Q. Now, Professor, do you want to go back now and tell us about the conference in December 1941, where the decision was reached to set up this institute at Buchenwald?
A. Are you referring to the discussion of 29 December 1941?
Q. Yes.
A. Well what question do you wish me to reply to?
Q. I would like for you to tell us about that conference.
A. Well, first this conference did not take place discussing such contents as you describe them. Secondly, I have to say, with all certainty, that I did not participate in any such conference.
Q. But you knew about it, didn't you?
A. I know nothing more about this conference of 29 December 1941 from my own knowledge. In the meantime I have read the record of this meeting of that date. I saw it here. You submitted it, and it becomes evident from it, too that I did not participate in it, and also, that a number of other people who are mentioned in the record, did not participate in the conference. Whether at the time when Gildemeister discussed this problem with me, in early 1942, he had mentioned this conference to me, I do not know anymore in detail. I most of all remember the fact that he said at that time that these experiments originated from Under Secretary of State, Conti, and according to tho records of the meeting, he also did not participate. Obviously the decision for the execution of those experiments came about somehow much later, during a smaller conference. It is quite logical such a conference must have taken place; but who participated in such a conference I do not know.
At least I cannot tell you that today, from my own knowledge. Whether Gildemeister at that time reported any further details to me about that or concerning that Conti bad made a decision, I do not know today anymore.
MR. McHANEY: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Any further examination of the witness by defense counsel?
RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. FRITZ: (Counsel for Defendant Rose)
Q Professor, the prosecutor asked you yesterday whether you remembered discussions which you had with Professor Holzloehner after the lecture at Nurnberg at the so-called "Cold" Conference. What did you learn from Holzloehner on that occasion?
A This conversation, as I already testified during my direct examination, dealt mainly with the psychological side of any such experiment on human beings. Holzloehner particularly emphasized what a tremendous mental burden it constituted for him to carry out these physiological experiments on human beings; he emphasized specially that as to the mental burden it constituted for the man carrying out the experiment, it would practically make no difference whether the subjects were condemned to death or not, and that even the assurance of a pardon in case of a survival of the experiments, as it had been given in the case of his experiments, did not change the spiritual difficulties for the physician. He said that never in his life would he want any such order again. That was the main contents of this conversation.
Q During that conversation did Professor Holzloehner tell you anything to the effect that these experiments were carried on in Dachau?
A During his lecture, as far as I know, he said nothing about it. Afterwards, during the conversation, I am sure he did not mention it because there was no occasion for him to do that. We were not talking about time and place or any details about these experiments, but we were discussing the ethical and psychological aspects of the experiments on human beings. There, of course it did not matter, whether they were carried out in Dachau or anywhere else.
Q Was Professor Schilling mentioned during that conversation?
A Certainly not. Schilling had nothing whatsoever to do with freezing experiments, and Holzloehner had nothing to do with malaria experiments. Although today I certainly cannot give you an absolutely certain testimony as to the contents of a conversation which took place 5 years ago, I do not believe that anything like that was mentioned. It is highly improbable that Schilling was mentioned because there was no occasion for him to be mentioned. He was carrying out malaria experiments.
Q Yesterday, during cross-examination, the Prosecution submitted a number of documents from which it becomes apparent that your Tropical Medical Department at the Robert Koch Institute was sending Anopheles eggs to Schilling. That was nothing new. This was known to all the participants in this trial. The only thing that I noticed was the Professor Schilling apparently changed the name of the malaria strain which he received from you to your name. Can you say anything more in order to explain that fact?
A. This question of changing the name of this strain has already been clarified through this correspondence. I said it was highly improbable because it is in centrary to the usages of malaria experts, but that does not alter the fact that a maleria strain had been furnished by me and that is something that I have already testified to earlier on the basis of a report by Miss Von Falkenhayn; whether the strain was called "Rose" or whether it had the old name "Greece," as it was called in my laboratory really plays no roll for this trial. As to the question of furnishing these anopheles eggs----
Q. Oh, yes, in this connection I have another question, Professor; do you know to whom else your department sent maleria and mosquito strains?
A. Well, here I am in the same position as in the case of Schilling's consignments. Naturally, many such consignments were dispatched by my department during the War, and in most cases I didn't hear anything about them.
