VII. Extracts from Argumentation and Evidence of Prosecution and Defense (part 3)

1. Drug F 1001. The experiments were carried out exclusively at SS offices on the orders of the Reich Leader SS. They were performed before the defendant Karl Brandt received his first official appointment.

2. “Lost”. The experiments were made by Hirt and Wimmer in the SS Institute for Military Scientific Research in Strasbourg. According to Sievers’ testimony (Tr. p. 5788) the defendant Karl Brandt did not have any influence on these institutions. The “Lost” chemical warfare agent does not act like gas, but in a dried form injures the skin. Ordinarily, experiments are made by all nations by applying small drops of “Lost” to the skin. They cause injuries to the tissue, which are treated with healing drugs. This procedure is demonstrated in Holl’s testimony. (Tr. p. 1052.)

3. N-substance. Sievers’ testimony (Tr. p. 5738) shows that the experiments were not carried out due to a laboratory experiment of Professor Thyssen and an expert opinion sent to Himmler.

V. The experimental subjects.

A. Number of experimental subjects.

1. Drug F 1001. No statement.

2. “Lost”. The statements made by the witness Holl about the number of persons experimented upon must be treated with caution, since they do not originate with Holl, but were stated by the prosecution and merely confirmed by Holl. The testimony of Nales about experiments cannot refer to “Lost”.

3. N-substance. Since there were no experiments, no statement is made.

B. Consent of the experimental subjects.

1. Drug F 1001. No statement.

2. “Lost”. Sievers’ testimony (Tr. p. 5732) shows that Hirt said that the experimental subjects had volunteered, following a lecture by Hirt. This testimony seems to be quite trustworthy, as it was usual to make similar experiments on officer candidates of the Academy of Military Medicine in Berlin. Testimony of Becker-Freyseng (Tr. p. 8072) as well as testimony of Sievers (Tr. pp. 5730-31); also testimony of the witness Nales (Tr. pp. 10409-10471).

3. N-substance. No experiments, no statement.

C. Type of experimental subjects.

1. F 1001. The documents submitted do not reveal the nature of the experimental subjects, though the year 1939 indicates that in no case were foreigners used.

2. “Lost”. According to Sievers’ testimony, the persons used in the experiments in the Natzweiler concentration camp volunteered, so that the nature of the experimental subjects would appear to be of no significance as a basis for judgment. The testimony of the defendant Rudolf Brandt (NO-372, Pros. Ex. 252) is no basis to judge the true state of affairs, as Rudolf Brandt’s testimony (Tr. pp. 4930-34) shows that he himself never witnessed an experiment and that his statements are conclusions drawn from documents and statements submitted by the interrogators.

3. N-substance. No experiments, no statement.

D. Danger involved for the experimental subjects.

1. Drug F 1001 and “Lost”. The usual forms of the “Lost” experiments, applying a drop to the skin, as described by Holl (Tr. p. 1052) do not entail any danger to life, because the aim is to ascertain the most detailed reactions of the skin towards tiny drops of “Lost”. Experiments with deadly quantities would prevent this being ascertained. The relevant statements of the witness Holl must be due to ignorance of the manner of the experiment. Holl’s statement (Tr. p. 1050 ff.) and the affidavit of Wagner (NO-881, Pros. Ex. 280) also, to a certain degree, contradict each other. Holl, a miner by profession, who was hospital Kapo [inmate trusty] in Natzweiler, makes scientific statements with illustrations, to which one can hardly attach any value. The affidavit of Wagner who, as a scientific designer, held, during the experiments, an elevated position within the inner working circle, is far more reserved. He knows nothing of deaths occurring during “Lost” experiments. His conclusions as to how dangerous the “Lost” experiments were are based on a chart which was most likely intended for a committee. Sievers’ statement (Tr. p. 5732) reports a visit to Wimmer at Strasbourg during which the latter did not mention that there had been any deaths. Hirt also confirms this in March 1943; though he cites two deaths, they had not resulted from “Lost” experiments. The experiments with drug F 1001, too, are “Lost” experiments. The danger involved in the experiments has been described accurately. There are no deaths and health is not impaired permanently. In 23 cases general condition was not impaired. (NO-199, Pros. Ex. 253.) In contrast to this, NO-198, Prosecution Exhibit 254, mentions serious disturbances of the general condition in eight cases. Yet it must be assumed that these disturbances were of a temporary nature and occurred only when the climax of the injury was reached. They did not last throughout the duration of the experiments.

2. N-substance. The experiments were not carried out. Over and above that, NO-005, Prosecution Exhibit 279, discloses that the experiments would, most probably, not result in any permanent bodily harm.

VI. Special responsibility and participation of the defendant Karl Brandt.

1. The defendant Karl Brandt did not issue any order to carry out experiments. Karl Brandt did not have authority to issue orders.

2. The decree of 1 March 1944 concerning defense equipment in chemical warfare has been reconstructed by means of the following affidavits: (Karl Brandt 103, Karl Brandt Ex. 42; Karl Brandt 5, Karl Brandt Ex. 6; Karl Brandt 11, Karl Brandt Ex. 10; Karl Brandt 4, Karl Brandt Ex. 5; Karl Brandt 101, Karl Brandt Ex. 41; Karl Brandt 89, Karl Brandt Ex. 37). They show that this decree does not refer to an authorization to give orders concerning chemical-warfare agents and their research, but that it represents a production order referring to defense equipment in chemical warfare. Document NO-015, Prosecution Exhibit 275, proves that Hirt’s experiments had been completed when the defendant Karl Brandt received, through Sievers, Hirt’s treatment-instructions for injuries caused by “Lost” following the decree of 1 March 1944. The very fact that in this way, for the first time, he gained knowledge of the results of the experiments proves that this was an SS affair of Himmler and Hirt and that it belonged to a sphere where interference was denied to Karl Brandt by strict orders (see statements on participation in experiments by virtue of contacts with Himmler). (Also Karl Brandt 120, Karl Brandt Ex. 35.) The affidavit of Rudolf Brandt (NO-372, Pros. Ex. 252) is refuted by Karl Brandt 13, Karl Brandt Exhibit 12, as well as statements made by Rudolf Brandt. (Tr. pp. 4930-34.) As a matter of fact the name of the defendant Karl Brandt is never mentioned in the numerous documents extending over a period of several years. The special secrecy surrounding the Noli Decree and its contents with regard to poison gas defense is made sufficiently clear by the necessity of safeguarding the inadequate poison gas defense in the least possible time, and to hide this from the enemy. (Karl Brandt 103, Karl Brandt Ex. 42; Karl Brandt 101, Karl Brandt Ex. 41; Karl Brandt 11, Karl Brandt Ex. 10.)

3. Karl Brandt’s efforts not to experiment on human beings are proved by the fact that he had animal material, i. e., man-like apes, brought from Spain and Africa by the Luftwaffe at great expense. Had he been predominantly inclined to experiment on human beings, to be had free of cost, he would hardly have gone to such expense. (Karl Brandt 12, Karl Brandt Ex. 11.) The exhaustive enumeration of parties engaged on work with N-gas (NO-005, Pros. Ex. 279) proves that the defendant Karl Brandt did not participate. The N-gas problems belong to a very different sphere, as shown by the Documents Karl Brandt 88, Karl Brandt Exhibit 36, and Karl Brandt 103, Karl Brandt Exhibit 42. This is further confirmed by Sievers’ letter to Hirt of 9 April 1942. (NO-793, Pros. Ex. 258.) In it, reference is made to the possibility of advancing experiments by “single possibilities”.

NO-422, Prosecution Exhibit 33, contains an order by Himmler of 7 July 1942 to Sievers and the SS Institute Ahnenerbe to support Hirt’s researches in every possible way.

4. The codefendant Rudolf Brandt does not know the contents of the decree of 1 March 1944, though he distinctly alludes to it in his affidavit, (NO-372, Pros. Ex. 252; Tr. pp. 4941-42.)

Extract from the Closing Brief for Defendant Sievers

1. Lost gas experiments were carried out from November 1942 on by Professor Dr. Hirt in the Natzweiler concentration camp.

2. According to the statement of the witness Nales in the session of 30 April 1947, three experimental persons died. Other experimental persons are supposed to have suffered from severe burns.

3. Sievers did not personally participate in these experiments. The prosecution has submitted the following evidence to prove Sievers’ participation in the Lost gas experiments:

Letter of Sievers to Dr. Hirt of 17 January 1942 (NO-791, Pros. Ex. 256) concerning experiments with insecticides.

Letter of Dr. Hirt to the Ahnenerbe of 20 January 1942 (NO-792, Pros. Ex. 257) concerning answer to Sievers’ letter.

Sievers’ letter to Dr. Hirt of 9 April 1942 (NO-793, Pros. Ex. 258) concerning Dr. Hirt’s treatises on intravital microscopy and Lost experiments.

Sievers’ letter to Dr. Brandt of 27 August 1942 (NO-794, Pros. Ex. 259) concerning the passing on of a message of Dr. Hirt on the results of Lost experiments.

Letter of the Ahnenerbe to Dr. Brandt of 2 June 1942 (NO-097, Pros. Ex. 260) concerning Dr. Hirt’s report on Lost wounds. Experiments on human beings could not be made as Hirt was at the front.

Note of the Reich Business Manager of 3 November 1942 (NO-098, Pros. Ex. 263).

Letter of the Reich Business Manager of the Ahnenerbe to Dr. R. Brandt of 22 April 1943—concerning release of Staff Physician Dr. Wimmer from the air force so that he can do further work with Dr. Hirt on Lost experiments. (NO-193, Pros. Ex. 264.)

Letter of the personal staff of the Reich Leader SS to Ministerial Councillor Dr. Goernert, of 9 June 1943—concerning Dr. Wimmer’s transfer. (NO-195, Pros. Ex. 266.)

Certificate of the Institute for Military Scientific Research of 8 November 1943—concerning the sending of special rations of food to Dr. Wimmer and Frl. Schmitt. (492-PS, Pros. Ex. 267.)

Proposed treatment of poison-gas injuries through Lost. (NO-099, Pros. Ex. 268.)

Letter of the Reich Business Manager of the Ahnenerbe to Dr. Brandt of 9 February 1942—concerning forwarding Dr. Hirt’s report on his medicinal experiments and a microscope, which enables one to observe a living tissue. (NO-085, Pros. Ex. 269.)

Letter of the personal staff of the Reich Leader SS to the Ahnenerbe of 10 March 1944—concerning the transmission of a Fuehrer Decree of 1 March 1944. (NO-013, Pros. Ex. 272.) The Fuehrer Decree mentioned—of 1 March 1944—has not been submitted.

Letter of the Office “A” to Dr. R. Brandt of 11 April 1944 concerning Sievers’ report to SS Brigadefuehrer Prof. Dr. Brandt on the research work of Dr. Hirt. (NO-015, Pros. Ex. 275.)

Letter of Sievers to SS Brigadefuehrer Gluecks of 11 September 1942 (NO-978, Pros. Ex. 480) concerning military scientific research in connection with the Natzweiler concentration camp.

Letter of Sievers to SS Brigadefuehrer Gluecks of 27 August 1942 concerning military scientific research in connection with the Natzweiler concentration camp. (NO-935, Pros. Ex. 481.)

Sievers’ memorandum concerning the carrying out of military scientific research in the Natzweiler concentration camp of 17 September 1942. (NO-977, Pros. Ex. 482.)

The defense refers to the following evidence:

Lost experiments were carried out at the Military Medical Academy in Berlin. The experimental persons were cadets studying at this Academy. (NO-097, Pros. Ex. 260; Tr. p. 5679; Tr. pp. 8071-72.) Professor Dr. Hirt, later Director of the Anatomical Institute at the University of Strasbourg, took part in carrying out these experiments. (Tr. p. 5731.) Professor Hirt also carried out Lost experiments on himself. (Tr. p. 5733.) Hitler then decreed that experiments were no longer to be carried out on cadets, as they were more important as soldiers. Himmler gave Dr. Hirt orders to carry out a few practical experiments on human beings in addition to his animal experiments. Then on 9 April 1942 Himmler asked Sievers, who in his discussion with him at Easter 1942 had also mentioned the research done by Professor Hirt, to ask the latter in writing to submit a secret report on his Lost experiments. (NO-793, Pros. Ex. 258.) Hirt then gave this report to the Ahnenerbe, from where it was forwarded, with a letter on 2 June 1942 to the personal staff of the Reich Leader SS. (NO-097, Pros. Ex. 260.) The heading of this letter is remarkable: “Report on the Lost experiments carried out by order of the Wehrmacht.” Dr. Hirt mentions further on page four of the report that he submitted the written report on the results of his Lost experiments to the surgeon general who was his superior at that time. From this report, it is quite clear that experiments on human beings, with the exception of cadets, had not yet been carried out by Hirt. However, Dr. Hirt made a further short report, which the Reich Business Manager of the Ahnenerbe forwarded to the personal staff of the Reich Leader SS on 27 August 1942. (NO-794, Pros. Ex. 259.)

In a letter of 13 July 1942 the Reich Leader SS ordered that Dr. Hirt should carry out the research work assigned to him in the Natzweiler concentration camp. (NO-098, Pros. Ex. 263.) Sievers set out for Natzweiler with Dr. Hirt at the end of August 1942 in order to ascertain whether the prerequisites existed. As is shown in Dr. Hirt’s report of 19 October 1942, nothing had yet happened besides the drafting of Oberscharfuehrer Walbert, the animal-keeper. The extension of the laboratories and stables had not yet begun. And now Dr. Hirt’s report continues:

“We were further informed that prisoners, who are later to be experimented on, would have to be paid by us while they are subjected to the experiment. For the prisoners in the L-experiment we propose that they are put on full diet (guards’ diet), so that the experiments can be carried out under the same conditions as would prevail with the troops in an actual case. To begin with we intend to take 10 prisoners for the experiment.” (NO-098, Pros. Ex. 263.)

As Hirt reported in addition that the assignment of a second physician to the Natzweiler concentration camp would be difficult, Sievers was asked to participate in the efforts to obtain the release of Dr. Wimmer, surgeon captain of the air force, in order to make him assistant to Dr. Hirt, especially as the Reich Leader SS expressly wished that Dr. Wimmer’s transfer should take place as soon as possible. (NO-194, Pros. Ex. 265.)

It was the duty of Sievers to deal with questions of billets, laboratory finance and similar matters. Therefore, in August and September 1942 he wrote to SS Brigadefuehrer Gluecks, who was responsible for the administration of the concentration camps. (NO-935, Pros. Ex. 481; NO-977, Pros. Ex. 482; NO-978, Pros. Ex. 480.) They contain only administrative matters.

How little Sievers knew about concentration camps is seen from Document NO-935. Sievers asks to be sent the exact address of the camp and of the commandant of Natzweiler. This letter is particularly worthy of notice.

As for the question whether and to what extent Sievers had knowledge of the performance of Lost experiments in the Natzweiler concentration camp, the following can be stated:

Ferdinand Holl, witness for the prosecution, when giving evidence on 3 January 1947, said nothing about Sievers’ taking part in any way in the performance of the Lost experiments at the Natzweiler concentration camp. The experimenters were Dr. Hirt and officers of the Luftwaffe. The witness Holl did not mention Sievers at all. If Sievers, who wore SS uniform, had become known at all in connection with the Lost experiments, this witness would certainly have made some such statement, especially as he was dispensary assistant [Revierkapo] and prisoners’ guard in the so-called Ahnenerbe block in the Natzweiler concentration camp. (German Tr. pp. 1051-1059.)

The witness Grandjean too, who was at the Natzweiler concentration camp hospital as medical assistant from April 1944 on, knows nothing of Sievers’ presence at the Natzweiler concentration camp or of any connection between Sievers and the Lost experiments. (Tr. p. 1099 ff.)

Sievers was in Natzweiler concentration camp on 25 January 1943 and also visited the barracks where the experimental persons for the Lost experiments were housed. Dr. Wimmer showed Sievers some of the experimental persons with their forearms in bandages. There were about 10 persons altogether who gave the impression of being quite lively. One of the experimental subjects was just having his bandage changed, and Sievers saw that the place being treated on the arm was covered with a scab. Dr. Wimmer reported nothing about fatal incidents. On the other hand, by questioning the experimental subjects himself, Sievers found that they volunteered for those experiments after a lecture by Professor Hirt. Sievers also learned that from Dr. Hirt himself, who at the end of the experiments confirmed that he had sent to the camp commandant a report on the good behavior of the prisoners with a recommendation for their release. (German Tr. pp. 5732-33.) The lecture which Hirt had previously delivered to the experimental persons is also confirmed by the witness Holl. (German Tr. pp. 1051-1059.) This was the only visit Sievers paid to the experimental subjects of the Lost experiments. After 25 January 1943 Sievers never went to Natzweiler again. This is already known from his diary entries.

Sievers attached a certain danger to the experiments, but, not being a physician, he was in no position to judge exactly from the experiments and the way in which they were carried out whether there was reason to be prepared for fatal results. In March 1943 Sievers asked Dr. Hirt whether any experimental subjects had died. Hirt admitted two deaths which, he remarked, however, had no connection with the Lost experiments. (German Tr. pp. 5732-33.)

The statement of the witness Nales, heard in the session of 30 April 1947, deserves special attention. This witness confirmed that the experimental subjects who had reported for the “Burning Experiments” were volunteers. The witness thereby confirmed Sievers’ statement of 10 April 1947. (German Tr. pp. 5732-33.) The witness admitted under cross-examination that Professor Dr. Hirt, as well as the SS camp physician, explained to the experimental subjects the nature of the planned experiments. It may be that the SS camp physician did not precisely state the actual danger of the experiments. But it may certainly be supposed that Dr. Hirt described the nature of the planned experiments more closely in his instructions, which are also confirmed by the witness Holl. Here Sievers had just as little to do with the choice of experimental subjects as in all the other cases. He was present neither at the lecture of the camp physician nor at that of Dr. Hirt. He could and had to rely on what Dr. Hirt told him concerning the question of volunteering.

4. In the case in question, Sievers was again not in a position to give instructions or orders on the carrying out of the Lost experiments. Neither did he do so. In as far as he came into contact with the Lost experiments, he only forwarded correspondence and did subordinate administrative work, which had no decisive or important influence on the experiments carried out by Dr. Hirt.

5. The knowledge that the experiments could exceed certain limits or become inhuman existed neither before they began nor in the course of the experiments.

We still have to examine whether Sievers did not receive, through some report or other, more exact knowledge of the course of the experiments. As a result of the experiments carried out by Dr. Hirt and Dr. Wimmer, the “Proposed Treatment of Poison-Gas Injuries Caused by Lost” was produced. (NO-099, Pros. Ex. 268.) From this report nothing at all is to be learned of the course of the experiments in its effect on the experimental subjects. Since no further report exists, the correctness of Sievers’ statement must be accepted, according to which he knew no more of the Lost experiments than what he had seen and heard himself at Natzweiler. There was nothing in that to make him believe in criminal experiments.

This must also form the basis for the judging of Documents NO-195 and NO-015, Prosecution Exhibits 266 and 275. Sievers could only give information on what he knew. By virtue of his own observation of the information which he had received from Dr. Hirt and the correspondence submitted here, Sievers could only give information on the subject of the experiments carried out by Dr. Hirt and the circumstances under which they were carried out. It is also quite absurd to suppose that anyone who himself had detailed knowledge of the course of the experiments would have been used to pass on information. In his letter to Dr. Rudolf Brandt of 11 April 1944, Sievers further stated that on 31 March he had given a report to SS Brigadefuehrer Professor Dr. Brandt on the research work of SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Professor Dr. Hirt. The contents of this so-called report were reproduced by Dr. Karl Brandt in his examination on 4 November 1947. According to that, Sievers only stated that he had been commissioned by order of Himmler to hand over to him the final report on Lost by Dr. Hirt. But Sievers said nothing about being commissioned to discuss the contents with Dr. Karl Brandt. No discussion took place between Dr. Karl Brandt and Sievers on the performance of the experiments. This was the “report” from which the prosecution believes it can draw the conclusion that Sievers had detailed knowledge of the Lost experiments. (German Tr. pp. 2365-66.)

The question still arises, whether Sievers, as a result of the report made by Hirt on 8 March 1944 to the Reich Leader SS, was not aware of deaths in connection with the Lost experiments. Hirt’s report did not disclose anything from which one could conclude that a special endangering of the experimental subjects was involved. Moreover Hirt declared that he could arrive at further results only through experiments on animals. (German Tr. p. 5734.)

Finally, an opinion is expressed in regard to the possible assertion of the prosecution that the application of intravital microscopy constituted a crime against humanity. The intravital microscope used by Dr. Hirt could only be used on animals. (Tr. p. 5734.) Letter from the firm of Zeiss of 13 January 1947. (Sievers 9, Sievers Ex. 10; Tr. p. 5879; Sievers 55, Sievers Ex. 51.) That intravital microscopic experiments were carried out on human beings by Dr. Hirt was not testified to by any of the witnesses and also cannot be seen from any document. If this had been the case, it certainly would have become known to third parties through experimental subjects or records.

6. Sievers had neither the power nor the opportunity to prevent the Lost experiments or to stop them. Sievers could in no way hinder the course of experiments against Himmler’s order.

7. Under these circumstances Sievers could not have become guilty of criminal negligence either.

d. Evidence

Prosecution Documents

Pros. Ex.

Doc. No. No. Description of Document Page

NO-794 259 Letter from Sievers to Rudolf Brandt, 27 June 1942, concerning mustard gas and its effect on human beings.

NO-098 263 Memorandum from Sievers to Rudolf Brandt, 3 November 1942, concerning research in the Natzweiler concentration camp.

NO-193 264 Letter from Sievers to Rudolf Brandt, 22 April 1943, regarding prevention of Dr. Wimmer’s to active duty with the air force.

NO-099 268 Report by Hirt and Wimmer on the proposed treatment of poisoning caused by Lost gas.

NO-005 279 Letter from Grawitz to Himmler, 22 November 1944, requesting prisoners for experiments.

NO-1852 456 Extract from report on medical experiments addressed to Karl Brandt.

NO-978 480 Letter from Sievers to Gluecks, 11 September 1942, concerning military scientific research work to be conducted at Natzweiler concentration camp.

Defense Documents

Doc. No. Def. Ex. No. Description of Document Page

Karl Brandt 12 Karl Brandt Ex. 11 Affidavit of Dr. Walther Schieber on his efforts to purchase experimental animals in Spain and bring them to Germany.

Karl Brandt 101 Karl Brandt Ex. 41 Affidavit of Dr. Otto Ambros, 21 April 1947, concerning the urgency of experiments in the field of chemical-warfare agents and their countermeasures.

Karl Brandt 103 Karl Brandt Ex. 42 Affidavit of Dr. Walter Mielenz, 21 April 1947, concerning the assignment of Karl Brandt in connection with chemical warfare.

TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-794
PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 259

Letter from Sievers to Rudolf Brandt, 27 June 1942, Concerning Mustard Gas and Its Effect on Human Beings

The Ahnenerbe

The Reich Business Manager

Berlin-Dahlem, 27 June 1942
G/H/6, g/Sch/4, A/1/101 S/wo

To: SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. R. Brandt
Personal Staff of the Reich Leader SS
Berlin
Subject: Use of mustard gas for exterminating rats.
Re: Your letter of 13 July 1942—A 19/95/1942

Dear Comrade Brandt!

On request SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Prof. Dr. Hirt, Strasbourg tells me:

“Mustard gas in a dilution of 1:100 is dangerous to human beings if it contacts the body in an adequate amount. Above all, mustard gas is dangerously effective to clothing, as is known, even when greatly diluted, especially in connection with dampness. Mustard gas touching the skin even in a dilution of 1:100 causes reddening, possibly it causes little cysts without effecting necrosis. That is, the effect is much weaker than that of pure mustard gas. In spite of that, coming in contact with the clothes in sufficient quantities, especially in the regions of perspiration as the armpit, or the inguinal region, it can have exactly the same effect as concentrated mustard gas. For this, only a trace of it is frequently sufficient. This I experienced in a laboratory accident with a chemical student, who touched his armpit with one of the rabbits only for a second and a reddening ensued which spread over the entire body the following day, however, without further consequences. In my opinion, only a place which can be temporarily evacuated by human inhabitants can be used for gassing. The use of mustard gas in the vicinity of food stores, especially grain dumps, has to be absolutely excluded because one cannot know to what extent the rats carry the mustard gas there. Only gassing of rat holes would be possible with full application of precautionary measures. How this will work out technically, I cannot of course determine. Proper experts would have to judge that. Probably the case may be the same as with other poisons used for the extermination of rats (Phosphor-arsenic, strychnine, etc.)—that means that the use of every type of poison has two sides. In spite of this, your idea to try the extermination of vermin by means of poison gas does not seem strange at all, but an expert on poison gas would have to determine if there are not other means of killing rats which are less harmful to human beings.”

With kind regards
Heil Hitler!
[Signature] Sievers

P. S. I shall talk over this matter thoroughly with Professor Hirt one of these days, and I will see which poison gas expert we might consult for the solution of the problem.

TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-098
PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 263

Memorandum from Sievers to Rudolf Brandt, 3 November 1942, Concerning Research in the Natzweiler Concentration Camp

The Ahnenerbe
Reich Business Manager
Berlin-Dahlem, 3 November 1942
S/Wo G/H/6
Personal Staff Reich Leader SS [Filing stamp]
File Room Document No. Secret/51/16 [shorthand notation]

Note

Re: Research order SS Hauptsturmfuehrer, Professor Dr. August Hirt, Strasbourg, at the Institute for Military Scientific Research of the Ahnenerbe.

The Reich Leader SS [Himmler] ordered, in his letter of 13 July 1942—Journal number AR/48/7/42—that SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Prof. Dr. Hirt carry out the research tasks assigned him, in conjunction with the Natzweiler concentration camp. It was determined at a conference, for which I drove, along with SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Prof. Dr. Hirt, to Natzweiler on 31 August 1942, that the necessary conditions exist in Natzweiler. I reported on this orally on 9 September 1942, and afterwards in writing on 11 September 1942 to SS Brigadefuehrer Gluecks, who agreed and promised his full support. In view of the urgency of these research tasks, I asked SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Professor Dr. Hirt to go to Natzweiler again because until then no report on the beginning of the work had arrived. SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Prof. Dr. Hirt reported the following, among other things, concerning this conference which took place at Natzweiler on 19 October 1942:

“The conference was due to the fact that until now nothing besides the detachment of Oberscharfuehrer Walbert had been accomplished. Nor had the installation of the laboratories been started to date.

“It has now been decided to start with the laboratories this week.

“It was further established that the camp for security suspects, Schirmeck, would erect the sheds. Its commander fortunately is ready, as he told us at once, to place the necessary people at our disposal free of charge; whereas Natzweiler would not have been in a position to do so owing to the overbearing and inconvenient demands of the workers.

“We were furthermore informed that the prisoners who would later be used for experiments would have to be paid for by us during the period that experiments were being made upon them.

“We are to request that the prisoners of the Lost experiment receive full rations (food for guards) to enable the experiments to be carried out under the same conditions as the troops would be under in a possible emergency. We intend for the time being to take 10 prisoners as subjects for experiments.

“Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Blanke said that he was refused the assistance of a second physician in supervising the experiments on patients, so that he probably would not have enough time to concern himself with the experiments.

“The X-ray apparatus which I could procure here has not yet been definitely allocated by Berlin. We must get it immediately, otherwise we may lose it.

“The installation of direct current causes difficulties. One, however, gets the impression that the building operators had not dealt with this problem at all. According to their opinion, a transformer should be procured which is able to transform 220 volts alternating current into direct current. This is most likely quite improbable at this place.

“To equip the laboratory, I would ship the needed things (freezing microtome, incubators, etc.) from the stocks of the Anatomical Institute to Natzweiler during the next week. They remain, of course, the property of the Anatomical Institute. The two prisoners trained in handling the microtome can then be put to work. According to Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Blanke, both should be proficient at it.”

On the basis of this report, I have the impression that not too much interest in cooperative work exists at Natzweiler. As such cooperation is ordered by the Reich Leader SS and as SS Brigadefuehrer Gluecks is willing, the whole thing is not understandable to me. I was very much surprised by the fact that the prisoners to be used for experiments should be paid for. If we use only 10 prisoners for one experiment, which might under certain circumstances last 10 months, the cost for the prisoners alone would total approximately 4,000 RM. When I think of our military research work conducted at the concentration camp Dachau, I must praise and call special attention to the generous and understanding way in which our work was furthered there and to the cooperation we were given. Payment of [for] prisoners was never discussed. It seems as if at Natzweiler they are trying to make as much money as possible out of this matter. We are not conducting these experiments, as a matter of fact, for the sake of some fixed scientific idea, but to be of practical help to the armed forces and beyond that to the German people in a possible emergency. The budget of the institute will be met, according to the order of the Reich Leader of the SS and as already discussed by me in detail with SS Standartenfuehrer Loerner, out of the funds of the Waffen SS.

Under the supposition that the prisoners needed for experiments are in the prescribed condition as regards nourishment by this time, the experiments could start approximately on 10 November 1942.

Special treatment in Dachau was never the subject of special instructions but was understood to be necessary and issued without further ado. On the occasion of his personal inspection of the experiments at Dachau, the Reich Leader SS also ordered special food as an additional measure. Just as the Reich Leader SS appeared one day at Dachau to have a look at the experiments there, this is possible at Natzweiler too.

[Signature] Sievers
SS Obersturmbannfuehrer

1. To SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. R. Brandt to read in reference to our discussion of today and with the request for help in comradely fashion in setting up the necessary conditions at Natzweiler.

