(eBook PDF) Programming Language Pragmatics, 4th

Edition pdf download

https://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-programming-language-
pragmatics-4th-edition/

Download more ebook from https://ebooksecure.com

We believe these products will be a great fit for you. Click
the link to download now, or visit ebooksecure.com
to discover even more!

(eBook PDF) Essentials of Medical Language 4th Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-essentials-of-medical-
language-4th-edition/

(eBook PDF) Medical Language: Immerse Yourself 4th

Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-medical-language-
immerse-yourself-4th-edition/

(eBook PDF) Essentials of Medical Language 4th Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-essentials-of-medical-
language-4th-edition-2/

Progress in Heterocyclic Chemistry Volume 29 1st

Edition - eBook PDF

https://ebooksecure.com/download/progress-in-heterocyclic-
chemistry-ebook-pdf/
(eBook PDF) Translational Medicine in CNS Drug
Development, Volume 29

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-translational-medicine-
in-cns-drug-development-volume-29/

(eBook PDF) Second Language Learning Theories: Fourth

Edition 4th Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-second-language-
learning-theories-fourth-edition-4th-edition/

(eBook PDF) Starting Out with Programming Logic and

Design 4th

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-starting-out-with-
programming-logic-and-design-4th/

(eBook PDF) Matlab: A Practical Introduction to

Programming and Problem Solving 4th Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-matlab-a-practical-
introduction-to-programming-and-problem-solving-4th-edition/

(eBook PDF) Vorsprung: A Communicative Introduction to

German Language and Culture 4th Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-vorsprung-a-
communicative-introduction-to-german-language-and-culture-4th-
edition/
 vii

To family and friends.

This page intentionally left blank
 Contents

Foreword xxiii

Preface xxv

I FOUNDATIONS 3

1 Introduction 5
1.1 The Art of Language Design 7
1.2 The Programming Language Spectrum 11
1.3 Why Study Programming Languages? 14
1.4 Compilation and Interpretation 17
1.5 Programming Environments 24
1.6 An Overview of Compilation 26
1.6.1 Lexical and Syntax Analysis 28
1.6.2 Semantic Analysis and Intermediate Code Generation 32
1.6.3 Target Code Generation 34
1.6.4 Code Improvement 36
1.7 Summary and Concluding Remarks 37
1.8 Exercises 38
1.9 Explorations 39
1.10 Bibliographic Notes 40

2 Programming Language Syntax 43

2.1 Specifying Syntax: Regular Expressions and Context-Free Grammars 44
2.1.1 Tokens and Regular Expressions 45
2.1.2 Context-Free Grammars 48
2.1.3 Derivations and Parse Trees 50
x Contents

2.2 Scanning 54
2.2.1 Generating a Finite Automaton 56
2.2.2 Scanner Code 61
2.2.3 Table-Driven Scanning 65
2.2.4 Lexical Errors 65
2.2.5 Pragmas 67
2.3 Parsing 69
2.3.1 Recursive Descent 73
2.3.2 Writing an LL(1) Grammar 79
2.3.3 Table-Driven Top-Down Parsing 82
2.3.4 Bottom-Up Parsing 89
2.3.5 Syntax Errors C 1 . 102
2.4 Theoretical Foundations C 13 . 103
2.4.1 Finite Automata C 13
2.4.2 Push-Down Automata C 18
2.4.3 Grammar and Language Classes C 19

2.5 Summary and Concluding Remarks 104

2.6 Exercises 105
2.7 Explorations 112
2.8 Bibliographic Notes 112

3 Names, Scopes, and Bindings 115

3.1 The Notion of Binding Time 116
3.2 Object Lifetime and Storage Management 118
3.2.1 Static Allocation 119
3.2.2 Stack-Based Allocation 120
3.2.3 Heap-Based Allocation 122
3.2.4 Garbage Collection 124
3.3 Scope Rules 125
3.3.1 Static Scoping 126
3.3.2 Nested Subroutines 127
3.3.3 Declaration Order 130
3.3.4 Modules 135
3.3.5 Module Types and Classes 139
3.3.6 Dynamic Scoping 142
3.4 Implementing Scope C 26 . 144
3.4.1 Symbol Tables C 26
3.4.2 Association Lists and Central Reference Tables C 31
 Contents xi

3.5 The Meaning of Names within a Scope 145

3.5.1 Aliases 145
3.5.2 Overloading 147
3.6 The Binding of Referencing Environments 152
3.6.1 Subroutine Closures 153
3.6.2 First-Class Values and Unlimited Extent 155
3.6.3 Object Closures 157
3.6.4 Lambda Expressions 159
3.7 Macro Expansion 162
3.8 Separate Compilation C 36 . 165
3.8.1 Separate Compilation in C C 37
3.8.2 Packages and Automatic Header Inference C 40
3.8.3 Module Hierarchies C 41

3.9 Summary and Concluding Remarks 165

3.10 Exercises 167
3.11 Explorations 175
3.12 Bibliographic Notes 177

4 Semantic Analysis 179

4.1 The Role of the Semantic Analyzer 180
4.2 Attribute Grammars 184
4.3 Evaluating Attributes 187
4.4 Action Routines 195
4.5 Space Management for Attributes C 45 . 200
4.5.1 Bottom-Up Evaluation C 45
4.5.2 Top-Down Evaluation C 50

4.6 Tree Grammars and Syntax Tree Decoration 201

4.7 Summary and Concluding Remarks 208
4.8 Exercises 209
4.9 Explorations 214
4.10 Bibliographic Notes 215

5 Target Machine Architecture C 60 . 217

5.1 The Memory Hierarchy C 61
5.2 Data Representation C 63
xii Contents

5.2.1 Integer Arithmetic C 65

5.2.2 Floating-Point Arithmetic C 67
5.3 Instruction Set Architecture (ISA) C 70
5.3.1 Addressing Modes C 71
5.3.2 Conditions and Branches C 72

5.4 Architecture and Implementation C 75

5.4.1 Microprogramming C 76
5.4.2 Microprocessors C 77
5.4.3 RISC C 77
5.4.4 Multithreading and Multicore C 78
5.4.5 Two Example Architectures: The x86 and ARM C 80
5.5 Compiling for Modern Processors C 88
5.5.1 Keeping the Pipeline Full C 89
5.5.2 Register Allocation C 93

5.6 Summary and Concluding Remarks C 98

5.7 Exercises C 100
5.8 Explorations C 104
5.9 Bibliographic Notes C 105

II CORE ISSUES IN LANGUAGE DESIGN 221

6 Control Flow 223

6.1 Expression Evaluation 224
6.1.1 Precedence and Associativity 226
6.1.2 Assignments 229
6.1.3 Initialization 238
6.1.4 Ordering within Expressions 240
6.1.5 Short-Circuit Evaluation 243
6.2 Structured and Unstructured Flow 246
6.2.1 Structured Alternatives to goto 247
6.2.2 Continuations 250
6.3 Sequencing 252
6.4 Selection 253
6.4.1 Short-Circuited Conditions 254
6.4.2 Case / Switch Statements 256
6.5 Iteration 261
 Contents xiii

6.5.1 Enumeration-Controlled Loops 262

6.5.2 Combination Loops 266
6.5.3 Iterators 268
6.5.4 Generators in Icon C 107 . 274
6.5.5 Logically Controlled Loops 275
6.6 Recursion 277
6.6.1 Iteration and Recursion 277
6.6.2 Applicative- and Normal-Order Evaluation 282
6.7 Nondeterminacy C 110 . 283
6.8 Summary and Concluding Remarks 284
6.9 Exercises 286
6.10 Explorations 292
6.11 Bibliographic Notes 294

7 Type Systems 297

7.1 Overview 298
7.1.1 The Meaning of “Type” 300
7.1.2 Polymorphism 302
7.1.3 Orthogonality 302
7.1.4 Classification of Types 305
7.2 Type Checking 312
7.2.1 Type Equivalence 313
7.2.2 Type Compatibility 320
7.2.3 Type Inference 324
7.2.4 Type Checking in ML 326
7.3 Parametric Polymorphism 331
7.3.1 Generic Subroutines and Classes 333
7.3.2 Generics in C++, Java, and C# C 119 . 339
7.4 Equality Testing and Assignment 340
7.5 Summary and Concluding Remarks 342
7.6 Exercises 344
7.7 Explorations 347
7.8 Bibliographic Notes 348

8 Composite Types 351

8.1 Records (Structures) 351
xiv Contents

8.1.1 Syntax and Operations 352

8.1.2 Memory Layout and Its Impact 353
8.1.3 Variant Records (Unions) C 136 . 357
8.2 Arrays 359
8.2.1 Syntax and Operations 359
8.2.2 Dimensions, Bounds, and Allocation 363
8.2.3 Memory Layout 368
8.3 Strings 375
8.4 Sets 376
8.5 Pointers and Recursive Types 377
8.5.1 Syntax and Operations 378
8.5.2 Dangling References C 144 . 388
8.5.3 Garbage Collection 389
8.6 Lists 398
8.7 Files and Input/Output C 148 . 401
8.7.1 Interactive I/O C 148
8.7.2 File-Based I/O C 149
8.7.3 Text I/O C 151

