1947-03-11, #3: Doctors' Trial (early afternoon)

AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 11 March 1947.)

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

FRITZ FISCHER — Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued)

BY DR. SEIDL:

Q: Witness, during the last months you have experienced during this trial, what went on during the trial, you heard the indictment and have now described your participation in these experiments. I ask you now to tell the court what — after the prosecution has presented its case and after you have made your own statement — what you have to say about the subject of the indictment, so far as it concerns yourself.

A: First of all, I regret that fate compelled, me as a Physician to offend against the basic principles of medicine, and I regret that men are appearing to testify against me, that I did not help them but did them injury. Further, I particularly regret that these persons were women. I have learned that a deed, if it is committed and later is adjudged, must be adjudged according to the motives and the circumstances that surrounded it. That the motive that lay behind the activities for which I am here on trial was exclusively that of helping wounded persons. In that uniquely difficult period I wanted to help the millions of wounded persons. The act was committed by me as an obedient member of the German armed forces. The belief and confidence in the legal jurisdiction of the state and the Fuehrer seemed to me to provide legal protection and justification for what I did. This is in reference to what I said previously about individual responsibility.

During this time in which my people were fighting for their very life, in a period when the final decisions were about to be reached, I believed I was not a member of the resistance movement and that the state had the right to take measures that lay beyond the competence of the individual. In that time when 1500 persons were falling daily on the front and in which several hundred died daily in the homeland as a result of the war, this obedience to the state seemed to me the highest ethical duty. I was of the opinion that the experimental subjects who stood under German law and faced certain death were being offered a human opportunity to save their lives, and I believe that under such circumstances I would have seized on such a chance myself.

These actions took place not in 1947 but in 1942, during the war, at the very height of the war. At that time in my conclusions I was not a free civilian physician but I was — this is the way I felt — that I was, as I say, a medical specialist who acted only as a soldier with the duty of obedience. When I received these orders which were antagonistic to my inner feelings, I found myself confronted with a gigantic authority. This authority was the state, represented by Hitler and, on the other hand, and in supplementation to that, a medical authority that had an international reputation. This authority, namely, Dr. Gebhardt, whose life work I knew, was a person who inspired me with confidence. If he decided to carry out these experiments as necessary experiments, then perforce I must believe that they were necessary and I was also told by him that in the life of the human being, and in the life of a nation, situations arise in which the individual is under obligation to stifle his inner objections in the interests of the community.

I cannot believe, even today, that his were motives other than those under which soldiers act on the front when under orders they committed acts which as independent agents they would never have committed, and which were against their innermost and personal feelings. I believe that the situation is analogous. I believe that my situation was the same at the time, the same situation in which the individual soldier fires a torpedo against a ship and another soldier is under orders to drop bombs on an unprotected city. Here again I cannot believe that they are individuals who are acting in accordance with their individual instincts. Rather I know that they too had to overcome their innermost objections and felt themselves to be justified in what they were doing through the fact that they were acting under military orders, And, secondly, through the feeling and persuasion that through this act they were in a larger sense acting ethically, namely, to the extent that they were contributing to the victory of their own people and nation.

The more extended discussion regarding what is permissible and what not cannot, in my opinion, be expected of a subordinate. Rather, those in charge must decide on such matters.

During the war I had the experience that this form of obedience or rather obedience in general was not a specifically German phenomenon but that it was characteristic also of the nations with which we were at war. To what extent differences arose in the interpretation of this point, I do not know, but these gigantic authorities, the State, with its soldierly sense and demand for obedience and, on the other hand, the personality and medical authority of Gebhardt were the reasons that placed me before the alternative either of disobedience in the war or obedience. And faced with this alternative I saw disobedience as the worse one.

