Q. Were those Germans taken from all levels of society throughout the entire country?
A. Yes, these people came from the whole country.
Q. Is it true, as we have read, that even the German school children were instructed to act as informers even against their own parents as to disloyal statements against the Nazis, and so forth?
A. That was not an exception. That was a general phenonomen. A case from my own family, the nurse, children's nurse comes to a lady and says "your daughter doesn't say 'Heil Hitler' as often as she should." The lady says "that isn't right. The little ones don't lie. We don't say such nonsense, and it turned out that the nurse took the lady to one side and said, "Lister you are very fortunate. I am an old socialist. I know you are conservative. You must instruct the child to lie to other people. In her class at school there are four or five girls who systematically inform on their parents and their school friends. That was quite a common experience. I talked to my worker friends and to some count. I talked to everyone, and we said "what do we do with the children? They must either be taught at home to lie systematically, and that is very had for the child," and we don't want to put the children into such a conflicting situation. These are only children of six or seven, and the child is told at school it is his duty to report his parents if they don't think as they should.
Q Now that system; was it or was it not well known throughout Germany that those things were done and the children were so instructed?
A To my knowledge, that was a general experience that one had to be careful in the presence of ones children, but I must add, of course, that this was only the experience of people who were not National Socialists, people who were Nazis or who had no opinion at all had no occasion to have this experience, it was only the growing group within the country who were not National Socialists who had this experience.
Q My idea was to ask you whether or not that system was known by all German National Socialists and if members of all parties knew that such things were going on?
A What should I say?
Q Well, my question is, witness, whether or not throughout all classes or political parties in Germany it was not generally known that things were reported by children, by everyone, that everyone was under instructions to report disloyal statements to the Nazi authorities?
A In all classes of any political training from right to left, in all circles, who were not definitely National Socialists, it was known that spies were everywhere, children and adults, and one had to be careful even in the most harmless conversations, it was called the German look when two people met as they immediately looked over their shoulder before they could talk; that was quite general.
Q Now, when persons were arrested for alleged disloyalty; they were taken from their homes were they not?
A Yes.
Q Now, no one could be, no adult person could be taken from his home or her home without a good many of the neighbors knowing that person had disappeared; is that true?
A Yes, that is true unless it was a man who was constantlytravelling.
Q Of course, I understand that. So, it must have been generallyknown throughout all limits of German society that many people from time to time simply disappeared from their homes; is that true?
A Yes, that is true.
Q Well, was it or was it not also generally known that when those people disappeared from their homes that they had been arrested?
A Yes, that was the general conviction.
Q Well, was it or was it not generally known when such people were arrested where they were sent or where they were taken; I don't mean the definite locality; it was known they were in the custody of the Nazi Government; was it not?
A Yes, of course.
Q Well, would not that arouse considerable general interest among the population, among their friends, even among their enemies who disagreed with them; would it not arouse some general interest as to where those people were put and where they were kept?
A No, that was not the case. It was generally said if you investigate this thing you will possibly endanger yourself, so don't ask any questions; that is the best for you, that was the general reaction.
Q My question was as to the general reaction; that it would raise interest; not to ask questions I understand that; but it would be a matter of some general interest where these people were kept even though people would not dare ask?
A Mr. President, that assumes a manner, a type of thinking which we unfortunately did not develop in our country for generations. This general interest, what is going on here, aside from my vague feeling that something is wrong, was missing. Let us not get involved, leave things alone. The average man, up to the war, felt the Government probably does the right thing, those people were possibly criminals, who knows what they have done?
We were not, before 1933, accustomed to the Government arresting people without any legal basis. We were accustomed to the Government acting according to its best judgment. If people disappeared, as this was suddenly done, without any legal reason, simply arbitrarily, the average person never thought that way, they felt the other fellow was probably a criminal or the police would not take him away. One has to imagine the lack of political interest among the population.
Q Were German Nationals, who were put in concentration camps, allowed in any respect to communicate with their families?
AAs far as I know there was permission at certain intervals, to write "I am here, I am well."
Q Now, after September 1, 1939 can you give any estimate as to the number of German Nationals, exclusive of Jews, who were confined in concentration camps after that date?
A We assumed at the time that it was two or three times the number before the war.
