Experiments to test the effectiveness of sulfanilamide on infections
were conducted in the Ravensbrueck concentration camp from 20 July 1942
until August 1943. These experiments were performed by the defendants
Gebhardt, Fischer, and Oberheuser. (_NO-228, Pros. Ex. 206._)
Gebhardt personally requested Himmler’s permission to carry out the
sulfanilamide experiments and their execution was his responsibility.
(_Tr. pp. 4024-5._) He himself carried out the initial operations. (_Tr.
p. 4032._)
The experimental subjects consisted of 15 male concentration camp
inmates, who were used during the preliminary experiments in July 1942,
and 60 Polish women who were experimented on in 5 groups of 12 subjects
each.
The purpose of the experiments was stated in a preliminary report by
Gebhardt dated 29 August 1942, in which he stated:
“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
to test the efficacy of the known therapeutic medicaments.
“In addition, the simple infections of injuries which occur as
symptoms in war surgery had also to be tested; and a new
chemo-therapeutic treatment, apart from the known surgical
measures, had to be tried out.” (_NO-2734, Pros. Ex. 473._)
The sulfanilamide experiments, as substantially all of the experiments
with which the case is concerned, were directly related to the German
war effort. Allied propaganda about the “miracle drug” sulfanilamide was
having considerable effect on the confidence of the German soldiers in
their medical officers. Heavy casualties had been sustained from gas
gangrene on the Russian front in the winter of 1941-42. The theoretical
question to be answered by these experiments was whether the wounded
should be treated surgically in the front line hospitals or should be
treated by field medical officers with sulfanilamide and then sent down
the long lines of communication to a base hospital for further
treatment. (_Tr. pp. 4010-14._)
The same report cited above states that the defendant Fischer was
appointed by Gebhardt as his assistant; Dr. Blumenreuter, a subordinate
of the defendant Genzken, made available the surgical instruments and
medicines; the defendant Mrugowsky put his laboratory and co-workers at
the disposal of Gebhardt; and Dr. Lolling, chief medical officer of all
concentration camps, assigned Dr. Schiedlausky and the defendant
Oberheuser as co-workers.
This preliminary report concerns itself with the early experiments on 15
male subjects to determine a mode of infection with gangrene. Gebhardt
was assisted by the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS, which made
available the bacteria and gave advice on the method of bringing about
gangrene infection artificially. The experimental technique was
described in the report as follows:
“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 centimetres over the musculus peroneus
longus; after incision into the fascia the muscle was tied up
with 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 bacteria) was imbedded
under the fascia, subcutaneous adipose tissue and skin sutured
in layers.” (_NO-2734, Pros. Ex. 473._)
In the first series of experiments the subjects were infected with
staphylococci, streptococci, para oedema malignum, bacteria Fraenkel,
and earth. The resulting infections were not considered serious enough,
and a conference was held with the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS
and the bacteria used in bringing about the infections were changed. Six
additional male subjects were then infected, but again the results were
not considered serious enough. After further consultation with the
collaborators in the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS, the infectious
material was changed by adding wood shavings. During the course of these
experiments the subjects were treated with various types of
sulfanilamides, including catoxyn and marfanil-prontalbin, the latter
being strongly recommended by the Army Medical Inspectorate. Efforts
continued to make the gangrene infection more serious, and the report
concluded with the following paragraph:
“We are now investigating the problem as to why the gangrene in
the present cases 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.” [Emphasis supplied.] (_NO-2734, Pros. Ex.
473._)
This report was certified as a correct copy by the defendant Poppendick.
In his zealousness to protect his fellow defendants, Gebhardt testified
that neither the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS nor the defendant
Mrugowsky played any part in these experiments, and that the infectious
material was sent to him by Grawitz. (_Tr. p. 4179._) This is clearly
contradicted by his own report cited above.