Today one sees other aspects; among other things one sees that these basic requirements in which we believed have proved today to be empty; and one sees that many of the men who were leaders at that time and to whom we looked up, even at that time had misgivings and did not see authority in the same way as we subordinates did. At that time I did not know this and could not know it. The basic evil in the whole occurrence lies, as I see it today, in the sanctioning of war, per se, since in war, law is perverted and distorted; the law under which mankind stands is perverted to its antitheses and so it happens that in the breast of the individual, the law of peace conflicts with the law of war, according to which he must be obedient. I belonged to a youth that believed in the duty of the individual to the State. We at that time were ready to conquer the fear that we felt as human beings, as creatures, to overcome our inner weaknesses and to put into the background all the hopes and plans that we had for the betterment of mankind and to place in the forefront our desires as medical men to assist mankind. In other words, we accepted the law of the community instead of the law of the individual, and it is through this that we came into the unfortunate situation which we now find ourselves. I simply wish to emphasize that what happened did not happen on the motive or cruelty or any such base motives, but that it happened exclusively and only in order, within the framework of our State, to serve this State and its citizens. Now that this war is passed, I myself have only the wish that it may be the last one so that at last mankind may have the opportunity to do away with war, once and for all, and to pursue the law of the individual in peace, for the betterment of all.

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

THE PRESIDENT: Are there any questions to be propounded to the witness by defense counsel?

BY DR. FLEMMING (Counsel for the Defendant Mrugowsky):

Q: Dr. Fischer, this morning, at the conclusion of your testimony, you said that you could not say for certain that the letter which you mentioned in your affidavit, from Mrugowsky, had really been written by Mrugowsky. In order to clarify this fact, I should like to ascertain the time when this letter was written. For this purpose I ask you to reply to the following questions. In the experiments on human beings, were little pieces of glass or wood used?

A: No.

Q: When were such little fragments used for the first time — in the first or the second series?

A: In the month of August, in the case of the first series.

Q: The first group of women was on the 1st of August. The next group was on the 14th of August. And it was at these times that they were operated on?

A: You cannot say that so precisely, because they overlapped a bit.

Q: When were these little splinters used for the first time?

A: At the beginning of August.

Q: Co-defendant Genzken said in the witness box that Mrugowsky was not in Berlin from June to the end of August, but on official trips. Do you recall that?

A: Yes, I do.

Q: Accordingly, a letter written at the beginning of August, in Berlin, could not have been written by Mrugowsky. If that is not the case, if the letter is not from Mrugowsky, do you have any reason to believe that Mrugowsky knew anything of the sulfonamide experiments?

A: No. What I know I have already attempted to say. So far as I remember, Professor Gebhardt spoke to me of a letter from the Hygienic Institute, or it could have been from Mrugowsky's Institute. It is too difficult for me not to clarify that here. I have no other reason to believe in Mrugowsky's participation or knowledge of these experiments.

Q: I have now another point. You recall that the witness, Woelblata, testified that Veronika had died of tetanus. Professor Gebhardt has already testified that tetanus bacilli were not used. What do you know about this?

A: I know for sure that we did not use any tetanus bacilli.

Q: Did Veronika Kraska — was she operated on simultaneously with other girls?

A: Yes.

Q: And none of the others had tetanus symptoms?

A: That is right.

Q: Were they all inoculated with the same bacteria?

A: Yes.

Q: Then in the case of Veronika Kraska, if tetanus did occur, it could only have been a spontaneous infection?

A: Yes, that is so.

DR. FLEMMING: I have no further questions.

THE PRESIDENT: Are there any other questions on the part of defense counsel? If not, the Prosecution may cross-examine.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. HARDY:

Q: Dr. Fischer, in the course of this cross-examination I want you to limit your answers to the questions I ask and I am sure we will proceed much more rapidly. I also do not think it is necessary for me to warn you that you are under oath. Now we will proceed.

You first received orders concerning experiments on human beings in the Ravensbruck concentration camp in July 1942, is that correct?

A: Yes, that is correct.

Q: These orders originated from Dr. Gebhardt, didn't they?

A: I received these orders from Dr. Gebhardt, yes.

Q: Now the purpose of the proposed experiments was to determine the effectiveness of sulfonamide, wasn't it?

A: Yes, the effectiveness of individual sulfonamide preparations.

Q: Now this matter was of considerable importance to military medical circles, I presume?

A: Yes.

Q: Many soldiers in the battlefields were victims of gangrene, weren't they?

A: Yes, that is so.

Q: Now, then, Dr. Fischer, wasn't it your understanding that these experiments were primarily for the benefit of the Wehrmacht?

A: Mr. Prosecutor, are you asking me about my personal opinion, or what Professor Gebhardt told me in the course of giving me the orders?

