A Yes, I did change their wound dressings, and I have already described how this took place. I also spoke at that time with the experimental subjects. There was, of course, the language difficulty but, nevertheless, we did exchange words rather frequently. I was very sorry for the experimental subjects. Above all, because they were not free; and I found myself in an uncomfortable position because I had the feeling that I had done them harm. I do not wish to minimize in any way the pain that they must have felt. They certainly were in pain. As much pain as one has with an inflammatory disease; but whatever I could do to mitigate this pain I did, both as a human being and as a physician. At leaser, I attempted to. In changing these dressings and speaking to them briefly, I never had the impression that these were experimental persons who had been forced to participate in the experiments as has been stated here. The relations that I had with these persons were not essentially different from the relations that any physician has with his patients.
Q What was Dr. Oberheuser's position in connection with these experiments?
A I had not known Dr. Oberheuser previously to this. I saw her for the first time in Ravensbruck camp. She was really in the background there. I cannot recall precisely when it was, but at a later time she came to my attention. I knew of her - that she was in charge of the station, in which the experimental persons were kept after the operation and during their convalescence. Really, she had nothing to do with these experiments in the real sense of the word. She took no active part in them, but when the experimental persons came to the dressing station she accompanied them, and so far as I am informed, previously examined the experimental subjects who had been chosen for the experiments by authorities in Camp and the RSHA.
She told me in individual cases about these patients; that there were no objections on the basis of her physical examinations of these persons to their receiving an anesthesia, but this she was commanded to do by the resident physician and over and above that she did nothing that served these experiments in any way. She simply accompanied these patients to the dressing station, acted as a nurse during the changes of dressing, if I asked her to, and did various assistance of one sort or another during the innoculations, but it was of a completely subordinate nature such as holding the leg still or something of that sort. However, in the actual carrying out of the experiments she participated in no way. I had, in general, the impression that the experimental subjects liked it if Professor Oberheuser was present at the change of dressing, and it was a clinical rule of ours that we carried out a change of dressing on women always in the presence of other women, or another woman, and, for this reason also, it was pleasing to me that Dr. Oberheuser should be there playing an altogether passive role. She did not play an active role ever.
Q Did Dr. Oberheuser have anything to do with the choice of the experimental subjects so far as you can judge?
A So far as I can judge, no part whatsoever. She simply told me that she had given a physical examination, an X-ray to the persons chosen for the experiments. She had seen to it that they were bathed; that their temperatures were taken before; that the legs were shaved, and the other jobs that fall to a nurse, but she took no part in the choice of the experimental subjects beyo* this, as far as I know.
Q Did you have the impression that Fraulein Dr. Oberheuser had a scientific interest in the experiments herself? Let me add that she is a specialist in venereal diseases.
A No, I never had the impression that she had a scientific interest in the experiments. She simply took part in them to the extent that she did it because the experimental persons belonged to the station of which she was in charge, and had to take care of them because of that. The therapeutical care of the venereal problems in the camp, which was her field, had, of course, nothing to do with these experiments.
Q Did any of the experimental persons complain to you about Dr. Oberhauser?
A No, that never happened. I have already mentioned that, on the contrary, I had the impression that the experimental subjects were happier to have Dr. Oberhauser present than the camp physicians. I had the impression that Dr. Oberhauser had a human contact with the prisoners in the camp, in the same way that a woman can speak more openly with a woman.
Q Did Fraulein Oberhauser have anything to do with the scientific evaluation of the results of the experiments?
A No, she had nothing to do with this either. That was a matter which professor Gebhardt and I carried out alone. She did not take part in it, nor was she asked to by us.
Q Did she, in May of 1943, take part in the conference in which these sulfonamide preparations were reported on?
A No, she did not take part in it. That was a Wehrmacht matter, and she had nothing to do with it.
Q Did you yourself have any personal relations with the doctors in Ravensbrueck Concentration Camp, or with the other personnel there?
