For example, he was doing virus work. Take Dr. Hagen, just by way of example. As I understood your testimony, you stated that the Reich Research Council, for example, would send you a sheet on which Hagen's name would appear, the place where he was working, which would be Strassbourg, the field of research, which would be virus study, and I thought you also mentioned that a priority number might also be listed. So, in fact all you received was statistical information. Now I am trying to find out just exactly how you expected to use that information and what you did with it, and I am having difficulty understanding that with this mere statistical information you had anything to persuade the Armament Ministry that it should foreclose further research in the field of chemical warfare. There is just no argument to be sucked out of these names and fields of research to show whether or not ...
A. May I again describe hypothetically what would have happened if only somebody that wanted assistants approached me. If somebody was doing well he didn't approach me. He could manage himself. Supposing Mr. Haagen did not get assistants, or if that assistant was withdrawn from him in his research work, then probably he would have tried everything that was possible to maintain this work. He would have turned to the Research Council. Since he received an order from the Luftwaffe, he would have turned to the Luftwaffe, and according to the good old principle that it is better to have more irons in the fire than only one, he would have approached me too.
Now, if I had been convinced that this research work carried on by Haagen was important, then probably I first would have asked him to describe exactly what he was doing. And if this information had been satisfactory for me, then I would have telephoned the respective agency or would have written them a letter, and I mean the a ency which caused this stop, and I would have tried to explain to them why I thought it was advisable for him to carry on this research work. And in order to do that at first I had to have some kind of a material basis. But, as I said before, all of this could only have been done if, from the outside, somebody had brought these things to my attention, and I can perhaps explain that, using the case of this physicist, and you were so surprised about it.
That's how it was. I visited a surgeon in Freiburg whom I knew. That was purely because of surgical interests. During the evening I saw the rector of that university there as well as the physicist, and they told me about it. And, since I realized that this was a case of emergency I tried to do something about it. To my shame I have to admit that up to that evening I didn't know of the project that he had in mind, and I could not even imagine that such a project was at all possible or likely. It was a mere accident that brought this fact to my attention, and since I thought that this was an important matter I tried to help. That is just one of the problems we had to cope with in Germany by way of improvisations It wasn't at all that I took this out from a number of reports. For instance if I had not gone to Freiburg that time I would never have found out about
Q. Well, where does all this leave us with respect to the purpose in having these special research assignments reported to you, and where does it leave us with respect to the use that you made of this information?
A. I don't know. I personally believe that I just told you for what purpose I wanted this information. In order to picture it more clearly I couldn't possibly go through every card index and control every experiment. I think I made that clear, and I want to repeat again that for the entire field I had four assistants and three girls, and you ask your secretaries how large the work of the secretary really is. I think we, who are used to dictating, sometimes underestimate the work of a secretary.
Q. Now, do you mean to say that you had these special assignments reported to you and you made a file of them just on the off chance that the Armament Ministry would close down research work by this or that man, whereupon you expected that man to come to you and you would then gain information about exactly what he was doing and would then take up his case with the Armament Ministry; is that the right picture?
A. Yes, that is approximately right, and another purpose was to toll the gentlemen in the Armament Ministry, "Look here, here I have a box of files. This is all contained in there and please have enough confidence in me that I eliminated everything which was superfluous on the basis of my knowledge." And again and again I have to say that in every case the economic considerations were of importance. Nobody can in any way prevent any mental activity.
Q. Now Professor, if you wore going to make any representation to the Armament Ministry that this box of files represents urgent special assignments in the field of research and that you have weeded out all the non-urgent assignments, and hence they should continue to support these urgent assignments, I put it to you that you would have to have a pretty good knowledge of what those scientists were doing in their field before you could make any representation to the Armament Ministry that their work was important and was urgent.
I submit to you that to classify urgency in broad fields means next to nothing. The important thing is the caliber of the person doing the work, his ability, and the particular problem within the broad field on which he is working. Am I incorrect?
A. I don't know whether the translation was very exact. May I perhaps repeat it in such a manner? I only knew that a certain gentleman located in a certain town was working on a certain research assignment. Now, what he did in detail I certainly did not know because on this card index it only said -- well, I can give you the examples as they are contained in Document NO-691. That's all I know -- no more. And when yesterday I mentioned Galvan narcotic, as it was taken from that document, then in no way at all did I know in what manner this gentleman was working on his research, not at all.
