Haagen was the most important virus specialist in Germany and for this reason received the subsidies which he applied for. These conditions resulted from the nature of the case.
Q. But in your letter to Professor Haagen, dated 9 June 1943, you are telling Haagen about his research assignment, are you not? The assignment to which he objected - this is Document of the Prosecution N0306, to be found on urge 77 of Document Book No. 12, Prosecution Exhibit 296. How about that?
A. As the previous document 305, page 76 of document book 12 of the Prosecution Shows, Professor Haagen had given me some information out of friendliness; since he was not in Berlin but in Strassbourg he obviously took advantage of this opportunity to inquire how his business was coming along. Such brief inquiries about official matters are prohibited everywhere but they are equally customary everywhere, no doubt. I needed merely to Call up the particular doctor, chief or referent and have the information in one minute. All I said in the letter was that the competent referent was on a trip, and that he would have to Wait. That was just a matter of courtesy which happens every day. That happened almost every week in matters involving personnel affairs, that one got a letter from some acquaintance to investigate some matter or other, or to put in a good word with the referent, such requests, of sensible, I, of course, took care of although I had nothing to do with personnel matters. I discussed the matter briefly by telephone with the referent or called on him personally if I had something to do at the inspccorate any how and then I sent the required information to the acquaintance.
Q. Professor, the Prosecution accuses you of conspiracy for committing crimes of a criminal nature together With the rest of of the defendants. How were you connected with the other defendants?
A. Seven of my co-defendants were unknown to me until the beginning of the trial, either by name, position, or person. Those are Rudolf Brandt, Poppendick, Sievers, Romberg, Brack, Hoven, Beiglboeck, Porkorny, Oberhauser, and Fischer, By name and sight I know three of them, Gonsken, Gebhardt and Ruff. I had nothing to do with them either officially or otherwise and I did not talk to them or have any correspondence with them. That leaves eight. I know Karl Brandt, of course. He is a well known personality in his position as Reichs Commissioner. Twice I had something to do with him officially.
There is an affidavit on the subject. Then I saw him twice at public lectures, but did not speak to him. Professor Handloser I knew because of his office. I had official connection with him and his office, especially from 1944 on, I had to get opinions when they were required but these relations were not very extensive. It happened very rarely. Professor Rostock was known to me as the Dean of the medical Faculty of the University of Berlin. I had correspondence with him in matters dealing with the faculty and with lectures. I knew he was the office chief with the Reichs Commissioner. I had correspondence with him once in this capacity on questions of electronic microscopy, and I am sure I saw him at medical lectures, but aside from exchanging correspondence we did not talk because generally he stayed with the surgeons and I stayed with the hygienists. Professor Schroeder was Chief of Staff from 1939-1940 and later from 1944 on Chief of the medical Service of the Luftwaffe, and as such was my superior, as consulting hygienist, I had official as well as personal relations with him. Nevertheless, the questions under indictment here were never discussed between us before the collapse. After the collapse we were in the same internment camp for sometime and there we discussed this on the basis of reports from the press. I met Professor Blome during the war. As far as I recall I talked to him about three times personally, and Becker Freysing I knew in his official position as auxliary Referent under Professor anthony, and later as his successor, Professor Weltz I saw twice in my life, once at the glider contest at the Rhoen in 1927, the second time at the Cold meeting in Nurnberg, in 1942, when he held a lecture on animal experiments. As far as I know I saw Mr. Sievers twice. I knew that he was studying the problem of removing salt from sea water by chemical means, but I, myself, had no official connection with this work and knew no details about his work. Our acquaintance was so superficial that, for example, I did not recognize him when I met him here and he had to remind me that I had seen him before.
Professor Mrugowsky I knew as a lecturer for hygiene from the Berlin Medical Faculty. Then I met him at large Hygiene Conferences. I was at his institute once when a delousing apparatus was to be demonstrated which he had had developed. Professor Mrugowsky is the only one of the co-defendants with whom, during the war, I discussed the problem of experiments on human beings. That was following the lecture of Ding on the experiments at Buchenwald, but I shall come back to that when we discuss the typhus experiments.
Q. The Prosecution described the meeting of the consulting physicians as a typical gathering of constirators who were going to plan crimes. As you have testified, you yourself participated in three of such meetings. What was your impression of these meetings?