If at any time I say correspondence, I naturally don't recall it in detail. If I now suddenly have to speak about it I would have to turn to my collaborators in the same way as then, and would have to try to find out from them what consignments were dispatched, by what assistant, and to whom they were addressed. The situation was that one technical assistant was exclusively working in the dispatch of such consignments. She dealt with the maleria consignment business, If you want to call it that way. Naturally, it is clear that an individual dispatch in the framework of this entire business does not creat any particular attention, and remains in ones memory. My collaborators, my assistants, have placed me into a very awkward position here. They testified that such consign ments were only made to Schiling in the year 1942.
Another assistant said that this was done in the year 1941. I naturally relied upon those statements and then we found out that in the year 1945 another anopheles consignment was sent to Professor Schilling. Naturally, this is quite possible. These really quite excusable, because the actual assistant who was working on this maleria consignment business could not be found up to this date. She probably would be the first one to give exact statements as to the period of time.
However, the most essential points in this connection are not the dates, hut the facts.
Q. Professor, have you still the documents before you which were introduced by the Prosecutor yesterday?
A. Oh, yes, I brought them along today.
Q. Would you please be good enough to look at document No. 1755, which is a letter written allegedly by you and addressed to Professor Schilling, dated 27 July 1943. I already pointed out yesterday that your signature only becomes apparent by an "R". I now ask you to look at page 2 of that document.
A. Excuse me. I think I misunderstood the number.
I understood 1756.
Q. No, it is 1755.
A. Thank you very much.
Q. It says after your signature, and I quote "Sonderfuehrer of the Luftwaffe Dr. Emmel with Consultant Hygienist of the Hygiene Inspector, Robert koch Institute, Tropical Medicine Department." Does that give you any hint of whether this letter originated from you or whether we are here concerned with one of these customary measures taken when making the consignment of any such material?
A. This entry does not give me any further clues. I think that it is a clear proof that in July 1943 mosquito eggs, were sent to Dachau. How this was carried on in detail does not become apparent from this letter. I don't remember these various affairs regarding the vacation and airplane.
Q. When discussing the document which was yesterday introduced by the Prosecution, NO 1756, you told the Tribunal that Professor Schilling wanted this spleen material for the Henri reaction; is this a customary reaction?
A. This is a reaction which is necessary for diagnosis of chronic maleria and was introduced by the French researcher Henri, and it also bears his name. It was applied for a few years quite generally in all malaria inflicted countries. It is a rather complicated question. Then it was forgotten somewhat, because it did not live up quite to expectations, but a number of Institutes are still applying that method. Now and again it was demanded by my laboratory, but we didn't carry out that reaction. Such requests came too seldom, and it wasn't worth our entire effort.
Q. In this document there is a letter written by you to Professor Schilling in which maleria spleens are mentioned; did I understand you rightly that you mean by that the spleen of bodies of such persons who died of maleria, and at the same time another question; is it permissible to take seen human organs from corpses?
A. Let me first deal with your first question. A malaria spleen in that connection is the spleen of the human body in the case of a person who either died of malaria or who was suffering from chronic maleria but died of some other disease.
For instance, somebody who died as a result of cancer but simultaneously was suffering with chronic malaria. This is in answer to the first question, what a malaria spleen was. The second question whether it is permissible to remove organs from a human corpse has been settled legally. The legal aspect concerning the corpses of the human being, and I think there is a rather extensive legal literature on that subject, include the following principles, which the physician knows, and that refers to German law. For instance, the heirsdo not gain any right to own the corpse of any deceased person. In other words, the interests of the heirs cannot be damaged by any interference with the corpse. Furthermore, as far as I know it has been established legally in Germany that in the case of autopsies carried out by physicians, parts of the corpses may be removed for scientific purposes. When looking at museums or pathological institutes you will find that they almost only consist of such preparations of organs which were removed during each autopsies. If for instance you would visit a crimminal scientific museum, which you probably have done in the past, as a lawyer you will also note that there are to be found similar preparations which are of interest as to criminal law, and being preserved or exhibited there. I believe that similar laws exist abroad, if not the same. In Germany there were even regulations to the effect in what manner one has to deal with the parts of a human corpse, after they are no longer used for scientific purposes. In that connection one was not allowed to treat these parts as waste, but it was legally prescribed that they had to be buried in the proper manner even if the entire corpse and grave was no longer known. These regulations are mainly known in pathological institutes, since it is always those who are working with corpses.
