I could try to give anothers description here and perhaps say he also had some criminals, I do not know that. I must say honestly that amongst the affidavits which have been presented here two removals of splinters were made by Stumpfegger. It is probably that the others are in the same group. On the other hand Dr. Mazka has spoken about the purpose of the planting of these splinters. I would like to take it upon myself before coming to the person of Stumpfegger, to state my opinion with regard to her testimony insofar as I am far from doubting her testimony in any way, and as a woman and a Polish national I do not want to act against her indecently. However, I believe I kn?? what activity she had there end that is also very uncertain. Because of the sulphanilamide we had nothing to do with the X-ray Department, since it was not necessary for us. I personally inspected on one occasion the whole sick bay. That was at the beginning of ay experiments, and as far as I know I took the X-ray apparatus along, and as I remember at that time there was an X-ray specialist there, Hall, and that was a Polish woman. I believe when I saw this woman here, it was her, yet she stated she had seen me but did not recognize me here anymore, which is quite probable when two persons meet on one occasion. However, I believe we saw each other at that time. The entire experiments of Stumpfegger were controlled by the constant taking of X-ray pictures. In intervals of 8, 14, and 21 days these X-rays had to be taken, and it is quite certain Dr. Mazka probably took them, therefore, her testimony stands up as evidence on this point more than mine who has never been with Stumpfegger at Ravensbruck and only know these experiments from what he told me, on the other hand she is an X-ray specialist with internist training; and it is so that in order to judge an X-ray picture of bones, there are in Germ??? only two men who were able to do that is Professor Kohler and Professor Wollenberg, who primarily occupied themselves with this question.
If therefore I take it upon myself from my knowledge in the sense of a good basis for Stumpfegger I present this here in contrast to the incomprehensible presentation from a false angle made by Dr. Mazka, then this is done without any personal attack on this lady in question. We were told that these operations had something to do with the operations at Hohenlychen. This was not stated clearly, however, it could be stated if we had too few bones there in Hohenlychen, if you want to speak as layman, or that I had not known how to take care of my wounded, and that for this reason I had carried out the regeneration experiments, and I had used them for my wounded at Hohenlychen.
Permit me to point out that this already becomes incomprehensible, because if it had something to do with Hohenlychen, I would have taken care of that in person. Dr. Mazka admitted that she had only seen me in the X-ray room on one occasion and had only seen me at all on one occasion.
If you will be kind enough to examine the affidavits individually, then you will see that my name and the name of Fischer will always appear when sulfonamide experiments are concerned. If, therefore, it had been a question of cardinal operations at Hohenlychen, then the chief of Hohenlychen, who was even interested in the sulfonamides which were no problem for Hohenlychen, extremely intervened in order to help Fischer, he, of course, would have work a personal appearance there also. However, between the results of the work and the procedure of Stumpfegger and the procedure of the operations at Hohenlychen there was the most outspoken contrast of the concept which can be imaginable at all in that field.
From the description of the third conference, I shall permit myself to show what I reported on in the field of bone regeneration and why Stompfogger could not have spoken at the same meeting, because it was not usual that a man who used to be in my school should make a public speech in contrast to the opinion of his chief.
But please permit me to briefly make it clear in a manner, which is understandable to a lay-man, and to clarify the question which I would never have introduced in this trial if words like the 'removal of splinters', 'nerve regeneration' and the 'breaking of bones' and even the other sentences had not been used by lay-man here, because it is so that there is a clynical concept about setting of fractures, viz, if someone has fractured bones, he must be put in a fracture cast. The fundamental difference between the task of Stompfegger and Hohenlychen were, and I state here that I shall describe as simply as possible, so that in a subsequent scientifical examination I should not be reproached with having been too one-sided:
The whole surgery at Hohenlychen was a plastic surgery, that is to say from the parts which still existed with a limb which had been destroyed, that is from the body's own parts, I make new joints.
I reshape them if enough splinters remain, or I borrow a piece from the vicinity, for example from the leg, and add this part to increase the building material still present. That is a procedure, which has also been used in America by Alby. In Germany it was Lexer and I was perhaps the one who imitated it most. This procedure never had anything to do with another human being or with material procured from another side.
A splinter which is put in that place where insufficient material is available, according to the research carried out by Olby, goes through stran processes, which none of us over understood but which for the practise are not important at all.
