Summary: The conclusions of the experiment are impaired by the varyim 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 gas the following decisive conclusions:
1) A previous intravenous injection of 3 grams of Hexamethylentetrmine completely prevents serious toxical and fatal phosgene poisoning from a c.t. of 2275.
2) An endurable quantity of Hexamethylentetramine taken prophylactic cally weakens a fatal poisoning to such an extent that it can be overcome without treatment, c.t. = 2275.
3) Non-fatal, but nevertheless edema producing poisonings are made positively ineffective by intravenous application and arc weakened by oral applications. c.t. 250 to 1960.
4) The oral application of Hexamethylentetramine is no longer effective against phosgene poisoning of a c.t. = 5400. The intravenous injection, however, weakens the effect to such an extent that the protected subject is able to overcome a lung edema.
5) THE DOSIS LETHALIS MINIMA (minimum lethal dose) based on these experiments cannot yet he determined with certainty. One c.t. of 2275 resulted in the death of one experimental subject; and the second developed second degree edema of the lungs which was cured.
6) Some of the protected experimental subjects who did not develop edema cf the lungs remained completely healthy; others suffered from slight bronchitis with a. brief fever, in every case they recovered without treatment.
Attached to this report is an appendix. There we find Table II, which shows intravenous injections, Table III, which shows oral injections. The tables list the experimental subjects, who were numbered from 1 to 40. You see the current number to the left-hand column; next the experiment; then the name of the experimental subject, which is given only with initials; In then you find the various technical data concerning the injections, the amount of phosgene which was used; and then in the last column to the right we see that the effect of the phosgene poisoning on the subject after treat ment with this drug is shown with certain characters, a plus sign being an edema of the first degree, two plus marks being an edema of the second degree; and the large plus sign with the cross-hatch marks on either end of the cross bars means death from edema of the lungs.
I note for purposes of the record that experimental subject Number 30 on Page 20 of the English translation, which was under Experiment 15, a man identified with the initials "J. Rei," was killed as a result of these experiments. The same is true of experimental subject Number 35, second from the bottom of the page on Page 20. In experiment number 14, identifi by the initials A. Eck, the subject was also killed, as was the following experimental subject Number 46. In experiment Number 14, name, A. Ho., the subject was also killed. On the next page, under Table 3, page 21, of the English translation, we find that four additional experimental subjects were killed, namely, Number 39, who is the fifth number from the bottom of the page; Number 33; Number 35; and Number 36.
JUDGE SEBRING: Now, Mr. McHaney, don't you have a duplication there?
MR. MC HANEY: I think you are quite correct, your Honor, I an just now observing that. That is quite correct. There were apparently a total of four deaths, namely, numbers 33, 35, 36, and 39; there being duplication of the three which I read on the first page.
BY MR. MC HANEY:
Q. Now, Herr Professor, must you not conclude on the basis of this report number 7 that Bickenbach and his associates carried on experiments on human beings contrary to the testimony of the defendant Brandt?
A. First I should like to say this report which I have here is not signed. I do not know who drew it up. I did not. I did not work on these experiments either. The report was not addressed to me. I did not read it. It has no connection whatever with me personally. I assume that I am being asked as an expert witness on the contents of the report. Of course. I must admit that there were four cases of death in these experiments. The effect of this hexamethylentetramin was new to me. I did not know about it.
Q. You swear to this Tribunal that you have never seen this report before today, that you know nothing about the experiments which Bickenbach was carrying out. Is that right?
A. I did not see this report before.
Q. bid you ever talk to Karl Brandt about Bickenbach's work?
A. Brandt did not tell me anything about it.
Q. I think you will agree with me that we can assume this report was received shortly after 11 August 1944, that it was sent to Karl Brandt at his office in the Surgical Clinic where you maintained an office two or three doors away from him?
A. Brandt had his office at the clinic, yes, but in Ziegelstrasse 5-9 there were the Third Universe Polyclinic, the Eye Clinic; the Designer of the University even had his studio there at one time. I do not know what kinds of letters and.reports were received by all men who had offices in this big building. I did not read this report - the whole thing.
Q. In suite of the fact that you were Chief of Brandt's office for Science and Research?
A. I believe I have said this fop the second time now - the department for defense measures against gas had nothing to do with me. That was Brandt.
