1947-03-06, #1: Doctors' Trial (early morning)

Official transcript of the American MilitaryTribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 6 March 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.

THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court room will please find their seats.

The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal I.

Military Tribunal I is now in session. God save the United States of America, and this honorable Tribunal.

There will be order in the courtroom.

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, will you ascertain that the defendants are present in court.

THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honor, all the defendants are present in court with the exception of the defendant Oberheuser who is absent due to illness.

THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary General will note for the record the presence of all the defendants in court with the exception of the defendant Oberheuser who has been excused on account of illness.

Counsel may proceed.

The witness is reminded that he is still under oath.

KARL GEBHARDT — resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION — continued

BY DR. SEIDL (Counsel for defendants Gebhardt and Fischer): May it please the Tribunal, before the defendant states his opinion with regard to the results of the experiments I request permission to offer an affidavit which is located in my document book, on page 33.

It is an affidavit of the defendant Dr. Fritz Fischer, and I offer this affidavit in order to shorten the examination and because the important results of the experiments are stated in this affidavit. I offer this affidavit as Gebhardt Exhibit 8. I request the Tribunal to take judicial notice of the contents of this affidavit and in view of the number of pages in the affidavit and the length of the affidavit I refrain from reading the entire affidavit into the record. I only want to read the last two pages into the record because they seem important to me.

I begin on page 41 with the first paragraph. I quote:

Therefore, the aim of therapeutic treatment must be to effect a contact also in cases whore, in the past, this has not been possible by the usual application for morphological reasons. We may be encouraged in this hope to effect a clinical cure also in cases of abscess forming (and similar forms of strepto and staphylococci infections as angina folliculitis, furunculosis, pleura and joint empyema, phlegmons and purulent osteomyelitis. This is mad possible by sending ions through the tissue by means of electrical currents. The direct current between the poles to which sulfonamide is fed, (as electrolyte together with tissue juice) overcomes all barriers of the tissue, such as vascularless callosity, necrosis and lime saturated with fluid.

This method has already been used in medicine before in other direction and for other purposes and is known by the name of iontophoresis.

For this a low voltage direct current is required, which carries the pigment prontosil for instance from the cathode to the anode through the tissue.

It was therefore proposed to treat with sulfonamide the abscess-forming and similar cases of bacteria inflamed diseases caused by bacteria (especially streptococci, staphylococci and gangrene) as angina, furuncle, anscesses, phlegmons and osteomyelitis, by bringing the chemotherapeutics in sufficient concentration by means of the iontophoresis through the tissue directly to the culture of the microbes.

It was further recommended to make a careful analysis of the bacterial and morphological condition before beginning a chemotherapeutic action in order then to choose the correct drug according to the type of organism (gram positive or gram negative) and to make the manner of application dependent upon the prevailing histological structure. Thus, in the case of catarrhal purulent inflammation (meningococci, meningitis, gonorrhea) an oral or intravenous dose would be suitable as well as in cases of initial catarrhal inflammation inclined to form abscesses (otitis media, and onotritis) that is, as prophylaxis.

If, however, the organism is spread over the surface of the tissue like an oil film as in cases of a newly perforated injury to a joint or to the abdominal cavity, a local rinsing with sterile ampulla contents would be indicated.

For superficial pyodermic processes powder or ointment should be applied (acid-preparation-Albucid). In cases of abscesses or necroses, however, a result can be reached only if there is contact between the organism and the chemotherapeutic in the necrosis. Here the method of iontophoresis would be the choice.

The fundamental conditions would be similar with the antibiotica (penicillin, streptomycin) so that one may expect also by these means an increase of the therapeutic result quotient if they are applied by means of iontopherese to the seat of disturbance between the body end the microorganisms.

The work of Broderson, Lettre, who pass the alkaloid of the meadow saffr colchicum, to the centre of cancer of the skin by this means, proves that large organic molecules can be conveyed in this manner.

According to these deliberations it should be considered to prescribe also anti-biotica penicillin and streptomicin through iontophoresis in cases of disease developing anscesses.

Nurnberg, 27 January 1947.

