1947-04-25, #2: Doctors' Trial (late morning)

THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may proceed.

GERHARD ROSE — Resumed CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued)

BY MR. McHANEY:

Q: Herr Professor, did Mrugowsky ever request that you give him vaccines for use in typhus experiments?

A: No.

Q: Did you ever discuss the question as to whether the louse could be infected by a vaccinated typhus patient with the defendant Mrugowsky?

A: That could be possible. This question played an important role in the discussion about the vaccines and their effectiveness for a time. We had some old Polish observations available to the effect that if vaccinated persons received typhus in spite of that vaccination, no further illnesses could be transferred by such persons. It is possible throughout, since this question was of considerable importance, that something like that could well have been discussed by me and Mrugowsky. We talked a lot about that question.

Q: Did you ever negotiate with Mrugowsky concerning vaccines to be tested in Buchenwald?

A: No.

Q: Let's look at Document NO-1754.

(Document submitted to witness.)

MR. McHANEY: I ask that Document NO-1754 be marked as Prosecution Exhibit 479.

Q: (Continuing) Herr Professor, will you read this document aloud?

A: (reading)

Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS; Journal No. 795/42.
Berlin W 15, Knesebeckstrasse 43/44
16 May 1942.

To the Oberfeldarzt Professor Dr. Rose
Berlin NW, Foehrerstrasse 2
Robert Koch Institute.

Dear Professor:

The Reich Physician SS and Police has consented to the execution of experiments to test typhus vaccines. May I therefore ask you to let me have the vaccines.

The other question which you raised, as to whether the louse can be infected by a typhus patient vaccinated for protection, will also be dealt with. In principle, this also has been approved. There are, however, still some difficulties at the moment about the practical execution, since we have at present no facilities for breeding lice yet.

Your suggestion to use Olzscha has been passed on to the Personnel Department of the SS Medical Office. It will be given consideration in due course.

With King regards, and Heil Hitler! Your, Dr. Mrugowsky, SS Obersturmbannfuehrer [Lieutenant Colonel].

There is a footnote to this letter, and I quote:

According to telephonic inquiry Dr. Mrugowsky asks to be called by telephone after Professor Dr. Rose's return. Dr. Mrugowsky will not yet be in Berlin in June. His deputy, Dr. Bing, is informed. 20 May 1942.

It becomes apparent from that letter that Dr. Mrugowsky once informed me that the Reichsarzt [Reich Physician] SS and Police had consented to the testing of typhus vaccines. He then asks me to send him these vaccines. What vaccines he is speaking of I do not know any more now.

Then the question is discussed about lice being infected by typhus patients vaccinated for protection.

I admitted that a possibility exists, and I said that this question was at one time discussed with me.

The final paragraph says that one of my assistants had been drafted into the Waffen SS and that I endeavored to have him used in the Hygienic Service.

Q: Herr Professor, let's go to the foot-note first. What are the initials "B.L." at the end of that foot-note for? Isn't that Frau Block?

A: Yes, that would be Frau Block; yes.

Q: And Frau Block has been in touch with Dr. Mrugowsky. She notes that Dr. Ding, who I suppose you will admit is Dr. Ding, has been informed. In view of this note we can pretty well disregard the testimony of your witness Frau Block before this Tribunal can't we since she testified you had not corresponded with Mrugowsky, didn't she?

A: She said that she could not recollect any correspondence with Mrugowsky, but you will see from the documents from me which you have before you, that this correspondence in effect was of so little extent that it is quite understandable if she does not remember it in detail. It is a result of my express order that you have these documents available. I ordered that in my institute at Pfafferode no documents should be destroyed under any circumstances. There is a written document available to the effect that I gave such order.

Q: Herr Professor, this letter is in response to one which you wrote to Mrugowsky, isn't it?

A: That's possible.

Q: And in the letter that you wrote to Mrugowsky you asked him to have the Bucharest vaccine tested in Buchenwald, didn't you?

A: I told you before in great detail that I could not remember this matter about the Bucharest vaccine. If you have a letter before you about this matter this would, of course, give me a possibility to refresh my memory.

Q: I should think this letter would refresh your memory, Herr Professor, particularly in view of the Ding diary, which has an entry shortly following the date on this letter where Ding carries out his experiments with the Bucharest vaccine among others and says in the diary that the vaccine was obtained from you; and Mrugowsky in this letter asked you to send him the vaccines which you have mentioned in your previous letter.

There's really no doubt about it, is there, Professor?

A: This possibly becomes apparent.

Q: And was this person Olzscha mentioned in the letter? Was he to assist in Buchenwald?

