1947-03-11, #2: Doctors' Trial (late morning)

THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.

FRITZ FISCHER — Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued)

BY DR. SEIDL:

Q: When and where did you work on the results of those experiments?

A: That was during the months of January and February, 1943. I was called to Berlin to the State library in order to evaluate the results of these experiments. I also went to the pathological institute of the Rudolf Virchow Hospital in Berlin. During these two months I worked on the evaluation of the results of these experiments.

Q: Then together with Professor Dr. Gebhardt you attended the Third Meeting at Berlin, May 1943, at the Military Medical Academy? You heard the testimony of Professor Dr. Gebhardt regarding that point, and I am asking you whether you have anything to add to his statements regarding that point.

A: With reference to the results of these experiments, I should like to say the following: the scientifically uncomplicated question, as it came up through the medical situation has already been dealt with in the previous description of the experiments. We saw there was a wish and the hope to get a drug, with which one could treat wound infections from the start and could prevent any development, but this was not accomplished. In order to give an answer to that question, we tried to find out as quickly as possible.

Professor Gebhardt and I believed that this answer would be of great benefit to troop physicians and surgeons at the front. Secondly, the problem of sulfonamide was not exhausted with the answer to that question; the problem was much more difficult.

In addition, we could find an answer to yet another question. One group of the research workers, the bacteriologists and chemists, had found out that all micro-organisms as they belonged to plants were bacteria, and these bacteria all reacted to sulfanilamide. That is something that does not originate from us, but was a statement we knew of. Spirochaetes and protozon were not sensitive to sulfanilamides, and we didn't find that out either.

It was to be expected that those diseases, which were caused by bacteria, would give us a certain amount of chance to be influenced favorably by the introduction of sulfanilamide. The clinical observation from all field of clinical science taught us, however, that that was not so.

We saw symptoms of diseases where the curative effect of sulfanilamide was extraordinary, and, unfortunately, we had to observe that there were other diseases and other clinical experiences confirmed that, where we saw no effects whatsoever.

Originally it was thought to explain this difference in effect to a difference in the cultures, the bacteria cultures; but there were various symptoms of diseases which showed that the reason cannot be alone in the bacteriological difference, but that other factors played a role, too.

As a test case for this conception, we saw the symptoms of gonorrhea which once comes out as gonorrhea acuta anterior, and where we saw the good curative effects, and which on the other hand, was completely resistant to sulfonamide if the same virus showed their origin in the limb or in the prostate.

Through our observations, and through these experiments, we thought that we had found an explanation for that, together with other clinical conclusions, which we arrived at. We could prove that inflammatory diseases cause by bacteria can be cured by sulfonamides when the inflammatory process is going on in such a manner that sulfonamide is brought to the virus by way of the blood. However, we found that a success cannot be achieved, when the same virus, the same type of infection, would show its infection in the way of an abscess, so that the sulfonamide cannot be applied to that local area by way of the blood.

In other words, the therapeutical effect can not always depend on the difference in the bacteriological cultures, but that they are structural conditions of the tissues sometime we call then morphological conditions, and that these conditions could also be the cause for the failure of the sulfonamide. We could prove that the connection between the inflammatory area and the necrosis, we could find out in that case there is no blood channel between the abscess and the tissues. This was next to the military technical result, the second result of a scientific nurture. We on our own initiative continued to develop that thought. We were not in a position to draw any conclusions from that, and I know that was also the motive of professor Gebhardt, because we wanted to free ourselves under all circumstances from the obligation to carry out any further experiments. That is why we only carried out these experiments on dead tissue of plants.