Q: I am asking you what your understanding was.

A: At that time I believed that it was a problem which concerned the entire German Wehrmacht.

Q: Didn't Dr. Gebhardt tell you at that time that the medical services of the Wehrmacht had made a report about the miraculous effect of sulfonamide in the 1942 meeting in Berlin?

A: No, in that concise form he did not. He merely told me that this was a problem for the armed forces and that this problem had not yet been decided by him personally in all its details.

Q: Professor Gebhardt actually went on further to state, didn't he, that the Wehrmacht should have made these experiments itself but that he was ordered to conduct them?

A: Gebhardt told me then that the Wehrmacht was also making efforts to clarify this matter but that he had received from Hitler and Himmler the order to take them up himself.

Q: Don't you recall, Dr. Fischer, in the course of one of the many interrogations in which you and I had chats, that you were told that these experiments were for the benefit of the Wehrmacht? I am not asking you your understanding now. I believe you told me some time last fall that you were told by Gebhardt that these experiments were for the benefit of the Wehrmacht. Didn't you tell me that?

A: I believe you are referring to the interrogation which has already been brought up here. I said at that time and I say it today, that I had the feeling from Dr. Gebhardt that this was a task to be carried out in the interests of the German Wehrmacht.

Q: In fact the interrogation that I am referring to is not one that was conducted by Mr. Meyer; it is one conducted by Mr. McHaney and me, in which you stated that Gebhardt told you, and I will quote, "that this is an order from the chief of State, the Wehrmacht, and the Chief of the Medical Office of the State." Do you recall telling us that?

A: Yes, this in on the 12th of October, 1946. That was the interrogation in which I was about to speak English to you, and certainly this sentence was preceded by something, namely, my attempt to explain that this was an experiment under the formation of the Wehrmacht. Since my vocabulary in English was so limited I could only in the further course of this interrogation formulate the matter as I did in the interrogation, but I must say here that a precise order from Handloser or his predecessor, as Chief Medical Inspector of the Wehrmacht, that might have been given to Gebhardt, I was not informed of it.

Q: Now, the Heydrich matter was never called to your attention, was it?

A: Gebhardt told me nothing about the Heydrich affair. I heard about it only here in Nurnberg.

Q: Now, Gebhardt told you that the persons to be used in the experiments were concentration camp inmates who had been condemned to death?

A: That is true.

Q: Did you ever discuss the legality of using concentration camp inmates who had been condemned to death for such experiments?

A: How am I to understand or construe this verb "discussed?" Whether I spoke with Gebhardt about it or challenged this position? I ask you to please repeat the question.

Q: I will rephrase my question. Did you over discuss the legality, that is did you or Gebhardt over have a discussion whether or not such experimentation on concentration camp inmates was proper under the law?

A: When I received this order I asked Professor Gebhardt not to appoint me to take part in it, but then Gebhardt assured me that those were legal matters which had the permission from the state, the orders which came from above and which I had to carry out. I must here refer to something I tried to say previously in my testimony, we were in the midst of the War in situations in which the individual if he found himself in a clear legal position, such as I found myself, since I was under the immediate orders of my superior and in which we could not discuss the matter any further, then what orders were, because it was our duty simply to obey and to do what we were told to.

Q: Now, do you think Dr. Fischer, that it is permissible to experiment on persons condemned to death without their consent?

A: Mr. Prosecutor, you ask me not as Dr. Fischer, and as Fischer the person, this question. I acted at that time as the soldier Fischer, and in the situation that prevailed at that time many things occurred that I, as an individual did not understand and did not approve or, and consequently I can give you two answers to this question, depending on in what capacity I am answering.

Q: Well, now as a doctor and a person do you think it is permissible to experiment on persons condemned to death without their consent?

A: I hope that the time will sometime come in which men can act only and exclusively according to the law that rules in their heart. In the European state of affairs I should not carry out such experiments, but we all know that unfortunately, at least in the year 1942, there were situations in which the individual could not obey only his inner laws, but was subject to a higher command and a higher community, nor did his subordinate have an opportunity to argue along these lines. It was his higher duty simply to obey; and I have decided to point out to a similar and parallel situation, namely that which the soldier was confronted with, and I want to tell you the physician was confronted with the same situation. I know from many soldiers whom I know in my battalion and from others in the course of the War, they had to commit acts which they as individuals regretted, and which they as individuals would never have committed on their own initiative.

