1947-02-24, #3: Doctors' Trial (early afternoon)

AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 24 February 1947.)

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

PAUL RESTOCK — resumed RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued)

BY DR. PRIBILLA:

Q: Professor, the prosecutor already asked you in detail about procedure as it prevailed during the meeting of consulting physicians. In that connection it was said that after Gebhardt's lecture, and after listening to the other lectures on the same subject, a written summary was made. The prosecutor maintained that this written summery was sent to the front. Is that correct?

A:Directives, as we laid them down as a summary of the most important plants of the lectures, were sent to the Army Medical Inspectorate by this meeting of consulting physicians. Whether and to what extent they were sent on from there does not lie within my knowledge. Those directives were printed and were sent on in printed. Whether from there they were sent on again I do not know.

Q: Do I understand you correctly if I say that these summarry which were made at the end of the conference, were not the directives to applied in practice but merely a theoretical summary of the results of the scientific lectures?

A: Yes, that is correct.

Q: Now the prosecutor said that if you collaborated in compiling summaries you would have had to know exactly the details of experiments and it would have been your duty to examine them. this connection the word "evaluated" was used. I should like you to state your opinion an whether it was customary to invesinate the details of those lecturers, or just to take knowledge of the result.

A: Investigation of what an individual gentleman lectured on not take place. Something like that was not customary at all during German meetings.

Whoever knows the persons and the situation would not be able to help but smile if they imagine what would have happened if I, for instance, during such a meeting, had asked Mr. Saucrbruch to present the material basis for what he was lecture on. That would have resulted in a scandal, I think. In order to give a concrete example, I did not tell Mr. Gebhardt or Mr. Fischer to present their case histories before the meeting. That was not something we were concerned with. Whatever was spoken in those lectures was taken as a fact. All of us who sat down together afterwards were merely concerned to talk about the most essential points of these lectures and to file them, without investigating whether the results in themselves were correct. That is what we in a scientific language would call the compiling of an expert summary of a report.

Q: Now, there is a last question which I want to put to you which refers to document NO-692, which is Exhibit 457. This is a document which was submitted by the prosecutor. You testified that during the meeting of 26 August 1944, the individual research assignments and research workers were not discussed but that merely large fields were selected and designated as urgent. You said that there was approximately 12, 14, or 16 such large fields. Did you look at the document?

A: Yes, during the recess I examined that document; I made a mistake, in as much as there were not a dozen of such fields but a dozen and a half. If I classified the more important research fields as to the man or of research tasks mentioned here, there are perhaps 6 or 7 arena then who were represented to a larged extent; the others had only 1 or 2 research assignments.

Q: This meeting took place on the 26th of August 1944. From the document it can be concluded that on the 14th of September 1944 the list, as it is in front of now, was compiled. Did I understand you correctly that you said that this document showed that after the large fields had been determined a list was a man of whereby schomatically it was decided from the material what individual research institute would work on that special field according to the data available and I mean the fields that were designated as urgent?

A: Yes, that is correct.

Q: What does the word in parenthesis mean right underneath the heading "Summary According to the 650 research Orders submitted to us;" doesn't that say a certain limitation?

A: Yes, certainly. At that time our research index contained 650 research orders. From these were designated as urgent. Speaking figuratively these 650 orders were looked at in view of the intensified situation of the war, and therefore all but 45 were dropped.

Q: The question came up here repeatedly whether your card index had very detailed data and I am asking you now whether it doesn't appear from this limited sentence that to a certain extent an excuse was made and people said, "yes, as far as data is available."

A: Yes, that is correct too. Only these fields were selected where the data on the card index would fit into this dozen and a half fields, and what we have here is the result.

Q: So from this list one can conclude that you had no detailed data?

A: No, we had no detailed data.

DR. PRIBILLA: I have no further questions.

THE PRESIDENT: Is there any cross-examination of this defendant further on the part of any defense counsel upon the matters he testified on redirect?

