The cause was the visit into the Rascher experiments.
Q In other words, even Himmler would not have undertaken this type of experimentation without having been covered by Hitler, would he?
A Now, that is something, just another question which I already turned to use, I already expected you to put it. That is half wrong and half right like all these things, and I am perfectly convinced that if Himmler had the wish to assist and if it was within his powers then he started whatever he could do. On the other hand, according to the story told, and I am convinced that it was so, Himmler actually and deliberately went to Hitler and told him, "Mein Fuehrer, in one of the decisive problems of the air force," and please don't say right now of course you knew, see, "in one of the important decisive questions of air force problems, we can advance the entire development regarding the reconversion of the air force" involved in at that time, "which can be advanced successfully, I have already started on it at Dachau. What do you think about it?" And then Hitler probably said, "That has got to be done for the benefit of the air forces. It is my point of view that they have to go through everything at home during this decisive struggle." And then Himmler never again in his life would have gone back to Hitler with that, and he might say the head of my staff, the head of my state, wanted that. That is my description of the matter.
Q Well, we at least can agree that a stabsarzt in the Luftwaffe like Leicher would not have undertaken these experiments without knowing that he was declared by a superior authority, would he?
A No, no, no. That is quite out of the question, of course. He had cover, the backing. First of all, when one part of the experiments started through a department which had jurisdiction over him; and of course, the extent of that I couldn't quite judge during the lecture; and as far as the second part was concerned, namely that of his own independent experimenting, he had the express personal backing of Himmler. At least that is how I understood it.
Q And the same Principle would apply to such a man as Hagen, would it not?
A Hagen, of course, must have had the backing of an official department, and one of them must most certainly have been Himmler at all times. If Hagen now carried out an experiment on behalf of the air force, then of course he must have had the backing of the air force. If, however, he succeeded through some other channels, apparently if he succeeded through HIRT in entering into the Ahnenerbe circles, then in this capacity, of course, Himmler's order alone was sufficient. I can't decide on these matters because I only know what you have said here in court yourself. Some of the documents seem to confirm that we are concerned with air force experiments, but air force gentlemen have said it was purely Professor Hagen with Professor Hirt who carried out on these matters. At any rate Himmler's confirmation was also essential, and that of the official department above, who also had to be informed. I can't judge this. That was in individual cases.
Q Of course, the SS and Himmler were the common elements in all of these experiments since they were carried out on concentration camp inmates. We both understand that, don't we?
A Yes, of course.
Q But before we forget it, let's rehabilitate Rudolf Brandt just a little bit. I feel that you belabored him rather heavily in the direct examination. He was a Standartenfuehrer, wasn't he?
A Rudolf Brandt, yes, that is right.
Q That is only two ranks below that which you held, wasn't it?
A Yes.
Q Now, you are a doctor and a professor, Witness, and perhaps you are inclined to be a little bit impatient with administrative officials, but if we are looking for a man who know what was going on with respect to Himmler's office, a man who handled all the correspondence, a man who wrote letters of some importance on his own initiative, then that administrative official could very well be Rudolf Brandt, couldn't he, Witness?
A I have described to you the position which Rudolf Brandt held. Will you please tell me in this individual case to what extent you think it is uncertain?
Q If I understood your description, Himmler regarded Rudolf Brandt as being something in the nature of an indispensable man, he wanted him around, he wanted him to handle his correspondence?
A Yes.
Q He had access to top secret information by virtue of that position?
A Yes, yes.
Q And he was a man of substantial rank in the SS?
A I think that you do great injustice to Rudolf Brandt when you underline his rank in the SS. All mail went through Brandt, that is right, and it used to go the same way before when the ranks were higher or lower. This department was always the same. Then afterwards as a reward he was externally speaking transferred to that corresponding rank, and became Standartenfuehrer. I am not sure he was at the front. He was there for a bit. But in the Waffen SS he most certainly was not Standartenfuehrer. He had this rank in the general SS and in the Waffen SS, for a very short period-- but I had better be careful there-- I think he was Hauptsturmfuehrer, he was something like that, when he served for a while, but as commander in the Oldnel Waffen SS, a rank which is two groups below mine, he certainly never put in appearance.
