_DIRECT EXAMINATION_
DR. SEIDL: The experiments on Polish internees were carried out in such
a way that, first of all, three series of experiments were performed on
three groups of 12 persons each. Is that correct?
DEFENDANT GEBHARDT: Yes. What I wanted to solve by means of this second
experimental group was the task given me in my orders, namely, the
testing of the drugs prescribed. I definitely hoped in these
experiments, which produced gangrene, that if there was anything in the
sulfanilamide drugs, which I had reason to hope, then the advantages
connected with one or the other drug would become apparent, and I would
be able to discontinue the experiments. Of course, I could not stop at
the initial instructions. I really had to go on to a localized and
definite infection, and for that there is an internationally known
precept, not discovered by us, which is to produce a _locus minoris
resistentia_—that is to say, the place of least resistance—where germs
combine with contact substances. So we did not insert dirt, glass, or
earth, cruelly; the dirt in the wound was represented by sterile glass
silicate; soil and textiles which would enter a wound were replaced by
us through sterile cellulose, finely ground. You all know that if you
cut yourself and a nonsterile piece of glass remains in the wound, if
you do not move the spot, it will heal with the glass inside without any
aggravated symptoms. The only effect it has is to produce a catalysis
for the germs and a local obstruction to the flow of blood, and possibly
to damage a few cells slightly. In other words, we produced inflammation
in the safest way possible for such an experiment. That is an
unquestionable scientific train of thought in this sphere. We proceeded
in just that manner and in addition, we gave our sulfanilamide, or
zeibazol 1., eleutron, and nitron. Two control persons, however, were
not without protection, because they were taken care of in the old
established way.
Now, don’t suggest that I should know the schedule or that there was
some schedule regarding the supply of sulfanilamide used. A schedule is
always bad in medicine because it is no longer original. One thing is
characteristic, however, with sulfanilamides and that is that you give a
big dose at the beginning, and here there is a question of whether it is
correct to introduce it locally or to leave it open. Someone might mix
it, somebody else might have a different combination and that is how we
did it. I would be a bad scientist if I were to write down for you now
that I knew exactly that they were all given in a certain manner on the
third day, or that they are all like this and this now. It states
expressly in Thomas’ statement, of course, that any prearranged table
for the administration is wrong, and that we also cannot prescribe the
correct way to apply these drugs. It was obviously clear that there was
a strong impression made by sulfanilamides and, even in the first group,
we were astonished to find a certain result, which is useful for the
idea as such, but not for practical purposes. Among other things we
immediately and simultaneously sprinkled a mixture of germs together
with sulfanilamide powder into the wound. That was the only exception
made in the first group and it didn’t produce any results at all. Now,
if I were a bad scientist then I would have assumed that that, in
itself, was a success. No matter whether it was the ultrasepsis or the
powder we had used, I would have been satisfied, and I would have said,
“Everybody now has to take a little bag of sulfanilamide along with him
and powder the wounds with it immediately because we know that if they
are inserted simultaneously into the wound—the germ and the drug—then
there will be no inflammation.” Only in complete ignorance of wound
conditions and war conditions could one adopt that point of view. The
disadvantage of the sulfanilamide bag is that a man who is badly shot
isn’t in a position to act; he would be lying somewhere badly wounded
and not be able to do anything. On the other hand, of course, the
position is that the surface of the wound can easily be powdered, but of
course not right down to the very bottom of the wound, and we know
particularly well that sulfanilamides when applied wrongly in this way
have caused injury.
Q. The second group consisted of the 36 women, 3 times 12 women?
A. Yes. Infection, plus contact materials.
Q. Is it true that the Reich Physician SS, Dr. Grawitz, on 3 September
1942, when inspecting Ravensbrueck, demanded that the experimental
conditions had to be made more severe in order to create conditions
similar to wartime conditions?
A. At the beginning of September, on the basis of my report, I was
called to Grawitz to report on the results which might be expected.
