1947-03-07, #4: Doctors' Trial (late 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.]

THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.

THE PRESIDENT: I would ask counsel if it is his intention to have these documents, NO-649 and so forth, marked for identification?

MR. McHANEY: No, Your Honor, it is not.

CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued)

BY MR. McHANEY:

Q: Witness, did you perform the operation on the patient Ladisc?

A: Yes.

Q: What did they do — what did Fischer do? I think it was he that removed the bone from this Polish woman at Ravensbruck. Precisely what operation did he perform on that Polish woman, do you know?

A: Yes, I do. Permit me to describe that briefly. I know that I said so and spoke at such length yesterday that not everything I said was interpreted. I should like in the case of this experiment to confess my responsibility completely and openly, as far as I have to take it, as I have done so before. In the case of this bone experiment it is true that the idea didn't originate from me and I should greatly have suppressed it had it been possible. It was not absolutely necessary for the clinic and as can be seen from all testimony Stumpfegger came from the outside to us with the matter. In all the world I cannot describe how responsible I am for Stumpfegger. I might incriminate myself further but I can try if you wish, if I would state he was directly under Himmler and had nothing to do with me, for he report to me and I advised him against it. At that time there was no mention of carrying out the experiment on a joint, Neither he nor anybody could expect much from it. I certainly did not expect much from it. Please believe me in this. He came to a surprising conclusion. It is a matter of course that any experiments on human beings were only a matter that concerned Stumpfegger and had nothing to do with any other office. If I said something that leads to a different conclusion, I beg your pardon. I only said the problem was different. He came to a definite result, wished to check on it, and was given per mission to do so.

My participation was that it was carried out for a patient in Hohenlychen, and that on the other hand I knew that a shoulder blade was removed. It was provided that there were to be two separate operations, Stumpfegger on one hand to take out a scapula, and I on the other hand to carry out experiments on persons endangered with cancer. Stumpfegger also made the preparations, and in the morning when we went to the operation Stumpfegger laid emphasis on the fact that he should be my immediate assistant because when he inserts the shoulder blade he would like to know the conditions from the very beginning.

It was for this reason, without any previous planning that Fischer, because he was the only one who knew about this, unfortunately was sent to Ravensbruck, took part in the operation already planned by Stumpfegger, being supported in this by a doctor there — I believe it was Schokowsky -and then brought the shoulder-blade to me. I operated on the sick person. The shoulder-blade was brought back and was reinserted by Stumpfegger. Since it is an old rule in surgery that the oldest surgeon is responsible, I, of course, am responsible for that operation in Hohenlychen. I wanted to explain that yesterday; but because I was so tired I did not do so clearly. I intended to say that previously, it is not my intention to evade this question.

Q: Now, did they take the scapula from the Polish woman in Ravensbruck?

A: Yes.

Q: Will you tell the Tribunal which bone the scapula is?

A: The shoulder-blade, as I have already described. I chose this as the least dangerous operation rather than some other joint because I had experience in the case of the same person with cancer. This is not to sound as if the shoulder-blade was altogether unimportant; but it is possible that a person can do without his shoulder-blade. It is for this reason that we chose the shoulder-blade, sooner than if Stumpfegger would have removed a larger joint. The shoulder-blade is the joint I am speaking of.

Q: Could they remove this scapula from the Polish woman without destroying the muscles in her back?

A: No, we didn't got so far. There is a crescent-like incision; the shoulder-blade is removed; and then the muscles rise into that space so that the joint still remains movable. However, the raising of the arm above the horizontal is no longer possible when the shoulder-blade is removed. This I observed on the patient in question.

Q: Do you know what happened to the Polish woman from whom this bone was removed?

A: I have already testified that Stumpfegger reported to me specifically that in all his experiments there was not even a case of infection and no interruption in the convalescence.

It was not that Fischer would have come over if Stumpfegger had not been in on the operation. I repeat, none of Stumpfegger's operations were controlled by me.

