Now, General, if you had read that, wouldn’t it have been perfectly clear that these were experiments?

A. Today, of course, after this whole question has been exposed I should; but at that time I never suspected the possibility from that report that these were a special group of human experiments. I can say that here under oath, and I should like to reiterate it. That was my attitude toward the matter at that time and it has only been changed by what I have discovered here.

Q. I might also point out to you that Benzinger’s comment expressly speaks of Holzloehner’s experiments repeatedly; but I assume that that also made no impression on you?

A. I can say one thing to that. My comrades, the medical officers in my office at that time in Italy, had no notion either that human experiments were the basis for these reports. Never was one single word said about such a thing on the occasion of my inspection visits. Of course, during my visits to the Mediterranean such matters were brought up; but I never heard any indication that these reports were the result of a long series of experiments on human beings. In other words, others, too, did not see so clearly as is pointed out here that these were human experiments.

Q. And you heard no rumors in the air force at all about these experiments, although there had been a large meeting at Nuernberg in October, with considerable comment there about these experiments? Holzloehner later gave a lecture before all the consulting physicians, at least those who attended the meeting on internal medicine where he spoke. He gave another report there on these experiments. You never heard any rumors in the air force about these things; is that right?

A. No.

Q. You never talked to Finke about these experiments, did you?

A. I have stated frequently that I don’t even know Finke.

EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT SIEVERS^[33]

DIRECT EXAMINATION

Dr. Weisgerber: During the subsequent period you came in contact with the cold experiments of Dr. Rascher?

Defendant Sievers: I once went to Dachau in order to participate in administrative conferences at the time when Dr. Rascher, Professor Holzloehner, and Dr. Finke were concluding a cold experiment. That is to say, the experimental subject had just been placed into a room, but I didn’t see anything else of this experiment.

Q. On the occasion of this experiment, or on the occasion of a discussion which perhaps followed, did you hear anything more in detail about Rascher concerning these experiments?

A. These three men were very busy reading the apparatus used in connection with that experiment. I was told that it was necessary to apply the warm covers as quickly as possible. Professor Holzloehner stated that they had almost concluded their experiments and that further experiments hardly seemed necessary. No scientific questions were discussed at that time.

Q. Did you see any report or did you receive reports from Rascher about these cold experiments?

A. No. These reports also went directly to Himmler from Rascher, as becomes evident from the documents which have been submitted here.

Q. In Document 1611-PS (Pros. Ex. 85), you find a letter sent by the Reich Leader SS to Dr. Rascher, dated 22 September 1942. In the second paragraph it states that it was sent to SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Sievers for information. Paragraph 1 mentions the interim report on the cold experiments by Dr. Rascher at the Dachau concentration camp. One could conclude therefrom that you received this interim report.

A. This interim report went directly from Rascher to Himmler, otherwise Himmler wouldn’t have answered Rascher direct. I don’t think, however, that it is out of the question that Rascher had told Hitler in this interim report, or in some other way, that when I heard of these cold experiments I considered them to be perverse. I assume that by sending me that report Himmler’s opinion on that subject was to be transmitted to me, and that is why I received a copy of that letter for my information.

Q. Now, would you be good enough to turn over one page, and you will find there Dr. Rascher’s letter dated 3 October 1942. (NO-285, Pros. Ex. 86.) This letter is obviously directed to Dr. Rudolf Brandt. It becomes evident from that letter that Rascher applied to you in a number of matters, is that correct?

A. Yes, I shall revert to that briefly, first of all concerning the low-pressure chamber. He says here that he turned to me in order to take steps regarding the low-pressure chamber. I didn’t do anything about that, at least not on the basis of this request by Rascher, only later when Himmler arrived at Munich and when he himself ordered me to send him this draft letter which was previously discussed. He further says that he turned to me regarding a teletype which requested the furnishing of women for these experiments. Since Himmler had already issued orders regarding the furnishing of experimental subjects, there was nothing left for me to do.