A: He was to be used in the Hygienic Service. Since he particularly dealt with entomological questions I asked that he should work on these questions there.

Q: You got a report from Ding, too, on these experiments testing the Bucharest vaccine, didn't you, Professor?

A: I cannot remember that, and I already told you one that had I received any such report I would have drawn the conclusions from it and since I did not do that, I think it is improbably that I received such a report.

Q: In view of this letter, doctor, do you want to go back and change your testimony about the Copenhagen vaccine? Didn't you also suggest those experiments, and didn't you also supply the Copenhagen vaccine for the experiments in Buchenwald?

A: No, I have no intention to do that.

Q: Well, in that event I will ask that Document NO-1186 be passed up to you, and this will be marked as Prosecution Exhibit 492 for identification. — Will you read this letter aloud please?

A: (reading)

Oberstarzt [Colonel, Medical Corps.] Prof. Rose O.U.
2 December 1943

To Standartenfuehrer [Colonel] Dr. Mrugowsky.
Head of the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS
Berlin-Zehlendorf
6 Spanische Allee 10

Dear Mr. Mrugowsky:

At present I have at my disposal a number of samples of a new murine virus typhus vaccine which Was prepared from mice livers and proved in animal experiments to be quantitatively a 1000 times more effective than the vaccine prepared from nice lungs. To decide whether this first rate murine vaccine should be used for protective vaccination of human beings against lice typhus it would be desirable to know if this vaccine showed in your and Ding's experimental arrangement at Buchenwald an effect similar to that of the classic virus vaccines.

Would you be able to have such an experimental series carried out? Unfortunately I could not reach you over the phone. Considering the slowness of postal communications I would be grateful for an answer by telephone. My numbers, all of which go through the same switchboard, are: Berlin 278313 Rapid Exchange Berlin 09, Zossen 559 Luftwaffe Exchange 72, there you ask for R.L.M., L. In. 14.

With best regards Heil Hitler Yours ROSE

The signature which you see on this photostatic copy is, in effect, my signature.

It becomes evident from this letter that I also informed Mrugowsky about the Copenhagen vaccine which I did not remember up to this point.

Q: And you asked him to test the vaccine in Buchenwald, didn't you?

A: This question is dealt with here whether this vaccine can be tested in Buchenwald.

Q: Do you see the name "Ding" written at the bottom of the letter?

A: Yes, you can see it at the bottom of the page.

Q: And it appears that the testimony Hogan was very precise, wasn't it, because Ding got a copy of this letter, didn't he?

A: Yes. Ding's utterances do not only refer to my memorandum but also to the correspondence which was carried on between me and Mrugowsky. Apparently it was then transferred to the Reichsarzt SS.

Q: Is the date on this letter 2 December 1943 or February 12, 1943, and I direct your attention to the receipt stamp on the letter which is 21 February 1944?

A: The difference between the two dates can be explained by the fact that considerable time had elapsed after sending my letter and the time this letter reached Mr. Ding during which those agencies dealt with that matter who had to decide upon the approval for carrying out experiments on human beings.

Q: So you maintain that 2 December 1943 is the correct date on the letter?

A: Certainly, that certainly is the correct date.

Q: On the basis of the two letters which I have exhibited to you you will concede that the Ding diary was precisely accurate in what it said, won't you?

A: No, one can't conclude that just like that. The order to carry out experiments in Buchenwald could not be issued by me in any way.

Q: That's very clear—

A: That vaccines were requested from me seems to become evident from one letter. I didn't remember it and I still don't remember it now, but on the basis of this letter one has to consider that fact proved. Then it also becomes evident that I here drew the attention of Mr. Mrugowsky to this vaccine and that I mentioned a discussion dealing with human experiments regarding these vaccines.

Q: And you suggested and asked him to carry out experiments with the Copenhagen vaccine in Buchenwald, didn't you?

A: I am asking whether there is still a possibility to carry out such a series of experiments. That is quite understandable, considering the situation, because one can see from my report of 29 May 1943, that this seemed to constitute a considerable progress on the basis of experiments already made on animals. It was known to me that such experiments had earlier been carried out, although I basically objected to these experiments. This institution had been set up in Germany and was a proved by the State and covered by the State. At that moment I was in a position which perhaps corresponds to a lawyer who is, perhaps a basic opponent of execution, or death sentence. On occasion when he is dealing with leading members of the government, or with lawyers during public Congresses or meetings, he will do everything in his power to maintain his opinion on the subject and have it put into effect. If, however, he does not succeed, he stays in his profession, and in his environment in spite of this. Under circumstances he may perhaps even be forced to pronounce such a death sentence himself, although he is basically opponent of that set-up. This, of course, does not go that far in my case. I am only in touch with such people from whom I assume that they somehow are included in the official channels of such an institutions which I disapprove of basically and which I want to see removed.