Q: The removal of this bone from the Polish woman and transplanting it in Ladisch, the patient at Hohenlychen, is described as a heteroplastic transplantation.

A: The word 'heteroplastic' came up once; but that is a false expression, 'Homeoplastic' is the word. That means a transplantation from one person to another.

Q: And autoplastic transplantation?

A: An autoplastic transplantation, which is the heading under which all of Stumpfegger's work fell, is the transplantation within one person, from which you are not to conclude that specifically the shoulder-blade comes into question.

Q: Now, the witness Madzka testified about the removal of whole extremities from certain of the women at Ravensbruck. As I recall, she said they were insane persons. Do you know anything about that?

A: You are connecting it to testimony. You know that in the monstrous affidavit from Madzka these matters are to be found. "Insane persons were subjected to severe operations, transferring parts of limbs". She also says that she had heard from another patient who had seen it that from a Polish woman an arm was cut off for the sake of the shoulder-blade. Then under examination she said that preparations were taken for this. That is at least the way I recall that testimony. At any rate I can tell you that except for the shoulder-blade for which I admit my own responsibility I heard of nothing else in that direction nor do I think that Stumpfegger acted on his own in this direction.

Q: Moving along to the freezing experiments, did this report which you received from Rascher on the dry freezing experiments speak of keeping the inmates outdoors naked, in freezing weather, for extended periods of time?

A: I can tell you no more than what I said yesterday. There was a memorandum for the front, a practical report that related, to experiments there; and I admit it and state specifically that it was not so drastically stated in there.

Otherwise I should have remembered it. But he did say that experiments were carried out on the prisoners there because I explained to him that unless he had front experience this was not necessary. But to the extent that you wish to see it, I do not believe it took place.

Q: After your talk with him in May 1943 didn't you take steps to assist him in further work on freezing experiments?

A: I told you yesterday what really took place; and you showed me the document that related to this. First of all I was sick; was operated on; and Rascher sent me his report. The report is very cautious, simply a practical presentation of what he was doing; and he considered an exhaustive scientific utilization necessary. And only for that would he need my help. I am unable, however, to tell you when I found out about these things. In addition, I answered this report briefly and certainly wrote the letter that you have here.

Q: Let's put this letter before you. I don't know that it's been offered in evidence, although you may have it available and have seen it before. This is Document NO-232 — you signed this letter, did you not, Witness?

A: Yes, of course.

MR. McHANEY: Document NO-232 is offered as Prosecution Exhibit 459 for identification. This is a letter dated Berlin, 11 June, 1943, from the defendant Gebhardt to the defendant Rudolf Brandt.

Dear Comrade Brandt: I had the opportunity to get together with Comrade Rascher shortly before my illness. With a sound, critical approach toward his work, we very quickly came to an agreement in his enclosed letter. He himself emphasizes that the results are still incomplete as yet and need further corroboration. This, however, is only possible if the necessary apparatus for this type of work is available. Rascher has explained that in his letter. I beg you now to examine if the necessary steps are to be taken by you through the "Ahnenerbe" or by myself in order to have the needed apparatus issued to Rascher.

Only if these prerequisites exist can valuable scientific work be accomplished.

As far as I am concerned, I can only tell you that I am well and that I'll have myself transferred to Hohensychen one of these days.

Heil Hitler, /s/ Karl Gebhardt.

Q: Now, Witness, doesn't this letter indicate that you were taking steps to further the work of Rascher?

A: No. May I also please read this letter aloud? "The Rascher experiments are concluded. They are winter experiments and they shall not be continued the next winter". The entire question of his experiments is stated specifically, that "the entire problem shall be reexamined after Himmler has spoken to Gebhardt. That is the definitive point in my attitude." On the other hand, if you will take a look at the letter, the fact that I say "Comrade Brandt" doesn't mean that I was particularly friendly with him. That was just the custom. A good critical approach means a very critical approach. In his enclosed letter he emphasizes that the results which he had presented to Himmler as conclusive are only incomplete and still need further work. Then there is mention here of apparatus that he needs and so forth.

