Why did Grawitz only assign one clerk to him and the office of the Chief Dentist together, if Poppendick was really Grawitz' closest and most confidential associate?
Why did Poppendick not represent Grawitz whenever he went on an official trip or on leave? Why did he not make Poppendick his adjutant; then he would have had his alleged closest and most confidential associate with him daily.
Why did Grawitz give Poppendick no general authority to issue regulations or orders, which would have been binding on coordinate or subordinate offices? Why was this supposed most confidential associate only in a concentration camp for one hour once during the war?
Why did Poppendick never accompany the Reich Physician on official trips?
I could go on with these questions, indefinitely, in order to lead the idea of the Prosecution, which is not attested by a single document, ad absurdum. One would imagine, in the closest and most confidential associate of Grawitz a different position from the one which Poppendick held as occasional worker for Grawitz.
In no case, however, did the Defendant Poppendick - and herewith I come back briefly to the questions on Counts II and III of the Indictment - hold a position under Grawitz such that he could have prevented experiments which Himmler, for example, wanted to carry out, if he had learned of them in time.
If the Tribunal in Case II considers it impossible that a man like Field Marshal Milch had the power to prevent experiments of Luftwaffe medical officers, if he had had knowledge of these experiments in time, how then can one conceive the idea that an occasional associate of Grawitz, who worked in Grawitz' office only now and then, could have had influence on the execution or non-execution of any experiments which were ordered? The various descriptions of Grawitz' character all agree on one point -- that Grawitz didn't allow anybody to strike a bargain with him, foremost for fear of Himmler for whom he cherished a dog-like loyalty (The obedient dog retrieves the hare."
) and that not one of Grawitz' collaborators succeeded to obtain even a minor confidential position which he could have used to exercise a mitigating influence on the course of events. At the end of my trial brief I went into that whole comples at great length; I therefore can content myself with that short reference.
Within the framework of Count No. IV the membership of an organization declared criminal by the International Military Tribunal is not decisive alone, but, according to correct legalistic view, the additional requirement must exist that every individual accused member thereof must have had knowledge of or must have participated in crimes committed by this organization after 1939. It is the task of the Prosecution to prove their allegations (cf. my legal statements in my Closing Brief). The Prosecution certainly has taken on this task in our proceedings and they have tried to prove that the defendant had knowledge of certain criminal experiments. As far as I have stated my point up to now concerning the question of knowledge of criminal experiments, I have already dealt with it as far as it concerns the defendant Poppendick. I may, however, state once again that the hormone and Polygal experiments.are to be dismissed as non-criminal from the very start, in the sense of the indictment, and that it could not be proved that the defendant had ay knowledge whatsoever of criminal sterilazation, typhus, malaria, sea water and epidemic jaundice experiments, even if one reviews the evidence submitted with an utterly critical eye; that furthermore the knowledge of incendiary bomb, sulfonamid, phlegmone and freezing experiments could not be proved by the Prosecution beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt.
Particularly with a view to the experiments named just now it will be left to the judgment of the Tribunal whether or not a knowledge on the part of the defendant Poppendick of these experiments can be deduced, beyond certain vague assumptions and without the firm basis of undisputable facts, once one has arrived at the conclusion that these last named experiments have really been criminal.
Should the Tribunal be convinced that the evidence submitted is sufficient to deem the defendant guilty under Count No. IV, then I think it advisable to refer to my written statements about the scope of the punishment to be meted out. The judgment of the International Military Tribunal has given a certain guidance for future proceedings against members of criminal organizations concerning the measure of punishment. I quote:
"The Tribunal recommends that the punishment meted out to members of an organization declared criminal by the Tribunal on the basis of Law No. 10 should in no case be higher than stipulated by the Denazification Law for the American Zone, Nobody is to be punished according to both laws."
An over-all regulation of the problem even by precedent, has not been made yet in the American Zone, whilst in the Nritish Zone it has been regulated by law in the sense of the recommendation quoted above. This Honorable Tribunal will then be the first of the Military Tribunal in Nurnberg to judge members of criminal organizations and thereby create a precedent for future cases.
