A I have already told you that in Haagen's experiments nobody died and that no proof has been given to the Tribunal here. I cannot discuss that here, that would be an argument and I was not allowed to present arguments during my direct examination, but I am quite willing to explain it to you.
When the Witness the morphia-eater Edith Schmidt was asked whether it was right that the fifty died, she said she would not, like to swear to it and thus she took back her testimony. If this testimony was true that fifty control persons died, because mortality in typhus is 30%, there would have to have been 160 control persons, that would mean 450 experimental subjects and then this would be an experiment of 600 persons. And your two witnesses from Natzweiler, although they were in the camp, they did not hear anything about such experiments. Mr. Hell became very excited when you tried to say that he heard something about infection with typhus. He said, "No, I did not say anything about typhus infections. I only said as injections had been given a typhus epidemic in the camp break out sometime later." The witness Grandjean said there was a typhus epidemic was in the camp and the block with the typhus patients had been completely shut off.
A. It is nothing to wonder at. Typhus wards are shut off very carefully every where and he concluded from that if this block was shut off that experiments were being carried out.
Q. You and your defense counsel can reserve arguments about the truth of the witness Schmidt's testimony at the conclusion of the trial. I do not wish to take up any of the Tribunal's time at this time in arguing about whether or not you believe the testimony of the witness Schmidt, and if not, why not.
A. I want to avoid that. I said so twice but since you insist always on a statement is proved it is not true. I had to answer it.
Q. Herr Professor, now you are intelligent enough to know I put a hypotheitical question to you. I was asking you to give certain assumptions and I was trying to bring out in a clear manner your attitude toward these experiments. Now you don't want the court to be confused about how you feel about an experiment, assuming certain facts, we understand you dispute certain of these facts, but be that as it may, it is important for the Prosecution, the Tribunal and the defense to know your attitude toward a given experiment, however, much we may dispute the facts, but sincy you persist in refusing to exhibit your attitude we will proceed.
A. You understand I have no inclination to discuss hypothetical assumptions here about things with which I am charged by you. I should prefer to discuss facts. Discussions of hypothetical questions ore very interesting, but not in the situation in which I find myself at the moment.
Q. Let's go back to the malaria experiments. What contact did you have with Schilling in 1941?
A. During my direct examination I testified that in 1941 I saw reports about Schilling's malaria work in Italy on behalf of the Italian government and with the support of the Reich Ministry of the Interior, and then either at the end of 1941 or the beginning of 1942 I gave an opinion, a written opinion on an application which Professor Schilling had sent to State Secretary Conti, or rather to the Reich Ministry of Interior. Then I saw Professor Schilling in 1941 personally. I do not believe, I am not certain, whether he was in Germany again at that time, but I can't deny it with certainty under oath, because after all that was six years ago.
Q. Did you supply him any material while he was working in Italy?
A. No, nothing.
Q. Who was Fraulien Von Falkenberg?
A. You mean Fraulein Von Valkenhayn?
Q. No, I mean Fraulien Von Falkenberg.
A. I don't know any Fraulien Von Falkenberg.
Q. You are sure you didn't supply Schilling with any material in 1941?
A. I can't remember it. It might have been done by my department without my knowledge. Then, of course, I would take the responsibility for it, but I have not learned of it up until now. My assistants did not tell me anything about it, if it happened. If you can prove it happened, I shall, of course, assume responsibility for it, even if it was done without my knowledge.
Q. Well, it is not terribly Important, but let's let you have a look at Document No. 1756. In the mean time when did this incident occur about your giving material to Schilling, after he had set up his institute at Dachau?
A. I beg your pardon, I didn't understand your question.
Q. When did you give Schilling material after he had gone to Dachau?
A. I cannot give any information about that myself. I have to depend on the testimony of my assistant, Von Falkenhayn, and my secretary Block. My secretary Block testified, here that it was the end of 1941, but I would assume that she is mistaken about that, since Miss Von Falkenhayn testified that this material was given in the year 1942. I think the latter is more likely.
Q. Document No. 1756 will be marked as Prosecution Exhibit 486 for identification.
THE PRESIDENT: What is that number?
MR. MCHANEY: 486.
