We had orders to test the preparations zibazol, ultraseptil, Dr. Morrell's preparations, and the most important German preparations, then eleudron and katoxin, which always plays an important part, and which is considered a most modern preparation, and that is a preparation which I thought most promising because contrary to all others it did create oxygen in the wound, so that we could assume that even if the gangrenous process did start the oxygen which was accumulated would prevent repercussion. Unfortunately that preparation kept the least of the promises; and on the other hand there was a fight for wounds of a nature similar to war wounds or for infections which gave a picture similar to war wounds but which were created in quite a different manner, and now we are being accused particularly that we had inflicted wounds. Apparently were supposed to have been so brutal as to have opened a small piece of tissue by means of a knife. As an illustration, of harm done by infection I experienced that, the witness Martin in the last trial had been vaccinated, and then went back, and got dirty in the camp and gangrene killed him in spite of two operations which I carried out. Naturally the situation is this: If I make an injection just haphazardly without seeing the texture of the flesh, then I risk subsequent bleeding and I don't know what the wound conditions are, and with a very small incision I might be very lucky, but I might be very unlucky. To the surgeon there is nothing more harmless and clearer and obvious than the plainly visible wound conditions of a straight cut which will heal up afterwards given the necessary assistance. Seeing the wound condition to a surgeon is the most important of the whole thing. We certainly used the conditions which would produce war infections, that is, to see the infection bleeding and then produce gas gangrene, and now we are being criticized from two sides. Some say "Good God, you used gas gangrene? What a dreadful crime. Anyone who is touched by gas gangrene is in danger." That is stupid and it is untrue. The Brunner publications will show you or any other publications will show you that there are carriers of gas gangrene who never have been ill with gangrene, so that mere contact with gangrene does not mean a person will suffer from gas gangrene, only a layman will say that, and then, of course, there is a point of view of the expert:
"How can you make that sort of an experiment. This is only torturing human beings, because if you don't have tissue which is already destroyed, then gas gangrene can never happen." That was the point of view which was correct until about 1905 and if a student in 1906 said that during an examination it was incorrect. I suppose the real situation is that gas gangrene can be caused in two ways, either a tissue is without oxygen and fresh air entering into it, and this can come about in two ways, and this is most important with reference to the instructions I gave for my experiments. Once, if a tissue is eliminated from the nourishing process which I will deal with only in part and perhaps later on I shall have to spend a half an hour in dealing with the theory of the cutting off of tissue, but anyway only if there is a partial cutting off some tissue will die and be short of oxygen. The way in which gas gangrene really comes about is this: Through a change of pressure. I would cut myself somewhat and my hand would be infected with gas gangrene. If I move that hand, the germs will move into the muscular tissue, and if I hit it against this piece of wood as I am doing now, and make quick movements of some sort, then the muscles will contract and then expand, and different pressure conditions will result. At one moment the blood will circulate freely because they are resting or moving rhythmical or there will be an absolute cutting off of circulation because during a quick movement I have caused the pressure to be altered, through this change of pressure I have lack of oxygen or free oxygen in the tissue, and these are the conditions causing gas gangrene. This gas gangrene will exist particularly, apart from gas gangrene, there are other bacteria prevalent, because these germs such as streptococci and staphylocci, and other ordinary infections, in other words will eat up all the oxygen first, and would quickly create a high type of gas gangrene, which you will only have at last to deal with. In other words, in modern therapy if I may quote Domen and I will say something quite clearly which I will submit in my second document book. It is never recognizable with the naked eye to what extent these germs penetrate into the tissue.
In other words, the inflammation and liquid which emerges as a result of the death of the tissue and the death of the cells in the flesh or the dissolution of the muscular tissue, are consequences of the toxin effects and not the results of mechanical momentum. It is just exactly the other way around. Serious damage to the muscle is, therefore, not a necessary prerequisite to gas gangrene. Generally, they are the results, the outcome of it. The decisive question, therefore, which I ?? faced with is this: What is the more harmless or more secure for the human being? Advancing step by step after the partial exclusion of the breathing process with perfect quiet for the tissue, or some sort of injection and movement and alteration of pressure conditions, which I am not capable of controlling, and ??ear it with something not hygienic, and gas gangrene will ensue, maybe in a joint, maybe anywhere else. This was the decisive question in my instructions for the experiments. I want pictures similar to gas gangrene, this mixture of gangrene and not gangrene, that is what I wanted, and so if a serious case history would develop I wanted that it should occur at an accessible part of the body, to which I would have access with all power of my surgery. I want to clarify this joke of "controlling persons, I do not know how they were in the case of others and I do not wish to pass judgment on it, but, the texts of 1944 for preventative treatments of wounds say, that is is the decisive means we have in the battle against gas gangrene.
A. (continued) No doctor in the whole of Germany is guilty of negligence in the case of gas gangrene if he is not giving sulfonamide. But, if he does not put the man on the operating table and does not recklessly sacrifice, by means of operation, all of the muscle tissue then he is guilty. If he decides to inject serum here that is a matter of medical views. Any way, as far as our control persons are concerned when we began our first experiments we had people there. We had 15 men who exposed the wound, apply mixed infection, and then we gave the sulfonamide as he been ordered. Persons night say that you couldn't really expect a proper infection. That is quite true. However, it is an old custom about surgery, that if you proceed on strange ter ritory without no hygienic conditions, and start operating, if you take germs along -- which one must - and of such and such a strength. Then any responsible surgeon will plan experiments in such a way that first of all he will try to become clear whether there may be actual danger of scams. This preliminary experiment involved 15 persons and showed that the density which was expected was correct. There were no other germs involved, as tetanus. And that during operations no dirt crept in, so that we were carefully stumbling through the experiment slowly stop by stop. I considered that previous experiment was justifiable.
Q. Which experiment was that? Was tetanus not used in some of these experiments?
A. No tetanus was never used. You know the way the problem occurred in Germany at the time, namely, we know sulfonamides had no effect on tetanus, and the tetanus problem in this War had been fully solved. Not in one of these reports would you find any long winded discussion about therapy with tetanus needing any changes. We neither artificially created tetanus, nor did any tetanus ever crop up through any accident.
Q. These fifteen male experimental prospects we are talking about, did they suffer any permanent damage to their health?
A. I have told you that they suffered no damage, and were all right after a brief period.
Q. Well, they why were experiments on professional male criminals not continued?
A . Now we come to some circumstances where wo should see a sudden complete charge against any suggestion or agreement. I was hoping that the thing would just carry on and that the second actual group would come about approximately bring the second half July after discussing it with Fischer. He was near there, my conscientious Fischer, came to see me in sick bed and said, "Chief, in spite of your orders I did not continue work today. The experimental subject who was brought into the operating room under anesthesia, was contrary to our orders and agreements, a woman. I was informed that they had been ordered from above which considered the harmless character of the experiments justified that from now on the work was permissible on women." It is Fischer's merit that he reacted right away at once, did not carry out any work and came to no. It is quite possible that there was a heated discussion, I can't remember the details. I may have said leave it to no to solve this out, you are an officer. At any rate there was a step to my knowledge of the experiments until the middle of August, approximately a fortnight, and during the fortnight I visited these people who had carried out this complete alteration of my suggestion. First of all I went to see Grawitz. Grawitz gave me vague information, mentioned Nebe, Himmler, RSHA, and he mentioned often that after consultation with Himmler it had happened the experiments were changed completely. I am convinced to say that the reasons were on one side that it was so difficult to bring men into the woman's camp and also to observe secrecy.
And I am convinced that through reports we had to give Himmler, Himmler, received information that the whole thing was so harmless, and I am also convinced that Grawitz himself aimed at breaking relations which would enable him to carry our experiments as well. But Himmler decided it with him the breaking of our agreement with indignation, The point of view adopted by Himmler at the time was this: first of all he had come to the conclusion that I was spending too much time and becoming too apparent in connection with the matter. Instruction for the experiments were quite clear and the matter should be allowed to go through and not at all necessary that I should cause an upset. Secondly, he also pointed out to me that these apparently obviously harmless experiments carried out according to plan meant a great reprieve for these people and would be applied to Polish women there, who clearly had been condemned to death already, during these long days I examined the question again and again -- whether it was wrong that I should have listened to Himmler's trends of thought and then proceed in the manner which I will shortly describe to you. Of course, it is very simple to start at the end of the story and to say -- these poor, brave, valuable, women were here infected by a criminal with gangrene and operated on in a disgusting manner. That is not the starting point. The starting point is the fact that women had been sentenced according to martial law, as is customary everywhere. In connection with this, this question I leave open - which German authority was responsible -that is not known to Medics after committing acts of sabotage. As a man and doctor, I find it frightful to see women sentenced to death. After the last war and after this war, I consider it is one of the greatest disgraces that women should have been utilized for the purpose of war, that women should be introduced as intelligence agents who through their work wore responsible for the deaths of thousands of German soldiers or other soldiers.
As much as I loath war I have never seen it, however, that power which is then endangered by this would not proceed recklessly and bring anyone to death who would act as an intelligence agent at the rear or front of the fighting. I think that should be the basic point of view. In this manner Himmler described these women to me. I do not doubt they were wonderful patriots who risked their lives as patriots in war and Germany in some way made a decision.
Nor would it be right to say that they were only highly valuable people. I am quite sure that the majority were, but there were instances where there were people who would work for both sides - for this side and the other, and would supply material against us and then they too were sentenced. There is a great difference between extreme patriotism and the cheap patriotism that was for sale and that always placed power had a state, a power to proceed with strict measures. At any rate, I had no doubt, as Himmler said, that these were women sentenced to death who had one chance only, and there seems to have been 700 or 800, I don't know. At any rate they had one chance for survival; namely, if they survived one of my experiments. Was that so impossible an assumption in connection with these women for these experiments? Of course, this question of volunteering - that is a matter of emergency. Whenever someone has quite definitely and finally been sentenced to death - someone who is young - and suddenly has the chance of being operated on by one of the finest German surgeons and them have sulfonamide applied to him and all she sacrifices is a group of muscles in a leg and survives otherwise, surely I had the right to assume that women would make such a decision. The other question, of course, is what was the chance of reprieve and that is the great question in all the further developments. But here too we surely are entitled to a basic viewpoint - that I was told by my commanding officer how he, as the executive power, was planning this. That it did not depend that much on him - that is the other question. They were given a chance to survive, but a question of reprieve, that was subject to a political question. It was subject to their loyalty towards the German state. As far as I know, three of them had signed such a document and they were settled in Sudetenland Germany. One has been repeatedly mentioned here. The others were enthusiastic, patriotic Poles who remained in the concentration camp and they never allowed themselves tempted into freedom on Germany's side. That is the whole entire problem of collaboration, all these matters which are sufficiently known to you in this war. Perhaps I may say that in 1943, during my public appearances, news went through that these intelligence women were in touch, both with the British and Russian sides, according to their political views, and from that moment on they no longer had any reason to keep on good terms with Germany and quite deliberately acted as Polish women of the resistance and went on that way, and I do not believe that you can possibly held it against me that the situation was that Himmler obviously had decided to use Polish women for these experiments and I could no longer refuse.
On the other hand, I was again at liberty to stay out and I am now convinced that the greatest importance was attached by Himmler to the fact that my name should not be connected with the matter any more because I was in touch with people abroad. He probably judged me correctly and knew that whenever I could I would talk to everybody about the experiment, but I do not believe that he meant to say that every Polish woman would be killed in this experiment. That is not what he meant. It was just the other way around. I am sure that Himmler wanted to make an example of 200 women, but, on the other hand, wanted to give them a clear cut chance of getting through and getting over the whole affair. May I remind you that this was all taking place during the difficulties we had after Heydrich's death, and during the time of the most serious political and military events. I am therefore still of the opinion that we are not concerned with volunteers but that the situation was not as these Polish women are describing it now according to which they could survey the entire political situation at the time, but as I am speaking under oath, I will say that during the contacts we had, there was not one occasion when a Polish woman stated a desire to me or a complaint to me but that we just passed by each other without any such exchange. But I must ask you if I may describe the conditions in such a way to make it clear to you that it was obviously credible to me that these women were using this one chance to survive. Anyway, there was no doubt that the experiment would be carried out - that Grawitz was taking over the whole affair, that I had given him the plan for the experiments, but that it was easy for him to give the whole matter a perfectly harmless appearance in his reports.
That, in my decisive attitude to Himmler I had again and again asked the same question: "Is this experiment going to be carried out?" and the answer was "Yes." Then I said: "Right, it will be carried out through me with my medical responsibility."
Q Witness, you have stated that the experiment would have been carried out under all circumstances even if you yourself had left. Would the instructions have remained the same if Reich medical officer Grawitz had given them?
A No, definitely not. That is just the difference between Grawitz and myself. Grawitz was after speed and after success. Do not forget that Hitler is in the background all the time and that a decision was expected before the beginning of the new winter. The experiments had to be completed. A decisions was wanted and it was only possible if war wounds were created. I am convinced, as I mentioned before, that without me not one of these Polish women would be alive. It can't be proven to me that the course would have been different. I went in to Hohenlychen with my knowledge, ability, supported by Fischer. That was the guaranty that, apart from three, these Polish women survived and they remained alive afterwards and did not disappear because they might become publicly apparent. I made it perfectly clear to Himmler afterwards what it meant that foreign countries know that these Polish women lived.
Q Did you yourself, Dr. Fischer or Dr. Oberheuser have anything to do with the selection of these experimental persons?
A No. Of course, there the same conditions apply. Fischer had nothing to do with these matters, I had nothing to do with these matters. These women were selected and whenever possible Oberheuser would make a preliminary medical checkup and if ten were selected and one was sent back, then there were nine and the experiment was carried out.
Q Was the selection itself carried out by the R.S.H.A.?
A Yes, right from the beginning the selection process was such that you knew there was a large number.
I think it was always the figure of 205 which was mentioned which would have been shot under all circumstances.
Q The experiments were carried out on Polish detainees in such a way that first of all three series of experiments were carried out on three groups of twelve persons each?
A What I wanted to solve by means of this second experimental group was the task given me in my orders. Namely, the checking up on the drugs prescribed. It was similar to gas gangrene cases so that if there was anything in the sulfonamide drugs which I had reason to hope, then the advantages connected with one or the other drug would become apparent and I would be able to discontinue the experiments. Of course, I couldn't stop at the initial instructions. Now, I really had to go over to an infection - localized and clear cut - and for that there is an internationally known instruction which we didn't invent dealing with locus minoris resistentia - that is to say, the place of least resistence where germs are combined with contact substances. So it wasn't that we inserted dirt, glass, or sand cruelly, and soil particularly, which, after all, is the representative dirt in the wound, was replaced by sterile glass, silicate - chemically speaking, soil and textiles which entered the wound were replaced by us through sterile cellulose - finely ground. You all know that if you cut yourself with a non-sterile piece of glass, inserting it into a wound, and if you do not move the spot, then that glass will heal inside without any special symptoms. The only purpose it has is to act as a catalysator for the germs and to produce obstacles for clear and easy blood penetration and to possibly damage a few cells slightly. In other words, to produce inflammation in the safest and most definite way possible for such an experiment. This is the clearest scientific thought in this sphere. We proceeded in just that manner and we in addition, gave ourselves zibazol, elevdron, sulfonamides and nitrones, given to two comparable persons who, however, were not without protection because they were taken care of in the old established way.
Now, don't you go along with the suggestion that I had to know the prescription regarding sulfonamide introduction? Any such plan should always be considered bad medicine because it is no longer anything original. One thing is characteristic however with sulfonamides and that is that you give a terrific dose - a big dose at the beginning, and here there is a question of whether it is correct to start orally, to start intravaneously or to have it eaten. One might mix it and everybody will have a different combination and that is just what we did. I would be a bad scientist if I would write down for you that I knew exactly what happened after the third day. It states expressly in Thomas' statement that any scheme - any pre-arranged, tables are mistakes and that, even today; we do not know the correct way for application of these drugs. It was obviously clear that there was a strong impression made by sulfonamides and, even in the first group, we were astonished to find a certain result; that the idea as such is useful but not for practical purposes. Amongst other things we immediately and simultaneously inserted into the wound a mixture of germs together with sulfonamide powder. That was the only exception made in the first group and that didn't produce any results. Now, if I were a bad scientist then I would have assumed that, in itself, was a success. Whether it was the ultrasepsil or whatever we were using. I would have considerad myself satisfied and I would have said everybody is going to take a little bag of sulfonamide along and immediately powder the wounds with it because we know that if they are both simultaneously inserted into the wound the germ and the drug - then there will not be an inflammation. Certainly only in complete ignorance of wound, conditions and war conditions one could adopt that point of view. The sulfonamide bag has its greatest disadvantages, that a man who is badly shot who isn't in a position to act, he would be lying somewhere badly wounded and not be able to do anything. On the other hand, of course, the position is that the surface of the wound can easily be powdered by not its lowest crevice and depth and we know particularly well that sulfonamides have, when employed thus wrongly; caused great damage.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
Q. Witness, before the recess you were speaking of the instructions for the first series of experiments of this 36 persons have you anything to add?
A. The second group of 36 women, consisting of 3 times 12, they were always ordered 5 times 2, as I believe I have discussed in the last session, and were the experiments from which expected success. Unfortunately, only local abscesses were caused of a limited nature. By abscess I understand pus surrounded by membrane. There was no outward excess of any sulphamilamide drug. We had one important result wherever germs and drugs were found together in the fluid one can speak of complete sulphamilamide success, a result which never existed at the front and during War, especially in the case of abscess, because abscess is surrounded by membrane. We had sent in a temporary report, because we were under pressure of events and absolutely had to have some result. The result was so unsatisfactory that on the one hand, I had to say that the experiments were not quite adequate, that I had a result from sulphamilamide therapy, but not for the front. On the other hand that I could not reject all the drugs, because the rivalry was not clearly settled in view of the limited nature of the experiment. I was attempting this below the line of abscess to not endanger any lives. This report was sent to Grawitz and Stumpfegger, who was with Himmler, and so forth.
Q. To make this clear, the first group were the 15 men?
A. Yes, the 15 men in July.
Q. The second group was the 36 women, 3 times 12 women?
A. Yes. Infection, plus contact materials.
Q. Is it true that the Reich physician SS, Dr. Grawitz, on the 3d of September 1942, in inspecting Ravensbruck demanded that the conditions had to be made more severe in order to make conditions similar to War time conditions?
A. At the beginning of September, on the basis of my report, I was called on for an opinion to Grawitz, and to report on the results which might be expected.
Grawitz, and as I shall explain later, Stumpfegger, in the beginning of September, came to me. Since Grawitz was coming to Ravensbruck and for that reason I turned up on the same day, so that Fischer could demonstrate the patients under my protection. That is the impression which the testimony of witnesses gives repeatedly where they have to wait for a time, and I say these are the patients whom I operated on. I assume that was all on the same occasion. Grawitz was able to prove to me that the infection were limited and not of a war nature.
And he was able to prove to me that I got not any clear medical information, only assumption, and what clinical conditions resulted might perhaps be expected. For another reason the argument became rather violent. Grawitz turned to Fischer, who presented the cases to him. He gave the discussion place -
Q. Please speak more slowly, witness.
A. -- and then he said unfortunately that war like wounds had to be used, that a shooting infection by earth and material cloth. Of course, I did not accept these conditions and I looked for a way out to get the experiment into my hands in such a way that either all safeguards a higher degree of infection might be obtained, and cases might still remain under my control, I did not want to give up and say I did not reach any conclusion, so that the wounds similar to war wounds be created somewhere else. And so we came to the prevention of the third group, and that is a matter of least resistance in the matter of international experimentation technic.
Q. You did not carry out the order then?
A. No.
Q. Then how were the experiments continued?
A. In war like wounds --- And we started, our own technic, the infection at the outer side of the calf far from the joint, where it is not under pressure, where the cast does not hurt it. In other words, we chose the most suitable place, after all medical considerations.
We injected in a place where the bleeding had been reduced and where the circulation of the blood had been reduced. Since this blocking off of the muscles has been called such a horrible thing. I shall further describe briefly the purpose and the effect of this blocking off. The incision in the muscle is about the length of a finger. From these muscle fibres, which have the thickness of a finger, perhaps the thickness of a pencil or a little les? in the middle fibre, at the top, a loop of catgut is applied and at the bottom. The whole sides of this center part are in the circulation and the so-called collateral circulation. If one says a piece of muscle is eliminated completely by tying off the center from the top and the bottom, that is false. One wants to prove that the sulfonamide could not leave the center at all, because there is this loop of catgut at the top and the bottom. One forgets that the blood comes from both sides. The increased quantity is the focus of infection in the center area and do nothing but delay the access of the blood and limit it, It does not stop the blood completely and this is not permanent because the catgut dissolves and is affected by the infection.
In every text book for experimentation one finds this listed as the most favorable way of interconnecting the blood circulation, a part which regulates itself. The consequence is that in this center strip the center strip is not nourished as well as if the blood came from all four sides. Consequently, I can determine almost mathematically where the most serious damage in the whole wound will be. I ordered and directed the infection for it is immediately accessible to operation. If an experiment is thought through to the end at all, then it was in this aspect the safety measures were introduced. Just as I had taken the first group without contact materials then in these cases I left the contact materials out completely so that there might not be any accumulation of effect on something which I had not done previously. On all the experiments I had operated the bacteria, the banal infection of streptococci and staphylococci. I had put in first in a group 3-A without gangrene. I have already explained it was that when the joints a are all together that often appears, that they eat up the oxygen and therefore gangrene is especially prevalent.
I spread out my method of infection and introduced the greatest measures of security possible. I am convinced that there was no better way to come to this limit or level of infection with gangrene symptoms, with less danger than with this series of experiments since from the very beginning abnormal special conditions had prevailed, which never happened in any normal wound.
From the very moment of infection when the wound is inflicted, the experimental subject is in a plastic case, completely quiet and he does no have to go to a doctor downstairs and wait under normal conditions.
Q. Witness, how many persons were in this third group?
A. This was two times twelve beginning in September were the harmless infections and in November or sometime late in October or probably November was the period for the group with gangrene. Twelve for the tying off of muscles and twelve for gangrene. It is not so that everyone gets gangrene who is in contact with germs and I did not have to get serious cases of gangrene, there are transition cases that are locally limited which have a certain tendency to develop, which can be dealt with if one is able to operate and sacrifice the muscle. Unfortunately the element of fate stands above all medical action and sometimes in contrast to all calculations; three people died.
A. One witness has said that Osteomelitis was caused artificially; is that true?
A. Osteomelitis is a disease of the marrow of the bone and to cause that artificially is one of the most difficult problems an experimentator can undertake. The first assignment I had was to create an artificial infection in the bone marrow and none of us succeeded in doing that. The bone marrow is such a defense system, the infection decreases. Unfortunately, however, osteomelitis occurs from outside, one can see that on the picture of serum very well, that an abscess presses on a muscle for a long time and injures the muscle, attacks the periosteum and then goes through the small channels into partly deep down. These things become dangerous only if they effect the joint and destroy the joint.
If I would discuss the individdual cases of the patients who have been brought here, I can show that not a single joint was damaged. Out of seventy five people minus twelve had to do with gangrene.
Q. Were you of the opinion in the new series of experiments, these twenty four subjects, that the experiments could be conducted without fatalities?
A. Yes, of course. Whatever I said at every Congress was proven and the infections were under my supervision from the very beginning. The only real objection to the way they were carried out is the fact that in surgery there is no absolute system of nature, and suddenly an infection is carried somewhere else in spite of all precautionary measures.
Q. Then you are of the opinion that everything was done that could be done according to experiences of medicine to control the wound infection?
A. I am absolutely convinced and in reviewing the experiments, I shall take the liberty of pointing out this single point, which I consider important that up to now no scientist has proven to me that in my doings I was neglige u? eveb the slightest respect and that in my own conviction as a doctor, I am convinced that I controlled the cases and that is if gangrene occurs and I interfere with the methods of surgery, I am not afraid to sacrifice muscles, to give blood transfusion, and add serums so that I can stop this infection. As far as there is anything certain in surgery, in all the preparations which we made, and I shall come to this point when I describe the points when I come to the lists and curves, it says when they were given sulfanamide when the incision is made, when a second operation has to be performed, when the cast is removed, there is drainage and the counter measures were stated as modern serum was given and blood transfusions.
No German soldier and no private patient was treated differently in case of gangrene at Hohenlychen and fate has given me these three deaths on my conscience.
Mr. McHaney: If the Tribunal please, I would ask that the witness be instructed to speak in a lower tone of voice. The listeners are apt to be influenced more by what he says than the volume in which he delivers it, and we have some difficulty keeping our attention on the English translation when there is such a large volume of German coming from the witness himself.
THE PRESIDENT: The suggestion of Counsel for the Prosecution is, I think, somewhat well taken. If the witness would speak in a lower tone of voice and considerably slower, the translation would be much more satisfactory.
BY DR. SEIDL:
Q. Witness, please keep your answers in such a way that they can be translated in respect to volume as well as speed.
Now if I understand you correctly, you were convinced that the infection could be controlled because the camp Ravensbrueck was only a few kilometers from your clinic at Hohenlychen, and that either you yourself or Dr. Fischer or some other surgeon from your clinic could get there in time if necessary to operate and combat the infection.
A. I had current reports on the patients, and I saw the patients myself at the decisive moments. Fischer had rent experience in this field which I have emphasized. We had the curves, the charts, the case histories, and we had the necessary facilities, and we had brought them from Hohenlychen to Ravensbrueck, and the patients were supplied with them. Further operations in sulfonamide experiments were therapeutic measures. In order to combat the diseased places in the muscles where the infection had taken to, it was important that we could be reached quickly so that the delay would not permit the gangrene to spread -- it can spread in twenty-four hours -- and endanger the patient.
Q. What do you know about the deaths, and why was there no amputation in these cases?
A. I believe that I can remember the three deaths very well. But I only remember three, I have always said that. With the things that have happened in the meantime, all the patients I have taken care of, it was not that Fischer or I overlooked an amputation, and it is certainly not true that an amputation can in all cases save the life of the patient, as in the case of gangrene. As I remember the case histories, the most serious patient had a large abscess on the hip.
Probably the corresponding glands had been affected. The infection on the calf and the abscess on the hip -- what can I amputate? One can amputate when the infaction is limited on the calf. We did not have such cases because we forced the infection to the place where we wanted it, but we were not able to prevent that the infection spread to a different area and that it should run up the blood vessel as does happen occasionally. There are infections of the veins, and then the patient dies suddenly, and it is a definite risk to perform any operation because the power of resistence is only on the border-line, hanging by a hair. If we perform such major operations to save the patient's life, then you may believe that we would have undertaken an amputation, or would you not believe that a surgeon of my experience does not know when he has to amputate; and unfortunately that is the first experience that an operator like Fischer learns in wartime; to amputate in time.
As far as I remember the deaths, were an abscess of the glands, an infection of the veins of the blood vessels, and one died in spite of all transfusions from general sickness. This happens in cases of infection when there is no possibility to stop infection by local surgery. But one cannot conclude that any medical measures which should have been taken were overlooked and because just by seeing case history from a distance one cannot decide that at that moment that patient should have been operated on. I am convinced that in those three cases which Fischer resorted to me exactly which I saw and in which the therapy was discussed that we certainly did not overlook anything as far as one can humanely say that one did what one considered necessary.
I wanted to publish this result or report it to the public from the beginning. If you did not assume that I had any humane or surgical motives, you may assume that I did everything so that I would be able to publish the results.
Q. In the individual series of experiments, what was the immediate harm, and what, in your opinion, was the later and the final harm?
A. I have already described it to you briefly, and in the individual groups there was no permanent damage in the case of the men. In the second group of thirty-six, you have seen one patient here.