1947-04-24, #3: Doctors' Trial (afternoon)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 24 April 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. McHANEY: Before continuing with cross examination, the prosecution requests that the Tribunal order at this time that Document NO 1852, which was marked as Prosecution Exhibit 456 for identification. be made available to the defense counsel for Karl Brandt, Dr. Servatius. I understand an order of the court is necessary to have the original exhibit removed from the vault.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal directs that the original of prosecution exhibit for prosecution's identification 456 be brought into the court — be exhibited to counsel for the defendant Karl Brandt.
GERHARD ROSE — Resumed CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued)
BY MR. McHANEY:
Q: You recall the answer I put to you before lunch. Will you please answer.
A: When the sound system broke down this morning, I just said that in the question which was put to me several assumptions are wrong and I must correct them. You said that in Professor Haagen's experiments 52 people died. In reality, that has not been proved, nor did any people die at all there. I believe that I cannot go into detail on this question here since that would be an argument and I was not permitted to do that on direct examination and I assume that I may not do so in cross examination either. You also said that in Professor Schilling's experiments 300 people died. This also is untrue. Through your witness here it was said that not a single person died of malaria in Schilling's experiments. The witness Vieweg said that. He also said that seven persons died from incidents in the course of treatment and errors in treatment. It is true that in Document Book 4 submitted by you the number 300 dead is given. These are supposed to be in some connection with the malaria experiments. I must assume that the court in Dachau had some expert who expressed his opinion to that effect.
I personally should like to say that I would rather be a defendant here than give my signature as a court expert to a document certifying that 300 people supposedly died after a disease which, according to proof, is not fatal like malaria tertiana. And considering the seven dead in Schilling's experiment, I should like to say that I personally should not like to be responsible for seven dead — seven dead would be enough of a burden for me. A single person who died from my negligence as a doctor would be an enormous burden on my conscience. I don't intend to quibble about the number of dead, I just merely wanted to make a correction.
And then you gave figures from the Buchenwald experiments. There again there are great differences between the numbers of dead in the experiment ordered by higher government authorities, and the experiments which Dr. Ding apparently carried out on his own initiative, to judge by his diary. After this correction of the assumptions I come to the answer.
You asked me whether I considered the indicated human experiments as a precedent which justified those experiments which are the subject of the indictment. I may say that of course one can only compare things which are comparable. In my direct examination I did not give any examples of human experiments. I mentioned only two cases of fully permissible experiments where I knew the details, in order to explain what the mental burden on the doctor in charge of the experiment is, and what his responsibility is. But if one wants to use these experiments as a comparison with those which are the subject of this trial, then in one case such a comparison is actually possible. For example, if you take the beri-beri experiments of Professor Strong, a disease was intentionally induced which involved severe suffering for the experimental subjects and one death, in spite of careful medical attention. This death was, of course, not such a great burden on the person in charge of the experiment since the person was already condemned to death as the paper says. As far as I can see, that would more or less correspond to the experiment of Professor Gebhardt.
He had 70 experimental subjects and had the misfortune of having three of them die. The others had severe illness. The mortality was about the same, three percent, and illness was caused with all the subjects. If you take Professor Mrugowsky's aconite, then there is no comparison in the examples which I mentioned, tut one can compare this execution with the poisoning of people condemned to death by carbon tetrachloride. That has not been quoted yet. I have intentionally not mentioned anything of the experiments because I know the ruling of the Tribunal that they had to be discussed only later. But in these poisonings with carbon tetrachloride, instead of hanging the people they were poisoned with carbon tetrachloride, and insofar as the poisoning was not fatal they were hanged later and their livers were examined in order to establish the effect of the carbon tetrachloride. That would be a parallel to this execution.
And if you want to take the Buchenwald passages, if you want to have a comparison, I'd mentioned Adler's experiments where all the experimental subjects died.
One can only compare what is comparable. Schilling's malaria experiments on prisoners can compare only with the American malaria experiments on prisoners. Of course, I cannot tell you in detail how many incidents occurred. I know that work was done with malaria tertiana in particular and no one can die from that in American any more than in Dachau. How many incidents occurred during treatment, I do not know, but I do know that work was done in America with malaria tropica too and since Mr. Simmons did not have my Pfaffenrode tropica strains, which benign and not fatal, but had the normal tropical strains, it is hard to believe that these experiments went off without any casualties.
And now the fatalities of typhus in the experiments ordered by the German Government, one can of course compare the fatalities only with the typhus experiments in American prisons. I cannot give you the figures because they have not been published yet and possibly they will not be published because of the mortality in these experiments. It is generally known that such unpleasant incidents, which are a tragedy against the person responsible for the experiments in the eyes of the public, are not pleasant and such experiments can be made public only in a concealed form. Does that answer your question?
Q: Well, of course, if one assumes as you do that the proof of the Prosecution is either falsified or non-existing and that no deaths occurred or if any deaths occurred that they were purely accidental, then of course there is no point at all in talking about comparison with experiments in other countries. The only conclusion then is that the Prosecution has no case and I submit to you that the proof the Prosecution has put in that 250 or more people died in Buchenwald from the typhus experiment and 157 in the experiments themselves and 100 at least in the experimental camp.
I submit to you that the Witness Schmidt has testified that people died in Haagen's experiments, irrespective of whether you believe it and I further submit to you that another Tribunal has held innumerable deaths occurred in Dachau.
I am asking you how you can draw any comparison, if you assume the proof to mean anything and if you don't there is no reason for me putting the question to you. If you assume the proof has some merit to it, how can you testify from that stand how there is any comparison between the experiments of Strong, where at least one person died and the malaria experiments in America where nobody died, etc. I suggest to you that possibly the difference in these experiments is that even in a prison in the Philippine Islands and even in a prison in America, the prisoners have some rights. They have relatives, they not only vote but can sue in the courts, as can the prisoners themselves. If they are mistreated and a death is brought about they can obtain redress. I further put to you that in the concentration camps in Germany that the relatives in most cases, if they were non-German nationals, did not even know where they were; and if they died a falsified death certificate was sent to the relatives and in most cases they were regarded by their incarcerators as sub-human.
