None of these persons fell ill of typhus and it is upon that that he bases his assumptions in his report that the anti-infectious immunity had been proven. The witness Grangend emphasizes, on page 1145 of the record, that the persons who had been vaccinated with other vaccines in the camp had fallen ill to a considerable extent.
Q. How about the voluntary aspect during such test vaccinations?
A. Since I never learned any details about Haagen's work, I naturally cannot say whether he asked these persons for their permission. In itself it is rather probable that in an endangered atmosphere as was the case in a camp the persons there would undoubtedly volunteer to be vaccinated against hyphus. It becomes, however, clearly apparent from the correspondence that the experimental subjects wore somehow or other designated. Obviously that can be explained by saying that one could not from the start determine how strong the vaccination reaction would be. I personally would not have any misgivings in forcing people to submit to such vaccination, because in the German Health System we are quite used to the compulsory application of vaccinations of human beings. We have legal compulsion in the case of smallpox vaccination. In the case of the Wehrmacht we have the protective vaccinations against typhus, cholera, and so forth, which are compulsory on the basis of a directive, and we have the same thing on the basis of the labor service. Nobody could withdraw from any such vaccination by refusal.
Q. Is that also true abroad, are there compulsory vaccinations there?
A. The legislation of the various countries differ in this field. There are states who have a certain conscience clause, but there are other nations who know of an absolute legal compulsion for vaccination.
Q. In order to revert once more to the Haagen vaccine, did he actually carry out this series of experiments, I mean the series of experiments which is mentioned in the letter which you have read before?
A. As far as I am informed, no. He never came back to that subject, and he never sent a report about it.
Q. How do you explain that?
A. The reason, according to the documents available, must be the following: We know from the correspondence between Haagen and Hirt that Haagen was not at all satisfied with the health conditions of his experimental persons, and that therefore his experiments were delayed.
It also becomes apparent from his publications that in the meantime he had succeeded when carrying out his further work to bring about the alleviation of the vaccination reaction in the case of the living a virulent vaccine by keeping the dry vaccines in store for a period of two months. By applying this procedure he no longer had any serious reactions. That, of course, killed his interest in the Copenhagen vaccination completely. Haagen then continued to work. He used this method which had been successful in the case of a murine rickettsia and in the case of the recattsia prowazeki too. He produced a vaccine which was produced along the same method from rickettsia prowazeki. This vaccine too was tested as to its reaction on human brings, and by applying this series of experiments he realized a thought which he expressed in the correspondence of December, 1943, and discussed for the first time with me in the case of the murine vaccines. As one can see from his papers he was then carrying out double vaccinations. A number of persons were only vaccinated with the dry vaccines, and then there was a control group which was vaccinated with the dead vaccine, namely the vaccine, according to Gildemeister and Haagen, and then he used his new dry vaccine from living a virulent prowazeki rickettsia. Then he only tried to alleviate the vaccination reaction. He limited himself to a single infection of the dead vaccine, whereas in the case of a normal protective vaccination against infection one always carried out a vaccination which included three injections. Since this dry vaccine which he used afterwards had been produced from rickettsia prowazeki, he did not use this Copenhagen vaccine for the purpose of prevaccination, but the dead vaccine, according to Gildemeister and Haagen.
Q. I have another question referring to the complex of Haagen's vaccines; I refer to the document of the Prosecution NO. 128, Prosecution Exhibit 307. This is to be found on page 97 of Document Book 23. This letter is signed by Professor Luxenburger, the commander of the lecture group "Science and Research."
Professor Schroeder stated here that you must have had knowledge of this letter, and that you had written the draft. Is this statement correct, and I ask you to reply to this question as briefly as possible?
