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.
Q. That may be the translation or, again, that may be the layman's point of view that you so severely criticized yesterday.
A. May I repeat what I heard. I understood the question to be whether I thought that lung wounds could not be successfully treated with sulfonamides because they had to be kept immobilized.
Q. No. As I understand the situation, certain doctors had reported that they had quite successfully treated lung shot wounds with sulfonamides.
A. Me?
Q. No, not you. Others.
A. It was read yesterday by Dr. Seidl that Dr. Krueger had success with lung wounds, as a report to the second meeting following a discussion of the treatment of lung wounds by Krueger and the discussion following the speech, and, right under that, he read that Mr. Schulze objected to these successes denied these successes. That is how I remember it.
Q. And didn't you feel that it was not proper to take the successful experiences reported in lung shot wounds and conclude that, therefore, sulfonamides were effective in treating wounds to the limbs or joints?
A. No, certainly not.
Q. Certainly not what? You said that that was improper....
A. (Interrupting) I mean that the fact that Krueger was successful in the lung wound that does not mean that the same success will be obtained in wounds to joints. Is that the question?
Q. That's right. That is what I understood you to state, and I am now asking you why you reached that conclusion, and if I remember it correctly, you said that it was because that the patient with the lung shot wounds was kept immobile - he wasn't moved, whereas a person who had been shot in the leg or had a bone injury was transported.
A. Nobody said that yesterday. There was no discussion about that. The reason why I opposed Dr. Krueger... I can tell you that exactly. Generally, there were a couple or two consulting surgeons who belonged together, and Dr. Krueger was the one who reported the greatest success. His partner was Professor Schmidt from Bremem who was always mentioned negatively in the same discussion and Mr. Schmidt told me personally after I had happened to be with him, how Kruger came to his big figures.
He always told about 3000, about 700, and such enormous figures. He did not see them personally, of course. He had reports from others by telephone, etc., and that is why I had misgivings from the very beginning to the position of Krueger. At the next meeting, he was talking about abdominal wounds or some such things. That is absolutely decided. It is not a question of the case history. The question is whether the material on which the surgeon based his decision is reliable and that is what I doubted. But it was certainly never said that the lung wounds would be successful and the others not. There must be some translation mistake.
Q. What agreement did you reach with Nebe on the question of what would be done with the survivors of these experiments? Were they to be released? Were they to have their death sentences changed to a life sentence? Precisely what was the agreement on that point?
A. I told you exactly that the important thing was the chance of survival and that I told Himmler that that had to be kept in order, and the point is so that the individual in the course of time is loyal to the conditions. I believe there were two or three who were given pardons or sent to German labor offices. The condition was that the Pole, of course, had to sign - had to agree to work with the Germans. The others remained alive but remained in the concentration camps and Himmler did not let them go. I didn't interfere with all these legal matters either before hand or afterwards, but I was assured that they would remain alive.
Q. Well, then you did not reach any definite agreement about precisely what was to be done with the survivors? All you knew was that they were to remain alive - whether still in the concentration camp or whether they would be completely released. Is that right?
A. I told you that explicitly and I will repeat the whole thing. You assume that everything was done in an orderly way - a peacetime way as it might be necessary for your support. That, unfortunately, is not how it was. During this time, Himmler hoped and thought that he would be able to maintain the Eastern area and resettle it compulsorily. There were certain groups of Germans and others nationalities he wanted to settle there. That was his plan and his conviction even at a time when it had become absurd.
Q. And as it actually happened you say they would release the Polish women only if they signed an agreement to work with the Germans?
A. Now you want to turn it around again that he made definite conditions on the other side. That was not possible. That was not my duty. At the moment of the experiment they remained alive and the whole thing was under the pressure of these enormous events. It was not so that from the very beginning of 1942 we knew that we would lose. It was not so that from the beginning we had only Poles who were not ready for a compromise solution.
Q Witness, will you kindly pay attention to the questions that I ask you, and try to give a short and concise answer. And please don't shout at me, or the Tribunal, because I have already conceded your supremacy in that matter, or of the volume of your voice. You stated a few minutes ago very clearly, that after the experiments were over these Polish women were not released unless they signed an agreement to work with Germans, is that right?
A I know that one was certainly given assistance, as we have heard from the witness Mrs Oberhaeuser, and I personally have thought out in a word, or two or three, how these questions were worked out with the Polish women in detail, and to what extent they were worked out, one did not know, and I did not know; I did not take part in it in any way. I beg your pardon for the shouting at you, as it was not my intention. I know that only from your own condition that when you reach, as here, a high point your voice becomes louder.
