A. (continued) I can only say for certain one thing. I sent no such sample to Dr. Ding because I had no connections with Ding and I did not think of him as one of the research men to whom I sent such samples, nor did I issue any order that this Bucharest vaccine or any other vaccine should be tested on human beings. This diary entry strikes me as very peculiar. It is stated - 29-8-42 - now Ding twice reported on the testing of this vaccine, once at the Consulting Conference in 1943 and then in 1943 in the "Zeitschrift fuer Hygiene and Infektionskrankheiten" (Journal for Infectious Diseases and Hygiene). This is Mrugowsky Document No. 9, pages 81 to 85. Both times Ding had occasion to express his thanks for the support he had received. If he had carried out this testing on my suggestion, then he would have been obligated, according to scientific custom, to state that that was so. However, he did not do this in either case. His publication is available to the Tribunal. And, finally, it was at this sane conference at which he reported on this vaccine that we had our squabble and that would have been the greatest excuse he could have found to say, "I don't understand you, Dr. Rose. Send me vaccine to be tested and then all of a sudden you protest." He might have said that he didn't have presence of mind to do this. But, we heard from the witness Kogon that Ding concerned himself about this natter for days on end and dumb as he was, if he thought about it long enough, this argument would have occurred to him. I can only explain this entry by the fact he received the vaccine from a third source which knew simply it had gone through my hands. All this based on assumption that I really did have the vaccine in my possession which I really do not know. Or it could be that Ding found out with correspondence with Ruge that Ruge had sent me this Bucharest vaccine and also this is based on assumption. That he really did this I do not know. From the documents it can be seen that there was frequently correspondence between Ding and Ruge because both the witness Kogon mentioned Ruge as one of Ding's correspondents on page 1193 of the German record and in Document 484, which is Balachowsky's affidavit, on page 72 of the German Document Book.
Here the people are listed with whom Ding corresponded and Huge is mentioned among them. But neither Kogon nor Balachowsky's names are given among those who had contact or connections with Ding. At any rate I never transmitted mail between Ding and Ruge. That the two men had connections I did not know until the beginning of this trial.
Q. Well, according to Ding in the periodical for Hygiene Ding says in Mrugowsky Document No. 9, and from what he said at the consulting conference, this Bucharest vaccine turned out to be useful and was used by the German Luftwaffe.
A. I saw no report on the testing of this vaccine which I should have had to see if he had wanted it to be tested. According to Ding's diary the reports on the testing of this vaccine were sent on 20 November 1942 to Berlin and on page 39 of the German Document Book XII it says that on 18 February 1943 - in other words a Quarter of a year later - there was a directive on the part of the Medical Inspector of the Luftwaffe in which the typhus vaccines are listed which are permissible in the Luftwaffe.
Q. Mr. President, the directive that Dr. Rose just mentioned I have in Rose Document Book II. This is Rose Document No. 26 which I put in as Rose Exhibit No. 19. This is the instructions for troop doctors from the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe and is on page 55 and 56 of Document Book Rose II, dated 18 February 1943. I have put in the original of this as evidence and inclosed in my document book a copy of it. Please continue, Professor.
A. In elucidation of this document let me draw your attention to the date - 16 February 1943 - page 55 of the document book. Under number 7 you find there the directive regarding typhus vaccines. From "a" to "j" ten different vaccines are listed, vaccines both from Germany and foreign institutes. The Bucharest vaccine is not among these ten. Had I known at that tine that this vaccine had been tested and proved valuable in Bucharest, then, of course, I should have recommended, its use just as I recommended the use of Pasteur vaccines from Paris and Tunis.
Moreover, this directive clearly shows that the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe, who was advised by me, did not. allow itself to be motivated in his views by what had been used in Buchenwald. In this directive a number of vaccines are permitted which were not tested in Buchenwald at all; that is, if one can assume that Ding's diary is correct, which I do not know. Other vaccines which Ding, according to his diary, did test have here been permitted before Ding did test them. In the third group is the -Bucharest vaccine which Ding tested and found useful and it was not permitted for use in the Luftwaffe because the Luftwaffe didn't know the results of the testing.