A No, no relations at all. I worked and lived entirely within the circle of Hohenlychen, and it was not a pleasant task for me to go over to Ravensbrueck. At Hohenlychen I had the same tasks I had had previous to when any of the experiments started-- ambulant patients and so on, and only between 2:00 and 4:00 in the afternoon, namely the time when there was a pause in our clinical work, did I have time to go over to Ravensbrueck. I have already stated that I was always announced beforehand. I simply changed the dressings, as ordered, and then returned immediately to Hohenlychen and to our clinic. I never had any personal touch with the personnel or the doctors at Ravensbrueck.
Q I come now to the Prosecution's point that concerns itself with the experiments regarding bones muscle and nerve regeneration and transplantation of bones. Did you carry out these or similar experiments?
A No, I did not carry out such experiments. So far as such experiments were carried out, they were carried out by Dr. Stumpfegger, and I shall speak later of the way in which I assisted him.
Q Did you know Dr. Stumpfegger personally, and what was his position at that time?
A Yes, I did know him. When I went to Hohenlychen in 1940, Dr. Stumpfegger was Chief Physician of the Clinic (Oberarzt), and had been so in peace time. He was considered one of the most skillful operators there. He was a very active and inconceivably industrious person. Then in the year 1941 he went to the front. I also know that his home town was the same as Himmler's, and that he was a very good friend of Himmler. The relations with Himmler were, as I heard, particularly characterized by the fact that he had become very early a member of the Youth Organization, that Himmler led, and that for various reasons Himmler thought very ell of him and promoted his career. Since 1940 Stumpfegger's contact with the clinic was loose and became looser as time went on.
Q Did you know about his experiments exactly?
A No, I did not know of them precisely. I was present when after Stumpfegger returned from headquarters, Gebhardt called several of us together and told us that Stumpfegger had been commissioned with a job in Ravensbrueck by Himmler, and he told me that it was Stumpfegger's wish that I assist him. I always made efforts at that time to avoid being an assistant, and since it was Stumpfegger's inclination to do all this work alone, I succeeded in this case. We went over a couple of times in the same car, and while I was changing dressings in one room, Stumpfegger was carrying out his operations in the other operation room, the aseptic room.
I knew only that he was dealing with the so-called osteogenic substance; he was attempting to prove that it existed in human tissue. I did not concern myself with his experiments further. It did happen at times when he was operating in one room and I was changing dressings in the other, that he asked me, via the camp physician or someone else, to come over to help him put on a plaster cast. Putting on this plaster cast took place after the operation, while he was carrying out a second operation, and took place in the plaster cast room, which was adjacent to the wound dressing room. I then did put on plaster casts on his patients, as he requested. I should mention that putting on plaster casts demands a special technique, if they are to fit well, and that we at Hohenlychen were of the opinion that we were particularly competent in this technique. I assume that it was for this reason that he asked me to put on the plaster casts, rather than someone else.
Q. The following question, Mr. President, relates to a document submitted by the Prosecution, an affidavit on the part of Gustava Winkowska, Document NO-865, Prosecution Exhibit 231, in Document Book 10 of the Prosecution, English, page 72. In this affidavit it is assorted that the witness had seen you with a package that allegedly contained an amputated leg. What do you have to say to that?
A. I knew nothing of the amputation of a leg within the framework of the experiments carried on at Ravensbruck. I did not carry out such an amputation nor do I know that anyone else did. The witness must be in error and I believe that the witness has already partly clarified, this error on her part; namely, she confused the transportation of the amputated shoulder blade with this amputated leg. The witness was Dr. Maczka.
Q. What did the witness, Dr. Maczka, say about osteomyelitis?
A. I know nothing of a deliberate infection with osteomyelitis. I never deliberately induced osteomyelitis, nor do I know that anyone else did. However, in two cases, so far as I know, there were case histories in the course of the innoculations in that last third group in which the cortical parts of the leg became involved in the infection; since Dr. Maczka was in charge of the X-ray department and saw this change in the X-rays, I assume that what she is talkie, about is an osteomyelitis of this sort.