As far as I remember this matter regarding maleria /& 12 spleens I gave a directive to my assistant to the effect that we get into contact with a number of pathological institutes in Berlin, and asked whether there was a possibility to fulfill Dr. Schilling's wish.
Q. Is there another better known medical reaction during which organs from human corpses play a part?
A. Yes, there are a number of such reactions. The reaction best know to the layman is the so-called Wasserman reaction, which is the examination of the blood in the case of syphilis, as reagent an extract from the liver of newly born children is used, who had died as a result of hereditary syphilis. These livers contained the syphilis germs to the same extent as it is found in bacteriological culture. There are still institutes today who are working according to this original method of Professor Wasserman, although in the meantime, this procedure has been further developed, and a number of modifications of this original method exist during which extracts from organs of animals are used for the very same purpose. There are a number of other examples and tests and examinations where the use of parts of human corpses is necessary.
Q. I have another question to the document which was introduced by the Prosecution yesterday, NO 1752; this is a letter written by Schilling to you, dated 4 April 1942, have you that document before you?
A. Yes, 1752.
Q. In the first paragraph Professor Schilling asked you to send him another few infected anopheles eggs and then going on you say that he would certainly be grateful to you for your renewed support of his work. A layman would conclude from that at least that you were informed about Schilling's work which he was carrying out in Dachau; would this conception be correct?
A. No, certainly not. Obviously this was the entire correspondence which Professor Schilling had with me throughout those years, and it was all submitted to the Tribunal.
This entire correspondence referred exclusively to the consignment of mosquitos eggs and this one maleria strain, about which it is said expressly that in April 1942 it was one of these six strains with which Professor Schilling was working. There existed no correspondence at all about Schilling's work. If any such correspondence had existed one would have found it in the same files from which these letters also originate. It is quite clear what is meant by support in this letter. It is the fact that he received 10 anopheles from my laboratory and that in the glands of two of these anopheles, maleria protozoa could be found, which Professor Schilling had been using for some of his experiments. On the basis of this fact, namely that he got two mosquitoes he says that I was giving him support.
Q. I must shortly refer to another document which is Document 1059, which is the letter by Professor Haagen to you dated 29 November 1942. This is what it says on my copy, but I think it must be 1943.
A. In the original it was 1943.
Q. Now, Professor, I want to ask you something about the word "subsequent infection" and Mr. McHaney didn't understand this was to mean active subsequent infections. I really want to put no further questions to you about that matter, because I learned this morning that an affidavit of one of the assistants of Professor Haagen, Fraulein Grodel, has been received hero, from which one can see the correctness of the description as you gave it. This affidavit is going to be submitted to the Tribunal; but I have another question to this document. The Prosecutor asked you about the significance of the words "epidemic strain," -- you find that word in the last paragraph of this letter. Is this a strain with which you can produce epidemics, or what is the situation?
A. I already yesterday answered the Prosecutor's question to the effect that on epidemic strain is a strain of rickettsia protozoa.
The rickettsia protozoa is the cause of lice typhus. The louse typhus in medical literature is usually not designated as a louse typhus, but has the name "epidemic typhus," or "classical typhus." For that reason it is quite customary to speak of epidemic strain whenever speaking of the protozoa strain. On the other hand the murine typhus is also called "Endemic typhus." This is a difference in terminology. The germ of endemic typhus, this murine typhus, is the rickettsia murina or moseri. In that connection you can, of course, speak of Endemic Rickettsia. Epidemics can originate from both of these typhus kinds. This document, however, confirms my statement. During my direct examination I testified that Professor Haagen with his dry vaccines was at first working with a vaccine from murine virus in continuation of the work carried on by Blanc, and that only later ho started to work with the methods which had proven themselves with this murine strain, and began to produce a vaccine from a protozoa strain, and Endemic strain. He had to work on that for a few months in the laboratory, because this strain first of all had to be changed into an avirulent strain with the help of modern virus research. The fact that by applying the methods and alleviation was the result had to be examined in the examination of animals. Haagen in his reports described this procedure in great detail. Only after having gone that far with animal experiments he could go one step further and try to find out how the compatibility of this to dry vaccine applied to human beings.
Q. My last question in connection with Document NO 1186, which the Prosecution introduced a little earlier -
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, before propounding your question -The Tribunal will take its recess until 1:30.
