d. Evidence

_Prosecution Documents_

Doc. No. Pros. Ex. No. Description of Document Page

NO-856 125 Extracts from the review of the 289 proceedings of the general military court in the case of the United States vs. Weiss, Ruppert, et al., held at Dachau, Germany.

_Defense Documents_

Doc. No. Def. Ex. No. Description of Document Page

Rose Document 11 Rose Ex. 27 Extracts from report of Professor 298 Dr. E. Gildemeister concerning the activities of the Robert Koch Institute—Reich institute for the fight against infectious diseases. Rose Document 47 Rose Ex. 35 Affidavit of Professor Dr. Hans 300 Luxenburger, 24 March 1947, concerning Rose’s interest in therapeutical malaria treatments. Rose Document 50 Rose Ex. 49 Extract from the affidavit of 302 Professor Dr. Ernst Georg Nauck, M. D., Hamburg 4, Bernhard-Nocht-Institute for nautical and tropical diseases.

_Testimony_

Extracts from the testimony of prosecution witness August H. 303 Vieweg Extracts from the testimony of defendant Rose 308

PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-856 PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 125

EXTRACTS FROM THE REVIEW OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE GENERAL MILITARY COURT IN THE CASE OF THE UNITED STATES _VS._ WEISS, RUPPERT, ET AL., HELD AT DACHAU, GERMANY

* * * * *

A series of experiments concerning the treatment of malaria were conducted under the supervision of the accused, Dr. Schilling (_R 157_).[34] Three hundred to four hundred persons died as a result (_R 204, 206_). The facts elicited with respect to these experiments are set out in detail _infra_ in connection with Dr. Schilling.

* * * * *

_B. The common design at the Kaufering Branch Camps of Dachau_

* * * * *

_C. The Individual Defendants_

* * * * *

15. _Dr. Claus Karl Schilling._ A special experimental station had been set aside in the hospital for the performance of malaria experiments under the supervision of the accused Dr. Schilling (_R 191, 157, 482_). Schilling performed his research for the purpose of determining immunization for and treatment of malaria (_R 192_). Requests for prisoners were made by Schilling (_R 159-160_). One such request which was admitted into evidence, stated that Polish prisoners were requested (_R 160, Pros. Ex. 38_).[35] A list of inmates was prepared in the camp physician’s office, the inmates being of all nationalities which were represented in the camp, and was sent to the labor office which made a copy of the list (_R 284, 285, 287, Pros. Ex. 47, 48, 157_). There the list was confirmed by the Schutzhaftlagerfuehrer who sometimes made a few changes in the list (_R 285_). These lists appeared about once every month since about 1943 (_R 285_). None of the 1,200 selectees ever consented or volunteered (_R 160-161_). Priests were often selected for these experiments (_R 356, 353_). An inmate, a priest named Father Koch, related his experience in that connection (_R 356_). He was first X-rayed and then sent to the malaria station (_R 356-357, 353, 215_). He was put into a little room where he received a box with mosquitoes which he had to hold in his hands for about half an hour (_R 358_). That occurred every day for one week (_R 358, 363_). Every afternoon another box of mosquitoes was put in between his legs while he was in bed (_R 358, 363_). Each morning a blood smear was taken from his ear and his temperature was measured each day and night (_R 358, 364_). He was given quinine (_R 358, 364_). In about 17 days he left the hospital (_R 359, 364_). After being released from the hospital he had to report back every Saturday (_R 360, 364_). Eight months later he had an attack of malaria, which recurred precisely every 3 weeks for 6 months (_R 359, 363, 364, 365_). The symptoms he felt were high fever, chills, and pains in the joints (_R 359_). Koch did not volunteer for the experiments nor did the other prisoners who were mostly Poles and Russians, who underwent the treatment with him (_R 356, 362_).

The prisoners were infected with malaria by the injections of the mosquitoes themselves or the injections of extracts of the mucous glands of the mosquitoes (_R 157_). After having contracted malaria the prisoners were treated in different ways (_R 157_). Some, as Father Koch, were given quinine (_R 358_). Others were given neosalvarsan, pyramidon, antipyrin, a drug numbered 92516, and several combinations of these (_R 157_). Some people died as a result of these experiments (_R 158_). Schilling was present when autopsies were performed on some of those persons (_R 158_). Whenever anyone died who had been injected with malaria, a report of that death was made to the accused Schilling and the chief doctor (_R 158_). Some of the victims died from the intoxication of neosalvarsan and pyramidon, for many individuals could not withstand large doses of these drugs (_R 159_). From the autopsy it could be determined that a patient died of neosalvarsan since the reactions were similar to arsenic (_R 193, 194_). In the beginning of 1944 three deaths resulted from the use of pyramidon (_R 194_). These people were brought directly from the malaria ward to the autopsy room (_R 197_). Two young Russian boys who were transferred from the malaria ward to the general medical ward died within a day after their arrival because of overdoses of pyramidon (_R 394-395, 405_). They had been sent to the general ward so that the official cause of death which would be stated would not be malaria (_R 405_). Pyramidon has a toxic on the blood corpuscles which causes them to disintegrate (_R 195_). Malaria was the direct cause of 30 deaths and as a result of complications, 300 to 400 more died (_R 196, 197_). People who had died directly from malaria had come straight from the malaria ward while the 300 to 400 others had undergone the malaria experiment (_R 204_). These people who had been subjected to malaria may later have died of tuberculosis, pneumonia, or dysentery (_R 196_). Some of the patients whom Dr. Schilling used had had tuberculosis before undergoing the experiments (_R 11_). Fever type diseases have adverse effects on tuberculosis (_R 211_). An index of the malaria diseased people was kept in the hospital office (_R 198_).

Schilling received various visitors such as Dr. Rabbit, who was a Reich SS physician at Oranienberg (_R 192_).

A pretrial affidavit of the accused Schilling executed in his own handwriting on 30 October 1945 before 2d Lieutenant Werner Conn was admitted into evidence (_R 827, Pros. Ex. 122_). This statement reads in pertinent part and in translation as follows:

“My name is Professor Dr. Claus Schilling. I have already worked on tropical diseases for 45 years. I came to the experimental station in Dachau in February 1942. I judge that I inoculated between 900 and 1,000 prisoners. Those were mostly inoculations for protection. These people, however, were not volunteers. The inmates whom I gave protective inoculations were not examined by me but by the current camp doctor. Before the inoculation there was usually an observation of several days. The last camp doctor was Dr. Hintermayer. As well as I can remember, in 3 years there were 49 patients who died outside the malaria station. The patients were always released by me as cured only after 1 year.

“As remedy I used quinine, atabrine, and neosalvarsan. I know for sure of six cases where I used pyramidon tablets to hold down the fever (_Pros. Ex. 122_).”

* * * * *

_V. Evidence for the Defense._

* * * * *

15. _Doctor Claus Karl Schilling_

The accused Doctor Schilling elected to testify and made the following unsworn statement: He was 74 years old, married, had one son, and was a physician. He had specialized in tropical diseases, particularly malaria, since 1898 (_R 1490, 1500_). Dr. Schilling studied under Professor Koch of Berlin, and graduated from Munich as a physician in 1894 (_R 1894_). He did research work in Africa on malaria, sleeping sickness, and tsetse fly diseases (_R 1497, 1498_). Dr. Schilling worked for the Rockefeller Foundation in Berlin, receiving a grant in 1911 for the study of various diseases and for a trip to Rome (_R 1499, 1500, Def. Ex. 19_).[36] In December 1941 in Italy Dr. Schilling met Dr. Conti, the Reich physician leader, who invited him to see Himmler (_R 1500, 1501, 1508_). Schilling went to Himmler who gave him the order to continue his studies at Dachau (_R 1502_). Schilling had selected Dachau because it was near his birthplace (_R 1568-1569_). The question of using prisoners for experiments was not discussed (_R 1502_). In January 1942, Schilling went to Dachau (_R 1502_). Schilling only accepted this commission at Dachau because the League of Nations, of which he was a member, told him of the importance of curing the seventeen million known cases of malaria. He believed it was his duty to humanity (_R 1540_). He never became a member of the SS or the Nazi Party (_R 1503_). He was a “free, independent, research man.” (_R 1568._)

Dr. Schilling infected thousands of prisoners with malaria “Benign Tertian” which is not fatal (_R 1503_). The purpose for this was to find a vaccination against malaria and today there is no vaccination against malaria except the one discovered by Schilling (_R 1503_). Dr. Schilling used mosquitoes and blood transfusions to infect the patients and received patients already infected (_R 1503, 1504_). The patients were divided into groups and were constantly watched, one group for the purpose of keeping up the strain and another for immunization purposes (_R 1505-1506_). The latter were injected repeatedly to step up their immunity (_R 1506_). Schilling re-infected about 400 to 500 patients and used quinine, atabrine, and neosalvarsan, and a dye No. 2516 which made the patients immune; to prove this he had to test by infecting them again (_R 1507_).

Dr. Schilling could not work with animals because they are not receptive to malaria and men are used throughout the world (_R 1507_). He assumed that Admiral Stipp and Mark Boyd, two malaria authorities, used humans in their experiments (_R 1508_). Infected malaria has been used to cure paralysis (_R 1508_).

Only about four or five of the patients refused to be immunized, but they consented after Schilling explained the importance of the work (_R 1509_). The selections of the patients were made as follows: Berlin allowed him thirty patients a month and he would requisition them through the camp physician from the commandant who contacted the labor leader (_R 1510_). The latter selected healthy prisoners and Schilling’s assistants chose the final names and sent them to Berlin, where the selection was approved (_R 1509, 1510_). These patients were carefully inspected and could not be refused by Schilling by order of Himmler (_R 1511_).

