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.
Q. What did you do after leaving Berlin and Hohenlychen after this meeting in May 1943?
A. During that entire period I had always volunteered for service with a division. Dr. Gebhardt had told me that immediately after my participation in that meeting during which our experiments had to be reported I would be transferred to a division. On the following day I transferred to the 10th Panzer Division and I assumed the position of a first surgeon in a medical company with that division. I was active for a year and a half with that division, until, in August, 1944, I had to go back into the home country because of being wounded. I spent three months in the hospital and, since I was no longer in a position to exercise the profession of a surgeon, I had to restrain and went as an assistant to the Charito at Berlin at the institute for X-ray and radio and, up until the collapse, I was active in that institute.
Q. Did you every enter any camp after the experiments in Ravensbrueck in the year of 1942?
A. No, I later never entered any concentration camp.
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, I have one more question to put to the witness. A question the answer to which will take some time, and I ask for permission that I may put this concluding question after the mid-day recess.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now be in recess until 1:30 o'clock.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours - 11 March 1947.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1830 hours, 11 March 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats. The Tribunal is again in session.
FRITZ FISCHER - Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR. SEIDL:
Q. Witness, during the last months you have experienced during this trial, what went on during the trial, you heard the indictment and have now described your participation in these experiments. I ask you now to tell the court what - after the prosecution has presented its case and after you have made your own statement - what you have to say about the subject of the indictment, so far as it concerns yourself.
A. First of all, I regret that fate compelled, me as a Physician to offend against the basic principles of medicine, and I regret that men are appearing to testify against me, that I did not help them but did them injury. Further, I particularly regret that these persons were women. I have learned that a deed, if it is committed and later is adjudged, must be adjudged according to the motives and the circumstances that surrounded it. That the motive that lay behind the activities for which I am here on trial was exclusively that of helping wounded persons. In that uniquely difficult period I wanted to help the millions of wounded persons. The act was committed by me as an obedient member of the German armed forces. The belief and confidence in the legal jurisdiction of the state and the Fuehrer seemed to me to provide legal protection and justification for what I did. This is in reference to what I said previously about individual responsibility.
During this time in which my people were fighting for their very life, in a period when the final decisions were about to be reached, I believed I was not a member of the resistance movement and that the state had the right to take measures that lay beyond the competence of the individual. In that time when 1500 persons were falling daily on the front and in which several hundred.
died daily in the homeland as a result of the war, this obedience to the state seemed to me the highest ethical duty. I was of the opinion that the experimental subjects who stood under German law and faced certain death were being offered a human opportunity to save their lives, and I believe that under such circumstances I would have seized on such a chance myself.
These actions took place not in 1947 but in 1942, during the war, at the very height of the war. At that time in my conclusions I was not a free civilian physician but I was - this is the way I felt - that I was, as I say, a medical specialist who acted only as a soldier with the duty of obedience. When I received these orders which were antagonistic to my inner feelings, I found myself confronted with a gigantic authority. This authority was the state, represented by Hitler and, on the other hand, and in supplementation to that, a medical authority that had an international reputation. This authority, namely, Dr. Gebhardt, whose life work I knew, was a person who inspired me with confidence. If he decided to carry out these experiments as necessary experiments, then perforce I must believe that they were necessary and I was also told by him that in the life of the human being, and in the life of a nation, situations arise in which the individual is under obligation to stifle his inner objections in the interests of the community.
I cannot believe, even today, that his were motives other than those under which soldiers act on the front when under orders they committed acts which as independent agents they would never have committed, and which were against their innermost and personal feelings. I believe that the situation is analagous. I believe that my situation was the same at the time, the same situation in which the individual soldier fires a torpedo against a ship and another soldier is under orders to drop bombs on an unprotected city. Here again I cannot believe that they are individuals who are acting in accordance with their individual instincts. Rather I know that they too had to overcome their innermost objections and felt themselves to be justified in what they were doing through the fact that they were acting under military orders, And, secondly, through the feeling and persuasion that through this act they were in a larger sense acting ethically, namely, to the extent that they were contributing to the victory of their own people and nation.
The more extended discussion regarding what is permissible and what not cannot, in my opinion, be expected of a subordinate. Rather, those in charge must decide on such matters.
During the war I had the experience that this form of obedience or rather obedience in general was not a specifically German phenomenon but that it was characteristic also of the nations with which we were at war. To what extent differences arose in the interpretation of this point, I do not know, but these gigantic authorities, the State, with its soldierly sense and demand for obedience and, on the other hand, the personality and medical authority of Gebhardt were the reasons that placed me before the alternative either of disobedience in the war or obedience. And faced with this alternative I saw disobedience as the worse one.
