Q. You stated that information about the literature abroad was necessary At that time were there not a large number of medical publications in existence which dealt with articles and speeches?
A. Yes, that is correct, because a large number of medical journals had a certain department and in peace time the most important part of foreign literature was very carefully analyzed. I know this very well from my activity as editor of the Central Journal of Surgery and all the editors subscribed to the most important foreign journals. At the beginning of the war all of this changed. We were not allowed any more to subscribe to any foreign literature any more. Certain editions of the forcing scientific journals still came into Germany. However, they had to be treated as secret material and even if an editor was able to obtain such an edition through some other ways then he was not allowed to analyze it. That had been prohibited by the Ministry for propaganda. I considered this as unfeasible and I considered it nonsensical. For this reason in the year 1944 I began to organize such a secret information sheet.
Q. In March 1945 Karl Brandt was ordered to summarize medical research within the Reich Research Council. You know this decree, don't you?
A. Yes, I know it.
Q. Will you please confirm to me if the date of March 1945 is correct. That is several weeks before the end of the war?
A. Yes, that date is correct.
Q. Why was this instruction issued?
A. First of all in my opinion this decree indicates very clearly that Brandt did not have any influence on the Reich Research Council before this decree was issued.
Q. May I interrupt you? Then you did hot have any influence either?
A. No, I did not have any either. Then why this decree was issued in the very last phases of the war was probably caused by the fact that things were not functioning correctly any more even in this field. Perhaps people thought this condition changed by means of a piece of paper.
Q. Did this decree have any practical effect?
A. No, the decree arrived several days before our agency was moved from Belitz to Thuringia and it did not have any practical effect whatsoever.
Q. During your activity there was an institute like the Kaiser Wilhelm Society, there were several institutes here that were subordinated to you.
A. No, the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute was a society on a subordinate basis which is not exactly know to me. I have heard on one occasion that it was society of public law. I personally cannot even imagine anything under that title. This society was subordinate to the Reich Ministry of Education. How ever, I do not know any details as to what it's exact subordination was.
Q. This document has been presented here in some other connection, that is Document No. 1309, this is Prosecution Exhibit No. 326. It contains a file note about a discussion which took place between Dr. Blome and a certain Dr. Kliewe. The prosecution concluded from this that you were also informed about bacteriological warfare. Can you give us any statement on that subject? I believe that this letter is on the 23rd of February, 1944.
A. I have seen this file note for the first time in the documents here. My name has not been mentioned in the document and I did not attend this discussion. I have previously never heard anything about the working committee, "Blitzableiter". I do not exactly know what that name was. I only know the following about pathological warfare: That Generaloberstabsarzt Handloser, in my capacity then as his consultant surgeon, ordered me to attend a meeting and probably because the invitation stated something about cancer research and perhaps because he wanted me to utilize my specialist knowledge in that field in the course of the meeting. Generaloberstabsarzt Handloser gave us detailed information about his conversation with Professor Blome and it is probably sufficient if I confirm that the meeting actually took the same course as has been described here. It was interrupted without having achieved any results whatsoever and I personally have never again of this meeting at a later period of time.
Q. I request that you state quite briefly what subjects were dealth with during that meeting. When did this meeting take place?
A. I do not know the exact date any more but it must have been in the spring or summer of 1943, and the following persons were present:
Blome, Handloser, a veterinary general from the Veterinary Inspection, and perhaps one or two other men whose names I do not remember any more. Blome stated that he had received instructions by the Reich Marshal to deal with pathological warfare some way and he was trying to receive information on the people who were connected with the armed forces, and Generaloberstabsarzt Handloser first asked him if he was able to show any written instructions because he had received the strictest orders that on the part of Germany no preparations at all were to be made in this field and that he was unable to give any infor mation without first having received the authority to do so by his military superiors. Since he had not received this authority and since he was unable to say what the meeting would deal with, he was unable to give any information or furnish any documents at this time, and then Veterinary General Richter said exactly the same thing. The meeting came to a conclusion after a relatively very short period of time.
Q. And later on the subject never came to your ears again?
A. No, I never heard of it again.
Q. The indictment brings you into contact and charges you with the responsibility for malaria experiments which were carried out in the Concentration Camp Dachau. What can you state in connection with that?
A. I do not know on what the Prosecution supports itself. I have found out in the course of the trial that the order for such exper iments was issued in February 1942 by Himmler. At that time I was consulting surgeon with the Army at the front. I have never had an contact whatsoever with Himmler and I did not know Schilling. I had not worked on the experiments and I Lave never been at Dachau. I have only board of all these experiments from the publications of the press and that was long after the capitulation.