A. They were absolutely typical medical meetings of medical societies only in two respects, furst, because the number of participants was limited, and that purely for reasons of space, and numerous specialized groups were called together for one meeting, where during peace time generally only two or three specialties had to coordinate their meetings. Otherwise, in contents and in form I saw no difference between these and the usual medical scientific congresses.
Q. But directives were sat up, weren't they?
A. That is also done in civilian medical meetings. There too it happens that such directives are set up and accepted by scientific societies as official, and then they are passed on to the authorities and to the legislative bodies and then binding regulations are made from such directives of the Congress.
Q. During such meetings there were lectures held on experiments on human beings in the case of two sections of such meetings?
A. That is done in exactly the same way as at public meetings of medical societies. I myself heard lectures about experiments on human beings at international meetings.
That is a matter of course. At congresses, especially important matters are reported, and experiments on human beings are in general made only in case of most vital problems.
Q. But here we are concerned with experiments on human beings who were condemned to death?
A. I advise you that only at the report of the meeting of the Manilla Medical association of Manilla, there you will find a number of similar lectures on similar experiments on persons condemned to death who were not volunteers and also on so-called volunteers,where from a purely ethical standpoint one could have different opinions about the degree of volunteering in which the audience were of different opinions.
Q. How did you know this judgment of the listeners in that case?
A. In my many years in East Asia I attended a number of international meetings and Congresses. In the Far East I was even Chairman at one of them, since the work of the American Health Administration in Manilla was for all of us of the greatest importance scientifically. It was, of course, discussed in detail in circles of specialists, and of course the question of the experimental subject is discussed. For example, the question how it comes about that at a certain time 29 people condemned to death are c certainly available for an experiment.
Q. What part did you yourself play in these meetings of the consulting physicians at the military medical academy?
A. The role of a participant and auditor, as well as that of a lecturer. My reports on malaria at these meetings, has already been taken into the evidence submitted by the Prosecution.
DR. FRITZ: Mr. President, in my document book Rose No. 1, I have re-produced some of the printed excerpts from meetings of the consulting physicians which have been duly certified and simultaneously for the convenience of the Tribunal I have also reproduced the Exhibit No. 922 of the prosecution, or rather document No. 922 of the Prosecution which is Exhibit 435, which is an excerpt from the second work meeting of 1942.
The excerpts which I made were given the numbers Rose document No. 36, which is Rose Exhibit no. 8; then Rose document No. 37, which will be Rose Exhibit No. 9. I beg your pardon, Mr. President. These excerpts are to be found in my document book Rose No. 3, I beg your pardon.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you give us again those document numbers, counsel. Will you repeat those document numbers and Exhibit numbers?
DR. FRITZ: We are concerned with Rose Document No. 36, which is to be found on page 21 and 22 of Document Book Rose III which will be Rose Exhibit No. 8. Then follows in the same Document Book the following document of the Prosecution NO-922 which already has an exhibit number and I should, therefore, not like to give it another.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the Prosecution Exhibit No., counsel?
DR. FRITZ: It is Exhibit No. 435, Mr. President. Then follows the excerpt from the Second Conference of the Consulting Specialists Rose No. 37, which will be Exhibit Rose No. 9, to be found on pages 36 to 38 in Rose Document Book III. Then, as Rose No. 38 I submit the excerpt from the Report of the Third Conference East of the Consulting Specialists of 24-26 May 1943, to be found on pages 39 to 52, which will become Rose Exhibit No. 10. And, finally I offer as Rose Document No. 39 the excerpts from the report about a fourth conference if the Consulting Specialists which is to be found on pages 53 to 77 of the Document Book Rose No. III. This document will receive Rose Exhibit No. 11.
MR. HARDY: May I inquire as to whether or not these four exhibits, 8-9-10-11, are from the report introduced by the Prosecution?
DR. FRITZ: Mr. President, the German Document Book III has not yet been mimeographed, at any rate it is not available to us as yet. I should, therefore, like to ask permission that I should hand them first to Professor Rose before giving them to the Secretary General. This is the only copy I have. No further copies have been mimeographed but as soon as Professor Rose is finished with it I shall hand it to the Secretary General.
THE PRESIDENT: You may use your copy in that manner.
DR. FRITZ: Mr. President --
THE PRESIDENT: Of course, in using this Document Book in this manner at this time it is understood later on that complete copies will be furnished to the Tribunal, counsel, and the Secretary General.
DR. FRITZ: Mr. President, the Secretary General already has them, I think. They are already in German. The Secretary General has three German copies for the Tribunal. Unfortunately, I haven't as yet received them.
BY DR. FRITZ:
Q. I have just sent these excerpts to you and I shall have Document No-922 of the Prosecution sent to you.
A. Thank you. It isn't necessary I have it.
Q. Now would you please describe these excerpts to the Tribunal very briefly, in particularly, the exhibit submitted by the Prosecution.
A. Perhaps I can change the order. This second meeting - the first meeting was not very important, the first conspiracy in May 1942, I was not present personally but my work was mentioned on page 77 by Mr. Klauberg who refers to the work - my work on the transfer of bacterial dysentery by flies. I may remark that this Mr. Klauberg is not identical with, nor does he have any connection with Gynecologist Klauberg who was repeatedly mentioned in the sterilization documents. This Professor Klauberg is a bacteriologist and is still in office today with the approval of the Military Government. About the second conspiracy the Prosecution has submitted my malaria reports. They are on page 30 of this document. No, I beg your pardon, 30 of the Document Book, page 3 of the document. I spoke about the effectiveness of alabrine prophylaxis.
Q. Mr. President, this is document of Prosecution No-922 to be found on pages 23-35 of Document Book Rose III. Please continue, Professor.
A. In my lecture on page 30 of the Document Book I spoke about atabrine prophylaxis. Then I spoke of malaria treatment doses, malaria relapses, then I discuss the scientific question of provocations in the course of treatment. Then I spoke of the significance of malaria in blood conserves and a self experiment is referred to which one of my assistants carried out which has a certain significance in literature.
And, then I deal with mosquito control. Mr. second lecture is this meeting dealing with the combating of anopheles by planes. Other participants in this meeting comment on my lecture. Mr. Menk speaks of what I said about atabrine dosage and is kind enough to confirm the correctness of my statements. Then Professor Rodenwaldt refers to my lecture and he says,"What Mr. Rose has stated about prophylaxis and therapy of malaria will be fully confirmed by everyone who has experience in tropical medicine, etc," That was very friendly of Mr. Rodenwaldt to support me with his authority.
Then in Document 37 on page 37 of this Document Book another participant at the meeting, Professor Hauer, refers to my statements and adds something. Then farther down the bacteriologist Klauberg again, who again refers to my work on flies and bacterial dysentery. The third conspiracy in May 1943 is on page 40 of the Document Book. There are discussion remarks by me - first the experiments of the Robert Koch Institute is reported compared to what Mr. Doetzer had previously reported. That is important for a document in this trial, Yesterday Professor Hagen was mentioned by the lawyer for BockerFreyseng.
Q. You mean Professor Hoering?
A. Yes, Professor Hoering. I beg your pardon. And Becker-Freyseng's counsel asked Professor Hoering about a report which Professor Haagen had prepared on vaccine for typhoid and cholera. Mr. Hoering had considered this report a model or a conspiracy report of troop physicians but he said expressly that the vaccine used in that case was something quite old. Here it says, black on white, that several years before at the meeting of consulting physicians I said that for six years this method had been used at the Robert Koch Institute and that it was generally used throughout the world. Then the last remark to Mr. Ruge - the question whether with one single inoculation one can have the same success as with repeated inoculations Then I report on scarlet fever and diphtheria vaccine.
Then I answer the question from Professor Schreiber as to whether passive inoculation is advisable in diphtheria. I say, "No." And I point out that it is forbidden in the Luftwaffe while it was recommended in the Army on my request - proof of the difference in technical regulations in the various branches of the Wehrmacht. Then there comes another speaker and it says my objection to a certain vaccine was wrong. He says he had good experience with it. Then comes another speaker who says "Rose is right." Then comes my remark on Ding's typhus report. This printed report of the meeting contains only what I said about the scientific significance of Mr. Ding's experiments. Since I intend to Discuss Ding's experiments in another connection I should like to go back to this at that time, and also the remark of Professor Uhlenhut.
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, at this time the Tribunal will be in recess until 2 o'clock. You may then continue.
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1400 hours, 18 April 1947)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court room will please find their seats. The Tribunal is again in session.
GERHARD ROSE - Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION (continued) BY DR. FRITZ:
Q. Professor, will you please continue with your explanation of the excerpts from the meetings which are before you?
A. When I stopped speaking I was dealing with Rose Exhibit #10, Document #39, which is contained in Document Volume #3.
JUDGE SEBRING: Doctor, is it possible, when you refer to the number in the German document book, to also give the Tribunal the number in the English document book, or do you have before you the English document book?
WITNESS: No, I only have the German document book. The pages are nearly identical.
BY DR. FRITZ:
Q. In Document Books 1 and 2, I have examined them, and the pages correspond exactly with the German text. In Document Book 3 I have not checked it yet.
A. I stopped on page 6 of that document which is page 45 in Document Book #3 in the German as well as in the English. (The interpreter just kindly gave me an English copy.)
On page 113, there is a remark about disinfection of carriers of protozoa in the intestines and my experience regarding its treatment.
Then, on the next page, there are a few remarks about the danger of malaria to the German population from returning malaria infected soldiers.
This continues for a number of pages. There are some remarks made about field latrines.
I skip pages 49,50,51, and 52. These are not remarks made by me. We shall later use these excerpts when dealing with the cound of the indictment of malaria.
This brings me to Rose Exhibit #11 wnich is Rose Document #39, to be found in Document Book #3 on page 53 in the German as well as tne English. We are hero dealing with the fourth Meeting of the Consulting Physicians. At first, there is a very detailed lecture by me about the causes of danger to health originating from aerial warfare. This was tne lecture to which Professor Hoering already referred to in his testimony yesterday. On page 17 of that original document, or 70 of the document book in tin English as well as in the German, the discussion of tne professional groups of hygiene and tropical hygiene are starting in which I, at that time, was chairman. At first, there are my introductory remarks regarding Gesarel and Gix. These were the two most important DDT preparations which were available to us in Germany. Then there are a number of lectures by other scientists on that same subject. On page 71 there is a further discussion remark on that subject by me. On page 72 there is a discussion of the lectures on delousing, with DDT preparations. On page 73 there is a discussion of the importance of DDT preparations when combatting the flea plague and a few remarks which I made regarding the lectures by other scientists with reference to the importance of DDT preparations when combatting bugs. On page 74 there are remarks regarding diphtheria and scarlet fever vaccination, and on pages 75 and 76 there is a short report about the experiences we made in the Luftwaffe with these vaccinations.
On page 77 there is another discussion remark on the same subject and, at the end of my introductory remarks, you find remarks about pappataci fever which is sand fly fever. Then there is a remark made by another lecturer who refers to my reports.
Q. Do these four documents, Professor, contain everything that you ever reported yourself at these meetings of consulting physicians or everything that you remarked during discussions about lecturers or everything that was said about you or your lectures at these meetings?
A. Yes, I looked through those four books exactlypage after page - and I made excerpts in every case where I said something personally during these meetings, or whenever other people made any remarks about my utterances during these meetings. I can hardly imagine that I missed anything when going through these documents.
Q. At the Fourth Meeting of Consulting Physicians you yourself were the Chairman in the Section for hygiene and Tropical Hygiene? Did you have anything to do with setting up the program?
A. Yes, in collaboration with the competent referent at the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service, and in collaboration with a number of specialists known to me with the competent Wehrmacht agencies, I drafted a program for my section. This program later had to undergo a few alterations by the Wehrmacht Medical Service which, in effect, meant that a few subjects to be dealt with were stricken out. In addition, after the meeting, I compiled the excerpts and the draft for printing purposes and then transmitted it to the referent with the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service for further working.
Q. Professor, I come back to my previous question very briefly, You mean, of course, that these excerpts contained everything with the exception of your remarks which were not printed made after Ding's lecture?
A. Yes, that is what I said when discussing the printed part very briefly.
Q. At earlier meetings did you have any part in setting up the program?
A. No, in the case of the three former meetings I was not asked to participate in working out the program. I an in no position to give any information as to how the procedure was applied at that time. That is, when I was Chairman at the Fourth meeting at the hygiene Section. Then I prepared the program as I considered it to be expedient. I received no directives, there were no regulations. As a chairman I worked it out as I would have done in the case of a civilian meeting. The assignment for this lecture on malaria in the case of the second meeting I received directly from tne medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe. I don't know who at that time initiated my being called upon to lecture and before that meeting I did not know who else would speak about malaria. My utterances during that meeting had to be adapted to what other gentlemen said about malaria during that meeting. These gentlemen partly made similar remarks which caused me to change my lecture in order not to make repetitions.
Q. Now please explain briefly the contents of what went on in the Hygiene Group under your chairmanship at the 4th meeting.
A. This green book containing the reports of the 4th meeting was made available here by the Prosecution and I am therefore in a position to say that the record of the Section Hygiene and Tropical Hygiene are in pages 159 to 205 of the printed daily report. The three main subjects of this section dealt with, first of all, the combatting of insects, especially by using DDT preparations when combatting insects. These were reports made on the basis cf laboratory experiences and practical experiences. Lectures held by these various scientists are found on pages 159 up to 189. The second subject dealt with the results of physicians against diphtheria, and scarlet fever. Only practical experiences and the application and results of these vaccinations on troops were reported on. None of the lecturers was a member of the SS, therefore no physician of any concentration camp was participating so that no experiences could have been reported about vaccinations carried out in concentration camps. The third main subject was the Pappataci fever (sand fly fever.) In the green book this is found in pages 197 to 205. Here only clinical experiences on the sick bed were reported on its practical combatting. Here again the use of DDT preparation was put into the foreground. One of the lecturers was Professor Hoering.
Q. At this 4th meeting you also held a lecture at the general session for all participants in the meeting. What did this lecture deal with?
A. When discussing the document I already mentioned it briefly. This lecture was the results of a year's work about damages to health resulting from aerial warfare. It contains my own observations. It furthermore speaks about the evaluation of the experience reports from various groups of physicians who were assigned to the various Luftgaus in order to study these questions. Furthermore, therein is contained the results of scientific papers written by specialists on the subject who were working on single problems in this entire complex.
Q. And what did you hear at these meetings about experiments on human beings?
A. I only heard the lecture by Dr. Ding, which was repeatedly mentioned here, which gave rise to my protest. However, I think it would be more expedient to discuss this matter when dealing with typhus.
Q. Did you hear that other participants spoke about the lectures of Professor Gabhardt and Dr. Fischer?
A. No, I myself was not present during that lecture, and I did not hear it discussed afterwards. Probably I must have read it afterwards, in the form as it is printed in the report of the meeting. At that time, however, I did not notice that this was a question of intentional infections on human beings. Of course today, after knowing the entire connection, one could perhaps conclude something like that from reading the diary. At that time, however, I did not notice it or at least I overlooked the entire lecture because, perhaps for reasons of time, I did not read all the lectures which were held in the surgical section. I can no longer say that today with any amount of certainty.
Q. Did you hear Professor Holzloehner at the second meeting of consulting physicians?
A. No, I did not hear Holzloehner's lecture during the second meeting of consulting physicians. I only went to the Hygiene Section when participating in the meeting of consulting physicians and was not always present during the general meeting. These general meetings I sometimes failed to visit in cases when the subjects did not interest me in particular and I had more urgent work to do elsewhere. For instance, I sometimes used that opportunity in order to speak to a number of hygienists who had just come from the Front to participate in this meeting.
Q. Now I come to the subject of typhus. You are charged with special responsibility for typhus experiments in the concentration camps Buchenwald and Natzweiler. Please tell the Tribunal first of all, to what extent, in your professional training, you came into contact with typhus at all.
A. During the war of 1914 to 1918 I saw no typhus whatsoever since I was only committed in the west where typhus did not prevail. After the war, however, I had opportunity, during my studies and as an intern at Breslau, to see a few cases of typhus which, as a result of the war, appeared in Silesia. In the institute where I received my first training in hygiene, typhus was either not dealt with at all, apart from the execution of the so-called Weil-Felix reaction, or I was busy in another department, as in the case of the Robert Koch Institute. During my years in China I received practical contact with typhus, because on many occasions I was asked to help in the combat of typhus, in cases of smaller epidemics which broke out in prisons, in the case of soldiers, or refugee camps. These, however, were very rare occasions. Chekiang is south of the Jangtse and in the south of China typhus does not occur frequently. At any rate, it sufficed to get myself infected. At that time I spent 4 weeks in a hospital, suffering from typhus. From a scientific point of view not much was done on typhus in my institute because it played no particular part in the province in which I was residing and where we had many more important parasitological problems.
Q. Then during this time you were connected only with the practical combatting of it?
A. I just had to deal with the combatting and not with the scientific work connected with it.
Q. Did you become acquainted with any typhus institutes on your trips?
A. In Peking a Typhus Vaccine Institute was founded during the time I was in China where the Weigl procedure was adopted. However, I had no opportunity to visit that institute. During my stay in the South Seas, that is, in British Malaya, I got into contact with the specialists there about their work and about the tropical typhus, when traveling through Northern American, upon recommendation of the Rockefeller Foundation, I visited the Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever Institute which is in Hamilton, Montana. There I was vaccinated with the vaccine produced there. I looked at the laboratories; I looked at patients located in a neighboring hospital; and I generally had the local situations shown to me where such infections occurred. During my journey through Africa I visited the specialists at Pretoria and Johannesburg who had to deal with tick-bite fever, which belongs to the group of typhus.
Q. Were you especially interested in typhus at that tine because you visited such typhus research workers especially?
A. The ricketsia, the typhus ricketsia, are the most important epidemics that exist. During my journeys I took every opportunity to inform myself of the work done by important researchers. In that way, for instance, I visited important animal epidemical institutes although I an not a veterinarian and in practice never got into contact with animal epidemics.
Q. After your return to Germany did you work with typhus?
A. Not in the laboratory. When in the year 1937 I took over the tropical department of the Robert Koch Institute, nobody in that institute was working on typhus. For decades such work was carried out there by Otten, who was the only person in Germany who dealt with typhus research during the period between the two great wars. Otten in the meantime had left for Frankfurt where he continued his work. Then in the year 1939 controversy arose between Gildemeister and Haagen on the one hand and myself on the other. I had accepted Professor Moeller's request to write a few chapters about typhus for a new edition of a hygiene textbook. The other two gentlemen accused me of thereby interfering in their competency and they said that, even if at the time they were not working on typhus, typhus at the same time belonged in their sphere of work, viz., belonged in virus research, and they said I did not have the right to accept any such assignment and for reasons of comradeship should have ceded it to those two gentlemen who wore know to be the virus research workers in that institute,
Q. Why did Professor Moellers, who should have known that, come to you and not to one of the other two gentlemen?
A. Moellers was a personal friend of mine and often had me tell him of my journeys. He wanted that the Exotic Ricketsia be given some consideration in that new edition, whereas before only the European lice typhus had been dealt with.
Q. Does one have to be a specialist to write such an essay for a medical textbook?
A. One doesn't have to be such a specialist for that. A textbook intended for students is, as a rule, quite brief, and it often becomes necessary that one write merely on the basis of the study of literature in fields where personally one is not a specialist. For instance, I wrote articles in textbooks merely on the basis of literature regarding South American illnesses although I never actually saw them and never in my life had any opportunity to travel in South America. This is a phenomenum which occurs in the case of all scientists who are writing textbooks. At any rate, in a textbook of hygiene for students the combatting of epidemics is the most important thing there and I had considerable experience in the case of typhus.
Q. Then during the last war did you have anything to do with typhus?
A. Yes. My first contact came about when the racial Germans were resettled on the basis of the German-Soviet Pact in the year 1939. At that time I was entrusted with heading the health service in the Soviet controlled territory since the resettlement started from the epidemic typhus areas in eastern Poland and because there was great suffering for refugees in these territories as a result of the war in 1939, and therefore the combatting of typhus constituted at that time our main worry.
Q. Then why were you picked out as a tropical medical specialist? Were no specialists available on that subject?
A. Naturally there were a few typhus specialists from the First World War who were still alive but these gentlemen usually were of 60 to 80 years of age and in addition, with the exception of Otten, had not dealt with typhus for a period of twenty years. It could not be assumed that these old gentlemen could spend two months on the road in Russia in a cold of 40 degrees. The young gentlemen like Eyer, Wohlrab, and Haagen knew very much about the laboratory problem but they had no experience in practical combat. In the final analysis we were not only concerned with typhus alone as to that resettlement, but we were concerned with a migration of population with all their medical problems. I was well acquainted with such refugee problems and camp questions.