Q. I think you already mentioned, Professor, that you were carrying on correspondence with Professor Schilling, or that you were not at all carrying out any correspondence with Professor Schilling about his work. I did not understand you correctly.
A. No, I had no correspondence with him at all and this was quite understandable because there was no reason to do that. There was no reason for him to discuss his experimental plans with me since even if I did not work on malaria protective vaccination I was one of the most important experimental malaria researchists and under such circumstances one does not carry on any correspondence in this matter. No other malaria researchists abroad or in Germany told me what plans they had nor did I write to them what my current work was. Why of all people would I do that with Professor Schilling?
Q. Weren't you interested in the result of his work?
A. Naturally I found out about the result of his work after it had been concluded, because every scientist writes a paper on his work which is then printed or lectured during a meeting and in this manner one finds out about the result of the work. This is the normal way as it applies to every scientific activity generally. This work of Schilling in Dachau was never published up to this moment and nothing can be seen about it in the files of the Tribunal. Although I am very interested in Schilling's work, I don't know anything about it up to this present time.
Q Didn't you hear anything from any third parties about Schilling's activity and the activity of his collaborators at Dachau?
A Only on one occasion did I read an article in the Journal of Tropical Medicine in the year 1944. This was a malaria paper written by an author whose name I do not know and with whose concepts I did not agree. While it is usually stated in the case of any such paper from what clinic or institute it originates or who the Chief is who guarantees the authenticity of the matter stated, no such indication was made in this paper. Since I was rather interested in this rather peculiar conception stated in this article, I wrote to the editor of the paper. I was on the Committee of that periodical and I asked for information. I received an answer that this man was a collaborator of Claus Schilling and was Dr. Ploetner who, as I can see from the documents now, was Schilling's first collaborator. Up to that time I had not known Professor Ploetner's name at all. I had not heard about him because I had no connections to Dachau and for that reason knew neither the name of his first collaborator nor the name of any of his other collaborators.
Q. After you found out from where this work originated didn't you start correspondence with Professor Schilling or Professor Ploetner?
A When I saw from the reply that this was a collaborator of Schilling I became quite clear about the contents of the work. Well, these were just the old opposition, the old two schools of thought, and there was no purpose in corresponding about it. It was clear from the outset that we would never agree on that subject.
Q Didn't you recognize from the contents of this paper that it came from the Schilling Institute?
A Since I didn't know on what Schilling and his collaborators were working with the exception of this general idea about protective vaccinations I couldn't guess it was Schilling from reading the paper. This did not only deal with protective vaccination but was a more general subject.
Q Mr. President, I have succeeded in having Professor Rose's correspondence with the editor of this magazine. I have obtained it. I offer it as Document 30 - pages 3 and 4 in Document Book III - I offer this as Rose Exhibit No. 34. I have just handed the original to the Secretary General. This shows that it is the original letter from Professor Rose to Professor Dr. Reichnow. And from the files of the Institute the carbon copy of the answer there. I also offer the preceding document in the Document Book, No. 29 as Rose Exhibit No. 33. I beg your pardon, Mr. President, I must change these two exhibit numbers. The original letter Rose Document No. 30 will be Exhibit No. 33, Rose Document 29 will be 34. The last mentioned document is the affidavit of the head of the Institute for Ships and Tropical Diseases, dated 5 February 1947, Professor Dr. Nauck. In the interest of saving time I shall not road this affidavit. It shows that Rose Document No. 30 comes from the files of this Institute and Professor Dr. Nauck made it available to me.
Professor were you ever in Dachau yourself?
A For the first time in my life in May 1946 as an American prisoner.
Q You have already said that you yourself worked in the field of experimental malaria research. That is, no doubt, quite generally known. Please tell the Tribunal what you dealt with in this work and how this work was carried out.