Q. Didn’t you participate in a second cold experiment?

A. Yes, together with Dr. Hirt, whom I had to accompany by order of Himmler, as he had been included in Rascher’s experiments with Himmler’s approval. Himmler probably had realized in the meantime that Rascher alone would not be sufficient in order to clarify these scientifically very extensive and difficult questions. Hirt could only come to Munich for one day because of his state of health and for that reason asked that everything be prepared beforehand, so that he could gain insight into all the work results which had been obtained so far. I told Rascher to prepare everything according to Hirt’s desire. A professional criminal was presented for the purpose of this experiment.

Q. Was that a professional criminal who had already been condemned to death, and how did you know whether it was such a criminal?

A. Before the experiment started Hirt wanted to look at the files because there was a possibility that this experiment would end fatally. The sentence was furnished by the Criminal Police Department of the Camp Administration. We saw that this was a sentence which had been passed by a regular court, and it became evident therefrom that this man had more than 10 years’ penitentiary behind him, and had been recently, sentenced to death because of murder and theft. Hirt furthermore asked the man whether he knew that this experiment might end fatally, whereupon the man answered that he was well aware of it. He said that he would have to die anyway for he was a confirmed criminal, and he just could not stop his criminal activity; therefore he deserved death.

Q. Did you convince yourself of that by asking the experimental subject whether he was actually a volunteer?

A. After Hirt’s questioning I personally asked the man whether he agreed to that experiment. He thereupon said that he was in full agreement, providing it didn’t hurt him. This assurance could be given to him because the experiment was carried out under complete anaesthesia. I didn’t participate in the entire experiment, but I saw that this man was given an anaesthetic.

Q. You yourself saw the files from the criminal police?

A. Yes, I read through them, together with Hirt.

Q. Well, I guess there can be no doubt that this was a professional criminal sentenced to death by a regular court?

A. This was a very regular sentence. All previous sentences were listed in the files, and I remember in addition to the death sentence, he had already had 10 years’ penitentiary.

Q. Now, would you please be good enough to turn to page 86 of the document book before you? This is a report about a so-called “Cold Conference” dated 26 and 27 October 1942. Did you receive this report in the Ahnenerbe?

A. I certainly didn’t receive it and I don’t remember having seen it anywhere.

Q. Didn’t Curator Wuest receive that report?

A. I do not believe so. The scientific work in connection with Rascher, which only concerned Himmler personally, was always dealt with directly by Rascher and Himmler. These matters were only sent to Wuest if Himmler actually sent them himself. I don’t believe that has happened in this particular case. At any rate, Wuest never told me anything about it. These reports and the research assignments just discussed lay completely outside the interests and sphere of Wuest.

Q. What do you know about the so-called dry-cold experiments of Dr. Rascher?

A. I only know about these experiments on the basis of Himmler’s order which was sent by Himmler to Pohl and Grawitz because of the furnishing of the equipment. I don’t know whether these experiments were actually carried out. At any rate, I only found out about that here in this courtroom. As a prerequisite for the execution Rascher said that it was necessary for them to be performed in the mountains. Himmler had also ordered that these experiments be carried out in the grounds of the mountain villa at Sudelfeld. I was to see to it that accommodation was available there. Investigations, however, proved that the terrain at Sudelfeld was not suitable for that purpose. At the same time I had heard that there were a sufficient number of cases of freezing to be found in hospitals at the front. I therefore asked Rascher why it was necessary for him to carry out any further experiments. He evaded my question and merely declared categorically that he would have to abide by Himmler’s order.

Q. Which year was that?

A. That was at the end of 1942.

Q. The order was at the end of 1942?

A. The end of 1942. The conversation with Rascher about the accommodation took place afterwards.

Q. And that was intended for the winter of 1943-44?

A. No, for 1942-43. Since the terrain at Sudelfeld was not suitable, some other place had to be found and I handled this matter in a very dilatory manner. Rascher pressed me on the matter and Himmler was rather indignant, but after all I couldn’t create a house by myself. Himmler subsequently ordered that preparations be made for these experiments to be carried out at least in the next winter. I think I made a mistake, I think it must have been the winter of 1943-44. I’m sure it was 1943-44, and I think that afterwards Himmler said that preparations were to be made for 1944-45. These experiments, however, were never carried out because Rascher was already arrested in the spring of 1944.