Q. Now the Prosecution has brought you into connection with still another matter and that is with the polygal experiments. As far as I can see the only basis for it is a certain place on the Siever' diary. This is Document PS-3546, Prosecution Exhibit 123. On page 152 of this diary Sievers has written the following: That on the first of June 1944 he has answered any inquiry from you on the subject of Polygal. What kind of an inquiry was that?
A. At the beginning of the year 1944 in the Munich Medical Weekly Journal an article had appeared which reported a new blood clotting drug on the basis of pectin. We already had discussed such a drug on the pectin basis: pectin is a vegetable matter, we bad alread y such a drug, that was sangostop. However, this drug was not satisfactory in every respect and, of course, as a surgeon I was naturally interested. And, therefore, I wrote to the author of this article. I requested him to send me several samples. I did not write Sievers, because he was completely unknown to me at that time but I wrote to the author whose name I had soon in the publication the Munich Weekly Medical Journal. And, of course, I did not over know that this person passed or the letter to Sievers. I do not remember quite exactly If I ever did receive those samples. In any * I never used them and it is quite probable that I never received them. However, I cannot say that with absolute certainty.
Q. You stated that you did not know Sievers.
A. No. I did not know him at that time.
Q. However, it has been stated here in the course of the trial that Sievers on one occasion visited Karl Brandt in order to inform him about the lost experiments by Professor Hirt. This is Document NO-372, Prosecution Exhibit 252. Were you also informed at that time or did you find out anything about it?
A. I did not see Sievers at that time end I did not see the repo rt that time either. The report came into my hands for the first at that time either. The report came into my hands for the first time here and it belongs to the complex of preventative measures against chemical warfare agents. I did not deal with this matter it was dealth with by Brandt personally.
Q. The Prosecution further brings you into connection with the experiments about making seawater drinkable, experiments involved this case which were carried out in the year 1944. At that time you were already in the office for Science and Research. Did the Luftwaffe where the experiments were carried out inform you before the assignments were issued authorizing this research?
A. No. They failed to do so.
Q. Were you informed of this research assignment within the from work of the notification which you received subsequently for your card index file?
A. That in itself might be quite possible. However, I do not think this was the case because Becker-Freyseng has stated here in this affidavit that this was not a research assignment but it was an off icial order by the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe to a subordinate to medical officer. And, of course, such orders would not co* to my knowledge.
Q. Therefe *, it is not certain if this assignment was include in your card index file?
A. No.
Q. Do you know any details about these experiments. Did you your occupy yourself with planning or the execution of these experiment at that time?
A. I did not have anything to do with the planning or execution.
Q. You remember this personally?
A. Yes. I know that. Furthermore, a document has been presented here which contains the record of two preliminary discussions. I do not know the document number.
Q. That is document NO-177. I shall give you the exhibit number in a minute.
A. And this record indicates that I did not have anything to do with it and the distributions shows that it was not sent to me either.
Q. And you had no knowledge of it whatsoever?
A. No.
Q. May it please the Tribunal, I shall give you the exhibit number after the recess.
With regards to the hepatitis experiments which have been mentioned here, the Prosecution has presented a document which is NO010. It is Prosecution Exhibit 187. It has been concluded from the letter that Harl Brandt approached the Reich Physician-SS Grawit in order to carry out experiments on human beings with regard hepatitis. Do you know anything about this occurance?
No. I have seen this document here for the very first time and at the time Brandt has never told me anything whatsoever about it. About the hepatitis experiments - no. I do not know anything about that either.
Q. The hepatitis experiments were carried out by Professor Haagen at Strasbourg. Didn't you know anything about the issuance of a research assignment on hepatitis to Professor Haagen or did you * any active part in it?
A. I have seen here from the files that this assignment is from June 1943 and that it was issued by the Reich Research Council. In June 1943 I did not have anything to do with the Reich Research Council and I was not even a member of it as representative of Presidial Council.
And, I did not find out anything at all about those experiments until a later period of time.
Q. Haagen had another assignment from the Reich Research Council, that was working with regards to typhus. Did you have any thing to do with that?
A. There research assignments were from the year 1942-43 and I have only found out about them here, and they originated with the Reich Research Council and the Luftwaffe. And the same applied to them with what I have just stated with regard to hepatitis with reference to the date.
