The Reich Research Council in 1943 gave a research assignment on hospatitis to Prof. Hagen. At that time Rostock did not yet belong to the Reich Research Council as a deputy of a member of tho Praesidialrat (Governing Council).
The Prosecution probably bases the charges against Rostock on Rudolf Brandt's affidavit No. 371. This statement is contradicted by the same Rudolf Brandt, who in his affidavit, Rostock Exhibit 7 declares that he had no positive evidence for Rostock's knowledge of the experiments. In the re-direct examination through Dr. Vorwerk, Rudolf Brandt expressly withdrew his original affidavit made for the Prosecution. I don't consider it necessary to deal in particular with the probative value of Rudolf Brandt's incriminating evidence. Again I draw the attention to the Tribunal to the remarks in the closing brief.
Consequently, neither in field of sea water experiments did Rostock have any knowledge of the allegedly carried out human experiments and even less did he instigate, order or participate in them.
7. Typhus Experiments.
The evidence has proved that an institute for the production of typhus vaccines existed in the Buchenwald concentration camp under Dr. Ding and that typhus experiments were supposedly carried out by Dr. Ding in the Buchenwald concentration camp and by Prof. Haagen in the Natzweiler concentration camp. I will deal with each of these three points separately as to whether Rostock had any connections with them.
According to Mrugowsky's evidence the institute for production of typhus vaccines at Buchenwald produced these vaccines for the Waffen SS and the concentration camps. The office of Brandt and Rostock had nothing to do with the medical affairs of the SS.
Mrugowsky has described how the typhus experiments in Buchenwald came about. They were ordered directly by Himmler through Grawitz.
Rostock had in no way any thing to do with them, neither as an advisor nor as a participant. A* the already mentioned third meeting of the Consulting Physicians on 24 - 26 May 1943 in the Hygiene Group Dr. Ding made a report on the results of the experiments. Rostock did not attend this conference, since he had to attend conferences on surgical matters that took place at the same time.
I now come to the typhus experiments of Haagen in Natzweiler. The Prosecution probably bases its charges as to Rostock's participation in these experiments mainly on the Affidavit of Haagen's secretary, Miss Eyer.
The Tribunal will recall that the witness, Eyer, a prosecution witness, during Mr. Hardy's examination, retracted her statement and said that she made a mistake and thought another Professor from Berlin, with the name of Ziess, to be Professor Rostock.
The typhus research assignment which Haagen received from the Reich research council was given by Sauerbruch. It was given at a time, namely in 1943, when Rostock did not even belong to the Reich Research Counsel as a deputy of a member of the Praesidialrat.
A report of Haagen to the Reich research council was put in evidence as document No. 138. When reading it, Mr. MacHaney said that the document ascertained the fact that the top representatives of the Reich research council had full knowledge of Haagen's work and its criminal nature. With regard to "the criminal nature" at least Mr. MacHaney, de facto, withdrew his assertion, when during the cross-examination on 21 February, 1947, he said that he did not believe that Haagen reported on his experiments in the concentration camp to the Reich research council. Therefore, one would not really have to discuss this point of the indictment any longer. However, Rostock himself stated that it may have been possible for him to have read Haagen's report at that time in the printed reports of the Reich research council. He said, however, that he had noticed nothing special, when reading it.
Rostock has dealt with the matter and I wish to call the attention of the Tribunal to the details within the closing brief. The same is valid for the paragraph "Biological Warfare and Polygol".
III. Rostock's Activity in the Organization of the German Health System.
Office for Science and Research The creation and the activity of the Office for Medical Science and Research with the Commissioner General and later with the Reich Commissioner for the Medical and Health System must be discussed more in detail.
First of all, the chart, Exhibit Rostock No. 1, illustrates the fact that Rostock prepared himself for the position only from autumn 1943 and was not actively engaged in his job before the middle of February 1944 and then only as a secondary position besides his regular duties. Service in this position demanded only thirty percent of his working time.
In the opening statement, General Taylor said that the Reich Commissioner for the Medical and Health System was to be regarded as the highest Reich authority. The emphasis on this word is confusing and contradicts the authentic document NO-82, which states, "In this capacity his agency is highest Reich authority." In this decree, then, the word "the" is missing. But this is most essential. For the decree signifies that it is one of many "highest Reich authorities", whereas the type of expression chosen by General Taylor must lead one to conclude that it was the only "highest Reich authority" in the Department of Health. But, as evidence has shown, this was not true.
Without a doubt, the prosecution has gained the wrong impression of the extent, actual activity, and influence which the Office for Science and Research had on other agencies. Rostock has dealt with this question in detail during direct examination. The Tribunal will certainly still have a recollection of his statements. Rostock actually had no supervisory authority over research work of the branches of the Wehrmacht and the SS.
Brandt's, and thus also Rostock's, commission comprised not all medical affairs, but only special tasks as was testified quite clearly here by the witness Lammers. The assignment given to Rostock did not include supervision of practical research.
The relationship of Rostock's agency to the SS must be discussed briefly, for all experiments which play a part in these proceedings were, after all, carried out in concentration camps which came under the jurisdiction of the SS. Rostock himself was never a member of the SS. He also had, apart from that, no other relations of any kind with the SS. When the agency of the Commissioner General for the Medical and Health System was ordered, Hitler, in the presence of Himmler, made it quite clear to Karl Brandt that in his (Karl Brandt's) capacity of Commissioner General the SS was not his affair. The practical execution of this directive has been expressly confirmed by Genzken. Furthermore, the decree of 25 August 1944, which lists the agencies to which the Reich Commissioner for the Medical and Health System could give directives, does not mention the SS.
Gebhardt has testified on 3 May that Grawitz was never subordinate to Karl Brandt and that Brandt never even had the right to give directives to Grawitz. He testified further that Himmler wanted to create a "Science exclusively for the SS" and that university people had resisted that attempt. However, Rostock must quite definitely be considered an exponent of university scientists. The proof for the correctness of Himmler intention with a "science exclusively for the SS" can be seen from a letter which SS Gruppenfuehrer Berger wrote to the Reichsfuehrer SS on 22 September 1942.
This should furnish sufficient proof that Rostock had no influence on research activity within the SS or the concentration camps. It has already been pointed out, when the individual experiments were discussed, that he did not even have any knowledge of them.
In regard to research commission assignments to the Medical Chiefs of the Luftwaffe, Schroeder had asserted that all research assignments had to come through Rostock's office.
Schroeder has testified in his affidavit, Exhibit RO No. 10, that this was an erroneous description. For it had only been agreed that a carbon copy of the research commission which had been assigned would be sent to Rostock. His approval for the assignment of the commissions was by no means required.
Reich Research Council And now I would like to turn to the complex of problems connected with the Reich Research Council.
Here the prosecution has charged Rostock with responsibility because from the beginning of 1944 he was Brandt's deputy in his capacity as a member of the Presiding Council of this body. The fact itself shall not be denied, but the responsibility shall, mainly from a view of penal law as well as of morals. I deny the assertion of the prosecution, which has been summarized by Mr. McHaney on 10 December 1946, that Rostock exercised a "supervisory control" over the Reich Research Council, or, on the occasion of submitting a letter of Rascher about freezing experiments that "the Reich Research Council as a whole is implicated in a criminal manner".
The problem of the Reich Research Council has certainly been thrown light upon during the testimony of Karl Brandt, Rostock, Blome, Sievers, as well as by the affidavits of Mentzel, the chief of the Managing Committee of the Reich Research Council. As the crux in this connection emerges the fact that those responsible for the distribution of research assignments were, exclusively, the managers of the Special Sections and their authorized agents and subordinates, who, in turn, were directly subordinated to Hermann Goering. Rostock was not among them. The members of the Presiding Board had no supervisory duty over and no right to issue directives to the managers of the Special Sections.
Here again I would like to call the attention of the Tribunal to the closing brief:
Conspiracy:
Even if the concept of "conspiracy" is rejected in principle, we must still discuss shortly here for the acts of which men and agencies Rostock can he held responsible, i.e. for those which were subordinate to him and which he supervised.
He had no subordinates in his position as Consultant Surgeon to the Medical Inspector of the Army. He merely was the "consultant" of his Inspector and his staff. If this agency had ordered the commission of criminal deeds to which Rostock in some form had given his advice, then one might, perhaps, construe an accessory guilt of Rostock. But in none of the cases under discussion here the experiments were ordered by the Medical Inspector of the Army. In his position as Chief of the Office Science and Research with the General Commissioner for the Medical and Health Services Rostock had four medical assistants and three or four typists as subordinates for whose official activities he bears responsibility. None of these persons in any way, either directly or indirectly, participated in the experiments we discuss here. None of these experiments was ordered by this agency or even suggested. The peculiar manner of conducting these experiments was unknown. It was known neither to Rostock nor to his assistants, as has been proven by the conforming testimony of all his assistants.
Rostock had no official supervisory duty over and no right to issue orders to the persons who ordered and conducted the experiments. The barriers which were constructed around the concentration camp were just as impenetrable and just as opaque for him and his assistants as they were for the great majority of the German people.
Also, nothing has been brought out by the submission of evidence which would permit to conclude the existence of a common plan as asserted by the prosecution, inasmuch as a definite, firmly outlined plan among a narrow circle of persons which always remains the same is understood by that expression. On the contrary, very frequently during the course of the proceedings we heard of the strong forces within the leading circles of Germany which strove to different goals, as testified by prosecution witnesses as well as by the defense. With reference to the leaders of the Medical Services let me only point to the differences between Conti and Blome, to quote an instance.
There is no need to go into the details of this. But considering this special case, let me emphasize the differences which have repeatedly been discussed during the submission of evidence - I mean those differences between Conti and Grawitz on the one hand, and Karl Brandt on the other hand. These, of course, had their effect on the subordinate agencies, too. I also want to point out the opposition of the SS to Karl Brandt's agency.
IV. Control Council Law No. 10 I do not intend to repeat the actual text.
I only want to make a remark to the individual paragraph, Article II, 2a. I may add the following details with reference to the defendant Rostock:
a) The prosecution did not allege that Rostock can be regarded as a principal of one of the experiments II 6 A - L. The evidence also shows that Rostock never conducted one of the experiments discussed here.
b) Neither was he "an accessory to the commission of any such crime" nor did he "order or abet the same". In every individual case the evidence could show who gave the order to conduct the experiments. As far as they were assignments of the Reich Research Council, it was made clear by the testimony of the defendant himself as well as by Blome's and Sievers' testimony and the Mentzel affidavit that Rostock in his capacity as deputy of a member of the Presiding Board of this body had no influence on the distribution of the research assignments. In addition, they were all issued at a time when Rostock did not yet belong to the Reich Research Council.
Rostock did not "take a consenting part in" one of the experiments. As discussed at great length in the first part of my closing speech, he didn't even have knowledge thereof. Of the sulfonamide experiments he, and numerous other physicians, became aware for the first time by the lecture of Gebhardt and Fischer at the meeting of the Military Medical Academy on 24 May 1943, and this was only after the experiments had already been concluded. Not even interpreting this extensively one can judge this as "taking a consenting part therein". Moreover, there would be no room for such an interpretation, since a criminal character of the experiments was not recognizable for Rostock.
d) In no single case was Rostock "connected with plans and enterprises", as I have already set forth in detail.
e) All the experiments were conducted in concentration camps. These were under the jurisdiction of the SS. Rostock never was a member of the SS nor did he maintain official contacts with them. Therefore, Rostock never "was a member of any organization or group connected with the commission of any such crime".
Summing up, we arrive at the conclusion that not one of the facts which Art. II, 2, A -- E of Control Council Law No. 10 demands in order to deem a person guilty of having committed a war crime or a crime against humanity applies with reference to Rostock.
Relying on testimony which has been refuted since then, the prosecution could assert again and again that Rostock by virtue of his position should have known of these events. This assertion was never proven by the prosecution. The findings of the trial judge must not, however, rely on a fiction, but only on factually proven events and acts.
Conclusions Mr. President, Your Honors:
If, at the conclusion of my examination of the evidence, I appeal once more to your sense of justice. I do not do so because I doubt the positive result of the presentation of evidence. I shall therefore expressly and consciously not refer to the saying: in dubio pro reo, because I am of the opinion that the presentation of evidence has brought absolute clarity in every respect in favor of Rostock's acquittal.
Nevertheless I should like to ask the High Tribunal to take into consideration certain minor external matters which may not be without serious consequences. From all your previous decisions we have been able to feel your efforts to be the utmost fair and just. It is therefore my conviction that this High Tribunal will adjust inequalities where it senses them.
It seems to me that for this Tribunal, which comes from a country with a parliamentary and democratic government, it is very difficult task to realize how here in Germany during the war the struggles for power of individual groups developed to a grotesque extent under the cloak of ostensible unity. Rostock rightly referred to this in his examination. Germany was ruled by a suspicious dictator, who was a master at playing one against another. The more desperate the situation became, the oftener he had recourse to the method of appointing more and more plenipetentiaries general, commissioners general, and similar titles. But at the same time he left the existing competencies entirely or in part untouched, so that a chaos of competencies developed. In this respect the international Nuremberg trial brought to light numerous examples. Brandt's appointment as commissioner general is to be evaluated in this sense. Beside him there remained the competencies of Conti and the Chief of the Medical Service of the Wehrmacht branches.
Above all Hitler refrained from interfering in Himller's or Grawitz' sphere. All too often in the Third Reich as in this case - a high-sounding title concealed deliberate or accidental confusion of competencies. When Karl Brandt called on Rostock for assistance, he did not present him with a clearly defined program, because he himself had not received one. Thus Rostock, who came from the clear air of purely scientific medical work, could assume that he could do some good trying to maintain German medical science and its foundations over the period of the collapse. How difficult this decision was for him, which implied giving up other scientific work, Rostock has already convincingly described for us. After seeing the evidence, we can believe him and his associates when they say that he or they had no knowledge of the crimes previously committed in Germany in the field of practical research.
It was possible even to indict a man like Professor Rostock for conspiracy and the commission of war of war crimes and crimes against humanity only because the Prosecution did not consider or did not know the personality of Rostock and was not able to get a true picture of all the circumstances. Only very few people, who lived in Germany during the war, knew the conditions and the divisions of power, the struggles for power and the silent intrigues of those groups who had the whip in the hand, and the numerous iron curtains before agencies and institutions which all concealed and guarded their work jealously. How much more impossible was it for a foreigner, when the indictment was served, to judge correctly these confused conditions in Hitler Germany. Such a correct judgment would, however, be the prerequisite for an indictment properly founded from the factual and the legal point of view. I am of the opinion that the Prosecution faced a task which was difficult to perform.
While the Prosecution has, during this trial, submitted many documents which testified to the contempt or the indifference of the authors to the life and fate of to her human beings, no documents have been submitted which show Rostock's work and thought.
Since all archives and documents centers are exclusively in the hands of the American Prosecution authorities, the Defense is at a disadvantage here. The entire correspondence of Rostock's office has been confiscated by the Americans. I may at least point out at this point that if there were any document there which threw even the slighest shadow on Rostock's character, it would have been presented here. Thus I can state: There is no such document from the hand of Rostock. The simple reason for this is that Rostock simply had no knowledge of any crimes nor did he participate in them in any way. If the Defense, were able to present Rostock's files and letters from that time to the Tribunal, we would find therein many statements by Rostock which would show his ideal efforts in the service of his science and his patients. It would become obvious that Rostock in conduct and character was one of us who believe in the progress of humanity through kindness, mutual respect, and tolerance.
Only the detailed presentation of evidence in this trial has brought clarity. As I have explained, it has shown the complete innocence of the Defendant Professor Rostock. The unjustified indictment means for him the most serious defamation in his position in society and in science.
I should here like to call the attention of the Tribunal to one point in which view point and effect on the public in America and Germany differ. In contrast to the American procedure, in German criminal procedure a trial is opened for such crimes as are under indictment here only when the prosecution material has already been examined by a court officer. This is the institution of the so-called examining judge, who, in major cases, decides when a court trial is to be opened. For all crimes there is also a judicial examination of the prosecution material before the court trial opens, and only when there are strong grounds for suspicion is the trial opened for judicial decision.
This procedure brings it about that the public can assume in such trials that the indictment is, with a high degree of possibility, based on fact. This means that for a man who has once been involved in such a trial it is later extremely difficult to find honor and respect among his fellow citizens. The defendant Rostock would therefore be grateful to you, Your Honors, if in the formulation of your judgment you could help to make it possible for him to resume his place in the circle of respected persons.
With the pride of a clear conscience and with confidence Rostock awaits the judgment of this Tribunal. According to the results of the presentation of evidence, I am convinced that it is my duty to ask that Professor Paul Rostock be fully acquitted.
THE PRESIDENT: Before proceeding with further argument the Tribunal will be in recess.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal understands that the translation of Dr. Seidl's argument, as attorney for defendants Gebhardt, Fischer and Oberhauser, are all prepared. The Tribunal will now hear from Dr. Seidl as attorney for the defendants named.
DR. SEIDL: Dr. Seidl, attorney for the defendants Gebhardt, Oberhauser, and Fischer.
Mr. President, your Honor, if I may draw you attention to the index of the final plea for the defendant Gebhardt, you will find that there are 31 points. The first three points deal with the count of Indictment I, which is common plan or conspiracy. As the Tribunal has already arrived at a decision as to these parts, I will not deal with this part of my plea, and shall come straight to this point.
I would like to draw the attention of the Tribunal to pages 11 to 16 because I have examined there the factual and legal effect of a document, which is Prosecution Exhibit 460. It is the order of Himmler, 15 May 1944, under which a special assignment was given to the defendant Karl Gebhardt within the Medical Service of the Waffen-SS.
I now turn to point four which begins on page 26.
(4) WAR CRIMES AND CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY COUNTS II AND III.
In the Indictment the medical experiments carried out for the benefit of the German Wehrmact represent an independent group that has nothing to do with the other actions forming the subject of the indictment. The defendant Karl Gebhardt is charged with being especially responsible for these experiments and with participating in them.
The hearing of the evidence has proved that the defendant Gebhardt evidently had nothing at all to do with some of these experiments. With regard to other experiments, the Prosecution submitted some documents which do not let us discern any immediate participation of the defendant Gebhardt in these experiments, but which show that he learned of them after they had been carried out.
The focal point of the indictment and evidence, in so far as they concern the defendant Rebhardt, are the experiments which were carried out in the concentration camp Ravensbruck in 1942 and the aim of which was to determine the effect of the so-called sulfonamides in connection with wound infections.
The Sulfonamide Experiments (Count II of Indictment, Art. 6 Section E and Count III of Indictment, Art. 11.
First of all, I wish to remark here that the assertion of the prosecution, list this state of affairs had played a part in the Hamburg trials against Sclidlauski and Freitzhi is essentially incorrect. The accusations which were made in those proceedings against the defendants have nothing essential to do with the subject of this trial.
For all medical experiments forming the subject of the indictment, the experiments for testing sulfonamides were undoubtly the most directly connected with the war. The problem of wound infection in every war and especially in modern warfare, is one with which every nation at war must concern itself. This problem is not only one of great importance to the life and health of the individual wounded soldier but it may have a decision effect on the strategical position and on the outcome of the war itself through the resultant gaps in the ranks. Already the first world war has shown that the majority of soldiers do not die on the battlefield itself and that in most cases death is not the direct result of a wound, but that the heavy losses must be attributed to infection of wounds received. These experiences have been confirmed in the second world war and the special conditions prevailing in Russia and the climation conditions due to the winter there have shown even more than in the first world war that wound infection was a medical and tactical problem of the highest importance for the troops and their health. As regards details, I refer to statement made in this connection on the witness stand by several defendants in these proceedings in answer.
Consequently it could not come as a surprise that in this war also efforts were made to deal with wound infections not only by using surgical measures, but that a way was sought to prevent the formation and the spreading of bacterial infections or at least to confirm them, within reasonable limits, by using chemical preparations.
Such efforts seemed the more called for as the war in the East not only meant an immense strain for the resources in material and personnel in general, but also in view of the fact that especially the supply of the army troops and the Waffen SS with medical officers and, above all, with trained field surgeons became more and more difficult. Had it been possible to assist the field medical officers at the front and at the main dressing stations, with a reliable and effective chemo-therapeutic preparation against bacterial wound infection, a progress of vast importance would have been achieved.
On the other hand, however, it could not be overlooked that the introduction of a not safely operating chemo-therapeutic preparation involved a certain amount of danger for an effective medical care of the wounded and consequently for the war potential of the German Wehrmacht and its striking power. In his lecture on the chemo-therapy of wound infection as delivered before the first conference East of the consulting specialists on 18 May 1943 and which I submitted as part of the report dealing with this conference, i.e., as Exhibit Gebhardt No. 6, Professor Dr. Rostock referred to the great danger of chemo-therapy, i.e. the possibility "to induce neglectful physicians to be careless in the surgical execution of the wound dressing, since they may place a certain trust in chemo-therapy".
This warning was all the more in order since, at that time, not only a complete uncertainty existed as regards the effects of sulfonamide, but also because there was a divergence in the opinions as the efficacy of this preparation. It has been clearly shown by the evidence that, in spite of close observation of the effects of sulfonamide in peace times and in war, it was impossible to answer this question. The opinions were very much divided. While some were convinced of the efficacy of these preparations in connection with wounds infections and ascribed extraordinarily good results to them, others were of the opinion that these chemical preparations could at the best be used supplementary and that they, if used by themselves, did hot have the properties to prevent bacterial infections resulting from combat wounds.
With regard to the details I refer to the statements of the defendants Karl Brandt, Handloser, Rostock, Gebhardt and Fischer and to the Exhibits Gebhardt, Nos. 6, 7 and 10 as submitted by me during the hearing of the evidence.
In this respect, it is highly interesting to review the scientific discussions of the consulting specialists as contained in the report on the first conference East on 18 and 19 May 1942. These discussions which took place prior to the sulfonamide experiments comprising the subject of the indictment give a true picture of the situation as it was at that time with regard to the efficacy of sulfonamides.
In this respect we are able to distinguish three sharply defined groups. In the group, which rejected the chemo-therapeutic treatment of wound infection, Geheimrat Professor Sauerbruch was leading. He emphatically voiced the opinion that these chemical preparations tend to obscure the surgical work and to lead to perfunctory treatment. He demanded that the preparations should be critically tested, that is to say, the test should be made by surgeons experienced in general surgery.
In the other camp there were surgeons who claimed to have obtained extra-ordinarily favorable results in the chemo-therapeutical treatment of bacterially infected wounds. Among them was D. Kruegar, the Berlin professor for surgery, who claims to have observed a favorable effect of sulfonamide in an many as 5000 cases.
To the third group finally, belonged the surgeons, bacteriologists and pathologists who took the view that nothing definite could be said as yet as to the effects and the efficacy of sulfonamides as agents in the fight against bacterially infected wounds and that further tests along these lines would have to be made.
Thus it can be said that after the experiences of the Russian winter campaign of 1941/1942, the fight against the bacterial wound infection and the question of the efficacy of the sulfonamides had become a militarymedical and medical-tactical problem of first importance about which opinions differed widely.
A solution of this problem was the more urgent as an answer had to be found quickly, and on the other hand the fact was not to be disregarded that the experiences gained during nearly ten years of peace and war in clinics as well as in laboratories were insufficient to answer this question.
(6) The Order for the Execution of these Experiments.
The evidence has shown that the order to ascertain the effectiveness of the sulfonamides in experiments on human beings, was given directly by the Head of the State and Supreme Commander of the Wehrmacht. Hitler's order was not submitted at first by Himmler to the defendant Gebhardt, but to Dr. Grawitz, Reich physician of the SS and Police.
However, the evidence showed further that another circumstance arose which at least from the point of view of time caused the order for these experiments to be given, viz. the death of the chief of the Reich Main Security Office General of the Waffen SS Reinhardt Heydrich, who in May 1942 was assassinated in Prague. As to the details I refer to the the statements made by Gebhardt in the witness box concerning this matter. Heydrich's death is connected with the experiments themselves only insofar as, at that time, the reproach was made, that Heydrich's life could have been saved, if sulfonamide and especially a certain sulfonamide preparation had been administered to the wounded men in sufficient quantities. The whole problem of sulfonamide therapy came to the foreground once more in this one case and that in such an obvious manner that the Head of the State himself gave the order to clarify by way of all-out experiments the question, which for a long time already had been of general importance for the fighting troops at the front.
Within the scope of this evaluation of evidence it is irrelevant to enter into the details, which brought it about that the experiments were carried out by the defendant Gebhardt himself. Against the strict order of the Reich physician SS Grawitz, Gebhardt carried out the experiments not by artificially producing bullet wounds but by causing an infection under observation of all possible precautionary measures.
It was further shown by the evidence that the experiments were started with fifteen habitual criminals who had been sentenced to death and who had been transferred from the concentration camp Sachsenahusen to Ravensbrueck. In view of the fact, that this part of the experiment is not a subject of the indictment, it seems to be unnecessary to enter into this matter. It should, however, be kept in mind that at the conference on 1 June 1943, at which the conditions for the experiments were determined in detail - the defendant Gebhardt has described this conference in detail and I am refering to this - it was understood that the experiments should be carried out with male habitual criminals, who had been sentenced to death and who were to be pardoned in case of survival.
(7) The Experimental Arrangements for the Sulfonamide Experiments.
It was shown by the evidence that the experiments for testing the effectiveness of the sulfonamides were carried out in three groups. The first group included fifteen men. This group has nothing to do with the subject of the indictment and it is therefore superfluous to enter into this matter more closely.
The second group included thirty-six female prisoners, who had been members of the Polish resistance movement and who, for this reason, had been sentenced to death by the German Court Martial in the Government General. This second group was sub-divided into 3 sub-groups of 13 experimental persons each. As to the particulars of the provisions for the experiments, I refer to the statements made by the defendants Gebhardt and Fischer in the witness box. Contrary to the first group, contact substances were used in this second group to accelerate the process of infection. The contact substances were inserted into the open wound together with the germs. Sterile and pulverized glass and sterile wood particles were used for contact substances. These contact substances took the place of earth and uniform particles and had the purpose of producing war-like conditions for the wounds, without, however, producing at the same time, the general dangers created by infection of the wound by earth and parts of clothing.
As in the case of the first group, staphylococci, straptococci, a gas gangrene bacilli, were used as agents. But the contention set forth in the indictment that tetanus germs were also used, is incorrect. On the contrary, the evidence has proved that the treatment of tetanus did not come within the scope of these experiments. There was less reason for this as it was realized long ago by German military surgery that the sulfonamide preparations are not suitable for the effective prevention of traumatic tetanus. Here I refer to the directives for the chemo-therapeutical treatment of wound infection which were issued at the First Working Congress East of the Consulting Specialists in May 1943 (Gebhardt Exhibit No. 6) - that is; prior to the performance of the sulfonamide experiments consulting the subject of this indictment. In these directives it is expressly pointed out that the outbreak of traumatic tetanus cannot be prevented by means of the sulfonamides and that tetanus anti-toxin has to be administered as usual.
In the course of the evidence only the witness Dr. Maczka has maintained that tetanus was actually used in one individual case. This witness did not make her own observations of the case, but has drawn conclusions based exclusively on the pathological picture demonstrated by one of the experimental subjects according to her statements. In view of the fact that even according to the testimony of this witness tetanus bacilli were employed only in one individual case, the assertion of this witness can hardly be taken as a true representation of the facts, for if it had really been the intention of the defendant Gebhardt to determine the effect of sulfonamides also on tetanus, one experimental subject would certainly not have been sufficient, and more experiments would have been necessary before a final decision regarding this question could possibly have been made.
The third group consisted of twenty-four experimental subjects who were not treated with any sort of contagion -- unlike the procedure applied to the second group - but only had part of the muscle ligated. The defendants Gebhardt and Fischer have given detailed evidence regarding these new experiment arrangements, how they originated, which consideration had to be regarded and what part was played by SS Reich Physician Dr. Grawitz.
With regard to these details I refer to the statements made by the defendants in the witness-box.
The experimental subjects were treated with sulfonamide in the way described by the defendants in the witness-box. A few persons were not treated with sulfonamides but were used as control subjects. But that did not mean that these persons were not treated at all. As the evidence has proved, all experimental subjects were treated, namely by surgical measures if the sulfonamides did not prove effective against the inflammation. For this reason also the experimental subjects to whom no sulfonamides were applied, and with whom the inflammation did not pass away of itself, were given direct surgical treatment under observance of the generally recognized principles of surgery particularly as developed in Germany by Gebhardt's teacher Professor Dr. Lexer. This direct surgical treatment resulted in the scars, which the court has seen on the experimental subjects questioned as witnesses. As explained by Professor Dr. Alexander, the expert produced by the prosecution, these scars are the result not of the bacteriological infection but of the operations performed in order to eliminate this infection. For the case of the prosecution four experimental subjects have been called to give evidence. In addition, the prosecution has submitted in Document Book No. 10 a series of affidavits given by other persons used as experimental subjects. The statements of the four witnesses questioned in court coincide largely with the testimony given by the defendants Gebhardt, Oberhauser, and Fischer themselves in the witness-box. For this reason alone, it appears expedient and sufficient for the pronouncement of a just sentence and for the establishment of the true facts to base the sentence exclusively on the testimony of these four witnesses together with the statements of the defendants themselves. This is not only in accordance with the principle of direct and oral proceedings in court prevailing in any modern criminal procedure.