His position rated the same before as afterwards; you can draw your own conclusions from the individual case you want to present.
Q Now, you participated in an attempt to overthrow the Weimar Republic as early as 1924, didn't you Witness?
A Who? Me? What do you mean, to what extent? Might I have your reasons for that statement?
Q It seems to me that I have seen something to that effect that you have participated in such a Putsch in 1924. Am I incorrect on that?
A No. I am awfully grateful that you are bringing that up because now I can show you how these affidavits are made. That is just what I have been waiting for. It says in my affidavit in great detail, now, let me read this to you. In my affidavit it says "painstakingly", "in the Nazi putsch in 1923 I took part." Now, about this matter, about this simple sentence, there were at least three interrogations, and the gentleman who so kindly carried them out is sitting right here and he will be able to confirm to you how right I am.
Q Witness, I will ask you to keep your headphones on in order that we can control the examination just a little bit. Now, I am not interested in having a discourse by you of how interrogations were carried out. I asked you a question about your participation in this putsch in 1923. Now, you may explain that, but I don't care to hear anything about the possible mistakes or inaccuracies which arise in affidavits which you read and which you signed, I am just interested now about what part did you play in this early Nazi activity, if any?
A That is something which I am just trying to explain to you. I am not taking my earphones off, you know, to stop you, but I suffer from a head injury which I have been having the greatest difficulty, but if you insist I keep to this, of course, I will do so.
Q Witness, I don't wish to have you labor under any physical difficulties. If you will limit your answers and be concise and to the point, it is quite satisfactory to me to have you take your headphones off, but we don't want to take any unnecessary time in this interrogation. We are simply seeking information, so let's eliminate this attitude of duel which you have conjured up and get along with the proceedings.
A I am attaching a great deal of importance in explaining my participation in 1923 because it has become important. In 1923 I took no part in the party, nor within the SA as it existed at the time, and with Oberland which took part as a third section, but I was used as the medical officer on duty. I walked in the third row without anyone else, and I treated both the wounded of one party as well as those of the other, such as a captain who was shot and died in my arms, just as much as Mr. Vondenfurth who was fighting for the other side. This is something I said yesterday, and I think I can supply to you witnesses stating that was so. But the youth group which was under me from the Oberland division was not taken along in this march by me, and I subsequently, in 1925, did not enter into the recently formed SS which originated from participants of the 1923 affair.
I do not consider it a shame, if a German, as a doctor, assisted both sides at the time, and marched along, but that I should have personally overthrown the Weimar Republic during this one year when I was an assistant doctor--that seems improbable to me.
Q Who sent the order that no prisoners were to be captured at Ravensbrueck in 1945?
A I'm afraid I don't quite understand your question.
Q You testified yesterday that while you were in Hohenlychen, shortly before the collapse, you saw an order that no prisoners were to be evacuated from Ravensbrueck - no inmates. Pardon me, I phrased that wrong, that they were to be evacuated -- that they were not to be captured. I'm asking you, who sent that order?
A It is known from the previous trial, and it was discussed in detail that Hitler's order came at the end, that from no concentration camp should a single inmate fall into the hands of the enemy, and that Kaltenbrunner, in his official capacity, passed it on. I told you that I heard this myself, and that excited discussions between Himmler and Kaltenbrunner took place over the telephone. As far as I know, -- as far as I know, it wasn't carried out in Ravensbrueck, whether in other camps I don't know, since the transportation and the continuous transfer of such camps to other districts was simply not possible.
Q When did you join the SS?
A In 1935, in the spring.
Q Weren't you at least an unofficial member as early as 1933?
A No; no, I wasn't. Do you mean the 'subscribing members'?