Q. What other types of vaccines went through your hands during the war?
A. It is, of course, very difficult for me to recall all that went. First of all, vaccines from great institutes - OKH in Cracow, BehringWerke, Robert Koch Institute, Pasteur Institute in Tunis and Paris, and an Italian institute, Ipsen - Copenhagen Institute. Then I almost forgot the biggest thing that went through my hands during the war. That was the 5,000 doses from Weigl Institute at Lemburg at the time that this institute was still in Russian hands, in the Winter of 1939-1940. And particularly in the case of this vaccine I must be particularly happy that none had hit on the idea of testing it in Buchenwald because I turned this vaccine over to the Robert Koch Institute and it was carried on for a long time under my name because I had paid for it and it took a long while before the money was made available to repay me. Consequently this went under the name of Rose vaccine and if Ding had known about this then there would have been been vaccines mentioned in his diary and that would have been a little too many. God be praised nobody hit on that idea.
Q. When listing the vaccines that went through you hands during the war, you mentioned also the Copenhagen vaccine. Ding's Diary says about this vaccine, specifically on page 53 of Document Book 12, that it was tested on your incentive and the witness Kogon said the same thing on the basis of statements that he alleges Ding made to him. The prosecutor then construed this incentive on your part as a concrete proposal on your part which lead to the death of six persons. The remark of the prosecutor is on page 1330 and 1331 of the German record. Now, what did you have to do with this Copenhagen vaccine?
A. The situation, as I remember it, was as follows. Our needs for typhus vaccine could not be covered no matter what efforts wore made. Therefore, all sorts of offices were in search of new production methods. In this connection Professor Schreiber called my up about this one day -- I can't remember exactly when, but it was at a time when he was already the deputy for the combatting of epidemics and consequently concerned himself with such general questions as this. This was in September of 1943 as we have found out later. Schreiber said that of all the vaccine institutes that were under German influence by now the Copenhagen Institute had not participated at all in the production of vaccine so far, although it was one of the best institutes there were. He would like to have this Institute undertake the production of typhus vaccines. The political mood in Denmark, because of the behavior of the German Wehrmacht there, was most inauspicious. Consequently, there was no point in sending a German medical officer there. Therefore, Schreiber asked me whether I would not want to carry on these negotiations as Vice President of the Robert Koch Institute; the prospects would then be somewhat better. Moreover, he knew that I had previously worked in that Institute and knew the local setup, which was a great advantage in conducting such negotiations, I stated my willingness. I got leave from the Luftwaffe, asked for Gildemeister's permission to speak in the name of the Robert Koch Institute and then flew, via Luftansa, to Copenhagen. This, as we found out later, was on the 23rd of September 1943. Then I visited the director of the Institute, Dr. Oerskov whom I knew personally from before the War.
I asked him if he could and would produce typhus vaccine. Gerskov rejected this request because, as he said, it Was impossible to prevent peoples' falling ill from typhus if you undertook such production and such an occurrence would arouse had blood in Denmark, which Was completely free of typhus. Oerskov's misgivings were brought about because typhus was unknown in Denmark, and nationalistic elements would thus find out that the Institute was producing vaccine for the German government, because there was no need for typhus vaccine in Denmark, since there was no typhus in Denmark; and he was afraid of repercussions from such nationalistic elements; and he, as director of the Institute, had to think not only of the danger to typhus but of the tasks as a whole that the Institute had. I finally had to admit that this was so. Then I was shown Dr. Ipsen's department where he was producing a vaccine from murine virus, not from rickettsia prowazek, which is a lice virus. He explained to me the details of his technique but they are set forth in my report on this trip.