If at the conclusion of my speech which briefly summarized the result of the evidence against the defendant Poppendick I may turn to the Tribunal I do so only with the knowledge that the High Tribunal will carefully scrutinize the evidence which has so assidously been submitted and will decide about guilt or innocence of the accused without favor.
In this sense I plead for a just judgment of the defendant Helmut Poppendick whom I represent.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now hear from counsel for the defendant, Rose?
DR. FRITZ: For the defendant Rose:
Mr. President, Your Honors:
In my opening address, which I had the honor to deliver before you on 30 January 1947, I did express the hope, that the evidence might prove that the defendant Rose neither took a part in the planning nor in the performance of the medical experiments which are under indictment. Now after the closing of evidence, you, Your Honors, will have to examine and to decide whether my hope has been fulfilled. Before you retire to consider the verdict, I wish to say to you that I do not think I was wrong in the conviction then expressed, and that for the following reasons:
1) As far as the allegation is concerned that my client took part in a conspiracy for the commital of war crimes and crimes against humanity, I have explained in the closing brief which I submitted on behalf of the defendant Rose, why my client could not have had a part in such conspiracy for reasons of law and of facts.
Concerning the meetings of the consulting physicians which Mr. Mc Haney considers as typical meetings of conspirators, I did write:
The participation of the defendant ROSE himself at the consultant conferences is shown clearly in his printed lectures lying before us and his remarks during the discussions at these conferences. From them it is quite clear that the activity of the defendant ROSE at these conferences was purely scientific and in no way objectionable.
To this must be added that, after DING'S lecture at the third consultants conference in the year 1943, in which the latter reported concerning his experiments on human beings in the concentration camp of Buchenwald, Professor ROSE protested publicly against the undertaking of ush experiments, as fact which I shall have to go into more closely later on. This uncontested fact is not in any way in keeping with the behaviour of a conspirator.
Furthermore the lecture which the defendant ROSE delivered on 17 February 1944 - in wartime therefore - in Switzerland to the medical association at Basle speaks against his participation in the alleged conspiracy.
In this lecture he reported not only concerning his own DDT - research, but discussed also, among other things, the typhus experiments carried out on human beings in Buchenwald by Ding. This lecture, which caused a stir in medical circles abroad, both in neutral and hostile countries, and a further lecture on the same subject, which he delivered in Turkey in the summer of 1944 - also in war time - are the best proof that Professor ROSE was aiming in his work at helping the whole of mankind - without distinction between friend or enemy - in the combating of epidemics. Thus for instance the manuscript of his Basle lecture was immediately, with his consent, put by the Swiss at the disposal of the international Red Cross and, through this, at the disposal of the medical service of the allies, so that the experiences mentioned in it encountered in combating typhus and malaria should benefit all without distinction. Here it is clearly shown that Professor ROSE acted, not as a conspirator, but as a free doctor and scientist, which might almost have led to criminal proceedings being instituted against him for reason.
At all events it is seen both from my previous detailed arguments as also from those which I still have to deliver when speaking of the malaria and typhus experiments, that the defendant ROSE in no case belonged to the plotters. But one who is said to belong to the group of conspirators must surely have a share in the plot. For in the case of conspiracy surely only he should answer fully for the actions of others who - even if only in a subordinate position has taken part in the formation of the plot. From this, however, it must be concluded that whoever does not take part at all in the shaping of a common plan, can also not hear full responsibility for what others have done. Thus if proof is lacking that someone has taken part in a common planning, then too it cannot be established either that he had a share in the alleged conspiracy.
For there must be a limit to collective responsibility. I am of the opinion that the common plan just formes this limit-Whoever does not belong to the planners does not belong either to the group of conspirators.
The Prosecution wants to hold my client responsible for the malaria experiments of Dr. Schilling in Dachau. My point is primarily that you, Your Honors, for technical reasons alone are unable to examine all of the essential material.
