I am merely suggesting this, as I do not want to interfere with the presentation of your case, but this method of proceeding is certainly confusing.
BY DR. HOFFMANN:
Q: Witness, you can very well state your final conclusions and don't always refer to the pages, you can refer to them quite generally.
A: Mr. President, that is what I meant before. The paper is Document 14 from Experimental Medicine, the second from "Die Umschau" Document No. 18 is the commentary and I will make the comparison between the two papers in writing if I may be permitted to do so to draw the final conclusions. Then I would, in accordance with your wishes, Your Honor, be able to admit my final conclusions, in writing and state the page numbers.
Q: These scientific references I shall then submit in the form of an affidavit, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: That will be perfectly satisfactory. Proceed, witness.
THE WITNESS: The paper asserts that sterility in human beings may be permanent in the male and in the female it would only bring about a temporary sterilization. If, however, one takes a look at the charts on pages 71 and 75, one sees that of the male animals four remained, two of these die, one is killed. To evaluate the length of sterility only one single animal remains and this animal is observed for 44 days. On the basis of such an experiment one cannot draw any conclusions to the effect that a preparation brings about a permanent sterilization.
With regard to the female animals, of twelve animals, five die of poisoning of the genital, three bring no results and three remain. These three animals are observed for from 40 to 45 days, a span of time which is certainly not sufficient to be able to make any statements about the length of stability, because the vary damaged by the poison needs at least that length of time in order to divert itself of this long term chronic poisoning by the drug or to recover from it.
BY DR. HOFFMANN:
Q: Witness, did you consider the number of the animal series sufficient to clarify such questions, or from the scientific point of view was it necessary to experiment with more animals?
A: The first experiment with male animals was carried out within nine animals, three of whom died and only one remained alive. I already mentioned that. Five were killed.
Of the female animals, a total twelve, there were four failures, five died of chronic poisoning, at least that is how I regard the caladium effect, two were killed and three remained alive, these small numbers thus will in no way prove anything.
I only want to quote the number of animals which are necessary to develop a test. At least 40 animals are necessary really in order to carry out the test.
Q: Witness, Madaus carries out a control experiment with Knollgrass; do you know what that is and do you think such a control group is convincing?
A: After I described the Caladium effect as an unspecific effect of leucocydes, another poisonous plant would have to be used as a control. Knollgrass is not poisonous, therefore the means of comparison is lacking.
Now, the drug was administered by means of injection or orally. By having it administered orally, it is nothing else but feeding and if it is administered as an injection, it is very dangerous because it is not sterilized. Therefore, the control animals who are given Knollgrass die as follows: one male rat gets 50%, if you have two.
Of the female control animals, there was originally three, all of them died, that is 100%. One cannot work with such numbers.
Q: Witness, in the paper you cite the concept of sterilization by medicines; please make some remarks on that subject?
A: The explanation of sterilization by medicines is a concept which was known already before this paper was written. Actually it even originated in 1907 when Hippel and Badenstecher as subsidiary findings put this phenomenon, Madaus and Koch, however, talked as if they had introduced this concept of the medical literature. It is possible that I misunderstood them in this respect, however.
Q. Witness, do you find quotations in the paper which did not sound scientific?
A. In scientific papers sentences like the following sound somewhat peculiar. In both papers, for example, they write the natives administered caladium in large amounts to their enemies in order to extinguish their potency and I cannot imagine how one can administer large amounts of a poisonous plant to any one, especially to an enemy. That is a sentence with a suggestive effect. Furthermore, in the second version on page 600 of the original, the authors speak of the unconscious eating of this plant among the natives and that they regarded the plant as a welcome means of secret elimination of inconvenient enemies. They write also for that purpose they also poison their arrows with the sap of the plant and administer the poison to the natives by the wound made by the arrow. This is a very direct comparison.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel is it not possible to ask the witness questions concerning his conclusions. The Tribunal is satisfied he has read very extensively on this subject. Can he not give in a more concise form his conclusions on the matter that might be pertinent to the inquiry than by these lengthy references to books of poison arrows and so on? I fail to see any materiality to it, that it has any probative value whatsoever. I don't want to interfere with your case as I said before but cannot the witness begin with his own work and his own conclusions, what he did or did not do?
