A. In the so-called directives of the advisory congresses, and these are the green folders which we have here containing the summarized reports from each one of these congresses, there is, as is shown by our document and that of the Prosecution, too, I think at the beginning a report of our lecture with the title "Special Experiments". Then follow all the others who spoke about the same and then finally there is a summary showing at the head of it only the extract quoted by Handloser amounting to about six or eight lines which was an extract from our final results. These books were then sent through official channesl in such a way as described by Handloser about six months later together with the complete contents of all the lectures given during this congress, or, at least, the important lec tures. I am not sure just how many were included; and they were to the advisory medical officers and the service departments concerned, but of course, the distributor in detail isn't known to me.
DR. SEIDL: In this connection, Mr. President, I would like to submit Exhibit Gebhardt No. 10, extracts from the report on the Third Meeting East. It is on page 22 of my document book. The heading shows that this took place on the 24th to the 26th of May 1943, and I beg the Tribunal to take judicial notice of the index, and I now turn to page 23 to which I will turn as an exception because it eals with the important context. I quote:
"5. SS-Gruppenfuehrer Major General Professor Gebhardt and F. Fischer. Special Experiments on Sulfonamide Treatment Conclusions:
1. The development of a suppuration on the soft parts caused by bacteria cannot be prevented, even if sulfonamides 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 phleg??ns of the limbs was influenced by sulfonamides. We were of the impression that combined gas gangrene therapy took a milder course under the influence of sulfonamides.
3. Surgical measures are indispensable for a successful treatment of inflammations.
Additions Remarks:
The sprinkling of sulfonamide powder on wounds can be injurious if, by so doing, the fundamentals of surgery are infringed. If, for instance, the powder basis is not dissolve by the tissue fluids, and if the discharge of secretions is hampered by coagulation. The wounds treated with sulfonamide powder show a slight tendency to exudation.
Hypothesis of Functions:
The inflammation on the ?edodermal soft parts shows at an early stage a tendency towards necrosis. The necrosis is the seat of the bacteria culture. Its surroundings show ?hrombosed vessels. Access to it by chemotherapeutic reagants is very difficult."
Mr. President, I beg you to take judicial knowledge of further reports or further lecturers contained in this report,and I shall now turn to page 29 which contains the discussion about these experiments which has so frequently been mentioned. I shall qoute from page 29 of the document book discussions.
"Sauerbruch reminds us of the chemotherapeutic experiences of the World War. He does not want to reject the sulfonamides, but wishes them to be judged more reservedly and more critically.
"Schoercher" -- also a professor of surgery --"considers the effect of tincture of iodine, rivanol or phenol camphor to be better.
"Bochler" -- professor of surgery from Vienna states that "3.7% wound complications were observed in the Vienna Accident Hospital offer the use of sulfonamides, before their introduction, 7%.
"Heubner" -- who was professor for pharmacology at the University of Berlin states: "Transitory products which are created in the organism participate in the effect of sulfonamides.
"Usadel" -- professor for surgery at Tuebingen: "It cannot be denied that sulfonamides have a therapeutic effect.
"Krueger" -- professor mentioned repeatedly, surgery, Berlin, states:
"The exact surgical treatment of the wounds is decisive, but so also is the early prophylactic use of sulfonamides.
"Schoenbauer" -- also professor for surgery, Vienna, states: "Sulfonamide are particularly valuable for inflammations of the urinary system and for meningitis."
And then finally Professor Schulemann, professor of pharmacology at Bonn says: "The effect of sulfonamides does not depend on their nature but on their surroundings."
Mr. President, on page 30 of the document book, you will find the directives which have been so often mentioned. I shall merely quote the first paragraph:
"Directives for the Application of Sulfonamides.
"Experiments (Gebhardt-Fischer) showed the following results: Even the immediate internal and external application of sulfonamide preparations cannot prevent a suppuration of the soft parts due to ordinary suppurative organisms. I could not be proved that the course of the inflammatory disease caused by anaerobiens is influenced by sulfonamides. The sulfonamides seemed to have an easing effect on the course of combined gangrene therapy."
JUDGE SEBRING: It is not quite clear to me about this directive for the application of sulfonamides. Who was the author of that directives? Are you prepared to say?