Today one sees other aspects; among other things one sees that these basic requirements in which we believed have proved today to be empty; and one sees that many of the men who were leaders at that time and to whom we looked up, even at that time had misgivings and did not see authority in the same way as we subordinates did. At that time I did not know this and could not know it. The basic evil in the whole occurrence lies, as I see it today, in the sanctioning of war, per se, since in war, law is perverted and distorted; the law under which mankind stands is perverted to its antitheses and so it happens that in the breast of the individual, the law of peace conflicts with the law of war, according to which he must be obedient. I belonged to a youth that believed in the duty of the individual to the State. We at that time were ready to conquer the fear that we felt as human beings, as creatures, to overcome our inner weaknesses and to put into the background all the hopes and plans that we had for the betterment of mankind and to place in the forefront our desires as medical men to assist mankind. In other words, we accepted the law of the community instead of the law of the individual, and it is through this that we came into the unfortunate situation which we now find ourselves. I simply wish to emphasize that what happened did not happen on the motive or cruelty or any such base motives, but that it happened exclusively and only in order, within the framework of our State, to serve this State and its citizens. Now that this war is passed, I myself have only the wish that it may be the last one so that at last mankind may have the opportunity to do away with war, once and for all, and to pursue the law of the individual in peace, for the betterment of all.
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any questions to be propounded to the witness by defense counsel?
BY DR. FLEMMING (Counsel for the Defendant Mrugowsky):
Q. Dr. Fischer, this morning, at the conclusion of your testimony, you said that you could not say for certain that the letter which you mentioned in your affidavit, from Mrugowsky, had really been written by Mrugowsky. In order to clarify this fact, I should like to ascertain the time when this letter was written. For this purpose I ask you to reply to the following questions. In the experiments on human beings, were little pieces of glass or wood used?
A. No.
Q. When were such little fragments used for the first time - in the first or the second series?
A. In the month of August, in the case of the first series.
Q. The first group of women was on the 1st of August. The next group was on the 14th of August. And it was at these times that they were operated on?
A. You cannot say that so precisely, because they overlapped a bit.
Q. When were these little splinters used for the first time?
A. At the beginning of August.
Q. Co-defendant Genzken said in the witness box that Mrugowsky was not in Berlin from June to the end of August, but on official trips. Do you recall that?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Accordingly, a letter written at the beginning of August, in Berlin, could not have been written by Mrugowsky. If that is not the case, if the letter is not from Mrugowsky, do you have any reason to believe that Mrugowsky knew anything of the sulfonamide experiments?
A. No. What I know I have already attempted to say. So far as I remember, Professor Gebhardt spoke to me of a letter from the Hygienic Institute, or it could have been from Mrugowsky's Institute. It is too difficult for me not to clarify that here. I have no other reason to believe in Mrugowsky's participation or knowledge of these experiments.
Q. I have now another point. You recall that the witness, Woelblata, testified that Veronika had died of tetanus. Professor Gebhardt has already testified that tetanus baccili were not used. What do you know about this?
A. I know for sure that we did not use any tetanus bacilli.
Q. Did Veronika Kraska...was she operated on simultaneously with other girls?
A. Yes.
Q. And none of the others had tetanus symptoms?
A. That is right.
Q. Were they all inniculated with the same bacteria?
A. Yes.
Q. Then in the case of Veronika Kraska, if tetanus did occur, it could only have been a spontaneous infection?
A. Yes, that is so.
DR. FLEMMING: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any other questions on the part of defense counsel' If not, the Prosecution may cross-examine.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. HARDY:
Q. Dr. Fischer, in the course of this cross-examination I want you to limit your answers to the questions I ask and I am sure we will proceed much more rapidly. I also do not think it is necessary for me to warn you that you are under oath. Now we will proceed.
You first received orders concerning experiments on human beings in the Ravensbrueck concentration camp in July 1942, is that correct?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. These orders originated from Dr. Gebhardt, didn't they?
A. I received these orders from Dr. Gebhardt, yes.
Q. Now the purpose of the proposed experiments was to determine the effectiveness of sulfonamide, wasn't it?
A. Yes, the effectiveness of individual sulfonamide preparations.
Q. Now this matter was of considerable importance to military medical circles, I presume?
A. Yes.
Q. Many soldiers in the battlefields were victims of gangrene,weren't they?
A. Yes, that is so.
Q. Now, then, Dr. Fischer, wasn't it your understanding that these experiments were primarily for the benefit of the Wehrmacht?
A. Mr. Prosecutor, are you asking me about my personal opinion, or what Professor Gebhardt told me in the course of giving me the orders?