Q Could you give any estimate, of course I understand it could not be an accurate estimate, but could you give some figures as to what you think; understanding that is simply your opinion as to the number of Germans after 1939 who were placed in concentration camps?
A I assume that there were several hundred thousand.
Q Have you any idea as to the number of Jews, German Jews, German citizens, who were confined in concentration camps prior to September 1st, 1939?
A I am sorry I did not understand;.....how many there were before?
Q Have you any idea at all as to the number of Jews, who were German citizens, who were confined in concentration camps prior to September 1, 1939?
A I assume that the number of Jews before the outbreak of war, German citizens before the outbreak of war, was not especially large;
I assume that it was ten thousand or twenty thousand at the most.
Q And after September 1, 1939; have you any idea as to the number?
A The number increased very rapidly, the idea of extermination was put into effect during the war. It is difficult to say how many were in concentration camps before. We knew that they merely went through the concentration camps, they were transferred for example or were killed in the ghettoes without being sent to a concentration camp. I don't think half of the six million Jews who were finally killed ever went through the gas chambers in the concentration camps. As we discovered in the East, they were taken directly from the Ghetto to the mass graves or gas chambers as at Ghetto Litzmannstadt for example where there was a gas chamber; they were not sent to concentration camps at all and the question is very difficult to answer that is all.
Q The counsel may proceed.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR. WEISGERBER:
Q Witness, to conclude my examination I have four short questions. With the first question I want to clarify something. Yesterday, I showed you Document No. 975, Prosecution Exhibit 479, this is a letter which the Defendant Sievers wrote on 20 January, 1945 to Dr. Hirt. In cross examination, the Prosecution showed you the teletype message of 5 September, 1944 from Sievers to Rudolf Brandt and asked you the question, at least this was the German translation that I heard, asked you whether it was admirable for the resistance movement to deal with such things; either there was a translation mistake or the Prosecution misunderstood your answer to my question about the Document, which I showed you. Therefore, I should like to give you an opportunity briefly to explain what you mean by praiseworthy?
A I did net mean that Hirt's idea which he had submitted to Himmler through Sievers to destroy this Strasbourg collection and to explain the bodies as belonging to the French Anatomical Institute I didn't think it was praiseworthy for Himmler to order that and I did n't think it was praiseworthy that Hirt was rejoicing that this would escape from the notice of the Allies. All I meant was that if Sievers could not change the thing and if no one could be saved that it was praiseworthy since the thing had already happened in view of the threat to him personally to speak as in nazi terms about something which had already happened to cover himself. Not what Himmler did was praiseworthy but only the reason which he used.
Q I think you should speak a little, slower, witness, Witness, yesterday you said that you had repeatedly to bring your knowledge about what happened during the Nazi regime to the attention of occupation authorities. Can you please tell us when and where you made such attempts?
A I connection with a report about the activity of my organization, I offered to report what we had discovered about misdeeds of the national socialists to the following offices: the CIC in Marburg, the ICD in Marburg, Mr. Noll and his successor, Mr. Nescamp, the English field security in Goettingen, in Duesseldorf and in Hamburg. I offered to report it at the Hersdorf camp when I allowed to visit the defendant Silvers, there breifly. I was referred to an American office in Nuernberg -- the building is next to this building. I was send as not authorized to Wiesbaden from there. The Wiesbaden office send me to Frankfurt. The Frankfurt office refused to listen to me. If I had been at all informed which of the prosecutors was going to ** work on the matter, I would of course, have gone to him.
Q Witness, you said yesterday that Sievers after long discussions and consideration decided to remain in the office of the Reich Business manager even when the Ahnenerbe came into contact with experiments on human beings. Did Sievers say, or did you give him any instructions as to how he was to carry out his administrative from then on?
A That was a matter, of course, and, besides, emphasized by both sides that when passing on the administrative orders that went through his secretary's office, he would, of course, pass on only as many as he was unable to prevent, and wherever he could prevent anything, he would do so. In my knowledge of Sievers, it is quite impossible that he did anything beyond that.
Q My final question now, witness: did you consider exact knowledge of details in the execution of the experiments of Rascher and the activity of Dr. Hirt necessary in order to form your opinion on the ethical admissibility of Sievers remaining in the Ahnenerbe?