DR. SEIDL: The directives contained in page 30 of the document books were testimony by the testimony of Restock, and Defendant Handloser sent to indicate to me that these various lectures came up for discussion. Since, however, we are dealing with statements of something that happened in the past, I myself would prefer it if witness Dr. Gebhardt would personally define his views regarding the coming about of these directives.
Witness, you have understood, of course, the question of the Tribunal?
A. Yes, May I ask permission to state in great detail and quite exactly here what each individual knew and to what extent individual sources participated in the matter, because, first of all, of course, the point is that, of course, I am telling the truth, and, secondly, that I, the German officer, am making efforts to save German reputation within these limits, and, thirdly, that all the evidence is not only printed but has reached foreign countries either complete to with all the diagrams or partly, at least, probably has reached the hands of the Prosecution.
The realization of these experiments took place without any participation of the German Armed Forces. There was this direct order according to the description which I have given and within the responsibilities which I myself had assumed. The coercion leading the publication against all the interests and sources of the SS is something which I claim to be a merit of mind. I am perfectly convinced that the armed forces weren't in any way interested. Maybe they might have been pleased if we hadn't turned up. On the other hand, I insisted that a completed experiment would only have its justification given to it if subject to a clear description of its progress. One would submit it is a source up to then not concerned with the matter at all, the entire picture together with the question: are the conclusions which I am now making, and is what I am introducing for thousands of SS men -- is that right or is that wrong? In which connection, of course, I also had the personal wish that my name should have the protection of experts and that the State should be forced to recognize publicly the emergency in which I found myself. That was the manner in which I described it to my friend in Switzerland and everybody else. How a publication was painstakingly achieved afterwards and what the type of the lecture was is something which I hope to have described to the Tribunal clearly.
Now following this we are here concerned with a discussion, and so that no erroneous picture could arise from this discussion, a clear cut dividing line must be drawn as follows: four medical representatives spoke about the question of sulfonamides. As far as the experimental part is concerned which came entirely outside previous programs, namely, Gebhardt-Fischer Gebhardt-Fischer spoke. As far as the clinical part is concerned, in other words, the visual procedure of inquiries to various hospitals such as Professor Frey without any connection to me on his own, and then as far as the pathological part, the judgment of bodies and so on and so forth is concerned spake Professor Aridergast and then another expert also spoke, but he spoke independently.
The audience had all four speakers, and the remarks made by the German colleagues over all the time during the discussion deal with and refer to the individual subjects. The only reference made directly to me and my experiments was made by Professor Schreuss, according to my recollection, something which you can also see in the document book, and Professor Heubner, the pharmacologist. All the others spoke more or less about the pathological and clinical and pharmacological part, but, of course, I must also add and mention that as far as these completed experiments which were submitted to criticism were concerned, no one did raise any criticism to the effect that they were scientifically speaking without value or that humanly there had been failure to carry out the final security measures.
On the other hand, there was no other speaker who spoke about our subject in addition to the two names mentioned, namely, Schreuss and Heubner.
The excerpts from all these speeches and the directives usually are compiled in such a way that under the President, Professor Rostock in this case, every lecturer once more supplies his lecture, and that after that there is a lot of argument about what is to be included, and that finally in one summarized excerpt the final result is pictured.
It is my duty to draw your attention specifically here to the fact that in this case there is a difference such as is shown by these directives. In the case of every other department, each other sphere such as hygiene, and so on and so forth, you can see that at the end without the mentioning of a name, directive appear in extract of everything that had been mentioned, of course, always under the presidency of the President of the time. In our case there was a similar situation as far as the other surgical lectures are concerned, something, which I know exactly because I still give another five lectures or five other comments, and we did meet under Rostock's chairmanship, and as is apparent, we did compile the summary.
The sulfonamide story was so much outside the usual framework of our experiments that a type of description was chosen in which names were mentioned clearly separated from each other listing everybody in detail, and at the end, then they are summarized. I can recollect that the situation was that we ourselves summarized our text and submitted it to the office, the reason being something quite external.
JUDGE SEBRING: You say you submitted it to the office. To what office? "To the office."