Q. I come now to the Ladicz case, namely the transplantation of a shoulder blade in a patient in Hohenlychen. You have heard Dr. Gebhardt's testimony on the subject. Do you have anything to add to that testimony?
A. Yes, I do. This case appeared to me to be quite different from what Professor Gebhardt described it; but I believe that is because I saw it from a different perspective. Of the entire proceeding discussion and of the problem I know nothing. I must say something first in order to describe what my situation was. It was not infrequent in Hohenlychen, and no exception, if assistants were asked by the chiefs to carry out operations that were within Hohenlychen's special field in other hospitals nearby, namely, operations on limbs, let us say. In these operations it usually happened that the patient, on whom we were to operate, was prepared ahead of time by the hospital to which we went. We then went to the hospital in good faith and assumed that the situation, from a medical point of view, was perfectly on the up-and-up. This put severe drains on the work capacity of the individual assistants. Secondly, the problem of remobilizing limbs was a problem which was of concern in Hohenlychen and which was of particular concern to us at that time. At that time all of us gave much thought to how we could help out in this field. Professor Gebhardt he laid down the basic policy -- on the one hand the conservative method of exercise, in which the first chief physician, Schulze, helped him and on which he reported in the third meeting of the consulting physicians. We also worked with prothests in connection with this problem; that was all a part of it.
The above-mentioned. Schultze, for example, developed, a forearm prothesis through which he hoped to be able to develop a controllable or readily movable artificial hand, to be adjoined to the running stump of the forearm; and I myself was also working on artificial limbs for legs, where the danger of the legs collapsing under the patient was to be avoided by the intervention of an automatic or controllable breaking, and the remobilization of limbs was investigated from another point of view, namely, the plastic surgery, and Professor Gebhardt with his active surgical orientation turned particular to this approach. Gebhardt felt himself to be the pupil of his teacher, Lexer, at this specialty of Hohenlychen. Legs operated on are then provided with the necessary equipment to work independently again, but this also was no scientific solution, so that the search for other solutions continued, and in this search Gebhardt and others at the clinic turned to work that Professor Lexer had done after the First World War, at least that is the way he described it to me, namely, the free transplantation of limbs or part of limbs; and in Lexer's book the surgery of restoration and in the book on the free transplantation of limbs chapters are devoted to this subject. We In Hohenlychen had not carried out any such operations heretofore, and the assistants were allowed to pursue the problem of remobilization in their own way, and with their own approach. In the time after Christmas 1942, namely after the Ravensbruck experiments had already been concluded, and I had not been there for some time, Dr. Stumpfegger reappeared in Hohenlychen at the occasion of Himmler's Christmas visit, and in a way that I did not know about at the time the question of the free transplantation of a leg was discussed. We had the impression that Dr. Stumpfegger was the person who embraced this idea most enthusiastically. Then, as far as I remember, shortly before New Years there was the notice on the bulletin board on which operations for the next day were announced, that the third or fourth operation on the next day would be the free transplantation of a shoulder blade, and in the way Lexer had described it in his book "Free Transplantation". Dr. Stumpfegger was assigned to this experiment and other assis tants, but I was not.
I discussed this problem with the other members of the clinic. We discussed the prospect of the biological reaction to be expected. We also asked Dr. Stumpfegger from whence he was to take the shoulder blade and what the whole situation was, and he answered it was his intention to take the shoulder blade from a shoulder blade that did not function altogether perfectly because of the previous amoutation of a hand. On the next morning I was in the operation room end in the adjacent operation room the Ladicz operation was being prepared. Ladicz then was wheeled in and the Chief Physician came in, started washing his hands and preparing himself for the operation. He then came into the operation room in which I was working and said that a change had become necessary, for which reason I would have to go to Ravensbruck immediately to get the shoulder blade. Stumpfegger would telephone so that everything would be ready when I got there. I saw that Ladicz was lying on the table and ready for the first incision, and it was necessary that this shoulder blade which was to be transplanted did not suffer any drop in temperature. I was given a container which would see to it that the shoulder blade did not cool off during the 10 or 12 minute journey. I then asked hastily what technique I should use and was told to use Dr. Lexer's technique, the diagonal cut across the shoulder blade. I then climbed into the car that stood outside, went to Ravensbruck, and found a patient prepared. The camp physicians had already washed and dressed for the operation. I took off my second surgical apron, washed myself, tried out the incision as told by Lexer, cut out the shoulder blade with my own instruments, which I had brought along, stopped the flow of blood, then turned the patient over to the camp physician. Then I out the shoulder blade in a sterile container, out the whole thing into the container I had brought along, which had a temperature of 38 degrees, and returned to Hohenlychen as rapidly as possible. I then gave the shoulder blade to Dr. Stumpfegger, who had now got the patient to the point where it could be inserted.