Q: Dr. Fischer, if I understand you correctly, as a doctor, that is disassociating yourself from the position as a soldier, you do not think it permissible to experiment on persons condemned to death without their consent, is that your impression?

Q: Mr. Prosecutor, you are forcing me to say something which I argued against previously. As an individual in a free state I would not do that, no, but in such a vast event as a War the individual did not have an opportunity to fall from the ways of the State, or criticize them. There were situations in which the individual was compelled to subordinate himself.

I am fully persuaded that not every aviator that dropped a bomb, would not have dropped that bomb, had he been a free acting agent. His General had ordered him to drop this bomb, had told him "this is a duty you have to fulfill, you are not to question it. You are simply to be obedient," and I do not know whether you are being entirely just to a man if you leave out of consideration or minimize this process which goes on in an individual. So if you ask me again I must say again as an individual and physician I should not have done it.

Q: You can recall the Polish girls having testified here they never consented to being experimented on; do you know of any of these subjects who gave their consent?

A: No, I cannot give you a precise affirmative answer.

Q: Have you over talked to any of these girls prior to the experiments?

A: No, I spoke to none of them before the experiment.

Q: As I understand from your testimony all of these girls were under anesthesia when you arrived to perform the operations, is that right?

A: When I entered the operation room they were already under anesthesia.

Q: Didn't any of these girls ever come out of the anesthesia and ask why did you do this to me?

A: Mr. Prosecutor, I have already told you in the course of my testimony how these things went on, and I also told my own counsel how these patients behaved. No such questions were asked of me by an experimental subject. I was as considerate as possible towards these polish women. I was very sorry for all of them, nor did I make any efforts to conceal that fact. But actual resistance on their part so I could conclude they were being forced, that I did not observe. I did not concern myself with these matters any further for reasons that you will understand, than it was necessary for me to carry out the orders that I had received.

Q: You say it wasn't apparent that these girls had been forced into these experiments; would you say then they were all happy they had been operated on?

A: Mr. Prosecutor, you are turning my words to a false construction. I did not say that. I spoke of the concern I felt, the concern I felt for the pain they were feeling was much too great for me to be able to make any such statement.

Q: Dr. Fischer, are you aware of what crimes these girls had committed at that time?

A: I cannot answer that concisely, but before the end of the War I knew that they were members of the resistance movement. That I found out before the War was over, because in Hoheylychen later a member of the resistance movement turned up and acted as a technical assistant. In this way I found out that they were members of this resistance movement.

Q: Do you know whether or not they had been tried?

A: No, I do not. When I received the orders Professor Gebhardt told me that they had been condemned to death, but I never discussed this with any of the girls before I stood before this court.

Q: Do you know where and how under German laws death sentences were executed?

A: I can tell you nothing very exact about that.

Q: Do you maintain here, Dr. Fischer, that if these girls had been subjugated to these experiments, instead of being executed, the sentences would be reduced and they would be saved; did you know how German law could execute a pardon or a release of persons condemned to death if they were subjected to a medical experiment?

A: I am now being asked about matters that were outside my competence and vision at that time. Of course, I knew nothing about these matters, rather at that time I had the much less complicated notion and believed that these questions lay within the competence of the state in whose legality I believed. It was frequently told me that my participation was as an assistant, my participation was solely that as an assistant and it was not my function to analyze the legal situation. This was entirely outside my assignment. I believe I must protest if you want to subject me to the duty to know whether my action was legal. If I had undertaken these experiments on my own initiative it would be different, but of course that was not the case. My task was strictly limited like the task of any soldier who receives an order.

Q: Now, Doctor, is it true that these girls after having undergone the experiments were shot?

A: Of that I know nothing, Mr. Prosecutor.

Q: Now, we have introduced evidence here that these girls were not pardoned. Miss Szupulska, in her affidavit, which is Document No. 873, page 52 of Document Book No. 10 stated:

On January 23rd two Polish girls, who were operated on, were shot.