A. It is correct that I know of this matter. It is only partially right that I made the draft of this letter. This paper was submitted to me for my attitude, and I still remember it today. My entire description of Haagen's work is based upon the knowledge of this paper. We are here concerned with a second report, but there was already a first report. At that time I wrote my attitude on this paper from many points of view, rather I wrote my attitude at that time, my opinion, which amounted to a number of pages. It was done in great detail since the original report was so short it did not allow me to gain a clear picture as to how the actual procedure was carried out in the individual series of experiments. The reason for this short publication was found in the regulations of War, which limited the extent of any publication. Unfortunately the commander, Professor Luxenburger, did not take over my explanations, since he as you probably to, was an opponent of any long and detailed descriptions. On the other hand on the basis of my report he wrote this short opinion, but that did not make the matter any clearer and this is the best example as to what the result is, if you are trying to abbreviate these matters, especially since the writer was a psychologist and not an immunity researcher. In the case of this paper we are concerned with a further step of Haagen This time he suggests a pre-vaccination with his living avirulent murine vaccine which he had developed to such a point where it no longer created any reactions. Afterwards he carried out a second vaccination with his dry vaccine from living avirulent prowazeki rickettsia, which pa.per describes here that the first vaccination had no reactions, and that in the case of the second vaccination very strong reactions occurred. Only a few of the persons who were vaccinated had no fever at all.
Most of them experienced high fever which took a number of days, and in the case of some of them temperatures went up to 40 degrees. This is a very violent reaction, which is only equaled by the plague vaccination reaction, and. as to its duration is even a longer time in the case of plague vaccination reaction. At any rate this reaction was purely limited to fever and headaches, and the characteristic symptoms of typhus were completely missing. There was no ex anthem, there was no disturbance of the heart and no cerebral symptoms. Naturally, there were no fatalities. The blood examination of the vaccinated person after a period of a few weeks gave a high type of value in the case of Weigel-Felix reaction. I described this reaction yesterday. It was carried out in the case of typhus illness and also after typhus vaccinations, including typhus vaccinations with dead vaccines. It does not offer you any measure as to the grade of immunity, but at least is an indication that specific events occurred within the body. In the work the serum titer of the vaccinated person are compared to the serum titer of a number of sick persons, who naturally fell ill in Natzweiler within the framework of the typhus epidemic.
It is emphasized in this paper that no illness occurred among the persons vaccinated, and this, it was said, had proven the entire infectious immunity. The serum Titer in the case of the sick persons was much higher than in the case of those persons who had been vaccinated. Objections to this paper refer to the following points:
First that the reaction was not described in the usual manner by average fever charts, but a mere statistical chart was given, which could no easily be surveyed.
The second objection is, that in this statistical chart the two methods used for vaccinations were not distinguished so that the reader could not see exactly how the reaction was in using one method and what it was to the other.
Thirdly, it was objected that of the persons who had fallen ill of typhus in this camp epidemic, no fever statements are made, but only the results of the blood examination are stated, and these are the people that Luxenburger in his paper here describes as control groups.
Haagen, as far as I remember, answered to these objections in the following manner:
First, the fever cause in typhus was well known. One could see it any text book. It was not necessary for him to repeat it once more in his paper. In addition, the fever charts of these sick persons were not at his disposal because they were not his experimental subjects, but were patients from camp where he only carried cut a blood examination, and those two reasons are quite understandable.
Q What was the final result of these Haagen experiments?
A For once he emphasized that in the case of his vaccination such high titer values according to the Weigl Felix value reactions were achieved, as was not the case in any other dead vaccine. He further emphasized the immunity against infections, because his vaccinated persons did not fall ill during the camp epidemic. Thirdly, he said that his vaccine was not yet suitable for practical application because the vaccine reaction was still too strong.
Q Why did the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe ask Mr. Haagen in the letter of 29 August 1944 on page 99 of Document book 12, this is Document of the Prosecution NO-131; Exhibit No. 309; whether the typhus epidemic in Natzweiler was in any way connected with his vaccine experiments?
A This request is based upon my initiation; the work which I just described and the report by Haagen of 21 June 1944 regarding the Natzweiler epidemics were simultaneously available. I was suspicious: In the case of the development of all vaccines from living avirulent germs, the main worry always is that the vaccines in their application on human beings will quickly regain the virulent they already lost. This worry can always be seen when discussing all these vaccines; that was the case with the Jenner small pox vaccine, and we have the same result with the plague vaccine, according to Kolle, Otto and Strong. be still discuss it today in the case of Calmette vaccine. I had exactly the same worry in the case of this new typhus vaccine; and when discussing influenza vaccines for instance, I again expressed that worry as one can see according to the Document by Bieling.