A I should like to refer to Documents 10, 11, and 12. This morning I already explained here the points there which deal with my malaria work. Also I should like to refer to Document No. 25 which also mentions a considerable portion of my malaria work. I don't care to go into that any further here. As far as we working experimentally on experimental subjects we worked exclusively with insane and other sick persons where malaria infection was necessary for therapeutic purposes. This can be seen from the annual reports of the Robert Koch Institute. Indication for malaria treatment was given by some doctor in some hospital and we delivered the malaria or we administered it as the affidavit of Miss Von Falkenhayn describes it. As she describes it it is quite correct.
Q Now in your lecture you mention an experiment of Volpert's on himself. That was at this second meeting of the consulting physicians. This report is contained in Document of Prosecution No. 922, Prosecution Exhibit 435. That is the document which I have reproduced in my Document Book III for the convenience of the Tribunal and the annual report of this department also speaks of the same experiment. Were experiments carried out in this department by the scientists on themselves and what were these experiments?
A I have wondered why the Prosecution has submitted this lecture of mine. I don't know what it has to do with Schilling's experiments. I don't know that even today because Prosecution has not explained it - has merely submitted the document. But, since the document has been submitted I have to say what I know about it. During the War in view of the extent of blood transfusions we were interested in the question how long malaria germs remain alive in human blood.
So far up to three weeks had been proved. Now we are looking for the extreme limit. The earlier experiment had been performed on paralytics of the neurological ward of the Virchow hospital. When my assistant Volpert wanted to work in the same way on the blood sample he found that fungi had grown in this blood as foreign body, as contamination. He didn't want to wait three months again and this test was very important because the infectious matter of this sample had been proved after three weeks. On the other hand, however, he considered it too dangerous to use such a sample contaminated with fungi into insane persons and in other not to lose the experiment he injected the stuff into his own thigh. The result was quite successful. He contracted malaria. And that is now a classical experiment because no one else has proved that malaria parasite can live for 90 days outside the human body. Another assistant of mine performed a similar experiment but that such experiments on our own bodies were not more frequent with us was that most of the people had contracted malaria by accident in the laboratory before they could yield to such an experiment and such infections were, of course, used in therapeutic experiments with drugs but those were not malaria experiments.
Q. In the course of my presentation of evidence there has been mentioned repeatedly the Section for Fever Therapy at Pfaffenrode. What kind of an institute was that?
A. In the discussion of my relations with Gildemeister I mentioned the reasons why I and my department wanted to leave the Robert Koch Institute. I suggested to Professor Hippke, at that time, that a Luftwaffe Department for Fever Therapy be established and that personnel and equipment of my institute be transferred there. Professor Hippke accepted this suggestion and the department was set up at Pfaffenrode and other people were assigned there so that I had a total of twenty-five persons, including six doctors and zoologists, and then the work was done on the malaria treatment of the insane. We, of course, also took advantage of this for our malariological work for, although I had always taken a great deal of interest in the therapeutic success with the insane, for me the malaria side of the whole thing was the main thing. That is quite understandable, of course.
Q. Mr. President, I should like to submit another affidavit by Professor Dr. Luxenburger of 24th of March, 1947. This is Rose Document 47 in the supplement, as Exhibit No 35. It deals with the work of the defendant Rose in the field of malaria. I shall not read it in order to save time, but I ask the Tribunal to take notice of its contents.
Your department at Pfaffenrode, at the beginning of April, 1945, fell into the hands of the Americans. What did the occupation authorities feel about your experimental work?
A. By the surprise advance of the Americans in April 1945 Muehlhausen in Thuringia was occupied. Pfaffenrode is near there, and it had to be assumed that the institute was also occupied by the enemy. At the time, I was in Berlin for a lecture on epidemic control. When I came back to Bad Harzburg I tried, during the night, to get into Pfaffenrode in order to give the personnel instructions as to how they were to behave, but I didn't succeed, I could not get through the lines. Therefore, I went back to Harzburg and I asked the Chief of Staff that I should be sent to negotiate as a truce bearer in order to negotiate with the Americans about the surrender of this department. The Chief of Staff refused my offer because the medical chief could not be reached. He was the one who would have had to take the responsibility, and the Chief of staff did not want that because all negotiations with the enemy were strictly forbidden and were subject to severe penalty. I therefore went to the commanding officer of the Group Science and Research, who was at Harzburg at that time too, and explained my situation to him. That was Professor Luxenburger who was a psychiatrist himself. He had more understanding for my worries and he took the responsibility of signing my application.