Following the conclusion of the preliminary experiments on the male
prisoners, experiments were continued on female Polish inmates. The
affidavit of the defendant Fischer states that three series of
operations were performed, each involving 10 persons, one using the
bacterial culture and fragments of wood, the second using bacterial
culture and fragments of glass, and the third using culture plus glass
and wood. (_NO-228, Pros. Ex. 206._) These experiments were undertaken
during the month of August 1942. While Fischer speaks of experimental
groups of 10 persons each, the defendant Gebhardt testified that the
groups were composed of 12 experimental subjects. (_Tr. p. 4056._) On 3
September 1942, after 36 women had been experimented on, Reich Physician
SS Grawitz visited Ravensbrueck and inspected the experimental subjects.
He asked Gebhardt how many deaths had occurred, and when it was reported
that there had been none, he stated that the experiments did not conform
to battlefield conditions. (_NO-228, Pros. Ex. 206_; _Tr. p. 4057_.) In
order to make the gangrene infections still more severe, a new series of
experiments involving 24 Polish female inmates was carried out. In this
series the circulation of blood through the muscles was interrupted in
the area of infection by tying off the muscles on either end. This
series of experiments resulted in very serious infections and a number
of deaths occurred. (_NO-228, Pros. Ex. 206._)
Gebhardt, Fischer, and Oberheuser all admit that three of the
experimental subjects died as a result of the experiments. (_NO-228,
Pros. Ex. 206_; _Tr. pp. 4059, 5492_.) Other evidence, however, proves
that five died as a direct result of the experiments and six were
executed by shooting at a later date. (_Tr. pp. 1438, 1449, 797, 845,
863._)
Four of the Polish women who were subjected to these experiments
testified before the Tribunal. Most of the women who were used as
subjects had been active in a resistance movement. (_Tr. pp. 787, 816,
840, 857._) Only healthy inmates were used. (_Tr. pp. 786, 815, 836,
856, 860-1._) None of them volunteered for the experiments. (_Tr. pp.
789, 819, 842, 844-5, 861._) On the contrary, they protested against the
experiments both orally and in writing. (_Tr. pp. 789, 794, 823-5._)
They stated that they would have preferred death to continued
experiments, since they were convinced that they were to die in any
event. (_Tr. pp. 795, 824, 863._) They testified that 74 Polish women, 1
German, and 1 Ukrainian woman were experimented upon. (_Tr. pp. 1438,
796, 818, 862._) Since Gebhardt placed the total number of Polish female
experimental subjects in the sulfanilamide experiments at 60, the
additional 16 women mentioned by the witnesses may well have been
subjects in the bone, muscle, and nerve regeneration experiments. (_Tr.
p. 1462._)
The witness Kusmierczuk was one of the subjects in the sulfanilamide
experiments. She is a Polish national and arrived in the Ravensbrueck
concentration camp in the fall of 1941. (_Tr. p. 857._) She was operated
on in October 1942 and a severe infection developed in her case. (_Tr.
p. 858._) She remained in the hospital from October 1942 until April
1943, but her wound was still not healed at the time she was discharged
from the hospital. Her condition deteriorated and she was readmitted to
the hospital on 1 September 1943. (_Tr. p. 860._) She left the hospital
the second time in February 1944, but her wound did not finally heal
until June 1944. (_Tr. p. 861._) She identified the defendants Gebhardt,
Fischer, and Oberheuser as having participated in the experiment upon
her. (_Tr. p. 860._) Kusmierczuk suffered permanent injuries as a result
of this experiment, and her condition was described by the expert
witness Dr. Leo Alexander. (_Tr. pp. 864-9._) The post-operational care
of this woman was not handled by Gebhardt and Fischer, but by the camp
doctors. On the occasion of her second admission to the hospital in
September 1943, Kusmierczuk was operated on by Dr. Treite in an effort
to cure the deep-seated infection. (_Tr. p. 861._) [See photographs, pp.
898 to 908.]
The expert witness Maczka, who worked as an X-ray technician in the
Ravensbrueck concentration camp during the course of the experiments,
testified concerning deaths of the five Polish experimental subjects
resulting from the sulfanilamide experiments. Weronica Kraska developed
typical tetanus symptoms a few days after the experimental operation was
performed on her. After a brief illness she died under cramps caused by
tetanus. (_Tr. p. 1438._) Kazimiera Kurowska was artificially infected
with gangrene bacillus. She was a healthy Polish girl of 23 years. From
day to day her leg became blacker and more swollen. She was given care
for only the first few days. After that she was taken to Room 4 in the
hospital where she lay for days in unbelievable pain and finally died.
Maczka was able to observe this case personally and in her opinion
immediate amputation would have saved her life. (_Tr. pp. 1439-40._) It
is quite clear that if a German soldier’s life had been endangered by
gangrene infection, an amputation would have been undertaken
immediately. In this experiment, where the very effort was to develop a
serious gangrene infection and to test the effects of sulfanilamide
preparations, it is equally clear why the leg of Kurowska was not
amputated. Aniela Lefanowicz was infected with oedema malignum. Her leg
kept swelling more and more, the blood vessels eroded, and she died from
bleeding. Maczka testified that the blood vessels should have been tied
off and an amputation carried out in order to save her life. She was
completely neglected after the first 2 or 3 days. (_Tr. pp. 1440-1._)
Zofia Kiecol died under similar circumstances. (_Tr. p. 1441._)
Alfreda Prus was infected with oedema malignum the same day as the
witnesses Kusmierczuk, Kiecol, and Lefanowicz. She was a beautiful,
young 21-year-old girl, and a university student. She proved to be
stronger than Kiecol and Lefanowicz and for that reason she lived a few
days longer. She suffered terrible pain and finally died of hemorrhage.
(_Tr. pp. 1142-3._) Kusmierczuk was the only subject to survive that
series of experiments. (_Tr. p. 1443._)
It is hardly necessary to point out that all of the experimental
subjects suffered severe pain and torture. (_Tr. pp. 790-1, 802, 820,
842, 859_; _NO-876, Pros. Ex. 225_; _NO-871, Pros. Ex. 227_; _NO-877,
Pros. Ex. 228._) The Tribunal was able to observe for itself the
mutilations to which the Polish witnesses were subjected, and pictures
of their scars were introduced to form a permanent part of the record.
(_NO-1079a, b, and c, Pros. Ex. 209_; _NO-1081a, and b, Pros. Ex. 211_;
_NO-1082a, b, and c, Pros. Ex. 214_; _NO-1080a-g, Pros. Ex. 219._)
The post-operational care of the experimental subjects was entirely
inadequate. (_NO-873, Pros. Ex. 226._) Many of the subjects were given
neither medicine nor morphine by order of defendant Oberheuser.
(_NO-877, Pros. Ex. 228._) They were given bandages from time to time
when the doctors felt like it. Sometimes they waited 3 days, sometimes 4
days. There was a terrible odor of pus in the rooms. The girls were
forced to help each other. (_Tr. p. 1444._) Post-operational care, such
as it was, was administered by the camp doctors. The witness
Broel-Plater testified that:
“My leg pained me; I felt severe pain, and blood flowed from my
leg. At night we were all alone without any care. I heard only
the screaming of my fellow prisoners, and I heard also that they
asked for water. There was nobody to give us any water or bed
pans.” (_Tr. p. 790._)
The witness Karolewska testified that:
“I was in my room and I made the remark to fellow prisoners that
we had been operated on under very bad conditions and were left
here in this room, and that we were not given even the
possibility to recover. This remark must have been heard by a
German nurse who was sitting in the corridor because the door of
our room leading to the corridor was open. The German nurse
entered the room and told us to get up and dress. We answered
that we could not follow her order because we had great pains in
our legs and could not walk. Then the German nurse came into our
room with Dr. Oberheuser. Dr. Oberheuser told us to dress and go
to the dressing room. We put on our dresses; and, being unable
to walk, we had to hop on one leg going to the operating room.
After one hop we had to rest. Dr. Oberheuser did not allow
anybody to help us. When we arrived at the operating room quite
exhausted, Dr. Oberheuser appeared and told us to go back
because a change of dressing would not take place that day. I
could not walk, but somebody, a prisoner whose name I do not
remember, helped me to get back to the room.” (_Tr. p. 822._)
At least five human lives were sacrificed in the sulfanilamide
experiments, while an additional six were shot after having survived the
operations. All the surviving victims suffered terrible pains and were
crippled for life. Nevertheless, the experiments were not even
scientifically successful. The results, as reported by Gebhardt and
Fischer at the Third Conference of the Consulting Physicians of the
Wehrmacht at the Military Medical Academy in Berlin in May 1943, were
not adopted, and medical directives were issued which required the
continued use of sulfanilamide. (_Gebhardt, Fischer, Oberheuser 3,
Gebhardt, Fischer, Oberheuser Ex. 10._) The sulfanilamide experiments
were entirely unnecessary, since similar results could have been
achieved by the treatment of wound infections of German soldiers
normally contracted during the course of the war. (_Tr. pp. 3334,
3338._)
Gebhardt does not seriously contend that the experimental subjects were
volunteers. He admitted that he did not know whether the women
consented. He testified he was not interested in that. He left it to the
“legal authorities.” He did not discuss this matter with Himmler. (_Tr.
p. 4214._) By legal authorities, Gebhardt meant Himmler who, as he said,
“had the power to execute thousands of people by a stroke of his pen.”
(_Tr. p. 4025._) Gebhardt, however, showed no interest whatever in the
moral or legal character of that power. At one point in his testimony,
he stated that the subjects were nonvolunteers forced to submit to the
experiments by the State. (_Tr. p. 4064._) At still another point, they
were “more or less volunteers, condemned persons.” (_Tr. p. 4021._)
Gebhardt’s defense, if it can be dignified with that word, is rather
that the Polish women had been condemned to death for participation in a
resistance movement and that by undergoing the experiments, voluntarily
or otherwise, they were to have their death sentences commuted to some
lesser degree of punishment whereby they would at least not be executed.
This was no bargain reached with the experimental subjects; their wishes
were not consulted in the matter. It was, according to Gebhardt, left to
the good faith of someone unnamed to see to it the death sentence was
not carried out on the survivors of the experiments. Certainly Gebhardt
assumed no responsibility, or even interest, in this matter.
The prosecution points out, in connection with this alleged defense,
that the proof shows that the experimental subjects who testified before
this Tribunal were never so much as accorded a trial; they had no
opportunity to defend themselves against whatever crimes they were said
to have committed. They were simply arrested and interrogated by the
Gestapo in Poland and sent to a concentration camp. They had never so
much as been informed that they had been _marked for_, not sentenced to,
death. (_Tr. p. 831._) Article 30 of the Regulations Respecting the Laws
and Customs of War on Land annexed to the Hague Convention expressly
provides that even a spy “shall not be punished without previous trial.”
The alleged defense of Gebhardt is accordingly without merit.
Gebhardt would have the Tribunal believe that _but for_ the experiments
all these Polish girls would be dead; that he preserved the evidence now
being used against him. Nothing could be further from the truth. There
is no proof in the record that these women would have been executed if
they had not undergone the experiments. The witness Maczka is living
proof of the contrary. She was arrested for resistance activities on 11
September 1941, and shipped to Ravensbrueck on 13 September. (_Tr. p.
1433._) She was not an experimental subject yet she lives today.
Substantially all the Polish experimental subjects arrived in
Ravensbrueck in September 1941. (_Tr. pp. 788, 817, 840._) These girls
had not been executed by August 1942 when the experiments began. Indeed,
it was a surprise to Gebhardt, according to his testimony, that they
were used at all since during July 1942 the experiments were conducted
on men. There were some 700 Polish girls in that transport. (_NO-877,
Pros. Ex. 228_; _Tr. p. 4216._) There is no evidence that a substantial
number were ever executed even though most of them were not experimented
on.
No, the proof has shown beyond controversy that these Polish women
_could not have been legally executed_. The right to grant pardons in
cases of death sentences was exclusively vested in Hitler by a decree of
1 February 1935, Reich Law Gazette [RGBl], I, page 74. (_NO-3070, Pros.
Ex. 531._) On 2 May 1935, Hitler delegated the right to make _negative_
decisions on pardon applications to the Reich Minister of Justice.
(_NO-3071, Pros. Ex. 532._) On 30 January 1940 (_RGBl, I, p. 399_),
Hitler delegated to the Governor General for the occupied Polish
territories the authority to grant pardons and to make denying decisions
in pardon matters for the occupied Polish territories. (_NO-3072, Pros.
Ex. 533._) By edict, dated 8 March 1940, VOB1 GGP I p. 99, the Governor
General of occupied Poland ordered with reference to the execution of
the right to pardon in the case of death sentences that:
“The execution of a death sentence pronounced by a regular
court, a special court or a police court martial _shall take
place only when my decision has been issued not to make use of
my right to pardon_.” [Emphasis supplied.] (_NO-3073, Pros. Ex.
534._)
Assuming _arguendo_ that the experimental subjects had all committed
substantial crimes, that they were all properly tried by a duly
constituted court of law, that they were legally sentenced to death, it
is still clear from the decrees set forth above that these women could
not have been legally executed until such time as the Governor General
of occupied Poland had decided in each case not to make use of his
pardon right. There has been no proof that the Governor General had ever
acted with respect to pardoning the Polish women used in the
experiments, or, for that matter, any substantial number of those not
used in the experiments.
The only reason these 700 Polish women were transported from Warsaw and
Lublin to Ravensbrueck was because the Governor General had not approved
their execution. Otherwise they would have been immediately executed in
Poland. At the very least, these women were entitled to remain
unmolested so long as the Governor General took no action. He may never
have acted or, when he did, he may have acted favorably on the pardon.
The affidavit of Schiedlausky, the camp doctor at Ravensbrueck, shows
that the Governor General had not turned down a pardon when the
experiments started. He said on page four of the original:
“Polish women who had been sentenced to death by court martial
and who were awaiting execution, after their sentences had been
approved by the Governor General, were chosen as subjects.”
(_NO-508, Pros. Ex. 224._)
At still a later point, on page 15 of the original, he said:
“During my tour of duty at Ravensbrueck, I estimate that about
25 women were executed by shooting. They were exclusively Polish
women, who were already prisoners, _whose sentences were only
approved after a long time by the Governor General_.” [Emphasis
added.]
Schiedlausky was in Ravensbrueck from December 1941 until the middle of
August 1943. During that long period of time only 25 of over 700 Polish
inmates were made eligible for execution by action of the Governor
General. Who is to say that the majority of these 700 Polish women did
not live through the war even though they did not undergo the
experiments? Certainly it was incumbent on the defense to prove the
contrary by a preponderance of the evidence. This it did not do by any
evidence.
The defendants Gebhardt, Fischer, and Oberheuser cannot claim that they
believed in good faith that the Polish women could have been legally
executed. Even the camp doctor Schiedlausky knew that the Governor
General had to approve the execution. Moreover, the large number of 700
women being sentenced to death at this early stage of the war was enough
to put any reasonable person on notice that something was wrong.
Additionally, the uncontradicted evidence proves that survival of the
experiments was no guarantee whatever of avoiding execution in any
event. _At least six of the experimental subjects were executed after
having survived the experiments._ (_Tr. pp. 1449, 797, 845, 863._) The
names of the Polish girls who were shot were Pajaczkowska, Gans,
Zielonka, Rakowska, Sobolewska, and Gutek. (_NO-873, Pros. Ex. 226_;
_NO-861, Pros. Ex. 232_.) It was not a question of experimentation _or_
execution but experimentation _and_ execution.
Indeed, in February 1945, an effort was made to execute all the
experimental subjects. They were ordered to report to one block and
remain there. They were informed that they would be transferred to the
Gross-Rosen concentration camp, but it was common knowledge that
Gross-Rosen was already in the hands of the Allies. They, therefore,
knew that they were going to be executed and so took different
identification numbers and hid themselves. This was possible because of
disorganization in the camp. (_Tr. pp. 1450-1, 862-3_; _NO-876, Pros.
Ex. 225_; _NO-877, Pros. Ex. 228_.)
If one takes the case of the defense at its face value, the Tribunal is
in effect asked to rule that it is legal for military doctors of a
nation at war to experiment on political prisoners of an occupied
country who are condemned to death, to experiment on them in such a way
that they may suffer death, excruciating pain, mutilation, and permanent
disability—all this without their consent and in direct aid of the
military potential of their enemy. There is no valid reason for limiting
such a decision to civilian prisoners; the experiment would certainly
have been no worse had it been performed on Polish or American prisoners
of war. It is impossible to consider seriously the ruling being sought
for by the defense.
c. Selection from the Argumentation of the Defense
_EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF FOR
DEFENDANT GEBHARDT_
* * * * *
_The Sulfanilamide Experiments_
Of all medical experiments forming the subjects of the indictment, the
experiments for testing sulfanilamides were undoubtedly the most
directly connected with the war. The problem of wound infection is one
with which every nation at war must concern itself especially in modern
warfare. This problem is not only one of great importance to the life
and health of the individual wounded soldier, but it may have a decisive
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
showed 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 climatic
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 statements made in this connection on the witness
stand by several defendants in these proceedings.
Consequently, it could not come as a surprise that in this war, too,
efforts were made to deal with wound infection not only by using
surgical measures, but that a way was sought to prevent the formation
and spreading of bacterial infections or at least to confine 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 on 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, progress of vast
importance would have been achieved.
On the other hand, however, it was impossible to overlook the fact that
the introduction of a chemo-therapeutic preparation which did not
operate safely involved a certain amount of danger to an effective
medical care of the wounded and consequently to the war potential of the
wounded and consequently to 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, which I submitted as part of the
report dealing with this conference, (_Gebhardt, Fischer, Oberheuser 1,
Gebhardt, Fischer, Oberheuser Ex. 6._) Professor Dr. Rostock referred to
the great danger of chemo-therapy, i. e., the possibility “of making
negligent physicians careless in the surgical aspect of wound dressing,
since they may place a certain trust in chemo-therapy.”
This warning was all the more in order since, at that time there was not
only complete uncertainty as regards the effects of sulfanilamides, but
also because there was a divergence in opinions as to the efficacy of
this preparation. It has been clearly shown by the evidence that, in
spite of close observation of the effects of sulfanilamides in peace
time and in war, it was impossible to answer this question. Opinions
were very much divided. While some were convinced of the efficacy of
these preparations in connection with wound infections, and ascribed
extraordinarily good results to them, others were of the opinion that
these chemical preparations could at the best be used as a supplement
and that if used by themselves, they did not have the properties to
prevent bacterial infection 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 Gebhardt Exhibits 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. (_Gebhardt, Fischer,
Oberheuser 1, Gebhardt, Fischer, Oberheuser Ex. 6._) These discussions
which took place prior to the sulfanilamide 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 sulfanilamides.
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 the leader. He
emphatically voiced the opinion that these chemical preparations tend to
obscure surgical work and to lead to perfunctory treatment. He requested
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
extraordinarily favorable results in the chemo-therapeutical treatment
of bacterially infected wounds. Among them was Dr. Krueger, the Berlin
professor of surgery, who claimed to have observed a favorable effect of
sulfanilamide in as many as 5,000 cases.
To the third group 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 sulfanilamides 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 bacterial wound infections, and
the question of the efficacy of the sulfanilamides had become a
military-medical and medical-tactical problem of the 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 10 years of peace and war in clinics as well as in laboratories
were insufficient to answer this question.
_The Order for the Execution of these Experiments_
The evidence has shown that the order to ascertain the effectiveness of
the sulfanilamides by experiments on human beings was given directly by
the Head of State and Supreme Commander of the Wehrmacht. Hitler’s order
was not at first submitted 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 from the point of view of time at least caused the order for these
experiments to be given, viz, the death of the Chief of the Reich
Security Main Office, General of the Waffen SS Reinhardt Heydrich, who
in May 1942 was assassinated in Prague. For the details I refer to the
testimony of Gebhardt in the witness box on this matter. Heydrich’s
death is connected with the experiments themselves only insofar as, at
that time, the charge was leveled that Heydrich’s life could have been
saved if sulfanilamides, and especially a certain sulfanilamide
preparation, had been administered to the wounded man in sufficient
quantities. The whole problem of sulfanilamide therapy came to the fore
once more in this one case, and then in such an obvious manner that the
Head of State himself gave the order to clarify by way of all-out
experiments the question which for a long time 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 resulted in the experiments being carried
out by the defendant Gebhardt himself. Against the strict order of the
Reich Physician SS Grawitz, Gebhardt carried out the experiments not by
deliberately inflicting bullet wounds but by causing an infection while
observing all possible precautionary measures.
It was further shown by the evidence that the experiments were started
with 15 habitual criminals who had been sentenced to death and who had
been transferred from the concentration camp Sachsenhausen 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 1942, at which the conditions for the experiments
were determined in detail—the defendant Gebhardt has described this
conference in detail and I am referring to this—it was understood that
the experiments should be carried out with the male habitual criminals
who had been sentenced to death and who were to be pardoned in case of
survival.
_The Experimental Arrangements for the Sulfanilamide Experiments_
It was shown by the evidence that the experiments for testing the
effectiveness of the sulfanilamides were carried out in three groups.
The first group included 15 men (habitual criminals). This group has
nothing to do with the charges of the indictment and it is therefore
superfluous to enter into this matter more closely.
The second group included 36 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 General
Government. This second group was divided into 3 subgroups of 12
experimental persons each. As to the particulars of the provisions for
the experiments, I refer to the testimony of 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 as contact substances. These contact substances took
the place of earth and uniform particles and were to produce 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, streptococci, and gas
gangrene bacilli were used as agents. But the contention of 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 all the less
reason for this as it was realized long ago by German military surgery
that the sulfanilamide 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 Conference East of the Consulting Specialists in May
1943 (_Gebhardt, Fischer, Oberheuser 1, Gebhardt, Fischer, Oberheuser
Ex. 6_)—that is prior to the performance of the sulfanilamide
experiments charged in the indictment. In these directives it is
expressly pointed out that the outbreak of traumatic tetanus cannot be
prevented by means of the sulfanilamides and that tetanus anti-toxin has
to be administered as usual.
During the presentation of evidence, only the witness Dr. Maczka
maintained that tetanus was actually used in one individual case. This
witness did not make her own observations of the case but drew
conclusions based exclusively on the pathological picture presented 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 sulfanilamides on tetanus too, 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 24 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 ligatured. The defendants
Gebhardt and Fischer have given detailed evidence regarding these new
experimental arrangements, how they originated, what considerations had
to be regarded, and what part was played by SS Reich Physician Dr.
Grawitz. With regard to these details I refer to the testimony of the
defendants in the witness box.
The experimental subjects were treated with sulfanilamides as described
by the defendants in the witness box. A few persons were not treated
with sulfanilamides 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 sulfanilamides did not prove effective against the
inflammation. For this reason too the experimental subjects to whom
sulfanilamides were applied, and where the inflammation did not pass
away by 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. In the
prosecution case, four experimental subjects were called to give
evidence. In addition, the prosecution submitted 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, Oberheuser, 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 and which should not be departed from without
urgent reason, but also such handling of the case seems suitable because
the statements of the four witnesses are identical essentially so that
they themselves, together with the statements given by the defendants,
can be regarded as a safe basis for a finding—apart from one point
which I shall go into later. In addition, the affidavits submitted by
the prosecution not only differ in essential points from the statements
made by the witnesses in court, but are inconsistent and contradictory
in themselves as well. This is shown, above all, by the fact that in
several of these affidavits contentions are quite obviously made which
are not based on personal and factual observation, but have become known
to these witnesses by hearsay. The affidavits, moreover, fail to
represent the circumstances in clear chronological order, which makes
the whole matter all the more doubtful, as it was proved by the evidence
that in the Ravensbrueck camp experiments were obviously also performed
by other physicians with whom the defendant in this case had no
connection.
Considerable doubts also exist regarding the statements made by the
witness Dr. Maczka. The prosecution has submitted two affidavits given
by this witness as part of its evidence. When questioned in court, this
witness could not maintain the most incriminating contentions which
appeared in the two affidavits. Under these circumstances, the court has
to consider whether it regards the statements of this witness as
sufficiently reliable to enter into the judgment. I would answer this
question in the negative, not only because she had to revoke the most
essential points of her previous affidavits, but because a large part of
her testimony was based not on her own observations, but either on
information obtained from other prisoners or on conclusions drawn by
her.
* * * * *
d. Evidence
_Prosecution Documents_
Doc. No. Pros. Ex. No. Description of Document Page
NO-228 206 Affidavit of defendant Fischer, 371
19 November 1946, concerning
sulfanilamide experiments
conducted in the concentration
camp Ravensbrueck.
NO-472 234 Affidavit of the defendant 376
Fischer, 21 October 1946,
supplementing his affidavit
concerning sulfanilamide
experiments.
NO-1080 A, E, F 219 A, E, F Exposures of the witness Maria 901
Kusmierczuk who underwent
sulfanilamide and bone
experiments while an inmate of
the Ravensbrueck concentration
camp. (_See Selections from
Photographic Evidence of the
Prosecution._)
NO-1082 A, C 214 A, C Exposures of the witness Jadwiga 903
Dzido who underwent
sulfanilamide and bone
experiments while an inmate of
the Ravensbrueck concentration
camp. (_See Selections from
Photographic Evidence of the
Prosecution._)
_Defense Documents_
Doc. No. Def. Ex. No. Description of Document
Gebhardt, Gebhardt, Fischer, Extract from affidavit of Dr. 377
Fischer, Oberheuser Ex. 20 Karl Friedrich Brunner, 14
Oberheuser 21 March 1947.
Gebhardt, Gebhardt, Fischer, Extract from report on the First 377
Fischer, Oberheuser Ex. 6 Conference East of Consulting
Oberheuser 1 Specialists on 18 and 19 May
1942 at the Military Medical
Academy, Berlin.
Gebhardt, Gebhardt, Fischer, Extracts from report on the 378
Fischer, Oberheuser Ex. 10 Third Conference East of
Oberheuser 3 Consulting Specialists on 24
to 26 May 1943 at the Military
Medical Academy, Berlin.
_Testimony_
Extracts from the testimony of prosecution witness Jadwiga Dzido 381
Extracts from the testimony of the prosecution expert witness Dr. 386
Leo Alexander
Extracts from the testimony of defendant Gebhardt 388
PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-228
PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 206
AFFIDAVIT OF DEFENDANT FISCHER, 19 NOVEMBER 1946, CONCERNING
SULFANILAMIDE EXPERIMENTS CONDUCTED IN THE CONCENTRATION CAMP
RAVENSBRUECK