BY MR. MCHANEY:
Q. Isn't there a Fraulien Von Falkenberg mentioned in this letter of yours to Schilling, dated 3 February, 1941?
A. No, in the German copy of the document which you showed to me, it says Fraulien Von Falkenhayn.
Q. That is a mistake then in the English translation.
A. Fraulien Von Falkenhayn was an assistant in my department. She had formerly worked for Professor Schilling. There is an affidavit from her. Since I have this letter I can give you some information about the matter. Professor Schilling wanted to have a serological reaction in malaria, the so-called reaction according to Henry, that is a reaction which is carried out for the purpose of malaria diagnosis. As in the antigen reaction, in this reaction the spleen of dead persons is used in the diet of malaria.
Professor Schilling apparently wrote to me to find out whether I as head of the tropical medical department was in a position to obtain a spleen from a corpse where the patient had died of malaria. I answered saying that such material would hardly be available in Berlin. Malaria was very rare in Berlin and consequently deaths from malaria were also very rare. The only cases of this type occurred in insane asylums, in the treatment of paralytics. It is well known that the first work of Wagner Jauregg shows that in the course of malaria treatment that paralysis deaths occur, just as death occurs following operations, and such malaria deaths, of course, occurred in Berlin insane asylums. As far as I can remember the matter my assistants contacted various pathological institutes in Berlin and asked in case such an autopsy occurred there that the spleen should be preserved so that it could be sent to Professor Schilling. This was what this letter was about.
Q. Did you ever supply any to him?
A. As far as I can recall in the coarse of several months one or two such cases occurred and the material was sent to Schilling, but I can't say for certain today.
Q. Well you are now qualifying at least the answer you gave to my earlier question as to whether you gave him any material in 1941, isn't that right?
A. I beg your pardon. I didn't understand the question.
Q. I say you now wish to qualify the answer you gave me a few moments before you saw the letter to the effect that you had not given him any material in 1941. You now state you did in fact give him some after having seen the letter.
A. Yes, I am sorry. My attention was entirely devoted to the question of the malaria parasite strains and mosquitoes, but the matter of negotiations between Schilling and the pathological institute in Berlin, I did not think of that.
Q. Let's go back to what we were discussing. You stated that although Frau Block, said that the malaria eggs were supplied Schilling in the latter part of 1941, you think probably it was 1942?
A. Yes, that is what I said. Perhaps I may correct myself. When you speak of Malaria eggs you mean anophele eggs probably. There are no malaria eggs.
Q. Yes that is right.
A. I am inclined to agree that Von Falkenhayn and Block think differently. I think that Von Falkenhayn was right and that it was in 1942.
Q. Did you know anything about this before it was sent?
A. I can't remember it. I don't believe so. As far as I remember I was informed of it by Fraulien Von Falkenhayn, in the meantime after I was given a letter from Professor Schilling that the mosquitoes were thriving in Dachau.
Q. Did you thereafter issue orders that no more material was to be sent to Schilling, is that right?
A. I did not issue a precise order. I said since we ourselves were using so many mosquitos I didn't want any more material to be sent to Mr. Schilling because I was not convinced of the scientific value of his work. But, Fraulein von Falkenhayn in her testimony says that there was further correspondence with Fraulein Lange. I have not been able to find this correspondence and I can't clear up the question completely. I have to rely fully on my assistant in this respect and I can't answer from my own knowledge. In our first conversation on the subject when I told you that Schilling got anopheles eggs from us, which you didn't know at the time, I did not tell you that he got a malaria strain from my department. I didn't know that at the time. I learned it just a short time ago from Fraulein von Falkenhayn. That was not in the affidavit. Apparently she was afraid of some misgivings and sent a letter to that effect to my lawyer. I am not so timid. I am not afraid to tell you about it.
Q. In other words you did supply a Rose strain to Schilling?
A. No. As I said in direct examination the Rose strain could not come from my department because we didn't have any strain with the name Rose. Where this strain with the name Rose comes from is a puzzle to me. I don't know of any Rose strain in malaria literature. But I don't think there is any point in quarreling about this name. The information given by Fraulein von Falkenhayn, which I believe fully, that a malaria strain is given - this is quite sufficient - and no difference whether it is called Rose or whether a Greece strain, or whether some other name.
