1947-03-07, #3: Doctors' Trial (early afternoon)
[Administrative note: due to a scheduling mistake this post is being sent to doctorstrial.substack.com subscribers two days late, instead of on the afternoon of March 7, 2022 as intended. — ASH.]
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330, 7 March 1947)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats.
The tribunal is again in session.
KARL GEBHARDT -Resumed CROSS-EXAMINATION (Continued)
BY MR. McHANEY:
Q: Witness, what concentration camps have you visited other than Ravensbruck.
A: None.
Q: What concentration camps did you know of other than Ravensbruck?
A: I know the name of Sachsenhausen and Dachau because they were mentioned most often in the course of politics, especially from abroad. In Germany we did not know all the names. There were a number of intermediate installations. The organization Todt, for example had labor training camps which were conducted by as SS staff which were locally made into a Gau. I know that in every Gau there were at least one or two camps but I cannot tell you exactly how many names I knew formerly.
Q: You mean to say that in each Gau you knew there was a concentration camp?
A: Certainly, every Gau had that. I said there were training camps, there were youth camps, for juvenile delinquents, and that went up to the concentration camps.
Q: Do you know specifically whether there was a concentration camp at Auschwitz?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you know whether there was a concentration camp at Weimar-Buchenwald?
A: I knew that, yes.
Q: Do you know there was a concentration camp at Gross-Rosen?
A: No.
Q: Neuengamme?
A: I don't know whether I learned about Neuengamme before or only when I got there, but I did know that there were two or one near Hamburg—one.
Q: Do you know there was a concentration camp Treblinka?
A: No, I don't know that one. I don't know it today.
Q: Maidaneck?
A: No.
Q: Do you know Dr. Kramer?
A: No.
Q: Do you know Dr. Treite?
A: I know a Professor Kramer of the Virchow who worked with me at Hohenlychen for tumor research.
Q: Well, was Trommer—when was Trommer under you at Hohenlychenn?
A: Kramer, Professor Kramer he was from the Virchow Hospital, he was an exchange professor. He asked to have his institute housed with me and he himself worked in the other city. He was a gentleman at least ten years older than I. He was never under me. In view of the air raid conditions he evacuated his laboratory.
Q: Do you spell his name T-R-O-M-M-E-R?
A: No. Professor Kramer of the Virchow Hospital. I thought you said Kramer.
Q: Did you know Treito?
A: I met Treito here in Nurnberg, personally. We were here at the interrogations together and Treito said that he telephoned with me come from Ravensbruck because of a patient. I did not remember that myself but it is no doubt true. And he was the head doctor at the clinic in Berlin.
Q: Did you know in 1942 that Schidlausky was a doctor at Ravensbruck?
A: When I first talked about the experiments I saw Schidlausky there and during the experiments, no doubt I saw him several times.
Q: Did you know a Doctor Villman?
A: No.
Q: V-I-L-L-M-A-N?
A: Yes, I've heard the name but I don't know him.
Q: What about Doctor Koller?
A: I had a Dr. Koller as a dentist at Hohenlychen.
Q: Was he there in 1942, 43?
A: I can't tell you. I don't believe so. Our dental station was set up rather late but I don't remember the date. It is possible, but I don't know.
Q: Now, in your meeting in July 1942 where you discussed the experimental subjects with Grawitz, Nebe, Gluecks and Himmler, precisely what type of experimental subjects did you insist on?
A: Sulfonamide experiments. Those were the only ones in question.
Q: Yes. What type of experimental subjects did you insist on having? I understood you to state that you reached an agreement with Himmler, Gluecks
A: Condemned men. That is should be begun on German criminals, condemned men.
Q: Condemned to death?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you make any distinction between political criminals and crimes of the ordinary sort such as murder?
A: No. We negotiated—I have told you and I won't let you force me into saying anything, that I didn't worry about the juridical details, but I negotiated at that time with Nebe his administration not primarily with Muelle Nebe had German criminals under him, no political criminals. He was the top man to decide that under Himmler.
Q: Well, then there were persons who had been convicted for such crimes as murder rather than for such crimes as treason?
A: I don't follow you. I was not interested in why the individual was condemned. I didn't say anything about that. I just said they should be condemned persons. I never asked why he was condemned or whether it was the right authority, but mychief authority at the time was Nebe under Himmler.
Q: Well, I'm just asking you to try to give us a little more information about what type of criminals Nebe had under him. The word "criminal" is something which has to be defined a little bit. For example, we know that Jews were condemned to death as criminals for having committed sexual intercourse with an Aryan. Now, do you know whether Nebe had any of those criminals under his jurisdiction?