MR. MC HANEY: If the Tribunal please, I offer this Document NO-1852as Prosecution Exhibit 456 for identification.
DR. SERVATIUS (for Karl Brandt): Mr. President, not the original documents but photostatic copies are presented here. I must make application to have the originals submitted. That is especially important in this case. I must also ask that the report be submitted which led to the finding of the documents. The documents show that the last two reports which are so specially significant here were apparently never sent. They are the first copies - the first preparation - with the original signature which could not have been sent. Page 1 - the cover page - of this collection shows that/under No. 6 it says "first cony", and under No. 7 again says "first copy". The first document in this connection is also designated as a "first copy" - also Document 6. The last document is designated as "first copy" on the envelope but inside it says "third copy". The original will show that they are not folded, that they were never in an envelope. For that reason I consider it important that only the originals be admitted. It is also shown that the letters are in part not dated, in part they have the original signature, while in cases of carbon copies there is usually no signature. If one considers that the letter No. 7 is of 11 August 1944 and it seems one knows that Stressbourg was evacuated soon after that, then it seems quite likely that these last two reports were not sept, that the originals were left behind and that my client, defendant Karl Brandt, never received them. This is of decisive importance. Karl Brandt on the witness stand said that he knew nothing about these things. Therefore, I apply for submission of the originals and the report how these documents were found, indicating where and under what circumstances they were found so that one can judge how these various copies were made.
MR. MC HANEY: If the Tribunal please, this foldier of reports was received by the prosecution following the time when Karl Brandt had left the stand. Consequently, they were not available to out to him during cross examination. The only things that we have received are the photostatic copies which the Tribunal now has before it. These were received from French authorities. They were found in the apartment of Professor Bickenbach in the foldier of which there is a Photostatic copy here before the Tribunal. That is all we have. We do have letters and certificates showing where the documents came from. However. I submit that we should not be required to produce the originals since that may very well be impossible since they are in the possession of the French. We will, of course, be happy to produce the letters which to received along with the Photostatic copies.
THE PRESIDENT: This exhibit is not now offered in evidence but merely marked for identification by prosecution. When the exhibit is formally offered in evidence, it will be subject to any objection or argument that any counsel might have. It would seen that the prosecution might well make an effort to at least procure a loan of the original document, Evidence is certainly available as to where it was found and by whom and when. The matter is not now before the Tribunal because the exhibit is not being offered on evidence. Coucel for the defendant Brandt may make an application to the Tribunal for Production of the original document. The Tribunal will men consider the application, the written application, for production of the original document.
BY MR. MC HANEY:
Q. Witness, I now want to hand to you Document NO-692.
Q. I now hand you the photostatic copy of the original and ask you if you did not sign this letter?
A. Yes, that is my signature.
Q. I now offer Document NO. 692 as Prosecution Exhibit 437 for identification. witness, this is a letter on the letter head of the Commissioner for Medical and health matters the Delegate for medical Science and Rosean che, is it not?
A. Yes.
Q. Dated Berlin 14 September 1944, is it not?
A. Yes.
Q. And it's address to the Reich Research Council?
A. From the copy which I have here I can't see that. It has the heading "List of medical institute working on problems of research which were designated as urgent by the discussion research on 26 August 1944 in Beelitz. Summary according to the 650 orders for research submitted to us."
Q. Now, witness, is this something which you wrote up after this first meeting in the summer of 1944 which you have previously testified to?
A. That is probably what it is.
Q. But does not document indicate that you and your associates went ever 650 specific research assignment as listed on this document, were classified as urgent?
A. I think I must thank you for presenting this document. This is a single document from all my files and in it shows first quite clearly that I was a little mistaken in the date. I spoke of summer. It was the 26th of August if you can call that summer and this is how it happened. We discussed twelve subjects. We, not I but one of my associates, selected which research assignments which affected. I can't remember to whom this document was sent. Maybe the original shows that. I only saw it for a short time and I didn't notice that. If I sat down and had time I could see from this what fields were considered urgent at that time.