A I did not consider exact knowledge necessary because our ethical judgment was formed independently of the details, and the discussions of the details would merely have brought about new dangers. From my fundamental attitude, which was the attitude of the whole group, and which we discussed before, I repudiated these experiments on principle. Now as is the case in such a group as we were in a team which has to count on the independence of every man, where I had to rely on the man's taking up his duties independently. I gave Sievers his assignment and left him a completely fre hand as to how he carried it out. Otherwise we could not work at all: but, of course, I claim the responsibility since I gave the man his assignment: since I expected the man to take this risk, I alone claim the responsibility for everything that he actually did in the spirit of our work.
DR. WEISBERGER: Mr. President, I have no further questions to this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any further questions to the witness on the part of the defense counsel concerning these matters which have been brought out after previous examinations? There being no questions has the Prosecution any further cross-examination?
MR. HARDY: No further questions, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness may be excused form the stand.
DR. WEISGERBER: Mr. President to conclude my case I should like to offer a number of documents. I believe that it will not be necessary to read these documents. In some cases I shall merely point out certain statements.
The first document is Sievers Document No. 6, Exhibit No. 31, Document Book I, page 14. This is a letter from the Chief of the SS personnel main office to the Chief of the Personal Staff of the Reichsfuehrer SS, Obergruppenfuehrer Wolff. This affidavit shows that the Chief of the SS personnel main office was trying to have Dr. Rascher taken into the Waffen SS. It was a very high authority that was interested in that.
The next document which I offer is Sievers No. 12, on pages 26 and 27 and 28 of Document Book I, which is Sievers Exhibit No. 32. This is an affidavit of Dr. Arno Seemann-Deutelmoser, who collaborated closely with Sievers and Hielscher. On page 27 Dr. Seemann-Deutelmoser makes statements about the planned assassination in which he would have participated. The next document is Sievers No. 16 on page 37 to 40 of Document Book I, Sievers Exhibit 33. This is an affidavit of the archeologist Alfred Rust, who knew Sievers from 1937 to 1939, who concludes this statement by saying: I quote:
"Summing up I would like to express the wish as a party opponent I never belonged to either the NSDAP nor the SA not SS - and as an individual, that all members of human society in their actions may behave as decent and as fine as Herr Sievers did towards me and my acquaintances."
The next document is Sievers No. 21 on pages 53 to 55 of document book I, Sievers Exhibit No. 34.
The next document is Sievers No. 22, on page 56 and 57, Sievers Exhibit No. 36, I beg your pardon, No. 35, on affidavit of Professor Dr. Von Lutterotti.
The next document is Sievers No. 23 on pages 58 and 59, as Sievers Exhibit No. 36, the statement of Dr. Weingartner.
The next document is Sievers No. 24, on pages 60 and 61, document book I, Exhibit No. 37.
The next document is Sievers No. 25, pages 62 to 64, document Book I, Exhibit No. 38, an affidavit of Count Dr. Oswald Trapp, and Sievers No. 26, on pages 65 and 66 of Document Book I, an affidavit of Dr. Georg Innerebner, Sievers Exhibit No. 39.These six affidavits which I have just identified all deal with Sievers activities in the Southern Tyrolean Cultural Commission which he headed from 1940 on.
I shall not read these affidavits. They speak for themselves.
Then I also submit the affidavit ----
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, the Tribunal will now be in recess.
(A short recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may proceed.
DR. WEISGERBER: You Honors, as the next document I submit is Sievers No. 27, Document Book I, pages 67 to 70, Sievers Exhibit No. 40. This is an affidavit by University Professor Dr. Gustav Schwantes. On page 69 I refer to the membership in a number of foreign scientific societies, and I should like to read the last paragraph of his statement, to be found on page 69.
"Summarizing up, again and again I had the strong impression that this man Sievers inwardly nothing whatsoever to do with the actual power conscious and dictatorial National Socialism."
The next document is Sievers No. 28 on page 71 and 72 of Document Book I which I put in as Sievers Exhibit No. 41. This is an affidavit of the University Professor R.R. Schmidt.