8.8 Summary and Concluding Remarks 402

8.9 Exercises 404
8.10 Explorations 409
8.11 Bibliographic Notes 410

9 Subroutines and Control Abstraction 411

9.1 Review of Stack Layout 412
9.2 Calling Sequences 414
9.2.1 Displays C 163 . 417
9.2.2 Stack Case Studies: LLVM on ARM; gcc on x86 C 167 . 417
9.2.3 Register Windows C 177 . 419
9.2.4 In-Line Expansion 419
9.3 Parameter Passing 422
9.3.1 Parameter Modes 423
9.3.2 Call by Name C 180 . 433
9.3.3 Special-Purpose Parameters 433
9.3.4 Function Returns 438
9.4 Exception Handling 440
 Contents xv

9.4.1 Defining Exceptions 444

9.4.2 Exception Propagation 445
9.4.3 Implementation of Exceptions 447
9.5 Coroutines 450
9.5.1 Stack Allocation 453
9.5.2 Transfer 454
9.5.3 Implementation of Iterators C 183 . 456
9.5.4 Discrete Event Simulation C 187 . 456
9.6 Events 456
9.6.1 Sequential Handlers 457
9.6.2 Thread-Based Handlers 459
9.7 Summary and Concluding Remarks 461
9.8 Exercises 462
9.9 Explorations 467
9.10 Bibliographic Notes 468

10 Data Abstraction and Object Orientation 471

10.1 Object-Oriented Programming 473
10.1.1 Classes and Generics 481
10.2 Encapsulation and Inheritance 485
10.2.1 Modules 486
10.2.2 Classes 488
10.2.3 Nesting (Inner Classes) 490
10.2.4 Type Extensions 491
10.2.5 Extending without Inheritance 494
10.3 Initialization and Finalization 495
10.3.1 Choosing a Constructor 496
10.3.2 References and Values 498
10.3.3 Execution Order 502
10.3.4 Garbage Collection 504
10.4 Dynamic Method Binding 505
10.4.1 Virtual and Nonvirtual Methods 508
10.4.2 Abstract Classes 508
10.4.3 Member Lookup 509
10.4.4 Object Closures 513
10.5 Mix-In Inheritance 516
10.5.1 Implementation 517
10.5.2 Extensions 519
xvi Contents

10.6 True Multiple Inheritance C 194 . 521

10.6.1 Semantic Ambiguities C 196
10.6.2 Replicated Inheritance C 200
10.6.3 Shared Inheritance C 201

10.7 Object-Oriented Programming Revisited 522

10.7.1 The Object Model of Smalltalk C 204 . 523
10.8 Summary and Concluding Remarks 524
10.9 Exercises 525
10.10 Explorations 528
10.11 Bibliographic Notes 529

III ALTERNATIVE PROGRAMMING MODELS 533

11 Functional Languages 535

11.1 Historical Origins 536
11.2 Functional Programming Concepts 537
11.3 A Bit of Scheme 539
11.3.1 Bindings 542
11.3.2 Lists and Numbers 543
11.3.3 Equality Testing and Searching 544
11.3.4 Control Flow and Assignment 545
11.3.5 Programs as Lists 547
11.3.6 Extended Example: DFA Simulation in Scheme 548
11.4 A Bit of OCaml 550
11.4.1 Equality and Ordering 553
11.4.2 Bindings and Lambda Expressions 554
11.4.3 Type Constructors 555
11.4.4 Pattern Matching 559
11.4.5 Control Flow and Side Effects 563
11.4.6 Extended Example: DFA Simulation in OCaml 565
11.5 Evaluation Order Revisited 567
11.5.1 Strictness and Lazy Evaluation 569
11.5.2 I/O: Streams and Monads 571
11.6 Higher-Order Functions 576
11.7 Theoretical Foundations C 212 . 580
11.7.1 Lambda Calculus C 214
 Contents xvii

11.7.2 Control Flow C 217

11.7.3 Structures C 219
11.8 Functional Programming in Perspective 581
11.9 Summary and Concluding Remarks 583
11.10 Exercises 584
11.11 Explorations 589
11.12 Bibliographic Notes 590

12 Logic Languages 591

12.1 Logic Programming Concepts 592
12.2 Prolog 593
12.2.1 Resolution and Unification 595
12.2.2 Lists 596
12.2.3 Arithmetic 597
12.2.4 Search/Execution Order 598
12.2.5 Extended Example: Tic-Tac-Toe 600
12.2.6 Imperative Control Flow 604
12.2.7 Database Manipulation 607
12.3 Theoretical Foundations C 226 . 612
12.3.1 Clausal Form C 227
12.3.2 Limitations C 228
12.3.3 Skolemization C 230

12.4 Logic Programming in Perspective 613

12.4.1 Parts of Logic Not Covered 613
12.4.2 Execution Order 613
12.4.3 Negation and the “Closed World” Assumption 615
12.5 Summary and Concluding Remarks 616
12.6 Exercises 618
12.7 Explorations 620
12.8 Bibliographic Notes 620

13 Concurrency 623
13.1 Background and Motivation 624
13.1.1 The Case for Multithreaded Programs 627
13.1.2 Multiprocessor Architecture 631
13.2 Concurrent Programming Fundamentals 635
xviii Contents

13.2.1 Communication and Synchronization 635

13.2.2 Languages and Libraries 637
13.2.3 Thread Creation Syntax 638
13.2.4 Implementation of Threads 647
13.3 Implementing Synchronization 652
13.3.1 Busy-Wait Synchronization 653
13.3.2 Nonblocking Algorithms 657
13.3.3 Memory Consistency 659
13.3.4 Scheduler Implementation 663
13.3.5 Semaphores 667
13.4 Language-Level Constructs 669
13.4.1 Monitors 669
13.4.2 Conditional Critical Regions 674
13.4.3 Synchronization in Java 676
13.4.4 Transactional Memory 679
13.4.5 Implicit Synchronization 683
13.5 Message Passing C 235 . 687
13.5.1 Naming Communication Partners C 235
13.5.2 Sending C 239
13.5.3 Receiving C 244
13.5.4 Remote Procedure Call C 249
13.6 Summary and Concluding Remarks 688
13.7 Exercises 690
13.8 Explorations 695
13.9 Bibliographic Notes 697

14 Scripting Languages 699

14.1 What Is a Scripting Language? 700
14.1.1 Common Characteristics 701
14.2 Problem Domains 704
14.2.1 Shell (Command) Languages 705
14.2.2 Text Processing and Report Generation 712
14.2.3 Mathematics and Statistics 717
14.2.4 “Glue” Languages and General-Purpose Scripting 718
14.2.5 Extension Languages 724
14.3 Scripting the World Wide Web 727
14.3.1 CGI Scripts 728
14.3.2 Embedded Server-Side Scripts 729
 Contents xix

14.3.3 Client-Side Scripts 734

14.3.4 Java Applets and Other Embedded Elements 734
14.3.5 XSLT C 258 . 736
14.4 Innovative Features 738
14.4.1 Names and Scopes 739
14.4.2 String and Pattern Manipulation 743
14.4.3 Data Types 751
14.4.4 Object Orientation 757
14.5 Summary and Concluding Remarks 764
14.6 Exercises 765
14.7 Explorations 769
14.8 Bibliographic Notes 771

IV A CLOSER LOOK AT IMPLEMENTATION 773

15 Building a Runnable Program 775

15.1 Back-End Compiler Structure 775
15.1.1 A Plausible Set of Phases 776
15.1.2 Phases and Passes 780
15.2 Intermediate Forms 780
15.2.1 GIMPLE and RTL C 273 . 782
15.2.2 Stack-Based Intermediate Forms 782
15.3 Code Generation 784
15.3.1 An Attribute Grammar Example 785
15.3.2 Register Allocation 787
15.4 Address Space Organization 790
15.5 Assembly 792
15.5.1 Emitting Instructions 794
15.5.2 Assigning Addresses to Names 796
15.6 Linking 797
15.6.1 Relocation and Name Resolution 798
15.6.2 Type Checking 799
15.7 Dynamic Linking C 279 . 800
15.7.1 Position-Independent Code C 280
15.7.2 Fully Dynamic (Lazy) Linking C 282
xx Contents

15.8 Summary and Concluding Remarks 802

15.9 Exercises 803
15.10 Explorations 805
15.11 Bibliographic Notes 806

16 Run-Time Program Management 807

16.1 Virtual Machines 810
16.1.1 The Java Virtual Machine 812
16.1.2 The Common Language Infrastructure C 286 . 820
16.2 Late Binding of Machine Code 822
16.2.1 Just-in-Time and Dynamic Compilation 822
16.2.2 Binary Translation 828
16.2.3 Binary Rewriting 833
16.2.4 Mobile Code and Sandboxing 835
16.3 Inspection/Introspection 837
16.3.1 Reflection 837
16.3.2 Symbolic Debugging 845
16.3.3 Performance Analysis 848
16.4 Summary and Concluding Remarks 850
16.5 Exercises 851
16.6 Explorations 853
16.7 Bibliographic Notes 854

