1947-03-06, #2: Doctors' Trial (late morning)

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

KARL GEBHARDT — resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION — continued

BY DR. SEIDL:

Q: Witness, did Dr. Stumpfegger speak about the results of his experiments and was a publication made about that?

A: The entire questions about transplantation of bones was published in a different way by Stumpfegger than was the custom and this was done outside. Hohenlychen had one publishing firm, called "Ambrosia", and there is not a single book published in my school which did not have a foreword written by me. The entire results were put before Professor Sauerbruch by Stumpfegger and the German period for surgery, in 1943, published this work, as well as in 1944, in a special volume. I do not know this last edition, but I should like to emphasize particularly that I do not know what Stumpfegger actually gave to Professor Sauerbruch as his reasons.

DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, unfortunately it has been impossible to obtain this book of Dr. Stumpfegger's. On the other hand, in 1946, a conference was reported on in a German medical journal, dealing with this work. In connection with this, therefore, I submit as Exhibit Gebhardt No. 9, this conference from the newspaper "Clinic and Practice" and you will find it on page 49 of my document book.

THE PRESIDENT: What number did you say you gave that exhibit, Counsel?

DR. SEIDL: Exhibit Gebhardt No. 9. Page 49 of the German and English document books. This is a conference reported in the newspaper "Clinic and Practice" and I shall confine myself to reading the title: "Regarding the work of Ludwig Stumpfegger — Hohenlychen: The free autoplastic bone transplantation in the restorative surgery of limbs, experiences and results." I beg the Tribunal to take judicial notice of the remaining contents of this conference in order to save time and I shall forego the reading of it in its entirety.

Witness, for the further personal security of the experimental persons did you adopt any further steps in connection with Himmler?

A: The last conference in connection with all these experiments were, in my opinion, taking place shortly before the third meeting. That is, approximately in April, 1942. There was definite disquiet which had set in because, on one side, I insisted on general publication, as I shall explain to you later and how it came about, and one the other hand, because at that time news had openly been sent to Switzerland particularly about these patients with the shoulder diseases had relatives in Switzerland so that the facts relating to all our experiments became known. In fact, I had never wanted them kept secret anyway. The camp commandant at that period had made a suggestion that these experimental persons should be transferred elsewhere, and I suggested, and I think actually succeeded in seeing it through, for these experimental persons to remain on the spot at Ravensbruck. This and the knowledge which I had of all these matters enabled me to go before this congress and the experimental persons were, in the future, still taken care of in. Ravensbruck and not transferred elsewhere.

Q: You yourself, after 1943, did not go to Ravensbruck again, did you?

A: No, I am sure I did not go back to Ravensbruck after that.

Q: Is it known to you whether experimental persons were shot or lost their lives in any other way?

A: I have never heard. Particularly before I visited this Congress and after the news had penetrated abroad end after sources abroad had inquired of me, I made specific inquiries of Himmler, and I consider it as being out of the question, therefore, that at that time particularly anyone of the persons concerned suffered serious damage at least this was not reported to me and particularly towards the end, when the handing over took place and during the conferences with the Red Cross, Himmler right to the end gave the assurance that these conditions would be observed. Whether Himmler could actually judge the situation, considering the chaos reigning at the time, is something I do not know. But I, in good faith, and right from the beginning, informed sources abroad and everywhere else that the experimental subjects remained alive and in the same place.

Q: Would you say that according to your opinion, in connection with these experimental persons where operations of that type were carried out, that serious permanent damage was suffered?

A: I described the clinical procedure to you earlier and I do not want to go back to it. I should merely like to draw your attention to the two experimental persons who are known to this court. They are the next two subjects who should be talked about.

DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, during the submission of evidence by the Prosecution, an affidavit of Sofia Sokulska was submitted as Exhibit 226. This document is in Document Book No. 10 of the Prosecution, on page 50, Document Number NO-873.