A: In the first place, I am not convinced that your statement is true — that a person was condemned to death for Rassenschande. I heard that here for the first time. They were put in concentration camps for that. In principle, the legal question was up to the legal exports and I was of the childish impression that if they took the responsibility it would be all right. Personally, we never knew who and what the individual was.
Q: Now, you stated to your defense counsel that it would have been impossible to have used wounded soldiers to test the effectiveness of sulfonamides. At least that is what I understood.
A: Yes.
Q: Did you mean to state merely that it would have been impossible to have used soldiers and to have reached a result in the short period of time, or do you mean to say that it was impossible, in any event, to have used wounded soldiers?
A: We are at the technical question of wounds in war time at the front and under various conditions, and the question of whether I wanted the basic research from the chemical aspect or whether I wanted a temporary clinical decision. I explained that as clearly as possible. If you want me to I shall repeat the same thing.
Q: I certainly don't want you to repeat the same thing because I didn't understand precisely what you were getting at at the time. This is the reason why I put the question again to you. I am asking if you are stating, as your medical opinion, that it would have been impossible to have determined the effectiveness of sulfonamides — to have solved the problem which you undertook to solve, by using wounded soldiers?
I should think you would be able to give a "yes" or "no" answer to that question with perhaps a rather short explanation.
A: I can answer it with "no" if I say that what was demanded of us had to be carried out.
Q: And what was demanded of you was a speedy and rapid decision. Isn't that right?
A: Above all, a decision of war wounds or at least conditions corresponding to war wounds, and that quickly. The two belonged together.
Q: And if you eliminate the angle of haste, are you willing to tell this Tribunal, as a medical expert, that it would have been impossible for you to have solved this problem by testing sulfonamide on wounded soldiers?
A: I told you yesterday in great detail that clarification by means of inquiry is possible; that the German army, like any other, attempted it; that until the end of the war there was no clarification in this way in the German army just as in the case of others. There is no such absolute question in the clinical aspect. It is very simple to solve theoretically by setting up special units and special hospitals and sending them to the front and keeping the patient all the way through, but not practical. That was possible on a quiet front, but in the collapsing front, as it existed at that time, this was not possible
Q: You yourself were convinced that sulfonamides were not effective in treating deep seated wound infections. Is that right?
A: You have asked me that before. I shall repeat. I personally said: "I will manage in Hohenlychen without sulfonamides with my special staff." I managed it in that way, but I know that there were many others who did not have the facilities and, about 1942, at the time of this discussion, very important people represented a very positive point of view — I am not thinking of Krueger but, for example, Brunner and men of that quality.
Q: I understood you to state that you felt that the results reported on, with respect to the use of sulfonamides in treating lung shot wounds, were not reliable in reaching a judgment about the use of sulfonamides on wounds to the limbs or joints because the lung wound patients were kept immobile. Is that right
A: I don't think the translation can be right. It does not make any sense.
Q: That may be the translation or, again, that may be the layman's point of view that you so severely criticized yesterday.
A: May I repeat what I heard. I understood the question to be whether I thought that lung wounds could not be successfully treated with sulfonamides because they had to be kept immobilized.
Q: No. As I understand the situation, certain doctors had reported that they had quite successfully treated lung shot wounds with sulfonamides.
A: Me?
Q: No, not you. Others.
A: It was read yesterday by Dr. Seidl that Dr. Krueger had success with lung wounds, as a report to the second meeting following a discussion of the treatment of lung wounds by Krueger and the discussion following the speech, and, right under that, he read that Mr. Schulze objected to these successes denied these successes. That is how I remember it.
Q: And didn't you feel that it was not proper to take the successful experiences reported in lung shot wounds and conclude that, therefore, sulfonamides were effective in treating wounds to the limbs or joints?
A: No, certainly not.
Q: Certainly not what? You said that that was improper —
A: (Interrupting) I mean that the fact that Krueger was successful in the lung wound that does not mean that the same success will be obtained in wounds to joints. Is that the question?
Q: That's right. That is what I understood you to state, and I am now asking you why you reached that conclusion, and if I remember it correctly, you said that it was because that the patient with the lung shot wounds was kept immobile — he wasn't moved, whereas a person who had been shot in the leg or had a bone injury was transported.
A: Nobody said that yesterday. There was no discussion about that. The reason why I opposed Dr. Krueger — I can tell you that exactly. Generally, there were a couple or two consulting surgeons who belonged together, and Dr. Krueger was the one who reported the greatest success. His partner was Professor Schmidt from Bremem who was always mentioned negatively in the same discussion and Mr. Schmidt told me personally after I had happened to be with him, how Kruger came to his big figures.