Also you will recall that the witness Madzka stated on page 1449 in the official transcript of this trial that six girls, who were operated on were shot; furthermore she stated that the plan, as laid in the Concentration Camp Ravensbruck was to wipe out, completely annihilate every girl who had undergone the Gebhardt and Fischer experiments; that does not appear that they had any intention of pardoning the girls or reducing the sentence to that of a life sentence; does it?

A: I did not hear your remarks as a question, but rather as a statement, I heard of the situation through the prosecutor's evidence here submitted.

I can assure you that at that time I knew nothing either of the shooting of the shooting or of the subsequent intention to exterminate them.

Q: In other words, you operated on these girls who had been condemned to death and it was expressed to you that such girls would receive their lives as a reward for being subjugated to these experiments and then you did not inquire as to the eventual outcome; did you?

A: I followed the only possible path; to whom should I then have turned? In my communications and reports, I turned only to Professor Gebhardt and I thought also that this was the most effective way because he was in a position to speak to the higher competent authority if necessary.

Q: That follows, Dr. Fischer, that you acted blindly on the orders of Gebhardt; is that right?

A: In this case I deliberately relinquished, any initiative of my own and acted as Gebhardt's subordinate; that is true.

Q: Do you mean to tell me that merely because you were a military man at this time, if Gebhardt told you to go jump in the lake you would have done so?

A: Mr. Prosecutor, I was an obedient, soldier.

Q: Alright; now Dr. Fischer who selected the subjects to be used for these experiments?

A: I was never present when they were chosen and can tell you nothing precise about it.

Q: Then the Camp Commander at Ravensbruck or the Medical Officers in the camp must have selected the subjects; did they not?

A: No, on the basis of my knowledge of the situation at the camp, I believe that the Camp Commander was told by higher officers, and I believe Gebhardt told me it was the R.S.H.A., who chose the list which was handed to him of the chosen persons and that the medical authorities of the camp, the camp physician or his deputy were simply to carry out the physical examination of these people.

Q: Well, now, isn't it true from the affidavits and evidence submitted here that Schiedlawsky, who was chief medical officer at that time, selected the inmates to be used; Schiedlawsky and his assistant, Camp Doctor Oberhauser?

A: I do not believe that is the case, nor do I believe that that can be seen in the affidavits which have been here submitted. It seems to me that some authority above the camp made the choice of at least nominating those to be chosen.

Q: Now, Doctor, there were several girls in the camp; how does it happen that Woez Plata was selected? Someone must have picked her out to be the only experimental subject out of several hundred; who selected the girls that were used?

A: You are asking me to reply to a question to which I cannot reply.

Q: Now, these experimental subjects were allegedly given a medical examination prior to the operation; is that correct?

A: Yes, as far as I am informed that is true.

Q: Do you recall one of the witnesses here, I cannot state which girl off hand it was, who stated she did not receive a medical examination; she merely walked by Oberhauser and Oberhauser approved of her being used as an experiment; do you recall that, Doctor?

A: Yes, I remember that.

Q: In other words, you never concerned yourself with the selection of the people to be used as experiments or any of the pre-operative examination; did you?

A: I did not take part in those examinations. Mr. Prosecutor, I already indicated earlier that I received this order in addition to my regular work in the clinic, therefore, when I first came to the Camp Ravensbruck for the initial discussion, it was decided by Professor Gebhardt that I was simply the clinical observer there; I only had two hours at my disposal and that the clinical examination before and after was to be the job of the camp physician.

Q: Well then you left all that work up to Schiedlawsky and Overhauser and Oberhauser prepared the subjects for the operations; didn't she?

A: Oberhauser carried out the preliminary examinations and then made the preparations for the operations; yes.

Q: Now, you have stated that all of these subjects were under anesthesia when you arrived; Oberhauser administered the narcotics, didn't she?

A: How that was in detail I cannot say, but it is quite possible that she did take part in it, yes.

Q: Now; Doctor; in your affidavit; which was written in November 1945 — you stated that these bacterial cultures used in the experiments were obtained from the Hygienist to the Waffen SS: do you still maintain that they were obtained from the Hygienist to the Waffen SS?

A: Yes, I know that is correct.

Q: Now you are refuting the fact; as stated in your affidavit; that correspondence was carried on with Mrugowsky regarding these cultures; is that right?

