Hessia, finally SS-Brigadefuehrer and Corpsarzt with an armored corps of the Waffen SS.
"Relevant Facts: By request of the defense counsel of the defendant Dr. Karl Gebhardt I state the following:
"On 1 September 1943, in spite of my strong resistance, I was appointed Chief of the Medical Service cf the uniformed regular police, an office which up to that time had always been occupied by a police doctor. Some weeks before Gebhardt had informed me by phone that on the occasion of the ordered change he would suggest me.
"Simultaneously with my appointment Himmler ordered Gebhardt to assist me in his capacity as chief physician. Nevertheless, during the time I held this office, which was only a few months, he never appeared, presumably because duty and visits to the front prevented him from so doing.
"Previously I had only met Gebhardt on one of his visits to the front. In July 1941 he paid a visit to my division which, at that time, was engaged in heavy fighting in Russia.
"I was division surgeon. When a great number of wounded soldiers had to be brought through very dangerous territory, he was able, by virtue cf his well-known personality to arrange for their speedy billeting and treatment in field hospitals. Because of the impression received from this front visit, he quickly sent me a group of surgeons with Stumpfegger as chief, which worked with the division for about six weeks. As far as I heard later on, Stumpfegger was with Himmler from 1942 onwards. I would like to add that after a short time I was relieved from offices as chief of the medical service of the uniformed regular police through the intervention of Dr. Stumpfegger, at that time Himmler's accompanying physician. I had requested Dr. Stumpfegger to do this.
Nuernberg, 17 January 1947 (signed) Dr. Oskar Hock" and after that follows the certificate cf the affidavit.
As Exhibit Gebhardt No. 5 I wish to submit an affidavit from the former Chief Adjutant to the Reichsruehrer Himmler SS on page 69 of the document book and I quote:
"Affidavit. I, Werner Grothmann, born on 23 August 1915 at Frankfurt am Main, last SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer in the Waffen SS and Chief Adjutant to Reichsfuehrer of the SS Himmler, interned in the British Civilian Internment Camp at Fallingsbostel, at present in the military prison at Nuernberg, have been warned that I render myself liable to punishment if I submit a false affidavit. I declare under oath that my statement is true and was made for the purpose of being submitted as evidence to the Military Court No. 1 at the Palace of Justice, Nuernberg, Germany.
"On the Subject: From 1940 to 1945 I was Adjutant to Reichsfuehrer of the SS Himmler. Since 1942 as Adjutant I was entrusted with the handling of military matters in Himmler's staff. As such, I am in the position to testify about the general organization of the Field Headquarters (Himmlers' headquarters). Reports of a military character were submitted to Himmler through me; matters concerning police affairs were submitted through Lt. Col of the Police Suchanek; the handling of incoming and outgoing mail for Himmler was exclusively in the charge of Dr. Rudolf Brandt, Himmler's personal adviser. Himmler himself ordered persons to attend conferences with him. He always conducted those conferences alone with the persons concerned, i.e. without Brandt, Suchanek, or myself being present. Information regarding the subject of the conferences was usually not given by Himmler.
"At my time the physicians on Himmler's staff were the Finish chir?pract?r Dr. Corston, who, during his presence at headquarters, treated Himmler daily; furthermore, a socalled "permanent excert physician", who attended trips to the front and who was also responsible for the medical care of the personnel of the Field Headquarters; from 1941 to 1942, Dr. Wittmann was excerting physician, and from 1942 to the autumn of 1944 up to tho armistice it was Dr. Mueller.