Q. Mr. President, regarding this Copenhagen trip of Dr. Rose I asked a few questions of the director of this Copenhagen Institute. The answers are Rose Document 46, a supplementary Rose document, which I believe the Tribunal has just received. This is Rose Exhibit #20. Regarding the external form of this document, Mr. President, I regret that it does not have the introductory formula requested by the Tribunal, but it has been certified and also certified by the american Embassy. I have also the original document here and it is also specifically stated here that Dr. Oerskov certifies the correctness of the copy. I believe, therefore, that there can be no question about accepting this document in evidence.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I haven't received a copy yet. I would like to see a copy of the English.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you exhibit a copy to counsel for the prosecution?
MR. HARDY: No objections, Your Honor.
DR. FRITZ: Mr. President, the interpreters have no copy either. Might I perhaps show the original to the interpreters for a moment?
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now recess. You can have the document before the interpreters in the morning.
The Tribunal will now recess until 9:30 o'clock tomorrow morning.
(A recess was taken until 0930 hours, 22 April 1947)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 22 April 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court room will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal 1.
Military Tribunal 1 is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the courtroom.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, you ascertain if the defendants are all present in court.
THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honor, all defendants are present in the courtroom.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will note for the record the presence of all the defendants in court.
Counsel may proceed.
GERHARD ROSE - Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) DR. FRITZ (Counsel for the Defendant Rose): Yesterday I discussed with the Defendant Rose his trip to Copenhagen and was about to put in Rose Document 46 among supplementary documents which will be Rose Exhibit No. 20. I quote:
"STATENS SERUMINSTITUT, Kobenhavn, S.
4 March 1947 "In answer to questions asked us about the visit of Professor Rose, I can say the following:
to l) Did Prof. Rose, when he visited the Institute at the end of September 1943, request that the Copenhagen Institute take up the production of the typhus vaccine from Rickettsia Prowazeki in order to help overcome the great shortage of typhus vaccine?
Yes.
to 2) Was this request refused by Director Oerskov for valid reasons?
Yes.
to 3) Was R. then taken visit Dr. Ipsen's section?
I do not remember this, but it is apparent from Dr. Ipsen's experiment records that Professor Rose actually was in Dr. Ipsen's laboratory on 24 September and probably discussed these problems with him. Unfortunately Dr. Ipsen is at present in America on a study trip and will not return before June or July. It is, however, apparent from our records that if Professor Rose ever received samples of our vaccine it could only have been a small quantity, and neither I nor Dr. Ipsen's colleagues have ever heard anything of the possible effects of cur vaccine.
Through the Danish Red Cross we sent our vaccine to Danish as well as Norwegian prisoner-of-war camps, but so that the vaccine was given only to Danish or Norwegian colleagues. We heard from Danish colleagues that the effect of these vaccinations was good.
I can add that I am grateful to Professor Rose, because he probably helped to prevent our Institute's being compelled to take over the production of typhus vaccine. It is entirely unpredictable what calamities might have arisen if we had been forced to take up the production of this vaccine.
signed J. Orskov Dr. med.
J. Orskov" That is certified by a notary public and the American Legation.
BY DR. FRITZ (Counsel for the Defendant Rose):
Q Professor, what did you do now after this failure when you returned to Berlin?
A I informed Professor Schreiber briefly by phone, and then sent him an extensive written report. This report was in two parts, the first part described the negotiations, the failure, and the reasons why the institute was not willing to undertake producing this vaccine, and my statement that I held these grounds to he substantial.
Then, the second part, which I had written separately as an annex, stated what I had heard from Dr. Ipson accidentally regarding his new murine vaccine. This annex I had typed in several copies and I sent it to the various typhus specialists whom I considered important in Germany in order to inform them also of what I had found cut in Copenhagen. A fragment of this report has been found and you can see in that what I proposed.
DR. FRITZ: Mr. President, we were able to find this report on Rose's official trip to Copenhagen, and I put it in as Rose Document 22, this is in Rose Document Dock No. 2, pages 15 to 19. This is Rose Exhibit 21 -- the Document number is 22, the Exhibit No. is 21. As the Defendant Rose has just described, he sent this report of the tour to about six different offices that were concerned with typhus in Germany, including the Behring berks in Marburg, and from them, I have received this communication of Rose which I should like to read.