The idea was that we said to ourselves that if there can be no therapeutical effect in the case of abscesses, because the sulfonamide cannot penetrate the center of that abscess, since there is no blood channel, then the next thing would be to consider how to overcome these limits therapeutically in order to apply the necessary concentration of that drug, even into the inside of the abscess; and at that time we developed the thought of the so—called jodophoresis, whereby we used electrical current in order to penetrate the limits of the tissues therapeutically by way of current. During that third meeting only the first two points were discussed. Professor Gebhardt, in his introductory words, as far as I remember, spoke in the same way as he spoke here. In an affidavit at one time I expressed that as far as I remember he had spoken of the political responsibility. I cannot maintain that assertion. I think it was true as he stated it here. He said at first that he was carrying out these experiments by order of Himmler and Hitler and that we were concerned with people who had been condemned to death, who thereby would get a chance of being pardoned. Whether the concentration camp was mentioned, whether the name of the concentration camp was expressed would become a question under discussion here. I shall now endeavor to remember that, and I am not in a position to say for certain whether he expressed the name of the camp or not.

I do not want to make any certain assertion here or answer that he did not mention the voluntary nature. He did not say we were concerned with voluntary experimental subjects. During personal conversations with me I learned that he could not believe in the full ethical voluntary nature, and that he, therefore, didn't want to mention that question.

On the basis of the fever charts and a collective chart in the course of the experiments which have been demonstrated, it resulted there from that in the case of fifteen patients no symptoms occurred, and that in the case of thirty-six, only local disease symptoms occurred, and therefore, these two groups are only mentioned very shortly, and the results were demonstrated in collective curves. In greater detail the other 24 were discussed, that is as far as it was necessary, in order to evaluate the results. I should like to state that this is the group which Professor Rostock remembered when he was speaking about a group amounting to approximately 20 persons. From these charts, it could also be seen that 12 persons from these 24 only showed local diseases which were not dangerous, the chart showing furthermore that three patients died, and we could further see from the fever chart how their temperature progressed and what kind of treatment was used, namely, whether sulfanilamide was introduced by way of the blood or whether it was introduced locally. I could also be seen whenever a change of dressing took place. These matters were only demonstrated during that group of twenty-four where the progress was more difficult. I made this clinical report after Professor Gebhardt's introduction and then Professor Gebhardt again spoke and summarized the report. He pointed to the practical evaluation and thereupon a discussion followed. I heard no critical utterances during that discussion. I heard no critical objections at all during the course of the entire meeting. I can make no statement how the final report was compiled in which the directives were contained. I can only say afterwards and that in reference to the objection of the prosecution with reference to the evaluation of the results within the directives, that a certain psychological or medical therapy has to be taken into consideration. The physician and medicine in no country of the world can dispense with therapeutic treatment even when it is not very clear about its effectiveness.

There is a Latin proverb, "Ut aliqui fiat" which means that something happened, end up to today this is the prompting factor of any therapeutical treatment. Therapeutics have to be used also when one is not quite convinced in what manner and to what extent it would cure. If at that time we have learned, and I think it will show clearly, is an absolutely preventative drug, then in the first sentence of the directive it would have say: "Under all circumstances in the case of every wound sulfanilamide has to be introduced." That would have given us an absolutely clear directive. In that case, however, where the result was by no means so clear and where it was shown sulfanilamide cannot always act as a preventative drug, this result was fully copied and from the results of the experiments in the first paragraph.

In spite of that physicians should not have concluded from that any prohibition of the use of sulfanilamide. That would have lead to a great disagreement in all circles of physicians and would have shaken the confidence in any physician. The situation was than even in a case where the limited effectiveness of sulfanilamide was clearly shown, and especially with reference to wound infections. that in spite of that the mechanical therapeutical treatment was suggested to the practicing physician as an additional treatment, but in addition by way of a certain drug he had to be told that he considered giving this mechanical, therapeutical treatment his full confidence, but that was merely an additional kind of treatment, in addition to the right main surgical treatment.

Q: In that case it was completely clear to the Troop physician, who acted in accord with these directives, that the surgical treatment must always be in the foreground of his measures, and that there is only a chemical therapeutical way of treatment in the use of sulfonamide?

A: Yes that is correct. In that way it was expressed that surgical therapy was the fundamental therapy and he was by no means prohibited to use chemical therapeutical treatment but it was merely suggested to him that he may use it as an additional means of treatment.

Q: On 27 January 1947 you made an affidavit which I have submitted here as Gebhardt Exhibit No. 8. Is it correct to say that in this affidavit everything is summarized in a concise form which was considered to be the scientific result of these experiments at that time?