DR. SEIDEL: Dr. Seidel, counsel for defendants Gebhardt, Oberhauser and Fischer. Mr. President, in view of the fact during cross-examination a few points were touched upon which were not yet the subject of direct examination I should like to be permitted to ask a few questions of the Witness.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may proceed.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY DR. SEIDL:

Q: Professor, last Friday you testified that you personally held the point of view that medical experiments on inmates who were condemned to death would not be carried out by you personally, and not even then when those inmates would be given another chance to be pardoned, do I understand you correctly that you meant to say by that this was your personal conviction and that you didn't mean to say thereby that the question in issue was one of medical ethics generally?

A: I said that I personally wouldn't do that, and this personal, very personal point of view results from the conception that I have about the relationship of a surgeon to a human being upon whom he is operating. In the German law in social insurance there is a possibility to coerce a human being to have an operation performed upon him. That is but true for circumvention, through material pressure. That is to say one can approach a human being who had an accident in a factory and you can tell him that he has to improve his condition by an operation and if he refuses to do that he is deprived of certain rights, and that is a very effective pressure which is put upon him. When I, as a surgeon, am approached with such a demand and a man like that is put into my clinic I try to convince this human being of the necessity of such an operation. If he realizes it and if he is in agreement to it I am performing it. However, if he doesn't realize the necessity then I refuse the execution of that operation. I am doing that on the basis of an experience which I had about 20 years ago in a medical affair, but I am very clear that that this is nothing but the shifting of the problem from myself to some other person.

MR. McHANEY: We did not get the last question which was put by defense counsel.

Q: I will repeat the question. In view of the fact that this is your personal conviction which you just described, you desisted, or you didn't sec any necessity after this lecture of Gebhardt and Fischer to raise any objection against these experiments?

A: Yes, that was my personal conviction. It is still that today, and I naturally know that others are of a different opinion.

Q: At any rate it is a fact that during that lecture many hundreds of expert physicians were present, of whom none of them made any objection?

A: None of them raised any objection with me, and I never heard this was the case with others.

Q: You yourself with reference to experiments to test sulfanilamide you would consider thorn relatively not dangerous, so that you would put yourself at this disposal if you had been condemned to death?

A: Yes.

Q: Dr. Gebhardt and Dr. Fischer in May 1943 reported on the effectness of sulfanilamide; Professor Gebhardt at that time was Major Geneneral the Waffen SS? Did you at that time gain the impression that Dr. Gebhardt carried through these experiments as a civilian surgeon, a civilian physic or did you gain the impression that he carried them through in his capacity as a soldier on instructions from a superior agency?

A: I had the impression quite clearly that he acted upon some order. I don't know upon whose order.

Q: Furthermore, you stated that you made experiments at your clinic to find out the effectiveness of this chemi-tharapeutically, but that this experiment failed because of difficulties of personnel and material; do I understand you correctly that you meant that these experiments became necesary and in spite of any investigation in this field no clarification had been established?

A: The stride of sulphamilamide made in the theoretical and practice point of view had been clarified sufficiently.

Q: Professor, do you know that shortly before the outbreak of the War, Professor Dr. Kirschner circulated questions to all German accident clinics in order to find opt the effectiveness of sulphamilamide on wounded persons and that this circular had no effectiveness and that no material in the oases of thousands of wounded persons had been evaluated?

A: I personally know about this circular by Dr. Kirschner, and It published in the Periodical Publication of Surgeons, and went very much in detail, and it is true that no clarification had been arrived at through that circular.

Q: Would you agree with me if I said chemical investigation of occasional wounds during the first few years of the War brought no clarification on this question at all?

A: That is true, no such clarification was gained? and I explained that during my lecture of 1942.

Q: At that time in that lecture you demanded that a basical research should be carried through; isn't it a fact though that along side of this basical research work a front medical and medical research problem was tbit had to be solved as quickly as possible?

A: This problem certainly existed.

Q: And this was what caused you to institute research groups; what was the basic thought on which you based those research groups?