"During my assignment as adjutant to Himmler, Prof. Gebhardt held the position of consulting surgeon of tho WaffenSS where he also performed operations. Furthermore, Prof. Gebhardt was also chief physician at Hohenlychen at that time; Himmler visited Hohenlychen approximately two or three times a year. He used the opportunity, especially around Christmas, to visit the wounded and also to see his two children, who lived at Hohenlychon, later in the vicinity. Dr. Gebhardt's visits to Himmler's headquarters during my period of office as adjutant (from 1940-1945) usually lasted just a few days; the announcement of his visit mostly came through me, without giving any reasons. I have never attended any conferences between Himmler and Gebhardt. As far as I remember, only Himmler and Gebhardt were present at those conferences, following Himmler's custom. Neither Himmler nor Gebhardt informed me even afterwards about the subject of these discussions. In respect of his collaborators, too, Himmler obeyed the Fuehrer's command concerning secrecy, which permitted information to be given only to the extent necessary for the execution of certain duries by the persons concerned. In conversations in the presence of several people, as for example discussions at the table, only these matters were discussed which were not subject to secrecy.
In addition to the above mentioned t?t?-a-t?t? conferences between Himmler and Gebhardt I only remember one conference at which besides Professor Gebhardt also Professor Grawitz was ordered to appear. The subject of this conference, too, remained unknown to me. Frequent conferences or conferences at regular intervals between Himmler and several SS-Physicians together never took place in my time.
"In addition to his activities already mentioned, Professor Dr. Gebhardt, since autumn 1944 to my knowledge was Heeresgruppenarzt (Army Group Medical Officer) with the Army-Group ???rrhein, since January 1945, Heeresgruppenarzt with the Army-Group Weichsel.
"Nurnberg, 27 January 1947" And then follows the signature and the certificate of the document.
Mr. President, our Honors, before questioning the defendant regarding sulfanilamide experiments I should like your permission to submit a few documents dealing with the subject of these experiments and which have already repeatedly been mentioned in the course of submission of evidence. The first document of this type which I wish to submit is a document you will find on page 1 of the document book. It is a report on the first Working Meeting East which was held 18-19 May 1912 at the Military Medical Academy at Berlin. I wish you submit this report, or rather the excerpts from it, as Exhibit Gebhardt No. 6.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, you did not assign a number to the last exhibit which you offered. That would be Gebhardt Ex hibit No. 5, the affidavit of Werner Grothmann. You did not mention that number
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, the last exhibit was number 5.
I beg your pardon. And this extract from this meeting which had taken place in May, this meeting which was the meeting of the East of Consulting Specialists, will be Exhibit No. 6.
MR. HARDY: May it please the Court, recently the Tribunal ruled that any document that had been put into evidence by the Prosecution would not be put into evidence by the Defense and bear another exhibit number. These documents which Dr. Seidl has been referring to have already been admitted and bear exhibit numbers of Prosecution -- and I don't think it necessary.
JUDGE SEBRING: Has it already been admitted in full with the same completeness that Dr. Seidl has?
MR HARDY: In this particular instance I don't believe so. We have introduced various excerpts. I don't know which excerpts he is referring to ??w, but I imagine the same ones we have introduced.
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, with reference to this I would like to say the following. In the course of submission of evidence, that is to say, when Prosecution was going on the defense in this case, the attorney for the defendant Handloser, made the suggestion that Prosecution should submit these minutes - these reports of those meetings -- in entirety. That application was refused - the reason being that the reports on these conferences, summarized in books known to the Tribunal, were too voluminous. The Prosecution only submitted extracts, very short ones at that. The extracts which I intend to submit now, with the exception of one brief paragraph, had not been submitted. Considering that the extracts submitted by the Prosecution and those which I propose to submit hAve no immediate and internal connections, I am of the opinion that it would appear suitable that exhibits of the defense should be given their own independent number but here, In my opinion, we are only concerned with a technical question, the question of only designating documents.
And, since the Tribunal has expressly granted the right to defense that all extracts of these conferences may be submitted, such as will be important as evidence to the defense, I am of course prepared to submit this extract under a exhibit number which is suggested by the Prosecution. This appears to me to be a very inferior technical question, really.
THE PRESIDENT: How many pages of your document book, counsel, are covered by this exhibit? The English document book furnished the Tribunal do not carry the number of the exhibits, the documents, offered by your client.
DR. SEIDL: The document numbers are contained in the index on the first page. Altogether I am going to submit three extracts. That is, one about the conference of May 1942, pages 1-19 of the Document Book. Secondly, an extract with reference to the second meeting in November 1942, that is page 14-21. And, thirdly, an extract dealing with the third conference taking place in May 1943, page 22 to 32 of the Document Book.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you expect to read this entire nineteen pages into the record?
DR. SEIDL: I would not propose to read all of these nineteen pages, just individual extracts which appeared to me to be particularly important.
JUDGE SEBRING: Doctor, what is the purpose of this tender?
DR. SEIDL: The purpose of these exhibits is the following:
The defendant Gebhardt, and the two other defendants which I represent, have carried out sulfanilamide experiments which they do not deny. If when evidence was submitted earlier it had been mentioned repeatedly or questioned repeatedly, first, whether these experiments were necessary; secondly, whether if they were necessary to what extent effectiveness of the sulfanilamide experiments was debated in military and civilian medical circles in Germany; and, thirdly, what the contents of the speech of Professor Rostock in the conference were; fourth, what the outcome of the experiments was; and fifth, what opinions were voiced in the discussion with reference to that question, the discussion which took place during those various conferences. I am now talking about factual and legal reasons. These are very relevant, indeed, so much so in my opinion extracts from these reports should be submitted. All the more so because Prosecution on their part have already submitted extracts on behalf of some importance and, since consideration of such extracts by Prosecution alone were not fair to give the suitable picture of the thing, but a one sided and incorrect picture.
JUDGE SEBRING: Is it your theory that these reports will, when supplemented by such portions of the reports which Prosecution has submitted, give color to the whole series of experiments and tend to show with completeness the over-all aspect of that convention or meeting.
Is that the point? In other words, as I understand the Prosecution, they have submitted portions of the report to show not only the defendants Gebhardt and Fisher had conducted experiments on human beings in an illegal fashion, but that almost anyone in attendance at the conference could have clearly ascertained by hearing the reports that the experiments were in fact illegal. I understand that is the position of Prosecution. Now, then you are submitting these report for the purpose of showing an over-all complex of the meeting and to show in completeness what actually transpired?
DR. SEIDL: The purpose of these documents is not that of showing whether other participants in the conference, particularly with reference to the responsibility of these experiments, could form a picture about that. But the purpose, as the Tribunal has just stated, is to present the entire context statement between the individual meetings, conferences, and I believe it essential this should be done in order to back the statements made by the defendants on the witness stand and give the essential background there.
MR. HARDY: I might call to the attention of the Tribunal that the extract submitted by Prosecution was an extract of the 1943 conference, and this extract is of the 1942 conference.
THE PRESIDENT: The document offered by counsel will be received in evidence. I understand that counsel will read into the record only those parts deemed particularly pertinent. Now this document apparently ends on page 13. While the documents are numbered in the index they are not numbered throughout the book which makes it a little difficult for the Tribunal to see where one document begins and another ends. That requires examination of the index.
DR. SEIDL: The first document starts on page 1 - finishes on page 13.
THE PRESIDENT: On which page?
DR. SEIDL: Page 13.
JUDGE SEBRING: Which one are you now offering?
DR. SEIDL: I am speaking of the document which deals with the first conference - the Eastern conference of consulting specialists on the 18th and 19th of May, 1942, beginning on Page 1 of the document book. The index has already been dealt with by Dr. Handloser's defense counsel and presented to the Tribunal, so I can refer to it. Then on page 2 there is a lecture, which has been mentioned repeatedly, given by Professor Dr. Rostock, parts of which I propose to read into the record. I quote:
"IV. CHEMOTHERAPY OF WOUND INFECTIONS. - Lecture by Oberstabsarzt Professor Rostock.
"Chemotherapy of the wound is ancient science. Each war has changed the old question and brought it forward again to the contemporary standard of scientific knowledge.
"My statements are not intended to give a summary of the previous results, but are intended to sum up briefly what practical knowledge we have, and are to form the basis for a discussion.
"A new method in the application of sulfonamides, now in the center of interest, is that they are not applied locally to the wound, but are introduced generally into the body either enterally or parenterally to spread their effect in this way. The fact that some drugs are intended specifically against various bacteria and against the diseases caused by them is also new to science. The success of sulfonamide treatment with pneumonia, gonorrhea, epidemic meningitis and perhaps with erysipelas cannot be denied. We are not concerned with these diseases here. We only want to deal with wound diseases (tetanus, gas edema) and with wound infections.
"We know that sulfonamides are ineffective against tetanus. Their effectiveness with regard to gas edema is under discussion, and has so far, not been clarified. Perhaps this is partly due to the fact that true gas edema, which is caused by the three known viruses, is not always distinguished from the essentianlly mild gas phlegmons.
"With regard to the treatment of wound infection local application is in the foreground of interest today, not the enteral and parenteral introduction.
Previous results have been judged in different ways. Brunner has even dared treat peacetime injuries which were contaminated locally with sulfonamides and then suturing the wound without previously making a wound excision. Schreuss has highly praised the 'wide-spread effectiveness' of the drugs. Kirschner and his assistants have doubted its effectiveness. They have tried to prove, by experiments, that jodoform is superior to sulfonamides when applied locally to wounds.
"The explanation of the method of operation with these drugs is of vital importance to our knowledge. In former times, it was believed that disinfecting drugs for wounds had a special effect on the vitality of the bacteria and the generally known conclusion was reached that all the drugs used were more likely to kill the cells of the wound than the bacteria introduced into it. Sulfonamides are said to have a different effect. It has been claimed (Heubner) that only with the tissue of the body, do they form effective materials, the nature of which is not known in detail. On the other hand, it has been claimed that the drugs create a so-called defensive tissue in the wounds. Other researchers believe that the drugs facilitate the phagocytosis of the bacteria. The fact, that necrotic tissues, and their products of catabolism in the wound, are obstructive to the effects of the remedy is an important one.
"The determination of the method of operation with sulfonamides is of fundamental importance with regard to its practical application and this basic research is therefore urgent. I can create the material basis for such research at my clinic if the necessary patient material is provided and if suitable physicians interested in research are made available.
"For collecting clinical experience, it is necessary that the individual bacteria strains react differently. The drugs are more effective in vivo than in vitro (Brunner). The wound bacteria can be arranged as follows with regard to their increasing resistance to sulfonamides:
pneumococci streptococci coli proteus pyocyanase staphylococci "The place held by the most important viruses of the gas edema in this series is being discussed.
"If we try to determine the aim and method of clinical experiments, the following deductions can be made:
"The most important thing appears to be the examination of the method of operation of local application to the wounds of sulfonamides, but the operative treatment of the wound must not be forgotten in any way. It remains the basis of our procedure with practical chemotherapy as well, because necroses of the wound area do considerably restrict the effect of sulfonamides. The great danger of chemotherapy is that it may lead physicians who are not very careful to negligence when carrying out the operative treatment of the wounds, because considerable hope is placed in chemotherapy.
"In the experiment, similar series can be created, that is research work can be done exactly as Kirschner requested in his controversy with Schreuss. At the sick bed, the opinion of the specialist decides the procedure.
"Secondly, the effect of a general introduction into the body of a drug would have to be examined. The effects of a local application will probably be inferior. Perhaps general applications for brain wounds has a certain importance, as there is no blood liquor level for sulfonamides.
"Then the doses was discussed, it was decided to make it depend on the concentration of the drug in the blood (5 to 10 milligrams - in serious cases 20 milligrams), and on its excretion in the urine. This may be necessary in a scientific experiment. This criterion can, however, not be applied in practical war work. We must lock for simpler doses indicators.
"As usual with sulfonamides, we shall not continuously apply it locally, but now and then for several days on end. We shall powder the drug into the wound by means of a powder blower or a powder castor after the wound has been examined, and repeat this at the next change of dressing.
On the days between the changes of dressing the drug is to be administered orally. The parenteral administration cannot be carried out at the height of the war."
As for the remainder of this lecture, I beg the Tribunal to take judicial notice of it and I pass on to page 7 of the document book dealing with the discussion of this lecture and I shall merely refer to statements which come up in the discussion, in this case by Professor Krueger. Professor Krueger was working in Breslau - I beg your pardon, I have to correct myself - it was Berlin, and what he said was this. In connection with this, I should add distinctly that this discussion, as well as the lecture itself given by Professor Tostock, took place before the carrying out of the experiments do by Fischer and Gebhardt, and now I quote Professor Krueger;
"Very favorable opinion of sulfonamide prophylaxis though only on the basis of clinical observations, (brain shots without meningitis, pulmonary gun shot wounds without ompyoma, etc.) (5000 cases)."
Following that, Professor Sauerbruch spoke. Where Professor Krueger praised the effects of sulfonamide, Geheimrat Sauerbruch, on the other hand, was very skeptical of it. I quote:
"Sauerbruch criticizes the primitiveness of the opinions on the healing of wounds. During the World War the same results were hoped for with vuzin, rivanol etc. The remedies veil the surgical work and load to superficiality. We should, however, examine things critically and the task of examination should be put into the hands of surgeons who know general surgery."
On Pages8, Professor Krauspe also had something to say, and I quote from his statement:
"I agree essentially to what Mr. Rostock has said. At the suggestion of our Army physician, Generalstabsarzt Dr. Gunderloch, we carried out extensive treatment with Mesudin among our troops since August of last year, especially on cases of gangrene, and we have made a number of observations where this remedy was administered orally as well as applied locally.
In these cases it also proved to be effective. Nevertheless I should like to say that no final opinion on the effect of these preparations can be made as yet. Although we have heard some enthusiastic opinions concerning this preparation and therapy, in many places where good results were reported, especially by surgeons, we have also heard of other cases when it was applied orally or locally where it completely failed to have any effect. This cannot be seen completely at first sight. The main reason is that in the case of gas edema, we do not have a pure infection with a strain of bacteria, but a mixed infection; whereas those preparations are always based on special germs, for instance, the serum on blackleg bacilli (symptomatic anthrax, bacilli) which are of little importance in cases of gangrenous infections, while the Fraenkel and Novysch vacilli must be considered of primary importance. Moreover by a pure application of those preparations, we met with so little success that we stopped using them immediately, and active surgical treatment was carried out. The important result, as Mr. Restock has told also us, is that surgical operations are the most important in cases of gangrene and will probably remain so."
Then the final speaker in this discussion whom I wish to quote was Professor Gins. You will find this on page 10 of the document book. Professor Gins is a bacteriologist and a professor at the Robert Koch Institute at Berlin. I quote him:
"A short contribution to the problem of chemotherapy based on our chemotherapeutical animal experiments. From what we have seen, for instance from the experiments which took place under my direction, none of the preparations used had any recognizable effect. Neither prontosil nor prontalbin showed anything similar. None of the animals remained alive after marfanil and mesudin had been applied. Similar results were observed with sulfanil and siron, the so-called new sulfonamides which had been put at our disposal by the German Hystier Plants. Of this last group, we can say finally:
no indications of a special effect resulting from a local administration were shown in animal experiments.
"New experiments were finally made with katoxin, which at that time were very hopefully recommended. This is a preparation, the effect of which comes from a combined oligoynamic Silver effect and a protracted oxygen effect. The first experiments conducted by the Katoxin Company itself, appeared very hopeful.
" "Later stests conducted by the work group of the Katoxin Company, here in the academy under my direction, likewise appeared to be very promising and were, in addition, a very interesting contribution to the psychology of animal experiments. In one series of experiments, in which the katoxin preparations was used partly on letters A and partly on letters D, all animals belonging to group A remained alive while all animals of group D died. (Laughter.) -
"Particular attention should be drawn to the fact that such things do happen. It was not possible to find any form of dishonesty in the performance of the experiments. Everything was completely under control. Any suspicion that somebody was not honest can therefore be eliminated. I am only quoting this to prove how careful one must be in order to get sound results. The experiments has shown that katoxin does not act differently to other sulfonamides.
"If we have a suggestion to make, therefore, it is a suggestion somewhat similar to that already made by the clinical physicians: The fact that a guinea pig is not a human being must always be taken into consideration, and if the tests have proved that preparations which affect the tissue will not do any harm, it is worth considering carrying out more intensive experiments with this preparation. From our point of view, we could not generally recomment the application of certain preparations, but we could recommend the application of certain preparations, but we could recommend a clinical test using the same groups and considering what Mr. Rostock has said. If this is done maybe we shall see that sulfonamides, perhaps even katoxin, when applied in certain ways or in certain cases, may now and then be successful.
"I would suggest including katoxin in these tests, on the condition of course, that you do not expect too much of it."
As far as the rest of the report of this conference is concerned I shall ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice and I shall pass on to page 13 of the document, an extract on the Second Conference East (Arbeitstagung-Ost) of the Consulting Physicians, taking place on November 30 to December 30, 1942.
This will be Exhibit Gebhardt No. 7. As far as Professor Warbrand's lecture is concerned...
MR. McHANEY: If the Tribunal please, the Prosecution has no particular objection to these documents being submitted in evidence and we would agree to have the submitting of them extended into the record but I must object to the reading at great length of these reports. The Prosecution is perfectly willing to concede that German medical experts felt that there were open problems in the field that German medical experts felt that there were open problems in the field of sulfanilamide; that is all I take it that these documents purport to prove and I suggest that we proceed with the examination of the witness. In any event it is not necessary to read these aloud in court if he is going to base his questions on them. The witness now on the stand is perfectly familiar with them and he can direct his questions.
Dr. SEIDL: Mr. President, I did not initially intend to quote too much from Exhibit Gebhardt No. 7. As far as I myself was concerned I was going to ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of it. They were merely a few short statements coming up during the discussion which I proposed to read; they can be found on page 16 of the document book, as well as page 19.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may read these extracts from the documents but not take up too much time. Document will be admitted into evidence as Gebhard Exhibit No. 7. Counsel should use discretion in reading from the document on account of the time it takes to read it.
DR. SEIDL: Well, then, I shall quote from page 16 of the document book, statements made by Professor Krueger during the discussion, as well as Professor Schulze and Professor Schmidt. The reason I am doing so is because these statements seem to describe the situation at the time rather well. I quote:
"KRUEGER recommends the use of sulfonamides especially for abdominal wounds: he believes that the good results he obtained (of almost 1000 cases with abdominal wounds, including the patients who died in the rear hospitals, 55% were cured) are to be ascribed to the effect of the sulfonamides.
"W. SCHULZE also warmly advocates the treatment with sulfonamides.
" PROF. SCHIMDT rejects the intraperitoneal treatment with sulfonamides. 7 different surgeons cured 50% of the cases without this method, although under conditions which equalled those of peacetime."
Then I pass on to page 19 of the document book and from there I quote statements made by Professors Krueger and Krauss. I quote:
"Krueger recommands the use of sulfonamides also in the case of nes gun shot wounds of the lungs. The mortality of about 100 cases of gun shot wounds of the lungs amounted to 12.6%, including the patients who died later on in general hospitals."
"Professor Krauss has not found any decisive influence on gun shot wounds of the lungs by the use of sulfonamides."
As far as the speech made by Professor Laewen is concerned, which is found on page 20 of the document book, I ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of this. This would then conclude the submission of documents at this stage of the proceedings and I ask permission to be allowed to continue with the examination of Defendant Dr. Gebhardt.
BY DR. SEIDL:
Q. Witness, the Prosecution in the course of their submission of evidence with reference to the sulfonamide experiences, called 4 experimental subjects as witnesses. Before going into the details of these experiments may I ask you to tell me how you stand, in principle, with reference to these special experiments carried out on human beings?
A. May I take the liberty of making an introductory remark? I shall be brief with it and actually I shall only touch upon the important points raised by the Prosecution, which I shall summarize. From there I shall pass on to the very different attitude adopted by me and to the necessity which I consider exists relating to a different type of evidence which should be submitted.
The Prosecution places this experiment right in the center of these proceedings and derives from, it the following 4 points: 1), that a soldier, no matter, be considered a criminal because he came from the SS, or not obeying an order, whether the jurisdiction of the order be recognized or not. 2), that on the other hand where I, as a doctor, have a choice of action, I should be particularly defamed, and the Prosecution was underlining the criminal individual attitude adopted by Defendant Gebhardt and I was being accused that within the framework of this order I had acted negligently, unscientifically, and without achieving any special particular results. It was also considered that the criminal parts of my nature, that is to say, the moral insanity was recognizable in the pitiless carrying out of these experiments and my general attitude. In point 4 the Prosecution goes even one step further. They say, -- and don't forget that they are laymen, and I shall go into the scientific part of what they said in more detail -they said that any value of this work for the wider part of humanity did not exist. The Prosecution denied it.
You all know that the discussions going on abroad at this moment are exactly in reverse; in other words, important doctors, such as, for instance,, the personal physician of His Majesty the King of England, are representing the view that even if we are a criminals and even if the carrying out of these experiments was criminal, then the work would have one last ethical value if the general public were placed in a position to receive the benefits of the results of these experiments. Without passion, just as though judging a doctor's thesis, I shall make every effort to deal with those 4 points put up by the Prosecution. But even now I should like to take the liberty of underlining one basic difference. Even if at present I am not granted any human or scientific value, there is a man speaking here now who has dealt with gangrene infections for 12 years and who, therefore, as far as judging the progress of such disease and the therapeutical effects of such an infection is concerned, has made this a special field and has become a specialist on that subject to a much larger extent than anyone in this room. I should like also to ask the Tribunal to give me a chance of dealing with this soimportant part of the work of German and foreign scientists in detail.
The final exploitation of our work could be facilitated in as far as the haze of semi-medical ideas and wrongly applied medical expressions as well as evidence showing facts in distorted fashion can be rectified by me as an expert, so that any one reading the record years after our death would, be in a position to judge the particular experiment in question, something which up to now is impossible, and I would like to suggest that it may or may not be by design that a haze is being created here, or whether it is merely because of the inefficiency of the laymen that it has happened.
At any rate on this point I am back in the same situation, something which I should like to underline, and where I found myself before, namely, someone is attacking me, a layman who is saying he can pass judgment who has no idea of the progress of an infectious disease, or what death and dying of thousands means; that I should answer this layman, notoon my behalf, but on behalf of the public, and put him in his place. In other words, the fact implicates me legally, and I am well represented by myself since I am assuming responsibility for that. The incredible impression which we have received has been achieved by a minor optical trick. Without knowledge of the contents and procedure, four women deeply mourned by me were brought for demonstration of this Tribunal, and of course that caused the pity of every decent spectator, and then an expert of the size of Professor Alexander added his comment, but I myself was kindly instructed by him th t he did not consider himself the expert of this Tribunal, and therefore did not consider himself above that in this Court Room, but that it was merely the advisable facts which he was presenting, and that as the representative expert of the prosecution he was giving the existence which we saw him give in this Court Room. Furthermore, Professor Alexander was fair and decent enough be state expressly that he was making every effort to restrain himself to his opinions as an expert, but that then he was inspired with a hate against each and every German until the collapse, for which he had every reason. It is important to base one's thought on this. Now, here is my comment, the selection of the four witnesses produced in this case was essential and possible since the 60 experimental persons, mostly through my assistance and collaboration simultaneously with the patients at Hohenlychen were with transported with a car from a Swedish Commission with which they arrived at the German Danish border, so that I made it possible that this evidence could be summarized, and without any secrecy it was possible to hoose the most seriously wounded and present them here in Court. Furthermore, may I point out that it is internationally known to Courts that the fatality in gas gangrene cases lies between 50 to 60 percent, also that you still usually add 20 percent of seriously wounded cases to this, so that you must also consider at least amputations or wounded joints.