Q. Well, Professor, you will go along with me though in the thought that this little card that had his name and too place he was working and the field of virus research was perfectly useless information insofar as dealing with the Armament Ministry or anybody else, wasn't it?
A. I don't think I understood you correctly. Do you mean that my relationship to the Armament Ministry with regard to virus was without effect?
Q. No, I mean that simply having information giving a man's name, the place where he is working, and the field of scientific endeavor is information which is useless without more, in dealing with the Armament Ministry, if they threaten his field of work?
A. Perhaps useless is too hard a word in that connection. If serious discussions were arrived at in any one case I certainly would have tried to gain more knowledge on that subject, which was at that time the subject of discussion. That is natural. I ask you to take into consideration that you cannot start an immense amount of paper work, particularly considering the amount of people I had at my disposal. One has to start from the beginning. It certainly wasn't useless, but it was neither very effective. It was just the beginning of an activity slowly working in.
Q. Did the occasion ever arise where you had to, for one reason or another, gain detailed knowledge about what this or that scientist was doing?
A. I mentioned the research about penicillin at Darmstadt. That was the same thing. There are other examples where I gained a little more knowledge, where I tried to find out more about it.
Q. You testified that Karl Brandt was told by Hitler in Himmler's presence that he had no jurisdiction over SS research; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Why is it that Karl Brandt didn't tell us about this rather significant conversation when he was on the stand?
A. I believe it was mentioned here. I believe I remember that it was.
Q. Well, your memory on that point is better than mine, although I won't say that you are wrong. You discussed with your attorney this morning -
A. I cannot swear to it that it was said here, but I seem to remember -- perhaps Dr. Servatius can confirm it.
Q. You discussed with your attorney this morning Document NO-138which is Prosecution Exhibit 300, and you will recall that is a letter by Dr. Haagen to the Reich Research Council enclosing reports on his work with epidemic influenza, spotted fever; that is, typhus, and yellow fever?
A. Yes.
Q. And you were asked some questions regarding the short report on typhus, and you expressed the opinion that there was nothing in this little report which would give rise to any suspicion that improper experiments were being carried out. What do you have to say about the last sentence of the typhus report, where it says, "The anti-infectious effect of dry vaccine will be further experimented on human beings."?
A. I have stated that a vaccine is a material which should create an immunity in the human body and I explained that on handovac dry vaccines. further stated that, in the case of typhus, the degree of immunity arrived by vaccination can be found out by a very relative test of the blood. Hagen tried to test his dry vaccine in its effectiveness on the immunity. That is what I reported. I'm not an immunity expert, I'm only a surgeon, but that what I gained from this report. Perhaps you could submit it to an expert. Maybe he will read some more from it but I still understand today, although I know the subject of the trial, I still today am of the point of view that from these words of Haagen you cannot conclude that he tried to carry out a non-scientific experiments.
Q. Well, is "anti-infectious effect" the same thing as you describe an "immunity effect"?
A. Yes, yes.
Q. Well, do I understand from your statements that it is possible to determine the effectiveness of a typhus vaccine in combatting typhus through the use of this simple blood test?
A. Whether that is possible only by this method is something I should like you to ask an expert. As I said before, in a personal conversation I could give my opinion on it but this apparently is a question which should directed to an expert physician and, since I am under oath, I should like to ask somebody who is more of an expert than I am, a man who is a research worker in immunity and not a surgeon. I only mentioned this example in ** to demonstrate that I, as a surgeon, through whose eyes I read this paper, no objection to it.
Q. Well, Professor, you've been treated pretty much as an expert in lot of fields by both the prosecution and the defense and I am sure that Dr. Flemming and the defendant Mrugowsky will show very keen interest in your opinion about the necessity of those Buchenwald experiments, particularly if you are prepared to say that in your personal opinion they could have tested these vaccines by this simple blood test and could have avoided artificially infecting the experimental subjects.
A. As far as I remember, Dr. Flemming asked me about a surgical problem namely, the gangrene question, which is a wound infection, and I think that I understand something on that field end I can be called an expert. As a physician, of course, I understand something about typhus - that is a matter of course. But I cannot testify about it as an expert witness before this Tribunal and I wouldn't like to call myself an expert on typhus questions. If I were to make a statement here, quite rightly an expert could come here and say I was interfering with matters which I had nothing to do with and you will understand that a scientist does not want to be told a thing like that, and I believe that the same applies to law. It often happens that a man versed in penal law doesn't know very much about patents.