Q. Mr. President, I should like to refer once more to Rose Document #8. That is in Document Book 1 on pages 27 to 37, Rose Exhibit 29. That is the first affidavit of Professor Luxenburger. I have already read the first part - page 2 of the document, the last paragraph. That is page 25 of the Document book. From there on, Professor Luxenburger explains this trip of Professor Rose to the Americans as a truce bearer. I had really intended to read it, bat in order to save time I shall not do so.
I ask you to take judicial notice of it.
Then, how did you carry out the surrender of the department to the Americans?
A. I went through the lines with this paper, south of Rudolstadt, and I established contact with the American infantry. I managed to see the American staff, and finally I was allowed to negotiate with American medical officers. The negotiations lasted three days, because the American authorities had to consult Eisenhower's headquarters, and a consulting psychiatrist was sent out. Finally, a written instruction was agreed upon which I wrote down for Stabsarzt Blaurock who was my representative at Pfaffenrode. During these negotiations the important thing was that the trained specialized personnel were to be left there to take care of the insane, because I had six hundred patients under my responsibility there. Also the drug supply was to be safeguarded and the special food rates were to be safeguarded which I had obtained for my patients from the Food Ministry. Also, I wanted to free my person.cl from the compulsion of refusal which exists for every Wehrmacht member who is captured, and then Wanted to avoid any records being destroyed because there was a general order to destroy military records so that they would not fall into the enemy's hands. There was danger that this order would simply be carried out systematically and all the records of the department would be destroyed. I wanted to prevent that through these negotiations.
Q. Mr. President, the correctness of this statement of the defendant Rose is shown by Rose Documents 31, 32, and 33 in Rose Document Book 3. Document 31 is on page 5. I offer it as Exhibit 36. This is the affidavit of the physician, Dr. Blaurock of 19 February 1947.
Rose document #32 is the following one, which I offer as Rose Exhibit #37. This is another affidavit of Dr. Blaurock, also dated 19 February 1947. This document is on pages 6 and 7 of the Document Book, and Rose Document #33 on pages 8 to 10 I offer as Rose Exhibit #38. This is the certified copy of the surrender instructions which the defendant Rose has just spoken of for his institute of Pfaffenrode.
Did you return to the German side after that?
A. That was very important for me. This action, which I had undertaken on my own responsibility, deviated considerably from all existing regulations. I had acted independently, without orders, and, of course, it was absolutely essential for me to get back to the German side and report what I had done, in order to either have the support of my superiors for my action or to take the consequences, if my action was not approved; and I succeeded in that. I got beck through the lines. I went to Saalow. I reported to Professor Schroeder, and then, subsequently, he gave his approval to my action.
Q. Do you know what happened to your department after you left?
A. I was informed only by my former assistants. I know only what they told me, but I consider them so trustworthy that I can repeat what they said, especially because of the agreement that I had reached in the negotiations. First, the Americans placed this department under special supervision, in order to prevent unauthorized persons interfering. Then, it was repeatedly checked by American medical authorities. Then a group of the CIC came there and looked through the files, and, as a result, issued written instructions to the department to continue in the work.
I also know that an American Army Doctor with the rank of Colonel made a written report after a thorough checking of the institution and that, in this report, he speaks favorably about the institute and about the work and the way the institute was managed. I learned of the contents of this report when, in the winter of 1945, I was for the second time examined by the Intelligence Service. A member of the American Intelligence Service told me about this report.
Q. Mr. President, to support the testimony of the defendant Rose, I should like to submit Rose Document 34 in Rose Document Book 3, page 11-15. I should like to offer it as Exhibit #39. This is an affidavit of Colonel of the Army of the United States, Otto B. Schreuder, of the 13th of March, 1947.