A. To the office. There was a congressional bureau. There was a difference as far as we were concerned since sulfonamides were not a summary for all surgical departments. A surgeon had been speaking freely, and I, as the experimenter, we under Rostock's jurisdiction. There was a pharmacologist; I am not sure under which department he came. There was a pathologist, and he again was under somebody else's jurisdiction, and then I think someone from nerve medicine even spoke, so that there were five completely separate departments who hadn't met during discussions, and to my recollection, the situation was that each participant summarized his extract, that is to say, the surgeons; the pharmacologists -- all the various departments -- and then they submitted that to the congressional office, the office in the congress I cannot remember, and I can state this under oath, that any criticism, or any special discussion r conference took place with reference to sulfomanides, certainly not under Rostock's chairmanship.
JUDGE SEBRING: Then it is quite clear to you that at that conference you made it plain to the gentlemen assembled there that your experiments had been conducted upon human beings and not upon animals, is that correct?
A. Oh, yes, that is absolutely correct, and it is confirmed, of course, by Proffesor Frey's statement, who was the official speaking after me. He says clearly and expressly that he heard that completed experiments on human beings who had been sentenced were conducted. He only adds that today he does not approve, so the man who spoke directly after me, but who quite independently heard my introduction, something which I must emphasize here in order to protect Fischer, that matter was unmistakable.
The only thing is that I cannot swear to the word "concentration camp", but it must have been clear that there was an experiment carried out on seventy-five people
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now recess until one-thirty.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is in recess until 1330 hours.
( A recess was taken until 1330 hours).
OFFICE OF US CHIEF OF COUNSEL
DOC. DIV. LIBRARY THIS ITEM IS DUE ONE WEEK FROM:
IF NEEDED LONGER PLEASE INFORM THE LIBRARY.
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 6 March 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats.
The Tribunal is again in session.
KARL GEBHARDT - Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR. SEIDL:
Q. Witness, before the recess we were discussing the third meeting of the consulting physicians in May 1943, and in connection with that report with regard to the sulfonamides, together with Oberarzt Dr. Koestler, who spoke about nerve injuries. this report have anything whatsoever to do with experiments on human brings?
A. My previous testimony as I have already pointed out, was that all remaining reports at this conference were limited to purely clinical experiments or experiments on animals. In order to state it very briefly, and may I submit some evidence in writing. I discussed the small joint operation in contrast with Stumpfegger, and together with Koestler I made reports and then I have reported about the X-ray pictures and adjoining experiments with animals, and that we made descriptions which show that we only supported ourselves on a clinical basis on animal experiments.
Q. I now come to the fourth conference of the Military Medical Academy which took place in Hohenlychen. The prosecution has presented an excerpt on this subject and how was it this meeting took Place at Berlin and not in Hohenlychen? I would like for you to give a brief answer to that question because the other defendants have already made statements on that subject.
A. I can only confirm that around that period of time I was the president of the surgical society, and that, because of the danger of air raids, the locality for the meetings had not as yet been determined, and especially the medical officers from the front were to be given good billets, so that on my own initiative and without any orders, I offered Hohenlychen to the Generaloberstabsarzt Handloser.
Q. In the report about this conference demonstrations on a special field were mentioned. What was the field?
A. I did not even give a lecture at all. However, I placed my whole clinic at their disposal and above all we demonstrated the sports which were done by the disabled and wounded.
Q. In the course of this meeting did anybody talk to you about experiments on human beings?
A. I have not had any discussion with anybody neither with regard to the previous conferences, nor in any new connection, and in our surgical program nor such experiments were mentioned.
Otherwise, I had to take care of the organizational questions for three or four hundred people and this kept me fully occupied.
Q What other conferences did you attend during the war?
A. I did not attend the first and the second conferences; but the third mentioned the sulfonamides and the fourth was at my place at Hohenlychen. That was the general conference which took place.
Q May it please the Tribunal, I now come to the discussion of those experiments, in which the defendant Gebhardt was not directly participating, but in which the indictment charges him with special responsibility. The first two documents to which I refer are located in Document Book 6. They are sterilization experiments and these are exhibits of the Prosecution No. 216 and 215. The documents are located on pages 56 and 60 of the English Document Book. I am now handing these two documents to you, and these are are two file notes which the defendant, Dr. Rudolph Brandt, compiled, and which quite apparently referred to that same conference, that is the conference which took place in early July, 1942, and which you have already mentioned with regard to the sulfonamide experiments; and now I would like for you to tell the Tribunal who was present at this conference and what subject was discussed there and what agreement was reached.