I will immediately come to the conclusion, but I have always described it in the following manner. If I put a piece of the leg bone into a knee joint, which has been destroyed, then you can look at this piece of leg like cigar, which I smoke to the end carefully and slowly so that the form will still be maintained in the ashes. If now I do not finish smoking this cigar entirely, then I will have what exists in the case of the splinter, that is all of a sudden from the rest of the cigar, in order to remain with the example, around the form of the ashes towards front there again grows the 'tobacco' cell and then more or less it again reconstructs the old cigar. Now there was an argument if this reconstruction came from the sheath around the cigar, that is the bone skin, and this was the old theory of Frau Mazka or if it originated with the inner core of the cigar. None of us knew what this process was, we only knew that this process was going on which was perfectly sufficient for the procedure.
Now Stompfegger had that idea, which did not originate with him. He takes the same cigar, which has been smoked to the end and which for the part consists of ashes which still has some of the tobacco stub left, but does not put it back into the cigar box, viz to the remaining bones, but he puts it into the original tobacco lines and these lines do not only consist of the tobacco cells, viz of the bone cells, but also from the stems of the leaves, and if these stems are freshly cut the liquid will drop from them and this ferment liquid of the stems corresponds to the pressure fluid of the bones and that is the secret of the construction of the whole bone regeneration.
The age of the human being, and the after growth of the human being, all these questions are dependent on the fact if this pressure liquid is still alive, or if it has already died.
I have taken it upon myself to describe it in this manner, because this was an idea, which was stolen and it did not originate in Germany, but in Kiev and it comes from Pokomolett who discovered this in 1930. When he took this fluid from human beings, he accomplished the reconstruction of bones. I cannot say today how Stomfegger and Himmler obtained this knowledge from t? institute of Kiev. I myself had never visited it and, until I was informed by Stompfegger of the order, I never knew of this literature. It is in contrast to my entire attitude, as I am the surgeon who operates with tools, and not one who reconstructs joints in that way from tissue through transplantations.
In order to put it briefly, on the same third or fourth of September, when Grawitz was trying to destroy our experiments at Ravensbruck on the direct order of Himmler that our experiments were too long and wrong, Stumpfegger comes at the same time with the permission for six to ten; Mazka, I believe speaks of eight persons for this problem, which originated from, the Russian Institute and was tested in Kiev in a manner completely unknown to me.
I do not want to claim that they did this in the same way as stumpfegger and this was subsequently examined. May I point out the risk involved in the experiment, it is such a harmless experiment that in Germany it belonged to operations, which are included in insurance. It was stated here by Rostock that if we need more operations in preparation and which, according to experience are completely without danger to the human being involved and will fully heal up again, that for these things a person, who had been insur and a soldier could be forced.
That is if I wanted to reconstruct a joint, then the patient could never be forced to agree with this large plastic operation of the joints, because ay big plastic operations are a grave danger; however, if the patient agrees and it was only a question of removing a litt splinter, then the person who was insured could be expected to do that. And the procedure of Stumpfegger was such that from the part of the leg, because that is dispensable for the human being, removed a small splinter of bone with or without the skin around the bone, and turns the same bone by 18O degrees, and then places it back again into the part of the bone, which has not been destroyed.
He then constantly took x-ray pictures, and as is clearly shown here by the two affidavits in from eight to six weeks, he again took out a small piece, and compared on how these cells were regenerating. Through this procedure he succeeded, as I have already described in detail, that the recenstruction did not come from the splinter or from the outside, but that it was caused by the vicinity.
Q. The approval to carry out these experiments came form Himmler and was directly given Stumpfecker.
A I have already described that this was a problem which was outside my train of thought, that I did not know the preliminary history, that I would never have thought of carrying out this experiment.
May I state briefly that Stumpfecker had formerly been an assistant at Hohenlychen, who in peacetime and until 1941 was working for me, who then went to the front, and who then until the end of the war was the escort physician of Himmler, and that as a result of decisive decision by Himmler, he also became the escort physician of Hitler. That Stumpfecker was elected in this extreme position, has its profound reasons. He was younger than I, and it was one of the incomprehensible procedures in our staffs-also with Doenitz-that nobody wanted to have a collaborator in his immediate vicinity who was older than he himself. This was, perhaps, the reason, why these staffs failed to have very much success. Stumpfegger, just like I, came from the same city as Himmler. He also came from Landshut. He also attended the same school, and he was in the same class with Himmler, while I was older.
He was particularly experienced with the front, and he was prohibited from again going to the front; and as Frau Nazka stated, in his appearance he was the ideal of the appearance of an SS man.
Stumpfegger, at the time, accompanied Himmler on his trip to the Ukraine, and I emphasize once more that I do not know the connection there, and that I was extra-ordinarily surprised when Stumpfecker obtained this permission I believe also in this point that I maintained the correct attitude.
It was impossible in such a big question, which he had obtained from a foreign laboratory, and which he carried out the experiment in his manner-which was not done abroad, but i did not know that-- that I should prohibit the escort physician of Himmler that he should carry out these experiments on his own initiative. It was also appropriate with regard to the risk, no comparison with the worries and the precautionary measures which we had to introduce in the case of the sulfonamide experiments. In the same operation I would not have exercised any control over an assistant at Hohenlychen, and I did not even consider taking any part in Stumpfejjer's experiments. I have never gone to see him at Ravensbrueck, and I have never seen him perform any operation. However, I had myself informed what he was doing, why he was doing it; and I did one thing that, when assignment came to us at that time, asking us to participate in, it, we accepted the order; but Hohenlychen did not play any part in it; and of the seven aseptic operations, none was carried out by us.
However, it was so that I requested Fischer as far as he had contact with stumpfecker at that time to report that to me, and to establish certain liaison.
I have had Stumpfecker tell me, when he was to start in our init, and he promised me that the same conditions would exist, viz. persons who were condemned to death, and that these people would become free from the death sentence in the most simple manner here; and it is also shown that such persons are amongst the witnesses here. And I reserved myself the right that Stumpfecker should submit his final report to me. The report did not reach me personally, but as I can show, it went to a much higher and other scientific agency to which Stumpfecker turned at that time.
Q. If Dr. Stumpfecker wanted to clarify this question, could he not clarify it through an experiment on animals?
A. Well, the same thing always applies to animal experiment. That inflammatory diseases and especially the regeneration of tissue in the case of human beings can never be compared with an experiment on animals.
Q. In the indictment there are experiments mentioned which refer to the regeneration of muscles and nerves. Do you know anything about it at all?
A. I can only support myself expressly on the information given to me by Stumpfecker. Stumpfecker personally told me, and he also published that, that he only carried out these removals of splinters. But it was only practically used in one case, as I shall yet describe. We never tested the regeneration of nerves or the regeneration of muscle.
May I point out particularly that regeneration experiments on nerves are senseless, because every human being knows that the nerve cannot be regenerated. However, may I emphasize something else in this connection. At the same time, in order to clearly show what my opinion is, one case before the sulfonamide experiments in the field in which I was interested in, vix the operation in replacing nerves which is something quite different, I experimented with animals.
I can do this by removals, therefore I started in animal experiments and I can bring documents here in the form of affidavits to clarify statements already in the testimony. You find that in the testimony here, that simultaneously with Stumpfegger's experiments until the end of the war, in Ravensbrueck experiments on animals were carried out by me. I wanted to solve the question, and I always used to think that this would be best evidence to show what my thoughts were on this question, because it would have been very simple, if some person is already operating on a bone, also to carry out a mass muscleplasty on the same person.
I shall show with the proper documents that, where my initiative is concerned, the experiment is carried out on animals, and that otherwise there is only the sulfonamide experiment which I was ordered to carry out, as I have tried to describe it. There is a special assignment to Stumpfegger with six removals of splinters which have healed up completely and where no permanent damage remained. This is clearly shown here by the testimony which includes also one practical operation on the shoulder blade which I shall y? describe in detail.
Q. What was your personal attitude toward the repeated order of Himmler to Dr. Stumfegger to evaluate practically the results of his experiments in treating the wounded? That is, if Himmler gave Stumpfegger this permission, then he certainly must have pursued a certain goal.
A. Because it is such a complex border-line question, and because this experiment is being done in another zone, I only want to state the fact that more than three hundred thousand wounded which have been treated in that respect that ??? has published these results, that is, the method to protect these parts, but I have never seen any basis for that. However, this, of course, was the aim which Stumpfegger was pursuing in his work. If he would not succeed the whole regeneration surgery would be ended. Joint would have been completely destroyed and crushed so that no removal could be carried out anymore. By a free transplanting of one joint from one human being to another, the damage of the joints could not be overcome.
May I point out that this big problem also was the problem of surgery at the end of the other war.
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, just a moment.
A. And that, for example -
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, it is not the desire of the Tribunal to restrict the testimony of this witness concerning relevant matters, matters which are relevant to his defense, but I wish you would instruct the witness to answer your questions more directly and at less length. Your question could have been answered very briefly, I think.
BY DR. SEIDL:
Q. Witness, you have heard, the instruction. You will give your answers more briefly.
A. Yes.
Q. And will you please make some shorter sentences. You were about to say that already this problem had made its appearance in the first world war, and that towards the end of the war we tried by transplanting shoulders from one wounded to another that joints could be replaced in this way. In this connection may I point out briefly that transplantation is only possible, in order to turn against false descriptions here, it is only possible from the skin and bones and joints. Muscles cannot be transplanted and one cannot transplant a whole limb. It is also a fact, is it not, that in one single case from another person, that is a Polish woman from Ravensbruck, a shoulder blade was removed, and that it was inserted into a patient at Hohenlychen? The witness Dr. Mazka has already given her opinion on this point, even if it was incorrect, and I now would like to tell the Tribunal how this operation came about.
A. Yes. In 1942 Himmler made a Christmas visit to Hohenlychen.
On the occasion of this Christmas visit all of our results were reported to him. First of all, they were the results of the sulfonamide with which, of course, he was not satisfied. He was not satisfied as to the kind of results which had been achieved. On the other hand Stumpfegger reported to him in detail and in my presence about the unheard of chance which was contained in this experiment. Himmler as well as Stumpfegger certainly made a wrong estimate at that time about the chance because even today I am still of the opinion that in the case of wounded who have an infection from a previous time such a transplantation cannot be carried out, that it cannot be directly carried out in the course of the years. This argument between us two already was the subject of two different opinions when Himmler made his usual Christmas visit. Unfortunately, at Christmas 1942 the more severely injured female patients of Hohenlychen, the nurse Louisa, whose right elbow had been completely shot out.
Himmler knew her from former times and he saw her at the Christmas visit and she was introduced to him at the same time as the other patients. I was unable to replace this joint and in spite of the order of Himmler no experiment was carried out in this direction because this would have demanded that, in spite of the reason which Himmler gave, a whole joint would have had to be removed from some other human being and that it would have to be transplanted. That is to say, that one peron would remain without a joint. In spite of this Himmler returned to his family with that opinion and I talked Stumpfegger out of carrying out this therepeutic experiment, because he would not have any success with it and as a result two persons would have sustained permanent disability. Stumpfegger maintained a different point of view, that through further experiments he could perhaps improve on his procedure in trying to exchange the jonds of a healthy human being. However, this was never carried out and I have not seen any evidence here which would state that this had been done. There was one single middle course and I still believe today that under the prerequisite I was unable to prohibit Stumpfegger from carrying out any experiments with joints. The therapeutic purpose was achieved with the smallest possible damage to the other person. In Hohenlychen I had a civilian Ladis, I had a syphilitic patient and one who had a growth of cancer and whose shoulder blade as a result of cancerous growth was being destroyed piece by piece. I removed the shoulder blade and I want to emphasize this for the reason that the surgeon usually does not know that. I saw on him to what extent the damage on the shoulder blade had gone, the exact damage is relatively small, and I fully realize that there is a damage because the muscle which is located below the shoulder blade is located between the chest and in this case the patient lost his cancer, because I would describe it this way: If I assume that the result was the same with another patient. This shoulder healed but now the arm could only be lifted horizontally. Now the cancer re-appeared and in front it destroyed the only support which existed, that was the collar bone and I was confronted by the question, what was the usual solution to amoutate the arm, or to irradiate the patient and let him die in the course of his cancerous growth.
At that time and for this I shall take the responsibility, that now I have agreed with Stumpfegger to the extent that I told him I will operate on my man without considering any assistance on your part, and I discussed the matter with the father also, and he can testify to that if I can finally succeed, in finding him. If Stumpfegger was to remove another splinter from any joint, then in no case should he take a whole joint, and that he should not transplant it in any case to the wounded or to the nurse, but to the only case which might have a success from a therapeutic chance, that is on a man threatened by cancer who was losing his shoulder, and then on the shoulder blade which is the most dispensable joint, if he was to carry out the operation at all. After long discussions, on the 27th of December 1942 he succeeded, first, that from this experiment no further bone experiments were to be carried out if this experiment was to fail, and, secondly, that the transplantation of wounded was to finally come to a halt, and, third, that the shoulder blade should be inserted for this man who was threatened by cancer. The results justified me in my opinion. The arm was saved and the shoulder blade which had been inserted healed in the form and until 1945 the cancer did not again re-appear, and the man remained alive. For the woman or for the man, if I am being charged right now, I do not know who it was, existed the same chance as for a person who had been condemned to death, he would remain alive and the shoulder blade which had been removed amounts to a disability of twenty-five percent, which is less than Kosmierzuk had, and Stumpfegger took care of and gave medical treatment, in this case. In all of the details I only know what Stumpfegger published later on and I cannot testify anything further with regard to this shoulder blade.
Q. Therefore, the result of the operation was that the life of the patient was saved?
A. It was a therapeutic success also and I want to make an exact statement that until 1945 the cancer did not re-appear and he remained alive, and that is a period of three years, which means something in the case of cancer.
Of course, it would not be to the point to say now that from this I must conclude from all the circumstances that cancer would never re-appear again.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court room will please find their seats. The Tribunal is again in session.
BY DR. SEIDL:
Q. Witness, did Dr. Stumpfegger speak about the results of his experiments and was a publication made about that?
A. The entire questions about transplantation of bones was published in a different way by Stumpfegger than was the custom and this was done outside. Hohenlychen had one publishing firm, called "Ambrosia", and there is not a single book published in my school which did not have a foreword written by me. The entire results were put before Professor Sauerbruch by Stumpfegger and the German period for surgery, in 1943, published this work, as well as in 1944, in a special volume. I do not know this last edition, but I should like to emphasize particularly that I do not know what Stumpfegger actually gave to Professor Sauerbruch as his reasons.
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, unfortunately it has been impossible to obtain this book of Dr. Stumpfegger's. On the other hand, in 1946, a conference was reported on in a German medical journal, dealing with this work. In connection with this, therefore, I submit as Exhibit Gebhardt No. 9, this conference from the newspaper "Clinic and Practice" and you will find it on page 49 of my document book.
THE PRESIDENT: What number did you say you gave that exhibit, Counsel?
DR. SEIDL: Exhibit Gebhardt No. 9. Page 49 of the German and English document books. This is a conference reported in the newspaper "Clinic and Practice" and I shall confine myself to reading the title: "Regarding the work of Ludwig Stumpfegger - Hohenlychen: The free autoplastic bone transplantation in the restorative surgery of limbs, experiences and results." I beg the Tribunal to take judicial notice of the remaining contents of this conference in order to save time and I shall forego the reading of it in its entirety.
Witness, for the further personal security of the experimental persons did you adopt any further steps in connection with Himmler?
A. The last conference in connection with all these experiments were, in my opinion, taking place shortly before the third meeting. That is, approximately in April, 1942. There was definite disquiet which had set in because, on one side, I insisted on general publication, as I shall explain to you later and how it came about, and one the other hand, because at that time news had openly been sent to Switzerland particularly about these patients with the shoulder diseases had relatives in Switzerland so that the facts relating to all our experiments became known. In fact, I had never wanted them kept secret anyway. The camp commandant at that period had made a suggestion that these experimental persons should be transferred elsewhere, and I suggested, and I think actually succeeded in seeing it through, for these experimental persons to remain on the spot at Ravensbruck. This and the knowledge which I had of all these matters enabled me to go before this congress and the experimental persons were, in the future, still taken care of in. Ravensbruck and not transferred elsewhere.
Q You yourself, after 1943, did not go to Ravensbrueck again, did you?
A No, I am sure I did not go back to Ravensbrueck after that.
Q Is it known to you whether experimental persons were shot or lost their lives in any other way?
A I have never heard. Particularly before I visited this Congress and after the news had penetrated abroad end after sources abroad had inquired of me, I made specific inquiries of Himmler, and I consider it as being out of the question, therefore, that at that time particularly anyone of the persons concerned suffered serious damage at least this was not reported to me and particularly towards the end, when the handing over took place and during the conferences with the Red Cross, Himmler right to the end gave the assurance that these conditions would be observed. Whether Himmler could actually judge the situation, considering the chaos reigning at the time, is something I do not know. But I, in good faith, and right from the beginning, informed sources abroad and everywhere else that the experimental subjects remained alive and in the same place.
Q Would you say that according to your opinion, in connection with these experimental persons where operations of that type were carried out, that serious permanent damage was suffered?
A I described the clinical procedure to you earlier and I do not want to go back to it. I should merely like to draw your attention to the two experimental persons who are known to this court. They are the next two subjects who should be talked about.
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, during the submission of evidence by the Prosecution, an affidavit of Sofia Sokulska was submitted as Exhibit 226. This document is in Document Book No. 10 of the Prosecution, on page 50, Document Number NO-873.
Q Witness, I am having this affidavit put before you and I should like you to tell me which operation was carried out on this witness and what the damage was that should be attributed to it.
A. With reference to the previous description I should like to be brief. These are surely two matters dealt with by Stumpfegger. I am sure that both originate from October and in that case it is accurately described at the end what course the operation took similar to what I described before, and that there was complete recovery. Sokulska says that merely a weak ankle bone remained and Mrs. Baj says that "only when I am walking do I feel a weakness of the toes." Clinical findings do not exist herein and I can only refer to what is contained in these documents and that corresponds with what I wanted to describe earlier.
Q During the submission of evidence by the Prosecution an affidavit was presented from Zofia Baj, Exhibit 227, Document NO-871, English Document Book of the Prosecution #10, page 55. What type of experiment is concerned with in the case of this witness, and what is the damage that should be assumed here?
A I have already mentioned this example once; once again we are here concerned with removal of the fibula as it is more dispensable and it is easily replaced. I do not want to deal with the procedure, I merely would like to refer to the final statement of the matter which she makes, and she says "When I am walking, my toes are somewhat weak."
Q What do you know about operations which, according to the statements from various witnesses, were carried out in the summer of 1943 in the so-called bunker of the concentration camp at Ravensbrueck?
A In the connection, according to which, outside of the sulfonamide experiments which we know, that there should have been any such outside operations, I have heard of this for the first time here in court. I am sure that Stumpfegger had already completed his work because he published it in the autumn and at that he sent his reports to Sauerbruch. I myself was not there in the summer of 1943. I was just at that particular time working in headquarters, as supreme clinical surgeon, having previously crashed with an airplane. I think that I can remember accurately although I can't say it with certainty, that the attempt at Marseilles where the occupational position of our General Consul Spiegel had been blown up on the 12th or 13th of August--all I know is that it was in August.
At any rate, on or about the 15th or 20th I was in Marseilles, operating on wounded personnel and only now, afterwards, can I reconstruct the case from letters and such documents. Never at any time did I hear details and I want to point out that in the case of the so-called bunker operations the names which are especially mentioned are Drommer, Kimek and Hartmann. These were the camp medical officers of the period, all three of whom are unknown to me. Mrs. Maczka in her written deposition speaks about the fact that there were scientific experiments made by Dr. Drommer. Her conclusion that I would have to know about them or approve of them is quite wrong. During that period I was not present and there were no inter-connections. May I also remind you that Mrs. Maczka was in that bunker herself and Fischer, Oberheuser, Stumpfegger and I were known to her and I think she testified that she did not see any one of us.
Q I shall now turn to the Third Congress of the Military Medical Academy taking place in May 1943, which has been spoken about repeatedly here. How did this report of yours during that conference come about and how did Dr. Fischer's lecture come about? What were the purposes which you were aiming at?
A I made efforts because of the extensive pressure and the inference under which all these experiments were taking place; on the other hand, right from the beginning and contrary to Grawitz, I was of the opinion that at the first possible opportunity these matters should be published. Thus Stumpfegger wrote his big book and in the same way I went to this Congress, then I would have gone to the Surgeon's Congress, but I was not proposing to do this--I was not proposing to have myself or my clinic involved in this without submitting the matter to general criticism. In this connection it was my view that we were concerned with completed experiments which were now merely being criticized and were to be exploited. In this connection the entire problem of the previous order and the participants have already been described by me in detail. I do not know, of course, at this point, when Grawitz received the instructions to hold the third meeting in May 1943, but this must have happened between the November meeting and the May meeting, when it went to the various inspector of the armed forces departments.