Q. On the occasion of the interrogation of the witness, Eyre, it was mentioned here that you also engaged in correspondence with Professor Haagen at Strasbourg. He witness was unable to state what this correspondence dealth with. However she said she could remember seeing your name on one of the letters. What did this corr espondence deal with?
A. Of course, I cannot remember every letter that I have written several yours ago but I know Haagen as an expert on virus diseases And, when in the winter of 1944 the question confronted us, that perhaps in the spring of 1945, we would be confronted by an influen zal epidemic on a large scale, then I approached large number of experts, and that included Haagen, and I requested them to make suggestion of what preventative measures could be taken against such an epidemic and, if I remember the correctly Fraulein Eyre has also testified here that she could remember the contents of that correspondence. At least that is what I noted.
Presidial Council. And, I did not find out anything at all about these experiments until a later period of time.
Q. Haagen had another assignment from the Reich Research Council, that was working with regards to typhus. Did you have thing to do with that?
A. These research assignments were from the year 1942-43 and I have only found out about them here, and they originated with t** Reich Research Council and the Luftwaffe. And the same applied to them with what I have just stated with regard to hepatitis with reference to the date.
Q. On the occasion of the interrogation of the witness, Eyre it was mentioned here that you also engaged in correspondence w** Professor Haagen at Strasbourg. The witness was unable to state what this correspondence dealth with. However she said she could remember seeing your name on one of the letters. What did this corr espondence deal with?
A. Of course, I cannot remember every letter that I have written several years ago but I know Haagen as an expert on virus disease And, when in the winter of 1944 the question confronted us, that perhaps in the spring of 1945, we would be confronted by an influen zal epidemic on a large scale, then I approached large number of experts, and that included Haagen, and I requested them to me suggestion of what preventative measures could be taken against such an epidemic and, if I remember correctly Fraulein Eyre has also testified here that she could remember the contents of this correspondence. At least that I noted.
Q. In the course of the trial a report has been presented which the previous mentioned Professor Haagen wrote at Strasbourg and which deals with typhus.
Do you remember that Document?
A. Yes, I can remember it.
Q. It is Document NO-138, Prosecution Exhibit 300. What kind of report is it
A. From the correspondence with Dr. Breuer, which was presented at the same time, it is indicated that it is a report, as it was contained in the printed publications by the Reich Research Counsel, which I have previously discussed.
Q. Did you read these reports from the Reich Research Counsel? Do you remember if you have seen this report by Professor Haagen at an earlier period of time?
A That is quite possible but it certainly did not draw any special attention on my part because then it would probably have remained in my memory.
Q. Have you been able to study this report more closely here?
A. Yes, I have studied it very closely.
Q. According to the knowledge which you have at his time, can you deduct from this report that illegal experiments on human beings formed the basis for it?
A. No, I cannot do that, even though I know the subject of this trial.
Q. This report speaks of the production of a living typhus vaccine. Can one not become suspicious from that expression?
A. No, not at all. Numerous virus vaccines contained an active virus, which has been weakened, and this perhaps could be best explained in the general well-known example of smallpox vaccination, because smallpox is also a virus disease. If a human being is to be protected from the danger of becoming infected with smallpox, then the person is innoculated with a weakened active virus. All of us, probably, on our upper arms, have the marks of a very slight smallpox infection which was imposed on us during our youth; during this light smallpox infection, adjoining the vaccination, then the body forms a protection reaction, which will counteract any danger of an infection to which the person might be exposed later on. Not exactly like it, but in a similar way, is the state of affairs with typhus, because it is also a virus disease.
Q. However, there is still another place in this report where it is stated the effects of this vaccine had been tested on 8 persons.
A. In order to use a word which has been mentioned in the course of the trial, that is nothing criminal if a number of people are vaccinated against spotted typhus as is done in every army when troops are to be used in an endangered area; then after a certain period of time an agglutination reaction can be produced. This can be done with a drop of blood which may be taken from the ear or the finger and with this reaction it can be determined how much of an immunity has been obtained with the various people. For example, it can be concluded from it if one or the other person has to be immunized again and the effect of the immunization can actually be determined in numbers. From these subsequent tests Haagen reported with reference to the dry vaccine which he had newly developed and, in my opinion, an expert cannot draw any conclusion that anything illegal was connected with this report.