A May I say in advance most certainly I did not have anything to do with sterilization experiments, and I did not attend meetings in which sterilization of Jewesses was discussed. The uncertainty and the change in this file note, which was made later on, I believe results from the fact that it is a notation which was compiled on two occasions when I remained behind, in order to discuss the execution of the sulfonamide experiments, at Ravensbrueck with Inspector Gleucks and in order to see that men were to be sent into the womens' camp. I have already stated last year that, without knowledge of these documents, at these conferences I had to oppose a plan of Himmler to establish a big research institute here from the very beginning; and it was ordered that this was to be connected with some woman physician, without, of course, being able to remember any details.
As far as I can remember, the situation was as follows: At the first discussion there was Grawitz, Gleucks, and I, and that here, as I have already described, it was decided that the experiment was to be begun with men and that it was to be carried out on a small group. It is correct to say that Himmler then called Gauberg, who wanted this big institute with regard to hereditary questions and who wanted to become a member of my staff. This was impossible from the very beginning, because we were occupying ourselves with men and because we had agreed on this little group only. I can still only remember that Gauberg also received a research assignment. On the other hand quite certainly in the second part of the discussion Grawitz and I were absent and I believe that this is also indicated by the letter which arose from this file notice and which then several days later was directed to a different distribution and not to me. The file note in this form is incorrect.
Q The defendant Dr. Rudolf Brandt was not present at this conference?
A No. May I perhaps say that to my knowledge tho reports are compiled in such a way, that the men which are ordered to see the Reich Fuehrer Himmler go by way of tho adjutant Grothmann. He has a list of tho names there and it is shown in what order were to report. As far as I know this list reached Brandt in tho evening. It also contained additional notes by Himmler, which wore written on a scrap of paper if he didn't roach immediately a decision. Apparently Brandt only wrote tho final letters which he wanted to compose by himself. Brandt certainly did not attend our discussion.
Q In the same Document Book No. 6 there is on page 1 an affidavit of tho co-defendant Dr. Rudolf Brandt. Prosecution has presented this document as Exhibit 141. It is document NO 440. In this affidavit it is stated under paragraph six, "Dr. Karl Gebhardt apparently carried out surgical sterilization in the camp of Ravensbrueck". Is this statement correct? Was it necessary for you at all to carry out surgical sterilization experiment, and were you yourself interested in them, or was this only a general surgical problem?
AAs a specialist I did not have any special experience in this field, nor the desire to improve my knowledge. The problem was not discussed at all from he surgical point of view. And, the uncertainty of all statements by Brandt - that he knows that I was there during those days, that something; that was discussed - possibly still remembered tho location of Ravensbruck but it is important that he did not mention the experiments which began continued for three months, the discussions between Grawitz and myself, and the report to Himmler. He does not mention those things at all. I have never occupied myself with sterilization.
Q The next document which I intend to submit to tho witness is contained in Document Book 11 and is on page 57 of tho English Document Book. This is document NO-409 which has been presented by the Prosecution as Exhibit 249. It is a letter from tho Physician-SS Dr. Grawitz to the Reich Fuehrer-SS Himmler of the 29 of August 1942.
It refers to the bio-chemical treatment of sepsis. This document came to your knowledge, didn't it? And this is shown by a note by you which reads as follows: "Seen at Ravensbruck on the 3rd September 1942.
Signed Karl Gebhardt."
Did you know beforehand of the execution of these experiments and did you agree with then?
A I did not have any previous knowledge of these experiments and especially with regard to this document may I state somewhat more in detail what it shows. This is a letter to Himmler. Dated the end of August, and it was signed by Grawitz. It was never mentioned that I was to receive this letter or that this letter was to bo routed through me. It does not have any note from me that I countersigned it, or was in agreement with it, in this form. It was not only discussed in Berlin, and, in particular, on the 3rd of September where this discussion took place between Grawitz and me, because of the second group of our sulfonamide experiments. Grawitz, who at that time came in order to show us that ho was not in agreement with us, as far as I can recall, brought this description along from Dachau, and wo discussed it in detail, because on my part there were many reasons to raise the sharpest protest against it. And, may I point out how much it can be seen from this document how Grawitz planned to publish experiments or describe them in contrast to my procedure. I was gone at that time. Under the point which states, "SS-Hospital, Dachau" - and it actually looks in general as though this were a hospital report. And, most of the case histories also speak in favor of that which I mentioned here. For example, the reference in point 3 to a "joiont plastic". It certainly is a big operation which can certainly only be carried out in a hospital. On ho following page there is "artificially inserted sepsis". On the second page, the cases of sepsis on the must part were artificially provoked. Then on the other side it is stated that in fatalities we do not have cases of sepsis that were artificially provoked, but ton are mentioned. And, I have proved to Grawitz, that especially on this page how he wanted to describe a mixture between experiments and clinical results and camouflage.
