He independently negotiated without asking anyone about experimental subjects by using the official channel Ahnenerbe, and then the Reichsfuehrer SS. Whenever he deems it suitable he plays one agency against another. He demands further monies from the Reich Research Council with the indication he would return to the Luftwaffe if he did not receive that money and another example he invites a Japanese Oberstabsarzt Kobayashy in order to inspect his institute. Naturally, no medical officer would invite any foreign officer to inspect his medical institute without reporting that to the medical inspectorate and receiving their approval. If one does not take into consideration the independent position of Haagen as a University professor one could not possible understand the examination of Haagen at Natzweiler.
Q Couldn't the Luftwaffe exercise any influence on Haagen's work on the basis of that research assignment?
A Well, there would have been one possibility, namely, the medical inspectorate could have transferred him. The result would have been a telegram from the director of the University to the Minister of Education, to the effect that Haagen should finally be declared indispensable, and as director of the institute he was indispensable. According to official channels the Luftwaffe could exercise no influence on research assignments, that is by order, through official channels. The medical inspectorate throughout the years had tried to persuade Mr. Haagen to use the monies which were made available for the purpose of producing vaccines. In spite of that one did not succeed throughout the years to bring him to do that. If any military subordination had existed there would have been a clear order which would have had to be carried cut. These were negotiations which were carried on throughout the years. I already explained and the document 297 shows what the real tone was, that is Bock No. 12, page 112.
Q The medical inspectorate did have the possibility to stop these research assignments and by that exercise pressure on Haagen's activities?
A That, theoretically, of course, is possible. Mr. McHaney has made similar utterances here and s aid that if Haagen did not receive any more funds from the Reich Research Council he would have had to stop his work, but if one assumes that one displays ignorance about scientific institutes in Germany and what the situation was. If the Luftwaffe couldn't pay, then an application was made to the Reich Research Council, and if the Reich Research Council didn't offer their assistance, one could turn to the Ahnenerbe, and if the Ahnenerbe too rejected its assistance, one could turn to the Eastern Ministry, to Mr. Rosenberg. There are many more possibilities. Who knows Haagen, knows also ho was well aware of all of these possibilities and was exploiting them for the extension and use of his institute. In one point there was only one agency which could not be circumvented. Whenever he wanted experimental subjects from concentration camps he could not manage to get them without Himmler's approval, not even connections with Hitler would have helped him there. Haagen's channel to Himmler is easily recognizable from the documents. It leads over Hirt whose official position is not known. Hirt is here being mentioned in the decrees of the Reichsfuehrer. Of course, as a Luftwaffe officer Haagen could not choose that channel. If as a Luftwaffe officer he would have worked in a concentration camp the negotiations would have had to be carried cut over the medical inspectorate, and examples are available as in the case of Professor Holzloehner and Hippke and we also have the matter of the sea water experiments.
Q These possibilities which you have just described, aren't they in contradiction to a central steering of research work?
A Naturally, but this central steering of medical research work in Germany is a phenomenon which only came to life one and one-half years after the War. As it really applies to the War becomes evident clearly from the documents. The best example is Rascher. After Rascher had brought the Luftwaffe into contact with concentration camps misgivings arise with Professor Hippke on the basis of a report he received from Holzloehner and other persons. Hippke tries now to transfer Rascher to another agency. Rascher who already belongs to the General-SS succeeds in getting himself transferred to the WaffenSS, and then when the Reichsarzt-SS wants to take him under his wings he gets affiliations with the Ahnenerbe in order to retain the direct channel to Himmler. You find these skillful and calculating researchers in the files of any office who carried on research at all, but not because these agencies worked according to a common plan but because they were not coordinated and because the possibility existed to play one against the other.
Q Didn't that become known in the course of the War? Weren't attempts made to remove this faulty situation?