Now, doesn't that factual difference indicate to you that perhaps these experiments of Strong are in no way comparable to the experiments with which we are herewith concerned?
A: First, I should like to say that I have not mentioned any experiments on human beings which are to be compared with the experiments here and I do not know why you ask me about experiments in concentration camps since you know, and the prosecution in the person of Mr. Hardy has expressly admitted that I not only objected to experiments in concentration camps, but even on experimenting on persons condemned to death. You don't assume that since I protested against it in Himmler's time, now when I am confronted by you, I am not going to change sides and begin to defend experiments in concentration camps; that is asking a little too much. I said that before and that is my stand.
Q: Well very well, very well, then we needn't spend any more time on Strong's experiments. Now are you ready to concede that the typhus experiments in Buchenwald were nothing but murder; as I have understood your testimony that is the way you described it in the meeting in May of 1943; is that right?
A: No, that is a distortion of my words. At the meeting in 1943 I did not say that this was murder. I said that these were serious medical experiments, which had had results of great significance and this part of my statements has been printed and is available, but in spite of this, on the basis of medical ethics, I protested against the execution of such experiments and especially against the fact that Government agencies assigned such an enormous and unbearable burden to members of my profession. That is what I said. The fact that in addition to the experiments reported at the meeting of consulting physicians, conditions seemed to have prevailed or said to have prevailed at Buchenwald, according to the testimony of the witnesses here. Neither I, nor any other participants in this meeting had any knowledge, on the contrary we were repeatedly assured at that time that the subjects were persons who had been legally condemned to death. In spite of the fact that this assurance was given at the time and there are many living witnesses who can testify to it, nevertheless I protested. Although I admit that for many people who think differently than I do, the fact might be sufficient, the fact that a person is condemned to death and they say, "Well the man has to die anyhow, then it does not make any difference if he dies in a medical experiment or whether he is executed." But, as I say, I admit that other people can have this point of view, I am not the Pope who sets up general ethics. It is not my opinion and I expressed my opinion at the time.
Q: Herr Professor, did you or did you not tell Gildemeister when you talked about Gildemeister's experiments, "We might as well set up an execution chamber here at the Robert Koch Institute?"
A: Yes, that is exactly what I said and that meant if people condemned to death are used for dangerous medical experiments; then that is the same thing as an execution, that would be an execution section in the Robert Koch Institute if that were the general arrangement of the Government and I did not think that was very desirable.
Q: Did your witness Schmidt here before this court room, or not, testify that as he understood your objection, you were objecting to murder; did he say that or didn't he?
A: Yes, Mr. Hardy, by clever questioning, succeeded in bringing the witness to make this statement, but I must know better what I expressly said and if I talked about murder at the time, it was invented for the first time by the Prosecution here.
Q: Well, whatever we invent, we now want you to ride one horse or the other. Let us assume for the moment, and I know it will tax you, that just a few of these experimental subjects were not condemned to death and further let us assume that they were not volunteers and not rushing forward and saying, "Yes, you can give me typhus." Now, would that constitute a murder in your judgment if against his will he was subjected to an infectious experiment with typhus and he died?
A: That is a question of judicial definition. I do not know of a legal case of death in a medical experiment ordered by the Government and approved under the laws. I do not consider myself a legal expert so that I cannot give such a definition.
Q: Well, in any event, we can at least conclude that you are not prepared in any event to defend the Buchenwald experiments; is that right?
A: I objected to these experiments at the time and here in my direct examination I said what I know about the motives of the doctors who regulated these experiments.
Q: And if it is a fact that Haagen killed 150 men in 1944 in Natzweiler, you are also not prepared to defend those either?
A: I have already told you that in Haagen's experiments nobody died and that no proof has been given to the Tribunal here. I cannot discuss that here, that would be an argument and I was not allowed to present arguments during my direct examination, but I am quite willing to explain it to you.
When the Witness the morphia-eater Edith Schmidt was asked whether it was right that the fifty died, she said she would not, like to swear to it and thus she took back her testimony. If this testimony was true that fifty control persons died, because mortality in typhus is 30%, there would have to have been 160 control persons, that would mean 450 experimental subjects and then this would be an experiment of 600 persons. And your two witnesses from Natzweiler, although they were in the camp, they did not hear anything about such experiments. Mr. [illegible] became very excited when you tried to say that he heard something about infection with typhus. He said, "No, I did not say anything about typhus infections. I only said as injections had been given a typhus epidemic in the camp break out sometime later." The witness Grandjean said there was a typhus epidemic was in the camp and the block with the typhus patients had been completely shut off.
Q: You and your defense counsel can reserve arguments about the truth of the witness Schmidt's testimony at the conclusion of the trial. I do not wish to take up any of the Tribunal's time at this time in arguing about whether or not you believe the testimony of the witness Schmidt, and if not, why not.
A: I want to avoid that. I said so twice but since you insist always on a statement is proved it is not true. I had to answer it.
Q: Herr Professor, now you are intelligent enough to know I put a hypothetical question to you. I was asking you to give certain assumptions and I was trying to bring out in a clear manner your attitude toward these experiments. Now you don't want the court to be confused about how you feel about an experiment, assuming certain facts, we understand you dispute certain of these facts, but be that as it may, it is important for the Prosecution, the Tribunal and the defense to know your attitude toward a given experiment, however, much we may dispute the facts, but since you persist in refusing to exhibit your attitude we will proceed.