The doses of neosalvarsan were 1.54 grams and at no time failed (_R 1512_). He used pyramidon to lower the body temperature although the drug has a bad effect on the blood corpuscles (_R 1513, 1514_). He used this drug only in 15 cases and found that two grams were not harmful. This was important so the body could react without fever (_R 1515_). Nobody died from pyramidon (_R 1515_). Malaria has been used to cure syphilis and neosalvarsan can destroy parasites in a fever (_R 1515_).

Dr. Schilling never dealt with Dr. Blaha on any autopsies involving neosalvarsan poisoning. Discharged patients were told to report back if they felt sick (_R 1516_). Periodic checks were made of them and any patient was received back if there was sign of relapse (_R 1517_). If Schilling was asked to resume his work, he would do so only on volunteers (_R 1518_).

Dr. Schilling was withdrawn as a witness, at this point, but resumed the stand later and testified as follows: In death through neosalvarsan all organs are affected (_R 1536_). Blood cells may die, but nothing like this happened in his cases (_R 1536, 1537_). It is impossible to determine death by malaria by a mere autopsy without a microscope, especially where there may be other complications (_R 1537_). Pyramidon is rarely the cause of death (_R 1537_).

Out of the 100 people infected by Dr. Schilling with malaria, not a single one of them died of uncomplicated malaria (_R 1538_).

Weight of the patients during experiments increased. Additional food was given and people suffering from contagious disease would be isolated (_R 1539_). Dr. Schilling never stated the wrong cause of death (_R 1539_).

Dr. Schilling stated he couldn’t experiment on himself because he had had malaria in 1933 and men like him cannot be reinfected in most cases although malaria is a recurring disease (_R 1541_). If there is chronic malaria, the heart muscles will suffer as in all chronic diseases (_R 1543_). Malaria will increase the watery substance in the blood and the brain will suffer under chronic malaria (_R 1544_). Chronic malaria will weaken the body to make it susceptible to other diseases and one may die of another disease while having malaria (_R 1546_). Schilling had SS doctors helping him and examined all patients personally and supervised the records (_R 1546_). Schilling recognized Prosecution Exhibit 131 which stated that 19 cases were treated with pyramidon, three of whom died (_R 1547_). He declared these patients were suffering from typhus and were removed from the ward (_R 1547, 1548_).

Although there was a typhus epidemic in November 1944 and he knew that people were dying, he continued his experiments (_R 1550_). Everyone who was inoculated remained at the station (_R 1550_). One patient was injected three times and later died of typhus (_R 1551_). He was given neosalvarsan, atabrine, and quinine. Pyramidon doses of three grams per day for five successive days were given. Dr. Blaha did not inform Schilling of the deaths due to pyramidon poisoning. If Schilling had been notified he would have stopped the experiment. An Italian named Calveroni was infected with blood and might have gotten typhus (_R 1556_).

If a man is suffering from malnutrition, a big dose of neosalvarsan is not advisable (_R 1557_). If it would save his life, Schilling would give it to him (_R 1557_). It depended on the physical condition of the man and of what he was suffering; yet, Schilling gave the drug to Father Wicki who only weighed 50 kilos (_R 1558_), but Schilling says that Wicki was not a severe case (_R 1559_). Schilling gave 3 grams of neosalvarsan in 5 days, which was the largest dose he ever gave over that period of time. He does not remember giving drugs to sufferers of dysentery (_R 1562_).

Schilling did not remember specific cases where he did not use caution (_R 1566, 1567_). He recalled the priest Stachowski who died, but doesn’t remember he died from neosalvarsan (_R 1567, 1568_).

Dr. Schilling was not under the control of the SS (_R 1568_). He heard rumors about beatings, but did not concern himself with “things that were not my business” (_R 1569_). All his records had been burned (_R 1570_). Schilling denied all accusations against him other than what he admitted as part of his duty (_R 1572, 1573_). He declared that his work was unfinished and that the court should do what it could to help him finish his experiments for the benefit of science and to rehabilitate himself (_R 1574_).

Mrs. Hubner, who knew Professor Schilling for 30 years, stated that she often saw him in Italy and in Germany and has known him to be of good reputation and of good veracity (_R 1519, 1520, 1521_). He told her his only aim was to help cure malaria (_R 1522_). She believed his intentions at Dachau were good (_R 1523_).

Frau Durck, the wife of a university professor of anatomical pathology who was interested in malaria research, knew Professor Schilling since 1924 (_R 1525, 1526_). Schilling was always regarded in his field as a serious scientist (_R 1527_). She knew what he was doing at Dachau but her husband would not have done it (_R 1527_).

Dr. Eisenberger, a lawyer for 52 years, knew Dr. Schilling for 30 years (_R 1527_). He considered Schilling highly respectable and reliable, and said Schilling was seeking to benefit science and would never do anything wrong (_R 1528_).

Heinrich Stoehr, a male nurse at Dachau, testified it was known that Schilling worked on orders from Himmler (_R 1608, 1609_). The camp physician’s and Schilling’s assistants examined the patients prior to experimentation (_R 1609_). Dr. Brachtel, an SS doctor and assistant to Schilling, also performed atabrine experiments (_R 1610_). If a patient had a relapse from malaria, he was treated by Dr. Schilling (_R 1611, 1612_). Others were given quinine by some of the hospital staff (_R 1611, 1612_).

Max Kronenfelder worked in the malaria station under Schilling from February 1941 to June 1943 (_R 1614_). He knew about a Dr. Brachtel, who also made private experiments on malaria without the knowledge of Dr. Schilling (_R 1615_). Kronenfelder took blood smears and performed minor details such as cleaning up (_R 1616_). Brachtel experimented with patients who had tuberculosis, helped by a man named Adam (_R 1617_). Adam was often in the morgue with Dr. Blaha (_R 1618_).

Father Rupieper had been subjected to the malaria experiment in August 1942 (_R 921_). Other priests who were also subjected were Peter Bower, Gustav Spitzick, Amon Burckhardt, Fritz Keller, and Kasinemer Gasimer Rikofsky (_R 921_).

* * * * *

VI. Prosecution Rebuttal Evidence. _Common Design._

* * * * *

15. _Dr. Claus Karl Schilling._ When one of Dr. Schilling’s patients died there were orders to report that fact to the malaria station even though the man had died in another section of the hospital (_R 1712_). Toward the end of 1942 Professor Schilling was personally present at the autopsy of a man who died of neosalvarsan and he requested the brain, liver, kidneys, spleen, and a piece of stomach (_R 1712, 1731_). In that case Dr. Schilling dictated part of the findings with respect to the cause of death (_R 1712_). When the first three patients died from pyramidon in February 1945, a member from the malaria station and Dr. Hintermayer were present (_R 1713, 1723, 1731_). Dr. Blaha stated that in his experience as a physician the average patient could receive 3.3 pyramidon a day, and that the largest dose would be 2 grams per day, but that of course assumed that the individual was healthy and strong (_R 1713_). In Dr. Blaha’s judgment, the prison inmates could not be given more than 1½ to 2 grams for a few days (_R 1714_). If these people were to receive 3 grams per day for three successive days, signs of poisoning would be revealed (_R 1714_).

Dr. Blaha stated that an autopsy revealed that death from pyramidon was the result of sudden suffocation which was not true in the case of typhus (_R 1725_). Death from typhus could be determined by certain indicia without a microscope (_R 1725_).

Dr. Blaha explained that the ordinary mydol tablet contained 3 pyramidon and that it is sold over the open counter (_R 1722_). If taken in moderate doses it will not have any ill effects (_R 1722_).

A leaflet of I. G. Farben, Indiana, which held the neosalvarsan contained the following instructions: “In between the individual infections, spaces of time should be permitted to elapse, from 3 to 7 days.” (_Pros. Ex. 134_) These were instructions for syphilis (_R 1564_). In paragraph five in the leaflet it read in part, “such caution in the use of neosalvarsan is recommended for undernourished and severe anaemic patients, tuberculosis, diseases of the lungs, heart, kidneys, liver, and intestines.” (_R 1564, 1565._)

* * * * *

X. Merits and Defense.

* * * * *

15. _Dr. Claus Karl Schilling._ Dr. Schilling, at the call of Himmler, began conducting his malaria experiments at Dachau in February 1942. He continued these experiments until liberation of the camp. It was undisputed that the inmates whom Dr. Schilling used in his work were not volunteers. Dr. Schilling’s research was performed for the purpose of determining immunization for and treatment of malaria. His requests for inmates were made about every month. These lists were prepared in the camp physician’s office and then sent to the camp commander and labor office. About 1,200 selectees were thus chosen for subjection. Many of them were priests. The number of people who died from the malaria or from the drugs such as pyramidon or neosalvarsan is not known. Certainly some died. It is reasonable to infer that the deaths of many of the inmates from tuberculosis, dysentery, typhus, and other diseases were caused in part by the fact that those people had been subjected to malaria. Although Dr. Schilling’s motive may have been simply and purely a scientific one, his activities exemplified the Nazi scheme which existed at Dachau. The part he played in that scheme is clear.

* * * * *

XIV. Sentences.

* * * * *

In many respects the accused Schilling was the most reprehensible. He voluntarily came to Dachau fully cognizant of the nature of the work he intended to perform. Being the educated and learned person that he was, Schilling undoubtedly must have realized the manner in which his work suited the needs of the Nazis. Although his personal motives may have stemmed from his desire to aid humanity, he permitted himself to utilize Nazi methods in contrast to other eminent German artists and scientists who either fled or refused to make themselves a part of the Nazi system. It is believed that the sentence of the Court, which was aware of Schilling’s position in the scientific world, should be approved.

* * * * *

XVI. Actions.

A form of action designed to carry the foregoing recommendations into effect, should they meet with your approval, is submitted herewith.

[Signature] Charles E. Cheever [Typed] CHARLES E. CHEEVER Colonel, JAGD, Staff Judge Advocate.