Q. There was a mistake in the interpretation to the extent that the interpreter said, "Transplantation of a leg was discussed", but you did not make any such statement, did you?
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
BY DR. SEIDL:
A When and where did you work on the results of those experiments?
A That was during the months of January and February, 1943. I was called to Berlin to the State library in order to evaluate the results of these experiments. I also went to the pathological institute of the Rudolf Virchow Hospital in Berlin. During these two months I worked on the evaluati of the results of these experiments.
Q Then together with Professor Dr. Gebhardt you attended the Third Meeting at Berlin, May 1943, at the Military Medical Academy? You heard the testimony of Professor Dr. Gebhardt regarding that point, and I am asking you whether you have anything to add to his statements regarding that point.
A With reference to the results of these experiments, I should like to say the following: the scientifically uncomplicated question, as it came up through the medical situation has already been dealt with in the previous description of the experiments. We saw there was a wish and the hope to get a drug,with which one could treat wound infections from the start and could prevent any development, but this was not accomplished. In order to give an answer to that question, we tried to find out as quickly as possible.
Professor Gebhardt and I believed that this answer would be of great benefit to troop physicians and surgeons at the front. Secondly, the problem of sulfonamide was not exhausted with the answer to that question; the problem was much more difficult.
In addition, we could find an answer to yet another question. One group of the research workers, the bacteriologists and chemists, had found out that all micro-organisms as they belonged to plants were bacteria, and these bacteria all reacted to sulfanilamide. That is something that does not originate from us, but was a statement we knew of. Spirochaetes and protozon were not sensitive to sulfanilamides, and we didn't find that out either.
It was to be expected that those diseases, which were caused by bacteria, would give us a certain amount of chance to be influenced favorably by the introduction of sulfanilamide. The clinical observation from all field of clinical science taught us, however, that that was not so.
We saw symptoms of diseases where the curative effect of sulfanilamide was extraordinary, and,unfortunately, we had to observe that there were other diseases and other clinical experiences confirmed that, where we saw no effects whatsoever.
Originally it was thought to explain this difference in effect to a difference in the cultures, the bacteria cultures; but there were various symptoms of diseases which showed that the reason cannot be alone in the bacteriological difference, but that other factors played a role, too.
As a test case for this conception, we saw the symptoms of gonorrhea which once comes out as gonorrhea acuta anterior, and where we saw the good curative effects, and which on the other hand, was completely resistant to sulfonamide if the same virus showed their origin in the limb or in the prostata.
Through our observations, and through these experiments, we thought that we had found an explanation for that, together with other clinical conclusions, which we arrived at. We could prove that inflammatory diseases cause by bacteria can be cured by sulfonamides when the inflammatory process is going on in such a manner that sulfonamide is brought to the virus by way of the blood. However, we found that an success cannot be achieved, when the same virus, the same type of infection, would show its infection in the way of an abscess, so that the sulfonamide cannot be applied to that local area by way of the blood.