I therefore recommended that one should ask whether this epidemic started as a result of the vaccinations and this one can see under Figure 3. This inquiry was clearly answered in the negative by Professor Haagen, which can be seen in the next Document on page 100, Document No. 132, Exhibit No. 310 in Document Book No. 12.
Q Now, Professor Haagen, in a further letter dated 27 June 1944; addressed to Professor Hirt, says that in a control group for further experiments illnesses are to be expected in the case of nonvaccinated persons. This is in the Document book 12 on Page 96 of Document Book 12, Document NO-127, Exhibit No. 306; would you please look at that letter and explain it to the Tribunal?
A This letter by Haagen, in my opinion, is the only serious Document contained in Haagen's complex. I must emphasize that I am in a rather difficult situation here.
I have to explain letters written by ether people, letters which I have never seen before and about the background of which I have no knowledge at all. In addition, I only have a fraction of this correspondence available and by no means the entire correspondence.
Haagen never reported about any such intentions to the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe, he never reported about the execution of any such experiments. In this letter, addressed to Hirt, he thinks for the first time to include non-vaccinated control groups in this experiment.
I have tried to explain this letter in the following way giving due reservation to whatever Haagen may have to say in this connection. This is an attempt on my part, because Haagen is not here and it is by no means an explanation from my own knowledge: Haagen says expressly that he was planning this parallel group because he wanted to clearly prove the effectiveness of his vaccine against infections; he wants to clearly establish that. He obviously is of the opinion that his earlier experiments have not brought a clear proof. The earlier experiments were based upon the blood examination and the examination of vaccinated people who had not fallen ill during the epidemic. This assumption, from a purely scientifical point of view, is absolutely correct because these two facts alone did not constitute a clear proof, although they had a large degree of probability on their side.
One must assume then, as long as one does not know the real plan of the experiments, intended by Haagen, and we have no clear plan of the experiments, that he had to take into consideration, insofar as the experience he had so far, that he would now succeed to apply an avirulent living vaccine without any subsequent reactions. Also that this time he wanted to test the success of his procedure by afterwards infecting someone with virulent virus as Blanc, Balthasar and others did, and as it was carried out during typhus experiments in American prisons during the war.
Q Did he not have to expect any fatalities in carrying out such experiments?
A If a bungler would carry out such a series of experiments, naturally, yes; but we are concerned with the best known virus research worker in Germany. In his letter there are contained two points, which enable the hygienist to guess what he planned to do with this control group. It becomes noticeable that this control group, as he called it, or parallel group, comprises fifty persons. Now we know from the Buchenwald series of experiments that in the case of infection control of typhus ten persons are sufficient. Even Ding at the most took twenty persons for his experiments. Therefore, Haagen must have some reason to select a large group like that. Secondly, it becomes noticeable that in this letter he only writes one has to count on people falling ill, but in an infection controlled with typhus fatalities are to be expected with a certainty. Haagen says nothing at all about that possibility. Considering the progress of the typhus research at that time one has to conclude with all probability that Haagen was perhaps planning the following thing:
We knew that the dead vaccines gave no certain anti-infectious immunity, but a very reliable anti-toxoid immunity. Therefore, on the basis of this letter, one can explain the experimental plans by considering that the 150 persons were to be treated with this new vaccine, whereas the parallel group was to be treated with a number of old vaccines, of which it was known already that their effectiveness was only limited. If in such an experimental series he was carrying out subsequent infection with virulent viruses the following was to be expected: No illnesses, or very few illnesses in this group which were treated with vaccine from living avirulent viruses. On the other hand illnesses in the non attenuated form as they according to experience so far when using dead viruses, that is exactly what is contained in this letter by Haagen to Hirt. As I said before, this is merely an assumption and it is quite possible Haagen intended something different. This is not the only possibility.