He always told about 3000, about 700, and such enormous figures. He did not see them personally, of course. He had reports from others by telephone, etc., and that is why I had misgivings from the very beginning to the position of Krueger. At the next meeting, he was talking about abdominal wounds or some such things. That is absolutely decided. It is not a question of the case history. The question is whether the material on which the surgeon based his decision is reliable and that is what I doubted. But it was certainly never said that the lung wounds would be successful and the others not. There must be some translation mistake.
Q: What agreement did you reach with Nebe on the question of what would be done with the survivors of these experiments? Were they to be released? Were they to have their death sentences changed to a life sentence? Precisely what was the agreement on that point?
A: I told you exactly that the important thing was the chance of survival and that I told Himmler that that had to be kept in order, and the point is so that the individual in the course of time is loyal to the conditions. I believe there were two or three who were given pardons or sent to German labor offices. The condition was that the Pole, of course, had to sign — had to agree to work with the Germans. The others remained alive but remained in the concentration camps and Himmler did not let them go. I didn't interfere with all these legal matters either before hand or afterwards, but I was assured that they would remain alive.
Q: Well, then you did not reach any definite agreement about precisely what was to be done with the survivors? All you knew was that they were to remain alive — whether still in the concentration camp or whether they would be completely released. Is that right?
A: I told you that explicitly and I will repeat the whole thing. You assume that everything was done in an orderly way — a peacetime way as it might be necessary for your support. That, unfortunately, is not how it was. During this time, Himmler hoped and thought that he would be able to maintain the Eastern area and resettle it compulsorily. There were certain groups of Germans and others nationalities he wanted to settle there. That was his plan and his conviction even at a time when it had become absurd.
Q: And as it actually happened you say they would release the Polish women only if they signed an agreement to work with the Germans?
A: Now you want to turn it around again that he made definite conditions on the other side. That was not possible. That was not my duty. At the moment of the experiment they remained alive and the whole thing was under the pressure of these enormous events. It was not so that from the very beginning of 1942 we knew that we would lose. It was not so that from the beginning we had only Poles who were not ready for a compromise solution.
Q: Witness, will you kindly pay attention to the questions that I ask you, and try to give a short and concise answer. And please don't shout at me, or the Tribunal, because I have already conceded your supremacy in that matter, or of the volume of your voice. You stated a few minutes ago very clearly, that after the experiments were over these Polish women were not released unless they signed an agreement to work with Germans, is that right?
A: I know that one was certainly given assistance, as we have heard from the witness Mrs Oberhaeuser, and I personally have thought out in a word, or two or three, how these questions were worked out with the Polish women in detail, and to what extent they were worked out, one did not know, and I did not know; I did not take part in it in any way. I beg your pardon for the shouting at you, as it was not my intention. I know that only from your own condition that when you reach, as here, a high point your voice becomes louder.
Q: Witness, did you reach any agreement with Nebe about whether these experimental subjects were to consent to the experiment, or, whether, as Rostock got the impression in 1943, that the experiment was substituted for a death sentence, irrespective of the consent?
A: I can only assure you, and if you ask me ten times, it was not my intention whether you considered that a negligence on my part, or not, I don't care; I would be lying if I told you anything else. I was very glad that Himmler took this legal side, as to the status of the doctors, and as I was told some one at the top took charge of this matter. I had no reason at that time to doubt the German State authorities in any way, or to distrust Himmler. How it worked out in detail was not a point of discussion in any way for me.
Q: Then you don't know whether the persons experimented on in which was the sulfonamide experiment had been asked to give their consent?
A: I have said, I don't know, and I don't know exactly, and with all assurances I was given that that was more or loss voluntary, and I was not interested in that. I left that up to the legal authorities. Neither Fischer nor I heard a thing on this experimental subject or discussed it with them.
Q: And I don't suppose that you know who under German law could validly agree to pardon, or a release of a person sentenced to death on condition that he undergo an experiment?
A: I repeat, I assume that under the German law if any one gives is approval he submits.
Q: I don't think you understand the question —
THE PRESIDENT: No, no.
BY MR. McHANEY:
Q: I don't think you understand the question. I asked if you knew of a person in the German State who could validly or legally agree to pardon or to release a person sentenced to death on condition that the person undergo a medical experiment?
A: Of course, Himmler.
Q: Himmler could agree to that validly under the German Law?