Q I'll pass you up a letter which you wrote to Heini Himmler on the 12th of May 1933. This is Document NO-649. I just want to read a couple of sentences out of this letter and then you may explain what they mean. It is a a letter from the witness Gebhardt to "Dear Heini Himmler", dated 12 May 1933. The first sentence reads:
"Excuse me for requesting your help again as an old Landshut comrade.
"I had an interview with you at the end of May 1933. You suggested at that time that I should join your personal staff as medical collaborator. Thereupon I no longer tried to obtain admission to the SA as their athletics physician. You told me in July 1933 by telephone that I had now been appointed by you, that I should fill in the questionnaires and that I should submit an outline of my activities to the Reichsarzt."
And then, down in the second paragraph, there's a sentence that reads: "All this puts me in an impossible position: you incorporated me into the SS, never received a written acknowledgment nor an answer to my applications." Now, were you, in fact, appointed in the nature of an unofficial member or something of that nature in 1933?
A Just now you're making a small mistake. You see, the whole personal background cannot always be read out of documents. The second head of the Hohenlychen Institute at the time, in the director's board, was Dr. Denker. He, was Reich Medical Officer of the SS, if he did exist at the time, and also at the same time, he was holding a ministerial post, and he was the head of a committee for tuberculosis. The sanitorium at Hohenlychen was under Denker's command in two capacities; one is in his capacity as Tuberculosis Chief, and it was my own wish that I should have some clear-cut official relationship to Denker now regarding my own activities. I cannot tell you clearly what this memorandum contained, but I made a draft for it, to the effect that I should work to an equal extent for the Reich Ministry of the Interior, that is, State Secretary Tschammer, at the same time, for Denker's staff under Himmler, and thirdly in the same capacity also for Dr. Todt.
After Denker had not agreed to this at the time, but wished a decision to the effect that I should either work for the SS or for Tschammer, who was with the SA, it was not actually brought about, but only in 1935, when Tschammer himself agreed, which is something I have told you, because now he was interested to exclude all these difficulties with tuberculosis, and I'm saying here that I found myself in an impossible position, because now Denker is now no longer Reichsarzt, though still my superior.
Q So it's not correct, when you state to Himmler, that "You told me in July 1933 by telephone that I had now been appointed by you?" I understand that to mean "appointed by the SS."
A I know perfectly well that you are now trying to show me proof, how unreliable my testimony was, but I, at that time, wanted to be both in Denker's staff under the SS as well as Tschammer's staff in the SS, as well as on the other staff on the Organization Todt, and at the same time, in the Ministry of the Interior. That I was a member of all these four organizations, thereby also in the SS. If I could remember this matter in detail I would have told you. I would have told you honestly. The point when I really am going into the SS lies in Spring 1935, but it was not accomplished at this time because of these complicated conditions. That's the best explanation I can give you.
Q Were you ever a member of the faculty of the University of Strasbourg?
A No, that is Professor Gebhardt, the pharmacologist.
Q You testified that you were a consulting surgeon of the Waffen SS beginning in 1939, I believe; is that right?
A My position in the Waffen SS, both formally and as far as its contents are concerned, can't be so very easily defined. You must believe me that. I received my appointment, and my task regarding my activity at the front, signed by Himmler, in May 1940. And there it states: "In your capacity as consultant surgeon to the Waffen SS"; that is correct, and at that time there was a hospital detachment of the Waffen-SS at Hohenlychen, but at that time the Waffen SS was not yet in existence, and the term "Waffen-SS" is painstakingly achieved in June; and one of the first people appointed on the staff was I. But the position in practice was that, in reality, I belonged both to the Waffen SS as a surgeon, not as consultant, as well as to the army in this case, a certain army, and as consultant surgeon also to the Sports Organization, and also the Organization Todt. I'm summarizing it; there was never a clear-cut position. But I did have the name, the title, "consultant surgeon to the Waffen SS", such as the certificate states.
Q And you retained that position until August 1943; is that right?
