A Certainly not. It would have been wrong to give massage or baths afterwards, or anything else. That has to settle down and heal. The earliest would have been 1945, and then, of course, I did not. I was not in a position to worry about the Kusmierscuk case anymore than German wounds were given treatment at that time.
Q You completed the sulphanilamide experiments in December 1942?
A Yes.
Q And had written a report on these experiments?
A Yes, on the sulphanilamide experiments. There was great interest in them. I talked to Stumpfegger once briefly about them, and talked to Grawitz, and there were reports, and then there was a final report in December or the beginning of January.
Q To whom did you send the final report, was it only to Grawitz, or did you send a copy to anyone else?
A I cannot tell you whether a report was sent to Himmler himself. I should think that it was discussed with Himmler during his Christmas visit, and that Grawitz got it through official channels. I can't tell you exactly. Grawitz certainly got it.
Q Do you know whether you sent one to Genzken?
A Certainly not. Genzken had nothing to do with it. Genzken had no part whatever in the experiments, and I certainly never sent any report at all to Genzken during the whole war. I wrote to him or called him up when I needed something.
Q You didn't send a report to anybody outside of the SS?
A Outside the SS, no certainly not. It could only have been Grawitz or Himmler, or Grawitz alone or Himmler read it when he visited us.
Q Didn't you have occasion to make an oral report on these experiments to Brandt or Rostock in 1942?
A I have already told you that it was not 1942. That last year I said that I think that once I talked to the two gentlemen, not on the experiments but about the publication. That in my first testimony, I beli eve I said that I came from the Fuehrer Headquarters and that Brandt got out of the train at the same time.
I have a vague recollection of having told the two in the railroad station, "I would like you to know this is going to be published," and something about experiments on human beings, and after I was arrested I met Brandt in Dachau, and he said no, that he had not talked to me about it, and Rostock told me, no the preparations hadn't been in his hands at all. Then I must have discussed it with Schreiber. I must say honestly last year I remember it like that, and now I can't say exactly. I said what I remembered.
Q That was Rostock at that time?
A Rostock and Brandt.
Q Let's go over that a little bit. I have your interrogation here of 5th November, 1946, and you stated there that "I am sure I once told Brandt, without any order, that this anonymity of the whole matter is rather nonsensical. Now, he claims he cannot remember thought, and once I told Rostock, 'do you realize what we are reporting?' I do not know what Grawitz wrote to you. I am telling you Himmler ordered this, and that concerned the question of sulphanilamide that is being done. These experiments are to be performed, but I give the scientific advice only because German science can make use of it." Then you were asked the Question: Was it at that time clear to Rostock or Brandt that experimentations on human prisoners were concerned?" You answered, "Evidently."
A That is what I told you, I said that last year in the matter of the publication at the meeting I was of the opinion I discussed it with the chairman at the meeting, Rostock, in about those words. I don't know what difficulties are being made by Grawitz. Rostock said he was not in charge of the preparations at all, and Schreiber said that he learned this through official channels. I can only say I reported as I remember it. The question was the matter of publication, and now the two men deny it, and I can't say for sure.
Q As you remember you stated it in this interrogation that your talk with Brandt and Rostock took place in December, 1942, didn't it?
A I said December 1942? That is nonsence. The new meeting was not being discussed yet at that time. I spoke of anonymity and the failure to publish it. I don't think that the May meeting was discussed so far ahead. I believe that I said, as I remember, between the two meetings when the next meeting was being prepared. If I actually said December that is too early. December it was finished, yes, but I do not believe that the preparations for this May meeting were made as early as December. If I said that I have to correct myself. The reason was that Grawitz was trying to get around the agreement. The question was finally around the title. I believe the testimony says something about preparation for the meeting, but I don't know.
Q. Now, did you have any correspondence with the person who was handling this meeting in May of 1943 about this report, whether Schreiber or Rostock, did you correspond?
A. No, I can tell you what the official channels were, please make a distinct ion between the official things and what I do in addition by speaking personall The subject of the third meeting was set up by the person preparing it and I learn now that that was Schreiber. One of the questions of the daily program was sulfonamide. Then these questions were sent to all branches of the Wehrmacht. including the SS, that is Grawitz and Grawitz inquired of all his people, the surgeons and the hygienists. Apparently he talked to many because sulfonamide and all other things on the subject could be reported on. Then I reported my four other subjects and of course I also reported the sulfonamide question. Then this went back through the same channels to Schreiber. I went to Grawitz to ask what subject I was to speak on as I had to prepare for it and I was interested because there was the subjection in the sulfonamide questions. I know for certain that I also - not in writing - spoke personally with the person preparing the meeting and to state it briefly I said: "Do you realize I am coming, I am going to speak openly?" I thought this man was Rostock but I have been corrected and I am told it was Schreiber and he says he only took it over at the meeting. This is possible and can be confirmed by Schreiber. On the other hand, it has been discussed back and forth so much I can only say right here that I testified to the best of my knowledge.