This of course was not true and I knew already that at that time. He came to me without my wanting him to which no one seems to want to believe. That I should specifically give him apparatus, that of course you don't believe, Herr Brandt, for this pertained to this Blumenreiter. Nothing happened after this letter, that he was not even able to have himself named as a hygienist.

Q: But witness, this letter concern Doctor Rascher being furnished apparatus in order that he can continue his work and you are inquiring of Brandt whether you should furnish him the apparatus or whether that would be handles through Ahnenerbe.

A: It says further apparatus to corroborate the previous experiment, viz. not for new ones; and I believe this was a lie, because what would he want to corroborate again in these experiments? That I never had to provide apparatus for anybody, that is perfectly clear. The essential point seems to be that no further experiments will take place any more if I am with Himmler. At that time I had not visited Himmler. He was with me in May, then there was the lecture, then I had to be operated on, and only then did I go to Himmler.

Q: Later on in 1943, or early in 1944, you tested Polygal with Rascher at Hohenlychen, didn't you?

A: No. That you assume from the letter, because it states there that he should see me, but I cannot recall that at all. I was frequently absent and after that I did not see Rascher. None of my men reported this to me, but it is true that Polygal was examined in Hohenlychen. It states in the letter that the man should report to me or to the competent physician in charge, but there was no further communication with Rascher. Matters proceeded rather rapidly, and at the beginning of 1944 Rascher withdrew.

Q: Well, maybe you will explain to the Tribunal then how you knew that Rascher had carried out experiments with this Polygal by shooting inmates, and I refer you to your interrogation of 17 October 1946, in which you state you were asked the question in connection with Rascher's Polygal experiments:

Question: Where did these experiments take place?

Answer: That I do not know. About the middle or end of 1942 Rascher came to see me in Hohenlychen. I remonstrated with him and asked him to tell Himmler that the application of this remedy involved the danger of bleeding to death. Rascher admitted that he had conducted experiments. I did not understand that because his point of view was wrong. I asked whether he had conducted experiments and learned that they had been carried out on persons who had been wounded by a shot in the course of the experiment.

A: In 1945, I stated, and in much greater detail, that Rascher came to me because of Polygal. Now when these later documents were submitted to me, I did not recall that. I knew that the decisive showdown with Himmler — when that took place was about Rascher about Polygal -but I immediately admitted when I saw this document, that Polygal was sent to me and saw that there was a false recommendation at the front, which is referred to here in a not quite correct translation. I went to Himmler and had an extensive discussion with him on the subject of Rascher; and if Rudolf Brandt was to know anything of this showdown between Himmler and me, it was because of Polygal and this matter. I was with Himmler, and since I do not have the documentation I cannot remember it precisely but it seems to me that Himmler, thinking that Polygal really protected persons against bleeding. For that reason it was tested by Rascher and it was for this reason I wanted to point out how senseless Himmler's attitude was. If you fatally wound someone and if he then bleeds to death you would not need a coagulant. In other words, I, without wanting to interfere, do recall that the decisive point was Polygal and not the memorandum and I kept the two strictly separate. In my opinion, Polygal did not play any role at that time, but only later, and I indicated this to Himmler. It is simply not possible that Rascher knew of it.

Q: Did Rascher tell you that he shot people to experiment with this blood coagulant?

A: I am just telling you. I believe it was not so because I described that I had had a row with Rascher because of Polygal, but on the strength of all the documents I see t at this is not correct. Polygal came four months later. It was because of a memorandum that I had a row, together with the experiments which were presented. Immediately I saw it I admitted that I was getting things mixed up.

Q: We understand that Polygal was not mentioned when you met with Rascher in May 1943 at Hohenlychen.

A: Quite, yes.

Q: Now then, you have stated in your interrogation, and I understand that you now admit that you knew that Rascher had experimented with this blood coagulant Polygal by shooting inmates and I am asking you from whom did you get that information and when did you get it?