(Thereupon a recess was taken until 1:30 p.m.)
OFFICE OF US CHIEF OF COUNSEL
EVIDENCE DIVISION LIBRARY BRANCH
THIS ITEM IS DUE ONE WEEK FROM:
IF NEEDED LONGER PLEASE INFORM THE LIBRARY AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 25 April 47.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
May it please your Honor, Defendant Brack having been excused, he is now absent.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will note the absence of the Defendant Brack, pursuant to excuse by the Tribunal.
Counsel may proceed.
GERHARD ROSE - Resumed REDIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR. FRITZ:
Q. Professor, I have one last question regarding the document the prosecution last put in, your letter regarding the experiments with the Copenhagen vaccine. Can you tell me something about that? Tell me about what the results were of testing this vaccine in Buchenwald.
A. The results of this experiment as set down in Ding's diary, namely, the ascertainment that this vaccine which seemed superior to the lung vaccine when used in animal experiments turned out to be useless for use with human beings, that is in the Ding diary. That was the result of the experiment. The practiced consequences of the experiment were that the Ipsen vaccine, the introduction of which I had energetically recommended in September 1943, was not introduced. That was a very important decision for it this vaccine had been introduced, which could be produced two and a half times more copiously than the lung vaccine, then there would have been much greater amounts of vaccine available for people in danger. Today it cannot, of course be said for certain how many human beings would have died as a consequence of using this useless vaccine that I had recommended. But there is no doubt that the number of these deaths would have been materially higher. And from the point of view of my responsibility as a hygienist, -- the responsibility for those who died because a vaccine which I recommended, but which was nevertheless useless, was used, as I say, the responsibility would lie heavier on me.
For one thing, because the number of persons involved would be higher, higher than the responsibility which a court may ascribe to me for having approved this experiment on persons who had been assigned to this experiment by the competent state authority, as can be seen from the documents that the prosecution has put in.
DR. FRITZ: I have no further questions in the redirect examination to put to this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any questions to be propounded to the witness by other defense counsel?
BY DR. SERVATIUS (Counsel for defendant Karl Brandt):
Q. Witness, under examination by the prosecution you mentioned an experiment that was carried out in a foreign country on persons condemned to death, and you said that carbon tetrachloride was the drug used, is that correct?
A. Yes, that was carbon tetrachloride. That is a medicine which is used frequently in the treatment of hookworm.
Q. Witness, I have one question here. What happens if carbon tetrachloride is heated?
A. You must not heat carbon tetrachloride. Carbon tetrachloride is CCL4 and if you bring that into juxtaposition with oxygen and heat it phosgene gas, which is a poison, is created. The toxicity of carbon tetrachloride in practical use rests on the fact that --
Q. Witness, I am not interested in the details. You do say that phosgene is created?
A. Yes, that is generally known.
DR. SERVATIUS: No further questions.
BY DR. FLEMMING (Counsel for defendant Mrugowsky):
A. Witness, the prosecution at the conclusion of the cross examination showed you Document 1754, which surprised you. Will you please take a look at that document?
A. I don't have the document here.
Q. Will you please take a close look at this document. A large number of Mrugowsky's letters from the Hygiene Institute have been put in evidence. All of these letters had at the letterhead a reference to the letter that was being answered, or they began by saying, in answer to your letter of the such and such. Is there anything of that sort in this letter?
A. No, there is no reference to a previous letter.
Q. When you looked at this letter here you, because it was addressed to you, assumed that a letter from you must have been what this letter refers to. Now if you look at this letter more closely can you tell me whether you remember for certain that you wrote a letter to Mrugowsky or Grawitz or someone else to which this is the answer, or is it possible that, as in other cases, Gildemeister or Conti turned to Grawitz and that Mrugowsky answered the letter on orders from Grawitz?
A. That is, of course, possible. In the cross examination I stated that I did not remember these events, and in particular I staked that I did not remember having given a suggestion that this lung vaccine should be tested. It is, of course, possible that the question of this lung vaccine was negotiated between other offices and that Mrugowsky as a result of these discussions received some such assignment.
Q. Is it not to some extent probable that you were not the person who wrote the letter that preceded this one, because this letter so deviated from the form that is usually prescribed for military letters?