2. Documents.

[Initials] SI

TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-193
PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 264

Letter from Sievers to Rudolf Brandt, 22 April 1943, Regarding Prevention of Dr. Wimmer’s Transfer to Active Duty with the Air Force

Copy

Ahnenerbe Society

The Reich Business Manager

Berlin-Dahlem, 22 April 43
G/H/6 S/No
Note [Handwritten]
Some information on W. is also in the files of Prof. Hirt
Diary No. 41/8/43
G. Mue.
To: SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. R. Brandt
Personal Staff Reich Leader SS
Berlin SW 11, Prinz Albrecht Str. 8.

Subject: Dr. med. habil. Karl Wimmer, born on 24 October 1910, staff physician of the Luftwaffe, commanded by Air Gau Physician 7, Munich, for service with the Anatomical Institute of Strasbourg University. Co-worker at the Institute for Military Scientific Research of the Ahnenerbe Society, Department SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Hirt, Strasbourg.

Re: Your letter of 10.42. No. AR/48/7/42.

Our letter of 25.7.42.

Dear Comrade Brandt!

Effective immediately, Dr. Wimmer has been transferred to the XIth Fliegerkorps [subordinate operational Command of an Air Fleet], and according to information given by the Air Gau Medical Department 7 was to report today to Oberstabsarzt Dr. Jaeger, Berlin-Tempelhof, Manfred von Richthofenstr. 6./II. As Jaeger is going to be absent until 27 April, Dr. Wimmer will have to wait for a decision, until that date. The transfer of Dr. Wimmer means discontinuance of the gas experiments at Natzweiler and Strasbourg, as—

1. Replacement cannot be supplied due to the specialized knowledge necessary.

2. The practical knowledge gained by Dr. Wimmer through an extensive series of experiments can only be used by him.

3. On Dr. Wimmer’s leaving, SS Hauptsturmfueherer Prof. Dr. Hirt will have to take over his lectures and as he, considering his state of health, is already more than overworked, he can no longer go on with research work.

Interim report on experiment results up to now will follow next week to be submitted to the Reich Leader SS. The intensification of experiments and research, as well as the continuation of the work at all, as ordered by the Reich Leader SS on the basis of our discussion on 7 April, is out of the question, if the small staff of co-workers at the disposal of Prof. Dr. Hirt, especially Dr. Wimmer, is withdrawn. The problems to be solved constantly demand scientists with long years of experience and specialized knowledge. Dr. Wimmer would now be employed only as an army doctor, which is totally uneconomical considering his knowledge and abilities, as his services as an army doctor will never be of vital importance as regards the war, while this may well be said of his scientific activities. Obviously the Recruiting Office of the Waffen SS at that time contented itself with the information of the Reich Air Minister and Supreme Commander of the German Luftwaffe, without concluding a definite agreement. I request immediate steps for this to be remedied; the best would be to order Dr. Wimmer to the Waffen SS at least until 31.13.43 [sic] and if necessary the Reichsarzt SS should send an army doctor in his place to the Luftwaffe for the time Dr. Wimmer is assigned to the Waffen SS.

With best regards
Heil Hitler!
Yours
[Signed] Sievers [typewritten]

TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-099
PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 268

Report by Hirt and Wimmer on the Proposed Treatment of Poisoning Caused by Lost Gas

Top Secret

[Handwritten] Enclosure of Top Secret Z. I. A. H. No. 36

G. Tgb. S. 19, No. 170

From the Institute for Military Scientific Research Department H of the Research and Instruction Society Ahnenerbe (Reich Leader SS Personal Staff, Office “A”) Strasbourg, Anatomical Institute.

Proposed treatment of poisoning caused by Lost [Gas]
(By Professor Dr. A. Hirt, and Staff Surgeon of the Luftwaffe,
Professor Dr. Wimmer, Strasbourg, 1944)
General Observations

The effect of Lost as a poison gas is immediate and, by causing other pathological reactions within the cells and organs, it damages the entire efficiency of the individual cell as well as that of the organs. The organism stands the best chance of absorbing the damage caused by Lost if there is a large vitamin reserve in the body. In administering the vitamin treatment after Lost damage has been inflicted, care must be taken that the medicaments are not administered indiscriminately. The vitamin combinations (A, B complex, C) taken orally or vitamin B1 administered intravenously in glucose suspension have proved most effective. Both methods aim at raising the resistance of the reticuloendothelial system, while simultaneously introducing therapeutic measures to protect the liver which can be further strengthened by food with a high carbohydrate and vitamin content. When definite damage to the organs (liver, cardiac muscles, kidneys) manifests itself, vitamin treatment has to be discontinued and injections of B1 glucose substituted, as the excretion of the surplus quantity of vitamins results in a temporary additional overstimulation of the cells of the excretory organs.

In addition the inter-connection between the effect of sulfanilamide and vitamin B complex should be noted. In the case of pulmonary complications (bronchial pneumonia, pulmonary abscess) which are treated with sulfanilamides, the administration of yeast is definitely not indicated.

The general treatment, as set forth, especially the administration of vitamin B1 glucose, also has a salutory effect on the healing of cutaneous necrosis. In average and serious cases, the length of the healing process can thereby be considerably decreased. Supporting measures to be taken are bandaging the affected limb in splints until the appearance of clean granulation or placing the patient in a suitable recumbent position as well as vigorous, systematic psychotherapy. The psychological influencing of the largely apathetic Lost patient constitutes an essential part of the treatment, due to the possibility of thereby influencing the parasympathetic system (circulation, circulatory system).

Outline of treatment

1. All the directions given for the elimination of the Lost poison are to be followed carefully. Only after elimination of the poison has resulted may Lost patients be treated and accommodated together in enclosed rooms. (Inhalation of Lost vapors!)

2. Damp dressings with Rivanol (0.1-0.05 percent) and Trypaflavin (0.1 percent) have proved to be a successful treatment of the skin symptoms (reddening, swelling, blisters) of the first to fourth day. If necessary, ointment dressings (10 percent cod liver oil tannic ointment, boric acid ointment, etc.) may be applied. With the opening of the blisters, the exposed corium of the skin becomes extremely sensitive to the drying reflex. Introductory treatment; daily bathing with a potassium permanganate solution, constant damp dressings of Rivanol-Trypaflavin solution; later on ointment dressings (5 percent cod liver oil tannic ointment, boric acid ointment). With the development of cutaneous necrosis and increasing disinfection of the affected parts of the skin, the damp dressings are to be substituted—if only for nursing reasons—by ointment dressings, after bathing with a potassium permanganate solution at body temperature, which are to be changed daily. Usually after the 17th day, the necrotic spots on the skin can be removed by drying them up or better still by brushing them off (under narcosis if necessary) with a potassium permanganate solution. In this way the local healing process is considerably shortened.

With the beginning of the knitting of the skin granulation stimulating ointment dressings (alternately cod liver oil ointment, boric acid ointment, unguentine, etc.) are sufficient. Lexer’s cod liver ointment (only 2 hours, painful!) can provide a strong stimulus should granulation formation be slow and drag itself out.

3. General treatment of average and serious Lost damage begins with administering a vitamin mixture compounded as follows:

Vitamin A (in the form of Vogane oil) increasing from 4 to 10 drops daily.

Vitamin C (Cantan—Cebion tablets) 2 tablets 3 times daily.

Yeast powder 3 teaspoonfuls daily.

One should consider whether a vitamin compound of similar preparation—if need be with the addition of glucose—should be produced for the combat troops. Such a powder mixture would have to be administered in increasing quantities as well. In all cases of absorbed Lost damage (liver damage indicated by increased secretion of urobilinogen in the urine, later icteric skin coloring, cardiac muscle damage with tachycardiacs, kidney damage with albumin secretion in the urine) treatment with vitamin mixtures is to be discontinued and to be substituted by injections of vitamin B1 glucose. (Betaxin—Betabion 2 cc.—also in larger dosages—intravenously with 10 cc. 20 percent glucose solution.) Injections are to be given slowly, since at the height of Lost damage the veins of the arms incline to thrombosis! In the latter case glucose has to be administered orally and vitamin B1 intramuscularly. There exists the possibility, in every case of considerable Lost damage, of a sudden failure of circulation (frequently between the 7th and 17th day) indicated by a weak response to heart and circulatory stimulants. Heart stimulants (strophanthin, caffeine, digitalis) and circulatory stimulants (sympatol, priscol, camphor, cardiazol) have therefore to be administered with care in serious cases. The therapeutic routine valid for all clinical treatment is particularly valid for cases of organic damage.

TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-005
PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 279

Letter from Grawitz to Himmler, 22 November 1944, Requesting Prisoners for Experiments

The Reich Leader SS
Reich Physician SS and Police
Diary No. 39/44 Top Secret

Berlin W. 15, 22 November 1944
Knesebeckstrasse 50/51
Telephone: 924249.924374.924351.924406.

Top Secret

Subject: Experiment with N-substance.
Reference: Order of Reich Leader SS of 15 May 1944
2 copies, 1st copy
To: Reich Leader SS H. Himmler
Field H. Q.

Reich Leader:

The Chief of the Technical Office in the SS Administrative Main Office, SS Gruppenfuehrer Schwab, contacted me in September of this year with the request to furnish him with two doctors, who as medical experts were to witness experiments with N-substance, which he was carrying out at the time by order of the Fuehrer. This was above all a matter of the clarification of the question whether N-substance was to be considered for chemical warfare or not.

For this purpose I have furnished my leading pathologist, SS Hauptsturmfuehrer University Teacher Dr. Sachs, as well as the doctor working on the Ahnenerbe, SS Hauptsturmfuehrer University Teacher Dr. Ploetner.

In accordance with the experiments carried out on 25 September 1944, the necessity has now arisen to carry out several experiments on human beings for the final clarification of the physiological effect of N-substance on and through the human skin. Five prisoners are necessary for the execution of these experiments. It is highly improbable that the experiments will cause any permanent damage.

In accordance with your order of 15 May 1944, Reich Leader, I have obtained the opinion of SS Gruppenfuehrer Professor Gebhardt, SS Gruppenfuehrer Gluecks, and SS Oberfuehrer Panzinger. They read as follows:

1. SS Gruppenfuehrer Professor Dr. Gebhardt

“I am certainly in agreement with suggestion, and request that the directions for the supervision of the experiments be issued directly by the Reich Physician SS and Police.”

2. SS Gruppenfuehrer Gluecks

“I have received your letter of 7 November 1944 with regard to the procurement of five prisoners for the experiments which are to be carried out with N-substance.

“For this purpose I have had five prisoners in the Sachsenhausen concentration camp who have been condemned to death placed in readiness, on whom these experiments can be carried out.”

3. SS Oberfuehrer Panzinger

“From the point of view of the criminal police the experiments to be carried out there are to be welcomed. Therefore, no misgivings exist against the handing over of prisoners for inoculation.

“If political prisoners should be considered, the Chief of Office IV, SS Gruppenfuehrer Mueller would still have to be consulted, but he will certainly also grant permission.”

I respectfully request the permission so that the experiments can be initiated.

Heil Hitler!
[Signed] Grawitz

[stamp]
Personal Staff of Reich Leader SS
Received: 26 November 1944
No. 1991/44

TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-1852
PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 456

Extract from Report on Medical Experiments Addressed to Karl Brandt

Contents

Report. (2d copy)

2 and 3 Phosgene experiments Ruehl

4 and 5 T-experiments Letz

6 Aerosol experiment Letz

7 Natzweiler (3d copy)

6. 1st copy

7. 1st copy

Top Secret
3 copies—3d copy

To the
Fuehrer’s Plenipotentiary General
for Health and Medical Services,
Surgeon-General Professor Dr. Brandt,
Berlin Ziegelstrasse 5/9
Surgical Clinic at the University

7th Report

On the protective effect of hexamethylentetramine in phosgene poisoning.

Experiments were carried out on 40 prisoners on the prophylactic effect of hexamethylentetramine in cases of phosgene poisoning. Twelve of those were protected orally, twenty intravenously, and eight were used as controls.

The method

The chamber has a capacity of 20 cbm. In experiments I to XIV the chamber was given a coat of paint which had a strong deteriorating effect on phosgene. This decrease in concentration was measured after experiment XI; the curves are shown on chart I [not reproduced].

The greatest decrease measured was taken as basis for the calculations of the average concentration for experiments I to XI. In experiments XII to XV, the initial concentration and its decrease were measured separately in each case. In the tables II and III, co stands for the quantity of phosgene infused into the chamber in mg/cbm, cm for the calculated average concentration, t for the time of reaction. cm was measured as an arithmetic medium from 5 to 7 and calculated on the curve values obtained through interpolation.

B. The experimental subjects were all persons of middle age, almost all in a weak and underfed condition. On principle, the healthier ones were used as controls, only control number 39 (J. Rei) and the orally protected experimental subject No. 37 (A. Rei) had a localized cirrhotic productive tuberculosis of the lungs. With the others, no pulmonary disease could be found. In the first experiments up to 6g hexamethylentetramine were given orally, later despite the much higher concentrations 0.06 g/kg body weight, orally as well as intravenously.

Results

The intravenously protected experimental subjects, without exception, all survived the phosgene poisoning with a c. t. of 247 to 5,400. There were no symptoms of pulmonary oedema after intravenous protection even with a c. t. of 2,970. Only experiment No. 10 with a c. t. of 3,960 suffered pulmonary oedema of the first degree, which was overcome without any therapy and in experiment No. XIV the intravenous protection was penetrated to an extent to cause pulmonary oedema of the 3d degree, which however was overcome by oxygen inhalation. The experimental subject recovered.

All control subjects fell ill. With a c. t. of 768 and 1,180 a first degree pulmonary oedema resulted which was overcome. With a c. t. of 2,275, one control subject died, the second contracted a second degree pulmonary oedema but recovered. A c. t. of 5,400 killed one control subject after 4 hours, the other after 14 hours.

After oral protection, a c. t. of 247 to 768 was suffered without any oedema, even when the protective solution of hexamethylentetramine was drunk only 2-3 minutes before the inhalation of the phosgene. Two control subjects showed a marked oedema with a c. t. of 768. With a c. t. of 1,485 one protected subject fell seriously ill with a second degree oedema, a second subject likewise protected, having breathed the same phosgenic air, was unaffected. The cause of this striking difference must be sought in the different resorption of the hexamethylentetramine on the one hand and in the different reaction and the different volume of respiration of the experimental subjects on the other hand.

Even a c. t. of 2,275 resulted in only a slight pulmonary oedema in an orally protected test subject, whereas one control subject died after 4 hours, and a second contracted a second degree pulmonary oedema. The oral protection was penetrated by a c. t. of 5,400, the protected test subject died, as did the two control subjects.

Experiment XV is characteristic of the test schedule and its results, and will therefore again be specially described. Of four test subjects, the first was protected orally, the second intravenously, the third received an intravenous injection of hexamethylentetramine after the poisoning, in order once more to ascertain the effect of therapeutic treatment, the fourth was not treated at all. The four subjects were placed in the chamber in which a phial containing 2.7 grams of phosgene was smashed. The test subjects remained in this concentration for 25 minutes. The phosgene content was measured three times during the inhalation. The readings showed an average concentration of 91 mg. per cbm. The subject protected intravenously remained healthy, and did not show the least signs of difficulties or symptoms, the orally protected subject contracted a slight pulmonary oedema, subsequently bronchopneumonia and pleurisy, from which he recovered. One control subject also survived his pulmonary oedema; the second died a few hours later, and the autopsy showed the characteristics of very serious pulmonary oedema.

Summary

The conclusions of the experiment are impaired by the varying constitutions and the general poor state of nutrition and of physique of the experimental subjects, as well as by the different behavior and the different volume of respiration of the experimental subjects under gas, which was here demonstrated for the first time. But the experiments gave the following decisive conclusions:

1. A previous intravenous injection of 3 grams of hexamethylentetramine completely prevents serious toxic and fatal phosgene poisoning from a c. t. of 2,275.

2. An endurable quantity of hexamethylentetramine taken prophylactically weakens a fatal poisoning to such an extent that it can be overcome without treatment. c. t.=2,275.

3. Nonfatal but nevertheless oedema-producing poisonings are made positively ineffective by intravenous application, and are weakened by oral application, c. t. 250 to 1,980.

4. The oral application of hexamethylentetramine is no longer effective against phosgene poisoning of a c. t.=5,400, the intravenous injection, however, weakens the effect to such an extent that the protected subject is able to overcome a lung oedema.

5. The dosis letalis minima (minimum lethal dose) based on these experiments cannot yet be determined with certainty. One c. t. of 2,275 resulted in the death of one experimental subject, and the second developed second degree oedema of the lungs which was cured.

6. Some of the protected experimental subjects who did not develop oedema of the lungs remained completely healthy, others suffered from slight bronchitis with a brief fever. In every case they recovered without treatment.

TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-978
PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 480

Letter from Sievers to Gluecks, 11 September 1942, Concerning Military Scientific Research Work to Be Conducted at Natzweiler Concentration Camp

The Reich Leader SS
Personal Staff
The Chief of the Office Ahnenerbe

Berlin-Dahlem, 11 September 42
Puecklerstr. 16

[handwritten] secret
G/W/12

To: SS Brigadefuehrer Gluecks
Berlin-Oranienburg

Subject: Military Scientific Research in Connection with the Natzweiler Concentration Camp.

Reference: Personal discussion of the 9th inst.

Brigadefuehrer,

Based on my report that, as proposed by the Reich Leader SS, there is a good possibility for carrying out our military scientific research work in the Natzweiler concentration camp, I hereby summarize what awaits your approval:

1. Information to the commander’s office, Natzweiler concentration camp: SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Professor Dr. Hirt, Stabsarzt Dr. Wimmer, and Dr. Kieselbach are authorized to enter the Natzweiler concentration camp. During their activity in the Natzweiler concentration camp, they are to be provided with accommodations and board.

2. SS Oberscharfuehrer Walbert, at present supply sergeant in the administration of the Natzweiler concentration camp, is to be detached for service with the Institute for Military Scientific Research, Personal Staff Reich Leader SS, Strasbourg-Natzweiler section. Walbert will have to tend the animals under the supervision of SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Professor Dr. Hirt. It is requested that another man be assigned to the administration of the Natzweiler concentration camp in order to replace SS Oberscharfuehrer Walbert.

3. The transfer of two prisoners from the group which has been trained on the microtome for pathological research in the Buchenwald concentration camp is requested.

4. It is furthermore requested, that a younger physician be assigned to assist the camp medical officer, SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Blanke, in the Natzweiler concentration camp.

5. The experiments which are to be performed on prisoners are to be carried out in four rooms of an already existing medical barrack. Only slight changes in the construction of the building are required, in particular the installation of the hood which can be produced with very little material. In accordance with attached plan of the construction management at Natzweiler, I request that necessary orders be issued to same to carry out the reconstruction.

6. All the expenses arising out of our activity at Natzweiler will be covered by this office. I have already discussed the accounting procedure with the administrative leader, SS Obersturmfuehrer Faschingbauer.

In conclusion I would be very grateful to you, my dear Brigadefuehrer, if you would inform the commander of the Natzweiler concentration camp, that you have approved the execution of the work at Natzweiler, just as it was discussed with me there, and about which I reported to you in detail, and that you desire that we be given assistance in fulfilling the duties with which we have been entrusted by the Reich Leader SS.

Heil Hitler!
[Signed] Sievers
SS Obersturmbannfuehrer

2. To SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Prof. Dr. Hirt

TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT KARL BRANDT 12
KARL BRANDT DEFENSE EXHIBIT 11

Affidavit of Dr. Walther Schieber on His Efforts to Purchase Experimental Animals in Spain and Bring Them to Germany

Affidavit 111

I, Dr. Walther Schieber, at present in Nuernberg, Justice Prison, have been duly warned that I am liable to punishment if I make a false statement. I affirm under oath that my deposition corresponds to the truth and was made to be offered in evidence before Military Tribunal No. I at the Palace of Justice, at Nuernberg, Germany. During the summer of 1944, Professor Karl Brandt informed me during discussions concerning the execution of the especially urgently operated Brandt—and defense—program against chemical warfare agents that he was having considerable difficulties in procuring animals which were needed for test purposes concerning the effect of the top chemical warfare agents and for which he had requests from testing office.

At that time the problem was how to convert the production of chemical warfare agents on account of raw material shortage to the production of the top chemical warfare agent Sarin, the effect of which would not yet be finally determined.

To carry out these tests, an action to procure animals was started by me in Spain, instigated by Professor Karl Brandt; because of the biological reaction parallels to human beings, apes resembling men were allegedly needed. An assistant was sent there especially for this purpose. For this, the armament office offered approximately 200,000 Swiss francs, and after my resignation as Chief of the Armament Supply Office in October 1944 from the Speer Ministry I made strenuous efforts, together with Professor Karl Brandt, to have a large number of animals brought by extremely difficult air transportation from Spain to Germany. These were put at Professor Karl Brandt’s disposal for the testing offices.

[Signed] Walther Schieber

TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT KARL BRANDT 101
KARL BRANDT DEFENSE EXHIBIT 41

Affidavit of Dr. Otto Ambros, 21 April 1947, Concerning the Urgency of Experiments in the Field of Chemical Warfare Agents and Their Countermeasures

I, Dr. Otto Ambros, at present in Nuernberg, Justice Prison, having been duly informed that I shall render myself punishable if I submit a false affidavit, declare under oath that my statement is true and was made for presentation in evidence to Military Tribunal No. I in the Palace of Justice, Nuernberg, Germany.

During the war I was a director of I. G. Farben and had to work on chemical warfare agents and protective agents, and can therefore state the following:

I got into touch with Professor Dr. Karl Brandt during 1944. On that occasion Professor Brandt told me he had to take an interest in chemical warfare agents and countermeasures. At the same time he showed me a letter from Adolf Hitler referring to this subject. Furthermore, he stated that he did not understand very much about chemical warfare, as he was not an analytical chemist. His primary concern in this field was the question of the supply of materials for gas masks, i. e., activated charcoal and the synthetic materials and textiles which are necessary for these.

Professor Brandt visited two poison gas plants at Dyherrnfurth and Gendorf, to become generally acquainted with the nature of poison gas itself.

There was the greatest uneasiness at that time regarding protection against chemical warfare, as it was thought that the Allies would use poison gas. It was said that they had brought poison gas over with them when they landed at Tunis.

It was also said that the Russians had new gas masks which fact pointed to the possibility of the use of a new kind of poison gas.

On the German side, there was definitely a serious shortage of chemical warfare protective equipment, as not even the most urgently needed gas masks were available, nor was it even possible to produce the required number.

Nuernberg, 21 April 1947.

[Signature] Dr. Otto Ambros

TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT KARL BRANDT 103
KARL BRANDT DEFENSE EXHIBIT 42

Affidavit of Dr. Walter Mielenz, 21 April 1947, Concerning the Assignment of Karl Brandt in Connection with Chemical Warfare

I, Dr. Walter Mielenz, born 20 November 1888 in Berlin, residing in Berlin-Friedenau, Ceciliengaerten 45 (business address: Berlin-Lichterfelde W, Kadettenweg 67, Telephone 245218), have been duly advised that I shall render myself liable to punishment if I give a false affidavit. I declare under oath that my statement is true and was made to be submitted in evidence to Military Tribunal No. I, at the Palace of Justice, Nuernberg, Germany.

From 1933 to 1945 I worked at the Reich Air Ministry as an analytical chemist, technical advisor on the question of the protection of the civilian population against gas.

I am familiar with the decree of 1 March 1944 in which special tasks were assigned to Professor Dr. Karl Brandt in connection with chemical warfare. As far as I remember, the decree was worded approximately as follows:

“I have ordered my Commissioner General for the Medical and Health Service (Professor Dr. Brandt) to take a major part in all matters concerning protection against chemical warfare (of the army and the civilian population) and to issue orders to the stations (military and civilian) established for this purpose. In questions of the protection of the civilian population against chemical warfare, he must obtain in advance the approval of the Reich Air Minister and Commander in Chief of the Luftwaffe.”

The decree certainly did not contain any order for research in connection with chemical warfare agents.

The reason for the appointment of Professor Karl Brandt was the assumption that the initiation of chemical warfare by the enemy was shortly to be expected. This assumption was based on the fact that intelligence was accumulating, according to which gas was being prepared in large quantities by the enemy. Thus confidential agents reported that poison gas ammunition was being stored at Tunis and Dakar, and these reports were constantly being confirmed.

The greatest alarm was caused by the examination of captured Russian gas masks, which showed that they afforded protection against far stronger concentrations of poison gas than it had so far been believed possible to achieve at the front. Their protective capacity far surpassed that of the German Army and civilian gas masks. From this fact, it could be concluded that the scientists and technicians of the Red Army had succeeded in developing new and particularly effective methods of attack in chemical warfare for known or new chemical warfare agents.

The German measures for gas defense were totally inadequate in number, too. The civilian population in particular was exposed almost without defense to gas attacks because the issue of civilian and infants’ gas masks in many town and country districts was seriously behind schedule. The relevant figures for civilian gas masks in the different supply areas were between 10 and 70 percent of the population to be equipped, the average figure being about 32 percent, and for infants’ gas masks, about 7 percent. This estimate is based on the total number of civilian and infants’ gas masks manufactured up to that date, in relation to the total number of persons entitled to supply. This estimate did not take into consideration the fact that, without doubt a large part of the equipment which, in some cases had been in the hands of the population for years, was no longer completely fit for use on account of faulty unsuitable storage, or had been rendered useless by air raid damage, evacuation of the owners, and other reasons, or lost completely. The losses in civilian gas masks were estimated at about 15,000,000 (almost 50 percent of the total output up to that date) so that for the completion of the initial equipment (without reserves) the manufacture of 45,000,000 gas masks had to be planned.

In view of these facts, Professor Dr. Karl Brandt was assigned the task of providing with the utmost speed for the improvement of gas defense to avert the danger which threatened.

Through the initiative of Professor Brandt, the gas defense program was finally given the highest priority and had an equal standing with the program for the construction of fighter planes and tanks.

I know that Professor Dr. Brandt was most strongly opposed to the propaganda demand spread by extreme Party circles for the initiation of chemical warfare by Germany.

I regularly had to work with Professor Karl Brandt on gas defense and I know that in view of their importance and urgency, he dispatched all matters himself. The Department of Science and Research and its chief, Professor Rostock, were not concerned with these matters.

The N-agent was not one of the chemical warfare agents. It is an incendiary agent composed of chlorine and fluorine (ClF3); this N-agent has never been mentioned in connection with gas defense.

I know that there existed in the Armament Ministry a special commission for the decontamination of drinking water; this had neither been established by Professor Brandt nor was it under his command. The task of this commission was the production of decontamination equipment but not the development of such equipment, and especially not the development of new processes for the decontamination of water. The repeated suggestions made by Professor Haase in this context were therefore beyond the field of activity of the commission. They were discussed, however, at a meeting in December 1944, at which I was present.

At this meeting the representatives of the army and the air raid protection service stated that for their sphere, i. e., for the gas defense of the troops and the civilian population, there was no need to continue this work. Professor Brandt who was present at the meeting had already agreed in advance with the general opinion that the efforts of Haase did not admit of the expectation of any improvement on the experiences presented for consideration, and that they should therefore be rejected. He therefore asked me to work towards this end.

As far as I know, the commission was never concerned with sea-water experiments. In particular, to my knowledge, the commission had no knowledge of human experiments for the testing of agents designed to render sea-water potable.

I can state with certainty that the undertaking of gas experiments on human subjects was never spoken of by Professor Brandt and myself. Moreover, during discussions with army experts concerned with gas defense and chemical warfare, I never heard that Professor Brandt in any way suggested human experiments or otherwise spoke of such experiments.

Nuernberg, 21 April 1947

[Signature] Dr. Walter Mielenz

5. Sulfanilamide Experiments

a. Introduction

The defendants, Karl Brandt, Handloser, Rostock, Schroeder, Genzken, Gebhardt, Blome, Rudolf Brandt, Mrugowsky, Poppendick, Becker-Freyseng, Oberheuser, and Fischer were charged with special responsibility for and participation in criminal conduct involving sulfanilamide experiments (par. 6 (E) of the indictment). During the trial the prosecution withdrew this charge in the cases of Schroeder, Blome, and Becker-Freyseng. On this charge the defendants Karl Brandt, Handloser, Gebhardt, Mrugowsky, Oberheuser, and Fischer were convicted and the defendants Rostock, Genzken, and Poppendick were acquitted. Regarding the defendant Rudolf Brandt, the judgment makes no reference to this charge.

The prosecution’s summation of the evidence on the sulfanilamide experiments is contained in its final brief against the defendant Gebhardt. An extract from that brief is set forth below on pages 355 to 364. A corresponding summation of the evidence by the defense on these experiments has been selected from the closing brief for the defendant Gebhardt. It appears below on pages 364 to 370. This argumentation is followed by selections from the evidence on pages 371 to 391.

b. Selection from the Argumentation of the Prosecution

Extract from the Closing Brief Against Defendant Gebhardt

A. SULFANILAMIDE EXPERIMENTS

Experiments to test the effectiveness of sulfanilamide on infections were conducted in the Ravensbrueck concentration camp from 20 July 1942 until August 1943. These experiments were performed by the defendants Gebhardt, Fischer, and Oberheuser. (NO-228, Pros. Ex. 206.)

Gebhardt personally requested Himmler’s permission to carry out the sulfanilamide experiments and their execution was his responsibility. (Tr. pp. 4024-5.) He himself carried out the initial operations. (Tr. p. 4032.)

The experimental subjects consisted of 15 male concentration camp inmates, who were used during the preliminary experiments in July 1942, and 60 Polish women who were experimented on in 5 groups of 12 subjects each.

The purpose of the experiments was stated in a preliminary report by Gebhardt dated 29 August 1942, in which he stated:

“By order of the Reich Leader SS, I started on 20 July 1942 at Ravensbrueck concentration camp for women on a series of clinical experiments with the aim of analyzing the sickness known as gas gangrene, which does not take a uniform course, and to test the efficacy of the known therapeutic medicaments.