A: Yes, that is correct.

Q: I now turn to your career within the Waffen-SS. What were the ranks which you held within the Waffen-SS and at what time did you hold them?

A: I entered as a reserve man, as an SS man. That is, private in the SS. After a period of training I was promoted to Untersturmfuehrer by reason of being a physician. In November 1941 I was promoted to an Obersturmfuehrer in Russia and then, according to my age and according to my position as a physician, I was promoted to Stabsarzt at the end of 1942, as Captain in the Medical Corps, which was the main job.

I was active during the last years holding that rank and then had a position with the Tenth SS-Panzer Division Frunsberg in accordance with that rank. After being wounded I was promoted by suggestion of Professor Gebhardt to Sturmbannfuehrer. As Sturmbannfuehrer I held no real office but transferred to civilian service after leaving the hospital and as such had no SS service relationship whatsoever.

Q: Did you gain any advantages from being with the SS?

A: I received no money from the SS — I received no pay from them either.

During the entire War I was paid from the Rudolf Virchow Hospital in Berlin as a City employee and that up to the last day of the War.

Q: Did you at any time have any political tasks in the SS or in the Party?

A: I had nothing at all to do with the Party. I never attended any Party meeting or any of their functions. I was never very clear about my party membership and only here during an interrogation did I hear that I had a certain number as a Party member. Before that I had not known that. I only had the task in the Waffen-SS which came to me as a physician and I was never obliged to fulfill any political tasks whatsoever.

Q: You are one of twenty-three defendants. Which one of the other defendants did you personally know in July 1942?

A: In July 1942 I knew Dr. Genzken, the Chief of the Medical Service of the Waffen-SS. I don't know whether he knew me. And, I also knew Professor Gebhardt. I knew no other of the defendants.

Q: I think a mistake was made. I asked you about the year of 1942. I think it was translated 1943.

A: Yes.

Q: I was speaking about the beginning of the experiments.

A: Yes, before the beginning of the experiments I only knew Dr. Genzken and Gebhardt.

Q: Mr. President, the next question refers to two affidavits which were presented by the Prosecution and which originated from the defendant Dr. Fischer himself. They are contained in Document Book 10. The first is the affidavit dated 19 November 1945 Document NO-228, Exhibit 206, which is on page 1 of the English Document Book No. 10. The second affidavit also originates from the defendant Dr. Fischer from 21 October 1946, NO-472, Exhibit 234, which can be found in the English Document Book 10, page 96. You know the contents of these two affidavits and I am now asking you whether you have to make a statement and explanation with reference to the contents of these two affidavits?

A: The affidavit dated the 19th November, 1945, was made here in Nurnberg. It was taken down and signed by me in the English language. Before signing this affidavit I read it and signed it and recognized it. However, I did not choose the formulation of the affidavit. It was presented to me in that manner. This affidavit was based on preceding interrogations which were also held in Nurnberg during the months of September and October. These interrogations, in turn, were preceded by a series of first interrogations which were made in the British zone by the British CIC. This was done by a female official in the British Zone. She was the very first one who interrogated me with reference to this entire complex of questions. In order to supplement my own statements she showed me the entire testimonies to that point and told me that these were the statement male by Professor Gebhardt. All this happened after the collapse and everything that was connected with it. It was the first time that I again heard of all these events and it was the first time when I had to try to reconstruct the entire events as they took place at that time.

That is how it is that I feel obliged now to withdraw the various points which I made at that time because I am not in a clear position to remember exactly what was written down and what was said at that time. The female official who, at that time, conducted the interrogation and who knew a certain number things about the situation in Ravensbruck is Mr. Carmen Morey who was in the defendants' dock when the Concentration camp Ravensbruck was on trial. I had already mentioned before that I cannot say, with certainty, that he said something about a political responsibility-that is, Professor Gebhardt — when making his introductory speech at the Congress. I further say that I cannot remember that we were concerned with people who had been condemned to death and who had come from a concentration camp. In the same manner I have to correct myself with reference to a correspondence which, according to my statement, was carried on between Professor Gebhardt and Professor Mrugowsky. At that time I made statements according to my best knowledge. I know that there was correspondence between Hohenlychen and the Hygienic Institute of the Waffen-SS with reference to the cultures which had to be furnished as far as I remember, I saw a signature at that time and I believed that was Professor Mrugowsky's signature.

