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.
Q Well, did you maintain your relations with Professor Schilling?
A When I wont to Switzerland I exchanged letters with him from time to time, and in later years too, but that was very rarely. My main connection in Berlin in tho field of tropical medicine was Professor Ziemann of the University whoso successor at tho University I became.
Q Then, at the Robert Koch Institute you became Professor Schilling's successor. How did that come about?
A In 1936 Professor Schilling reached the legal age limit and had to retire. He would liked to have his senior assistant become his successor, but Zieman, above all, spoke for me and tho Ministry decided in my favor. Then there were negotiations back and forth for while about the conditions, and on tho 1st of October, 1936, I formally became his successor, but three days later I went on leave. I went on a trip through Africa for one year which I have already mentioned. During this year Professor Schilling represented me. That is, in effect, nothing was changed in tho department during that year. Only on paper had conditions changed.
Q Well, what did Mr. Schilling work on?
A Professor Schilling, all his life, worked on protozoan infections. Above all, trypanozoan infections, including sleeping sickness, and especially protozoa immunity. Protozoans, in contract to bacteria and virus, are animals.
Q What did you know about Schilling's work?
A I probably read most of his papers. In the course of years he had developed a theory about protozoa immunity which the majority of his fellow specialists in Germany and abroad rejected. But Schilling, who was a very suggestible personality, had great success in convincing laymen of the correctness of his opinions. I experienced this when I was in Tanganyika. He had, with tho support of the English Colonial Ministry, attempted to immunize cattle against the Tse-tse disease. A specialist, a director of the veterinary administration, did not believe in Schilling's success. The governor in Daressalam was definitely a follower of Schilling.
I experienced the same thing on the Gold Coast where the governor, who knew Schilling quite well, was a great follower of his ideas. But, among his colleagues, he had some who shared his views but the majority did not consider them right, and I was among this majority. I always rejected Schilling's idea about protozoa immunity.
Q But ho was able to work on in this field although the majority of his colleagues rejected his ideas?
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, this line of questioning as to the matters concerning Schilling's work seem to mo to be immaterial and are extraneous matters. The defendant is charged with having collaborated or assisted Schilling in his work at Dachau, and it seems to mo that the examination of Rose could be very limited and it could follow the line of whether or not ho worked with, collaborated with, or assisted in any way at the experiments in Dachau. His full explanations concerning technical matters of malaria are immaterial and I object.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the object of this examination, counsel? What is it intended to prove before this Tribunal?
DR. FRITZ: Mr. President, I must say in respect to the prosecutor's objection to support the charges the prosecution has submitted a few documents, for example, a document in which the treatment of the witness Vieweg in Dachau is described which is supposed to show that Professor Rose was connected with the infection of the witness with malaria. The subject is not so simple that one can go right medias res, but in view of the difficulty of the matter I must lead up to it gradually.
THE PRESIDENT: Some of the preliminary questions might be relevant, but it seems to me you are pursuing them to a length which is not enlightening to the Tribunal. You may proceed, but try to formulate questions which are relevant to the issues to be determined BY DR. FRITZ:
Q How did schilling carry out his malaria work?
A I had already said that ho worked on questions of protozoa immunity. Malaria is a protozoa disease. In his last years at the Robert Koch Institute, Schilling did work on protective vaccinations against malaria, together with his subordinates. Schilling belonged to the Malaria commission of the Hygiene Section of the League of Nations. He worked primarily on the insane in the customary sphere of therapeutic malaria, but he must have had volunteer experimental subjects too because when Schilling left Berlin I had to continue treatment of a number of experimental subjects of Schilling's. They were generally medical students and internes.
Q Where did Professor Schilling go after he left Berlin?
AAs far as I recall, that was in 1938. He had convinced his Italian friends of the importance of protective vaccination against malaria, and the Italian Government gave him the opportunity to work in an insane asylum in Florence. He was also given a financial subsidy by the Reich Ministry of the Interior.