Q. Well, but this document doesn't speak of fields of research. This document lists 45 specific research assignments and it gives the place where the scientist was working, his name and the subject of research, and I submit that it was not a very accurate description which you gave us earlier today about simply designating broad fields of research, I must assume that you went over a list of 650 research assignments and picked out these 45 and classified them "urgent".
A. Now, that's not right. First, we decided which fields were urgent and then one of my associates sat down and went the 650 index cards in the card index and picked but which ones, research assignments in this card, index fitted those twelve groups. I did not do that myself.
Q. Will you look at the photostatic Copy of the original and tell me the significance of the hand written initials RFR up at the top of the document on the first page? I take it those stand for the Reich Research Council - Reichsforschungrat?
A. It's quite possible, but those letters were no doubt not on my original letter. There are all kinds of notes. There's the receipt stamp with all kinds of indications which I don't know. That RFR might have been put on by the Reich research Council. I don't know. Some agency might have put it on. I don't know, I can't tell. At the top right hand corner my name is printed. I don't imagine that I wrote that. I assume that was put on later and whether this receipt stamp here is that of the Reich Research Council, that I cannot...
Q. You don't know to whom you sent this letter, is that right?
A. To whom this copy went I don't know.
Q. Well, can you tell us to when you sent any copy?
A. That one sent to the Reich Research Council I consider quite certain. The A mament Ministry too and the various medical branches of the Whermacht and the committee for economic expansion, but I don't know where this particular copy went.
Q. Will you and the document to Mr. Hardy and will he pass it up to the Tribunal, please?
Now, Doctor, let's look at some of the research assignments on this document No.692, Prosecution Exhibit 457, for identification. We find your own name under #5. "#5 - University Clinic for Surgery Ziegelstrasse (Restock) - chemotherapy, penicillin". I assume you know what you were "#6 we find Robert Koch Institute (Gildemeister) - typhus, malaria, Chemotherapy". You know Gildemeister, of course?
A. Yes, of course.
Q. Were you acquainted with the details of his research on typhus?
A. No, I was not. This document, which is the only one of my office that I have seen, shows very clearly what I know about the individual matter I know that Gildemeister was working on typhus and malaria and chemotherapy. Who in my office didn't know about those things? And I was told at the time that the Anatomical institute, Herr Hirt was working on chemical warfare agents. I had forgotten that and I believe that there is hardly anyone in this room who had a card index with 650 entries two years age and today still remembers all 650 entries.
Q. Now, Professor, maybe you can enlighten us about those check marks plus marks and minus marks that appear on this document. You see, at the bottom of the first page where it says "check mark equals scientific research commission already submitted to FL or BL - office"? What does that mean?
A. The PL office - that was probably the planning office in the Reich Research Council and the WFG is probably the military research commission. A document of that has been submitted here. I don't have my notes. It was a prosecution document. You probably know it. Then, the plus sign "Circular #5 already sent"- I could say that means but my associate who was in charge of the research card index will probably appear as a witness here and maybe you could ask him about this matter. He will probably know more details about this.
Q. You don't know what the minus sign means either?
A. No. I cannot remember what circular #5 was.
Q. Were those notations put there by your office?
A. I don't remember exactly. When 1 king through the document just now I don't note that. I don't know. Perhaps if I might see the photostatic copy again I could tell something from it.
(Photostatic copy was handed to the witness).
Yes, I think I understand the matter now. This RFG - that was added later in handwriting. It was probably like this. This copy hero wont to the Reich Research Council and the report in the Reich Research Council put those checks and plus and minus sign on. That Circular#5 which I could not remember as I have said once before was not circular of name. It was a circular of the Reich Research Council and this chuck means that the works marked with this check were some applications to the planning office by the Military Research commission. Those checked and so on at the button that was added after the letter had left my office.
I think that is quite clear.
Q. I suppose you have already observe that research assignments 42, 43 and 44 concerned Strasbourg and related to research work by Haagen, Bickenbach and Hirt respectively?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you still any that you know anything in detail about the experiments carried out by Haagen?
A. Yes, I must admit that I didn't notice it at the time when the 650 cards war shown me. I'm quite certain that I did not remember it but only what is given here as the facts. Just a few words about the type of the research assignment.