Professor, I believe that there will not be enough time to read it. Perhaps you will give a brief explanation of this English document.
A. This document was originally primarily intended as a hepatitis document. As supplement to the testimony of Colonel Schreuder there is an excerpt which American agencies made of an article about hepatitis epidemica which I wrote in June, 1945, in England; but since the charge of hepatitis epidemica has been dropped I have no interest in going into this part of the affidavit.
I refer to page 11 of the Document Book, which is page 1 of document 34, to numbers 1, 3 and 4 in the affidavit. No. I gives the personal date of the witness. No. 3 describes the visit of Colonel Schreuder to the department at Pfafferode, and No. 4 contains a brief personal statement of colonel Schreuder about my person.
Q. You discussed experimental malaria research as carried on by you; did you also deal with protective vaccination against malaria?
A. I want to say it was the experimental malaria research as carried out by me where I was responsible and had something to say, and the ways and means in which this work was turned over when the enemy came where I was responsible. No records were burned, no patients were sent away, the person in charge of the experiments did not run away but I saw to it that my patients were taken care of decently. I saw to it that my patients were taken care of decently. I saw to it that no document was destroyed carelessly, and I myself went through the lines to see to it, instead of running away. Now I am to be held responsible for what somebody else did, over whom I had not the slightest influence, of whose activity I knew nothing whatever, and who in his entire conduct was the opposite of what I did myself. I would have liked, if I had been able to describe in more detail the way in which I worked, but the Tribunal has limited the time for my defense. I did not work on protective vaccination against malaria. On the basis of work of other researchers I was convinced that that is an insoluble problem, and normally a research worker does not deal with problems which he considers insoluble, and I have recorded this point of view about protective vaccination against malaria in literature, I can point out on the negative side that I have excerpts of everything that I said about malaria at the meetings of consulting physicians, which I have submitted that here. There is not a word about protective vaccination against malaria, and.
if I had a man anywhere who conducted experiments about protective vaccination on over a thousand people I would no doubt on one of these many occasions have said a word about it. I hope that my opinion written in the year 1941 will turn up again. It is in the hands of the Military Government, because the records of the session in 29 December of 1941 which was submitted here, came from the same files. In the same filing cabinet is my expert opinion. If they want to find it they can; and then I should like to refer to my Basle lecture of 1944, which has been submitted here, Document 25, which says on page 39, and I quote "The role of drugs in malaria combatting ----" page 39, Document 25, Document Book 2, page 39.
"The part played by drugs in the fight against malaria is not exhausted by the possibilities enumerated. Although we do not know of a vaccination effective against malaria, and although it is unlikely that such will be developed, in view of the nature of this pretezoa-infection, the preventive treatment, the so-called 'drug prophlaxis' has already played for some decades, in the fight against malaria a part similar to that played by vaccination in cases of bacteria and virus infections."
That is not the speech of a man who is conducting experiments on a thousand people in a concentration camp on protective vaccination, when he at least knows everything about it, as the Prosecution says.
Q. Now, can you please comment on Professor Schilling's work at Dachau?
A. That is impossible at the moment. I am accused, because of this work, that is true, but the only material which I have on it is Document Book 4, and the testimony of the witness Viehweg. I do not even know the wording of the testimony of Professor Schilling in the Dachau trial, although I asked for a record of the testimony. According to the American newspapers, Schilling prepared a meme about his work which is available to foreign experts, and I have not been able to get it yet either.