Q: Witness, I am having this affidavit put before you and I should like you to tell me which operation was carried out on this witness and what the damage was that should be attributed to it.

A: With reference to the previous description I should like to be brief. These are surely two matters dealt with by Stumpfegger. I am sure that both originate from October and in that case it is accurately described at the end what course the operation took similar to what I described before, and that there was complete recovery. Sokulska says that merely a weak ankle bone remained and Mrs. Baj says that "only when I am walking do I feel a weakness of the toes." Clinical findings do not exist herein and I can only refer to what is contained in these documents and that corresponds with what I wanted to describe earlier.

Q: During the submission of evidence by the Prosecution an affidavit was presented from Zofia Baj, Exhibit 227, Document NO-871, English Document Book of the Prosecution #10, page 55. What type of experiment is concerned with in the case of this witness, and what is the damage that should be assumed here?

A: I have already mentioned this example once; once again we are here concerned with removal of the fibula as it is more dispensable and it is easily replaced. I do not want to deal with the procedure, I merely would like to refer to the final statement of the matter which she makes, and she says "When I am walking, my toes are somewhat weak."

Q: What do you know about operations which, according to the statements from various witnesses, were carried out in the summer of 1943 in the so-called bunker of the concentration camp at Ravensbruck?

A: In the connection, according to which, outside of the sulfonamide experiments which we know, that there should have been any such outside operations, I have heard of this for the first time here in court. I am sure that Stumpfegger had already completed his work because he published it in the autumn and at that he sent his reports to Sauerbruch. I myself was not there in the summer of 1943. I was just at that particular time working in headquarters, as supreme clinical surgeon, having previously crashed with an airplane. I think that I can remember accurately although I can't say it with certainty, that the attempt at Marseilles where the occupational position of our General Consul Spiegel had been blown up on the 12th or 13th of August—all I know is that it was in August.

At any rate, on or about the 15th or 20th I was in Marseilles, operating on wounded personnel and only now, afterwards, can I reconstruct the case from letters and such documents. Never at any time did I hear details and I want to point out that in the case of the so-called bunker operations the names which are especially mentioned are Drommer, Kimek and Hartmann. These were the camp medical officers of the period, all three of whom are unknown to me. Mrs. Maczka in her written deposition speaks about the fact that there were scientific experiments made by Dr. Drommer. Her conclusion that I would have to know about them or approve of them is quite wrong. During that period I was not present and there were no inter-connections. May I also remind you that Mrs. Maczka was in that bunker herself and Fischer, Oberheuser, Stumpfegger and I were known to her and I think she testified that she did not see any one of us.

Q: I shall now turn to the Third Congress of the Military Medical Academy taking place in May 1943, which has been spoken about repeatedly here. How did this report of yours during that conference come about and how did Dr. Fischer's lecture come about? What were the purposes which you were aiming at?

A: I made efforts because of the extensive pressure and the inference under which all these experiments were taking place; on the other hand, right from the beginning and contrary to Grawitz, I was of the opinion that at the first possible opportunity these matters should be published. Thus Stumpfegger wrote his big book and in the same way I went to this Congress, then I would have gone to the Surgeon's Congress, but I was not proposing to do this—I was not proposing to have myself or my clinic involved in this without submitting the matter to general criticism. In this connection it was my view that we were concerned with completed experiments which were now merely being criticized and were to be exploited. In this connection the entire problem of the previous order and the participants have already been described by me in detail. I do not know, of course, at this point, when Grawitz received the instructions to hold the third meeting in May 1943, but this must have happened between the November meeting and the May meeting, when it went to the various inspector of the armed forces departments.

They must have received the proposal to assemble their representatives on the dates suggested. At any rate, Grawitz made inquires to me through official channels, asking me whether I was proposing to participate in this congress and what type of lectures I was bringing along. At that time I had a very detailed discussion with Grawitz and I asked to have this read into the record from the minutes of this congress. I think something happened which has never happened in any such congress—I appeared five times and the entire sphere of work Hohenlychen is being reported, contrary to the to the sulfonamide affair, and once Stumpfegger is not being allowed to talk.