A: Since I hadn't seen Rascher after that, and since the first meeting was caused by something other than what. I recollected, it can only be from Himmler that I heard it during the discussion about Polygal; and the reason I have just given is that I no longer remembered that the memorandum had been submitted; but it is quite definite that I was told that everything that I was telling was wrong, — that the drug was effective since it had been checked with someone who was bleeding to death,— and there that could only have been Himmler since I did not see Rascher for a second time.

Q: And do you remember when you met with Himmler?

A: In November. In other words it was in November that this letter from Brandt originated and that this conference took place so it must have been in November 1943 or previously. The letter I saw yesterday was dated the end of November, when Brandt writes to Rascher that Himmler is thinking differently about this whole affair, everything should be counter-checked, and discussion with Gebhardt had taken place, and that was the last week. of. November.

Q: And did you, at this meeting in November 1943 with Himmler, take up the whole question of medical experimentation on concentration camp in mates?

A: I have already told you yesterday that at that time in connection with this experiment, and drawing attention to what I had been through, I, if I may say so, expressed my opinion to Himmler rather severely and clearly. It is not true that I could have said to Himmler "Now let's put our cards on the table. I want to go into everything that happened," but I am wondering if it is known or not. I went there quite worked up and I went into Himmler's office and said, "This is a classical example." He was convinced that Polygal had incredible value in the application which was recommended to him, and there I, as a surgeon, could prove to him that he was wrong in every respect and I gave him reasons. This example was sufficient for the showdown. Not that Himmler, who did not like my telling him things, would have proceeded to say, "All right, I'll tell you everything else, and you can judge it."

Q: What understanding was reached between you and Himmler at this meeting with respect to further medical experimentation on concentration camp inmates?

A: It is quite clear that you would put this to me. Between a commanding officer and his subordinate it is not the custom, and coming from Himmler even less, that Himmler now would have told me, "Now let's discuss this clearly and from now on things will be handled in the way we have agreed or we have discussed it." I emphasized and explained expressly yesterday that this is the opportunity when I got everything off my mind which I had to say in this connection. I proved to him by means of Rascher's example that it is wrong, when people approach him and when he makes an immediate decision without having previously inquired about the quality of such persons, and also that I requested him particularly that at least in my surgical sector he should hear me since the example of Polygal was sufficiently strong reason to point this out to him. That was the only occasion when it became obvious that we had a clash as far as I can recollect; but of course Himmler did not in my presence dictate the decree of the 15th of May and premise for the subsequent throe years to adhere strictly to my suggestions.

After all you can see from the answer which is given by Brandt that once again another expert came in, this time Professor Seitz, a homeopath from Berlin. I had just warned him against the homeopath influence, and yet once again he is called in as an expert for Rascher as far as this letter of Brandt's is correct, of course.

Q: Now the decree of May 15, 1944—will you tell us what was in that decree?

A: May I ask you to put the decree before me. I don't know it. May I tell you personally where I had been in the meantime? At about Christmas Mr. Speer fell ill. At that time he was the most important man the Fuehrer had in this sphere, so it was only for the treatment of Speer by special order of the Fuehrer that I was detached from any other type of work. I lived with Speer. Speer nearly died on me twice. I accompanied Speer to Italy, and thus for the whole of that spring, right until after Easter, I was away, coming back just in time to prepare the meeting of 1944. During the entire period. I did not deal with any matters relating to the SS. In fact, I just was not there. I can not tell you what is written in that; but if you will put it before me, I shall be only too willing to discuss it with you with reference to what I still remember an what I begin to remember now; but independently of anything that you are putting before me, I still have an aim which, and I want to tie myself down to it is far as the things I am presenting now, I nave presented. I told Himmler, "This is — classic example, this Polygal business. It has to stop, that every medical office is bringing ideas to you and that then immediately decisions can be made to the effect that an experiment should take place."

Like any other subordinate, I can not forbid the supreme commander and the staff to make decisions, but I can ask that at least in my sphere, and, if he is intelligent, in every sphere, previous inquiries should be made by him about the people who appear before him.