A: So far as Mrugowsky is personally concerned; I am in the following situation; Mr. Prosecutor. I must try to recall whether my memory is correct that this was correspondence with Mrugowsky is really correct and accurate. I have already described the details which led me to the belief that I would have to withdraw from my statement in the affidavit. I seem to have a visual image of a signature and I believed that it was not correspondence with Mrugowsky's institute; but with Mrugowsky himself; but I am no longer in a position to state with the same definiteness as I did before.

Q: Now, this affidavit; which you executed, was executed in November of 1945 before Major Monnigan. I am sure that Major Monnigan never heard the name Mrugowsky before at all; was that not suggested to him by you?

A: Absolutely. I was of the opinion at that time that I would remember that name on that document but I must say that the Hygienic Institute of the Waffen SS was known to us generally as the Mrugowsky Institute. I did not know the name "Mrugowsky" simply from the signature, but I knew the name "Mrugowsky" as the chief of that Hygienic Institute. His signature was not my only point of departure for the belief that Mrugowsky was involved. I mentioned the name "Mrugowsky" to the interrogating officer in November, 1945, to be sure. It is correct what I was telling about the letter mentioned.

Q: At that time you had no idea you were going to be indicted, did you?

A: I did not have any precise notion as to what would happen to me at that time.

Q: All right, now, this particular correspondence that you refer to that had the signature on it that you now cannot recollect whether it was the signature of Mrugowsky, what was the gist of that correspondence?

A: So far as I recall, the subject of this correspondence was a discussion of the question how an inflammation in general and specifically a gas gangrene inflammation could be dealt with.

Q: Well, now, all this occurred after the first two series of experiments, as I understand it.

A: This happened after the first fifteen persons, yes.

Q: Well, now, your need for these glass splinters and cultures arose when it became apparent that up to that point the inflicted wounds did not simulate actual battlefield woulds, is that right?

A: You stated it a little too broadly. When we saw that the inflammation that arose in the first experiments really was not an inflammation at all, consequently it was no effective test of the effectiveness of sulfonamide.

Q: Now, Dr. Fischer, was there a bacteriological department at Hohenlychen?

A: No.

Q: Did you have any facilities at Hohenlychen to prepare bacterial cultures?

A: No, there was no way of doing so.

Q: In order to obtain the cultures which were used in your experiments, was it not necessary that they be obtained from a bacteriological or hygienic institute?

A: Yes, that was necessary.

Q: And, in fact, was the Hygienic Institute of the Waffen SS headed by Mrugowsky which supplied the cultures?

A: Yes, it was that institute.

Q: These cultures were potent and virulent, weren't they?

A: The intensity of the cultures is dependent on the density of the bacteria in then.

Q: Well, now, you have had some general experience along these particular lines in the course of your medical education and your internship. Now, let us assume, Doctor, you were the head, the chief, of a hygiene institute. Would you have allowed such potent and virulent cultures to leave your institute without your approval?

A: I must say to this that the bacterial intensity in this case was no stronger than in other experiments. If it is said that these were particularly potent or virulent cultures, this proposition is not correct. Secondly, I do not know what goes on in a bacteriological institute, but I believe that the sending out of bacteriological cultures is one of the daily events in such an institute.

Q: What effect would the application of these cultures to a human being have?

A: They brought about an inflammatory bacteriological reaction.

Q: Pretty virulent, isn't it. Now, Doctor, could Mrugowsky's institute, in your opinion, have supplied such cultures without the approval and knowledge of Mrugowsky?

A: The question didn't come through entirely clearly. Would you mind repeating it, please?

Q: Could Mrugowsky's institute, that is, the Hygienic Institute of the Waffen SS, have supplied such cultures without the approval and knowledge of its chief. Dr. Mrugowsky?

A: I cannot answer that question.

Q: Could you or anyone else in the Hohenlychen staff have obtained these cultures from the Hygienic Institute of the Waffen SS without the knowledge and approval of Gebhardt?

A: No. In Hohenlychen that would have been impossible.

Q: Were you not aware of the fact that the sulfanilamide experiments must have caused considerable paid to the experimental subjects? Did you hear my question. Doctor?