Q. And in spite of the fact that research assignments by Bickenbach and Hirt were determined to be urgent by your meeting in August, 1944, you deny that you had any knowledge about the research work of Hirt and Bickenbach? 3411
A. No, I known details about it.
MR. McHANEY: I have no further question.
RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. PRIBILLA: (Counsel for the defendant, Professor Restock)
Q. Professor, today we have discussed primarily the research assignments of Bickenbach and Hirt. Yesterday, the Prosecution repeated asked that is Friday, the Prosecution repeatedly asked about similar assignment in the field of chemical warfare agents. Before that, in submitting to Karl Brardt, the prosecution said that your office was in the same builing as his. The Prosecution concluded from this fact and asked whether you did not read these reports. Therefore, I should like to ask once more quite clearly was the field of defense measures against chemical warfare agents among those fields under the office for Science and Research according to decree of the fall of 1943?
A. No, such measures against chemical warfare wore not under the sec for science and research. This field was taken care of by Mr. Brandt personally as he testified too, in connection with a number of other institute in this sector which already existed.
Q. Do you know the basic decree, on account of which Herr Brandt was in charge of chemical warfare defense?
A. The criminal decree of March, 1944, I believe I did not know that such a decree existed. That he had such an assignment I knew.
Q. Then if a report on chemical warfare questions came to Karl Brandt now was it handled in the office as far as you know?
A. Such a report did not come to me. I did not receive Karl Brandt letters. I did not open it. If we received such a report I assumed that passed it on to the persons concerned who w re consultants for this specif sphere.
Q. Then yon confirm Karl Brandt's testimony that was a specialized question which he himself worked on and did not come into your office.
A. Yes, I confirm that.
Q. How I have another question referring to the creation of the *** for science and research. The Prosecutor asked a question of you in this connection.
He asked whether at the beginning of your activities in and winter of 1943-1944, a whole field of science and research was transferred to Brandt. You did not answer this question quite accurately. You said what you did after taking over this office, what you considered your goals and your purposes. It would be interesting to clear up the condition in the office, the procedure. What office was created first, the office of economic planning or the office for economy and research?
A. First, the office of planning and economics existed. That was just as small an office as mine. There were four or five or six men, no more. This office of planning and economics needed a medical expert. There was pharmacist from a large firm and an economic jurist but no medical expert, and this lack in the office for planning and economics was the first cause of the creation of the office for science and research. First, the activity, as I have said here, was to work on the economic basis, to create the medical basis for the production of drugs and to represent the medial interest in this industrial process, and another acute problem was to prevent the closing of the universities. After that had been done, only they had the basis been created which called for another subject to be taken up gradually, as I said here on Thursday or Friday. What I have just said was a prerequisite to what I said on Thursday or Friday. It must be considered as something that happened before.
Q. Do I understand you correctly if you say that at the time of the creation of the office of the Commissioner General as a result of the war emergency economic questions wore in the foreground. The office for planning and economics worked in this field first, and when certain limitations on production were necessary in the field of medical instruments, drugs, etc. whom and only then was the office of science and research created?
A This is true in subject matter and in time.
Q And the aims and intentions of which you spoke were added in the course of time?
A Yes.
Q The Prosecutor asked you about your position as Dean. You were Dean of the medical Faculty of the university cf Berlin. The Prosecutor also asked you about Professors Mrugowsky and Rose, also on the faculty cf the University of Berlin. From the fact that these men were Professors at the University of Berlin and that you were Dean of the Medical Faculty, he concluded that you were informed about the work of these men in the field of research. Can you tell me whether the position of a Dean of a Faculty in Germany necessarily entails the Dean's being informed about the research work of the Professors and does he have any influence on it?
A The Dean cf the German medical Faculty is in no way a superior of ether members of the Faculty in a military sense. He is only primus inter pares, most important, that is the first among others. That is show by the fact that a dean is changed every year or two. One of his duties was to care for the interests of the academic instructions. He had to see to it that the lectures which were prescribed for the course of study in medicine were actually held, and he must tell an instructor to hold a certain lecture but if the man did not want to do that, the Dean had no authority to compel him to. He could report it through the Rector, to the Minis
Q May I interrupt you a moment. You say that the work of the Dean was only in connection with the instructing work, the teaching work of those Professors. Did you know that these two Professors were also in charge of research institutes? Did you as Dean have anything to do with that?