A That is changing afterwards because I'm trying to extend it. Above Sports and Waffen SS I had under me, and also to the police, and a superior conception had to be created, thus the unfortunate words, "supreme clinic official", came up, because there was no subordinate clinic official. And that was of course at the end of August 1943.
Q Well, weren't you -
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel -
MR. McHANEY: Pardon me.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you finished your examination in connection with this letter, signed by the witness under date of 12 May 1943?
MR. McHANEY: Yes, I think I have, Your Honor. There are other letters-
THE PRESIDENT: Well, with regard to that letter, there are apparent inconsistencies. It is dated 12 May 1933. The first line of the second paragraph reads:
"I had an interview with you at the end of May 1933." Again, "You told me in July 1933," and, in the long paragraph, the third line: "I was transferred on 1 September 1933." Those are dates subsequent to the apparent date of the letter.
MR. McHANEY: You're quite correct, Your Honor, and I'll ask the witness if he can clarify that from the original document he has in his hand?
THE WITNESS: Well, that means that apparently the date at the top, "May the 12th 1933", must be wrong. According to the contents that follow, I don't know, but it is correct that the events which are described, Danker's retirement, and negotiations regarding Conti and all that, all the alterations happen in 1933. The end of May 1933. Yes; yes; that's quite right. I went to Hohenlychen; that's right.
THE PRESIDENT: There's a note on it, 24 May '34, in front of initials "H H".
THE WITNESS: May 1934; that's right; quite right. So that the cause of a mistake, Mr. President, will obviously be that it should be "12th of May 1934", because the whole current events go through to September 1933, in this letter.
A I cannot, you see, recollect this letter at all.
MR. MC HANEY: If the Tribunal please, I would suggest another possibility which I think is more likely since the dateline is Hohenlychen, and then appear the numerals, Arabic 12, Roman V, Arabic 33, I think perhaps that date is actually December 5, 1933, but the date below which is 24 May 1934 and initials Heinrich Himmler, I think are written on the letter and apparently are file marks rather than the dateline carried by the original letter. It is quite apparent, however, that the letter must have been dated sometime following September 1933.
THE PRESIDENT: It would seem reasonable if the letter were originally dated 12 May 1933? Himmler may have received -- I mean, dated '34, 1934, Himmler may have dated it when he received it? 24 May '34.
MR. MC HANEY: That is probably the correct analysis, your Honor.
THE WITNESS: May I remark in this connection that it is becoming apparent I am saying that after the 1st of September I am going to Berlin after a visit from doctors, so that everything must have been written after the 1st of September.
Q (By Mr. McHaney) Witness, going back to your position prior to August 1943, is it not true that you were immediately subordinated to Genzken as Chief of the Medical Services of the Waffen SS?
A I have made efforts to describe this in such a way as to show that the part of my staff working for the Waffen SS was under Genzken's orders, but that was definitely a very small portion and dependent upon the number of matters I took up to Genzken. It would be equally right to say that at the same time I was the adviser of the Todt Organization and came under that just as I was on various other spots. Purely formally speaking I considered myself as being on the same lever, and particularly with questions to the Waffen SS, which was only being painstakingly formed during these years; had contact with Genzken.
Q When did you first hear of the Ahnenerbe Institute, do you remember?
A I believe myself it was not so much the institution of the Ah nenerbe.
Discussions always dealt with the entry into the so-called circle of friends of Himmler. That, of course, is the superior institution. I think Himmler rather quietly indicated to me at some stage that it was rather a good thing that I wasn't in that circle. As far as the Ahnenerbe is concerned, and everything that was subordinated to that, they all came under this circle of friends, and I also believe and I want to say this cautiously, that it was from there that they were paid. Of Ahnenerbe itself I saw during meetings Professor Dr. Wuest representing Pector Gas, Munich organization, who was the chairman of the Ahnenerbe.
Q When did you first hear of their connection to medical experimentation on concentration camp inmates?
A I do not believe that became abundantly clear to me till the very end. It was always my impression that this came much more directly under Himmler; that it was going through military channels, and that they had a military medical department and that Sievers was so important was something that never dawned on me. It was said that there was a direct order, just as it was the case with us, without that there was any institution inserted in between.
