a. Introduction
The prosecution introduced evidence calculated to show that inhumane acts and atrocities, as generally alleged in paragraph 6 of the indictment, were committed in the course of phlegmon experiments. These experiments were not specifically described in the subparagraphs of paragraph 6 of the indictment which particularized 12 specific types of experimentation. On this charge the defendants Poppendick, Oberheuser, and Fischer were acquitted.
The prosecution’s summation of the evidence on the phlegmon experiments is contained in its closing brief against the defendant Gebhardt. An extract from this brief is set forth below on pages 654 to 655. A corresponding summation of the evidence by the defense on these experiments has been selected from the final plea for defendant Gebhardt. It appears below on pages 655 to 657. This argumentation is followed by selections from the evidence on pages 657 to 669.
b. Selection from the Argumentation of the Prosecution
EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST DEFENDANT
GEBHARDT
Sepsis (Phlegmon) Experiments
Sepsis experiments were performed in the Dachau concentration camp beginning in the autumn of 1942. These experiments were carried out in order to test the effectiveness of biochemical treatment of sepsis and related diseases.
The witness Stoehr testified concerning these experiments. He stated that sepsis was artificially provoked by infecting with pus the concentration camp inmates who were used as subjects. (Tr. pp. 578, 579.) He knew of at least two series of experiments. In each of these series approximately half of the experimental inmates were treated by biochemical means and the other half with sulfanilamide. The first series consisted of 20 German concentration camp inmates of whom seven died as a result. For the second series, 40 clergymen of various nationalities were selected and 12 died as a result of the experiments. (Tr. pp. 581, 582.) The experimental subjects did not volunteer. (Tr. p. 590.) See also the Review of Proceedings of the General Military Court in the case of the United States vs. Weiss, et al. (NO-856, Pros. Ex. 125.)
It is quite clear that the biochemical experiments performed in Dachau were complementary to the sulfanilamide experiments by Gebhardt in Ravensbrueck. This is shown by the fact that in September 1942, while the sulfanilamide experiments were still in progress, Gebhardt received a copy of a report on the biochemical experiments in Dachau from Grawitz. (NO-409, Pros. Ex. 249.) This report shows on its face that approximately eight cases of sepsis were artificially provoked. The report dealt with the results obtained from experiments carried out on 40 concentration camp inmates in treating sepsis, phlegmon, furuncles, abcesses, and nephrosis, among others.
Ten of the experimental subjects died. The report also covered three sepsis cases in Auschwitz, all of whom died. It concluded with the statement that the experiments were being continued.
The case history of one of the experimental subjects artificially infected with pus in November 1942 shows the horrible pain which these victims suffered. (NO-994, Pros. Ex. 251.)
That the defendants Gebhardt and Fischer had more than a casual connection with the sepsis experiments in Dachau is proved by a handwritten notation by Gebhardt on a letter written by Grawitz to Himmler on 7 September 1942, attaching copies of the preliminary report by Gebhardt on his sulfanilamide experiments, together with the report on the sepsis experiments in Dachau. (NO-2734, Pros. Ex. 473.) This note reads as follows:
“16 September 1942. Settled, after conversation with Reich Leader SS. Obersturmfuehrer F. Fischer has been given new instructions for Ravensbrueck and Dachau. Gebhardt.” [Emphasis supplied.]
c. Selection from the Argumentation of the Defense
EXTRACT FROM THE FINAL PLEA FOR DEFENDANT
GEBHARDT[[74]]
Phlegmon Experiments
In the course of the hearing of the evidence, the prosecution submitted documents and interrogated witnesses with the intention of proving that apart from other medical experiments, experiments were also carried out on the treatment of phlegmon. In the indictment itself these experiments, which were carried out at Dachau, are not mentioned. In view of Article IV of the Ordinance of Military Government for Germany, which expressly states that the indictment should list the counts in sufficient detail, it must be assumed that in this case a properly made charge does not exist.