Q. In that case you are saying that these dry-cold experiments were not carried out in the mountains in the winter of 1943-44. You assisted in preventing these experiments from being carried out by delaying the finding of suitable accommodation?

A. Yes.

Q. I will now briefly summarize your testimony with reference to the count concerning cold experiments.

Mr. Hardy: If it please your Honor, the defense counsel has put questions to the witness and the witness has testified to these questions. I really think summations after each experiment are unnecessary here. That can take place in his closing statement.

Presiding Judge Beals: A short summation on the part of defense counsel might be in order, as long as it does not contain too much repetition.

Dr. Weisgerber: Yes, your Honor. You accidentally attended the completion of a cold experiment by Dr. Rascher at Dachau. You had seen no reports about Dr. Rascher’s experiments and received no knowledge about them in any other way. The furnishing of the experimental subjects for the rewarming experiments were not your business, and you actually had nothing to do with it. You attended a further experiment under the circumstances which you have previously described. You know nothing about any dry-cold experiments being carried out in Dachau itself. You succeeded in delaying and finally completely frustrating the dry-cold experiments in the mountains. Is that correct?

Defendant Sievers: Yes, that is correct.

Q. After searching your mind, did you do anything in that connection which went beyond the orders given you by Himmler?

A. No, in no way at all.

3. MALARIA EXPERIMENTS

a. Introduction

The defendants Karl Brandt, Handloser, Rostock, Gebhardt, Blome, Rudolf Brandt, Mrugowsky, Poppendick, and Sievers were charged with special responsibility for and participation in criminal conduct involving malaria experiments (par. 6 (C) of the indictment). Only the defendant Sievers was convicted on this charge. In the case of the defendant Mrugowsky the judgment of the Tribunal makes no special reference to this charge.

Although the defendant Rose was not charged with special responsibility for participation in malaria experiments, the prosecution offered proof to show some participation by Rose in these experiments. However, the Tribunal in its judgment refrained from making a finding of guilt or innocence as to Rose, since malaria experiments were particularized in paragraph 6 (C) of the indictment and since Rose was not among those defendants who were charged with special responsibility by name (judgment, vol. II). The Tribunal said that the manner of the prosecution’s pleading “constituted, in effect, a bill of particulars and was, in essence, a declaration to the defendants upon which they were entitled to rely in preparing their defenses, [and] that only such persons as were actually named in the designated experiments would be called upon to defend against the specific items. Included in the list of names of those defendants specifically charged with responsibility for the malaria experiments the name of Rose does not appear. We think it would be manifestly unfair to the defendant to find him guilty of an offense with which the indictment affirmatively indicated he was not charged.”

“This does not mean that the evidence adduced by the prosecution was inadmissible against the charges actually preferred against Rose. We think it had probative value as proof of the fact of Rose’s knowledge of human experimentation upon concentration camp inmates.”

The Tribunal did make findings of guilt or innocence with regard to several experiments which were not particularized in detail in the indictment and concerning which the indictment did not name any particular defendants as having special responsibility. For example, the prosecution introduced evidence concerning phlegmon, polygal and gas oedema experiments (subsections 12-14, see pp. 653 to 694) under the general charge of paragraph 6 of the indictment, which alleges that the criminal experiments “included, but were not limited to” the particularized experiments. (See also introductions to sub-section 12-14, see pp. 653-4, 669-70 and 684.)