A: I made the suggestion to the Institute; then I myself couldn't if 3 the basis thought on that question was that these research groups show be committed at the main field dressing stations. These are the places whore the wound was cared for after the first emergency dressing. The gent men who were committed there were to observe these wounded people for so long a time as was necessary in order to survey the development clearly.

Q: I concluded from that the decisive thing is to test the effectiveness of sulfanilamide on wounded people and that it should be used as soon as possible after the wound was inflicted and there is no purpose in carrying out any experiments on wounded people many days or weeks after the wound was inflicted?

A: The quicker this means is used, the more effective it is.

Q: Do you know whether the research group that you suggested was ever committed?

A: Only to a very small extent, they came into the whirl of the invasion of Normandy and there, of course, there was no time for any scientific work.

Q: Repeatedly the lecture which you, yourself, had in hay of 1942 before Gebhardt and Fischer gave think lectures during the first consulting meeting of physicians. This meeting can be found, in this green booklet, was the lecture printed the same way as you held it, or were you mainly concerned with excerpts?

A: He, not every word was printed; just the high-lights and effects are contained therein.

Q: In this lecture the following sentence can be found and I am going to read at to you, I quote: "The big danger of chemical therapeutical work as that it cannot lead careful Physicians during the execution of their operative tasks in treating with a sound, that they must not be neglected because certain hope is placed an chemical therapeutical work." Would you agree with me if I said wit! this one sentence the whole problem is described?

A: The problem is not quite as simple as ail that. This sentence contains in other words what I think already testified to before noon with reference to Chemical therapeutical treatment and the surgical treatment with knife or scissors, or only chemical treatment. I said at that time that we were not sure if it were one or the other and finally we came to a conclusion, which is usual in life, that somewhere in the middle the solution is to be found, that is the surgical, treatment is to result and 24 Feb **** Meehan that is ****** dead tissues and in addition chemical therapeutical ***** that of course took some time before are arrived at this time.

THE PRESIDENT: Is there any further examination of this witness?

BY MR. McHANEY

Q: Herr Professor, can you say that the experiments of Gebhardt and Fischer solved all the problems rotating to the use of sulfanilamide I will repeat the question. Professor, as a result of the experiments carried out by Gebhardt and Fischer were the problems incident to the use of sulfamilamide in treating infected wounds solved, or was it rather one little contribution in clarifying a rather difficult problem?

A: It cannot be expected that the solution of such a problem can be arrived at by one single thesis, much more work is necessary than that I have in mind that the results were gained from these experiments that sulfanilamide in the case of the big gangrene viruses has a certain effect in the case of the larger amount of wound viruses and in order to clarify it one has to use two words, streptocecce and streptocecous.

These two viruses will react relatively badly toward this treatment and that is now I remember the results of these experiments.

Q: Do you remember when Heydrick was killed?

Yes, I remember that there was an assination, but I don't remember when it was.

Q: You don't remember if it was in 1942?

A: No, I cannot say that.

Q: Do you knew what Heydrick died from?

A: As far as I know he was injured by splinters from a dome and he died either because of the pound infection or from an injury of the stomach or something. I am not quite sure.

Q: Do you know who treated Heydrick?

A: No.

Q: Do you remember Karl Brandt said he was under the impression that the death of Heydrick had something to do with the timing of the Gebhardt and Fischer experiments?

A: Did he say that here?

Q: You will recall that he said that, yes. I just wondered if you knew whether or not the fact that Heydrick died of a wound infection had anything to do with the timing of these sulfanilamide experiments by Gehhardt?

A: I did not know that at that time

Q: Did you ever hear any criticism of the handling of the Heydrick case on the gounds that they did net use enough sulfanilamide?

A: No.

Q: I have no further questions.

DR. PRIBILLA: Mr. President, with the permission of the Tribunal, I should like now to call the witness, Hans Christensen to the witness stand.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has some questions to propound to the witness.

JUDGE SEBRING: Dr. Restock, as I understood your testimony, it was that as Chief of the Office for General Science and Research you were concerned with broad, general questions of research as they came up during the war, rather than with particular questions; is that correct?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

JUDGE SEBRING: In other words; within the sphere of your competence; you would consider in a general way the broad question of whether or not typhus research should be given a certain priority or certain other types of research without paying particular attention to specialized or particular projects or institutes within that field of research; is that true?