A: I heard and understood the question. Mr. Prosecutor, I have seen many human beings who were sick, and I know what an unhappy fate it is to be sick. On the other hand, I know that the pains that make sickness so serious a matter are not in every case dangerous pains. I would like to say that there are sicknesses that are painful but not dangerous, and there are other sicknesses that are less painful but much more dangerous. I had always been raised to respect and to pity human suffering. I, therefore, ask you not to put a question to me that I should have to answer against my inner convictions for the sake of my own defense in that I should have to say that these unfortunate persons had no pain, because, of course, they did have pain.

Q: Well, didn't you also consider in addition to this pain that they endured during the course of the experiment that eventually mental depression might have been caused by these pains and by the inability to walk? Didn't that enter into it at all, Doctor?

A: In all these matters I was not entirely impervious to feelings, and those are the reasons why doing this job was so difficult for me. In order to prevent a spreading of the disease past a certain degree, we carried out the surgical operations of which I have spoken, but I believe I can really only answer this question if I return to what I said at the beginning. As an individual, I disapproved of this entire course of events, but I stood confronted with a problem and a responsibility that extended past the sphere in which I could arrive at my own private decisions.

This all took place at a time when I could not say to myself at all: Active men should consider only the consequences on human beings of their actions.

If you think now of what our motives must have been at that tine, that would be the same thing as thinking that other human beings might have approved of inflicting pain and death and have taken the responsibility for doing so.

You must think of the different orientation. I confess all this, that these poor people did feel pain and that they were unable to walk, but I must say that I at that time was not in a position to prevent these things in any way or to give that course of developments a different direction. The initiative for those acts did not originate in myself.

Q: Now, Doctor, I am fully aware of your position in this matter and the defense which you have offered, but I have a few technical questions I am going to put to you, and each time I ask you a question, I don't want you to go into this tete a tete about the fact that you were fully aware of the pain and suffering. I just want to find out why you didn't do something about it. As you know, Mr. McHaney and I have always contended that you could have done something about it. Now I will continue.

You did know that these operations would have a lasting effect on the victims and could practically cripple them, didn't you?

A: No, I cannot say it that way. I knew that after a surgical incision a scar resulted, but it was to be assumed that this incision would be about the size of a boil and that what would subsequently result would simply be the scar after the incision and a certain stiffening of the muscles in that region; but a crippling of the sort that you are insinuating was not something that I expected as a consequence.

Q: Well now, Doctor, your affidavit, that is document number 228, Prosecution Exhibit No.206, I call your attention again — you executed this in November 1945. You testified that incisions were made on the lower part of the leg in order to make an amputation possible.

Now then, you did expect that it was possible that these operations might have a lasting lasting on the victims, and you expected that eventual amputation might be necessary, didn't you?

A: If one desires to carry out such a surgical operation then you consider the maximum security and in so doing one must attempt to anticipate any possible contingency. I should not be honest if I should now try to state that in the case of an infection with gas gangrene I could not have seen the possibility of serious infection, or let me state it differently. I cannot say it was completely out of the question that serious consequences would result. In order to have absolute preventative measures, to have taken such measures, we carried out the surgical incision of which you just spoke.

Q: Now how about these poor girls who were in the control group. In each series two persons were not given sulfanilamide as a control to determine its effectiveness. How about those girls? Didn't you expect it might be necessary to amputate in their cases?

A: No, at the time it turned out that sulfanilamide was not as strictly effective as we had expected. Consequently the subjects who received sulfanilamide and those who did not went through the same case history. Also I must tell you a basic principle of surgery. The surgeon believes that he is on pretty safe grounds when there is a local infection, because he can always prevent the infection spreading by the use of his surgical knife and this was the case with those persons who did not receive sulfanilamide.

Q: Now, doctor, you have heard in this court room the witness Madzka who testified to the effect that the victims of these experiments who died, that is the Polish girls Kuraska, Peplawka, Arusz and Povalowitz would have been saved if amputations had been carried out in time. Dr. Madzka, as you remember, had a medical education, and she was on the scene, now why did you not yourself carry out these amputations, and why did you not order someone else to save the lives of these girls, or was it in the cards that these girls should die?