Q. I take it you prefer not to express an opinion on that subject the Professor, the prosecution has out in Document NO-1620, which was Prosecution Exhibit 449, for identification. You will recall that this letter was put the defendant Brandt and it was a letter from Grawitz to Himmler, stating that Professor Brandt had approached him with the request to test a new ointment for treatment of phosphorous burns, which was still in the experimental stage, and Grawitz proposed testing this ointment on concentration camp inmates. This letter is dated 30 September 1943, which of curse is only 25 days after the second Fuehrer decree. Did you know about this subject?
A. I didn't know anything about the letter. This ointment of this drug factory I know. I think it could be bought at various drug stores in Berlin and we often used it in the case of burned injuries in Berlin. But we never found out anything about any superiority of this ointment in relation to any other ointments. We naturally used it. I don't know whether you can imagine what it means when any large city was attacked and then had to keep on living and working and in that case one is always glad to have an ointment available, no matter whether it was the most effective or not, and that is the reason we used this ointment.
Whether this was used in other places I don't know today.
Q. Well, doctor, the question I want to put to you is whether you knew that Brandt had gone to Grawitz and asked him to test this drug, whether on concentration camp inmates or otherwise.
A. No, I didn't know that.
Q. Do you know whether Brandt, or did you, receive a report from Grawitz on these tests?
A. Grawitz to me?
Q. Grawitz to you or Grawitz to Brandt.
A. I don't know anything about Grawitz to Brandt. I cannot remember that Grawitz sent a report and, considering our entire relationship and - I mean, of Grawitz to me - I think it is highly improbable that it ever occur.
Q. Well, you would remember that if Grawitz sent you a report about experiments he had carried out on concentration camp inmates with phosphorous burns to test this drug, wouldn't you?
A. I cannot remember any such report.
Q. Well, can you state, therefore, that you are sure you didn't receive one?
A. I cannot say that for sure but I did not retain it in my memory at any rate.
Q. You probably remember Document NO-154, which was Prosecution Exhibit 446 for identification, concerning a conference or a report, rather, on experiments concerning the decontamination of water?
A. I think that is a report which you submitted to Brandt in crossexamination. It comes from some Reich institution of water and air - for water and air questions, or something like that.
Q. That is correct. You will recall that those experiments were carried out on concentration camp inmates at Neuengamma. This report is dated 31 March 1945, long after you had become Chief of the Office for Science and Research.
Did you know nothing about those experiments?
A. No, I knew nothing about them.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. McHaney, I assume that your cross examination would continue for some time. The Tribunal has a few questions to propound to the witness, so the Tribunal will propound those questions now.
MR. MC HANEY: Very well, Your Honor.
BY JUDGE SEBRING:
Q. Professor Rostock, can you say whether or not the immunizing effect of typhus vaccine can be ascertained or determined from a test of the blood of the vaccinated person?
A. With the limitation, namely, that I am not an absolute expert, I can say that I know that this so-called "Weigl-Felix'sche" reaction, as it is called, is not absolutely foolproof; that is, it can occur, that in the case of an immunized person, it has a completely negative effect; that is, no immunization effect at all and that even in the case of a person who already had typhus and went thought it and who has, according to our experience, a high degree of immunity, in his case the reaction must be negative; that is to say, it is a failure, but I should like to ask you that, if an expert should appear here during the course of the trial that you should ask him about this question, so that perhaps he could correct my opinion.
Q. If your conclusions are correct in the matter, what advantages are there to be gained in the conduct of experiments whereby persons would be artificially infected with typhus?
A. In this entire experimental assignment I see no essential advantage at all. I would not have carried them through, I personally, that is.
Q. Now Professor Rostock, you have made some mention of the fact that you discussed with Professor Gebhardt the nature of the sulfonamide experiments he had conducted on prisoners whom you understood had been condemned to death but who had been promised leniency if they submitted to the experiments; is that correct?
A. Yes. Well, I heard "discussion." By "discussion" we Germans understand two people talking to each other, that is, one person says something and then the other person says something again. That was not the case. Gebhardt and Fischer spoke in a large room and held a lecture. One of the others among these hundred or more participants was I; but, of course, no conversation between Gebhardt and I took place about this matter. I merely heard the lecture.