Q. Now the prosecution has assumed that a physician like yourself, who held such a high position in Germany, even if he did not have any knowledge of crimes in detail, still participated in a conspiracy to commit criminal experiments because, in the medical scientific field, he was working together with other agencies, especially when such things were done by other agencies. Now I want to ask you whether such a connection with other agencies existed which would justify this assumption?
A. The indictment mentions a conspiracy on several occasions. I do not know the jurist definition of the word conspiracy but on the basis of human common sense I can state the following: Under the again and emphasized arbitrary and purposeful uniform concept of coordination always shown to the outside, exactly the opposite of coordination existed and exactly the opposite of a collaboration existed. This referred to big, important questions and also to what the world knows as cirelle allemende. This referred to whole a agencies and it also referred to individual subjects and persons and persons on the outside can hardly gain a proper impression in imagination of that subject. In any case, no conspiracy was involved; there was no trace of such a conspiracy.
Q. From the trial you know at this time the various points of the indictment with which you are being brought into connection.
Now, in conclusion, do you have any remarks to make with regard to the form of the accusations?
A. As a scientist I am used, to examining material on hand professionally and without any passion, regardless of my person, and I have done exactly the same thing in this connection. From the composition of the individual points of the indictment I believe that the power conditions and the struggles for power as they existed in Germany during the war, have not been taken into consideration. Towards the end of the year 1943 the disintegration of the organization in Germany as a result of the effects of the war, had already progressed very far. The individual agencies had fortified their positions of power and now they avoided, to a very large extent, the influence of other agencies. The State Leadership tried, because of the difficulties which were accumulating, to achieve an improvement by establishing new agencies. Thus the position of the Reich Commissioner for Health and Medical Service was only one of a large number of such attempts. On the other hand, however, the suspicion of the supreme state leadership was so great that a really effective new organization could not be achieved. Even my unofficial activity with the help of several assistants and a very small field of competence, as Lammers has explained, it here, was neither in accordance with the desire of the state leadership now was it suitable, with the budget which had been furnished to us, to do more than what I have previously described as my attempts. In the field of special research I did not have any supervisory capacity towards other agencies or authorities. I believe that everybody will be able to confirm that.
Where everybody is not exactly acquainted with the conditions that prevailed in Germany during the war -- and that is also for the Prosecution it is very difficult to obtain a clear picture of who was really responsible.
I hope that I have succeeded in showing what actually existed, behind the high-sounding title of the Office for Science and Research and that it did not have the tasks and did not have the knowledge which is ascribed to it by the Prosecution. My office was not the type of office which was able to give orders in the field, of medical research an assumption which has been made here several times by the judges that the procedure was followed as the Prosecution has described it.
I have often asked myself if I, in my position in the year 1944, could have and should have recognized this, because I did not know about it. That I hope I have clarified through my testimony. But everything that is a subject if the accusation here, that has taken place behind the locked gates of the concentration camps. I have never found out about wh** went on there and if I had tried to gain insight into what was going on behind those walls, then I would not have succeeded in doing so.
It was absolutely impossible for those outside to lock through them. Until the year 1945, I did not talk to any person who had ever been in a concentration camp and thus the things that happened there were hidden from me.
I regret very much that I do not have all my files available here, so that I could give still more exact and detailed information in order to give a clearer insight. However, I hope that my closer collaborators, who will appear hero as witnesses, will be able to give further information which might be desired.
DR. PRIBILLA: May it please the Tribunal, I do not have any further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess.
(A recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
BY DR. PRIBILLA:
Q I have to add something in view of the documents I did not submit before. This document is No. 177, and which will be Exhibit 133.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any of the Defense Counsel desire to cross examine this witness?
BY DR. FLEMMING: (Counsel for the defendant Mrugowsky).
Q Professor, where did you know Mrugowsky from?
A I knew him as a member of the Medical Faculty in Berlin.
Q Were you the Dean of that Faculty?
A Yes.
Q Was this a close acquaintanceship with Mrugowsky?
A No, not at all.
Q With reference to the appointment of Mrugowsky as a professor, can that be based on any intervention of any party or SS agency or did any such agency influence his appointment in any way?
A No, no such influence was persued. After Mrugowsky had been dean for about five years, he was appointed professor through the ordinary office for Hygiene in Berlin, as a professor, and was suggested as such before the Board. The faculty had confirmed on that suggestion, and then passed the suggestion on to the Ministry. This was the channel used.
Q That is, no influence was exercised by any SS or party agency?
A No, no such influence was persued.
Q Did you ever get into contact with Mrugowsky in any other capacity as Dean of the Medical Faculty in Berlin?