Later on when somebody reads it and comes to tho word "artificially provoked" Then he cannot decide it any more. Then there was a point with regard to all persons concerned. This was the impossibility to carry out this experiment in accordance with this statement, because it is stated on page 3 that tho drugs wore to bo taken every five minutes, even at night. At the time I didn't even think to give tho report to Grawitz. Then I drew a logical conclusion with regard to Himmler and Grawitz in which I not only in this connection concluded Grawitz's influence on our experiments, but I also turned to Himmler and asked him how those bio-chemical experiments wore brought about. I requested permission of the Tribunal to permit me to describe the manner of thinking of Himmler with regard to such experiments, and to draw the conclusion from this how impossible it was in certain cases, in spite of obtaining knowledge of it, to effect any change. For, a person who has studied school medicine it is impossible to believe that through homeopathic way of giving of sulfur and phosphorus surgical case histories, like internal case histories, and metabolistic disease, can be influenced. However, in medicine one can take a completely different point of view, and that is the basic conception of bio-chemistry up to homeopathy to which Himmler completely adhered. And we have two sentences where it is described here, that all the elements, that appear in nature, also have traces in the human body. Now, if one small element is lacking, then a human being is suffering from some disease or other. Therapy and manner of treatment of the bio-chemist is the exact contrast of medicine as practiced by a person who has studied it at school They make test experiments on human beings, and they discover what element is lacking in that human being and no matter from what disease he is suffering the patient is treated with minimum doses of the element which he lacks. Never in the world has it been possible that a typical school practitioner and a bio-chemist have agreed because they want to treat tho human being completely in contrast to each other.
From this example you can see now that when I came to Himmler, what madness it was that not only in experiments, but also with patients, ten or twelve different cases should bo treated with the same medicine. Then Himmler told me ho has one of the most experienced bio-chemist, and a layman, Mr. Lave. And, that is absolutely convinced that this manner of treatment is correct. And, Himmler always attempted to discover old fashioned forgotten remedies, and this experiment, in spite of my objection and in spite of my proof that my surgical patients would suffer from it, was executed for such time until I succeeded in bringing Dr. Lave and Kieselwecker from Marburg, who had all of Himmler's confidence in this case, these two ment to Hohenlychen, and then to make a similar experiment with them on my patients, in order to show that this manner of treatment was not possible. But I was not able to achieve my purpose with Himmler, because afterwards it was said we had not applied the medicine properly, and so on. Therefore, I request one can conclude from this, that it was not so, that Himmler adhered to one certain medical concept, and that, if one accidentally hoard of some fitting experiment, one could convince him.
Himmler had a hostile attitude toward school medicine, and from natural science to biochemistry he was accessible to every thought, and when Laue convinced him of the fact that this drug was of decisive importance, then the experiment was carried out. May I state in that connection, that the knowledge of this document had the following three results with me: That Grawitz, who was ready to make up compromises as is shown here, did not allow anyone to tell him anything at all about the sulphanilamide question; that I gave Himmler clear knowledge of the false idea without being able to convince him, because of his favorable attitude toward biochemistry; and that the experiment would perhaps be discontinued, mainly on account of subsequent examinations at Hohenlychen, and I shall give evidence of that as soon as I receive the appropriate testimony of witnesses.
Q You are also charged with special responsibility in the freezing experiments --
DR. SEIDEL: May it please the Tribunal, the next document which I will hand to the defendant is located in Prosecution Document Book III. It is on pago 108 in the English text. It is Document No. 314, three one four. It was presented by the prosecution as Exhibit 98. It is a letter from the defendant Rudolph Brandt, which he wrote on the 13th of November 1942 to Dr. Gebhardt. In this letter he notified him that the Stabsarzt of the Luftwaffe, Dr. Rascher --
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, will you please again refer me to the page of the English document book No. 3, on which the document is found?