DR. FRITZ:
"Oberstarzt Prof. Rose 29 September 1942 (place: unknown) "To: Behring - Works Marburg/Lahn "I take the liberty of sending herewith for your information a file memo regarding reports by Dr. Ipsen on his experience in the production of typhus vaccine.
"signed: Rose "Oberstarzt of the Reserve" It is certified by the Mayor of Marbach.
Then there is annexed to this letter the report of the trip and I should like you to explain briefly the contents of this report.
MR. HARDY: Your Honors, this document is certified to be a true copy by the Burgomeister. Might I inquire where the original document is located?
DR. FRITZ: The original is in the files of the Behring-Works. It could be obtained. It is certified by the Mayor of Marbach, near Marburg.
MR. HARDY: Inasmuch as the original or a photostatic copy thereof could be obtained, your Honors, I object to its introduction into evidence in this form.
THE PRESIDENT: On what grounds do you base your objection, counsel?
MR. HARDY: This is merely a copy which is herein certified and it is customary most original Germany documents introduced here in this trial have either certified photostatic copies or the original German document.
DR. FRITZ: If I recall correctly, Mr. President, the Tribunal rules that the certification should be made either by a German Notary Public or a Mayor and this document has been certified by a Mayor.
MR. HARDY: That applied, as I recall, only to affidavits wherein they were certifying the signature of affiants or taking oath of an affiant.
I don't believe that ruling applied to making copies of German original documents.
PROF. ROSE: Perhaps this difficulty could be overcome in the following manner. Since these are letters and reports from me and since I am testifying under oath, I am ready to testify here that they correspond to the letters and reports which I sent out.
THE PRESIDENT: Defense counsel may interrogate the witness upon that subject.
BY DR. FRITZ:
Q You then testify, Professor, that this is the report that you sent to the various offices? I ask you please to briefly dilate on the contents.
A Yes, this is the report that I sent.
THE PRESIDENT: Objection is over-ruled.
A I do not want to protract the proceedings by reading the whole report but I do ask the Tribunal to take notice of the contents of the report. This is an extensive description of the procedure such as Ipsen described to me which seems to offer several technical advantages over previous procedures. Above all the main advantage that the yield of this procedure seemed to be greater. It was possible to produce two and one-half times as much vaccine with the same number of animals; and, moreover, this vaccine seemed to be more effective. I informed the various offices of this method and now I point out paragraph 4 on page 3 of the document, on page 18 in the Document Book:
"I proposed, and Dr. Ipsen promised that a number of samples of his liver vaccine should be sent to me with the object of testing, when the opportunity arose, its protective efficacy on humans who were in especial danger."
This is the passage which Ding characterized in his diary as my incentive t o experiments on human beings. I further point out that at the foot of this page 18 and on page 19 there is the list of those to whom this report was sent.
Neither Mrugowsky's office, nor Reichsarzt-SS Grawitz, nor Dr. Ding are included in this list of distribution.
Q Professor, from the text of this report one could have the impression that you were pretty well acquainted with the production of the typhus vaccine although you say yourself that you never concerned yourself scientifically with it. Could you make a statement on this?
A I believe this would be a misconception. The report merely proves I am in a position when the specialists express something to take notice and reproduce. And, I believe that is sometiling my degree of intelligence makes possible without being a specialist in the matter.
Q What did you do with the sample of typhus vaccine that is mentioned in this report?
A If I had been asked about this before the witness Block testified, then I should have said that I had sent this sample to Professor Schreiber because I had assumed that he had given me the order and that I should send everything to him. But, Frau Block said here that she had sent the vaccines to a number of other offices. I cannot corroborate that from my own memory but, in general, it is more probably that the secretary's memory, since she was the one who sent these things out, is more reliable than the memory of the Chief who simply said briefly, "Send these things on."