If anyone was clear from the beginning, contrary to many other people that at one stage would have to report about these matters, it was I. I wrote to Grawitz, I insisted in spite of all objections and difficulties that contacts in foreign countries should be taken up and that sulfonamide experiments should be reported and that the public should exploit it. I insisted, at the same time that everything, including animal experiments and all the work at Hohenlychen should be shown by me so that an impression could be gained as to what I had said and what I had worked on myself. These matters then went to the person I should like' to eliminate for a moment who had to prepare the entire matter. Grawitz got in touch with a man from the army staff and made preparations for the Congress. I knew that already four or five weeks before the publication of the program was being sent out.

Following an inquiry of mine, Grawitz in a somewhat peculiar way gave me some information, giving me the impression that it was not for general information, but that we are concerned with looking into the sulfonamide experiments. After a lot of pro and con and personal contacts made by me with the preparing person, at least fourteen days before the Congress and it had to be printed long before then, without of course knowing exactly all the negotiations between all persons concerned, the title, which I demanded was being selected. This title I wish to emphasize particularly. Right from the beginning it stated on this, "Special Experiments," the words "Human Experiments" was not permitted here. I was satisfied with the words "Special Experiments" since no one author could be conceited enough since before reporting to demand more than "Special."

It also becomes quite clear from the publication of that meeting in the directives at the head where my title is being mentioned, it says here at the head, "Special Experiments" by Gebhardt and Fischer. This was my right and my promise and this is why all through we met resistance put by Grawitz.

And the question is, "Who is the person through whom all this took place?" I was asked in 1945 who was the chairman, I searched my memory and I think it is Dr. Rostock, because quite certainly Rostock was the president of the conference.

DR. SEIDL: Witness, you should speak more slowly.

THE PRESIDENT: I did not get the translation as to who you were under the impression was the man with whom you dealt with.

DR. SEIDL: Witness, will you please repeat the sentence?

THE WITNESS: In the previous year I have been asked how the publication happened and I gave the same response as I am giving now. I mentioned as the President, Professor Rostock and I said that I believe that with this person the whole matter must have been discussed. At the end, Rostock pointed out to me, "This is erroneous, since at that time the preparations took place under Professor Schreiber, who had this armed forces staff under his jurisdiction." It was only at the moment when the meeting began that Rostock took over the presidency after the program and the conferences had already been carried out. I am not in a position to say today what the accurate details were. All I can say on my own is that Schreiber as preparatory scientific man of the armed forces most certainly must have distributed the subject to the armed forces. This action therefore must have been taken up in connection with Grawitz and I am convinced that Grawitz and Schreiber were well acquainted with the various differences of opinion regarding the type of publication. This, together with the fact that Schreiber stated in the old trials about my experiences through official service channels, appears to be the evidence that I was wrong. I do not know where the handing of the position of Schreiber to Rostock took place. I only know that I did not give in until it stated "Special Experiments" so that here every reader would see that Gebhardt is trying to show something unusual.

JUDGE SEBRING: In addition to the title, "Special Experiments" can you say whether or not any other text or subject matter appears, so that one reading the program for the text would know —

THE WITNESS: I am sorry I cannot quite understand.

JUDGE SEBRING: As I understand, you insisted at least that the lecture to be given by you would be entitled "Special Experiments"; is that true?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

JUDGE SEBRING: Can you state whether or not in the program that was printed any reference was made to the subject matter of the special sulfonamide experiments, or was the title simply "Special Experiments" in the field of sulfonamide?

THE WITNESS: Under the heading "Sulfonamide", point one dealt with "Special Experiments" by Gebhardt and Fischer, so that everyone who would read this would see that with reference to sulfonamide, Gebhardt and Fischer had carried out special experiments and were bringing them up for discussion. That is clearly apparent from the book here today.