Q: Well, let's put the decree before you, witness.

A: Yes, I see.

Q: This is Document NO-919, and the Prosecution asks that it be marked as Prosecution Exhibit 460 for identification. This is a letter from Heinrich Himmler, dated 15 May 1944, or, rather, decree. It reads as follows:

I hereby or order that medical experiments to be carried out in concentration camps must have my personal approval. This order is to go into effect immediately.

All offices within the SS and Police which deem necessary the carrying out of a medical experiment in a concentration camp will have to submit to the Reich Physician SS and Police an application stating the proper reasons.

In this application information on the problems involved, the extent of the experiments to be carried out, the number of prisoners needed, as well as the presumable duration of the experiment will have to be clearly shown.

The Reich Physician SS and Police will submit the applications to me along with the critical opinion of the Chief Surgeon concerning the technical aspects, and the opinion of Gruppenfuehrers Nebe and Glucks.

/s/ Heinrich Himmler.

There is a note to the left that this is a true copy, with the signature of Grawitz, and there is a further note on the original to the effect that copies were sent to Professor Dr. Hirt in Strassburg, SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. [illegible], "for information and attention in future new experiments." Then there as the note, "23 May Si", which I pressure to be the initials of Sievers.

Witness, is it not true that in all experiments on concentration camp indicates following the issuance of this decree, your opinion had to be obtained?

A: That my critical attitude as an expert was to be called for, Grawitz, yes. In my opinion, that tallies precisely with what I have described. I had not recollected it, and. did not even know that it had been so clearly defined, as it is apparently in this letter. It shows quite clearly that Himmler realized that the immediate approach to him, without a collection of these matters being made through Grawitz would have to cease.

On the other hand, however, it shows that under him no experiments were going to be detailed to any one without this being done through the same official channels. For the first time, perhaps, it says that experiments could not simply we started which would eternally be extended, bringing up new questions, but that the applicant should right from the beginning state what his intentions were in every respect, and now it states here that Grawitz, in passing on applications, would have to obtain the critical expert opinion of the chief surgeon, Nebe, as well as Glucks.

May I state right now that Glucks is the man in charge of location and that Nebe is in charge of German criminals, and that political cases and foreigners are not considered any more; and now the expert opinion of mine is to be called for, which, of course, can never touch upon the subject of my giving opinions about sea water experiments, for instance, or something which Dr. Eppinger might suggest as being correct.

In fact, it had never been planned any differently, except that I did not credit Grawitz with the courage of turning down proposers as being non-experts. This attitude toward doctors and the supreme authority which was submitting it, that attitude was started here by me, and it is contained in this document.

Had you asked me at the time, had you given me the document in the reverse, then I would not have remembered sea water experiments nor would I have remembered the "N" stuff; but of course it is still correct to say that the two occurred in this manner, just as you can see that it was clear that after the distributor for sea water, after I said that it is quite clear what they are doing and let them report it, let them give their reasons, that in the carrying out f these experiments at the critical exploitation and on the distributor, I no longer appear.

Q: Can we assume, witness, that with respect to any experiment carried out after May 1944 where there had been an application for prisoners, after that date, then you had knowledge that that experiment was to be carried out?

A: It does not say so in any way in this decree. It says expressly that if new experiments are to arise, then this is to be done through official channels. It does not say that anything that had been approved should be retroactively examined. At any rate, the others were not submitted to me, and quite certainly, in spite of this order, perhaps for official reasons, I did not see the others. If you will put some more before me besides these two, I shall tell you whether I know them or not.

Q: Can't you tell us of any that were put before you?

A: No. As I have already told you, I would not have remembered the "N" stuff, the material dating November 1943, when I was at the front.

Q: Do you regard it as criminal and unethical to experiment on a human being without having obtained the consent of that person?

A: I made every effort yesterday to define my attitude on that to you. The principles, isolated unique assumptions without consideration of the factors such as with whom the initiative is, who is responsible, and under what conditions of the state, cannot be answered.