Q Well, didn't you know when Rascher came to see you in May 1943 that the Ahnenerbe was connected with his experimentation on human beings?
A Yes, of course. I am admitting it to you. It was one of the points under discussion between us. That's what we were concerned with. At that point Rascher is saying, "No, I shall continue to experiment, this time under Himmler's supervision, and by name I am under the Waffen SS, but I am immediately coming to the Ahnenerbe." That's how I knew that Rascher was allowed to continue, and that since he had to be placed in some special organization he was put under Ahnenerbe.
INTERPRETER FRANK: I didn't understand the last sentence of his answer. Perhaps you can have him repeat it.
Q The translator did not understand the last sentence of your answer. Will you please repeat it?
A I was saying that he did not begin his work in Dachau, in my opinion as a member of the Ahnenerbe, but in his capacity as a captain in the Air Force who was to go over to the Waffen SS and who was immediately retransferred to the Ahnenerbe, only because he should be removed from any reach of any supervising doctors; that is the way I understood the matter to be.
Q Was Rascher wearing a Luftwaffe uniform when he visited you in May, '43?
A No, no -- that -- I can't tell you that. I was going to say no right away, but I can't be certain about it. I would have thought -well -- Fischer must know, Fischer took him around with me. At any rate it is probable that -- more probable that he was wearing an SS uniform to my recollection at any rate, rather than the other uniform, but I can't remember these details now.
Q Well, you referred to him yesterday as a Stabsarzt in the Luftwaffe coming to you -
A Yes.
Q --and you treated him with some scorn, so I therefore got the impression that he must have been still in a Luftwaffe uniform at that time.
A That's an assumption which I would like to refute right now. It wasn't that I treated the man as inferior because he was working for the Luftwaffe. I toned him down because he came to me -
Q Do you mean to say that you treated him with scorn because he was a member of the Luftwaffe, but you referred to him as being a Stabsarzt in the Luftwaffe and for that reason I assumed he still had on his Luftwaffe uniform.
A I spoke for much too long to this Tribunal yesterday for me to repeat everything now that I said yesterday. I said the man came along with a memorandum for the Waffen SS. Therefore we have here Waffen SS, and then I said he came as a surgeon on behalf of the Waffen SS, and then later on the man came, referring himself directly to Grawitz and Himmler, so that quite certainly the question over which I had rows with him did not have anything to do with the Luftwaffe.
What is important is that he is evading me afterwards, stating that he can also apply himself to the hygiene department and other work which he had carried out secretly; I don't think that the word secret was used, I would have remembered that, and this work was carried out by the Luftwaffe.
Q You do not remember whether he was wearing a Luftwaffe uniform, an SS uniform or civilian clothes; is that right? You just don't remember?
A Naturally he reported to no in uniform, but I cannot on the other hand say which one it was. Very probably the uniform of the Waffen SS, because, as a newly adopted member of the Waffen SS, he had to report to me so that if he didn't wear it then it could only be because it hadn't been completed yet; otherwise he would have had to report to me in the proper uniform, but I do not remember it.
Q Did I understand your testimony yesterday to mean that there came a time when you served as adviser to Himmler with respect to medical experiments on concentration camp inmates?
A I have already said earlier that I assumed that you would put that into my shoes because of my open minded statement, It isn't true. It was described in detail that I was urging myself upon him in these borderline questions as far as I considered it necessary. I was convinced that I had shown you that there was not one adviser because in questions of biochemical subjects he couldn't ask a surgeon, "Well, implicate me if you must." I can't explain it to you any differently.
Q Then you are testifying that you did not serve in the capacity of advising Himmler on medical experiments carried out on concentration camp inmates; that you may have been approached from time to time but you didn't occupy any position with respect to that?
A I have been trying to describe to you that Himmler did not have a central one man adviser and expert of that type, but on the other hand, I have been describing to you that I was making efforts to react to all these matters and that I am only claiming for myself that I always stated to Grawitz, "Don't allow everyone to persuade you that these experiments are important.