A I had nothing also to do with him.
Q Repeatedly the gangrene diseases were mentioned here during the last war. Can you say anything about the frequency and the danger of gangrene?
A Gangrene, next to tetanus is the most dangerous infection. The frequency changed according to the battle field and the frequency also changed according to the nature of the wound. If it is merely a shot of an infantry rifle, it is not so dangerous. However if it is a grenade wound it is mere dangerous, and I think you can judge the frequency something like under one percent of the wounded.
Q Were there many fatalities and amputations in the case of gangrene?
A Yes, whenever gangrene started, the mortality was very high. That varied according to the three groups of virus, so one could say it was approximately fifty percent.
Q Under these circumstances, was the creation of a vaccine against such gangrene of the utmost importance to tho military?
A Of course, it was of military importance but I would say that the medical and humane importance was even greater.
Q Well, in this case, it was very important?
A Yes.
DR. FLEMING: I have no further questions?
BY DR. MARX: (Counsel for the defendant, Professor, Doctor Schroeder.)
Q Witness, you stated during the direct examination by your defense counsel how the situation was in Germany during the war, and how the so-called research assignments came about?
A Yes.
Q Did I understand you correctly when you said that tho research works of the civilian institutes endeavored to receive such research assignments in order to safe guard the continuance of their research work; that is, from a material, and financial, and personal point of view, in view of the difficulties of war. That is my question?
A Yes, that is true.
Q Do you know, Witness, whether the prerequisite for the issuance of such an assignment is generally applicable, that is to say, that as a rule the research worker, himself, demanded such a research assignment?
A I am sure that was true in most cases.
Q From that, one can conclude, therefore, that the research worker, with the help of such assignments could continue his research work, and especially in the field in which he had worked previously? Naturally, I can see individual questions which arose because of the war.
A Yes, that was true.
Q In that case, were these research assignments, as a rule, sent to specialist in the various research fields, who had special knowledge for any individual questions which came up?
A Yes, that was true.
Q These research workers were experts in their fields, were they not?
A Yes, it must be that way. I cannot imagine that a research assignment given to a person who had no idea about the subject.
Q Those agencies who issued these research assignments, did they have a supervisory duty over the research workers who exercised this function?
A I do not know any regulation of that sort, and I am of the opinion that the research worker is responsible for the manner in which he deals with the assignment which has been given to him.
Q Yes, but wow he really responsible? He must have been responsible to the civilian supervisory agency?
A Yes.
Q Well, let us assume a special case, one man was the director of the Hygiene Institute and in this capacity he received a research assignment; then, of course, he would subordinate it to the dean of tho respective university or to the rooter of that university or to the lecture of that university.
AA rector or a dean had no such supervisory rights over those institutions, but the director of the Hygienic Institute was subordinated to his Ministry; maybe the Bavarian Ministry, the Wirtemberg Ministry, or the Prussian Ministry, for this tiral has show he has a penal responsibility.
Q How about the disciplinary responsibility?
A It was with the respective county ministries.
DR. MARY: Well I have no further questions.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. DAERR (Counsel for defendant Poppendick):
Q. Professor, you have had extensive experiences and theoretical knowledge in surgery. I should like to put to you the following questions which are in relation to treatment with hormones which Dr. Vernet was supposed to have performed on persons in the concentration camp Buchenwald. Do you know of any publications in medical literature which have something to do with the implantation of hormone crystals or hormone tablets in human beings?
A. There are a number of such publications. I remember a summary and description in a Swiss medical periodical. I think it appeared in the year of 1944. I cannot remember the name of the author at the moment. There the physiological basis and the technical execution were described.
Q. In the case of the implantation of hormone tablets were we concerned with a method which has to be taken seriously, scientifically speaking?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you say who at first introduced this method into medical practice?
A. According to my opinion this method originated from the USA. At the moment I don't know the name but if I remember correctly - I'm afraid I don't know the name by heart any longer.
Q. If I were to give you the name, would you be able to remember then?
A. Perhaps. I don't know.
Q. Do you know the American research recorder Vest?
A. Vest, yes, that's right.
Q. Do you know that the implantation of hormones can also be described as an artificial gland in the international medical literature?
A. Yes.
Q. I ask you now as an expert on surgical questions to give your opinion about the manner in which the implantation of hormone crystals or hormone tablets was performed and about the danger which is connected with that.