“In addition, the simple infections of injuries which occur as symptoms in war surgery had also to be tested; and a new chemo-therapeutic treatment, apart from the known surgical measures, had to be tried out.” (NO-2734, Pros. Ex. 473.)

The sulfanilamide experiments, as substantially all of the experiments with which the case is concerned, were directly related to the German war effort. Allied propaganda about the “miracle drug” sulfanilamide was having considerable effect on the confidence of the German soldiers in their medical officers. Heavy casualties had been sustained from gas gangrene on the Russian front in the winter of 1941-42. The theoretical question to be answered by these experiments was whether the wounded should be treated surgically in the front line hospitals or should be treated by field medical officers with sulfanilamide and then sent down the long lines of communication to a base hospital for further treatment. (Tr. pp. 4010-14.)

The same report cited above states that the defendant Fischer was appointed by Gebhardt as his assistant; Dr. Blumenreuter, a subordinate of the defendant Genzken, made available the surgical instruments and medicines; the defendant Mrugowsky put his laboratory and co-workers at the disposal of Gebhardt; and Dr. Lolling, chief medical officer of all concentration camps, assigned Dr. Schiedlausky and the defendant Oberheuser as co-workers.

This preliminary report concerns itself with the early experiments on 15 male subjects to determine a mode of infection with gangrene. Gebhardt was assisted by the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS, which made available the bacteria and gave advice on the method of bringing about gangrene infection artificially. The experimental technique was described in the report as follows:

“The point was to implant the lymph cultures on the damaged muscle tissue, to isolate the latter from atmospheric and humoral oxygen supply, and to subject it to internal tissue pressure. The inoculation procedure was as follows: a longitudinal cut of 10 centimetres over the musculus peroneus longus; after incision into the fascia the muscle was tied up with forceps in an area the size of a five-Mark piece; an anaemic peripheral zone was created by injection of 3 cc. adrenalin and in the area of the damaged muscle the inoculation material (a gauze strip saturated with bacteria) was imbedded under the fascia, subcutaneous adipose tissue and skin sutured in layers.” (NO-2734, Pros. Ex. 473.)

In the first series of experiments the subjects were infected with staphylococci, streptococci, para oedema malignum, bacteria Fraenkel, and earth. The resulting infections were not considered serious enough, and a conference was held with the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS and the bacteria used in bringing about the infections were changed. Six additional male subjects were then infected, but again the results were not considered serious enough. After further consultation with the collaborators in the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS, the infectious material was changed by adding wood shavings. During the course of these experiments the subjects were treated with various types of sulfanilamides, including catoxyn and marfanil-prontalbin, the latter being strongly recommended by the Army Medical Inspectorate. Efforts continued to make the gangrene infection more serious, and the report concluded with the following paragraph:

“We are now investigating the problem as to why the gangrene in the present cases did not fully develop. Therefore, the injuring of the tissue and the exclusion of a muscle from the circulation of the blood were undertaken during a separate operating session, and the large-scale necrosis resulting therefrom, was to be inoculated with bacteria strain which had already had one human passage. For it is only when the really definite clinical picture of the gangrene has appeared that conclusions may be drawn on therapy with chemo-therapeutics in connection with surgical operations.” [Emphasis supplied.] (NO-2734, Pros. Ex. 473.)

This report was certified as a correct copy by the defendant Poppendick.

In his zealousness to protect his fellow defendants, Gebhardt testified that neither the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS nor the defendant Mrugowsky played any part in these experiments, and that the infectious material was sent to him by Grawitz. (Tr. p. 4179.) This is clearly contradicted by his own report cited above.

Following the conclusion of the preliminary experiments on the male prisoners, experiments were continued on female Polish inmates. The affidavit of the defendant Fischer states that three series of operations were performed, each involving 10 persons, one using the bacterial culture and fragments of wood, the second using bacterial culture and fragments of glass, and the third using culture plus glass and wood. (NO-228, Pros. Ex. 206.) These experiments were undertaken during the month of August 1942. While Fischer speaks of experimental groups of 10 persons each, the defendant Gebhardt testified that the groups were composed of 12 experimental subjects. (Tr. p. 4056.) On 3 September 1942, after 36 women had been experimented on, Reich Physician SS Grawitz visited Ravensbrueck and inspected the experimental subjects. He asked Gebhardt how many deaths had occurred, and when it was reported that there had been none, he stated that the experiments did not conform to battlefield conditions. (NO-228, Pros. Ex. 206; Tr. p. 4057.) In order to make the gangrene infections still more severe, a new series of experiments involving 24 Polish female inmates was carried out. In this series the circulation of blood through the muscles was interrupted in the area of infection by tying off the muscles on either end. This series of experiments resulted in very serious infections and a number of deaths occurred. (NO-228, Pros. Ex. 206.)

Gebhardt, Fischer, and Oberheuser all admit that three of the experimental subjects died as a result of the experiments. (NO-228, Pros. Ex. 206; Tr. pp. 4059, 5492.) Other evidence, however, proves that five died as a direct result of the experiments and six were executed by shooting at a later date. (Tr. pp. 1438, 1449, 797, 845, 863.)

Four of the Polish women who were subjected to these experiments testified before the Tribunal. Most of the women who were used as subjects had been active in a resistance movement. (Tr. pp. 787, 816, 840, 857.) Only healthy inmates were used. (Tr. pp. 786, 815, 836, 856, 860-1.) None of them volunteered for the experiments. (Tr. pp. 789, 819, 842, 844-5, 861.) On the contrary, they protested against the experiments both orally and in writing. (Tr. pp. 789, 794, 823-5.) They stated that they would have preferred death to continued experiments, since they were convinced that they were to die in any event. (Tr. pp. 795, 824, 863.) They testified that 74 Polish women, 1 German, and 1 Ukrainian woman were experimented upon. (Tr. pp. 1438, 796, 818, 862.) Since Gebhardt placed the total number of Polish female experimental subjects in the sulfanilamide experiments at 60, the additional 16 women mentioned by the witnesses may well have been subjects in the bone, muscle, and nerve regeneration experiments. (Tr. p. 1462.)

The witness Kusmierczuk was one of the subjects in the sulfanilamide experiments. She is a Polish national and arrived in the Ravensbrueck concentration camp in the fall of 1941. (Tr. p. 857.) She was operated on in October 1942 and a severe infection developed in her case. (Tr. p. 858.) She remained in the hospital from October 1942 until April 1943, but her wound was still not healed at the time she was discharged from the hospital. Her condition deteriorated and she was readmitted to the hospital on 1 September 1943. (Tr. p. 860.) She left the hospital the second time in February 1944, but her wound did not finally heal until June 1944. (Tr. p. 861.) She identified the defendants Gebhardt, Fischer, and Oberheuser as having participated in the experiment upon her. (Tr. p. 860.) Kusmierczuk suffered permanent injuries as a result of this experiment, and her condition was described by the expert witness Dr. Leo Alexander. (Tr. pp. 864-9.) The post-operational care of this woman was not handled by Gebhardt and Fischer, but by the camp doctors. On the occasion of her second admission to the hospital in September 1943, Kusmierczuk was operated on by Dr. Treite in an effort to cure the deep-seated infection. (Tr. p. 861.) [See photographs, pp. to .]

The expert witness Maczka, who worked as an X-ray technician in the Ravensbrueck concentration camp during the course of the experiments, testified concerning deaths of the five Polish experimental subjects resulting from the sulfanilamide experiments. Weronica Kraska developed typical tetanus symptoms a few days after the experimental operation was performed on her. After a brief illness she died under cramps caused by tetanus. (Tr. p. 1438.) Kazimiera Kurowska was artificially infected with gangrene bacillus. She was a healthy Polish girl of 23 years. From day to day her leg became blacker and more swollen. She was given care for only the first few days. After that she was taken to Room 4 in the hospital where she lay for days in unbelievable pain and finally died. Maczka was able to observe this case personally and in her opinion immediate amputation would have saved her life. (Tr. pp. 1439-40.) It is quite clear that if a German soldier’s life had been endangered by gangrene infection, an amputation would have been undertaken immediately. In this experiment, where the very effort was to develop a serious gangrene infection and to test the effects of sulfanilamide preparations, it is equally clear why the leg of Kurowska was not amputated. Aniela Lefanowicz was infected with oedema malignum. Her leg kept swelling more and more, the blood vessels eroded, and she died from bleeding. Maczka testified that the blood vessels should have been tied off and an amputation carried out in order to save her life. She was completely neglected after the first 2 or 3 days. (Tr. pp. 1440-1.) Zofia Kiecol died under similar circumstances. (Tr. p. 1441.)

Alfreda Prus was infected with oedema malignum the same day as the witnesses Kusmierczuk, Kiecol, and Lefanowicz. She was a beautiful, young 21-year-old girl, and a university student. She proved to be stronger than Kiecol and Lefanowicz and for that reason she lived a few days longer. She suffered terrible pain and finally died of hemorrhage. (Tr. pp. 1142-3.) Kusmierczuk was the only subject to survive that series of experiments. (Tr. p. 1443.)

It is hardly necessary to point out that all of the experimental subjects suffered severe pain and torture. (Tr. pp. 790-1, 802, 820, 842, 859; NO-876, Pros. Ex. 225; NO-871, Pros. Ex. 227; NO-877, Pros. Ex. 228.) The Tribunal was able to observe for itself the mutilations to which the Polish witnesses were subjected, and pictures of their scars were introduced to form a permanent part of the record. (NO-1079a, b, and c, Pros. Ex. 209; NO-1081a, and b, Pros. Ex. 211; NO-1082a, b, and c, Pros. Ex. 214; NO-1080a-g, Pros. Ex. 219.)

The post-operational care of the experimental subjects was entirely inadequate. (NO-873, Pros. Ex. 226.) Many of the subjects were given neither medicine nor morphine by order of defendant Oberheuser. (NO-877, Pros. Ex. 228.) They were given bandages from time to time when the doctors felt like it. Sometimes they waited 3 days, sometimes 4 days. There was a terrible odor of pus in the rooms. The girls were forced to help each other. (Tr. p. 1444.) Post-operational care, such as it was, was administered by the camp doctors. The witness Broel-Plater testified that:

“My leg pained me; I felt severe pain, and blood flowed from my leg. At night we were all alone without any care. I heard only the screaming of my fellow prisoners, and I heard also that they asked for water. There was nobody to give us any water or bed pans.” (Tr. p. 790.)

The witness Karolewska testified that:

“I was in my room and I made the remark to fellow prisoners that we had been operated on under very bad conditions and were left here in this room, and that we were not given even the possibility to recover. This remark must have been heard by a German nurse who was sitting in the corridor because the door of our room leading to the corridor was open. The German nurse entered the room and told us to get up and dress. We answered that we could not follow her order because we had great pains in our legs and could not walk. Then the German nurse came into our room with Dr. Oberheuser. Dr. Oberheuser told us to dress and go to the dressing room. We put on our dresses; and, being unable to walk, we had to hop on one leg going to the operating room. After one hop we had to rest. Dr. Oberheuser did not allow anybody to help us. When we arrived at the operating room quite exhausted, Dr. Oberheuser appeared and told us to go back because a change of dressing would not take place that day. I could not walk, but somebody, a prisoner whose name I do not remember, helped me to get back to the room.” (Tr. p. 822.)

At least five human lives were sacrificed in the sulfanilamide experiments, while an additional six were shot after having survived the operations. All the surviving victims suffered terrible pains and were crippled for life. Nevertheless, the experiments were not even scientifically successful. The results, as reported by Gebhardt and Fischer at the Third Conference of the Consulting Physicians of the Wehrmacht at the Military Medical Academy in Berlin in May 1943, were not adopted, and medical directives were issued which required the continued use of sulfanilamide. (Gebhardt, Fischer, Oberheuser 3, Gebhardt, Fischer, Oberheuser Ex. 10.) The sulfanilamide experiments were entirely unnecessary, since similar results could have been achieved by the treatment of wound infections of German soldiers normally contracted during the course of the war. (Tr. pp. 3334, 3338.)

Gebhardt does not seriously contend that the experimental subjects were volunteers. He admitted that he did not know whether the women consented. He testified he was not interested in that. He left it to the “legal authorities.” He did not discuss this matter with Himmler. (Tr. p. 4214.) By legal authorities, Gebhardt meant Himmler who, as he said, “had the power to execute thousands of people by a stroke of his pen.” (Tr. p. 4025.) Gebhardt, however, showed no interest whatever in the moral or legal character of that power. At one point in his testimony, he stated that the subjects were nonvolunteers forced to submit to the experiments by the State. (Tr. p. 4064.) At still another point, they were “more or less volunteers, condemned persons.” (Tr. p. 4021.)

Gebhardt’s defense, if it can be dignified with that word, is rather that the Polish women had been condemned to death for participation in a resistance movement and that by undergoing the experiments, voluntarily or otherwise, they were to have their death sentences commuted to some lesser degree of punishment whereby they would at least not be executed. This was no bargain reached with the experimental subjects; their wishes were not consulted in the matter. It was, according to Gebhardt, left to the good faith of someone unnamed to see to it the death sentence was not carried out on the survivors of the experiments. Certainly Gebhardt assumed no responsibility, or even interest, in this matter.

The prosecution points out, in connection with this alleged defense, that the proof shows that the experimental subjects who testified before this Tribunal were never so much as accorded a trial; they had no opportunity to defend themselves against whatever crimes they were said to have committed. They were simply arrested and interrogated by the Gestapo in Poland and sent to a concentration camp. They had never so much as been informed that they had been marked for, not sentenced to, death. (Tr. p. 831.) Article 30 of the Regulations Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land annexed to the Hague Convention expressly provides that even a spy “shall not be punished without previous trial.” The alleged defense of Gebhardt is accordingly without merit.

Gebhardt would have the Tribunal believe that but for the experiments all these Polish girls would be dead; that he preserved the evidence now being used against him. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is no proof in the record that these women would have been executed if they had not undergone the experiments. The witness Maczka is living proof of the contrary. She was arrested for resistance activities on 11 September 1941, and shipped to Ravensbrueck on 13 September. (Tr. p. 1433.) She was not an experimental subject yet she lives today. Substantially all the Polish experimental subjects arrived in Ravensbrueck in September 1941. (Tr. pp. 788, 817, 840.) These girls had not been executed by August 1942 when the experiments began. Indeed, it was a surprise to Gebhardt, according to his testimony, that they were used at all since during July 1942 the experiments were conducted on men. There were some 700 Polish girls in that transport. (NO-877, Pros. Ex. 228; Tr. p. 4216.) There is no evidence that a substantial number were ever executed even though most of them were not experimented on.

No, the proof has shown beyond controversy that these Polish women could not have been legally executed. The right to grant pardons in cases of death sentences was exclusively vested in Hitler by a decree of 1 February 1935, Reich Law Gazette [RGBl], I, page 74. (NO-3070, Pros. Ex. 531.) On 2 May 1935, Hitler delegated the right to make negative decisions on pardon applications to the Reich Minister of Justice. (NO-3071, Pros. Ex. 532.) On 30 January 1940 (RGBl, I, p. 399), Hitler delegated to the Governor General for the occupied Polish territories the authority to grant pardons and to make denying decisions in pardon matters for the occupied Polish territories. (NO-3072, Pros. Ex. 533.) By edict, dated 8 March 1940, VOB1 GGP I p. 99, the Governor General of occupied Poland ordered with reference to the execution of the right to pardon in the case of death sentences that:

“The execution of a death sentence pronounced by a regular court, a special court or a police court martial shall take place only when my decision has been issued not to make use of my right to pardon.” [Emphasis supplied.] (NO-3073, Pros. Ex. 534.)

Assuming arguendo that the experimental subjects had all committed substantial crimes, that they were all properly tried by a duly constituted court of law, that they were legally sentenced to death, it is still clear from the decrees set forth above that these women could not have been legally executed until such time as the Governor General of occupied Poland had decided in each case not to make use of his pardon right. There has been no proof that the Governor General had ever acted with respect to pardoning the Polish women used in the experiments, or, for that matter, any substantial number of those not used in the experiments.

The only reason these 700 Polish women were transported from Warsaw and Lublin to Ravensbrueck was because the Governor General had not approved their execution. Otherwise they would have been immediately executed in Poland. At the very least, these women were entitled to remain unmolested so long as the Governor General took no action. He may never have acted or, when he did, he may have acted favorably on the pardon.

The affidavit of Schiedlausky, the camp doctor at Ravensbrueck, shows that the Governor General had not turned down a pardon when the experiments started. He said on page four of the original:

“Polish women who had been sentenced to death by court martial and who were awaiting execution, after their sentences had been approved by the Governor General, were chosen as subjects.” (NO-508, Pros. Ex. 224.)

At still a later point, on page 15 of the original, he said:

“During my tour of duty at Ravensbrueck, I estimate that about 25 women were executed by shooting. They were exclusively Polish women, who were already prisoners, whose sentences were only approved after a long time by the Governor General.” [Emphasis added.]

Schiedlausky was in Ravensbrueck from December 1941 until the middle of August 1943. During that long period of time only 25 of over 700 Polish inmates were made eligible for execution by action of the Governor General. Who is to say that the majority of these 700 Polish women did not live through the war even though they did not undergo the experiments? Certainly it was incumbent on the defense to prove the contrary by a preponderance of the evidence. This it did not do by any evidence.

The defendants Gebhardt, Fischer, and Oberheuser cannot claim that they believed in good faith that the Polish women could have been legally executed. Even the camp doctor Schiedlausky knew that the Governor General had to approve the execution. Moreover, the large number of 700 women being sentenced to death at this early stage of the war was enough to put any reasonable person on notice that something was wrong.

Additionally, the uncontradicted evidence proves that survival of the experiments was no guarantee whatever of avoiding execution in any event. At least six of the experimental subjects were executed after having survived the experiments. (Tr. pp. 1449, 797, 845, 863.) The names of the Polish girls who were shot were Pajaczkowska, Gans, Zielonka, Rakowska, Sobolewska, and Gutek. (NO-873, Pros. Ex. 226; NO-861, Pros. Ex. 232.) It was not a question of experimentation or execution but experimentation and execution.

Indeed, in February 1945, an effort was made to execute all the experimental subjects. They were ordered to report to one block and remain there. They were informed that they would be transferred to the Gross-Rosen concentration camp, but it was common knowledge that Gross-Rosen was already in the hands of the Allies. They, therefore, knew that they were going to be executed and so took different identification numbers and hid themselves. This was possible because of disorganization in the camp. (Tr. pp. 1450-1, 862-3; NO-876, Pros. Ex. 225; NO-877, Pros. Ex. 228.)

If one takes the case of the defense at its face value, the Tribunal is in effect asked to rule that it is legal for military doctors of a nation at war to experiment on political prisoners of an occupied country who are condemned to death, to experiment on them in such a way that they may suffer death, excruciating pain, mutilation, and permanent disability—all this without their consent and in direct aid of the military potential of their enemy. There is no valid reason for limiting such a decision to civilian prisoners; the experiment would certainly have been no worse had it been performed on Polish or American prisoners of war. It is impossible to consider seriously the ruling being sought for by the defense.

c. Selection from the Argumentation of the Defense

Extract from the Closing Brief for Defendant Gebhardt

The Sulfanilamide Experiments

Of all medical experiments forming the subjects of the indictment, the experiments for testing sulfanilamides were undoubtedly the most directly connected with the war. The problem of wound infection is one with which every nation at war must concern itself especially in modern warfare. This problem is not only one of great importance to the life and health of the individual wounded soldier, but it may have a decisive effect on the strategical position and on the outcome of the war itself through the resultant gaps in the ranks. Already the First World War showed that the majority of soldiers do not die on the battlefield itself and that in most cases death is not the direct result of a wound, but that the heavy losses must be attributed to infection of wounds received. These experiences have been confirmed in the Second World War and the special conditions prevailing in Russia and the climatic conditions due to the winter there have shown even more than in the First World War that wound infection was a medical and tactical problem of the highest importance for the troops and their health. As regards details, I refer to statements made in this connection on the witness stand by several defendants in these proceedings.

Consequently, it could not come as a surprise that in this war, too, efforts were made to deal with wound infection not only by using surgical measures, but that a way was sought to prevent the formation and spreading of bacterial infections or at least to confine them within reasonable limits by using chemical preparations.

Such efforts seemed the more called for as the war in the East not only meant an immense strain on the resources in material and personnel in general, but also in view of the fact that especially the supply of the army troops and the Waffen SS with medical officers and, above all, with trained field surgeons became more and more difficult. Had it been possible to assist the field medical officers at the front and at the main dressing stations with a reliable and effective chemo-therapeutic preparation against bacterial wound infection, progress of vast importance would have been achieved.

On the other hand, however, it was impossible to overlook the fact that the introduction of a chemo-therapeutic preparation which did not operate safely involved a certain amount of danger to an effective medical care of the wounded and consequently to the war potential of the wounded and consequently to the war potential of the German Wehrmacht and its striking power. In his lecture on the chemo-therapy of wound infection as delivered before the First Conference East of the Consulting Specialists on 18 May 1943, which I submitted as part of the report dealing with this conference, (Gebhardt, Fischer, Oberheuser 1, Gebhardt, Fischer, Oberheuser Ex. 6.) Professor Dr. Rostock referred to the great danger of chemo-therapy, i. e., the possibility “of making negligent physicians careless in the surgical aspect of wound dressing, since they may place a certain trust in chemo-therapy.”

This warning was all the more in order since, at that time there was not only complete uncertainty as regards the effects of sulfanilamides, but also because there was a divergence in opinions as to the efficacy of this preparation. It has been clearly shown by the evidence that, in spite of close observation of the effects of sulfanilamides in peace time and in war, it was impossible to answer this question. Opinions were very much divided. While some were convinced of the efficacy of these preparations in connection with wound infections, and ascribed extraordinarily good results to them, others were of the opinion that these chemical preparations could at the best be used as a supplement and that if used by themselves, they did not have the properties to prevent bacterial infection resulting from combat wounds. With regard to the details I refer to the statements of the defendants Karl Brandt, Handloser, Rostock, Gebhardt, and Fischer and to Gebhardt Exhibits 6, 7, and 10 as submitted by me during the hearing of the evidence.

In this respect, it is highly interesting to review the scientific discussions of the consulting specialists as contained in the report on the First Conference East on 18 and 19 May 1942. (Gebhardt, Fischer, Oberheuser 1, Gebhardt, Fischer, Oberheuser Ex. 6.) These discussions which took place prior to the sulfanilamide experiments comprising the subject of the indictment give a true picture of the situation as it was at that time with regard to the efficacy of sulfanilamides.

In this respect we are able to distinguish three sharply defined groups. In the group which rejected the chemo-therapeutic treatment of wound infection, Geheimrat Professor Sauerbruch was the leader. He emphatically voiced the opinion that these chemical preparations tend to obscure surgical work and to lead to perfunctory treatment. He requested that the preparations should be critically tested, that is to say, the test should be made by surgeons experienced in general surgery.

In the other camp there were surgeons who claimed to have obtained extraordinarily favorable results in the chemo-therapeutical treatment of bacterially infected wounds. Among them was Dr. Krueger, the Berlin professor of surgery, who claimed to have observed a favorable effect of sulfanilamide in as many as 5,000 cases.

To the third group belonged the surgeons, bacteriologists, and pathologists who took the view that nothing definite could be said as yet as to the effects and the efficacy of sulfanilamides as agents in the fight against bacterially infected wounds and that further tests along these lines would have to be made.

Thus it can be said that after the experiences of the Russian winter campaign of 1941-1942, the fight against bacterial wound infections, and the question of the efficacy of the sulfanilamides had become a military-medical and medical-tactical problem of the first importance, about which opinions differed widely. A solution of this problem was the more urgent as an answer had to be found quickly, and on the other hand the fact was not to be disregarded that the experiences gained during nearly 10 years of peace and war in clinics as well as in laboratories were insufficient to answer this question.

The Order for the Execution of these Experiments

The evidence has shown that the order to ascertain the effectiveness of the sulfanilamides by experiments on human beings was given directly by the Head of State and Supreme Commander of the Wehrmacht. Hitler’s order was not at first submitted by Himmler to the defendant Gebhardt, but to Dr. Grawitz, Reich Physician of the SS and police.

However, the evidence showed further that another circumstance arose which from the point of view of time at least caused the order for these experiments to be given, viz, the death of the Chief of the Reich Security Main Office, General of the Waffen SS Reinhardt Heydrich, who in May 1942 was assassinated in Prague. For the details I refer to the testimony of Gebhardt in the witness box on this matter. Heydrich’s death is connected with the experiments themselves only insofar as, at that time, the charge was leveled that Heydrich’s life could have been saved if sulfanilamides, and especially a certain sulfanilamide preparation, had been administered to the wounded man in sufficient quantities. The whole problem of sulfanilamide therapy came to the fore once more in this one case, and then in such an obvious manner that the Head of State himself gave the order to clarify by way of all-out experiments the question which for a long time had been of general importance for the fighting troops at the front.

Within the scope of this evaluation of evidence, it is irrelevant to enter into the details which resulted in the experiments being carried out by the defendant Gebhardt himself. Against the strict order of the Reich Physician SS Grawitz, Gebhardt carried out the experiments not by deliberately inflicting bullet wounds but by causing an infection while observing all possible precautionary measures.

It was further shown by the evidence that the experiments were started with 15 habitual criminals who had been sentenced to death and who had been transferred from the concentration camp Sachsenhausen to Ravensbrueck. In view of the fact that this part of the experiment is not a subject of the indictment, it seems to be unnecessary to enter into this matter. It should, however, be kept in mind that at the conference on 1 June 1942, at which the conditions for the experiments were determined in detail—the defendant Gebhardt has described this conference in detail and I am referring to this—it was understood that the experiments should be carried out with the male habitual criminals who had been sentenced to death and who were to be pardoned in case of survival.

The Experimental Arrangements for the Sulfanilamide Experiments

It was shown by the evidence that the experiments for testing the effectiveness of the sulfanilamides were carried out in three groups. The first group included 15 men (habitual criminals). This group has nothing to do with the charges of the indictment and it is therefore superfluous to enter into this matter more closely.

The second group included 36 female prisoners who had been members of the Polish Resistance Movement and who, for this reason, had been sentenced to death by the German court martial in the General Government. This second group was divided into 3 subgroups of 12 experimental persons each. As to the particulars of the provisions for the experiments, I refer to the testimony of the defendants Gebhardt and Fischer in the witness box. Contrary to the first group, contact substances were used in this second group to accelerate the process of infection. The contact substances were inserted into the open wound together with the germs. Sterile and pulverized glass and sterile wood particles were used as contact substances. These contact substances took the place of earth and uniform particles and were to produce war-like conditions for the wounds, without, however, producing at the same time the general dangers created by infection of the wound by earth and parts of clothing.

As in the case of the first group, staphylococci, streptococci, and gas gangrene bacilli were used as agents. But the contention of the indictment that tetanus germs were also used is incorrect. On the contrary, the evidence has proved that the treatment of tetanus did not come within the scope of these experiments. There was all the less reason for this as it was realized long ago by German military surgery that the sulfanilamide preparations are not suitable for the effective prevention of traumatic tetanus. Here I refer to the directives for the chemo-therapeutical treatment of wound infection which were issued at the First Working Conference East of the Consulting Specialists in May 1943 (Gebhardt, Fischer, Oberheuser 1, Gebhardt, Fischer, Oberheuser Ex. 6)—that is prior to the performance of the sulfanilamide experiments charged in the indictment. In these directives it is expressly pointed out that the outbreak of traumatic tetanus cannot be prevented by means of the sulfanilamides and that tetanus anti-toxin has to be administered as usual.

During the presentation of evidence, only the witness Dr. Maczka maintained that tetanus was actually used in one individual case. This witness did not make her own observations of the case but drew conclusions based exclusively on the pathological picture presented by one of the experimental subjects according to her statements. In view of the fact that even according to the testimony of this witness tetanus bacilli were employed only in one individual case, the assertion of this witness can hardly be taken as a true representation of the facts, for if it had really been the intention of the defendant Gebhardt to determine the effect of sulfanilamides on tetanus too, one experimental subject would certainly not have been sufficient, and more experiments would have been necessary before a final decision regarding this question could possibly have been made.

The third group consisted of 24 experimental subjects who were not treated with any sort of contagion—unlike the procedure applied to the second group—but only had part of the muscle ligatured. The defendants Gebhardt and Fischer have given detailed evidence regarding these new experimental arrangements, how they originated, what considerations had to be regarded, and what part was played by SS Reich Physician Dr. Grawitz. With regard to these details I refer to the testimony of the defendants in the witness box.

The experimental subjects were treated with sulfanilamides as described by the defendants in the witness box. A few persons were not treated with sulfanilamides but were used as control subjects. But that did not mean that these persons were not treated at all. As the evidence has proved, all experimental subjects were treated, namely by surgical measures if the sulfanilamides did not prove effective against the inflammation. For this reason too the experimental subjects to whom sulfanilamides were applied, and where the inflammation did not pass away by itself, were given direct surgical treatment under observance of the generally recognized principles of surgery, particularly as developed in Germany by Gebhardt’s teacher Professor Dr. Lexer. This direct surgical treatment resulted in the scars which the court has seen on the experimental subjects questioned as witnesses. As explained by Professor Dr. Alexander, the expert produced by the prosecution, these scars are the result not of the bacteriological infection but of the operations performed in order to eliminate this infection. In the prosecution case, four experimental subjects were called to give evidence. In addition, the prosecution submitted a series of affidavits given by other persons used as experimental subjects. The statements of the four witnesses questioned in court coincide largely with the testimony given by the defendants Gebhardt, Oberheuser, and Fischer themselves in the witness box. For this reason alone it appears expedient and sufficient for the pronouncement of a just sentence and for the establishment of the true facts to base the sentence exclusively on the testimony of these four witnesses together with the statements of the defendants themselves. This is not only in accordance with the principle of direct and oral proceedings in court prevailing in any modern criminal procedure and which should not be departed from without urgent reason, but also such handling of the case seems suitable because the statements of the four witnesses are identical essentially so that they themselves, together with the statements given by the defendants, can be regarded as a safe basis for a finding—apart from one point which I shall go into later. In addition, the affidavits submitted by the prosecution not only differ in essential points from the statements made by the witnesses in court, but are inconsistent and contradictory in themselves as well. This is shown, above all, by the fact that in several of these affidavits contentions are quite obviously made which are not based on personal and factual observation, but have become known to these witnesses by hearsay. The affidavits, moreover, fail to represent the circumstances in clear chronological order, which makes the whole matter all the more doubtful, as it was proved by the evidence that in the Ravensbrueck camp experiments were obviously also performed by other physicians with whom the defendant in this case had no connection.