The prosecution’s summation of the evidence on the malaria experiments is contained in its final briefs against the defendants Rose and Sievers. Extracts from these briefs are set forth below on pages 280 to 283. A corresponding summation of the evidence by the defense on these experiments has been selected from the closing briefs for the defendants Sievers and Rose. It appears below on pages 283 to 288. This argumentation is followed by selections from the evidence on pages 289 to 314.

b. Selections from the Argumentation of the Prosecution

EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST
DEFENDANT ROSE

With respect to the malaria experiments, two questions are presented for consideration: first, whether the malaria experiments were performed in a criminal manner, and second, whether the defendant Rose was connected with such experiments.

That the performance of the malaria experiments in the Dachau concentration camp from February 1942 until the end of the war was criminal has not been seriously disputed by any of the defendants. In December 1941, while working in Italy, Dr. Claus Schilling met Conti who became interested in supporting further work by Schilling on malaria problems. A meeting was arranged with Himmler who gave his permission for experiments to be carried out in the Dachau concentration camp. Schilling began his work in Dachau in February 1942 and continued his experiments until the end of the war. He was primarily concerned with discovering a way of immunizing persons against malaria. During the course of the experiments, approximately 1,200 concentration camp inmates were infected with malaria either by being bitten by infected mosquitoes or by injections of malaria-infected blood. After having been infected, the prisoners were treated with various drugs, including quinine, neosalvarsan, and pyramidon. Most of the experimental subjects were non-German nationals. Of the experimental subjects infected, approximately 30 died as a direct result of the experiments and an additional 300 to 400 died as a result of complications.

The above facts are established by the Review of the General Military Commission in the case of the U. S. against Weiss and others, held at Dachau, Germany. (NO-856, Pros. Ex. 125.) Claus Schilling was a defendant in that case and was convicted and sentenced to death. In an affidavit submitted in evidence before that Tribunal, dated 30 October 1945, Schilling admitted that the experimental subjects were not volunteers.

One of the assistants to Schilling in his experiments at Dachau was Dr. Ploetner, who was a member of the Institute for Military Scientific Research of the Ahnenerbe under the defendant Sievers. Sievers conferred with Ploetner regarding the malaria experiments and received reports from him. (3546-PS, Pros. Ex. 123; entries for 30 January, 22 February, 23 May, 31 May, 1 June, 24 August.) Rose stated that he learned that Ploetner was a collaborator of Schilling through an inquiry to the Journal of Tropical Medicine in the year 1944. Ploetner had published an article in that magazine and it had come to Rose’s attention. (Tr. 6339.)

The witness August Vieweg testified for the prosecution and substantiated the findings of the Military Commission at Dachau. Vieweg was first subjected to the malaria experiments himself and thereafter served as an inmate-assistant in the malaria ward. Vieweg testified that Schilling experimented on approximately 1,100 inmates, including Germans, Poles, Russians, and Jugoslavs. Among the Russian inmates used were prisoners of war. Seven or eight of the subjects died in the malaria station, primarily as a result of pyramidon poisoning. (Tr. p. 428.) He also testified that to his knowledge, an additional 60 inmates died after having been transferred from the experimental station. He further stated that none of the inmates volunteered, that he personally did not, and that the experimental subjects were not freed as a result of undergoing the experiment. The original infection card from the files of Schilling in Dachau, showing the date of infection of the witness Vieweg with “Culture Rose,” was introduced. (NO-983, Pros. Ex. 128; see also Tr. pp. 584-5.)

The defendant Rose participated in the criminal experiments of Schilling by furnishing him material with which to carry out the experiments. This material was furnished by Rose with knowledge of facts which would have led any reasonable man to the conclusion that Schilling was carrying out criminal experiments. Rose had known Schilling for many years and succeeded him as Chief of the Department for Tropical Medicine in the Robert Koch Institute. Moreover, Rose, by his own admission, was an adviser to Dr. Conti, who arranged for Schilling to carry out his experiments in Dachau. It is highly unlikely that such an arrangement would have been made without consulting Rose.