Q: Let us assume that you are responsible for the moment, witness, for the selection of the experimental subjects.

A: It is stated expressly that Nebe's attitude, the man of the experimental persons, and Gluck's, the man of the doctors, should be consulted. It is, therefore, quite abundantly clear that these matters are not interconnected.

Q: Witness, we have passed beyond the decree. I am trying to get a clear expression from you on this relatively simple question, and it has been put to you before in an interrogation, the one of 17 October 1946, and you were asked the question:

Are you of the opinion that if a person is convicted it is right to use him for experimental purposes without his consent?

and you answered,

No, on principle not.

Do you re-affirm that answer now?

A: I most certainly did not put it in that form. These summaries, none of which were signed by me, are the results of endless discussions. I told accurately that never at any time, not even now, do I consider it right if in the event of an experiment started by a medical man which he started entirely because he is interested in science, a situation of force and coercion should arise with reference to the selection of people. On the other hand, I drew a clear-cut dividing line that this was not so, and even if you assume this to be the situation with me, that the initiative was ours.

Q: If I understood you correctly, you say that if it had been your responsibility as a scientific and medical man for carrying out these experiments yourself, if it had been your responsibility to select the subjects, you would have insisted that they consent to undergo the experiment. Is that right?

A: No. I said that I personally did not have the desire, or could not imagine that I would order experiments and carry them out, where other than volunteers would be used; on the other hand, of course I can well imagine that an experiment with its risks is so absolutely harmless that with a certain amount of pressure I can recruit people, and those are two completely different conceptions, then if the State, through an official agency, and with reference to a decisive question, does hot ask the medical man any more than to assume the responsibility for its carrying out. I described the way that I pictured it the responsibility could be taken from the State.

Q: If the experiments which arc the subject of the indictment here, were carried out on persons who did not volunteer, is it your opinion that the person who was responsible for the selection of the inmates committed a crime?

A: If it was the State, and if there was an order from the State, therefor, if it was legalized, then, no I don't think so.

MR. McHANEY: I have no further questions.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, do you think that you can complete the reexamination of this witness in 15 minutes, or will you take longer?

DR. SEIDL (Counsel for the defendant Gebhardt): I believe that I can get through in 15 minutes.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY DR. SEIDL:

Q: Within the cross examination, the figure of experimental persons proposed was put at 205. Do you recollect that in the exhibit submitted by the prosecution, No. 328, there was, in fact, contained that figure, as testimony of a witness, a woman witness; and is it correct that it was Chief Reich Medical Officer Dr. Grawitz who carried out experiments under war conditions, on as many possible experimental persons and that it is your achievement that, in the case, there was a stop after 60 experimental subjects?

A: That is perfectly correct, and. I thought that had been the way in which I described it. I said that it was only by some devious means that I heard the figure, and we are claiming for ourselves that the minimum number, under only the most acceptable conditions was carried out.

Q: Then, furthermore, you were asked, whether you yourself had anything to do with the selection of the experimental subjects. I shall now submit, or rather read to you in extract, something from the Document Book No. 10 of the prosecution, on page 50 of the English text. It is Exhibit 226 of the Prosecution Document NO-873. It is the affidavit from the witness Sokusca, the woman witness. I quote:

On the 21st of September 1941, I arrived from Warsaw with 450 other prisoners at Ravensbruck. I left the camp on the 23rd of April 1945, with the first transport of the Swedish Red Cross. On the 8th of May 1921 I had been arrested by the Gestapo as I had been an active member of the pre-resistance movement. During my stay at Ravensbruck, experimental operations were carried out on me on two occasions. There were two further experimental operations which I avoided. On the 1st of August, 1942, Lina Bella, secretary of Mandel, told me that I, together with nine other female prisoners, were to go to the large Sick Bay. At this Sick Bay we were examined by Dr. Oberhauser. After this examination I was told that I was too thin, and I was sent back. The other nine girls were operated on.

End of quotation.

Now, I want to ask you, who was the man Mandel who was mentioned here? Do you know?