/s/ Dr. Fritz Fischer.

Q: Witness, you have described the experiments yesterday which were carried out under your direction in order to test the effectiveness of the sulfonamides. Was the result of the experiment such that the question which was made in the order to you was answered in the affirmatice?

A: Yes. About the value of the results according to its practical side may I briefly summarize and point out that I shall try, in my entire description, according to the state of affairs and according to the motives and the situation to follow the prosecution exactly which has required seventeen days for the sulfonamide experiments. Today I have only reached my third day. May I point out that the question of the value of the experiments can be answered with three answers which were given by three lay men.

The General fundamentally stated, in the beginning, that all the experiments were without any value, that is, that animal-like: common human beings have done something which is completely without any purpose. Mr. Hardy spoke of the "negative results" of the sulfonamide experiments, in connection with the presentation of the written affidavit. However, Mr. McHaney tried to force Rostock to give a judgment about my person and about the experiments which he did not know in detail and the question of the completely useless torture of Polish women, and I am sure that you do not want to agree with that. Therefore, all three occasions — and I want to emphasize that very clearly at this time — three laymen have made a medical judgment and they consulted with somebody and they have given their judgment according to their personal opinion.

I believe in any case that for me this is one of the most important parts of the trial because it is exactly the parallel of what I have seen with Herr Himmler, that is, that the layman tends to concentrate the whole problem into one question. That may be quite possible in legal matters—I cannot say about that—to ask with regard to a certain situation and then with the answer that is in this case a negative result, he then assumes that he knows the whole subject and gives a scientific judgment-and that he tries to give these judgments in the medical matter. May therefore request that I be permitted to show that it can very easily be said that the results of the sulfanamide experiments were negative in a certain question; that is, if you take the basic initial question — to test the 5 medicines — and therefore the use of the word "negative" result originated with me. International science which will make a subsequent examination will hardly adhere to the medicial decision of Mr. McHaney but they will adhere to the affidavit by Fischer. It shows to some extent the scientific value of this question. It will show that the new will exist true and honorable. I do not want to involve the whole scientific side into this case. However, may I state the practical conclusions connected with our experiments and which are of far-reaching importance? May I take that in contrast to the judgment by the layman in order to emphasize very clearly in the record the manner in which we proceeded?

It was of decisive importance to the front to know if a preventative medicine was found in the sulfonamides. That is, that we were to supply the troops with them, just like the bags which were carried by allied troops. As far as my field is concerned, we did not follow this train of thought. Himmler discontinued our contacts with the Zybazol Factory although for the time being wanted to establish the same procedure as he had been seen by the Allies.

Q: Another question, witness. Zybazol is a medicine which was manufactured in Switzerland?

A: Yes. Therefore the big question that Himmler did not utilize the special contacts in Switzerland for this medicine and that he did not adopt the sulfanamide bag of Allied troops, and this was decided as a result of our experiments. It was a far-reaching question with regard to the care of the wounded to do with money and funds. If the sulfonamides had meant something of particular importance, then the organization of the Waffen-SS could have been extended to a very large point with young physicians or with any troop medical officers which we night have obtained because we could have just provided the physicians with sulfonamide. Through our results now came the other branches of the Wehrmacht, that we needed fully trained surgeons because we were trying to push operation centers up to the front and that we did not want to use it as a medicine; for the technique in the SS this also had a very far-reaching result. I have taken it upon myself to point out that in particular in the SS an instrument had been invented by a medical officer, whereby sulfonamides could be blown into the wounds through a tube, and that this was to be made possible. In our case this had already been introduced in 2 or 3 divisions. However, we completely abandoned this procedure, purely as a result of the outcome of the experiments. One of the decisive questions was the results in practice with regard to prophylaxis, that is what should be done with regard to the sulfonamides prior to disease. May I name a venereal disease her as one of the most convincing examples? At that period of time we maintained a point of view that with these epidemic of gonorrhea which existed at that time, that the previous taking of sulfonamide would have a high grade of protection. Now we proved in our results that it was not so important what individual disease was involved but rather the fact was important what the course of the disease was. May I point out to the Tribunal that a disease can progress like a catarrh. Take as an example the harmless nose catarrh. The whole inflamed tissue fluid, goes somewhere around the inflamed spot and then, of course, the germ is in this tissue fluid; if at the same time I can manage to bring sulfonamide to that place through the blood, which will mix with this tissue fluid, then I will have the result that directly the medicine and the germs will have a contact, and this will have a bigger effect on the cure.