Grawitz, and as I shall explain later, Stumpfegger, came to me at the
beginning of September. Since Grawitz was coming to Ravensbrueck I
turned up on the same day, so that Fischer could demonstrate the
patients under my protection. That is the impression probably created
repeatedly by the testimony of witnesses; they have to wait for a time,
and then I say “These are the patients whom I operated on.” I assume the
same description was given each time. Grawitz was able to prove to me
that the effects were circumscribed and not of a war nature. And he was
able to prove to me that I had obtained no clear medical information,
only assumptions, and the clinical conditions resulting might perhaps be
expected after surgery at home. For another reason, which can be seen
from the documents, the argument became rather violent. Grawitz turned
to Fischer, who presented the cases to him. At any rate he then said,
unfortunately, that a speedy clarification had to be reached and that
wounds similar to combat wounds had to be created, that is, a gunshot
wound infected by earth and matter. Of course, I did not accept these
conditions and I looked for some way to get the experiment into my own
hands so that, using all safeguards, a higher degree of infection might
be brought about, and the cases might still remain under my control. I
did not want to give up and say, “I have not reached any conclusion,”
thereby impliedly giving permission for wounds similar to combat wounds
to be inflicted elsewhere. And so we arrived at the idea of tying off
the arteries of the third group, which is also a customary means of
bringing about a locus minoris resistentiae in international
experimental technique.
Q. You did not carry out the order then?
A. No.
Q. Then how were the experiments continued in order to create severe
local inflammation in warlike wounds?
A. We kept to our old technique, the infusion, that is an incision on
the outer side of the calf far from the joint, where it is not under
pressure, and where the cast does not hurt it. In other words, we chose
the most suitable place according to all medical considerations. Then we
administered the infection in a place where the circulation of the blood
had been reduced.
* * * * *
Q. What do you know about the deaths, and why was there no amputation in
these cases?
A. I believe that I can remember the three deaths very well. But I only
remember three—I have always testified that—with all the things that
have happened in the meantime and all the patients I have taken care of.
It was not that Fischer or I overlooked an amputation, and it is
certainly not true that an amputation can save the life of the patient
in all cases of gangrene. As I remember the case histories, the most
serious patient had a large abscess on the hip. Probably the
corresponding glands had been affected. The infection on the calf and
the abscess on the hip—what can I amputate? One can amputate when the
infection is limited to the calf. We did not have such cases because we
forced the infection to the place where we wanted it, but we were not
able to prevent the infection spreading to a different area and running
into the blood vessel as does happen occasionally. There are infections
of the veins, and then the patient dies suddenly, and it is a definite
risk to perform an operation because the power of resistance is on the
borderline, hanging by a hair. If we perform such major operations to
save the patient’s life, then you may assume that we would have
undertaken an amputation, or would you assume that a surgeon of my
experience does not know when he has to amputate? Unfortunately that is
the first thing that an operative surgeon like Fischer learns in
wartime, to amputate in time.
As far as I remember, the deaths were from an abscess of the glands, an
inflammation of the veins, an inflammation of the blood vessels, and one
died from general sickness, in spite of all transfusions. This happens
in cases of infection when there is no possibility of stopping the
infection by local surgery. But one cannot conclude that any medical
measures which should have been taken were overlooked, because just by
seeing a case history from a distance one cannot decide that at such and
such a moment the patient should have been operated on. I am convinced
that in these three cases which Fischer reported to me exactly, which I
saw, and in which the therapy was discussed, that we certainly did not
overlook anything. As far as one can humanly say, we did what we
considered necessary.
I wanted to publish this result or to report it to the public from the
beginning. Therefore, it was obvious from the very beginning, if you did
not assume that I had any humane or surgical motives, that I did
everything in order to be able to publish the results.
-----
[40] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 20
December 1947, pp. 838-847.
[41] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 20 Dec.
1946, pp. 848-855.
[42] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 4, 5, 6,
7, 10 Mar. 47, pp. 3931-4256.
6. BONE, MUSCLE AND NERVE REGENERATION AND BONE TRANSPLANTATION
EXPERIMENTS
a. Introduction
The defendants Karl Brandt, Handloser, Rostock, Gebhardt, Rudolf Brandt,
Oberheuser, and Fischer were charged with special responsibility for and
participation in criminal conduct involving experiments on bone, muscle,
and nerve regeneration and experiments on bone transplantation (par. 6
(F) of the indictment). During the trial, the prosecution withdrew this
charge in the case of Rudolf Brandt. On this charge the defendants
Gebhardt, Oberheuser, and Fischer were convicted and the defendants Karl
Brandt, Handloser, and Rostock were acquitted.