Q. Your witness, Frau Block, testified you had no correspondence with Schilling in 1942 and 1943, as I recall. Is that right?
A. That is what Frau Block said. I myself would not have been so definite in my testimony if you asked me the same question. I would say I can't answer that question definitely. I only know one thing, that I never corresponded with Professor Schilling on the subject of his work.
Whether Schilling and I ever exchanged letters in those years I don't know since I don't have my files and such a rare correspondence as that - any information about it, whether he wrote a certain letter five or six years ago - he says "I would like to look that up in my files." Unfortunately I cannot do so but perhaps you would be kind enouh if you have copies of such a letter to make it available to me. You have my files and they are much more easily available to you than to me. For example, I am trying to find my malaria opinion from the year 194l. That was in the same file cabinet from which you got the record of the typhus meeting 29 December 1941 in the Ministry of Interior.
Q. You overestimate the Prosecution, Herr Professor, but we needn't dwell on that. Now, is your memory good enough to tell us how long you continued to furnish Schilling with material for his Dachau experiments. You say that somewhere along in 1942 you told them not to send any more. Are you clear about it?
A. Yes, I think I can remember reliably.
Q. Well, when did this malaria strain go down?
A. I am sorry I can't hear you.
Q. When did you send him the malaria strain?
A. I don't know. Fraulein von Falkenhayn merely told me that the malaria strain was given to Schilling. I don't know when. She didn't mention that in her letter to Dr. Fritz.
Q. Let's look at Document NO-1752. This will be marked as Prosecution Exhibit 487 for identification. Suppose you read the letter aloud, Professor?
A. "Prof. Claus Schilling "Dachau, 4 April 1942 "3K, Hospital for Inmates "To Prof.
Dr. Rose "Berlin - Fohrerstrasse 2 "Robert Koch Institute "Dear Colleague:
"I inoculated a person intracutaneous with Sporocoides from the salivary glands of a female anopheles you sent me. For the second inoculation I do not have the Sporocoides material because I do not possess the "Strain Rose" in the anopheles yet. If you should find it possible to send me in the next days a few anopheles infected with "Strain Rose" (with the last consignment two out of ten mosquitoes were infected) I would have the possibility of continuing this experiment and I would naturally be very thankful to you for this new support of my work.
"The mosquito breeding and the experiments are proceeding satisfactorily, I am working now on six tertiary strains. I remain with hearty greetings and "Heil Hitler "Yours truly "signed - Claus Schilling"
Q. Schilling apparently thought there was a "Strain Rose."
A. Yes. That is indicated by the letter. That clears up the matter. He must have renamed this strain which came from my department and called it Rose. That is very unusual. Normally a malariologist would not do that.
Q. Are those your initials on the bottom of this letter, "L. g. RO 17/4"?
A. Yes that indicates that 13 days after the letter was mailed, 12 days after it arrived at the Robert Koch Institute, I saw it. There is also the file note "Settled EVF. That is Erna von Falkenhayn on the 17 April 1942. I find that in spite of my instructions to the department Fraulein von Falkenhayn still sent mosquitoes to her old boss although she denies it today but I should like to emphasize that, of course, I am responsible for what Fraulein von Falkenhayn did even if she didn't tell me about it.
Q. Well, you saw the letter on the 17 April 1942. Did you reaffirm your instructions that no more material was to be sent to Schilling?
A. I can't tell you today. That is quite possible. It is not even certain that I was in the Robert Koch Institute when I saw the letter. It is much more likely that Mrs. Block brought this letter to my home where such things were generally settled. And, from the fact that it had been dealt with ten days before you see that such letters were opened by my secretary.
Q. I thought we would be a bit generous with Frau Block and assume she hadn't seen the letter since she was so firm in the testimony that you hadn't corresponded with Schilling during these years.
Did you ever send Schilling any atroparvus eggs?
A. Yes. That is anopheles eggs which he got from us . As a type of anopheles in my laboratory I had anopheles eggs maculipenis atroparvus.
Q. Suppose I put document No. 1753 to you. This will be marked as Prosecution Exhibit 482 for identification. This is another letter from Schilling. This one is dated a year later - 5 July 1943, acknowledging "with appreciation the receipt of you letter of 30 June and the consignment of antroparvus eggs."