Look at the people with whom we are concerned who are getting at Himmler, and if you can't stand up to Himmler, if you don't dare tell him that this is not a department, then will you see to it that it is being done together with me. I think I can undertake to tell Himmler whether this is a department and whether there is an expert doctor." If that's what -- if you are now stating that I am implicating myself, then it isn't true. It is certainly not the situation that Grawitz came to me with everything, nor is it the situation that Himnler was telling Grawitz everything, and don't you forget that after 1944 we were heading for the abyss rapidly.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now recess until 1:30 o'clock.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330, 7 March 1947)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in tho courtroom will please find their seats.
THE TRIBUNAL IS AGAIN IN SESSION.
KARL GEBHARDT -Resumed CROSS-EXAMINATION (Continued) BY MR. MC HANEY:
Q Witness, what concentration camps have you visited other than Ravensbruck.
A. None.
Q What concentration camps did you know of other than Ravensbruck?
A I know the name of Sachsenhausen and Dachau because they were mentioned most often in the course of politics, especially from abroad. In Germany we did not know all tho names. There were a number of intermediate installations. The organization Todt, for example had labor training camps which were conducted by as SS staff which were locally made into a Gau. I know that in every Gau there were at least one or two camps but I cannot tell you exactly how many names I knew formely.
Q You mean to say that in each Gau you knew there was a concentration camp?
A Certainly, every Gau had that. I said there were training camps, there were youth camps, for juvenile delinquents, and that went up to tho concentration camps.
Q Do you know specifically whether there was a concentration camp at Auschwitz?
A Yes.
Q Did you know whether there was a concentration camp at WeimarBuchenwald?
A I knew that, yes.
Q Do you know there was a concentration camp at Gross-Rosen?
A No.
Q Neuengamme?
A I don't know whether I learned about Neuengamme before or only when I got there, but I did know that there were two or one near Hamburg--one.
Q Do you know there was a concentration camp Treblinka?
A No, I don't know that one. I don't know it today.
Q Maidaneck?
A No.
Q Do you know Dr. Kramer?
A No.
Q Do you know Dr. Treite?
A I know a Professor Kramer of the Virchow who worked with me at Hohenlychen for tumor research.
Q Well, was Trommer--when was Trommer under you at Hohenlychenn?
A Kramer, Professor Kramer he was from the Virchow Hospital, he was an exchange professor. He asked to have his institute housed with me and he himself worked in the other city. He was a gentleman at least ten years older than I. He was never under me. In view of the air raid conditions he evacuated his laboratory.
Q Do you spell his name T-R-O-M-M-E-R?
A No. Professor Kramer of the Virchow Hospital. I thought you said Kramer.
Q Did you know Treito?
A I met Treito here in Nurnberg, personally. We were here at the interrogations together and Treito said that he telephoned with me come from Ravensbruck because of a patient. I did not remember that myself but it is no doubt true. And he was the head doctor at the clinic in Berlin.
Q Did you know in 1942 that Schidlausky was a doctor at Ravensbruck?
A When I first talked about the experiments I saw Schidlausky there and during the experiments, no doubt I saw him several times.
Q Did you know a Doctor Villmann?
A No.
Q V-I-L-L-M-A-N?
A Yes, I've heard the name but I don't know him.
Q What about Doctor Koller?
A I had a Dr. Koller as a dentist at Hohenlychen.
Q Was he there in 1942, 43?
A I can't tell you. I don't believe so. Our dental station was set up rather late but I don't remember the date. It is possible, but I don't know.
Q Now, in your meeting in July 1942 where you discussed the experimental subjects with Grawitz, Nebe, Gluecks and Himmler, precisely what type of experimental subjects did you insist on?
A Sulfonamide experiments. Those were the only ones in question.
Q Yes. What type of experimental subjects did you insist on having? I understood you to state that you reached an agreement with Himmler, Gluecks
A Condemned men. That is should be begun on German criminals, condemned men.
