1947-02-20, #3: Doctors' Trial (early afternoon)

AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 20 February 1947.)

THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats. The Tribunal is again in session.

DR. SEIDL (For the defendant Oberheuser): Mr. President, the defendant Dr. Oberheuser asks in view of her state of health to be allowed to remain away after the recess and a medical certificate will be submitted later.

THE PRESIDENT: The defendant Oberheuser may be excused from attendance in court after the afternoon recess. Counsel may proceed.

DR. NELTE (Counsel for the defendant Handloser): The next document in this connection is Document HA 30 in Document Book 2, page 43. This is the testimony of Professor Dr. Voit, director of the Medical Clinic in Mainz. This is an affidavit from a time when the ruling of the Tribunal about the form of such affidavits had not yet been issued. I have asked this Professor Dr. Voit to send me the formula which the Tribunal has requested for such affidavits and ask to submit this provisionally as Exhibit 51. The described formula will be submitted later.

MR. McHANEY: It seems to me it might be preferable if Dr. Nelte just submitted the document as a whole at a later date. In that way it will relieve us of the responsibility of checking back on these documents that have been admitted provisionally. I am afraid in some cases might overlook some of these deficiencies and I would ask that the document be held without being offered until such time as it is in proper form.

DR. NELTE: I believe that I can assure Mr. McHaney that they will not be overlooked. I have noted down that there are four documents which require the new form. I point out expressly that this document corresponds to the formula which had been previously valid; that is, there is this delay only because a new ruling was made.

THE PRESIDENT: If I remember correctly, prosecution offered a number of documents in this manner. I think that counsel for the defendant may offer these provisionally with the record to be supplemented later. Counsel may proceed.

DR. NELTE: Mr. President, I come to the conclusion. Finally, I refer to the personality of Dr. Handloser, to the affidavit of Generalarzt Penner, HA 6, Exhibit 25, as well as the affidavits of Colonel Dr. Von Erlach, HA 7, Exhibit 25, and Dr. Brunner, HA 46, Exhibit 27. In submitting the two latter exhibits I reserved the right to read the parts defined concerning the personality of Dr. Handloser later and, therefore, I ask permission now to read from the affidavit of the Swiss Colonel Dr. Von Erlach in Document Book 2, page 10, besides Dr. Brunner, Document Book 2, page 73.

The third question asked of Dr. Von Erlach was:

Do you know Professor Dr. Handloser personally? What is your opinion of his personal attitude of principle in questions concerning medical care for prisoners of war as a doctor, a soldier and a man?

He answers:

I have the privilege personally to have known Generaloberstabsarzt Professor Dr. Handloser for a large number of years. His attitude of principle in the questions concerning medical care to be given prisoners of war as a doctor, soldier and man was absolutely correct. He required all German doctors of the armed forces to adopt a similarly correct attitude and he wished that the provisions of the Geneva Convention be observed strictly. It must be considered thus a special merit on the part of Generaloberstabsarzt Professor Dr. Handloser that in the course of the war a special agreement could be made between the belligerents under which prisoners of war having contracted during their captivity stomach ulcers and duodenal ulcers ascertained by x-ray, as well as those having contracted pleuritix exsudative during captivity, were to be considered as eligible for exchange.

His great understanding as a doctor and as a man for the chronic and recurring illnesses of the prisoners of war impressed me again and again. In every personal interview with Generaloberstabsarzt Professor Dr. Handloser I have been able to satisfy myself of his noble mind, his high conception of the professional duty and responsibility to the prisoner of war, of his human understanding for the needs and sufferings of the prisoners of war, and of his always correct behavior.

And the last in this series is the answer of Colonel Dr. Brunner on page 73 of Document Book 2:

I have known Generaloberstabsarzt Professor Dr. Handloser since 1941 as successor of Professor Dr. Waldmann's in his capacity as chief of the German Army Medical Inspectorate.

When present in Berlin he always received the mixed physicians' commission in person and invited it for breakfast. For the last time I saw him at such an occasion around the end of 1942. He impressed me as a highly qualified physician and soldier and a good man. This opinion I expressed already in an earlier letter which I directed a month ago for the President of the Military Tribunal in Nuernberg, through the Military Attache of the US Army at Berne, Brigadier General B.R. Legge, to the supreme commander of the US Forces in Germany, General McNarney, to be forwarded by him. In accordance with the statements I made at that opportunity, I can only repeat here that professor Dr. Handloser was seriously concerned with the fate of the PW's and that he had asked me to inform him about my observations and possible complaints in the PW camps in general and in the hospitals in particular. It was his position that we should interpret the regulations of the Geneva Convention of 1929 concerning the return of PW's as generously as possible and in dubious cases always in favor of the PW, as for instance in judging these people older than 40 years who were suffering of chronical diseases of the stomach and the intestinal tracts.