A. First anesthetics are given and on the skin of the stomach or thigh a little incision is made. Then this little tablet within which the hormone is concentrated is taken up with a little pincer and inserted into the tissue.
Then the pincer is taken out end this little opening is sewed up. But you asked me about the danger, didn't you?
Q. Yes.
A. You cannot call it a dangerous operation, no more dangerous than any ordinary puncture, and it occurs every day in many thousands of cases, nor can you call it any gore dangerous than any intramuscular injection of any drug. I don't know whether that is satisfactory.
Q. Yes, that is quite sufficient, thank you.
DR. DAERR: I have no further questions.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. FRITZ (Counsel for defendant Rose):
Q. Professor, do you know the defendant Professor Rose? And frog where do you know him?
A. I know Rose else as a member of the medical faculty at Berlin and, in addition, he belonged to these prominent German tropical hygienists whom you can count on the fingers of your hand.
Q. Before the collapse, did you ever speak to him about any one of the counts as laid down by the prosecution, or did you get into contact with him in any other form, directly or indirectly?
A. No, we never spoke about the case. I had hardly any relationships to tropical hygiene. Whenever we met anywhere, we merely said hello but that was all.
Q. When Professor Handloser was on the witness stand, I put a number of questions to him about the position of consulting specialist with the medical inspectorates of the Wehrmacht branches. You heard the answers of Professor Handloser?
A. Yes.
Q. You yourself during some part of the war were consulting surgeon with the army medical inspector, weren't you?
A. Yes.
Q. In accordance with that, can you confirm in the essential parts the answers which were given to me by Professor Handloser?
A. I do not remember the exact wording any longer but I have not noticed that any wrong description was given.
Q. First of all, can you confirm it that the consulting Physician with the medical inspector was in no way the superior of his expert colleagues at the intermediate instances?
A. No, certainly not.
Q. Can you confirm, Professor, that he did not have the right or the duty to exercise official supervision ever any other medical experts and over any of the research assignments which they had taken over?
A. He was not the superior and in accordance with the testimony of Generalarzt Hartloben it can be seen that he had no official supervision whatsoever. He had his own superior. In that case it was the inspector, and it was his duty to advise him but that was all.
DR. FRITZ: Thank you. I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any further cross examination of this witness by defense counsel? There being none, the prosecution may cross examine.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. MC HANEY:
Q. Herr Professor, there will be occasions during the examination when you will feel that you have already answered the question, and I will ask you to bear with us on this point for two reasons. Firstly, the interpretation of your statements on direct examination of course was not as lucid as the statements you made in German; secondly, neither I nor the Tribunal have had an opportunity to read the transcript of yesterday's interrogation by your own defense counsel.
Firstly, I would like to out a few questions to you in relation to the subject brought up by Dr. Marx, defense counsel for Schroeder. You were dean of the medical faculty in Berlin University, were you not?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. And the defendants Mrugowsky and Rose were also members of the medical faculty of the Berlin University, were they not?
A. Yes.
Q. You do not for that reason take the responsibility for the activities of Rose and Mrugowsky, do you?
A. No, not at all.
Q. And if Rose and Mrugowsky were assigned experimental research tasks by one or the other branches of the Wehrmacht, it's not your responsibility how they carried out those research tasks, is it?
A. No. If one could speak about any responsibility of a dean, it could only refer to the lecturing activities of these gentlemen; that is, with reference to whatever he read during his lecture. But I must honestly say I have no information at all about the penal, legal side of this matter. Some thing like that never occurred during ay three years activity as a dean. But I cannot imagine that a dean who has about 370 lecturers under him in Berlin should be responsible for every ward and every deed which any one of these 370 gentlemen may have spoked or done during their activities. I cannot imagine that.
Q. Herr Professor, you mentioned this lecture which you gave to the consulting physicians on the chemo-therapeutic treatment of wound infection. You gave that lecture at the meeting of May 1942, did you not?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. You were considered something of an expert in this field, weren't you?
A. As far as a surgeon can be an expert about any treatment of wounds.
Q. Do you swear that you had no contact with Gebhardt or any of his associates concerning the sulfanilimide experiments carried out by him prior to the meeting in May 1943?
A. I heard about these experiments for the first time when Gebhardt and Fischer spoke and held that lecture during that meeting in 1943.
Q. It was clear from Gebhardt's and Fischer's speeches, was it not, that the experiments had been conducted by artificially infecting the experimental subjects?
A. Yes.
Q. How many subjects were used for these experiments? Could you tell from the report by Gebhardt and Fischer?