A: You understand I have no inclination to discuss hypothetical assumptions here about things with which I am charged by you. I should prefer to discuss facts. Discussions of hypothetical questions are very interesting, but not in the situation in which I find myself at the moment.
Q: Let's go back to the malaria experiments. What contact did you have with Schilling in 1941?
A: During my direct examination I testified that in 1941 I saw reports about Schilling's malaria work in Italy on behalf of the Italian government and with the support of the Reich Ministry of the Interior, and then either at the end of 1941 or the beginning of 1942 I gave an opinion, a written opinion on an application which Professor Schilling had sent to State Secretary Conti, or rather to the Reich Ministry of Interior. Then I saw Professor Schilling in 1941 personally. I do not believe, I am not certain, whether he was in Germany again at that time, but I can't deny it with certainty under oath, because after all that was six years ago.
Q: Did you supply him any material while he was working in Italy?
A: No, nothing.
Q: Who was Fraulien Von Falkenberg?
A: You mean Fraulein Von Valkenhayn?
Q: No, I mean Fraulien Von Falkenberg.
A: I don't know any Fraulien Von Falkenberg.
Q: You are sure you didn't supply Schilling with any material in 1941?
A: I can't remember it. It might have been done by my department without my knowledge. Then, of course, I would take the responsibility for it, but I have not learned of it up until now. My assistants did not tell me anything about it, if it happened. If you can prove it happened, I shall, of course, assume responsibility for it, even if it was done without my knowledge.
Q: Well, it is not terribly Important, but let's let you have a look at Document No. 1756. In the mean time when did this incident occur about your giving material to Schilling, after he had set up his institute at Dachau?
A: I beg your pardon, I didn't understand your question.
Q: When did you give Schilling material after he had gone to Dachau?
A: I cannot give any information about that myself. I have to depend on the testimony of my assistant, Von Falkenhayn, and my secretary Block. My secretary Block testified, here that it was the end of 1941, but I would assume that she is mistaken about that, since Miss Von Falkenhayn testified that this material was given in the year 1942. I think the latter is more likely.
Q: Document No. 1756 will be marked as Prosecution Exhibit 486 for identification.
THE PRESIDENT: What is that number?
MR. McHANEY: 486.
BY MR. McHANEY:
Q: Isn't there a Fraulien Von Falkenberg mentioned in this letter of yours to Schilling, dated 3 February, 1941?
A: No, in the German copy of the document which you showed to me, it says Fraulien Von Falkenhayn.
Q: That is a mistake then in the English translation.
A: Fraulien Von Falkenhayn was an assistant in my department. She had formerly worked for Professor Schilling. There is an affidavit from her. Since I have this letter I can give you some information about the matter. Professor Schilling wanted to have a serological reaction in malaria, the so-called reaction according to Henry, that is a reaction which is carried out for the purpose of malaria diagnosis. As in the antigen reaction, in this reaction the spleen of dead persons is used in the diet of malaria.
Professor Schilling apparently wrote to me to find out whether I as head of the tropical medical department was in a position to obtain a spleen from a corpse where the patient had died of malaria. I answered saying that such material would hardly be available in Berlin. Malaria was very rare in Berlin and consequently deaths from malaria were also very rare. The only cases of this type occurred in insane asylums, in the treatment of paralytics. It is well known that the first work of Wagner Jauregg shows that in the course of malaria treatment that paralysis deaths occur, just as death occurs following operations, and such malaria deaths, of course, occurred in Berlin insane asylums. As far as I can remember the matter my assistants contacted various pathological institutes in Berlin and asked in case such an autopsy occurred there that the spleen should be preserved so that it could be sent to Professor Schilling. This was what this letter was about.
Q: Did you ever supply any to him?
A: As far as I can recall in the course of several months one or two such cases occurred and the material was sent to Schilling, but I can't say for certain today.
Q: Well you are now qualifying at least the answer you gave to my earlier question as to whether you gave him any material in 1941, isn't that right?
A: I beg your pardon. I didn't understand the question.
Q: I say you now wish to qualify the answer you gave me a few moments before you saw the letter to the effect that you had not given him any material in 1941. You now state you did in fact give him some after having seen the letter.
A: Yes, I am sorry. My attention was entirely devoted to the question of the malaria parasite strains and mosquitoes, but the matter of negotiations between Schilling and the pathological institute in Berlin, I did not think of that.
Q: Let's go back to what we were discussing. You stated that although Frau Block, said that the malaria eggs were supplied Schilling in the latter part of 1941, you think probably it was 1942?
A: Yes, that is what I said. Perhaps I may correct myself. When you speak of Malaria eggs you mean anopheles eggs probably. There are no malaria eggs.
Q: Yes that is right.
A: I am inclined to agree that Von Falkenhayn and Block think differently. I think that Von Falkenhayn was right and that it was in 1942.
Q: Did you know anything about this before it was sent?
A: I can't remember it. I don't believe so. As far as I remember I was informed of it by Fraulien Von Falkenhayn, in the meantime after I was given a letter from Professor Schilling that the mosquitoes were thriving in Dachau.
Q: Did you thereafter issue orders that no more material was to be sent to Schilling, is that right?
A: I did not issue a precise order. I said since we ourselves were using so many mosquitos I didn't want any more material to be sent to Mr. Schilling because I was not convinced of the scientific value of his work. But, Fraulein von Falkenhayn in her testimony says that there was further correspondence with Fraulein Lange. I have not been able to find this correspondence and I can't clear up the question completely. I have to rely fully on my assistant in this respect and I can't answer from my own knowledge. In our first conversation on the subject when I told you that Schilling got anopheles eggs from us, which you didn't know at the time, I did not tell you that he got a malaria strain from my department. I didn't know that at the time. I learned it just a short time ago from Fraulein von Falkenhayn. That was not in the affidavit. Apparently she was afraid of some misgivings and sent a letter to that effect to my lawyer. I am not so timid. I am not afraid to tell you about it.
Q: In other words you did supply a Rose strain to Schilling?
A: No. As I said in direct examination the Rose strain could not come from my department because we didn't have any strain with the name Rose. Where this strain with the name Rose comes from is a puzzle to me. I don't know of any Rose strain in malaria literature. But I don't think there is any point in quarreling about this name. The information given by Fraulein von Falkenhayn, which I believe fully, that a malaria strain is given — this is quite sufficient — and no difference whether it is called Rose or whether a Greece strain, or whether some other name.
Q: Your witness, Frau Block, testified you had no correspondence with Schilling in 1942 and 1943, as I recall. Is that right?
A: That is what Frau Block said. I myself would not have been so definite in my testimony if you asked me the same question. I would say I can't answer that question definitely. I only know one thing, that I never corresponded with Professor Schilling on the subject of his work.
Whether Schilling and I ever exchanged letters in those years I don't know since I don't have my files and such a rare correspondence as that — any information about it, whether he wrote a certain letter five or six years ago — he says "I would like to look that up in my files." Unfortunately I cannot do so but perhaps you would be kind enough if you have copies of such a letter to make it available to me. You have my files and they are much more easily available to you than to me. For example, I am trying to find my malaria opinion from the year 194l. That was in the same file cabinet from which you got the record of the typhus meeting 29 December 1941 in the Ministry of Interior.
Q: You overestimate the Prosecution, Herr Professor, but we needn't dwell on that. Now, is your memory good enough to tell us how long you continued to furnish Schilling with material for his Dachau experiments. You say that somewhere along in 1942 you told them not to send any more. Are you clear about it?
A: Yes, I think I can remember reliably.
Q: Well, when did this malaria strain go down?
A: I am sorry I can't hear you.
Q: When did you send him the malaria strain?
A: I don't know. Fraulein von Falkenhayn merely told me that the malaria strain was given to Schilling. I don't know when. She didn't mention that in her letter to Dr. Fritz.
Q: Let's look at Document NO-1752. This will be marked as Prosecution Exhibit 487 for identification. Suppose you read the letter aloud, Professor?
A: (reading)
Prof. Claus Schilling
Dachau, 4 April 1942
3K, Hospital for InmatesTo Prof. Dr. Rose
Berlin — Fohrerstrasse 2
Robert Koch InstituteDear Colleague:
I inoculated a person intracutaneous with Sporocoides from the salivary glands of a female anopheles you sent me. For the second inoculation I do not have the Sporocoides material because I do not possess the "Strain Rose" in the anopheles yet. If you should find it possible to send me in the next days a few anopheles infected with "Strain Rose" (with the last consignment two out of ten mosquitoes were infected) I would have the possibility of continuing this experiment and I would naturally be very thankful to you for this new support of my work.
The mosquito breeding and the experiments are proceeding satisfactorily, I am working now on six tertiary strains. I remain with hearty greetings and Heil Hitler.
Yours truly,
/s/ Claus Schilling
Q: Schilling apparently thought there was a "Strain Rose."
A: Yes. That is indicated by the letter. That clears up the matter. He must have renamed this strain which came from my department and called it Rose. That is very unusual. Normally a malariologist would not do that.
Q: Are those your initials on the bottom of this letter, "L. g. RO 17/4"?
A: Yes that indicates that 13 days after the letter was mailed, 12 days after it arrived at the Robert Koch Institute, I saw it. There is also the file note "Settled EVF". That is Erna von Falkenhayn on the 17 April 1942. I find that in spite of my instructions to the department Fraulein von Falkenhayn still sent mosquitoes to her old boss although she denies it today but I should like to emphasize that, of course, I am responsible for what Fraulein von Falkenhayn did even if she didn't tell me about it.
Q: Well, you saw the letter on the 17 April 1942. Did you reaffirm your instructions that no more material was to be sent to Schilling?
A: I can't tell you today. That is quite possible. It is not even certain that I was in the Robert Koch Institute when I saw the letter. It is much more likely that Mrs. Block brought this letter to my home where such things were generally settled. And, from the fact that it had been dealt with ten days before you see that such letters were opened by my secretary.
Q: I thought we would be a bit generous with Frau Block and assume she hadn't seen the letter since she was so firm in the testimony that you hadn't corresponded with Schilling during these years.
Did you ever send Schilling any atroparvus eggs?
A: Yes. That is anopheles eggs which he got from us. As a type of anopheles in my laboratory I had anopheles eggs maculipenis atroparvus.
Q: Suppose I put document No. 1753 to you. This will be marked as Prosecution Exhibit 482 for identification. This is another letter from Schilling. This one is dated a year later — 5 July 1943, acknowledging:
with appreciation the receipt of you letter of 30 June and the consignment of antroparvus eggs.
I would also like to direct your attention, Professor, to the last paragraph of the letter where it says:
Please tell Frl. Lange, who apparently takes care of her breed with greater skill and better success than the prisoner August, my best thanks for her troubles.
Do you remember the Christian name of the witness Vieweg?
A: No, I'am sorry I don't remember the name of this man.
Q: If you search the record I think you will find his forename was August.
Now, Doctor, apparently they completely ignored your orders of the year previous not to send any more material to Schilling. Apparently you had a change of heart yourself. Isn't that right?
A: I have already stated expressly that my orders not to send any more material to Schilling meant that we did not have too much material ourselves. It did not mean that I had any misgivings about the way in which Schilling was carrying out his work. It is quite possible that when we again had plenty of mosquito eggs we gave some to Schilling again. I am in a very difficult position. It is difficult for me to testify anything from my memory. You see here again that this matter was apparently dealt with by Fraulein Lange and Schilling himself wrote to me again.
Q: Well, I didn't read it that way, Professor. The first line acknowledges of your letter of June 30th.
A: Well, then it's possible that I wrote to Schilling.
Q: Frau Block suffered a bad memory about your correspondence with Schilling in 1943 as well as 1942, didn't she?
A: Yes, I am rather astonished because one would assume that a secretary remembers such things better, but it of course, possible to make mistakes if one doesn't access to the files. I have told you that I cannot testify with any certainty to the details of such correspondence because I had too much correspondence.
Q: Well, isn't it possible you supplied material to him in 1944?
A: I consider that quite impossible. We have the testimony of Fraulein von Falkenhayn that the Department for Fever Therapy never gave them any material and, at that time, I did not have any office in Berlin any longer, but again I must rely on Fraulein von Falkenhayn's testimony. I myself was at Pfaffenrode once a month at the most, and I called up once or twice a long distance.
Q: I put in Document NO. 1755. This will be marked Prosecution Exhibit 489 for identification. This is a reply by you to Schilling, dated 27 July 1943. This letter specks about shipping eggs to Schilling, doesn't it?
A: Yes, apparently. There must have been plenty of mosquito eggs so that we could give up some of them.
Q: There wasn't as big a shortage as you thought, is that right?
DR. FRITZ: Mr. President, I ask that the photostat be shown to the defendant Rose. It is not impossible that that was written by an assistant and initialed "R". Since I know the signature of Professor Rose; I think the "R" looks a little different.
Perhaps he might be shown the photostat.
THE PRESIDENT: Let the photostat be shown to the witness.
WITNESS: I must say I do not understand this signature at all. When I signed a letter I signed my name, but I don't think it's very important.
BY MR. McHANEY:
Q: When you were shipping these eggs to Schilling in Dachau it was after the time you had heard the lecture by Rascher and Holzloehner in October, 1942, in Nurnberg on freezing, wasn't it?
A: The dates of those letters were after Holzloehner's lecture, yes. Holzloehner's lecture was in October, 1942, to my knowledge. But perhaps you might say what conclusions you draw from that. Do you mean that Holzloehner and Schilling worked together? That one could have concluded anything from Holzloehner's work that would affect Schilling? Is that you conclusion? That, of course, would be quite unjustified I would be glad if you would explain your question.
Q: Doctor, I don't think it is too strange to say that a man who had, at least, received from information about how they carried out experiments in Dachau, even though on a different subject, might raise some suspicion in an average person's mind about just who the experimental subjects were down there and how they were treated?
A: I knew Mr. Schilling so many years. I met him for the first time in 1922, and I knew his reputation in international medicine and there was not the slightest occasion for to draw any conclusions affecting Professor Schilling's work from the activity of Mr. Holzloehner who never told me that he had any connection with professor Schilling's work.
Q: Have you told the Tribunal yet about your visit to the Natzweiler concentration camp?
A: No, that was not possible. I never visited the Natzweiler camp.
Q: Well, as I recall, you told me on the 31st of October that you visited Natzweiler in connection with Haagen's work in producing typhus vaccines. Is that correct?
A: That is absolutely incorrect. I told you that I visited Professor Haagen's hygiene institute in Strasbourg twice, but I never visited the Natzweiler camp.
Q: When did you visit Strasbourg?
A: In Strasbourg as far as I remember I was in the middle of 1943, I can't give the date of the second visit so exactly. It was probably in 1944.
Q: What about the first visit?
A: Since I don't have the material on it I can't state the date exactly. Fraulein Schmidt said it was in June or July, but that is the only indication that I have. It is very difficult for me to set the time. In the files which are available to me here there is nothing from which I could conclude the date of this visit. I merely know that there were two visits to Strasbourg.
Q: One was in the year 1943 and the other in the year 1944? Is that right?
A: As far as I can remember, yes.
Q: What was the occasion of the first visit?
A: That was the discussion of whether Professor Haagen was to resume the function of a consulting hygienist because after he had become a professor at Strasbourg he had stopped all activity for the Luftwaffe.
He had a shortage of hygienists and when I mad an official trip to France I was given the assignment to stop on the way in Strasbourg and balk to professor Haagen about it — about whether he wanted to resume working as a consulting hygienists in addition to his other work. I have already told about that in my direct examination.
Q: And he decided to resume his work with the Luftwaffe and you got an assignment of funds for him from the Luftwaffe, didn't you?
A: He declared himself willing to become a consulting physician in addition to his other work and he also spoke of his wish to obtain a research assignment. So far as I know, he did not have any research assignment about typhus yet he wanted to have a new research assignment which means that he wanted to have more money. This research assignment is mentioned in one letter.
Q: Well, that is quite all right. I can remember that. You got an assignment of funds, didn't you?
A: No, I did not have any influence on the issuance of research assignments but, as the letter shows, Mr. Haagen inquired of me how the negotiations about his research assignment were going on and I inquired of the inspectorate and I told him how the negotiations were.
Q: I don't suppose that Haagen explained to you just exactly how he was going to conduct his research and what he was going to do during the course of it?
A: No, we discussed his position in general on the problem of typhus research, and as I have already testified in direct examination, he explained to me that he did not consider the killed vaccines effective enough and that he wanted to work more far Berlin along the lines of Sparrow-Blanc-Legres, that is with living avirulent vaccines, and he worked on this line. I have already testified yesterday as to what I know about this work.
Q: Did he tell you that he was going to carry out infection experiments to test these vaccines?
A: That he intended to carry out infection experiments I did not know, but it was a matter of course that if he wanted to work with living avirulent vaccines he would have to perform tolerance experiments, because that is the decisive experiment, if such a thing even developed far enough by means of animal experiments.
Q: We understand he would have to vaccinate somebody, but I am putting the question to you, if he did not explain to you that after he vaccinated the person with either a dead vaccine or avirulent, that he was going to try to bring about a typhus infection in the vaccinated person to test the efficacy of the vaccine itself?
A: I did not know that. I do know as I explained yesterday, that he was dealing with research questions. The reaction to the living avirulent vaccines he wanted to weaken by vaccination first with dead vaccines and then performing a second vaccination with living avirulent vaccine. The reason was to reduce the vaccine reaction.
Q: Doctor, is it not true that to produce or experiment with this avirulent vaccine that Haagen needed some new laboratory equipment? I think you have already mentioned refrigeration.
A: For these experiments he did not need any new equipment, there were such small quantities. He was quite capable of managing that with the available equipment, but he did need more laboratory equipment for the production of vaccine.
The Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe repeatedly asked him for and they hoped that they would get their own production place in that way. That meant installations for rabbit cages, a temperature regulation, installations to maintain regular temperatures, and humidity in the stalls, — air conditioning. That was a very expensive thing. It cost several thousand marks, and the purpose was the following: Haagen wanted to produce vaccine from rabbit lungs, because he considered this the most economical procedure. For producing this vaccine one has to cause inflammation of the lungs in the rabbits with typhus. These inflammations of the lungs can be caused only if the rabbits are kept at a certain temperature, I believe that is 8 degrees Celsius, and since this temperature is not normally available, this air conditioning equipment was needed for the rabbit cages. That had nothing to do with the experiments.
Q: Did the name Schuhmach mean anything to you?
A: Yes, I have heard that name.
Q: You heard it before you were a defendant in this case?
A: I cannot definitely remember it, but it is possible.
Q: You knew it to be a concentration camp?
A: As I said I cannot remember it definitely whether I heard it at all, and of course I do not know whether the name was mentioned in connection with concentration camps.
Q: When did you first learn that Haagen was conducting experiments on concentration camp inmates?
A: That Haagen was performing experiments on concentration camp inmates? I don't believe that even today, but that he carried out vaccinations in concentration camps, I knew that. When I first learned it I can't say today, probably in 1943.
Q: Well, you remember the letter in December 1943?
A: I certainly must have known it by then, because there I refer to it.
Q: Well, did you know about this sordid occasion when Haagen had 18 men who had been assigned to him die on transport?
A: I never learned anything about that. I learned of that from the files, and I never knew that prisoners were especially taken to these concentration camps in order to be vaccinated.
Q: What would you have done if you had of known about it; Wouldn't that have given you an indication that maybe things were not so nice in the concentration camp, or maybe proper care wasn't being taken of the inmates in these experiments?
A: If I had learned anything about it I probably would have reacted exactly as Haagen did, as can be proved by the documents he wrote to the SS office, that one cannot conduct any experiments of any consequences on such unfortunate people. The record is in the records here. If I had learned about it I would probably have reacted in exactly the same way, perhaps more violently.
Q: Well, I should have hoped so.
A: I beg your pardon. I didn't understand you.
Q: I should have hoped you would have reacted somewhat more violently than Haagen apparently did.
A: That is possible. Our temperaments are different.
Q: You recall Miss Eyer testified Haagen sent reports every three months to the Medical Inspector of the Luftwaffe, do you agree to that testimony?
A: I heard the testimony. Yesterday in my direct examination I commented on it. If Haagen had reported every three months I certainly wouldn't have forgotten it. I had many things on my mind during the war, but such an exemplary condition of reporting would certainly have impressed itself on my memory. It is quite out of the question that the Medical Inspectorate received a report from Haagen every 3 months. I said yesterday that I consider Fraulein Eyer's testimony quite credible because in view of the number of offices with which Haagen was in connection, and from which he received reports there were so many reports and accounts necessary that it is a marvel that Fraulein Eyer didn't say she had to write a report every month.
I explained with the aid of the documents what obligation to report resulted from the documents alone. You probably haven't had an opportunity to read the record yet, but as soon as the record is ready you will be able to see that. I don't think there is any purpose in holding up the proceedings with that any further.
Q: And you are quite clear that Haagen never suggested to you that he was going to carry out infection experiments with typhus after vaccination?
A: That is not known to me.
MR. McHANEY: Let's have a look at Document NO 1059. This will be marked as Prosecution Exhibit 490 for identification.
Q: Now, will you please read this letter aloud in a loud and resonant voice?
A: Perhaps I may see the photostat.
Q: Will you read the letter aloud, please?
A: (Reading)
29 November 1943 — Registered
To Oberstarzt [Colonel, Medical Corps.] Professor Dr. Rose.
Inspectorate of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe
Saalow (Post Office Zossen-Land)Dear Mr. Rose:
Enclosed I am sending you the report about our experiments with dehydrated typhus vaccine which I had promised you several days ago. As I intend to publish the findings, I have written the report already in manuscript form. I ask that, after having been reviewed, it be submitted to the competent authorities for their approval of its publication in the “Zentralblatt fuer Bakteriologie” (Central Periodical for Bacteriology).
One hundred persons from a local concentration camp were put at my disposal for immunization and subsequent infection. Unfortunately these people were in such a poor physical condition that eighteen of them had already died during transport; the remainder were likewise in such bad physical shape that they could not be used for inoculation purposes. In the meantime I have requested 100 additional persons from the SS Main Office (Hauptamt), who, however, should be in normal physical and nutritional condition, so that the experiments can be carried out on material which at least approaches the physical condition of our soldiers.
For the time being we will concentrate on an epidemic culture in the form of a virus, which we have received from Giroud in the meantime. This seems to be a very good culture.
With best regards, Heil Hitler! Yours -
Enclosure: one report.
And no signature.
This is the matter which I discussed yesterday. The plan of Mr. Haagen to test the inoculation reactions to his living and avirulent dry vaccine by pre-vaccination with dead Vaccine to weaken the reaction.
That is the same matter.
Q: I thought you said about two minutes ago that you didn't know of the incident where eighteen of the inmates put at Haagen's disposal had died during transport.
A: Yes, that's true. That's what I said, and I had forgotten about it. I thought that I had learned it for the first time from the records. If I had remembered it, I would, of course, not have exposed myself by denying it. But now I see this letter. It is obviously a carbon copy. I must assume that on the 25th of November 1943 the mail w.s still rather normal. I must assume that I received the letter. Since a report is mentioned, which I was to deal with and was apparently one of Haagen's papers on his dry vaccine, on which my knowledge is based and on account of which I can give any information here at all as to Haagen's experiments. This knowledge goes back to those papers of his.
Q: It would appear that in spite of your fiery temperament your reaction was even less significant than Haagen's himself doesn't it?
A: Since I was not concerned in the matter, since it was something between Haagen and the concentration Camp, there was no reaction in this case. If somebody else tells me that he has had direct contact with abuses, then there is no occasion for me to interfere, since that is settled between two persons concerned. I had nothing to do with the concentration camps. I did not have to carry out any inoculations there.
Q: And you insist that the words, "one hundred persons from a local concentration camp were put at my disposal for immunization and subsequent infection" really don't mean subsequent infection at all but a subsequent immunization?
A: With the living and avirulent dry vaccine, yes.
Q: Well, that is certainly an inarticulate way of saying that, isn't it?
A: This is correspondence between experts, and they know what it's about.
Q: You state yourself that you are still not sure exactly what Haagen did, although you were down there in the middle of 1943 and got him back on the payroll of the Luftwaffe and you knew he was staying at the laboratory and you knew no was going to work on typhus vaccines, but you now sit here and say you don't know exactly what he was doing.
A: Yes, that is true. I have given considerable information about Haagen's work here, and I have gone to considerable pains to get that all together; but of course I can't give you complete information, simply because all these experiments were not under our direction and under our supervision.
Q: Herr Professor, the first time the question of subsequent infection came up was in a letter dated 1944 and you spent the best part of a day rationalizing "subsequent infection" as meaning something entirely different, that it was simply a subsequent vaccination, after the man had already been vaccinated by the load vaccine. Now, if you were told on the 29th of November, 1943, that he was going to carry out immunization and subsequent infection experiments, you certainly would have known as a matter of fact what he was doing, and you would not need to speculate on this stand as you did yesterday. These words are entirely susceptible to the moaning that they mean exactly what they say.
A: At this stage of his experiments Haagen did not have a fully-developed vaccine yet. He was working exclusively on the problem of weakening the reaction to this living virulent vaccine. That was the problem that he was dealing with at the end of 1943 and the beginning 1944. And he was looking for various methods of achieving this.
Q: What did he mean in the last paragraph when he says:
For the time being, we will concentrate on an epidemic culture in the form of a virus, which we have received from Giroud in the meantime
A: That means that up to that time he had worked with a murine strain and that now for the development of the dry vaccine he wanted to use a strain of rickettsia prowazeki too.
Q: Well, I now want to point out to you again that I am having considerable difficulty in construing the word "infection" to mean vaccination.
A: Yes, I admit that many of these documents are written in a confusing way, but I believe that I can remember the whole matter adequately enough that I know what the problem is. The vaccine was not developed so far that it could be used in vaccination without reaction, and to determine the effect. There were strong fever reactions and the problem was how to avoid this fever reaction.
Q: Well, why call that infection?
A: That is a similar condition biologically. An injection of a living, a virulent vaccine, from the biological point of view, is an infection. This express ion is used often enough, but it is an infection which one can absolutely control.
Q: And after receipt of this letter you then wrote him on the 3rd of December — and this is Document NO-122, Exhibit 298, page 79 of Book 12 — you sent him the Copenhagen vaccine, the, didn't you, and asked him to test it in his experiments on his concentration camp inmates, didn't you, just as they did in Buchenwald, as you put it?
A: I beg your pardon?
Q: You sent him the Copenhagen vaccine after receiving this letter of 29 November and asked him to test that in his experiments on concentration camp inmates.
A: Then this discussion of the Copenhagen vaccine took place Haagen was specially interest in it, because it was a murine vaccine; and since he could not control fever reaction with the murine vaccine, yet, he succeeded in that only at the beginning of 1944 by storing the vaccine for a considerable time, he was no longer interested in this Copenhagen vaccine.
But at the and of 1943, when he still had the same difficulties as Blanc with the reactions with the living murine vaccine he was considerably interested in the Copenhagen vaccine. For it was the only vaccine from murine virus available in Europe at the time.
Q: You sent it to him, told him to test it just like they did in a series of experiments in Buchenwald, didn't you?
A: I don't remember that.
Q: Well, you remember mentioning Buchenwald to Haagen in your letter of 3 December 1943.
A: Oh, that's what you mean. Yes, I pointed it out as a parallel, because several vaccines were tested in Buchenwald for their effect against infection, and since Haagen in Strassbourg wanted to test various vaccines for their reaction effect.
Q: You sent that Copenhagen vaccine to Buchenwald also to be tested?
A: No.
Q: As I recall, your witness, Frau Block, said this Copenhagen vaccine didn't go to Haagen.
A: Frau Block testified that she sent the Copenhagen vaccine to various places. She did not mention Professor Haagen. As to Copenhagen vaccine, as far as I remember, I would say say from my own memory that I sent this vaccine only to Professor Schreiber.
Frau Blomk has said that she apparently on my instructions sent this vaccine to various other agencies.
DR. FRITZ: Mr. President, I must go back to document No.-1059 Mr. McHaney just said, After you received this letter and so forth. If the Persecution wants to prove that Professor Rose actually did receive the letter, then I must object to the document, because, I have looked at the photostat. It was obviously a carbon copy and has no signature. There is no certification that it was sent out or received. It could be a draft of a letter which was never sent.
MR. McHANEY: I understand the witness admitted he received it, or at least influentially—
DR. FRITZ: The defendant said he could not remember this letter.
WITNESS: I merely expressed the assumption that in view of the mail conditions at the time, the letter must have reached me, assuming, of course, that it was mailed. But as I said, even if it was sent. I can see nothing to object to in the contents.
BY MR. McHANEY:
Q: Do you deny having received the letter?
A: I can neither admit it or deny it. In the case of all of these letters which were sent out years ago nobody can testily under oath that he received or wrote a certain letter. A man can do that for whom a letter is a big event, but not somebody who has a large correspondence and who has no way today of consulting his own files to see whether these letters are there.
THE PRESIDENT: So far the letter has merely been marked, for identification. It has not yet been offered in evidence.
BY MR. McHANEY:
Q: At this meeting in May 1943 when you objected to the experiments by Ding, can we take it that the persons present at this meeting knew that the experiments had been carried out on concentration camp inmates?
A: From Dr. Ding's lecture they certainly could not conclude that.
To what extent during my protest I gave details about the experiments I don't remember. From the testimony of one of the witnesses, I can say that I apparently was not quite clear, because Professor Schnell in his affidavit says when we where whispering to one another that they might be experiments in concentration camps, that is a sign that at least this witness, Professor Schnell, did not conclude that definitely from what I said. What conclusions the other listeners gathered from that discussion I cannot, of course, say. No doubt all of them were impressed by the assurance that the subjects were criminals who had been condemned to death. This assurance was given to the assembly once more, and criminals who had been condemned to death are net normally inmates of concentration camps. They have to be taken to the concentration camp from the court prison where they they wait for confirmation of the verdict, so that the experiments can be carried out. Hence I would assume that Mr. Schnell in his assumption was an exception, and that the majority of the listeners did not believe that they were prisoners from concentration camps; but as I soy that is merely an assumption, because no one talked to me on this points, as to details about experiments on persons condemned to death. Some people agreed with my point of view, that one should avoid such experiments, while other people said that from the ethical point of view that there was no objection to such experiments.
Q: You visited Buchenwald on 17 March 1942, with Professor Gildemeister, is that right?
A: I cannot confirm the date from my own knowledge. I took this date from the so-called Ding Diary. I could decide the time of my presence at Buchenwald only from Ding's work, in as much as I can say in regard to the favor charts that at that time of the first visit I was in Buchenwald, but what day and what month it was I cannot say from my own knowledge.
Q: And you were just grin there to satisfy your curiosity about these experiments which Gildemsiter had told you about, is that right?
A: I wouldn't call that curiosity exactly. There were various motives. One was that it was the invitation of my superior who wanted to convince me that my objections were not justified; that the experiments were in a permissible form; and then there was a certain professional interest; since such an experiment Was taking place anynow, I, as a hygienist, was interested in the results. There were various motives.
Q: Did you or Gildemeister assist Ding in any way in carrying out these experiments?
A: Did I understand you correctly, whether I helped Gildemeister or Ding?
Q: No, whether you or Gildemeister helped Ding?
A: Ding was not there at all. He was sick. He had typhus and was in a hospital somewhere. In infecting the prisoners he had infected himself. Whether Gildemeister, as Ding's diary assorts, helped infect the patients I don't know. I was not there. I did not even know that Gildemeister had been in Buchenwald before. He didn't tell me that. At least I don't remember it, and during the visit when I was there nobody was infected at all. It was at least two weeks, or three weeks at the most, after the infection. These people were at the height of their fever. There was nothing to be infected. One could only go through the wards and look at the clinical picture of the disease of the persons with severe cases in the control cases, and the lighter cases among those vaccinated. That is something I have already described during the direct examination, and as the basis of my remark, in 1943, and what I said in my lecture in Basle on 17 February, 1944, when I talked about Ding's experiments, and said that the clinical impression is much stronger than the statistics expressed.
Q: Who escorted you around while you were in Buchenwald?
A: That was an SS doctor, who as far as I remember, had the rank of an oberarzt [Senior Physician], or a obersturmfuehrer [Lieutenant] in the SS, that is the one fact which I believe I remember with a certain degree of certainty but that was only one meeting with the man. I was not very strongly impressed by this person because the demonstration of all important data in the experimental building were not performed by doctors but by prisoners working in the laboratory. They had all of the charts and the records of clinical data, and they explained the thing to mo. The doctor himself did not participate and I sat at the table and looked at the various records and then I said that it was very difficult to look at these 140 or 150 fever charts and compare all of them, and over night these gentlemen made up average curves for me, so that on the next morning one could get a clearer impression of the course of the experiment and the prisoners who were working there demonstrated these things to us again the next morning.
Q: Did you see Hoven while you were there?
A: Dr. Hoven has already asked me about that but I cannot give any definite information. In any case when I saw him here for the first tine in prison I did not recognize him. I did not remember his name either. And if one sees Mr. Hoven, the general impression is that he is a dark type and ay recollection is more that this Oberarzt was a man about my size. Hoven is quite a bit shorter than I and he was not so definitely dark as Hoven but he was rather lighter. But I cannot say for certain whether he had blue or brown eyes; I am quite uncertain. I cannot say anything positively or negatively. I cannot say with certainty that I did not see Mr. Hoven nor can I tell you with certainty that I remember seeing Mr. Hoven. But that would probably be the case with all the people whom I met at that time. I do remember one of the prisoners because he was especially noticeable. He was something of a hunchback. He was a rather intelligent man and I talked with him a long time. I had the most to do with him. He was probably the man who knew the most about all the things. He was a prisoner, not an SS man.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess until 9:30 tomorrow.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 0930 hours, 25 April 1947.)