THE WITNESS: Yes, that is true.

JUDGE SEBRING: I am wondering if you could give me some information about this matter. You have testified at length about broad; basic research problems or projects and perhaps you can tell the Tribunal something about the particular or special projects within the bread general field; let us assume, for example, that during the war the question of the most effective means of treating severely chilled or frozen persons became a question of great importance to a certain branch of the Wehrmacht. Let us say it became a question of great importance to the German Army, for example, and let us assume further that in order to find the answer to that important question, it was felt decisive to conduct special research on concentration camp inmates for the purpose of investigating the treatment or the most effective means of treating persons who had been severly chilled or frozen; do you understand my assumption?

A: Yes, I think I have understood you.

Q: Now then, can you tell me r the Tribunal what governmental agencies or officials within the framework of the German government "would have had the authority to determine, order -r direct that special research, for the purpose f determining the question, should be conducted.

Let us start at the top. For example, I suppose that Hitler, as Commander-in-Chief of the Wehrmacht could have determined or ordered or directed that such experiments be carried out; is that true?

A: In ay opinion, which after all concerns a legal question, the chief of the state, of an authoritarian state system, must have had the possibility to issue such orders. Whether legally or internationally he was authorized to do that, I don't know.

Q: I understand. Now then, would the Chief of the OKV have had the authority to enter such an order, directive or determination?

A: I don't believe so, for the Chief of OKA there were no concentration camps subordinated. He had no influence there at all; that is, from what I know of this organization.

Q: Would the Chief of the OKH have had the authority to determine, order or direct that special research for the purpose of determining a question should be conducted? In other words, what I am interested in is this question: what officials r agencies within the framework of the German government had the power to determine these questions, and then, if so, what official channels would such determinations, orders or directives normally pass to bring them into execution? Do you understand the import of my question?

And in this question, if you take my assumption to be correct, there is the problem; first, of determining that special research shall be conducted. There is the problem, second, of determining that certain specifically named or designated trained personnel, doctors, researchers and the like, should be assigned to such special research problems. Thirdly, there is the question of the determination of the installation or construction of laboratories in which such research should be conducted Fourthly, there is the problem of making concentration camp inmates avoidable, not on paper r not on theory, but actually available to that laboratory as experimental subjects.

And fiftyly, there is the question of the assignment of transportation facilities, not on paper but actual facilities to go to the concentration camps to get those people and to bring them to the laboratories.

Now then, if you have my overall question, can you tell me as a matter of official, executive or administrative routine what government agencies or officials within the framework of the German government would have had the authority to determine, order or direct these things to be done and to be completed with all the facilities available to them for the completion of such project?

A: At first, I am not an authority about any executive or administrative matters as i just heard. For instance, the cold problem, to further this cold problem by way of experiments a directive can emanate from numerous people as long as the human being isn't being considered as a subject. When the human being is being considered as a subject in any form this probably went beyond the normal scope of activity of any scientific institute in Germany.

The director of this institute can experiment on voluntary collaborrators, on his students, on his medical assistants, et cetera, but that, of course, is very lifted. Who, beyond that, had authority to place human beings at this disposal I didn't thing about before. Now, of course I have thought about it. And, when thinking about this problem, I arrived at no solution either how scientifically one could solve that problem without coming into conflict with the penal judge. Here, during the trial, I heard that concentration camps were subordinated to Himmler. Whether he had the unlimited authority to dispose of the people there, or whether he had to ask a yet higher instance; that is, Hitler, is something that is outside my knowledge completely.

THE PRESIDENT: Are there any further questions to be propounded to the witness?

(No reply)

THE PRESIDENT: Defendant Restock is excused from the witness stand and will take his place.

(Witness excused.)

THE PRESIDENT: The Marshal will summon the witness, Heinz Christensen.

HEINZ CHRISTENSEN, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:

JUDGE SEBRING: Please raise your hand and take the oath, repeating after me:

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 SEBRING: You may be seated.

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY DR. PRIBILLA: (Counsel for defendant Restock):

Q: Witness, would you please give the High Tribunal your personal data?

A: My name is Dr. Heinz Christensen. I am a physician. I live in Husum, Brinkmannstrasse 30.

Q: When were you born and where?

A: I was born on the 9th of April 1911 in Berlin.

Q: Would you please briefly describe your professional career and emphasize how and when you came into contact with Professor Rostock?

A: I studied medicine from 1930 until 1936. I made my medical state examination and concluded my medical studies. This included a three and half year education as a clinical assistant, mostly working on international diseases. On the 1st of April 1940 I was assigned to the medical service of the Army as a reserve soldier. After the customary short military training I was further used exclusively as a physician.

During the spring of 1943 I was temporarily assigned to Professor Rostock, to his surgical clinic. I was to work on that clinic, or rather, at the affiliated reserve hospital department, which was under the leadership of lecturer Dr. Starck and was to gain there experiences of the front that had been made in Russia regarding blood transfusions and was to exploit them during clinical laboratory work.

Professor Rostock, at that time, was the consulting surgeon with the Army Medical Inspector. I first then made the acquaintance Professor Dr. Rostock. I had only known him before that through his lectures at the clinic. After the conclusion of this work I was assigned to a medical company to Italy for a few months and finally, in December 1943, returned to Berlin. I then worked as a medical assistant at the reserve hospital department and at the surgical polyclinic as well as a lecture assistant with Professor Rostock. Professor Rostock at that time gave me work to be which fell within his scope of scientific activity and that applied to many others of my colleagues too.

For a short time he had taken over at that time the leadership of the department for science and research, and belonging to this scope of activity he gave us work and asked us to help him.

Q: You yourself, along with your other activity, were working as an assistant in order to deal with matters which fell within the department of science and research?

A: Yes, practically this collaboration up until spring 1944 was carried on in such a manner that we medical assistants who had been asked to collaborate, dealt with these relatively few things which Dr. Rostock gave us alongside our other clinical occupation; that is, after the end of office hours.

Q: In this case, we are mainly interested in the activity of Professor Rostock as a leader of the Department of Science and Research. Where was Professor Rostock's agency in this capacity?

A: Until the spring of 1944, you could hardly speak of an agency. As I said before we medical assistants of Professor Rostock had to dour our clinical duties first. At the clinic only one additional secretary had been hired and who only worked there for half days in order to deal with the work which was connected with the new activities which had been taken over by Professor Rostock. In the winter of 1943 and 1944, the air raids increased on Berlin to the extent that the clinical work had to be limited. At that time most of the clinical work was done in air raid shelters and cellars. Working rooms were furnished in Beelitz. Beelitz was about one hour distance from Berlin by car.

Q: Did you, yourself, continue to stay with Professor Rostock, and continue to work where he was?

A: Yes, up until the end of February 1944 I was active at the clinic at Ziegelstrasse. After the new office was furnished at Beelitz I repeatedly went to the clinic in Berlin together with Professor Rostock.

Q: Witness, what did Professor Rostock tell you when you commenced your activities at the Department for Science and Research?

A: Professor Rostock gave me information about the situation of the medical research as it prevailed in Germany at that time. He explained that by and large there were two groups; on one side there was the civilian sector, that is to say, mostly university clinics and university institutes, and on the other side was the armed forces branches with their independent research agencies. Every one of those research groups had the aim to maintain their research field and to expand it as far as possible. On the other side, difficulties as they resulted from the way, that is to say, the scarcity of personnel and material played a big part, and it was his aim to create some kind of coordination between these two units. As a university professor he was mostly interested in maintaining the research on the civilian sector. Contrary to other countries, in Germany the research work connected with the civilian sector had become particularly difficult since a number of research workers had been drafted into the Wehrmacht.

He, himself, said that it would be a false conclusion to assume that the biggest values were to be attached with special results from the war, for if at any time basic research work was to be dropped, this would bring about a considerable harm to the entire medical research work in Germany.

Q: Would you please describe how the activities were practically carried on in this Department of Science and Research, and also what your special task was?

A: There were four medical assistants who helped Professor Rostock in his new work. He divided the entire scope of the tasks amongst us four assistants, and he divided this according to the individual subjects of medicine such as surgery, internal medicine, and-so-forth. The practical way in which the work was carried on was the following: His mail was dealt with by the first secretary, the mail was opened and presented to Professor Rostock for his perusal. Professor Rostock made notations on the various letters and then passed the matter on to his assistants in order that we could deal with them. We, then, returned these matters to Professor Rostock who looked through them, and sometimes signed them. Then these matters went back to the secretary of Professor Rostock, who took care of the mailing, and who registered the matters according to the various expert fields. I, myself, mainly had to deal with tasks relating to internal medicine in accordance with my pre-medical education, children’s medicine, physiology, hygiene, and later the compilation of the so-called research card index system.

Q: What were the material things with which this agency dealt?

A: From the very beginning there was not a definitely defined circle of tasks. The individual tasks developed only during the course of this one year.

Q: Excuse me, you are not speaking about the year 1944?

A: Yes, 1944. The circle of tasks that especially crystallized were the following: Professor Rostock was mostly interested in basic research. In that connection one incident took place, the penicillin and lectronemicros work, and other work was done in brain research work, and tissue culture.

In connection with basic research, Professor Rostock endeavored to maintain high scholastic work in research. A further point was the maintenance of medical literature and the creation of an information periodical about medical literature that was printed abroad. It was at the end of 1944 when the consuming functions of Professor Rostock increased, and which was in connection with the limitations of production, in the field of the productions of drugs, and in the field of the production of medical instruments. In order to explain the functions of Professor Rostock, I would say, for instance the efforts he made in order to safeguard medical literature. Professor Rostock personally did not sit down a regulation as to what future medical educational books were to be written and printed, but there were working committees available who, for instance, in that case, were working with the Ministry of Interior, and were representatives of the Ministry, and who from their side stated what papers would contain and what ones were available in order to produce medical educational work. In addition representatives of the various publishing institutions were present, who, from their point of view, stated what their production facilities were in order to decide what books were to be published. There were no medical experts available who were neither depended upon Professor Rostock nor dependent on any direct state institution or incorporated institutions; therefore Rostock was asked to attend these conferences on the basis of his knowledge as a university teacher, and who was competent to say that, for instance, in the case of surgical educational books, two or three must be used by the student. The decision of which books were to actually be produced rested with the whole committee itself. The meetings with regard to the limitations of the production of drugs were of a similar nature.

Q: How was the so-called card index system compiled and what led to it?

A: It is perhaps important that at the outset I speak about the extent of the so-called card index system. This card index system cannot be compared to perhaps the card index systems as they were described here in the press and as they are available in the United States where modern means of statistical procedure were used in order to build up large scale card index systems, perhaps according to the so-called Locke's system, with various data about the various research workers, how they worked and where they worked, and so forth.

This card index system I am speaking about consisted only of two card index boxes. These contained perhaps six to seven hundred research assignments. The research cords were perhaps of the size of a postcard; and one card index box contained the date in alphabetical order of the research workers, whereas the second card index box contained the same research assignment but only according to the expert fields they belonged to. This entire card index system was here only for the purpose of helping Professor Rostock gain some survey as to what research work was being carried on in Germany.

In the summer of 1944 Professor Rostock wrote to the Reich Research Council and to the individual Wehrmacht branches and asked that he receive reports on the current research assignments. Later the Reich Department for Building and Economy was added. It distributed research assignments concerning the pharmaceutical field.

Q: Witness, I shall put a few questions to you later with reference to the card index system and I should now like to ask you something about your own special field. You have already stated that your field was especially internal medicine and hygiene?

A: Yes.

Q: Is it to be understood that you worked on all the incoming and outgoing mail concerned with these special fields?