DR. HOFFMAN: Your Honor, the witness as I have already stated, did two different things, that is, he wrote two letters, that is everything he did, he testified to that effect, and I would like for him to show and to describe why at that time when he studied the papers he was of the opinion that nothing could be achieved with this caladium. That is why I am asking him about it. However, I do not want to go into long scientific discussions. I only thought that these statements representing what he felt at the time when he realized the scientific failure of this work and he told me that, and he also wants to tell that to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness can very properly state what scientific works he read and give them and put in any reference to the scientific works that you desire and the Tribunal can read them and examine them and it seems that the witness could then state from his studies he made and his examination of these books, and we could then have them in the document books, that he reached certain conclusions.
We will have a recess in a few moments and you can consider the matter further but the witness is not enlightening the Tribunal by the discussions he is giving at this time, as I said by poison arrows and certain causes of this drug, and it seems to me that the matter might be shortened with benefit to all concerned, including the defendant.
BY DR. HOFFMAN:
Q. Witness, I should like to ask you the following question: At the time did you consider how much caladium would be needed in order to sterilize a number of human beings, perhaps even the figure of 3 million which you mentioned in this letter, always with the prerequisite that it would have been possible at all.
A. Dr. Hoffman, there were a large number of reasons which convinced me that the conclusions of the authoris could not be correct. My letter is based on that fact. Now a large number of very important and essential points should be mentioned and I would like to add briefly that after all I have been waiting in order to speak here now at this moment ten months in prison. I sent my letter on the basis of medical consideration. Therefore, the medical defense is my part of the justification. Now in order to answer your question. From the time of the treatment to which the animals were subjected, in one case 40 to 90 days, in another case 77 to 218 days. That corresponds to one-third to one-half of the length of the life of a rat, I only mention this to show how enormously long the times were during which the animals were under treatment and that this cannot be applied to a human being at all because otherwise they would have to be treated twenty to thirty years.
During this time two dosages results. Each animal received a 0.5 cc of fresh sap daily, the rats weigh 150 to 200 grams each, that is they were young, because a grown animal weigh 300 grams, and if one calculates this dosage and applies it to human beings, whose average weight of 70 kilograms, the theoretical sterilization dosage which results for a human being is 13.79 kilograms. In the second dosage under the same conditions a necessary amount of 31 kilograms results. Since fresh sap can neither be injected nor otherwise be used for human beings, it can neither be sterilized nor preserved --- it has to be prepared pharmaceutically because it involves the danger of tentaus. Therefore, the use of raw material would even double the amount, thus according to the dosage one it would be 27.5 kilograms, and according to the second 62 kilograms. Since I wrote in the letter it is very easy to raise them in hot houses, to supplement the calculations I would like to go into that statement, leaving out the consideration of the difficulty of raising tropical plants.
MR. HARDY: May it please Your Honors, I understood the defendant stated he would write a paper in the form of an affidavit and submit it to the Tribunal containing these technical matters. It seems to me that the issue merely is whether or not he has read these particular articles published by Koch and Madaus, whether or not the defendant could determine whether that drug caladium seguinim would in effect sterilize a person if applied to them. It seems to me that his defense is that he realized it would not sterilize a person, hence he recommends it's use in an effort to hoodwink Himmler. It that is it, well it seems there is no necessity to go into technical explanations, As a matter of fact to aid the Tribunal, the Prosecution will undertake to take these these publications and also have an expert write a treatise for the Tribunal in simple layman's language to aid them and the defendant may do likewise and avoid all of this unnecessary testimony in open Court.
THE PRESIDENT: As I have stated several times it appears to the Tribunal that the matter could be more properly presented to the Tribunal in the written form by way of a document and it could be studied at leisure and understood much better than it could be by listening to the witness' scientific dissertation from the witness stand. My suggestions were not intended in any way to injure the defendant's case but I think would help it since listening to the statements from the witness stand is rather confusing.
The Tribunal will take it's recess and counsel may consider this matter and discuss it and see if it cannot be arranged to let the defendant Porkorny dictate his scientific thesis as he pleases rather than, testify here to his conclusions and what he did and why he did it, and then the whole matter will be before the Tribunal exactly as well as indeed in better form than it would be if detailed by him from the witness stand and written into the record in this manner. The Tribunal will now be in recess.