The prosecution’s summation of the evidence on these experiments is
contained in its final brief against the defendant Gebhardt. An extract
from this brief is set forth below on pages 392 to 396. A corresponding
summation of the evidence by the defense on these experiments has been
selected from the final plea for the defendant Gebhardt. It appears
below on pages 396 to 399. This argumentation is followed by selections
from the evidence on pages 400 to 418.
b. Selection from the Argumentation of the Prosecution
_EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST DEFENDANT GEBHARDT_
_Bone, Muscle, and Nerve Regeneration, and Bone Transplantation
Experiments_
These experiments were carried out in the Ravensbrueck concentration
camp during the same period of time and on the same group of Polish
inmates as the sulfanilamide experiments. (_Tr. p. 1458._)
The defendant Fischer made the following statement about these
experiments in his affidavit:
“After the arrival of Doctor Stumpfegger from general
headquarters in the fall of 1942, Professor Gebhardt declared
before some of his co-workers that he had received orders to
continue with the tests at Ravensbrueck on a larger scale. In
this connection, questions of plastic surgery which would be of
interest after the end of the war should be clarified. Doctor
Stumpfegger was supposed to test the free transplantation of
bones. Since Professor Gebhardt knew that I had worked in
preparation for my habilitation at the university on
regeneration of tissues, he ordered me to prepare a surgical
plan for these operations, which, after it had been approved he
directed me to carry out immediately. Moreover, Doctor Koller
and Doctor Reissmayer were ordered to perform their own series
of experiments. Professor Gebhardt was also considering a plan
to form the basis of an operative technique of remobilization of
joints. Besides the above, Doctors Schulze and Schulze-Hagen
participated in this conference.
“Since I knew Ravensbrueck I was ordered to introduce the new
doctors named above to the camp physician. I was specially
directed to assist Doctor Stumpfegger, since, as physician on
the staff of Himmler, he would probably be absent from time to
time.
“I had selected the regeneration of muscles for the sole reason
because the incision necessary for this purpose was the
smallest. The operation was carried out as follows:
“Evipan and ether were used as an anaesthetic, and a 5
centimeter longitudinal incision was made at the outer side of
the upper leg. Subsequent to the cutting through the fascia, a
piece of muscle was removed which was the size of the cup of the
little finger. The fascia and skin were enclosed in accordance
with the normal technique of aseptic surgery. Afterwards a cast
was applied. After 1 week the skin wound was split under the
same narcotic conditions, and the part of the muscle around the
area cut out was removed. Afterwards the fascia and the sewed-up
part of the skin were immobilized in a cast.” (_NO-228, Pros.
Ex. 206_; _Tr. p. 774_.)
The responsibility of the defendant Gebhardt for these experiments is
also proved by the affidavit of Oberheuser. She stated:
“The experiments with bone transplantations were carried out, as
far as I can remember, at the end of 1942 and beginning of 1943
by Dr. Stumpfegger of Hohenlychen. I helped Dr. Stumpfegger in
the same way as I helped Dr. Fischer with the sulfanilamide
experiments, and as I have described already in paragraph 4 of
this affidavit. Before the operation I had to examine, as in the
other case, the condition of health of the selected persons. The
operations consisted of the removal and transplantation of a
piece of the bone from the tibia. Fifteen to twenty persons were
used for these experiments.
“The persons necessary for these experiments were requisitioned
by Dr. Schiedlausky from the camp commander.
“Dr. Karl Gebhardt was in charge of the sulfanilamide
experiments and bone transplantations. I do not know whether he
himself performed operations of this type. But I know that all
these experiments were performed under his direction and
supervision and upon his instructions. He was assisted by the
doctors already mentioned, Dr. Fischer and Dr. Stumpfegger, and
also by Drs. Schiedlausky and Rosenthal. Also only healthy
Polish prisoners were used for these experiments.