A: Yes. As I said before, Professor Rostock in accordance with the division of the work gave us the mail in order to have it prepared.

Q: Did that also refer to mail which was designated as secret?

A: Yes. The secret mail was dealt with by all the assistants at the agency. I therefore had insight into all secret mail that came in. Our secret mail comprised mostly the reports of the various research stations about the current research assignments as well as reports about medical literature abroad. Altogether this secret mail was really very small in extent.

Q: Witness, beyond your field did you gain a certain insight? Did Professor Rostock ever call his collaborators together and discuss all the events and problems as they were connected with his work?

A: Yes. Professor Rostock a few times a week had a number of discussions with us, the assistants. He expressly wanted everyone of our assistants to be well acquainted with the field of work of the others. That was for the practical reason that we were repeatedly present at the clinic in Beelitz; and al all times one of the assistants present at Beelitz was to be able to deal with any questions that might come up, at least in broad outlines, and was to know something about the other fields of work.

Q: Now, if I understood you correctly, the assistants represented one another, too, and sometimes represented Professor Rostock, too?

A: Yes, that also happened. Whenever one of us went on vacation, somebody else took over his field of work. While we were working there, the fields of work were changed among us.

Q: During that entire period you worked there, did you at any time see any event from which you could conclude that in any field anywhere in Germany inadmissible experiments were carried out on human beings?

A: No. From the material which we received no such events became apparent in anyway.

Q: Was there any event or circumstance? Even if you had no material, could you feel on the basis of any remark that was true and could you arrive at such conclusions?

A: No, we never had any such thoughts throughout the entire time.

Q: During the discussions Professor Rostock had with his assistants, was there any mention made of anything like that?

A: No, never were any inadmissible experiments mentioned — and I mean experiments which are now being described as inadmissible. Also in my conversations with the other assistants we never discussed these matters; and we certainly would have spoken about it if it had been true.

Q: Why do you think that you would have spoken about it if any such matters had come up?

A: For us physicians these would have been things which we wouldn't have been used to at all.

Q: From your own knowledge have you had any hint causing you to believe that Professor Rostock knew about such matters?

A: No. No hint whatsoever. Judging from the scientific work of Professor Rostock at the clinic, I only know about the things which fall absolutely within the framework of the general medical field of science and research.

Q: Did you at any time hear the name of Professor Haagen in Strassbourg?

A: Yes. Professor Haagen is known to me as a well-known bacteriologist and virus research worker.

Q: Was Professor Haagen mentioned in the material that you dealt with?

A: I cannot clearly remember that. I cannot clearly remember having listed Professor Haagen in my card index system.

Q: Did you know Professor Haagen personally?

A: No, I didn't know him personally.

Q: Do you know whether there was any correspondence between Professor Haagen and Professor Rostock regarding typhus at any time?

A: No, I know nothing about that.

Q: Would any such correspondence have to go through your hands since you dealt with fields of internal medicine and hygiene?

A: According to the procedure that was customary with us, I certainly would have heard something about such correspondence. If it hadn't been dealt with by me personally or perhaps by Professor Rostock, himself, it would have been according to custom that he send a copy to our registration office, which I would have dealt with in turn.

Q: Do you know whether Professor Haagen was with Professor Rostock in Berlin at any time?

A: I don't know that.

Q: In what form were reports made by other agencies about research assignments, assignments which were worked upon in the card index system?

A: From the various agencies we received certain lists about the research assignments which had already been distributed. These lists contained the following data: The name of the research workers, sometimes including the number of the assignment, the term of the research assignment, and in the case of assignment of the Reich Research Council mostly data at what clinic the work was performed. In addition in some of the cases the priority number and the value of the assignment was laid down. Information about the research assignments were supplemented a few times by additional reports which were sent to us. We didn't only receive compilations of lists from the Reich Department for Building Economy, but we also received assignments set down on various pieces of paper and on these pieces of paper it was stated, for instance, when we were concerned with a new therapeutical task, from what chemical basic material one had to start and in what manner a new synthesis was planned.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess.

(A short recess was taken.)