A: In my opinion, that was the Department or the Secretariat of the camp, but I'm not absolutely certain. At any rate, it's not a medical man.

Q: Would this testimony not show quite clearly that the choice of experimental subjects was carried out directly through camp authorities? Isn't it apparent that this happened by instructions from the RSHA, which had a political department at Ravensbruck as we know?

A: That is quite clear, and I've already pointed to this testimony in the same sense that you have just indicated.

Q: Well then, after that you were asked regarding the results of sulfonamide experiments. I beg the Tribunal to get hold of the Document Book of the defense, and look at page 12 of the Document Book. And there, I quote, reference:

p>Directives for the chemotherapy of wound infections.

The treatment of war wounds with sulfonamide preparations in order to fight wound-infections seems to have prospects.

These were the directives which in May 1942 had been published, before the beginning of your experiments; is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: So I shall now quote paragraph 3, and I quote:

The prevention of gas gangrene through chemotherapeutics is not certain. A collection of further experiences in this field is especially desirable.

End of quotation. Does this not show again that at that time the effectiveness of sulfonamides was positively judged? I now beg the Tribunal to turn to page 13, and I shall quote:

Local treatment with the available sulfonamide powders together with an internal treatment with albucid, cibazol, eleudron, cubasinum, globucid (particularly for gas edema), marfanil-prontalbin, prontosil is suggested.

End of quotation. Is that not an indication to the effect that during this congress, in the directives, judgment of a positive nature was expressed with reference to sulfonamide?

A: That is a perfectly correct description. I was being rather reticent. Since Mr. McHaney deliberately forbade me getting involved in a medical discussion, but since his views in this point were erroneous, that (A) no success obtained through us, (B) the same method proposed once more. Previously, in the directives, there was an overestimate, now there was definite slowing down, which, in its scientific findings, was most strongly expressed through our results, so that there were considerable changes.

Q: I beg the Tribunal now tu turn to page 30 of the document book. Here we find directives for the treatment through sulfonamides, following the Fischer-Gebhardt lecture. Now I want to ask you, witness, at the head of these directives there was put the result of your experiments?

A: Yes.

Q: Would this not force you to conclude that, as the basis of these directives, the very result of your experiments was being used?

A: I personally am of the opinion that this is so. I tried to point it out by saying that my directives have been fully included in the entire contents, at the beginning of all now measures for the year 1943 our ideas were used.

Q: Then I beg the Tribunal to turn to page 32 of the document book, and I shall quote the last but one paragraph. I quote:

The thoroughness of the surgical wound treatment should in no way be lessened even by the additional application of sulfonamides.

End of quotation. Now I want to ask you, docs this final paragraph not indicate, quite clearly, the final conclusion that the decisive point in fighting wound infection was the surgical treatment? And that use of sulfonamides was only in addition?

A: Yes. I emphasize that particularly by pointing out that there was possibility of misinterpretation in the statement of Frey. Frey only writes that sulfonamides ought to be used when they can be inserted into the depths which of course, means to every expert that the wound would have to be opened, which is exactly the same as is expressed here.

Q: Now the shoulder blade, which had been inserted, transplanted to the patient by the name of Lardiss by Dr. Fischer, removed from a detainee Ruck— wasn't it? Were we there concerned with a Polish woman; in other words, an experimental subject, who had been sentenced to death, and who was to have this chance of reprieve in the case of survival?

A: In my opinion, most certainly. I've said that in every part of my testimony, namely that these aseptic people chosen by Stuppfaeger, belonged to the same group, and that there were similar conditions, and that there are two who were listed in this testimony.

Q: The removal of the shoulder blade— was that an operation which entailed danger to the life of the experimental person?

A: No, in no way. I have always strictly differentiated, that these aseptic non-gangrenous wounds did not have the same risk which our infections did have.

Q: The prosecution introduced as a new exhibit today, a letter which you wrote on the 11th of Juno 1943, to the defendant Rudolf Brandt, Exhibit 459, Document NO-232. Is it correct that I had already given you a copy of that letter even before the beginning of the trial?