I don't think that I, as a Swiss medical colonel and former physician of a. division, should judge the Qualification of the chief of the German Army Medical Inspectorate as a soldier. However, I do not doubt for a moment his high military qualities which were decisive for his responsible position. That he as a soldier was also concerned about Questions of the medical care for the PW's is demonstrated by the above statements. There remains only the question how much time he had for this task on account of his various other duties.

I recall Prof. Dr. Handloser as a man in the most favorable way and. I regret deeply that at the end of his military career he is exposed to such physical and psychological strain. From entirely personal conversations with him T know his deep sympathy for our Swiss democracy, a fact which is not surprising since he grew up in Constance, studied in Switzerland, is connected through family relations with our country and has spent some tine there.

He never concealed his feelings, just like Generalarzt Prof. Dr. Sauerbruch, the latter having done so even in public which resulted in his being prohibited to make further visits to Switzerland.

I must be convinced that a man who, like Prof. Dr. Handloser, was so deeply impressed by our Swiss democracy and who made me, as its representative, feel that so deeply, respected our first democratic principle, that of human rights and human dignity, and that he acted accordingly.

Therefore, I have gained the impression that Prof. Dr. Handloser is a good man and a good physician and I refuse to believe that the unheard-of cruelties performed in the PW camps were carried out with his knowledge and his approval.

It is possible that Prof. Brunner is mistaken in the last sentence. There was no question of prisoner of war camps here.

Mr. President, I ask that I may be allowed to reserve the right to submit various affidavits which have not yet been translated. It would be too long a delay if I were to read these affidavits which I have. I ask that I be allowed to submit later, first, an affidavit of Professor Dr. Wirth, who has been named by the Prosecution recently. This is not a witness whom we have called, but the prosecution has called him here in another connection, and we took advantage of the presence of Prof. Wirth in order to get his testimony on the question of the Lost experiments at the Military Medical Academy and the question of the significance of the meetings of the consulting specialists, and finally I asked him to express his opinion on the document concerning experiments in the Concentration Camp Neuengamme which was submitted by the Prosecution where it is alleged that this was done at the suggestion of Prof. Wirth. If the Prosecution should wish Prof. Wirth to be called to the witness stand, this can be done. Prof. Wirth is in the prison here.

Then I ask that I be allowed to submit an affidavit of Prof. Loehe, director of the University of Dermatology in Berlin. That has not been translated yet, either. Also an affidavit of a Mr. Stoecklein who wrote a letter to me without my requesting it. This letter must be put into the form of an affidavit.

Finally, I have an affidavit in telegraphic form. Here again I must see that it is put into proper form. Finally, I have not yet received an answer to a questionnaire which I sent to the witness Dr. Balachovsky. It was sent to Franco about a month ago. This questionnaire has not yet been received. As soon as it is received I shall submit it to the Tribunal.

With this, for the time being, I conclude my case for the defendant Prof. Dr. Handloser.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for defendant Handloser may present these affidavits when they are in condition to be offered to the Tribunal. This morning counsel handed up another affidavit, HA Exhibit 43, affidavit by Dr. Randerat. What does counsel desire to do with that affidavit?

DR. NELTE: This affidavit, Document HA 41, is Exhibit 43. I do not have the supplement here. Mr. President, what is the number, the HA number?

JUDGE SIEBRING: This morning you handed up to the bench two documents filed supplemental documents, Handloser. One of them was HA 43. The other document was HA 54. The Tribunal received Document HA 54 as Handloser Exhibit 46, but I do not recollect that HA 43 was ever tendered to the Tribunal for admission.

DR. NELTE: Document HA 43 is Exhibit 32. There was no English translation yet at that time, and you accepted it provisionally until the English translation was made.

DR. PRIBILLA (Counsel for the Defendant Rostock): With the permission of the Tribunal I call the defendant Prof. Paul Restock to the witness stand.

PAUL ROSTOCK, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:

JUDGE SIEBRING: Hold up your right hand and be sworn:

I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withheld and add nothing.