A: Now first you ask me to be a medical expert, and you want me to be a legal expert. I can only say I have no doubt that at the time in concentration camps Himmler had absolute power, and that in my opinion he had an authority from Hitler, but certainly not from any legal authority. That was my opinion at the time, and it still is.
Q: How many of these Polish women were made available for medical experimentation in Ravensbruck?
A: I have already told you that we had fifteen men, sixty women, and six or seven others, and that on the other hand from the beginning I had counted on a large scale experiment. I simply remember the number two-hundred and five, that I can not say for certain, that is right; in any case, it was not that we did not need all the figures which we had mentioned, and it is not to my knowledge; it is more or less the figure which the Poles know.
Q: In other words, you do remember that Nebe made available something like two-hundred and five Polish women?
A: No. Now you want to have it the other way around. I told you that was at the start on a certain large scale experiment, and so it had to be settled beforehand, and so far as I know there were Polish women. I heard this number here, though they were condemned, they had been examined, and I certainly remember that there were about two-hundred, I say, to be for the experiments. You heard from witnesses that the other comrades were shot, but the others I don't know.
Q: This just exactly what I asked you. Were there originally something like around two-hundred Polish women? We are agreed on that, aren't we?
A: We do not agree that I said that. You have had from the beginning exactly two-hundred women; on the other hand, in the course of time under the pressure of Grawitz that number two-hundred and five came to be that at one time. I never discussed the figure.
Q: And all of these women came to Ravensbruck in this transport from Poland in September 1941. Do you know whether that is so or not?
A: I don't know. I heard here for the first time about all of the transports, and where the women came from. I did not take any interest in that, and I was very glad that I did not have to worry about this matter, and to inquire about it. It was a transport from Lublin of seven-hundred, I heard that figure here from the files, or from the records of the trial, or from the testimony of the witnesses, or by some one these figures were mentioned.
Q: As a matter of fact, you only experimented on sixty Polish women in the sulfanilamide experiment, is that right?
A: Yes.
Q: Who selected the sixty women out of the two-hundred that were available?
A: I told you how that was, quite explicitly, that in a preliminary discussion between Grawitz and myself we decided that we were to start on a large scale experiment, and in the execution, nothing else, and Fischer called up, and in my behalf, of course, and said we are coming, we will begin with five or six.
From the testimony of the witnesses I read that either they were there called up according to a list, or that they were picked by the personnel. It said here that the secretary of the camp, and that they were called together, but we had nothing to do with the selection, and certainly Fischer never interfered in it, and never told me anything about it, and I myself did not make any selection.
Q: But you do concede that somebody exercised a selective process in judgment in Ravensbruck, because you used sixty out of some two-hundred, is that right?
A: No. Not what you just said, I did not appoint nor make the selection in that camp. I think that the records of the these groups were in Berlin, that is something I learned, and this here, that the RSHA, the Reich Security Main Office, had an agency in the camp, and that they examined these things, and said what death sentence which had been pronounced, say, of one-hundred of so and so camps are concerned, and there sight them, and use these. I never went into this process. I never worried about it. I don't know, I was sure that this examination would take place, and that the selection would not be arbitrary.
Q: And you say you had no contact with Mrugowsky in obtaining the culture — the bacteriological culture used in producing the infections?
A: I beg your pardon, I can not remember that Mrugowsky had anything to do with it.
Q: Well, by the way, Fischer said in his affidavit, in document book No. 10, document NO-228, exhibit 206, page one, of document book, page three of the affidavit, Fischer said that since no inflammation resulted from the bacteriological culture used in the first two series of operations, it was determined, as a result of correspondence of Dr. Mrugowsky with the chief of the Hygiene Institute of Waffen-SS, and conversation with his assistants, on the change of type of bacteriological culture used in subsequent operations, do you know whether or not Fischer is correct when he makes that statement in his affidavit?
A: I told you my point of view. Technically, I refrain from discussing Fischer's testimony, because I am not of the opinion that was anything against my men. Fischer would testify to what he remember. I personally am of the opinion that Mrugowsky was not there, from the whole construction of things, either of the finding by bacteriological clinician, whether by letter or not, I would admit about Mrugowsky, but I don't remember him. On the other, I am certain that delivery came from the office. Whether there was any correspondence, I don't know. I know that a man always came and brought it. Fischer knows that the letter was signed by Mrugowsky. Please ask Fischer about it.
Q: You spoke of the post-operational name given these women?
A: Yes.
Q: What provision did you make for those women who were ill for months and years after the experiment, for example Kusmierscuk?