A I was just about to say that as far as the research work of the many members of the Faculty was concerned, the Dean had no influence at all and if the Dean had come to me in my clinic to check what I was doing there in a scientific sense then I would have told him bluntly but firmly 1+ would be better if we discussed something else. I am quite convinced them all ether Professors would have done the same thing, depending on their temperament, but if the Dean had come to me to talk to me as a scientist, then, of course, I would have been glad to let him see what I was doing.
Now to discuss the two examples which Mr. McHaney mentioned on Friday: Rose was a teacher of tropical hygiene. I could have talked to him about some lecture in that field, what he did as a section chief and Vice President in the Robert Koch Institute, and what he did as consulting hygienist in the Luftwaffe had nothing to do with me as Dean, and Rose would probably have refused to let mu intervene, quite rightly.
Mrugowsky was an instructor, and later extra ordinary Professor for Hygiene, and what he did as a member of the SS and as head of the Hygiene Institute of the waffen SS I did not learn and I had no influence whatever on it.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will recess until one-thirty o'clock.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 24 February 1947.)
MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats. The Tribunal is again in session.
PAUL RESTOCK - resumed RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued)
MR. PRIBILLA
Professor, the prosecutor already asked you in detail about procedure as it prevailed during the meeting of consulting physicians. In that connection it was said that after Gebhardt's lecture, and after listening to the other lectures on the same sudect, a written summary was made. The prosecutor maintained that this written summery was sent to the front. Is that correct? ***rectives, as we laid them down as a summary of the most important plants of the lectures, were sent to the Army Medical ***tera to by this meeting of consulting physicians. Whether and ***t extent they were sent on from there does not lie within my knowledge. Those directives were printed and were sent on in printed. Whether from there they were sent on again I do not know. *t on do I understand you correctly if I cay tint these summarry which were made at tie end of tic conference, were not the directives to applied in practice but merely a theoretical summary of the results of tie scientific lectures?
A. Yes, that is correct.
How the prosecutor said that if you collaborated in compiling ** summaries you would have had to know exactly the details of experiments and it would have been your duty to examine them. this connection the word "evaluated" was used. I should like you ** to your opinion an whether it was customary to invesinate the Is of those lecturers, or just to take knowledge of the result ***r investigation of what an individual gentleman lectured on not take place. Something like that was not customary at all during German meetings.
Whoever know the persons and the situation would not be able to kelp but smile if they imagine what would have happened if I, for instance, during such a meeting, had asked *** Saucrbruch to present the material basis for what he was lecture on. That would have resulted in a scandal, I think. In order to give a concrete example, I did not tell Mr. Gebhardt or Mr. ***cker to present their case histories before the meeting. That was not something we were concerned with. Whatever was spoken in those lectures was taken as a fact. All of us who sat down together afterwards were merely concerned to talk about the most essential points of these lectures and to **ile them, without investing whether the results in themselves were correct. That is what we a scientific language would call the compiling of an expert summary of a report.
Q. Now, there is last question which I want to put to you which refers to document NO-692, which is Exhibit 457, This is a document which was submitted by the prosecutor. You testified that during the meeting of 26 August 1944, the individual research assignments and research workers were not discussed but that merely large fields were selected and designated as urgent. You said that there was approximately 12, 14, or 16 such large fields. Did you look at the document?
A. Yes, during the recess I examined that document; I made a mistake, in as much as there were not a dozen of suck fields but a **zen and a half. If I classified the more important research fields as to the man or of research tacks mentioned here, there are perhaps 6 or 7 arena then who were represented to a larged extent; the others had only 1 or 2 research assignments.
Q. This meeting took place on the 26th of August 1944. From the document it can be council God that on the 14th of September 1944 the list, as it is in front ofnow, was compiled. Did I understand you correctly that you said that this document showed that after the large fields had been determined a list was a man of whereby schomatically it was decided from the material what individual research institute would work on that special field according to the data available and I mean the fields that were designated as urgent?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q What does the word in parenthesis mean right underneath the heading "Summary According to the 650 research Orders submitted to us; "doesn't that say a certain limitation?
A Yes, certainly. At that time our research index contained 650 research orders. From these were designated as urgent. Speaking figurative ly these 650 orders were looked at in view of the intensified situation of the war, and therefore all but 45 were dropped.
Q The question came up here repeatedly whether your card index had very detailed data and I am asking you now whether it doesn't appear from this limited sentence that to a certain extent an excuse was made and people said, "yes, as far as data is available."
A Yes, that is correct too. Only these fields were selected where the data on the card index would fit into this dozen and a half fields, and what we have here is the result.
Q So from this list one can conclude that you had no detailed data?
A No, we had no detailed data.
DR. PRIBILLA: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any cross-examination of this defendant further on the part of any defense counsel upon the matters he testified on redirect?
DR. SEIDEL: Dr. Seidel, counsel for defendants Gebhardt, Oberhauser and Fischer. Mr. President, in view of the fact during cross-examination a few points were touched upon which were not yet the subject of direct examination I should like to be permitted to ask a few questions of the Witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may proceed.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY DR. SEIDL:
Q Professor, last Friday you testified that you personally held the point of view that medical experiments on inmates who were condemned to death would not be carried out by you personally, and not even then when those inmates would be given another chance to be pardoned, do I understand you correctly that you meant to say by that this was your personal conviction and that you didn't mean to say thereby that the question in issue was one of medical ethics generally?
A I said that I personally wouldn't do that, and this personal, very personal point of view results from the conception that I have about the relationship of a surgeon to a human being upon whom he is operating. In the German law in social insurance there is a possibility to coerce a human being to have an operation performed upon him. That is but true for circumvention, through material pressure, That is to say one can approach a human being who had an accident in a factory and you can tell him that he has to improve his condition by an operation and if he refuses to do that he is deprived of certain rights, and that is a very effective pressure which is put upon him. When I, as a surgeon, am approached with such a demand and a man like that is put into my clinic I try to convince this human being of the necessity of such an operation. If he realizes it and if he is in agreement to it I am performing it. However, if he doesn't realize the necessity then I refuse the execution of that operation. I am doing that on the basis of an experience which I had about 20 years ago in a medical affair, but I am very clear vdien doint that that this is nothing but the shifting of the problem from myself to some other person.
MR. McHANEY: We did not get the last question which was put by defense counsel.
Q I will repeat the question. In view of the fact that this is your personal conviction which you just described, you desisted, or you didn't sec any necessity after this lecture of Gebhardt and Fischer to raise any objection against these experiments?
A Yes, that was my personal conviction. It is still that today, and I naturally know that others are of a different opinion.
Q At any rate it is a fact that during that lecture many hundreds of expert physicians were present, of whom none of them made any objection?
A None of them raised any objection with me, and I never heard this was the case with others.
Q You yourself with reference to experiments to test sulphanilamide you would consider thorn relatively not dangerous, so that you would put yourself at this disposal if you had been condemned to death?
A Yes.
Q Dr. Gebhardt and Dr. Fischer in May 1943 reported on the effectness of sulphanilamide; Professor Gebhardt at that time was Major Geneneral the Waffen SS-? did you at that time gain the impression that Dr. Gebhardt carried through these experiments as a civilian surgeon, a civilian physic or did you gain the impression that ho carried them through in his capacity as a soldier on instructions from a superior agency?
A I had the impression quite clearly that he acted upon some order. I don't know upon whose order.
Q Furthermore, you stated that you made experiments at your clinic to find out the effectiveness of this chemi-tharapeutically, but that this experiment failed because of difficulties of personnel and material; do I understand you correctly that you meant that these experiments became necesary and in spite of any investigation in this field no clarification had been established?
A The stride of sulphamilamide made in the theoretical and practice point of view had been clarified sufficiently.
Q Professor, do you know that shortly before the outbreak of the War, Professor Dr. Kirschner circulated questions to all German accident clinics in order to find opt the effectiveness of sulphamilamide on wounded persons and that this circular had no effectiveness and that no material in the oases of thousands of wounded persons had been evaluated?
A I personally know about this circular by Dr. Kirschner, and It published in the Periodical Publication of Surgeons, and went very much in detail, and it is true that no clarification had been arrived at through that circular.