Considerable doubts also exist regarding the statements made by the witness Dr. Maczka. The prosecution has submitted two affidavits given by this witness as part of its evidence. When questioned in court, this witness could not maintain the most incriminating contentions which appeared in the two affidavits. Under these circumstances, the court has to consider whether it regards the statements of this witness as sufficiently reliable to enter into the judgment. I would answer this question in the negative, not only because she had to revoke the most essential points of her previous affidavits, but because a large part of her testimony was based not on her own observations, but either on information obtained from other prisoners or on conclusions drawn by her.

d. Evidence

Prosecution Documents

Doc. No. Pros. Ex. No. Description of Document Page

NO-228 206 Affidavit of defendant Fischer, 19 November 1946, concerning sulfanilamide experiments conducted in the concentration camp Ravensbrueck.

NO-472 234 Affidavit of the defendant Fischer, 21 October 1946, supplementing his affidavit concerning sulfanilamide experiments.

NO-1080 A, E, F 219 A, E, F Exposures of the witness Maria Kusmierczuk who underwent sulfanilamide and bone experiments while an inmate of the Ravensbrueck concentration camp. (See Selections from Photographic Evidence of the Prosecution.)

NO-1082 A, C 214 A, C Exposures of the witness Jadwiga Dzido who underwent sulfanilamide and bone experiments while an inmate of the Ravensbrueck concentration camp. (See Selections from Photographic Evidence of the Prosecution.)

Defense Documents

Doc. No. Def. Ex. No. Description of Document

Gebhardt, Fischer, Oberheuser 21 Gebhardt, Fischer, Oberheuser Ex. 20 Extract from affidavit of Dr. Karl Friedrich Brunner, 14 March 1947.

Gebhardt, Fischer, Oberheuser 1 Gebhardt, Fischer, Oberheuser Ex. 6 Extract from report on the First Conference East of Consulting Specialists on 18 and 19 May 1942 at the Military Medical Academy, Berlin.

Gebhardt, Fischer, Oberheuser 3 Gebhardt, Fischer, Oberheuser Ex. 10 Extracts from report on the Third Conference East of Consulting Specialists on 24 to 26 May 1943 at the Military Medical Academy, Berlin.

Testimony

Extracts from the testimony of prosecution witness Jadwiga Dzido

Extracts from the testimony of the prosecution expert witness Dr. Leo Alexander

Extracts from the testimony of defendant Gebhardt

PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-228
PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 206

Affidavit of Defendant Fischer, 19 November 1946, Concerning Sulfanilamide Experiments Conducted in the Concentration Camp Ravensbrueck

AFFIDAVIT

I, Fritz Ernst Fischer, having been duly sworn, depose and state under oath:

I am a doctor of medicine, having been graduated from the University of Hamburg. I passed my state examination in 1936. On 13 November 1939 I was inducted into the Waffen SS and after having served with a combat division as medical officer, I was hospitalized and then assigned to the SS hospital at Hohenlychen, as assistant surgeon.

In addition to my normal duties as surgeon at the SS hospital at Hohenlychen, I was ordered by Professor Gebhardt to begin medical experiments in my capacity as assistant surgeon to Professor Gebhardt on or about 12 July 1942. The purpose of the proposed experiments was to determine the effectiveness of sulfanilamide, which I was informed at that time was a matter of considerable importance to military medical circles.

According to the information which I received from Professor Gebhardt, these experiments were directed initially by the Reich Leader SS and the Reich Physician Dr. Grawitz.

Professor Gebhardt instructed me, before the operations were undertaken, on the techniques to be followed and the procedure to be employed. The persons who were to be the subjects of these experiments were inmates of the concentration camp at Ravensbrueck who had been condemned to death.

The administrative procedure which was followed in obtaining the subjects for the experiments was established by Professor Gebhardt with the camp commandant at Ravensbrueck. After the initial arrangements had been made, it was the general practice to inform the medical officer at Ravensbrueck as to the date on which a series of experiments was to be begun and the number of patients who would be required, and then he took the matter up with the commandant of the camp, by whom the selections of subjects were made. Before an operation was undertaken, the persons who had been selected in accordance with this procedure were given a medical examination by the camp physician to determine their suitability for the experiments from a medical standpoint.

The first of the series of experiments involved five persons. The gangrenous bacterial cultures for use in the experiments were obtained from the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS. The procedure followed in the operations was as follows: The subject received the conventional anesthetic of morphine-atropine, then evipan ether. An incision was made 5 to 8 centimeters in length and 1 to 1½ centimeters in depth, on the outside of the lower leg in the area of the peronaeus longus.

The bacterial cultures were put in dextrose, and the resulting mixture was spread into the wound. The wound was then closed and the limb encased in a cast, which had been prepared, which was lined on the inside with cotton so that in the event of swelling of the affected member the result of the experiment would not be influenced by any factor other than the infection itself.

The bacterial cultures used on each of the five persons varied both as to the type of bacteria used and the amount of culture used.

After the initial operations had been performed, I returned to Ravensbrueck each afternoon to observe the progress of the persons who had been operated on. No serious illnesses resulted from these initial operations. I reported the progress of the patients to Professor Gebhardt each night.

When the five persons first operated on were cured, another series of five was begun. The surgical procedure and the post-operative procedure was the same as in the initial experiments, but the bacterial cultures were more virulent. The results from this series were substantially the same as in the first and no serious illnesses resulted.

Since no inflammation resulted from the bacterial cultures used in the first two series of operations, it was determined, as a result of correspondence with Dr. Mrugowsky, the Chief of the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS, and conversations with his assistant, to change the type of bacterial culture in the subsequent operations. Using the new culture, two more series of operations were performed, each involving five persons.

The difference between the third and fourth series was in the bacterial cultures used. The Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS prepared them from separate combinations of the three or four gangrene cultures which were available. In the third and fourth series, more pronounced infection and inflammation were discernible at the place of incision. Their characteristics were similar to a normal, local infection, with redness, swelling, and pain. The circumference of the infection was comparable in size to a chestnut. Upon the completion of the fourth series, the camp physician informed me that the camp commandant had instructed him that male patients would no longer be available for further experiments, but that it would be necessary to use female inmates.

Accordingly, five women were prepared for the operation, but I did not operate on them. I reported the change of situation to Professor Gebhardt and suggested that in view of these circumstances, it would be desirable to stop the experiments. He did not adopt this suggestion, however, and pointed out that it was necessary for me as an officer to carry out the duties which had been assigned to me.

The experiments, however, were interrupted for a period of 2 weeks, during which Professor Gebhardt told me he had discussed the matter in Berlin and had been instructed to carry on the experiments, using Polish female prisoners who had been sentenced to death. In addition, he instructed me to speed up the experiments since the Reich Physician, Dr. Grawitz, intended to go to Ravensbrueck soon to test the results of the experiments. Accordingly, I went to Ravensbrueck and operated on the female prisoners.

Since the infections which resulted from the first four series of experiments were not typical of gangrenous battlefield infections, we communicated with the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS to determine what steps could be taken more nearly to simulate infections caused by battle. As a result of this correspondence and a conference at Hohenlychen presided over by Professor Gebhardt, it was decided to add tiny fragments of wood shavings to the bacterial cultures, which would simulate the crust of dirt customarily found in battlefield wounds.

As a result of this conference, three series of operations were performed, each involving 10 persons, one using the bacterial culture and fragments of wood, the second using bacterial culture and fragments of glass, and the third using the culture plus glass and wood.

About two weeks after these new series were begun, Dr. Grawitz visited Ravensbrueck. Professor Gebhardt introduced him to me and explained to him the general nature of the work. Professor Gebhardt then left, and I explained to Dr. Grawitz the details of the operations and their results. Dr. Grawitz, before I could complete my report on the procedures used and the results obtained, brusquely interrupted me and observed that the conditions under which the experiments were performed did not sufficiently resemble conditions prevailing at the front. He asked me literally, “How many deaths have there been?” and when I reported that there had not been any, he stated that that confirmed his assumption that the experiments had not been carried out in accordance with his directions.

He said that the operations were mere flea bites and that since the purpose of the work was to determine the effectiveness of sulfanilamide on bullet wounds it would be necessary to inflict actual bullet wounds on the patients. He ordered that the next series of experiments to be undertaken should be in accordance with these directions. That same evening, I discussed these orders of Dr. Grawitz with Professor Gebhardt and we both agreed that it was impossible to carry them out, but that a procedure would be adopted which would more nearly simulate battlefield conditions without actually shooting the patients.

The normal result of all bullet wounds was a shattering of tissue, which did not exist in the initial experiments. As a result of the injury, the normal flow of blood through the muscle is cut off. The muscle is nourished by the flow of blood from either end. When this circulation is interrupted, the affected area becomes a fertile field for the growth of bacteria; the normal reaction of the tissue against the bacteria is not possible without circulation.

This interruption of circulation usual in battle casualties could be simulated by tying off the blood vessels at either end of the muscle.

Two series of operations, each involving 10 persons, were begun following this procedure. In the first of these, the same bacterial cultures were used as were developed in the third and fourth series, but the glass and wood were omitted. In the other series, streptococci and staphylococci cultures were used. In the series using the gangrenous culture a severe infection in the area of the incision resulted within 24 hours.

Eight patients out of ten became sick from the gangrenous infection. Cases which showed symptoms of an unspecific or specific inflammation were operated on in accordance with the doctrine and manner of septic surgery. The Lexer doctrine formed the basis of the procedure. The technique is that an incision in the area of the gangrene is made, from healthy tissue to healthy tissue on either side. The wound and fascian corners were laid open, the gangrenous blisters swabbed, and a solution of H2O2 (hydrogen peroxide) was poured over them. The inflamed extremity was immobilized in a cast. With most patients it was possible to improve the gangrenous condition of the entire infected area in this manner.

In the series in which banal cultures of streptococci and staphylococci were used, the severe resultant infection with accompanying increase in temperature and swelling did not occur until 72 hours later. Four patients showed a more serious picture of the disease. In the case of these patients, the normal professional technique of orthodox medicine was followed as outlined above, and the inflamed swelling split. Due to the slight virulence of the bacteria it was possible in the case of all patients except one to prevent the threatened deadly development of the disease.

The incisions were made on the lower part of the leg only in all series to make an amputation possible. It was not made on the upper thigh because then no area for amputation would remain. However, in this series the inflammation was so rapid that there was no remedy and no amputations were made.

Since after the tying up of the circulation of the muscles, a very severe course of infection was to be expected, 5 grams of sulfanilamide were given intravenously in the amount of 1 gram each, beginning 1 hour after the operation. After the wound was laid open to expose all its corners, sulfanilamide was shaken into the entire area and the area was drained by thick rubber tubes.

The infection normally reached an acute stage over a period of 3 weeks, during which time I changed the bandages daily. After the period of 3 weeks the condition was normally that of a simple wound which was dressed by the camp physicians rather than by me.

The procedure prescribed for the post-operative treatment of the patients was to give them three times each day 1 cc. of morphine, and when the dressings were changed, to induce an esthesia by the use of evipan.

In all the series of experiments, except the first, sulfanilamide was used after the gangrenous infection appeared. In each series two persons were not given sulfanilamide as a control to determine its effectiveness. When sulfanilamide and the bacteria cultures together were introduced into the incision no inflammation resulted.

My behavior towards all patients was very considerate, and I was very careful in the operations to follow standard professional procedure.

In May 1943, on the occasion of the Fourth Conference of the Consulting Physicians of the Wehrmacht, a report was made by Professor Gebhardt and myself as to these operations. This medical congress was called by Professor Handloser, who occupied the position of Surgeon General of the Armed Forces, and was attended by a large number of physicians, both military and civilian.

In my lecture to the meeting I reported on the operations frankly, using charts which demonstrated the technique used, the amount of sulfanilamide administered, and the condition of the patients. This lecture was the focal point of the conference. Professor Gebhardt spoke about the fundamentals of the experiments, their performance and their results, and then asked me to describe the technique. He began his lecture with the following words: “I bear the full human, surgical, and political responsibility for these experiments.”

This lecture was followed by a discussion. No criticism was raised. I am convinced that all the physicians present would have acted in the same manner as I.

Subsequent to my repeated urgent requests, I went to the front as surgeon immediately after this conference. Only after I was wounded did I return as a patient to Hohenlychen. I never entered the Ravensbrueck camp again. I protested vigorously against these experiments on human beings, endeavored to prevent them, and to limit their extension after they had been ordered. In order not to be forced to participate in these experiments, I repeatedly volunteered for front-line service. Insofar as it was in my power, I tried to dissuade Doctor Koller and Doctor Reissmayer from performing these experiments. I declined habilitation at the University of Berlin because I felt that it might result in my being obliged to carry on additional experiments at Ravensbrueck. After I succeeded in scientific discoveries of the highest practical importance, that is, the solution of the cancer problem and its therapy, I did not communicate this fact to Professor Gebhardt and did not publish this work in order not to be ordered again to carry out experiments.

Fritz Ernst Fischer

TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-472
PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 234

Affidavit of the Defendant Fischer, 21 October 1946, Supplementing His Affidavit Concerning Sulfanilamide Experiments

3. At the conference of May 1943, which I described on page 12 of my affidavit (last paragraph) the following officials were present to the best of my recollection: Dr. Paul Rostock as chairman of the conference; Dr. Siegfried Handloser, who was then the Chief of the Medical Service of the German Armed Forces, who had sent out the invitations to the meeting; Professor Karl Brandt, who sat in the center of the front row; Dr. Leonardo D. Conti, the Reich Health Leader; Professor Dr. Sauerbruch; Dr. Frey; and Professor Heubner. The Medical Service of the Luftwaffe was represented by Dr. Hippke, who was the Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe; and by Dr. Oskar Schroeder. The Medical Service of the Waffen SS was represented by its chief, Dr. Karl Genzken. Dr. Helmut Poppendick, who was the Chief of Staff of the Reich Physician SS and Police, and Dr. Grawitz were also present.

5. It was made perfectly clear during the speeches made by Dr. Gebhardt and myself that the experiments were conducted on inmates of a concentration camp.

6. Six months after this, the 10th anniversary of the hospital at Hohenlychen was celebrated. Dr. Karl Brandt, Dr. Siegfried Handloser, Dr. Leonardo D. Conti, and Professor Dr. Sauerbruch were invited to the celebrations.

7. When the sulfanilamide experiments started, I was told by Professor Gebhardt, my military and medical superior, that these experiments were being carried out by order of the Chief of the Medical Office of the Wehrmacht and the Chief of the State Medical Office, with the initial order from Hitler, and I must therefore carry out these orders.

8. Dr. Herta Oberheuser and Dr. Schiedlausky assisted me in the sulfanilamide experiments.

9. As a result of these experiments, three people died.

[Signed] Fritz Ernst Fischer

TRANSLATION OF GEBHARDT, FISCHER, OBERHEUSER
DOCUMENT 21
GEBHARDT, FISCHER, OBERHEUSER DEFENSE EXHIBIT 20

Extract from Affidavit of Dr. Karl Friedrich Brunner, 14 March 1947

I only heard of the sulfanilamide experiments on human beings at Ravensbrueck after their conclusion through the public report made by Professor Gebhardt and Dr. Fischer before the Third Conference East of Consultant Specialists of 24 and 26 May 1943 at the Military Medical Academy, Berlin. I attended this conference as Stabsarzt in the army from a military reserve hospital in Berlin. Later on I read a report in the directives. Professor Dr. Gebhardt did not speak to us about this point subsequently. On the other hand, the existence of this sulfanilamide experiment was known and was not kept secret, although even foreigners were continuously to be found among the assistants, as, for instance, the Swiss surgeon, Dr. Meyer, during my time.

TRANSLATION OF GEBHARDT, FISCHER, OBERHEUSER
DOCUMENT 1
GEBHARDT, FISCHER, OBERHEUSER DEFENSE EXHIBIT 6

Extract from Report on the First Conference East of Consulting Specialists on 18 and 19 May 1942 at the Military Medical Academy, Berlin

Directives for the chemo-therapy of wound infections

The treatment of war wounds with sulfanilamide preparations in order to combat wound infections seems to have prospects. In stock now in the medical stores are: prontalbin-marfanil powder, prontosil, neo-uleron-albucid, eubasinum, sulfapyridine-cibazol, and eleudron pills.

Traumatic tetanus cannot be prevented by these preparations; tetanus antitoxin must therefore be given as usual.

Chemotherapeutics are not a safe precaution against gas oedemata. The collection of further experiences in this field is especially desirable.

When treating war wounds, an operative arrangement of the wound must first be made by removing the dead tissue and opening all cavities of the wound. Then the remedy is applied with a powder distributor or with dredging boxes, in dosages of from 5-20 grams according to the size of the wound. This is repeated whenever a change of dressing is necessary. Independently of the change of dressing, and spread evenly over the day, the patient is given 8 grams on the first day, 6 grams on the second day, 5 grams on the third day and on each of the fourth, fifth, and sixth days, 4 grams of sulfanilamide preparations per os (if necessary, rectal or intravenous injections). Then the drug treatment is discontinued and started again if necessary. The earlier this treatment is begun the better are its chances.

Local treatment with the available sulfanilamide powders together with an internal treatment with albucid, cibazol, eleudron, eubasinum, globucid (particularly for gas oedema), marfanil-prontalbin, protosil is suggested.

If, in rare cases, secondary reactions occur such as nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, buzzing in the ears, headaches, skin rashes, or icterus, these remedies must be discontinued at once. A blood transfusion may be useful.

PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF GEBHARDT, FISCHER,
OBERHEUSER DOCUMENT 3
GEBHARDT, FISCHER, OBERHEUSER DEFENSE EXHIBIT 10

Extracts from Report on the Third Conference East of Consulting Specialists on 24 to 26 May 1943 at the Military Medical Academy, Berlin

5. SS Gruppenfuehrer and Major General, Professor Gebhardt, and F. Fischer.

Special Experiments on Sulfanilamide Treatment
CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

Additional Remarks

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

Hypothesis of Functions

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

Directives for the Application of Sulfanilamides

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

Disorders caused by sulfanilamides (Randerath) are relatively rare. They occur directly as liver disorders including acute yellow liver atrophy, as kidney disorders, and as agranulocytosis. Therefore, as far as is possible under front-line conditions, the white and red blood count should be controlled. The decrease of the body temperature caused by an infection of the central regulatory system may be looked upon as an indirect disorder, so that the temperature curve permits no conclusions as to the development of the wound infection. Furthermore, local powder treatment may lead to an occasional increase in the depth of the wound infection. Direct injury to the tissue at the spot where the preparations were applied was not observed.

The endolumbal application of the sulfanilamides (Mueller) must also be rejected for the treatment of meningitis, since it leads to serious disturbances in the region of the spinal cord and may result in paralysis.

The clinical discourse (Frey) emphasized the decrease of optimistic and the increase of critical opinions. The clinical doctor considers the principal disorders to be anorexia, nausea, and increasing exhaustion. Early application in the wound itself is essential for the efficacy. The enteral or parenteral inducing of sulfanilamide drugs cannot prevent wound infections, but can favorably influence its course.

The following rules for practice therefore result: All surface wounds, that is, grazing shot wounds, sulcus-shaped wounds and large gaping wounds of the soft parts should be sprinkled as soon as possible with sulfanilamide powder. The powder treatment is of no use if the depths of the wound are not reached. It is ineffective to powder the small wounds caused by the penetration and exit of the bullet. The powdering of the skin is senseless and may cause eczema. Deeper wounds must be treated in the quickest and most thorough manner. After this, the wound can be additionally treated with sulfanilamide powder which must reach the deepest cavities. It is not advisable to powder granulating wounds.

If the powder treatment cannot be applied during the first hours or does not seem to suffice, a pororal application of sulfanilamides should take its place or be performed supplementarily. Front-line conditions will not always allow intravenous injections. According to the danger of a wound infection, the wound should be treated for a short time with large doses of sulfanilamides (6-10 grams during 3-4 days, not more than a total of 50 grams). On the whole, small doses are insufficient and therefore have no influence on the course of an infection, but if applied too long they may be injurious. Suitable preparations are preferably eleudron, cibazol, and globucide. If possible, the treatment should be applied by a medical officer.

Wounds endangered by gas oedema—and this means all large and deep muscle wounds—should, in addition to the local and oral treatment with sulfanilamide, also be treated with gangrene serum. At subsequent operations, for example resection of the ribs, empyema of the chest, secondary sutures, and late amputations, the new wound caused by the operation may be powdered adequately with sulfanilamides when bleeding has stopped.

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

Abdominal gunshot wounds can also be treated with sulfanilamide powder (about one tablespoon) or the sulfanilamide may be induced into the abdominal cavity in the form of an emulsion.

Extracts from the Testimony of Prosecution Witness Jadwiga Dzido

DIRECT EXAMINATION

Mr. Hardy: Witness, what is your full name?

Witness Dzido: Jadwiga Dzido.

Q. Do you spell that J-a-d-w-i-g-a, last name spelled D-z-i-d-o?

A. Yes.

Q. Witness, you were born on 26 January 1918?

A. Yes.

Q. You are a citizen of Poland?

A. Yes.

Q. Have you come here to Nuernberg voluntarily to testify?

A. Yes.

Q. Would you kindly tell the Tribunal your present home address?

A. Warsaw, Garnoslonska 14.

Q. Witness, are you married?

A. No.

Q. Are your parents living?

A. No.

Q. What education have you received?

A. I finished elementary school and high school at Warsaw. In 1937 I started to study pharmacology at the University of Warsaw.

Q. Did you graduate from the University in Warsaw?

A. No.

Q. What did you do after you had finished school in the University of Warsaw?

A. I started studying pharmacology at the University, and then when I was studying the second year, the war broke out.

Q. What did you do after the war broke out?

A. In 1939 I was working in a pharmacy during the holidays.

Q. Were you a member of the Resistance Movement?

A. In the autumn of 1940 I entered the Resistance Underground.

Q. What did you do in the Resistance Movement?

A. I was a messenger.

Q. Then were you later captured by the Gestapo and placed under arrest?

A. I was arrested by the Gestapo on 28 March 1941.

Q. What happened to you after your arrest by the Gestapo?

A. I was interrogated by the Gestapo in Lublin, Lukow, and Radzin.

Q. And what happened after that?

A. In Lublin, I was beaten while naked.

Q. Did you then receive any further treatment from the Gestapo, or were you released?

A. I stayed in Lublin 6 weeks in the cellar of the Gestapo building.

Q. Then were you sent to the Ravensbrueck concentration camp?

A. On 23 September 1941, I was transported to the Ravensbrueck concentration camp.

Q. Were you told why you were sent to the concentration camp in Ravensbrueck?

A. No, I was not told.

Q. Were you ever given a trial in any German court?

A. Never.

Q. Who sent you to Ravensbrueck concentration camp?

A. All the prisoners in the prison at Lublin were sent there, and I went with them.

Q. Now will you tell the Court, Miss Dzido, in your own words what happened to you after you arrived at Ravensbrueck?

A. When I arrived in the Ravensbrueck concentration camp, I thought that I would stay there till the end of the war. The living conditions in the prison were such that we could not live there any longer. In the camp we had to work, but in the camp it was not so dirty, and there were not so many lice as used to be in the prison.

Q. What work did you do in the camp, Witness?

A. I did physical work inside or outside the camp.

Q. Were you ever operated on in the Ravensbrueck concentration camp?

A. I was operated on in November 1942.

Q. Will you kindly explain the circumstances of this operation to the Tribunal?

A. In 1942 great hunger and terror reigned in the camp. The Germans were at the zenith of their power. You could see haughtiness and pride on the face of every SS woman. We were told every day that we were nothing but numbers, that we had to forget that we were human beings, that we had nobody to think of us, that we would never return to our country, that we were slaves, and that we had only to work. We were not allowed to smile, to cry, or to pray. We were not allowed to defend ourselves when we were beaten. There was no hope of going back to my country.

Q. Now, Witness, did you say that you were operated on in the Ravensbrueck concentration camp on 22 November 1942? [See photographs, pp. 898-908.]

A. Yes.

Q. Now, on 22 November 1942, the day of this operation, will you kindly tell the Tribunal all that happened during that time?

A. That day the policewoman, camp policewoman, came with a piece of paper where my name was written down. The policewoman told us to follow her. When I asked her where we were going, she told me that she didn’t know. She took us to the hospital. I didn’t know what was going to happen to me. It might have been an execution, transport for work, or operation.

Dr. Oberheuser appeared and told me to undress and examined me. Then I was X-rayed. I stayed in the hospital. My dress was taken away from me. I was operated on 22 November 1942 in the morning. A German nurse came, shaved my legs, and gave me something to drink. When I asked her what she was going to do with me she did not give me any answer. In the afternoon I was taken to the operating room on a small hospital trolley. I must have been very exhausted and tired and that is why I don’t remember whether I got an injection or whether a mask was put on my face. I didn’t see the operating room.

When I came back I remember that I had no wound on my leg, but a trace of a sting. From that time I don’t remember anything till January. I learned from my comrades who lived in the same room that my leg had been operated on. I remember what was going on in January, and I know that the dressings had been changed several times.

Q. Witness, do you know who performed the operation upon your leg?

A. I don’t know.

Q. Now, you say that you had dressings changed. Who changed the dressings on your leg?

A. The dressings were changed by Drs. Oberheuser, Rosenthal, and Schiedlausky.

Q. Did you suffer a great deal while these dressings were being changed?

A. Yes, very much.

Q. Witness, will you step down from the witness box and walk over to the defendants’ dock and see if you can recognize anyone in that dock as being at Ravensbrueck concentration camp during the period and during the time that you were operated on?

A. (Witness points.)

Q. Will you point to the person again that you recognized, Witness?

A. (Witness points.)

Q. And who is that, Witness?

A. Dr. Oberheuser.

Mr. Hardy: May we request that the record so show that the witness has identified the defendant Oberheuser?

Presiding Judge Beals: The record will so show.

Mr. Hardy: Do you recognize anyone else in that dock, Witness?

Witness Dzido: Yes.

Q. Point out who else you recognize, Witness?

A. (Witness points.)

Q. Who is that, Witness?

A. This man I saw only once in the camp.

Q. Do you know who that man is, Witness?

A. I know.

Q. Who is that man, Witness?

A. Dr. Fischer.

Mr. Hardy: Will the record so show that the witness has properly identified the defendant Fischer as being at the Ravensbrueck concentration camp?

Presiding Judge Beals: The record will so show.

Mr. Hardy: Witness, do you have any other details to tell the Tribunal about your operation?

Witness Dzido: (No answer.)

Q. Witness, how many times were you operated on?

A. Once.

Q. When Dr. Oberheuser attended you, was she gentle in her treatment toward you?

A. She was not bad.

Q. Witness, have you ever heard of a person named Binz in the Ravensbrueck concentration camp?

A. I know her very well.

Q. Do you remember what time your friends were called to be operated on in August of 1943?

A. Yes.

Q. Will you kindly tell the Tribunal some of the details there and the names of the persons who were to be operated on?

A. In the spring of 1943 the operations were stopped. We thought that we could live like that till the end of the war. On the 15th of August a policewoman came and called ten girls. When she was asked what for, she answered that we were going to be sent to work. We knew very well that all prisoners belonging to our transport were not allowed to work outside the camp. The chief of the block where we were living was forbidden under capital punishment to let us outside the camp. That’s why we know that it was not true. We didn’t want to let our comrades out of the block. The policewoman came, and the assistants, the overseers, and with them Binz. We were driven out of the block into the street. We stood there in line 10 at a time and Binz herself read off the names of 10 girls. When they refused to go because they were afraid of a new operation and were not willing to undergo a new operation, she herself gave her word of honor that it was not going to be an operation and she told them to follow her.

We remained standing before the block. Then several minutes later our comrades ran to us and told us that SS men have been called for in order to surround them. The camp police arrived and drove our comrades out of the line. We were locked in the block. The shutters were closed. We were 3 days without any food and without any fresh air. We were not given parcels that arrived in the camp at that time. The first day the camp commandant and Binz came and made a speech. The camp commandant said that there had never been a revolt in the camp and that this revolt must be punished. She believed that we would reform and that we would never repeat it. If it were to happen again, she had SS people with weapons. My comrade, who knew German, answered that we were not revolting, that we didn’t want to be operated on because five of us died after the operation and because six had been shot down after having suffered so much. Then Binz replied: “Death is victory. You must suffer for it and you will never get out of the camp.” Three days later, we learned that our comrades had been operated on in the bunker.

Q. Now, Witness, how many women, approximately, were operated on at Ravensbrueck?

A. At Ravensbrueck 74 women were operated on. Many of them underwent many operations.

Q. Now, you have told us that five died as a result of the operations, is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And another six were shot down after the operation, is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know why those other six were shot, Witness?