(A short recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
May it please your Honors, the defendant Mrugowsky is absent this afternoon having been excused by the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary will note for the record the absence of the defendant Mrugowsky pursuant to excuse by the Tribunal so that he may consult with his counsel.
Counsel for defense may proceed.
BY DR. HOFFMAN:
Q Witness, please comment briefly on the question what you thought about the number of hot houses which would have been needed to cultivate caladium in Germany.
A Basically I can say that tropical plants grown in hot houses lose their poisonous effect or rather their capacity to produce poison. That is connected with the lack of the natural environment. As for caladium specifically that is a plant of the tropical forest and is subject to very definite conditions of growth which are very difficult. The number of hot houses needed can be seen from the amount of sap which I calculated would be necessary. The plant grows about 1 meter high in a year. Then it needs an area of 1 square meter and weights of about 1½ to 2 kilograms would give 1 kilogram of sap. Therefore, for 10 human beings 273 square meters would have been needed. For 1,000 27,400 square meters. That would be 132 hot houses. Since the letter gives the high figures for 100,000 human beings 13,200 hot houses would have been needed. Since my letter gives the figure of 3 million, a suggestion which could be made only by one insane person to another, I must give the calculations for this figure, too. If it were possible if one wanted to sterilize 3 x 100,000 persons a year, it would have taken 10 years to reach the goal and 6 x 100,000 - it could have been done in 5 years. According to dosage one 79,000 hot houses would have been needed. According to dosage two 151,800 hot houses tropically heated for 5 to ten years. Then comes the path from laboratory and hot house to production which during war time, especially in Germany, would have been very difficult.
Then I knew that I could afford to speak in whatever way was necessary at the time.
DR. HOFFMAN: Mr. President, at the beginning of my examination of the defendant Dr. Pokorny, I had the witness describe under what circumstances he grew up and what the circle of his acquaintances was. I also questioned him about the motive for his letter, and finally, I wanted to bring out the points of view on the basis of which he believed at the time that sterilization with caladium was not possible, working on the paper of Madaus and Company. I am convinced that the presentation of this third part of the examination of Dr. Pokorny can be made expediently in the form of an affidavit and I shall submit this affidavit later and I assume that the prosecution will give their approval.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may present any affidavit by the defendant Pokorny, for consideration by the Tribunal and the prosecution, when it is prepared.
BY DR. HOFFMAN:
Q Witness, I have only one more question to put to you. Do you believe, from your point of view, that the attempt to use caladium for sterilization was impossible and that, on the other hand, your motive was successful?
AAccording to the documents which have been submitted so far - for example, the report of Mr. Brack on the 28th of January, 1941, or the testimony of Dr. Romberg that, in Holland, a thousand Jews were castrated and a thousand were given medical certificates about this, the beginning of the Clauberg experiments at about the same time - one can see that, at this time, this problem interested authoritative circles very intensively and that such experiments and castrations were in fact carried out. Now, in October, 1941, my suggestions appear which, as can be seen from casual connections, aroused a certain interest and the authorities concerned took an interest in my plan. The X-ray experiments of January, 1941, were dropped. Now, in October, 1943, the witness Chajin Balitzky stated, from testimony of Dr. levy, that 100 Poles wore subjected to such experiments. In October, 1943, the project was taken up again where it was dropped in the Spring of 1941.
In the meantime, this impossible project had been under consideration. I cannot assert, but it is probably, that because of this project all these measures were postponed for two years and were, in the last analysis, too late. How many people were spared these measures, whether it was ten or one hundred or ten thousand, I cannot judge.
Q Mr. President, this concludes the direction examination of the defendant.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any defense counsel have any questions to propound to this defendant?
If not, the prosecution may cross-examine.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. HARDY:
Q Dr. Pokorny, I believe you stated here, during the course of the direct examination, that you found the testimony of Professor Leibrandt most interesting inasmuch as Professor Leibrandt was in a somewhat similar situation in that he also had a Jewish wife. Now, in connection with Professor Leibrandt's testimony, do you agree with some of the reasons he gave for the downfall of the medical profession under the Nazis? You may answer that "yes" or "no".