DR. SEIDEL: It is in Document Book No. 3. It is located on Page 108.
Q This letter states Dr. Rascher is to report to you. When did Dr. Rascher actually report to you, and did you know him before?
A. I have never seen Dr. Rascher until May 1943. I did not have any contact with him. I was not a member of the Ahnenerbe, and did not have access to any of the special scientific institutes of Himmler. I was not in the so-called circle of friends of Himmler, which financed the whole thing. However, at sometime or another I received this letter and waited for Rascher to come and see me.
In this report both of the two experiments are mentioned, without any further documents. Furthermore, Himmler addressed me as a surgical advisor, and mentioned a visit to Finland. At that time I did not go to Finland. That was the time when the last experimental group was under way. Then for a short period of time I was at Stalingrad. I was in such condition I lacked all interest at that time. I did not take any action on this and cannot remember the letter, however, I am quite certain it reached me. But Rascher came to me in the spring of 1943.
DR. SEIDEL: The next document which I am going to hand to the defendant is also contained in Prosecution Document Book III. It is on page 140, in the English text. It is Document No. 241, and it is Prosecution Exhibit 113, one one three. The subject of this letter is the Notification of Rudolf Brandt to Rascher, that he is to establish contact with him, and that you have already received a report from Rascher about the cooling in air.
Q What was the contents of this report? In this connection I would like to add that this report was not presented by the prosecution.
AAt the time I received the so-called Rascher sheet of experiments collected for the front, which formed the basis for our discussion, that is by means of dry cold experiments. At the time he made certain suggestions to Himmler with regard to the troops at the front, and this report does not contain anything new except the warm baths and this had been used previously. This document, which had been already mentioned, I received the report, no fatalities or anything much was mentioned. On the other hand, writing about freezing experiments on human beings, I did not know before. Later on Rascher came to see me on this subject.
DR. SEIDEL: The next document which I am going to hand to the defendant is located in Document Book III, on page 145 of the English text. It is Document No. 231. It was presented by the Prosecution as Exhibit 116. It is a report by Dr. Rascher to Sievers. It is dated the 17th of May 1943.
Q In this report we see first of all that you treated Rascher very badly in the morning, and that you stated toward him that you would throw out a student in the second semester if you gave him such work, and that you further told him that at 3 o'clock in the afternoon he could again leave by train for Berlin.
On the other hand it is apparent that in the afternoon of the same day you received him once more and were in much more of a conciliatory mood at that time. Now, what caused this difference in your behavior?
A I believe that I can only remember the main situations of this discussion, and of course it did not exactly take the course which was decided by Rascher, because he had the possibility, I not only said it here, to not only hand his letters to Himmler directly, and have two copies with any objection Himmler was already informed about the whole question. On that occasion I saw Rascher for the first time. Two days before he went to the Third Conference, and from all my conflicts and disputes with my experiments, and now finally the Stabsarzt came to see me from the Luftwaffe, and who first of all brings along a surgical work on the basis of experiments in my field, which was to be recommended to the troops at the front. And it was so stupid aside from the experiment on human beings, that something like this could only be suggested at home, and Rascher, I know, this, was in contrast to the customs of the German Wehrmacht. He recommended joint bathing facilities for the front, like Sauna bathes, and I know a scheme like this would not be carried out in the East. Rascher did not have any experience in regard to the warfare in the open, and then subsequently he carried out the experiments on his own initiative. For the infantry warfare in the East he constructed mats, which I objected to from the very beginning second, it can be seen very clearly from this letter that I was of the opinion if he wanted to become a surgeon on my staff, then he could be under the orders of the consulting surgeon Gebhardt and from there under Grawitz, and from there under Himmler. However, it would be impossible that by way of the Ahnenerbe that he could submit suggestions in regard to troops. In addition to this he had received surgical training in the same clinic I had attended at Munich, and had attended any surgical training at the front.
He wanted to rehabilitate himself as a surgeon, and I, as professor, was to help him achieve that purposes. It can already be seen by the statement from Rascher with my energy at the time I have tried to obstruct Rascher in a 11 directions, because of the sheet which he submitted, because of the experiments, in everything he tried to do.