A. I don’t know.

Q. Witness, were any of these victims asked to volunteer for these operations?

A. No.

Q. Were any of them promised freedom if they would submit to operations?

A. No.

Q. When you were operated on, did you object?

A. I could not.

Q. Why?

A. I was not allowed to talk and our questions were not answered.

Q. Do you still suffer any effects as a result of the operation, Witness?

A. Yes.

Q. Were you ever asked to sign any papers with respect to the operation?

A. Never.

Q. When did you finally leave Ravensbrueck?

A. On 27 April 1945.

Q. Have you ever received any treatment since you have left Ravensbrueck in the last year?

A. Yes.

Q. Tell us what treatment you have received.

A. Dr. Gruzan in Warsaw transplanted tendons on my leg.

Q. When did he do that?

A. On 25 September 1945.

Q. Do you have to wear any special shoes, now, Witness?

A. Yes, I should wear them, but I can’t afford to buy them.

Q. What are you doing now, Witness? Are you working now, or what is your occupation?

A. I am now continuing my studies which I started before the war.

Q. I see. I will ask the witness to identify these pictures.

Mr. Hardy: This is Document NO-1082a, b, and c. I will pass these up to the Tribunal for your perusal. Were these photographs taken of you in Nuernberg in the last day or two, Witness?

Witness Dzido: Yes.

Q. Witness, would you kindly take your stocking and shoe off your right leg, please, and will you step out to the side and show the Tribunal the results of the operations at Ravensbrueck? (Witness complies.) That’s all, Witness, you may sit down.

Mr. Hardy: I have no further question on direct examination, your Honor.

Presiding Judge Beals: Is there any defense counsel who desires to cross-examine this witness?

Dr. Seidl (counsel for defendants Gebhardt, Oberheuser, and Fischer): I do not want to cross-examine the witness; however, I do not wish the conclusion to be drawn that my clients admit all the statements made by the witness.

Extracts from the Testimony of the Prosecution Expert Witness Dr. Leo Alexander

DIRECT EXAMINATION

Mr. Hardy: Dr. Alexander, have you examined Miss Dzido before today?

Witness Dr. Alexander: Yes, sir, I did, on several occasions during the last 3 days.

Q. During your examination, did you have X-rays made of the patient’s legs?

A. I did, sir.

Mr. Hardy: At this time I will introduce Document NO-1091 which is the X-ray of the witness, Miss Dzido. We will pass two copies to the Tribunal and one copy to the Secretary General. Dr. Alexander, in the course of your diagnosis of these X-rays, will you kindly diagnose this X-ray in English and then repeat in German for the benefit of the defendants?

Witness Dr. Alexander: Yes, sir.

Q. Doctor, will you identify that X-ray which carried Document NO-1091?

A. Yes. This is the X-ray which included the lower two-thirds of the thigh bone, the femur, and the knee joint, and—

Mr. Hardy: I offer this X-ray as Prosecution Exhibit 215.

Q. Doctor, this X-ray you are referring to now is Document NO-1092?

A. This is Document NO-1091. The arrow points to the osteoporotic atrophy of the tibia. Document NO-1092 is the X-ray of the leg. It shows the fibula which is the smaller of the two larger bones of the leg, about in the middle between the area just mentioned under the bracket called “B”. On the side, looking toward the tibia is the osteoperiostitis of the periosteum. This group of marks is particularly severe in the smaller area which I have marked with the bracket “A”, which indicates a smaller area of the shaft of the tibia within the larger area of the disturbance marked as “B”. This alteration is indicative and consists of an ordinary inactive Coxa, which in view of the osteoperiostitis of the periosteum was probably an osteomyelitis process. However, there is no active osteomyelitis at the present examination of the right foot. In pictures 1093 and 1094, it shows arthritic changes of the cuniform navicula joints with narrowing of the joint spaces and increased marginal sclerosis. This has been marked in the X-ray with an arrow pointing to the joint. The other prints are the same. The prints have come out too dark, but it shows the condition clearly in the film.

This arthritis is due to the immobilization of the right foot. Secondary to the muscles and especially the paralysis of the perineal nerve. It is evidently arthritis of an immobilization nature which one sees also by inspection of the patient’s foot.

Q. Doctor, can you determine from your examination——

A. (Interposing) 1094—have I mentioned it?—shows the same as 1093 in a slightly different exposure. The marks are the same pointing to the most marked arthritis between the cuniform navicular joints.

Q. Doctor, in your opinion, from your examination of this patient can you determine what was the purpose of the experiment?

A. It appears that in this experiment a highly infectious agent was implanted, probably without the addition of a bacteria static agent such as sulfanilamide, and for that reason the infection got out of hand and became very extensive.

Extracts from the Testimony of Defendant Gebhardt

DIRECT EXAMINATION

Dr. Seidl: The experiments on Polish internees were carried out in such a way that, first of all, three series of experiments were performed on three groups of 12 persons each. Is that correct?

Defendant Gebhardt: Yes. What I wanted to solve by means of this second experimental group was the task given me in my orders, namely, the testing of the drugs prescribed. I definitely hoped in these experiments, which produced gangrene, that if there was anything in the sulfanilamide drugs, which I had reason to hope, then the advantages connected with one or the other drug would become apparent, and I would be able to discontinue the experiments. Of course, I could not stop at the initial instructions. I really had to go on to a localized and definite infection, and for that there is an internationally known precept, not discovered by us, which is to produce a locus minoris resistentia—that is to say, the place of least resistance—where germs combine with contact substances. So we did not insert dirt, glass, or earth, cruelly; the dirt in the wound was represented by sterile glass silicate; soil and textiles which would enter a wound were replaced by us through sterile cellulose, finely ground. You all know that if you cut yourself and a nonsterile piece of glass remains in the wound, if you do not move the spot, it will heal with the glass inside without any aggravated symptoms. The only effect it has is to produce a catalysis for the germs and a local obstruction to the flow of blood, and possibly to damage a few cells slightly. In other words, we produced inflammation in the safest way possible for such an experiment. That is an unquestionable scientific train of thought in this sphere. We proceeded in just that manner and in addition, we gave our sulfanilamide, or zeibazol 1., eleutron, and nitron. Two control persons, however, were not without protection, because they were taken care of in the old established way.

Now, don’t suggest that I should know the schedule or that there was some schedule regarding the supply of sulfanilamide used. A schedule is always bad in medicine because it is no longer original. One thing is characteristic, however, with sulfanilamides and that is that you give a big dose at the beginning, and here there is a question of whether it is correct to introduce it locally or to leave it open. Someone might mix it, somebody else might have a different combination and that is how we did it. I would be a bad scientist if I were to write down for you now that I knew exactly that they were all given in a certain manner on the third day, or that they are all like this and this now. It states expressly in Thomas’ statement, of course, that any prearranged table for the administration is wrong, and that we also cannot prescribe the correct way to apply these drugs. It was obviously clear that there was a strong impression made by sulfanilamides and, even in the first group, we were astonished to find a certain result, which is useful for the idea as such, but not for practical purposes. Among other things we immediately and simultaneously sprinkled a mixture of germs together with sulfanilamide powder into the wound. That was the only exception made in the first group and it didn’t produce any results at all. Now, if I were a bad scientist then I would have assumed that that, in itself, was a success. No matter whether it was the ultrasepsis or the powder we had used, I would have been satisfied, and I would have said, “Everybody now has to take a little bag of sulfanilamide along with him and powder the wounds with it immediately because we know that if they are inserted simultaneously into the wound—the germ and the drug—then there will be no inflammation.” Only in complete ignorance of wound conditions and war conditions could one adopt that point of view. The disadvantage of the sulfanilamide bag is that a man who is badly shot isn’t in a position to act; he would be lying somewhere badly wounded and not be able to do anything. On the other hand, of course, the position is that the surface of the wound can easily be powdered, but of course not right down to the very bottom of the wound, and we know particularly well that sulfanilamides when applied wrongly in this way have caused injury.

Q. The second group consisted of the 36 women, 3 times 12 women?

A. Yes. Infection, plus contact materials.

Q. Is it true that the Reich Physician SS, Dr. Grawitz, on 3 September 1942, when inspecting Ravensbrueck, demanded that the experimental conditions had to be made more severe in order to create conditions similar to wartime conditions?

A. At the beginning of September, on the basis of my report, I was called to Grawitz to report on the results which might be expected. Grawitz, and as I shall explain later, Stumpfegger, came to me at the beginning of September. Since Grawitz was coming to Ravensbrueck I turned up on the same day, so that Fischer could demonstrate the patients under my protection. That is the impression probably created repeatedly by the testimony of witnesses; they have to wait for a time, and then I say “These are the patients whom I operated on.” I assume the same description was given each time. Grawitz was able to prove to me that the effects were circumscribed and not of a war nature. And he was able to prove to me that I had obtained no clear medical information, only assumptions, and the clinical conditions resulting might perhaps be expected after surgery at home. For another reason, which can be seen from the documents, the argument became rather violent. Grawitz turned to Fischer, who presented the cases to him. At any rate he then said, unfortunately, that a speedy clarification had to be reached and that wounds similar to combat wounds had to be created, that is, a gunshot wound infected by earth and matter. Of course, I did not accept these conditions and I looked for some way to get the experiment into my own hands so that, using all safeguards, a higher degree of infection might be brought about, and the cases might still remain under my control. I did not want to give up and say, “I have not reached any conclusion,” thereby impliedly giving permission for wounds similar to combat wounds to be inflicted elsewhere. And so we arrived at the idea of tying off the arteries of the third group, which is also a customary means of bringing about a locus minoris resistentiae in international experimental technique.

Q. You did not carry out the order then?

A. No.

Q. Then how were the experiments continued in order to create severe local inflammation in warlike wounds?

A. We kept to our old technique, the infusion, that is an incision on the outer side of the calf far from the joint, where it is not under pressure, and where the cast does not hurt it. In other words, we chose the most suitable place according to all medical considerations. Then we administered the infection in a place where the circulation of the blood had been reduced.

Q. What do you know about the deaths, and why was there no amputation in these cases?

A. I believe that I can remember the three deaths very well. But I only remember three—I have always testified that—with all the things that have happened in the meantime and all the patients I have taken care of. It was not that Fischer or I overlooked an amputation, and it is certainly not true that an amputation can save the life of the patient in all cases of gangrene. As I remember the case histories, the most serious patient had a large abscess on the hip. Probably the corresponding glands had been affected. The infection on the calf and the abscess on the hip—what can I amputate? One can amputate when the infection is limited to the calf. We did not have such cases because we forced the infection to the place where we wanted it, but we were not able to prevent the infection spreading to a different area and running into the blood vessel as does happen occasionally. There are infections of the veins, and then the patient dies suddenly, and it is a definite risk to perform an operation because the power of resistance is on the borderline, hanging by a hair. If we perform such major operations to save the patient’s life, then you may assume that we would have undertaken an amputation, or would you assume that a surgeon of my experience does not know when he has to amputate? Unfortunately that is the first thing that an operative surgeon like Fischer learns in wartime, to amputate in time.

As far as I remember, the deaths were from an abscess of the glands, an inflammation of the veins, an inflammation of the blood vessels, and one died from general sickness, in spite of all transfusions. This happens in cases of infection when there is no possibility of stopping the infection by local surgery. But one cannot conclude that any medical measures which should have been taken were overlooked, because just by seeing a case history from a distance one cannot decide that at such and such a moment the patient should have been operated on. I am convinced that in these three cases which Fischer reported to me exactly, which I saw, and in which the therapy was discussed, that we certainly did not overlook anything. As far as one can humanly say, we did what we considered necessary.

I wanted to publish this result or to report it to the public from the beginning. Therefore, it was obvious from the very beginning, if you did not assume that I had any humane or surgical motives, that I did everything in order to be able to publish the results.

6. Bone, Muscle and Nerve Regeneration and Bone Transplantation Experiments

a. Introduction

The defendants Karl Brandt, Handloser, Rostock, Gebhardt, Rudolf Brandt, Oberheuser, and Fischer were charged with special responsibility for and participation in criminal conduct involving experiments on bone, muscle, and nerve regeneration and experiments on bone transplantation (par. 6 (F) of the indictment). During the trial, the prosecution withdrew this charge in the case of Rudolf Brandt. On this charge the defendants Gebhardt, Oberheuser, and Fischer were convicted and the defendants Karl Brandt, Handloser, and Rostock were acquitted.

The prosecution’s summation of the evidence on these experiments is contained in its final brief against the defendant Gebhardt. An extract from this brief is set forth below on pages 392 to 396. A corresponding summation of the evidence by the defense on these experiments has been selected from the final plea for the defendant Gebhardt. It appears below on pages 396 to 399. This argumentation is followed by selections from the evidence on pages 400 to 418.

b. Selection from the Argumentation of the Prosecution

Extract from the Closing Brief Against Defendant Gebhardt

Bone, Muscle, and Nerve Regeneration, and Bone Transplantation Experiments

These experiments were carried out in the Ravensbrueck concentration camp during the same period of time and on the same group of Polish inmates as the sulfanilamide experiments. (Tr. p. 1458.)

The defendant Fischer made the following statement about these experiments in his affidavit:

“After the arrival of Doctor Stumpfegger from general headquarters in the fall of 1942, Professor Gebhardt declared before some of his co-workers that he had received orders to continue with the tests at Ravensbrueck on a larger scale. In this connection, questions of plastic surgery which would be of interest after the end of the war should be clarified. Doctor Stumpfegger was supposed to test the free transplantation of bones. Since Professor Gebhardt knew that I had worked in preparation for my habilitation at the university on regeneration of tissues, he ordered me to prepare a surgical plan for these operations, which, after it had been approved he directed me to carry out immediately. Moreover, Doctor Koller and Doctor Reissmayer were ordered to perform their own series of experiments. Professor Gebhardt was also considering a plan to form the basis of an operative technique of remobilization of joints. Besides the above, Doctors Schulze and Schulze-Hagen participated in this conference.

“Since I knew Ravensbrueck I was ordered to introduce the new doctors named above to the camp physician. I was specially directed to assist Doctor Stumpfegger, since, as physician on the staff of Himmler, he would probably be absent from time to time.

“I had selected the regeneration of muscles for the sole reason because the incision necessary for this purpose was the smallest. The operation was carried out as follows:

“Evipan and ether were used as an anaesthetic, and a 5 centimeter longitudinal incision was made at the outer side of the upper leg. Subsequent to the cutting through the fascia, a piece of muscle was removed which was the size of the cup of the little finger. The fascia and skin were enclosed in accordance with the normal technique of aseptic surgery. Afterwards a cast was applied. After 1 week the skin wound was split under the same narcotic conditions, and the part of the muscle around the area cut out was removed. Afterwards the fascia and the sewed-up part of the skin were immobilized in a cast.” (NO-228, Pros. Ex. 206; Tr. p. 774.)

The responsibility of the defendant Gebhardt for these experiments is also proved by the affidavit of Oberheuser. She stated:

“The experiments with bone transplantations were carried out, as far as I can remember, at the end of 1942 and beginning of 1943 by Dr. Stumpfegger of Hohenlychen. I helped Dr. Stumpfegger in the same way as I helped Dr. Fischer with the sulfanilamide experiments, and as I have described already in paragraph 4 of this affidavit. Before the operation I had to examine, as in the other case, the condition of health of the selected persons. The operations consisted of the removal and transplantation of a piece of the bone from the tibia. Fifteen to twenty persons were used for these experiments.

“The persons necessary for these experiments were requisitioned by Dr. Schiedlausky from the camp commander.

“Dr. Karl Gebhardt was in charge of the sulfanilamide experiments and bone transplantations. I do not know whether he himself performed operations of this type. But I know that all these experiments were performed under his direction and supervision and upon his instructions. He was assisted by the doctors already mentioned, Dr. Fischer and Dr. Stumpfegger, and also by Drs. Schiedlausky and Rosenthal. Also only healthy Polish prisoners were used for these experiments.

“I cannot remember that a single one of the experimental subjects used was pardoned after the completion of the experiments.” (NO-487, Pros. Ex. 208.)

The witness Maczka, a graduate of the Medical School of the University of Krakow and a practicing physician, testified that in the course of her duties as X-ray technician in the Ravensbrueck concentration camp she had occasion to observe approximately 13 cases in which experimental operations were performed on the bones of inmates. There were three kinds of bone operations—fractures, bone transplantations, and bone splints. Some of the Polish girls were operated on several times. In the case of Krystyna Dabska, Maczka took X-ray pictures of both legs and discovered that small pieces of the fibulae had been removed. In the case of one leg the periosteum had also been taken out. Zofia Baj was operated on in a similar manner. Janina Marczewska and Leonarda Bien were subjected to the bone fracture experiments. The tibia was broken in several places and in the case of one of the girls, clamps were applied while in the case of the other they were not. These operations impeded the locomotion of the girls operated on. Bone incision operations were performed on Barbara Pietczyk, a Polish girl 16 years old. She was operated on six times. During the first operation incisions were made in each tibia. During a later operation pieces of the tibia were cut out where incisions had been previously made. Maczka took an X-ray of the pieces of tibia that were removed. As a result of these bone operations, Maczka observed the development of two cases of osteomyelitis, Maria Grabowska and Maria Cabaj. (Tr. pp. 1445-7.)

A rather large group of muscle experiments were performed. Here again multiple operations were carried out on the same subject. Gledziewjowska was operated on most frequently. During the first operation certain muscles were removed and during subsequent operations additional pieces were cut out, always at the same place, so that the legs got thinner and weaker all the time. (Tr. p. 1447.)

Transplantation of whole limbs from one person to another was also carried out. Maczka testified that about 10 feeble-minded inmates were selected, taken to the hospital and prepared for operation. She knew personally that at least two of these persons were operated on. One case was a leg amputation. Following this operation, the experimental subject was killed and placed in a special room where the dead were kept. Maczka was able to observe the corpse and saw that there was only one leg. In the second case an abnormal woman was operated on by Dr. Fischer. When he left the operating room he carried with him a bundle wrapped up in linen about the size of an arm. He took this away with him. The prison nurse, Quernheim, informed Maczka that the whole arm with shoulder blade was removed from this woman. (Tr. p. 1448.)

The amputation of the arm and shoulder blade mentioned by Dr. Maczka obviously refers to the transplantation performed on the patient Ladisch at Hohenlychen. As to this, the defendant Fischer stated in his affidavit as follows:

“As a disciple of Lexer, Gebhardt had already planned long ago a free heteroplastic transplantation of bone. In spite of the fact that some of his co-workers did not agree, he was resolved to carry out such an operation on the patient, Ladisch, whose shoulder joint was removed because of a sarcoma.

“I and my medical colleagues urged professional and human objections up until the evening before the operation was performed, but Gebhardt ordered us to carry out the operations. Dr. Stumpfegger, in whose field of research this operation was, was supposed to perform the removal of the scapula at Ravensbrueck and had already made initial arrangements for it. However, because Professor Gebhardt required Doctor Stumpfegger to assist him in the actual transplantation of the shoulder to the patient Ladisch, I was ordered to go to Ravensbrueck and perform the operation of removal on that evening. I asked Doctors Gebhardt and Schulze to describe exactly the technique which they wished me to follow. The next morning I drove to Ravensbrueck after I had made a previous appointment by telephone. At Hohenlychen I had already made the normal initial preparation for an operation, namely, scrubbing, etc., merely put on my coat, and went to Ravensbrueck and removed the bone.

“The camp physician who was assisting me in the operation continued with it while I returned to Hohenlychen as quickly as possible with the bone which was to be transplanted. In this manner the period between removal and transplantation was shortened. At Hohenlychen the bone was handed over to Professor Gebhardt, and he, together with Doctor Schulze and Doctor Stumpfegger, transplanted it.” (NO-228, Pros. Ex. 206.)

Gebhardt admitted that he, together with Stumpfegger, personally performed the bone transplantation operation on Ladisch. He testified further that Fischer only removed the scapula, shoulder blade, from the Polish female inmate at Ravensbrueck. (Tr. p. 4235.) It is impossible to raise the arm above the horizontal if the scapula has been removed. (Tr. p. 4235.) Gebhardt further admitted that Stumpfegger reported to him on the bone experiments in Ravensbrueck concentration camp. (Tr. p. 4235.)

The affidavit of Gustawa Winkowska corroborates the testimony of Maczka concerning the transplantation of whole limbs and establishes that the experimental subjects were later killed. (NO-865, Pros. Ex. 231.)

The witness Karolewska was a subject in both the sulfanilamide and bone experiments. (Tr. pp. 833, 836-7.) She was operated on a total of six times. The first operation was conducted on 14 August 1942 by Fischer. (Tr. p. 819.) Gebhardt inspected her early in September. (Tr. p. 821.) She was sent back to her block on 8 September 1942, but was unable to walk and remained in bed for a week. On 16 September 1942 she was again taken to the hospital and operated on for the second time by Fischer. (Tr. pp. 821-2.) She left the hospital on 6 October 1942 and remained in bed for several weeks. Her leg did not heal until June 1943 (Tr. pp. 822-3). She filed a written protest with the camp commander, together with other experimental subjects in February 1943. In August 1943 she was operated on literally by force in the bunker at Ravensbrueck. Both her legs were cut open. These operations were carried out on five other Polish girls under indescribably filthy conditions. On 15 September 1943 a further operation was performed on her right leg by a doctor from Hohenlychen. Two weeks later her left leg was operated on and pieces of the shinbone were removed. She stayed in the hospital for 6 months—until the end of February 1944. (Tr. pp. 828-9.) Karolewska identified the defendants Gebhardt, Fischer, and Oberheuser as having participated in the experiments on her. (Tr. pp. 818, 830.)

The defendant Fischer participated in these experiments until at least 23 February 1943. On that date he carried out a second operation on Zofia Baj. (NO-871, Pros. Ex. 227.)

The most disgusting series of operations were those carried out in August 1943 in the bunker. The Polish girls selected had revolted and refused to report to the hospital. The barrack block in which they had barricaded themselves was then surrounded by male guards who carried these women off forcibly to the camp prison, known as the Bunker, where they were held down by these male guards and forcibly anaesthetized without any pre-operative care, and with their bodies still in a filthy condition from walking around the camp. The experimental subject Piasecka stated in her affidavit as follows:

“I resisted and hit Trommer in the face and called him a bandit. He called some SS male guards who threw me on the floor and held me down while ether was poured over my face. There was no mask. I fought and resisted until I lost consciousness. I was completely dressed and my legs were filthy dirty from walking in the camp. As far as I know my legs were not washed. I saw my sister during this time unconscious on a stretcher, vomiting mucous.” (NO-864, Pros. Ex. 229)

Piasecka stated that this operation was carried out by Dr. Villmann who was an assistant doctor at Hohenlychen. A few weeks later two other assistant doctors to Gebhardt came and operated on her right leg. (NO-864, Pros. Ex. 229.)

In his testimony Gebhardt attempted to disassociate himself from these experiments. He admitted however that he received information from Stumpfegger about the experiments. (Tr. pp. 4082, 4087-9.) Stumpfegger was a former assistant of Gebhardt’s and he stayed at Hohenlychen during the course of these experiments. Fischer assisted Stumpfegger and Gebhardt. (Tr. pp. 4230, 4090.) It is further established by Fischer’s own affidavit that the plan for the experiments was worked out with the knowledge and approval of Gebhardt.

c. Selection from the Argumentation of the Defense

Extract from the Final Plea for Defendant Gebhardt

The Experiments Concerning Bone, Muscle, and Nerve Regeneration and Bone Grafting

The defendant Gebhardt is also charged in the indictment with particular responsibility in the experiments, whose object according to the indictment was the examination of the conditions under which the regeneration of bones, muscles, and nerves resulted, and under what conditions the grafting of bones was possible.

With regard to the general reasons why there can be no question of guilt, I refer to the statements I have already made in connection with the sulfanilamide experiments. These experiments, too, were occasioned by conditions of war and were to open up new ways of treating seriously wounded persons.

The evidence, however, has shown that the defendant Gebhardt, with a single exception, had nothing to do with these experiments. These experiments, insofar as they were concerned with the regeneration and grafting of bones, were carried out by Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Stumpfegger. It is correct that Dr. Stumpfegger was assistant doctor in the clinic in Hohenlychen before the war, and to that extent subordinate to its chief doctor, Dr. Gebhardt. Dr. Stumpfegger, however, left in the early years of the war, and in the year 1942 became consulting physician to Reich Leader SS Himmler and later consulting physician to Hitler. The experiments carried out by him in Ravensbrueck were carried out on his own responsibility, and upon direct orders from the Reich Leader SS Himmler. Dr. Stumpfegger at that time was neither under the military nor the medical supervision of the defendant Karl Gebhardt. For the remainder, Dr. Stumpfegger limited himself to carrying out experiments in the removal and grafting of so-called bone splinters, the exact number of which can no longer be determined now, but which certainly did not exceed six to eight. These were aseptic operations, which constituted no danger to the life of the experimental subjects. The evidence has shown that the experimental subjects from whom the bone splinters were removed suffered no reduction in the function of their limbs. Besides, the examination of the transplantation process of bones achieved a research result that could not be attained from the animal experiments because of the variety of the stipulated regeneration areas caused by the location of the various species and for the other reasons given by Gebhardt.

The evidence has further shown that the experimental subjects were members of the resistance movement who had been condemned to death and who were in this way given an opportunity to obtain a pardon, and so to escape execution. In view of the fact that no direct responsibility for these experiments falls on the defendant Gebhardt, it is not necessary to go into the purpose of these experiments further at this time. It should, however, be emphasized once more that the experiments were to open up new possibilities in wartime surgery and restorative surgery on the wounded. In 1944, Dr. Ludwig Stumpfegger published the results of his experiments in the periodical for surgery the editor of which was Geheimrat Dr. Sauerbruch (vol. 259, issue 9-12) and this article was also made available to the public in book form. I have submitted to the Court (Gebhardt, Fischer, Oberheuser 6, Gebhardt, Fischer, Oberheuser Ex. 9) a review of this work in the periodical, “Clinic and Practice” of February 1946 and refer to this for the details.

The defendant Karl Gebhardt would certainly not have hesitated to admit his responsibility for these experiments if he had actually been more closely connected with them, and if the experiments had taken place at his behest or under his medical supervision. There would have been little reason to deny this responsibility since the experiments concerned were completely without danger; they resulted in no reduction of the function of the limbs, and, moreover, no fatalities occurred. Furthermore, corresponding to the general practice in Germany, the work of Dr. Stumpfegger under the scientific responsibility of the defendant Gebhardt would have been made public if he had been directly concerned with the experiments, and if they had been carried out under his scientific supervision. Nor did the evidence prove that there were any experiments carried out in connection with muscle and nerve regeneration under the scientific supervision and by order of the defendant Gebhardt. It even seems doubtful that any such experiments were ever carried out in Ravensbrueck. The witnesses called before this court were unable to make any statements about this matter and it may be taken for granted that in any case the defendant Karl Gebhardt had nothing to do with these experiments. There was no point in carrying out such experiments as, long before the war, the surgical technique had already been developed on scientific principles and set down in a system. It covers plastic surgical bone regeneration but does not advocate free transplantation.

The only new field of scientific research taken up by Dr. Gebhardt during the war was that of experiments connected with nerve operations. These experiments were, however, carried out on animals by the special order and under the scientific supervision of the defendant Gebhardt himself. I am here referring to the affidavits given by the witnesses Koestler (Gebhardt, Fischer, Oberheuser 22, Gebhardt, Fischer, Oberheuser Ex. 21) and Brunner (Gebhardt, Fischer, Oberheuser 21, Gebhardt, Fischer, Oberheuser Ex. 20), and to the statements made by the defendant Gebhardt himself on the witness stand. I am further referring to the report of the Third Session East of the Consulting Specialists on 24-26 May 1943 (Gebhardt, Fischer, Oberheuser 3, Gebhardt, Fischer, Oberheuser Ex. 10) which I have presented in Court and which proves that during this session he himself and the aforementioned witness, Dr. Koestler, spoke about grafting operations in cases of nervous paralysis. This is the same report to which the witness Dr. Koestler referred in his affidavit of 27 February 1947.

Furthermore, I wish to draw the attention of this Court to the lecture given by the defendant Gebhardt in the same report on “Gymnastic Therapy and Mobilization of the Joints” which is also based upon clinical experience in Hohenlychen and also has nothing whatever to do with medical experiments on human beings. The evidence has further proved that the defendant Gebhardt was concerned with the transplantation of bones in one case only. This experiment was the free transplantation of a shoulder blade from one person to another. The defendant Gebhardt has given a detailed account of this on the witness stand and I am referring you to his statement on this point. Generally speaking, the following has to be added: The free transplantation of bones from one person to another is one of the great problems of restorative surgery which has yet to be solved. For decades, physicians have been trying to find a solution to this problem. As early as the end of the First World War, Geheimrat Lexer, the great teacher of the defendant Gebhardt, conducted experiments along these lines in 23 cases, aiming at the replacement of completely destroyed bones. The terrible injuries which occurred during the Second World War made this problem still more urgent and it is, therefore, understandable that in view of the progress Dr. Stumpfegger had made in his research, he was ordered by the Reich Leader SS to make use of this research result in the direct transplantation of bones. The defendant Gebhardt himself did not take any steps in this direction. He himself has stated his fundamental attitude as to this question and I refer to his own statements. Only in one case did he give his approval, viz: when Dr. Stumpfegger carried out the experiment of transplanting a shoulder blade. The order to do this was given by the Reich Leader SS. This experiment was justified in this particular case as it took place for the benefit of a patient in serious danger. The experimental person from whom the shoulder blade was taken was also a member of the resistance movement and she, too, thus escaped execution. Furthermore, the shoulder blade in question belonged to a hand restricted in its function.

d. Evidence

Prosecution Documents

Doc. No. Pros. Ex. No. Description of Document Page

NO-875 230 Affidavit of Mrs. Zdenka Nedvedova-Nejedla, M. D., of Prague, concerning experimental operations conducted on fellow inmates at Ravensbrueck concentration camp.

NO-861 232 Affidavit of Sofia Maczka, 16 April 1946, concerning experimental operations on inmates of the Ravensbrueck concentration camp.