May I please say I can hardly hear the German translation?

THE INTERPRETOR: It is the volume on it.

JUDGE SEBRING: In the German field of medical science —

THE WITNESS: I cannot understand.

JUDGE SEBRING: In the German field of medicine and research, is there a well recognized and understood distinction between those types of experiments which might be denominated as general experiments and those types of experiments which might be denominated special experiments? In other words, on considering the matter of medical experiments, is there in the field of German medicine a well understood distinction between general experiments on the one hand and special experiments on the other hand and if so, will you please explain that distinction?

THE WITNESS: I do not believe so and of course to all of us up to that time there had been no previous example of this type. I can only say how the argument between Grawitz and myself progressed and I presume he must have passed on exactly the same subject to Schreiber at that period.

Grawitz was of the opinion that publication order should only be allowed as a camouflage and that was because of the stir it would cause abroad. I myself insisted, right from the beginning on my point of view and, that is when the struggle about the terms took place.

I do not know if the words, "Special Experiments" originated with me or Grawitz or Schreiber. In any event, I was satisfied with it, as this is something which one quite clearly might say on reading it, "It is clear to him that something special is coming now." But, it would not be fair to say that we had special featuring, or that there were general experiments or animal experiments or special experiments.

JUDGE SEBRING: I then understood, however, you being a medical expert in German medicine, you would have understood by reading that notice or pamphlet when you came to the article, "Sulfonamide — Gebhardt and Fischer, Special Experiments" that was something that was not in the general field, would that have been your general understanding as a person attending, who would be interested in either the convention or conference?

THE WITNESS: May I say that I wanted it to bo understood in this manner, but of course I must emphasize also that here, as in the cases of all other congresses, everybody would go there without previously reading the program. They might just glance through the names and say, "Well, let us see what will happen." I, myself, was not particularly agreeable to the word "Special" because it was not characteristic enough to my liking, but it was the only one I could achieve that would be clear for publication.

If anyone thinks deeply or clearly or adopts an adverse feeling toward me, what is the special thing that is going to break, what is behind it and I can also imagine that somebody might have said, "Gebhardt, of course, is going to speak about sulfonamide experiments," and glance over the question. My reason was to point it out clearly and unmistakably.

BY DR. SEIDL:

Q: Witness, during this Congress Defendant Dr. Fischer then talked about the results of the sulfonamide experiments. You yourself had spoken the introductory words to Dr. Fischer's lecture, which of course have been mentioned repeatedly. Will you please briefly mention the contents of your own statement you made at the time.

A: Perhaps in order to make this point perfectly clear, having the wish on one side to show my way, whereas on the other side I do not wish to implicate anybody, that is, whom I may unjustly implicate, may I say first of all that previously there had been continuous correspondence between myself, Grawitz and, as I now know, also Schreiber. Grawitz received from us—and let me put this right in the beginning, approximately, during December or January, but of course, I cannot tie myself down to weeks—Grawitz received from us the final reports about the experiments in Ravensbruck. This contained the entire clinical procedure, including the 15 names of men and the 60 listed women by names or numbers — that is something which I cannot say now—and what had been done with them, and to what extent they had clinically survived. This must have taken place approximately in December or January, because I had his in my hand in writing during my arguement with Himmler. Then followed during the time between January and May, that is to say, I would assume probably sometime during April, it was our practice to report our subjects and what we were doing to bring them along.

At that point I gave Grawitz detailed information in the sense of the outcome of my experimental subjects, that is to say, how the three groups were listed—the first group of people, the second group of 36 women, and the third group of twice 12 women, together with exact clinical details and all conclusions drawn, which I described so accurately yesterday.

This detailed information Grawitz had at his disposal when he negotiated with Schreiber. Subsequently there were inquiries regarding the type of publications proposed. Whether Grawitz was trying to drop this subject altogether, or whether he was trying to introduce me in a camouflage way-

all these are things which I don't know. But I continued to insist that this would be specially announced in the program under the heading of 'Special' and Grawitz had this information.