Q. At the time of the Gebhardt lecture did Fischer also lecture?
A. Yes, that was the same lecture. Gebhardt made the introductory remarks; and within the frame of the same lecture Dr. Fischer continued.
Q. Did. Oberheuser have any part in this lecture or discussion?
A. I don't believe so. I cannot swear to it; but I believe I would have so that and my attention would have been drawn to it if a lady had spoken in that military institution. I'm pretty sure that Dr. Oberheuser was not present.
Q. Either at that time or at any other time did you talk with anyone or hear anyone else talking with anyone who had discussed the experiments or their effects, either with Gebhardt, Fischer, or Oberheuser?
A. I don't know that any of these gentlemen spoke to them; but, of course, that is something I could have missed. If in an auditorium which contains more than a hundred people a few of the people who are grouped together are speaking, I couldn't possibly know what they are speaking about. At any rate I know of no such direct conversations.
Q. Now, then, if Gebhardt, Fischer, or Oberheuser discussed these experiments or their results with anyone else, did any information come to you concerning what either Gebhardt, Fischer, or Oberheuser had said relating to the experiments or the results thereof?
A. No, I never heard anything like that, namely, that any details were discussed with the people concerned.
Q. Then all you know about it is what you have already related here in evidence; is that true?
A. Yes.
Q. Professor Restock, your counsel has placed in evidence Rostock Document Number 5, which has been received in evidence as Rostock Exhibit Number 5. This document purports to list of scientific publications of which you are the author. In the document under the title "II, Journals," appears a publication entitled "Treatment of War Wounds with Sulfonamide, Report of Congress East of Consulting Physicians, 1942." Where did you get the information and data upon which this publication was based?
A. That is the lecture which I mentioned this morning. It was printed in the report of the consulting physicians of May, 1942. I don't know the exhibit number; but it was submitted to the Tribunal by the prosecution.
Q. Where did you obtain the data and information from which the report was given? Do you recollect it this time?
A I know that in the year of 1942 I held a lecture there.
Q. Now, then, returning to the Gebhardt, Fischer, Oberheuser matter, did there ever come to you, from Gebhardt, Fischer, or Oberheuser or from anyone else, any information concerning experimental efforts to transplant bones, muscles, or nerves from one human being to another?
A. No.
Q. You know nothing about that whatever?
A. No.
Q. During the course of your interrogation today you made some mention of an order, decree, or directive of some sort from some responsible government officer or authority or agency, authorizing medical experiments on persons condemned to death. Is that correct?
A. No, that must have been a misunderstanding.
Q. I understood you to say that at this meeting Gebhardt had attempted to rationalize the legality of his experiments because of the purported existence of a decree or order which legalized such experiments on persons who had been condemned to death. Did I understand that correctly, or am I mistaken?
A. Well, in his lecture he said this. The legal basis for the experiments about which he was going to report was clarified and did not concern us, that is, the people in the meeting. That was a matter that was decided. He did not say, however, that any certain authority or certain person was at fault. He merely said generally that this was a matter that was decided. We the listeners, or at least I as a listener, gained the impression that any hi h governmental agency gave the authorization to these physicians; and because of the relationship of obedience which is used in military circles, I assumed that this governmental agency, which I didn't know, would have to assume responsibility. That is the picture I gained at that time. That was the impression I gained. But I must say that I did not consider this question legally or in any way intensively. Well, anyway I don't understand anything about it.
Q. You didn't understand then that there was any existing German law or decree or order which in its terms legalized such a type of experimentation; but all you understood was simply what you had heard from Gebhardt in his assertion that so far as the lawfulness or legality of the question was concerned, it had been settled by someone?
A. I know nothing of any law or decree in that direction. I assumed that Gebhardt told us and repeated to us what had been told him by some other agency. He told us that he was authorized. I cannot say whether such a law existed or whether it did not exist. At any rate I do not know of such a law.
Q. Do you recollect the words he used in regard to the legality of any such experiment as you have narrated? Can you remember the verbiage he used?
A. I don't remember the exact word's. I only remember the sense.
Q. Will you repeat again what you remember of the sense, please?
A. According to the sense of it he said that the juridical basis for the execution of these experiments had been decided and a discussion about it was not necessary with the people who were present. But I think that Gebhardt may remember those words more exactly.