Q. You also said, you talked to Brandt on this matter; Karl Brandt?
A. The very first statement says possibly that I came on the train and met the two men at the station; I don't think so?
Q. You were together on that occasion; if you remember it?
A. I think I arrived with the train with Brandt and Rostock or I met him or something like that. That is how I remember it and that was I believe what I said in 1945. Now, of course, I don't know what questions were asked in 1945, but that is how I remember it now.
Q. Now, didn't Brandt and Rostock also orally invite you to lecture at the meeting in May of 1943 on sulfonamide?
A. No, the request for my participation in the meeting came through office channels, through the Wehrmacht Medical Inspectorates, that came through Grawitz and he got it through the control office of the Wehrmacht.
Brandt had nothing to do with it and Rostock did not attend, he did not prepare for the meeting. I don't know.
Q. In your interrogation of 17 October 1946, you were asked in connection with the sulfonamide experiments: "Q: At this meeting you reported on the success or failure of your experiments? A: Yes, an assignment was given for the meeting. I was scheduled for it officially and that came through Grawitz. Orally I was informed by Brandt and Rostock."
A. No, in the first place I never signed these things and that is nonsense. That is always the same thing. I talked to Rostock and Brandt about it, they did not inform me, I informed them. I certainly did not say that.
Q. Now, without wishing to get into a long discussion on the results of these experiments, these sulfonamide experiments, am I correct in stating that you reached the conclusion that sulfonamides were not effective in treating wound infections; can you formulate very concisely and briefly the conclusion that you reached as a result of these experiments?
A. Exactly the first six lines of the directives; that is the summary.
Q. This is from the report of the meeting in May, 1943, Karl Brandt Exhibit 10 on page 22 of the Karl Brandt Document Book 1, reading from page 30:
"Experiments (Gebhardt-Fischer) showed the following results:
Even the immediate internal and external application of sulfonamide preparations cannot prevent a suppuration of the soft parts due to ordinary suppurative organisms. It could not be proved that the course of the inflammatory diseases caused by anaerobions is influenced by sulfonamides. The sulfonamides seem to have an easing effect on the course of combined gangrene therapy."
Now Doctor, can you state the conclusions reached in your experiments were adopted at this meeting in May of 1943 in face of the fact that the rules governing the application of sulfonamide as contained in these directives seem to state that you should continue to use sulfonamide?
A. I am convinced that the translation was not right, it was:
"Are you in a position to state that your directives were applied although..." and that was all.
Q. I will restate it; in face of your conclusion that sulfonamides were not effective for certain types of wounds, I am curious to know whether that conclusion was actually accepted and adopted in the directives issued at this meeting, in view of the fact that the directives later on seemed to say you are to continue to use sulfonamide?
A. This contrast between our results and all the directives of the clinicals does not exist in that form. We testified that the sulfonamides were a preventive drug that came from the beginning, that they would prevent infection was shown to be not true. That does not mean, however, that one cannot in the course of treatment use sulfonamide. The Clinical Doctor Frey, who also spoke and who had no connection with our preparation, came to about the same conclusion, although he recommends sulfonamide and later more strongly than we did. The directives show the results which we had, the results of Clinical Doctor Frey, a pathologist and someone else were published next to each other as the present state of thought as represented, but of course it is not so that there was a definite connection. One must act on this in this way, the evidence was given which had been reported at that meeting.
Q. Well, but after you gave your evidence didn't they continue to use sulfonamide in the same manner that they had before you made your report?
A. No, I don't think so. Certainly not in the Waffen SS. Before hand it had been flown in and some parts of our divisions thought that sulfonamide should be put in directly and they even thought that one could give the troops a bag of sulfonamide that the whole thing was stopped, that those who are a little more sceptical toward sulfonamide had no weight. Our contribution helped to achieve this. In my old field this became the basic attitude as far as I was able to make it prevail.