NO-579 288 Phosphorous burns artificially inflicted on inmates of the Buchenwald concentration camp. (See Selections from the Photographic Evidence of the Prosecution.)

Defense Documents

Doc. No. Def. Ex. No. Description of Document Page

Gebhardt, Fischer, Oberheuser 6 Gebhardt, Fischer, Oberheuser Ex. 9 Extract from “Clinic and Practice”, weekly journal for the practicing physician, regarding bone transplantation.

Gebhardt, Fischer, Oberheuser 21 Gebhardt, Fischer, Oberheuser Ex. 20 Extracts from affidavit of Dr. Karl Friedrich Brunner, 14 March 1945, concerning scientific experiments conducted at the clinic of Hohenlychen.

Gebhardt, Fischer, Oberheuser 22 Gebhardt, Fischer, Oberheuser Ex. 21 Extract from affidavit of Dr. Josef Koestler, 27 February 1947, concerning Dr. Gebhardt’s activities.

Testimony

Extracts from the testimony of prosecution witness Miss Karolewska

Extract from the testimony of the prosecution expert witness Dr. Leo Alexander.

TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-875
PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 230

Affidavit of Mrs. Zdenka Nedvedova-Nejedla, M. D., of Prague, Concerning Experimental Operations Conducted on Fellow Inmates at Ravensbrueck Concentration Camp

1. I, Zdenka Nedvedova-Nejedla, M. D. came to Ravensbrueck concentration camp in a transport from Auschwitz on 19 August 1943, and I worked in the sick bay as a doctor prisoner from September 1943 until 30 May 1945. In the beginning I worked in the Department for Contagious Diseases at Station No. 1 and the Ambulatory. Besides this, I was in charge of Sucking Block from the fall of 1944 until May 1945.

2. Of the victims of experimental operations, I nursed personally Helena Piasecka, who was suffering from chronic osteomyelitis after completed operation of both shin bones. I knew that these operations were performed under Professor Gebhardt’s supervision by Doctor Fischer, and a woman, Doctor Oberheuser, from the SS Hospital Hohenlychen, but I do not know which one of them had operated on Piasecka. The operation was performed in the “bunker,” camp prison, where there were not even the most primitive sanitary installations and even fewer aseptic installations. Her general condition was good, but the defect in both bones made her an invalid for life. Before the operation Piasecka was completely healthy.

3. All women on whom experimental operations had been performed were placed in one block and they were generally known as “rabbits,” so that I saw the effects of the operations on those women who had survived them. In each case of abbreviation of limbs, muscular atrophy of the highest degree set in, proving a grave injury of nerves during operations and deep indrawn scars where parts of muscles had festered away.

4. From lay reports of nursing personnel without any special training, I tried to construct the types of experimental operations.

a. Culture of virulent germs (streptococci, staphylococci, maybe even tetanus and gas phlegmon) were injected subcutaneously, intramuscularly, and even directly into bones. These were the attempts to produce osteomyelitis experimentally. The resulting sepsis was checked by daily examination of the blood and urine to test the effectiveness of new medicaments of the sulfanilamide group.

b. Parts of long bones, as much as 5 centimeters (fibulae and tibiae), were removed and in some cases replaced by metal or left without connection. These operations were probably to prove the inability of bone to grow without periosteum.

c. High amputations were performed; for example, even whole arms with shoulder blade or legs with osiliaca were amputated. These operations were performed mostly on insane women who were immediately killed after the operation by a quick injection of evipan. All specimens gained in operations were carefully wrapped up in sterile gauze and immediately transported to the SS hospital nearby (Hohenlychen presumably), where they were to be used in the attempt to heal the injured limbs of wounded German soldiers.

5. Operations were performed on 1 Yugoslav, 1 Czech, 2 Ukrainian, 2 German, and about 18 Polish women, of whom 6 were operated on by force in the bunker with the help of SS men. Two of them were shot after their operation wounds had healed. After operations, no one except SS nurses was admitted to the persons operated on, whole nights they lay without any assistance and it was not permitted to administer sedatives even against the most intensive postoperational pains. From the persons operated on, 11 died or were killed, and 71 remained invalids for life.

6. The report mentioned in paragraphs 3 to 5 was prepared on the basis of evidence given to me at Ravensbrueck in the autumn of 1943 by these fellow prisoners: Sofia Maczka, M. D., Poland; Isa Siczynska, medical student, Krakow, Poland; Jola Krzyzanowska, medical student, Krakow, Poland; Krisa Iwanska, medical student, Krakow, Poland; Emilie Skrbkova, medical student, Praha, Czechoslovakia; and Inka Katnarova, M. D., Hradec Kralove, Czechoslovakia.

TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-861
PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 232

Affidavit of Sofia Maczka, 16 April 1946, Concerning Experimental Operations on Inmates of the Ravensbrueck Concentration Camp

Information concerning the experimental operations which took place in Ravensbrueck concentration camp.

The operations were carried out in the period between the summer of 1942 and the summer of 1943. The operations were conducted in the camp hospital, under the direction of Professor Dr. Gebhardt, SS Brigadefuehrer. Professor Gebhardt was the head of the Hohenlychen sanatorium at Hohenlychen (Mecklenburg). The operations were conducted with the help of Dr. Fischer, who was Professor Gebhardt’s assistant. There was also another assistant whose name I do not know. The following camp doctors participated in this matter: Dr. Herta Oberheuser, Dr. Rolf Rosenthal, Dr. Schiedlausky; all German nurses who were employed there at the time and two German prisoners (Schutzhaftgefangene), Gerda Quernheim and Fina Pautz, gave assistance. Polish political prisoners in protective custody, from the transports from Warsaw and Lublin, numbering 74, were chosen as victims. All those who were chosen were young, healthy, and well-built women. Many were college or university students. The youngest was 16 years of age, the oldest 48 years of age. The operations were to be carried out for scientific purposes, but they had nothing to do with science. They were carried out under horrible conditions. The doctors and the assisting personnel were not trained properly medically. Conditions were neither aseptic nor hygienic. After operations, the patients were left in shocking rooms without medical help, without nursing or supervision. The dressings were made according to the whim of the doctors with unsterilized instruments and compresses. Dr. Rosenthal, who did most of the dressings, excelled himself in sadism. In the summer of 1943 the last operations were carried out in the “bunker”. “Bunker” is the name of the horrible prison in the camp. The victims were taken there because they resisted, and there in the cell their dirty legs were operated on. This was the “scientific atmosphere” in which the “scientific” operations were carried out.

All operations were carried out on the leg and all under anesthetic. The operations were divided into two main groups:

1. Operations for infecting the patient.

2. Experimental aseptic operations.

The soft part of the calf of the leg was opened and the open wounds were infected with bacteria which were introduced into the wounds. The following were used: staphylococcus aureus, oedema malignum (clostridium oedematis maligni), gas gangrene bacillus (clostridium perfrim gens), and tetanus. Weronika Kraska was infected with tetanus. She died after a few days. Kazimiera Kurowska was infected with gas gangrene bacillus; she died after a few days. The following were infected with oedema malignum: Aniela Lefanowicz, Zofia Kiecol, Alfreda Prus, and Maria Kusmierczuk. The first three died after a few days; Maria Kusmierczuk survived the infection. She was lying ill for more than a year and became a cripple, but she is alive and is living evidence of the experiments. Mostly pyrogen stimulants were employed. The wounds were stitched after the infection and serious illness began. Many of the patients were ill for months and almost all of them became cripples.

Why did Professor Gebhardt, with his education, carry out these experiments? To test the new drugs of the German pharmaceutical industry; mostly cibazol and albucid were used. Even tetanus was treated in that way.

The results of the treatment were not checked, or if they were, it was done in such an inadequate and superficial manner, that it was of no value.

The aseptic, experimental operations consisted of bone experiments, muscle experiments, and nerve experiments.

The bone experiments were checked by X-ray photographs. As ward attendant I had to do all the X-ray photographs. In this way I was given the opportunity of gaining an insight in this matter. The following were carried out: (a) bone breaking; (b) bone transplantation; and (c) bone grafting.

a. On the operating table, the bones of the lower part of both legs were broken into several pieces with a hammer, later they were joined with clips (for instance Janiga Marczewska) or without clips (for instance Leonarda Bien) and were put into a plaster case. This was removed after several days and the legs remained without plaster casts until they healed.

b. The transplantations were carried out in the usual way, except that whole pieces of the fibula were cut out, sometimes with periosteum, sometimes without periosteum. The most typical operation of this kind was carried out on Krystyna Dabska.

c. Bone grafting. These operations were with the school of Professor Gebhardt. During the preparatory operation two bone splints were put on the tibia of both legs; during the second operation such bone splints were cut out together with the attached bones and were taken to Hohenlychen. As a supplement to the bone splint operations such operations were also carried out on two prisoners in protective custody who suffered from deformation of bones of the osteomyelitis type. These two were not Poles, one of them was a German who was a Jehovah’s Witness, Maria Konwitschka, and the other was a Ukrainian, Maria Hretschana. It was interesting for Professor Gebhardt to see how the diseased bones would react to such an operation.

The muscle experiments consisted of many operations, always on the same spot, the upper or lower part of the leg. At each further operation larger and larger pieces of muscles were cut out. Once a small piece of bone was planted into a muscle (this happened to Babinska). During nerve operations parts of nerves were removed (for instance Barbara Pytlewska).

What problem did Professor Gebhardt and his school wish to solve by these experiments? The problem of the regeneration of bones, muscles, and nerves.

Was the thing carried out? No. It was not checked at all, or only insufficiently. I do not know what was done at Hohenlychen with those pieces of bone, muscle, and nerves which were cut out and taken there.

What was the fate of the patients after they left the hospital? Almost all of the patients became cripples, and suffered very much as a result of these operations. Even more severe was the moral torture inflicted on them since they lived under the conviction that they would all be shot in order that they should not be evidence of these murderous operations. The camp authorities—Commandant Suhren, Adjutant Braeuning and Chief Supervisor Binz—ensured through their orders that the victims should not forget that they were condemned to death. In the meantime, six of the patients were shot after surviving the operations.

As a supplement to these operations I am submitting a description of “special operations” which were carried out at the same time.

A few abnormal prisoners (mentally ill) were chosen and brought to the operating table, and amputations of the whole leg (at the hip joint) were carried out, or on others, amputation of the whole arm (with the shoulder blade) were carried out. Afterwards the victims (if they still lived) were killed by means of evipan injections and the leg or arm was taken to Hohenlychen and served the purposes known to Professor Gebhardt. Ten such operations, approximately, were carried out.

During the whole of the time these operations were carried out, I was employed as a worker in the ward and investigated this matter risking my own life, with the idea that it was my duty, if I were saved, to tell the truth to the world. I conclude my statement with two questions: What kind of recompense can the world offer to those who were operated on in such a manner? What kind of justice has the world for those who carried out such operations?

[Signed] Dr. Maczka, Zofia

Dr. med. Zofia Maczka

X-ray specialist from Krakow. Former political prisoner in protective custody No. 7403 at Ravensbrueck, now in Stockholm, Serafimerlasarettet, Roentgen.

Stockholm, 16 April 1946

TRANSLATION OF GEBHARDT, FISCHER, OBERHEUSER
DOCUMENT 6
GEBHARDT, FISCHER, OBERHEUSER DEFENSE
EXHIBIT 9

Extract from “Clinic and Practice”, Weekly Journal for the Practicing Physician, Regarding Bone Transplantation

Editors: Dr. Herbert Volkmann and Dr. V. E. Mertens, Munich 2, Alfonsstrasse 1

No. 1 Munich, February 1946 Volume 1

[page 12]

Discussions and extracts

[page 14]

Surgery

Ludwig Stumpfegger—Hohenlychen: The free autoplastic bone transplantation in the restorative surgery of limbs—experiences and results.

During the past 10 years, 471 free autoplastic bone transplantations were carried out in Hohenlychen. Recent research results clearly showed that apart from the osteoplastic activity, a metaplastic formation of new bone occurs in the tissue. The newly formed bone trabeculae between transplant and old bone begin to connect with those formed in the osteoid tissue in the seventh week, and in this way constitute the bone connection between the graft and the original bone which have completely grown together in the ninth week. After the twelfth week no old bone can be detected in the entire region of the original graft, but only new bone trabecula. The question of the ever present hematoma can be answered in this way: a blood extravasation, lying in the gap between the transplant and the old bone, and not being subject to pressure, represents an adequate stimulation to the mesenchymal germinal tissue formation, while the large hemorrhage represents a negative stimulation and permits only a scarry connection of the transplant and the defective stump. The periosteum is no more important than the other layers, it is transplanted with the bone, because in connection with the bone it has osteogenetic properties, but above all it effects a speedy supply from the surroundings. A careful technique must be employed to spare the tissue layers, and bleeding must be stanched. Foreign bodies in the shape of wire slings to hold the transplant usually heal well into the body. Firm fixation in a plaster cast safeguards the result. When the graft has taken, a careful start with remedial exercises may be made in the third or fourth month. The clinical use of free bone transplantations is discussed with the help of numerous examples and many X-ray illustrations. The first task of the bone transplant to bridge over a gap in the bone is to provide sufficient support for the defective stump and, therefore, it has to be fairly strong. Bone splinters in the lower arm have roentgenologically completely taken after 1-1½ years, those in the tibia after 1½-2 years. The free bone transplant, some distance from the joints, has proved to be particularly valuable with the usual dislocations of the shoulder and the hip joints. The overlapping bone ridge prevents the bone from coming out of the articular cavity. In the course of years, the piece lying in the soft parts is considerably reduced, so that only a small bone ridge remains. The graft effects a regeneration of the damaged edge of the articular cavity and in this way prevents further dislocation. Bone transplants in bone gaps after removal of growths are subject to special conditions of taking. Hyperemic phenomena in the zone of the tumor edge in the form of a mild inflammation, possibly also fermentation processes, accelerate the taking of the transplant compared with the process in healthy tissue. Increased local resorption processes, occasionally with spontaneous fractures, infrequently prevail, but they again are apt to heal well. In wounds which heal with difficulty owing to suppurative inflammations, there is a great danger of the transplant being pushed out. When the whole transplant region is inflamed, total sequestration cannot be stopped. If suppuration remains localized, partial sequestration of the transplantation must be awaited. (German Surgical Journal, 1944, Vol. 299, H. 9-12. H. Floercken-Frankfurt am Main.)

TRANSLATION OF GEBHARDT, FISCHER, OBERHEUSER
DOCUMENT 21
GEBHARDT, FISCHER, OBERHEUSER DEFENSE
EXHIBIT 20

Extracts from Affidavit of Dr. Karl Friedrich Brunner, 14 March 1943, Concerning Scientific Experiments Conducted at the Clinic of Hohenlychen

I can state the following regarding the scientific experiments at the clinic [of Hohenlychen]: It was in accordance with the principles of the clinic and, therefore, of the chief and his deputy to collect scientific results arrived at through clinical observations. All reports at congresses and lectures as well as publications were based on these results. The scientific work and research were normally determined by the observations made on the patients. In addition to this, and in order to clarify the question of surgical treatment of nerve injuries, experiments on dogs were carried out in close collaboration with Gebhardt—first by Dr. Koestler in 1939-40, later by myself from 1943 to the end of the war. I was ordered by Dr. Gebhardt to carry out the experiments on animals at the training and experimental station for dogs [Hundelehr- und Versuchsanstalt], which establishment was situated outside the concentration camp Ravensbrueck, and I was strictly cautioned not to enter into any kind of contact with the concentration camp itself. The animal experiments were strictly continued until the end of the war. The results were never published because of war conditions.

Regarding Dr. Stumpfegger, I can state that he was an assistant of the clinic in peacetime, before I arrived. At the outbreak of war in 1939 he joined the Waffen SS, and was then, as far as I know, from 1942 onwards an escorting physician of Himmler. I did not see Dr. Stumpfegger on my return to Hohenlychen in autumn 1943, nor had he any official connection with the clinic up to the end of the war, either in a medical or in a military sense. He did not have to report his return or departure to the chief physician or to his deputy. His family, however, still lived at Hohenlychen. I still met him occasionally outside the medical sphere. I emphasize that during my presence at the clinic from 1 September 1943 up to the end of the war, as far as I know—and finally I was directing the clinic—no assistant was drafted from Hohenlychen to Ravensbrueck.

I know that the specialist in pulmonary diseases, Dr. Heissmeyer, was working as an assistant and later as chief physician in the so-called sanatorium Hohenlychen even before Professor Gebhardt took over Hohenlychen. This sanatorium was strictly detached from the surgical wards of the hospital at Hohenlychen and was not under the professional supervision of the chief physician nor of his deputy; i. e., Dr. Heissmeyer looked after his patients without any supervision by the surgeon, he made no reports to the chief or his deputy, he did not participate in the daily discussions of the physicians, he had his own staff of assistants and carried out his treatments and operations independently; he also planned his duty journeys independently and made these without reporting to the chief or his deputy on departure or return.

TRANSLATION OF GEBHARDT, FISCHER, OBERHEUSER
DOCUMENT 22
GEBHARDT, FISCHER, OBERHEUSER DEFENSE
EXHIBIT 21

Extract from Affidavit of Dr. Jose Koestler, 27 February 1947, Concerning Dr. Gebhardt’s Activities

When Professor Dr. Karl Gebhardt and I, at the Third Conference of Consulting Specialists of the German Wehrmacht in May 1943, lectured on surgical aid for peripheral nerve damage, we were, on the one hand, interpreting the results of animal experiments carried out on dogs from 1938 to 1940 in the Langenbeck-Virchow Hospital, Berlin, and in the institutes of Professor Holz (Institute for Experimental Hormone and Cancer Research) and Professor Ostertag (Pathological Institute), and, on the other hand, announcing surgical methods as they had been frequently used during the previous years.

Under the title of “Preparatory and Restorative Surgery in cases of Peripheral Nerve Damage,” I recorded these experiences in the “German Journal for Surgery,” volume 259, Nos. 1-4, 1943, and in my habilitation paper (1943, University of Berlin).

I emphasize expressly that this series of experiments was carried out exclusively on animals.

From 1 July 1938 to 26 August 1939 I was in the Red Cross hospital at Hohenlychen (Department for Sport and Industrial Injuries). During the following war years, after I was drafted into the Wehrmacht, I worked there repeatedly for short periods. I am convinced that the medical care there was on an especially high level and that Professor Gebhardt as chief physician did everything possible to improve the treatment and its results.

Extracts from the Testimony of Prosecution Witness Miss Karolewska

DIRECT EXAMINATION

Mr. McHaney: What is your name, please?

Witness Karolewska: Karolewska.

Q. And that is spelled K-a-r-o-l-e-w-s-k-a?

A. Yes.

Q. Were you born on 15 March 1909 at Yeroman?

A. I was born on 15 March 1909 in Yeroman.

Q. You are a citizen of Poland?

A. Yes, I am a Polish citizen.

Q. And have you come here as a voluntary witness?

A. Yes, I came here as a voluntary witness.

Q. What is your home address?

A. Warsaw, Inzynierska Street, No. 9, Flat No. 25.

Q. Are you married?

A. No.

Q. Are your parents living?

A. No, my parents are dead.

Q. Will you tell the Tribunal what education you have received?

A. I finished elementary school, and completed the training school for teachers in 1928.

Q. And what did you do between 1928 and the beginning of the war in 1939?

A. I worked as a teacher in a children’s school in Grudenz.

Q. And when did you leave that post?

A. I finished my work in June 1939 and went on holiday.

Q. And did you go back to this position after your holiday?

A. No, I did not go back because the war broke out and I stayed in Lublin.

Q. And what did you do while you were in Lublin?

A. I lived with my sister and did not work at all.

Q. Were you a member of the Polish Resistance Movement?

A. Yes, I was.

Q. And what did you do in the Polish Resistance Movement?

A. I was a messenger.

Q. And were you ever arrested for your activity in the Resistance Movement?

A. I was arrested on the 13th of February 1941 by the Gestapo.

Q. Was your sister arrested with you?

A. Two sisters and two brothers-in-law were arrested with me on the same day.

Q. What happened to you after you were arrested?

A. I was taken to the Gestapo.

Q. And what did the Gestapo do with you?

A. The first day the Gestapo took down my personal data and sent me to the prison in Lublin.

Q. And then what happened? Just go on and tell the complete story about what the Gestapo did with you and where you went.

A. I stayed 2 weeks in the prison in Lublin and then I was taken again to the Gestapo. There I was interrogated and they wanted to force me to confess what kind of work I used to do in the Resistance Movement. The Gestapo wanted me to give them the names of persons with whom I worked. I did not want to tell them the names and, therefore, I was beaten. I was beaten by one Gestapo man, with brief intervals, for a very long time. Then I was taken to a cell. Two days later, at night, I was taken again to the Gestapo for interrogation. There I was beaten again. I stayed in the Gestapo office one week and then I was taken back into the prison in Lublin. I stayed in the prison till 21 September 1941. Then I was transported with other prisoners to the concentration camp Ravensbrueck, where I arrived on the 23d of September 1941.

Q. Now, Witness, before you continue, will you tell the Tribunal whether you were ever tried by any court for the crime of being a member of the Resistance Movement?

A. I was only interrogated by the Gestapo and I think that the sentence must have been passed in my absence because no sentence was ever read out to me.

Q. All right. Will you tell the Tribunal what happened to you at Ravensbrueck?

A. At Ravensbrueck our dresses were taken away from us and we received the regular prison dress. Then I was sent to the block and I stayed in quarantine for 3 weeks. After 3 weeks we were taken to work. The work was hard physical work. In the spring I was given other work and I was transferred to the workshop, which was called in German “Betrieb.” The work I did there was also very hard, and one week I had to work in the daytime and the next week at night. In the spring the living conditions in the camp grew worse and worse, and hunger began to reign in the camp. The food portions were smaller. We were undernourished, very exhausted, and we had no strength to work. In the spring of the same year, shoes and stockings were taken away from us and we had to walk barefoot. The gravel in the camp hurt our feet. The most tiring was the so-called “roll calls”, which we had to stand several hours, sometimes even 4 hours. If a prisoner tried to put a piece of paper underneath her feet, she was beaten and ill-treated in an inhuman way. We had to stand at attention at the roll call place and we were not allowed to move our lips, because then we were supposed to be praying and we were not allowed to pray.

Q. Now, Witness, were you operated on while you were in the Ravensbrueck concentration camp?

A. Yes, I was.

Q. When did that happen?

A. On 22 July 1942, 75 prisoners from our transport that come from Lublin were summoned to the chief of the camp. We stood outside the camp office, and present were Kogel, Mandel, and one person whom I later recognized as Dr. Fischer. We were afterwards sent back to the block and we were told to wait for further instructions. On the 25th of July, all the women from the transport of Lublin were summoned by Mandel, who told us that we were not allowed to work outside the camp. Also, five women from the transport that came from Warsaw were summoned with us at the same time. We were not allowed to work outside the camp. The next day 75 women were summoned again and we had to stand in front of the hospital in the camp. Present were Schiedlausky, Oberheuser, Rosenthal, Kogel, and the man whom I afterwards recognized as Dr. Fischer.

Q. Now, Witness, do you see Oberheuser in the defendants’ dock here?

Interpreter: The witness asks for permission to go near to the dock to be able to see them.

Mr. McHaney: Please do.

(Witness walks to dock and points to Dr. Oberheuser.)

Mr. McHaney: And Fischer?

(Witness points to Dr. Fischer.)

Mr. McHaney: I will ask that the record show that the witness properly identified the defendants, Oberheuser and Fischer.

Presiding Judge Beals: The record will show that the witness correctly identified the defendants Oberheuser and Fischer.

Mr. McHaney: Witness, you have told the Tribunal that in July 1942, some 75 Polish girls, who were in the transport from Lublin, were called before the camp doctors in Ravensbrueck.

Witness Karolewska: Yes.

Q. Now, were any of these girls selected for an operation?

A. On this day we did not know why we were called before the camp doctors and on the same day 10 out of 25 girls were taken to the hospital, but we did not know why. Four of them came back and six stayed in the hospital. On the same day six of them came back to the block after having received some injection, but we did not know what kind of injection. On the 1st of August, those six girls were called to the hospital again; those girls who received injections were kept in the hospital, but we could not get in touch with them to hear from them why they were put in the hospital. A few days later, one of my comrades succeeded in getting close to the hospital and learned from one of the prisoners that all were in bed and that their legs were in casts. On the 14th of August, the same year, I was called to the hospital and my name was written on a piece of paper. I did not know why. Besides me, eight other girls were called to the hospital. We were called at a time when executions usually took place and I thought I was going to be executed because some girls had been shot down before. In the hospital we were put to bed and the ward in which we stayed was locked. We were not told what we were to do in the hospital and when one of my comrades put the question she got no answer but an ironical smile. Then a German nurse arrived and gave me an injection in my leg. After this injection I vomited and I was weak. Then I was put on a hospital cot and they brought me to the operating room. There, Dr. Schiedlausky and Rosenthal gave me the second intravenous injection in my arm. A while before, I noticed Dr. Fischer, who left the operating theater and had operating gloves on. Then I lost consciousness and when I revived I noticed that I was in a proper hospital ward. I recovered consciousness for a while and I felt severe pain in my leg. Then I lost consciousness again. I regained consciousness in the morning, and then I noticed that my leg was in a cast from the ankle up to the knee and I felt very great pain in this leg and had a high temperature. I noticed also that my leg was swollen from the toes up to the groin. The pain was increasing and the temperature, too, and the next day I noticed that some liquid was flowing from my leg. The third day I was put on a hospital trolley and taken to the dressing room. Then I saw Dr. Fischer again. He had on an operating gown and rubber gloves on his hands. A blanket was put over my eyes and I did not know what was done with my leg but I felt great pain and I had the impression that something must have been cut out of my leg. Those present were Schiedlausky, Rosenthal, and Oberheuser. After the dressing was changed I was again put in the regular hospital ward. Three days later I was again taken to the dressing room, and the dressing was changed by Doctor Fischer with the assistance of the same doctors, and I was also blindfolded. I was then sent back to the regular hospital ward. The next dressings were made by the camp doctors. Two weeks later we were all taken to the operating theater again, and put on the operating tables. The bandage was removed, and that was the first time I saw my leg. The incision went so deep that I could see the bone. We were told then that there was a doctor from Hohenlychen, Doctor Gebhardt, who would come and examine us. We were waiting for his arrival for 3 hours, lying on our tables. When he came, a sheet was put over our eyes, but they removed the sheet and I saw him for a short moment. Then we were taken back to our regular wards. On 8 September I went back to the block. I couldn’t walk. The pus was draining from my leg; the leg was swollen up and I could not walk. In the block, I stayed in bed for one week; then I was called to the hospital again. I could not walk and I was carried by my comrades. In the hospital I met some of my comrades who were there after the operation. This time I was sure I was going to be executed because I saw an ambulance standing outside the office, which was used by the Germans to transport people intended for execution. Then we were taken to the dressing room where Doctor Oberheuser and Doctor Schiedlausky examined our legs. We were put to bed again, and on the same day, in the afternoon, I was taken to the operating theater and the second operation was performed on my leg. I was put to sleep in the same way as before, having received an injection. This time I again saw Doctor Fischer. I woke up in the regular hospital ward, and I felt a much greater pain and had a higher temperature.

The symptoms were the same. The leg was swollen and the pus flowed from my leg. After this operation, the dressings were changed by Dr. Fischer every 3 days. More than 10 days afterwards, we were again taken to the operating theater and put on the table; and we were told that Dr. Gebhardt was going to come to examine our legs. We waited for a long time. Then he arrived and examined our legs while we were blindfolded. This time other people arrived with Dr. Gebhardt, but I don’t know their names, and I don’t remember their faces. Then we were carried on hospital cots back to our rooms. After this operation I felt still worse, and I could not move. While I was in the hospital, Dr. Oberheuser treated me cruelly.

When I was in my room I remarked to fellow prisoners that we were operated on in very bad conditions and left here in this room and that we were not even given a chance to recover. This remark must have been heard by a German nurse who was sitting in the corridor, because the door of our room leading to the corridor was opened. The German nurse entered the room and told us to get up and dress. We answered that we could not follow her order because we had great pains in our legs and we could not walk. Then the German nurse came into our room with Dr. Oberheuser. Dr. Oberheuser told us to dress and come to the dressing room. We put on our dresses; and, being unable to walk, we had to hop on one leg into the operating theater. After one hop we had to rest. Dr. Oberheuser did not allow anybody to help us. When we arrived at the operating theater, quite exhausted, Dr. Oberheuser appeared and told us to go back, because the change of dressing would not take place that day. I could not walk, but somebody, a prisoner whose name I don’t remember, helped me back to the room.

Q. Witness, you have told the Tribunal that you were operated on the second time on the 16th of September 1942? Is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. When did you leave the hospital after this second operation?

A. After the second operation I left the hospital on 6 October.

Q. Was your leg healed at that time?

A. My leg was swollen up, caused me great pain, and the pus drained from my leg.

Q. Were you able to work?

A. I was unable to work, and I had to stay in bed because I could not walk.

Q. Do you remember when you got up out of bed and were able to walk?

A. I stayed in bed several weeks, and then I got up and tried to walk.

Q. How long was it until your leg was healed?

A. The pus was flowing from my leg till June 1943; and at that time my wound was healed.

Q. Were you operated on again?

A. Yes, I was operated on again in the bunker.

Q. In the bunker? That is not in the hospital?

A. Not in the hospital but in the bunker.

Q. Will you explain to the Tribunal how that happened?

A. May I ask permission to tell something which happened in March 1943, March or February 1943?

Q. All right.

A. At the end of February 1943, Dr. Oberheuser called us and said, “Those girls are new guinea pigs”; and we were very well known under this name in the camp. Then we understood that we were persons intended for experiments, and we decided to protest against the performance of those operations on healthy people.