Schreiber states that he received the information through official channels but of course during the conference itself I myself was not present. On the other hand, I visited the Congress and during this Congress itself—and I want to repeat this—the program showed the subject 'Special Experiments.' I don't think I had exchanged greetings with Rostock because I was just coming from Hohenlychen, and there was the introductory speech made by Mr. Handloser, and then according to the program Fischer was supposed to speak.

Purely scientifically speaking, the custom then would have been that I would, have produced the summary at the end to go with its clinical values. But particularly these internal arguments and difficulties had taken place, and particularly because my conflict with regard to all these experiments was such, and particularly because I wanted to come out into the open clearly and openly, it then happened that I spoke the corresponding; introduction which I improvised without informing Grawitz previously, or the President. So that under no circumstances could an misunderstanding prevail or that an assistant of mine could suddenly be facing the matter at the front alone. As far as I can remember, I spoke my introductin clearly, but because of all the inquiries, and interrogations, and stories told, I can only say now what I think I said, something which I almost have forgotten myself. Anyway, in the front, in the center, sat the man who represented the order, Grawitz.

So that no doubt could arise that there was an order, and that the source representing that order was present, my introduction commenced with the words "By order of". Briefly, I shortly described the situation regarding sulfonamides and regarding the experiments as well as the successful results—I am now thinking of animal experiments and the tremendous value they had for the front. According to my recollection I clearly stated the following:

By order experiments were carried out on people sentenced to death giving them the chance of survival in such experiments as could be properly utilized.

The legal side of the question is not up to discussion here, but I, on the other hand, as the person ordered to carry them out, assume the responsibility for the scientific value and the humane carrying out. That was most certainly the sense of my declaration, although today I cannot refer to each word individually. Quite certainly political was never mentioned since that about makes sense, now don't I know just how I qualified the legal question — I am sure that that doesn't play an important part in this connection.

It was my own view personally that I said "Only on people sentenced to death," but Fischer's opinion is that it was said, "On people sentenced who came from concentration camps," and I think last year I did not mention the words "Concentration Camps." Perhaps, if necessary, I will repeat it here or is this enough? That was my introduction.

And then the lecture began. And it was becoming clear from this story, which I might emphasize right now, that this completed experiment had been carried out on 75 people. We had three curves, large charts, filling the entire wall behind us, and recognizable. We were to being with Group 1, 15 people, because in their case it was not necessary to give a detailed description. In my opinion this was only a narrow strip, just 15 people -infections, abscesses. Then follwed combined the 36 women who were grouped in such a way that, according to my recollection, the same drug was always shown. In other words, all cypacol treated persons, all cardoxin treated persons, so on and so forth. In connection with this, a description was carried out, according to procedure, which showed minor differences of temperature, such as when eight showed a minor rise in temperature and two didn't, a think line went up and a think line went down, according to the custom of projecting into each other such tables. The second group, on the other hand, were those described in general. But it was recognizable in connection with it what the instructions for these experiments were in detail—the arrangement and procedure, what we had done with them and the result.

And on a separate table the two groups of 12 of the last big group were shown. They were clearly shown in such a way that only those two belonging to each other were shown together. I know for certain that special markings apparently made it clear—I think a small knife or something like that, wherever a cut had been made.

Also, the sulfonamide was shown by means of a picture, either showing a small heap of powder, if it was powder, or a small bottle, if there were injections. Furthermore, it pictured equally accurately what the progress was like, clinically speaking. Of course, the three cases of death were clearly shown, so that, in other words—and this is my testimony—the exploitable completed experiment with all its clinical details was shown, as far as it could be shown, in such a manner. And only such places showed groups, summarized groups, where the clinical side of it was insignificant or harmless.