A: First I deny that they were sick for years. That is not true. Kusmierscuk was really the worst case of all, and she admitted that she was sick until about July or August. She had an abscess, if I remember correctly. One of them had an abscess. I don't have the records here. I can't say exactly. In any case, it is not so that a large number of women were sick for years. In the second place, in the long run in the cases of acute danger the women were given therapeutic safeguards, as I have described, and then they were turned over to the camp physician. They went back to the blocks and continued to be treated. Most of them healed very quickly. I described the therapeutic results to you yesterday, that is operations, quiet and other therapeutic methods.
Q: And if anyone was ill beyond May 1943 or August 1943, just to avoid any argument on the dates, you left them in the care of the camp doctors, isn't that right?
A: Yes. After that they might have called me in if there had been anything, but we didn't hear anything more about it.
Q: And you spoke of cosmetic appearance of the wounds on these women, did you make any provision to improve the appearance of these women's legs?
A: May I answer you frankly —
Q: That is certainly what I expect.
A: After the healing one cannot improve the area of the wound before two years have passed. Generally we wait three years. That is a mistake on your part. You think that one can perform an operation immediately, and you see from the two examples which were very impressive here, I don't remember the names, that it was in 1945, two and a half years labor, in Warsaw, that an attempt was made with good success in one case and with an inflammation of the foot in the other case. The condition is not as bad as the patient herself says, but there was a difference.
It is not so that the one operation can follow the other immediately. We wait over two years, as you can read from my report which I made at the Third Meeting, where I say we have no scheme one should wait for years. I don't mean the Polish women in particular. I was speaking generally.
Q: Doctor, I am not aware of my having suggested to you that you could improve the cosmetic appearance of these women on the day following the operation; my question was had you made any provision in regard to these matters, and I don't believe you answered the question.
A: I don't know what you mean by provisions. If you mean that in combatting the infection we were to consider the extent of the cosmetic damage, if I am to understand the question in that way, then of course not.
Q: Let's make it very easy for you. Did you have any intention of further operations on these women at a later date to improve their appearance, or otherwise improve their condition.
A: That is not possible in operating. Where gangrene appears one must go after it with the knife to save the joint, no matter what sacrifice is necessary in the appearance picture. I don't know what muscles I will need for this purpose or that. The combatting of the infection and the future appearance cannot be united clinically. Those two things do not belong together. You want to prove that I was negligent, that I combatted the infection, but I did not care about how it looked afterwards, then I say, yes, that is not negligence.
Q: I haven't said a word about negligence. I haven't meant to infer anything about negligence, but the fact is after you operated on Kusmierscuk and saved her life, as you put it, you knew that she was disfigured?
A: Yes.
Q: I am asking you if you had any intention of trying to improve her appearance, did you have any plan or did you take any steps to do that?
A: Certainly not. It would have been wrong to give massage or baths afterwards, or anything else. That has to settle down and heal. The earliest would have been 1945, and then, of course, I did not. I was not in a position to worry about the Kusmierscuk case anymore than German wounds were given treatment at that time.
Q: You completed the sulfanilamide experiments in December 1942?
A: Yes.
Q: And had written a report on these experiments?
A: Yes, on the sulfanilamide experiments. There was great interest in them. I talked to Stumpfegger once briefly about them, and talked to Grawitz, and there were reports, and then there was a final report in December or the beginning of January.
Q: To whom did you send the final report, was it only to Grawitz, or did you send a copy to anyone else?
A: I cannot tell you whether a report was sent to Himmler himself. I should think that it was discussed with Himmler during his Christmas visit, and that Grawitz got it through official channels. I can't tell you exactly. Grawitz certainly got it.
Q: Do you know whether you sent one to Genzken?
A: Certainly not. Genzken had nothing to do with it. Genzken had no part whatever in the experiments, and I certainly never sent any report at all to Genzken during the whole war. I wrote to him or called him up when I needed something.
Q: You didn't send a report to anybody outside of the SS?
A: Outside the SS, no certainly not. It could only have been Grawitz or Himmler, or Grawitz alone or Himmler read it when he visited us.
Q: Didn't you have occasion to make an oral report on these experiments to Brandt or Rostock in 1942?
A: I have already told you that it was not 1942. That last year I said that I think that once I talked to the two gentlemen, not on the experiments but about the publication. That in my first testimony, I believe I said that I came from the Fuehrer Headquarters and that Brandt got out of the train at the same time.