A: I heard the witness, Madzka testify here and I am fully persuaded that Dr. Madzka had good medical training and can express competent opinions on that subject. Nevertheless I should like to say that the evaluation and adjudging of these case histories by Dr. Madzka can be interpreted differently, and I should like to say that the case histories were really different from the way she described them. The hope to keep the sickness from spreading, which Dr. Gebhardt expressed to keep it local, was in vain, if the inflammation did spread throughout the whole tissues. The correct evaluation of such a situation is very difficult and depends upon how much experience the individual has had. Consequently, I should like to say in all modesty that perhaps Dr. Madzka could have been wrong. So far as I observed these things and so far as Dr. Gebhardt saw them, there was no further hope of saving such a life through amputation. The other thing you said in your question, namely, that this might have been in the cards, this I must dispute. Very unfortunately that was not the case.

Q: Now doctor, these particular girls who died as a result of experiments, were you attending them when they died?

A: First, I was not with them when they died, but during the process of the disease I was present. It took place rather rapidly. I visited their sick beds daily but at the moment that they died I was not on hand.

Q: Did Gebhardt — was he attending them when they died?

A: He visited them during their sickness, but so far as I know he was not there when they passed on.

Q: Who reported their deaths to you?

A: Someone among the staff of camp physicians. I don't know who it was at the moment.

Q: Oberhauser, wasn't it?

A: It is quite possible that it was she.

Q: Now, doctor, you have stated that you cannot recall and you do not remember ever having used tetanus in connection with those experiments. Bid you ever consider that sulfanilamide was a potent remedy against tetanus?

A: No, nor is it true. Sulfonamides do not have any effect on tetanus germs. We never carried out any inoculations with tetanus. That is out of the question.

Q: Now, Madzka says again on page 1439 of the record that Veronika Kruska was infected with tetanus, wasn't she?

A: It is true that Dr. Madzka said so, but I can say for certain that in these cultures there was not any tetanus so far as we knew and in this connection one can point out that there are. cases in which tetanus might come up, but at any rate tetanus bacteria were not the cultures which we received.

Q: Now assuming the testimony of Dr. Madzka was correct, purely an assumption, now, doctor, on your part in view of this testimony that Miss Kruszka was infected with tetanus in these experiments to determine the effect of sulfanilamide and it could be said medically she was doomed to die from the moment she was infected, is that right?

A: Under this assumption I can say the following: I have only seen one or two cases of tetanus in my whole professional career, but so far as I know the prognosis in the case of tetanus is serious. I say this only on the basis of that assumption that you proposed. I can, however, say definitely and specifically we never carried out inoculations with tetanus bacilli.

Q: Now, doctor, at this particular time were you familiar with conditions and the situations existing in concentration camps?

A: No, I was not.

Q: Were you familiar with the situation existing in Ravensbruck?

A: I knew, of course, I heard of the existence of a concentration camp Ravensbruck only immediately prior to these experiments and before then I could never have imagined what the term concentration camp meant or implied.

Q: Well now those girls who had been experimented upon after the completion of the experiments, were they in a position to work?

A: I should like to assume so for the greater part of them, for in most of the cases there was only a local inflammation which was then healed and which subsequently left no functional disturbance except, of course, for the scar. With such a scar on them, human beings, of course, can work, and it is customary that people who have scars do work. I believed at that time that on the contrary they received preferential treatment, or would have received it. In other words, they would not have been asked to work.

A: Now do you suggest to me, doctor, there would have been some girls who would have been unable to work, is that right?

A: No, if you got that impression the translation was not correct. I wanted to say that being used for work would not have been a great burden on the great part of those who were experimented upon, and in the case of the last group who were seriously sick, they could not work for some period of time.

A: Well, you were aware of the fact, the girls in Ravensbruck were subjected to hard labor at times, weren't you?

A: I knew nothing about these matters and I find difficulty in expressing myself here but I am sure you will understand me if I say that I did not inquire further into the circumstances there than was necessary for my work.

I have no precise notion of what labor demands were made on the inmates in particular. I know nothing of increased labor demands made on them.

Q: Well, do you know, doctor, and I assume you did, that inability to work in a concentration camp was identical with the death sentence, that only people who were able to work could survive in those surroundings. Didn't you know that?

A: No, that I did not know, Mr. Prosecutor.

MR. HARDY: This is a good breaking point, your Honors. I am going to another subject.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess.

(A short recess was taken)