I would also like to direct your attention, Professor, to the last paragraph of the letter where it says:
"Please tell Frl. Lange, who apparently takes care of her breed with greater skill and bettor success than the prisoner August, my best thanks for her troubles."
Do you remember the Christian name of the witness Vieweg?
A. No, I'am sorry I don't remember the name of this man.
Q. If you search the record I think you will find his forename was August.
Now, Doctor, apparently they completely ignored your orders of the year previous not to send any more material to Schilling. Apparently you had a change of heart yourself. Isn't that right?
A. I have already stated expressly that my orders not to send any more material to Schilling meant that we did not have too much material ourselves. It did not mean that I had any misgivings about the way in which Schilling was carrying out his work. It is quite possible that when we again had plenty of mosquito eggs we gave some to Schilling again. I am in a very difficult position. It is difficult for me to testify anything from my memory. You see here again that this matter was apparently dealt with by Fraulein Lange and Schilling himself wrote to me again.
Q. Well, I didn't read it that way, Professor. The first line acknowledges of your letter of June 30th.
A. Well, then it's possible that I wrote to Schilling.
Q. Frau Block suffered a bad memory about your correspondence with Schilling in 1943 as well as 1942, didn't she?
A. Yes, I am rather astonished because one would assume that a secretary remembers such things better, but it of course, possible to make mistakes if one doesn't access to the files. I have told you that I cannot testify with any certainty to the details of suck correspondence because I had too much correspondence.
Q. Well, isn't it possible you supplied material to him in 1944?
A. I consider that quite impossible. We have the testimony of Fraulein von Falkenhayn that the Department for Fever Therapy never gave them any material and, at that time, I did not have any office in Berlin any longer, but again I must rely on Fraulein von Falkenhayn's testimony. I myself was at pfaffenrode once a month at the most, and I called up once or twice a long distance.
Q. I put in Document NO. 1755. This will be marked Prosecution Exhibit 489 for identification. This is a reply by you to Schilling, dated 27 July 1943. This letter specks about shipping eggs to Schilling, doesn't it?
A. Yes, apparently. There must have been plenty of mosquito eggs so that we could give up some of them.
Q. There wasn't as big a shortage as you thought, is that right?
DR. FRITZ: Mr. President, I ask that the photostat be shown to the defendant Rose. It is not impossible that that was written by an assistance and initialed "R". Since I know the signature of Professor Rose; I think the "R" looks a little different.
Perhaps he might be shown the photostat.
THE PRESIDENT: Let the photostat be shown to the witness.
WITNESS: I must say I do not understand this signature at all. When I signed a letter I signed my name, but I don't think it's very important.
BY MR. McHANEY:
Q. When you were shipping these eggs to Schilling in Dachau it was after the time you had heard the lecture by Rascher and Holzloehner in October, 1942, in Nurnberg on freezing, wasn't it?
A. The dates of those letters were after Holzloehner's lecture, yes. Holzloehner's lecture was in October, 1942, to my knowledge. But perhaps you might say what conclusions you draw from that. Do you mean that Holzloehner and Schilling worked together? That one could have concluded anything from Holzloehner's work that would affect Schilling? Is that you conclusion? That, of course, would be quite unjustified I would be glad if you would explain your question.
Q. Doctor, I don't think it is too strange to say that a man who had, at least, received from information about how they carried out experiments in Dachau, even though on a different subject, might raise some suspicion in an average person's mind about just who the experimental subjects were down there and how they were treated?
A. I knew Mr. Schilling so many years. I met him for the first time in 1922, and I knew his reputation in international medicine and there was not tho slightest occasion for to draw any conclusions affecting Professor Schilling's work from the activity of Mr. Holzloehner who never told me that he had any connection with professor Schilling's work.
Q. Have you told the Tribunal yet about your visit to the Natzweiler concentration camp?
A. No, that was not possible. I never visited the Natzweiler camp.
Q. Well, as I recall, you told me on the 31st of October that you visited Natzweiler in connection with Haagen's work in producing typhus vaccines. Is that correct?
A. That is absolutely incorrect. I never told you that I visited Professor Haagen's hygiene institute in Strasbourg twice, but I never visited the Natzweiler camp.
