Then comes the question of the scientific utilization, the humane execution, the problem of supervision and the problem cf stopping these experiments. Therefore, at that time I never would have inspired these sulfonamide experiments by myself. On the other hand, an agency, the supreme, suggested this to Himmler, the decision whether human experiments were to legally carried out in Germany or not can only be decided by the highest authority and none below that. On the other hand I can ardently look into it whether the people who make these decisions, and can make suggestions are experts or whether just anybody. Here I will confine myself to the sea water experiments. It is like this: first of all Himmler suggested experiments to be carried out and a German expert guarantees the execution of these experiments. If I am asked if these conditions were fulfilled, whether Himmler had the right exports for the decision, I can only say "Yes". On the other hand it is not like this, that I agreed in this experiment which was carried on in Concentration Camp without any control by us, so that in addition I suggested that one should appoint a supervising internist of the Waffen SS for the carrying out, so that in the concentration camps, the clinical procedure should not surpass limits and be stopped. The question on the other hand, which prison is being dealt with and which place to be carried out is with NEBE, and the place is not to be decided by anybody who is camp leader, but by the supreme agency of the camp. That is not known by Schroeder, nor myself, nor Eppinger, because we did not know the circumstances and cannot judge them. I think the attitude essentially has been complied with. That, as far as I know, no new experiments were started which was not authorized by higher agency for this purpose, and I do not think there were doctors responsible for this who were not experts on this field. As to the side lines of the experiments I do not know about them.
Q. These facts which you describe, now made you support the suggestion of the Luftwaffe for these experiments?
A. Yes. At that time of the war I knew quite certain that the Luftwaffe wanted to have these experiments carried out and that Eppinger guaranteed the execution experiment, but I did not agree the concentration camp should be put at the disposal. I advised a supervisory doctor should be applied. One sees how little Grawitz cared - that supervising internist was not supplied; on the other hand the final decision Himmler made - it must have been passed on in another report, otherwise the experiment had not been started but my attitude had nothing to do with this.
Q. The next document which I have submitted is in Document Book V, page 11 of the English Document Book. Document NO-177, exhibit 133. It is the minutes on the conference on the 20 May 1944 in the technical office of the Luftwaffe. Prosecution, in submitting this document, asserted that at the end of the document there is a remark which has been written by you. At the end there was a pencil written note and I ask you whether this was done by you?
A. This is not my signature on this document. You can see how this was carried on parallel. I have the impression that Schroeder, as he said, visited Grawitz and discussed this, and that they came to an agreement on this. Letter was sent to Himmler by Grawitz, and asked for our attitude to the participants. After this decision has been made by Himmler execution of the experiment was decided on independently of this document. This document seems to be from a discussion of the technical and of the Luftwaffe and not from the office of Schroeder; and that it seems it was sent to Himmler, Brandt or anybody else - stated the result of the correspondence with Grawitz. It is not my signature, and that is not the document that came from Schroeder.
Q. Now I come to the conference on the Lost experiments. The defendant Dr. Gebhardt is accused of special responsibility for thest, too. The document which I shall submit to you is in the English Document Book No. 13, page 56, Document NO-005 which the prosecution has submitted as Exhibit 279. I have the impression that this document has nothing to do with the Lost experiments. The subject of this letter is a letter from Dr. Grawitz to the Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler. It deals with the question whether N-substance is a poison gas. What were the reasons for the position which you took in this matter?
A. I can testify to all these things only from memory. I may point out that they happened in 1944 when I was Army Group Physician or shortly before the invasion and these were just minor matters, but I believe that it was the following. N-substance is not, of course, in Lost. It has nothing to do with the Lost experiments. On the other hand, at that time and during the whole war, one of the most important questions was replacement for phosphorus incendiary bombs. They continued to burn on the water, on human beings, etc. I believe N-substance is a mixture of fluorine, halogene, or some such things, which is highly explosive, and the question was of vital importance, not whether it was tested on persons but whether it was a chemical warfare agent, or whether it was an incendiary. I know certainly from some one from Speer's staff, or from Speer himself, that this was not carried out, because N-substance or halogene were so explosive that no matter how they were transported there was great danger of explosion during transport. I believe that our technical office which wanted to put this through and which was competent in this matter had been told by the ordnance office or whoever was competent had been given counter orders and it was not carried out. I do not believe that N-substance experiments were carried out.
Q. The next document refers to the incendiary bomb experiments. This document which I shall have submitted to the defendant is not in the document book. It was submitted separately. It is Document NO-579, which was Prosecution Exhibit 288. This is a record of an expert opinion of 2 January 1942 on a skin treatment for phosphorous burns.
The lotion discussed here is called R-17. The prosecution does not assert that you were directly connected with these experiments but it says that, in view of your position as Chief Clinician, you knew about the experiments. Is that true?
A. I certainly did not see these pictures because I would probably remember them. When the experiment was brought up, it was a local question and not in my field. They went to Ding with an English incendiary bomb or Ding to them and then the final report was sent to Grawitz. The lotion certainly was not introduced by us because we had gelatines and as far as I remember I knew nothing about this experiment.
Q. In the course of the evidence on poison experiments the prosecution submitted Document NO-201 as Exhibit 290. This document is not in a document book. It was submitted separately. This is a report of the defendant Dr. Mrugowsky to the Criminal Technical Institute in Berlin concerning experiments with akonitrin-nitrate bullets of September 1944. The prosecution does not maintain that you were directly connected with the execution of these experiments but in view of your position within the Medical Service of the Waffen SS the prosecution says that you must have known about it. It was tested on prisoners. What do you have to say about it?
A. I learned about this experiment from the indictment against the SS and when I first met Mrugowsky I asked him about it. He says that it was really an execution experiment of the Criminal Biological Office, in which he was involved in some way. He didn't issue any report about it except to the Criminal Biological Office. I an quite certain that I never got it and I don't believe that Grawitz knew anything about it.
Q. In the course of the case the prosecution submitted Exhibit 127, an affidavit of SS General Pohl. The affidavit is in Document Book 4, page 26 of the English test. Document NO-065 under Number 5 in this affidavit says that the Oberarzt at Hohenlychen, Dr. Heissmeyer, received from Himmler personally permission to carry out experiments with tubercu losis.
What was the position of Dr. Heissneyer at Hohenlychen? What do you know about these experiments?
A. Within the sanitoriun of Hohenlychen there was the lung sanitorium for tuberculosis. Heissmeyer was the chief physician or the deputy chief physician before I came to Hohenlychen. He was, of course, on our staff but he was so independent that, for example, I never entered the sanitoriun for clinical reasons and I did not check his work. We surgeons actually wanted to get the lung sanitoriun out of Hohenlychen as soon as possible. I do not believe that Heissneyer ever conducted any experiments, but I do not know. On the other hand, it is true that Heissneyer was the nephew of Obergruppenfuehrer Heissneyer, that he knew Himmler, and that he met Himmler when Himmler came to visit us, and it is also true that very early, I believe it was in 1938 or 1939, there were the first tuberculosis experiments in the sense of pure investigation. Heissmeyer was involved in this. I know for certain that Heissneyer conducted such similar experiments at Ravensbruck by my observations during his work, because for weeks the women passed our building going to and from his sanitarium. Later he went through half of Germany investigating tuberculosis and I arranged for him to visit Professor von Bergmann and report on his work and this was published so the work was certainly correct. As far as any human experiments are concerned, I know of nothing in connection with Heissmeyer.
Q. The same affidavit of Pohl says that, according to his assumption - that is, Pohl's - the Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler discussed medical questions with the doctors whom he knew. I believe that your testimony so far has clarified this point sufficiently.
A. Our position was not such that we were called upon on a certain question, and I could give enough examples when Himmler decided against my point of view in the selection, treatment, resettlement, science of the SS, etc. Pohl cannot have any knowledge of his own on these Questions.
A. In the affidavit which you yourself signed, and which the prose cution submitted as Exhibit 25, you said, among other things, that at the end of the war you were Army Group Physician.
What were the duties which you had in this position and how did you solve the problems which arose?
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, before the witness answers this Question, I should like to have the permission of the Tribunal to read a brief notice contained in Document Book No. 2 which I shall later submit in evidence. It has only two sentences. The High Command of the Wehrmacht issued this pass for the defendant.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean the Prosecution's Document Book No. 2 or Gebhardt Document Book 2?
DR. SEIDL: The defense Document Book 2. A few affidavits are missing and consequently the book is not translated yet.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may read the portion to the witness.
DR. SEIDL: I quote:
"High Command of the Wehrmacht, Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service, Berlin, 1 November 1944.
"Pass. SS Gruppenfuehrer and Waffen SS Generalleutnant Professor Dr. Gebhardt has received from the Reich Commissioner of the Fuehrer for Health and Medical Service, and from the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service, a special assignment to visit medical agencies and medical installations of the Wehrmacht and Waffen SS and is instructed to report about his observations. All medical agencies and medical installations are to aid SS Gruppenfuehrer Professor Dr. Gebhardt in every way in the execution of his assignment. Signed Dr. Handloser, Generaloberstabsarzt."
BY DR. SEIDL:
Q. Now, will you please answer the question, witness?
A. This pass shows what our main worries were at the end of the war: that was to get the supplies through -- the medical supplies; I would be quite wrong that I considered myself an army group physician in the usual sense. I did not have the prerequisites for this positron, and the work was done by an old medical officer who was appointed under me for that purpose.
After the total collapse in the civilian sector in the West in 1944 after the invasion, and in the East at the time of the retreat from the Vistula to the Oder, that time since Himmler was chief of an army group of the reserve army and Reich Minister of the Interior, I tried to save what could still be saved, and I wont to him with this assignment from Brandt. I asked him to call Conti, and Conti had to admit that it was simply impossible to supply the civilian sector anymore.
Then I was given this authority, and we attached over thing to the only column that was still standing -- that was the Army -- and the supplies for the civilian and military hospitals, which could not be separated any longer, because the air raids had created emergency conditions. I believe that I was able to supply a few thousand people through these orders from Handloser and the work which we did.
Q. Now I come to the last question. What were the measures which you took in view of the imminent collapse in April 1945, especially as President of the Red Cross?
A. I can say only one thing, that as President of the German Red Cross I worked exactly one day, and I had one or two letters. The Red Cross is unjustly charged with me.
On the other hand, the war was approaching my own sanitarium. Himmler no longer knew how wo could go on. I was probably the last man who was with Hitler. We discussed all these things once more with Stumpfegger and Hitler. Hitler did not want me to stay with him, but Stumpfegger. I then went back to Himmler. Everything was more or less around my sanitarium, which was about 60 kilometers from the front, and then Ravensbrueck was near there.
The last mad orders came that no prisoners could fall into the hands of the enemy. These orders came from Berlin.
I don't know -- if I hear now that thousands of people in spite died in Ravensbrueck, I don't know. I can only say that it was my influence, in part, that caused Himmler to call up and say that in Ravensbrueck, at least in the days when I was back there -- I came back in April -- certainly no one was killed there then.
Every one of us was negotiating with any available neutral agency. Since '43 I had had connections in Switzerland with the International Red Cross, and in '43, for one year, I had a Swiss assistant at Hohenlychen, and I was visited by Swiss commissions. On the 16th or 17th of April, a Swiss commission was at Hohenlychen and at Ravenshrueck; it was led by the same assistant who had worked for me formerly. I know for certain that gone of the Polish women went back to Switzerland with then at the time, but I have no evidence for the figures now. We had five or six trains, and an enormous not or column, to transport thousands of people from Ravenshrueck over to me, so that everything was collected. We were under fire from the enemy. It was not my doing, but it was done by the Swedish Red Cress and its chief, Count Bernadette. In those last unfortunate days, after the Swiss did not come back the second time because of the losses they had had the first time, the Swedish Red Cross came to us, and, unfortunately, Grawitz blow himself up that day, so that the German Red Cross had no one to carry on the negotiations.
For various other reasons, Himmler wanted to negotiate with the head of the Swedish Red Cross. The negotiations were carried on in my house.
The rest of the Poles, women all of them, wont in Swedish cars, in cars driven by Poles which I had supplied. They wont to Flensburg, under enemy fire, and arrived in Flensburg. I took leave of the Swedes in Luebeck, and then I had to report to Himmler in Flensburg, who had arrived earlier, and I had my last conversation with Himmler. All the Gruppenfuehrers who could have been used for this question were nearby at Flensburg.
At that time together with Ohlendorf, I suggested that we should take over the radio, which would have been possible at the time, with the remnants of the SS, and that Himmler should relieve the last SS man from his oath, so that this question would be definitely settled and any thought of illegality would be stopped, and the next day Himmler should surrender at the head of his generals. Ohlendorf drew this usp, and for one whole night I urged Himmler, and if the poor Brandt with his bird brain could remember at all then he would remember how we acted at that time. That was the only time when Brandt was present.
Himmler hesitated until three in the morning. When I came the next morning the quarters were empty. At noon I sent a letter from me to Poppendick, who was at Flensburg on Doonitz' staff, and. tkmi I surrendered with Ohlendorf.
DR. SEIDL: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has been informed that on Mondy morning, before Tribunal No. 2, the defendants in the case of the United States versus Pohl and others, will be arraigned at 9:30 o'clock. The Tribunal has also been informed that several of the defense counsel appearing new before this Tribunal represent defendants in the case at the United States versus Pohl, and that their presence is required at the arraignment on Monday morning. This Tribunal will, therefore, when it takes its recess tomorrow evening, recess until 11:15 o'clock Monday morning. The arraignment will be completed at that time. The arraignment before Department No. 2, at 9:30 o'clock, will be held in this courtroom. After the arraignment, Department 2 will vacate the courtroom, and this Tribunal will reconvene here, as I say, at 11:15 o'clock Monday morning to proceed with the trial of this case.
We will new recess until 9:30 o'clock tomorrow morning.
(At 1630 hours, 6 March 1947, the Tribunal recessed until 0930 hours 7 March 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 Nuernberg, Germany, on 7 March 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats. The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal 1. Military Tribunal 1 is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal. There will be order in the courtroom.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, will you ascertain that the defendants are all present in court.
THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honor, all the defendants are present in the court with the exception of the defendant Oberheuser, who is absent due to illness.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary General will note for the record the presence of all the defendants in court with the exception of the defendant Oberheuser who has been excused on account of illness.
Counsel may proceed.
KARL GEBHARDT - Resumed CROSS EXAMINATION - Continued
DR. SEIDL: I have no more questions to put to the defendant Dr. Gebhardt.
THE PRESIDENT: Any cross-examination of this defendant by any defense counsel?
BY DR. NELTE (Counsel for the defendant Handloser):
Q. Witness, when did you meet Professor Handloser?
A. I believe it was in 1941, after he had been in his new position about six months. After Professor Waldmann on the Hohenlychen Board became sick, he asked whether he might take his position. It was only one visit. The next time I saw him at the meeting in 1943.
Q. It was in 1942, wasn't it?
A. One year after the death of Waldmann. I don't know exactly, the end of '41 or the beginning of '42.
Q. You had told us with the Kuratorium.
A. Yes.
Q. Did that Kuratoriun have any influence on the medical management or on the manner in which patients were treated?
A. In no way. The Kuratoriun and the Sanitarium were the peacetime form before '43. At that time Hohenlychen was purely a tuberculosis institution. It was under a welfare society, the Red Cross for Hohenlychen. This legal form was maintained in 1933 because this saved taxes and so forth. After the group of persons had changed, people had left, and so forth, this group of persons was supplemented according to my suggestion. The actual influence on the medical direction of what we wanted to do at Hohenlychen was the three men I mentioned, Dr. TschammerOsten, Dr. Todt, and my scientific superior, Dr. Kruemmel, Director of the Educational Ministry. The Kuratoriun itself never met and I never called on Handloser in any way as Curator for Hohenlychen.
Q. From then onwards did you have any personal contact with Professor Handloser?
A. Actually, only in 1944 at the meeting at Hohenlychen. At the third meeting I reported to him like any other speaker in a purely military form. I certainly did not speak to him afterwards. At the end of the meeting, or during the meeting, I always went out to Hohenlychen and came back the next morning. I cannot remember that I met him officially at the front in any way. As far as I can recall, Handloser had always just been there or was just coming there with the greatest difficulties. At the meeting in '44 he was my guest and during these three days I not only showed him my clinic but, since we all had great respect for Handloser, I took great personal care of him.
Q. Mr. Fischer said in his affidavit No. 472 that Professor Handloser had been to Hohenlychen on the occasion of the 10th anniversary. Is that true in that form?
A. Dr. Fischer will probably be able to comment on his affidavit himself and we have expressly agreed that he is my junior who has got into the situation through me and will be able to present his case as he thinks right, without any special agreement.
As for the 10th anniversary meeting, I should like to say that he is mistaken.
Q. The 10th anniversary?
A. The 10th anniversary was an internal university celebration. I might say that I had chosen as my report the subject "Conflict Between Doctor and Soldier in These Times". I did not invite anyone except my old teachers. Geheimrat Sauerbruch was there, the students from his school and my school, and the Director of the University of Berlin, Professor Kreutz, whom I asked, whom I have applied for as a witness or for an affidavit. No military agency was represented and no man from the SS was there for this family celebration.
Q. How was the official relationship between Handloser as the Chief of the Array Medical Department to the Medical Service of the Waffen SS in particular, was it in any sense under the Chief of the Medical Service?
A. I have attempted to describe the enormous degree of improvisation which prevailed in the Waffen SS, and how it changed from time to time, depending on whether it had the confidence of the Feuhrer or whether it did not have the confidence of the Feuhrer. I believe I may repeat in three sentences: The Waffen SS went into the War as three separate groups, the Verfuegungstruppe, Totenkopfuerbande and the Leibstandarte Adolph Hitler. They were a selection of volunteers and had no special military character. Then at the front they were loosely attached to the Army, but from the special privileges which they had, as the situation advanced, it was so unfortunate and confused, as is shown by my position. Attempts were repeatedly made by me to attach material and doctors but when the Army tried to intervene with us in any way it was said the SS was independent, so there was never any sensible contact. In the decisive years, 1942, the development doubtless was that Himmler was given the assignment from Hitler, in all those crises to create a new confidential part of the Wehrmacht, that is next to the Army which was involved in all these crises, and no doubt did the situation much netter. It was not only a reliable political instrument, but a military instrument. I, as chief clinician, got express instructions, for instance, that Handloser was not to be given clear information about our personnel or our reserves. As for personal contacts with the Army and such an impressive person as Professor Handloser, I should like to say that it existed, nevertheless the line was contrasting, and was in independent relationship to Oberstabsarzt Grawitz.
Q. May I sum up what part tho Medical Department of the SS did not fall under tho competence of the head of the Wehrmacht Medical Service?
A. Yes.
Q. And as far as the Fuehrer Decrees of 1942 and 1944 show that there is a direct line which should have lead to balancing of those two departments.
The Medical Department of the Waffen SS showed itself to be very reserved, if not hostile?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. You showed yesterday, when you were giving evidence, a statement from November 1944, which bore the signature of Professor Handloser, as the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Services, and which was issued to you as Army Medical Chief; in that certificate, in that legitimate reference, was mention made of a special assignment, which you were given; in order to clear this up, I should be grateful if you could make a statement as to what were the contents of this special assignment?
A. Yesterday I briefly referred to the chaotic conditions in November 1944. I mentioned that I was at the two positions where there were certain the greatest worries from the medical point of view, in the West after the collapse of the front, and in the East from the Vistula to the Oder. The problem in the air raids, in the advance of the enemy troops, was not the Army, especially not the front units, because they had experience of war and would manage to get through all those catastrophes. On the other hand all plans for the Homeland which overnight had become the theatre of war, broke down completely. On the other hand, in severely bureacratic separation, in spite of all efforts and fuehrer decrees, we still had quite independent orders in the civilian sector. A particular example, I myself was in Kolmar, as a surgeon against the brave American Third Army. I was stationed at Muehcheim (on the Rhine, had behind me the whole Rhineland up to Freiburg, with huge air raids going on, where after three hours the civilian sector was out of the picture, and as reserve behind it the two provinces Baden and Wurttemberg. It was possible to get everything in order but to make these two bureaucratic installations of these two civilian land provinces Baden and Wuerttemberg cooperate was impossible. Therefore, I went to Berlin to see the only man who could adjust this difficulty, Brandt I took Conti with me, who was responsible for the civilian sector. I prove that neither in transport, nor with hospital space, not in any other way, could I give medical aid for the civilian sector any longer; and I asked Brandt to decide that the civilian sector, at least in my sphere, should cease to exist; that only the last support, which survived the War, the medical officers in the Army, was of importance.
That in every city there should be an Army physician, who should be responsible for all medical matter whether civilians, labor service, reserve units, or front units, and should also be responsible for all hospital space. This proposal was accepted, and was decided by Brandt, in my favor, and now I had to have a legitimation that I could ask every post physician to take care of the whole sector too. There was only one man of sufficient standing to demand that, that was Professor Handloser, and that was the purpose of all this pass.
Q. In other words, this is a typical case, where the conditions had to be balanced, as the wounded, the ill, and the refugees had to be put somewhere?
A. Yes.
Q. Did this special order contain any other authorization, in regard to research?
A. At this time that was the worry, and there was certainly no other thought either in the conference or in our minds.
Q. In your third interrogation you said that the Medical Department of the Waffen SS did not fall under the Wehrmacht Medical Service. In order to be quite complete, I have to ask you now whether there were any official relations, that you know of, between Professor Handloser, as Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Services, and the various medical research offices of the Waffen SS, and the SS, viz Ahnenerbe?
A. I have attempted to describe that. I opposed this, that I did not know all these secret agencies. That was some special, a pseudo-scientific existence outside of anything military. I have no idea, I never heard the name of any Wehrmacht agency nearby, or never heard anything about it.
Q. What were the relations between Himmler and Professor Handloser?
A. I can report only from a single mooting. When Himmler took over the reserve Army, that was in 1944 in the summer, the question was what prime positions in the reserve army were to be replaced by the SS; and for example Obergruppenfuehrer Juettner, who had been in change of the main office of the SS, came over, as Chief of the Reserve Army, under Himmler as Chief of Staff, as administrative man for the question whether in the medical sector, that is as a chief of the Army, an SS man should be appointed.
Himmler thought of me, because of the whole question of Chief Clinician, and so forth. And it was out of the question as far as I was concerned, because I was not up to the work of "Army Group Physician," as I was a reservist and always had to have a somebody else to do the technical work. But I suggested to come to an agreement with the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service, and to decide to what extent changes are desirable and to what extent they were possible. This one discussion took place, and as far as I recall, and I remind you what terrible times there were and how great the worries were, Himmler who was setting up his new People's Grenadier Division wanted to have large replacements; and from some point of view, which I did not understand, he thought that in the hospitals there were an enormous number of "gold bricks" and people that could be used, that we had to take quite different measures. At this discussion he said this quite suddenly and undisguisedly; and Professor Handloser quite clearly explained his point of view, that this constantly changing concept of physical fitness, that gradually all the patients were also becoming physically fit, and that the combing out of the hospitals was not possible, and he would not take the responsibility for that and did not think it right; he could, prove it by statistics how many went in and how many went out, and so forth. I was quite convinced, and Himmler said nothing. And that Himmler did not agree with Handloser's opinion and did not agree with my position, I conclude, because Professor Handloser went back without any decision from Himmler, and I went to the front; and without our knowledge days or weeks later an Army physician, was appointed, that is a position between Professor Handloser and us, who had not been provided for by anyone in this sense, who was sick himself and certainly did not apply for the position; but unfortunately Himmler noticed him, because the chronically sick patients had been put into action at Breslow.
I should like to say at the one meeting the two opinions were definitely opposed, and Himmler expressed his disapproval and opposing point of view by appointing someone without consulting Handloser and without the approval of Handloser. I do not know of any other matters of discussion.
Q On the third meeting of the consulting physicians in May of 1943, you gave an opening lecture referring to Dr. Fischer's lecture upon experiments with sulfonamide; did you on the occasion of that lecture and on the occasion of Fischer's statements; did you talk with Handloser before?
A No; in the morning I drove in directly from Hohenlychen to my lecture. Handloser made his opening speech, if I remember correctly, speakers were behind the presiding officer, and reported to me and that was all.
Q Now; did you speak to him days before?
A No, I saw him when I entered the room; I was one of the many officers present.
Q Did you talk to Handloser after the lecture, the next day perhaps or on any other occasion did you talk to him about the lecture?
A Certainly not and that was not the relationship. Handloser was the chief medical officer of Germany, and I had no personal connection with him at that time. He did not call me, he did not ask me anything about my lecture, and of course I did not go to see him.
Q Later on, on any other occasion, when you two met, there was an opportunity for you to discuss the question, which after all was very important to you?
A I saw Handloser only again in 1944, that is a year later, and he never mentioned this lecture. For me the situation was like this, please believe me and every arzt in Hohenlychen will confirm it, after I had gone through all this, I did not have any talks with anyone on my own initiative. I had no interest in it.
Q Now you described the circumstances under which this lecture was held; you spoke of charts and graphs on the wall?
A Yes.
Q Was that an unusual thing, or was that the rule with other lectures too?
A That was as in every scientific meeting. In my next lecture, I spoke again afterwards about my nerve matters, I had the same wall and the same pictures, and the other gentlemen too; everyone brings his material, charts and cables to illustrate his lecture.
Q So, therefore, it was nothing unusual?
A No, it is done at every scientific congress in the world.
Q In particular, there were no photographs, such as we have seen here in the Document book?
A No, there was clinical evidence showing what was done scientifically and therapeutically with the individuals.
Q Tables, charts, etc?
A Yes, as I described them yesterday, it was clear what was being done.
Q Yes, quite. Could one see what person was involved, what individual, or that it only concerned a given experiment?
A Yesterday I said clearly that I sent the individual material to Grawitz through Schreiber, and but that from the representation one could only see it was a large scale experiment conducted on condemned persons, as I have said in my introductionary statement.
Q Therefore, it could not be seen from those tables and records that women were involved?
A The terms: women, Poles, and Ravensbruck were not mentioned, because in spite of the approval it was forbidden in public. Grawitz, however, had this information. However, it was known only that a large number of persons were concerned.
Q There was a great distinction between the evidences which you sent to Grawitz and what the spectators saw?
A Yes.
Q If I understood you correctly, the purpose of your opening lecture was that you considered these sulfonamide experiments legal; you described those experiments on the basis of your reports and you considered them to be legal and that the carrying out of these experiments was in accordance with the strictest medical rules, which you thought were essential and which were regarded as essential by all the other doctors; is that so?
A Yes.
Q From your statements, I seem to reach the conclusion that these lectures on the experiments were given in front of a large body of surgeons, physicians, pathologists, etc., in order to escape the suspicion you had been engaged in something which would have been harmful to one's reputation as a famous physician; is that correct?
A Yes, of course. I will point out that at the end I can look back and see clearly I have come a distance from all these things and everything I had heard about them. At the time, I was under constant pressure and tension and acting on orders, and I believe that I chose the right thing if one recognizes the situation as I saw it at the time, and the only possible way, if it was ordered and if it was to be of any value, we must be allowed to speak of it publicly. If a man like myself, who kept away from such things, is involved, then he must have the right to comment on it freely, for that if the only possible way to get out of the matter with honor.
It is always clear to me, and I am convinced if Germany won the war, it would have been just as necessary to say to the International Surgical Society, who might have stricken me from its list, and some other societies, and to explain how much pressure there was from all sides. My opinion is quite clear in the question of execution and in the question of protection for the people. Please examine all these matters. That was distinctly my opinion at the time, and now I emphasize it especially, as I look back on these things.
Q Perhaps we misunderstand each other. In my opinion your emotional feeling and the explanation you gave is quite correct. It is obvious that you and the man, who might risk his reputation, wanted to use this body of the most famous physicians and doctors, in order to explain that what you were engaged in was right, and that you acted as a patriot and corresponded to the conditions in which you found yourself?
A Yes.
Q And you said also that the case, the purpose, which you justi ably pursued had to be explained in a manner, which was convincing?