In other words, the therapeutical effect can not always depend on the difference in the bacteriological cultures, but that they are structural conditions of the tissues sometime we call then morphological conditions, and that these conditions could also be the cause for the failure of the sulfonamide. We could prove that the connection between the inflammatory area and the negrose, we could find out in that case there is no blood channel between the abscess and the tissues. This was next to the military technical result, the second result of a scientific nurture. We on our own initiative continued to develop that thought. We were not in a position to draw any conclusions from that, and I know that was also the motive of professor Gebhardt, because we wanted to free ourselves under all circumstances from the obligation to carry out any further experiments. That is why we only carried out these experiments on dead tissue of plants. The idea was that was that we said to ourselves that if there can be no therapeutical effect in the case of abscesses, because the sulfonamide cannot penetrate the center of that abscess, since there is no blood channel, then the next thing would be to consider how to overcome these limits therapeutically in order to apply the necessary concentration of that drug, even into the inside of the abscess; and at that time we developed the thought of the so--called jodophoresis, whereby we used electrical current in order to penetrate the limits of the tissues therapeutically by way of current. During that third meeting only the first two points were discussed. Professor Gebhardt, in his introductory words, as far as I remember, spoke in the same way as he spoke here. In an affidavit at one time I expressed that as far as I remember he had spoken of the political responsibility. I cannot maintain that assertion. I think it was true as he stated it here. He said at first that he was carrying out these experiments by order of Himmler and Hitler and that we were concerned with people who had been condemned to death, who thereby would get a chance of being pardoned. Whether the concentration camp was mentioned, whether the name of the concentration camp was expressed would become a question under discussion here. I shall now endeavor to remember that, and I am not in a position to say for certain whether he expressed the name of the camp or not.
I do not want to make any certain assertion here or answer that he did not mention the voluntary nature. He did not say we were concerned with voluntary experimental subjects. During personal conversations with me I learned that he could not believe in the full ethical voluntary nature, and that he, therefore, didn't want to mention that question.
On the basis of the fever charts and a collective chart in the course of tho experiments which have been demonstrated, it resulted there from that in the case of fifteen patients no symptoms occurred, and that in the case of thirty-six, only loca disease symptoms occurred, and therefore, these two groups are only mentioned very shortly, and the results were demonstrated in collective curves. In greater detail the other 24 were discussed, that is as far as it was necessary, in order to evaluate the results. I should like to state that this is the group which Professor Rostock remembered when he was speaking about a group amounting to approximately 20 persons. From these charts, it could also be seen that 12 persons from these 24 only showed local diseases which were not dangerous, the chart showing furthermore that three patients died, and we could further see from the fever chart how their temperature progressed and what kind of treatment was used, namely, whether sulfanilimide was introduced by way of the blood or whether it was introduced locally. I could also be seen whenever a change of dressing took place. These matters were only demonstrated during that group of twenty-four where the progress was more difficult. I made this clinical report after Professor Gebhardt's introduction and then Professor Gebhardt again spoke and summarized the report. He pointed to the practical evaluation and thereupon a discussion followed. I heard no critical utterances during that discussion. I heard no critical objections at all during the course of the entire meeting. I can make no statement how the final report was compiled in which the directives were contained. I can only say afterwards and that in reference to the objection of the prosecution with reference to the evaluation of the results within the directives, that a certain psychological or medical therapy has to be taken into consideration. The physician and medicine in no country of the world can dispense with therapeutic treatment even when it is not very clear about it's effectiveness.
There is a Latin proverb, "Ut aliqui fiat" which means that something happened, end up to today this is the prompting factor of any therapeutical treatment. Therapeutics have to be used also when one is not quite convinced in what manner and to what extent it would cure. If at that time we have learned, and I think it will show clearly, is an absolutely preventative drug, then in the first sentence of the directive it would have say: "Under all circumstances in the case of every wound sulfanilimide has to be introduced." That would have given us an absolutely clear directive. In that case, however, where the result was by no means so clear and where it was shown sulfanilimide cannot always act as a preventative drug, this result was fully copied and from the results of the experiments in the first paragraph.