Q Witness, did you reach any agreement with Nebe about whether these experimental subjects were to consent to the experiment, or, whether, as Rostock got the impression in 1943, that the experiment was substituted for a death sentence, irrespective of the consent?
A I can only assure you, and if you ask me ten times, it was not my intention whether you considered that a negligence on my part, or not, I don't care; I would be lying if I told you anything else. I was very glad that Himmler took this legal side, as to the status of the doctors, and as I was told some one at the top took charge of this matter. I had no reason at that time to doubt the German State authorities in any way, or to distrust Himmler. How it worked out in detail was not a point of discussion in any way for me.
Q Then you don't know whether the persons experimented on in which was the sulfonamide experiment had been asked to give their consent?
A I have said, I don't know, and I don't know exactly, and with all assurances I was given that that was more or loss voluntary, and I was not interested in that. I left that up to the legal authorities. Neither Fischer nor I heard a thing on this experimental subject or discussed it with them.
Q And I don't suppose that you know who under German law could validly agree to pardon, or a release of a person sentenced to death on condition that he undergo an experiment?
A I repeat, I assume that under the German law if any one gives is approval he submits.
Q I don't think you understand the question -
THE PRESIDENT: No, no.
BY MR. MC HANEY:
Q I don't think you understand the question. I asked if you knew of a person in the German State who could validly or legally agree to pardon or to release a person sentenced to death on condition that the person undergo a medical experiment?
A Of course, Himmler.
Q Himmler could agree to that validly under the German Law?
A Now first you ask me to be a medical expert, and you want me to be a legal expert. I can only say I have no doubt that at the time in concentration camps Himmler had absolute power, and that in my opinion he had an authority from Hitler, but certainly not from any legal authority. That was my opinion at the time, and it still is.
Q How many of these Polish women were made available for medical experimentation in Ravensbruck?
A I have already told you that we had fifteen men, sixty women, and Six or seven others, and that on the other hand from the beginning I had counted on a large scale experiment. I simply remember the number two-hundred and five, that I can not say for certain, that is right; in any case, it was not that we did not need all the figures which we had mentioned, and it is not to my knowledge; it is more or less the figure which the Poles know.
Q In other words, you do remember that Nebe made available something like two-hundred and five Polish women?
A No. Now you want to have it the other way around. I told you that was at the start on a certain large scale experiment, and so it had to be settled beforehand, and so far as I know there were Polish women. I heard this number here, though they were condemned, they had been examined, and I certainly remember that there were about two-hundred, I say, to be for the experiments. You heard from witnesses that the other comrades were shot, but the others I don't know.
Q This just exactly what I asked you. Were there originally something like around two-hundred Polish women? We are agreed on that, aren't we?
A We do not agree that I said that. You have had from the beginning exactly two-hundred women; on the other hand, in the course of time under the pressure of Grawitz that number two-hundred and five came to be that at one time. I never discussed the figure.
Q And all of these women came to Ravensbruck in this transport from Poland in September 1941. Do you know whether that is so or not?
A I don't know. I heard here for the first time about all of the transports, and where the women came from. I did not take any interest in that, and I was very glad that I did not have to worry about this matter, and to inquire about it. It was a transport from Lublin of seven-hundred, I heard that figure here from the files, or from the records of the trial, or from the testimony of the witnesses, or by some one these figures were mentioned.
Q As a matter of fact, you only experimented on sixty Polish women in the sulfanilamide experiment, is that right?
A Yes.
Q Who selected the sixty women out of the two-hundred that were available?
A I told you how that was, quite explicitly, that in a preliminary discussion between Grawitz and myself we decided that we were to start on a large scale experiment, and in the execution, nothing else, and Fischer called up, and in my behalf, of course, and said we are coming, we will begin with five or six.
From the testimony of the witnesses I read that either they were there called up according to a list, or that they were picked by the personnel. It said here that the secretary of the camp, and that they were called together, but we had nothing to do with the selection, and certainly Fischer never interfered in it, and never told me anything about it, and I myself did not make any selection.
Q But you do concede that somebody exercised a selective process in judgment in Ravensbruck, because you used sixty out of some two-hundred, is that right?