And that, therefore, you were not in any way surprised by the contents of this letter?

A: No, of course not. I draw attention to the fact that I had not read it before but that I had read it here.

Q: Then the prosecution also referred to Himmler's Decree, 15 Hay 1944, of which we also know of course that it was going to be presented. Now, I want to ask you: After the 15th of May 1944, did you receive any further applications for experiments apart from the sea water experiment, and the examination of the end material?

A: Not to my recollection; certainly not. But, in these hectic days, I couldn't even remember these two you were just talking about. It was only when I saw them here that I remembered them.

Q: Did you support the Luftwaffe's application for sea water experiment.

A: Yes.

Q: Didn't you do that, last but not least, because, on the basis of the reasons given in the application you had the right to be convinced, that jeopardy, for the life or the health of the experimental persons was out of the question?

A: Will, it states definitely in the letter from Mr. Schroeder, or from Grawitz, that there was no question of danger. On the other hand, the greatest German in turn is Eppinger himself, a started to participate in this experiment.

DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, I have no further questions.

THE PRESIDENT: I have a question to the witness. I understand Witness, that as to these experimental subjects you were informed by what was to you competent authority, that they were of persons who had been sentenced to death. Did you ever make any investigation or ask any questions after that concerning these witnesses as to whether they had over been tried or sentenced as to these subjects?

THE WITNESS: Mr. President, the person who communicated this fact to me was Himmler. At that time I had no doubt whatever that this was right, what the highest man was saying, and presently considering our relations, I didn't have any doubts either of the test. I assumed that as far as I was concerned he would act particularly correctly and my inquiries were addressed to Himmler. I did not ever deal with any subordinate persons.

THE PRESIDENT: I understood that you said that you never made any inquiry or endeavor to ascertain to any extent the status of these experimental subjects, as to whether they had over been tried for anything or whether they were simply hold in a concentration camp for some other reason.

THE WITNESS: No, Mr. President, please don't misunderstand me. There had been a definite discussion between Himmler and myself with reference to those persons, and Himmler expressly stated, as the highest man on the basis of his documents, that this was the situation, and it was particularly at the end when everybody was interested during conferences with foreign countries, that it was as clear as it could possibly be, and I can refer to his words right hero, and Himmler told me at the end, with your experiments you are correct.

THE PRESIDENT: Did it occur to you that it might be a little curious that there were sixty women in a concentration camp under sentence of death and the sentence had never been executed but they were just held in the camp?

THE WITNESS: Mr. President, there weren't sixty, there were surely hundreds of them, thousands of them who were together, all intelligence agents who were caught during acts in Poland and were arrested and wont to Ravensbruck, and according to the documents used up to now there might be, must be at least seven hundred.

Sixty of these were not shot because they partook in this experiment, assuming that Himmler's information was true, which to doubt I had no reason at that time, even considering all the circumstances.

THE PRESIDENT: How many of those women did you say were held in the camp, six or seven hundred?

THE WITNESS: It had been definitely told here that a transport of seven hundred had arrived. Later on the Swedes collected two thousand Polish women who were still there. They must nave been Polish women who had been sentenced to death, and there must be Polish women who came afterwards.

THE PRESIDENT: Were the rest of them executed?

THE WITNESS: I only know what I have heard here. Everyone of these other witnesses stated that nor comrades have been shot. Mr. President, I deliberately did not interest myself in anything else. It seemed those were the people called, according to information given to us, because they had been sentenced to death who had been operated on and who remained alive. Mr. President, you will believe me, I have never bothered about or entered in the conditions in the concentration camps.

THE PRESIDENT: I understand.

Counsel will not be limited to further examination of this witness Monday morning. I didn't mean, when I inquired into the length of this examination, to limit him to that, so he may resume the examination of the witness when the Tribunal convenes Monday morning.

The Tribunal will now recess until fifteen minutes after eleven o'clock Monday morning.

(The Tribunal adjourned until 10 March 1947, at 1115 hours.)