In the indictment no charges to this effect are raised against Professor Rose. He has not been indicted at all for this matter. It is not enough for the Prosecution to have made an oral accusation against my client in the course of the trial. Only a new indictment could form the basis for a material decision. In the event the High Tribunal should not believe this phase of the law, I shall in my closing brief turn to the question as to whether the supplying of the serums for tropical diseases constituted a participation in this research. I have among other things stated:
The Tribunal will have to decide whether these above mentioned activities of the Department of Tropical Diseases of the Robert Koch Institute under the management of the defendant ROSE or his own activities constitute participation in the meaning of the Penal Code in the accounts of Professor SCHILLING on the part of the defendant ROSE. In my opinion this decision can only be a negative one, for the following reasons:
The delivery of material necessary for malaria research such as Anopheles eggs and malaria cultures was one of the official duties of the Department for Tropical Diseases of the Robert Koch Institute. This Department has a section which dealt exclusively with these matters. This can be seen from both the yearly reports of the Robert Koch Institute and from the report covering the third conference EAST of consulting specialists discussing work projects.
(dritter Arbeitstagung Ost der Beratenden Facharzte). Deliveries of this kind are internationally common practice and were never denied by the defendant ROSE. It is also common practice to use the organs of human corpses for the carrying out of scientific research. The supposition for such deliveries are, that they are requested either by well known institutes or by renounced research scientists. It cannot be denied, that SCHILLING, a co-worker of Robert Koch and a member of the malaria commission of the league of Nations, was famous as a malaria research scientist. In a case of this kind the non-delivery of such material would have been an express violation of traditional practice and of official duty. It is also not international usage for the orderer to be questioned about the intended use of the material before its delivery.
Concerning the question as to whether my client should have certain misgivings to give the material to Schilling, I state that the defendant Rose himself is a well known malaria research scientist. Malaria research was the main study of his department at the Robert Koch Institute in Berlin and also later in Pfafferode. Professor Rose as an experienced malaria scientist knew of course that this form of malaria is not a dangerous one and that no complications are to be expected from it.
"I formed the opinion that the experimental work carried out by Dr. SCHILLING was in rather a different category from the majority of experiments which have been described in the trials at Nurnberg and elsewhere. It appears that this investigations were carried out carefully and with a reasonable regard to the safety of the subjects. As he was working with benign tertian malaria the allegation that three hundred people died in the course of the experiments is obvious ly grotesquely untrue."
Thus, Your Honors, the famous Entomologist, Professor Kenneth Mellanby at the famous Hygiene Tropical Institute in London wrote me a letter dated 9 July 1947 after the close of the evidence. He stayed in Nurnberg a week during this trial. Rose's special field is, as you know, malaria research, and regarding it's concept and method of research, I said in my closing nrief that Rose personally was the prototype of a worker above reproach in the field of malaria research and with regard to his car for the well-being of his malaria patients, as shown by the investigations undertaken by the competent American authorities. He risked his own life, in order to assure the orderly handing over of his Malaria Research Institute in pfafferode to the Americans - and also to insure continued regular care and medical treatment for his patients. It would be completely incomprehensible if such a man were to be made responsible for the technican errors and negligence of another who was not even under his influence.
In the Indictment my client is charged with responsibility for the typhus experiments of Professor Haagen and with participation in them.
In order to reach a decision concerning the question whether a punishable behavior on the part of the defendant Rose is established, the court will have to examine the following:
1) Whether Professor Rose, in his capacity as consulting hygienist with the Medical Inspection of the Luftwaffe, had any commanding authority or the right and obligation of supervision at all over Professor Eugen Haagen, at the University of Strassbourg and
2) Whether the defendant Rose was a participant in the experiments with typhus vaccine conducted by Haagen in the concentration camps at Natzweiler and Schirmeck in a penally relevant form, in which case it can be left completely undecided whether Haagen himself liable to punishment or not.
In my closing brief and in my written reply to the closing brief of the Prosecution I have examined this question carefully and especially in regard to the exchange of correspondence between Haagen and Rose. Because of the lack of time it is completely impossible within the frame work of this plea to explain these difficult questions. I, therefore, resist from doing so but shall at least say this.