However, we have shown that venereal disease and also wounds incurred in combat never actually take that course. There are quite different forms of applying septic means and in every case where the disease does not appear in such a way but where it appears as a profound abscess, surrounded by thick membrane, then of course it is impossible to believe that sulfonamides can be applied from the outside, through the blood, because it cannot penetrate this membrane after the circulation has been stopped from the outside.

One cannot tell me that this had been generally known about that period of time and nobody should tell me that this is already stated in a sentence by Rostock and one should not tell me that was already contained in American literature at that time, because I have prepared myself extraordinarily well for this question. However, may I make a short statement now, and show the last of our practical results—that Fischer, in continuing to think of this problem, found a very simple but singular solution and he said:

If the germs of this disease cannot be brought together with the sulfonamides because the germs are not contained in the fluid and therefore the sulfonamide cannot get there through the blood because of this membrane, then through a different procedure, by way of electricity, I can overcome this mechanical obstruction and in spite of the membrane which surrounds an abscess and in spite of the membrane which can also surround the germ, like, for example, in the case of tuberculosis, I can now, through this new secret procedure, bring both into contact.

I am convinced that if nothing else remains of us, this discovery of Fischer will become a decisive contribution to modern therapy. It is natural that laymen cannot know that. However, they cannot say either that all this does not have any value. Around this time it meant very much to us and of all the experiments, which were almost limited to the absolute minimum, through clinical and analogical conclusions, that is to say, that we saw that in some cases of the second group where, at the same time, we had simultaneously applied the Marfanil sulfonamide into the wound, thus we immediately established the inner contact, that is when we had this catarrh before us, we saw success.

On the other hand, we saw that in case of gangrene we did not have any success because in the whole vicinity of the area infected with gas gangrene the tissues did inflame and became stopped up and as a result of this they were unable to absorb the medicine.

On the basis of this consideration several of the successes and failures were command by us which had been previously made by the physicians, and not for the first time we found a clear manner of procedure that there is no contrast but it is actually so that everywhere the catharal is running, in excess the success is possible, and wherever it is in a form where it is secreted by membrane and stopped off it is not possible, and this was expressed in May 1943 and then in the fall I was in Italy and in Spain, and afterwards I had been able to obtain information about how far this work had progressed abroad, an I know the literature abroad at this time. The first indication that this matter is connected with the construction of tissue originated with Gebhardt and Fischer, the results therefore were not without any value and they did not in any way solve the problem. They are partial contributions to the entire field of research. However, I believe that through profound effort we were able to obtain the information which could be obtained on behalf of the sick and the wounded of all countries.

Q: And what conclusions could be drawn for the German Wehrmacht as a result of these experiments?

A: I have stated my view for the most part for these experiments, for us it so that we did not discuss these sulfanilamide bags, and that with the extreme surgical supply we remained with the old procedure, and that we only obtained surgeons from the other branches of the Wehrmacht in order to render the further expansion of the SS as an organization possible, and to take the responsibility for it.

Q: As a result of these experiments was a scientific problem of these sulfanilamide therapy treated in detail?

A: I believe that I have already answered this question. At that time I expressly stated that I considered this an important partial contribution, that I only wanted to point out that at the conclusion of the experiments, especially as a result of the fatalities, we finished where the practical question with which had been assigned to us had been solved, where however the problem only became attractive in the form of research and important. If at that time, after we had devoted our interest for the sulfanilamides in excess of the assignment, we had especially emphasized it as our own field research, and if we had brought up the question of Jordophorese, connected with the basic research of the problem on the field, at that time on our own initiative, then at least 500 experimental subjects would have had to be furnished.