A No, I can't answer that so briefly as all that. There's the following differences. Professor Leibrandt was married to a Jewess, whereas I was divorced and my two children wore the cause of the measures to which I was subjected. As for the deterioration of the medical profession in the Third Reich, I realized that as well as many other people did.
Q Well, was medical education and training influenced by the Nazi administration?
A Will you repeat the question?
Q Was medical education influenced by the Nazi administration?
A I had finished my training at that time, but I had an opport unity several times to talk to medical students and I made some observations myself at the clinic at Prague and I observed that the students were called upon for all kinds of exercises, meetings, roll calls, so that they had little or no time for studying.
At the surgical section at Aue I once had four medical students from the student company in Leipzig. I assigned them to the operating room, etc. All four of them came to me and asked me to recall this assignment so that they would have time to study which they did not have at the University. This request shows that the time of the students was filled with other things than they themselves wanted.
Q Well, did the agitation of National Socialism influence physicians' organizations?
A I have described what measures I was exposed to through my professional organization. Yes, it exercised an influence on the doctors - on myself, for example.
Q Did you believe that Nazism would lead to disorganization and downfall of the then existing medical associations and organizations?
A The organizations no longer consisted of elected persons, but of persons put at the head of the organizations by some order. Consequently, it was not clear whether these people held these positions because of personal efficiency or perhaps because of other factors.
Q During the course of Professor Leibrandt's testimony, he mentioned that Action Conti was one that started earlier in 1943 which instigated and directed persecution of doctors who were either foreigners or of so-called "mixed blood" or persons related by marriage to Jews. Did you understand that to be the same as Professor Leibrandt had outlined for the Tribunal?
A I heard of this action Conti for the first time here. I did not know the name. I think you are mistaken. I think this was earlier than 1943.
Q Yes, it was 1943, Doctor.
A I did not know the name. I only knew what was done against myself. That the same things were done earlier in the Reich, I knew that too.
Q Did you know the defendant Kurt Blome before you came here to Nurnberg to stand trial?
A No, I believe I read the name in the newspaper once as a representative of the Reich Physicians' Leader, but I am not even certain of that.
Q Did you know of any medical organizations, dealing with health and hygiene or public welfare, that were not under the domination of the Nazi Party of the SS?
A I don't believe so.
Q Had you ever heard of the Fuehrer's School of German Physicians in Altrese in Mecklenburg?
A I heard on one occasion that there was a school for doctors, that it was very pleasantly situated and that the doctors who wanted to go there had to have certain sponsorship because there were too many applications. I heard that from some doctor at home.
Q.- Did you belong to any party organizations, such as National Socialist Physicians Association, etc.?
A.- No, neither the physicians' organizations or any other.
Q.- Did they harm you in the course of you practice for not having been a member of a Nazi organization?
A.- I am perhaps an unusual case, which can be explained only as follows: the measures taken against us in the Sudetenland were so late, 11 months after the occupation of Sudetenland, the war began and because it was at such a late time there was great scarcity of doctors, which probably forced the authorities to disregard these very radical measures. I was, in fact, allowed to practice medicine without being a member of the League of Physicians, Q.- Dr. Pokorny, do you believe that medical experimentation on human beings is ethical if performed on persons other than volunteers?
A.- You can imagine that I have given considerable thought to that problem in the course of this trial, but the problem cannot be answered in one sentence. It depends on the nature of the experiments, it depends on the recompense offered them, it depends on whether they are volunteers or not. I think one has to consider every case separately. There are no legal provisions in any country in the World. That must be introduced, on an international basis after this trial.
Q.- Do you feel before a doctor should resort to medical experimentation on human beings that he should first exploit experimentation on animals; second, to decide on whether or not experimentation on human beings is necessary; third, to then seek volunteers for experiments and prior to seeking volunteers to warn them of the hazards of the experiments, and then to conduct the experiments in an ethical manner; is that substantially what you believe to be ethical concerning ethical experiments on human beings?
A.- Mr. Hardy that is whole series of questions. That animal experiments have to be exhausted before one goes on to human experiments that is a condition sine qua non, and the other conditions are also a matter of course.
Q.- What do you consider to be a volunteer for a medical experiment?