Q. Well, doctor, I am quite sure that you convinced yourself that you were right in the conclusions that you reached that sulfonamide wouldn't prevent infection in wounds, but I am asking you how successful you were in convincing other people, the other branches of the army, and I point to the directives here on page 31 of the document book, and it says that all surface wounds should be sprinkled as soon as possible with sulfonamide powder, and it goes on to say here to be sure and get the powder to the depths of the wounds. Is that not the contrary of the conclusion you reached in your experiments or not?
A. I don't have the document before me. I have only my own document book. May I ask what you are quoting now? Is that the work of Professor Frey that was dealt with on the same day? Was it at the same meeting, if I may ask?
Q. Witness, I am reading from your document book. Do you have that in front of you?
A. Yes, yes, yes.
Q. Page 31.
A. Yes, that is Frey.
Q. Well, now, wait. Let's try to get that point straight first. On page 30 you find the heading "Directives for the application of Sulfonamides", and under there are summarized the conclusions reached by Gebhardt and Fischer, by Randerath, by Mueller, by Frey, and then I find the heading "The Following Rules for Practice Therefore Result", and maybe I interpreted the directives wrong, but I thought that was a directive which was based upon all the reports and not a directive by Mr. Frey.
A. No, but I explained that yesterday. That is the difference between this and all other reports. Otherwise some kind of agreement is reached. If, for example, you look for the treatment directives at the same meeting, they have my wording from "A" to "Z" because my suggestion was accepted. In the case of sulfonamides there was some agreement reached in a point of view, but our attitude did not prevail, nor did Frey, who had not known anything about our experiments before, join us in our opinion.
You see that the results of all four are listed separately with the names.
Q. That's correct. Well, then, under those four summaries the meeting says that "The Following Rules for Practice Therefore Result". Now aren't those rules being stated by the meeting as a whole and not by Mr. Frey?
A. I still haven't found it.
Q. Page 31.
A. That was Frey. You are mistaken. That starts on page 30: "The clinical discourse (Frey) emphasized the decrease", and so forth, and then if you read the whole thing then Frey at the end of his speech made a summary for practice, which is exactly the wording which comes here. That is the clinical part of Frey summed up, and in the beginning is Gebhardt also summed up. I don't find Randerath. That was Frey's text. It says in the beginning "Frey" ten lines before.
Q. Witness, I am not going to engage in any argument with you, but I am going to pass the original up to you, and, in my opinion, the original shows very clearly that "The Following Rules for Practice Therefore Result" are rules being issued by this meeting and not by Frey and don't represent a mere personal expression of opinion by Frey. And if I am correct in that, that it told you that this committee didn't adopt the conclusion reached on your experiments at all because the instructions and rules say you are to continue to use sulfonamide powders on wounds. Now it is on the lefthand page. It was handed to you at just the right place there.
A. Would you permit me to look at Frey's report first?
MR. MC HANEY: Does the Tribunal have before it the Karl Gebhardt document book?
A. It is certainly the text of Frey, but I will be glad to discuss it with you. You are misinterpreting my statements. "The powder treatment is of no use if the depths of the wound are not reached." But it shows --
Q. Just a minute, witness, let's determine one point at a time. I am asking you if the "Rules for Practice in the Use of Sulfonamides" appearing in this report of May, 1943, aren't rules issued by the committee or meeting as a whole?
A. I told you I do not believe that they were discussed; that, on the other hand, I have admitted that I have no objection and that my report was put at the beginning of the reports as well as at the beginning of the directives. If they had been rejected or had been changed, they would not be listed at the beginning, or I would have been forced to change them. My test is the same in both places and then there come the summaries of the reports of the others and especially in great detail the clinical report. Ours was much shorter and not on such a broad basis. The contrast between these four reports is not as great as you assume.
Q. I am assuming nothing, but isn't it true that where the words read, "The Following Rules for Practice Therefore Result", are rules being issued by the committee and are not rules simply being stated by Frey in his report?
A. Certainly, but also all the proceedings from the word "directive" on.
Q. But don't you concede, Herr Professor, that these rules directing continued use of sulfonamide conflict with the conclusions reached by you in your experiments which you yourself have described as negative results?
A. You must be convinced that both would not have been published next to each other if they had been in strict contrast. Then it would have been nonsense to publish them. It is not possible to prescribe to a surgeon at the front on the basis of this meeting: In the future you may proceed only in the following way. On the other hand, in the beginning there is an explanation on the basis of the results which comes to a very extreme point of view, and that Frey has described his clinical experience without our detailed experience, and his conclusion is that powder should continue to be used.
