1947-04-22, #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 22 April 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.

THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court room will please find their seats.

The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal 1.

Military Tribunal 1 is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal.

There will be order in the courtroom.

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, you ascertain if the defendants are all present in court.

THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honor, all defendants are present in the courtroom.

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

Counsel may proceed.

GERHARD ROSE — Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued)

DR. FRITZ (Counsel for the Defendant Rose): Yesterday I discussed with the Defendant Rose his trip to Copenhagen and was about to put in Rose Document 46 among supplementary documents which will be Rose Exhibit No. 20. I quote:

STATENS SERUMINSTITUT [State Serum Institute], Kobenhavn, S.

4 March 1947 In answer to questions asked us about the visit of Professor Rose, I can say the following:

to l) Did Prof. Rose, when he visited the Institute at the end of September 1943, request that the Copenhagen Institute take up the production of the typhus vaccine from Rickettsia Prowazeki in order to help overcome the great shortage of typhus vaccine?

Yes.

to 2) Was this request refused by Director Oerskov for valid reasons?

Yes.

to 3) Was R. then taken visit Dr. Ipsen's section?

I do not remember this, but it is apparent from Dr. Ipsen's experiment records that Professor Rose actually was in Dr. Ipsen's laboratory on 24 September and probably discussed these problems with him. Unfortunately Dr. Ipsen is at present in America on a study trip and will not return before June or July. It is, however, apparent from our records that if Professor Rose ever received samples of our vaccine it could only have been a small quantity, and neither I nor Dr. Ipsen's colleagues have ever heard anything of the possible effects of our vaccine.

Through the Danish Red Cross we sent our vaccine to Danish as well as Norwegian prisoner-of-war camps, but so that the vaccine was given only to Danish or Norwegian colleagues. We heard from Danish colleagues that the effect of these vaccinations was good.

I can add that I am grateful to Professor Rose, because he probably helped to prevent our Institute's being compelled to take over the production of typhus vaccine. It is entirely unpredictable what calamities might have arisen if we had been forced to take up the production of this vaccine.

/s/ J. Orskov Dr. med.

That is certified by a notary public and the American Legation.

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

Q: Professor, what did you do now after this failure when you returned to Berlin?

A: I informed Professor Schreiber briefly by phone, and then sent him an extensive written report. This report was in two parts, the first part described the negotiations, the failure, and the reasons why the institute was not willing to undertake producing this vaccine, and my statement that I held these grounds to he substantial.

Then, the second part, which I had written separately as an annex, stated what I had heard from Dr. Ipson accidentally regarding his new murine vaccine. This annex I had typed in several copies and I sent it to the various typhus specialists whom I considered important in Germany in order to inform them also of what I had found cut in Copenhagen. A fragment of this report has been found and you can see in that what I proposed.

DR. FRITZ: Mr. President, we were able to find this report on Rose's official trip to Copenhagen, and I put it in as Rose Document 22, this is in Rose Document Dock No. 2, pages 15 to 19. This is Rose Exhibit 21 — the Document number is 22, the Exhibit No. is 21. As the Defendant Rose has just described, he sent this report of the tour to about six different offices that were concerned with typhus in Germany, including the Behring berks in Marburg, and from them, I have received this communication of Rose which I should like to read:

Oberstarzt [Colonel, Medical Corps.] Prof. Rose 29 September 1942 (place: unknown)

To: Behring — Works Marburg/Lahn

I take the liberty of sending herewith for your information a file memo regarding reports by Dr. Ipsen on his experience in the production of typhus vaccine.

/s/ Rose "Oberstarzt of the Reserve"

It is certified by the Mayor of Marbach.

Then there is annexed to this letter the report of the trip and I should like you to explain briefly the contents of this report.

MR. HARDY: Your Honors, this document is certified to be a true copy by the Burgomeister [Mayor]. Might I inquire where the original document is located?

DR. FRITZ: The original is in the files of the Behring-Works. It could be obtained. It is certified by the Mayor of Marbach, near Marburg.

MR. HARDY: Inasmuch as the original or a photostatic copy thereof could be obtained, your Honors, I object to its introduction into evidence in this form.

THE PRESIDENT: On what grounds do you base your objection, counsel?

MR. HARDY: This is merely a copy which is herein certified and it is customary most original Germany documents introduced here in this trial have either certified photostatic copies or the original German document.

DR. FRITZ: If I recall correctly, Mr. President, the Tribunal rules that the certification should be made either by a German Notary Public or a Mayor and this document has been certified by a Mayor.

MR. HARDY: That applied, as I recall, only to affidavits wherein they were certifying the signature of affiants or taking oath of an affiant.

I don't believe that ruling applied to making copies of German original documents.

PROF. ROSE: Perhaps this difficulty could be overcome in the following manner. Since these are letters and reports from me and since I am testifying under oath, I am ready to testify here that they correspond to the letters and reports which I sent out.

THE PRESIDENT: Defense counsel may interrogate the witness upon that subject.

BY DR. FRITZ:

Q: You then testify, Professor, that this is the report that you sent to the various offices? I ask you please to briefly dilate on the contents.

A: Yes, this is the report that I sent.

THE PRESIDENT: Objection is over-ruled.

A: I do not want to protract the proceedings by reading the whole report but I do ask the Tribunal to take notice of the contents of the report. This is an extensive description of the procedure such as Ipsen described to me which seems to offer several technical advantages over previous procedures. Above all the main advantage that the yield of this procedure seemed to be greater. It was possible to produce two and one-half times as much vaccine with the same number of animals; and, moreover, this vaccine seemed to be more effective. I informed the various offices of this method and now I point out paragraph 4 on page 3 of the document, on page 18 in the Document Book:

I proposed, and Dr. Ipsen promised that a number of samples of his liver vaccine should be sent to me with the object of testing, when the opportunity arose, its protective efficacy on humans who were in especial danger.

This is the passage which Ding characterized in his diary as my incentive t o experiments on human beings. I further point out that at the foot of this page 18 and on page 19 there is the list of those to whom this report was sent.

Neither Mrugowsky's office, nor Reichsarzt-SS [Reich Physician] Grawitz, nor Dr. Ding are included in this list of distribution.

Q: Professor, from the text of this report one could have the impression that you were pretty well acquainted with the production of the typhus vaccine although you say yourself that you never concerned yourself scientifically with it. Could you make a statement on this?

A: I believe this would be a misconception. The report merely proves I am in a position when the specialists express something to take notice and reproduce. And, I believe that is something my degree of intelligence makes possible without being a specialist in the matter.

Q: What did you do with the sample of typhus vaccine that is mentioned in this report?

A: If I had been asked about this before the witness Block testified, then I should have said that I had sent this sample to Professor Schreiber because I had assumed that he had given me the order and that I should send everything to him. But, Frau Block said here that she had sent the vaccines to a number of other offices. I cannot corroborate that from my own memory but, in general, it is more probably that the secretary's memory, since she was the one who sent these things out, is more reliable than the memory of the Chief who simply said briefly, "Send these things on."

Q: You, in explaining this report, just drew the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that you make the proposal here that the protective efficacy should, if the opportunity arose, be tested on human beings in especial danger. Now, what does this phrase "humans in especial danger" mean?

A: "Humans in especial danger" is in the matter of typhus vaccination a technical phrase which is generally current in German medical services.

We did not have enough vaccine to vaccinate every one and could only vaccinate certain persons. In other words, those in especial danger. These were, first of all, particularly old people because old people die more readily when they get typhus than young persons. Secondly, various occupational classes. For instance, doctors and medical personnel, and particularly personnel of delousing agencies, or transport flayers who brought back the sick with them, or a number of occupational groups. This was a pretty well fixed term clearly explained by medical regulations.

Q: Was the evidence you received from Ipsen enough so that you could undertake testing on humans in especial danger?

A: Certainly. Ipsen told me that in animal experiments the liver vaccine was better than the lung vaccine and lung vaccine was already being used by the Wehrmacht and was generally permitted. Moreover, the report says that in the laboratory two assistants had been subsequently infected — persons who had been vaccinated by the vaccine, the infection having taken place by accident — and the degree to which they fell sick was only very minor. The evidence had to be sufficient to justify such a proposal.

Q: Why did you not undertake this testing yourself, for apparently you considered it important.

A: Of course, I considered it important and that is why I made it generally known to the specialists. I did not undertake it myself because I didn't undertake testing of vaccines at all; and then with respect to human beings in especial danger, our position in the Luftwaffe was not advantageous in this effect. We had few such people because in the way the Luftwaffe was used the danger of becoming infected with typhus was much smaller. The number of people in the Luftwaffe who fell ill with typhus was never more than one to two percent of typhus in the whole Wehrmacht and the Army bore the main brunt. Where as, if the sickness typhus infection had been evenly distributed numerically we would have had 15 to 20 percent of the total number of those who became ill. There were various delousing centers and several transient camps in which for certain people would fall ill of typhus and there were typhus laboratories.

All these we did not have in the Luftwaffe but the specialists knew of these centers and had access to them.

Q: Did you peruse this matter any further after you had passed on the Ipsen typhus vaccine.

A: No that had been a unique order — a favor that I did for Professor Schreiber. And when I found out accidentally that this had nothing to do with Schreiber's assignment that Ipsen had developed a new method — this I passed on to the specialists and thereafter it was in their hands and as far as I was concerned the matter was settled. Perhaps I can make some remarks about the Document No. 22 which was not read. But, in the English translation on page 18, in this paragraph where there is mention of human beings in especial danger. Then it says here:

its protective efficacy on humans whose liver were in especial danger.

In the German text the words simply means especially endangered humans. In other words, no mention is made in the German text of the liver. I should like to suggest that the Tribunal change the translation accordingly.

DR. FRITZ: It must be a typographical error. Dr. Rose's correction is justified.

THE PRESIDENT: Will the witness please state that correction again.

WITNESS: Your Honor, it is on page 18. "On humans whose livers were in especial danger," and it should read "on humans who are especially endangered".

INTERPRETER: Your Honor, I think the word "liver" is a typographical error for the word "lives". Then it would read "on humans whose lives are in especial danger". The witness just stated that that also would be a good translation.

THE PRESIDENT: The correction has been made in the document book.

BY DR. FRITZ:

Q: From Dr. Oerskov's explanations it can be seen that you were in the laboratory on 24 September 1943 in Ipsen's laboratory in Copenhagen. Now, in Buchenwald, according to Ding's diary, the testing of these vaccines took place from between the 8th of March and the 13th of June, 1944. This can be seen from Ding's diary, Document Book 12, page 53. Now, how do you explain this lapse of time between the 24th of September, 1943, and the beginning of the testing in Buchenwald on the 8th of March, 1944?

A: That I cannot explain from my own knowledge. You always have to count on a certain period of time for the business to be attended to, but in a matter so pressing and important as this one that is not sufficient to explain a lapse of 5½ months. We didn't work as slowly as that. I can conjecture what happened in that interim. Among the German typhus specialists there were friends and enemies of the murine vaccine. It is possible that the vaccine was discussed by them and that my report was passed around and in this way it apparently fell into the hands of some office which had some influence at Buchenwald. Now, whether that was Conti or Grawits or Gildemeister or Himmler I do not know. Just what devious paths this whole matter followed I do not know. The direct path from Schreiber to Ding would not have taken 5½ months.

I cannot even say whether the typhus vaccine sample that was used in Buchenwald is identical with the one I received because, as I remember, that sample was a very small one and Mr. Oerskov corroborates that. Now, Frau Block has stated that this sample was distributed not just to one person but to several, and I previously had an official questionnaire sent by the Tribunal to the Copenhagen Institute in order to find out just how large these samples were. The answer has not yet come in but perhaps it will some day.

Q: Do you feel yourself in any way responsible for the experiments which were carried out in Buchenwald because you recommended that the Ipsen vaccine should be tested?

A: No, I feel myself in no way responsible for that. What I proposed is set down here in black and white before the Tribunal and these are no proposals for experiments on human beings. If some other office, on the basis of the fact that I drew its attention to a vaccine, then hits on the notion of carrying out experiments on human beings with this vaccine, that really cannot be charged against me.

BY THE PRESIDENT:

Q: Witness, returning for a moment to page 18. To a layman, vaccination usually means a protective step.

A: Certainly.

Q: That is, persons who are well are vaccinated to prevent their contracting a disease. Now, I notice in the paragraph which you have corrected "its protective efficiency on human beings whose lives were in especial danger". Now, is that persons whose lives — persons who were exposed to infection? Is that the theory of this paragraph?

A: Your Honor, in the German text it is written "endangered" (gefaehrdet).

Q: I understand that.

A: And that means "exposed to typhus".

Q: Exposed to infection?

A: Exposed to infection.

Q: It might have the meaning that the persons were already ill, but it means persons who were exposed to infection?

A: Exposed to infection, Your Honor. This was a technical term which was commonly used throughout the war. "Besonders gefaehrdete Personen" (Persons especially endangered).

BY DR. FRITZ:

Q: At any rate you challenge the correctness of Ding's diary entry; to wit, that you provided the incentive for these experiments on human beings?

A: That I challenge most emphatically. Perhaps, however, I might add, since the prosecution makes Professor Schroeder responsible for my activities in this respect, perhaps I could point out that my letter or rather my report is dated 29 September 1943. At that time Schroeder was not Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe. In other words, whatever deductions can be drawn from this entry regarding me, certainly none can be deducted against Herr Schroeder.

THE PRESIDENT: Witness, in my document book the last numeral of the year is missing. It just reads "194". What was the date of your letter?

WITNESS: I am just going to look at the German document. The date is given on page 15 — 29 September 1943.

THE PRESIDENT: That answers my question, witness.

BY DR. FRITZ:

Q: Professor, to sun up your testimony about this Buchenwald question, let me ask a concluding question. The prosecution asserts — it states that you — and McHaney calls you the closest friend and coworker of Gildemeister — had the closest knowledge of everything that went on in Buchenwald. Please explain what you really know of what went on in Buchenwald?

A: I have already described my visit and what I saw there. One aspect of it I knew, that Gildemeister had told me that the whole business of testing this vaccine on human beings was to be traced back to Conti.

Conti did not deny that when he talked to me, although I said what I did in introductory to explain why I had come to him, and then, through Dr. Ding's lecture at the consulting conference, which was often mentioned, I found cut what I have told you; namely, that in addition there had also been carried out a second experiment in Buchenwald. Of the entire activities in Buchenwald I heard nothing. I did not even know that the SS had its special installations there for experimenting in typhus vaccines. During the whole war I never saw one single sample of this vaccine. How little I knew of this can be seen from the point that I discussed yesterday; namely, the important occurrence of the Matenzka strains becoming avirulent. I shall later put in as a document my lecture on 17 February 1944 in Basel and in which there is stated, one year after these events took place, that we had never yet succeeded in making the Prowazeki Matezka avirulent and that this was one of the goals of research, and just as I knew nothing about the typhus experiments that were going on in Buchenwald, just as little did I know of anything else that went on there.

Q: Then how do you explain that Mr. Gildemeister drew no conclusions from the important events in Buchenwald which you just mentioned; namely, regarding the Matezka strain?

A: I said yesterday that I could only understand this in view of his rank as a typhus specialist by believing that he simply was not informed of what went on at Buchenwald. Perhaps he made strains available. That I do not know. Perhaps he was ordered to do so by Conti. That I do not know, either. But otherwise I had the impression that he was not intimately participating in this Question. According to Ding's diary he is alleged to have been in Buchenwald only twice.

Q: Professor, would you like to make a brief statement in answer to the Prosecution's contention that you were the closest friend and collaborate, Block has already made a statement on that subject?

A: It is not very pleasant for a person to have to speak openly about his superiors, particularly after they are dead and can no longer defend themselves, and if the relations with the superiors were not good. One thing, however, I must say in introduction that I always held him to be a perfectly decent and upright person, he was particularly conscious of his obligations and duties, and had a high sense of responsibility. Scientifically speaking he was a leading bacteriologist, and extraordinarily reliable research man with a prodigiously large knowledge of literature. My personal relations with him: When in 1923 I went to the Robert Koch institute I did not make his acquaintance, yet, because at that time Mr. Gildemeister was still with the Reich Health office. Then in 1925 an unfortunate event occurred. I had published a work on Herbis. Professor Gildemeister had criticized my findings in an open meeting, and then at a meeting of the German-biological Society I brought my experimental animals along and new histological preparations which proved that I was completely in the right. At that time, I was still very young, and I made him rather ridiculous in this meeting. That was not to nice of me, and he took it ill and never forgot it. Then when I was called to the Robert Koch institute in 1936 he spoke in opposition to that and recommended in my stead a Dr. Kuhnert, who at that time was Schilling's oldest assistant. However the tropical medicine expert of the University and other scientists spoke in my behalf, and I was appointed by the Ministry. When I was at the institute the following situation arose: Professor Gildemeister was a pre-eminent a administrator, and had the knowledge of laws and administrative regulations, such a scientist seldom has. Not only did he knew them, but it was very important to him that they should be applied, and that others should observe them, he also had the disadvantage which too often adheres to the administrator, mainly that he was an outright bureaucrat.

I have never had administrative training not have I had military training, and have spent most of my life overseas. The old colonial with their independence are always the terror of administrators throughout the World, and on the basis of this there were very shortly developed between us frictions. I had Dr. Rannen of the University work for me, but Professor Gildemeister did not want any students in the institute. I accepted teaching appointments at the University, but Professor Gildemeister did not want any ins ruction to be carried on outside the institute.

Q: Professor, I think that suffices regarding your difficulties with Professor Gildemeister. I however have a question in this connection; how is it that despite this tension and the misunderstanding that you two had that you then became vice president of the Robert Koch institute, where Gildemeister as president certainly had something to say about this?

A: The person concerned generally knows least of all about the procedure, that goes on behind the curtains in making such an appointment. If they wanted to choose a vice-president from among the Professors of the Institute, then insofar as seniority was concerned three people could, be considered, one of whom was myself. Professor Gildemeister did not get on much better with the other two then he did with me, so they had to choose between the devil and the Deep Blue Sea. I do know that he expressed opposition to me to the Ministry, but he had apparently no better proposal to make and so I was named. I took a year until the appointment was finally approved. Apparently there was considerable exchange of correspondence and discussion in this matter. In addition to this, Professor Gildemeister was 64 years old, and it was known that he was to resign at the end of the war, and the important thing to the Ministry was when it appointed me, vice-president that this should establish my seniority for the presidency.

It was clear that I could not occupy that office during the war, since I was with the Luftwaffe.

Q: In other words, you never really for practical purposes practiced, you never really did anything as vice-president of the institute?

A: No, I never signed as Vice-president and I never represented Professor Gildemeister even for one day.

DR. FRITZ: Mr. President, I should like to offer a few documents in this connection. First of all from Rose Document book No 1, Document No. 13, Rose Exhibit 22, pages 80 and 81 of the document book. This is an affidavit by Professor Dr. Boecker, who is still active in the Robert Institute in Berlin, the affidavit being dated 3 February 1947. I should like to read from Paragraph 2 on page 80—

THE PRESIDENT: What Exhibit number are you giving this document?

DR. FRITZ: Number 22, Mr. President.

Professor Gerhard Rose was appointed on 1 February 1943 vice-president of, and Professor at the Robert Koch institute, while ha was in the Wehrmacht. Owing to his engrossment by his service in the Wehrmacht, Professor Rose did not actually officiate as Vice-president. He was hardly ever available for the tasks of the Institute and for the tasks of his department, The late President of the institute, Professor Eugen Gildemeister, occasionally delegated me to look after the practically orphaned department of Professor Rose ( Tropical diseases).

Relations between President Gildemeister and Professor Rose, were, as far as I know rather strained on the whole.

I do, not know whether Professor Rose was informed about the typhus research done by Professor Gildemeister. Judging by the habits of President Gildemeister and the relationship between him and Professor Rose, I do not think it likely that he informed Professor Rose about it.

Berlin, 6 February 1947

and then follows the signature and certification.

In this connection let me put in the following document, Rose Document No, 16 Rose Exhibit No. 23. This is Professor Dr. Gins affidavit on 6 February 1947. I should like to read the last two paragraphs into the record, Professor Gins stated:

Because of my activity in the Wehrmacht from 26 August 1939, I only went occasionally to the Robert Koch Institute and only worked there irregularly until spring 1943.

Within that time and after I was deferred for work at the Institute from Spring 1943 on, I did not see Professor Rose acting in his capacity as Vice-president of the Institute. I only heard Professor Boecker mentioned as deputy of Professor Gildemeister.

Berlin-Charlottenburg 9, 6 February 1947.

Then follows the signature and certification.

I should like to state that Professor Gins is still working today in the Robert Koch Institute.

I should like to put in the next document, pages 84 and 85, Rose Document 15, Rose Exhibit No. 24 affidavit by Dr. Werner Christiansen, on 12 February 1947, Rose Exhibit No. 24. I should like to read two paragraphs. First of all the second:

From 1940 until the capitulation in 1945; I was one of the three officials in charge of the Department for Epidemics of the Reich Ministry of the Interior.

I shall skip the next paragraph in view of the statements that the Prosecution has made regarding the Rose case and I shall continue — skipping paragraph:

It is not known to me that Professor Rose, who had been appointed Vice President of the Robert' Koch Institute in 1943; actually ever held this office. Professor Rose was registered in the Ministry as 'drafted to active service with the Wehrmacht'. If it became necessary for somebody to act as deputy for the President Gildemeister, because he was on leave or sick, for instance while Gildemeister suffered from typhus, Professor Boecker, one of the directors of the Robert Koch Institute, would act as his deputy, as far as I know.

Nurenberg, 12 February 1947.

Then follows the signature and certification, And finally' I should like to offer Rose Document No. 9 on Pages No, 28 to 30 of the same Document Book.

This will be Rose Exhibit No. 25, an affidavit of Mrs. Ilse Lundberg of 14 February 1947. I should like to read from paragraph 2:

I worked as a secretary in the Medical Inspectorate of the Reich Air Ministry from 31 January 1941 until 1 November 1944. I first worked for Oberstarzt Professor Luxenburger, the psychiatric specialist, and from March 1941 also for Professor Dr. Rose, then Oberstabsarzt [Chief Medical Officer], later Oberstarzt of the Luftwaffe, who was consultant hygienist for scientific consultation of the Medical Inspectorate in the sphere of hygiene and tropical medicine. My place of work was in the office, from summer 1941 on, and later on in the anteroom of Professor Rose. My work with him-was terminated when I had myself assigned to a Luftwaffen hospital in Italy on 15 February 1944.

From my work, I can state that Professor Rose, was very occupied in his military duties.

He was in the office from 0815 in the morning until 1730 in the afternoon, except for his frequent official military trips, during which he was supposed to get acquainted with the actual conditions prevailing among the troops. He was also a university lecturer for hygiene, as well as at the Faculty for foreign science, and as such he had to give lectures. Moreover, he frequently attended scientific meetings and congresses, as for instance with the Society for Tropical Medicine, the Reich Committee for Tuberculosis and other scientific associations, the names of which I no longer remember. I always knew exactly the whereabouts of Professor Rose, in order to be able to switch over the telephone calls and to pass on important news. I knew therefore that Professor Rose's activity in the Robert Koch Institute was limited to occasional telephone calls and short visits (about once every 2 or 3 weeks). According to his own statements, he charged his female technical assistants who had long years of experience and the assistant Dr. Emmel with the work, restricted himself to checking the work and order of the department (only the department for tropical medicine was under his supervision).

The appointment of Professor Rose as vice-president of the Robert Koch Institute did not take place until the end of 1942 op 1943 as far as I remember, and was in my opinion only of a purely representative character. As far as I remember, Professor Rose did not make any use of his position as vice-president, much less so as he had the intention of leaving the Institute.

Q: Professor, the direction of your department, namely the Tropical Department you kept also during the war?

A: I kept my department going throughout the war. At the beginning of the war 19 departments at the institute were closed, their directors having been drafted, and almost all the assistants were drafted, however; I kept my department open.

During the first year of the war I worked there myself, as long as I was in Berlin; but at that time I was already half a year or more in Russia and the Balkans, and during those periods of absence my assistants had to work according to my policy directions.

At the beginning of 1941, work with the Luftwaffe increased in scope so that I had to work at my Luftwaffe office the whole day through. In order to facilitate communications with my department I had a direct telephone line put in which made it possible that from my Luftwaffe office I could communicate directly with my laboratory without going through the office or through the central telephone switch board of the various offices. Then in the evening my private secretary came to my house, bringing the matters from the institute that had arrived that day, and I dictated my private correspondence on matters concerning the institute, scientific essays and scientific correspondence.

Q: Did not the work in your Department suffer greatly because of your absence.

A: That was Professor Gildemeister's opinion; namely that my department was entirely without supervision and that I was not in a position to check on the work of my assistants, and once as Professor Boecker also says, he attempted to commission one of the other professors with the direction of my department. This interference with my rights, of course, led to another altercation between me. Taking war conditions into consideration, it certainly can be seen that my department was well and efficiently conducted. I simply have to draw your attention to my essay on the DDT preparations, which are also mentioned in this lecture at Basel and which were even translated into French in 1944.

Q: What deductions did you draw when the effort was made to transfer the supervision of your department to other hands?

A: On the pretext of seeking security from air-attacks, I made the effort to transfer my department out of Berlin. Gildemeister personally did not wish to leave Berlin and did stay in Berlin to the very last moment with his Typhus Department. Since Gildemeister would not give his approval for this transfer of my department, I took the very annual step of turning my whole department into a Luftwaffe unit and with the same personnel and equipment I set it up as a department for Fever Therapy of the Luftwaffe.

Q: Was this agreeable to Professor Gildemeister?

A: Of course he made difficulties at first; finally I had the impression that he was on the w hole happy that in this manner all difficulties with each other were alleviated.

Q: The Prosecution calls you a collaborator in Gildemeister's typhus experiments?

A: I can only reiterate that never in my whole life did I work in the Typhus laboratory. When I was an assistant at the Robert Koch Institute Otto was working there on typhus; but in the two months that I was with him another assistant took care of that matter and I worked in thorology. When I came back to the Institute in 1937; Otto had left but the Typhus department was taken up in the Virus department; namely by Professors Gildemeister and Haagen. I never worked with these men, never carried out joint experiments and never planned anything jointly with them, This separation can very clearly be seen in the printed annual reports of the Robert Koch Institute.

Q: Mr. President, the whole report that the Defendant just mentioned I have in my Document Book No. 1. These are Documents No. 10 on pages Nos. 31 to 43; which I put in as Rose Exhibit No. 26; also Rose Documents No. 11, which will be Rose Exhibit 27 on Pages Nos. 44 to 60. Finally there is Document No. 12; which will be Rose Exhibit No. 28; this is on Pages Nos. 61 to 79. Those; as I said, are the annual reports on the activities of the Robert Koch Institute from the period from 1 April 1939 to 31 December 1943.

I have a few questions to ask the defendant about these documents. Professor, in Rose Document No. 10 on page 34, in the second Paragraph, perhaps it would be best if I quote this brief paragraph:

In infection experiments on human beings a rapid development of rather high eosinophilia was observed as early as a few hours after the infection of the skin with a few bilharzia cercariae.

Now, who are these experimental subjects, Professor?

A: These experimental subjects in the case of the first experiment were exclusively the members of my assistants in the department and in the laboratory, and in the second experiment they were doctors who had attended a lecture on tropical medicine in which I spoke about these experiments, and who declared their readiness to be experimented on also.

Q: Did you also infect yourself?

A: Yes, I infected myself in the first series and had the strongest reaction of all the experimental subjects.

Q: Did you carry out other experiments on yourself?

A: Yes, other experiments I undertook on myself or had others undertake on me, and they were experiments with dysentery toxin, infections with intestinal flu, and experiments on quinine damage.

Q: Did you also test vaccines on yourself?

A: Once I made myself available as an experimental subject in the testing of a vaccine, namely, a new yellow fever vaccine from living yellow fever virus. That was in New York in 1936 and at the time I was myself producing vaccines in China. I tested the tolerability of a large number of vaccines by inoculating myself with a double dose.

Q: Within the framework of your professional or other official activities did you become infected any other ways?

A: With the greatest care in the world it is still impossible in my profession to avoid infection. I have been infected with dysentery and with skin tuberculosis, and then cholera, typhus dengue, malaria complicated with black water fever, hepatitis epidemica, and finally in my DDT work I got a chronic infection from which I am still suffering.

Q: Professor, in Rose Document No. 10, namely, the annual report of the Robert Koch Institute from 1939 to 1941, there is on page 42 to be seen from the paragraph headed roman numeral III, "Practical Work", it can be seen that typhus vaccinations in the tropical department were undertaken.

A: These inoculations were carried out in practical work not under the scientific department. There was a sort of a poly clinic attached to the tropical department and when any one came to the institute and wanted to be inoculated against something then he was inoculated there. It can be seen there from this list he was inoculated against smallpox, cholera, typhoid, paratyphoid, and typhus. These were purely practical inoculations or vaccinations that had nothing to do with scientific research. You can find the same list in the next year's report on pages 58-59 of Document No. 11. There also of the 4,000 inoculations the number of typhoid inoculations is only 33. Then in the annual report for 1943 there is no mention of inoculations because the limitation that the war placed on the work of the department made it necessary for me to stop giving these vaccinations. These vaccinations were never evaluated. In any way the scientific work on vaccines didn't stop in 1943 in the institute. On the contrary, it became larger and larger and it rested there until the end of the war.

Q: Professor, I should like you to make whatever statements you would like on the contents of these reports so far as they concern typhus and to explain the contents briefly. These are Rose Documents Nos. 10, 11, and 12.

A: Perhaps I may point out first of [illegible] a translation error on page 41 of Document No. 10. Opposite the words, on the third paragraph, page 30, there is the word "jaundice" in the English text and in the German text there is the word "Gelbfieber", which means "yellow fever".

THE PRESIDENT: What is the meaning of the German word in English?

WITNESS: Yellow fever.

INTERPRETER: The interpreter corroborates that.

A: Now I shall explain these documents. The report from 1 April 1939 to 31 March 1941 contains under No. 7 on pages 32 to 40 a report on the work of the tropical medicine department. Since there is no mention at all of work on typhus, it is not my intention to go into that here, but I should be grateful if the Tribunal would take a look at this passage in order to ascertain that I and my assistants concerned ourselves with a great number of things but not with typhus. On page 41 of the document bock, page 10 of the document, there is a short excerpt from the report of the department of cell and virus research under no. 8.

Only that paragraph has here been quoted which refers to the case here at bar. And it says in the report of the next year that yellow fever was the new subject of work. Experiments were made primarily on the breeding of virus, its preservation, and on the production of vaccine cultures. This department was at that time under the direction of Professor Haagen. On the same page there comes under No. 10 the report on the work of the laboratory of the general managing director, namely, Professor Dr. Gildemeister. I shan't read this in detail but here there is a description of the collaboration with Professor Haagen, an indication of the work the department did in typhus, and it can be clearly seen from the report that the collaboration with other departments is here being described but that there was no collaboration with the tropical department or with Professor Rose. This report continues on Page 11 respectively 42, the nine typhus vaccines which were carried out at the tropical medicine department I have already explained.

THE PRESIDENT: Witness, on page 42 after "the following number was inoculated against small pox, cholera, etc." there is first a total number followed by two other numbers. What do the two following numbers indicate?

A: Mr. President, if you turn to page 31 you will see that this report is a report for two years — I April 1939 until 31 March 1941.

THE PRESIDENT: Those two numbers then simply indicate the number of inoculations in two years, with the total?

A: It is the total for two years and it separated the numbers, giving the number for the first year and the second year.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well.

A: If you add up those two numbers you reach the sum that corresponds to the first number. Now on page 42 are publications that appeared from the Robert Koch Institute. Those works have been extracted which concern the case before this Tribunal* First of all, a paper by Gildemeister and Haagen on typhus. Then a paper of Haagen's on yellow fever, and then a series of text book essays by myself. And under No. 3 there is the word "rickottsiao" which is typhus virus. This is a little text book essay of four pages in length. I go on now to Document 11, Report for Period 1 April 1941 to 31 December 1942.

THE PRESIDENT: Before you begin the discussion of that, witness, the Tribunal will be in recess.