Q Did Haagen report this experimental plan to the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe?
A No, he neither reported this experimental plan, nor any other experimental plan.
Q Haagen is expressly speaking of one group that was not vaccinated?
A That is correct. It says so here, but in the case of his letters one has to take into consideration he is addressing laymen. He is obviously answering a. question which was put to him, namely, whether illness could occur, namely and that meant, of course, a deficiency in labor, that he uses the expression "non vaccinated group" towards the laymen in order to designate the parallel group which has only an anti-toxoid immunity is quite imaginable. On the other hand, it is not imaginable that he did not mention the possibility of fatalities as it would have been unavoidable if he was actually infecting persons who were not at all protected.
Q How could Mr. Haagen plan or carry out any such experiments without the knowledge of approval of the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe? He was an Oberstabsarzt of the Reserve of the Luftwaffe and consulting Hygienist with the Air Fleet Reich?
A Yesterday, I have explained the double position of Haagen in detail and I naturally wouldn't want to repeat that now, but I would merely like to point cut a number of facts which were not mentioned yesterday. Haagen, for instance, as an air force officer, could not have been in a position to obtain assignments from the Reich Research Council without the permission of his superiors. No air force officer could carry cut independent negotiations with the Reichsfuehrer SS or any other SS agency, in particular, not at all about his Luftwaffe activities. The director of the Hygienic University Institute on the other hand was in a position to do that, and the files and documents show clearly that Or. Haagen made full use of his independence as a University Professor. He received monies for the direction and the building of his institute from numerous agencies which really are not inter-connected at all.
He independently negotiated without asking anyone about experimental subjects by using the official channel Ahnenerbe, and then the Reichsfuehrer SS. Whenever he deems it suitable he plays one agency against another. He demands further monies from the Reich Research Council with the indication he would return to the Luftwaffe if he did not receive that money and another example he invites a Japanese Oberstabsarzt Kobayashy in order to inspect his institute. Naturally, no medical officer would invite any foreign officer to inspect his medical institute without reporting that to the medical inspectorate and receiving their approval. If one does not take into consideration the independent position of Haagen as a University professor one could not possible understand the examination of Haagen at Natzweiler.
Q Couldn't the Luftwaffe exercise any influence on Haagen's work on the basis of that research assignment?
A Well, there would have been one possibility, namely, the medical inspectorate could have transferred him. The result would have been a telegram from the director of the University to the Minister of Education, to the effect that Haagen should finally be declared indispensable, and as director of the institute he was indispensable. According to official channels the Luftwaffe could exercise no influence on research assignments, that is by order, through official channels. The medical inspectorate throughout the years had tried to persuade Mr. Haagen to use the monies which were made available for the purpose of producing vaccines. In spite of that one did not succeed throughout the years to bring him to do that. If any military subordination had existed there would have been a clear order which would have had to be carried cut. These were negotiations which were carried on throughout the years. I already explained and the document 297 shows what the real tone was, that is Bock No. 12, page 112.
Q The medical inspectorate did have the possibility to stop these research assignments and by that exercise pressure on Haagen's activities?
A That, theoretically, of course, is possible. Mr. McHaney has made similar utterances here and s aid that if Haagen did not receive any more funds from the Reich Research Council he would have had to stop his work, but if one assumes that one displays ignorance about scientific institutes in Germany and what the situation was. If the Luftwaffe couldn't pay, then an application was made to the Reich Research Council, and if the Reich Research Council didn't offer their assistance, one could turn to the Ahnenerbe, and if the Ahnenerbe too rejected its assistance, one could turn to the Eastern Ministry, to Mr. Rosenberg. There are many more possibilities. Who knows Haagen, knows also ho was well aware of all of these possibilities and was exploiting them for the extension and use of his institute. In one point there was only one agency which could not be circumvented. Whenever he wanted experimental subjects from concentration camps he could not manage to get them without Himmler's approval, not even connections with Hitler would have helped him there. Haagen's channel to Himmler is easily recognizable from the documents. It leads over Hirt whose official position is not known. Hirt is here being mentioned in the decrees of the Reichsfuehrer. Of course, as a Luftwaffe officer Haagen could not choose that channel. If as a Luftwaffe officer he would have worked in a concentration camp the negotiations would have had to be carried cut over the medical inspectorate, and examples are available as in the case of Professor Holzloehner and Hippke and we also have the matter of the sea water experiments.
Q These possibilities which you have just described, aren't they in contradiction to a central steering of research work?
A Naturally, but this central steering of medical research work in Germany is a phenomenon which only came to life one and one-half years after the War. As it really applies to the War becomes evident clearly from the documents. The best example is Rascher. After Rascher had brought the Luftwaffe into contact with concentration camps misgivings arise with Professor Hippke on the basis of a report he received from Holzloehner and other persons. Hippke tries now to transfer Rascher to another agency. Rascher who already belongs to the General-SS succeeds in getting himself transferred to the WaffenSS, and then when the Reichsarzt-SS wants to take him under his wings he gets affiliations with the Ahnenerbe in order to retain the direct channel to Himmler. You find these skillful and calculating researchers in the files of any office who carried on research at all, but not because these agencies worked according to a common plan but because they were not coordinated and because the possibility existed to play one against the other.
Q Didn't that become known in the course of the War? Weren't attempts made to remove this faulty situation?
A You can recognize starts that were made in that connection, but recognition came much too late and a success was not achieved, and that was clearly described by Professor Rostock here. Then you have the basic difficulty that any research work can, in reality, never be centrally steered. The initiative for a research is always to be found in the individual, in the researcher himself. This is a natural law, and no political system can alter that. Even in the smallest circles one gains the experience that an older scientist who knows something about his work cannot easily be steered by orders and always wants to carry out his own ideas.
Q I have another two questions with reference to the letter which we discussed this morning, the letter from Mr. Haagen to Hirt, dated 27 June 1944 Document of Prosecution NO-127, page 94 of the English Document Book, 96 of the German Document Book.
Did you ever know whether these experiments after they were planned were actually carried out?
A I said that neither the planning nor the execution ever became know. From the period of time involved one can see the following: The letter to Hirt is addressed 27 June 1944. From Haagen's report dated 21 June 1944 it becomes apparent that the typhus epidemic in Natzweiler was still going on then so that he was not even in a position to vaccinate against influenza. Any such epidemic has to stop before one can start any new work. The witness Holl has testified here that no one could either enter or leave the camp at that time. Even if on the 21 June 1944 the last case of typhus had occurred in Natzweiler, which it is highly improbable. Mr. Grandjean says the epidemic lasted until July. The normal quarantine in the case of typhus lasts twenty-eight days.
MR. HARDY: May it please your Honors, a typical example is this last question. This could have been answered with yes or no and the defendant spent three or four minutes arguing the question which could well be included in their closing or summation. I think the Tribunal should suggest that the witness testify rather than argue.
THE PRESIDENT: The point raised by Prosecution is well taken.
The Tribunal has been very patient of the witness, but the witness continues to argue matters instead of answering directly and briefly. The witness should be advised that matters of argument may be presented to the Tribunal in due time by his counsel with the assistance of the witness. Argument prepared in proper brief based on evidence is much more effective than argument from the witness stand. The Tribunal instructs the witness to answer the questions directly as possible without argument. Counsel will endeavor to propound his questions that they may be so answered.
Q Professor, you heard what the Tribunal has said. I ask you to act accordingly.
A I know personally that Professor Haagen in August 1944, has left Strassbourg in order to find an evacuation spot. Mr. Holl testified to that, too.
Q Mr. President, In that connection I offer the Rose Document No. 28 which is to be found in Rose Document Book II on pages 62 to 67. I offer it as Exhibit Rose No. 30. This is an affidavit by the physician Dr. Wilhelm Cordin, I should like to read part of this affidavit. I am reading the third paragraph on page one of that document.