A. Normally, if I should write a letter and receive an answer to it, then the military form proscribes that there should be a reference to what this is an answer to, and then the letter would be answered, so what you say is true.
Q. Also, Document 1186 was put in. That was your letter to Mrugowsky. In this letter --
A. I beg your pardon. I don't have the letter.
Q. I am going to read an excerpt from it. In this letter it states: When the typhus vaccine from mouse livers was being considered it would be desirable to know whether in tho experiments in Buchenwald there were the same protective results as were obtained from vaccines from classical virus. Are you in a position to have such an experimental series carried out? Did you know anything more precisely about the experiments in Buchenwald, in particular Ding's subordination relationships so far as the typhus experiments in Block 46 are concerned?
A. No. Of that I knew nothing. That can also be seen from the letter, because I am addressing an inquiry about matters that I know nothing about. If I had know about them, I should not have had to inquire.
Q. If this letter was put in this morning, do you know whether you received an answer from Mrugowsky or anyone else to this letter and what the contents of the answer were?
A. I can recall no answer and no correspondence in this matter. If there were an answer it probably would have been put in evidence here.
Q. In other words, on the basis of the two documents put in this morning you can say nothing about Ding's position in the typhus experiments or about Mrugowsky's participation in them.
A. There is nothing to be seen about that in these documents, and just what the subordination relations were in the SS, I never knew anything about, so I don't know it today.
DR. FLEMMING: No further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: If there are no further questions on the part of the defense counsel the Prosecution may cross examine as to matters which have been brought out since the close of the cross examination.
MR. McHANEY: No further questions, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for Defendant Rose has no further questions of the witness?
The witness Rose is excused from the witness stand and will take his place.
DR. FRITZ: Mr. President, I have a few documents to put in that I have not yet put in. May I do so now?
I put in as further document from Rose Document Book 2, Document 24, Rose Exhibit 40, Pages 25 and 26 of this Document Book. This is an affidavit by Dr. Friedrich Grunske of February 6, 1947, Since the Prosecution had dropped the charge against Rose so far as it concerns yellow fever, this affidavit has pretty well lost its importance for Rose's case. However, I believe that the affidavit will be of value to the Tribunal in its search for the truth. The Bench will recall that Hr. McHaney and myself had a controversy regarding the interpretation to be put on the German word "Probe", and Mr. McHaney proved with a dictionary that it could mean both "sample" and "experiment". Now I have had another affidavit given to me by the man who made this affidavit, who certainly must have known just what he meant, and he certifies in the last paragraph that when he spoke of "Virus Proben" he was talking of virus samples and not virus experiments.
DR. FRITZ: I now offer another document from Rose Document Nook III - Document 41. This will be Rose Exhibit 41. The document is on page 83. This is an affidavit on the part of Dr. Hildegard Hoering. This is the wife of the Professor Hoering I called as a witness who has already pointed out in his testimony that his wife worked for a certain length of time with Professor Rose in the Robert Koch Institute. I do not wish to read this document. Frau Hoering here explains what Dr. Rose said to her regarding the question of euthanasia.
As the next document I put in the next one in the Document Book -Document 42. This will be Rose Exhibit 42 and is an affidavit by Mr. Schmidt - Juengst of 27 January 1947 on pages 84-5 of the Document Book. This man is a person who has known Dr. Rose since 1922 and makes statements regarding Dr. Rose's character. I shall, however, not read the document.
I now offer the next document, Rose Document 43, Rose Exhibit 43, page 86 of the Document Book. This is an affidavit of the Swiss citizen Dr. Peter Peiser of 12 February 1947 on page 86 - 87 of the Document book. Dr. Peiser also knows the defendant Dr. Rose, having been with him in China. Dr. Peiser is moreover a Jew and gives Dr. Rose a good character reference. I shall dispense with reading the document.
As the next document comes Rose Document 44, the next one in the Document Book. This will be Rose Exhibit 41. This is a letter to myself from Professor Brumpt from the Parisian Institute of Parasitology, 19 November 1946; which concerns the professional qualities of Professor Dr. Rose and this document -
MR. McHANEY: If the Tribunal please, I don't think that the letter is in the form of an affidavit. I interpose a formal objection. I personally don't mind seeing the document admitted but I raise the objection because I don't want to see any precedent established with regards to letters of this type addressed to Defense counsel.