"It can be assumed that my reports from Air Fleet 2 were also directed to Professor Rose for his expert opinion, for information, and for exploitation. When I became consulting hygienist - in addition to Professor Rose - with the Chief of the Luftwaffe Medical Services, I also received reports from consulting physicians and other medical offices sent by the office of the Chief of the Luftwaffe Medical Services, with a request to express my opinion, to make suggestions, or to compile the experiences from a large number of such reports from various sources into a critical complete report. As mentioned above, this happened only very occasionally.
"I do not know how my views and reports were further utilized.
"While I was consulting physician with Air Fleet 2, Professor Rose repeatedly made official visits into my sphere. They were made on special orders from the Medical Inspectorate and the Air Fleet physician was notified. The object of those visits was not to supervise my activities but either to lecture at post graduate courses for physicians, or to see personally the conditions amongst the troops, and therefore not to be completely dependent on written reports.
"I accompanied Professor Rose on only one of these trips, because at that time he was particularly occupied with the malaria problem in the Mediterranean, and as a specialist for tropical medicine he had greater experience in this special sphere than I." End of quote.
Mr. President, the Defendant Rose pointed out to me that in the affidavit Schnell, Rose Document No. 6, which I read before, there is a mistake in the English copy, since the word "Luftflotte" which often appears, was translated with "Wing". In order to be correct one should substitute "Fleet" for "Wing" - Air Fleet - LuftflotteAir Fleet.
In the same affidavit, the rank "Oberstarzt" was translated with "Chief Physician" whereas it should be "Colonel, Medical Corps." This is of some considerable importance.
THE PRESIDENT: It would be of assistance to the Tribunal if a corrected English translation of this document be furnished to each member of the Tribunal for his document book; also for the reserve copies in the offices of the Secretary General.
BY DR. FRITZ:
Q Did you participate in the meetings of the consulting physicians?
A May I remark that the difference between Wing and Fleet is competent, because a Wing is in German, Geschwader, and is under a Colenel, where Fleet is under a four or five star general. The rank and authority of the work in this office consequently differ considerably too.
Now, about the meetings, since the meetings of consulting physicians were hold as joint meetings of the three branches of the Wehrmacht, I was also appointed to attend these meetings. The second in 1942, the third in 1943, and the fourth in 1944. I also visited the meetings of civilian scientific societies, insofar as matters dealing with my specialized field were discussed there. At the 4th meeting of consulting physicians in 1944 in Hohenlychen I was the chairman of the action for hygiene and tropical hygiene.
Q Did you have to make any official trips?
A Yes, I was ordered to make official trips by the Inspectorate, and I would do them on my own initiative too, I would make application for them. The purpose of the trips was to investigate conditions among the troops in order to avoid passing judgment on the basis merely of written information. These trips were often connected with lectures. In the first years of the war those trips were mostly to the theatres of war outside the Reich. From the middle of 1943 the homeland problem was in the foreground, because I was primarily dealing with the damage resulting from air warfare.
Q Did you have any ether military duties or any further rights?
A No, my position was the same as that of other consulting physicians. I could not issue any orders or instructions, only from the end of 1943 on was there one exception.
The section for fever therapy of the Luftwaffe was expressly under my command, and I could issue orders and instructions for it.
Q Now, if you found any deficiencies during your official trips as a result of it, in your opinion the troops were in danger, wouldn't you issue orders right there and then in order to help remove these deficiencies?
A No, that was not possible. If it were something very urgent I could inform the locally competent medical officer of my opinion. Whether he issued corresponding instructions was up to him. If they were basic questions I could report to the medical inspector after my return and I could make suggestions which were then worked out as I have already described.
Q Did you have to exercise supervision over the consulting hygienist in the air fleet?
A No, I did not exercise any such supervision. If the Medical Inspectorate considered it necessary I was merely given the written reports either merely for my information or for my knowledge.
Q In that case you were not the superior of the other hygienists of the Luftwaffe?
A No, I was in no way their superior.