(The witness repeated the oath.)

JUDGE SIEBRING: You may be seated.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. PRIBILLA:

Q: What is your name?

A: My name is Paul Rostock.

Q: When were you born?

A: I was born on the 18th of January, 1892 at Kranz, a district of Meseritz.

Q: Please tell the Tribunal about your career, briefly.

A: I grew up in Pommerania in the country. My older brother became a farmer. I studied medicine at Greifswald and Jena. In April 1942 I to In April 1942 I took my state examination at Jena and subsequently became doctor of medicine.

That was in the year 1922. Immediately afterwards I became assistant at the Surgical University Clinic at Jena under Prof. Gulicke, and I remained at the University Clinic in my capacity as assistant until the end of 1927. Subsequently I became Oberarzt, senior physician, at the surgical department of the hospital at Bochum under Prof. Magnus. During these years I primarily occupied myself with injuries sustained in mining.

Prof. Magnus in the autumn of 1933 was called to Berlin. I went with him as Oberarzt, as senior physician, to the surgical university clinic at Berlin, Ziegelstrasse. In the year 1936 I was appointed Professor of Surgery. When in the fall of 1936 Professor Magnus was called to Munich I became deputy director of the Surgical University Clinic. During this time, besides studying joint pathology I also occupied myself with meningitis, primarily with the description according to the books of the entire surgery. In the year 1941 I became regular professor of surgery at the University of Berlin and director of the Surgical University Clinic at Berlin, Ziegelstrasse, after I had been at that clinic for three years as Oberarzt, senior physician, and had been the deputy direct r there for five years. In the year 1942 I became dean of the medical faculty at the University of Berlin.

During the past war I was assigned to the army as consulting surgeon. During the Polish campaign I was not used, and during the French campaign I served with the 16th Army, later on at the hospital base at Paris. During the Russian campaign I was with the 6th Army for two months and a half. At certain intervals I was attached to the Medical University at Berlin. In the fall of '42 I became consultant surgeon with the Army Medical Inspectorate, and in the year 1944 I received the rank of General Arzt of the Reserve. At the end of 1943, by request of Brandt, and besides my other activity I took over the direction of the Department for Science and Research with the General Commissioner for the Medical and Clinical Service. 3259

Q: I have a question. You became Generalarzt of which branch of the Wehrmacht?

A: I became assistant of the Surgeon General of the Army

DR. PRIBILIA: Mr. President, before I get into the technical part of my cross-examination I should like to submit some of my few documents which will explain to the Tribunal what is to be said.

First, I should like to read from Document Rostock No. 1. I should like to submit a chart which Professor Rostock himself prepared, which is to be Exhibit No. 1. This shows how the activities of Professor Rostock were distributed, divided according to years and percentage.

JUDGE SEBRING: Wait a minute. Mr. Secretary General, do you have another book? This is upside down and inside out. Counsel may proceed.

DR. PRIBILLA: I submit this Document No. 1, Exhibit No. 1.

Q: I ask you, Professor Rostock, to tell the Tribunal that you prepared it to the best of your knowledge?

A: I have made this graphic chart to the best of my knowledge and according to my conscience.

DR. PRIBILIA: Mr. President, I believe this chart speaks for itself and I need not explain it.

THE PRESIDENT: The chart may be admitted as Rostock Exhibit No. 1.

DR. PRIBILIA: As Document Rostock No. 2, Exhibit No. 2, I submit another chart. This chart is merely to show the time in which the experiments which are the subject of this trial were undertaken and the relation to Professor Rostock's activity during the War Years.

Q: I ask you to look at this chart once more and certify that you prepared it to the best of your knowledge.

A: I have also prepared this diagram in the last trials, on which are shown the activities which have been carried out and which have already been shown in Diagram No. 1, and the dates which are stated here in connection with the original experiments I have taken from the indictment. I have drawn a very thick black line around the experiments of which I am accused with special responsibility.

Q: May I interrupt you, the Tribunal has photostatic copies. The heavy lines there are not black but white. Also your activity as Editor of the Central Journal of Surgery is not listed.

A: I can only say that I have prepared this diagram to the best of my knowledge in accordance with my conscience. I may add a word of explanation, it has already been said that the experiments surrounded by the heavy line are those which the indictment mentioned in connection with Professor Rostock.