“I cannot remember that a single one of the experimental
subjects used was pardoned after the completion of the
experiments.” (_NO-487, Pros. Ex. 208._)
The witness Maczka, a graduate of the Medical School of the University
of Krakow and a practicing physician, testified that in the course of
her duties as X-ray technician in the Ravensbrueck concentration camp
she had occasion to observe approximately 13 cases in which experimental
operations were performed on the bones of inmates. There were three
kinds of bone operations—fractures, bone transplantations, and bone
splints. Some of the Polish girls were operated on several times. In the
case of Krystyna Dabska, Maczka took X-ray pictures of both legs and
discovered that small pieces of the fibulae had been removed. In the
case of one leg the periosteum had also been taken out. Zofia Baj was
operated on in a similar manner. Janina Marczewska and Leonarda Bien
were subjected to the bone fracture experiments. The tibia was broken in
several places and in the case of one of the girls, clamps were applied
while in the case of the other they were not. These operations impeded
the locomotion of the girls operated on. Bone incision operations were
performed on Barbara Pietczyk, a Polish girl 16 years old. She was
operated on six times. During the first operation incisions were made in
each tibia. During a later operation pieces of the tibia were cut out
where incisions had been previously made. Maczka took an X-ray of the
pieces of tibia that were removed. As a result of these bone operations,
Maczka observed the development of two cases of osteomyelitis, Maria
Grabowska and Maria Cabaj. (_Tr. pp. 1445-7._)
A rather large group of muscle experiments were performed. Here again
multiple operations were carried out on the same subject. Gledziewjowska
was operated on most frequently. During the first operation certain
muscles were removed and during subsequent operations additional pieces
were cut out, always at the same place, so that the legs got thinner and
weaker all the time. (_Tr. p. 1447._)
Transplantation of whole limbs from one person to another was also
carried out. Maczka testified that about 10 feeble-minded inmates were
selected, taken to the hospital and prepared for operation. She knew
personally that at least two of these persons were operated on. One case
was a leg amputation. Following this operation, the experimental subject
was killed and placed in a special room where the dead were kept. Maczka
was able to observe the corpse and saw that there was only one leg. In
the second case an abnormal woman was operated on by Dr. Fischer. When
he left the operating room he carried with him a bundle wrapped up in
linen about the size of an arm. He took this away with him. The prison
nurse, Quernheim, informed Maczka that the whole arm with shoulder blade
was removed from this woman. (_Tr. p. 1448._)
The amputation of the arm and shoulder blade mentioned by Dr. Maczka
obviously refers to the transplantation performed on the patient Ladisch
at Hohenlychen. As to this, the defendant Fischer stated in his
affidavit as follows:
“As a disciple of Lexer, Gebhardt had already planned long ago a
free heteroplastic transplantation of bone. In spite of the fact
that some of his co-workers did not agree, he was resolved to
carry out such an operation on the patient, Ladisch, whose
shoulder joint was removed because of a sarcoma.
“I and my medical colleagues urged professional and human
objections up until the evening before the operation was
performed, but Gebhardt ordered us to carry out the operations.
Dr. Stumpfegger, in whose field of research this operation was,
was supposed to perform the removal of the scapula at
Ravensbrueck and had already made initial arrangements for it.
However, because Professor Gebhardt required Doctor Stumpfegger
to assist him in the actual transplantation of the shoulder to
the patient Ladisch, I was ordered to go to Ravensbrueck and
perform the operation of removal on that evening. I asked
Doctors Gebhardt and Schulze to describe exactly the technique
which they wished me to follow. The next morning I drove to
Ravensbrueck after I had made a previous appointment by
telephone. At Hohenlychen I had already made the normal initial
preparation for an operation, namely, scrubbing, etc., merely
put on my coat, and went to Ravensbrueck and removed the bone.
“The camp physician who was assisting me in the operation
continued with it while I returned to Hohenlychen as quickly as
possible with the bone which was to be transplanted. In this
manner the period between removal and transplantation was
shortened. At Hohenlychen the bone was handed over to Professor
Gebhardt, and he, together with Doctor Schulze and Doctor
Stumpfegger, transplanted it.” (_NO-228, Pros. Ex. 206._)
Gebhardt admitted that he, together with Stumpfegger, personally
performed the bone transplantation operation on Ladisch. He testified
further that Fischer only removed the scapula, shoulder blade, from the
Polish female inmate at Ravensbrueck. (_Tr. p. 4235._) It is impossible
to raise the arm above the horizontal if the scapula has been removed.
(_Tr. p. 4235._) Gebhardt further admitted that Stumpfegger reported to
him on the bone experiments in Ravensbrueck concentration camp. (_Tr. p.
4235._)
The affidavit of Gustawa Winkowska corroborates the testimony of Maczka
concerning the transplantation of whole limbs and establishes that the
experimental subjects were later killed. (_NO-865, Pros. Ex. 231._)
The witness Karolewska was a subject in both the sulfanilamide and bone
experiments. (_Tr. pp. 833, 836-7._) She was operated on a total of six
times. The first operation was conducted on 14 August 1942 by Fischer.
(_Tr. p. 819._) Gebhardt inspected her early in September. (_Tr. p.