Rose furnished Schilling with malaria spleens for his experiments in Italy during the year 1941, a fact which Rose denied on the stand until contradicted by his letter to Schilling, dated 3 February 1941. (NO-1756, Prog. Ex. 486.) Rose continued to furnish infection material to Schilling after he set up his experimental station in Dachau. Rose and his witnesses admitted that anopheles eggs were sent to Schilling in 1942, but Rose, after that occasion, issued instructions that no more material was to be sent to Schilling because he did not agree with his research aims. (Tr. p. 6415.) On 4 April 1942, Schilling wrote to Rose asking for “Culture Rose” to continue his experiments. This letter bears the dateline “Dachau, 3K, Hospital for Inmates,” and it was initialed by Rose on 17 April 1942. Schilling stated that he would be “very thankful * * * for this new support of my work.” [Emphasis supplied.] That Rose complied with this request of Schilling’s is established because the witness Vieweg was himself infected with “Culture Rose.”

On 5 July 1943, in a letter, also with the notation “Dachau, K3, Malaria Station,” Schilling thanked Rose for a consignment of atroparvus eggs and accepted Rose’s offer to send him his excess eggs. This letter mentions the “Prisoner August,” who obviously was the witness, August Vieweg. This letter was initialed by Rose on 27 July. (NO-1753, Pros. Ex. 488.) On the same date Rose replied to Schilling’s letter, advising him that at the next favorable opportunity, a shipment of anopheles eggs would be made to him.

EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST
DEFENDANT SIEVERS

Sievers had knowledge of and supported the criminal malaria experiments in Dachau. He testified that early in 1942 he learned from Himmler that Schilling was conducting malaria experiments in Dachau. (Tr. p. 5692.) In a memorandum dated 3 April 1942 concerning a consultation between Sievers and Dr. May on the location of an experimental station for the Ahnenerbe, Sievers mentioned as a persuasive reason for locating in Dachau the fact that Schilling was carrying out his malaria experiments there. (NO-721, Pros. Ex. 126.) Although this memorandum gives the name as “Schling”, Sievers testified that the name Schilling was intended. (Tr. p. 5693.)

The witness Vieweg testified that in late 1943 or early 1944 Sievers made several visits to Schilling’s malaria station where he consulted with Ploetner, who was a collaborator of Schilling’s. (Tr. pp. 445-7, 464.) He stated that Sievers consulted with Schilling and also inspected the laboratory. (Tr. p. 423.) Sievers testified that the purpose of these visits and consultations was to arrange for the transfer of Ploetner to the Institute for Military Scientific Research of the Ahnenerbe.

A number of entries in the Sievers diary for 1944 prove that Sievers was connected with and supported the malaria experiments. On 30 January he received a memorandum by Ploetner on malaria. A notation of 22 February states that “further work in the matter of SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Ploetner to be done through RGF [Reichsgesundheitsfuehrer Conti].” Ploetner, in addition to his work with Schilling, was also collaborating with Rascher in the blood coagulation experiments. (See entries of 29 January and 14 April.) On 10 May 1944, the entry indicates that Rascher’s research work was transferred to Ploetner. This was apparently a result of Rascher’s difficulties in connection with the kidnapping of children by him and his wife. On 23 May 1944, Ploetner was charged with the management of the Ahnenerbe division in Dachau. The entry for 31 May indicates that Sievers and Grawitz reached an understanding concerning Ploetner’s continued collaboration with Schilling. On 21 June, Sievers conferred with Schilling about limiting Ploetner’s activities with him after his transfer to the Ahnenerbe. Ploetner was actually appointed department head in the Institute for Military Scientific Research of the Ahnenerbe on 27 June. The entry for 24 August 1944 notes that collaboration between Schilling and Ploetner had been agreed upon. (3546-PS, Pros. Ex. 123.)

c. Selections from the Argumentation of the Defense

EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF FOR
DEFENDANT SIEVERS

Malaria Experiments

1. Under the direction of Professor Dr. Schilling, malaria experiments were carried out in Dachau concentration camp in the years 1941-1944.