In my opinion it is absolutely impossible, according to the evidence submitted in this direction, to arrive in our trial at a decision which would eliminate all mistakes. The questions under examination which were raised by the actual course of events as well as by their connection with medical problems, are so complicated that at this juncture they simply cannot be decided by medically untrained jurists without the expert opinion of a suitable and non partisan medical expert.
It is regretted that such an expert opinion is not available. One cannot take the responsibility for punishing a nan like Rose who had so vague a relationship to Haagen, before in a trial against Professor Haagen the question has been decided whether the latter himself has made himself punishable.
Finally, my client is made responsible in the Indictment for typhus experiments in the Concentration Camp Buchenwald and is charged with participation in these experiments.
During the verbal proceedings the Prosecution has made the following assertions in this connection:
On 29 December 1941 Professor Rose took part in the conference at the Ministry of the Interior during which the matter of the carrying out of the experiments for the purpose of testing the effectiveness of typhus vaccine was decided. In order to substantiate this assertion, the Prosecution referred to the affidavit of the Kapo (camps policeman) Arthur Dietzsch, dated 26 December 1946, who of course did not take part in this conference and who is now, after five years, repeating what he claims to have heard at that time. In this connection the following is to be said?
1) First of all, Professor Rose has, during his direct examination vehemently denied that he ever took part in such a conference or that he ever heard of it before the end of the war.
2) In the report on this conference, written by Ministerialrat Bieber, those who attended are listed. Professor Rose, however is not among them.
3) In the entry of 29 December 1941 in Ding's diary, which deals with this conference and lists the participants, Professor Rose's name is missing.
4) Neither does Professor Reiter, of whom the defense as well as the prosecution submitted an affidavit, mention the defendant Rose in this connection.
These above mentioned facts aLone are entirely sufficient to refute the contradictory assertions of Kapo Dietzsch.
The Prosecution furthermore claims "that through the defendant Rose the Robert-Koch-Institute delivered the bacilli" with which part of the persons to be experimented on in Buchenwald were infected. This statement was made after the entry on 26 January 1943 from Ding's diary had been read out. In his affidavit of 26 December 1946 the Kapo Arthur Dietzsch also claims under figure 5 that the material for infection had come from the Robert-Koch-Institute in Berlin. But neither the above mentioned note in Ding's Diary nor Dietzsch state that the material for infection was delivered through the defendant Rose. As is well known, the typhus department of the Berlin-Koch-Institute, it can only have been done through Professor Gildemeister, especially since Dr. Ding formerly received his training in the typhus department and not in the department for tropical medicine of the Robert-Koch-Institute. If the Prosecution links Professor Rose with this, then we have here merely a statement for the correctness of which no proof has been submitted and the incorrectness of which already is revealed by the fact that in his department Professor Rose did not have any typhus virus at all.
On account of Professor Rose's one and only visit on 17 March 1942 to the Department for Typhus and Virus research in Buchenwald, the Prosecution made statements which are as incorrect as they are unproved. Thus the Prosecution claimed first of all that Professor Rose made this visit in his capacity of originator of the plans for the experiments. The real reason for this visit, however, is revealed by the testimony given by Professor Rose himself. He accepted an invitation Gildemeister had commanded in order to dispel the scruples Rose had in regard to the experiments which till then were carried out on volunteers. The Prosecution's further assertion that during this visit Professor Rose took part in the infection of persons to be experimented on, is incorrect also.
In reality this one and only visit took place as the entries in Ding's diary reveal beyond a doubt, on March 1943, in the middle of the process of carrying out the experiments, at a time when all persons to be experimented on had fever already, while the infections had been carried out as early as the period between 6 January and 3 March 1942.