Next is Sievers No. 31 on pages 78 and 79, Document Book I Sievers Exhibit No. 42. This is an affidavit of the former Georg Schruefer of Waischenfeld who here describes Sievers' activity when Sievers at the end of the War, while the American Forces were approaching, himself saw to it that the town of Waischenfeld was not defended, thus saving the lives both of German inhabitants and American soldiers.
I come not to a few documents from Document Book 2 and offer next Sievers Document 42, pages 1 to 5. The English translation has it on page 3 to 7. I offer this document as Sivers Exhibit 43. This is an affidavit by Dr. Rudolf Mentzel who was the Chief of the Business Committee of the Reich Research Council. I point out briefly his statement regarding Sivers' attitude, particularly toward foreign scientists who were in German concentration camps. Professor Seip is mentioned, Director of Oslo University, Professor Broegger of Oslo, and the case of the Norwegian students is mentioned here whom Sivers saved from the concentration camp. The case of the atomic physicist Niels Bohr is also mentioned, and I should like to point out briefly a passage to be found on page 3, page 5 of the English translation in the middle, I quote: "In 1942 I had the impression that Sievers intended to deviate from his present work," and, finally, I point out the passages in this affidavit referring to Sivers' activity in the managing committee of the Reich Research Council.
As next document I put in Sievers 43, page 6, page 8 of the English translation. This I offer as Sievers Exhibit 44. This is an affidavit on the part of the same Dr. Rudolf Mentzel. It was drawn up subsequently as a result of the submission of Document NO.-1368A, Prosecution Exhibit 464, which was out in by the prosecution and which was to prove that Sievers had something to do with experiments with poison gas. Sievers explained this matter in his direct examination and I had this affidavit taken down from Dr. Mentzel in this same connection.
I offer now Sivers 44, page 7-9, pages 9-11 of the English translation, Sievers Exhibit 45. An affidavit on the part of Dr. Folf Punzengruber, who was prisoner in Dachau, who now tells of Rascher's activities particularly and Sievers' testimony that the experimental subject who was used in the freezing experiment where Dr. Hirt was also present was a hardened criminal, condemned to death.
The witness Punzengruber can make this statement under oath because he heard this conversation between Sivers, Hirt and Rascher.
The next document, is Sievers 45, on pages 12 to 17, which I put in as Sievers 46. This is an affidavit from Dr. Gisela Schmitz, who, from 1937 to 1945 was secretary in the Ahnenerbe, and as this affidavit states, she was never a member of the National Socialist Party or any of its organizations. She gives various testimony regarding the internal business affairs of the Ahnenerbe and further states that Sievers told her how unpleasant he found it that the Ahnenerbe came in touch with human being experiments on Himmler's orders. She says further that reports on Rascher's experiments in Dachau never appeared before her. If such reports had come to the Ahnenerbe she would certainly have seen it since she saw all incoming mail. I point out further her corroboration of the preliminary history of Hirt's being commissioned to collect a Jewish Bolshevist skull collection. Document No. 088, put in by the prosecution as Exhibit 182, was dictated by Dr. Beger, the same Dr. Beger who chose the inmates in the concentration camp of Dachau and this affidavit testifies to that affidavit. I point out also this affidavit's corroboration of Sievers' membership in the resistance movement. She can testify to this of her own knowledge because Sievers repeatedly spoke with her about all these matters.
The next document, Sievers 47, pages, 18 and 19, pages 20 and 21 of the English translation, Sievers Exhibit 45-
pardon me correction, it is Exhibit 47. An affidavit on the part of Cohrs regarding the witness here heard today, Friedrich Hielscher.
The next to last document, Sivers 48, pages 20 to 22 respectively............
THE PRESIDENT: (interrupting) Counsel, that document has already been introduced in evidence as Sievers Exhibit 22.
DR. WEISGERBER: I beg your pardon, that is so. As the last document I put in Sievers 51, page 31 to 33 of the German transcript, pages 33 to 35 of the English translation. This will be Sievers Exhibit 48. This is an excerpt from the periodical "The American Review" of January, 1947. The article deals with the 20th of July, 1944, and contains a list of the various groups active within the German resistance movement, as well as a scrutiny of the question "How it came about that even clergymen in the Christian faiths reached the point of condoning political murder as the only means of disposing of the tyranny of National Socialism." The submission of this document concludes my presentation of evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, I note that there are some documents contained in your document books which have not been offered in evidence. It is your intention not to offer those documents, I understand?
DR. WEISGERBER: Intentionally I omitted Sievers 7 and 8 because, as I subsequently discovered, they had already been put in by the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: I just wanted to be sure there was no omission which would be sought to be corrected later. I understand that Defendant Sievers now rests his case?
DR. WEISGERBER: Yes. I shall only permit myself, at a later date, with the permission of the Tribunal, to put in a few more documents which are going to come to me from foreign countries but which have not yet been received.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand that, counsel. That permission has been granted you.
The Tribunal calls the case of the Defendant Rose.
MR. HARDY: May it please Your Honor, it has been called to my attention that Dr. Servatius will examine one of the witnesses that is coming here in behalf of Defendant Rose and at that time he will use Karl Brandt Document Book #3, which has recently been delivered to the Prosecution. When Dr. Servatius is using it I suggest that the Tribunal have it here also, inasmuch as it has been recently delivered.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary General will see that the Karl Brandt Document Book 3 is furnished to the Tribunal. I should like it noted down that the Secretary General's Office should see that Karl Brandt's Document Book 3 is seasonably delivered to the Tribunal.
Counsel may proceed.
DR. FRITZ: (Counsel for the Defendant Rose) Mr. President, I intend to conduct my case for Rose in this way. First I shall call the witness Frau Block and the witness Professor Hoering, and then shall put the defendant himself in the witness box. During the examination of the defendant Rose I propose to offer several documents and at the conclusion of his examination to put in the rest of the documents.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may proceed with the defense in the manner indicated.
DR. FRITZ: Then I should like to call the witness, Mrs. Block, to the stand.
THE PRESIDENT: The Marshal will summon the witness, Lotte Block.
LOTTE BLOCK, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
BY JUDGE SEBRING:
Please raise your right hand and be sworn, repeating after me:
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. FRITZ:
Q Please state your full name.
A Maria Lotte Block, nee Schmidt.
Q When and where were you born?
AAugust 7, 1901, in Silesia.
Q What is your present address?
A Frankfurt-on-the-Main, Passerwandstrasse 6.
Q What is your present profession?
A Special Service employee in Frankfurt-on-the-Main.
Q Please describe briefly to the Tribunal your career.
A In 1919 I graduated from the Gymnasium and then studied national economy and law in Bonn and Heidelberg. In 1922 I married Regierungsrat Friedrich Block of the Culture Ministry in Berlin. During my marriage I worked, without salary, for a Catholic charitable organization, Caritas. In 1933 my husband had to resign, because of his Jewish ancestry, from his position as Oberregierungsrat. In 1935 I took my State examination as nurse. Because of the political situation in Germany my husband and I wanted to emigrate and I wanted some practical training.
We never succeeded in emigrating and on the 11th of November, 1935, my husband was shot by the SA in Berlin.
Q Your husband was Jewish?
A Yes.
Q Did you yourself suffer any disadvantages because you were married to a Jew?
A On the day my husband was shot I returned from the city to our house and there found 2 SA men who told me that they had liquidated my husband for acts inimical to the State. I lost control of myself and made statements to the SA men that caused my immediate arrest. Then for 9 months I was kept in the cellar of the Prinz Albrecht Gestapo prison in Berlin, in a dark small cell. At the end of August 1936 I was released, with the help of one of my husband's friends. In view of these occurrences I went to England for one year, in November of 1936, to visit relatives. After my return to Germany I lived in Berlin, without taking up any profession at first. At the beginning of 1939 I heard from a friend that Professor Rose in the Robert Koch Institute in Berlin, was looking for a private secretary. I applied for this position and was hired.
Q Was Professor Rose aware of the events that you have just described?
A Yes.
Q Did Professor Rose continue to employ you after the police, within the framework of the supervision under which you found yourself, made representations to him?
A Yes.
Q During your employment under Professor Rose was any pressure exercised on you by the Robert Koch Institute that you should join the German Labor Front?
A Yes. The President of the Robert Koch Institute, Professor Gildemeister, and the managing director, when I refused to join the German Labor Front, asked Professor Rose several times to require that I join the Labor Front or otherwise I should be fired.
Professor Rose refused both of these alternatives. In this connection I should like to remark that the competent German authorities, the Main Committee for the Victims of Fascism in Berlin, and a similar office in Frankfurt, have recognized me as a victim of Fascism.
Q How long were you employed by Professor Rose as private secretary?
A From 1939 to 1943. I worked in the Robert Koch Institute in the tropical medical department. Professor Rose was frequently absent and I worked in his own office, if only to be able to answer the two telephones there.
Q What else do you have to say about your activity?
A Professor Rose was often on official trips and mostly at his military office. Consequently I was well informed as to his official and private activities. I opened all his mail, informed him of its contents by phone, took care of the answers by dictation or on his telephonic instructions, and kept his files in the Institute. I also had to take care of his scientific work, take excerpts from scientific periodicals for him regarding his scientific field, etc. Finally, I also had to take care of those matters which concerned Rose's activities as coeditor of the Handbook for Tropical Diseases.
Q Did Professor Rose work on typhus in his laboratory, or did his collaborators do so?
A No, at my time there was no work on typhus. Nor did I never hear that occurred either subsequently or previously. The old work reports that I saw when I worked in the files had not mentioned in them of any work by Rose on typhus.
Q What then did Professor Rose' department work on.
A That can readily be seen from the annual reports of the Robert Koch Institute, which contained a summary of all the work in progress, even work that had not been concluded. Professor Rose's department was called the tropical disease department of the Robert Koch Institute. There was a great breeding activity going on there where mosquitoes, flies, and so on were bred. Also animal experiments were carried out. Above all there was mice, rats and cats, hedgehogs and such animals. Also there was an aquarium. Crabs and other marine animals were also bred and used for experiments.
Q What sorts of diseases were experimented on in this Tropical Medicine Department?
AAbove all malaria. At first with dysentary, amoebic dysentary, and a disease that had something to do with snails, fish and crabs; particularly, there was work on the roll played by flies in transmitting intestinal diseases. Moreover the department delivered many mosquitoes infected with malaria to hospitals or clinics for their own research.
Q Did Professor Rose take care himself of the work that had to do with malaria research?
AAt first when I was there he did it with intensity. Later when he came to the department only infrequently he had such questions, even if they were directed to him personally, turned over to the assistants. I read such reports to him over the phone and turned them over for immediate settlement, when, as often happened, Professor Rose was absent.
Q Were patients treated in Professor Rose's department?
A When I was first there Professor Rose did have patients with tropical diseases. Moreover many people came to be vaccinated. These innoculations were subsequently taken care of by the assistants. Patients treated by Professor Rose personally I had to turn away when they reported, and give them the address of the three other tropical medical institutes in Berlin, Professor Wernicke, Professor Haver, and Professor Siemann. Because he had so little time Professor Rose, when I was there, did not have any private practice. Patients who needed hospital care he turned over to the Virchow Hospital, but from 1943 on he had his own department with 20 beds. This department also he left in the care of two Army doctors with experience.
Q Do you know whether Professor Rose, or his collaborators, carried out human being experiments?
A That, as far as I know, happened only once. Professor Rose had discovered a new type of worm which caused epidermal diseases. When the gentlemen were unable to infect animals with this disease, Professor Rose and a few of his assistants, infected themselves, and the infection took in a few cases. Also a few of the assistants intentionally infected themselves with malaria. Moreover, all matters that had to do with malaria, all persons in his department who had to do with malaria fell ill with malaria at one time or another in the course of years. Moreover, mosquitoes infected with malaria were sent for research and therapy to the larger hospitals, but these were not experiments, but infections for other purposes of discovering treatment.
Q And as to human being experiments outside the department you heard nothing?
A No.
Q You said before Professor Rose did not work on typhus?
A No.
Q Well, then who did work on typhus in the institute?
A Professor Haagen, together with Professor Gildemeister, and later Professor Gildemeister alone. The typhus department was in a separate building of the Institute.
Q Were there connections between Rose's department and the typhus department?
A No. Professor Gildemeister forbade anyone entering the typhus department, because of the danger of infection. Moreover we had no other contact with Professor Gildemeister's co-workers, since we had our own housing, dining room, and so forth, there was no need for any connection between the two departments.