A You can recognize starts that were made in that connection, but recognition came much too late and a success was not achieved, and that was clearly described by Professor Rostock here. Then you have the basic difficulty that any research work can, in reality, never be centrally steered. The initiative for a research is always to be found in the individual, in the researcher himself. This is a natural law, and no political system can alter that. Even in the smallest circles one gains the experience that an older scientist who knows something about his work cannot easily be steered by orders and always wants to carry out his own ideas.
Q I have another two questions with reference to the letter which we discussed this morning, the letter from Mr. Haagen to Hirt, dated 27 June 1944 Document of Prosecution NO-127, page 94 of the English Document Book, 96 of the German Document Book.
Did you ever know whether these experiments after they were planned were actually carried out?
A I said that neither the planning nor the execution ever became know. From the period of time involved one can see the following: The letter to Hirt is addressed 27 June 1944. From Haagen's report dated 21 June 1944 it becomes apparent that the typhus epidemic in Natzweiler was still going on then so that he was not even in a position to vaccinate against influenza. Any such epidemic has to stop before one can start any new work. The witness Holl has testified here that no one could either enter or leave the camp at that time. Even if on the 21 June 1944 the last case of typhus had occurred in Natzweiler, which it is highly improbable. Mr. Grandjean says the epidemic lasted until July. The normal quarantine in the case of typhus lasts twenty-eight days.
MR. HARDY: May it please your Honors, a typical example is this last question. This could have been answered with yes or no and the defendant spent three or four minutes arguing the question which could well be included in their closing or summation. I think the Tribunal should suggest that the witness testify rather than argue.
THE PRESIDENT: The point raised by Prosecution is well taken.
The Tribunal has been very patient of the witness, but the witness continues to argue matters instead of answering directly and briefly. The witness should be advised that matters of argument may be presented to the Tribunal in due time by his counsel with the assistance of the witness. Argument prepared in proper brief based on evidence is much more effective than argument from the witness stand. The Tribunal instructs the witness to answer the questions directly as possible without argument. Counsel will endeavor to propound his questions that they may be so answered.
Q Professor, you heard what the Tribunal has said. I ask you to act accordingly.
A I know personally that Professor Haagen in August 1944, has left Strassbourg in order to find an evacuation spot. Mr. Holl testified to that, too.
Q Mr. President, In that connection I offer the Rose Document No. 28 which is to be found in Rose Document Book II on pages 62 to 67. I offer it as Exhibit Rose No. 30. This is an affidavit by the physician Dr. Wilhelm Cordin, I should like to read part of this affidavit. I am reading the third paragraph on page one of that document.
"During the war, i.e. since 1941, I was a medical officer of the reserve with the German Luftwaffe. After having been used at first as a medical field officer I was assigned to the Hygiene Institute of the University Strasbourg in February 1944 for hygienic bacteriologic training. Here I was almost exclusively concerned with work on hepatitis (mice passages and demonstration of the virus in mice organs) under Professor Haagen until the Allied troops occupied the town on 23 November 1944.
"Before being detached to Strasbourg, I was officer for special assignment with Luftwaffe physician Mitte in Berlin-Dahlem for about 6 months. Although during my service in Berlin I did not meet Professor Rose personally I repeatedly heard about him in his capacity as consultant hygienist of the Luftwaffe Medical Inspectorate, so that even at that time the name Rose meant something to me."
Then I shall skip a few paragraphs which are concerned with hepatitis and on page 3 of the document, on page 61) of the document book, I am continuing with the last but one paragraph:
"Although I myself was not concerned with typhus work I know that Professor Haagen worked on the development of a typhus vaccine from living avirulent typhus organisms. It was also provided that typhus vaccines should be produced in large quantities at the institute.
In order to make this possible, constructional alterations at the institute had already been started.
"I also know that Professor Haagen vaccinated inmates of the Natzweiler concentration camp with his new vaccine. I never heard, however, of him artificially infecting prisoners with typhus. At some later occasion Professor Haagen t old me that typhus had been carried into the concentration camp Natzweiler from outside by a transport of prisoners and that subsequently a typhus epidemic broke out in the camp. He emphasized that several cases of death had occurred but that none of the convicts treated with his vaccine had contracted the disease.
"During my time in Strasbourg I heard that Professor Haagen formerly, i.e. before I came to Strasbourg, conducted experimental vaccinations with his influenza vaccine produced from live weakened influenza virus, on part of the staff, including the physicians, of a Strasbourg clinic. The persons of the clinic in question stood these vaccinations without any strong reactions.
"Since I met Professor Haagen only during my time in Robert Koch Institute. I know, however, that he collaborated with Professor Gildemeister. I never heard of any participation of Professor Rose in the typhus research work at the Robert Koch Institute. As far as I know, his name was not mentioned in Strasbourg, either in connection with the work of Professor Haagen.
"Owing to the air raids and the approach of the front Professor Haagen since about the middle of August 1944 directed his efforts towards a partial evacuation of his institute from Strasbourg and travelled about in order to find an evacuation location. On 25 August or 1 September 1944 there was a phone order to start preparations for the evacuation of part of the institute. The telegraphic order arrived on 5 September 1944.
"On 25 September 1944 the building of the institute was heavily damaged by bombs. There were 4 dead: Dr. Eckstein, Inspector Meyer, the laboratory assistant Schulze, and a young girl from the Research Department.
"On 16 October 1944 Professor Haagen returned to Strasbourg for several days. It was his last stay in Strasbourg. I do not remember the exact date of his departure. From August to 16 October 1944 at any case, Professor Haagen was absent from Strasbourg without interruption.
"It is completely out of the question that experiments on humans could still have been conducted in Natzweiler or Schirmeck after the above mentioned evacuation measures had been started.
"During my time in Strasbourg I have not seen Professor Rose in that city.
"On the basis of my knowledge of Professor Haagen's personality, especially in consideration of his ambitions, I think it extremely improbable that he could have allowed Professor Rose to obtain a deeper insight into his research work."
It is not necessary for me to read the rest of that document since it deals with a different matter.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now be in recess.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DIRECT EXAMINATION - Resumed.
BY DR. FRITZ:
Q Professor, according to your testimony, you had no knowledge of these plants of Professor Haagen and as far as you know Professor Haagen did not report these plans to the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe; assuming the hypothetical case that the plans which Haagen told Hirt were officially reported to the Luftwaffe by Haagen; what would you have done in this case?
A If this plan had been reported to me, I had seen anything objectionable in it -and this formulation of the letter would certainly have seemed objectionable to me-then I would have expressed my mis givings to the Medical Inspector and above all asked that the state of affairs be cleared up. If it had then been discovered that my misgivings were justified, then the medical inspector would probably have objected. But, as in the grippe meeting on which Bieling reported Handloser, after I had expressed my objections to influenza vaccinations, said:" Very well, the vaccination is to be carried out, but I don't wont these infections." That would probably have been the same.
Q Now, you had knowledge of the fact that Mr. Haagen, in his capacity as director of the Hygene institute, was negotiating independently with an SS agency about vaccinations in the concentration camps this is shown by your letter of 13 December, 1943, which is on page 82 of Document Book, 12, this is document of the prosecution No-122 Exhibit 298; didn't this make you wonder?
A No, it did not make me wonder at all. I have said that I knew what vaccine problem r. Haagen was working on, but that was a completely unobjectable matter. The fact that he was vaccinating people in concentration camp was no occasion for mo to object, because the concentration camps were in no more danger than anyone else from typhus and that an SS agency was competent for the concentration camps. I did not know, but I assumed it.
When I dictated my answer, I apparently quoted superficially from Haagen's letter, experts later told me that there was no such officeas SS Main Office, SS Hauptamt, but obviously it was the WVHA which was meant, but I did not know these details. I merely repeated what Haagen's letter must have said.
Q Professor, yesterday you told the tribunal that you were active in combating typhus, but that you had nothing to do with typhus research, you referred to your publications on typhus at various points, but in 1944 in Basle you held a big lecture about typhus and malaria.
Mr. President, I have this lecture of the defendant Rose in my Document Book 2, it is on pages 27 to 54. This is Rose Document No.25, which I submit as Rose Exhibit 31. I do not intend to read any of this, but I should nevertheless like to ask Professor Rose to state whether anything was said here about typhus research?
A This lecture very clearly shows what my own field of work was. I gave a general survey of the state of the fight against malaria and against typhus on 17 February 1944. I took these two subjects together because through my field of work, through the new DDT preparations were connected diseases these very different. If one is invited as a guest to lecture to a foreign society, then listeners want to know about all the results of the work of the lecturer personally, so I gave this. This shows that I had nothing to do with the development of vaccines. I dealt with this subject briefly. No work of my associates or myself on this subject is mentioned, while in the field of the development of DDT preparations, my associates and my own work are constantly quoted.
I dealt with vaccines on the basis of papers written by other authors. Moreover, I gave exactly the same explanation as I give now before the Tribunal; there is no essential difference between what I said three years age and what I say on the witness stand. In this connection, I refer to page 29, the third paragraph, until page 32 the first paragraph. Of course, I do not intend to read this, but one can check up with this old essay, to see whether, I represented the same point cf view at that time as I have represented the Tribunal here.
Specifically, I refer to the first paragraph on page 32. In February of 1944 I said that vaccinations against typhus with attenuating living virus is still a field for research and has not been satisfactorily settled yet. That is the sentence which proves clearly that I had no knowledge of what happened in the Buchenwald camp, in addition to what I have reported here.
Q Could this lecture in Basle be the same one for which the SD wanted to institute proceedings against you as a traitor?
A Yes. That is the same lecture, which I gave in May 1944 in Ankara in much more detail, and I was speaking to Turkish medical officers on this subject for several days. From there my lecture reached Moscow, from Moscow the German intelligent service received knowledge of it, and since these matters were considered important in Russia, I was to be tried.
Q Was the trial actually carried out?
A No, as Handloser and Schroeder have testified here, my superiors and Professor Handloser protected me.
Q Did you in your lecture deal with such new things that one could speak cf treason?
A The use cf DDT preparations in combating epidemics was quite new at that time. Before that lecture there was not a single article in the literature of all countries about the use of DDT in combatting epidemics, even the Swiss holders cf the patent did not realize the significance cf this preparation at that time. The Basle scientists, a few days later, send my lecture to the international Red Cross, it was also sent to America, it was translated into French Q Then the SD was right in its charge of treason?
A No, certainly not. The medical profession has the great privilege, even in time of the wildest was hysteria of remaining neutral.
The military doctor knows no distinction between friend and foe. I consider it a misleading slogan in medical research if one speeks of research for the Wehrmacht; it is research in the interest of the medicine, that is research in the interest cf all man kind Typhus does not distinguish between soldier and civilian and malaria mosquitoes do not distinguish between democrats and national socialists. The vaccines, which were tested in Buchenwald were intended for tho German medical personnel, but they were also given to the soviet medical personnel in prisoner of war camps, and beginning in 1943 the medical inspector of the Luftwaffe gave his instructions for troop physicians, especially pointed out the needs to the Soviet personnel, and orders they also were to be vaccinated, although we did not have nearly enough vaccine to vaccinate all of cur own men; the medical personnel and doctors in Prisoner of War camps were of course in a greater danger, therefore they had priority on vaccinations before cur own soldiers. This same standpoint was held in research. If we discovered something, it was made public, and it was published abroad without any consideration of whether the military medical service of some other country might find therein a new remedy.
The medical service always remains neutral.
DR. FRITZ: Mr. President, what the defendant Rose just stated about the vaccination of Soviet prisoners of war is shown by Rose document No. 26, on pages 55-56 of Rose Document Book No. 2. I have already submitted this document yesterday as Rose Exhibit No. 19. On the second page of this document there is the figure 26 in the Instructions for troop physicians. I should like to refer to this paragraph without reading it. This proved the correctness of what Professor Rose has just said. I have one more question about this letter of the 13 December, 1943. The document book 23, page 82, that is Prosecution document 122, Prosecution Exhibit 298, the letter to Professor Haagen. Cannot this letter be interpreted to mean that you as Oberstarzt gave him, as Oberstabsarzt, an order?
A. During the war in addresses and signatures we generally used our military rank if we had any; to Dr. Haagen, as well as to all other experts I sent my reports about the Copenhagen information. He inquired from me in a private letter and received from me a personal answer without any file note, without any characteristic of an official letter. The correspondence would have been exactly the same if Mr. Haagen had not been in the Luftwaffe, and if Geheimrat Otto, a civilian agency in Frankfurt, and Dr. Haas, from the industrial laboratory, and Mr. Eyer from the Army, had sent a similar private letter to me. It was not an official letter.
DR. FRITZ: Mr. President, I had intended to ask the defendant Rose various questions about the testimony of witnesses, for example the witness Edith Schmidt, the witness Hirtz, testimony which these witnesses gave about the alleged experiments of Professor Haagen in the concentration camp Natzweiler and Schirmek, and in the interest of hastening proceedings, and in case the Tribunal agrees, I should like to reserve the right to present the expected answers of the defendant Rose to the Tribunal in writing, and then I could conclude the subject of Haagen and go on to malaria, which is the final item of the Prosecution
THE PRESIDENT: How long will your examination of the witness on the stand in the connection of the testimony of these other witnesses, how much time would that take?
DR. FRITZ: I would probably not finish this morning.
MR. HARDY: Would you have the defense counsel state his proposition again? I don't think I heard it clearly.
DR. FRITZ: I wanted to ask the defendant Rose a few questions now dealing with the testimony of various witnesses, for example, the witness Hirts and the witness Edith Schmidt, the testimony of these witnesses about the alleged experiments of Professor Haagen in the concentration camps Natzweiler and Schirmek, but I would be willing in order to shorten the proceedings to submit the statement to the Tribunal in writing.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, when could you submit that written statement?
DR. FRITZ: Very soon, in a few days, I believe.
THE PRESIDENT: Of course, counsel for the Prosecution should have an opportunity to cross-examine the witness upon that statement.
MR. HARDY: I might add, your Honor, from my knowledge of the testimony of the witness mentioned, that any points which the defendant would bring out would be in the way of an argument and I think it might be well for him to submit the affidavit, and if we determine after we sec the affidavit, that we want to cross examine on any points thereafter we can recall him to the stand.
THE PRESIDENT: That will be satisfactory. Counsel for defendant Rose may prepare that statement in writing and submit it to the Tribunal and the counsel as soon as possible.
WITNESS:
The Prosecutor was quite right. It would essentially be an explanation of the testimony. There was only one factual question, that was whether the witness Schmidt and or Inspector Meyer of the Strassbourg institute when I visited the Institute at Strassbourg informed me in any way that they had any suspicion of Professor Haagen, that he was conducting any illegal experiments, and this factual question I must answer with no, neither Miss Schmidt nor Inspector Meyer said a word to me about that, although both of them would have had an opportunity to do, especially Inspector Meyer, who talked to me for some time.
He was a rather experienced animal breeder, and I was especially interested in these matters because very many methods of breeding were used which were unfamiliar to me; and during this conversation Professor Haagen was not present. Mr. Meyer would have had an opportunity, if ho had had any misgivings about Haagen, to express them to me at the time, but he did not do so.
BY DR. FRITZ:
Q. Now, I go on to the final subject. Here Professor Rose is charged with special responsibility, that is with malaria. In the written indictment Professor Rose is not charged with special responsibility, but the Prosecution has charged the defendant Rose with special responsibility orally.
Would you first toll us Professor what your own professional connections with malaria were?
A. My first contact was involuntary as a prisoner of war in Algeria in 1915. I myself contracted malaria. The modern remedies were not yet known, and I suffered from malaria for several years. This experience and the cases among my acquaintances aroused special interest in the desease. The first practical cases of that type I saw in my years at Basle.
Q. When did you begin to deal with malaria scientifically yourself?
A. When I was called to China in 1929, to a part of China which is in the sub-tropics. Malaria immediately became one of my main duties. The first assignment which I received was to combat a malaria epidemic in a famine area. Then I helped introduce a synthetic preparation, plasmochin. The main work in this field had already been done at that time. Then when atebrine was introduced, which has played a big role again during this war, I worked from the very beginning in the introduction of it. I worked out a form of this preparation together with an English doctor.
I tested it for the first time at Singapore.
Q. Did you work on other questions besides that of the treatment of malaria?
A. Combating malaria also played a great role in my work. Papers on the subject are contained in my list of publications, and I also worked on the malaria mosquito carriers of malaria, but I did not publish anything while I was in China because I did not have anything new and I only used known methods.
Q. Did you study specially in this field?
A. I attended a course for several months given by the Far Eastern Bureau, the section of hygiene of the League of Nations for senior medical officers in the Far East. I visited the main malaria areas in British Malays and Java with the help of the League of Nations and I met a number of leading malaria scientists of the Far East during this.
Q Did you study malaria beyond that abroad?
A On all of my study trips, which I mentioned, I always devoted special attention to malaria, I visited institutes and experts; and when I travelled in North America I also visited these institutes. The two tropical medical chairs which existed in America at that time I also visited.
Q Did you learn anything about human experiments on malaria at that time?
A Not in the sense of this trial. I only visited institutes then at which experimental malaria research was carried cut concerning therapeutic infection of the insame. The malaria experiments concerning which Dr. Servatius submitted documents here obviously were started later.
Q Now, what you saw on your trips about malaria research, did that influence you in your own work in any way?
A Of course. That was the purpose of my trips. They were study trips. When I returned from China to the Robert Koch Institute and made a plan of my future work, I listed experimental work on malaria. Up to then I had merely read in literature about such experimental work and now I wanted to do something similar in the Robert Koch Institute to what had been done abroad.
Q Where do such institutes exist which deal with malaria experiments on human beings?
A The best known are two American ones I visited in Tallahassee and New York, and a very famous one is an English one in Horton. Then there is a French one, and one in Italy, Instituto Superiore di Sanita Publica, and another one in Rumania supported by the League of Nations. Those are the most important ones, but there are others.
Q Now how was your malaria work in Germany done?
A I think the simplest thing would be to refer to Documents 10, 11 and 12, which have already been submitted, in Rose Document Book I. I do not, of course, intend to read everything that is said about malaria, but perhaps I may point cut briefly to the Tribunal where these things are to be found.
In my work reports many other tropical diseases are mentioned. In Document 10 there are reports about my malaria work under VII on pages 5 of the document, page 36 of the Document Book - Experiments and Parasitology, malaria remedies, malaria mosquitos. And this goes on to page 39. Then Document No. 11, on page 46, which is page 2 of the document in the lecture of Professor Gildemeister at the reorganization of the Robert Koch Institute my malaria work is mentioned and, perhaps, I may quote here what he says about the purpose of this new beginning of malaria work. That is about seven or eight lines down - he speaks about my anopheles colony.
"With the aid of this colony it was possible to place mosquito sting infections for malaria treatment of paralysis at the disposal of psychiatric clinics, so that the necessity of cultivating malaria cultures ourselves in patients was avoided. Moreover, by this mosquito sing, a malaria reliably free from syphilis could be placed at the disposal of internal surgical and children's clinics for the treatment of non-syphilitic diseases."
Then in the same report on page 4, page 48 of the Document Book, the culture of my malaria strains is discussed. I may emphasize that strain Rose, mentioned in this trial, is never mentioned in this report. Then diagnostic examinations are discussed, experiments on artificial infection of mosquitos, artificial feeding of mosquitos, then work with conserving and culture of malaria parasites, and investigations about anophole, with an electro-miscroscope on sporozoites, then questions of malaria prophylaxis and malaria treatment. Then malaria in resettlement, and finally, clinical work on malaria done by one of my associates. That is all explained in detail, and I should be grateful if that were examined carefully.
Then I go on to Document 12, page 6l of the Document Book, page 1 of this document. First it is said that the shipment of infected anopheles has to be changed from mail shipment to courier shipment.
This shows that the shipment of infected anopheles was a normal thing in my department; it had such great extent that even such a technical change is mentioned in the annual report. Then on page 4 of the report, page 64 of the Document Book; the passages are reported on, the number of patients infected; the nature of the experimental, subjects is mentioned - paralytics; schizophrenics; and other types of sick people. Clinics and other institutes are mentioned with which my department collaborated. Then individual scientific observations are discussed. Then on page 66 I may refer to the second paragraph from the end. It says that the work had to be interrupted because the Eberswalde sanatorium was used as an evacuation hospital. The work was continued by the Luftwaffe fever therapy section. This point will come up for discussion later.
Then on page 67, I should like to point out briefly; where there is mention of human experiments of a pharmacological nature on 22 persons. I want to say right now, so that I don't have to be asked separately; that these experimental subjects were Luftwaffe soldiers. The tests were carried out in Luftwaffe hospitals in Berlin and Austria; by an assistant doctor of the Luftwaffe who was writing his doctor's thesis under me. The next pages deal with clinical work with mosquitos. Then work on contact poison; that is DDT preparations. This more or less covers the malaria work in this document. These three documents; at least on the negative side, show that there was no collaboration with Professor Schilling. These reports mention a number of doctors and agencies with which I had collaborated in the field of malaria. Arnsdorf Institute was mentioned; Eberswalde Hospital; Doctor Sager is mentioned; Dr. Kierkut is mentioned and Dr. Mertens. There are a number of other names which you find there; but the name of Professor Schilling you will not find; although he would have had to be mentioned just like the others; if there had been any collaboration; because at the time when these reports were written and printed no one had imagined War Crimes trials.
Q Well now, these annual reports show that you were in contact with a large number of insame asylums and clinics in this field of your work. Did any individual institution play an especial role?
A I worked above all with a Saxon psychiatrist who had a special reputation on fever therapy among psychiatrists. He is mentioned in the big book by the discoverer of the practice, WagnerJaurek, and he always held a leading position in this field in Germany. Then I worked in an insane asylum near Berlin where I had an assistant of my own at the Insane Asylum. The other institutes and clinics merely obtained the malaria from me, and all they did in return was to send me the case histories when the malaria treatment of the patients was finished. These were also infections for therapeutic purposes and I evaluated the case histories from point of view of study of malaria.
Q Was your work interrupted by the war?
A This work was considerably interfered with by the war. The insane asylums had to give up many beds for purposes of general hospitals. Consequently, patients who were under my treatment, were suddenly transferred. Worse than that, because of the air raids, many big city hospitals had been evacuated altogether either because they were destroyed by air raids or because some were evacuated by way of precaution so that the helpless patients would not be exposed to air raids.
Q And what were the consequences of those conditions for you?
A This finally lad to a concentration of all my work on one institution, the insane asylum at Pfaffenrode, which was the subject of the case of the prosecution. There is an affidavit on the subject.
Q We will come back to that later.
Will you now please describe your relations with Professor Schilling?
A First, I should like to emphasize that this is Professor Klaus schilling who was condemned to death at Dachau and has already been executed, not Professor Viktor Schilling who is also a tropical specialist. The latter, Viktor Schilling, is mentioned in the reports on tho meetings of tho consulting physicians, while Klaus Schilling of the Dachau experiments never attended a consultant mooting during this war and had no military function during this war. As far as I know, he had no connection to tho Wehrmacht at all during tho war. In any case, I certainly never learned anything of it.
I met Professor Schilling in 1922 when I became an assistant at tho Robert Koch Institute. I would have like to work in his department of tropical medicine because that interested me, but there was no position open and nothing came of it; but Schilling was one of tho older professors of tho Robert Koch Instituto who had worked with Robert Koch himself, and we young men had great respect for him for that reason.