The materials available so far are so inadequate from the medical point of view, that I, at least, cannot express any opinion on them, although I am supposed to take the responsibility for then. I can only point out one thing, the witness Viehweg said here that experimental subjects of Schillings died because of the Salvarsan treatment of malaria. I should like to refer to Document Book Rose 3, document 922, Prosecution Exhibit 435, page 30, the lecture by me at the meeting of consulting physicians. I refer to point 2 "Treatment". At the end of this paragraph it says the following: "--the treatment of tertiana with neosalvarsan, which only suppresses the vivex infections but does not cure them parasitologically, is also to be rejected." I can say that was a lecture at a general Wehrmacht meeting where I could only give a recommendation for the Luftwaffe; if my recommendation was accepted, it could be turned into an order, and as a result of this recommendation the treatment of malaria tertiana with salvarsan was prohibited in the Luftwaffe; and now I am to be held responsible, I, as the man who had salvarsan treatment for malaria prohibited, because Schilling had the misfortune when treating malaria patients with salvarsan that some of them died. But I should like once more to express the hope that the prosecution in submitting document Book 4, promised the files of the Dachau trial would be made available here. I am to be held responsible for it. I applied in time to be given the testimony of Schilling to read. I have not seen a single line of it yet. I hope before the end of the trial I will see the records, and then I will perhaps be able to express my responsibility for what is in it.
Q. Well, was Professor Schilling informed about your malaria work?
A. As far as I know he was not, at least I told him nothing. He probably read what I published. I assumed that my special publications were always sent him by the secretary, according to the distribution list. I had a general list of names, malaria works were sent to so and so, etc., but the reports of the Wehrmacht meetings Schilling probably did not read because he did not belong to the Wehrmacht, and my associate, Miss von Falkenhayn who corresponded with him, had express instructions not to tell him anything about our work, so that there would be no gossip between the laboratories, and I acted no differently toward Schilling than toward any other malaria research worker. As the annual reports of the Robert Koch Institute state I, of course, collaborated with quite a number of people, such as Mertens, Koenig and Sabel concerning certain malaria drugs, and of course with these people I discussed the particular part of my work which we were doing in common, and corresponded with them, because we had to collaborate; but of course I didn't tell these people anything about the other matters which my other associates were doing; and in addition to these people there were quite a number who were working on malaria research experimentally, Schulemann, Sivoli and those at the Hamburg Tropical Institute, Hauber, and so forth. I did not exchange views with a single one of these. That is the general custom. If one exchanges opinions with ones closest competitors, there is always the danger that both people who are working on the same thing will get the same idea, and afterwards if they talked about it they reproach each other that one stole the ideas of the other; and if one is a little older and has a certain amount of experience and wants to be on good terms with his colleagues, one knows that the best thing is not to talk about work which is not finished yet, but just about the work which has been completed.
Q. Then your conduct toward Professor Schilling was exactly the some as toward your other colleagues?
A. Yes, exactly the same.
Q. Now, do you feel responsible for the work of Professor Schilling because your department sent Professor Schilling mosquito eggs and a malaria strain?
A. Of course, I take full responsibility for the fact that my personnel sent this material to him. It is out of the question that Miss von Falkenhayn is responsible, that is my responsibility. Of course, I do not take any responsibility as to what another scientist does with mosquito eggs and malaria parasites which I have given to him. My duty and care is limited to giving such, material only to the people, primarily doctors, whom I must assume, according, to customary procedure, will use the material properly and not misuse it. It was the official duty of my department to do so. If for example some Wehrmacht hospital, on the basis of the order of the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service, wanted malaria for malaria treatment of of diptheria and asked me for it, gave it to them without any delay. I did not have the task to check whether this hospital had the authority to carry out malaria treatment, I had no supervision over these hospitals. Supervision to see that only a qualified man should carry out malaria treatment in the hospital was up to the chief physician of the hospital, and secondly of the Wehrmacht physician. They had to see to it that the regulations about the correct execution were observed, and how was I supposed to do that as I sent malaria to all sorts of people? How can I control fifty hospitals? The number was even greater, how can I ask what they do with malaria? In the same way, it was not my duty to ask what the use of the mosquito eggs by Professor Schilling; but the duty of the supervision over this work belonged to the people who had given Schilling the assignment and made it possible for him to work.