I have now here seen the signature of Professor Mrugowsky and this signature, compared with the other signature, differs. So this, of course, made me doubt my original statement, and I cannot now make any exact statement about it. With reference to the second affidavit dated the 21st of October 1946, this affidavit was preceded by an interrogation which was conducted in English without the aid of an interpreter. I tried very hard to answer the questions and to follow the proceedings. I was of the opinion at that time that I succeeded in expressing myself clearly in the basic questions. The interrogation took place on the 12th of October. On the 21st of October a formulated affidavit was presented to me which referred to the preceding interrogation. I asked the gentleman who presented this affidavit to me to remove some obvious misunderstandings. He was of the opinion, in the case of some of them, however, that I had actually expressed myself in that manner during the preceding interrogation and he assured me, at that time, that at a later date I should have the opportunity to give an explanation in regard to these matters. At that time I said — and this is most important — that according to my information the experiments had to be done in the interest and in the service of the German Wehrmacht and he concluded from that the sentence which I withdrew from a later affidavit also to the effect that there experiment was an order which emanated from the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service, Professor Handloser.

I should like to correct that once more. It was only my intention to express what I was told in the year of 1942; namely, that we were concerned with a matter which was for the service of the German Wehrmacht. With reference to one point, I think that he was erroneous and I think that was the point where I say that Professor Handloser and Professor Brandt were guests at Hohenlychen at the occasion of the Tenth Anniversary. I am quite clear in my mind now that I was mistaken at that time and that I was thinking of the Fourth Meeting of the Consulting Physicians. When the affidavit was presented to me, I also asked that one sentence be struck where it was mentioned that Professor Schroeder had attended the Third Meeting. I succeeded in getting these passages struck out temporarily, but afterwards it was put to me that I had said that the Chief of the Medical Services or his representative had been present and Professor Schroedor was considered to have been his representative and that is how this sentence remained in the affidavit.

In the same way a sentence had already been readily formulated from which it could be concluded that Professor Poppendick had been present as far as I remember and that Professor Poppendick had the position of a chief of staff with Dr. Grawitz. This formulation was there but I actually did not know Dr. Poppendick. I didn't know his position I only knew that he was an Oberfuehrer-held the rank of Colonel — and worked with Grawitz, and I therefore assumed that the formulation, as it was presented by the prosecution, was correct. With reference to the presence of Professor Genzken, I should like to say the following. As far as I remember, — it is very difficult to remember because many people were thereI think Professor Genzken was one of those present. However, I am in no position to be very decisive about it — affirm it or deny it. The picture is far too vague to do that. Since it results from the testimony of the witnesses that Professor Genzken was in Karlsbad, I cannot maintain my assertion with reference to his presence.

Q: What did you do after leaving Berlin and Hohenlychen after this meeting in May 1943?

A: During that entire period I had always volunteered for service with a division. Dr. Gebhardt had told me that immediately after my participation in that meeting during which our experiments had to be reported I would be transferred to a division. On the following day I transferred to the 10th Panzer Division and I assumed the position of a first surgeon in a medical company with that division. I was active for a year and a half with that division, until, in August, 1944, I had to go back into the home country because of being wounded. I spent three months in the hospital and, since I was no longer in a position to exercise the profession of a surgeon, I had to restrain and went as an assistant to the Charito at Berlin at the institute for X-ray and radio and, up until the collapse, I was active in that institute.

Q: Did you every enter any camp after the experiments in Ravensbruck in the year of 1942?

A: No, I later never entered any concentration camp.

DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, I have one more question to put to the witness. A question the answer to which will take some time, and I ask for permission that I may put this concluding question after the mid-day recess.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now be in recess until 1:30 o'clock.

(A recess was taken until 1330 hours — 11 March 1947.)