"During the war, i.e. since 1941, I was a medical officer of the reserve with the German Luftwaffe. After having been used at first as a medical field officer I was assigned to the Hygiene Institute of the University Strasbourg in February 1944 for hygienic bacteriologic training. Here I was almost exclusively concerned with work on hepatitis (mice passages and demonstration of the virus in mice organs) under Professor Haagen until the Allied troops occupied the town on 23 November 1944.
"Before being detached to Strasbourg, I was officer for special assignment with Luftwaffe physician Mitte in Berlin-Dahlem for about 6 months. Although during my service in Berlin I did not meet Professor Rose personally I repeatedly heard about him in his capacity as consultant hygienist of the Luftwaffe Medical Inspectorate, so that even at that time the name Rose meant something to me."
Then I shall skip a few paragraphs which are concerned with hepatitis and on page 3 of the document, on page 61) of the document book, I am continuing with the last but one paragraph:
"Although I myself was not concerned with typhus work I know that Professor Haagen worked on the development of a typhus vaccine from living avirulent typhus organisms. It was also provided that typhus vaccines should be produced in large quantities at the institute.
In order to make this possible, constructional alterations at the institute had already been started.
"I also know that Professor Haagen vaccinated inmates of the Natzweiler concentration camp with his new vaccine. I never heard, however, of him artificially infecting prisoners with typhus. At some later occasion Professor Haagen t old me that typhus had been carried into the concentration camp Natzweiler from outside by a transport of prisoners and that subsequently a typhus epidemic broke out in the camp. He emphasized that several cases of death had occurred but that none of the convicts treated with his vaccine had contracted the disease.
"During my time in Strasbourg I heard that Professor Haagen formerly, i.e. before I came to Strasbourg, conducted experimental vaccinations with his influenza vaccine produced from live weakened influenza virus, on part of the staff, including the physicians, of a Strasbourg clinic. The persons of the clinic in question stood these vaccinations without any strong reactions.
"Since I met Professor Haagen only during my time in Robert Koch Institute. I know, however, that he collaborated with Professor Gildemeister. I never heard of any participation of Professor Rose in the typhus research work at the Robert Koch Institute. As far as I know, his name was not mentioned in Strasbourg, either in connection with the work of Professor Haagen.
"Owing to the air raids and the approach of the front Professor Haagen since about the middle of August 1944 directed his efforts towards a partial evacuation of his institute from Strasbourg and travelled about in order to find an evacuation location. On 25 August or 1 September 1944 there was a phone order to start preparations for the evacuation of part of the institute. The telegraphic order arrived on 5 September 1944.
"On 25 September 1944 the building of the institute was heavily damaged by bombs. There were 4 dead: Dr. Eckstein, Inspector Meyer, the laboratory assistant Schulze, and a young girl from the Research Department.
"On 16 October 1944 Professor Haagen returned to Strasbourg for several days. It was his last stay in Strasbourg. I do not remember the exact date of his departure. From August to 16 October 1944 at any case, Professor Haagen was absent from Strasbourg without interruption.
"It is completely out of the question that experiments on humans could still have been conducted in Natzweiler or Schirmeck after the above mentioned evacuation measures had been started.
"During my time in Strasbourg I have not seen Professor Rose in that city.
"On the basis of my knowledge of Professor Haagen's personality, especially in consideration of his ambitions, I think it extremely improbable that he could have allowed Professor Rose to obtain a deeper insight into his research work."
It is not necessary for me to read the rest of that document since it deals with a different matter.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now be in recess.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DIRECT EXAMINATION - Resumed.
BY DR. FRITZ:
Q Professor, according to your testimony, you had no knowledge of these plants of Professor Haagen and as far as you know Professor Haagen did not report these plans to the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe; assuming the hypothetical case that the plans which Haagen told Hirt were officially reported to the Luftwaffe by Haagen; what would you have done in this case?