We do not object to using powder secondarily, only primarily, that the main consideration is that the powder should reach the wound. "It is ineffective to powder the small wounds caused by the penetration and exit of the bullet." The contrast is really not as great as it seems to you. The fact is that the meeting and the person who set up the book listed all the results as important, one next to the other.
Q. Didn't you get Stumpfegger his job as escort physician to Himmler?
A. I have already told you that I did not get him his job, that there were two of us in the Polish campaign. Stumpfegger was my assistant, and this gradually developed by itself. I saw that Himmler liked the younger man to come to him and he didn't mind if I went to the front. It was not so that I had to take him there. He was always there from the first day on. In the beginning there were two of us.
Q. Now you have assumed responsibility at least for the conduct of the sulfanilamide experiments. What about the bone experiments?
A. I tried to describe that to you yesterday, to what extent I feel responsible and how it came about. Stumpfegger came to us with the approval for the experiments. He even had the assignment that we were to take a considerable part in it. The clinic did not participate. Stumpfegger told me what he was doing. Stumpfegger worked there alone. I was dependent on Stumpfegger's report and on what he told me, but I did not check his work.
Q. Didn't you ask him to report to you?
A. I have already told you that there was a certain contrast there, that it was a big chance for him. I would take the responsibility just as I did in the case of Fischer if that had been the case. Stumpfegger wanted this chance but I wanted to know what was going on over there.
Q. Didn't you assign Fischer work with Stumpfegger?
A. No. I said Fischer was to work with Stumpfegger when we were still together if it was possible to help him. I don't know how far it had gotten in October.
Q Well, to the extent that Fischer worked with Stumpfegger, you assume responsibility for that, don't you?
A The fact is that Fischer did. Yes, sir, of course.
Q Was not Stumpfegger working on his habilitation thesis under you on these bone experiments?
A That presentation is not right. Stumpfegger had two men ahead of him. He was, no doubt, expected to qualify as a lecturer, and so far as one can discuss it beforehand, the assignment was that the problem which interested the town was to be discussed. That gave him all our material. He had two other men ahead of him. Then Stumpfegger worked on this, and says he did not report to me primarily, but to my former teacher.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be recessed.
(recess)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: I would ask counsel if it is his intention to have these documents, NO-649 and so forth, marked for identification?
MR. MC HANEY: No, Your Honor, it is not.
CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued) BY MR. MC HANEY:
Q. Witness, did you perform the operation on the patient Ladisc?
A. Yes.
Q. What did they do - what did Fischer do? I think it was he that removed the bone from this Polish woman at Ravensbruck. Precisely what operation did he perform on that Polish woman, do you know?
A. Yes, I do. Permit me to describe that briefly. I know that I said so and spoke at such length yesterday that not everything I said was interpreted. I should like in the case of this experiment to confess my responsibility completely end openly, as far as I have to take it, as I have done so before. In the case of this bone experiment it is true that the idea didn't originate from me and I should greatly have suppressed it had it been possible. It was not absolutely necessary for the clinic and as can be seen from all testimony Stumpfegger came from the outside to us with the matter. In all the world I cannot describe how responsible I am for Stumpfegger. I might incriminate myself further but I can try if you wish, if I would state he was directly under Himmler and had nothing to do with me, for he report to me and I advised him against it. At that time there was no mention of carrying cut the experiment on a joint, Neither he nor anybody could expect much from it. I certainly did not expect much from it. Please believe me in this. He came to a surprising conclusion. It is a matter of course that any experiments on human beings were only a matter that concerned Stumpfegger and had nothing to do with any other office. If I said something that leads to a different conclusion, I beg your pardon. I only said the problem was different. He came to a definite result, wished to check on it, and was given per mission to do so.
My participation was that it was carried out for a patient in Hohenlychen, and that on the other hand I knew that a shoulder blade was removed. It was provided that there were to be two separate operations, Stumpfegger on one hand to take cut a spatula, and I on the other hand to carry out experiments on persons endangered with cancer. Stumpfegger also made the preparations, and in the morning when we went to the operation Stumpfegger laid emphasis on the fact that he should be my immediate assistant because when he inserts the shoulder blade he would like to know the conditions from the very beginning.