2. According to the statements in the verdict of the United States Military Court at Dachau of 26 January 1946 (NO-856, Pros. Ex. 125) a great number of people were killed in these experiments.

3. Sievers had not the slightest connection with either Professor Schilling’s malaria experiments or with any other malaria experiments.

The prosecution charges Sievers with participation in malaria experiments.

For proof, the prosecution refers to NO-721, Prosecution Exhibit 126.

Regarding 3546-PS, Prosecution Exhibit 123, Sievers’ diary 1944, entries of 22 February 1944 and 31 May 1944, the prosecution states:

The defense has proved:

Sievers stated in his cross-examination that the affairs which he discussed with Dr. May on 1 April 1942 in Munich had nothing whatsoever to do with malaria experiments. Sievers paid a social visit to Dr. Schilling in Dachau in the middle of the year 1944 in order to get Dr. Ploetner released for the manufacture of pectin. (Cross-examination of Sievers, German Tr. pp. 5692-93.) Neither Sievers nor the Ahnenerbe nor the Institute for Military Scientific Research [Institut fuer Wehrwissenschaftliche Zweckforschung] had anything to do with malaria experiments. (Cross-examination of Sievers, German Tr. p. 5693; Statement of the witness Dr. May, German Tr. p. 5877.) Neither can there be proved from Point four of the memorandum of 1 April 1942 (NO-721, Pros. Ex. 126) any connection of Sievers with the malaria experiments.

An affidavit of the secretary Hildegard Wolff relates how the memorandum of 1 April 1942 and the drawing up of Point four came about. She took down and typed the memorandum from Sievers’ dictation. (Sievers 11, Sievers Ex. 8.) According to this, Sievers, in the very hurried dictation, said Frau Wolff should write down as Point four what Himmler had said in his telephone conversation about the erection of the institute in Dachau. Therefore, not Sievers’ but Himmler’s opinion is stated here.

Through the discussion of 1 April 1942 between Sievers and Dr. May it had been made completely clear that human experiments within the framework of the research order to Dr. May were absolutely out of the question, not only for the reason that such experiments would have been rejected on principle, but also because human experiments had nothing whatsoever to do with the task of developing an insecticide for insects harmful to human beings. Moreover, no other kind of human experiment was carried out in connection with Dr. May’s work. The witness, Dr. May, testified concerning Sievers’ diary entry of 22 February 1944 that there never existed any cooperation between Dr. May, Dr. Ploetner, and Dr. Schilling. (Witness Dr. May, German Tr. p. 5878.)

That, however, would have been a necessary condition in order to classify Sievers’ administrative activity in this connection as participation.

As to points four, five, six, seven, there is no occasion for statements concerning these points.

Summary

Since Sievers took no part in the malaria experiments of Professor Schilling at Dachau or any other malaria experiments, he is not guilty of a crime. Thus any special responsibility and participation in malaria experiments is excluded.

EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF FOR
DEFENDANT ROSE

In the indictment, Professor Rose is not charged with special responsibility for the malaria experiments carried out by Professor Schilling at the Dachau concentration camp or with participation. The defendant Rose is also not mentioned in Document Book No. 4 of the prosecution which deals with these malaria experiments. In the course of the verbal proceedings in the court, the prosecution has, however, preferred charges against Professor Rose to this effect and introduced several new documents in the trial during the cross-examination of defendant Rose (NO-1752, Pros. Ex. 487; NO-1753, Pros. Ex. 488; NO-1755, Pros. Ex. 489; NO-1756, Pros. Ex. 486) and also heard the witness Vieweg concerning this question. (German Tr., 13 Dec. 46, pp. 464-516.)

This evidence shows that among others also the Department for Tropical Diseases of the Robert Koch Institute in Berlin, under the direction of the defendant Rose, sent anopheles eggs and malaria cultures on a few occasions to Professor Schilling at Dachau during the years 1942 to 1943. At this juncture it should be mentioned that it is completely immaterial for the judgment of the case what the name of the culture of malaria tertiana was and whether or not its name was first changed by Schilling to “Culture Rose”. The above-mentioned evidence also shows that Professor Schilling told Professor Rose in two of his letters about his breeding of mosquitoes; finally it also shows that Professor Schilling asked the defendant Rose from Italy to procure for him spleens of persons whose death had been caused by malaria. This was in 1941, at a time when Schilling was not yet working in Dachau. According to the testimony given by the defendant Rose during cross-examination (Tr. pp. 6412-3), he evidently complied with Schilling’s request.

The Tribunal will have to decide whether these above-mentioned activities of the Department for Tropical Diseases of the Robert Koch Institute under the management of the defendant Rose or his own activities, constitute, within the meaning of the Penal Code, participation on the part of the defendant Rose in the deeds of Professor Schilling. In my opinion this decision can only be a negative one, for the followings 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. (Rose 11, Rose Ex. 27.) This department had 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. (Rose 38, Rose Ex. 10; Rose 10, Rose Ex. 26; Rose 12, Rose Ex. 28.) 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. (Tr. p. 6474; Rose 51, Rose Ex. 50.)

The prerequisites for such deliveries are that they are requested either by well-known institutes or by renowned research scientists. It cannot be denied that Schilling, a coworker 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. (Compare Mrugowsky 4a, Mrugowsky Ex. 96; Rose 49, Rose Ex. 48; German Tr., 19 June 47, p. 9680.) Even if Professor Rose declared, in the witness box during examination on his own behalf, that he assumes full responsibility for it, it should be mentioned here that such deliveries are carried out in such a routine way that the chief of the institute often knows nothing about it since these matters are dispatched independently by the personnel employed by him in the laboratory. This also was the procedure in the case in question as the evidence shows unequivocally. (Rose 35, Rose Ex. 32; German Tr., 16 Dec. 46, p. 507; Tr. pp. 6020, 6352.) Thus, it is by no means surprising that the defendant Rose could no longer remember the correspondence with Professor Schilling put before him by the prosecution during cross-examination especially since undoubtedly it often happens that, as in the case in question, although the letters are sent by the orderer to the head of such an institute personally, the dispatching of the order is nevertheless carried out independently by the personnel of the institute.

Besides, the delivery of these materials by the Department for Tropical Diseases of the Robert Koch Institute to Professor Schilling was by no means a prerequisite for the carrying out of his experiments in Dachau, since it has already been established that Schilling obtained no less than 12 other malaria cultures from other institutes. (NO-1752, Pros. Ex. 487; German Tr., 16 Dec. 46, p. 509.) Professor Schilling also obtained mosquitoes from other institutes. (German Tr., 16 Dec. 46, p. 507.) Naturally these institutes could also not have had any scruples about sending material to Professor Schilling. In addition to this, Professor Schilling personally maintained a group of people to catch mosquitoes. (German Tr., 16 Dec. 46, p. 508.) If Professor Schilling turned at all to the Robert Koch Institute in this matter, the main reason for doing so was that for decades he himself had been the head of the Department for Tropical Diseases of the Institute and that personnel were still working there who had formerly already been employed under his management.

The defendant Rose did, as a matter of fact, oppose Schilling’s scientific approach to the problem as may clearly be seen from his opinion on Schilling for the Reich Ministry of the Interior (Tr. p. 6021) and from his lecture in Basel. (Rose 25, Rose Ex. 31.) However, to judge by Professor Schilling’s personality and past he could, nevertheless, not conceive the idea that Professor Schilling’s work at Dachau could be anything but completely above reproach. Experiments on human beings in malaria research are first of all, a matter of course and common practice. Even if the defendant Rose always limited his own work to the traditional evaluation of therapeutic malaria infections, experiments on prisoners in this field must unquestionably be permissible from an ethical point of view, as can be proved by the malaria experiments on many hundreds of prisoners in American prisons. (Karl Brandt 1, Karl Brandt Ex. 1; Karl Brandt 117, Karl Brandt Ex. 103; Mrugowsky 80, Mrugowsky Ex. 76; Rose 50, Rose Ex. 49.) Apart from the fact that the delivery of material to Schilling by no means obliged him to inform himself about the latter’s research work and its ways and means, Rose really had no knowledge whatsoever of the object of the research carried out by Schilling, and did not know the collaborators of the latter. (Rose 29, Rose Ex. 34; Rose 30, Rose Ex. 33.) Much less was he informed about the conditions under which Schilling was working in Dachau.

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 Pfaffenrode. Professor Schilling only worked with malaria tertiana (benign tertian) in Dachau. (NO-1752, Pros. Ex. 487.) Professor Rose, as an experienced malaria research scientist, knew of course that this form of malaria is not a dangerous one and that no complications are to be expected from it. (Rose 50, Rose Ex. 49.) The witness Vieweg (Tr. pp. 457-458) also expressly stated that none of the prisoners died of malaria, but that the cause of death could be traced back to technical errors [Kunstfehler] or to complications, as, for example, faulty puncture of the liver resulting in hemorrhage due to omission of an operation and an overdose of pyramidon in therapy, outbreak of typhus among the experimental subjects and finally, wrong doses in the treatment with salvarsan. Just in passing it should also be mentioned here that the defendant Rose also opposed this last-mentioned method of treatment. This method was prohibited in the German Luftwaffe at his suggestion. (NO-922, Pros. Ex. 435.)

No further explanation is necessary to show that solely the person carrying out the experiments is responsible for technical errors and negligence in the process. It seems to me that not even his superiors who ordered the work, namely Himmler and Grawitz, were responsible for them. However, a person assigned to supervise these experiments would have been obliged to take action whenever he was informed of such technical errors or negligence. The defendant Rose, however, was neither assigned to supervise nor was he informed of these matters. It is also unfair to assume that he knew about these matters, because he happened to take part in the conference on freezing experiments which took place in Nuernberg in October 1942. Firstly, the freezing experiments carried out by Professor Holzloehner, although also taking place on Dachau, were in no way connected with the malaria experiments carried out by Professor Schilling. Furthermore, the participants of the conference were misinformed about the method employed in these experiments and about the status of the experimental subjects. (Handloser 37, Handloser Ex. 18; German Tr., 12 Dec. 46, p. 315.)

Now, to be sure, it is known that Holzloehner’s, Rascher’s, and Finke’s freezing experiments were carried out in Dachau. That, however, was certainly not made public at the above-mentioned Nuernberg conference. Even if one of the participants suspected that experiments at a concentration camp were concerned, he would not have had the slightest reason to suppose that the concentration camp in question was Dachau.

Schilling’s reports about his work were always sent to Himmler or Grawitz but never went any further. That also explains why no reports about Schilling’s experiments were found in the confiscated files of the defendant Rose. (Tr. pp. 5566, 6021; German Tr., 13 Dec. 46, pp. 466-7; German Tr., 26 Mar. 47, p. 5106; German Tr., 2 Apr. 47, pp. 5420-1.)

Rose personally was the prototype of a worker above reproach in the field of malaria research and with regard to his care for the well-being of his malaria patients (Rose 47, Rose Ex. 35), as shown by the investigation undertaken by the competent American authorities. He risked his own life (Rose 8, Rose Ex. 29) in order to assure the orderly handing-over of his Malaria Research Institute in Pfaffenrode to the Americans—in contrast to Dachau, without burning files and the like, and also to insure continued regular care and medical treatment for his patients. (Rose 31, Rose Ex. 36; Rose 32, Rose Ex. 37; Rose 33, Rose Ex. 38; Rose 34, Rose Ex. 39.) It would be completely incomprehensible if such a man were to be made responsible for the technical errors and negligence of another who was not even under his influence.

d. Evidence