Q: Professor, 6 persons died in this experiment with the Copenhagen vaccine, didn't they?

A: Yes. These were 6 Persons who were furnished by the Reich Criminal Police Office through ordinary channels as they had been determined by competent agencies.

Q: Now, Professor, do you want to go back now and tell us about the conference in December 1941, where the decision was reached to set up this institute at Buchenwald?

A: Are you referring to the discussion of 29 December 1941?

Q: Yes.

A: Well what question do you wish me to reply to?

Q: I would like for you to tell us about that conference.

A: Well, first this conference did not take place discussing such contents as you describe them. Secondly, I have to say, with all certainty, that I did not participate in any such conference.

Q: But you knew about it, didn't you?

A: I know nothing more about this conference of 29 December 1941 from my own knowledge. In the meantime I have read the record of this meeting of that date. I saw it here. You submitted it, and it becomes evident from it, too that I did not participate in it, and also, that a number of other people who are mentioned in the record, did not participate in the conference. Whether at the time when Gildemeister discussed this problem with me, in early 1942, he had mentioned this conference to me, I do not know anymore in detail. I most of all remember the fact that he said at that time that these experiments originated from Under Secretary of State, Conti, and according to the records of the meeting, he also did not participate. Obviously the decision for the execution of those experiments came about somehow much later, during a smaller conference. It is quite logical such a conference must have taken place; but who participated in such a conference I do not know.

At least I cannot tell you that today, from my own knowledge. Whether Gildemeister at that time reported any further details to me about that or concerning that Conti bad made a decision, I do not know today anymore.

MR. McHANEY: I have no further questions.

THE PRESIDENT: Any further examination of the witness by defense counsel?

RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY DR. RITZ: (Counsel for Defendant Rose):

Q: Professor, the prosecutor asked you yesterday whether you remembered discussions which you had with Professor Holzloehner after the lecture at Nurnberg at the so-called "Cold" Conference. What did you learn from Holzloehner on that occasion?

A: This conversation, as I already testified during my direct examination, dealt mainly with the psychological side of any such experiment on human beings. Holzloehner particularly emphasized what a tremendous mental burden it constituted for him to carry out these physiological experiments on human beings; he emphasized specially that as to the mental burden it constituted for the man carrying out the experiment, it would practically make no difference whether the subjects were condemned to death or not, and that even the assurance of a pardon in case of a survival of the experiments, as it had been given in the case of his experiments, did not change the spiritual difficulties for the physician. He said that never in his life would he want any such order again. That was the main contents of this conversation.

Q: During that conversation did Professor Holzloehner tell you anything to the effect that these experiments were carried on in Dachau?

A: During his lecture, as far as I know, he said nothing about it. Afterwards, during the conversation, I am sure he did not mention it because there was no occasion for him to do that. We were not talking about time and place or any details about these experiments, but we were discussing the ethical and psychological aspects of the experiments on human beings. There, of course it did not matter, whether they were carried out in Dachau or anywhere else.

Q: Was Professor Schilling mentioned during that conversation?

A: Certainly not. Schilling had nothing whatsoever to do with freezing experiments, and Holzloehner had nothing to do with malaria experiments. Although today I certainly cannot give you an absolutely certain testimony as to the contents of a conversation which took place 5 years ago, I do not believe that anything like that was mentioned. It is highly improbable that Schilling was mentioned because there was no occasion for him to be mentioned. He was carrying out malaria experiments.

Q: Yesterday, during cross-examination, the Prosecution submitted a number of documents from which it becomes apparent that your Tropical Medical Department at the Robert Koch Institute was sending Anopheles eggs to Schilling. That was nothing new. This was known to all the participants in this trial. The only thing that I noticed was the Professor Schilling apparently changed the name of the malaria strain which he received from you to your name. Can you say anything more in order to explain that fact?

A: This question of changing the name of this strain has already been clarified through this correspondence. I said it was highly improbable because it is in contrary to the usages of malaria experts, but that does not alter the fact that a malaria strain had been furnished by me and that is something that I have already testified to earlier on the basis of a report by Miss Von Falkenhayn; whether the strain was called "Rose" or whether it had the old name "Greece," as it was called in my laboratory really plays no roll for this trial. As to the question of furnishing these anopheles eggs—

Q: Oh, yes, in this connection I have another question, Professor; do you know to whom else your department sent malaria and mosquito strains?