A No. Not what you just said, I did not appoint nor make the selection in that camp. I think that the records of the these groups were in Berlin, that is something I learned, and this here, that the RSHA, the Reich Security Main Office, had an agency in the camp, and that they examined these things, and said what death sentence which had been pronounced, say, of one-hundred of so and so camps are concerned, and there sight them, and use these. I never went into this process. I never worried about it. I don't know, I was sure that this examination would take place, and that the selection would not be arbitrary.
Q And you say you had no contact with Mrugowsky in obtaining the culture -- the bacteriological culture used in producing the infections?
A I beg your pardon, I can not remember that Mrugowsky had anything to do with it.
Q Well, by the way, Fischer said in his affidavit, in document book No. 10, document NO-228, exhibit 206, page one, of document book, page three of the affidavit, Fischer said that since no inflammation resulted from the bacteriological culture used in the first two series of operations, it was determined, as a result of correspondence of Dr. Mrugowsky with the chief of the Hygiene Institute of Waffen-SS, and conversation with his assistants, on the change of type of bacteriological culture used in subsequent operations, do you know whether or not Fischer is correct when he makes that statement in his affidavit?
A I told you my point of view. Te**tically, I refrain from discussing Fischer's testimony, because I am not of the opinion that was anything against my men. Fischer would testify to what he remember. I personally am of the opinion that Mrugowsky was not there, from the whole construction of things, either of the finding by bacteriological clinician, whether by letter or not, I would admit about Mrugowsky, but I don't remember him. On the other, am ertain that delivery came from the office. Whether there was any correspondence, I don't know. I know that a man always came and brought it. Fischer knows that the letter was signed by Mrugowsky. Please ask Fischer about it.
Q You spoke of the post-operational name given these women?
A Yes.
Q What provision did you make for those women who were ill for months and years after the experiment, for example Kusmierscuk?
A First I deny that they were sick for years. That is not true. Kusmierscuk was really the worst case of all, and she admitted that she was sick until about July or August. She had an abscess, if I remeber correctly. One of them had an abscess. I don't have the records here. I can't say exactly. In any case, it is not so that a large number of women were sick for years. In the second place, in the long run in the cases of acute danger the women were given therapeutic safeguards, as I have described, and then they were turned over to the camp physician. They went back to the blocks and continued to be treated. Most of them healed very quickly. I described the therapeutic results to you yesterday, that is operations, quiet and other therapeutic methods.
Q And if anyone was ill beyond May 1943 or August 1943, just to avoid any argument on the dates, you left them in the care of the camp doctors, isn't that right?
A Yes. After that they might have called me in if there had been anything, but we didn't hear anything more about it.
Q And you spoke of cosmetic appearance of the wounds on these women, did you make any provision to improve the appearance of these women's legs?
A May I answer you frankly --
Q That is certainly what I expect.
AAfter the healing one cannot improve the area of the wound before two years have passed. Generally we wait three years. That is a mistake on your part. You think that one can perform an operation immediately, and you see from the two examples which were very impressive here, I don't remember the names, that it was in 1945, two and a half years labor, in Warsaw, that an attempt was made with good success in one case and with an inflamation of the foot in the other case. The con dition is not as bad as the patient herself says, but there was a difference.
It is not so that the one operation can follow the other immediately. We wait over two years, as you can read from my report which I made at the Third Meeting, where I say we have no scheme one should wait for years. I don't mean the Polish women in particular. I was speaking generally.
Q Doctor, I am not aware of my having suggested to you that you could improve the cosmetic appearance of these women on the day following the operation; my question was had you made any provision in regard to these matters, and I don't believe you answered the question.
A I don't know what you mean by provisions. If you mean that in combatting the infection we were to consider the extent of the cosmetic damage, if I am to understand the question in that way, then of course not.
Q Let's make it very easy for you. Did you have any intention of further operations on these women at a later date to improve their appearance, or otherwise improve their condition.
A That is not possible in operating. Where gangrene appears one must go after it with the knife to save the joint, no matter what sacrifice is necessary in the appearance picture. I don't know what muscles I will need for this purpose or that. The combatting of the infection and the future appearance cannot be united clinically. Those two things do not belong together. You want to prove that I was negligent, that I combatted the infection, but I did not care about how it looked afterwards, then I say, yes, that is not negligence.
Q I haven't said a word about negligence. I haven't meant to infer anything about negligence, but the fact is after you operated on Kusmierscuk and saved her life, as you put it, you knew that she was disfigured?
A Yes.
Q I am asking you if you had any intention of trying to improve her appearance, did you have any plan or did you take any steps to do that?