A.- As it has been brought out in this trial that even experiments in the concentration camps, if the people are asked who wants to volunteer for an experiment which isn't harmful to health and if the people are promised something in return, there must be a definite relationship. I can imagine that people who are volunteers must be informed what the experiment is about, of course. The experiment must be carried out carefully with consideration for the subjects, and my own personal point of view is that I personally would not like to carry out experiments which harm the health of another person.
Q.- And then you state you would not conduct a medical experiment unless the experimental conditions were as stated, desirable to you?
A.- If I understood the translation correctly, yes, but I am not quite sure.
Q.- I will repeat my question, would you conduct a medical experiment if the conditions which you outlined, for an ethical experiment were not fulfilled?
A.- No.
Q.- Would you conduct that experiment if the conditions were not fulfilled had you been so ordered to do so by the state?
A.- That is very difficult to answer. That again is suggestive. If you take my own situation, if I had refused to carry out an order that would have meant my death. That makes no difference, 35 million people died and one more or less makes no difference, but I had the responsibility for my two children. I cannot say today how I would have reacted. That is a hypothetical question.
Q.- Dr. Pokorny, you state that you first gained knowledge that sterilization programs were being inacted in order to sterilize eastern workers and prisoners in 1941, is that correct?
A.- Yes, September 1941.
Q.- You gained this knowledge through one Voigt, spelled v-o-i-g-t, is that correct?
A.- Let me correct you, Mr. Hardy. He didn't say Eastern workers. After seven years I cannot remember the words that he used. I testified that I was describing merely the impression that the conversation left with me. I said that in the course of the settlement of the East. One can interpret that in various ways. In this trial since it has not been discussed yet, it is quite possible that this was the wish dream of a psychopath, or that he was actually telling me of an intention that existed.
Q.- Do you know what rank Voigt held with the SS or SD?
A.- No, I do not know that. His position was surrounded by great secrecy. I tried to find out what it was several times. On various statements I drew my conclusions. Whether these conclusions were correct, I cannot say. I saw a paper signed by Himmler but that was during a discussion of graphology, where he was showing me the signature, and I saw this signature in violet ink. I didn't read it myself.
Q.- You are a specialist for skin and venereal diseases, is that correct?
A.- Yes.
Q.- Was this patient one of your venereal patients?
A.- Yes.
Q.- Did you have many members of the SS as venereal patients?
A.- I can give you the exact members of the SS now whom I treated.
I had four, two of them the lowest ranking with skin diseases, one who always came to me in civilian clothing, but I heard he was either in the SS or SD, because I was warned. He wore the golden party badge. He had a skin disease.
The fourth was this Voigt I have been talking about.
Q.- Why weren't they treated by the SS medical services?
A.- He was apparently an agent or in some special job. He never wore a uniform. He always wore civilian clothes.
Q.- Did they come to you for treatment because they didn't want to report their condition to the SS medical service?
A.- I believe I can remember that they brought certificates, similar to public health insurance but they asked me not to use that but to treat them privately. That was one of the cases, even if it was not a venereal disease.
Q.- Now, during the course of Voigt's visit to your office you state that he spoke about sterilization by use of Caladium after having read an article publishing in a magazine in your waiting-room, is that correct?
A.- Not in the waiting-room. It was in my consultation room. I can describe the situation to you. For reasons of brevity I didn't go into detail before. On my desk there was a pile of magazines -
Q.- I don't think it is necessary to go into detail; he spoke to you about sterilization by use of caladium as set forth in an article in "Umschau" and published in 1941, is that correct?
A.- Yes.
Q.- Now, after that did he also refer to the article published by Madaus and Koch entitled "Studies of Animal Experiments pertaining to the problem of Sterilization by medication by means of Caladium Seguinum?"
A.- No, he did not. The "Umschau" -
Q.- Doctor, if you will kindly answer my questions we will get alon faster. When for the first time did you read the publication in the experimental magazine by Madaus and Koch? When did you read that for the first time?
A.- I can't tell you exactly. Let us say the beginning of October.
Q Was that before or after the visit of Voigt?
A It was just before he was dismissed, I think that was the time, but I cannot be definite about the time. You can imagine after seven years that one does not remember these things so exactly.