As far as I know today that was the responsibility of the Reichsartz SS and Himmler. What immediate agencies were authorized, I do not know. In any case I had no official connections with either of these offices or with Mr. Schilling. That I am not alone in my opinion is shown by the fact that Schilling asked for material from various foreign and German institutes and got it, as Viehweg said here, and he never had any difficulties. Also Schilling had his own mosquito catching detail and had bred his own malaria strains. He was in no way defendant on my strain and the few mosquito eggs he received from my own department. If the fact of having given him such material moans responsibility for their use by him, then all scientific cooperation must stop. Then no one can give anything out of his hands. I have given much more dangerous things than malaria strains, for instance, cholera and plague cultures, only on the basis of application by mail to people. I personally did not know, only on the basis that I knew the institute where they worked and know that it was reliable.
Q. When such requests were made, was it not said for whet purpose the material was needed?
A. No, that is not customary. Usually one merely asks for the material and the material is sent without further inquiry; that is an international custom.
Q. Then could any doctor ask the Robert Koch Institute for plague cultures; is that it?
A. Plague cultures; no. In Germany there are certain legal regulations about plague. There are only a few institutes that are allowed to work with it, and they are known to us.
To legally authorized institutes one, of course, sends them. But, for example, if foreign institutes ask me for plague cultures, as the Robert Koch Institute had the permission to work with plagues and had such cultures, I would have sent a plague culture to a foreign country. In the accompanying letter, I would perhaps have added to the sentence that I assumed the recipient would see to it that the legal regulations in his country were observed, which I would not know. For malaria strains there are no such restrictions, they are distributed internationally without any reservations, and certainly mosquito eggs.
The witness Viehweg said for example that Schilling worked with the Madagascar strain, that was a well known strain in literature. That was bred in Hortlan in England by Colonel James.
Q. Did you yourself ever get malaria strains from abroad?
A. No malaria strains. I always worked with malaria strains which we had bred ourselves, but I know of a number of strains in Germany which must have come from abroad as this is well known in literature. I, myself, get from abroad snails, which carried diseases, ticks, mosquito eggs, worm parasites, infected cats, and plague strains. In all cases they were sent to me without any reservations on the part of the sender. It was my own personal business in each case to get the approval for importing these tings from the authorized Governmental authorities; and there are legal regulations about the importation of disease carriers and dangerous insects which my assistants and I had to observe. But the sender abroad had nothing to do with that.
I had to see to it that I could present the custom's office with approval for introducing these dangerous things in Germany. I assume that is the case everywhere in the world.
DR. FRITZ: Mr. President, I have completed the direct examination of the defendant Rose. I should now like to reserve the right, after the cross-examination, to submit a few more documents to the Tribunal.
WITNESS: I beg your pardon, how about the document Muehlens?
DR. FRITZ: I should like to offer that at the end, Professor, after the cross-examination. I want to end my direct examination now.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may offer the documents either tomorrow morning or at the end of the examination, as he pleases.
MR. HARDY: I don't understand what Your Honor meant by offering documents before cross examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for the defense said he had a few more documents which he would like to offer at some later date and I informed counsel he could offer those documents tomorrow morning or some later date, and I thought possibly counsel had understood when I told him the direct examination would be limited to this afternoon that might also include the offering of documents as exhibits. It did not include those.
He can offer those the first thing tomorrow morning if he desires. Is it understood, counsel?
DR. FRITZ: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now be in recess until nine-thirty tomorrow morning.
(At 1525 hours the Tribunal adjourned until 0930 hours, 24 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 24 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 I is new in session. God save the United States of American 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.
Are there any questions to be propounded to this witness by any defense counsel?
GERHARD ROSE - Resumed CROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. SERVATIUS (Counsel for the Defendant Karl Brandt)
Q. Witness, can I consult you as an export on the field of epidemic research?
A. For almost two decades German and foreign authorities have considered me an expert in this field and consulted me, and you can also consider me as an export.
Q. Is hepatitis a fatal disease?
A. You mean hepatitis epidemica?
Q. Epidemica contaminosa.
A. Hepatitis epidemica itself is not considered a dangerous disease by hygienists. But in all those things you must consider that one must give justice not only to the hygienic but also to the clinical aspect.