We drew up a protest in writing and we went to the camp commandant. Not only those girls who had been operated on before but other girls who were called to the hospital came to the office. The girls who had been operated on used crutches and they went without any help.

I would like to tell you the contents of the petition made by us. “We, the undersigned, Polish political prisoners, ask the commandant whether he knows that since the year 1942 experimental operations have taken place in the camp hospital, under the name guinea pigs, explaining the meaning of those operations. We ask whether we were operated on as a result of sentences passed on us because, as far as we know, international law forbids the performance of operations even on political prisoners.”

We did not get any answer; and we were not allowed to talk to the commandant. On 15 August 1943, a policewoman came and read off the names of 10 new prisoners. She told us to follow her to the hospital. We refused to go to the hospital, because we thought that we were intended for a new operation. The policewoman told us that we were probably going to be sent to the factory for work outside the camp. We wanted to make sure whether the labor office was open because it was Sunday. The policewoman told us that we had to go to the hospital to be examined by a doctor before we went to the factory. We refused to go then because we were sure that we would be kept in the hospital and operated on again. All prisoners in the camp were told to stay in the blocks. All of the women who lived in the same block where I was were told to leave the block and stand in line in front of Block 10 at a certain time. Then the Overseer Binz appeared and called out 10 names, and my name was among them.

We went out of the line and stood before Block 9 in line. Then Binz said: “Why do you stand in line as if you were to be executed?” We told her that operations were worse for us than executions and that we would prefer to be executed rather than to be operated on again. Binz told us that she might give us work; there was no question of our being operated on, but we were going to be sent for work outside the camp. We told her that she must know that prisoners belonging to our group were not allowed to leave the camp and go outside. Then she told us to follow her into her office, that she would show us a paper proving that we were going to be sent for work to the factory outside the camp. We followed her and we stood before her office. She was in her office for a while and then went out and went to the canteen where the camp commandant was. She had a conference with him probably asking him what to do with us. We stood in front of the office for half an hour. In the meantime one fellow prisoner who used to work in the canteen walked past. She told us that Binz had asked for help from SS men to take us to the hospital by force. We stood for a while and then Binz came out of the canteen accompanied by the camp commandant. We stood for a while near the camp gate. We were afraid that SS men would come to take us, so we ran away and mixed with other people standing in front of the block. Then Binz and the camp police appeared. They drove us out from the lines by force. She told us that she was putting us into the bunker as punishment for not following her orders. Five prisoners were put into each cell although one cell was only intended for one person. The cells were quite dark, without lights. We stayed in the bunker the whole night long and the next day. We slept on the floor because there was only one couch in the cell. The next day we were given a breakfast consisting of black coffee and a piece of dark bread. Then we were locked in again. People were walking up and down the corridor of the bunker the whole time. The same day in the afternoon we learned our fate. The woman guard of the bunker unlocked our cell and took me out. I thought that I was to be interrogated or beaten. She took me down the corridor. She opened one door and behind the door stood SS man Dr. Trommel. He told me to follow him upstairs. Following Dr. Trommel I noticed there were other cells, with beds and bedding. He put me in one of the cells. Then he asked me whether I would agree to a small operation. I told him that I did not agree to it because I had already undergone two operations. He told me that this was going to be a very small operation and that it would not harm me. I told him that I was a political prisoner and that operations could not be performed on political prisoners without their consent. He told me to lie down on the bed; I refused to do so. He repeated it twice. Then he went out of the cell and I followed him. He went quickly downstairs and locked the door. Standing in front of the cell I noticed a cell on the opposite side of the staircase, and I also noticed some men in operating gowns. There was also one German nurse ready to give an injection. Near the staircase stood a stretcher. That made it clear to me that I was going to be operated on again in the bunker. I decided to defend myself to the last. In a moment Trommel came back with two SS men. One of these SS men told me to enter the cell. I refused to do it, so he forced me into the cell and threw me on the bed.

Dr. Trommel took me by the left wrist and pulled my arm back. With his other hand he tried to gag me, putting a piece of rag into my mouth, because I shouted. The second SS man took my right hand and stretched it. Two other SS men held me by my feet. Immobilized, I felt somebody giving me an injection. I defended myself for a long time, but then I grew weaker. The injection had its effect; I felt sleepy. I heard Trommel saying, “That is all.”

I regained consciousness again, but I don’t know when. Then I noticed that a German nurse was taking off my dress, I then lost consciousness again; I regained it in the morning. Then I noticed that both my legs were in iron splints and were bandaged from the toes up to the groin. I felt a severe pain in my feet, and had a temperature.

On the afternoon of the same day, a German nurse came and gave me an injection, in spite of my protests; she gave me this injection in my thigh and told me that she had to do it.

Four days after this operation a doctor from Hohenlychen arrived, again I was given an injection to put me to sleep, and as I protested he told me that he would change the dressing; I felt a higher temperature and a greater pain in my legs.

Q. How many times did you see Gebhardt?

A. Twice.

Q. I will ask you to step down and walk over to the defendants’ dock and see whether or not you find the man Gebhardt sitting in the dock.

(The witness complied and pointed to the defendant Gebhardt.)

Thank you. Sit down.

I will ask that the record show that the witness properly identified the defendant Gebhardt.

Presiding Judge Beals: The record will show that the witness identified the defendant Gebhardt in the dock.

Mr. McHaney: I have no further questions at this time.

Presiding Judge Beals: Will Dr. Alexander again be put on the stand in connection with the examination of this witness?

Mr. McHaney: Yes, but if there is any cross-examination we can probably finish that before lunch.

Presiding Judge Beals: Do any of the defense counsel desire to cross-examine this witness?

Dr. Seidl (counsel for the defendants Gebhardt, Oberheuser, and Fischer): I do not intend to cross-examine this witness, but this does not mean that my clients admit the correctness of all statements made by this witness.

Presiding Judge Beals: Does any other of the defense counsel desire to examine the witness?

(No response.)

Extract from the Testimony of the Prosecution Expert Witness Dr. Leo Alexander

DIRECT EXAMINATION

Mr. McHaney: Doctor, can you express any opinion as to the purpose of the type of operation to which she [Karolewska] was subjected, that is the bone removal?

Dr. Alexander: I think it must have been one of the experiments which aimed at the question of regeneration of bone or possible transplantation of bone. Chances are that this tibial graft was either implanted in another person or that grafts had been exchanged. Of course today, 3 years after the experiment, no trace of transplantation is left in this individual. Or if the object was, as alleged in some statements I have seen, that tibial grafts were exchanged between the two legs, one must conclude that the experiment was negative because there is no evidence that a graft took. All we see now are the consequences of removal of a graft, and the graft had included the entire compact part of the bone, otherwise the repair would have been better. If some part of the compact had remained, the periosteum would have probably regenerated and today, 3 years after the operation, no X-ray would have shown the defect. So I feel that rather deep grafts were taken which went down into the spongiosa. Whether anything was replaced that later was destroyed, I do not know, except the patient stated that there was a purulent discharge, indicating that the wound had become infected, and her statement of a subsequent operation, in fact, if I am not mistaken, two subsequent operations, indicates the probability that the grafts did not take and that they were removed after infection had become obvious.

7. Sea-Water Experiments

a. Introduction

The defendants Karl Brandt, Handloser, Rostock, Schroeder, Gebhardt, Rudolf Brandt, Mrugowsky, Poppendick, Sievers, Becker-Freyseng, Schaefer, and Beiglboeck were charged with special responsibility for and participation in criminal conduct involving sea-water experiments (par. 6 (G) of the indictment). In the course of the trial the prosecution withdrew the charge in the case of Mrugowsky. On this charge the defendants Schroeder, Gebhardt, Sievers, Becker-Freyseng, and Beiglboeck were convicted and the defendants Karl Brandt, Handloser, Rostock, Rudolf Brandt, Poppendick, and Schaefer were acquitted.

The prosecution’s summation of the evidence on the sea-water experiments is contained in its final brief against the defendant Schroeder. Extracts from that brief are set forth below on pages 419 to 443. A corresponding summation of the evidence by the defense on these experiments has been selected from the final plea for the defendant Schroeder and from the closing brief for the defendant Beiglboeck. It appears below on pages 434 to 446. This argumentation is followed by selections from the evidence on pages 447 to 494.

b. Selection from the Argumentation of the Prosecution

Extracts from the Closing Brief Against Defendant Schroeder

Sea-Water Experiments

On 19 May 1944 a conference was held at the German Air Ministry which was attended by Christensen, Schickler, Becker-Freyseng, and Schaefer, among others. This conference was concerned with the problem of the potability of sea-water. Two methods of making sea-water drinkable were then available to the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe. One, the so-called Schaefer method, had been chemically tested and apparently produced potable sea-water. It had the disadvantage, however, of requiring substantial amounts of silver which was available only in limited quantities. The second method, so-called Berkatit, was a substance which changed the taste of sea-water but did not remove the salt. It had the advantage of simplicity of manufacture and use.

At the conference on 19 May the defendant Becker-Freyseng reported on certain clinical experiments which had been conducted by von Sirany to test Berkatit. He came to the conclusion that the experiments had not been conducted under sufficiently realistic conditions of sea distress. He reported that the Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe was—

“* * * convinced that, if the Berka method is used, damage to health had to be expected not later than 6 days after taking Berkatit, which damage will result in permanent injuries to health and—according to the opinion of Unterarzt Dr. Schaefer—will finally result in death after not later than 12 days. External symptoms are to be expected such as dehydration, diarrhea, convulsions, hallucinations, and finally death.” (NO-117, Pros. Ex. 133.)

As a result of this conference it was agreed to conduct new experiments. They were to include a series of experiments for a maximum of 6 days during which one group was to be given sea-water processed with Berkatit, another group ordinary drinking water, another group no drinking water at all, and the final group such water as was available in the emergency sea distress kits then used. A second series of experiments was decided upon and the report stated:

“Persons nourished with sea-water and Berkatit, and as diet also the emergency sea rations.

“Duration of experiments: 12 days.

“Since in the opinion of the chief of the medical service permanent injuries to health, that is, the death of the experimental subjects has to be expected, as experimental subjects such persons should be used as will be put at the disposal by Reichsfuehrer SS.” (NO-177, Pros. Ex. 133.)

Thus, with full knowledge that the use of Berkatit for periods of 6 days would result in permanent injuries to the experimental subjects and that death would result no later than the 12th day, plans were made to conduct experiments of 6 and 12 days’ duration. It should be noted that the conference report does not state that the duration was a maximum of 12 days as in the case of the first series of experiment. The duration was to be 12 days in any event. Since it was known that volunteers could not be expected under such conditions, the conference determined to use inmates of concentration camps which would be put at their disposal by the SS. At a second meeting on 20 May 1944, the report states that “it was decided that Dachau was to be the place where the experiments were (to be) conducted.” (NO-177, Pros. Ex. 133.) Copies of the report on the conferences were sent, among others, to the Medical Experimentation and Instruction Division of the Air Force, Jueterbog, to which the defendants, Schaefer and Holzloehner, who conducted the freezing experiments with Rascher, were attached; to the German Aviation Research Institute, Berlin-Adlershof, to which the defendants Ruff and Romberg were attached; to the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe (L. In. 14); and to the Reich Leader SS. The report was signed by Christensen of the Technical Office of the Reich Air Ministry.

On 7 June 1944 the defendant Schroeder wrote to Himmler through Grawitz asking for concentration camp inmates to be used as subjects in the sea-water experiments. This letter reads in part as follows:

“Earlier already you made it possible for the Luftwaffe to settle urgent medical matters through experiments on human beings. Today again I stand before a decision which, after numerous experiments on animals as well as human experiments on voluntary experimental subjects, demands a final solution. The Luftwaffe has simultaneously developed two methods for making sea-water potable. The one method, developed by a medical officer, removes the salt from the sea-water and transforms it into real drinking water; the second method, suggested by an engineer, leaves the salt content unchanged, and only removes the unpleasant taste from the sea-water. The latter method, in contrast to the first, requires no critical raw material. From the medical point of view this method must be viewed critically, as the administration of concentrated salt solutions can produce severe symptoms of poisoning.

“As the experiments on human beings could thus far only be carried out for a period of 4 days, and as practical demands require a remedy for those who are in distress at sea up to 12 days, appropriate experiments are necessary.

“Required are 40 healthy test subjects, who must be available for 4 whole weeks. As it is known from previous experiments that necessary laboratories exist in the concentration camp Dachau, this camp would be very suitable.” [Emphasis supplied.] (NO-185, Pros. Ex. 134.)

Schroeder concluded his letter by stating that the experiments would be directed by the defendant Beiglboeck.

That these experiments were carried out on nonvoluntary subjects is also proved by Grawitz’ letter to Himmler on 28 June 1944. (NO-179, Pros. Ex. 135.) In this letter Grawitz reports the opinions of Gebhardt, Gluecks, and Nebe, as well as his own, on the proposed experiments. Gluecks stated that he had no “objections whatsoever to the experiments requested by the Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe to be conducted at the Rascher experimental station in the Dachau concentration camp. If possible, Jews or prisoners held in quarantine are to be used.” It is impossible to imagine a Jew being asked to volunteer for anything in the Third Reich when they were being slaughtered by the millions in the concentration camps. Nebe stated: “I proposed taking for this purpose the asocial gypsy half-breeds. There are people among them, who, although healthy, are out of the question as regards labor commitment. Regarding these gypsies, I shall shortly make a special proposal to the Reich Leader, but I think it right to select from among these people the necessary number of test subjects. Should the Reich Leader agree to this, I shall list by name the persons to be used.” It is a little difficult to imagine how Nebe, chief of the Reich Criminal Police, could “list by name” gypsy volunteers for these experiments. Grawitz raised the objection to the use of gypsies on the ground that they were “of somewhat different racial composition” and he therefore wanted experimental subjects racially comparable to European peoples. Himmler decided that gypsies plus three others for control should be used. (NO-183, Pros. Ex. 136.)

Schroeder testified that he tried to arrange for carrying out the sea-water experiments at the Luftwaffe hospital in Brunswick. He remembered very specifically, according to his testimony, that he had contacted the commander of that hospital on 1 June 1944. He stated that he also attempted to obtain students as experimental subjects from the Luftwaffe Medical Academy in the latter part of May 1944. Both of these attempts to obtain volunteers allegedly failed because of the lack of clinical facilities and the calling up of students to active service. Schroeder testified that he went to the SS only after he had exhausted all other possibilities. He would have the Tribunal believe that there was no place to find 40 volunteers and the necessary clinical facilities, although von Sirany had conducted such experiments in Vienna on Wehrmacht soldiers, but of course for only 4 days. (Tr. pp. 3657-9.)

In connection with this testimony of Schroeder’s, it should be noted that the records of the conference on 19 and 20 May 1944 were immediately sent to the SS. The decision to use concentration camp inmates did not await any efforts to find volunteers but was made at the conference of 19 May. It was known that because of the very nature of the experiments which were planned volunteers could not be obtained. Contrariwise, it is impossible to believe that the commanding officer of the whole of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe was unable to obtain 40 volunteers for the experiments which he claims were so innocuous. There were no regulations which forbade experiments on members of the Wehrmacht. (Tr. p. 3660.) The defense witness Haagen, in connection with his proposed epidemic jaundice experiments on human beings, as set forth in his letter of 27 June 1944 to Kalk, who was attached to the staff of Schroeder, insisted at great length that he planned to use volunteers from the student companies of the Wehrmacht at Strasbourg, Freiburg, or Heidelberg. (Tr. p. 9578.) He was positive that student volunteers would have been made available. He stated that he could have used them during their vacations. (Tr. p. 9579.) Kalk was also sure that this could have been done. Haagen emphasized repeatedly that volunteers were available. (Tr. p. 9580.) Clinical facilities would have been easily obtained in reserve hospitals. (Tr. p. 9581.)

Schroeder testified that he did not know that Berkatit would cause death in not more than 12 days. (Tr. p. 3666.) He could not remember whether Schaefer had told him that taking Berkatit for 12 days would cause death. In a pretrial interrogation, he specifically denied that. (Tr. p. 3668.) He testified that while both Becker-Freyseng and Schaefer were at the Nuernberg meeting in October 1942 at which the report on the freezing experiments at Dachau was given, neither of them reported to him about it when he proposed going to Dachau to conduct the sea-water experiments. (Tr. p. 3669.) Schroeder denied that he had ever seen the report on the meeting of 19 and 20 May 1944 (NO-177, Pros. Ex. 133) on the sea-water experiments. (Tr. p. 3662.) Although a copy of this report was sent to Himmler, he would have the Tribunal believe that it was a sheer coincidence that he turned to Himmler for experimental subjects without having seen the report. (Tr. p. 3669.) He testified that he told Grawitz in a meeting with him that he wanted the experiments carried out on dishonorably discharged soldiers. (Tr. p. 3670.) Grawitz allegedly said that he would respect this wish. Schroeder stated that he made it clear to Grawitz that the subjects had to be volunteers, with a little food as a reward. (Tr. p. 3672.) He further testified that he told Grawitz that the experiments had to be controlled by the Luftwaffe. During a pre-trial interrogation, he swore that he knew nothing about the sea-water experiments, that the SS took it out of his hands and he had no influence. (Tr. pp. 3610-1.) Schroeder had no idea, according to his testimony, that foreigners were incarcerated in concentration camps. He said that he knew that gypsies were used as experimental subjects only after the report by Beiglboeck in Berlin in October 1944. (Tr. p. 3676.) He testified that he instructed Beiglboeck that Berkatit was to be used only until the subjects said they could not tolerate any more. (Tr. p. 3677.) He admitted having heard the report by Beiglboeck on the experiments, together with Becker-Freyseng and Schaefer, among others, but that he did not hear the complete report as he had to leave the meeting early. (Tr. pp. 3679-80.)

The charts kept by the defendant Beiglboeck on each of the experimental subjects—which the defense was finally forced into submitting in evidence, after attempting to use them through the defense “expert” Vollhardt without offering the documents themselves—give some of the details as to the experiments, although under the circumstances their reliability is doubtful. (Tr. p. 9381.) Certain alterations in these records which will be discussed at a later point, indicate that they are not entitled to great weight. The experiments began in August 1944 and continued until the middle of September. Forty-four experimental subjects were used. Subjects one to six were deprived of all food and water for periods from 5½ to 7½ days. The duration of the experiments given herein is based upon the starting date of the morning of 22 August, as contended by the defense, although there is some evidence indicating that the starting date was 21 August. If the experiment was interrupted in the forenoon, no additional day or part thereof is counted. If it was interrupted between noon and 1700 hours, one-half day is added, while if it was interrupted after 1700 hours, a full day is added. Subjects 7 through 10 were given 1,000 cc. of Schaefer water for 12, 13, and 12 days, respectively, and hungered for 7, 8, and 9 days, respectively. Subject No. 9 was not used for reasons of health. This was the defense witness Mettbach. Subjects 11 through 18 were given 500 cc. of sea-water plus the emergency sea ration which contained approximately a total of 2,400 calories. These experiments lasted from 5 to 10 days. They hungered up to 6½ days. Several of these subjects, for example, 11, 13, 17, and 18 were subjected to two separate experiments of 8 and 6 days, 6 and 5 days, 7½ and 5 days, and 10 and 4 days, respectively. Subjects 19 through 25 were given 500 cc. of Berkatit plus the emergency sea ration. The duration of the experiments lasted from 5 to 9½ days with periods of hunger up to 6½ days. Subjects 19 and 20 underwent two separate experiments of 7 and 5 days each. Subjects 26 through 30 were given 1,000 cc. of Berkatit plus the emergency sea ration. Duration of the experiments was from 5 to 9½ days with periods of hunger up to 6½ days. Subject 29 underwent two experiments of 8 and 5 days. Subjects 31 and 32 were given 1,000 cc. of sea-water for 8 and 6 days, respectively. Subject 31 was subjected to an additional experiment of 5 days. Subject 33 was given 500 cc. of Berkatit for 6 days; subject 34, 1,000 cc. of Schaefer for 12 days, subjects 35 through 37, 39, 41, and 42 were given 500 cc. of sea-water for periods ranging from 4 to 6 days; subjects 38, 40, and 43 were given 1,000 cc. of sea-water for 6, 5, and 6 days; and subject 44 was given Schaefer water for 12 days.

The clinical charts on the experiments also supply us with the ages of the experimental subjects. Subjects 17, 19, 20, 35, 37, 40, and 43 were all under the age of 21. Subject 40 was 16 years old; subjects 17, 19, and 37 were 17 years old; subject 35 was 18 years old; subject 43 was 19 years old; and subject 20 was 20 years old. Needless to say, no effort was made to obtain the consent of the parents or guardians of these minors.

The defendant Beiglboeck testified that he reported to Berlin at the end of June 1944 where he was told by Becker-Freyseng that he was to carry out the sea-water experiments in Dachau. He also saw Schroeder previously in connection with the experiments. He said he attempted to withdraw because he had a horror of working in a concentration camp. He did not refuse to perform the experiments because he was afraid of being called to account for failure to obey orders. (Tr. pp. 8828-9.) Becker-Freyseng told him that the purpose of the experiments was, first, to find out if Berkatit was useful; second, to test the Schaefer method; and third, to see whether it would be better to go completely without sea-water or to drink small quantities of it. (Tr. p. 8832.) He said he was told by the officials in Dachau that the gypsies who were to be used in the experiments were held as “asocial” persons. Beiglboeck apparently considers himself an expert on asocials. He testified that it was his understanding that a whole family could be classified asocial, although this “does not exclude the possibility that, in this family, there may be a large number of persons who did not commit any crime.” (Tr. p. 8848.)

He testified that he called the experimental subjects together and told them what the experiment was about and asked them if they wanted to participate. (Tr. p. 8849.) He did not tell them how long the experiment would last. He did not tell them that they could withdraw at any time. He testified that he had to require that they thirst for a certain period. The decision as to their being relieved from the experiment lay with him. (Tr. p. 8850.) During the course of the experiments he testified that the subjects revolted on one occasion because they did not get the food they had been promised. (Tr. p. 8863.) They did not get food for several days because of a delay in delivery. (Tr. p. 8868.) The subjects were locked in a room during the experiments. Beiglboeck testified that:

“They should have been locked in a lot better than they were, because then they would have had no opportunity at all to get fresh water on the side.” (Tr. p. 8864.)

He stated that the danger point would be reached in about seven days drinking 500 cc. of sea-water, while in cases of 1,000 cc. of sea-water, it would be 4½ days. (Tr. pp. 8876-7.) Compare the much longer duration of the experiments as set out above.

It was readily apparent to the prosecution after an inspection of the clinical charts kept during the course of the experiments that a number of alterations had been made in them. These records were in the exclusive possession of defense counsel prior to the testimony of Vollhardt, whose expert opinion was based in part upon such records. In a large number of instances the names of the experimental subjects have been erased from the charts, obviously in an effort to make it impossible to locate such persons for the purpose of giving testimony. An examination of the charts further reveals that the final weights of the experimental subjects were written on the charts in a different shade of ink from the remainder of the records. In some cases these weights were written over the original pencil notations; for example, on chart C-2 the final weight of 62 kilograms in pencil was written over in ink to read 64½ kilograms. Beiglboeck admitted that the red arrows purporting to indicate the start of the experiments, usually appearing under the date August 22, were made by him in 1945, long after the experiment had been completed. (Tr. p. 8909.) In charts 1 to 32 a red mark under the date August 21 appears, which would indicate that the experiments very probably began on that date. Certain notes in German shorthand appear on the back of chart C-23. Beiglboeck admitted that he wrote these notes himself. (Tr. p. 8970.) Beiglboeck testified that:

“We [Beiglboeck and his defense counsel] were in agreement at all times that the charts and curves should be submitted in the same way as we received them here.” (Tr. p. 8921.)

He repeatedly stated that he did not make any erasures on the charts in Nuernberg. (Tr. pp. 8922, 8973, 8975-6.) When the proof left him no alternative, Beiglboeck finally admitted having made changes and erasures in the notes on the back of chart C-23 in Nuernberg. (Tr. p. 8978.) These notes give a clinical report on one of the experimental subjects who was critically ill. The following is a restoration of the original stenographic notes insofar as they could be translated:

“The thirst assumes forms difficult to endure. The patient lies there quite motionless with half-closed eyes. He takes no notice of his surroundings. He asks for water only when he awakes from his semiconscious condition (half a line erased).

“The appearance is very bad—looks doomed. The general condition gives cause for alarm.

“Respiration more shallow, labored, moderately frequent.

“Respirations 25 per minute.

“The eyes are deeply hollowed, the turgor of the skin greatly reduced.

“Skin dry, tongue completely dry, whitish coating in the middle fairly loose.

“The mucous membranes of the mouth and the lips dry, latter covered with crusts. Lungs show slight very dry bronchitis lower border VI-XII, sharpened vesicular respiration.

“Heartbeats very low hardly audible. Filling of the pulse weaker. Increased thickness of walls of blood vessels. Frequency 72, liver, 2½-3 fingers below sternal margin, rather soft, moderately sensitive to pressure; spleen on percussion slightly enlarged.

“Musculature hypotonic. Joints over-extendable. Calves slightly sensitive to pressure. Indications of transverse welt formation, marked longitudinal welt formation. Romberg plus plus. Reflexes plus plus. Abdominal reflexes plus plus. Babinski negative. Eife phenomenon. Oppenheim negative. Rossolimo negative. Tonus of the bulb of the eye bad. Bulbus reflex positive. (Interruption.)”

Beiglboeck had substituted the word “somnolent” for the word “semiconscious” in the last line of the first paragraph. In this same paragraph half a line was completely erased and could not be translated. Beiglboeck purported not to remember what it said, an obvious falsehood since it was erased out of fear of the truth. In the last sentence of the second paragraph, Beiglboeck altered the notes to read “The general condition gives no cause for alarm.” In the first line of the eighth paragraph, Beiglboeck substituted the word “poorly” for “hardly.” The notation “Romberg plus plus” means that the subject has an “uncertain” ability to stand. (Tr. p. 8982.) He said that these notes refer to subject number 30 rather than subject 23. (Tr. p. 8984.)

Beiglboeck testified that he made no further changes, erasures, or alterations in Nuernberg. (Tr. p. 8992.) That Beiglboeck’s testimony as a whole is completely unreliable is evidenced by the fact that he also made erasures in the notes on the back of chart A-29. These notes, insofar as they can be translated, read as follows:

“The thirst again becomes very severe. Patient lies down on his back and rolls about. Also gets * * * a typical stereotyped organic rigid seizure with severe tetanic symptoms such as from his * * *, symptoms * * *. In view of the fact that in the last two days he has been drinking a great deal of water * * * quarter plus half liter, he is being taken out of the experiment.

“3/9 Again taken into the experiment.

“5/9 Again complains about very severe thirst.

“6/9 Feeling of thirst very severe, tongue dry and coated. Fetid smell from the mouth. Skin dry and hot, liver significantly enlarged, reflexes very lively, blood vessels show thickening of walls, musculature over-excitable.

“7/9 Psychic state has changed. Somnolence. Tongue dry, musculature feels stiffened. Considerable weakness of musculature with atoxic manifestation. Romberg positive. Blood vessels still * * *, pulse poorly filled, marked bradycardia, respiration accelerated. General condition [the next word erased and not legible], liver greatly enlarged.”

In the case of subject 25, Beiglboeck testified that this man was X-rayed several times and apparently had acute bronchitis. His fever went up to 39.8 Centigrade. (Tr. p. 8998.) He complained of a stomach ailment before the experiment began. (Tr. p. 9000.) He was still sick when Beiglboeck left Dachau on 15 September. (Tr. p. 9002.) Subject 39 was a man 49 years old; He was given 500 cc. of Berkatit for a period of four days, namely, from 1 September to 4 September, when the experiment was interrupted at 1930 hours. Beiglboeck used the truth with characteristic economy when he testified that the man was undergoing the experiment only three days. (Tr. p. 9010.) He admitted having performed numerous lumbar and liver punctures on the subjects. (Tr. p. 8933.)

A number of experimental subjects were able to gain access to fresh water in spite of the efforts of Beiglboeck to prevent them. Beiglboeck and his defense counsel assumed the anomalous position that this somehow mitigates his guilt. It is difficult to understand how this self-help on the part of the subjects, which undoubtedly saved the lives of the majority of them, could be raised as a mitigating factor when Beiglboeck did everything in his power to prevent that. As a matter of fact he did not even know that the experimental subjects in the first group, that is to say from 1 to 32, had been able to get at fresh water. He testified that:

“I should like to say that in the second group, when I knew their devices from my experience with the first group, I knew what to do and broke off the experiments. If I had wanted to continue the experiments, I would have done it in the second group too. This I did in the first group only became at first I did not realize the significance of their failure to lose weight.” [Emphasis supplied.] (Tr. p. 9022.)

Thus Beiglboeck says, in effect, that although he did not know that the experimental subjects gained access to fresh water, and although he continued the experiments far beyond what he himself knew to be the danger point, nonetheless he is to be excused because some of the experimental subjects drank fresh water secretly in spite of his efforts to prevent it.

