Q Now, Witness, if you consider this whole Euthanasia problem as a whole, is there not something terrible about it?
A It has the appearance that it might look horrible, it can look inhuman, but in this light in the execution itself was not considered from that actual point of view alone when you consider what is behind it. The human beings who cannot help the selves, and whose tests show a life of suffering are to be given aid. This consideration is not inhuman. I never felt that it was not ethical or as not moral, I know that the external circumstances at the execution in spite of this sector of secrecy, and that went through the sector of secrecy, regrettable instances occurred repeatedly, irrespective of all endeavors to prevent them by the authorities. It has been said here that two urns were sent to one address. It was said that because of past diagnosis difficulties arose at the death, which is regrettable, but that this does not effect the principle, and in my opinion cannot shake this principle. If one discussed the problem of Euthanasia openly and tried to form a basic understanding, a basic mutual understanding of the fact, then in my opinion a way may be found for such execution in the future. The problem on such is not new. It has always been interested, and has been discussed for centuries. A Professor Leibrandt mentioned the oath of Hippocrates. That means that part of it which calls upon the doctor to not to give to a patient poison even on the patient's request. This is a dogma which is the basis of our science of diagnosis to by, and our knowledge of prognosis, and the knowledge of the limits of therapy, can no longer be maintained in this form. I am convinced if this Hippocrates were alive today he would formulate his oath differently. Hippocrates was not a man who did not give life its due. In Athens about the year of 430 there was an epidemic, and Hippocrates was asked for aid. He gave the simple instruction that the patients should be left alone, nothing could be done for them. He did not do that because he had any idea of the prognosis, or the infection, for he had walls built to keep the wind out of the city; no, he did that simply from the feeling of what is health and what is sickness.
You see, the Hippocrates oath is also cited today, an it is said that patients and sufferers are not to be given any poison, and a doctor simply declares and asserts such a thing, that is, either a his, or a hypocrisy. There is no doctor today who does not give a suffering patient narcotics, and tries to make the final hour of a dying person easier. One can say that is not euthanasia. In any case it is against the oath of Hippocrates. It begins by not giving the patient who is expected to die any more heart stimulants.
The next step is to give him narcotics. One may hang a copy of the Oath of Hippocrates in one's office but nobody pays any attention to it. The patient expects the doctor to help him and the relatives also expect it and I may mention in this same connection that since I have read in a newspaper that the sick person was finally released from his suffering. But these thoughts nave nothing to do with the concept of demonic order which Mr. Leibrandt mentioned. It is shown by the fact that today, and perhaps at this very moment, in other countries the question of euthanasia is again being discussed. The exponents of it - churches are joining together, Evangelical and Methodist, and the physicians' leagues are joining them. I know it is said if one knows that a doctor has nothing to do with euthanasia then he could lose the confidence of his patient. This confidence of a patient which has once been won is not capital that one holds for interest. As I see it, the duty of the doctor is to earn it anew at every contact with his patient and the same is true of institution. One cannot say that an institution's reputation is taken away, the institution is not there to preserve a reputation, it is there to take care of sick persons and to help them. If one speaks of institutions one must have an idea of what that is. one hundred years ago was the beginning when the larger institutions were first opened. I remember the name of Ferell of Zurich. But, in reality, these institutions are gold cages. One may well say that life behind these walls is the most horrible, the most unfortunate for a human being that there is. In the last few weeks and months pictures have been published in ma azines which show something comparable to what has been said about concentration camps and it has even been called that. The people are not for these institutions. There have always been difficulties in the financing of them, and there is no modern state where this question is not repeatedly discussed. It is said that such a thing; is necessary - the state should be willing to supply this money and where positive aid can be given, where human beings can be given care of human beings, they should get it. And from the church side too, I should like to mention Luther again. It was often unnatural.
If, in connection with our practice of euthanasia in 1940 and 1941 letters were received in large numbers which were quite understanding that is another factor in favor of it. I do not want to refer to the large amount of literature concerning euthanasia itself. In many cases one copies from another and the problem is avoided. But one thing seems necessary to me - that if anybody wants to judge the question of euthanasia he must go into an insane asylum and he should stay there with the sick people for a few days. Then we can ask him two questions; the first would be whether he himself would like to live like that, and the second, whether he would ask one of his relatives to live that way -- perhaps his child or his parents. The answer cannot be connected with the concept of demonic order but it will be deeply felt gratitude far his own health and the question of whether it is more humane to help such a being to find a peaceful end or to care for it further - this answer results without being expressed. In this connection I have a reference to literature where; it says about having a child with a hereditary brain disease kept alive fr three and one-half years and that this creature screamed fer three and one-half years. I see nothing particular humane in this. One can say that the execution is not very pleasant and the death of a human being can be horrible, but everything in life that is biological is not pleasant - it can be horrible and unaesthetic and unpleasant. One can say that of everything from the beginning, to the end of digestion, but, in the last analysis, this constitutes life and it is necessary. An operation is not pleasant but it can be useful, and the bloody act of birth is certainly not pleasant nor is the end of life, which may last for days, pleasant. What is important is how one considers these processes. They became bearable to us and grew into what they are in reality by seeing in them something enlightening. I believe if one holds thus point of view then in the consideration about euthanasia a poor suffering creature is included in this thought which in reality goes far beyond the limited earthly existence, that they can be included in the concept of existence altogether, and to mentoion Hippocrates once more and his period when one spoke or Logos and ordering understanding, I believe that the doctor can create the necessary scientific basis for euthanasia and the theologian can work it into his work and the lawyer and the state authority can give the doctor the opportunity to help human beings, including such miserable creatures.
Q Now, Witness, what was Hitler's point of view? Did he ask anything unmedical of you?
A No, he did not.
Q Do you know whether he know anything about the Extermination 14 F 13?
A I do not know whether he knew anything about that. I did not know this term earlier and I never heard it from him.
Q Then did he say anything to you in favor of extermination - anything that indicated that?
A No, he did not.
Q Do you believe that he knew what was going on?
A I do not believe that Himmler carried out these measures without Hitler's knowledge. It is my opinion that he know about it in same form. The question is whether he gave the orders or whether he gave hints so that Himmler carried them out in this form. The relationship between Himmler and Hitler may have been similar to that between Martin Bermann and Hitler. In that connection, it was certainly so that if Hitler made some statement in the course of conversation, Martin Bermann passed it on as an order from the Fuehrer. If Hitler perhaps said in conversation: "A man like Pastor Niemoeller can't be let out of a camp. Such people are to be treated in such and such a way" then Martin Bermann reported to Himmler that "Paster Niemoeller is to be kept in a concentration camp for the rest of his life". It is possible that Hitler and Himmler were in a similar relationship; that - I am basing this again on Martin Bermann - Hitler did not actually give an order but that he knew that Martin Bermann would pass on a statement of his in this form and, on the other hand, that Martin Bermann passed on an order or a statement which had the effect of an order.
Q Witness, must one not assume that both thoughts were united in Hitler's mind, Medical extermination and euthanasia, and that Hitler learned of them?
A This necessarily did not exist. Aside from the fact that I knew nothing about it, it was one of Hitler's characteristics - that events and plans and projects were kept so secret that actually only two people learned about them. I am thinking of Prince Philip of Hesse with whom he talked at the Fuehrer Headquarters. He had supper with him once and after supper he went out of the room and was arrested at the door. I am thinking of the beginning of the campaign in France. We left Berlin by train the night before toward Hamburg. Everything was arranged to go from there by ship to Norway. Even the officers of his entourage were not informed that there would be a war with France. At night near Lehrte on the way to Hamburg the train turned and went toward the west where the fighting had already begun. It was so with many measures. Then there was no reason that more men - the very smallest circle of people - would know about such measures. I can say that of the circles around Hitler one person did not discuss his tasks and assignments with others unless the Fuehrer himself felt it necessary or spoke about it.
Q Then you learned nothing through Adolph Hitler about the extermination matter?
A No.
Q As you consider the whole thing do you feel today that you are incriminated by euthanasia in any way?
A No. I do not feel that I am incriminated. I am convinced that what I did in this connection I can bear the responsibility for it before my conscience. I was motivated by absolutely humane feelings. I never had any other intentions. I never had any other belief than that these poor miserable creatures, that the painful lives of these creatures were to be shortened. The only thing that I regret in this connection is that external circircumstances brought it about that pain was inflicted on the relatives. But I am convinced that these relatives have overcome this sorrow today and that they themselves feel that their dead relatives were freed from suffering.
Q Mr. President, I have no further questions to put to the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal was informed at noon that the defendant Oberheuser desired to be excused at three o'clock for reasons of health. Does her counsel know whether that information is correct?
DR. SEIDL (for Oberheuser): I heard nothing about that.
THE PRESIDENT: If for reasons of her health the defendant Oberheuser desires to be excused at three o'clock from further attendance of the afternoon session of court she may be so excused. Counsel may obtain information whether such absence on account of her health is desired. If it is necessary shy may be excused. The Tribunal will now have a short recess.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
May it please Your Honors, the defendant Oberheuser has taken the permission that was granted prior to the recess and is now absent from the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: Let the record show that the defendant Oberheuser is absent with the permission of the Tribunal on account of illness.
Does any of the Defense Counsel desire to cross examine the witnessdefendant Karl Brandt?
EXAMINATION BY DR. MELTE (Counsel for defendant Handloser):
Q Witness, during your examination of yesterday, you cited the decree of the 28 July 1942. This is document, NO-080, in document book Number 1, on the strength of which you wore appointed Commissioner General for Health Matters and Generaloberstabarzt Handloser was appointed to the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service, and Dr. Conti received new authority. Did you participate in the origination of this decree?
A I explained yesterday that the decree resulted from the incidents which took place in the East during the winter campaign of 1941-1942.
Q Witness, I do not desire any repetition. I still remember that, and the Tribunal remembers it too with reference to what happened during the winter months of 1941 and why it was tho cause of these measures. I am mainly interested with reference to tho wording of the decree, where I am sure that you participated and which you got to know as it was originated. What conclusions can be drawn from tho wording with reference to the interpretation of the authority of tho individual participants? In my case, I am interested in the Defendant Professor Handloser. That is the reason I asked you whether you participated in the origination of this decree.
A I have seen this decree being composed, and I know the circumstances which led to it and individual sections. I know the difficulties with regard to competence which played a major part in this, but I have not taken part in its formulation.
Q For purposes of interpretation, it is more important that one experienced it. In a document which was not an evidential document but which was submitted to the Tribunal by General Taylor and which was basic information about the German Medical System, the Prosecution has stated that on the basis of a decree of 1942 Hitler appointed the defendant Handloser as Chief of the Medical Services of the Armed Forces. In this capacity, Handloser co-ordinated and supervised the activities of the Medical Services of all three branches of the Armed Forces, as well as the Waffen-SS. In this manner, he became supreme Health leader in the military field.
I am now asking you if that is a correct interpretation of the decree, the origination of which you experienced and the wording of which you know.
A No, it certainly is not the correct interpretation of the decree. The decree stated that the newly appointed chief of the Armed Forces Medical Service wanted a uniform control and work on the common tasks. But, surely no superior relationship conditions existed with regard to the chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service with the chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe, of the Navy, and of the Waffen-SS. It was likewise true with the units of the labor service, especially the difference with regard to the competence which prevented that if it had not been there, otherwise a corresponding relationship with a clear conception of thought would have existed.
Q In that case, there was no authority to give orders on the part of the chief of the Medical service of the Armed Forces?
A No, no military relationship with regard to issuing orders existed with the Wehrmacht chief Medical Service toward the Navy and Luftwaffe, and after all, the text is different from the formulation.
Q Words like "steering", "leading" are sometimes misleading, and you, yourself, have said that the purpose was to coordinate all of the tasks which applied to the Wehrmacht. Now, I want to ask you how that was actually achieved. How was the inclusion of this new office actually carried out in effect. Was any assistance necessary from all sides or how was it in reality?
A In reality, for the time being, it did not have any effect whatsoever as far as the chief of the Wehrmacht was concerned. I pointed out yesterday that Keitel was circumvented by the chiefs of the Luftwaffe and the Navy and so on. As a result of this the same thing, applied to the leadership of the Medical Services because the official status of the chief of the Wehrmacht was dependent on the chief of the Medical Service of the Wehrmachtn. It is also would have been the normal way to have a direct way to go to the centrally located chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service, and the further way to go to the directing agency. In order to represent common interest with regard to the fulfillment of the tasks, it is always difficult to define. It can also be explained and it was not mutual as far as medicine, Aviation medicine, which is a task of the chief of the Luftwaffe. Thus, like certain tasks of the Navy, in the medical field also were located with the then Raeder, but outside of the field of competence of the medical chief of the Wehrmacht.
Q According to the decree of 1942, the research system fell within the framework cf the mutual tasks?
AAs far as I know, research was not mentioned at all in the decree.
Q Do you know the size of the working staff of this new Chief?
A Yes, I knew it.
Q Was it large or was it small?
A It was very small, very few people.
Q During the presentation of the Prosecution case, no differentation was made between the decree of 1942 and the decree of 1944. The chief of the Medical Service of the Armed Forces is continually being mentioned. The impression may be created thereby as in 1944, that is on the 1st of September there was just a little unimportant organizational extension of an already existing agency. Would you please tell me what was the real reason which led to the extension of the jurisdiction of this chief?
A Of course, it was the requirements of that period. In the last phase of the war it became necessary to concentrate everything that was possible. On the other hand, it was necessary, and that may be the decisive part of this decree, that through this second decree of the chief of the Medical Service of 1944, this position was separated toward to other offices which Generaloberstabsarzt Handloser occupied as Army Medical Inspector.
Q With reference to this decree which was brought into effect in December 1944, were any effects visible?
A It did not have any practical effect any more because at this period of time the possibility of effect of any decree became practically nil. I believe that this was about 6 or 7 months prior to the end of the war. In any case, it could not have a decisive effect any more.
Q Would it net have been of important in that regard, that this very minimum of a staff, as you described it, was newly extended and had to be extended?
A It falls within the same frame work which I have just hinted. During that period of time such a measure of time was not possible any more. I personally experienced the development of that office beside my own office, and I know exactly the difficulties which arose at the time which made the fulfillment of their task impossible.
Q At what period of time was your office, Science and Research, practically put into effect?
A From approximately the middle of February 1944.
Q Do you know whether General oberstabsarzt Handloser belonged to the Reich Research Counsel?
A I know that he was not a member of it.
Q You knew Generalstabsarzt Schriber; do you not? You mentioned that he belonged to the Reich Research Counsel as a Plenipotentiary for combating epidemics. Was Schrieber in that capacity, subordinated to Generaloberstabsarzt Handloser?
A He was subordinate to Handloser. I said this morning that the members of the operation staff of the Reich Research Counsel were subordinated to Goering personally, and thus they could not be subordinated to anybody else.
Q Do you know that Generalstabsarzt Schrieber exercised a double function. And I am putting the question to you for the reason - because I want to knew whether Schriber had to report to Handloser in his capacity as Sanitary Inspector?
A I do not think so, I don't think he had to do that, and I don't think he did it.
Q Do you think he was allowed to do so?
A In my opinion, he would have then had to obtain the permission of Goering.
Q Very well, did you ever discuss experiments on human beings as they were carried out in concentration camps with Generaloberstabsarzt Handloser?
A No, I have not even hinted at them.
Q Professor Leibrandt at one time mentioned Doctor Bernhardt as an Oberfeldarzt of the Armed Forces, and in order to clarify this point, I want to ask you what control did Dr. Branhardt exercise.
What was he in relation to Handloser, and to the chief of the Armed Medical Service?
AAs far as I know Doctor Bernhardt, as far as the Lehrmacht was concerned, belonged to the Air Division at Muenster. He was a member of the Luftwaffe. He was from there assigned to a certain task or he was classified as essential. At least he was working in the agency of Doctor Conti in the Reich Ministry of Interior, and there took over the mental functions. I have never heard anything about it.
Q Some that in this case, there was no connection with the chief of the Medical Service?
A No.
DR. NELTE: Thank you. I have no further questions.
BY DR. PRIBILLA:
Q Witness, Brandt, you know the defendant Professor Restock, and have known him for some time?
A Yes.
Q Were you active on the same clinic as he was?
A Yes.
Q And you went with him to Berlin, and you were then the Oberstabsarzt in that clinic, actually exercising that position until the beginning of the war, yes?
A I did not exercise that position practically during the war, although I was at the clinic and continued my work there,
Q But, even before the war, you were already escort physician of the Fuehrer, and your duties were performed at the clinic in so far as your activities as escort physician to the Fuehrer permitted?
A Yes, that is from the beginning of the war in 1939.
Q The situation changed in as much as you were more or less permanently outside and only on occasions visited the clinic?
A Yes.
Q During that time from 1939 to 1943; did you frequently see Professor Rostock?
A No, I met him on occasions. During the first part oi the war he was always continually outside of Berlin, so that little personal contact between us existed.
Q Whenever you did met him, and that is from the time of 1939 to 1943, did you then inform him about your activities a.s escort physician to the Fuehrer?
A No, I did not inform him about any details.
Q Did you inform him about your other activities, for instance, in connection with the Euthanasia program?
A No. The only subject of which I informed him was in the preliminary work which was connected with the sick transport and other latter hospital facilities.
Q For what reason did you not inform him about your authority and activities which you exercised?
A That was in the fundamental part of the orders which I received, which I was not even able to state to Rostock in detail. It was necessary for me to keep this thing to myself and to only inform those who were immediately effected by them. That was a directive which we always strictly complied with, and which applied to all of those who were in the close circle around the Fuehrer.
Q If I understand you correctly, there was a concrete order to that effect, namely, to keep everything secret?
A Yes, secrecy by all means, yes.
Q And, you personally felt, yourself, obligated to carry out that order, even toward your acquaintances?
A Yes, naturally.
Q Now, through a decree of the 17 of August 1942; and that is Document 080, Exhibit No. 5, did you receive certain coordination tasks on the economic field between the civilian sector on one side and the military agencies on the other. You knew the decree?
A That is a decree which also simultaneously appointed me General Commissioner, yes.
Q And, that was in August 1942?
Q. In order to exorcise these tasks did you institute a new office?
A. Not in the beginning. At the beginning I exercised this activity from the Fuehrer's Headquarters and only had a mail connection with the Reich Chancellery, but then I did not have any further office.
Q. kith reference to this activity which started on the basis of the decree of 1942, did Rostock take over any official activity for you?
A. No.
Q. And then in September 1943 the second decree was issued, and that is Document 081, Exhibit No. 6. On the strength of this decree the co-ordination tasks were extended and you wore given the task of co-ordinating the various interests, that is, in the field of health services, and, as it states in the decree, you were to steer these matters according to directives or by way of directives. How could that have been understood, judging from your knowledge at that time?
A. I myself received certain directives and I had been given the authority by virtue of the same degree to appoint deputies with reference to Rostock, in the course of the subsequent time, on the occasion of the second decree, he took over the office for Science and Research again by virtue of the directive which I gave to him.
Q. You already previously stated a number of tasks which were taken over on the basis of this decree. I shall not revert to that once more. Later, in connection with the office of Rostock it will again be clarified. But I want to ask you very concretely whether, on the basis of this decree, there was any directive from which could be seen that you had to deal with research, that is create research assignments or research fields?
A. No, these were not concrete fields out in the beginning we were dealing with fundamental questions of the higher schools, which Rostock was to handle. That was the maintenance and continuance with regard'to students as well as with regard to teachers. Of these tasks there is perhaps one which I could name now --collaboration with the Office for Planning and Economy, which dealt with natters and saw that these supplies were set according to medical viewpoints. It was a fixed task for Rostock which arose from the office of Planning and Economy.
Q. Witness, if I understand you correctly, I can conclude from your answer that you were concerned with general questions but were not concerned with any concrete assignment of tasks in the field of research?
A. No, there were no concrete tasks in the field of research.
Q. You already mentioned, witness, that you chose Rostock because he was a scientist and you gave him the task in order to maintain scientific levels in Germany and you mentioned the differences with other agencies which you experienced. How did it come about that you managed to choose Professor Rostock as your collaborator? Was there any political intention, any tactical intention, in connection with that?
A. I selected Rostock because in my official position I wanted to have men to represent my two office groups who could certify to the outside that this was a medical office. I initially selected Rostock because he was a professor at the University and because I knew him; any political considerations did not play any part whatsoever. If they had played a part I would probably not have selected Rostock.
Q. Witness, my question was not quite answered. When I asked you whether you had any political reasons, then I could also have meant that you either wanted to choose a specially active representative of National Socialism or that you wanted the contrary.
A. In connection with Rostock there was no question of any political considerations. Rostock was a strictly non-political person. He did not pursue a political extreme in any way.
Q. I would like to frame my question even more concretely. When giving somebody this task, didn't you want to give it to some non-political personality in order to establish a counter-balance against Conti, etc?
A. This fact already resulted out of ay position because when I selected Rostock for this office of Science and Research I was already engaged in a severe struggle with the political exponent, Dr. Conti.
Q. And the line pursued by Conti was in contradiction to a scientific and medical purpose?
A. It had nothing whatsoever to do with it. These were two different worlds.
Q. The work in your department, Science and Research -- did that already start in December 19-5, or only later?
A. No, it practically began in February 1944, when this branch agency for this agency at Belitz was ready, so that we could both move in.
Q. It is correct that Professor Rostock, up until the end of the war, continued his activity as dean of the medical faculty and the leadership of the Surgical University Clinic in Berlin?
A. Yes.
Q. Isn't that in contradiction to the tasks which you had given him? Didn't you want him to remove himself completely from that activity?
A. No. I have already just stated that I had selected Rostock because he was dean of the medical faculty of the University of Berlin. I wanted to occupy my office with a clear exponent of the higher schools of learning so that this office would not be brought into a manner of acting as was the case with other political offices. I also wanted Rostock to continue directing his clinic. I have stated that I also remained in this clinic for the same reason, in order to clearly emphasize the medical aspect.
Q. So I may summarize that you approved the continuance of Rostock's activities right from the start?
A. Yes.
Q. For you, es Commissioner General for Medical and Health Services, were there other fields of work which were not included and worked upon by the Department of Science and Research and the other office?
A. Yes. For me there were decisive tasks which I had to handle myself and with which the just previously mentioned offices did not have anything to do.
Q. With reference to these tasks which were not included by these two just mentioned offices, but which you worked upon yourself, did the program Of the combatting of chemical warfare agents -- was this program included?
A. Yes, that also was included.
Q. Did you personally work on these Questions or did you have any collaborators?
A. Within the combatting of the chemical warfare agents I handled all these questions by myself. My collaborators were not From my office but they were from establishments which until then had occupied themselves with these problems. There were certain offices of the Speer Ministry and there were individual man from the proving grounds, there were responsible people from air raid precaution system, etc.
Q. You at least informed Rostock about thest tasks which you kept fop yourself?
A. I did not bother him with them because Rostock had so much to do With the clinic that I was glad when I could devote all my time to these other tasks. He did not receive any further information from me.
Q. Now if your were informed about one of these fields, and I am, for instance, thinking about the information given to you by Dr. Sievers about the results of experiments of Professor Hirt with reference to Lost damages, didn't you then inform Dr. Rostock about this question either?
A. No, I did not inform Rostock about that.
Q You received yet another authority and that was in March of you were to summarize medical questions within the Reich Research Counsel. Will you please oce more confirm that this was actually in March of 1945?
A It certainly was in the year 1945; it may be that it was in April when I received this decree, which was signed by Goering. In any case, in this connection I did not answer nor did I do anything else, because at that period of time Berlin was already located within the zone of operations.
Q Were your informed by Rostock, as the head of the Science Research, anything from which you could conclude that the office of Rostock received knowledge about experiments on human beings? Do you remember any such information coming to you?
A I had not received any information of that kind from Rostock, however, I am convinced that if he had had it himself, or if he had known anything at all about that, he would have informed me of that fact at that time. I want to conclude that he did not know anything at all about them. I did not discuss this problem with him and I have only, with regard to experiments, discussed the program of animals with him, which had been detailed and requested to him by some institute. In any case, we did not discuss any experiments on human beings.
Q Would it have been the duty of Rostock to inform you of such matters if he had come to know about them?
A He certainly would have informed me. It would also have been his duty to inform me ashe was my subordinate in this case.
Q And you can confirm that from the practice that when you collaborated in such a case, you would have been informed by him?
A I certainly would have been informed by him.
Q Thank you, I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Papers to the Secretary General.
DR. SEIDL: Counsel for the Defendants Gebhardt, Oberhauser and Fischer.
BY DR. SEIDL:
Q Witness, yesterday when you discussed the Sulfanilamide Experiments, you mentioned penicillin; what did you mean by that?
A I mentioned penicillin in order to express the fact that we, in Germany, in the years from 1941 to 1942 reconsidered Sulfanilamide as the therapeutical medicine, which was discussed wherever doctors assembled; similarly as on the other side the problem of penicillin was taken. I only meant to make a comparison in this way.
Q And on that occasion you mentioned Professor Krueger; is it correct that Professor Krueger was the consulting surgeon with the Army and Navy in Research?
A Professor Krueger was consultant physician with the Group South and Group Center in the East. I have at one time seen him in the vicinity of Posna and I had also visited him later on, He was problematical personality and from the very beginning he had decided himself for a certain Sulfanilamide drug at a period of time when the effectiveness of Sulfanilamide for prevention of injuries did not seem secure. For this reason, he was combatted in his opinions because it was believed that the younger medical officer depends too much on the effectiveness of Sulfanilamide and as a result of this might neglect the necessary treatment of the wounds.
Q Professor Krueger was then the representative of the groups, which attached a special importance to Sulfanilamide when combatting wound infections contrary to other groups, which were of another opinion?
A In contrast to others, yes. At the time, the opinions were still completely experimental and the effectiveness of Sulfanilamide had not as yet been determined.
Q Yesterday, you spoke about the difficult situation of the German troops in Russia during the winters of 1941 and 1942; will you agree with me when I say that in view of the experiences of that winter the question of the effect of Sulfanilamide was a military, medical problem of the first degree?