In spite of that physicians should not have concluded from that any prohibition of the use of sulfanilimide. That would have lead to a great disagreement in all circles of physicians and would have shaken the confidence in any physician. The situation was than even in a case where the limited effectiveness of sulfanilimide was clearly shown, and especially with reference to wound infections. that in spite of that the mechanical therapeutical treatment was suggested to the practicing physician as an additional treatment, but in addition by way of a certain drug ho had to be told that he considered giving this mechanical, therapeutical treatment his full confidence, but that was merely an additional kind of treatment, in addition to the right main surgical treatment.
Q. In that case it was completely clear to the Troop physician, who acted in accord with these directives, that the surgical treatment must always be in the foreground of his measures, and that there is only a chemical therapeutical way of treatment in the use of sulfonamide?
A. Yes that is correct. In that way it was expressed that surgical therapy was the fundamental therapy and he was by no means prohibited to use chemical therapeutical treatment but it was merely suggested to him that he may use it as an additional means of treatment.
Q. On 27 January 1947 you made an affidavit which I have submitted here as Gebhardt Exhibit No. 8. Is it correct to say that in this affidavit everything is summarized in a concise form which was considered to be the scientific result of these experiments at that time?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. I now turn to your career within the Waffen-SS. What were the ranks which you held within the Waffen-SS and at what time did you hold them?
A. I entered as a reserve man, as an SS man. That is, private in the SS. After a period of training I was promoted to Untersturmfuehrer by reason of being a physician. In November 1941 I was pro moted to an Obersturmfuehrer in Russia and then, according to my age and according to my position as a physician, I was promoted to Stabsarzt at the end of 1942, as Captain in the Medical Corps, which was the main job.
I was active during the last years holding that rank and then had a position with the Tenth SS-Panzer Division Frunsberg in accordance with that rank. After being wounded I was promoted by suggestion of Professor Gebhardt to Sturmbannfuehrer. As Sturmbannfuehrer I held no real office but transferred to civilian service after leaving the hospital and as such had no SS service relationship whatsoever.
Q. Did you gain any advantages from being with the SS?
A. I received no money from the SS I received no pay from them either.
During the entire War I was paid from the Rudolf Virchow Hospital in Berlin as a City employee and that up to the last day of the War.
Q. Did you at any time have any political tasks in the SS or in the Party?
A. I had nothing at all to do with the Party. I never attended any Party meeting or any of their functions. I was never very clear about my party membership and only here during an interrogation did I hear that I had a certain number as a Party member. Before that I had not known that. I only had the task in the Waffen-SS which came to me as a physician and I was never obliged to fulfill any political tasks whatsoever.
Q. You are one of twenty-three defendants. Which one of the other defendants did you personally know in July 1942?
A. In July 1942 I knew Dr. Genzken, the Chief of the Medical Service of the Waffen-SS. I don't know whether he knew me. And, I also knew Professor Gebhardt. I knew no other of the defendants.
Q. I think a mistake was made. I asked you about the year of 1942. I think it was translated 1943.
A. Yes.
Q. I was speaking about the beginning of the experiments.
A. Yes, before the beginning of the experiments I only knew Dr. Genzken and Gebhardt.
Q. Mr. President, the next question refers to two affidavits which were presented by the Prosecution and which originated from the defendant Dr. Fischer himself. They are contained in Document Book 10. The first is the affidavit dated 19 November 1945 Document NO-228, Exhibit 206, which is on page 1 of the English Document Book No. 10. The second affidavit also originates from the defendant Dr. Fischer from 21 October 1946, NO-472, Exhibit 234, which can be found in the English Document Book 10, page 96. You know the contents of these two affidavits and I am now asking you whether you have to make a statement and explanation with reference to the contents of these two affidavits?