821._) She was sent back to her block on 8 September 1942, but was
unable to walk and remained in bed for a week. On 16 September 1942 she
was again taken to the hospital and operated on for the second time by
Fischer. (_Tr. pp. 821-2._) She left the hospital on 6 October 1942 and
remained in bed for several weeks. Her leg did not heal until June 1943
(_Tr. pp. 822-3_). She filed a written protest with the camp commander,
together with other experimental subjects in February 1943. In August
1943 she was operated on literally by force in the bunker at
Ravensbrueck. Both her legs were cut open. These operations were carried
out on five other Polish girls under indescribably filthy conditions. On
15 September 1943 a further operation was performed on her right leg by
a doctor from Hohenlychen. Two weeks later her left leg was operated on
and pieces of the shinbone were removed. She stayed in the hospital for
6 months—until the end of February 1944. (_Tr. pp. 828-9._) Karolewska
identified the defendants Gebhardt, Fischer, and Oberheuser as having
participated in the experiments on her. (_Tr. pp. 818, 830._)
The defendant Fischer participated in these experiments until at least
23 February 1943. On that date he carried out a second operation on
Zofia Baj. (_NO-871, Pros. Ex. 227._)
The most disgusting series of operations were those carried out in
August 1943 in the bunker. The Polish girls selected had revolted and
refused to report to the hospital. The barrack block in which they had
barricaded themselves was then surrounded by male guards who carried
these women off forcibly to the camp prison, known as the Bunker, where
they were held down by these male guards and forcibly anaesthetized
without any pre-operative care, and with their bodies still in a filthy
condition from walking around the camp. The experimental subject
Piasecka stated in her affidavit as follows:
“I resisted and hit Trommer in the face and called him a bandit.
He called some SS male guards who threw me on the floor and held
me down while ether was poured over my face. There was no mask.
I fought and resisted until I lost consciousness. I was
completely dressed and my legs were filthy dirty from walking in
the camp. As far as I know my legs were not washed. I saw my
sister during this time unconscious on a stretcher, vomiting
mucous.” (_NO-864, Pros. Ex. 229_)
Piasecka stated that this operation was carried out by Dr. Villmann who
was an assistant doctor at Hohenlychen. A few weeks later two other
assistant doctors to Gebhardt came and operated on her right leg.
(_NO-864, Pros. Ex. 229._)
In his testimony Gebhardt attempted to disassociate himself from these
experiments. He admitted however that he received information from
Stumpfegger about the experiments. (_Tr. pp. 4082, 4087-9._) Stumpfegger
was a former assistant of Gebhardt’s and he stayed at Hohenlychen during
the course of these experiments. Fischer assisted Stumpfegger and
Gebhardt. (_Tr. pp. 4230, 4090._) It is further established by Fischer’s
own affidavit that the plan for the experiments was worked out with the
knowledge and approval of Gebhardt.
c. Selection from the Argumentation of the Defense
_EXTRACT FROM THE FINAL PLEA FOR DEFENDANT GEBHARDT_[43]
_The Experiments Concerning Bone, Muscle, and Nerve Regeneration and Bone
Grafting_
The defendant Gebhardt is also charged in the indictment with particular
responsibility in the experiments, whose object according to the
indictment was the examination of the conditions under which the
regeneration of bones, muscles, and nerves resulted, and under what
conditions the grafting of bones was possible.
With regard to the general reasons why there can be no question of
guilt, I refer to the statements I have already made in connection with
the sulfanilamide experiments. These experiments, too, were occasioned
by conditions of war and were to open up new ways of treating seriously
wounded persons.
The evidence, however, has shown that the defendant Gebhardt, with a
single exception, had nothing to do with these experiments. These
experiments, insofar as they were concerned with the regeneration and
grafting of bones, were carried out by Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Stumpfegger.