17 Code Improvement C 297 . 857

17.1 Phases of Code Improvement C 299
17.2 Peephole Optimization C 301
17.3 Redundancy Elimination in Basic Blocks C 304
17.3.1 A Running Example C 305
17.3.2 Value Numbering C 307

17.4 Global Redundancy and Data Flow Analysis C 312

17.4.1 SSA Form and Global Value Numbering C 312
17.4.2 Global Common Subexpression Elimination C 315

17.5 Loop Improvement I C 323

17.5.1 Loop Invariants C 323
17.5.2 Induction Variables C 325

17.6 Instruction Scheduling C 328

 Contents xxi

17.7 Loop Improvement II C 332

17.7.1 Loop Unrolling and Software Pipelining C 332
17.7.2 Loop Reordering C 337

17.8 Register Allocation C 344

17.9 Summary and Concluding Remarks C 348
17.10 Exercises C 349
17.11 Explorations C 353
17.12 Bibliographic Notes C 354

A Programming Languages Mentioned 859

B Language Design and Language Implementation 871

C Numbered Examples 877

Bibliography 891

Index 911
This page intentionally left blank
 Foreword

Programming languages are universally accepted as one of the core subjects that
every computer scientist must master. The reason is clear: these languages are
the main notation we use for developing products and for communicating new
ideas. They have influenced the field by enabling the development of those
multimillion-line programs that shaped the information age. Their success is
owed to the long-standing effort of the computer science community in the cre-
ation of new languages and in the development of strategies for their implemen-
tation. The large number of computer scientists mentioned in the footnotes and
bibliographic notes in this book by Michael Scott is a clear manifestation of the
magnitude of this effort as is the sheer number and diversity of topics it contains.
Over 75 programming languages are discussed. They represent the best and
most influential contributions in language design across time, paradigms, and ap-
plication domains. They are the outcome of decades of work that led initially to
Fortran and Lisp in the 1950s, to numerous languages in the years that followed,
and, in our times, to the popular dynamic languages used to program the Web.
The 75 plus languages span numerous paradigms including imperative, func-
tional, logic, static, dynamic, sequential, shared-memory parallel, distributed-
memory parallel, dataflow, high-level, and intermediate languages. They include
languages for scientific computing, for symbolic manipulations, and for accessing
databases. This rich diversity of languages is crucial for programmer productivity
and is one of the great assets of the discipline of computing.
Cutting across languages, this book presents a detailed discussion of control
flow, types, and abstraction mechanisms. These are the representations needed
to develop programs that are well organized, modular, easy to understand, and
easy to maintain. Knowledge of these core features and of their incarnation in to-
day’s languages is a basic foundation to be an effective programmer and to better
understand computer science today.
Strategies to implement programming languages must be studied together
with the design paradigms. A reason is that success of a language depends on
the quality of its implementation. Also, the capabilities of these strategies some-
times constraint the design of languages. The implementation of a language starts
with parsing and lexical scanning needed to compute the syntactic structure of
programs. Today’s parsing techniques, described in Part I, are among the most
beautiful algorithms ever developed and are a great example of the use of mathe-
matical objects to create practical instruments. They are worthwhile studying just

xxiii
xxiv Foreword

as an intellectual achievement. They are of course of great practical value, and a

good way to appreciate the greatness of these strategies is to go back to the first
Fortran compiler and study the ad hoc, albeit highly ingenious, strategy used to
implement precedence of operators by the pioneers that built that compiler.
The other usual component of implementation are the compiler components
that carry out the translation from the high-level language representation to a
lower level form suitable for execution by real or virtual machines. The transla-
tion can be done ahead of time, during execution (just in time), or both. The
book discusses these approaches and implementation strategies including the
elegant mechanisms of translation driven by parsing. To produce highly effi-
cient code, translation routines apply strategies to avoid redundant computations,
make efficient use of the memory hierarchy, and take advantage of intra-processor
parallelism. These, sometimes conflicting goals, are undertaken by the optimiza-
tion components of compilers. Although this topic is typically outside the scope
of a first course on compilers, the book gives the reader access to a good overview
of program optimization in Part IV.
An important recent development in computing is the popularization of paral-
lelism and the expectation that, in the foreseeable future, performance gains will
mainly be the result of effectively exploiting this parallelism. The book responds
to this development by presenting the reader with a range of topics in concurrent
programming including mechanisms for synchronization, communication, and
coordination across threads. This information will become increasingly impor-
tant as parallelism consolidates as the norm in computing.
Programming languages are the bridge between programmers and machines.
It is in them that algorithms must be represented for execution. The study of pro-
gramming languages design and implementation offers great educational value
by requiring an understanding of the strategies used to connect the different as-
pects of computing. By presenting such an extensive treatment of the subject,
Michael Scott’s Programming Language Pragmatics, is a great contribution to the
literature and a valuable source of information for computer scientists.

David Padua
Siebel Center for Computer Science
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Another Random Scribd Document
with Unrelated Content
 Test papers sent to Reich medical officer of SS by courier.
Dr. Ding
SS Sturmbannfuehrer
22 Jan 44:
31 Jan 44:

Vaccine Preliminary Experimental Series “Weimar”

To test compatibility and the immunization effect, five persons

were immunized by three vaccinations with typhus vaccine “Weimar”
(producer: Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS, Division for Typhus
and Virus Research). On 22 Jan 44, 0.5 cc., on 27 Jan 44, 1.0 cc., on
31 Jan 44, 1.0 cc. were injected subcutaneously in the left or right
upper arm.
For comparison, 5 persons were immunized on the above-
mentioned dates with 0.5 cc., 0.5 cc., and 1 cc. of typhus egg-
culture vaccine “Asid” (Anhaltinische Serumwerke, Berlin) and 5
persons were immunized with typhus vaccine “Giroud” (produced by
the Pasteur Institute, Paris, from rabbit lungs), 1 cc. each.
25 Feb 44:
Twenty persons (15 immunized and 5 for control) were infected
by subcutaneous injection of 1/20 cc. fresh typhus-infected blood.
Donor: G * * * Nr 713, 36 years old (6th day of sickness)
Strain Bu IV/Passage 13.
All those infected fell sick with slight to serious typhus.
5 Apr 44:
Chart and case history completed.
25 Apr 44:
The experimental series was concluded—
5 deaths (1 Asid, 1 Weimar, 3 Control).
Dr. Ding
8 Mar 44:
18 Mar 44:

Typhus Vaccine, Experimental Series VIII

 Suggested by Colonel M. C. of the Air Corps, Oberstarzt Professor
Rose the vaccine “Kopenhagen” (Ipsen-Murine vaccine), produced
from mouse liver by the National Serum Institute in Copenhagen,
was tested for its compatibility on humans.
20 persons were vaccinated for immunization by intramuscular
injection into the Musculus Glutaeus Max. on the following dates: 8
Mar 44, 0.5 cc.; 13 Mar 44, 0.5 cc.; 18 Mar 44, 1.0 cc.
10 persons were contemplated for control and comparison.
4 of the 30 persons were eliminated before the start of the
artificial injection, because of intermittent sickness.
16 Apr 44:
The remaining experimental persons were infected on 16 Apr 44
by subcutaneous injection of 1/20 cc. typhus sick fresh blood.
Donor: W * * * No. 763, 27 years old (6th day of sickness)
Strain Bu VII/Passage 1.
The following fell sick:
a. 17 persons immunized; 9 medium, 8 seriously.
b. 9 control persons; 2 medium, 7 seriously.
2 Jun 44:
The experimental series was concluded.
13 Jun 44:
Chart and case history completed and sent to Berlin.
6 deaths (3 Kopenhagen, 3 Control).
Dr. Ding
26 May 44:
12 Jun 44:

Taking of Blood to Produce Typhus Convalescent Serum (FFRS)

To produce FFRS, 6,500 cc. blood were taken from 15 typhus

convalescents between the 14th and 21st day after the fever had
subsided, and sent by courier to the SS Main Operational
Headquarters, office group D, office XVI (blood conservation) attn:
SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Ellenbeck, in Berlin-Lichterfelde.
Ding
22 May 44:
16 Jun 44:

Control of Blood Plasma

By order of the Military Academy for Medicine, Berlin, 44 capsules

of blood plasma were tested on 44 experimental persons for their
compatibility on humans.
19 Jun 44:
Test protocol sent to the senior hygienist of the Reich Medical
Office of the SS and Police, Berlin.
Ding
17 Jul 44:
27 Jul 44:

Typhus Vaccine, Experimental Series IX

The typhus vaccine “Weimar”, produced by the Division for

Typhus and Virus Research of the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen
SS, Weimar-Buchenwald, was tested according to orders for its
efficacy on humans.
This vaccine was produced from rabbit lungs according to the
process Durand-Giroud. It contains virus (Rickettsia-Prowazeki) of
self-isolating types deadened and suspended in 2/00 Formol.
20 persons were immunized on the following dates with 1 cc.
each: 17, 22, 27 July 1944.
The vaccinations were made subcutaneously on the right or left
upper arm.
For comparison 20 persons were immunized at the same time
with “Weigl” vaccine, produced from lice by the Army High
Command in Krakow according to regulations.
Furthermore, 20 persons were provided for control purposes.
6 Sep 44:
The 60 experimental persons were infected by subcutaneous
injection of 1/10 cc. fresh typhus-infected blood each into the right
upper arm.
All persons fell sick as follows:
 a. “Weimar”—9 slightly, 7 slightly to medium, 4 medium.
b. “Weigl”—6 slightly to medium, 8 medium, 6 seriously.
c. Control—1 medium, 19 seriously.
17 Oct 44:
The experimental series was concluded.
4 Nov 44:
Chart and case history completed.
24 deaths (5 “Weigl”, 19 Control).
Dr. Schuler
13 Oct 44:
31 Oct 44:

Taking of Blood to Produce Typhus Convalescent Serum (FFRS)

To produce FFRS, 20.8 liters of blood were taken from 44 typhus

convalescents between the 14th and 21st day after the fever had
subsided, and sent by courier to the SS Main Operational
Headquarters, office group D, office XVI (blood conservation)—SS
Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Ellenbeck, Berlin-Lichterfelde.
Schuler
26 Oct 44:
Special experiment on 6 persons according to instructions of SS
Oberfuehrer Lecturer Dr. Mrugowsky and RKPA (report on this
orally).
Schuler
13 Nov 44:

Therapeutic Experiment with Typhus Vaccine

By order of the senior hygienist of the Waffen SS of 12 August

44, it is to be determined whether the course of typhus can be
tempered by the intravenous or intramuscular injection of typhus
vaccine.
For the experimental series 20 persons were considered, of
these, 10 for intravenous injection (Series A), 10 for intramuscular
injection (Series B) and, in addition, 5 persons for control.
 On 13 Nov 44, the 25 experimental persons were infected by
subcutaneous injection of 1/10 cc. each fresh typhus-infected blood.
All persons fell sick as follows: Series A—10 serious; Series B—1
medium 9 serious; Control—5 serious.
22 Dec 44:
The experimental series was concluded.
2 Jan 45:
Chart and case history completed.
19 deaths (9 Series A, 6 Series B, 4 Control).
Dr. Schuler

TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-257

PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 283

EXTRACT FROM THE AFFIDAVIT OF DR. ERWIN SCHULER, 20 JULY

1945, CONCERNING TYPHUS EXPERIMENTS

Hoven’s Share in Block 46

In February 1942 the order to conduct typhus experiments came

through. I was chosen to carry out these experiments. Since I had
my office in Berlin, a deputy had to be appointed for my absence in
Buchenwald. Reichsarzt SS Dr. Grawitz, in agreement with the
leading doctor of the concentration camps, Lolling, appointed SS 1st
Lt. Dr. Hoven as station doctor at Buchenwald. My presence in
Buchenwald always lasted only a few days, while the experiments
and the typhus epidemic lasted about 10 weeks.
Dr. Hoven had orders to get the prisoners (professional criminals
sentenced to death), who had been released for the experiments
from the Reich Security Office and the chief of the concentration
camps, for vaccination or infection after an examination of their
physical fitness.
As deputy, he often ordered Dr. Plaza to take over the guard of
Block 46. Dr. Plaza, in addition, continued to work independently
under Kapo Dietzsch.
 For experiments that did not result in death, such as the
effectiveness of yellow fever vaccine, 200 to 300 volunteers stood in
readiness. This I know from rosters that Dietzsch showed me once.
Such experiments did not only take place in the block but also, in a
certain case, in the camp itself. For that experiment about 80
Dutchmen were taken; they did not have to work and they were
given extra rations. For that they had to have their temperature
taken three times daily and every two days they had to give 10 cc.
blood for a blood count.
Hoven worked as my deputy until my permanent entrance into
Buchenwald in August 1943. In September he was arrested.
In the year 1942 he had to work a lot by himself, since I
contracted typhus and after that was sent to a rest home.
Immediately after that I was detailed to the Pasteur Institute in
Paris. During this time the sick reports bore the signature of Hoven
or Plaza.
[Signed] Dr. Schuler

TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-571

PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 285

1943 WORK REPORT FOR DEPARTMENT FOR TYPHUS AND VIRUS

RESEARCH
Weimar-Buchenwald, January 1944.
Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS
Department for Typhus and Virus Research

Work Report for the Year 1943

I. Division for Typhus and Virus Research, Clinical Section

1 December 42 to Experiment with typhus vaccines “EM” of the
20 February 43 Behring Works, carried out on 20
experimental subjects.
10 January to 20 Experiment with typhus therapeutics, Acridine
February and Methylene Blue, carried out on 47
 experimental subjects.
10 January to 17 Tests with yellow fever vaccines, carried out on
May 435 experimental subjects.
25 January to 28 Experiment with typhus vaccines “Riga” and
April “Zuerich,” carried out on 40 experimental
subjects.
24 March to 20 Performance of a large-scale experiment
April according to the scheme of the Hygiene
Institute of the Waffen SS, carried out by SS
Standartenfuehrer Lecturer Dr. Mrugowsky,
with smallpox, typhoid, paratyphus A and B,
cholera, typhus, and diphtheria, on 45
experimental subjects.
31 March to 11 Experiment with typhus therapeutics Acridine
April Granulate and Rutenol, carried out on 40
persons.
11 April to 24 May Preliminary experiments with fresh blood
infected with typhus for the purpose of
investigating an infallible method of
infection, carried out on 41 persons.
11 April—not yet Infections with typhus so far applied to 47
terminated persons.
24 April to 1 June Experiment with typhus therapeutics Acridine
Granulate (2) and Rutenol (2) carried out on
40 experimental subjects.
28 May to 9 Experiment with typhus vaccines “Asid,” “Asid-
September Adsorbat,” and “Weigl” carried out on 70
persons.
10 June to 8 Experiment with typhoid therapeutics
August “Otrhomin,” carried out on 40 experimental
subjects.
8 November—not Gangrene—high immunization experiment,
yet terminated carried out on 15 experimental subjects.
19 November—not Experiments with burns by means of
yet terminated phosphorus rubber incendiary bombs carried
out on 5 persons.
21 November—not Control of blood conservation.
yet terminated
23 December to 31 Special experiment carried out on 4 persons.
December
II. Division for Typhus and Virus Research, Production of Vaccines
10 August Termination of the exterior alterations on the
prisoners’ Block 50 in Buchenwald
concentration camp.
16 August Opening of the Division for Typhus and Virus
Research. Transfer of the head of the
department, SS Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Ding
to Buchenwald. Beginning of the preliminary
work for production.
20 September First infection of 3 guinea pigs with typhus-
infected blood, strain Bu I. Up to the end of
the year 8 successful infections from this
strain and positive adaptation of the strain
to mice (with only 2 infections due to lack of
these experimental animals), as well as to
the lungs of rabbits through mice with the
brains of guinea pigs as starting material.
24 September Isolation of the strain Bu II on 3 guinea pigs
with typhus-infected blood. After successful
adaptation at the end of the year 8th
infection. Performance of 4 infections of
mice. Great quantities of standard type
Rickettsia. Furthermore successful
adaptation of the strain Bu II to the lungs of
rabbits through mice.
9 October Due to lack of mice experiment to adapt the
mixed strains Bu I and Bu II directly from
infected brains of guinea pigs to the lungs of
rabbits. At the end of the year this strain is
contained fully virulent in the 6th infection of
rabbits. Since the 5th infection, particularly,
 great quantities of Rickettsia on the lungs of
rabbits. The results of the direct adaptation
experiments are being checked by
pathogenic and skin virulence tests.
12 October Reported to the Hygiene Institute of the
Waffen SS that the experiments for the
breeding of Rickettsia strains on the lungs of
rabbits were successful and production was
only handicapped by the lack of the
refrigerator and of the Calabeius meat-
triturator model.
22 October Isolation and transfer to guinea pigs of the
strain Bu IV of subjects infected with typhus
after strain Bu III had died during the first
infection. In this case the lack of mice was
once more especially noticeable.
First half of Outbreak of an epidemic among 375 recently
November supplied mice to which 289 animals
succumbed within a few days. As the
remaining mice were not healthy either, they
were killed.
11 November Vaccination of rabbits with infected lungs of
mice. Later on, performance of two more
infections of rabbits. Experiments are a
complete success; large quantities of
Rickettsia with well-developed bacilli-shaped
elements on the lungs of the rabbits.
30 November Successful direct adaptation of the strain Bu IV
from the brains of infected guinea pigs to
the lungs of rabbits. After performance of
another infection of rabbits, mixing of the
strain with the strain Bu I and Bu II. All
infections continue to be successfully carried
out.
4 December Experiment, by making use of the night frosts
and by using the handshake technique
 without refrigerator and without Calabeius,
to produce the first sample of vaccine. For
this purpose, lungs of rabbits of the 5th or
6th infection series of the mixed strain Bu I
and Bu II, which are rich in Rickettsia, were
used.
14 December Centrifugation of the suspension produced on 4
December.
15 December Starting of the refrigerator which had arrived in
the meantime. Result of the examination of
the sediment of the vaccine produced on 4
December: after 2 hours of centrifugation
great quantities of Rickettsia (bacilli-shaped,
point-shaped, dumbell-shaped). The sterility
control proved the suspension free from
bacteria.
17 December 4 guinea pigs were given intraperitoneal
injections of 1 cc. of vaccine each, in order
to check whether the vaccines produced on
4 December agreed with them. The guinea
pigs did not show any alterations of voracity
nor of temperature and were still alive at the
end of the year.
24 December Vaccination of a series of 10 guinea pigs, with
our own vaccine and Giroud vaccine, in
order to infect them later on with typhus-
infected blood.
29 December The reactions for skin virulence according to
Giroud show a virulence of the suspension at
a dilution of 1:2.000 to 1:4.000.
For the performance of the breeding experiments 56 mice, 134
guinea pigs, and 112 rabbits were used up to the present date.
In the serological department 1226 proteus OX 19 agglutinations,
3 Gruber-Widal tests, and 4 Takata-Ara reactions were performed for
the SS infirmary and Buchenwald concentration camp and its branch
camps.
For our own requirements up to this date, about 1,500 cubic cm.
of typhoid-paratyphus B deposits have been produced, in order to
reduce the power of resistance of the experimental animals.
III. Inspections of the Division for Typhus and Virus Research
8 February Inspection of the clinical section by
Oberstabsarzt Dr. Eyer of the Institute for
Typhus and Virus Research of the Army High
Command, Krakow and by Oberstabsarzt Dr.
Schmidt of the Army Medical Inspectorate.
24 August Inspection of the department by the Director of
the Central Building Section of the Waffen SS
and Police, SS Obersturmfuehrer Huehnefeld,
and discussion of necessary improvements.
26 August Inspection by the Higher SS and Police leader in
Kassel, SS Obergruppenfuehrer and General
of the Waffen SS, the Prince of Waldeck and
Pyrmont, and by the commandant of
Buchenwald concentration camp.
3 September Inspection by the head of the Hygiene Institute
of the Waffen SS, SS Standartenfuehrer
Lecturer Dr. Mrugowsky.
29 September Inspection by the Chief of Office D III in the SS
Economic and Administrative Main Office
(WVHA), SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr.
Lolling and Professor Dr. Schenk.
IV. Official Trips by the Head of the Division for Typhus and Virus
Research
28 February to 6 SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. Ding ordered to
March Paris for the purchase of laboratory
equipment for the Division for Typhus and
Virus Research Weimar-Buchenwald, and for
the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS.
27 April to 1 May Once more on detached service to Paris for the
same purpose.
25 June to 15 Ordered sick leave at Sellin on Ruegen.
August
27 August Conferences with the Zeiss firm at Jena, with
the Landesgewerbearzt and in the University
Library.
4 September Inspection in the village of “X” with the Head of
the Hygiene Institute, SS Standartenfuehrer
Lecturer Dr. Mrugowsky, with the
Standortarzt of the Waffen SS Weimar-
Buchenwald, and with the adjutant of the
commandant of the Buchenwald
concentration camp.
8 September Another inspection in the village of “X”.
16September Purchase of laboratory requisites at Jena,
conference with the Zeiss firm concerning
the alteration of 2 microscopes.
23 September Purchase of laboratory requisites at Erfurt.
29 September to 4 Conference in Berlin with the Head of the
October Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS, SS
Standartenfuehrer Lecturer Dr. Mrugowsky.
13 October Inspection at “Dora” and “Laura” with the
commandant of the Buchenwald
concentration camp.
21 October Inspection of the branch commands Leipzig
Wernigerode, Schoenebeck, and “Dora” with
the camp commandant.
25 October to 15 On detached service with the German Hygiene
November Institute for the Eastern Territories in Riga,
and subsequently conference with the
Madaus firm in Dresden at the instance of
SS Obergruppenfuehrer and General of the
Waffen SS von Woyrsch.
SS Sturmbannfuehrer.
 TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-121
PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 293

LETTER FROM HAAGEN TO HIRT, 15 NOVEMBER 1943,

CONCERNING PRISONERS TO BE USED AS EXPERIMENTAL
SUBJECTS FOR TESTS WITH TYPHUS VACCINE
15 November 1943

Secret

To: Professor Dr. Hirt

Anatomical Institute of the Reich University
Strasbourg
On 13-11-43, an inspection was made of the prisoners that were
furnished to me in order to determine their suitability for the tests
which have been planned for the typhus vaccines. Of the 100
prisoners that have been selected in their former camp, 18 died
during transport. Only 12 prisoners are in such a condition that they
can be used for these experiments, provided their strength can first
be restored. This should take about 2-3 months. The remaining
prisoners are in such a condition that they cannot be used at all for
these purposes.
I might point out that the experiments are for the purpose of
testing a new vaccine. Such experiments only lead to fruitful results
when they are carried out with normally nourished subjects whose
physical powers are comparable to those of the soldiers. Therefore,
experiments with the present group of prisoners cannot yield usable
results, particularly since a large part of them are apparently
afflicted with maladies which make them unsuitable for these
experiments. A long period of rest and of good nourishment would
not alter this fact.
I request, therefore, that you send me 100 prisoners, between
20-40 years of age, who are healthy and who are so constituted
physically that they furnish comparable material.
Heil Hitler!
Stabsarzt Prof. Dr. E. Haagen
 TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-122
PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 298

LETTER DICTATED BY ROSE, ADDRESSED TO HAAGEN, 13

DECEMBER 1943, CONCERNING EXPERIMENTAL SUBJECTS FOR
VACCINE EXPERIMENTS
Professor Rose, Chief Surgeon.
O. U., 13 December 1943.
Stabsarzt Professor Haagen
Institute of Hygiene of the Reich University
Strasbourg, Alsace, Adolf Kussmaulstrasse 3

Dear Herr Haagen,

Many thanks for your letter of 8 December. I regard it as

unnecessary to make a renewed special request to the SS Main
Office in addition to the request you have already made. I request
that, in procuring persons for vaccination in your experiment, you
requisition a corresponding number of persons for vaccination with
the Copenhagen vaccine. This has the advantage, as also appeared
in the Buchenwald experiments, that the testing of various vaccines
simultaneously gives a clearer idea of their value than the testing of
one vaccine alone.
With best wishes,
Heil Hitler!
Yours
(Dictated by Prof. Rose and signed after his departure)
By order
[Signed] Schwarze
Private, 1st Class (Med. Corps)

TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-123

PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 303
 LETTER FROM HAAGEN TO HIRT, 9 MARCH 1944, CONCERNING
EXPERIMENTS CONDUCTED WITH TYPHUS VACCINE AND
REQUESTING EXPERIMENTAL SUBJECTS
9 May 1944
Main Office SS
through Professor Dr. Hirt
Anatomical Institute of the Reich University Strasbourg
I enclose herewith a carbon copy of a paper on our experiments
with a dry typhus vaccine. The paper was sent to the Chief of the
Luftwaffe Medical Service as a manuscript, with the request for
permission to publish it. It constitutes a report concerning further
experiments with a typhus vaccine which has not been made sterile
by chemical agents or by heating. As may be seen from the results,
it has been possible to produce a vaccine which provides not only an
antitoxic immunity but also a definite anti-infection immunity which
is of particularly practical significance. However, it is clearly pointed
out that vaccination is followed by a rather long fever reaction and,
therefore, its introduction cannot yet be recommended. Further tests
are now in progress to alter the vaccine so that, without losing its
antigenic property, it will produce so weak a reaction that no general
indisposition will result. These tests will be made by reducing the
dose or by storing the vaccine for a longer interval.
To carry out this research, experimental subjects will again be
needed. I, therefore, again request that subjects be furnished to me
for this purpose. In order to obtain results which are accurate and
which can be statistically evaluated, I ask that 200 persons be
furnished to me for inoculation. I may point out that they must be in
a physical condition similar to that of members of the armed forces.
It is highly desirable that I again be permitted to carry out these
experiments at camp Natzweiler.
Professor Dr. E. Haagen

TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-139

PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 317
 LETTER FROM DR. GRUNSKE TO HAAGEN, 7 MARCH 1944,
CONCERNING REPORTS ON YELLOW FEVER VIRUS EXPERIMENTS
REQUESTED BY A JAPANESE MEDICAL OFFICER
High Command of the Navy
Flottenarzt Dr. Grunske

Berlin, 7 March 1944

Landgrafenstr. 12
Tel: 24 9591 Ext 241

To: Professor Dr. Haagen

Strasbourg
Hygiene Institute of the University

Dear Professor:

In connection with my letter of 26 February and your long

distance telephone call of 6 March, I must advise you that the
Japanese Oberstabsarzt has in the meantime contacted Oberstarzt
Professor Dr. Rose of the Luftwaffe Medical Service, and that the
latter has promised to secure for him from Strasbourg all the
accounts concerning the yellow fever virus experiments which are
important to him. Therefore, Oberstartz Dr. Rose will give you further
details. I therefore ask that the matter be considered closed
between us.
With fraternal esteem and
Heil Hitler!
Respectfully yours
[Signed] Dr. Grunske
Flottenarzt

TRANSLATION OF ROSE DOCUMENT 16

ROSE DEFENSE EXHIBIT 12
 EXTRACTS FROM THE AFFIDAVIT OF PROFESSOR OTTO LENZ,
DIRECTOR OF THE ROBERT KOCH INSTITUTE IN BERLIN

Professor Rose was not the “typhus expert” of the Robert Koch
Institute, nor did he work on typhus there. But he was the Chief of
the Department of Tropical Medicine, and was in this capacity, with
the exception of one field of research, (that of the transmission of
dysentery and typhoid bacilli by insects) exclusively concerned with
tropical diseases and parasites (insects).
The typhus expert of the institute was rather Professor Haagen,
the Chief of the Virus Division. After his departure, following his
appointment to the Chair of Hygiene at Strasbourg University,
Professor Gildemeister, the then President of the Institute, continued
the research on typhus.
Thus, various physicians, among them Dr. Ding, received
instruction on typhus from Professor Haagen in the Virus Division,
but not from Professor Rose.
Owing to the destruction by air raids of many of the files of the
Robert Koch Institute, I can no longer ascertain whether Professor
Rose was associated with the decisions taken on typhus
experiments.
Several of the men who were at that time departmental chiefs,
however, assured me unanimously, that this had not been the case.

Finally, nothing is known of Professor Rose’s having had the

opportunity to become aware of Geheimrat Lockemann’s chemo-
therapeutical experiments (chemo-therapy of abdominal typhoid with
otrhomin). The only research on abdominal typhoid carried on in
Rose’s department consisted of the experiments on the role of the
house fly in the transmission of dysentery caused by bacteria and of
abdominal typhoid.
 TRANSLATION OF ROSE DOCUMENT 46
ROSE DEFENSE EXHIBIT 20

EXTRACT FROM A CERTIFIED STATEMENT, 4 MARCH 1947, OF J.

OERSKOV, M. D., DIRECTOR OF THE STATE SERUM INSTITUTE IN
COPENHAGEN

In answer to questions asked us about the visit of Professor

Rose, I can say the following:
to 1. Did Professor Rose, when he visited the Institute at the end
of September 1943, request the Copenhagen Institute to take up the
production of the typhus vaccine from R. pr. in order to help
overcome the great shortage of typhus vaccine? Yes.
to 2. Was this request refused by Director Oerskov for valid
reasons? Yes.
to 3. Was R. then taken to visit Dr. Ipsen’s section?
I do not remember this, but it is apparent from Dr. Ipsen’s
experimental records that Professor Rose actually was in Dr. Ipsen’s
laboratory on 24 September and probably discussed these problems
with him. Unfortunately, Dr. Ipsen is at present in America on a
study trip and will not return before June or July. It is, however,
apparent from our records that if Profesor Rose ever received
samples of our vaccine it could only have been a small quantity, and
neither I nor Dr. Ipsen’s colleagues have ever heard anything of the
possible effects of our vaccine.
Through the Danish Red Cross we sent our vaccine to Danish as
well as to Norwegian prisoners of war camps, so that the vaccine
was given only to Danish or Norwegian colleagues. We heard from
Danish colleagues that the effect of these vaccinations was good.
I can add that I am grateful to Professor Rose because he
probably helped to prevent our Institute’s being compelled to take
over the production of typhus vaccine. It is entirely unpredictable
what calamities might have arisen if we had been forced to take up
the production of this vaccine.
[Signed] J. Oerskov
 Director of the State Serum Institute
Not. K. J. No. 1974/47

EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF PROSECUTION WITNESS

EUGEN KOGON[63]
DIRECT EXAMINATION

Mr. McHaney: Now, will you please explain to the Tribunal in your
own words exactly how these typhus experiments were carried out.
Witness Kogon: After 40 to 60 people, sometimes up to 120, had
been detailed for a series of experiments, one-third of them were
separated, and the other two-thirds were either vaccinated with a
protective treatment, or it was otherwise administered to them, if it
was a chemical therapeutical treatment. Those people who were
protected against typhus remained in Block 46 for several weeks
until their infection with Rickettsias Prowazeki, the typhus agent. The
first selection, that is to say, the first third, was also infected
together with them. They served as so-called control persons, with
the help of whom it was possible to ascertain whether the infection
took and what course the disease took in their cases, so that this
course could be compared with that of those who had been
vaccinated and then infected. The infection was performed in various
ways. Either typhus was transferred through fresh blood injected
intravenously or intramuscularly. At the beginning, too, by scratching
the skin, or by making a small incision in the arm. In the initial
stages, two cubic centimeters of fresh blood infected with typhus
were used for the infection, unless the infection concerned was one
with an infectious solution. Two cubic centimeters of fresh blood
containing typhus were then usually injected into the veins. Later on
that dosage was reduced to 1/20 of 1 cubic centimeter because the
large quantity of 2 cubic centimeters would penetrate any security
achieved by the vaccination. Even 1/20 of a cubic centimeter of fresh
blood containing typhus was usually enough to produce a very high
degree of typhus if injected into the veins. In the course of years the
typhus cultures used at Buchenwald had been cultivated from man
to man and had increased their strength, their virulence to a
considerable degree, so that the very smallest quantity was
sufficient. I suggested to Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Ding in 1944 that in
order to increase the scientific value he should reduce the quantity
of these injections to the extreme minimum so that the so-called
threshold value could be ascertained—in other words, so that the
artificial infection should be as similar to normal infection by lice as
possible. He turned this suggestion down because he believed that
then no convincing proof could be achieved of the real strength of
the protective treatment used. A third category of the experimental
persons was used to maintain the typhus cultures. Those were the
so-called passage persons, amounting to three to five persons per
month. They were merely infected for the purpose of ensuring a
constant supply of fresh blood containing typhus. Very nearly all
those persons died. I do not think I am exaggerating if I say that 95
percent of these cases were fatal.
Q. Witness, do you mean to say that they deliberately infected
three to five persons a month with typhus just to have the viruses
alive and available in blood?
A. Just for that particular purpose.
Q. Can you tell the Tribunal approximately how many of those
persons died who were infected just to keep the viruses alive?
A. From the so-called passage persons, as I have already said,
between three to five were used per month, that is, when I was
working for Dr. Ding-Schuler—every month until the end of the
Buchenwald concentration camp. That is to say, from April 1943 until
March 1945. As far as the previous period is concerned, I only know
that passage persons had been used, but I do not know the figures.
Q. Now, Witness, were experimental persons also infected with
lice?
A. As far as I know, only one single experiment took place in
Buchenwald where an original infection with typhus was performed
with lice. The infected lice were brought from the OKH Institute in
Krakow by a courier and were taken to Block 46. There they were
kept in small cages which were applied to the thighs of the
experimental persons, and a number of persons, I do not know how
many, were infected. Some of our comrades let a few lice escape in
a room of Block 46, but they kept them under control and reported
to the Kapo that infected lice had escaped from the cages. Kapo
[inmate trusty] Arthur Dietzsch immediately reported this to the
camp physician, Dr. Hoven, who was deputizing at that time for Dr.
Ding-Schuler. Dr. Hoven, following Dietzsch’s advice, then ordered
the destruction of these infected lice. A second delivery from Krakow
was also burned because it was not desired that experiments should
be performed which entailed such danger for the camp.

Q. Can you tell the Tribunal whether these experimental subjects

suffered to any appreciable extent during the course of these typhus
experiments?
A. There we must draw a strict dividing line between the general
mental condition of such experimental persons and the physical
condition caused by this disease. Every man in the camp knew that
Block 46 was a dreadful place. Only a very few people in the camp
had an exact idea of what was going on in Block 46. A dreadful
horror seized anyone who was brought into any kind of connection
with this block. If people were selected and taken to Block 46
through the sick bay, then they knew that the affair was a fatal one.
The untold horror which was attached to this block made things
even worse. Apart from this, it was generally known in the camp
that Kapo Arthur Dietzsch exercised iron discipline in Block 46. There
the cat-o’-nine-tails really ruled supreme. Everyone, therefore, who
went to Block 46 as an experimental person did not only have to
expect death, and under certain circumstances a very long drawn
out and frightful death, but also torture and the complete removal of
the last remnants of personal freedom. In this mental condition
these experimental persons waited in the sick bays for an unknown
period of time. They waited for the day or for the night when
something would be done to them; they did not know what it would
be, but they guessed that it would be some frightful form of death.
If they were vaccinated, then sometimes the most horrible scenes
took place, because the patients were afraid the injections were
lethal. Kapo Arthur Dietzsch had to restore order with iron discipline.
After a certain period, when the actual illness had set in after the
infection, ordinary symptoms of typhus would appear, which, as is
well known, is one of the most serious illnesses. The infection, as I
have already described to you, became so powerful during the last
two and a half years that the typhus almost always appeared in its
most horrible form. There were cases of raving madness, delirium,
people would refuse to eat, and a large percentage of them would
die. Those who experienced the disease in a milder form, perhaps
because their constitutions were stronger or because the vaccine
was effective, were forced continuously to observe the death
struggles of the others. And all this took place in an atmosphere
hardly possible to imagine. Just what happened to those people who
survived the typhus was something which they did not know during
the period of convalescence. Would they remain in Block 46 to be
used for other purposes? Would they be used as assistants? Would
they be feared as surviving witnesses of the experiments on human
beings and therefore killed? All this was something which they did
not know and which aggravated the conditions of these experiments.

EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT ROSE[64]

CROSS-EXAMINATION

Mr. McHaney: When did you first learn that Haagen was
conducting experiments on concentration camp inmates?
Defendant Rose: That Haagen was performing experiments on
concentration camp inmates? I don’t believe that even today, but I
knew that he carried out vaccinations in concentration camps. I
cannot remember when I first learned of it—probably in 1943.
Q. Well, you remember the letter in December 1943?
A. I certainly must have known it by then because there I refer
to it.
 Q. Well, did you know about this sordid occasion when Haagen
had 18 men who had been assigned to him die on transport?
A. I never learned anything about that at the time. I found it out
from the files. I never knew that prisoners were especially taken to
these concentration camps in order to be vaccinated.
Q. What would you have done if you had known about it?
Wouldn’t that have given you an indication that maybe things were
not so nice in the concentration camp, or maybe proper care wasn’t
being taken of the inmates in these experiments?
A. If I had learned anything about it I probably would have
reacted exactly as Haagen did. The documents he wrote to the SS
office prove that one cannot conduct any experiments of any
consequence on such unfortunate people. The record is in the
documents here. If I had learned about it, I would probably have
reacted in exactly the same way, perhaps more violently.
Q. Well, I should have hoped so.
A. I beg your pardon. I didn’t understand you.
Q. I should have hoped you would have reacted somewhat more
violently than Haagen apparently did.
A. That is possible. Our temperaments are different.
Q. You recall Fraeulein Eyer testified that Haagen sent reports
every three months to the Medical Inspector of the Luftwaffe. Do
you agree to that testimony?
A. I heard the testimony. Yesterday in my direct examination I
commented on it. If Haagen had reported every three months I
certainly wouldn’t have forgotten it. I had many things on my mind
during the war, but such an exemplary condition of reporting would
certainly have impressed itself on my memory. It is quite out of the
question that the Medical Inspectorate received a report from
Haagen every 3 months. I said yesterday that I consider Fraeulein
Eyer’s testimony quite credible, because in view of the number of
offices with which Haagen was in connection, and from which he
received reports, there were so many reports and accounts
necessary that it is a marvel that Fraeulein Eyer didn’t say she had
to write a report every month. I explained with the aid of the
documents what obligation to report is apparent from the documents
alone. You probably haven’t had an opportunity to read the record
yet, but as soon as the record is ready you will be able to see that. I
don’t think there is any purpose in holding up the proceedings with
that any further.
Q. And you are quite clear that Haagen never suggested to you
that he was going to carry out infection experiments with typhus
after vaccination?
A. That is not known to me.
Q. Let’s have a look at Document NO-1059. This will be marked
as Prosecution Exhibit 490 for identification. Now, will you please
read this letter in a loud and resonant voice?
A. Perhaps I may see the photostat.
Q. Will you read the letter aloud, please?
A. (Reading)
“29 November 1943—Registered
“To Oberstarzt Professor Dr. Rose
“Inspectorate of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe
“Saalow (Post Office Zossen-Land)
“Dear Herr Rose:
“Enclosed I am sending you the report about our experiments
with dehydrated typhus vaccine which I promised you several days
ago. As I intend to publish the findings, I have already written the
report in manuscript form. After it has been reviewed, I would like it
to be submitted to the competent authorities for their approval of its
publication in the ‘Zentralblatt fur Bakteriologie’ [Central Periodical
for Bacteriology].
“One hundred persons from a local concentration camp were put
at my disposal for immunization and subsequent infection.
Unfortunately, these people were in such a poor physical condition
that eighteen of them already died during transport; the remainder
were likewise in such bad physical shape that they could not be used
for inoculation purposes. In the meantime I have requested 100
additional persons from the SS Main Office, who should, however, be
in a normal physical and nutritional condition, so that the
experiments can be carried out on material which at least
approaches the physical condition of our soldiers.
 “For the time being, we will concentrate on an epidemic culture
in the form of a virus, which we have received from Giroud in the
meantime. This seems to be a very good culture.
“With best regards,
“Heil Hitler!
“Yours—
“Enclosure: one report.”
And no signature.
This is the matter which I discussed yesterday. Haagen’s plan to
test the inoculation reactions to his live and virulent dry vaccine by
prevaccination with dead vaccine to weaken the reaction. That is the
same matter.
Q. I thought you said about two minutes ago that you didn’t
know of the incident where eighteen of the inmates put at Haagen’s
disposal had died during transport.
A. Yes, that’s true. That’s what I said. I had forgotten about it. I
thought that I had learned it for the first time from the records. If I
had remembered it, I would, of course, not have exposed myself by
denying it. But now I see this letter. It is obviously a carbon copy. I
must assume that on 29 November 1943 the mail was still fairly
normal, and that I received the letter, since a report is mentioned
which I was to deal with. It was apparently one of Haagen’s papers
on his dry vaccine, on which my knowledge is based and on account
of which I can give any information here at all as to Haagen’s
experiments. This knowledge of mine goes back to these papers of
his which he wanted to publish.
Q. It would appear that in spite of your fiery temperament your
reaction was even less significant than Haagen’s himself, wouldn’t it?
A. Since I was not concerned in the matter, as it was something
between Haagen and the concentration camp, there was no reaction
in this case. If somebody else tells me that he has had direct contact
with abuses, then there is no occasion for me to interfere, since that
is settled between the persons concerned. I had nothing to do with
the concentration camps. I did not have to carry out any inoculations
there.
 Q. And you insist that the words, “one hundred persons from a
local concentration camp were put at my disposal for immunization
and subsequent infection” really don’t mean subsequent infection at
all, but a subsequent immunization?
A. With the live and virulent dry vaccine, yes.
Q. Well, that is certainly an inarticulate way of saying that, isn’t
it?
A. This is correspondence between experts, and they know what
it’s about.
Q. You state yourself that you are still not sure exactly what
Haagen did, although you were down there in the middle of 1943
and got him back on the pay roll of the Luftwaffe, and you knew he
was staying at the laboratory and you knew he was going to work on
typhus vaccines, but you now sit here and say you don’t know
exactly what he was doing.
A. Yes. That is true. I have given considerable information here
about Haagen’s work, and I have gone to considerable pains to get it
all together; but of course I can’t give you complete information,
simply because all these experiments were not under our direction
and supervision.
Q. Herr Professor, the first time the question of subsequent
infection came up was in a letter dated 1944, and you spent the best
part of a day rationalizing “subsequent infection” as meaning
something entirely different—that it was simply a subsequent
vaccination, after the man had already been vaccinated by the dead
vaccine. Now, if you were told on 29 November 1943 that he was
going to carry out immunization and subsequent infection
experiments, you certainly would have known as a matter of fact
what he was doing, and you would not need to speculate on this
stand as you did yesterday. These words are entirely susceptible to
the meaning that they mean exactly what they say.
A. At this stage of his experiments Haagen did not yet have a
fully developed vaccine. He was working exclusively on the problem
of weakening the reaction to this live virulent vaccine. That was the
problem he was dealing with at the end of 1943 and the beginning
of 1944. He was looking for various methods of achieving this aim.
 Q. What does he mean in the last paragraph when he says, “For
the time being, we will concentrate on an epidemic culture in the
form of a virus, which we have received from Giroud in the
meantime”?
A. That means that up to that time he had worked with a murine
strain, and that now for the development of the dry vaccine he
wanted in addition to use a strain of Rickettsia-Prowazeki.
Q. Well, I now want to point out to you again that I am having
considerable difficulty in construing the word “infection” to mean
vaccination.
A. Yes. I admit that many of these documents are written in a
confusing way, but I believe that I can remember the whole matter
adequately enough to know what the problem is. The vaccine was
not developed enough to be used in vaccination without reaction
and then to determine the effect. There were strong fever reactions,
and the problem was how to avoid this fever reaction.
Q. Well, why call that infection?
A. That is a similar condition biologically. An injection of a live, a
virulent vaccine, from the biological point of view, is an infection.
This expression is used often enough, but it is an infection which
one can absolutely control.
Q. And after receipt of this letter, you then wrote him on the 13th
of December—and this is Document NO-122, Exhibit 298—you sent
him the Copenhagen vaccine, didn’t you, and asked him to test it in
his experiments on his concentration camp inmates, didn’t you, just
as they did in Buchenwald, as you put it?
A. I beg your pardon?
Q. You sent him the Copenhagen vaccine after receiving this
letter of 29 November, and asked him to test that in his experiments
on concentration camp inmates.
A. When this discussion of the Copenhagen vaccine took place,
Haagen was specially interested in it, because it was a murine
vaccine; and since he could not yet control fever reaction with
murine vaccine—he only succeeded in doing that at the beginning of
1944 by storing the vaccine for a considerable time—he was no
longer interested in this Copenhagen vaccine. But at the end of
1943, when he still had the same difficulties as Blanc with the
reactions with the live murine vaccine, he was considerably
interested in the Copenhagen vaccine. For it was the only vaccine
from murine virus available in Europe at the time.
Q. You sent it to him, told him to test it just like they did in a
series of experiments in Buchenwald, didn’t you?
A. I don’t remember that.
Q. Well, you remember mentioning Buchenwald to Haagen in
your letter of 13 December 1943?
A. Oh, that’s what you mean. Yes, I pointed it out as a parallel,
because several vaccines were tested in Buchenwald for their effect
against infection, and Haagen in Strasbourg wanted to test various
vaccine for their reaction effect.
Q. You sent that Copenhagen vaccine to Buchenwald also to be
tested?
A. No.

Q. Herr Professor, did Mrugowsky ever request you to give him

vaccines for use in typhus experiments?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever discuss the question as to whether the louse
could be infected by a vaccinated typhus patient with the defendant
Mrugowsky?
A. That could be possible. This question played an important role
for a time in the discussion about the vaccines and their
effectiveness. We had some old Polish observations available to the
effect that if vaccinated persons received typhus in spite of the
vaccination, no further illnesses could be transferred by such
persons. It is possible throughout, since this question was of
considerable importance that something like that could well have
been discussed by Mrugowsky and myself. We talked a lot about that
question.
Q. Did you ever negotiate with Mrugowsky concerning vaccines
to be tested in Buchenwald?
A. No.
 Q. Let’s look at Document NO-1754.
(Document submitted to the witness.)
Mr. McHaney: I will ask that document NO-1754 be marked as
Prosecution Exhibit 491 for identification.
Q. (Continuing) Herr Professor, will you read this document
aloud?
A. “Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS; Journal No. 795/42
“Berlin W 15, Knesebeckstrasse 43/44; 16 May 1942
“To Oberfeldarzt Professor Dr. Rose; Berlin N. W., Foehrerstrasse 2
“Robert Koch Institute

“Dear Professor:

“The Reich Physician SS and Police has consented to the

execution of experiments to test typhus vaccines. May I therefore
ask you to let me have the vaccines?
“The other question which you raised, as to whether the louse
can be infected by a typhus patient vaccinated for protection, will
also be dealt with. In principle, this has also been approved. There
are, however, still some difficulties at the moment about the practical
execution, since we have at present no facilities for breeding lice.
“Your suggestion to use Olzscha has been passed on to the
personnel department of the SS Medical Office. It will be given
consideration in due course.
“With kind regards, and
“Heil Hitler!
“Yours
“Dr. Mrugowsky, SS Obersturmbannfuehrer.”
There is a footnote to this letter, and I quote:
“According to telephone inquiry, Dr. Mrugowsky asks to
be called by telephone after Professor Dr. Rose’s return. Dr.
Mrugowsky will not be in Berlin in June. His deputy, Dr.
Ding, is informed. 20 May 1942.”
This letter shows that Dr. Mrugowsky once informed me that the
Reich Physician SS and Police had consented to the testing of typhus
vaccines. He then asks me to send him these vaccines. I cannot
recall what vaccines he is speaking of.
Then the question is discussed about lice being infected by
typhus patients vaccinated for protection.
I admitted that a possibility exists, and I said that this question
was at one time discussed with me.
The final paragraph says that one of my assistants had been
drafted into the Waffen SS and that I endeavored to have him used
in the hygiene service.
Q. Herr Professor, let’s go to the footnote first. What are the
initials “B. L.” at the end of that footnote for? Isn’t that Frau Block?
A. Yes, that would be Frau Block, yes.
Q. And Frau Block has been in touch with Dr. Mrugowsky. She
notes that Dr. Ding, who I suppose you will admit is Dr. Ding, has
been informed. In view of this note we can pretty well disregard the
testimony of your witness Frau Block before this Tribunal, can’t we?
She testified that you had not corresponded with Mrugowsky, didn’t
she?
A. She said that she could not recollect any correspondence with
Mrugowsky, but you will see from my documents which you have
before you, that this correspondence in effect was so small that it is
quite understandable if she does not remember it in detail. It is a
result of my express order that you have these documents available.
I ordered that in my institute at Pfaffenrode no documents should be
destroyed under any circumstances. There is a written document
available to show that I gave such an order.
Q. Herr Professor, this letter is in response to one which you
wrote to Mrugowsky, isn’t it?
A. That’s possible.
Q. And in the letter that you wrote to Mrugowsky you asked him
to have the Bucharest vaccine tested in Buchenwald, didn’t you?
A. I told you before in great detail that I could not remember this
matter about the Bucharest vaccine. If you have a letter before you
about this matter, it would, of course, give me a possibility to refresh
my memory.
 Q. I should think this letter would refresh your memory, Herr
Professor, particularly in view of the Ding diary, which has an entry
shortly following the date on this letter where Ding carries out his
experiments with the Bucharest vaccine among others, and says in
the diary that the vaccine was obtained from you; and Mrugowsky in
this letter asked you to send him the vaccines which you have
mentioned in your previous letter. There’s really no doubt about it, is
there, Professor?
A. This possibly becomes apparent.
Q. And was this person Olzscha mentioned in the letter? Was he
to assist in Buchenwald?
A. He was to be used in the hygiene service. Since he particularly
dealt with entomological questions, I asked that he should work on
these questions there.
Q. You got a report from Ding, too, on these experiments testing
the Bucharest vaccine, didn’t you, Professor?
A. I cannot remember that, and I already told you once that had
I received any such report, I would have drawn the conclusions from
it; and since I did not do that, I think it is improbable that I received
such a report.
Q. In view of this letter, Doctor, do you want to go back and
change your testimony about the Copenhagen vaccine? Didn’t you
also suggest those experiments, and didn’t you also supply the
Copenhagen vaccine for the experiments in Buchenwald?
A. No. I have no intention of doing that.
Q. Well, in that event I will ask that Document NO-1186 be
passed up to you, and this will be marked as Prosecution Exhibit 492
for identification. Will you read this letter aloud please?
A. “Oberstarzt Professor Rose
“O. U., 2 December 1943
“To Standartenfuehrer Dr. Mrugowsky,
“Head of the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS
“Berlin-Zehlendorf 6
“Spanische Allee 10
“Dear Herr Mrugowsky:
“At present I have at my disposal a number of samples of a new
murine virus typhus vaccine which was prepared from mice livers
and proved in animal experiments to be quantitatively a thousand
times more effective than the vaccine prepared from mice lungs. In
order to decide whether this first-rate murine vaccine should be used
for protective vaccination of human beings against lice typhus, it
would be desirable to know if this vaccine showed in yours and
Ding’s experimental arrangement at Buchenwald an effect similar to
that of the classic virus vaccines. Would you be able to have such an
experimental series carried out? Unfortunately, I could not reach you
over the phone. Considering the slowness of postal communications
I would be grateful for an answer by telephone. My numbers, all of
which go through the same switchboard, are: Berlin 278313; Rapid
Exchange Berlin 90, Zossen 559; Luftwaffe Exchange 72, there you
ask for RLM, L In 14.
“With best regards
“Heil Hitler!
“Yours
“Rose”
The signature which you see on this photostatic copy is, in effect,
my signature. This letter shows that I also informed Mrugowsky
about the Copenhagen vaccine, which I did not remember up to this
point.
Q. And you asked him to test the vaccine in Buchenwald didn’t
you?
A. The question of whether this vaccine can be tested in
Buchenwald is dealt with here.
Q. Do you see the name “Ding” written at the bottom of the
letter?
A. Yes, it is at the bottom of the page.