If Professor Rose had really participated in these infections, his one and only visit to Buchenwald could never have caused in him the reaction it did, for, as numerous testimonials and affidavits have proved beyond a doubt and as by the way, the Prosecution, too, has admitted this visit in accordance with his basic convictions pertaining to this problem also expressed elsewhere, caused him to protest not only to the Reich Health Leader Dr. Conti, and to President Gildemeister, but also before a large circle, that is publicly, during the third convention of medical consulting specialists in May 1943, against the carrying out of the typhus experiments in Buchenwald. He never denied this visit to Buchenwald, since exactly this visit was the starting point for his efforts to abolish experiments on human beings as a basic condition for the approved use of the vaccine.
These protests play an important part in judging the Prosecution's accusation against Professor Rose that for the carrying out of a series of experiments in Buchenwald he is supposed to have put at the disposal of Dr. Ding typhus vaccine, produced according to the process discovered by Combiescu and Zotta (the so called Bukarest vaccine). To prove this assertion the Prosecution first of all rests its accusation on the entry from 19 August 1942 to 4 September 1942 in Ding's diary, in which it is stated among other things that this vaccine had been made available by Professor Rose who in turn had received it from naval physician Professor Ruge of Budarest. In this connection the Prosecution furthermore intro duced a letter, dated 16 May 1942, from Mrugowsky to Rose in which Professor Rose is asked to send the vaccine.
The rest of the letter reveals that this related to typhus lung Vaccine. Therefore it can be assumed that the samples of the Bukarest vaccine were meant. The Bukarest vaccine is a vaccine produced from the lungs of dogs. It is true that at first sight the contents of this letter, in connection with the above mentioned entries in Ding's diary seem to justify the Prosecution's statement. A closer examination of the facts, however, shows that conclusive proof of the accusation that Professor Rose made available the Bukarest vaccine for the purpose of testing it on human beings in Buchenwald, cannot be considered as having been established. As I mentioned before, it cannot be ignored that as late as May 1943, that is one year after he had received Mrugowsky's letter of 16 May 1942 and about half a year after the series of experiments with the Bukarest vaccine had been carried out in Buchenwald, Professor Rose protested at the convention of the consulting specialists against the carrying out of these experiments. He did so immediately after Dr. Ding had, at this convention, delivered his lecture on the results of his experiments carried cut in Buchenwald, including those with Bukarest vaccine. Had Professor Rose really made available the Bukarest vaccine, then it can be assumed almost with certainty that Dr. Ding who was known to be very angry, would, in answering the protests, have remonstrated Professor Rose with having himself (Rose) put the Bukarest vaccine at this disposal. But nothing of the sort happened. We know from witness Kogon that for days after he had returned to Buchenwald, Dr. Ding occupied himself with Professor Rose's protest. To this witness he expressed his anger about Professor Rose in very drastic words and told him that at the advisory convention there remained nothing for him to do but to defend himself by stating that a "top secret" matter was involved and that he had made it clear to Professor Rose that there existed fields of activities which even Professor Rose would have to hold in respect.
It seems obvious that he would have told the witness Kogon that he could not understand what was the matter with Professor Rose since Rose himself had put the Bukarest vaccine at jos dos1/2psa;/ But Ding reported on the testing of the Bukarest vaccine not only to the 3rd advisory convention but also in his publication in the magazine for hygiene. Here, too, he failed to mention Professor Rose's name. On a foot note, however, he expressly referred to his cooperation with Professor Gildemeister.
After all this I am of the opinion that the Prosecution's statement that Professor Rose put the Bukarest vaccine at disposal for tests in the series of experiments in Buchenwald has not been proved.
The incidents discussed just now which are connected with the testing of the Bukarest vaccine happened in 1942. But the war continued and it exacted every day and on all fronts, from friend and foe as well as at home, many thousands of human lives, many of them as victims of a typhus epidemic, the existence of which was admitted by the Prosecution. It is a historical fact that for thousands of years epidemics, and especially typhus, have played a devastating part in the life of nations.
After the danger of typhus had already been a serious problem during the world war of 1914/18, a catastrophy of unprecedented proportions occurred in Russia afterwards.