The lecture belonging to it was given by Fischer by speaking about the various graphs. He approximately continued to speak to the point corresponding to what he has summarized already. Then I finally spoke, including the remark that the matter could be exploited, that the matter had been completed, and that the important point was whether the analogy, clinically speaking, which we were making from it—and incidentally this is the reason why I had been so long-winded before hand, speaking of abscesses—whether this was correct as directives and basic points.

This was the situation and the procedure according to the best of my recollection and I think that Fischer will give the very same story in his principle points.

BY JUDGE SEBRING:

Q: Can you recollect at this time, General, about how many people were in attendance upon that lecture?

A: The participants of the entire Congress, I think, were 350 to 400 people. That is the entire Congress I am now speaking about. Our group comprised the surgeons, the pathologists, the pharmacologists.

Three groups, I think. I think it should be seen from the minutes. I don't think it would be wrong for me to assume that this would amount to at least one third or half of the participants, but in this connection I want to say that I can't say it exactly but I would say that it would indicate 89 to 100 participants, since we were concerned with three groups.

Q: Were these private physicians or were they physicians who held offices, military offices of one kind or another, governmental offices within the framework of the Wehrmacht or of the SS organizations?

A: It was the Advisory Congress, which has been mentioned here repeatedly. These were the meetings which began with the introductory words of Mr. Handloser, contained in several publications, the advisors of the hygiene establishments, and the representatives of the Berlin faculty. Then of course Mr. Conti was there certainly since I had the argument with him later regarding the type of my address. There was the man who was responsible for this particular order and that was Grawitz.

So that we were here concerned with the officially ordered annual May meeting in 1943 of advisory hygiene officers, with the participants coming from Berlin, such as has already been stated about advisory congresses.

Q: After the Convention, had been concluded do you know to what extent, if any, yours and Fischer's lectures, and the information that you gave at that convention or congress was disseminated in written form through the framework of the government or the Wehrmacht, and to whom, if anyone, it was made available officially?

A: In the so-called directives of the advisory congresses, and these are the green folders which we have here containing the summarized reports from each one of these congresses, there is, as is shown by our document and that of the Prosecution, too, I think at the beginning a report of our lecture with the title "Special Experiments". Then follow all the others who spoke about the same and then finally there is a summary showing at the head of it only the extract quoted by Handloser amounting to about six or eight lines which was an extract from our final results. These books were then sent through official channesl in such a way as described by Handloser about six months later together with the complete contents of all the lectures given during this congress, or, at least, the important lec tures. I am not sure just how many were included; and they were to the advisory medical officers and the service departments concerned, but of course, the distributor in detail isn't known to me.

DR. SEIDL: In this connection, Mr. President, I would like to submit Exhibit Gebhardt No. 10, extracts from the report on the Third Meeting East. It is on page 22 of my document book. The heading shows that this took place on the 24th to the 26th of May 1943, and I beg the Tribunal to take judicial notice of the index, and I now turn to page 23 to which I will turn as an exception because it eals with the important context. I quote:

5. SS-Gruppenfuehrer Major General Professor Gebhardt and F. Fischer. Special Experiments on Sulfonamide Treatment Conclusions:

1. The development of a suppuration on the soft parts caused by bacteria cannot be prevented, even if sulfonamides are applied immediately, locally or internally.

2. It could not be proved that the course of an inflammatory illness caused by aerobic organisms on abscesses and phlegmons of the limbs was influenced by sulfonamides. We were of the impression that combined gas gangrene therapy took a milder course under the influence of sulfonamides.

3. Surgical measures are indispensable for a successful treatment of inflammations.

Additions Remarks:

The sprinkling of sulfonamide powder on wounds can be injurious if, by so doing, the fundamentals of surgery are infringed. If, for instance, the powder basis is not dissolve by the tissue fluids, and if the discharge of secretions is hampered by coagulation. The wounds treated with sulfonamide powder show a slight tendency to exudation.

Hypothesis of Functions:

The inflammation on the endodermal soft parts shows at an early stage a tendency towards necrosis. The necrosis is the seat of the bacteria culture. Its surroundings show thrombosed vessels. Access to it by chemotherapeutic reagents is very difficult.