Q. Did he make any mention of the type of persons upon whom such experiments could be legally conducted. Was something said about people who had been condemned to death?
A. Yes, he said that this concerned people who had been condemned to death and who had subsequently been pardoned.
Q. Who had been pardoned or who were to be pardoned if they would give their consent to the experiment and did survive the experiment, which was it?
A. The word "approval" in my opinion was not mentioned. I understand it in the following manner: That if the man concerned survived this wound infection, that so to speak would be synonymous with the execution of the death sentence, and that if he survived this death sentence would not be passed. That is the way I understood it at that time.
Q. Did you understand whether or not the element of voluntary consent on the part of the human subject was to play any part?
A. The voluntary nature, according to my opinion, was not mentioned.
Q. So far as you understood it then, it was not to play a part?
A. That I don't know.
Q. Well from what you gained from Gebhardt or any understanding either from what he said or did not say am I to understand that the effect of it was that without any element of consent or lack of consent, certain persons condemned to death were to be used as experimental subjects, and that if they survived the experiment that they then were to be pardoned or their sentence would be commuted in lieu of the execution of the death sentence, is that correct?
A. In my opinion the situation was that whoever had survived this infection therefore did not have to be executed and was not sentenced.
Q. What was to become of them?
A. I don't know how it is usually handled in penal executions, whether that means complete liberty or any deprivation of liberty is something which I do not know.
Q. Did you have any understanding as to how it was to be handled in these cases? 3376
A. No, I did not know that.
Q. Your understanding was that people who had been condemned to death were to be the experimental subjects, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you understand that any distinction was going to be made between German nationals who had been condemned to death under the German penal laws as criminals or the political prisoners or prisoner of war who was a non-German national and who had been convicted or sentenced to death?
A. A differentiation between criminals, prisoners of war and political prisoners was not made. I had the impression that these were ordinary death sentences, whether they were Germans or non-Germans I don't know either. I don't know but I believe that even a non-German can be sentenced to death by a German court. I don't know whether that is customary or not.
Q. Let us assume that is true. Do you know whether or not a nonGerman national in a concentration camp who has been sentenced to death may be subjected to human experiments upon his body?
A. I don't know that.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess until nine-thirty o'clock Monday morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 0930 Monday February 25, 1947.)
Official transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 24 February 1947, 0930, Judge Beals presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their sets. The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal 1.
Military Tribunal I is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, you ascertain that the defendants are all present in court.
THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honor, the defendant Oberheuser is absent due to illness.
THE PRESIDENT: The rest of the defendants are present?
THE MARSHAL: The rest of the defendants are present, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Defendant Oberheuser, having filed with the Tribunal a certificate of Roy A. Martin, Medical Corps, U.S. Army, that she is unable to attend court this day on a count of illness the defendant will be excused, it appearing to the Tribunal that her absence from the Tribunal today will not prejudice her right.
The Secretary-General will file the medical certificate of Doctor Martin. Counsel may proceed.
PAUL ROSTOCK -- Resumed.
DR. PRIBILLA (Counsel for the Defendant Rostock): Mr. President, I ask you to excuse me that I am turning to the Tribunal at this time. At the end of the last session the defendant was asked some questions by the Tribunal. Mr. McHaney was kind enough to draw my attention to the fact that the witness didn't quite understand one of the questions of Judge Sebring, perhaps because of some misunderstanding. My own observation confirmed his and we are concerned with the following. Judge Sebring asked Rostock Ex. No. 4, Page 7, where there is a publication of Rostock's about sulfanilamide. He asked where Rostock received the date for that publication.
To understood that Judge Sebring wanted to ask from where he received the material basis for that lecture. The defendant, however, always answered continually in such a manner which led one to believe that he meant that the question was about the reliability of his statement as contained in the document. If Judge Sebring is off the same opinion. I would suggest we clarify this point again before answering any more questions.
JUDGE SEBRING: As I understand it, the purpose of Rostock Document No. 5 was to show to the Tribunal the extend of the work done by Professor Rostock in the publication field, Roman 1 showing the books which had been written and published by him since the middle of 1937, Roman 11 showing the articles which had been published by him, I take it, in medical journals and other published works of that nature. Is that correct?