Q. When did you visit Strasbourg?
A. In Strasbourg as far as I remember I was in the middle of 1943, I can't give the date of the second visit so exactly. It was probably in 1944.
Q. What about the first visit?
A. Since I don't have the material on it I can't state the date exactly. Fraulein Schmidt said it was in June or July, but that is the only indication that I have. It is very difficult for me to set the time. In the files which are available to me here there is nothing from which I could conclude the date of this visit. I merely know that there were two visits to Strasbourg.
Q. One was in the year 1943 and the other in the year 1944? Is that right?
A. As far as I can remember, yes.
Q. What was the occasion of the first visit?
A. That was the discussion of whether Professor Haagen was to resume the function of a consulting hygienist because after he had become a professor at Strasbourg he had stopped all activity for the Luftwaffe.
He had a shortage of hygienists and when I mad an official trip to France I was given the assignment to stop on the way in Strasbourg and balk to professor Haagen about it - about whether he wanted to resume working as a consulting hygienists in addition to his other work. I have already told about that in my direct examination.
Q. And he decided to resume his work with the Luftwaffe and you got an assignment of funds for him from the Luftwaffe, didn't you?
A. He declared himself willing to become a consulting physician in addition to his other work and he also spoke of his wish to obtain a research assignment. So far as I know, he did not have any research assignment about typhus yet he wanted to have a new research assignment which means that he wanted to have more money. This research assignment is mentioned in one letter.
Q. Well, that is quite all right. I can remember that. You got an assignment of unds, didn't you?
A. No, I did not have any influence on the issuance of research assignments but, as the letter shows, Mr. Haagen inquired of me how the negotiations about his research assignment were going on and I inquired of the inspectorate and I told him how the negotiations were.
Q. I don't suppose that Haagen explained to you just exactly how he was going to conduct his research and what he was going to do during the course of it?
A. No, we discussed his position in general on the problem of typhus research, and as I have already testified in direct examination, he explained to me that he did not consider the killed vaccines effective enough and that he wanted to work more far Berlin along the lines of Sparrow-Blanc-Legres, that is with living avirulent vaccines, and he worked on this line. I have already testified yesterday as to what I know about this work.
Q. Did he tell you that he was going to carry out infection experiments to test these vaccines?
A. That he intended to carry out infection experiments I did not know, but it was a matter of course that if he wanted to work with living avirulent vaccines he would have to perform tolerance experiments, because that is the decisive experiment, if such a thing even developed far enough by means of animal experiments.
Q. lie understand he would have to vaccinate somebody, but I am putting the question to you, if he did not explain to you that after he vaccinated the person with either a dead vaccine or avirulent, that he was going to try to bring about a typhus infection in the vaccinated person to test the efficacy of the vaccine itself?
A. I did not know that. I do know as I explained yesterday, that he was dealing with research questions. The reaction to the living avirulent vaccines he wanted to weaken by vaccination first with dead vaccines and then performing a second vaccination with living avirulent vaccine. The reason was to reduce the vaccine reaction.
Q. Doctor, is it not true that to produce or experiment with this avirulent vaccine that Haagen needed some new laboratory equipment? I think you have already mentioned refrigeration.
A. For these experiments he did not need any new equipment, there were such small quantities. He was quite capable of managing that with the available equipment, but he did need more laboratory equipment for the production of vaccine.
The Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe repeatedly asked him for and they hoped that they would get their own production place in that way. That meant installations for rabbit cages, a temperature regulation, installations to maintain regular temperatures, and humidity in the stalls, -- air conditioning. That was a very expensive thing. It cost several thousand marks, and the purpose was the following: Haagen wanted to produce vaccine from rabbit lungs, because he considered this the most economical procedure. For producing this vaccine one has to cause inflammation of the lungs in the rabbits with typhus. These inflammations of the lungs can be caused only if the rabbits are kept at a certain temperature, I believe that is 8 degrees Celsius, and since this temperature is not normally available, this air conditioning equipment was needed for the rabbit cages. That had nothing to do with the experiments.
Q. Did the name Schuhmach??? mean anything to you?
A. Yes, I have heard that name.
Q. You heard it before you were a defendant in this case?
A. I cannot definitely remember it, but it is possible.
Q. You knew it to be a concentration camp?
A. As I said I cannot remember it definitely whether I heard it at all, and of course I do not know whether the name was mentioned in connection with concentration camps.