A If this plan had been reported to me, I had seen anything objectionable in it -and this formulation of the letter would certainly have seemed objectionable to me-then I would have expressed my mis givings to the Medical Inspector and above all asked that the state of affairs be cleared up. If it had then been discovered that my misgivings were justified, then the medical inspector would probably have objected. But, as in the grippe meeting on which Bieling reported Handloser, after I had expressed my objections to influenza vaccinations, said:" Very well, the vaccination is to be carried out, but I don't wont these infections." That would probably have been the same.
Q Now, you had knowledge of the fact that Mr. Haagen, in his capacity as director of the Hygene institute, was negotiating independently with an SS agency about vaccinations in the concentration camps this is shown by your letter of 13 December, 1943, which is on page 82 of Document Book, 12, this is document of the prosecution No-122 Exhibit 298; didn't this make you wonder?
A No, it did not make me wonder at all. I have said that I knew what vaccine problem r. Haagen was working on, but that was a completely unobjectable matter. The fact that he was vaccinating people in concentration camp was no occasion for mo to object, because the concentration camps were in no more danger than anyone else from typhus and that an SS agency was competent for the concentration camps. I did not know, but I assumed it.
When I dictated my answer, I apparently quoted superficially from Haagen's letter, experts later told me that there was no such officeas SS Main Office, SS Hauptamt, but obviously it was the WVHA which was meant, but I did not know these details. I merely repeated what Haagen's letter must have said.
Q Professor, yesterday you told the tribunal that you were active in combating typhus, but that you had nothing to do with typhus research, you referred to your publications on typhus at various points, but in 1944 in Basle you held a big lecture about typhus and malaria.
Mr. President, I have this lecture of the defendant Rose in my Document Book 2, it is on pages 27 to 54. This is Rose Document No.25, which I submit as Rose Exhibit 31. I do not intend to read any of this, but I should nevertheless like to ask Professor Rose to state whether anything was said here about typhus research?
A This lecture very clearly shows what my own field of work was. I gave a general survey of the state of the fight against malaria and against typhus on 17 February 1944. I took these two subjects together because through my field of work, through the new DDT preparations were connected diseases these very different. If one is invited as a guest to lecture to a foreign society, then listeners want to know about all the results of the work of the lecturer personally, so I gave this. This shows that I had nothing to do with the development of vaccines. I dealt with this subject briefly. No work of my associates or myself on this subject is mentioned, while in the field of the development of DDT preparations, my associates and my own work are constantly quoted.
I dealt with vaccines on the basis of papers written by other authors. Moreover, I gave exactly the same explanation as I give now before the Tribunal; there is no essential difference between what I said three years age and what I say on the witness stand. In this connection, I refer to page 29, the third paragraph, until page 32 the first paragraph. Of course, I do not intend to read this, but one can check up with this old essay, to see whether, I represented the same point cf view at that time as I have represented the Tribunal here.
Specifically, I refer to the first paragraph on page 32. In February of 1944 I said that vaccinations against typhus with attenuating living virus is still a field for research and has not been satisfactorily settled yet. That is the sentence which proves clearly that I had no knowledge of what happened in the Buchenwald camp, in addition to what I have reported here.
Q Could this lecture in Basle be the same one for which the SD wanted to institute proceedings against you as a traitor?
A Yes. That is the same lecture, which I gave in May 1944 in Ankara in much more detail, and I was speaking to Turkish medical officers on this subject for several days. From there my lecture reached Moscow, from Moscow the German intelligent service received knowledge of it, and since these matters were considered important in Russia, I was to be tried.
Q Was the trial actually carried out?
A No, as Handloser and Schroeder have testified here, my superiors and Professor Handloser protected me.
Q Did you in your lecture deal with such new things that one could speak cf treason?
A The use cf DDT preparations in combating epidemics was quite new at that time. Before that lecture there was not a single article in the literature of all countries about the use of DDT in combatting epidemics, even the Swiss holders cf the patent did not realize the significance cf this preparation at that time. The Basle scientists, a few days later, send my lecture to the international Red Cross, it was also sent to America, it was translated into French Q Then the SD was right in its charge of treason?
A No, certainly not. The medical profession has the great privilege, even in time of the wildest was hysteria of remaining neutral.