In contrast to that we stopped where our assignment had been fulfilled, and only subsequently continued the thought and put it at the discussion before international science, just as it has now been summarized once again by Fischer; and as a matter of justice I must emphasize that I only have the clinical power to judge it but that it was the idea of Dr. Fischer.

Q: Witness, in the indictment you are charged with special responsibility for experiments, whose subject was the "Regeneration of Bones, of bone muscles and nerves," and further you are charged with special responsibility for experiments with regard to bone transplantations; on how many persons, as far as you can remember, in the camp of Ravensbruck were experiments carried out and how many of these were asceptic operations?

A: I request that especially in this point, where my testimony will be rather uncertain for reasons which I shall yet describe, I be expressly permitted to state this uncertainty and to describe what I know, because after all it was so that the prosecution has stated:

And then it was ordered by this man, that additional operations were carried out

— that is on my initiative, and we had a certain schedule which has been presented here by Dr. Mazka. The figures stated by Dr. Mazka are false. I can only approximated correct them. However, I would like this to be contained correctly in the record because these things which were used against me and where it was stated in such a way as this had anything to do with the Third Conference. I would therefore like that I be heard in detail, because the doctor who performed these things, Dr. Stumpfecker, is working at this time in the Russian zone, and has taken the material with him into the Russian Zone, and because through the Vienna broadcasting station, the physicians, who from my school of though are acquainted with this field, are being called on by the Russian broadcasting station to report. I want to emphasize expressly, of course, this is in no way based on experiments on human beings, but on the problem which I should like to be heard on because it is of here. The figure is that we named 60 women with certainty or facts approaching certainty, for these sulfanilamide experiments, and 15 men, and that on the other hand by special approval, special order and special task in a direct order from Himmler to Dr. Stumpfegger, as I remember, about six splinters were taken out and the shoulder blade, and that I believe still today, just as Stumpfegger gave me that information that he under the same conditions used six or seven other persons from the group of Polish women who had been condemned to death.

I could try to give anothers description here and perhaps say he also had some criminals, I do not know that. I must say honestly that amongst the affidavits which have been presented here two removals of splinters were made by Stumpfegger. It is probably that the others are in the same group. On the other hand Dr. Mazka has spoken about the purpose of the planting of these splinters. I would like to take it upon myself before coming to the person of Stumpfegger, to state my opinion with regard to her testimony insofar as I am far from doubting her testimony in any way, and as a woman and a Polish national I do not want to act against her indecently. However, I believe I know what activity she had there end that is also very uncertain. Because of the sulfanilamide we had nothing to do with the X-ray Department, since it was not necessary for us. I personally inspected on one occasion the whole sick bay. That was at the beginning of any experiments, and as far as I know I took the X-ray apparatus along, and as I remember at that time there was an X-ray specialist there, Hall, and that was a Polish woman. I believe when I saw this woman here, it was her, yet she stated she had seen me but did not recognize me here anymore, which is quite probable when two persons meet on one occasion. However, I believe we saw each other at that time. The entire experiments of Stumpfegger were controlled by the constant taking of X-ray pictures. In intervals of 8, 14, and 21 days these X-rays had to be taken, and it is quite certain Dr. Mazka probably took them, therefore, her testimony stands up as evidence on this point more than mine who has never been with Stumpfegger at Ravensbruck and only know these experiments from what he told me, on the other hand she is an X-ray specialist with internist training; and it is so that in order to judge an X-ray picture of bones, there are in Germany only two men who were able to do that is Professor Kohler and Professor Wollenberg, who primarily occupied themselves with this question.

If therefore I take it upon myself from my knowledge in the sense of a good basis for Stumpfegger I present this here in contrast to the incomprehensible presentation from a false angle made by Dr. Mazka, then this is done without any personal attack on this lady in question. We were told that these operations had something to do with the operations at Hohenlychen. This was not stated clearly, however, it could be stated if we had too few bones there in Hohenlychen, if you want to speak as layman, or that I had not known how to take care of my wounded, and that for this reason I had carried out the regeneration experiments, and I had used them for my wounded at Hohenlychen.