I have a vague recollection of having told the two in the railroad station, "I would like you to know this is going to be published," and something about experiments on human beings, and after I was arrested I met Brandt in Dachau, and he said no, that he had not talked to me about it, and Rostock told me, no the preparations hadn't been in his hands at all. Then I must have discussed it with Schreiber. I must say honestly last year I remember it like that, and now I can't say exactly. I said what I remembered.
Q: That was Rostock at that time?
A: Rostock and Brandt.
Q: Let's go over that a little bit. I have your interrogation here of 5th November, 1946, and you stated there that "I am sure I once told Brandt, without any order, that this anonymity of the whole matter is rather nonsensical. Now, he claims he cannot remember thought, and once I told Rostock, 'do you realize what we are reporting?' I do not know what Grawitz wrote to you. I am telling you Himmler ordered this, and that concerned the question of sulfanilamide that is being done. These experiments are to be performed, but I give the scientific advice only because German science can make use of it." Then you were asked the question: Was it at that time clear to Rostock or Brandt that experimentations on human prisoners were concerned?" You answered, "Evidently."
A: That is what I told you, I said that last year in the matter of the publication at the meeting I was of the opinion I discussed it with the chairman at the meeting, Rostock, in about those words. I don't know what difficulties are being made by Grawitz. Rostock said he was not in charge of the preparations at all, and Schreiber said that he learned this through official channels. I can only say I reported as I remember it. The question was the matter of publication, and now the two men deny it, and I can't say for sure.
Q: As you remember you stated it in this interrogation that your talk with Brandt and Rostock took place in December, 1942, didn't it?
A: I said December 1942? That is nonsense. The new meeting was not being discussed yet at that time. I spoke of anonymity and the failure to publish it. I don't think that the May meeting was discussed so far ahead. I believe that I said, as I remember, between the two meetings when the next meeting was being prepared. If I actually said December that is too early. December it was finished, yes, but I do not believe that the preparations for this May meeting were made as early as December. If I said that I have to correct myself. The reason was that Grawitz was trying to get around the agreement. The question was finally around the title. I believe the testimony says something about preparation for the meeting, but I don't know.
Q: Now, did you have any correspondence with the person who was handling this meeting in May of 1943 about this report, whether Schreiber or Rostock, did you correspond?
A: No, I can tell you what the official channels were, please make a distinction between the official things and what I do in addition by speaking personally. The subject of the third meeting was set up by the person preparing it and I learn now that that was Schreiber. One of the questions of the daily program was sulfonamide. Then these questions were sent to all branches of the Wehrmacht. including the SS, that is Grawitz and Grawitz inquired of all his people, the surgeons and the hygienists. Apparently he talked to many because sulfonamide and all other things on the subject could be reported on. Then I reported my four other subjects and of course I also reported the sulfonamide question. Then this went back through the same channels to Schreiber. I went to Grawitz to ask what subject I was to speak on as I had to prepare for it and I was interested because there was the subjection in the sulfonamide questions. I know for certain that I also — not in writing — spoke personally with the person preparing the meeting and to state it briefly I said: "Do you realize I am coming, I am going to speak openly?" I thought this man was Rostock but I have been corrected and I am told it was Schreiber and he says he only took it over at the meeting. This is possible and can be confirmed by Schreiber. On the other hand, it has been discussed back and forth so much I can only say right here that I testified to the best of my knowledge.
Q: You also said, you talked to Brandt on this matter; Karl Brandt?
A: The very first statement says possibly that I came on the train and met the two men at the station; I don't think so?
Q: You were together on that occasion; if you remember it?
A: I think I arrived with the train with Brandt and Rostock or I met him or something like that. That is how I remember it and that was I believe what I said in 1945. Now, of course, I don't know what questions were asked in 1945, but that is how I remember it now.
Q: Now, didn't Brandt and Rostock also orally invite you to lecture at the meeting in May of 1943 on sulfonamide?
A: No, the request for my participation in the meeting came through office channels, through the Wehrmacht Medical Inspectorates, that came through Grawitz and he got it through the control office of the Wehrmacht.
Brandt had nothing to do with it and Rostock did not attend, he did not prepare for the meeting. I don't know.
Q: In your interrogation of 17 October 1946, you were asked in connection with the sulfonamide experiments:
Q: At this meeting you reported on the success or failure of your experiments?
A: Yes, an assignment was given for the meeting. I was scheduled for it officially and that came through Grawitz. Orally I was informed by Brandt and Rostock.
A: No, in the first place I never signed these things and that is nonsense. That is always the same thing. I talked to Rostock and Brandt about it, they did not inform me, I informed them. I certainly did not say that.
Q: Now, without wishing to get into a long discussion on the results of these experiments, these sulfonamide experiments, am I correct in stating that you reached the conclusion that sulfonamides were not effective in treating wound infections; can you formulate very concisely and briefly the conclusion that you reached as a result of these experiments?
A: Exactly the first six lines of the directives; that is the summary.
Q: This is from the report of the meeting in May, 1943, Karl Brandt Exhibit 10 on page 22 of the Karl Brandt Document Book 1, reading from page 30:
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. It could not be proved that the course of the inflammatory diseases caused by anaerobions is influenced by sulfonamides. The sulfonamides seem to have an easing effect on the course of combined gangrene therapy.
Now Doctor, can you state the conclusions reached in your experiments were adopted at this meeting in May of 1943 in face of the fact that the rules governing the application of sulfonamide as contained in these directives seem to state that you should continue to use sulfonamide?
A: I am convinced that the translation was not right, it was:
"Are you in a position to state that your directives were applied although..." and that was all.
Q: I will restate it; in face of your conclusion that sulfonamides were not effective for certain types of wounds, I am curious to know whether that conclusion was actually accepted and adopted in the directives issued at this meeting, in view of the fact that the directives later on seemed to say you are to continue to use sulfonamide?
A: This contrast between our results and all the directives of the clinicals does not exist in that form. We testified that the sulfonamides were a preventive drug that came from the beginning, that they would prevent infection was shown to be not true. That does not mean, however, that one cannot in the course of treatment use sulfonamide. The Clinical Doctor Frey, who also spoke and who had no connection with our preparation, came to about the same conclusion, although he recommends sulfonamide and later more strongly than we did. The directives show the results which we had, the results of Clinical Doctor Frey, a pathologist and someone else were published next to each other as the present state of thought as represented, but of course it is not so that there was a definite connection. One must act on this in this way, the evidence was given which had been reported at that meeting.
Q: Well, but after you gave your evidence didn't they continue to use sulfonamide in the same manner that they had before you made your report?
A: No, I don't think so. Certainly not in the Waffen SS. Before hand it had been flown in and some parts of our divisions thought that sulfonamide should be put in directly and they even thought that one could give the troops a bag of sulfonamide that the whole thing was stopped, that those who are a little more skeptical toward sulfonamide had no weight. Our contribution helped to achieve this. In my old field this became the basic attitude as far as I was able to make it prevail.
Q: Well, doctor, I am quite sure that you convinced yourself that you were right in the conclusions that you reached that sulfonamide wouldn't prevent infection in wounds, but I am asking you how successful you were in convincing other people, the other branches of the army, and I point to the directives here on page 31 of the document book, and it says that all surface wounds should be sprinkled as soon as possible with sulfonamide powder, and it goes on to say here to be sure and get the powder to the depths of the wounds. Is that not the contrary of the conclusion you reached in your experiments or not?
A: I don't have the document before me. I have only my own document book. May I ask what you are quoting now? Is that the work of Professor Frey that was dealt with on the same day? Was it at the same meeting, if I may ask?
Q: Witness, I am reading from your document book. Do you have that in front of you?
A: Yes, yes, yes.
Q: Page 31.
A: Yes, that is Frey.
Q: Well, now, wait. Let's try to get that point straight first. On page 30 you find the heading "Directives for the application of Sulfonamides", and under there are summarized the conclusions reached by Gebhardt and Fischer, by Randerath, by Mueller, by Frey, and then I find the heading "The Following Rules for Practice Therefore Result", and maybe I interpreted the directives wrong, but I thought that was a directive which was based upon all the reports and not a directive by Mr. Frey.
A: No, but I explained that yesterday. That is the difference between this and all other reports. Otherwise some kind of agreement is reached. If, for example, you look for the treatment directives at the same meeting, they have my wording from "A" to "Z" because my suggestion was accepted. In the case of sulfonamides there was some agreement reached in a point of view, but our attitude did not prevail, nor did Frey, who had not known anything about our experiments before, join us in our opinion.
You see that the results of all four are listed separately with the names.
Q: That's correct. Well, then, under those four summaries the meeting says that "The Following Rules for Practice Therefore Result". Now aren't those rules being stated by the meeting as a whole and not by Mr. Frey?
A: I still haven't found it.
Q: Page 31.
A: That was Frey. You are mistaken. That starts on page 30: "The clinical discourse (Frey) emphasized the decrease", and so forth, and then if you read the whole thing then Frey at the end of his speech made a summary for practice, which is exactly the wording which comes here. That is the clinical part of Frey summed up, and in the beginning is Gebhardt also summed up. I don't find Randerath. That was Frey's text. It says in the beginning "Frey" ten lines before.