THE WITNESS: Yes, that is correct.
BY JUDGE SEBRING:
Q. The Tribunal was interested in knowing something about the general publication "Treatment of War Wounds with Sulfanomides, Report of Congress East of Consulting Physicians, 1942". Perhaps to further clarify the matter it might be appropriate to ask this question: What was the nature and content of that article that appeared as a journal publication?
A. As a matter of fact, I really misunderstood the question as was put to me on Friday, after what I have heard today. Friday I believed that I was asked on what basis I incorporated this article in that list, namely, Exhibit No. 5. Naturally, it is very easy for me to answer the question as to what my explanations were based on in the year 1942. That was based upon my own experience during two and a half years of war. That was based on studies of literature which was published, and, furthermore, the consulting surgeon with the Army Medical Inspectorate sent me the experience reports of other surgeons of the Army in that field. In order to an answer the other question at the same time, I should like to say that I didn't receive a report from Mr. Gebhardt.
That wasn't at my disposal at that time. When at the time I hold this lecture the experiments of Mr. Gebhardt, which are subjects of discussion here, had not even started. According to this list they began in July of 1942. I don't know whether I have answered your question with that.
Q. Professor Rostock, do you recollect at this time the date or the **** and year in which this article was published and made available to the medical public in Germany?
A. The lecture was held in the middle of May, 1942. I can't give you the exact date. Maybe I could look it up. It appeared in print, that is, in these reports of the consulting physicians that were submitted here, and I assume that was published in the summer or fall of the same year. They were not published in the same manner as would be the case with a periodical, but they were published in an official printed matter which was not secret and were put at the disposal of the military physicians. That is how they appeared in print.
Q. So far as you know, were they put at the disposal of the medical officers of the Waffen-SS?
A. I don't know that. Perhaps Generaloberstabsarzt Handloser could answer that. I know they were sent to the physicians of the army. I don't know who else received them.
CROSS EXAMINATION RESUMED BY MR. McHANEY:
Q. Herr Professor, do you remember what conclusions you drew in this lecture on sulfonamide in May, 1942?
A. I merely initiated the basic research work about which we spoke on Friday, and, according to the knowledge which we had at that time, I gave some basic outlines as to how treatment was to be carried out and I pointed out a few questions which had not been cleared up in that field. I could explain that in greater detail if I could look through the wording of the lecture once more.
Q. Did you draw any conclusions with respect to the necessity of having front line hospitals with surgical treatment of soldiers with wound infection as against the possibility of treating such wounded soldiers with sulfanilamide and evacuating them to the rear?
A. Sulfanilamide treatment in itself was customary in many places at the front.
There weren't any special hospitals for that purpose and they were hardly possible at the moment. Our entire difficulty was that, under conditions of war, every physician who took care of the initial wound, of the wound dressing, only kept the patients for a few days under his own observation since the medical stations and hospitals at the front had to be evacuated very speedily in order to keep them ready for now wounded who might come in, and this change just during the first decisive days made it practically almost impossible for one surgeon to care for such a patient from the wound dressing up until ten to fourteen days later and keep him under constant observation. And during these ten to mostly fourteen days the wound development decides itself.
Q. Now, Professor, the sulfanilamide experiments of Gebhardt have been rationalized to some extent by the statement that German military medicine was undecided as to the value of sulfanilamide treatment and, that if certain problems could be cleared up in that respect it could be determined whether it was possible to cut down on the treatment of wounds with surgery in the front line hospitals and merely treat the soldier with sulfonamide and evacuate him to the rear or whether, on the outer hand, it was necessary to build up, to increase the number of front line hospitals because it was necessary to treat these wound infections with surgery. Do you understand that?
A. If I understood the interpreter correctly that certainly was the problem. Was I to treat the wound with surgical means -- was I to use knife and scissors in order to remove the tissue in order to kill the basis for the bacteria or can I dispense with that treatment and can I think that it would be sufficient to put some powder into the wound? There was very much controversy about that question. There were followers and opponents for both of these extreme uses and only gradually the point of view prevailed that with reference to the ordinary wound infection the mere treatment of powder -- that is sulfanilamide -- in the wound itself would not be sufficient. But, in order to experience that and in order to arrive at that conclusion as we did we needed a number of years in view of the numerous wounds that occurred during the war.