Mr. President, I beg you to take judicial knowledge of further reports or further lecturers contained in this report, and I shall now turn to page 29 which contains the discussion about these experiments which has so frequently been mentioned. I shall qoute from page 29 of the document book discussions.

Sauerbruch reminds us of the chemotherapeutic experiences of the World War. He does not want to reject the sulfonamides, but wishes them to be judged more reservedly and more critically.

"Schoercher" — also a professor of surgery —"considers the effect of tincture of iodine, rivanol or phenol camphor to be better.

"Bochler" — professor of surgery from Vienna states that "3.7% wound complications were observed in the Vienna Accident Hospital offer the use of sulfonamides, before their introduction, 7%.

"Heubner" — who was professor for pharmacology at the University of Berlin states: "Transitory products which are created in the organism participate in the effect of sulfonamides.

"Usadel" — professor for surgery at Tuebingen: "It cannot be denied that sulfonamides have a therapeutic effect.

"Krueger" — professor mentioned repeatedly, surgery, Berlin, states:

The exact surgical treatment of the wounds is decisive, but so also is the early prophylactic use of sulfonamides.

"Schoenbauer" — also professor for surgery, Vienna, states: "Sulfonamide are particularly valuable for inflammations of the urinary system and for meningitis."

And then finally Professor Schulemann, professor of pharmacology at Bonn says: "The effect of sulfonamides does not depend on their nature but on their surroundings.

Mr. President, on page 30 of the document book, you will find the directives which have been so often mentioned. I shall merely quote the first paragraph:

Directives for the Application of Sulfonamides.

Experiments (Gebhardt-Fischer) showed the following results: Even the immediate internal and external application of sulfonamide preparations cannot prevent a suppuration of the soft parts due to ordinary suppurative organisms. I could not be proved that the course of the inflammatory disease caused by anaerobes is influenced by sulfonamides. The sulfonamides seemed to have an easing effect on the course of combined gangrene therapy.

JUDGE SEBRING: It is not quite clear to me about this directive for the application of sulfonamides. Who was the author of that directives? Are you prepared to say?

DR. SEIDL: The directives contained in page 30 of the document books were testimony by the testimony of Restock, and Defendant Handloser sent to indicate to me that these various lectures came up for discussion. Since, however, we are dealing with statements of something that happened in the past, I myself would prefer it if witness Dr. Gebhardt would personally define his views regarding the coming about of these directives.

Witness, you have understood, of course, the question of the Tribunal?

A: Yes, May I ask permission to state in great detail and quite exactly here what each individual knew and to what extent individual sources participated in the matter, because, first of all, of course, the point is that, of course, I am telling the truth, and, secondly, that I, the German officer, am making efforts to save German reputation within these limits, and, thirdly, that all the evidence is not only printed but has reached foreign countries either complete to with all the diagrams or partly, at least, probably has reached the hands of the Prosecution.

The realization of these experiments took place without any participation of the German Armed Forces. There was this direct order according to the description which I have given and within the responsibilities which I myself had assumed. The coercion leading the publication against all the interests and sources of the SS is something which I claim to be a merit of mind. I am perfectly convinced that the armed forces weren't in any way interested. Maybe they might have been pleased if we hadn't turned up. On the other hand, I insisted that a completed experiment would only have its justification given to it if subject to a clear description of its progress. One would submit it is a source up to then not concerned with the matter at all, the entire picture together with the question: are the conclusions which I am now making, and is what I am introducing for thousands of SS men — is that right or is that wrong? In which connection, of course, I also had the personal wish that my name should have the protection of experts and that the State should be forced to recognize publicly the emergency in which I found myself. That was the manner in which I described it to my friend in Switzerland and everybody else. How a publication was painstakingly achieved afterwards and what the type of the lecture was is something which I hope to have described to the Tribunal clearly.