A: Well, here I am in the same position as in the case of Schilling's consignments. Naturally, many such consignments were dispatched by my department during the War, and in most cases I didn't hear anything about them.

If at any time I say correspondence, I naturally don't recall it in detail. If I now suddenly have to speak about it I would have to turn to my collaborators in the same way as then, and would have to try to find out from them what consignments were dispatched, by what assistant, and to whom they were addressed. The situation was that one technical assistant was exclusively working in the dispatch of such consignments. She dealt with the malaria consignment business, If you want to call it that way. Naturally, it is clear that an individual dispatch in the framework of this entire business does not create any particular attention, and remains in ones memory. My collaborators, my assistants, have placed me into a very awkward position here. They testified that such consignments were only made to Schilling in the year 1942.

Another assistant said that this was done in the year 1941. I naturally relied upon those statements and then we found out that in the year 1945 another anopheles consignment was sent to Professor Schilling. Naturally, this is quite possible. These really quite excusable, because the actual assistant who was working on this malaria consignment business could not be found up to this date. She probably would be the first one to give exact statements as to the period of time.

However, the most essential points in this connection are not the dates, but the facts.

Q: Professor, have you still the documents before you which were introduced by the Prosecutor yesterday?

A: Oh, yes, I brought them along today.

Q: Would you please be good enough to look at document No. 1755, which is a letter written allegedly by you and addressed to Professor Schilling, dated 27 July 1943. I already pointed out yesterday that your signature only becomes apparent by an "R". I now ask you to look at page 2 of that document.

A: Excuse me. I think I misunderstood the number.

I understood 1756.

Q: No, it is 1755.

A: Thank you very much.

Q: It says after your signature, and I quote:

Sonderfuehrer [special guide] of the Luftwaffe Dr. Emmel with Consultant Hygienist of the Hygiene Inspector, Robert koch Institute, Tropical Medicine Department.

Does that give you any hint of whether this letter originated from you or whether we are here concerned with one of these customary measures taken when making the consignment of any such material?

A: This entry does not give me any further clues. I think that it is a clear proof that in July 1943 mosquito eggs, were sent to Dachau. How this was carried on in detail does not become apparent from this letter. I don't remember these various affairs regarding the vacation and airplane.

Q: When discussing the document which was yesterday introduced by the Prosecution, NO 1756, you told the Tribunal that Professor Schilling wanted this spleen material for the Henri reaction; is this a customary reaction?

A: This is a reaction which is necessary for diagnosis of chronic malaria and was introduced by the French researcher Henri, and it also bears his name. It was applied for a few years quite generally in all malaria inflicted countries. It is a rather complicated question. Then it was forgotten somewhat, because it did not live up quite to expectations, but a number of Institutes are still applying that method. Now and again it was demanded by my laboratory, but we didn't carry out that reaction. Such requests came too seldom, and it wasn't worth our entire effort.

Q: In this document there is a letter written by you to Professor Schilling in which malaria spleens are mentioned; did I understand you rightly that you mean by that the spleen of bodies of such persons who died of malaria, and at the same time another question; is it permissible to take seen human organs from corpses?

A: Let me first deal with your first question. A malaria spleen in that connection is the spleen of the human body in the case of a person who either died of malaria or who was suffering from chronic malaria but died of some other disease.

For instance, somebody who died as a result of cancer but simultaneously was suffering with chronic malaria. This is in answer to the first question, what a malaria spleen was. The second question whether it is permissible to remove organs from a human corpse has been settled legally. The legal aspect concerning the corpses of the human being, and I think there is a rather extensive legal literature on that subject, include the following principles, which the physician knows, and that refers to German law. For instance, the heirs do not gain any right to own the corpse of any deceased person. In other words, the interests of the heirs cannot be damaged by any interference with the corpse. Furthermore, as far as I know it has been established legally in Germany that in the case of autopsies carried out by physicians, parts of the corpses may be removed for scientific purposes. When looking at museums or pathological institutes you will find that they almost only consist of such preparations of organs which were removed during each autopsies. If for instance you would visit a criminal scientific museum, which you probably have done in the past, as a lawyer you will also note that there are to be found similar preparations which are of interest as to criminal law, and being preserved or exhibited there. I believe that similar laws exist abroad, if not the same. In Germany there were even regulations to the effect in what manner one has to deal with the parts of a human corpse, after they are no longer used for scientific purposes. In that connection one was not allowed to treat these parts as waste, but it was legally prescribed that they had to be buried in the proper manner even if the entire corpse and grave was no longer known. These regulations are mainly known in pathological institutes, since it is always those who are working with corpses.

As far as I remember this matter regarding malaria & 12 spleens I gave a directive to my assistant to the effect that we get into contact with a number of pathological institutes in Berlin, and asked whether there was a possibility to fulfill Dr. Schilling's wish.

Q: Is there another better known medical reaction during which organs from human corpses play a part?

A: Yes, there are a number of such reactions. The reaction best know to the layman is the so-called Wasserman reaction, which is the examination of the blood in the case of syphilis, as reagent an extract from the liver of newly born children is used, who had died as a result of hereditary syphilis. These livers contained the syphilis germs to the same extent as it is found in bacteriological culture. There are still institutes today who are working according to this original method of Professor Wasserman, although in the meantime, this procedure has been further developed, and a number of modifications of this original method exist during which extracts from organs of animals are used for the very same purpose. There are a number of other examples and tests and examinations where the use of parts of human corpses is necessary.

Q: I have another question to the document which was introduced by the Prosecution yesterday, NO 1752; this is a letter written by Schilling to you, dated 4 April 1942, have you that document before you?

A: Yes, 1752.

Q: In the first paragraph Professor Schilling asked you to send him another few infected anopheles eggs and then going on you say that he would certainly be grateful to you for your renewed support of his work. A layman would conclude from that at least that you were informed about Schilling's work which he was carrying out in Dachau; would this conception be correct?

A: No, certainly not. Obviously this was the entire correspondence which Professor Schilling had with me throughout those years, and it was all submitted to the Tribunal.

This entire correspondence referred exclusively to the consignment of mosquitos eggs and this one malaria strain, about which it is said expressly that in April 1942 it was one of these six strains with which Professor Schilling was working. There existed no correspondence at all about Schilling's work. If any such correspondence had existed one would have found it in the same files from which these letters also originate. It is quite clear what is meant by support in this letter. It is the fact that he received 10 anopheles from my laboratory and that in the glands of two of these anopheles, malaria protozoa could be found, which Professor Schilling had been using for some of his experiments. On the basis of this fact, namely that he got two mosquitoes he says that I was giving him support.

Q: I must shortly refer to another document which is Document 1059, which is the letter by Professor Haagen to you dated 29 November 1942. This is what it says on my copy, but I think it must be 1943.

A: In the original it was 1943.

Q: Now, Professor, I want to ask you something about the word "subsequent infection" and Mr. McHaney didn't understand this was to mean active subsequent infections. I really want to put no further questions to you about that matter, because I learned this morning that an affidavit of one of the assistants of Professor Haagen, Fraulein Grodel, has been received here, from which one can see the correctness of the description as you gave it. This affidavit is going to be submitted to the Tribunal; but I have another question to this document. The Prosecutor asked you about the significance of the words "epidemic strain," — you find that word in the last paragraph of this letter. Is this a strain with which you can produce epidemics, or what is the situation?

A: I already yesterday answered the Prosecutor's question to the effect that on epidemic strain is a strain of rickettsia protozoa.

The rickettsia protozoa is the cause of lice typhus. The louse typhus in medical literature is usually not designated as a louse typhus, but has the name "epidemic typhus," or "classical typhus." For that reason it is quite customary to speak of epidemic strain whenever speaking of the protozoa strain. On the other hand the murine typhus is also called "Endemic typhus." This is a difference in terminology. The germ of endemic typhus, this murine typhus, is the rickettsia murina or moseri. In that connection you can, of course, speak of Endemic Rickettsia. Epidemics can originate from both of these typhus kinds. This document, however, confirms my statement. During my direct examination I testified that Professor Haagen with his dry vaccines was at first working with a vaccine from murine virus in continuation of the work carried on by Blanc, and that only later he started to work with the methods which had proven themselves with this murine strain, and began to produce a vaccine from a protozoa strain, and Endemic strain. He had to work on that for a few months in the laboratory, because this strain first of all had to be changed into an avirulent strain with the help of modern virus research. The fact that by applying the methods and alleviation was the result had to be examined in the examination of animals. Haagen in his reports described this procedure in great detail. Only after having gone that far with animal experiments he could go one step further and try to find out how the compatibility of this to dry vaccine applied to human beings.

Q: My last question in connection with Document NO 1186, which the Prosecution introduced a little earlier —

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, before propounding your question, the Tribunal will take its recess until 1:30.

(Thereupon a recess was taken until 1:30 p.m.)