ding says what frequent connections he had with Professor Gildemeister and the Robert Koch Institute; furthermore if those statements are actually true, I cannot judge for sure and for purely technical reasons I think that is extremely unlikely.

Q: Why?

A: I must come back to Document Book No. 12, in the Ding Diary, Document No. 265 on Pages 39 to 47 of the German Document Book, there is a discovery of revolutionary importance for typhus research, and especially for the question of vaccine. It says in the German text on Page No. 39, for 30 November, 1942 that infection did not progress in the control persons in the experimental series of 26 January to 20 October, 1943, that is on Pages 41 and 42; according to the Diary, one fourth of those infected did not fall ill at all, the others only fairly severely.

In the group of 80 persons, on the 31st of March, 1943 of the 80 infected no one fell ill. That is pages 45 and 47. For the hygienist these dates show that a event had occurred for which many typhus research workers throughout the world were waiting, a typhus strain, a strain highly virulent for the laboratory animal, as Ding's work in 1943 shows, which is Mrugowsky Document, I believe, No. 9, here this typhus strain was obviously completely avirulent for men. One hundred people were infected with this strain without a single one of them falling ill. The event had occurred for which artificial creation Professor Haagen in Strassbourg worked with all the facilities of modern virus research. This event might have had the same importance as the discovery by Jenner of the harmlessness of small-pox vaccines, or the discovery of living avirulent plague strains by Koller and Otto, or the discovery of avirulent tubercular bacteriae by Calmette. I immediately realized the significance of this discovery when I looked at the Ding Diary here for the first time. It did not take a minute to realize that, and we are to believe this diary of Mr. Ding that a man like Gildemeister, who in the last four years of his life, had worked on nothing whatever but typhus vaccine, that such a man failed to realize the importance of this event, that he did not follow up this question. In the Ding Diary there is not a single notation to the effect whether these persons who did not fall ill, although they were infected, developed immunity. For the layman this matter may not appear to be so important; for the hygienist, however, it is an absolutely sensational thing. It is quite incredible to me that a man like Gildemeister could overlook such an important fact and that he failed to realize its importance if he was told of it as the Ding Diary says on Page 47 and the entry of 11 April 1943, where it says:

Report for SS Standartenfuehrer [Colonel] Prof. Mrugowsky. Professor Gildemeister says the highly virulent strains of the Robert Koch Institute seem no longer pathogenic for human beings.

That a young man like Ding might overlook such a thing is possible, but that with the knowledge and suggestion of Professor Gildemeister these terrible passage series should be started and that no one takes any interest in this important discovery? I cannot imagine as a specialist, I must deny if anyone says that I knew it.

Then another question: Mr. Gildemeister and Mr. Haagan became enemies when Haagen left the institute, but, at least, I assume, that they had some contacts, and that Gildemeister told Professor Haagan that this Matelzka strain had become completely avirulent, and that one hundred people had been infected with it already without one of them getting a fever. That is quite unlikely, Professor Haagen worked for months on the fever reactions in his living dry vaccine to weaken them, as he merely had to get some of the Matelzka strain from the Robert Koch Institute and then he would have what he was looking for.

Q: You heard the lecture which Dr. Ding gave on his experiments at the third meeting of consulting physicians in the Section for Hygiene and Tropical Hygiene?

A: Yes, that was the time when I protested openly against this whole method.

Q: Well, what happened?

A: Dr. Ding gave his lecture in the camouflaged way as in his publication for the Journal of Hygiene and Infectious Diseases, but the audience could not tell that this concerned experiments on human beings.

When the discussion began, I commented on the results of these experiments. That part of my statement is contained in the record of the meeting. That is in Rose Document Book No. 3, Document 38, which has already been submitted, on page 43 of Document Book 3. I do not intend to read these remarks but I simply refer to it. I still want to point out one can find here what I said about the technical aspect of the experiments and about the results.

Then I spoke of the ethical side of the whole thing and this part of my statement has been stricken from the record. I cannot, of course, today reproduce the exact wording but only the sense of what I said. I said more or less as follows: As important and as basic as the results may have been, they were nevertheless achieved at the price of a number of human lives. That we as hygienists must object that a life and death experiment be made as the prerequisite for the introduction of a vaccine. So far, testing with animal experiments and subsequent determination of tolerance by human beings and epidemiological exploitation have been the customary procedure. This procedure had proved its value. We had to stick to it and we couldn't let other political and state authorities force us to conduct human experiments. I spoke much longer at the time. I spoke for at least ten minutes. Ding answered that he could calm my conscience. The experimental subjects had been criminals condemned to death. My answer was: I knew that myself. I was not interested in the individuals concerned but in the principle of human experiments in testing vaccines. At this comment Professor Schreiber interrupted the discussion. He said he pretested against my criticism and if we wanted to discuss basic ethical questions we could do that during the recess. He would have this part of the discussion stricken from the record and that was done. After the meeting various participants came to me and discussed the whole thing with me. Some agreed with me; others were convinced that in such an important question human experiments were justified.

Of course, these people who agreed believed Ding's assurance that the subjects were criminals condemned to death. I no longer remember the individual gentlemen with whom I talked during the recess and I don't know who was in favor and who was against it. The only one I remember is Professor Mrugowsky because he spoke as an SS member and the experiments had been conducted by an SS doctor, and because I thought that Mrugowsky was Ding's superior in every way. Of course, I remember that Mrugowsky came of all people and said that in principle he agreed with me and that he had expressed similar misgivings to Grawitz and that Grawitz had rejected his misgivings and then I also learned from Mrugowsky that Himmler was behind all of these

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now be in recess.

(A short recess was taken.)