Permit me to point out that this already becomes incomprehensible, because if it had something to do with Hohenlychen, I would have taken care of that in person. Dr. Mazka admitted that she had only seen me in the X-ray room on one occasion and had only seen me at all on one occasion.

If you will be kind enough to examine the affidavits individually, then you will see that my name and the name of Fischer will always appear when sulfonamide experiments are concerned. If, therefore, it had been a question of cardinal operations at Hohenlychen, then the chief of Hohenlychen, who was even interested in the sulfonamides which were no problem for Hohenlychen, extremely intervened in order to help Fischer, he, of course, would have work a personal appearance there also. However, between the results of the work and the procedure of Stumpfegger and the procedure of the operations at Hohenlychen there was the most outspoken contrast of the concept which can be imaginable at all in that field.

From the description of the third conference, I shall permit myself to show what I reported on in the field of bone regeneration and why Stompfogger could not have spoken at the same meeting, because it was not usual that a man who used to be in my school should make a public speech in contrast to the opinion of his chief.

But please permit me to briefly make it clear in a manner, which is understandable to a lay-man, and to clarify the question which I would never have introduced in this trial if words like the 'removal of splinters', 'nerve regeneration' and the 'breaking of bones' and even the other sentences had not been used by lay-man here, because it is so that there is a clynical concept about setting of fractures, viz, if someone has fractured bones, he must be put in a fracture cast. The fundamental difference between the task of Stompfegger and Hohenlychen were, and I state here that I shall describe as simply as possible, so that in a subsequent scientifical examination I should not be reproached with having been too one-sided:

The whole surgery at Hohenlychen was a plastic surgery, that is to say from the parts which still existed with a limb which had been destroyed, that is from the body's own parts, I make new joints.

I reshape them if enough splinters remain, or I borrow a piece from the vicinity, for example from the leg, and add this part to increase the building material still present. That is a procedure, which has also been used in America by Alby. In Germany it was Lexer and I was perhaps the one who imitated it most. This procedure never had anything to do with another human being or with material procured from another side.

A splinter which is put in that place where insufficient material is available, according to the research carried out by Olby, goes through stran processes, which none of us over understood but which for the practise are not important at all.

I will immediately come to the conclusion, but I have always described it in the following manner. If I put a piece of the leg bone into a knee joint, which has been destroyed, then you can look at this piece of leg like cigar, which I smoke to the end carefully and slowly so that the form will still be maintained in the ashes. If now I do not finish smoking this cigar entirely, then I will have what exists in the case of the splinter, that is all of a sudden from the rest of the cigar, in order to remain with the example, around the form of the ashes towards front there again grows the 'tobacco' cell and then more or less it again reconstructs the old cigar. Now there was an argument if this reconstruction came from the sheath around the cigar, that is the bone skin, and this was the old theory of Frau Mazka or if it originated with the inner core of the cigar. None of us knew what this process was, we only knew that this process was going on which was perfectly sufficient for the procedure.

Now Stompfegger had that idea, which did not originate with him. He takes the same cigar, which has been smoked to the end and which for the part consists of ashes which still has some of the tobacco stub left, but does not put it back into the cigar box, viz to the remaining bones, but he puts it into the original tobacco lines and these lines do not only consist of the tobacco cells, viz of the bone cells, but also from the stems of the leaves, and if these stems are freshly cut the liquid will drop from them and this ferment liquid of the stems corresponds to the pressure fluid of the bones and that is the secret of the construction of the whole bone regeneration.

The age of the human being, and the after growth of the human being, all these questions are dependent on the fact if this pressure liquid is still alive, or if it has already died.

I have taken it upon myself to describe it in this manner, because this was an idea, which was stolen and it did not originate in Germany, but in Kiev and it comes from Pokomolett who discovered this in 1930. When he took this fluid from human beings, he accomplished the reconstruction of bones. I cannot say today how Stomfegger and Himmler obtained this knowledge from the institute of Kiev. I myself had never visited it and, until I was informed by Stompfegger of the order, I never knew of this literature. It is in contrast to my entire attitude, as I am the surgeon who operates with tools, and not one who reconstructs joints in that way from tissue through transplantations.