Q Professor, the question regarding your supervisory right or your duty to supervise Professor Haagen was the subject of repeated examination of Professor Schroeder on the part of the Prosecution. I new hand you the transcript of the 26 of February 1947, which deals with that point. Now, if you will be good enough to look at the afternoon session you will find on page 3635, and this is the German transcript, a question propounded by Mr. McHaney: "It was Rose's duty that he would have to be continually informed about experiments in this field, isn't that right?" and Professor Schroeder's answer read, "Rose, according to the directives, which his Chief Hippko gave him probably concerned himself with these research assignments," and then the end of Schroeder's answer reads, and that is in answer to the next question of Mr. McHaney:
"It could only be done in the way that he only exercised this inspection by order of his superior." And I am now asking you, was it your duty to exercise supervision of research assignments which dealt with your field of work, and furthermore did you at any time receive an order, a special order in order to carry out an inspection of the research assignments either by Schroeder or Hippko?
A To the first question, no. I did not even have the right or the duty to supervise the activities of the hygienists or consult hygienists in subordinate positions of the Luftwaffe. Of course, I did not have any such duty of supervision of activity which was not in the service of the Luftwaffe, but in their civilian positions, for which they received no instructions from the Luftwaffe, but merely financial support. To the second question I must also say, no. Neither from Professor Hippko, nor from Professor Schroeder did I ever receive any assignment to inform myself as to the value of work at a research assignment and to report on it, and therefore I never did so. Those who had the research assignments made their own reports. If they reported orally I was not called in. If they sent in a written report, this report was, in most cases, no doubt, sent to me either for my attention or for my comment.
Q Professor, will you please look at the transcript of the morning session of the very same day and turn to page 3572, and the following sentence can be found in art answer made by Professor Schroeder, and I quote: "The consulting physicians had a right to obtain information." What do you know about this right to obtain information?
A This expression I heard for the first time in Professor Schroeder's testimony. I do not know what "right to obtain information" means, Informationsrecht; I do not know any service regulations concerning any such right of the consulting physicians, and at least I never exercised any such right.
Q What was your relationship to the other consulting hygienists, I mean according to their rank and age?
AAt the beginning of the war the consulting hygienists with the airfleet, with one exception were all older than I and also my seniors in service. In most cases they had a higher rank than I did. I began as Oberarzt d. Reserve, which is equivalent to a First Lieutenant. The others were all Stabsaerzte, and Oborstabsarzte, or captains and majors. During the war this was changed insofar with the increase of a number of hygienists younger colleagues were appointed to such positions. That changed nothing in our official relationships, however. I did not become their superior. Only when I was promoted to Generalarzt, Brigadier General, on the 1st of May 1945, that is a week before the collapse, did I become a general hygienist of the Luftwaffe, but that does not mean that on the 1st of May 1945 I became the superior of the other hygienists.
Q What staff was at your disposal in your position as consulting physician?
A I had no staff. I had one and sometimes two clerical assistants, and I did not have any deputy. The position of consulting physician in the Luftwaffe was limited to the person of the consulting physician and his professional knowledge.
Q Did you have to deal with any questions of aviation medicine?
A No, I had nothing to do with aviation medicine. This specialized field was given special attention in the Luftwaffe, of course. There were quite a number of specialists in that field. As a special consultant for aviation medicine there were special deputies and also a consulting physiologist. These people were competent for such questions, and had to divide the various fields among themselves.
I was not concerned in this as a hygienist. Since I was working for the Luftwaffe, of course from personal interest, I read Dr. Ruff's book on aviation medicine, and I regularly locked at the magazine journal for aviation medicine, but I personally was never called on officially for this Work.
Q Did you yourself write any essays for the periodical for aviation medicine?
A No, because I know nothing about it.
Q But you once wrote an essay about the spread of epidemics on the basis of air traffic; that didn't have anything to do with aviation medicine?
A I did write such an article in a textbook on hygiene, but this does not belong to aviation medicine. It is a specialized field of traffic hygiene. This is a spread cf epidemic by ships or railroads. Hygienists and public health officers everywhere and a number of aviation medical experts deal with this question.
Q. Did research assignments given by the Medical Inspectorate of the Air Force in the hygenic field come under your supervision? I mean the hygenic field now.
A. No, the hygenic research assignments were not under my supervision either. Insofar as the persons holding such assignments submitted working reports, I was generally sent these reports for my attention or comment, at least in the later years of the war, from 1941 on. There were very few hygenic assignments in the Luftwaffe and the execution of the assignments was in the hands of the research workers given such assignments. I am not aware that any kind of supervision was carried out over the execution.
Q. If any such assignments were given, somebody must have had to supervise their execution.
A. I believe that the word assignment was misused considerably. It is therefore advisable to clarify what such an assignment amounted to and what its practical effects were. First of all, at least in the case of the hygiene assignments which I knew about, without exception the initiative came from the person who received the assignment. That is the director of the Hygenic Institute makes an application that he be given a so-called assignment about a certain problem. In peace tine I myself had the German research association give me such an assignment. The only reason was that I did not want to be dependent on the approval of my president for every minor detail, but needed certain means which I could dispose of by myself without any beaureaucratic restrictions. The approval of the research assignment was necessary to secure a certain sum of money, as supervision was exercised over the use of this money so far as accounts had to be submitted, which were also checked from time to time,and work reports were demanded. If anyone had even imagined that through approval of such financial support he was undertaking penal and legal responsibility for all of the activities of the men to whom he was giving assistance, then there would certainly have been no one who would have undertaken to distribute this money. To stick to my own example, in 1938 I received a research assignment by the establishment and maintenance of an anopheles colony at the Robert Koch Institute.
The assignment was signed and approved by Professor Sauerbruch. Later he became head of the specialized department for medicine in the Reich Research Council. I am firmly convinced that Geheimrat Sauerbruch even today has no idea what an anopheles colony is, or what was done with it, but he knows who I am. He knows that I wrote successful papers or literature; he no doubt assumed so because I held this position in the Robert Koch Institute. I do not believe that Sauerbruch ever read anything which I had written; therefore, he relied completely on the fact that the applicant personally offered adequate guarantee for the sincere use of this money. In any case I, as the recipient of such an assignment, was always convinced that by accepting this money I did not in any way become subordinate and that the person giving me the money acquired no other rights than that of regular accounting about the use of the money with a report, and that he assumed no other duties toward me than to supply the money furnished at the time promised. I have considered myself responsible for what I did.
Q. Did you take part in giving research assignments in the Luftwaffe in the hygenic field?
A. I was not called upon to assist in giving research assignments and I never made any suggestions for such research assignments.
Q. How was that really handled? How were these research assignments really given out?
A. I cannot say for sure in the Luftwaffe since I had nothing to do with it. I myself never received any such assignment from the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe. From my own general knowledge of the way business was conducted there I assume that the applicant presented his application in writing and no doubt orally at the same time. Either he could have taken it to the competent section chief, which would have been the best way, but of course he could also express his wishes to the Chief of Staff or to the Inspectorate personally, but that would have been a detour because the thing had to reach the section chief eventually.
The section chief passed the natter on to the referent, if the latter had not already been called to the conference. It was actually not necessary for the referent to carry the matter through, that could only follow knowledge of the suggestions, otherwise there was nothing to work on. Then, after the approval of the application, it was sent to the Department 11-F for formal issuance and then to the budget group, which had to take care of distributing the money. BeckerFreysing no doubt knows more about these events but this is merely an assumption on my part. He will probably be able to make more exact statements.
Q. Were you not at all participating in these negotiations?
A. No, that is obvious. To decide whether influenza research is important, the section chief, after the matter has been presented to him by an expert, does not need an expert opinion from anyone else. From 1941 on, I no doubt generally received information after an assignment had been issued; then, as I have said, I received the work reports; if any were received, I no doubt generally received them.
Q. Did you not have to make any utterances about the value of that work?
A. In some cases I, no doubt, made a commentary on it when I handed a report back but the matter was as follows: If, for example, Professor Knorr received a subsidy for such research for work on a mobile drinking water apparatus, he applied for and received this assignment because for twenty years he had worked very specifically with drinking water questions, water filters, and water disinfection. He was the expert on this question and my opinion was of secondary value. If Professor Haagen reported on his work on yellow fever vaccines or typhus vaccines, then his report was justly more important in the eyes of the Medical Inspectorate than any comment I might have made. Professor Hoering testified here yesterday that in respect to yellow fever Professor Haagen was the only internationally recognized expert in Germany in that field.
Haagen was the most important virus specialist in Germany and for this reason received the subsidies which he applied for. These conditions resulted from the nature of the case.