Q. When did you first learn that Haagen was conducting experiments on concentration camp inmates?
A. That Haagen was performing experiments on concentration camp inmates? I don't believe that even today, but that he carried out vaccinations in concentration camps, I knew that. When I first learned it I can't say today, probably in 1943.
Q. Well, you remember the letter in December 1943?
A. I certainly must have known it by then, because there I refer to it.
Q. Well, did you know about this sordid occasion when Haagen had lg men who had been assigned to him die on transport?
A. I never learned anything about that. I learned of that from t he files, and I never knew that prisoners were especially taken to these concentration camps in order to be vaccinated.
Q. What would you have done if you had of known about it; Wouldn't that have given you an indication that maybe things were not so nice in the concentration camp, or maybe proper care wasn't being taken of the inmates in these experiments?
A. If I had learned anything about it I probably would have reacted exactly as Haagen did, as can be proved by the documents he wrote to the SS office, that one cannot conduct any experiments of any consequences on such unfortunate people. The record is in the records here. If I had learned about it I would probably have reacted in exactly the same way, perhaps more violently.
Q. Well, I should have hoped so.
A. I beg your pardon. I didn't understand you.
Q. I should have hoped you would have reacted somewhat more violently than Haagen apparently did.
A. That is possible. Our temperaments are different.
Q. You recall Miss Eyer testified Haagen sent reports every three months to the Medical Inspector of the Luftwaffe, do you agree to that testimony?
A. I heard the testimony. Yesterday in my direct examination I commented on it. If Haagen had reported every three months I certainly wouldn't have forgotten it. I had many things on my mind during the war, but such an exemplary condition of reporting would certainly have impressed itself on my memory. It is quite out of the question that the Medical Inspectorate received a report from Haagen every 3 months. I said yesterday that I consider Fraulein Eyer's testimony quite credible because in view of the number of offices with which Haagen was in connection, and from which he received reports there were so many reports and accounts necessary that it is a marvel that Fraulein Eyer didn't say she had to write a report every month.
I explained with the aid of the documents what obligation to report resulted from the documents alone. You probably haven't had an opportunity to read the record yet, but as soon as the record is ready you will be able to see that. I don't think there is any purpose in holding up the proceedings with that any further.
Q. And you are quite clear that Haagen never suggested to you that he was going to carry out infection experiments with typhus after vaccination?
A. That is not known to me.
MR. McHANEY: Let's have a look at Document NO 1059. This will be marked as Prosecution Exhibit 490 for identification.
Q. Now, will you please read this letter aloud in a loud and resonant voice?
A. Perhaps I may see the photostat.
Court I Case 1 (The Medical)
Q. Will you read the letter aloud, please?
A. (Reading) "29 November 1943 -- Registered "To Oberstarzt Professor Dr. Rose.
"Inspectorate of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe "Saalow (Post Office Zossen-Land) "Dear Mr. Rose:
"Enclosed I am sending you the report about our experiments with dehydrated typhus vaccine which I had promised you several days ago. As I intend to publish the findings, I have written the report already in manuscript form. I ask that, after having been reviewed, it be submitted to the competent authorities for their approval of its publication in the 'Zentralblatt fuer Bakteriologie" (Central Periodical for Bacteriology).
"One hundred persons from a local concentration camp were put at my disposal for immunization and subsequent infection. Unfortunately these people were in such a poor physical condition that eighteen of them had already died during transport; the remainder were likewise in such bad physical shape that they could not be used for inoculation purposes. In the mantime I have requested 100 additional persons from the SS Main Office (Hauptamt), who, however, should be in normal physical and nutritional condition, so that the experiments can be carried out on material which at least approaches the physical condition of our soldiers.
"For the time being we will concentrate on an epidemic culture in the form of a virus, which we have received from Giroud in the meantime. This seems to be a very good culture.
"With best regards, "Heil Hitler !"Yours -"Enclosure:
one report."
And no signature.
This is the matter which I discussed yesterday. The plan of Mr. Haagen to test the inoculation reactions to his living and avirulent dry vaccine by pre-vaccination with dead Vaccine to weaken the reaction.