Q What do you yourself know about this work?
A Schilling, at intervals, sent reports from Italy to the Reich Ministry of the interior. These work reports were passed on to the Robert Koch Institute. I had to write a comment on them each time. That was always an unpleasant task because I personally considered Schilling's ideas wrong. Unfortunately, I could not explain why I hold this opinion. In all his reports, Schilling was enthusiastic about the results he had had up to that time and in the next report came the disappointments, but he was just as enthuasiastic again about the new ideas which he had worked out, even if those concerned were not much convinced about its prospects, but according to the general principle of freedom of research and freedom of science no one interfered. He was allowed to continue his work because, in the scientific research, progress consists of an individual proving what everyone else has thought, up to that time, is wrong, and the majority has been wrong so often in tho history of science that one has become very tolerant in that.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, the Tribunal now will be in recess until 1:30 o'clock.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The Tribunal reconvened at 1330 hours, 23 April 1947)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
GERHARD ROSE-Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION(Continued)
THE PRESIDENT: As I informed counsel for the Defendant Rose during the noon recess, the defendant will have this afternoon within which to complete his testimony in his defense in chief. If the Defendant Rose's testimony is not finished by the time of adjournment this afternoon, the defendant may be allowed to file affidavits to supplement that, but his testimony in chief must be closed with the session this afternoon.
Counsel may proceed.
BY DR. FRITZ (Counsel for the Defendant Rose):
Q. Professor, after knowing everything about Dr. Schilling's work were you convinced that his work was carried oat without any objection being raised, and upon what was your conviction based?
A. I was quite convinced of that, and I had the best opportunity of getting acquainted with his post. He had been working at the Robert Koch Institute for 29 years. His work methods there were well-known and were always without any fault. Before that he had been Colonial physician and from that period of time his work was always unobjectionable. I, myself, read the report about his work with the Italian government. This work was carried out in an unobjectionable manner, as far as that being apparent from the report. It was a matter of course that the malaria experiments, be experiments on human beings, without resorting to the experiment on human beings.
There is no other scientific method. In history you find that malaria experiments were either carried out on insane people or on volunteers. The first period lasts from 1920 to 1921 when you had the volunteers, and then one found the malaria treatment of insane people and there you found a community of work between marariologists and psychiatrists.
Q. How did it come about that the work of Dr. Schilling was interrupted in Italy and you went to Dachau?
A. I can only tell you how I officially got to know about these matters. My knowledge does not cover itself with the description as it is given in document book number 4. When giving my description I shall clearly distinguish from what I know from my own personal knowledge and what I know from hearsay. There was a rumor in Berlin in the year 1941 that Schilling had difficulties with the Italian government. In the fall or the winter of 1941 the physician with whom I had worked during the resettlement period approached me on the following matter. He said that he was in Rome on an official trip accompanying Professor Conti. He said that the German ambassador introduced Schilling to Dr. Conti and Schilling then told Conti about his work in the Italian insane asylum. He described his results as very good and full of hope. Conti was very enthusiastic and then became very excited over the situation where such a well-known German scientist could not find any place in Germany. Conti then made promises to Schilling. My confidential agent was a little sceptical and asked me what I thought about Schilling's work. I voiced my misgivings about his work, misgivings which I could not testify to here, and of which a number of other tropical hygienists agreed with me.
Q. Did you receive any official report about this meeting?
A. No, Officially I heard nothing about these events. I only found out that the Ministry of the Interior had sent a report to the Robert Koch Institute containing a request by Dr. Schilling that he be furnished a new laboratory and that he be given assistance.
Q. And what happened to this request?
A. Professor Gildemeister telephoned me, and in spite of my military work he asked me to write an opinion. He said that this was a very awkward situation, and that Conti had made promises, and was rather worried over the fact that his assistants were not as enthusiastic as he was. He said he had no idea that Knowledge was available in the Ministry about Schilling's work for years. I than wrote and asked that this opinion be made available here from the documents of the Reich Ministry of the Interior.