Q. But in your letter to Professor Haagen, dated 9 June 1943, you are telling Haagen about his research assignment, are you not? The assignment to which he objected - this is Document of the Prosecution N0306, to be found on urge 77 of Document Book No. 12, Prosecution Exhibit 296. How about that?
A. As the previous document 305, page 76 of document book 12 of the Prosecution Shows, Professor Haagen had given me some information out of friendliness; since he was not in Berlin but in Strassbourg he obviously took advantage of this opportunity to inquire how his business was coming along. Such brief inquiries about official matters are prohibited everywhere but they are equally customary everywhere, no doubt. I needed merely to Call up the particular doctor, chief or referent and have the information in one minute. All I said in the letter was that the competent referent was on a trip, and that he would have to Wait. That was just a matter of courtesy which happens every day. That happened almost every week in matters involving personnel affairs, that one got a letter from some acquaintance to investigate some matter or other, or to put in a good word with the referent, such requests, of sensible, I, of course, took care of although I had nothing to do with personnel matters. I discussed the matter briefly by telephone with the referent or called on him personally if I had something to do at the inspccorate any how and then I sent the required information to the acquaintance.
Q. Professor, the Prosecution accuses you of conspiracy for committing crimes of a criminal nature together With the rest of of the defendants. How were you connected with the other defendants?
A. Seven of my co-defendants were unknown to me until the beginning of the trial, either by name, position, or person. Those are Rudolf Brandt, Poppendick, Sievers, Romberg, Brack, Hoven, Beiglboeck, Porkorny, Oberhauser, and Fischer, By name and sight I know three of them, Gonsken, Gebhardt and Ruff. I had nothing to do with them either officially or otherwise and I did not talk to them or have any correspondence with them. That leaves eight. I know Karl Brandt, of course. He is a well known personality in his position as Reichs Commissioner. Twice I had something to do with him officially.
There is an affidavit on the subject. Then I saw him twice at public lectures, but did not speak to him. Professor Handloser I knew because of his office. I had official connection with him and his office, especially from 1944 on, I had to get opinions when they were required but these relations were not very extensive. It happened very rarely. Professor Rostock was known to me as the Dean of the medical Faculty of the University of Berlin. I had correspondence with him in matters dealing with the faculty and with lectures. I knew he was the office chief with the Reichs Commissioner. I had correspondence with him once in this capacity on questions of electronic microscopy, and I am sure I saw him at medical lectures, but aside from exchanging correspondence we did not talk because generally he stayed with the surgeons and I stayed with the hygienists. Professor Schroeder was Chief of Staff from 1939-1940 and later from 1944 on Chief of the medical Service of the Luftwaffe, and as such was my superior, as consulting hygienist, I had official as well as personal relations with him. Nevertheless, the questions under indictment here were never discussed between us before the collapse. After the collapse we were in the same internment camp for sometime and there we discussed this on the basis of reports from the press. I met Professor Blome during the war. As far as I recall I talked to him about three times personally, and Becker Freysing I knew in his official position as auxliary Referent under Professor anthony, and later as his successor, Professor Weltz I saw twice in my life, once at the glider contest at the Rhoen in 1927, the second time at the Cold meeting in Nurnberg, in 1942, when he held a lecture on animal experiments. As far as I know I saw Mr. Sievers twice. I knew that he was studying the problem of removing salt from sea water by chemical means, but I, myself, had no official connection with this work and knew no details about his work. Our acquaintance was so superficial that, for example, I did not recognize him when I met him here and he had to remind me that I had seen him before.
Professor Mrugowsky I knew as a lecturer for hygiene from the Berlin Medical Faculty. Then I met him at large Hygiene Conferences. I was at his institute once when a delousing apparatus was to be demonstrated which he had had developed. Professor Mrugowsky is the only one of the co-defendants with whom, during the war, I discussed the problem of experiments on human beings. That was following the lecture of Ding on the experiments at Buchenwald, but I shall come back to that when we discuss the typhus experiments.
Q. The Prosecution described the meeting of the consulting physicians as a typical gathering of constirators who were going to plan crimes. As you have testified, you yourself participated in three of such meetings. What was your impression of these meetings?
A. They were absolutely typical medical meetings of medical societies only in two respects, furst, because the number of participants was limited, and that purely for reasons of space, and numerous specialized groups were called together for one meeting, where during peace time generally only two or three specialties had to coordinate their meetings. Otherwise, in contents and in form I saw no difference between these and the usual medical scientific congresses.
Q. But directives were sat up, weren't they?
A. That is also done in civilian medical meetings. There too it happens that such directives are set up and accepted by scientific societies as official, and then they are passed on to the authorities and to the legislative bodies and then binding regulations are made from such directives of the Congress.
Q. During such meetings there were lectures held on experiments on human beings in the case of two sections of such meetings?
A. That is done in exactly the same way as at public meetings of medical societies. I myself heard lectures about experiments on human beings at international meetings.
That is a matter of course. At congresses, especially important matters are reported, and experiments on human beings are in general made only in case of most vital problems.
Q. But here we are concerned with experiments on human beings who were condemned to death?
A. I advise you that only at the report of the meeting of the Manilla Medical association of Manilla, there you will find a number of similar lectures on similar experiments on persons condemned to death who were not volunteers and also on so-called volunteers,where from a purely ethical standpoint one could have different opinions about the degree of volunteering in which the audience were of different opinions.
Q. How did you know this judgment of the listeners in that case?
A. In my many years in East Asia I attended a number of international meetings and Congresses. In the Far East I was even Chairman at one of them, since the work of the American Health Administration in Manilla was for all of us of the greatest importance scientifically. It was, of course, discussed in detail in circles of specialists, and of course the question of the experimental subject is discussed. For example, the question how it comes about that at a certain time 29 people condemned to death are c certainly available for an experiment.
Q. What part did you yourself play in these meetings of the consulting physicians at the military medical academy?
A. The role of a participant and auditor, as well as that of a lecturer. My reports on malaria at these meetings, has already been taken into the evidence submitted by the Prosecution.
DR. FRITZ: Mr. President, in my document book Rose No. 1, I have re-produced some of the printed excerpts from meetings of the consulting physicians which have been duly certified and simultaneously for the convenience of the Tribunal I have also reproduced the Exhibit No. 922 of the prosecution, or rather document No. 922 of the Prosecution which is Exhibit 435, which is an excerpt from the second work meeting of 1942.
The excerpts which I made were given the numbers Rose document No. 36, which is Rose Exhibit no. 8; then Rose document No. 37, which will be Rose Exhibit No. 9. I beg your pardon, Mr. President. These excerpts are to be found in my document book Rose No. 3, I beg your pardon.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you give us again those document numbers, counsel. Will you repeat those document numbers and Exhibit numbers?
DR. FRITZ: We are concerned with Rose Document No. 36, which is to be found on page 21 and 22 of Document Book Rose III which will be Rose Exhibit No. 8. Then follows in the same Document Book the following document of the Prosecution NO-922 which already has an exhibit number and I should, therefore, not like to give it another.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the Prosecution Exhibit No., counsel?
DR. FRITZ: It is Exhibit No. 435, Mr. President. Then follows the excerpt from the Second Conference of the Consulting Specialists Rose No. 37, which will be Exhibit Rose No. 9, to be found on pages 36 to 38 in Rose Document Book III. Then, as Rose No. 38 I submit the excerpt from the Report of the Third Conference East of the Consulting Specialists of 24-26 May 1943, to be found on pages 39 to 52, which will become Rose Exhibit No. 10. And, finally I offer as Rose Document No. 39 the excerpts from the report about a fourth conference if the Consulting Specialists which is to be found on pages 53 to 77 of the Document Book Rose No. III. This document will receive Rose Exhibit No. 11.
MR. HARDY: May I inquire as to whether or not these four exhibits, 8-9-10-11, are from the report introduced by the Prosecution?
DR. FRITZ: Mr. President, the German Document Book III has not yet been mimeographed, at any rate it is not available to us as yet. I should, therefore, like to ask permission that I should hand them first to Professor Rose before giving them to the Secretary General. This is the only copy I have. No further copies have been mimeographed but as soon as Professor Rose is finished with it I shall hand it to the Secretary General.
THE PRESIDENT: You may use your copy in that manner.
DR. FRITZ: Mr. President --
THE PRESIDENT: Of course, in using this Document Book in this manner at this time it is understood later on that complete copies will be furnished to the Tribunal, counsel, and the Secretary General.
DR. FRITZ: Mr. President, the Secretary General already has them, I think. They are already in German. The Secretary General has three German copies for the Tribunal. Unfortunately, I haven't as yet received them.
BY DR. FRITZ:
Q. I have just sent these excerpts to you and I shall have Document No-922 of the Prosecution sent to you.
A. Thank you. It isn't necessary I have it.
Q. Now would you please describe these excerpts to the Tribunal very briefly, in particularly, the exhibit submitted by the Prosecution.
A. Perhaps I can change the order. This second meeting - the first meeting was not very important, the first conspiracy in May 1942, I was not present personally but my work was mentioned on page 77 by Mr. Klauberg who refers to the work - my work on the transfer of bacterial dysentery by flies. I may remark that this Mr. Klauberg is not identical with, nor does he have any connection with Gynecologist Klauberg who was repeatedly mentioned in the sterilization documents. This Professor Klauberg is a bacteriologist and is still in office today with the approval of the Military Government. About the second conspiracy the Prosecution has submitted my malaria reports. They are on page 30 of this document. No, I beg your pardon, 30 of the Document Book, page 3 of the document. I spoke about the effectiveness of alabrine prophylaxis.
Q. Mr. President, this is document of Prosecution No-922 to be found on pages 23-35 of Document Book Rose III. Please continue, Professor.
A. In my lecture on page 30 of the Document Book I spoke about atabrine prophylaxis. Then I spoke of malaria treatment doses, malaria relapses, then I discuss the scientific question of provocations in the course of treatment. Then I spoke of the significance of malaria in blood conserves and a self experiment is referred to which one of my assistants carried out which has a certain significance in literature.
And, then I deal with mosquito control. Mr. second lecture is this meeting dealing with the combating of anopheles by planes. Other participants in this meeting comment on my lecture. Mr. Menk speaks of what I said about atabrine dosage and is kind enough to confirm the correctness of my statements. Then Professor Rodenwaldt refers to my lecture and he says,"What Mr. Rose has stated about prophylaxis and therapy of malaria will be fully confirmed by everyone who has experience in tropical medicine, etc," That was very friendly of Mr. Rodenwaldt to support me with his authority.
Then in Document 37 on page 37 of this Document Book another participant at the meeting, Professor Hauer, refers to my statements and adds something. Then farther down the bacteriologist Klauberg again, who again refers to my work on flies and bacterial dysentery. The third conspiracy in May 1943 is on page 40 of the Document Book. There are discussion remarks by me - first the experiments of the Robert Koch Institute is reported compared to what Mr. Doetzer had previously reported. That is important for a document in this trial, Yesterday Professor Hagen was mentioned by the lawyer for BockerFreyseng.
Q. You mean Professor Hoering?
A. Yes, Professor Hoering. I beg your pardon. And Becker-Freyseng's counsel asked Professor Hoering about a report which Professor Haagen had prepared on vaccine for typhoid and cholera. Mr. Hoering had considered this report a model or a conspiracy report of troop physicians but he said expressly that the vaccine used in that case was something quite old. Here it says, black on white, that several years before at the meeting of consulting physicians I said that for six years this method had been used at the Robert Koch Institute and that it was generally used throughout the world. Then the last remark to Mr. Ruge - the question whether with one single inoculation one can have the same success as with repeated inoculations Then I report on scarlet fever and diphtheria vaccine.
Then I answer the question from Professor Schreiber as to whether passive inoculation is advisable in diphtheria. I say, "No." And I point out that it is forbidden in the Luftwaffe while it was recommended in the Army on my request - proof of the difference in technical regulations in the various branches of the Wehrmacht. Then there comes another speaker and it says my objection to a certain vaccine was wrong. He says he had good experience with it. Then comes another speaker who says "Rose is right." Then comes my remark on Ding's typhus report. This printed report of the meeting contains only what I said about the scientific significance of Mr. Ding's experiments. Since I intend to Discuss Ding's experiments in another connection I should like to go back to this at that time, and also the remark of Professor Uhlenhut.
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, at this time the Tribunal will be in recess until 2 o'clock. You may then continue.