In order to put it briefly, on the same third or fourth of September, when Grawitz was trying to destroy our experiments at Ravensbruck on the direct order of Himmler that our experiments were too long and wrong, Stumpfegger comes at the same time with the permission for six to ten; Mazka, I believe speaks of eight persons for this problem, which originated from, the Russian Institute and was tested in Kiev in a manner completely unknown to me.

I do not want to claim that they did this in the same way as Stumpfegger and this was subsequently examined. May I point out the risk involved in the experiment, it is such a harmless experiment that in Germany it belonged to operations, which are included in insurance. It was stated here by Rostock that if we need more operations in preparation and which, according to experience are completely without danger to the human being involved and will fully heal up again, that for these things a person, who had been insur and a soldier could be forced.

That is if I wanted to reconstruct a joint, then the patient could never be forced to agree with this large plastic operation of the joints, because any big plastic operations are a grave danger; however, if the patient agrees and it was only a question of removing a little splinter, then the person who was insured could be expected to do that. And the procedure of Stumpfegger was such that from the part of the leg, because that is dispensable for the human being, removed a small splinter of bone with or without the skin around the bone, and turns the same bone by 180 degrees, and then places it back again into the part of the bone, which has not been destroyed.

He then constantly took x-ray pictures, and as is clearly shown here by the two affidavits in from eight to six weeks, he again took out a small piece, and compared on how these cells were regenerating. Through this procedure he succeeded, as I have already described in detail, that the reconstruction did not come from the splinter or from the outside, but that it was caused by the vicinity.

Q: The approval to carry out these experiments came form Himmler and was directly given Stumpfecker.

A: I have already described that this was a problem which was outside my train of thought, that I did not know the preliminary history, that I would never have thought of carrying out this experiment.

May I state briefly that Stumpfecker had formerly been an assistant at Hohenlychen, who in peacetime and until 1941 was working for me, who then went to the front, and who then until the end of the war was the escort physician of Himmler, and that as a result of decisive decision by Himmler, he also became the escort physician of Hitler. That Stumpfecker was elected in this extreme position, has its profound reasons. He was younger than I, and it was one of the incomprehensible procedures in our staffs-also with Doenitz—that nobody wanted to have a collaborator in his immediate vicinity who was older than he himself. This was, perhaps, the reason, why these staffs failed to have very much success. Stumpfecker, just like I, came from the same city as Himmler. He also came from Landshut. He also attended the same school, and he was in the same class with Himmler, while I was older.

He was particularly experienced with the front, and he was prohibited from again going to the front; and as Frau Nazka stated, in his appearance he was the ideal of the appearance of an SS man.

Stumpfecker, at the time, accompanied Himmler on his trip to the Ukraine, and I emphasize once more that I do not know the connection there, and that I was extra-ordinarily surprised when Stumpfecker obtained this permission I believe also in this point that I maintained the correct attitude.

It was impossible in such a big question, which he had obtained from a foreign laboratory, and which he carried out the experiment in his manner-which was not done abroad, but I did not know that— that I should prohibit the escort physician of Himmler that he should carry out these experiments on his own initiative. It was also appropriate with regard to the risk, no comparison with the worries and the precautionary measures which we had to introduce in the case of the sulfonamide experiments. In the same operation I would not have exercised any control over an assistant at Hohenlychen, and I did not even consider taking any part in Stumpfecker's experiments. I have never gone to see him at Ravensbruck, and I have never seen him perform any operation. However, I had myself informed what he was doing, why he was doing it; and I did one thing that, when assignment came to us at that time, asking us to participate in, it, we accepted the order; but Hohenlychen did not play any part in it; and of the seven aseptic operations, none was carried out by us.

However, it was so that I requested Fischer as far as he had contact with Stumpfecker at that time to report that to me, and to establish certain liaison.

I have had Stumpfecker tell me, when he was to start in our init, and he promised me that the same conditions would exist, viz. persons who were condemned to death, and that these people would become free from the death sentence in the most simple manner here; and it is also shown that such persons are amongst the witnesses here. And I reserved myself the right that Stumpfecker should submit his final report to me. The report did not reach me personally, but as I can show, it went to a much higher and other scientific agency to which Stumpfecker turned at that time.