At that time I studied this work very thoroughly. I read through all the maleria files of Schilling. I read through his entire work regarding protosone immunity, and subsequently wrote this opinion I mentioned, which I sent to the Ministry of the Interior and which contained five principal points. Firstly, that from what human beings call a protective vaccination against maleria is impossible. Secondly, in case this should be possible by applying Schillings method against all expectations this would only have a theoretical meaning, because practically this method could not be carried out to any large extent. This was further explained in the third point to which I cannot refer now owing to lack of time. Then I wrote that Schilling had worked on this problem for over 40 years, and according to general experience it was highly improbable that a researcher who had not found a solution within 40 years would find it after having concluded his 70th year. Finally, from the point of view of War, I emphasized that even if Schilling's suggestion could have some theoretical interest one would use that there was a War on and that material and personnel was scarce. Therefore it could not be justified that material and personnel be made available to him. I think on very rare occasions is anyone justified an objection to the extent I did at that time, and at the end of the opinion I wrote, and you must see that when you find it, that I was 30 years younger than Schilling, and it was a very unpleasant duty for me to write any unfavorable opinion about the work of such a well known tropical physician. I therefore asked that no such opinion be asked from me in the future. According to frau Block's testimony this opinion was then sent into the Ministry of the Interior.
Q. Did you later concern yourself with this matter?
A. I have heard now that there was a conference about that subject in the Ministry of the Interior, however I did not participate in that conference.
Q. In this stage of the matter was the thought pronounced that Professor Schilling was going to execute the examinations that were planned by him in a concentration camp?
A. According, to my knowledge there was no mention of that made either orally or in writing, and I learned nothing further about the development of this matter. I therefore cannot say whether Schillings's description can be found in Document 356, Exhibit 125, which is to be found in Document Book 4, page 6. I don't know whether this description is correct. I only know about this short excerpt in my opinion, which I already mentioned. Upon whose request Schilling got into contact with Himmler I do not know.
Q. When did you plan that Professor Schilling was working in Dachau?
A. I cannot say that with any amount of certainty. Probably when members of my department told mo that Schilling had asked for anophyles, and that this question had been granted, on this occasion I heard for the first time that in spite of my opinion he had received some possibility to work, and he also carried out that work at Dachau.
Q. Did you then consider under what conditions and on what circles of persons Schilling was carrying out his experiments; It must have been clear to you that he could only experiment on human beings; you must have known that in your capacity as a malarilogist?
A. That naturally was a matter of course. In the case of maleria there is no other experiment but the experiment on human beings, but since I was not to participate I didn't think much about how he was proceeding in detail. I knew that Schilling had worked for 40 years in an unobjectionable way, and I had no reason to assume that he would change in any way. I therefore had to assume that he was either carrying out maleria injections for therapeutical reasons or that he received the approval of the experimental subjects, as it was the case before. I thought also this was a matter of course that he would receive such approval because of the maleria experiments that were carried out throughout the world up to the years of 1920 and 1921, which were carried out without any research or having any difficulty in getting the experimental subjects. In addition the document which was submitted by Dr. Servatius proved that hundreds of volunteers were found in American prisons. Why should it be any different in Germany? This was a matter of course, and I didn't think about this matter as long as it takes me to discuss it here. One after all must have some reason in order to start getting suspicious. Whether or not one can be of a different opinion as to the voluntary nature of such inmates is a different chapter entirely; but that does not only refer to the voluntary aspect of Schilling's experimental subjects, but it refers to the voluntary aspect of subjects in medical experiments generally. Now, if you start criticizing that work in detail there is very much you can say about it. At any rate I had no knowledge under what conditions or under what prerequisites Schilling was working at Dachau, and it constitutes a great surprise to me to learn from the documents in this trial that Schilling allegedly carried out experiments on thousands of people, particularly since it was characteristic for his previous work that he was only working with small numbers of people.