Q Well, you stated that your attention was called to the method of sterilization by Voigt, that he had read in your waiting room an article published in a magazine "Umshau"; did you then take time to study this article in "Umschau" and then obtain the publication by Madaus and Koch as published in the experimental magazine, or did you have knowledge of this work prior to the visit of Voigt?
A No, I got this magazine, that is a specialist's edition, after Voigt brought my attention to this work as one cannot account reasonably unless one is correctly informed about the background.
Well, now, when you had heard from Voigt that sterilizations were going on; you state that his conversation had a great effect on you and that you were rather indignent and shocked; was that the occasion for further study on your part concerning the efficacy of Caladium?
A Not the usefulness, but the influence of Caladium and whether it was possible. In short a critical consideration of the whole problem as it existed in 1941 and 1942.
Q The point of hearing about these mass sterilizations, which were intended, you state you were indignent and shocked; then what did you propose to do about it when you started to consider that it was necessary to study the effects of Caladium? I am having considerable difficulty understanding just why you made an extreme effort to study the effects of Caladium when you heard that these mass sterilizations were going on; were you studying the effects of Caladium in order to properly instruct Himmler or Voigt as to just what could be expected if the drug were used?
A No, I believe I testified to this. After my attention had been drawn to this field, after I had learned of the intentions, after I had seen that the method of sterilization by drugs was impossible in 1941-42, especially by Caladium, I saw the possibility of taking orders or actual steps and I saw the possibility of preventing these plans by making a suggestion which was impossible and which was to keep the authorities busy for a time.
Q Then briefly after you had heard of this fantastic proposition to sterilize hundreds of thousands of people, you then studied material pertaining to Caladium and determined that Caladium would not in effect sterilize a person; then you dug up the idea that here is a chance for me to extend a proposition to Himmler and then Himmler will attempt to sterilize these hundreds of thousands of people with a useless drug and in effect the people will not be sterilized; is that what you are trying to convey to us?
A Yes, it would have required enormous preparations, preliminary experiments, as you can see from the documents and an interest was taken in it and finally it would have been discovered that because of the large amount of material needed that is necessary for growing the plant in hothouses and all the conditions, which I tried to describe here but was not able to since the time was restricted, it would have been realized the method was impossible.
Q Well then you did take into consideration that the Madaus-Kock report stated that no experiments had been performed, on human beings and the report itself states it was effective on human beings, not animals? The Madaus-Koch had only indicated experiments on animals, not on human beings and your proposition was for Himmler to experiment on human beings; is that correct?
A No, that was what Voigt told me. He told me that and the situation was entirely different, they were already being carried out.
Q You state in your own letter to Himmler, which is Document NG-035, on page 4 of document book 6 in the paragraph were you outline your ideas and the course which you suggest may be taken and under No. 3 you state:
"Immediate research on human beings (criminals!) in order to determine the dose and length of the treatment." Are you not in effect there proposing to Himmler that experiments be conducted on human beings?
A I did not suggest them, they were already in progress. In order to determine the dose and length of treatment, it was rather unnecessary as one could figure that out, that was something I wanted to talk about, but I was interrupted. However, as experiments were already going on, I did not know on whom, it seemed to me advisable to me to he advisable to take criminals because the interruption would he the slightest.
Q Well, then you did in effect propose that experiments he conducted on human beings right here in this letter?
A I did not suggest it, I recapitulated what Voigt had said, if something is known it could not he suggested by me.
Q Would you kindly turn to Document NO-035, perhaps I have not read it correctly? Do you have Document Book 6 before you?
A I have a copy of the document.
Q Now turn to the paragraph in the document, which reads as follows:
"If my ideas meet your approval the following course should be taken:
1.) Dr. Madaus must not publish any more such articles. (The enemy listens!)
2.) Multiplying the plant (easily cultivated in greenhouses!)
3.) Immediate research on human beings (criminals!) in order to determine the dose and length of the treatment." etc.
Now, were those your ideas that you wished to convey to Himmler?
A You cannot take the individual sentences out of context as then of course the effect is different. You must imagine that I was working from the point of view, how can I make the idea understandable, how can I compose the letter in order to have the desired, effect on Himmler.