As far as the participation of the defendant Gebhardt is concerned, the documents submitted by the prosecution show by themselves that he had nothing to do with the execution of these experiments. It was only later that he learned of the experiments carried out at Dachau, as unequivocally proved by the letter of Reich Physician SS Dr. Grawitz to Reich Leader SS Himmler of 29 August 1942, referring to the biochemical treatment of sepsis, which was submitted by the prosecution as NO-409, Prosecution Exhibit 249. The defendant Gebhardt learned of these experiments on 3 September 1942, on the occasion of the visit of Reich Physician SS Dr. Grawitz to Ravensbrueck in connection with the sulfanilamide experiments in this camp. The defendant Gebhardt wrote on the margin of this document the remark “seen and read”. This remark alone shows that he could only have learned subsequently of these experiments, and especially that he did not approve of them. If it had been the contrary, he certainly would have made some other notation on the document, as for instance, “agreed”, or else he would have shown his approval in a similar way. On the witness stand the defendant Gebhardt explained in detail to the Tribunal what his opinion of these experiments was. These experiments demonstrate unequivocally that they were deliberately initiated in ignorance of, and in contradiction to, the recognized rules of orthodox medicine. As also demonstrated by the evidence the Reich Leader SS Himmler did not conform to orthodox medicine but wanted to promote independently one patent solution out of a variety of suggestions and opinions. Nearest to his conception, beside his inclination towards theories of biological selection, were biochemistry, homeopathy, and mesmerism, i. e., those schools of medicine which, contrary to the theories of orthodox medicine do not combat certain symptoms of a disease but by means of the so-called stimulation theory want to bring about a change of the general physical disposition. The defendant Gebhardt, when on the witness stand, clearly explained this attitude of Himmler, which among other things resulted in rejection of any criticism by orthodox medicine, relying exclusively on his biochemical experts.
The evidence, however, has further shown that after having learned of the letter of Reich Physician SS Grawitz of 29 August 1942 (NO-409, Pros. Ex. 249) and with the object of convincing Himmler of the futility of these experiments, the defendant Gebhardt himself performed experiments on patients with these biochemical remedies in his clinic at Hohenlychen, and that he succeeded in convincing Himmler of the inefficacy of these remedies. In this connection I refer to the statements of the defendant Gebhardt himself and to the affidavits of Dr. Jaedicke and Dr. Brunner, which I submitted to the Tribunal.
When examining the legal conclusions which can be drawn from the facts presented above, we may arrive at the following results:
The defendant Gebhardt did not commit any act which had any causative connection with these experiments. He learned about these experiments only after the event, and then he did everything in his power to prevent further experiments of this kind. The prosecution was not able to produce evidence that such experiments had been carried out at all after 3 September 1942. All this proves that in view of the missing causal connection and absence of premeditation there cannot be any question of criminal action on the part of the defendant Gebhardt. It is acknowledged in the criminal law of all civilized nations that knowledge acquired after events is not sufficient to prove the existence of a criminal action.
d. Evidence
| Prosecution Documents | |||
| Doc. No. | Pros. Ex. | Description of Document | Page |
| No. | |||
| NO-409 | 249 | Report from Grawitz to Himmler, 29 August 1942, concerning experiments with biochemical remedies conducted at the Dachau and Auschwitz concentration camps. | [657] |
| NO-2734 | 473 | Extracts of letter from Grawitz to Himmler, 7 September 1942, and report on gas gangrene experiments. | [660] |
| Testimony | |||
| Extract from the testimony of prosecution witness Heinrich W. Stoehr | [664] | ||
| Extract from the testimony of defendant Gebhardt | [667] | ||
TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-409
PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 249
REPORT FROM GRAWITZ TO HIMMLER, 29 AUGUST 1942, CONCERNING EXPERIMENTS WITH BIOCHEMICAL REMEDIES CONDUCTED AT THE DACHAU AND AUSCHWITZ CONCENTRATION CAMPS
| The Reich Leader SS | Berlin W 15, 29 August 1942 | |
| Reich Physician SS and Police | Knesebeckstr. 50/51 | |
| Telephone: 924249.924351.924373. | [Stamp] | |
| 924406 | Personal Staff | |
| Az.: 738/IV/42 | Reich Leader SS | |
| G 213 | ||
| Subject: | Biochemical treatment of sepsis, etc., with biochemical remedies. | |
| To the Reich Leader SS H. Himmler | ||
| Berlin SW 11 Prinz Albrechtstrasse 8 | ||
Reich Leader,
With regard to previous results of biochemical treatment of sepsis and other cases of illness, I beg to submit the following provisional report.