Now following this we are here concerned with a discussion, and so that no erroneous picture could arise from this discussion, a clear cut dividing line must be drawn as follows: four medical representatives spoke about the question of sulfonamides. As far as the experimental part is concerned which came entirely outside previous programs, namely, Gebhardt-Fischer Gebhardt-Fischer spoke. As far as the clinical part is concerned, in other words, the visual procedure of inquiries to various hospitals such as Professor Frey without any connection to me on his own, and then as far as the pathological part, the judgment of bodies and so on and so forth is concerned spake Professor Aridergast and then another expert also spoke, but he spoke independently.

The audience had all four speakers, and the remarks made by the German colleagues over all the time during the discussion deal with and refer to the individual subjects. The only reference made directly to me and my experiments was made by Professor Schreuss, according to my recollection, something which you can also see in the document book, and Professor Heubner, the pharmacologist. All the others spoke more or less about the pathological and clinical and pharmacological part, but, of course, I must also add and mention that as far as these completed experiments which were submitted to criticism were concerned, no one did raise any criticism to the effect that they were scientifically speaking without value or that humanly there had been failure to carry out the final security measures.

On the other hand, there was no other speaker who spoke about our subject in addition to the two names mentioned, namely, Schreuss and Heubner.

The excerpts from all these speeches and the directives usually are compiled in such a way that under the President, Professor Rostock in this case, every lecturer once more supplies his lecture, and that after that there is a lot of argument about what is to be included, and that finally in one summarized excerpt the final result is pictured.

It is my duty to draw your attention specifically here to the fact that in this case there is a difference such as is shown by these directives. In the case of every other department, each other sphere such as hygiene, and so on and so forth, you can see that at the end without the mentioning of a name, directive appear in extract of everything that had been mentioned, of course, always under the presidency of the President of the time. In our case there was a similar situation as far as the other surgical lectures are concerned, something, which I know exactly because I still give another five lectures or five other comments, and we did meet under Rostock's chairmanship, and as is apparent, we did compile the summary.

The sulfonamide story was so much outside the usual framework of our experiments that a type of description was chosen in which names were mentioned clearly separated from each other listing everybody in detail, and at the end, then they are summarized. I can recollect that the situation was that we ourselves summarized our text and submitted it to the office, the reason being something quite external.

JUDGE SEBRING: You say you submitted it to the office. To what office? "To the office."

A: To the office. There was a congressional bureau. There was a difference as far as we were concerned since sulfonamides were not a summary for all surgical departments. A surgeon had been speaking freely, and I, as the experimenter, we under Rostock's jurisdiction. There was a pharmacologist; I am not sure under which department he came. There was a pathologist, and he again was under somebody else's jurisdiction, and then I think someone from nerve medicine even spoke, so that there were five completely separate departments who hadn't met during discussions, and to my recollection, the situation was that each participant summarized his extract, that is to say, the surgeons; the pharmacologists — all the various departments — and then they submitted that to the congressional office, the office in the congress I cannot remember, and I can state this under oath, that any criticism, or any special discussion or conference took place with reference to sulfonamides, certainly not under Rostock's chairmanship.

JUDGE SEBRING: Then it is quite clear to you that at that conference you made it plain to the gentlemen assembled there that your experiments had been conducted upon human beings and not upon animals, is that correct?

A: Oh, yes, that is absolutely correct, and it is confirmed, of course, by Professor Frey's statement, who was the official speaking after me. He says clearly and expressly that he heard that completed experiments on human beings who had been sentenced were conducted. He only adds that today he does not approve, so the man who spoke directly after me, but who quite independently heard my introduction, something which I must emphasize here in order to protect Fischer, that matter was unmistakable.

The only thing is that I cannot swear to the word "concentration camp", but it must have been clear that there was an experiment carried out on seventy-five people

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now recess until one-thirty.

THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is in recess until 1330 hours.

( A recess was taken until 1330 hours.)