Q. I am asking you what your understanding was.
A. At that time I believed that it was a problem which concerned the entire German Wehrmacht.
Q. Didn't Dr. Gebhardt tell you at that time that the medical services of the Wehrmacht had made a report about the miraculous effect of sulfonamide in the 1942 meeting in Berlin?
A. No, in that concise form he did not. He merely told me that this was a problem for the armed forces and that this problem had not yet been decided by him personally in all its details.
Q. Professor Gebhardt actually went on further to state, didn't he, that the Wehrmacht should have made these experiments itself but that he was ordered to conduct them?
A. Gebhardt told me then that the Wehrmacht was also making efforts to clarify this matter but that he had received from Hitler and Himmler the order to take them up himself.
Q. Don't you recall, Dr. Fischer, in the course of one of the many interrogations in which you and I had chats, that you were told that these experiments were for the benefit of the Wehrmacht? I am not asking you your understanding now. I believe you told me some time last fall that you were told by Gebhardt that these experiments were for the benefit of the Wehrmacht. Didn't you tell me that?
A. I believe you are referring to the interrogation which has already been brought up here. I said at that time and I say it today, that I had the feeling from Dr. Gebhardt that this was a task to be carried out in the interests of the German Wehrmacht.
Q. In fact the interrogation that I am referring to is not one that was conducted by Mr. Meyer; it is one conducted by Mr. McHaney and me, in which you stated that Gebhardt told you, and I will quote, "that this is an order from the chief of State, the Wehrmacht, and the Chief of the Medical Office of the State." Do you recall telling us that?
A Yes, this in on the 12th of October, 1946. That was the interrogation in which I was about to speak English to you, and certainly this sentence was preceded by something, namely, my attempt to explain that this was an experiment under the formation of the Wehrmacht. Since my vocabulary in English was so limited I could only in the further course of this interrogation formulate the matter as I did in the interrogation, but I must say here that a precise order from Handloser or his predecessor, as Chief Medical Inspector of the Wehrmacht, that might have been given to Gebhardt, I was not informed of it.
Q Now, the Heydrich matter was never called to your attention, was it?
A Gebhardt told me nothing about the Heydrich affair. I heard about it only here in Nurnberg.
Q Now, Gebhardt told you that the persons to be used in the experiments were concentration camp inmates who had been condemned to death?
A That is true.
Q Did you over discuss the legality of using concentration camp inmates who had been condemned to death for such experiments?
A How am I to understand or construe this verb "discussed?" Whether I spoke with Gebhardt about it or challenged this position? I ask you to please repeat the question.
Q I will rephrase my question. Did you over discuss the legality, that is did you or Gebhardt over have a discussion whether or not such experimentation on concentration camp inmates was proper under tho law?
A When I received this order I asked Professor Gebhardt not to appoint me to take part in it, but then Gebhardt assured me that those were legal matters which had the permission from the state, the orders which came from above and which I had to carry out. I must here refer to something I tried to say previously in my testimony, we were in the midst of the War in situations in which the individual if he found himself in a clear legal position, such as I found myself, since I was under the immediate orders of my superior and in which we could not discuss the matter any further, then what orders were, because it was our duty simply to obey and to do what we were told to.
Q Now, do you think Dr. Fischer, that it is permissible to experiment on persons condemned to death without their consent?
A Mr. Prosecutor, you ask me not as Dr. Fischer, and as Fischer the person, this question. I acted at that time as the soldier Fischer, and in the situation that prevailed at that time many things occurred that I, as an individual did not understand and did not approve or, and consequently I can give you two answers to this question, depending on in what capacity I am answering.
Q Well, now as a doctor and a person do you think it is permissible to experiment on persons condemned to death without their consent?
A I hope that the time will sometime come in which men can act only and exclusively according to the law that rules in their heart. In the European state of affairs I should not carry out such experiments, but we all know that unfortunately, at least in the year 1942, there were situations in which the individual could not obey only his inner laws, but was subject to a higher command and a higher community, nor did hid subordinate have an opportunity to argue along these lines. It was his higher duty simply to obey; and I have decided to point out to a similar and parallel situation, namely that which the soldier was confronted with, and I want to tell you the physician was confronted with the same situation. I know from many soldiers whom I know in my battalion and from others in the course of the War, they had to commit acts which they as individuals regretted, and which they as individuals would never have committed on their own initiative.
Q Dr. Fischer, if I understand you correctly, as a doctor, that is disassociating yourself from the position as a soldier, you do not think it permissible to experiment on persons condemned to death without their consent, is that your impression?
Q Mr. Prosecutor, you are forcing me to say something which I argued against previously. As an individual in a free state I would not do that, no, but in such a vast event as a War the individual did not have an opportunity to fall from the ways of the State, or criticize them. There were situations in which the individual was compelled to subordinate himself.