1. The following 40 cases were treated with biochemical remedies in the SS hospital Dachau in the time mentioned in the report. Besides septic processes, such diseases were treated where a decisive change for the better should be achieved by means of biochemistry.
| Phlegmonous-purulent processes | 17 | |
| Sepsis | 8 | |
| Furuncles and abscesses | 2 | |
| Infected operational incisions | 1 | |
| Malaria | 5 | |
| Pleural empyema | 3 | |
| Septic endocarditis | 1 | |
| Nephrosis | 1 | |
| Chronic sciatica | 1 | |
| Gall stones | 1 |
According to the indications of the biochemistry applied to the different cases, we used the following remedies:
| Potassium phosphoricum | D6 | |
| Ferrum phosphoricum | D6 and D12 | |
| Silicea | D6 | |
| Sodium muraticum | D6 | |
| Calcium phosphoricum | D6 | |
| Sodium sulfuricum | D6 | |
| Magnesium phosphoricum | D6 | |
| Sodium phosphoricum | D6 | |
| Calcium fluoratum | D6 |
The cases of sepsis were mostly artificially provoked.
Up to now we found that the unfavorable course of the severe cases could scarcely be stopped by means of biochemical remedies. All sepsis cases died. The malaria cases were not influenced by it.
The cases of extended purulent processes, with development of abscesses, the pleuralempyeata, the septic endocarditis, the nephrosis, the chronic sciatica and the gall stones showed no definite influence from biochemical treatment. Insofar as they were conducted with positive results, they did not show a different result from the ones where, according to medical experience, patients were restricted to staying in bed without receiving any special treatment.
The impression of a favorable effect on morbid cases of sickness by biochemical means proved to be satisfactory in five cases only, four of which were comparatively slight. The fifth case involved a 17-day-old child with severe furunculosis. In this case an improvement set in only a few days after treatment had been applied. However, an error occurred in the experimental procedure, for at the beginning of the treatment a sulfanilamide preparation was used.
The strong formation of pus, clearly noticeable in a few cases, is perhaps due to the biochemical remedies applied. The doses of sugar, which were frequently given and mainly consisted of pure milk sugar in the form of biochemical tablets, probably promoted the effect.
Experiments for orientation are to be made. In a case of a joint mould the antiseptic potassium phosphoricum D 6 was given as a prophylactic because the incision of the operation was greatly endangered by infection. In spite of that, the temperature rose to 39° on the following day. Consequently, the biochemical treatment could not prevent appearance or breaking-out of an infection, although potassium phosphoricum D 6 was given immediately and intensively.
It is also to be noted that very soon all the seriously ill cases flatly refused to take biochemical tablets, because it meant torture to them to take the tablets every 5 minutes, even at night.
Finally it must be said that from a total number of 40 cases there are 1 positive case and 4 positive cases with certain reservations, against 35 failures, of which 10 ended fatally.
The experiments in Dachau are being continued.
Besides the hitherto existing program, special attention is directed to research of twin cases in similar conditions, of which one will receive an allopathical, the second a biochemical treatment.
[Marginal note.] Seen at Ravensbrueck 3-9-1942, [Signature] K. Gebhardt
2. In the concentration camp of Auschwitz, three typical cases of sepsis, which developed from phlegmons, were treated—according to prescription—with potassium phosphoricum D 4. In none of these cases a therapeutical influence on the progress of the disease could be observed. All 3 cases ended fatally.
The experiments are being continued.
[Signature] Grawitz
TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-2734
PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 473
EXTRACTS OF LETTER FROM GRAWITZ TO HIMMLER, 7 SEPTEMBER 1942, AND REPORT ON GAS GANGRENE EXPERIMENTS
| The Reich Leader SS | Berlin, W 15, 7 September 1942 | |
| Reichsarzt SS and Police | Knesebeckstrasse 50/51 | |
| Telephone: 924249. 924351. | [Rubber stamp] | |
| 924373. 924406 | (Personal Staff Reich Leader SS | |
| File No. 748/IV/42 | Archives) | |
| (File No. AR/31/13) | ||
| [Signature] Gebhardt | ||
| Subject: | 1. Experiments by SS Brigadefuehrer Gebhardt on the Combating of Gas Gangrene. | |
| 2. Experiments on the Treatment of Sepsis by Biochemistry. | ||
| Enclosures: -2-X | ||
| To the Reich Leader SS H. Himmler | ||
| Berlin | ||
Reich Leader:
Attached please find a provisional report by SS Brigadefuehrer Professor Dr. Gebhardt on his clinical-surgical experiments at Ravensbrueck concentration camp, furthermore a concluding provisional report on experiments on the biochemical treatment of sepsis as performed at Dachau concentration camp.
[Signature] Grawitz
| [Rubber stamp] | } | [Handwritten] |
| } | 16 September 1942 | |
| Personal Staff RF-SS Enclosures | } | Settled, after conversation with |
| In: 9 September 1942 | } | RF-SS. Obersturmfuehrer F. |
| Journal No. AR/40/7/42 2 | } | Fischer has been given new |
| ? RF | } | instructions for Ravensbrueck |
| } | and Dachau. | |
| [Signature] Gebhardt | ||
| Copy! | ||
| [Rubber stamp] | ||
| (Personal Staff Reich Leader SS Archives) | ||
| (File No. AR/31/13) | ||
| Professor Dr. K. Gebhardt | ||
| SS Brigadefuehrer and Brigadier General of the Waffen SS | ||
| To the Reichsarzt SS Gruppenfuehrer Grawitz | ||
Provisional Report on Clinical Experiments at Ravensbrueck Concentration Camp for Women
By order of the Reich Leader SS, I started on 20 July 1942 at Ravensbrueck concentration camp for women on a series of clinical experiments with the aim of analyzing the sickness known as gas gangrene, which does not take a uniform course, and of testing the efficacy of the known therapeutic medicaments.
In addition, the simple infections of injuries which occur as symptoms of war surgery had also to be tested, and a new chemo-therapeutic treatment apart from the known surgical measures had to be tried out.
I appointed SS Obersturmfuehrer Dr. Fischer as co-worker. SS Oberfuehrer Dr. Blumenrent put the complete surgical instruments and medicaments at my disposal. SS Standartenfuehrer Mrugowsky put his laboratory and co-workers at my disposal.
SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. Lolling, Chief of Office IIID at Oranienburg, assigned as co-workers: SS Obersturmfuehrer Dr. Schiedlausky, garrison-physician at Ravensbrueck concentration camp for women, and Fraeulein Dr. Oberheuser, camp physician at Ravensbrueck concentration camp for women.
The question was to define firstly, by way of a preliminary experiment, the mode of infection, making use of the known results from experiments upon animals. In these questions I was advised by SS leaders of the Hygienic Institute of the Waffen SS who had taken over the culture and dosage of the inoculation material.
The point was to implant the lymph cultures on the damaged muscle tissue, to isolate the latter from atmospheric and humoral oxygen supply, and to subject it to internal tissue pressure. The inoculation procedure was as follows: a longitudinal cut of 10 centimeters over the musculus peroneus longus; after incision into the fascia the muscle was tied up with the forceps in an area the size of a five mark piece; an anaemic peripheral zone was created by injection of 3 cc. adrenalin and in the area of the damaged muscle the inoculation material (a gauze strip saturated with bacterii) was imbedded under the fascia, subcutaneous adipose tissue, and skin sutured in layers.
In the first series of experiments (preliminary experiments), three selected prisoners of as much the same constitution as possible were used. They were inoculated as follows:
The first: Aerobic mixculture (staphylococci, streptococci, bact. comm. try. a 5 Mil).
The second: Para Oedema Malignum, sarc, flav. 4.5 mg.
The third: Bact. Fraenkel and earth. Stimulus 4.5 mg.
The experiment was concluded after 10 days. After an initial local swelling in the inoculation area and an increase in temperature up to 39 degrees, the inflammation died down, the wound having broken open on the fourth day. There was no danger to the life of any of the prisoners. We succeeded in producing locally the symptoms of gas gangrene in the third prisoner. After 20 days the prisoners were released again to their working blocks.
The course of the preliminary series of experiments had proved that we were not successful in producing the same symptoms as of clinical gas gangrene. In a conference with the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS the nature of the infection and the conditions for the germs were not considered to be equivalent to the natural conditions in war surgery and consequently the experimental arrangements were varied.
Bacterium coli were added to the acrobe culture and the germ number was increased to 20 millions. Bacterium coli and dextrose were added to the mixture of para oedema malignum.
Bacterium coli were added to the gas gangrene culture by Fraenkel, and while doubling the number of germs, earth was administered to produce a similar environment. Six selected youthful prisoners were inoculated two by two with the above mixture of bacteria in the subsequent first experimental series. One of them remained untreated for control purposes, the other one was powdered with cataxyn wound powder immediately after the inoculation. The first change of dressing took place 3 days afterwards, the following each second day. Those who remained without treatment were covered with sterile layers, those treated with cataxyn (indicated in the graphs as TK-cases) were continuously powdered with cataxyn. The aerobe cultures in both cases showed local abscesses which could be easily treated surgically.
The para oedema malignum inoculation produced a local inflammation with central suppuration, small formation of necrosis in the depth and moderate emphysem of the skin. The regional lymphatic glands were not affected.
Those prisoners who were infected with Fraenkel’s gas gangrene, and who immediately received tetanus-antitoxin for the administered earth, produced by far the strongest inflammatory reaction: abscesses with deep necrosis in the area of the inoculation, emphysem of the skin with formation of blisters, and beginning necrosis collateral oedema extending from above the joint of the knee to the lower third of the thigh as far as the back of the foot. The inflammatory appearances receded considerably after the opening of the injury on the first dressing day. The effect of the opening of the wound was particularly significant in the TK-cases which started inflammations in spite of simultaneous therapy. Greater pressure of the tissue due to oxygen, liberated by the medicament, was considered to be the reason for the accentuated local inflammation.
Comparing nontreated cases with the TK-cases, the final critical observation shows:
1. Immediate therapy does not prevent the occurrence either of an ordinary suppuration or of a “gangrene”.
2. The cleaning of the wound is faster in TK-cases than in control cases.
3. The formation of fresh wound granulations occurs earlier with cataxyn.
4. The part played by the paranchymatic organs (liver, kidneys) is less important under the influence of cataxyn.
Since in this experiment too definite gangrene could be produced clinically speaking, yet its picture did not in any way correspond to the one known in war surgery; after further consultation with the collaborators in the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS, the vaccine was changed by adding wood shavings. It is known in bacteriological literature that the virulence of the bacteria in the experimental animal can thereby be considerably increased.
The triple distribution was reserved for the second series of experiments now in progress. Three prisoners in each group were inoculated. One person was left without treatment as control, the second was treated with cataxyn as before, and with the third the Marfanilprontalbin powder manufactured by I. G. Farben was employed, since this was strongly recommended by the Army Medical Inspectorate. The powder was applied according to the Schmick procedure. This experiment is still in progress.
Even if as yet nothing definite can be said about this series of experiments it can already be stated that—
1. there is no decisive difference between cases which are treated and those which are not treated,
2. that opening the wound, in addition to immobilization, has proved the most effective means of controlling the inflammation,
3. the effect of the MP powder seems at least doubtful, since in the III TM case the most definite gangrene observed up to now has developed.
We are now investigating the problem as to why the gangrene in the present case did not fully develop. Therefore, the injuring of the tissue and the exclusion of a muscle from the circulation of the blood were undertaken during a separate operating session, and the large-scale necrosis resulting therefrom was to be inoculated with bacteria strain which had already had one human passage. For it is only when the really definite clinical picture of the gangrene has appeared that conclusions may be drawn on therapy with chemo-therapeutics in connection with surgical operations.
[Signature] Gebhardt
SS Brigadefuehrer
Copy certified correct
Berlin, 7 September 1942
[Signature] Poppendick
SS Obersturmbannfuehrer
EXTRACT FROM THE TESTIMONY OF PROSECUTION WITNESS
HEINRICH W. STOEHR[[75]]
DIRECT EXAMINATION
Mr. Hardy: Witness, did you ever hear of the sepsis or phlegmon experiments at the Dachau concentration camp?
Witness Stoehr: Yes, these experiments were conducted at my station.
Q. How did you gain your knowledge of these phlegmon experiments? Were you an observer? Were you an assisting nurse, or by what way did you gain the knowledge you have of these phlegmon experiments?
A. I was the nurse at that station. One day, I think it was in the late summer and fall of 1943, a certain Sturmbannfuehrer Schuetz came to me, with a Standartenfuehrer by the name of Laue or Lauer—I am not quite sure which—and inspected the surgical department. He was shown a number of patients. We had to take their bandages off, and he examined their wounds—or rather, he just looked at them very superficially. After that, the chief physician of the concentration camp Dachau, Dr. Walda, was called in, and he received the order to see to it that the patients received biochemical treatment for some time.
Q. Witness, will you kindly explain to the Tribunal in what manner these phlegmon experiments were conducted; that is, the details of the experiments? What did they do to the victim?
A. Mainly, phlegmon was treated. It was very general in the camp. That is to say, phlegmon was the typical camp disease. The biochemical treatment was carried out in the following manner:
Three similar cases were observed. One of these cases was given allopathic treatment; another biochemical, and the third one received only ordinary surgical treatment. That is, the third one received no drugs whatsoever, and the wound was treated in an ordinary way with bandages and so on. These were the directives of the physicians who were there. We saw on many occasions that the patient was cured much faster who received no drugs or injections.
Experiments of that kind were conducted for many weeks, and if I may as a layman make a judgment, I must say that the physicians, according to my observations, were not satisfied with these experiments.
In addition, I have to emphasize that not only wounds were treated according to these methods, but internal diseases, too. They tried to find out whether biochemical treatment was suitable for treating the thirst for water, which was so frequent in the camp. We saw that the biochemical drugs had no influence whatsoever as to the cause of this illness.
I emphasize that I am speaking as a layman and that all these are my observations.
During the fall, this Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Schuetz told the camp doctor, who was named Babo, to infect a number of people with pus. We nurses were told nothing about that, and we did not know the purpose. These experiments were conducted on a group of men, and they extended over a period of approximately six to seven weeks.
First a group of Germans were infected with pus. We nurses had no idea of the cause of the illness, and we gave the patients the drugs that were ordered by the physicians. I emphasize again that half of these people received allopathic and the other half biochemical treatment. As nurses, we could observe the following facts:
The patients who received allopathic treatment were cured much quicker, that is, if they had any power of resistance to their illness, but the patients who had to take those pathological tablets, if I remember correctly, died with the exception of one person. There were approximately 20 persons who, at that time, were infected. The second group consisted of 40 clergymen of all nationalities and brothers of religious fraternities. These patients were selected from the block where the clergymen were housed. They were selected by the Chief Physician Dr. Walda and were sent to the operational room of the concentration camp Dachau. They were operated on by Dr. Schuetz and Dr. Kieselwetter [Kieselwecker (?)] I think that was his name—and these experiments were conducted on them. A number of nurses, and also the personnel of the operating room, and I myself, saw how the injections were made. We were standing in the anteroom of the operating room.
Q. Witness, will you explain to the Tribunal what the word “phlegmon” means?
A. Phlegmon, as far as a layman can answer that question—means an inflammation of the tissues, and in the camp of Dachau phlegmons were very numerous because the people there were mostly sent to the hospital too late. Typical camp phlegmons, as far as I know, are caused by germs. Persons got phlegmons who suffered from lack of water.
Q. Witness, did you say that inmates were used for experiments in which they were injected with pus?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you see these injections of pus being administered?
A. Yes.
Q. How were the inmates to be used for these experiments selected?
A. I didn’t understand your question.
Q. In what manner did they select the inmates to be used for these experiments which dealt with the injection of pus? In other words, how were they selected? What type of prisoners? What were their nationalities, etc.?
A. They were 40 persons coming from the so-called clergymen block.
Q. Were these inmates used for these experiments with injection of pus healthy inmates?
A. Completely healthy and strong men.
Q. You have told us that they had one group, the first group, of ten Germans. How many died in that group?
A. I believe that the first group consisted of ten people of whom, as far as I remember, seven died.
Q. Now, you have told us of a second group of 40 clergymen. How many died in that group?
A. I have seen a list of the survivors, and according to that list, 12 clergymen, or rather brothers, must have died.
Q. Were any prisoners of war used in these experiments?
A. I don’t know whether they were prisoners of war or not. We could not tell the difference in the camp of Dachau, whether they were prisoners of war or not; at least I could not.
Q. Were the victims used in these experiments treated by medical doctors after they had been injected with pus?
A. The operation was done by physicians.
Q. Well, after they had been infected with pus what kind of treatment was given to them?
A. After the injection, Sturmbannfuehrer Schuetz gave instructions to the nurses that one-half of them should receive allopathic and the other half biological treatment. I emphasize that the group which received allopathic treatment had special drugs, the so-called sulfanilamide drugs. We had the impression that the physicians wanted to prove that the biological drugs were not suitable to cure such a severe disease.
Q. Then you say, Witness, that 50 percent were treated with sulfanilamide and the other 50 percent with biological medicants?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, after these injections with pus, did abscesses develop on the inmate?
A. The greater part of those who were treated biologically, or rather, all of them, developed abscesses and very deep abscesses. Some of the persons who received allopathic and prophylactic treatment with sulfanilamide had no abscesses.
Q. Did the inmates who endured this treatment suffer pain?
A. Yes.
Q. Severe pain?
A. As far as I know, the pain was very severe.
EXTRACT FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT GEBHARDT[[76]]
DIRECT EXAMINATION
Dr. Seidl: The next document which I intend to submit to the witness is NO-409 which has been submitted by the prosecution as Exhibit 249. It is a letter from Reich Physician SS Dr. Grawitz to the Reich Leader SS Himmler dated 29 August 1942. It refers to the biochemical treatment of sepsis. This document came to your knowledge, didn’t it? And this is shown by a comment you wrote: “Seen at Ravensbrueck on 3 September 1942. (Signed) Karl Gebhardt.” Did you know beforehand about the performance of these experiments and did you agree with them?
Defendant Gebhardt: I did not have any previous knowledge of these experiments, and with regard to this document may I state somewhat more in detail what it shows? This is a letter to Himmler, dated the end of August, and signed by Grawitz. It was never mentioned that I was to receive this letter or that this letter was to be routed through me. It does not have any note from me to the effect that I countersigned it, or was in agreement with it, in this form. It was also not discussed in Berlin or Hohenlychen or in the headquarters, but in Ravensbrueck, and, in particular, on 3 September when this discussion took place between Grawitz and me, because of the second group of our sulfanilamide experiments. Grawitz, who at that time came in order to show us that he was not in agreement, as far as I can recall, brought this letter and this description along from Dachau. We then discussed it in detail, because on my part there were many reasons for raising the sharpest protest against it. And, may I point out how much can be seen from this document about how Grawitz planned to publish experiments or to describe them, in contrast to my procedure at the time. Under point (1) it states, “SS Hospital, Dachau” and it actually looks in general as though this were a hospital report. And most of the case histories also speak in favor of that, too. For example, the reference on page 3 to a joint plastic, certainly is a big operation which can only be performed in a hospital. On the following page there is “artificially induced sepsis.” On the second page, “the cases of sepsis were mainly artificially induced.” Then on the other side it is stated that in the fatalities there is no mention of the 8 cases of sepsis that were artificially induced, but of 10. I proved to Grawitz, especially on this page, that the description he wanted to make of a camouflaged mixture of experiments and clinical results might later on be read by somebody superficially, and he would come to the word “artificially induced” and would not be able to decide. Then there was a fundamental point with regard to all persons concerned. This was the impracticability of performing an experiment in this establishment. Then on page 3 it states that the drugs were to be taken every five minutes, even at night. At the time I didn’t even think of giving the report to Grawitz, after I had found out about it by chance. I wrote “read” in the margin and drew a logical conclusion with regard to Himmler and Grawitz. In this connection I not only concluded Grawitz’ influence on our experiments, but I also asked Himmler how these biochemical experiments were brought about. I request permission of the Tribunal to permit me here to describe what Himmler thought with regard to such experiments, and to show, therefore, how impossible it was in certain cases, in spite of obtaining knowledge, to effect any change. For a person who has studied school medicine it is impossible to believe that through the homeopathic administration of sulphur and phosphorus, surgical case histories, as well as internal case histories, and metabolistic diseases can be influenced. However, in medicine one can, of course, take a completely different point of view, and that is the basic conception of biochemistry up to homeopathy, to which Himmler completely adhered. And here in two sentences we have described how all the elements which appear in nature also have traces in the human body. Now, if one small trace of an element is lacking, then the human being is susceptible to and suffering from some disease or other. The therapy and method of treatment by the biochemist is the exact contrast of medicine as practiced by a person who has studied it at school. They make test experiments on human beings and discover what element is lacking in that human being, and no matter from what disease he is suffering, the patient is treated with minimum doses of the element which he lacks. Never in the world has it been possible for a typical school practitioner and a biochemist to agree, because they want to treat the human being completely in contrast to each other. From this example you can see now that when I went to Himmler and said that it was madness for not only an experiment to be performed on out-patients, but that also simultaneously ten or twelve different cases should be treated with the same medicine, when I told Himmler this, he said that he had one of the most experienced biochemists, and a layman, Herr Laue with him, and that he was absolutely convinced that this method of treatment was correct. Himmler always attempted to discover old-fashioned popular remedies. In spite of my objection and in spite of my proof that my own surgical patients would suffer from it, these experiments were performed until I succeeded in bringing this Dr. Laue and Dr. Kieselwecker from Marburg (who enjoyed Himmler’s complete confidence on this question) to Hohenlychen. There we performed a similar experiment together on my patients in order to show that this method of treatment was impossible. But even in this way I was not able to achieve my purpose with Himmler, because afterwards it was said we had not applied the drugs properly, and so on. Therefore, one can conclude from this that it was not the case that Himmler adhered to one certain medical concept, and if one accidentally heard of an experiment, one could convince him. Himmler maintained a hostile attitude toward school medicine, and from nature cures to biochemistry he was accessible to every thought, and when Laue convinced him of the fact that this drug was of decisive importance, then the experiment was performed. May I state in this connection, that the knowledge of this document had the following three results with me: that Grawitz, who was ready to make compromises as is shown here, did not allow anyone to tell him anything at all about the sulfanilamide question; that I gave Himmler clear knowledge of the false idea without being able to convince him because of his favorable attitude toward biochemistry; and that the experiment would perhaps be discontinued, mainly on account of subsequent examinations at Hohenlychen. I shall give evidence of this as soon as I receive the appropriate testimony of witnesses.
[74] Final plea is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 15 July 1947, pp. 10874-10910.
[75] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 17 December 1946, pp. 574-594.
[76] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10 March 1947, pp. 3981-4256.