DR. PRIBILLA: At the bottom of the year 1933-1944 you will find a horizontal dotted line. This is the beginning of Dr. Rostock's activity. Below that there is a horizontal solid line which is the beginning of the activity of the agency when it was no longer at Rostock's clinic, but in Weditz.

The Document Rostock No. 3, Exhibit No. 3, I submit as Fuehrer Order No. 1 in the first Nurnberg trial before the International Military Tribunal, which was submitted as document K-1. It is an order to all agencies obligating them to absolute secrecy. This order was posted in every office, whether it was a military or a civilian agency of the Reich. This order in particular shows that everyone was allowed to speak only about those things which had to be brought officially to the notice of the other person. This order is submitted to explain that this obligation of secrecy sometimes explains why agencies which collaborated very closely actually did not learn what work was being done in the other agency.

As Document Rostock No. 4, Exhibit No. 4, I submit an excerpt from the list of German surgeons. This is published in 1938.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, in regard to Rostock Exhibit No. 3, the document does not bear the date or approximate date when it was used, promulgated. It might be of interest to the Tribunal to know when that order was announced. You may supply that date later.

DR. PRIBILLA: Mr. President, I am told that it is about the 1st of May, 1940. I am sorry that I did not include this date, but it was not contained on the order itself, and I received the document as it was submitted in the International Trial.

MR. SEBRING: Doctor, can you state to the Tribunal whether or not that date is made to appear either by documentary evidence or by oral evidence given by any witness before the International Military Tribunal?

DR. PRIBILLA: I will endeavor to obtain this information. I admit frankly that I have not thought about it before, because I knew that it was a document which had been admitted in the first trial.

Now, as Document No. Rostock 4, Exhibit No. 4, I submit an except from the list of German surgeons. This is a scientific publication in which all works in the Medical Field are contained which German professors had done at that time. The part of this list of German surgeons which deals with Rostock I have copied and had certified.

Since this lists only Professor Rostock's scientific writings up to about the middle of the year 1937. I have prepared a further list of his scientific publications from the middle of 1937 on.

BY DR. PRIBILLA:

Q: This Document No. 4, Exhibit No. 4, I submit to you, Professor Rostock, and I ask you to tell the Tribunal that you prepared it to the best of your knowledge. I am sorry, that is Document No. 5, Exhibit 5. Exhibit 4, Document 4 is the extract from the Register of Surgeons up to 1937. Document 5, Exhibit 5 is a list of publications from 1937 on.

A: The list of the publications of books under Roman I is complete. The list of the publications of journals I have had to prepare here without any documents and solely in accordance with my memory. It is quite possible that several items are missing here. The wording of the headings of the articles I have likewise prepared by memory and there may be some more differences in the words but not according to the entire matter.

Q: But on the whole you did it to the best of your knowledge?

A: I made them to the best of my knowledge.

DR. PRIBILLA: I believe I do not need to make any explanation about this, either. I submit this list in evidence of Rostock's scientific personality.

Q: Then I should like to ask you — did you later here in the prison, for example, do any further scientific work?

A: Yes, I continued to do that work. In the prison at Nuernberg I have completed a book on the compendium of surgery and I have also completed another book about lectures with regards to surgery. However, I was unable to add the pictures which are necessary for that book.

Q: Professor, were you a member of any medical scientific societies?

A: I was a member of the International Society of Hospitals, and I was a member of the Society of Natural Scientists and Physicians. I was a member of the German Surgical Society, the Berlin Society for Surgery, the Berlin Society for Natural Science, the German Society for Unterheilkunde, and the Accident ind Insurance Society, and surgical societies in Berlin, Bochum and Jena.

Q: And did you yourself publish a scientific journal?

A: Ever since the year 1939 together with Professor Hagnus and after his death I have issued the journal for Surgery as editor.

Q: Is that a journal which is well-known in scientific circles?

A: It is the oldest German surgical journal with the largest number of publications.

Q: Were you a member of the NSDAP?

A: Yes, since the year 1938 or '39.

Q: Did you have any office in the Party or any of its branches?

A: No, I was only a nominal member.

Q: Please pause after the question so that the translators can keep up.

Why did you join the Party?

A: At that time it was obligatory to be a Party member and it was a prerequisite if I wanted to become a regular professor for surgery in a German university.

Q: In addition to that did you take any active part in politics?

A: No, I have never been active politically and politics do not generally interest me.

Further, my professional activity to ok so much of my time that I did not have any other spare time. In this connection I could perhaps quote a comparison which I read, several days ago in the Spinoza novel. It is stated there: "Science is a beautiful woman; it does not tolerate any other woman in the heart of its lover."

Q: Professor were you a member of the SA*er of the SS?

A: No, I have never been a member.

Q: Professor Leibrandt on the witness stand here told the Tribunal about the teachers' camps. Were you yourself trained in such a camp?

A: No, I was graduated according to the procedure which was followed prior to 1939. Therefore, so to speak, I am a lecturer.

Q: Did you ever take part in courses at the medical school at Altrehse?

A: No.

Q: Did you ever teach at a Schooling camp at Altrehse?

A: No I did not do that either.

Q: You were head of the Surgical University Clinic in Berlin, Ziegel Strasse, until the end?

A: Yes.

Q: Were you very busy there?

A: Already during the peacetime and then also after the war broke out I was very much occupied. The number of patients has already been named here which went through my Polyclinic. On the average there were about twenty thousand patients there annually. I had to direct this polyclinic and the clinic, and, of course, I personally had to carry out a large number of operations. In addition to this I furthered my scientific activity with lectures and also by giving State examinations, physicians' examinations, and also some other occupations. With the beginning of the air attacks on Berlin, a considerable amount of time was taken from me, and ever since that time i have slept at the clinic in order to be able to be present there at all times.

Q: During the war you were also a consulting surgeon in the Army Medical Inspectorate. Please describe your activity there to the Tribunal.

A: First of all, I had to consult with the inspector and members of his staff with single surgical questions. I further had to deal with the reports which arrived from home and the front-line hospitals. I had to look them ever and I had to give an evaluation of them, and the most important items were summarized of these reports every six to eight works, and they were then sent to the Army Physician and the Army Corps Area Physician. I further had to prepare the collection of material for scientific work about the medical experiences during the war which was to be written after the war, and this work was also carried out to a considerable extent.

Q: Well, when you were the consultant surgeon, what was your task as to attending the meetings?

A: Yes, I participated in the conferences.

Q: The meetings what was called "consultant meetings" which were mentioned even here, who called these meetings?

A: These conferences were called by the Army Medical Inspector; later on by the Medical Inspector of the Wehrmacht.

Q: Did you yourself have anything to do with the preparing for these meetings?

A: No, I had nothing to do with it. The preparations were handled by a so called working staff, which was composed of several members of the Department for Science and Health in the Army Medical Inspectorate. I believe that previously Dr. Handloser stated that more in detail.

Q: I shall like to ask you, were you one of the many consultant surgeons, or did you have any special position among these other surgeons?

A: No, a large number of consultant surgeons participated, and the number of participants in a conference were between three hundred and four hundred people.

Q: It is said that a section of the Army Medical Inspectorate prepared for these meetings. Who was the head of this section?

A: That was Generalarzt — Generaloberstabsarzt Schreiber.

Q: How were such meetings, what was such a meeting like?

A: First of all a common conference took place in a big room of the Military Academy, and then the participants were separated into various individual groups, and then they went to other smaller rooms, and at their conference they would assemble, the internists, the hygienists, the surgeons, and the pharmacologists, in the end another common conference took place in the big meeting room.

Q: You just said that you did not have any especially high position among the various consulting surgeons. Could you tell me in a quiet way if at the meeting in May 1943 you were a chairman in a specialized group for surgery?

A: The presidents of those specialists groups were always the consulting hygienists, or surgeons of these specialists groups. That since during that when I was consulting surgeon of the Army Medical Inspectorate, I was charged with the direction of the specialists' group for surgery.

Q: If I understand you correctly, the chairmanship was changed at every meeting, and among what persons would it fluctuate?

A: As long as it was an Army conference, and I believe that was so up to the year of 1942, that was the consulting surgeon of the Army Medical Inspectorate, and afterwards then it became the Wehrmacht conference, and the consultant surgeons of the Army, Navy and the Luftwaffe changed. The Navy did not have any consulting surgeon in the branch.

Q: Then this meeting in 1943 was a Wehrmacht meeting?

A: Yes, that was already a Wehrmacht conference.

Q: And if I understand you correctly, it was a coincidence that you accepted for the Army, and happened to be the chairman?

A: Yes.

Q: Of these reports from the lectures held in the specialists groups for surgery, were you notified of them because you were the chairman?

A: No, I have already stated that the working staff were informed of the lectures that were to be given, and this working staff also compiled this program for the conference, which was very extensive. The working staff also received the manuscript of the reports by the consulting surgeons and physicians, and it also compiled a printed report, as they have been presented here by the Prosecution in the form of these green booklet

Q: Did you personally know the subject before the meeting, when Gebhardt was going to report on sulfanilamide, about what he was going to report on?

A: I naturally read it from the program that he would give on the lecture, which already distributed two weeks ahead of time. However, I did not know a thing what was going to deal with in this lecture, that is why the common procedure in scientific meetings.

Q: After the speech did you receive the manuscript which Professor or Gebhardt turned in?

A: No, I never received the manuscript. It was sent to the working staff. The chairmen of these specialists groups only had the task to make out the notices as to the discussions which were taking place.

Q: And to when did they turn ever any of these notes?

A: They also went to the working staff. They were also responsible afterwards for those printed reports.

Q: Please say again, where was the working staff and who was in charge of it?

A: The working staff was located in the Medical — Army Medical Inspectorate. Its director was Generalarzt Schreider, who was supported by members of this department.

Q: At the meeting in 1943, did you yourself hear Professor Gebhardt's speech?

A: Yes, I heard it personally.

Q: What did you think, when you hear Professor Gebhardt's speech as to the manner and the execution?

A: Professor Gebhardt said the following: That the experiments been carried out on purple who had been sentenced to death, and who then were granted a pardon. Then he further stated that the loyal aspect of this matter had been decided on, and, that, therefore, discussion on the matter was not necessary. If I reckon right, he did not state that the experiments had been carried out in the concentration camp.

He certainly did not mention the name of Ravens-Grueck, because until I came to Nurnberg I did not even know of such a place existed in Germany, that a concentration camp was located there. I am quite certain he did not say that Polish women had be involved. I heard that for the first time here in the course of a preliminary examination.

Q: After this speech, or during the speech, when you heart what you have just stated, what did you —

A: Yes, I have done that. I have tired to place myself into the situation of a person who has been condemned to death, and I have told myself that in such as situation, If I had been given a chance to gain a change in the punishment, or a pardon, or, that if I were to get over with an artificial afflicted infection with sulfanilamide that I would have been very glad to have such a chance.

Q: Then you have taken this into consideration —

MR. McHANEY: If Your Honor, please, the question of Dr. Pribilla was not fully translated before this response was given, and I not understand whether he went through this thinking process which the witness has just described on the occasion of Dr. Gebhardt's speech in May 1943, or, whether he is now giving an after-sight justification.

THE PRESIDENT: Doctor, it did not come through here either. Suppose you repeat it — repeat you question. The members of the Tribunal did not get the entire translation.

BY DR. PRIBILLA:

Q: I asked and I shall ask you again whether you had at that time or later these considerations?

A: I had made this consideration at that time. Shall I repeat to you once more?

THE PRESIDENT: If satisfactory to both counsel the Tribunal has ruled. Counsel may proceed.

BY DR. PRIBILLA:

Q:That was what you said at that time.

Well, did you talk to their people about it at the time, and, did this speech and these facts attract special attention?

A: No. I have not discussed that subject with anybody, and the lecturer did not draw any particular attention to it, as the effect of sulfanilamide was discussed not only solely in connection witt the lecture of Gebhardt, but at the time about four or five more lectures were given on the subject, and about six or seven people discussed this which complex question.

Q: Now I must ask you, how do you explain the fact that this speech did not attract special attention. Was the manner of presentation such that it was not very noticeable, or what; or, what was the explanation that you had?

A: In his introductory speech, Gebhardt stated the same thing that plays a part here in the trial, namely the jurist basis of the whole matter, that this had been approved by prominent jurist agencies so that me did not have any cause to discuss this problem at all.

Q: And you did not get any reaction from among the other professors present?

A: Nobody discussed this aspect of the question with me; of course we had discussed in detail the effects of sulfanilamide.

Q: Had you yourself personally dealt with sulfanilamide scientifically

A: That of course in only natural, because at the time the sulfanilamide problem was the problem of the theoretical practical war surgeons and in the previous year, I myself had given a lecture in which I referred to the questions which still had not been verified and of which there was still a large number.

Q: Did you yourself have the intention or working in the field of sulfanilamide?

A: Yes. In the lecture, which I have just mentioned, I stated that I myself would have examinations made at my clinic of certain pre-requisite for that could be filled. At the time, I stated that the effect of the sulfanilamide appeared especially important to me in the basic research, because we had a very large number of disinfection medicines, but all of them were not sufficient in order to prevent an infection of the wounds. The sulfanilamide seemed to show a new way to us, however, it possibly would be going to much into detail if we discussed this any further here.

Q: As you are speaking of that time, you mean your speech in 1942?

A: Yes, that was in 1942.

Q: I should like to ask you to tell the Tribunal how you intended to carry out this work; was that mentioned in this speech, or perhaps you can state it briefly.

A: I had the following idea, that with the wounds of soldiers, who had been injured and that those daily injuries which took place in the larger cities, that I myself wanted to observe it chemically.

That furthermore the physiological examinations should be carried out on the wounds, that also examination of the blood and urine should be carried out with regards to quality as well as quantity. They were usually carried out in the healing of wounds.

Q: Did you actually carry out this work?

A: No, in order to be able to place these examinations on a very broad. basis, I required a psychologist, a chemist or pharmacist and also a bacteriologist, however, these people were not furnished to me by the Wehrmacht. The transfer of injured soldiers to my clinic failed for purely formal reasons.

Q: If you had these conditions in 1942 and made this speech at the meeting; do you believe that the experiments of Professor Gebhardt, which he reported on in 1943, might have been instigated by your speech in 1942?

A: No, I do not believe that. I have already stated that sulfanilamide problems occupied most all of the physicians at that time, not only the surgeons, but also all the other branches of medicine. In the year 1942 I was not the only one to speak, but also four or five other surgeons discussed the same subject, also a neurologist spoke. Like explanations were given by a bacteriologist and a pharmacist. Several of the people there were very enthusiastic about the effects of sulfanilamide and they called it a "wonder drug", however, there were several people who were more reserved.

Q: Do you remember any names of other surgeons who reported or spoke about sulfanilamide at the same meeting as you? I beg your pardon, I understand that other surgeons spoke in addition to you?

A: Yes, surgeons. I am quite sure that Sauerbruch also spoke, Kilian, Krueger, Wachsmuth and I believe Pfruendt also spoke.

Q: Were they all consulting surgeons?

A: Yes, all of them were consulting surgeons.

Q: Now I sum up. One cannot say that your speech brought up the problem for the first time and thus caused the experiments?

A: No, the problem itself had already existed for several years. I cannot tell you exactly any more when it was publicized for the first time and that may have been five or six years later. I have further stated that all those who occupied themselves with at that time, and especially Dr. Gebhardt, tried to find a solution through their own way.

Q: You said before that your own planned investigations were not realized; did you no longer work in this field or did you do anything more?

A: Of course sulfanilamide was used in my clinic. Furthermore, in my capacity as consulting surgeon with the Army Medical Inspectorate I also pointed but the importance of this matter and suggested that several research troops, under the guidance of particularly qualifier surgeons, well equipped with personnel and medicine, also with laboratory equipment, should be sent to the front line hospitals and they should there study the effects on wounds, which had been inflicted in the course of combat. Accordingly, two such troops were established under Professors Hellner and Koestler.

Q: Did you inform Professor Gebhardt of your efforts in the matter for sulfanilamide or rather in 1942 or 1943 was there my scientific or personal contact with Professor Gebhardt?

A: No, I did not inform him and we did not have any contact whatsoever about it.

Q: And on the other hand Professor Gebhardt did not give you any information about his efforts?

A: No, he did not do that.

Q: At this same meeting, which you attended as consulting surgeon, Professor Gebhardt and Dr. Koestler made a speech about operations and n* nerve injuries; was a similar announcement made in this case that they were human experiments?

A: No, not a word was mentioned about that.

Q: From what was said, would one have to draw any such conclusion?

A: No, that conclusion could not be drawn either.

Q: At the same meeting in 1943 at the gathering of hygienists, a speech was given by Dr. Ding about typhus; did you hear this speech and did you learn anything about it?

A: No, I did not hear this lecture because it took place simultaneously with the surgeon's lectures, but it was taking place in some other room and I naturally had to attend the surgical lectures.

DR. PRIBLLA: Mr. President, I have now concluded my question referring to Profess r Rostock's activities as consulting surgeon. Now I begin a new subject of his activities from the year of 1943 on and the subject for the section for science and research. If the President agrees, I will continue after the recess.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess.

(A recess was taken.)