The expert witness, Dr. Ivy, testified for the prosecution concerning sea-water experiments. He, himself, participated in an experiment of three days during which he consumed 2,400 cc. of sea-water with a caloric intake of 108 per day in the form of candy. He suffered marked dehydration and was at the point of developing hallucinations. A second volunteer in these experiments took 2,000 cc. in a little over one day and developed vomiting and diarrhea to such an extent that the experiment had to be stopped. (Tr. p. 9038-9.) Compare the amounts of sea-water taken by Beiglboeck’s subjects. For scientific data concerning the effect of sea-water on the human body, see Transcript pages 9039-41. Dr. Ivy pointed out certain basic inconsistencies in the testimony of the defense expert witness, Vollhardt. (Tr. pp. 9041-43.) Dr. Ivy testified that it was entirely unnecessary to perform these experiments for the purpose of establishing the potability of sea-water processed by the Berka method. This could have been determined chemically in a matter of one-half hour. (Tr. pp. 9043-4.) He stated that if 1,000 cc. of sea-water or Berkatit were taken per day, it would cause death in less than 12 days. Death would occur between the 8th and the 14th day if 500 cc. were consumed per day under ideal conditions. (Tr. p. 9045.) The statement in the report of the conferences on 19 and 20 May 1944 that if Berka water was used, damage to health was to be expected not later than six days and would lead to death not later than 12 days is essentially correct. (Tr. p. 9044.) This document shows that the planned duration of the experiments was 12 days. Dr. Ivy testified that it would be unnecessary to conduct experiments for more than three or four days to show that Berkatit was just as dehydrating as sea-water. (Tr. p. 9046.) He stated that these experiments make sense only if they were trying to determine the survival time of human beings on 500 cc. and 1,000 cc. of sea-water per day. It is clear that the experimental plan anticipated deaths. (Tr. pp. 9046-7.)

Dr. Ivy testified that, on the basis of his studies of the charts kept during the course of the experiments, there was an insufficient observation period after the experiments to determine whether there were any delayed damaging effects to the experimental subjects. (Tr. p. 9049.) The results of the experiments are not scientifically reliable. (Tr. p. 9051.)

Dr. Ivy pointed out that the chart of subject 3 proved that he was too weak to stand and have his blood pressure taken on several occasions. (Tr. p. 9052.) This was one of the subjects in the fasting and thirsting group. He was given an injection of coronine on 29 August and strychnine on 30 and 31 August. Both of these drugs are heart stimulants and the clinical picture indicates that this subject was ill or markedly disabled by the experiments. (Tr. p. 9053.) Eight to fourteen days is the range of survival time of strong men under ideal conditions for thirsting and fasting. (Tr. p. 9053.)

As a result of his study of the clinical records, Dr. Ivy testified that subjects 3, 14, 36, 37, 39, 31, 23 (or 30), 25, 28, and 29 were ill during the experiments. Subjects 3, 23, (or 30), and 25 were especially ill and there is a possibility that they were permanently injured or died as a result of the experiments. (Tr. pp. 9058-9.)

The subject to whom the notes on the back of chart C-23 applied was very sick and in a coma. (Tr. p. 9061.) The changes made in the stenographic notes by the defendant Beiglboeck make the subject appear to be in a better condition than he actually was. (Tr. pp. 9062-3.) The bulbous reflex referred to in these notes means the pressing of the eyeball to determine the degree of coma. “Tonus of ball of eyes is bad” indicates the blood pressure was low and the circulation was quite poor. This is a bad prognostic sign and might indicate impending death. (Tr. p. 9064.) These notes indicate that the subject was in a dangerous condition and required immediate remedial therapy. The follow-up observation for subject 23 was four days, while for subject 30 it was five days. This was entirely insufficient. This subject could have died if not properly cared for. (Tr. pp. 9065-6.)

Dr. Ivy testified that of the 44 subjects, 13 were too weak to stand on one or more occasions, had fever, required cardiac stimulants, or were unconscious—namely, subjects, 3, 4, 14, 21, 23, 25, 28, 29, 32, 36, 37, 39 and 40. (Tr. pp. 9067-8.) The statement of the affiant Bauer to the effect that he observed symptoms of heart weakness in the experimental subjects as a result of certain electrocardiograms he took was corroborated by Ivy. (Tr. p. 9069.)

In Dr. Ivy’s opinion, an experimental subject who agrees to undergo an experiment is no longer a volunteer if, during the course of the experiment, he is forced to continue after having expressed a desire to be relieved. (Tr. pp. 9076-7.)

The testimony of the defense expert Vollhardt is entirely unreliable. Although Vollhardt had nothing whatever to do with these experiments in Dachau, he repeatedly testified in a highly partial manner concerning matters about which he could not possibly have had any knowledge. For example, he insisted that the subjects in Dachau were volunteers. He testified that Beiglboeck eliminated three subjects before the experiments began because of their physical condition, and that three other persons immediately volunteered. (Tr. pp. 8457-8.) Even Beiglboeck made no such contention. He said that he considered it “quite out of the question that the experimental subjects felt it necessary to drink water out of mops, because there were air raid buckets and if they felt they needed a drink, they could have drunk out of them.” (Tr. p. 8467.) It is passing strange that Vollhardt could have such information when he was never in Dachau. He believed it quite impossible that any of the experimental subjects had cramps, although subject 29 is proved to have had cramps and organic seizures by the notes quoted above. Although Vollhardt admitted that the clinical data showed that a number of the experimental subjects had secretly obtained fresh water, and although Beiglboeck admitted that some of the subjects threw their urine away (Tr. p. 8865), Vollhardt was quite sure that the experimental subjects were all volunteers.

Vollhardt made no study of the clinical notes himself but turned them over to a 25-year-old assistant to digest for him. (Tr. p. 8432.) He admitted that he relied on descriptions of the experiments made by Becker-Freyseng and Beiglboeck since the trial began. (Tr. p. 8438.) Vollhardt had had no previous experience with sea-water problems, nor had his assistant. (Tr. p. 8451.) Vollhardt testified that he conducted a volunteer experiment on five of his doctor assistants after he had been approached by defense counsel. His subjects drank 500 cc. of simulated sea-water per day and received 1,600 calories per day. (Tr. pp. 8440-2.) Four of the subjects continued the experiment for five days and one for six days. The latter subject drank an extra 500 cc. on the last day. The purpose of these experiments was to ascertain how much a person suffers when undergoing a sea-water experiment. (Tr. p. 8443.) Vollhardt’s subjects continued their work about the clinic, although they ate and slept in the same room. He does not know whether they went to the local cinema or left the clinic for other purposes during the course of the experiments. (Tr. p. 8445.) Four of the subjects quit on the fifth day because of an engagement with a young lady. (Tr. p. 8450.) He testified that his subjects had no severe thirst on the first two days, it became unpleasant on the third, reduced thirst on the fourth, and very strong thirst on the fifth day; the subject who went six days reported that it made very little difference. All continued their work during the experiment. (Tr. p. 8453.) It is obvious that this experiment in no way compared to those conducted in Dachau. While some of the experimental subjects in Dachau were too weak on many occasions to have their blood pressure taken, Vollhardt’s subjects were able to continue their work.

While Vollhardt’s subjects were trained doctors who participated in the experiment because of interest, who were permitted to withdraw from the experiment at any time, who were permitted to control their own activities during the experiment, none of these important factors were present in the Dachau experiments. (Tr. p. 8479.) The wretched gypsies were not permitted to withdraw when they felt like it. They did not know how long the experiments were to last, they had no freedom of activity, they had no interest in the experiment. Vollhardt’s regard for these gypsies is apparent from his statement that “* * * people like that will of course find a way” to cheat. (Tr. p. 8468.) That Vollhardt knew nothing of the experiments he purported to testify about is apparent from his testimony regarding their duration. For example, he stated that in the Berkatit group of 500 cc., the experiments were discontinued after six days. (Tr. p. 8462.) The clinical charts which Vollhardt had in his possession, and upon which his testimony purported to be based, show that the duration of the experiments in this group ran as high as 9½ days, and in all but two cases exceeded six days. He testified that the group on sea-water was also discontinued after six days while the clinical charts show some of them to have run as long as ten days. In the fasting and thirsting group he testified that they were discontinued after four to five days, while the chart shows that they lasted from 5½ to 7½ days. (Tr. pp. 8462-3.) No, Vollhardt’s testimony would indeed have been an unreliable substitute for the charts.

The testimony of the prosecution witnesses proves that the sea-water experiments resulted in murder and tortures. The Austrian witness Vorlicek, who was tried for “preparation of high treason” in 1939 and sentenced to four years in a penitentiary, was transferred to Dachau in March 1944 and acted as an assistant nurse in the experimental station during the course of the sea-water experiments. (Tr. pp. 9383-5.) One of the inmate guards who fell asleep was transferred to a penal company. (Tr. p. 9386.) At least one of the subjects suffered a violent attack of cramps. (Tr. p. 9386.) On one occasion Vorlicek spilled some fresh water on the floor and forgot the rag which he used to mop it up. The experimental subjects seized the dirty rag and sucked the water out of it. Beiglboeck threatened to put him in the experiments if it ever happened again. (Tr. p. 9387.) The experimental subjects were not volunteers. Vorlicek talked to some of the Czech subjects who told him they had been asked in another camp to volunteer for a good outside assignment and only when they got to Dachau did they find out that they were to undergo the experiments. (Tr. pp. 9388, 9392.) He testified that the subjects were of Czech, Polish, Hungarian, Austrian, and German nationalities. (Tr. p. 9388.) Some of the subjects were quite ill and he was under the impression that they would not live much longer. About three months after the experiments he met Franz, one of the subjects, and he told him that one of the victims of the experiments had already died. (Tr. p. 9390.)

The witness Laubinger, who was subject number 7, testified that he was arrested by the Gestapo in March 1943 because he was a gypsy. He was sent to Auschwitz in the spring of 1943 without having been tried for any crime. (Tr. p. 10199.) He was later transferred to Buchenwald for a few weeks and while there, together with other inmates, was asked to volunteer for a cleaning-up work detail in Dachau. The inmates were under the impression that conditions were better in Dachau, so they agreed to go. Upon their arrival at Dachau they were given a physical examination and X-rayed and then taken to the experimental station. (Tr. p. 10200.) Beiglboeck told them that they were to participate in the sea-water experiment and that was the first they knew of it. (Tr. p. 10201.) Laubinger identified Beiglboeck in the dock. (Tr. p. 10202.) He told Beiglboeck that he had had two stomach operations, but Beiglboeck did not permit him to withdraw. Beiglboeck did not ask whether the subjects wished to volunteer, and they did not volunteer. (Tr. p. 10203.) Laubinger, who was in the Schaefer group, was given Schaefer water for 12 days and fasted for at least nine days. He got so weak he could hardly stand up. The experimental subjects received special food for only one day after the experiment. Beiglboeck had promised them extra rations and an easy work detail but these promises were not kept. (Tr. p. 10205.) One of the subjects tried to persuade the others to refuse to drink the sea-water. Beiglboeck threatened to have him hanged for sabotage. The subject later vomited after drinking sea-water whereupon Beiglboeck had the water administered through a stomach tube. (Tr. p. 10207.) Another subject was tied to his bed and adhesive tape was plastered over his mouth, because he had obtained some fresh water and bread. Most of the subjects were Czech, Polish, and Russian nationalities, with approximately eight Germans. (Tr. p. 10208.). A number of subjects suffered attacks of delirium and two were transferred to the hospital. Laubinger did not see them again. (Tr. p. 10209.)

The witness Hoellenrainer corroborated the testimony of Laubinger on all important points. He testified that the experimental subjects did not volunteer (Tr. p. 10509) and that the majority of them were non-German nationals. (Tr. p. 10513.) Hoellenrainer testified further that Beiglboeck showed no concern for the experimental subjects, but, on the contrary, threatened to shoot them when they became excited. (It hardly seems appropriate to wear a gun when experimenting on volunteers.) He had no pity for them when they became delirious from thirst and hunger. (Tr. p. 10510.) The witness Hoellenrainer unfortunately assaulted Beiglboeck in open Court. This impulsive act of the witness, however, speaks more forcibly than volumes of testimony as to the inhuman treatment of the experimental subjects and the suffering which was inflicted on them as a result of these experiments. We may rest assured that Hoellenrainer was no volunteer. When explaining his behavior to the Tribunal, Hoellenrainer characterized Beiglboeck a “murderer”. (Tr. pp. 10233-4.)

The witness Tschofenig was committed to Dachau in November 1940 where he remained until April 1945. He was a political prisoner. (Tr. p. 9331.). He is at present a member of the Carinthian Land Diet in Austria. (Tr. p. 9332.) From the summer of 1942 until the end, he was in charge of the X-ray station in Dachau. (Tr. p. 9334.) He examined the transport of gypsies in the summer of 1944 before the experiments began and excluded a number of them as being unfit. (Tr. pp. 9334-5.) He saw Beiglboeck several times in the camp and in the X-ray station. (Tr. p. 9335.) During the experiments a number of those who got sick were brought to the X-ray station for examination. Their physical condition had deteriorated considerably as a result of the experiments. He heard that one of the subjects had a maniac attack. (Tr. p. 9336.) At the conclusion of the experiments, three of the subjects were brought to the station for internal diseases. One was on a stretcher and unable to walk. All of them were X-rayed by Tschofenig. (Tr. p. 9338.) It was customary to send the results of the X-ray examinations to the hospital ward where the inmates were kept. Tschofenig received an official order from the station for internal diseases that it was not necessary to report on the stretcher case as he had died two days after his transfer. The station physician reported that the death resulted from the sea-water experiments. Tschofenig examined the death records himself. (Tr. p. 9339.)

Even Dr. Steinbauer, defense counsel for Beiglboeck, has apparently convinced himself that these experiments involved torture. He said, in explaining his conduct in withholding part of a document the Tribunal had ordered to be produced, that: “I do not want to say anything about the experimental subjects, who suffered terribly.” (Tr. p. 9378.)

c. Selections from the Argumentation of the Defense

Extract from the Final Plea for Defendant Schroeder

I now come to the count of the indictment “Participation of the defendant Professor Dr. Schroeder in the sea-water experiments which were carried out in the Dachau concentration camp.”

In the case of these experiments, Professor Schroeder’s participation has been established, and he has accepted the responsibility as far as the preparation and the planning of these experiments are concerned. Professor Schroeder has mainly been accused by the prosecution of having permitted these experiments to be carried out in a concentration camp. The prosecution in its case against Professor Schroeder further stated that these experiments were not necessary at all, and it drew the conclusion that the experiments had only been ordered in order to torture people and in order to subject them to unnecessary cruelties; it also stated that it was clear that in no case had the experimental subjects been volunteers.

Therefore it is the task of the defense to show in the following paragraphs why from the point of view of Professor Schroeder, as Chief of the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe, these experiments had to be considered necessary, and just what reasons motivated him to give his approval for the carrying out of the experiments in a concentration camp.

The first question therefore is—why and from what considerations were there experiments ordered at all? It must be stated in advance here, that as far as Chief of the Medical Inspectorate Professor Schroeder was concerned, he did not have to examine the question whether one or the other method for making sea-water drinkable was more suitable; the problem for him existed in its entirety and it could not be divided. It was to rescue shipwrecked persons from death from lack of water and find the best method of protection against this danger. This problem had already been handled by various interested agencies for quite some time, and various individual questions for the solution of this problem had arisen. No method for making sea-water drinkable had been found and it was not clear what procedure should be advocated.

In the course of the year 1943 two methods for making sea-water drinkable were offered almost simultaneously. One of them, the so-called Wofatit method, had been developed by Dr. Schaefer in collaboration with I. G. Farben. Another, the Berkatit method, represented the invention of Stabsingenieur Berka.

It was quite clearly recognized that Schaefer’s Wofatit represented the ideal solution, because this method removed all the salt from the sea-water and changed it into drinking water, while the Berka method let the salt remain in the sea-water and only improved the taste of the sea-water through the addition of various sugar and vitamin drugs. We agree with the prosecution and the expert Professor Dr. Ivy when they state that a chemist in the course of one afternoon could have decided by means of a short experiment whether Wofatit or Berkatit was better. The participating agencies of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe, Professor Schroeder and Dr. Becker-Freyseng, realized that quite clearly. From the chemical point of view this problem could also have been solved in a simple manner.

The difficulty which existed for Professor Schroeder with regard to this problem, however, lay in another field; this was the shortage of raw materials prevailing at the time, which had arisen in Germany because of the war. This circumstance made it possible for the Technical Office of the Luftwaffe to oppose the introduction of the Wofatit and to consider the Berkatit method, because the raw materials for the latter method could be procured without any difficulty and production could be started right away, since production facilities for the appropriate amounts were already in existence. It was different in the case of Wofatit. Considerable amounts of silver were required for its production, which could not be set aside for the production of Wofatit without damaging other production branches which also needed this metal. The Technical Office of the Luftwaffe, therefore, had already decided in favor of the introduction of Berkatit on 1 July 1944. Professor Schroeder, in his capacity as Chief of the Medical Inspectorate, however, could not have assumed the responsibility for having the units which were entrusted to his professional medical care equipped with the Berka method, because the danger existed that shipwrecked aviators, deceived by the improvement in the taste of sea-water, would drink it in larger amounts and thus increase the danger of their dying of thirst. The question also had to be clarified whether the shipwrecked crew of an airplane completely adrift at sea should go without any food or water whatsoever or whether they should consume a certain amount of sea-water rather than no water at all. This last question could only be clarified by carrying out an experiment on human beings. An experiment on animals would not suffice in this respect, because the distribution of water in the body of animals differs from that in a human being. By proving its medical objections, the Medical Inspectorate would also have been able to make its point of view heard by the Technical Office, if the medical expert, Professor Dr. Eppinger, one of the best known specialists for internal diseases not only in Germany, but in Europe, had not sided with the Technical Office. Professor Eppinger, in the conference at the Technical Office on 25 May 1944, expressly voiced the opinion that the Berka method was suitable, because for a certain time the human kidney could concentrate salt up to 3 percent, and because the vitamins which had been added to the Berka method would be suitable for speeding up the excretion of the salt from the human organism. This opinion was also shared at the same conference by the pharmacologist Professor Heubner, who is still one of the leading specialists in the field today.

Professor Schroeder would not have been able to turn down both methods. He would then have been reproached with the fact that he had not done everything within his power in order to make the position of shipwrecked German soldiers more bearable and to save them from dying of lack of water. It, therefore, becomes evident that these considerations on the part of Schroeder give us proof of his great feeling of responsibility; it was not easy for him to give his approval for the carrying out of such experiments.

Further developments also show clearly that Schroeder, in spite of the fact that he was extremely busy with official matters, devoted the greatest care and conscientiousness to this matter. He did not just decide to select Dachau as the place where the experiments were to be carried out. Originally he did not even harbor such a thought, but he intended to have the experiments carried out as a troop experiment in institutes which were owned by the Luftwaffe. He was primarily considering the Luftwaffe hospital at Brunswick for this purpose. On 1 July 1944 he turned to the chief medical officer of this hospital, who was competent in the matter, who, however, disapproved of it. This becomes evident from the certificate of Dr. Harriehausen, who was a Generalarzt at the time. Now Professor Schroeder began to consider the Military Medical Academy of the Luftwaffe in Berlin, where he intended to use the young cadets in this academy as experimental subjects. An inquiry which he made there was also unsuccessful. The reason why his requests were turned down in each case was that just at this particular time the OKW had issued a strict order to the effect that all convalescents were to be returned immediately from the hospitals to their units, and that the cadets of the academy were to be given a combat assignment. For the same reason, the suggestion of Professor Beiglboeck to carry out the experiments at the Tarvis Field Hospital also remained unsuccessful.

The further possibility of perhaps using German civilians for the experiments was completely out of question because at this time it was not possible to find young men in the age groups necessary in this case among the German civilian population, because all of them had either been conscripted for military service or for labor service. Professor Schroeder, therefore, had no choice but to follow the suggestion of considering Dachau concentration camp for his experimental station.

Professor Schroeder was not informed at all about conditions in a concentration camp. He thought the circumstances in such a camp were no different from those prevailing in a military camp, and only the names Dachau and Oranienburg were known to him as concentration camps. In this connection, it may be pointed out that the SS surrounded events in the concentration camps with an almost impenetrable veil of secrecy. Schroeder never listened to foreign radio stations. In the circles of his medical officers such events were never discussed. I may point out here that an express opponent of National Socialism, no less than the former Prussian Minister of the Interior, Severing, testified as a witness in the IMT trial that he had had no knowledge of the events in the concentration camps, and he had different sources of information at his disposal from Professor Schroeder. If Professor Schroeder had had any idea of what happened in concentration camps while he was away from Germany, then in view of his ideology as a faithful Christian, he would have refused such contact with concentration camps arising out of ordering these experiments. The decisive point in Schroeder’s favor is that the experiments were not to be carried out under the supervision and command of the SS camp leadership but completely separate, under the special leadership of a Luftwaffe medical officer and recognized specialist. As a further consideration, Professor Schroeder had to take into account that a useful result could be achieved in these experiments only if they could be carried out without interruption or hindrance. Because of the then prevalent almost daily air raids over the whole of Germany, no guarantee for an uninterrupted execution of these experiments could be given in any spot in Germany. However, it was known that air raids on concentration camps did not take place. Moreover, the charge cannot be brought against Professor Schroeder that he chose a concentration camp because he then had available defenseless tools who perforce had to subject themselves to the experiments. The very opposite is true. It was clear to Professor Schroeder that if he wanted to be successful he could carry out these experiments only with voluntary experimental subjects, for the director of the experiments was dependent on the willing cooperation of the experimental subjects, since in no other way could usable clinical data be achieved. Every involuntary experimental subject would have had the power to drop out of the experiment prematurely by feigning indisposition or pain, and, in this way, would have caused the director of the experiment to terminate it prematurely.

For the further evaluation of Professor Schroeder’s conduct, his conversation with the Reich Physician SS Grawitz must be considered especially. Professor Schroeder expressed the opinion to Grawitz that he could only work with healthy and voluntary experimental persons, whose age corresponded to that of the pilots under his command, and he made the further condition that the experimental persons should have the same physiological and racial requisites as the members of the German Wehrmacht in question. On direct examination, Professor Schroeder testified under oath that in this connection he talked to Grawitz about dishonorably discharged former members of the German Wehrmacht who, he knew, had been transferred to concentration camps because of the seriousness of their offenses.

Professor Schroeder could not assume, nor was any report on the part of Grawitz or the SS leadership made to him, that the SS leadership did not accept this suggestion and that instead of former members of the German Wehrmacht, gypsies had been decided upon for experimental purposes. Professor Schroeder, from his point of view, could rely on Grawitz to make arrangements according to his suggestions; he had no reason to expect that the SS would decide upon experimental subjects, against his well-founded wish, who, racially and physiologically did not have the prerequisites demanded by Professor Schroeder.

Because of the extremely heavy official duties caused for Professor Schroeder in his capacity as chief medical officer by the imminent collapse of German military resistance, this affair was only a small segment of his official duties and it must be admitted that he could not concern himself further with this affair.

A further consideration which Professor Schroeder had to bear in mind was whether such experiments were dangerous and possibly damaging to the health of the experimental subjects. Professor Schroeder had thoroughly studied this question and contemplated all possible aspects of the problem. Professor Schroeder also knew that sea-water is used by doctors for drinking cures and that the criterion of harmfulness depends on the doses. If there was medical supervision then there would be no danger to health. Therefore, the prosecution’s charge that he failed to take the possible hazards sufficiently into account is not justified.

Nothing shows the high degree of responsibility which characterized Professor Schroeder more than the instructions which the medical inspector issued to the man carrying out the experiments.

Professor Schroeder was convinced that the experiments held no danger to the experimental subjects and he expressed this opinion to Reich Physician SS Grawitz. Such danger was excluded particularly if and when the quantity of sea-water to be taken was regulated in accordance with the best medical experiences, and when it was definitely ordered that the experiments should be stopped at a certain time; and, furthermore, if the selection of the man in charge of the experiments guaranteed, on the basis of professional and ethical standards, that the experiments would be carried out in a humane manner, taking into account all medical and clinical considerations.

Therefore, it is fully justified if Professor Schroeder claims that he, from his position as a physician and a leading medical officer, considered all possible situations and attempted to avert all possible sources of danger as far as humanly possible. His direction to the man in charge to discontinue the experiments as soon as the experimental subject refused to take in further water, and if dangerous injury to the body were recognizable, must be mentioned in Schroeder’s favor. The person carrying out the experiments was furnished with all necessary assistants and a number of special co-workers from medical circles as well as all machinery to carry out his work in an orderly fashion.

The contention that both the planning and preparation of the experiments by Schroeder can stand any examination, that that planning was with full moral responsibility and with a true feeling of duty and humanity was reaffirmed, too, before this Tribunal by Professor Dr. Vollhardt, as well as by the American expert, Professor Ivy. It is simply unthinkable that instructions to one conducting experiments could be more correct from a medical point of view than those which Professor Schroeder worked out.

By this plea and the evidence, all charges against Professor Schroeder in the sea-water complex are refuted.

Extracts from the Closing Brief for Defendant Beiglboeck

The Persons Subjected to the Experiments

As regards this subject [sea-water experiments] I want to put the defendant’s statements first (Tr. pp. 8703-4):

“Dr. Steinbauer: Did you have influence on the selection of the experimental subjects?

“Defendant Beiglboeck: No. I was told at the Medical Inspectorate that arrangements had been made with the SS, and the SS in accordance with these arrangements would supply the experimental subjects. I did not have to worry about that.

“Q. Did you have orders to find out where the experimental subjects came from and what the specified circumstances and conditions were?

“A. No. That too was not a decision that I could have made, nor could the Luftwaffe.

“Q. Did you know before that gypsies had been used?

“A. I only found out that gypsies were coming into Dachau from the camp commandant. * * * I, therefore, do not feel that I am responsible either for the selection of the place where the experiments were carried out nor for the selection of those persons who were used.”

Defendant Professor Dr. Schroeder states regarding this (Tr. pp. 3676-7):

CROSS-EXAMINATION

“Mr. McHaney: Did you say anything to Beiglboeck about the experimental subjects?

“Defendant Schroeder: No. We only spoke about the matter as such. I am not quite sure whether the question ‘concentration camp’ was already established at that time. Please, why don’t you ask Beiglboeck himself? I don’t know if it was before or after 1 June.

“Q. You didn’t say anything to Beiglboeck about making sure that only German volunteers were used in the experiments?

“A. That was a matter of course. There was no discussion about it. It was no subject of discussion. There wasn’t anything to be discussed.

“Q. Well, you didn’t tell him that then?

“A. I don’t know. I can’t tell you that under oath. I know that there were volunteers; and I certainly did not say that they had to be German because I didn’t take any other possibility into consideration at all and couldn’t have said it. These are all reconstructions which came up later, but at that time weren’t subjects of discussion at all.”

These were gypsies wearing the black badge of the asocials. The defendant states that the Sturmbannfuehrer in charge of the shipment told him that these persons were all asocials, who were interned on account of punishable offenses and not for social reasons. As we read in Kogon’s book “The SS State” the black badge was in fact the designation of the asocials. We see from Document NO-179, Prosecution Exhibit 135, that SS Gruppenfuehrer Nebe suggested as persons to be used for the experiments asocial persons of mixed gypsy blood in Auschwitz concentration camp, who were in good health but at the same time unsuitable for labor. In the book on gypsies of the Royal Police Directorate Munich 1905, (Beiglboeck 28, Beiglboeck Ex. 11), we read:

“The greatest difficulty arises in securing a census of gypsies. The majority of them make every effort to obscure their identity through false statements or through a pretense of ignorance * * *.”

Their asocial character led to a series of police regulations, of which the most important are the following, as far as Germany is concerned:

Decree of 16 May 1938, RMB1.i.V. (Bulletin of the Reich Ministry of the Interior) pages 883-4, concerning measures against the gypsy nuisance.

Decree of 8 December 1938, RMB1.i.V., page 2105, concerning measures against the gypsy nuisance.

Decree of 10 November 1939, RMB1.i.V., page 2339, concerning employment records for gypsies.

Decree of 2 September 1939, Reich Law Gazette, I, page 1578. Prohibition of wandering of gypsies in the frontier zone (Sec. 4 of the ordinance concerning frontier protection).

The witness Dorn states (Tr. p. 8618):

“As far as I know, the brown sign was done away with in Buchenwald in 1940 and all gypsies arrested for racial reasons were asocial. In other words, from 1940 on, there were no gypsies in the camp who were not designated in the filing system as asocial, as unwilling to work.”

The same witness states (Tr. pp. 8661-2):

“I can merely say that initially all gypsies were arrested for racial reasons. Later on this was changed. Some of the gypsies who were not declared asocial elements were removed from Dachau to the Labor House in the Rebdorf Bavarian penitentiary.”

The famous Swiss Psychiatrist E. Bleuler, Zuerich, writes in his Textbook on Psychiatry, Berlin, Springer, 1937 on pages 397-400 about:

Constitutional ethnical deviations

“* * * A large number of asocials show what type of character they are while still young. Most of them are backward at school, even if their intelligence is good, because they adjust themselves too little and show too little industry and attention. Extraordinary achievements in any single direction are rare. Many of them are lazy, thieving, lying, cruel to animals and people, exacting, often deliberately and negligently damaging their own and others property, vain, unreliable, and egotistical. They cannot submit to authority, run away if they do not like anything; punishments are not respected, altogether neither sugar plums nor the whip have any visible effects. When carrying out mean tricks they develop cunning and energy, soon learn from others what is bad, with difficulty or not at all what is good, have an instinctive inclination for bad company.”

I have not made any special reference to asocial character to point out that we must be particularly careful when estimating their trustworthiness, on account of their tendency to mendacity and because of a certain psychotic cupidity concerning claims for compensation. This is not necessary where the judges are so experienced; I am referring to this fact for legal reasons. It is well known that there is no legal definition of crimes against humanity. According to legal authors, such crimes can only be committed against persons who are persecuted for political, religious, and racial reasons.

To complete this chapter in its legal aspects, I would also like to mention the racial regulation of the gypsy question as far as it can be seen from German legislation. According to the 12th decree implementing the Reich Citizenship Law, dated 25 April 1943 (Reich Law Gazette I, p. 268), gypsies who are not yet German citizens cannot acquire citizenship. Section 4 of this decree reads:

“Jews and gypsies cannot become citizens. They cannot become citizens either subject to revocation, or protected persons * * *.”

According to the first decree implementing the Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honor of 14 November 1935 (Reich Law Gazette I, p. 1334), marriage between gypsies and Germans is prohibited. Section 6 of this decree reads: