1947-04-24, #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 24 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 I is now in session. God save the United States of American 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.

Are there any questions to be propounded to this witness by any defense counsel?

GERHARD ROSE — Resumed CROSS EXAMINATION

BY DR. SERVATIUS (Counsel for the Defendant Karl Brandt):

Q: Witness, can I consult you as an expert on the field of epidemic research?

A: For almost two decades German and foreign authorities have considered me an expert in this field and consulted me, and you can also consider me as an expert.

Q: Is hepatitis a fatal disease?

A: You mean hepatitis epidemica?

Q: Epidemica contaminosa.

A: Hepatitis epidemica itself is not considered a dangerous disease by hygienists. But in all those things you must consider that one must give justice not only to the hygienic but also to the clinical aspect.

To give you an example, take the common cold. Everyone here in the courtroom no doubt agrees that that is not a dangerous disease, nevertheless, everyone knows that otitis media may fellow a cold. This can be complicated by meningitis, and the person can die of that, I mean primarily; but no one will for that reason call the common cold a fatal disease. It thus is possible in the case of hepatitis there maybe some other complications, but no one will call hepatitis itself a dangerous disease because of that.

Q: Witness, is the customary experimental research with the hepatitis virus connected with great danger?

A: There is some material on that. There are three examples known in Germany. Experiments with hepatitis virus have been carried out in Germany by Eppingor, Vogt, Essen and Lemke. No incidents occurred. The experiments were harmless. That is very little material, but hundreds of cases, which would permit us to form a much mere reliable judgment, can be found in English and American literature. Up to today there have been about human experiments with hepatitis, and there has not been a single incident reported.

Q: Witness, can you imagine experiments in this field which end in death, or where on can expect death?

A: I would not expect any death in any such experiment.

Q: I ask whether you as an expert can imagine such experiments, what the nature of such experiments would be?

A: Experiments with hepatitis virus no, I cannot imagine them.

Q: Witness, you know from this trial that the Reich Physician-SS Grawitz in a document NO-110, Exhibit 187, demands prisoners from Himmler for such experiments and says that death has to be expected. You will remember that in another document, NO-011, Exhibit 188, Himmler made eight prisoners who had been condemned to death available. Can one not conclude from this that extraordinarily dangerous experiments were planned with these prisoners?

A: I would not draw that conclusion. I would consider two possibilities: either that the applicant did not know enough about the matter, and since the person who wrote the letter was Mr. Grawitz, who for years had worked only with administrative matters, that possibility would be quite reasonable. The other explanation for no would be that he was very extremely careful and, of course, it is better when there is need to carry out an experiment to present it as serious and dangerous than to under-estimate the danger. An exaggeration is better than a minimizing of the danger. What reasons were followed in this case, I do not know since I am not informed about the matter.

Q: In connection with hepatitis research did you hear the name of Professor Brandt?

A: I never heard the name of Professor Brandt in this connection.

Q: Did Professor Brandt ever in any connection demand that you conduct experiments on human beings?

A: No. When I met Professor Brandt there is testimony on that; we did not say anything about experiments on human beings.

Q: Witness, a few questions on bacteriological warfare: Since about 1943 there was a working community under the name "Lightning Rod" (Blitzableiter), which dealt with the question of biochemical warfare. Do you know this working community?

A: May I remark that I know it, but it did not deal with biochemical warfare, but with defense against biological weapons. That is what is also understood by the term "bacteria warfare." The expression "bacteria warfare" is more restricted in meaning — biological weapons denote use of bacteria, virus, protozoans, germs of all kinds, against human beings and animals, also the use of insect pests which harm plants or seeds, destroy harvests, potato bugs, and similar things. That is called biological warfare — and the Committee Blitzableiter dealt with these questions.

Q: Now, the next question, did they deal with offensive or defensive?

A: Whoever was delegated to this committee had to signify by his signature when he entered it that he was aware of a basic Fuehrer Order, and this Fuehrer Order read that it was prohibited even to study the possibility of a offensive biological warfare. I myself put my signature to such a document, and I belonged to this committee until the end of the War. I attended the last meeting. I know, therefore, that this Fuehrer order was never repealed.

Q: Now, Witness, before the International Military Tribunals here Generalarzt [General Physician] Schreiber was examined, and in contrast to you he said that such aggressive preparations were made?

A: I consider that one of the most infamous lies which Mr. Schreiber gave here. At the time when the news came over the radio I immediately offered myself as a witness to the International Military Tribunal. Mr. Schreiber never belonged to the Blitzableiter committee.

Q: Generalarzt Schreiber also said that experiments on human beings were conducted in this field? what do you think about that?

A: It is of course always difficult to give negative testimony. I can, of course, not say no human being experiments were conducted? but I can testify for certainty that in the Blitzableiter Committee experiments on human beings were never discussed in this connection, and that no such experiments on human beings were planned there.

MR. HARDY: May it please Your Honor, at the close of the direct examination by the defense counsel for the defendant Rose, Your Honor asked whether any of defense counsel wished to cross-examined the witness. Dr. Servatius now is cross-examining defendant Rose, and during the course of the cross-examination is bringing in new material which was not covered during the direct examination. I object to any further questioning along these lines concerning something other than what was brought out in direct examination.

DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, I did not intend to cross-examine the witness, but to question him directly. If I did not have the opportunity to question him now, I would have called him as a witness, but up to now it has been the rule that I can examine a defendant as a witness, and only when the direct examination is finished, if I am not the defendants counsel, then only can I ask him about questions of the cross-examination. I believe that these questions are now permissible to him as a witness in direct.

THE PRESIDENT: It has been the practice of the Tribunal to allow defense counsel to examine defendants after they have finished their testimony in chief in their own behalf, as witnesses for the different defendants, whose counsel desire to examine. The prosecution has had the same privilege.

MR. HARDY: Your Honor then, whenever a defense counsel other than the particular defense counsel for the defendant involved, is examining a defendant, how can the prosecution determine whether that defense counsel is bringing the defendant on the cross-examination or whether he is using him for his own witness, and thereby being responsible for everything that defendant says.

THE PRESIDENT: By the questions which I propounded in this case, counsel for Karl Brandt, says he is examining the defendant for his own witness.

MR. HARDY: At this time?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Counsel may proceed.

Q: Witness, in the work concerning biological warfare did Professor Brandt play any role?

A: Neither in the Blitzableiter Committee or outside of this committee did I hear anything about Professor Karl Brandt in any connection with biological warfare.

Q: Now, I have a question on another subject, euthanasia and insane asylums; witness, you gave an affidavit. Document NO. 872, Prosecution Exhibit 181, and you state the following concerning the defendant Karl Brandt:

He gave me the insane asylum in Thuringia, and promised me my patients could remain in this institution.

Did Professor Brandt have the right to dispose of such insane asylums? — I can show you this exhibit.

A: May I see it? — I signed this affidavit in English. I believe that I have an adequate knowledge of the English language, so that I can take the responsibility of signing affidavits in English. When I signed this affidavit I made a few changes in the original wording. This is not my testimony. It is an excerpt which the Prosecution made of an interrogation. I had a long conversation with Mr. Devreis about these words "to put an insane asylum at my disposal." And I told Mr. Devreis in my opinion this expression "put it at my disposal" neither covers the rights which I obtained in this transaction, nor represents correctly the function which Professor Brandt exercised. Mr. Devreis very stubbornly held to this expression "put at my disposal," and he ended the conversation by saying "you could put your patients into this institution." "yes," I said, "I could." And then he said, "Then the institution was at your disposal", and that is what the English means," and I signed it, and of course I admit that it was my mistake to sign something which I personally thought was incorrect.

Now, also I was not asked at the time how I got the insane asylum of Pfaffenrode. The question which I was asked "What official connections did you have with Professor Brandt?" I mentioned these two points first, that I negotiated with him about this institution, about the question of fever therapy, and second that I asked him for his help when I wanted to get better food rations for my patients. I would have considered myself terribly boring if in answer to this question I had given a long description of the technical procedure of my getting the institution. That was, of course, a long administrative matter, in which Professor Brandt was not longer concerned.

Q: Witness, Professor Brandt then had no administrative or supervisory authority over the insane asylum?

A: I never knew of that. The state supervision over state asylums was up to the Ministry of the Interior and the administrative authority was no doubt in most cases with the provincial authority. In any case, with this institution that was the case, and I had to negotiate with the provincial administration in Merseburg.

Q: Witness, you were just speaking of the food rations for the inmates of these insane asylums. Here during the trial you have heard that people were allegedly allowed to starve to death, this being a version of Euthanasia. Did you negotiate with Professor Brandt in any way about the reduction of rations for these patients; do you know that professor Brandt advocated the starvation of these insane? You said in your affidavit that on the basis of intervention of Professor Brandt, the patients received higher food rations. What did Professor Brandt have to do with this matter?

A: You have asked me several questions. First of all, I never heard that starvation rations were set especially for insane asylums. I had something to do with insane asylums because I had to supply the malaria vaccine, which gave me much more contact with the insane asylums than the normal hygienist has. On those occasions I never learned that especially low rations were given to insane persons anywhere.

This specific matter was the following: When I started with fever therapy at Pfaffenrode, all the insane persons there received the normal rations, that is the rations of housewives, mothers, and myself for example as an office worker, the same rations that we received; these rations had been especially reduced at that time, not for the insane but for the entire German population, and I wanted to carry out fever treatment on my insane people, and that is an additional burden on the body; therefore, I wanted the higher rations for my patients, which were given in the general hospitals.

That was refused by the Provincial Food Office in Thuringia; therefore, I made another application to the food ministry; and since there were laymen there, I was afraid they would not have enough understanding for the insane. I wrote to three agencies and asked for support. I wrote to the Reichs Commissioner Professor Brandt; secondly, to my Medical Inspectorate, and third to State Secretary Conti. In each case I enclosed a draft of a letter, and asked the gentlemen to send this draft as their letter to the Reichs Food Ministry, because I hoped that if three cannons were shooting at the food ministry, that they then would perhaps give me these additional rations for my six hundred patients and that was successful. However, that was a favor I was asking from these three gentlemen. I asked them to support my medical opinion, and one could not conclude from that that they had anything whatever to do with the setting of food rations for insane asylums.

Q: Witness, one more question. According to the Prosecution evidence that has been submitted here, one could assume from 1942 on all insane persons Were exterminated in the institutions; how Many inmates were there from 1942 on; were there still insane persons?

A: Of course insane persons were still there in considerable number. I have of course no knowledge of the figures; I only cooperated with institutions and I did not gain insight into the actual business of the institutions proper, but in Pfaffenrode, for example, it was as follows: In peace time Pfaffenrode had beds for two thousand insane people, and at the beginning of 1945 there was a total of 4,000 insane there, as the result of transfers, because other insane asylums had to give up beds for evacuation hospitals and similar purposes.

Q: Do you know the number of the patients on hand in the winter of 1941-1942 when Euthanasia was stopped?

A: No, I know nothing about that.

Q: Do you have the impression that blindly exterminations were carried out?

A: I had nothing to do with the execution of Euthanasia. I can only say from my experience that the heads of the insane asylums did not talk about this subject at all, or only very reluctantly. For example, I can mention the director of the institute Arnsdorf, there were a few old schizophrenics who were under my fever treatment and they were transferred. I must assume today that they were included in the Euthanasia program. I attempted to learn from him to what institution they had been sent, so that I could write to the director there and find out whether there had been any reoccurrences of malaria. My treatment had been very unsuccessful and that was the final attempt, from a psychiatric point of view nothing could be done for these patients any more. I was interested from the point of view of malaria; but I could not find out from Mr. Sagel what was going on.

Q: Witness, that was in 1945?

A: No, that was 1940.

Q: I have no further questions to the witness.

BY DR. NELTE (Counsel for the Defendant Handloser):

Q: Professor, in Document book 12, there is a letter which you wrote to Professor Haagen on 9 June, 1943, it is Document NO-306, Prosecution Exhibit 296. This letter reads:

Dear Mr. Haagen: My best thanks for both your letters dated 4 and 4 June and the prompt execution of my request. I have compiled a proposal for the Inspector, in which I enclosed your original papers and requested him to urge the Chief of the Medical Service of the Wehrmacht to order the production of spotted fever vaccine for all Wehrmacht in the Eastern area —

The rest of the letter is of no interest here.

Do you remember this letter?

A: Not in the sense that I know exactly that I wrote this letter; but the whole matter, the whole context I remember clearly.

Q: One basic question, you know that the Prosecution brings this letter in connection with the human experiments at Natzweiler; that is the experiments which Professor Haagen conducted in Natzweiler on human beings; does this letter have anything to do with the research or experiments in Natzweiler as the Prosecution submits?

A: No, nothing at all.

Q: What was the context of your suggestion, or rather the suggestion which you made on the basis of material from Haagen?

A: The whole matter was as follows: Professor Schreiber wanted to have a survey of the practicability of the various procedures of the production of typhus vaccine from an economy point of view; that is, assuming that a factory is to produce vaccines every month for one hundred thousand persons; how much material is needed; how many workers are needed: (a) If the Weigl lice procedure is used, (b) if the vaccine is produced according to the Gildemeister-Haagen method and (c) if a lung vaccine is produced, etc.

Schreiber had asked several typhus experts about it, and he had called me up and said I should get him the information from the Luftwaffe. Document No. 305, which is on the proceeding page, shows —

Q: This is Prosecution Exhibit 293.

This shows that Mr. Haagen gave me the corresponding information. This information itself is not available but only a correction of it. Apparently in the first letter he had made a mistake in the figures and he corrects it now, and he gave his opinion on these questions; that is merely his opinion on purely technical matters of production. Mr. Schreiber did not want to rely on the opinion of a single man, he knew scientists, he knew that every specialist would uphold his own-procedure and call it the most valuable.

He wanted to compare what various people thought of the different procedures. The supplying of this purely technical information has now been connected with the renewed suggestion to increase vaccine production to such an extent that all members of the Wehrmacht at the eastern front could be vaccinated. That is the context, that is the meaning of this matter.

Q: Well then Schreiber asked for information for comparative determination of production costs and production material needed for extensive vaccine production?

A: Well less About cost than about the personnel and the material needed.

Q: Where was Schreiber at that time?

A: He was chief of the training group "C" in the academy, I believe the deputy for epidemic control with the Reich Research Council. I wouldn't say that for certain, the date is the 9 June 1943 —

Q: It is doubtful whether he already was plenipotentiary of the Reich Research Council?

A: I don't know the date so well.

Q: It was the end of May or the beginning of June when he was given the assignment as plenipotentiary for epidemic control?

A: It is possible but I can say nothing for certain.

Q: This letter does not go to Schreiber, it goes to Haagen, and it shows that you made a suggestion to the Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe, and that you asked him to pass on this suggestion. The suggestion, which you just mentioned, that there should be a large typhus vaccine drive in the East; do you know personally whether your Chief, Generaloberstabsarzt [Chief Medical Officer] Hippke did submit that suggestion?

A: I can only express an assumption. In general I did not learn that whether such a thing was passed on I became to know in two ways, if there was any inquiry about it or if I got to see the records later; I cannot remember today whether either of these two possibilities was the case here. I would assume that it went on, but I don't know.

Q: Do you know whether any decision was reached? You say in the letter:

I hope to succeed in this matter.

You seemed to be interested in it and I believe that if the suggestion had been successful, if it had been adopted, you would have been informed.

Were you?

A: Well in any case we never achieved the aim of producing enough vaccine for the Eastern front. I cannot remember any specific answer in that connection.

Q: Well then the results which can be ascertained are first, that this letter had nothing to do with research, and, second, that the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service, was in no connection with Haagen and Natzweiler, that is, so far as the letter is concerned.

A: The Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service had nothing to do with instigating this letter. Information is given to him about technical, production matters which he did not ask for at all, and besides they had nothing to do with experiments.

Q: Yes, that is what I want to knows that this material, which may have been brought to the attention of the Wehrmacht Medical Service, said nothing about research and nothing about Natzweiler, only the technical material for comparison which you spoke of?

A: Yes, and the date shows that too. The first experimental vaccinations, which are reported in Strassbourg, are supposed to have taken place at the end of May or the beginning of June 1943 in Schirmek. There couldn't have been any material on it yet.

Q: I am interested only in facts. What you say is an explanation.

A: In document 305, it says for example that a letter from Mr. Giroud is enclosed. That is the head of the corresponding department at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, who gave information, that I need so and so many rabbits per month, and I need so many technical assistants and so and so many untrained workers. That has nothing to do with experiments.

Q: But that was from Haagen to you. That was the basis for what you reported to Haagen or rather to Hippke.

A: Yes, I took these things together and wrote a covering letter and sent it on.

Q: Did you ever talk to Professor Handloser about experiments on human beings of the type which are the subject of the charges here?

A: No.

Q: Or did you ever have an opportunity to discuss experiments with him, that is typhus experiments with human beings?

A: No, I believe Handloser did not discuss typhus questions with me at all, certainly not experiments. About delousing problems Professor Handloser did not consult me.

Q: When you were in Buchenwald with Professor Gildemeister, did you have an opportunity afterwards to discuss it with Professor Handloser?

A: Generaloberabstabsarzt [Chief Medical Officer] Handloser was not yet the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service at that time. I had no opportunity to sec him and I did not talk to him about it.

Q: Following the Ding lecture at the May meeting in 1943 where you protested, did you talk to Professor Handloser about the reason for your protest and did you talk to him about the incident at all?

A: No, I did not talk to Professor Handloser about it.

Q: Did you talk to Professor Handloser about research on hepatitis epidemica?

A: No, I was not working with hepatitis.

Q: Did you talk to him about malaria?

A: I talked to Professor Handloser repeatedly about malaria.

Q: Or in connection with the experiments in Dachau with Schilling.

A: No, I knew nothing about them myself. Those were questions of prophylaxis with the troops, doses of prophylaxis, and then malaria treatment, standard methods of treatment, the time when malaria prophylaxis should begin, the question of general treatment.

Q: Well, questions which were important for protective vaccination and for the carrying out of prophylaxis?

A: No, not vaccination. There is no vaccination for malaria prophylaxis, but drugs.

Q: Did you talk to Handloser about yellow fever experiments?

A: No.

Q: Did you participate in the hepatitis discussion in June 1944 in Breslau?

A: No.

Q: Why not?

A: I was not invited, and I was quite annoyed because I wasn't invited. I would have been glad to hear what was reported there, but apparently it was only a small group of purely hepatitis specialists, and since I was a general hygienist I was not invited. I only learned subsequently of this meeting. If I had learned about it beforehand I would have tried to get an invitation.

Q: Do you know where Dr. Domen worked on hepatitis research?

A: I learned subsequently that he worked at the Robert Koch Institute, after he had already left: and then later I heard that he was in Giessen, and at some institute, but both of these facts I know only from hearsay and not from my own knowledge, I did not see him at the Robert Koch Institute, and I did not visit him at Giessen.

Q: But you do know that Domen worked at the Robert Koch Institute under Professor Gildemeister on hepatitis?

A: Yes, I heard that.

Q: Well your hearing it was such that you can call it knowledge?

A: Well I considered it quite credible. If I were not under oath I would simply say Domen worked for Gildemeister, but since I am under oath I can only say I heard that Domen worked for Gildemeister.

Q: You worked at the Robert Koch Institute, too, didn't you?

A: Yes, I had my department there.

Q: Then this "hearing" can be evaluated as more important than if someone simply says, in ordinary life, "I heard that he worked at so and so".

A: Yes, certainly. Besides there is an affidavit from Goheimrat Lenz, who is now director of the Robert Koch Institute and it says that Dohmen did work there, and he has access to check up on the files.

Q: I have no more questions to this witness. I thank you.

BY DR. PRIBILLA (Counsel for the defendant Rostock):

Q: Professor Rose, you were Vice President of the Robert Koch Institute of Berlin. Was this institute under the Ministry of the Interior or was it at any time under the Commissioner General for Health and Medical Matters, and consequently under the department for science and research?

A: The institute, until 31 March 1942 was under the Prussian Ministry of Interior, From 1 April 1942 on it was under the Reich Ministry of Interior. But, of course, it was never under the Commissioner General.

Q: Then you never had any orders or instructions directly from the Commissioner General for the Robert Koch Institute?

A: No. I never saw any such instructions.

Q: Were you as Vice President of the Robert Koch Institute, or as Consulting Hygienist of the Luftwaffe, ever under Professor Rostock in his capacity as Dean of the Medical Faculty of the University of Berlin?

A: No, of course not. I had nothing to do with Professor Rostock as Dean except in my capacity as teacher in the Medical Faculty. But, I was also teacher at the Foreign Science Faculty. Even as in the University he had nothing to do and certainly with my job outside of the University. In practice I merely had to send him a note every six months saying "I will hold a lecture on this subject and on such and such days and at such and such times."

And, then the technical correspondence which a Dean has to exchange with an instructor. He had to have my telephone number, he had to have my address, and he had to know my personal data, too.

Q: In any case, this Institute and the work which was done there, he had no control of?

A: No. It is quite out of the question.

Q: Did you not feel it your duty as a scientist from 1944 on to report to Rostock as head of the Department of Science and Research — to give reports about your research you had planned or carried out?

A: No, I had enough to write without that. I didn't write to anyone on my own initiative.

Q: Did Rostock ever give you any instructions or requests in this connection?

A: No. I never received any such requests from Professor Rostock.

Q: Thank you.

BY DR. SAUTER (Counsel for the Defendants Blome and Ruff):

Q: Professor Rose, the defendant Ruff, or rather the defendant Blome — I must correct myself — as you know, is the only defendant whom the Prosecution brings into any connection with plague experiments. This assumption of the Prosecution, if I may refresh your memory Professor Rose, is based on the file note of Professor Kliebe, which you know, of the 23 February 1944 — Document 1309, Exhibit 326. I should like to read to you the passage which refers to plague, to recall it to your memory. The file note says:

Professor Blome is of the opinion that above all a check of our vaccines, and particularly plague vaccine, is necessary. Corresponding experiments on human beings would have to be conducted.

And later it says:

Professor Blome at the end asked whether the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service of the Inspectorate of the Wehrmacht knew that in European Turken 4,000 cases of plague have occurred.

Following this quotation — the document of February 1944 —the Prosecution charged the defendant Blome that he was in some connection with criminal experiments with plague which were either carried out or planned. Now, Professor, I have seen from your list of publications that you yourself wrote two papers on plague. Is that true?

A: Yes.

Q: And, from a document in your Document Book I see that you were sent to the Netherlands East Indies and to Kwangsi to deal with plague problems. Is that true?

A: Yes, that is true.

Q: Then I may consider you an Internationally recognized expert in this field and you will be able to give me some information on a few points so the Tribunal may be able to get a picture whether plague experiments with which Blome is charged are permissible and when they are considered criminal?

A: Yes.

Q: Dr. Rose, can you tell me whether according to medical ideas and medical or research practice throughout the world it was generally customary in former decades that in producing plague vaccines experiments on human beings were carried out?

A: Yes. One must distinguish between two times. The first time when plague vaccination was carried out with killed bacilli. That was quite in the beginning of the study of vaccines. The first experiments had the character of experiments on human beings. They were carried out by Huffgen in Bombay. On the basis of these experiments it was developed to the point that in the future one had only to make tests of tolerance which cannot really be called experiments on human beings any longer. Nevertheless there was once a very unfortunate incident.

During these tests sixteen people died of tetanus. That is a well known thing historically. That was contamination of the vaccine. Since then there has been a general regulation that vaccines have to be tested beforehand for tetanus. That is because of this incident with the plague vaccine. But then there comes the modern development of plague vaccines which I have already had to mention in describing the historical basis of the work of Professor Haagen. That is the development of vaccines from living avirulent plague bacteria. Since these vaccines have been introduced if one begins with the production of those vaccines an experiment on human beings is always unavoidable. That was done for the first time when the procedure was introduced by Dr. Strong who laid the foundation for all this work. Then all this work was repeated again in the 20s by Dr. Otten in Java. The reason was that this old system of Strong and Otton had been lost. Therefore the whole thing had to be repeated. At the same time he, independently of Otten, the same experiments were carried out in Madagascar.

Q: Professor Rose, I am primarily interested in the following: And that is the reason why I go into this question and I ask you in answering it to consider this purpose of clarification. These experiments which Professor Strong, I believe that he is an American, and other foreign scientists carried out, reports were given in Journals by professional Journals. Do you know which ones, primarily?

A: American work was published in the Philippine Journal of Science.

Q: Do you know, Professor, what the reputation of this Philippine Journal is, whether in America, and England it has a high reputation and is read very much or whether it is an obscure paper. Perhaps you will comment on that always remembering, Professor Rose, what influence these publications had on the development of medical ethics, conception of profession of medicine the permissibility or illegality of such experiments on human beings?

A: That is a very well known, very important paper. Doctors of tropical medicine quite generally read it. Especially if they work in the Far East but, for example, the paper has a representative in Germany and it has a representative in the States.

Q: Then apparently it is a very widespread journal?

A: Well, what do you mean by widespread? As a professional paper in professional circles yes, it is widespread. If you compare it with the circulation of a daily newspaper, then it is, of course, restricted to a very narrow group.

Q: As far as I know, it is read quite a lot in Germany. In any case, I have noticed that all the issues of this journal are available even today in quite a number of medical societies and libraries. Do you know that?

A: Well, we had it in our library in Berlin and then a friend of mine, Professor Ziemann in Berlin, subscribed to it personally, but it was enough for me that it was in our library.

MR. HARDY: May it please Your Honor, it seems to me that defense counsel has gone a bit far afield. I think it might be suggested that defense counsel confine himself to the issues at trial here.

THE PRESIDENT: The questions of counsel are pertinent to certain matters before the Tribunal. He may proceed, of course, confining himself within reasonable limits as to repetition and so on.

DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, I believe that the Tribunal, in this point which we are just dealing with, must show a certain indulgence to the defense.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal, counsel, overruled the objection by the prosecution. You may proceed.

BY DR. SAUTER:

Q: Professor Rose, do you believe that a scientific journal of the significance and wide-spread importance of this Philippine journal had considerable influence on the development of the conception of the medical profession in regard to such experiments on human beings and still exercises such influence today, and that the things printed in such serious journals, if they are written by internationally recognized scientists, are given special acknowledgment and recognition by the medical world?

A: It is, of course, clear that important scientific journals, in part, reproduce the ethics of the profession and also influence it. That is true.

Q: Professor Rose, you know the publications of the professor whom you just mentioned. You read these publications, and what can you tell us about what this man writes about the quality of the experimental subjects?

A: In the first paper on plague vaccines, he says that he began with criminals condemned to death and that he continued the experiments on other persons. It is not indicated exactly what these other persons were, but according to the whole discussion of the experiments one can assume that they were also prisoners from Billibit and that is likely also because from other works by him one can see it repeated that he worked on prisoners in Billibit. And I have some knowledge of my own on the subject because discussed this whole matter with Filipino doctors when I was in the Netherland Indies to study plague control. I was with two Filipino doctors and, of course, we discussed the foundation of this whole work which came from the Philippines.

Q: Professor Rose, you spoke of Billibit. That is a penitentiary, I believe isn't it?

A: Yes, a penitentiary near Manila.

Q: Does the author, this highly respected Professor Strong, say anything about these experimental subjects being volunteers, or is he silent on that subject?

A: The work on plague says nothing about it and even if it said so, no one would have believe it at that tine, because to inject living plague bacilli, even if it went off well, was criticized by experts and it was said that it was too dangerous. Of course, a layman would not volunteer for such things.

Q: Does Dr. Strong — I believe that this Professor Strong is the same man whom you mentioned a few days ago?

A: Yes.

Q: And you told the Tribunal that you knew him personally, I believe?

A: Yes.

Q: That you knew him as a man of specially high conception Of his duty as a doctor. That is the same man?

A: Yes.

Q: Does Professor Strong write anything about deaths resulting from his experiments on prisoners?

A: Not in the case of the plague experiments, but in his Beri-Beri experiments he does.

Q: Those were also experiments which Professor Strong carried out?

A: Yes, also in Billibit.

Q: And how great was the percentage of deaths? Do you know anything about that?

A: In the beri-beri experiments, one out of twenty-nine.

Q: Professor Rose, we had this Philippine journal here. We still have it here. We have looked through it thoroughly and we have established — and I should like to know whether you can confirm this — that this report of Professor Strong, which you just told us about, in not the only report of this type but that in almost every issue of this journal there is a report on similar experiments on human beings. Is that true?

A: That is correct. That is one of the reasons why the magazine had such great significance because there were very many fundamental discoveries which were announced in it.

Q: Do you remember, professor, how great the number of experimental subjects in Strong's experiments was? how many people that he said himself he used?

A: In the plague experiments, there were nine hundred, and I don't remember the other things well enough to be able to give you figures. I, of course, was primarily interested in the plague work. If you still look at the German medical weekly of 1937, there in the Berlin Medical Society, in the discussion, I referred specifically to this plague work of Strong's.

Q: Do you also know from this journal, professor, that for these experiments the Governor of the Philippines expressly gave his permission?

A: That is said in the paper, and that is to be assumed because Strong was not the prison doctor.

Q: You say Strong was a prison doctor?

A: No, I said he was not.

Q: Do you believe, professor, that if Strong — that even if Strong does not go into the question of Volunteering, one can assume that the large number of nine hundred experimental subjects in the plague experiments alone allowed the conclusion that these were all criminals condemned to death, in the first place, and second, that they had all volunteered?

MR. HARDY: May it please Your Honor, this material concerning the experiments of Professor Strong Falls right in the category of other material and experiments in other countries. The Tribunal has ruled that this may be introduced at a later time in the trial and, at that time, the Tribunal will rule as to the admissibility of such evidence. It seems that the publication is available in the Philippine journal and he is merely questioning the defendant on what exists in this publication. I think that may well be introduced at a later date and can be ruled on at that time and not take up the time of the Tribunal now.

THE PRESIDENT: The suggestion of counsel for the prosecution is well-taken. The matter of the contents of this publication in the Philippine journal may be gone into at some later date during, the trial when the copies may be produced and all such publications can be considered at one time.

DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, I ask permission to complete my questions about the Philippine journal. I believe I have only one or two more questions and then I will be finished with the subject and then, Mr. President, I do not want these questions about the Philippine journal to be thrown into the whole group of things that are to be eliminated or the one at the end of the trial. I'm not asking about general experiments in the whole world, I'm asking specifically about plague experiments, and that is because the defendant Blome is the only one who is specifically charged with plague experiments, and because I am interested in determining whether Professor Blome can be declared a criminal for plague experiments which he did not conduct while some foreigner, who had conducted experiments, is not a criminal but is glorified.

I believe this question has to be settled and therefore I ask permission to deal with the one or two questions which are still necessary to settle this matter.

JUDGE SEBRING: Do you contend that this witness knows anything about these experiments other than is written in this journal? If it is simply a question of what is contained in the journal, the Tribunal must read it for itself. You have been asking him whether he knows what is contained in the journal and if, in his opinion, the language is such as to justify the belief concerning whether these were or were not volunteers. Whether in the last essential if they are written I apprehend that perhaps it is the function of this Tribunal to determine, in the last analysis, whether or not the language is susceptible of the interpretation that they were or were not volunteers.

DR. SAUTER: The situation precisely in connection with these plague experiments, the witness having talked about is different, because on the one hand Professor Rose knows the author, and the scientist who conducted these experiments personally. He was in the Netherlands — India and in China himself and studied these questions, that is, he is an expert of the very first language in this field, and the second point is that Professor Strong, who actually did perform such experiments that Blome is accused, of, although he did not perform them, Professor Strong is an internationally recognized scientist who acquired special respect in the medical world for these plague experiments. I am of the opinion that we jurists must be grateful if an internationally recognized authority like Professor Rose can give us information about these medical questions, because he had nothing whatever to do with these plague experiments. For this question he is merely an impartial expert, but I believe I have only two more questions on that subject, and then the chapter will be finished.

BY THE PRESIDENT:

Q: Professor Rose, do you know of your own knowledge whether or not the men used for the plague experiments were or were not volunteers?

A: I was not present myself at the experiments, but during my investigation of plague in Java when I cooperated and collaborated with a number of Asiatic doctors, among them Siamese, Chinese and two Filipino. Since we were interested in plague and since we were studying the problem of living plague vaccine, of course we discussed the foundations of the whole business very thoroughly and two of the Philippine doctors were present, and I remember one conversation when the other Asiatic gentlemen attacked these experiments rather violently and said that was a typical example of the white race misusing the natives, and the two Filipinos who were most interested in this question they observed, they said that even if the experimental subjects had not all been volunteers, and of course there were different opinions on that subject in Manilla, that they as Filipino doctors who had known Strong, on the basis of this personal knowledge, were perfectly convinced that this was not a misuse of natives but a very reliable work in the interests of the peoples of Asia; not only the Filipino but the Indians and Siamese as well, who were cursing Mr. Strong.

From this conversation I know what Filipino doctors thought about these experiments. That is the source of my knowledge, but since we were working on nothing else but plague at the time, we of course discussed these matters in great detail. Strong's work was the basis on which we did all our work. That was in 1935 in Bandong on Java.

Q: Then it is generally understood in your profession that Strong used prison inmates, is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: And the opinion is divided in your profession as to whether those prisoners were or were not volunteers, is that correct?

A: Yes, that was expressly said by the Filipino doctors, that they did not believe that they were volunteers. Professor Strong did not always say so. Many of his papers say nothing about it, but in others he does maintain it, but on the spot the people did net believe it. It is often the case in medical works it says "these are volunteers and —"

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, was the matter of the proposed interrogation covered by the answers by the witness to the questions propounded by the Tribunal?

DR. SAUTER: I have only one more brief question on this matter of plague, one single question on plague.

THE PRESIDENT: Proceed to propound your question to the witness.

BY DR. SAUTER:

Q: Professor Rose, one final question on the problem of plague, did you ever hear that any authority in the whole World, whether the church or the Government or the medical professional organizations or any one, objected to these reports of Strong and similar scientists, for example in the Filipino Journal, and called these experiments criminal, specifically whether the church, Christian or non-Christian, protestant or Catholic, took this point of view.

THE PRESIDENT: The witness may answer that question yes or no.

A: I beg your pardon, unfortunately it is impossible. Very exceptionally there were criticisms, not of Strong specifically but of other work which I know of, but on the whole I never heard such criticism, such criticism was always an exception, I am very sorry that I could not observe your instruction.

Q: One brief final question on another subject, only a correction. It is some thing which the Tribunal asked — a very brief question, Professor. In the examination of Professor Rostock the Tribunal asked whether immunity can be ascertained by blood test, that is whether an experiment with human beings is absolutely necessary: did you understand the question?

A: Yes.

Q: Is that correct?

A: In the direct examination by Dr. Fritz I have already answered this question. I don't know whether it escaped your notice, Dr. Sauter. I know you have a document, I believe it is No. 24, which you wanted to submit on the subject.

DR. SAUTER: Then I have no more questions, Mr. President. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess for a few minutes.

(Thereupon a recess was taken.)