It was for this reason, without any previous planning that Fischer, because he was the only one who knew about this, unfortunately was sent to Ravensbrueck, took part in the operation already planned by Stumpfegger, being supported in this by a doctor there -- I believe it was Schokowsky -and then brought the shoulderblade to me. I operated on the sick person. The shoulderblade was brought back and was reinserted by Stumpfegger. Since it is an old rule in surgery that the oldest surgeon is responsible, I, of co**sa, am responsible for that operation in Hohenlychen. I wanted to exp*****that yesterday; but because I was so tired I did not do so clearly. ******ed to say that previously, it is not my intention to evade this question.
Q. Now, did they take the scapula from the Polish woman in Ravensbrueck?
A. Yes.
Q. Will you tell the Tribunal which bone the scapula is?
A. The shoulderblade, as I have already described. I chose this as the least dangerous operation rather than some other joint because I had experience in the case of the same person with cancer. This is not to sound as if the shoulderblade was altogether unimportant; but it is possible that a person can do without his shoulderblade. It is for this reason that we chose the shoulderblade, sooner than if Stumpfegger would have removed a larger joint. The shoulderblade is the joint I am speaking of.
Q. Could they remove this scapula from the Polish woman without destroying the muscles in her back?
A. No, we didn't got so far. There is a crescent-like incision; tho shoulderblade is removed; and then the muscles rise into that space so that the joint still remains movable. However, the raising of the arm above the horizontal is no longer possible when the shoulderblade is removed. This I observed on the patient in question.
Q. Do you know what happened to the Polish woman from whom this bone was removed?
A. I have already testified that Stumpfegger reported to me specifically that in all his experiments there was not even a case of infection and no interruption in the convalescence.
It was not that Fischer would have come over if Stumpfegger had not been in on the operation. I repeat, none of Stumpfegger's operations were controlled by me.
Q. The removal of this bone from the Polish woman and transplanting it in Ladisch, the patient at Hohenlychen, is described as a heteroplastic transplantation.
s
A. The word 'heteroplastic' came up once; but that is a false expression, 'Homeoplastic' is the word. That means a transplantation from one person to another.
Q. And autoplastic transplantation?
A. An autoplastic transplantation, which is the heading under which all of Stumpfegger's work fell, is the transplantation within one person, from which you are not to conclude that specifically the shoulderblade comes into question.
Q. Now, the witness Madzka testified about the removal of whole extremities from certain of the women at Ravensbrueck. As I recall, she said they were insane persons. Do you know anything about that?
A. You are connecting it to testimony. You know that in the monstrous affidavit from Madzka these matters are to be found. "Insane persons were subjected to severe operations, transferring parts of limbs". She also says that she had heard from another patient who had seen it that from a Polish woman an arm was cut off for the sake of the shoulderblade. Then under examination she said that preparations were taken for this. That is at least the way I recall that testimony. At any rate I can tell you that except for the shoulderblade for which I admit my own responsibility I heard of nothing else in that direction nor do I think that Stumpfegger acted on his own in this direction.
Q. Moving along to the freezing experiments, did this report which you received from Rascher on the dry freezing experiments speak of keeping the inmates outdoors naked, in freezing weather, for extended periods of time?
A. I can tell you no more than what I said yesterday. There was a memorandum for the front, a practical report that related, to experiments there; and I admit it and state specifically that it was not so drastically stated in there.
Otherwise I should have remembered it. But he did say that experiments were carried out on the prisoners there because I explained to him that unless he had front experience this was not necessary. But to the extent that you wish to see it, I do not believe it took place.
Q. After your talk with him in May 1943 didn't you take steps to assist him in further work on freezing experiments?
A. I told you yesterday what really took place; and you showed me the document that related to this. First of all I was sick; was operated on; and Rascher sent me his report. The report is very cautious, simply a practical presentation of what he was doing; and he considered an exhaustive scientific utilization necessary. And only for that would he need my help. I am unable, however, to tell you when I found out about these things. In addition, I answered this report briefly and certainly wrote the letter that you have here.
Q. Let's put this letter before you. I don't know that it's been offered in evidence, although you may have it available and have seen it before. This is Document NO-232 - you signed this letter, did you not, Witness?
A. Yes, of course.
MR. McHANEY: Document NO-232 is offered as Prosecution Exhibit 459 for identification. This is a letter dated Berlin, 11 June, 1943, from the defendant Gebhardt to the defendant Rudolf Brandt.
"Dear Comrade Brandt: I had the opportunity to get together with Comrade Rascher shortly before my illness. With a sound, critical approach toward his work, we very quickly came to an agreement in his enclosed letter. He himself emphasizes that the results are still incomplete as yet and need further corroboration. This, however, is only possible if the necessary apparatus for this type of work is available. Rascher has explained that in his letter. I beg you now to examine if the necessary steps are to be taken by you through the "Ahnenerbe" or by myself in order to have the needed appratus issued to Rascher.
Only if these prerequisites exist can valuable scientific work be accomplished.
"As far as I am concerned, I can only tell you that I am well and that I'll have myself transferred to Hohensychen one of these days.
"Heil Hitler, (signed) Karl Gebhardt."
Q. Now, Witness, doesn't this letter indicate that you were taking steps to further the work of Rascher?
A. No. May I also please read this letter aloud? "The Rascher experiments are concluded. They are winter experiments and they shall not be continued the next winter". The entire question of his experiments is stated specifically, that "the entire problem shall be reexamined after Himmler has spoken to Gebhardt. That is the definitive point in my attitude." On the other hand, if you will take a look at the letter, the fact that I say "Comrade Brandt" doesn't mean that I was particularly friendly with him. That was just the custom. A good critical approach means a very critical approach. In his enclosed letter he emphasizes that the results which he had presented to Himmler as conclusive are only incomplete and still need further work. Then there is mention here of apparatus that he needs and so forth.
This of course was not true and I knew already that at that time. He came to me without my wanting him to which no one seems to want to believe. That I should specifically give him apparatus, that of course you don't believe, Herr Brandt, for this pertained to this Blumenreiter. Nothing happened after this letter, that he was not even dole to have himself named as a hygienist.
Q. But witness, this letter concern Doctor Rascher being furnished apparatus in order that he can continue his work and you are inquiring of Brandt whether you should furnish him the apparatus or whether that would be handles through Ahnenerbe.
A. It says further apparatus to corroborate the previous experiment, viz. not for new ones; and I believe this was a lie, because what would he want to corroborate again in these experiments? That I never had to provide apparatus for anybody, that is perfectly clear. The essential point seems to be that no further experiments will take place any more if I am with Himmler. At that time I had not visited Himmler. He was with me in May, then there was the lecture, then I had to be operated on, and only then did I go to Himmler.
Q. Later on in 1943, or early in 1944, you tested Polygal with Rascher at Hohenlychen, didn't you?
A. No. That you assume from the letter, because it states there that he should c me, but I cannot recall that at all. I was frequently absent and after that I did. not see Rascher. None of my men reported this to me, but it is true that Polygal was examined in Hohenlychen. It states in the letter that the man should report to me or to the competent physician in charge, but there was no further communication with Rascher. Matters proceeded rather rapidly, and at the beginning of 1944 Rascher withdrew.
Q. Well, maybe you will explain to the Tribunal then how you knew that Rascher had carried out experiments with this Polygal by shooting inmates, and I refer you to your interrogation of 17 October 1946, in which you state y u were asked the question in connection with Rascher's Polygal experiments:
"Where did these experiments take place? "Answer: "That I do not know. About the middle or end of 1942 Rascher came to see me in Hohenlychen. I remonstrated with him and asked him to tell Himmler that the application of this remedy involved the danger of bleeding to death. Rascher admitted that he had conducted experiments. I did not understand that because his point of view was wrong. I asked whether he had conducted experiments and learned that they had been carried out on persons who had been wounded by a shot in the course of the experiment."
A. In 1945, I stated, and in much greater detail, that Rascher came to me because of Polygal. Now when these later documents were submitted to me, I did not recall that. I knew that the decisive showdown with Himmler -- when that took place was about Rascher about Polygal -but I immediately admitted when I saw this document, that Polygal was sent to me and saw that there was a false recommendation at the front, which is referred to here in a not quite correct translation. I went to Himmler and had an extensive discussion with him on the subject of Rascher; and if Rudolf Brandt was to know anything of this showdown between Himmler and me, it was because of Polygal and this matter. I was with Himmler, and since I do not have the documentation I cannot remember it precisely but it seems to me that Himmler, thinking that Polygal really protected persons against bleeding. For that reason it was tested by Rascher and it was f r this reason I wanted to point out how senseless Himmler's attitude was. If you fatally wound someone and if he then bleeds to death you would not need a coagulant. In other words, I, without wanting to interfere, do recall that the decisive point was Polygal and not the memorandum and I kept the two strictly separate. In my opinion, Polygal did not play any role at that time, but only later, and I indicated this to Himmler. It is simply not possible that Rascher knew of it.
Q. Did Rascher tell you that he shot people to experiment with this blood coagulant?