Q: Witness, I am not going to engage in any argument with you, but I am going to pass the original up to you, and, in my opinion, the original shows very clearly that "The Following Rules for Practice Therefore Result" are rules being issued by this meeting and not by Frey and don't represent a mere personal expression of opinion by Frey. And if I am correct in that, that it told you that this committee didn't adopt the conclusion reached on your experiments at all because the instructions and rules say you are to continue to use sulfonamide powders on wounds. Now it is on the lefthand page. It was handed to you at just the right place there.
A: Would you permit me to look at Frey's report first?
MR. McHANEY: Does the Tribunal have before it the Karl Gebhardt document book?
A: It is certainly the text of Frey, but I will be glad to discuss it with you. You are misinterpreting my statements. "The powder treatment is of no use if the depths of the wound are not reached." But it shows —
Q: Just a minute, witness, let's determine one point at a time. I am asking you if the "Rules for Practice in the Use of Sulfonamides" appearing in this report of May, 1943, aren't rules issued by the committee or meeting as a whole?
A: I told you I do not believe that they were discussed; that, on the other hand, I have admitted that I have no objection and that my report was put at the beginning of the reports as well as at the beginning of the directives. If they had been rejected or had been changed, they would not be listed at the beginning, or I would have been forced to change them. My test is the same in both places and then there come the summaries of the reports of the others and especially in great detail the clinical report. Ours was much shorter and not on such a broad basis. The contrast between these four reports is not as great as you assume.
Q: I am assuming nothing, but isn't it true that where the words read, "The Following Rules for Practice Therefore Result", are rules being issued by the committee and are not rules simply being stated by Frey in his report?
A: Certainly, but also all the proceedings from the word "directive" on.
Q: But don't you concede, Herr Professor, that these rules directing continued use of sulfonamide conflict with the conclusions reached by you in your experiments which you yourself have described as negative results?
A: You must be convinced that both would not have been published next to each other if they had been in strict contrast. Then it would have been nonsense to publish them. It is not possible to prescribe to a surgeon at the front on the basis of this meeting: In the future you may proceed only in the following way. On the other hand, in the beginning there is an explanation on the basis of the results which comes to a very extreme point of view, and that Frey has described his clinical experience without our detailed experience, and his conclusion is that powder should continue to be used.
We do not object to using powder secondarily, only primarily, that the main consideration is that the powder should reach the wound. "It is ineffective to powder the small wounds caused by the penetration and exit of the bullet." The contrast is really not as great as it seems to you. The fact is that the meeting and the person who set up the book listed all the results as important, one next to the other.
Q: Didn't you get Stumpfegger his job as escort physician to Himmler?
A: I have already told you that I did not get him his job, that there were two of us in the Polish campaign. Stumpfegger was my assistant, and this gradually developed by itself. I saw that Himmler liked the younger man to come to him and he didn't mind if I went to the front. It was not so that I had to take him there. He was always there from the first day on. In the beginning there were two of us.
Q: Now you have assumed responsibility at least for the conduct of the sulfanilamide experiments. What about the bone experiments?
A: I tried to describe that to you yesterday, to what extent I feel responsible and how it came about. Stumpfegger came to us with the approval for the experiments. He even had the assignment that we were to take a considerable part in it. The clinic did not participate. Stumpfegger told me what he was doing. Stumpfegger worked there alone. I was dependent on Stumpfegger's report and on what he told me, but I did not check his work.
Q: Didn't you ask him to report to you?
A: I have already told you that there was a certain contrast there, that it was a big chance for him. I would take the responsibility just as I did in the case of Fischer if that had been the case. Stumpfegger wanted this chance but I wanted to know what was going on over there.
Q: Didn't you assign Fischer work with Stumpfegger?
A: No. I said Fischer was to work with Stumpfegger when we were still together if it was possible to help him. I don't know how far it had gotten in October.
I was not there at the time
Q: Well, to the extent that Fischer worked with Stumpfegger, you assume responsibility for that, don't you?
A: The fact is that Fischer did. Yes, sir, of course.
Q: Was not Stumpfegger working on his habilitation thesis under you on these bone experiments?
A: That presentation is not right. Stumpfegger had two men ahead of him. He was, no doubt, expected to qualify as a lecturer, and so far as one can discuss it beforehand, the assignment was that the problem which interested the town was to be discussed. That gave him all our material. He had two other men ahead of him. Then Stumpfegger worked on this, and says he did not report to me primarily, but to my former teacher.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be recessed.
(recess)