Q: If Dr. Stumpfecker wanted to clarify this question, could he not clarify it through an experiment on animals?

A: Well, the same thing always applies to animal experiment. That inflammatory diseases and especially the regeneration of tissue in the case of human beings can never be compared with an experiment on animals.

Q: In the indictment there are experiments mentioned which refer to the regeneration of muscles and nerves. Do you know anything about it at all?

A: I can only support myself expressly on the information given to me by Stumpfecker. Stumpfecker personally told me, and he also published that, that he only carried out these removals of splinters. But it was only practically used in one case, as I shall yet describe. We never tested the regeneration of nerves or the regeneration of muscle.

May I point out particularly that regeneration experiments on nerves are senseless, because every human being knows that the nerve cannot be regenerated. However, may I emphasize something else in this connection. At the same time, in order to clearly show what my opinion is, one case before the sulfonamide experiments in the field in which I was interested in, vix the operation in replacing nerves which is something quite different, I experimented with animals.

I can do this by removals, therefore I started in animal experiments and I can bring documents here in the form of affidavits to clarify statements already in the testimony. You find that in the testimony here, that simultaneously with Stumpfegger's experiments until the end of the war, in Ravensbruck experiments on animals were carried out by me. I wanted to solve the question, and I always used to think that this would be best evidence to show what my thoughts were on this question, because it would have been very simple, if some person is already operating on a bone, also to carry out a mass muscleplasty on the same person.

I shall show with the proper documents that, where my initiative is concerned, the experiment is carried out on animals, and that otherwise there is only the sulfonamide experiment which I was ordered to carry out, as I have tried to describe it. There is a special assignment to Stumpfegger with six removals of splinters which have healed up completely and where no permanent damage remained. This is clearly shown here by the testimony which includes also one practical operation on the shoulder blade which I shall describe in detail.

Q: What was your personal attitude toward the repeated order of Himmler to Dr. Stumfegger to evaluate practically the results of his experiments in treating the wounded? That is, if Himmler gave Stumpfegger this permission, then he certainly must have pursued a certain goal.

A: Because it is such a complex border-line question, and because this experiment is being done in another zone, I only want to state the fact that more than three hundred thousand wounded which have been treated in that respect that [illegible] has published these results, that is, the method to protect these parts, but I have never seen any basis for that. However, this, of course, was the aim which Stumpfegger was pursuing in his work. If he would not succeed the whole regeneration surgery would be ended. Joint would have been completely destroyed and crushed so that no removal could be carried out anymore. By a free transplanting of one joint from one human being to another, the damage of the joints could not be overcome.

May I point out that this big problem also was the problem of surgery at the end of the other war.

THE PRESIDENT: Witness, just a moment.

A: And that, for example —

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, it is not the desire of the Tribunal to restrict the testimony of this witness concerning relevant matters, matters which are relevant to his defense, but I wish you would instruct the witness to answer your questions more directly and at less length. Your question could have been answered very briefly, I think.

BY DR. SEIDL:

Q: Witness, you have heard, the instruction. You will give your answers more briefly.

A: Yes.

Q: And will you please make some shorter sentences. You were about to say that already this problem had made its appearance in the first world war, and that towards the end of the war we tried by transplanting shoulders from one wounded to another that joints could be replaced in this way. In this connection may I point out briefly that transplantation is only possible, in order to turn against false descriptions here, it is only possible from the skin and bones and joints. Muscles cannot be transplanted and one cannot transplant a whole limb. It is also a fact, is it not, that in one single case from another person, that is a Polish woman from Ravensbruck, a shoulder blade was removed, and that it was inserted into a patient at Hohenlychen. The witness Dr. Mazka has already given her opinion on this point, even if it was incorrect, and I now would like to tell the Tribunal how this operation came about.

A: Yes. In 1942 Himmler made a Christmas visit to Hohenlychen.

On the occasion of this Christmas visit all of our results were reported to him. First of all, they were the results of the sulfonamide with which, of course, he was not satisfied. He was not satisfied as to the kind of results which had been achieved. On the other hand Stumpfegger reported to him in detail and in my presence about the unheard of chance which was contained in this experiment. Himmler as well as Stumpfegger certainly made a wrong estimate at that time about the chance because even today I am still of the opinion that in the case of wounded who have an infection from a previous time such a transplantation cannot be carried out, that it cannot be directly carried out in the course of the years. This argument between us two already was the subject of two different opinions when Himmler made his usual Christmas visit. Unfortunately, at Christmas 1942 the more severely injured female patients of Hohenlychen, the nurse Louisa, whose right elbow had been completely shot out.

Himmler knew her from former times and he saw her at the Christmas visit and she was introduced to him at the same time as the other patients. I was unable to replace this joint and in spite of the order of Himmler no experiment was carried out in this direction because this would have demanded that, in spite of the reason which Himmler gave, a whole joint would have had to be removed from some other human being and that it would have to be transplanted. That is to say, that one person would remain without a joint. In spite of this Himmler returned to his family with that opinion and I talked Stumpfegger out of carrying out this therapeutic experiment, because he would not have any success with it and as a result two persons would have sustained permanent disability. Stumpfegger maintained a different point of view, that through further experiments he could perhaps improve on his procedure in trying to exchange the joints of a healthy human being. However, this was never carried out and I have not seen any evidence here which would state that this had been done. There was one single middle course and I still believe today that under the prerequisite I was unable to prohibit Stumpfegger from carrying out any experiments with joints. The therapeutic purpose was achieved with the smallest possible damage to the other person. In Hohenlychen I had a civilian Ladis, I had a syphilitic patient and one who had a growth of cancer and whose shoulder blade as a result of cancerous growth was being destroyed piece by piece. I removed the shoulder blade and I want to emphasize this for the reason that the surgeon usually does not know that. I saw on him to what extent the damage on the shoulder blade had gone, the exact damage is relatively small, and I fully realize that there is a damage because the muscle which is located below the shoulder blade is located between the chest and in this case the patient lost his cancer, because I would describe it this way: If I assume that the result was the same with another patient. This shoulder healed but now the arm could only be lifted horizontally. Now the cancer re-appeared and in front it destroyed the only support which existed, that was the collar bone and I was confronted by the question, what was the usual solution to amputate the arm, or to irradiate the patient and let him die in the course of his cancerous growth.

At that time and for this I shall take the responsibility, that now I have agreed with Stumpfegger to the extent that I told him I will operate on my man without considering any assistance on your part, and I discussed the matter with the father also, and he can testify to that if I can finally succeed, in finding him. If Stumpfegger was to remove another splinter from any joint, then in no case should he take a whole joint, and that he should not transplant it in any case to the wounded or to the nurse, but to the only case which might have a success from a therapeutic chance, that is on a man threatened by cancer who was losing his shoulder, and then on the shoulder blade which is the most dispensable joint, if he was to carry out the operation at all. After long discussions, on the 27th of December 1942 he succeeded, first, that from this experiment no further bone experiments were to be carried out if this experiment was to fail, and, secondly, that the transplantation of wounded was to finally come to a halt, and, third, that the shoulder blade should be inserted for this man who was threatened by cancer. The results justified me in my opinion. The arm was saved and the shoulder blade which had been inserted healed in the form and until 1945 the cancer did not again re-appear, and the man remained alive. For the woman or for the man, if I am being charged right now, I do not know who it was, existed the same chance as for a person who had been condemned to death, he would remain alive and the shoulder blade which had been removed amounts to a disability of twenty-five percent, which is less than Kosmierzuk had, and Stumpfegger took care of and gave medical treatment, in this case. In all of the details I only know what Stumpfegger published later on and I cannot testify anything further with regard to this shoulder blade.

Q: Therefore, the result of the operation was that the life of the patient was saved?

A: It was a therapeutic success also and I want to make an exact statement that until 1945 the cancer did not re-appear and he remained alive, and that is a period of three years, which means something in the case of cancer.

Of course, it would not be to the point to say now that from this I must conclude from all the circumstances that cancer would never re-appear again.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess.

(A recess was taken.)