Q Condemned to death?
A Yes.
Q Did you make any distinction between political criminals and crimes of the ordinary sort such as murder?
A No. We negotiated--I have told you and I won't let you force me into saying anything, that I didn't worry about the juridical details, but I negotiated at that time with Nebe his administration not primarily with Muelle Nebe had German criminals under him, no political criminals. He was the top man to decide that under Himmler.
Q Well, then there were persons who had been convicted for such crimes as murder rather than for such crimes as treason?
A. I don't follow you. I was not interested in why the individual was condemned. I didn't say anything about that. I just said they should be condemned persons. I never asked why he was condemned or whether it was the right authority, but mychief authority at the time was Nebe under Himmler.
Q. Well, I'm just asking you to try to give us a little more information about what type of criminals Nebe had under him. The word "criminal" is something which has to be defined a little bit. For example, we know that Jews were condemned to death as criminals for having committed sexual intercourse with an Aryan. Now, do you know whether Nebe had any of those criminals under his jurisdiction?
A. In the first place, I am not convinced that your statement is true - that a person was condemned to death for Rassenschande. I heard that here for the first time. They were put in concentration camps for that. In principle, the legal question was up to the legal exports and I was of the childish impression that if they took the responsibility it would be all right. Personally, we never knew who and what the individual was.
Q. Now, you stated to your defense counsel that it would have been impossible to have used wounded soldiers to test the effectiveness of sulfonamides. At least that is what I understood.
A. Yes.
Q. Did you mean to state merely that it would have been impossible to have used soldiers and to have reached a result in the short period of time, or do you mean to say that it was impossible, in any event, to have used wounded soldiers?
A. We are at the technical question of wounds in war time at the front and under various conditions, and the question of whether I wanted the basic research from the chemical aspect or whether I wanted a temporary clinical decision. I explained that as clearly as possible. If you want me to I shall repeat the same thing.
Q. I certainly don't want you to repeat the same thing because I didn't understand precisely what you were getting at at the time. This is the reason why I put the question again to you. I am asking if you are stating, as your medical opinion, that it would have been impossible to have determined the effectiveness of sulfonamides - to have solved the problem which you undertook to solve, by using wounded soldiers?
I should think you would be able to give a "yes" or "no" answer to that question with perhaps a rather short explanation.
A I can answer it with "no" if I say that what was demanded of us had to be carried out.
Q. And what was demanded of you was a speedy and rapid decision. Isn't that right?
A. Above all, a decision of war wounds or at least conditions corresponding to war wounds, and that quickly. The two belonged together.
Q. And if you eliminate the angle of haste, are you willing to tell this Tribunal, as a medical expert, that it would have been impossible for you to have solved this problem by testing sulfonamide on wounded soldiers?
A. I told you yesterday in great detail that clarification by means of inquiry is possible; that the German army, like any other, attempted it; that until the end of the war there was no clarification in this way in the German army just as in the case of others. There is no such absolute question in the clinical aspect. It is very simple to solve theoretically by setting up special units and special hospitals and sending them to the front and keeping the patient all the way through, but not practical. That was possible on a quiet front, but in the collapsing front, as it existed at that time, this was not possible
Q. You yourself were convinced that sulfonamides were not effective in treating deep seated wound infections. Is that right?
A. You have asked me that before. I shall repeat. I personally said: "I will manage in Hohenlychen without sulfonamides with my special staff." I managed it in that way, but I know that there were many others who did not have the facilities and, about 1942, at the time of this discussion, very important people represented a very positive point of view - I am not thinking of Krueger but, for example, Brunner and men of that quality.
Q. I understood you to state that you felt that the results reported on, with respect to the use of sulfonamides in treating lung shot wounds, were not reliable in reaching a judgment about the use of sulfonamides on wounds to the limbs or joints because the lung wound patients were kept immobile. Is that right
A. I don't think the translation can be right. It does not make any sense.