Professor TARASSEVITCH estimates that during 1918 - 21, 25 to 30 million became typhus casualties of which 21/2 to 3 million died. During this trial, not only my client, but also other persons well equipped with expert expert knowledge have commented on the catastrophic typhus situation during the last war. In this connection it might suffice to refer to a letter, dated 3 February 1942, from the president of the Regional Labor office of West1/2halis, according to which until shortly before the date of the letter about 15,000 Russian prisoners of war died of typhus every day.
It stands to reason that in view of this catastrophic typhus situation the responsible authorities tried by all means to increase the production of vaccine. It was clear that it would be impossible to produce by the Weigl process in sufficient quantities the vaccine obtained from the intestines of lice, which is known and recognized as being effective. The defendant ROSE has clearly described the difficulties of its production. In this situation, that is in September 1943, ROSE was commissioned by the brigadier general SCHREIBER to go to Copenhagen and to try to enlist the Statens * Serum Institute there in the production of typhus vaccine. There he came to know the IPSEN murine typhus won from the liver of mice which, according to Professor IPSEN, was not only far more effective than all hitherto known vaccine, but which also could produced more easily in larger quantities. Professor ROSE did not succeed in inducing the Statens-Serum Institute to produce typhus vaccine from lice. But everybody will approve it, after his return from Copenhagen, he considered it his obvious duty to inform the experts in Germany of the knowledge which he had gained on this trip about IPSEN's vaccine which so far had been unknown in Germany. He did so in his report on his mission dated 29 September 1943. Convinced of the correctness of the explanations given him in Copenhagen and in view of the enormous number of victims dying of typhus every day, ROSE asked MRUGOWSKY on 2 December 1943 whether there still existed a possibility of testing the vaccine in Buchenwald.
As it can be clearly seen from the earlier mentioned report on his official trip, Professor ROSE tried to get no less than six different departments interested in the Ipsen vaccine. Therefore it appears credible that, until document NO-1186 was submitted to him, he no longer remembered having written in this matter also to MRUGOWSKY directly. The prosecution reproached Rose and said that he should have remembered an act of such importance as the sending of this letter to MRUGOWSKY. By that it wanted to undermine the credibility of my client. However, the prosecution forgets in this connection that Professor ROSE concerned himself with the necessity of testing this vaccine when already drafting his report on his official trip of 23 September 1943. The facts that the name MRUGOWSKY is not being mentioned in this report on his official trip, and that he, ROSE, never learned about the testing of the Copenhagen vaccine in the Buchenwald series of experiments and about the result of his test, may be the reason for the assumption, before the letter to MRUGOWSKY was submitted to him, not to have realized the idea which he may have had before, namely to contact also MRUGOWSKY on account of this vaccine.
However, after this document has been submitted, it is to be assumed that this inquiry was finally the reason for the order of the Reich physician SS GRAWITZ to test Copenhagen vaccine for its effect on human beings in the Buchenwald experimental series, without ROSE participating any more in the conferences and decisions concerning this matter. It is not known which other departments were also connected with this matter and whether the vaccine which ROSE had in possession was used at all. Professor ROSE himself docs not remember to having supplied the SS with any of this vaccine and the witness BLOCK, who distributed the vaccine tests to the individual departments, does also not know anything about it. Dr ORSKOW says that even the quantity given to ROSE was small. Therefore, it remains doubtful, whether the vaccine which was later used in Buchenwald on the experimental series for the testing of the Copenhagen vaccine came from ROSE at all.
When judging ROSE's inquiry from MRUGOWSKY, one has first of all to consider, that ROSE was always convinced that the prisoners which were assigned for the carrying out of these experiments in Buchenwald were exclusively criminals who were legally sentenced to death. This was assured to him not only by GILDEMEISTER and CONTI, but this assurance was also especially given by Dr. Ding during the third meeting of the consulting physicians in May 1943, after ROSE protested, during the meeting, against the carrying out of experiments on human beings in Buchenwald. One reason for the fact that Rose did not doubt the correctness of these explanations was, that during his visit in Buchenwald, he was told that among the experimental subjects were two prisoners from the prison of Berlin Moabit, who suffered typhus already prior to their being sentenced to death.
