“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.