A The affidavit dated the 19th November, 1945, was made here in Nurnberg. It was taken down and signed by me in the English language. Before signing this affidavit I read it and signed it and recognized it. However, I did not choose the formulation of the affidavit. It was presented to me in that manner. This affidavit was based on preceding interrogations which were also held in Nurnberg during the months of September and October. These interrogations, in turn, were preceded by a series of first interrogations which were made in the British zone by the British CIC. This was done by a female official in the British Zone. She was the very first one who interrogated me with reference to this entire complex of questions. In order to supplement my own statements she showed me the entire testimonies to that point and told me that these were the statement male by Professor Gebhardt. All this happened after the collapse and everything that was connected with it. It was the first time that I again heard of all these events and it was the first time when I had to try to reconstruct the entire events as they took place at that time. That is how it is that I feel obliged now to withdraw the various points which I made at that time because I am not in a clear position to remember exactly what was written down and what was said at that time. The female official who, at that time, conducted the interrogation and who knew a certain number things about the situation in Ravensbrueck is Mr. Carmen Morey who was in the defendants' dock when the Concentration camp Ravensbrueck was on trial. I had already mentioned before that I cannot say, with certainty, that he said something about a political responsibility-that is, Professor Gebhardt - when making his introductory speech at the Congress. I further say that I cannot remember that we were concerned with people who had been condemned to death and who had come from a concentration camp. In the same manner I have to correct myself with reference to a correspondence which, according to my statement, was carried on between Professor Gebhardt and Professor Mrugowsky. At that time I made statements according to my best knowledge. I know that there was correspondence between Hohenlychen and the Hygienic Institute of the Waffen-SS with reference to the cultures which had to be furnished AS far as I remember, I saw a signature at that time and I believed that was Professor Mrugowsky's signature.
I have now here seen the signature of Professor Mrugowsky and this signature, compared with the ot her signature, differs. So this, of course, made me doubt my original statement, and I cannot now make any exact statement about it. With reference to the second affidavit dated the 21st of October 1946, this affidavit was preceded by an interrogation which was conducted in English without the aid of an interpreter. I tried very hard to answer the questions and to follow the proceedings. I was of the opinion at that time that I succeeded in expressing myself clearly in the basical questions. The interrogation took place on the 12th of October. On the 21st of October a formulated affidavit was presented to me which referred to the preceding interrogation. I asked the gentleman who presented this affidavit to me to remove some obvious misunderstandings. He was of the opinion, in the case of some of them, however, that I had actually expressed myself in that manner during the preceding interrogation and he assured me, at that time, that at a later date I should have the opportunity to give an explanation in regard to these matters. At that time I said -and this is most important - that according to my information the experiments had to be done in the interest and in the service of the German Wehrmacht and he concluded from that the sentence which I withdrew from a later affidavit also to the effect that there experiment was an order which emanated from the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service, Professor Handloser. I should like to correct that once more. It was only my intention to express what I was told in the year of 1942; namely, that we were concerned with a matter which was for the service of the German Wehrmacht. With reference to one point, I think that he was erroneous and I think that was the point where I say that Professor Handloser and Professor Brandt were guests at Hohenlvchen at the occasion of the Tenth Anniversary. I am quite clear in my mind now that I was mistaken at that time and that I was thinking of the Fourth Meeting of the Consulting Physicians. When the affidavit was presented to me, I also asked that one sentence be struck where it was mentioned that Professor Schroeder had attended the Third Meeting. I succeeded in getting these passages struck out temporarily, but afterwards it was put to me that I had said that the Chief of the Medical Services or his representative had been present and Professor Schroedor was considered to have been his representative and that is how this sentence remained in the affidavit.
In the same way a sentence had already been readily formulated from which it could be concluded that Professor Poppendick had been present as far as I remember and that Professor Poppendick had the position of a chief of staff with Dr. Grawitz. This formulation was there but I actually did not know Dr. Poppendick. I didn't know his position I only knew that he was an Oberfuehrer-held the rank of Colonel - and worked with Grawitz, and I therefore assumed that the formulation, as it was presented by the prosecution, was correct. With reference to the presence of Professor Genzken, I should like to say the following. As far as I remember, - it is very difficult to remember because many people were thereI think Professor Genzken was one of those present. However, I am in no position to be very decisive about it - affirm it or deny it. The picture is far too vague to do that. Since it results from the testimony of the witnesses that Professor Genzken was in Karlsbad, I cannot maintain my assertion with reference to his presence.