For the rest, disregarding the above fact entirely, it is objectively without doubt that the Reich Criminal Police selected and assigned only prisoners in protective custody and habitual criminals - that is exclusively arch-criminals - of German nationality, for the carrying out of the experiments with the Copenhagen vaccine in Buchenwald. This is first of all clearly evident from the document NO-1196-Exhibit 321.
Professor Rose as hygienist knew, of course, already at that time that also outside of Germany criminals were used for perilous medical experiments and the physicians and researches participating in these experiments were not subjected to legal proceedings. Based on his research work of many years he, for instance, did not only know about the experiments of STRONG with live plague bacilae and his Beri-Beri experiments, but also about other examples from world's literature. In addition, in the field of typhus he naturally knew about the fundamental infection experiments of Yersin in Saigoon, of SERGENT and assistants in North Africa, of Mc CALLA and BRERETON in the USA.
In addition, he also knew that the protective effect of typhus vaccines were re-tested by BLANC and BALTAZARD in Marocco and by VEINTEMILLAS in Mexico, who reinfected virulent groups. Thus, after his personal point of view was not adopted, Professor ROSE could have no scruples after all these facts, to tell the departments commissioned by the State with the carrying-out of such experiments about the possibility of an increase in the production of vaccines with improved effect.
Here Professor ROSE encountered the fact that the civil department, competent for the admission and testing of new vaccines in Germany, did on no account agree to admit new vaccines during the epidemic, if they were not previously tested on human beings.
He tried - and this has been established without a doubt - to use his influence against this attitude and to change it. But he remained unsuccessful, even though he applied to a wide circle of experts. The majority of them surely agreed with his point of view, however, no one of them, including ROSE, had the possibility to dissuade the really decisive departments as e.g. HIMMLER, GRAWITZ, CONTI and his expert advisor, GILDEMEISTER, from the decisions they had taken in this connection.
Thus, he had to put up with the facts. As hygienist of distinction, he regarded himself as partly responsible for the combating of typhus. One can not demand from him that at that time he should not have tried to do the utmost for every possible progress in the development of typhus vaccine during this during this catastrophe which demanded millions of victims, and this just because he did not agree with the testing principles of the responsible Governmental departments. The inquiry ROSE-s to MRUGOWSKY of 2 December 1943 must be judged according to these points of view. This inquiry shows clearly that Professor ROSE could not give an order for the carrying-out of such an experimental series in Buchenwald. It even shows that at that time he was not even informed about the position of the typhus experiments in Buchenwald.
If Professor ROSE would have omitted to point out the possibility for an increase of the typhus vaccine production which became known to him, he would have acted against his duties towards the general ethic. This omission would not have resulted in a personal disadvantage for him, but in a disadvantage for the bulk of those endangered by typhus. Thus professor ROSE acted as he did, in order to protect a great number of persons of German foreign nationality from a serious danger.
As already stated, Professor ROSE tried repeatedly, and harder that it could be expected from him, to change the principle attitude of his civilian superiors. He did not succeed in this, because here he had no influence on decisions concerning typhus. However, in his direct military sphere, he successfully carried by his adviving influence and he recommended and gained the admission of a number of vaccines which were not tested first on human beings.
The action of the defendant ROSE, which can be seen from his sending the letter of 2 December 1943 to Mrugowsky, I can judge legally as follows:
Considering the mere facts, only that person can be the perpetrator of, or accessory to, a punishable action who himself performs executive actions.
I have already demonstrated previously that neither during his single visit to Buchenwald nor during the following period of time did the defendant ROSE participate in the actual execution of the typhus experiments in Buchenwald.
Considering the case subjectively, only he can be the perpetrator or accessory who intends to perform the deed as his own.
Above all, it has been positively proved by his attitude, after he had learned that experiments of such a nature were conducted in compliance with orders by an organization of which ho was not a member, namely the SS, that the defendant ROSE did not consent to the typhus experiments in the Buchenwald concentration camp, but that, on the contrary, he disapproved of them, so that all the less he intended the actions there as such.