MILITARY GOVERNMENT COURT ORDER ON REVIEW

Order No. 3.

Whereas Martin Gottfried Weiss, Friedrich Wilhelm Ruppert, et al., were convicted of the offenses of Violations of Laws and usages of war in that they acted in pursuance of a common design, did encourage, aid, abet, and participate in the subjection of Allied nationals and prisoners of war to cruelties and mistreatments at Dachau concentration camp and its subcamps by the General Military Court appointed pursuant to paragraph 3, SO 304, Hq., 2 November 1945, at Dachau, Germany and each accused was sentenced to death by hanging except four: Peter Betz who was sentenced to life imprisonment, Hugo Alfred Erwin Lausterer who was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 10 years, Albin Gretsch who was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 10 years, and Johann Schoepp who was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 10 years by judgment dated the 14th day of December 1945, and

Whereas the case has now come before me by way of review and after due consideration and in exercise of the powers conferred upon me, I hereby order:

That the findings and the sentence in the cases of Weiss, Ruppert, Jarolin, Trenkle, Niedermeyer, Seuss, Eichberger, Wagner, Kick, Hintermayer, Witteler, Eichelsdorfer, Foerschner, Schilling, Knoll, Boettger, Betz, Endres, Kiern, Rewitz, Welter, Suttrop, Tempel, Lausterer, Becher, Kramer, Filleboeck, Schoettl, Gretsch, Kirsch, Langleist, Lippmann, Degelow, Moll, Schulz, and Wetzel be upheld.

That the sentence imposed in the case of Eisele be reduced to confinement at hard labor for life.

That the sentence imposed in the case of Puhr be reduced to confinement at hard labor for 20 years.

That the sentence imposed in the case of Mahl be reduced to confinement at hard labor for 10 years.

That the sentence imposed in the case of Schoepp be reduced to confinement at hard labor for 5 years,

and for so doing this shall be sufficient warrant.

Dated this 24th day of January 1946.

[Signed] L. K. TRUSCOTT, JR., Lieutenant General, U.S.A. Commanding.

PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF ROSE DOCUMENT 11 ROSE DEFENSE EXHIBIT 27

EXTRACTS FROM REPORT OF PROFESSOR DR. E. GILDEMEISTER CONCERNING THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ROBERT KOCH INSTITUTE—REICH INSTITUTE FOR THE FIGHT AGAINST INFECTIOUS DISEASES

* * * * *

2. Malaria Research.

_a. Cultures of strains._ The strain “Greece” of plasmodium vivax was bred in the department by Miss Lange till 31 December 1942, in the 30th continuous passage of man-mosquito-man. The number of infected patients up to that date was 379. The main work concerned the malaria treatment of paralytics and schizophrenics. In addition, however, there were a few therapeutic experiments with other diseases, in cases where the clinics concerned required mosquito bite infections in order to obtain a reliable malaria free from lues. The number of clinics and hospitals obtaining part or all their requirements of therapeutical malaria infection from the department rose to 11. In addition to the strain “Greece”, various other malaria strains were taken into the mosquito passage for comparative experiments; they were, however, not permanently maintained. This considerable amount of incoming clinical material was continuously collected and sorted although it has not yet been used.

In the course of the research two more laboratory infections occurred due to mosquito bites.

The following examinations by Dr. Hoering, Professor Rose, and Dr. Emmel were made possible by the maintenance of the anopheles colony and the malaria breed.

_b. Parasite straining._ Dr. Hoering continued her work on the improvement of the microscopic presentation of malaria parasites. Despite certain improvements of the microscopic picture it was not possible to develop a procedure easily applicable in practice and superior to the established methods.

_c. Artificial feeding and artificial infection of anopheles._ Dr. Hoering continued to develop the methods of artificial blood feeding of anopheles, evolved by Dr. Olzscha. In this artificial feeding the anopheles would not take citrated blood even though sugar had been added. Blood haemolized with water and saturated with sugar was taken, as well as liquid blood, although the addition of sugar was preferred. Artificial feeding of blood is biologically not altogether equal to natural feeding. The duration of life was almost the same with artificial feeding as with the normal feeding of the animal. However, females which were merely artificially fed, only laid eggs in exceptional cases.

It is known that with anopheles which suck blood from the animal, the blood enters the duodenum without previously entering the sucking stomach, while other nutritious matter first reaches the sucking and reserve stomachs. It was previously assumed that the nature of the food, especially the number of cells, acted as indicative irritation. Dr. Hoering’s experiments with artificial blood nutrition showed this assumption to be wrong. Sweetened as well as unsweetened blood, which is used for artificial feeding, first enters into the reserve stomachs in the same way as a sugar solution. Further experiments proved that the piercing of a membrane also causes no indicative irritation.

After the method of the artificial feeding with blood had been developed, Dr. Hoering carried out experiments with the feeding of infected blood containing malaria. Finally, it was possible to infect anopheles by artificial feeding of blood, so that normally developed sporozoites grew inside them. This is the first time that such an experiment was successfully carried through.

_d. Conservation of malaria parasites._ Professor Rose had the experiments continued concerning the conservation of malaria parasites in liquids suitable for the conservation of blood. Even after 150 days malaria parasites could be demonstrated morphologically in individual cases. However, attempt at infection with such blood did not succeed. The continuation and repetition of these experiments are planned.

The as yet unknown possibility of keeping malaria parasites alive in vitro for such long periods raises the problem of whether malaria parasites may become also dormant in human beings. The fact that an infection could be achieved in human beings with 90-day-old parasites proves that these preserved parasites did not lose their development and multiplying properties. The assumption of such dormant forms in the human being would offer new explanations for malaria relapses after long intervals of recovery. The department is engaged in morphologically characterizing the dormant forms observed in a test tube and in searching for the existence of such forms in clinical malaria cases.

_e. The appearance of anopheles in the Warthegau._ Dr. Olzscha investigated the appearance of anopheles in 221 hamlets, villages, and scattered settlements of the Warthegau. Anopheles were found practically everywhere. The investigation of 600 individual clusters proved beyond doubt that except in a few cases where a definite determination was not possible, they belonged to the genus of messaeae of anopheles maculipennis. Only in one case were A. m. artroparvus found.

* * * * *

_h. Malaria treatment._ Professor Rose in cooperation with Obermedizinalrat Dr. Sagel, director of the Country Mental Institution in Arnsdorf-Saxony, and Dr. Mertens, Dr. Koenig, and Dr. Peters, Leverkusen, tested the efficacy of new synthetic remedies against mosquito sting malaria. The best method of administering a new and proved preparation was developed.

* * * * *

PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF ROSE DOCUMENT 47 ROSE DEFENSE EXHIBIT 35

AFFIDAVIT OF PROFESSOR DR. HANS LUXENBURGER, 24 MARCH 1947, CONCERNING ROSE’S INTEREST IN THERAPEUTICAL MALARIA TREATMENTS

I, Professor Dr. med. Hans Otto Luxenburger, born on 12 June 1894 in Schweinfurt, residing in Munich, 22 Liebigstrasse 35/II, have been informed that I will be liable to punishment if I make a false affidavit. I declare under oath that my statement is true and was made in order to be submitted in evidence to Military Tribunal No. 1 at the Palace of Justice, Nuernberg, Germany.

Being a psychiatrist myself, I took an interest in Professor Rose’s malaria research insofar as we talked now and again about Rose’s progress and the results of his research. For me as a psychiatrist it was always noteworthy that Rose regarded cooperation with the psychiatrists of hospitals for the insane by no means only from the point of view of his interest in malaria research. On the contrary, he always showed definite interest in the related psychiatric-therapeutic questions. Contrary to the opinion formerly advocated by Wagner-Jauregg, he hoped to attain more thorough and permanent success in treatment by infection with mosquitoes as advocated by him (Rose) instead of the formerly customary blood transfusion, because in his opinion endothelia infection was also attained thereby.

He also was particularly interested in the question of finding a benign tropical strain and employing it in treatment, in order to carry out thorough and long fever treatments on cases of paralysis relapse; this is generally unsuccessful when employing the usual tertiana strains in cases of relapse.

He was especially interested in the possibility of therapeutic influence upon schizophrenia. In the well-known psychiatrist Dr. Sagel, he had a co-worker who advocated the opinion that schizophrenia, apart from its hereditary basis, must be caused by an additional external impairment, and he suspected that these causes lay in infectious diseases, especially rheumatic infections. Working from this assumption, he hoped for success with this disease similar to that with paralysis. This idea was not a new one. Similar experiments were conducted earlier. Rose was especially encouraged in this work by some impressive isolated successes in quite hopeless cases of schizophrenia. I can recall his joy as he told me, apart from other, cases, of a woman who was about to be divorced, after the head of the institution had declared her condition, which had existed for more than 3 years, to be incurable. In this case Rose’s treatment, according to his report, not only resulted in completely restoring the sick woman’s health but also led to her return to her family and the reestablishment of the marriage.

Munich, 24 March 1947

[Signed] PROF. DR. HANS LUXENBURGER

The above signature of Professor Dr. med. Hans Otto Luxenburger, residing in Munich, 22 Liebigstrasse 35/II, given before me, Notary, Theobald Petri, Administrator, is herewith certified and attested.

Munich, 24 March 1947.

[Signed] _Petri_, Notary (Theobald Petri), Notary Administrator of the Notary’s Office, Munich XVII Seal

I certify that the above document is a true and correct copy. Nuernberg, 10 April 1947.

[Signature] Dr. HANS FRITZ (Dr. Hans Fritz) Defense Counsel

PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF ROSE DOCUMENT 50 ROSE DEFENSE EXHIBIT 49

EXTRACT FROM THE AFFIDAVIT OF PROFESSOR DR. ERNST GEORG NAUCK, M. D., HAMBURG 4, BERNHARD-NOCHT-INSTITUTE FOR NAUTICAL AND TROPICAL DISEASES

* * * * *

Experimental infections of human beings with malaria tertiana (mild tertian malaria) have proved to be harmless and have very frequently been carried out on voluntary experimental subjects. It is well known that artificial infection with tertiana is also carried out as a cure against other diseases (paralysis, rabies). If the artificial infection is carried out carefully and under medical supervision, death or permanent damage to health should not occur. If the experiment with malaria tertiana, as carried out by Claus Schilling, was carried out with the same care, no danger to the experimental persons should have been entailed. Since Claus Schilling was a prominent scientist of international fame, it must be assumed that he carried out his investigations with the intention or the knowledge not to harm human life. This we find confirmed in the following:

1. Stitt’s diagnosis, Prevention and Treatment of Tropical Diseases, by Richard P. Strong, 7th edition, London, H. K. Lewis & Co., Ltd., 1945, page 59:

“The question of the occurrence of immunity in malaria has been extensively studied in recent years, not only from the epidemiologic standpoint but from experimental inoculations which have been carried on in both men and animals. However, in interpreting the results of the inoculations in man which have been carried out by direct injection of blood containing schizonts or by the injection of sporozoites from mosquitoes or by the bites of infected mosquitoes, many factors regarding the virulence or number of the parasites inoculated, the species and conditions of infectivity of the mosquitoes, the temperature at which they have been kept, and other factors, must be taken into consideration in drawing conclusions with regard to the susceptibility of individuals to infection. Much of the work is still in the experimental stage, though some definite progress has recently been made.”

* * * * *

EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF PROSECUTION WITNESS AUGUST H. VIEWEG[37]

_DIRECT EXAMINATION_

* * * * *

MR. HARDY: While you were an inmate at the concentration camp, did you ever undergo any medical experiments?

WITNESS VIEWEG: I was used for malaria experiments by Professor Dachfinney at the Dachau concentration camp.

Q. How many times were you subjected to the malaria experiments by Dr. Schilling?

A. On five occasions I received injections of 5 cubic centimeters of highly infectious malaria blood.

Q. Would you kindly tell the Tribunal what effect these experiments had on you; that is, did you have high fever, serious illness, and so forth?

A. Quite often I ran a very high temperature. I got into a very exhausted condition, and after the injection I received large doses of medical drugs, quinine, ephedrine, and many others. I was in bed for weeks, and after one treatment there were 20 to 26 occasions in the course of the years 1943, 1944, 1945, and 1946, when I had malaria attacks, so that for a long time I was unable to work.

Q. At the present time, do you have recurrences of this malaria fever?

A. This last year I was in the hospital from August 1st to 15th, again with malaria attacks.

Q. How many recurrences of malaria have you endured since you were experimented on by Dr. Schilling?

A. After my treatments in the experimental station had been concluded I stayed with Dr. Schilling, and there were 20 occasions when I was treated for recurrences.

Q. Are you completely cured now, Witness?

A. No.

Q. After you had undergone the various experiments at the hands of Dr. Schilling, did you then become a worker in Dr. Schilling’s laboratory?

A. After my first so-called immunization treatment had been concluded, the chief medical officer of that department sent me over to Dr. Schilling’s department for laboratory duties.

Q. On what date did you assume those duties?

A. I am afraid I can’t tell you that exactly, but it must have been on or about August 1942.

Q. What were your duties in Dr. Schilling’s experimental station?

A. In Dr. Schilling’s department I was in charge of animals. In other words, I cultivated animals, white mice, and canaries; in fact, I was in charge of that department.

Q. Did you have any other or additional duties, such as file clerk or typist, Witness?

A. For a certain period, I substituted for the clerk and I was in direct contact with Dr. Schilling on various occasions. I had a certain amount of business with the chemistry department, purchases from Dachau, and I was also in charge of the detachment which had to search the water near Dachau for anopheles mosquitoes.

Q. While with Dr. Schilling, did you have the opportunity to read any of Dr. Schilling’s correspondence?

A. I had frequent occasions to see the reports which Dr. Schilling sent in every 3 months, and sometimes I saw the answers which Dr. Schilling received from Berlin, as well as from some other chemical manufacturers.

Q. Witness, can you recall to whom those reports were sent, in Berlin?

A. These quarterly reports, which Dr. Schilling used to prepare, went to the SS Obergruppenfuehrer Dr. Grawitz, Reich Medical Officer.

Q. You have referred to the fact, today, that you saw some of the answers Dr. Schilling received from Berlin; who was the originator of those letters that Dr. Schilling received from Berlin?

A. As far as I can recollect, these replies were sent to Professor Schilling by Dr. Grawitz.

Q. Do you know where Dr. Schilling received his material to be used in this research, that is, infected blood for the malaria experiments, fly eggs, and so forth?

A. I can remember that Dr. Schilling received malaria fly eggs, so-called eggs from which he bred other flies, from Duesseldorf; they came from an insane asylum, but I can’t remember the name, and some from the Medical Institute at Rome that used to receive eggs. In fact, his material used to come from Berlin. According to my memory, it came from Professor Rose, and also from Athens; but I am afraid I cannot recollect the name there.

Q. Do you know whether Professor Rose had any correspondence with Dr. Schilling?

A. I remember that in connection with previous breeding attempts we were not too successful, and subsequently I saw a number of letters given to a stenographer by Dr. Schilling. They were addressed to Professor Rose. He was making certain explanations in them regarding certain types of insects, in connection with which my name was used. I am certain it went to Berlin and I am certain that answers were received on numerous occasions.

Q. Did Dr. Schilling ever send any reports of these experiments to Professor Rose, to your knowledge?

A. Whether he sent reports about malaria patients, I don’t know. At any rate, as far as these fly-breeding experiments are concerned, he had sent reports. I know that for certain.

* * * * *

Q. Witness, we will go back to the malaria experiments for the moment. What was the nationality of the people used for the malaria experiments, what type of people were they?

A. The biggest proportion, approximately two hundred patients, used for the malaria experiments were Germans, a large proportion were Polish priests, and the rest were partly Russians, some Yugoslavs, and some Poles.

Q. Were any prisoners of war used in these experiments?

A. Of the Russians, many were prisoners of war.

Q. What was the total number of people used in these malaria experiments from your knowledge?

A. According to my knowledge, 1,084 experimental subjects were used for the malaria experiments.

Q. Will you kindly tell us, Witness, how many of these subjects used in the malaria experiments died as a result of the experiments?

A. According to my knowledge seven or eight died at the malaria station, either directly or because of the treatment with drugs. I can describe the details if you like. The first case was an Austrian who afterwards became ill because of these malaria experiments. The assistant at that time, Dr. Brachtel, who was at the same time the deputy physician at the hospital, made a liver puncture and the patient bled to death.

Q. Witness, then you state from your knowledge that seven or eight died from the experiments. Of that number who died, did the deaths occur in the malaria station itself?

A. This was the number of dead who were not transferred by us to another department, but who died at our station or a few hours after they had been transferred to another station.

Q. Have you any knowledge as to what happened to some of the other patients who were transferred to some other station after they were experimented on? That is, did some others die after they were experimented on?

A. Of our patients, during the years after they came to us for observation, I can recollect that another 60 patients died. I cannot say for certain they died of malaria or other results of the experiments.

* * * * *

_CROSS-EXAMINATION_

DR. FRITZ: I have a few questions to ask the witness. Witness, on Friday you seemed to be fairly well acquainted with certain malaria questions, obviously on the basis of knowledge gained with Professor Schilling. I would now like to ask you the following questions concerning some very important details: During your examination by the prosecuting counsel you spoke of certain regrettable incidents. A number of deaths had occurred during the course of the malaria experiments conducted by Professor Schilling. At the time you mentioned about seven cases, but you only described one in detail. The patient had yellow fever in addition to malaria and then bled to death because the liver was punctured. I now ask you to tell me something about the reasons for the other six deaths.

WITNESS VIEWEG: The other six patients were the so-called “medicament death” cases. One patient died as a result of the salvarsan drug. The other one died as a result of the so-called “periphery” experiment, and the last four died as the result of a pyramidon experiment.

Q. Were the patients who, after being released from the station of Schilling, suffered relapses sent back to Professor Schilling’s station?

A. If they reported back to us, they were taken back to the station.

Q. In that case did any patients die in Professor Schilling’s department who later on had malaria or relapses?

A. Patients who were in danger of death were transferred to another station.

Q. Do you remember whether malaria tertiana is a fatal illness?

A. As far as I know nobody with us died of malaria tertiana. The deaths were a result of the secondary diseases which appeared because of the drugs used in the malaria experiments.

Q. Did Professor Schilling say anything to you about these fatal cases which were under his responsibility and observation, and if so, what?

A. The first two cases, the patient who died as a result of the punctured liver and the one who died because of the salvarsan injection, Dr. Schilling regretted very deeply. He tried to prevent such happenings as much as possible. In the last four cases, concerning the pyramidon experiment, he was told that the patients were in a very bad condition. Nevertheless, he insisted that they continue to receive the pyramidon drugs—I think it was 3 grams per day—and when these patients arrived at the delirium stage, they were transferred from our ward shortly before their death.

Q. And now something else. On Friday you testified that Dachau received anopheles from Dr. Rose’s institute and that there was an exchange of correspondence about the difficulties you had in breeding these eggs. Do you know where Dr. Rose worked, in which institute?

A. I think these letters were addressed to the Robert Koch Institute in Berlin.

Q. Do you know from this correspondence whether these replies came from Dr. Rose personally or from his assistant?

A. That I cannot state from memory. I recall one reply from a lady who was in charge of the breeding of these eggs in Berlin.

Q. That was probably an assistant who had worked with Rose for many years?

A. Yes, but I think Professor Schilling first turned to Professor Rose, and probably the replies primarily came from Professor Rose.

Q. Can you remember the name of the lady?

A. No.

Q. Do you know with whom Dr. Schilling had dealings and correspondence in addition to Dr. Grawitz and Dr. Rose?

A. I cannot remember. I know that he corresponded with an institution in Duesseldorf called Graefenrad or something like that, and he requested the breeding of these eggs there, and they sent us flies, live flies.

Q. Did you have the name “Rose” in mind, or did you only recall his name when you were first examined?

A. No. The name “Rose” remained in my recollection because I, myself, was infected with the malaria called “Rose”. He had these various immunization groups, the so-called malaria stock, which had various different names, and I was with a group which was infected with a so-called Rose Culture.

Q. You have testified before that you received eggs from Rome. You could not however remember the name. Was it perhaps Professor Vissireli, Dr. Rosni, or Dr. Raphaeli?

A. I think it was Vissireli.

Q. Did you also receive these eggs from Hamburg?

A. We received no eggs from the Tropical Institute in Hamburg, but Professor Schilling corresponded with that Institute.

Q. Can you remember in which year you received these eggs from the Robert Koch Institute, or rather from Professor Rose?

A. It was in the summer of 1942.

Q. You have told us about a number of these flies which you had to breed in the vicinity of Dachau. Were you present?

A. There was one special detachment for this purpose, including an SS man and one or two inmates. That was in the swamps surrounding Dachau during the summer months. Various water tests were made, and according to the degree of heat of the swamps, Dr. Schilling ordered the waters to be infected with a mixture of pig food. This special detachment went around the cellars of the Dachau camp during the winter months and worked on that matter. Our laboratories then examined these anopheles flies, and used them for breeding purposes.

Q. Can you state anything about the quantities caught?

A. It varied in the winter—sometimes they brought 10, sometimes 30 to 50, and sometimes 60.

Q. Did your department in Dachau deliver any such eggs to other departments?

A. We delivered such eggs on one occasion, but I cannot remember where.

Q. I now come to the question of malaria culture. From where did Professor Schilling receive his malaria cultures?

A. I cannot say exactly. I know that he received malaria cultures from Essen and from Berlin. But this was in February 1942, when I had not yet arrived at the ward. I remember we had 12 different malaria cultures. I know that Professor Schilling used one, and another man used one—I think his name was Flugg—in order to give one such culture the name of “Flugg.”

EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT ROSE[38]

_CROSS-EXAMINATION_

* * * * *

MR. MCHANEY: Let’s go back to the malaria experiments. What contact did you have with Schilling in 1941?

DEFENDANT ROSE: During my direct examination I testified that in 1941 I saw reports about Schilling’s malaria work in Italy on behalf of the Italian Government and with the support of the Reich Ministry of the Interior; then, either at the end of 1941 or the beginning of 1942, I gave an opinion, a written opinion, on an application which Professor Schilling had sent to State Secretary Conti, or rather to the Reich Ministry of the Interior. Then I saw Professor Schilling personally in 1941. I am not certain whether he was in Germany again at that time, but I can’t deny it with certainty under oath, because after all that was 6 years ago.

Q. Did you supply him with any material while he was working in Italy?

A. No, nothing.

Q. Who was Fraeulein von Falkenberg?

A. You mean Fraeulein von Falkenhayn?

Q. No, I mean Fraeulein von Falkenberg.

A. I don’t know any Fraeulein von Falkenberg.

Q. You are sure you didn’t supply Schilling with any material in 1941?

A. I cannot remember it. It might have been done by my department without my knowledge. Then, of course, I would take the responsibility for it, but I did not learn of it until now. My assistants did not tell me anything about it, if it happened. If you can prove it happened, I shall, of course, assume responsibility for it, even if it was done without my knowledge.

Q. Well, it is not terribly important, but let us let you have a look at Document NO-1756. In the meantime, when did this incident occur about your giving material to Schilling, after he had set up his institute at Dachau?

A. I beg your pardon, I didn’t understand your question.

Q. When did you give Schilling material, after he had gone to Dachau?

A. I cannot give any information about that myself. I have to depend on the testimony of my assistant, von Falkenhayn, and my secretary, Block. My secretary, Block, testified here that it was the end of 1941, but I would assume that she is mistaken about that, since Fraeulein von Falkenhayn testified that this material was given in the year 1942. I think the latter is more likely.

Q. Document NO-1756 will be marked as Prosecution Exhibit 486 for identification.

Q. Isn’t there a Fraeulein von Falkenberg mentioned in this letter of yours to Schilling, dated 3 February 1941?

A. No. In the German copy of the document which you showed to me, it says Fraeulein von Falkenhayn.

Q. That is a mistake then in the English translation.

A. Fraeulein von Falkenhayn was an assistant in my department. She had formerly worked for Professor Schilling. There is an affidavit from her. Since I have this letter I can give you some information about the matter. Professor Schilling wanted to have a serological reaction in malaria, the so-called Henry reaction; that is a reaction which is carried out for the purpose of malaria diagnosis. As in the antigen reaction, in this reaction also the spleen of dead persons is used. Professor Schilling apparently wrote to me to find out whether I, as head of the tropical medical department, was in a position to obtain a spleen from a corpse where the patient had died of malaria. I answered saying that such material would hardly be available in Berlin. Malaria was very rare in Berlin and consequently deaths from malaria were also very rare. The only cases of this type occurred in insane asylums, in the treatment of paralytics. It is well known that the first work of Wagner-Jauregg shows that in the course of malaria treatment paralysis deaths occur, just as death occurs following operations, and such malaria deaths, of course, occurred in Berlin insane asylums. As far as I can remember the matter, my assistants contacted various pathological institutes in Berlin and asked that if such an autopsy should occur there, the spleen should be preserved so that it could be sent to Professor Schilling. This was what this letter was about.

Q. Did you ever supply any to him?

A. As far as I can recall, in the course of several months, one or two such cases occurred and the material was sent to Schilling, but I cannot say for certain today.

Q. Well, you are now qualifying at least the answer you gave to my earlier question as to whether you gave him any material in 1941; isn’t that right?

A. I beg your pardon. I didn’t understand the question.

Q. I say you now wish to qualify the answer you gave me a few moments ago, before you saw the letter, to the effect that you had not given him any material in 1941. You now, after having seen the letter, state you did in fact give him some.

A. Yes. I am sorry. My attention was entirely devoted to the question of the malaria parasite strains and mosquitoes. I did not think of negotiations between Schilling and the pathological institute in Berlin.

Q. Let’s go back to what we were discussing. You stated that although Frau Block said that the malaria eggs were supplied to Schilling in the latter part of 1941, you think probably it was 1942?

A. Yes. That is what I said. Perhaps I may correct myself. When you speak of malaria eggs you mean anopheles eggs probably. There are no malaria eggs.

Q. Yes, that is right.

A. I am inclined to agree that von Falkenhayn and Block think differently. I think that von Falkenhayn was right and that it was in 1942.

Q. Did you know anything about this before it was sent?

A. I cannot remember it. I don’t believe so. As far as I remember I was informed of it by Fraeulein von Falkenhayn, after I had been given a letter from Professor Schilling that the mosquitoes were thriving in Dachau.

Q. Did you thereafter issue orders that no more material was to be sent to Schilling; is that right?

A. I did not issue a precise order. I said that since we ourselves were using so many mosquitoes I didn’t want any more material to be sent to Mr. Schilling because I was not convinced of the scientific value of his work. But Fraeulein von Falkenhayn in her testimony says that there was further correspondence with Fraeulein Lange. I have not been able to find this correspondence and I can’t clear up the question completely. I have to rely fully on my assistant in this respect and I can’t answer from my own knowledge. In our first conversation on the subject when I told you that Schilling got anopheles eggs from us, which you didn’t know at the time, I did not tell you that he got a malaria strain from my department. I didn’t know that at the time. I learned it only a short time ago from Fraeulein von Falkenhayn. That was not in the affidavit. Apparently she was afraid of some objections and sent a letter to that effect to my lawyer. I am not so timid. I am not afraid to tell you about it.

Q. In other words you did supply a Rose strain to Schilling?

A. No. As I said on direct examination, the Rose strain could not come from my department because we didn’t have any strain with the name Rose. Where this strain with the name Rose comes from is a puzzle to me. I don’t know of any Rose strain in malaria literature. But I don’t think there is any point in quarreling about this name. The information given by Fraeulein von Falkenhayn, which I believe fully, that a malaria strain was sent—that is quite sufficient—no matter whether it is called Rose or some other name.

Q. Your witness, Frau Block, testified you had no correspondence with Schilling in 1942 and 1943, as I recall. Is that right?

A. That is what Frau Block said. I myself would not have been so definite in my testimony if you asked me the same question. I would say I can’t answer that question definitely. I only know one thing, that I never corresponded with Professor Schilling on the subject of his work. Whether Schilling and I ever exchanged letters in those years I don’t know, since I don’t have my files. Concerning any information about such infrequent correspondence and whether he wrote a certain letter 5 or 6 years ago, he says, “I would like to look that up in my files.” Unfortunately I cannot do so but perhaps you would be kind enough, if you have copies of such a letter, to make it available to me. You have my files and they are much more easily available to you than to me. For example, I am trying to find my malaria opinion from the year 1941. That was in the same filing cabinet from which you got the record of the typhus meeting on 29 December 1941 in the Ministry of the Interior.

Q. You overestimate the prosecution, Herr Professor, but we needn’t dwell on that. Now, is your memory good enough to tell us how long you continued to furnish Schilling with material for his Dachau experiments? You say that somewhere along in 1942 you told them not to send any more. Are you clear about it?

A. Yes, I think I can remember reliably.

Q. Well, when did this malaria strain go down?

* * * * *

A. I don’t know. Fraeulein von Falkenhayn merely told me that the malaria strain was given to Schilling. I don’t know when. She didn’t mention that in her letter to Dr. Fritz.

Q. Let’s look at Document NO-1752. This will be marked as Prosecution Exhibit 487 for identification. Suppose you read the letter aloud, Professor?

A. “Prof. Claus Schilling

“Dachau, 4 April 1942 “3 K, Hospital for Inmates

“To Prof. Dr. Rose “Berlin, Fohrerstrasse 2 “Robert Koch Institute

“Dear Colleague:

“I inoculated a person intracutaneously with sporocoides from the salivary glands of a female anopheles you sent me. For the second inoculation I do not have the sporocoides material because I do not possess the Strain Rose in the anopheles yet. If you could find it possible to send me a few anopheles infected with Strain Rose during the next few days (in the last consignment 2 out of 10 mosquitoes were infected), I would be able to continue this experiment and I would naturally be very grateful to you for this new support of my work.

“The mosquito breeding and the experiments are proceeding satisfactorily; I am working now on six tertiary strains. I remain with hearty greetings and

“Heil Hitler! “Yours truly “[Signed] CLAUS SCHILLING”

Q. Schilling apparently thought there was a “Strain Rose.”

A. Yes. That is indicated by the letter. That clears up the matter. He must have renamed this strain which came from my department and called it Rose. That is very unusual. Normally a malariologist would not do that.

Q. Are those your initials on the bottom of this letter, “L. g. RO 17/4”?

A. Yes, that indicates that 13 days after the letter was mailed, 12 days after it arrived at the Robert Koch Institute, I saw it. There is also the file note “Settled EVF.” That is Erna von Falkenhayn on 17 April 1942. I find that in spite of my instructions to the department, Fraeulein von Falkenhayn still sent mosquitoes to her old chief although she denies it now; but I should like to emphasize that, of course, I am responsible for what Fraeulein von Falkenhayn did even if she did not tell me about it.

Q. Well, you saw the letter of 17 April 1942. Did you reaffirm your instructions that no more material was to be sent to Schilling?

A. I cannot tell you now. That is quite possible. It is not even certain that I was in the Robert Koch Institute when I saw the letter. It is much more likely that Frau Block brought this letter to my home where such things were generally settled. And, from the fact that it had been dealt with 10 days before, you can see that such letters were opened by my secretary.

Q. I thought we would be a bit generous with Frau Block and assume she hadn’t seen the letter since she was so firm in the testimony that you hadn’t corresponded with Schilling during these years.

Did you ever send Schilling any atroparvus eggs?

A. Yes. Those are a type of anopheles eggs which he got from us. As a type of anopheles I had anopheles eggs maculipenis atroparvus in my laboratory.

Q. Suppose I put Document NO-1753 to you. This will be marked as Prosecution Exhibit 488 for identification. This is another letter from Schilling. This one is dated a year later—5 July 1943, acknowledging, “with appreciation the receipt of your letter of 30 June and the consignment of atroparvus eggs.”

I would also like to direct your attention, Professor, to the last paragraph of the letter where it says: “Please give Fraeulein Lange, who apparently takes care of her breed with greater skill and better success than the prisoner August, my best thanks for her troubles.”

Do you remember the Christian name of the witness Vieweg?

A. No, I am sorry I do not remember the name of this man.

Q. If you search the record I think you will find his forename was August.

Now, Doctor, apparently they completely ignored your orders of the year previous not to send any more material to Schilling. Apparently you had a change of heart yourself. Isn’t that right?

A. I have already stated expressly that my orders not to send any more material to Schilling meant that we did not have too much material ourselves. It did not mean that I had any misgivings about the way in which Schilling was carrying out his work. It is quite possible that when we again had plenty of mosquito eggs we gave some to Schilling again. I am in a very difficult position. It is difficult for me to testify anything from memory. You see here again that this matter was apparently dealt with by Fraeulein Lange and Schilling himself wrote to me again.

Q. Well, I didn’t read it that way, Professor. The first line acknowledges your letter of June 30th.

A. Well, then it’s possible that I wrote to Schilling.

Q. Frau Block suffered from bad memory about your correspondence with Schilling in 1943 as well as 1942, didn’t she?

A. Yes, I am rather astonished because one would assume that a secretary remembers such things better, but it is, of course, possible to make mistakes if one doesn’t have access to the files. I have told you that I cannot testify with any certainty to the details of such correspondence because I had too much correspondence.

Q. Well, isn’t it possible you supplied material to him in 1944?

A. I consider that quite impossible. We have the testimony of Fraeulein von Falkenhayn that the department for fever therapy never gave them any material and, at that time, I no longer had an office in Berlin. However, I must again rely on Fraeulein von Falkenhayn’s testimony. I myself was at Pfaffenrode once a month at the most, and I called up once or twice over long distance.

Q. I put in Document NO-1755. This will be marked “Prosecution Exhibit 489” for identification. This is a reply from you to Schilling, dated 27 July 1943. This letter speaks about shipping eggs to Schilling, doesn’t it?

A. Yes, apparently. There must have been plenty of mosquito eggs, so that we could give up some of them.

Q. There wasn’t as big a shortage as you thought; is that right?

DR. FRITZ: Mr. President, I ask that the photostat be shown to the defendant Rose. It is not impossible that it was written by an assistant and initialed “R.” I know the signature of Professor Rose, and I think the “R” looks a little different. Perhaps he might be shown the photostat.

PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Let the photostat be shown to the witness.

DEFENDANT ROSE: I must say I do not understand this signature at all. When I signed a letter I signed my name, but I don’t think it’s very important.

* * * * *

[34] All “R” references in Document NO-856 are to pages of the Record of the case of the United States _vs._ Weiss, Ruppert, et al.

[35] “Pros. Ex.” references in this document are to prosecution exhibits in the case of the United States _vs._ Weiss, Ruppert, et al.

[36] “Def. Ex.” references in this document are to defense exhibits in the case of the United States _vs._ Weiss, Ruppert, et al.

[37] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 13 and 16 December 1946, pp. 418-468.

[38] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 24, 25 April 1947, pp. 6410-6484.

4. LOST (MUSTARD) GAS EXPERIMENTS

a. Introduction

The defendants Karl Brandt, Handloser, Rostock, Gebhardt, Blome, Rudolf Brandt, and Sievers were charged with special responsibility for and participation in criminal conduct involving mustard gas experiment (indictment, par. 6 (D)). On this charge the defendants Karl Brandt, Rudolf Brandt, and Sievers were convicted and the defendants Handloser, Rostock, Gebhardt, and Blome were acquitted.

The prosecution’s summation of the evidence on the Lost (mustard) gas experiments is contained in its final briefs against the defendants Karl Brandt and Sievers. Extracts from these briefs are set forth below on pages 315 to 324. A corresponding summation of the evidence by the defense on these experiments has been selected from the closing briefs for the defendants Karl Brandt and Sievers. It appears below on pages 324 to 334. This argumentation is followed by selection from the evidence on pages 336 to 354.

b. Selections from the Argumentation of the Prosecution

_EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST DEFENDANT KARL BRANDT_

* * * * *

_Gas Experiments_

The treatment of wounds caused by chemical warfare agents was of considerable interest to military medical circles of Germany. On 1 March 1944, the Fuehrer gave Karl Brandt broad powers in the field of chemical warfare. (_NO-012, Pros. Ex. 270._) The decree itself is not available, but there is no dispute that Brandt’s jurisdiction extended to pharmaceutical products to treat gas wounds. So much he admits. (_Tr. p. 2629._) This necessarily involved a determination of the most effective method of treatment. That the decree included medical research on gas wounds can also be concluded from the fact that copies of the decree which Brandt sent to Himmler (_NO-012, Pros. Ex. 270_) were forwarded to Grawitz and Sievers who had previously worked on this problem. (_NO-013a, Pros. Ex. 271_; _NO-013b Pros. Ex. 272._)

In any event, on 31 March 1944, Sievers reported to Brandt about the research activities of Hirt. (_NO-015, Pros. Ex. 275._) Hirt had been experimenting on inmates of the Natzweiler concentration camp since November 1942. (_NO-098, Pros. Ex. 263._) For a detailed description of Hirt’s experiments, see the brief against Sievers (p. 318 ff). Brandt admitted that Sievers gave him the written report by Hirt, which was introduced as Prosecution Exhibit 268 (_NO-099_) and that this report shows on its face that experiments on human beings were performed by him. (_Tr. p. 2626._) It is significant to note that the report speaks of heavy, medium, and light wounds caused by Lost. Moreover, Brandt admitted he talked to Hirt in Strasbourg in April after the meeting with Sievers. (_Tr. p. 2610._) Approximately 220 inmates of Russian, Polish, Czech, and German nationality were experimented on with gas, of whom about 50 died. They did not volunteer. (_Tr. pp. 1052, 1057._) Hirt continued his gas experiments at Natzweiler during the summer of 1944. (_Tr. p. 1058._) His gas research was classified “urgent” by Rostock in August 1944. (_NO-692, Pros. Ex. 457._)

In addition to his participation in the gas experiments of Hirt, Karl Brandt personally furthered the criminal experimentation of Otto Bickenbach. Brandt testified that the gas experiments of Bickenbach came to his attention in the fall of 1943 on the occasion of a visit to Strasbourg to see a cyclotron; that later he helped him to arrange a laboratory; that he assisted him in obtaining experimental animals; that Bickenbach did not conduct experiments on human beings; that he helped him in 1944 after he had established this laboratory. (_Tr. pp. 2619, 2620._)

The Sievers’ diary for 1944 contains the following entry under 2 February:

“Met Professor Bickenbach in Karlsruhe and he advises that he has put his research work under the control of General Commissioner Professor Dr. Brandt.

“Discussion with SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Hirt: 1. Professor Dr. Bickenbach, without instructions from Hirt and Professor Stein, contacted General Commissioner Professor Dr. Brandt concerning the phosgene experiments that were [and was] in Natzweiler with him. Commission is to be withdrawn; for our part Natzweiler is to be closed.” (_3546-PS, Pros. Ex. 123._)

Phosgene is a chemical warfare agent. (_Tr. p. 2630._) Brandt admits he was in Natzweiler, but insists that only animal experiments were conducted. This is in direct contradiction to statements contained in an official war crimes report of the Government of the Netherlands. (_NO-1063, Pros. Ex. 328._) Josef Kramer, former camp commander at Natzweiler, also stated that Bickenbach experimented on prisoners. (_NO-807, Pros. Ex. 185._)

Brandt testified that he later assisted Bickenbach in establishing a laboratory in Fort Franzeky, which is near Strasbourg, and that he saw animal experiments there. (_Tr. p. 2630._) Bickenbach was a professor at the University of Strasbourg with Hirt and Haagen. (_Tr. p. 2631._)

The Bickenbach reports sent to Karl Brandt not only prove that Bickenbach and his collaborators Helmut Ruehl and Fritz Letz carried out phosgene experiments on 40 Russian prisoners of war, but that four of the subjects were killed as a result. (_NO-1852, Pros. Ex. 456._) This document completely destroys the credibility of the defendant Brandt.

These reports on the phosgene experiments are designated top military secret and are numbered 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. They are all addressed to Plenipotentiary General Brandt. These reports obviously cover the same series of experiments which culminated in experiments on 40 prisoners detailed in the 7th report. They were found in the apartment of Professor Bickenbach by French authorities. The purpose of these experiments was to determine the effectiveness of a drug called hexamethylentetramine against phosgene poisoning. Certain preliminary studies are detailed in the 4th report, dated 11 August 1944, and mention is made of tests carried out on a “nervous Russian prisoner of war, who could not be calmed down because of language difficulties * * *”.

The 7th report, which is undated, concerns experiments carried out shortly after 11 August 1944 (the date of the 4th report) as Strasbourg was overrun by the Allies a few months later. These experiments were performed on “40 prisoners on the prophylactic effect of hexamethylentetramine in cases of phosgene poisoning. Twelve of those were protected orally, twenty intravenously and eight were used as controls.” On the basis of the 4th report, it can only be concluded that the 40 prisoners referred to were Russian prisoners of war. The experimental subjects are further described as being “persons of middle age, almost all in a weak and underfed condition. On principle, the healthier ones were used as controls, only control number 39 (J. Rei) and the orally protected experimental subject No. 37 (A. Rei) had a localized cirrhotic productive tuberculosis of the lungs. With the others, no pulmonary disease could be found.” (_1852-PS, Pros. Ex. 456._)

The experimental persons were subjected to phosgene poisoning with resulting death to no less than four subjects. (_Tr. p. 3404._) Other subjects suffered severe lung oedema.

Defense counsel for Karl Brandt urged the possibility that this report was not received by him. Assuming _arguendo_ that the report was not mailed to Brandt, and, if received, not read, the fact remains that the experiments were performed by Bickenbach and his collaborators, whose work was directly controlled by Brandt. (_Supra._) Were there no other evidence on this point, the circumstances of the report having been addressed to Karl Brandt are sufficient proof of his responsibility. Moreover, the research of both Bickenbach and Hirt was classified urgent by Brandt’s Office for Science and Research under Rostock. (_NO-692, Pros. Ex. 457._)

The continued interest of Brandt in research on chemical warfare agents and his knowledge of experiments on concentration camp inmates are shown by the report dated 31 March 1945 concerning experiments at the Neuengamme concentration camp. (_NO-154, Pros. Ex. 446._) Water decontamination experiments were carried out there on inmates. The report states that the “third series of experiments was carried out with an agent of the Lost group, the asphyxiating gas Lost; in accordance with the suggestion made by Oberstarzt Dr. Wirth at the conference on 4 December 1944 with Reich Commissioner Brandt.”

_EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST DEFENDANT SIEVERS_

* * * * *

_Lost (Mustard) Gas Experiments_

From the winter of 1942 until the summer of 1944, experiments to determine the most effective treatment for wounds caused by Lost (mustard) gas were conducted in the Natzweiler concentration camp under the supervision of Professor Hirt of the Reich University of Strasbourg. The experiments were ordered by Himmler and the Luftwaffe, and sponsored by the Reich Research Council. The Ahnenerbe Society and the defendant Sievers supported this research on behalf of the SS. (_492-PS, Pros. Ex. 267._) The arrangement for the payment of the research subsidies of the Ahnenerbe was made by Sievers. (_NO-3819, Pros. Ex. 550._)

The defendant Sievers participated in these experiments by actively collaborating with the defendants Karl Brandt and Rudolf Brandt, and with Hirt and his principal assistant, Dr. Wimmer.

The record shows that Sievers was in correspondence with Hirt at least as early as 1942, and that he established contact between Himmler and Hirt. (_NO-791, Pros. Ex. 256_; _NO-792, Pros. Ex. 257_.)

On 9 April 1942 Sievers wrote to Hirt that Himmler wanted detailed information from Hirt on his Lost experiments. Sievers went on to say:

“We are sure to be in a position to put at your disposal for the furtherance of these experiments unique facilities in connection with special secret experiments which we are at present conducting at Dachau. Could you not some day write a brief secret report for the Reich Leader SS on your Lost experiments?

“But you should by no means go to Berlin for the time being, especially since the Reich Leader SS is staying permanently at the Fuehrer’s Headquarters. I, therefore, intend to pay you a visit at Strasbourg as soon as possible. But perhaps it would be easier for you to come to Munich, where I would have the opportunity of introducing you to the Chief of our Institute for Entomology and would be able to give you an insight into our secret experiments at Dachau.” (_NO-793, Pros. Ex. 258._)

The wording of the letter makes it apparent that it was Sievers himself who brought Hirt’s research activities concerning Lost gas to Himmler’s attention. This is also proved by the fact that on 9 February 1942, he had already submitted to the defendant Rudolf Brandt, Hirt’s report concerning the creation of a skeleton collection and research in the field of intravital microscopy. The latter experimentation involved the effect of Lost on the living tissue. (_NO-085, Pros. Ex. 175._) Brandt informed Himmler about Hirt’s report on 27 February, and directed Sievers to report again on Hirt’s work. (_NO-090, Pros. Ex. 176._) It was thus Sievers’ report on Hirt’s research activities which prompted Himmler to take an interest in Hirt’s Lost experiments.

On 27 June 1942 Sievers forwarded to the defendant Rudolf Brandt the information of Hirt concerning the use of mustard gas on combatting rats. In this letter he mentioned that he would have another conference with Hirt on this subject. According to Sievers, Hirt had voiced his expert opinion that Lost even “in a dilution of 1-100 is dangerous for man if it contacts the body in an adequate amount.” (_NO-794, Pros. Ex. 259._) It was Sievers who forwarded on 2 June 1942 Hirt’s report on his experiments in treating gas wounds by vitamins. In his covering letter to this report, Sievers informed the defendant Rudolf Brandt that he was to meet Hirt “in order to discuss with him a more intensive application, continuation, and promotion of his research work”. In the report itself, Hirt stated that he had not been able to conduct experiments with Lost gas on human beings because of the offensive against France, but suggested such experiments particularly in order to determine the protective effect of vitamin treatment. (_NO-097, Pros. Ex. 260._)

In a memorandum of 26 June 1942 concerning support by the Ahnenerbe of the research work of Hirt on mustard gas, Sievers proposed that an Institute for Military Scientific Research be established within the Ahnenerbe to bring together Hirt’s and similar research and thus facilitate the organizational and technical execution of the experiments. He proposed appointing Hirt as an active member of the new institute as chief of Department H (Hirt). He also stated that Rascher, who was then performing high-altitude experiments in collaboration with Ruff and Romberg, should be appointed as chief of Department R (Rascher). He stated that the necessary supplies for the new institute would be easier to explain and more reasonable than if applied for under the name of Ahnenerbe alone. (_NO-2210, Pros. Ex. 483._)

As a result of this suggestion by the defendant Sievers, Himmler directed the establishment of the Institute for Military Scientific Research within the Ahnenerbe in July 1942. In his letter to Sievers, Himmler requested that the new institute “support in every possible way the research carried out by SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Professor Dr. Hirt and promote all corresponding research and undertakings; to make available the required apparatus, equipment, accessories and assistants, or to procure them * * *.” (_NO-422, Pros. Ex. 33._)

Sievers proceeded to make all the necessary arrangements for carrying out the Lost gas experiments in the Natzweiler concentration camp. On 27 August 1942 in a letter to Gluecks of the WVHA, he stated that in connection with a visit to Hirt in Strasbourg he would like to take Hirt with him to Natzweiler on 31 August 1942 and he asked Gluecks to make the necessary arrangements with the commander of the camp. (_NO-935, Pros. Ex. 481._) In a file note dated 17 September 1942 Sievers stated that the conference mentioned in his letter to Gluecks had been held in Natzweiler on 31 August 1942, and that the working conditions there for the proposed experiments were favorable. Professor Hirt, Stabsarzt Dr. Wimmer, and Dr. Kieselbach would require automobile transport for part of the trip from Strasbourg to Natzweiler in order to perform their work there, and accordingly 20 liters of gasoline would have to be made available to the camp authorities each month. (_NO-977, Pros. Ex. 482._) In a letter of 11 September 1942 to Gluecks, Sievers stated that the necessary conditions existed in Natzweiler “for carrying out our military scientific research work * * *”. He requested that Gluecks issue the necessary authorization for Hirt, Wimmer, and Kieselbach to enter Natzweiler, and that provision be made for their accommodation and board. He also stated that:

“The experiments which are to be performed on prisoners are to be carried out in four rooms of an already existing medical barrack. Only slight changes in the construction of the building are required, in particular the installation of the hood which can be produced with very little material. In accordance with attached plan of the construction management at Natzweiler, I request that necessary orders be issued to same to carry out the reconstruction. All the expenses arising out of our activity at Natzweiler will be covered by this office * * *.” (_NO-978, Pros. Ex. 480._)

In a memorandum on 3 November 1942 to the defendant Rudolf Brandt, Sievers complained about certain difficulties which had arisen in Natzweiler because of the lack of cooperation from the camp officials. Sievers was particularly outraged by the fact that the camp officials were asking that the experimental prisoners be paid for. He said that:

“When I think of our military research work conducted at the concentration camp Dachau, I must praise and call special attention to the generous and understanding way in which our work was furthered there and to the cooperation we were given. Payment of [for] prisoners was never discussed. It seems as if at Natzweiler they are trying to make as much money as possible out of this matter. We are not conducting these experiments, as a matter of fact, for the sake of some fixed scientific idea, but to be of practical help to the armed forces and beyond that to the German people in a possible emergency.” (_NO-098, Pros. Ex. 263._)

Brandt was requested to give his help in a comradely fashion in setting up the necessary conditions at Natzweiler. The defendant Rudolf Brandt replied to this memorandum on 3 December 1942, and told Sievers that he had had occasion to speak to Pohl concerning these difficulties, and that he had reported that they would be remedied. (_NO-092, Pros. Ex 180._)

The witness Holl gave in his testimony an accurate and detailed description of the manner in which the Lost gas experiments were carried out. The execution of the experiments was supervised by Hirt in the experimental station Ahnenerbe in the Natzweiler concentration camp. In the middle of October 1942 the preparation for these experiments was finished and the actual experimentation began sometime in October or November, after the experimental subjects were given the same food as the SS guards for approximately 14 days. The first series of experiments was carried out by Hirt on 30 experimental subjects with a liquid gas substance. (_Tr. p. 1051._) In spite of the fact that Hirt, before selecting these experimental subjects, had promised them that he would intervene with Himmler in order that they should be released as a reward if they would volunteer for the experiments, none of the experimental subjects of all the experiments carried out by Hirt volunteered. Political prisoners, Russians, Poles, Czechs, and also some German nationals were among the experimental subjects used. (_Tr. p. 1052._)

The first series of experiments was carried out by Hirt and an officer of the Luftwaffe in the following manner: One drop of the liquid was applied to the lower arm of the experimental subject. Approximately 10 hours later burns began to appear and spread over the whole body in every place where drops of the fluid contacted the skin. Some of the experimental subjects became partially blind. The victims of these experiments suffered terrible pain. Photographic pictures of the burns were taken daily. After the fifth or sixth day of the experiment, the first fatality occurred. The corpse of the victim was dissected and the autopsy showed that the greater parts of the lungs and other organs had been destroyed. On the following day, that is, on the seventh day of the experiment, another seven of the experimental subjects died. The remaining 22 were sent to another concentration camp after approximately 2 months when they had recovered sufficiently and became fit for transport. (_Tr. pp. 1052-3._) Other experiments on concentration camp inmates of the Natzweiler concentration camp were carried out in the gas chamber approximately 500 meters distant from the camp. The experimental subjects had to enter this gas chamber two by two. They had to smash small ampules which contained the liquid. This liquid evaporated and the experimental subject then had to inhale the resulting vapor. Usually the experimental subjects became unconscious and were returned to the Ahnenerbe station for further observation of the results of the experiments. (_Tr. pp. 1053-4._) These results were approximately the same as those observed in the first series. The breathing organs of the experimental subjects were likewise destroyed. Their lungs had been eaten away by the gas. About 150 concentration camp inmates were experimented upon in this manner. (_Tr. pp. 1034-5._) Approximately the same percentage as in the first series died as a result of this type of experimentation. (_Tr. p. 1056._)

Other Lost gas experiments were carried out by means of injection. These experiments were carried out in a special room adjoining the crematorium. The victims of these experiments died without exception. (_Tr. p. 1056._) Another type of experiment was carried out on the experimental subjects, who had to take the liquid orally. As Holl was transferred before Christmas 1943 to an outside camp, he was not able to give information on the results of this type of experiment. (_Tr. p. 1056._) He, however, returned once a month to the Natzweiler concentration camp and was therefore able to observe that the Lost gas experiments continued until autumn 1944, when the Natzweiler concentration camp was liberated by the Allies. (_Tr. pp. 1057-8._)

From Holl’s testimony it is proved that approximately 220 inmates of Russian, Polish, Czech, and German nationalities were experimented upon with gas by Hirt and his collaborators. About 50 of them died. None of the experimental subjects volunteered. (_Tr. pp. 1052, 1057._)

On 7 April 1943, when the Lost experiments were well under way (_supra_), Himmler ordered an intensification of Lost research. At about this time the progress of Hirt’s Lost research was threatened by the transfer of Hirt’s assistant, Wimmer, a medical officer of the Luftwaffe. Since personnel matters fell within the scope of Sievers’ duties, he wrote to Rudolf Brandt protesting the proposed transfer of Wimmer and stating that if Wimmer left the Institute for Military Scientific Research, the Lost experiments would have to end. Sievers then outlined the proper procedure for securing the future services of Wimmer at the Ahnenerbe Institute. (_NO-193, Pros. Ex. 264._)

Again, on 3 November 1943, Sievers, in order to further the Lost experiments and assure their continuation, made a certificate which enabled two of Hirt’s research assistants to obtain increased food rations. Sievers stated that the research activities in which these persons were engaged with Department H (Hirt), Strasbourg, of the Institute for Military Scientific Research of the Ahnenerbe involved health-damaging poisons which had caused injuries to their health. (_492-PS, Pros. Ex. 267._)

The evidence clearly indicated that during the entire period covered by the Lost experiments, Hirt was associated with the Ahnenerbe Society. In early 1944 Hirt and Wimmer summarized their findings from the Lost experiments in a report entitled “Proposed Treatment of Poisoning caused by Lost”. The report was described as from the Institute for Military Scientific Research, Department H of the Ahnenerbe, located at the Strasbourg Anatomical Institute. Light, medium, and heavy injuries due to Lost gas are mentioned. Sievers received several copies of this report. (_NO-099, Pros. Ex. 268._) On 31 March 1944, after Karl Brandt had received a Fuehrer Decree giving him broad powers in the field of chemical warfare (_NO-012, Pros. Ex. 270_), Sievers informed Brandt about Hirt’s work and gave him a copy of the report. This is proved by Sievers’ letter to Rudolf Brandt on 11 April 1944. (_NO-015, Pros. Ex. 275._) Karl Brandt admitted that the wording of the report made it clear that experiments had been conducted on human beings. (_Tr. p. 2626._)

The proof has also shown that in October 1943 the defendant Blome, in his capacity as a Plenipotentiary in the Reich Research Council, issued a research assignment for Hirt in support of his gas experiments. This is proved by the file index card on Blome’s research assignment in the Reich Research Council, where the assignment to Hirt by Blome is listed under SS priority number 0329. (_NO-690, Pros. Ex. 120._) Sievers admitted that a Reich research assignment to Hirt “on the behavior of Lost gas in living organisms” was made. (_Tr. p. 5817._) He further admitted that at a conference in April 1942, Himmler told him that Hirt should make Lost experiments on human beings other than volunteer military cadets. (_Tr. p. 5679._)

Sievers testified that on 25 January 1943, he went to Natzweiler concentration camp and consulted with the camp authorities concerning the arrangements to be made for Hirt’s Lost experiments. These arrangements included the obtaining of laboratories and experimental subjects. (_Tr. pp. 5842-43._) Sievers testified that the Lost experiments were harmful. (_Tr. p. 5810._) On the visit of 25 January 1943, Sievers saw ten persons who had been subjected to Lost experiments and watched Hirt change the bandages on one of the persons. Sievers said that the experimental subjects told him that they were volunteers and Hirt confirmed this to Sievers. (_Tr. p. 5732._) The testimony of Sievers was contradictory as to his knowledge that the Lost experiments caused deaths. Sievers testified that in March 1943 he asked Hirt whether any of the experimental subjects had suffered harm from the experiments and was told by Hirt that two of the experimental subjects had died due to other causes. (_Tr. p. 5733._) On the other hand, Sievers seemed to be referring to Lost experiments when he stated that he knew of one condemned criminal who had died from the experiments. (_Tr. p. 5810._) As to the nationality of the experimental subjects, Sievers was of the opinion, in view of their manner of speech, that the test persons were Germans. (_Tr. p. 5812._) The proof, however, clearly shows that Sievers already, as early as January 1942, had knowledge that nonvolunteers were to be used for the Lost experiments of Hirt. In his letter of 3 January 1942, Sievers requested Hirt to submit comprehensive research reports to him in order that he might forward them to Himmler. Sievers assured Hirt that Himmler would permit Hirt to conduct experiments of any kind “on prisoners and real criminals who would never be released anyhow and on persons scheduled for execution.” (_NO-3629, Pros. Ex. 547._)

Sievers’ diary entries indicate that his primary concern was making the necessary arrangements for the carrying out of the Lost experiments. On 25 January 1943 Sievers visited Natzweiler and consulted with the camp administration; on 28 January 1943 Sievers consulted with Pohl concerning the continuation of the Lost experiments and undoubtedly arranged for the allocation of test persons, although he testified that his conversation related to obtaining space for animals. (_Tr. p. 5736._) On 24 and 25 January Sievers received reports from Hirt on Lost experiments and on 17 March 1943 Sievers attended a conference at the Institute for Military Scientific Research where Lost experiments were reported. (_NO-538, Pros. Ex. 122._)