Q You, in explaining this report, just drew the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that you make the proposal here that the protective efficacy should, if the opportunity arose, be tested on human beings in especial danger. Now, what does this phrase "humans in especial danger" mean?
A "Humans in especial danger" is in the matter of typhus vaccination a technical phrase which is generally current in German medical services.
We did not have enough vaccine to vaccinate every one and could only vaccinate certain persons. In other words, those in especial danger. These were, first of all, particularly old people because old people die more readily when they get typhus than young persons. Secondly, various occupational classes. For instance, doctors and medical personnel, and particularly personnel of delousing agencies, or transport flayers who brought back the sick with them, or a number of occupational groups. This was a pretty well fixed term clearly explained by medical regulations.
Q Was the evidence you received from Ipsen enough so that you could undertake testing on humans in especial danger?
A Certainly. Ipsen told me that in animal experiments the liver vaccine was bettor than the lung vaccine and lung vaccine was already being used by the Wehrmacht and was generally permitted. Moreover, the report says that in the laboratory two assistants had been subsequently infected - persons who had been vaccinated by the vaccine, the infection having taken place by accident - and the degree to which they fell sick was only very minor. The evidence had to be sufficient to justify such a proposal.
Q Why did you not undertake this testing yourself, for apparently you considered it important.
A Of course, I considered it important and that is why I made it generally known to the specialists. I did not undertake it myself because I didn't undertake testing of vaccines at all; and then with respect to human beings in especial danger, our position in the Luftwaffe was not advantageous in this effect. We had few such people because in the way the Luftwaffe was used the danger of becoming infected with typhus was much smaller. The number of people in the Luftwaffe who fell ill with typhus was never more than one to two percent of typhus in the whole Wehrmacht and the Army bore the main brunt. Where as, if the sickness typhus infection had been evenly distributed numerically we would have had 15 to 20 percent of the total number of those who became ill. There were various delousing centers and several transient camps in which for certain people would fall ill of typhus and there were typhus laboratories.
All these we did not have in the Luftwaffe but the specialists knew of these centers and had access to them.
Q Did you peruse this matter any further after you had passed on the Ipsen typhus vaccine.
A No that had been an unique order - a favor that I did for Professor Schreiber. And when I found out accidentally that this had nothing to do with Schreiber's assignment that Ipsen had developed a new method - this I passed on to the specialists and thereafter it was in their hands and as far as I was concerned the matter was settled. Perhaps I can make some remarks about the Document No. 22 which was not read. But, in the English translation on page 18, in this paragraph where there is mention of human beings in especial danger. Then it says here "its protective efficacy on humans whose liver were in especial danger". In the German text the words simply means especially endangered humans. In other words, no mention is made in the German text of the liver. I should like to suggest that the Tribunal change the translation accordingly.
DR. FRITZ: It must be a typographical error. Dr. Rose's correction is justified.
THE PRESIDENT: Will the witness please state that correction again.
WITNESS: Your Honor, it is on page 18. "On humans whose livers were in especial danger," and it should read "on humans who are especially endangered".
INTERPRETER: Your Honor, I think the word "liver" is a typographical error for the word "lives". Then it would read "on humans whose lives are in especial danger". The witness just stated that that also would be a good translation.
THE PRESIDENT: The correction has been made in the document book.
BY DR. FRITZ:
Q From Dr. Oerskov's explanations it can be seen that you were in the laboratory on 24 September 1943 in Ipsen's laboratory in Copenhagen. Now, in buchenwald, according to Ding's diary, the testing of these vaccines took place from between the 8th of March and the 13th of June, 1944. This can be seen from Ding's diary, Document Book 12, page 53. Now, how do you explain this lapse of time between the 24th of September, 1943, and the beginning of the testing in Buchenwald on the 8th of March, 1944?
A. That I cannot explain from my own knowledge. You always have to count on a certain period of time for the business to be attended to, but in a matter so pressing and important as this one that is not sufficient to explain a lapse of 51/2- months. We didn't work as slowly as that. I can conjecture what happened in that interim. Among the German typhus specialists there were friends and enemies of the murine vaccine. It is possible that the vaccine was discussed by them and that my report was passed around and in this way it apparently fell into the hands of some office which had some influence at Buchenwald. Now, whether that was Conti or Grawits or Gildemeister or Himmler I do not know. Just what devious paths this whole matter followed I do not know. The direct path from Schreiber to Ding would not have taken 51/2 months.
I cannot even say whether the typhus vaccine sample that was used in Buchenwald is identical with the one I received because, as I remember, that sample was a very small one and Mr. Oerskov corroborates that. Now, Frau Block has stated that this sample was distributed not just to one person but to several, and I previously had an official questionnaire sent by the Tribunal to the Copenhagen Institute in order to find out just how large these samples were. The answer has net yet come in but perhaps it will some day.
Q. Do you feel yourself in any way responsible for the experiments which were carried out in Duchenwald because you recommended that the Ipsen vaccine should be tested?
A. No, I feel myself in no way responsible for that. What I proposed is set down here in black and white before the Tribunal and these are no proposals for experiments on human beings. If some other office, on the basis of the fact that I drew its attention to a vaccine, then hits on the notion of carrying out experiments on human beings with this vaccine, that really cannot be charged against me.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Witness, returning for a moment to page 18. To a layman, vaccination usually means a protective step.
A. Certainly.
Q. That is, persons who. are well are vaccinated to prevent their contracting a disease. Now, I notice in the paragraph which you have corrected "its protective efficiency on human beings whose lives were in especial danger". Now, is that persons whose lives - persons who were exposed to infection? Is that the theory of this paragraph?
A. Your Honor, in the German text it is written "endangered" (gefaehrdet).
Q. I understand that.
A. And that means "exposed to typhus".
Q. Exposed to infection?
A. Exposed to infection.
Q. It night have the meaning that the persons were already ill, but it means persons who were exposed to infection?
A. Exposed to infection, Your Honor. This was a technical term which was commonly used throughout the war. "Besonders gefaehrdete Personen" (Persons especially endangered).
BY DR. FRITZ:
Q. At any rate you challenge the correctness of Ding's diary entry; to wit, that you provided the incentive for these experiments on human beings?
A. That I challenge most emphatically. Perhaps, however, I might add, since the prosecution makes Professor Schroeder responsible for my activities in this respect, perhaps I could point out that my letter or rather my report is dated 29 September 1943. At that time Schroeder was not Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe. In other words, whatever deductions can be drawn from this entry regarding me, certainly none can be deducted against Herr Schroeder.
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, in my document book the last numeral of the year is missing. It just reads "194". What was the date of your letter?
WITNESS: I am just going to look at the German document. The date is given on page 15 - 29 September 1943.
THE PRESIDENT: That answers my question, witness.
BY DR. FRITZ:
Q. Professor, to sun up your testimony about this Buchenwald question, let me ask a concluding question. The prosecution asserts - it states that you - and McHaney calls you the closest friend and coworker of Gildemeister - had the closest knowledge of everything that went on in Buchenwald. Please explain what you really know of what went on in Buchenwald?
A. I have already described my visit and what I saw there. One aspect of it I knew, that Gildemeister had told me that the whole business of testing this vaccine on human beings was to be traced back to Conti.
Conti did not deny that when he talked to me, although I said what I did in introductory to explain why I had come to him, and then, through Dr. Ding's lecture at the consulting conference, which was often mentioned, I found cut what I have told you; namely, that in addition there had also been carried out a second experiment in Buchenwald. Of the entire activities in Buchenwald I heard nothing. I did not even know that the SS had its special installations there for experimenting in typhus vaccines. During the whole war I never saw one single sample of this vaccine. How little I knew of this can be seen from the point that I discussed yesterday; namely, the important occurrence of the Matenzka strains becoming avirulent. I shall later put in as a document my lecture on 17 February 1944 in Basel and in which there is stated, one year after these events took place, that we had never yet succeeded in making the prowazeki Matezka avirulent and that this was one of the goals of research, and just as I knew nothing about the typhus experiments that were going on in Buchenwald, just as little did I know of anything else that went on there.
Q. Then how do you explain that Mr. Gildemeister drew no conclusions from the important events in Buchenwald which you just mentioned; namely, regarding the Matezka strain?
A. I said yesterday that I could only understand this in view of his rank as a typhus specialist by believing that he simply was not informed of what went on at Buchenwald. Perhaps he made strains available. That I do not know. Perhaps he was ordered to do so by Conti. That I do not know, either. But otherwise I had the impression that he was not intimately participating in this Question. According to Ding's diary he is alleged to have been in Buchenwald only twice.
Q Professor, would you like to make a brief statement in answer to the Prosecution's contention that you were the closest friend and collaborate, Block has already made a statement on that subject?
A It is not very pleasant for a person to have to speak openly about his superiors, particularly after they are death and can no longer defend themselves, and if the relations with the superiors were not good. One thing, however, I must say in introduction that I always held him to be a perfectly decent and upright person, he was particularly conscious of his obligations and duties, and had a high sense of responsibility. Scientifically speaking he was a leading bacteriologist, and extraordinarily reliable research man with a prodigiously large knowledge of literature. My personal r relations with him: When in 1923 I went to the Robert Koch institute I did not make his acquaintance, yet, because at that time Mr. Gildemeister was still with the Reich Health office. Then in 1925 an unfortunate event occurred. I had published a work on Herbis. Professor Gildemeister had criticized my findings in an open meeting, and then at a meeting of the German-biological Society I brought my experimental animals along and new histological preparations which proved that I was completely in the right. At that time, I was still very young, and I made him rather ridiculous in this meeting. That was not to nice of me, and he took it ill and never forgot it. Then when I was called to the Robert Koch institute in 1936 he spoke in opposition to that and recommended in my stead a Dr. Kuhnert, who at that time was Schilling's oldest assistant. However the tropical medicine expert of the University and other scientists spoke in my behalf, and I was appointed by the Ministry. When I was at the institute the following situation arose: Professor Gildemeister was a pre-eminent a administrator, and had the knowledge of laws and administrative regulations, such a scientist seldom has. Not only did he knew them, but it was very important to him that they should be applied, and that others should observe them, he also had the disadvantage which too often adheres to the administrator, mainly that he was an outright bureaucrat.
I have never had administrative training not have I had military training, and have spent most of my life overseas. The old colonial with their independence are always the terror of administrators throughout the World, and on the basis of this there were very shortly developed between us frictions. I had Dr. Rannen of the University work for me, but Professor Gildemeister did not want any students in the institute. I accepted teaching appointments at the University, but Professor Gildemeister did not want any ins ruction to be carried on outside the institute.
Q Professor, I think that sufficies regarding your difficulties with Professor Gildemeister. I however have a question in this connection; how is it that despite this tension and the misunderstanding that you two had that you then became vicepresident of the Robert Koch institute, where Gildemeister as president certainly had something to say about this?
A The person concerned generally knows least of all about the procedure, that goes on behind the curtains in making such an appointment. If they wanted to choose a vice-president from among the Professors of the Institute, then insofar as seniority was concerned three people could, be considered, one of whom was myself. Professor Gildemeister did not get on much better with the other two then he did with me, so they had to choose between the devil and the Deep Blue Sea. I do know that he expressed opposition to me to the Ministry, but he had apparently no better proposal to make and so 1: was named. I took a year until the appointment was finally approved. Apparently there was considerable exchange of correspondence and discussion in this matter. In addition to this, Professor Gildemeister was 64 years old. and it was known that he was to resign at the end of the war, and the important thing to the Ministry was when it appointed me, vice-president that this should establish my seniority for the presidency.