It is correct that Dr. Stumpfegger was assistant doctor in the clinic in
Hohenlychen before the war, and to that extent subordinate to its chief
doctor, Dr. Gebhardt. Dr. Stumpfegger, however, left in the early years
of the war, and in the year 1942 became consulting physician to Reich
Leader SS Himmler and later consulting physician to Hitler. The
experiments carried out by him in Ravensbrueck were carried out on his
own responsibility, and upon direct orders from the Reich Leader SS
Himmler. Dr. Stumpfegger at that time was neither under the military nor
the medical supervision of the defendant Karl Gebhardt. For the
remainder, Dr. Stumpfegger limited himself to carrying out experiments
in the removal and grafting of so-called bone splinters, the exact
number of which can no longer be determined now, but which certainly did
not exceed six to eight. These were aseptic operations, which
constituted no danger to the life of the experimental subjects. The
evidence has shown that the experimental subjects from whom the bone
splinters were removed suffered no reduction in the function of their
limbs. Besides, the examination of the transplantation process of bones
achieved a research result that could not be attained from the animal
experiments because of the variety of the stipulated regeneration areas
caused by the location of the various species and for the other reasons
given by Gebhardt.
The evidence has further shown that the experimental subjects were
members of the resistance movement who had been condemned to death and
who were in this way given an opportunity to obtain a pardon, and so to
escape execution. In view of the fact that no direct responsibility for
these experiments falls on the defendant Gebhardt, it is not necessary
to go into the purpose of these experiments further at this time. It
should, however, be emphasized once more that the experiments were to
open up new possibilities in wartime surgery and restorative surgery on
the wounded. In 1944, Dr. Ludwig Stumpfegger published the results of
his experiments in the periodical for surgery the editor of which was
Geheimrat Dr. Sauerbruch (vol. 259, issue 9-12) and this article was
also made available to the public in book form. I have submitted to the
Court (_Gebhardt, Fischer, Oberheuser 6, Gebhardt, Fischer, Oberheuser
Ex. 9_) a review of this work in the periodical, “Clinic and Practice”
of February 1946 and refer to this for the details.
The defendant Karl Gebhardt would certainly not have hesitated to admit
his responsibility for these experiments if he had actually been more
closely connected with them, and if the experiments had taken place at
his behest or under his medical supervision. There would have been
little reason to deny this responsibility since the experiments
concerned were completely without danger; they resulted in no reduction
of the function of the limbs, and, moreover, no fatalities occurred.
Furthermore, corresponding to the general practice in Germany, the work
of Dr. Stumpfegger under the scientific responsibility of the defendant
Gebhardt would have been made public if he had been directly concerned
with the experiments, and if they had been carried out under his
scientific supervision. Nor did the evidence prove that there were any
experiments carried out in connection with muscle and nerve regeneration
under the scientific supervision and by order of the defendant Gebhardt.
It even seems doubtful that any such experiments were ever carried out
in Ravensbrueck. The witnesses called before this court were unable to
make any statements about this matter and it may be taken for granted
that in any case the defendant Karl Gebhardt had nothing to do with
these experiments. There was no point in carrying out such experiments
as, long before the war, the surgical technique had already been
developed on scientific principles and set down in a system. It covers
plastic surgical bone regeneration but does not advocate free
transplantation.
The only new field of scientific research taken up by Dr. Gebhardt
during the war was that of experiments connected with nerve operations.
These experiments were, however, carried out on animals by the special
order and under the scientific supervision of the defendant Gebhardt
himself. I am here referring to the affidavits given by the witnesses
Koestler (_Gebhardt, Fischer, Oberheuser 22, Gebhardt, Fischer,
Oberheuser Ex. 21_) and Brunner (_Gebhardt, Fischer, Oberheuser 21,
Gebhardt, Fischer, Oberheuser Ex. 20_), and to the statements made by
the defendant Gebhardt himself on the witness stand. I am further
referring to the report of the Third Session East of the Consulting
Specialists on 24-26 May 1943 (_Gebhardt, Fischer, Oberheuser 3,
Gebhardt, Fischer, Oberheuser Ex. 10_) which I have presented in Court
and which proves that during this session he himself and the
aforementioned witness, Dr. Koestler, spoke about grafting operations in
cases of nervous paralysis. This is the same report to which the witness
Dr. Koestler referred in his affidavit of 27 February 1947.
Furthermore, I wish to draw the attention of this Court to the lecture
given by the defendant Gebhardt in the same report on “Gymnastic Therapy
and Mobilization of the Joints” which is also based upon clinical
experience in Hohenlychen and also has nothing whatever to do with
medical experiments on human beings. The evidence has further proved
that the defendant Gebhardt was concerned with the transplantation of
bones in one case only. This experiment was the free transplantation of
a shoulder blade from one person to another. The defendant Gebhardt has
given a detailed account of this on the witness stand and I am referring
you to his statement on this point. Generally speaking, the following
has to be added: The free transplantation of bones from one person to
another is one of the great problems of restorative surgery which has
yet to be solved. For decades, physicians have been trying to find a
solution to this problem. As early as the end of the First World War,
Geheimrat Lexer, the great teacher of the defendant Gebhardt, conducted
experiments along these lines in 23 cases, aiming at the replacement of
completely destroyed bones. The terrible injuries which occurred during
the Second World War made this problem still more urgent and it is,
therefore, understandable that in view of the progress Dr. Stumpfegger
had made in his research, he was ordered by the Reich Leader SS to make
use of this research result in the direct transplantation of bones. The
defendant Gebhardt himself did not take any steps in this direction. He
himself has stated his fundamental attitude as to this question and I
refer to his own statements. Only in one case did he give his approval,
viz: when Dr. Stumpfegger carried out the experiment of transplanting a
shoulder blade. The order to do this was given by the Reich Leader SS.
This experiment was justified in this particular case as it took place
for the benefit of a patient in serious danger. The experimental person
from whom the shoulder blade was taken was also a member of the
resistance movement and she, too, thus escaped execution. Furthermore,
the shoulder blade in question belonged to a hand restricted in its
function.
* * * * *
d. Evidence
_Prosecution Documents_
Doc. No. Pros. Ex. No. Description of Document Page
NO-875 230 Affidavit of Mrs. Zdenka 400
Nedvedova-Nejedla, M. D., of
Prague, concerning experimental
operations conducted on fellow
inmates at Ravensbrueck
concentration camp.
NO-861 232 Affidavit of Sofia Maczka, 16 402
April 1946, concerning
experimental operations on
inmates of the Ravensbrueck
concentration camp.
NO-579 288 Phosphorous burns artificially 904
inflicted on inmates of the
Buchenwald concentration camp.
(_See Selections from the
Photographic Evidence of the
Prosecution._)
_Defense Documents_
Doc. No. Def. Ex. No. Description of Document Page
Gebhardt, Gebhardt, Fischer, Extract from “Clinic and 405
Fischer, Oberheuser Ex. 9 Practice”, weekly journal for
Oberheuser 6 the practicing physician,
regarding bone transplantation.
Gebhardt, Gebhardt, Fischer, Extracts from affidavit of Dr. 407
Fischer, Oberheuser Ex. 20 Karl Friedrich Brunner, 14
Oberheuser 21 March 1945, concerning
scientific experiments
conducted at the clinic of
Hohenlychen.
Gebhardt, Gebhardt, Fischer, Extract from affidavit of Dr. 408
Fischer, Oberheuser Ex. 21 Josef Koestler, 27 February
Oberheuser 22 1947, concerning Dr. Gebhardt’s
activities.
_Testimony_
Extracts from the testimony of prosecution witness Miss Karolewska 409
Extract from the testimony of the prosecution expert witness Dr. Leo 417
Alexander.
TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-875
PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 230
AFFIDAVIT OF MRS. ZDENKA NEDVEDOVA-NEJEDLA, M. D., OF PRAGUE, CONCERNING
EXPERIMENTAL OPERATIONS CONDUCTED ON FELLOW INMATES AT RAVENSBRUECK
CONCENTRATION CAMP
1. I, Zdenka Nedvedova-Nejedla, M. D. came to Ravensbrueck concentration
camp in a transport from Auschwitz on 19 August 1943, and I worked in
the sick bay as a doctor prisoner from September 1943 until 30 May 1945.
In the beginning I worked in the Department for Contagious Diseases at
Station No. 1 and the Ambulatory. Besides this, I was in charge of
Sucking Block from the fall of 1944 until May 1945.
2. Of the victims of experimental operations, I nursed personally Helena
Piasecka, who was suffering from chronic osteomyelitis after completed
operation of both shin bones. I knew that these operations were
performed under Professor Gebhardt’s supervision by Doctor Fischer, and
a woman, Doctor Oberheuser, from the SS Hospital Hohenlychen, but I do
not know which one of them had operated on Piasecka. The operation was
performed in the “bunker,” camp prison, where there were not even the
most primitive sanitary installations and even fewer aseptic
installations. Her general condition was good, but the defect in both
bones made her an invalid for life. Before the operation Piasecka was
completely healthy.
3. All women on whom experimental operations had been performed were
placed in one block and they were generally known as “rabbits,” so that
I saw the effects of the operations on those women who had survived
them. In each case of abbreviation of limbs, muscular atrophy of the
highest degree set in, proving a grave injury of nerves during
operations and deep indrawn scars where parts of muscles had festered
away.
4. From lay reports of nursing personnel without any special training, I
tried to construct the types of experimental operations.
_a._ Culture of virulent germs (streptococci, staphylococci, maybe even
tetanus and gas phlegmon) were injected subcutaneously, intramuscularly,
and even directly into bones. These were the attempts to produce
osteomyelitis experimentally. The resulting sepsis was checked by daily
examination of the blood and urine to test the effectiveness of new
medicaments of the sulfanilamide group.
_b._ Parts of long bones, as much as 5 centimeters (fibulae and tibiae),
were removed and in some cases replaced by metal or left without
connection. These operations were probably to prove the inability of
bone to grow without periosteum.
_c._ High amputations were performed; for example, even whole arms with
shoulder blade or legs with osiliaca were amputated. These operations
were performed mostly on insane women who were immediately killed after
the operation by a quick injection of evipan. All specimens gained in
operations were carefully wrapped up in sterile gauze and immediately
transported to the SS hospital nearby (Hohenlychen presumably), where
they were to be used in the attempt to heal the injured limbs of wounded
German soldiers.
5. Operations were performed on 1 Yugoslav, 1 Czech, 2 Ukrainian, 2
German, and about 18 Polish women, of whom 6 were operated on by force
in the bunker with the help of SS men. Two of them were shot after their
operation wounds had healed. After operations, no one except SS nurses
was admitted to the persons operated on, whole nights they lay without
any assistance and it was not permitted to administer sedatives even
against the most intensive postoperational pains. From the persons
operated on, 11 died or were killed, and 71 remained invalids for life.
6. The report mentioned in paragraphs 3 to 5 was prepared on the basis
of evidence given to me at Ravensbrueck in the autumn of 1943 by these
fellow prisoners: Sofia Maczka, M. D., Poland; Isa Siczynska, medical
student, Krakow, Poland; Jola Krzyzanowska, medical student, Krakow,
Poland; Krisa Iwanska, medical student, Krakow, Poland; Emilie Skrbkova,
medical student, Praha, Czechoslovakia; and Inka Katnarova, M. D.,
Hradec Kralove, Czechoslovakia.
* * * * *
TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-861
PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 232
AFFIDAVIT OF SOFIA MACZKA[44], 16 APRIL 1946, CONCERNING EXPERIMENTAL
OPERATIONS ON INMATES OF THE RAVENSBRUECK CONCENTRATION CAMP
* * * * *
Information concerning the experimental operations which took place in
Ravensbrueck concentration camp.
The operations were carried out in the period between the summer of 1942
and the summer of 1943. The operations were conducted in the camp
hospital, under the direction of Professor Dr. Gebhardt, SS
Brigadefuehrer. Professor Gebhardt was the head of the Hohenlychen
sanatorium at Hohenlychen (Mecklenburg). The operations were conducted
with the help of Dr. Fischer, who was Professor Gebhardt’s assistant.
There was also another assistant whose name I do not know. The following
camp doctors participated in this matter: Dr. Herta Oberheuser, Dr. Rolf
Rosenthal, Dr. Schiedlausky; all German nurses who were employed there
at the time and two German prisoners (Schutzhaftgefangene), Gerda
Quernheim and Fina Pautz, gave assistance. Polish political prisoners in
protective custody, from the transports from Warsaw and Lublin,
numbering 74, were chosen as victims. All those who were chosen were
young, healthy, and well-built women. Many were college or university
students. The youngest was 16 years of age, the oldest 48 years of age.
The operations were to be carried out for scientific purposes, but they
had nothing to do with science. They were carried out under horrible
conditions. The doctors and the assisting personnel were not trained
properly medically. Conditions were neither aseptic nor hygienic. After
operations, the patients were left in shocking rooms without medical
help, without nursing or supervision. The dressings were made according
to the whim of the doctors with unsterilized instruments and compresses.
Dr. Rosenthal, who did most of the dressings, excelled himself in
sadism. In the summer of 1943 the last operations were carried out in
the “bunker”. “Bunker” is the name of the horrible prison in the camp.
The victims were taken there because they resisted, and there in the
cell their dirty legs were operated on. This was the “scientific
atmosphere” in which the “scientific” operations were carried out.
All operations were carried out on the leg and all under anesthetic. The
operations were divided into two main groups: