a. Introduction
The prosecution introduced evidence calculated to show that inhumane
acts and atrocities, as generally alleged in paragraph 6 of the
indictment, were committed in the course of phlegmon experiments. These
experiments were not specifically described in the subparagraphs of
paragraph 6 of the indictment which particularized 12 specific types of
experimentation. On this charge the defendants Poppendick, Oberheuser,
and Fischer were acquitted.
The prosecution’s summation of the evidence on the phlegmon experiments
is contained in its closing brief against the defendant Gebhardt. An
extract from this brief is set forth below on pages 654 to 655. A
corresponding summation of the evidence by the defense on these
experiments has been selected from the final plea for defendant
Gebhardt. It appears below on pages 655 to 657. This argumentation is
followed by selections from the evidence on pages 657 to 669.
b. Selection from the Argumentation of the Prosecution
_EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST DEFENDANT
GEBHARDT_
* * * * *
_Sepsis (Phlegmon) Experiments_
Sepsis experiments were performed in the Dachau concentration camp
beginning in the autumn of 1942. These experiments were carried out in
order to test the effectiveness of biochemical treatment of sepsis and
related diseases.
The witness Stoehr testified concerning these experiments. He stated
that sepsis was artificially provoked by infecting with pus the
concentration camp inmates who were used as subjects. (_Tr. pp. 578,
579._) He knew of at least two series of experiments. In each of these
series approximately half of the experimental inmates were treated by
biochemical means and the other half with sulfanilamide. The first
series consisted of 20 German concentration camp inmates of whom seven
died as a result. For the second series, 40 clergymen of various
nationalities were selected and 12 died as a result of the experiments.
(_Tr. pp. 581, 582._) The experimental subjects did not volunteer. (_Tr.
p. 590._) See also the Review of Proceedings of the General Military
Court in the case of the _United States_ vs. _Weiss, et al._ (_NO-856,
Pros. Ex. 125._)
It is quite clear that the biochemical experiments performed in Dachau
were complementary to the sulfanilamide experiments by Gebhardt in
Ravensbrueck. This is shown by the fact that in September 1942, while
the sulfanilamide experiments were still in progress, Gebhardt received
a copy of a report on the biochemical experiments in Dachau from
Grawitz. (_NO-409, Pros. Ex. 249._) This report shows on its face that
approximately eight cases of sepsis were artificially provoked. The
report dealt with the results obtained from experiments carried out on
40 concentration camp inmates in treating sepsis, phlegmon, furuncles,
abcesses, and nephrosis, among others.
Ten of the experimental subjects died. The report also covered three
sepsis cases in Auschwitz, all of whom died. It concluded with the
statement that the experiments were being continued.
The case history of one of the experimental subjects artificially
infected with pus in November 1942 shows the horrible pain which these
victims suffered. (_NO-994, Pros. Ex. 251._)
That the defendants Gebhardt and Fischer had more than a casual
connection with the sepsis experiments in Dachau is proved by a
handwritten notation by Gebhardt on a letter written by Grawitz to
Himmler on 7 September 1942, attaching copies of the preliminary report
by Gebhardt on his sulfanilamide experiments, together with the report
on the sepsis experiments in Dachau. (_NO-2734, Pros. Ex. 473._) This
note reads as follows:
“16 September 1942. Settled, after conversation with Reich
Leader SS. Obersturmfuehrer F. Fischer has been given new
instructions for Ravensbrueck _and Dachau_. Gebhardt.” [Emphasis
supplied.]
c. Selection from the Argumentation of the Defense
_EXTRACT FROM THE FINAL PLEA FOR DEFENDANT
GEBHARDT_[74]
* * * * *
_Phlegmon Experiments_
In the course of the hearing of the evidence, the prosecution submitted
documents and interrogated witnesses with the intention of proving that
apart from other medical experiments, experiments were also carried out
on the treatment of phlegmon. In the indictment itself these
experiments, which were carried out at Dachau, are not mentioned. In
view of Article IV of the Ordinance of Military Government for Germany,
which expressly states that the indictment should list the counts in
sufficient detail, it must be assumed that in this case a properly made
charge does not exist.
As far as the participation of the defendant Gebhardt is concerned, the
documents submitted by the prosecution show by themselves that he had
nothing to do with the execution of these experiments. It was only later
that he learned of the experiments carried out at Dachau, as
unequivocally proved by the letter of Reich Physician SS Dr. Grawitz to
Reich Leader SS Himmler of 29 August 1942, referring to the biochemical
treatment of sepsis, which was submitted by the prosecution as NO-409,
Prosecution Exhibit 249. The defendant Gebhardt learned of these
experiments on 3 September 1942, on the occasion of the visit of Reich
Physician SS Dr. Grawitz to Ravensbrueck in connection with the
sulfanilamide experiments in this camp. The defendant Gebhardt wrote on
the margin of this document the remark “seen and read”. This remark
alone shows that he could only have learned subsequently of these
experiments, and especially that he did not approve of them. If it had
been the contrary, he certainly would have made some other notation on
the document, as for instance, “agreed”, or else he would have shown his
approval in a similar way. On the witness stand the defendant Gebhardt
explained in detail to the Tribunal what his opinion of these
experiments was. These experiments demonstrate unequivocally that they
were deliberately initiated in ignorance of, and in contradiction to,
the recognized rules of orthodox medicine. As also demonstrated by the
evidence the Reich Leader SS Himmler did not conform to orthodox
medicine but wanted to promote independently one patent solution out of
a variety of suggestions and opinions. Nearest to his conception, beside
his inclination towards theories of biological selection, were
biochemistry, homeopathy, and mesmerism, i. e., those schools of
medicine which, contrary to the theories of orthodox medicine do not
combat certain symptoms of a disease but by means of the so-called
stimulation theory want to bring about a change of the general physical
disposition. The defendant Gebhardt, when on the witness stand, clearly
explained this attitude of Himmler, which among other things resulted in
rejection of any criticism by orthodox medicine, relying exclusively on
his biochemical experts.
The evidence, however, has further shown that after having learned of
the letter of Reich Physician SS Grawitz of 29 August 1942 (_NO-409,
Pros. Ex. 249_) and with the object of convincing Himmler of the
futility of these experiments, the defendant Gebhardt himself performed
experiments on patients with these biochemical remedies in his clinic at
Hohenlychen, and that he succeeded in convincing Himmler of the
inefficacy of these remedies. In this connection I refer to the
statements of the defendant Gebhardt himself and to the affidavits of
Dr. Jaedicke and Dr. Brunner, which I submitted to the Tribunal.
When examining the legal conclusions which can be drawn from the facts
presented above, we may arrive at the following results:
The defendant Gebhardt did not commit any act which had any causative
connection with these experiments. He learned about these experiments
only after the event, and then he did everything in his power to prevent
further experiments of this kind. The prosecution was not able to
produce evidence that such experiments had been carried out at all after
3 September 1942. All this proves that in view of the missing causal
connection and absence of premeditation there cannot be any question of
criminal action on the part of the defendant Gebhardt. It is
acknowledged in the criminal law of all civilized nations that knowledge
acquired after events is not sufficient to prove the existence of a
criminal action.
* * * * *
d. Evidence
_Prosecution Documents_
Doc. No. Pros. Ex. Description of Document Page
No.
NO-409 249 Report from Grawitz to Himmler, 29 August 657
1942, concerning experiments with
biochemical remedies conducted at the Dachau
and Auschwitz concentration camps.
NO-2734 473 Extracts of letter from Grawitz to Himmler, 7 660
September 1942, and report on gas gangrene
experiments.
_Testimony_
Extract from the testimony of prosecution witness Heinrich W. Stoehr 664
Extract from the testimony of defendant Gebhardt 667
TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-409
PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 249
REPORT FROM GRAWITZ TO HIMMLER, 29 AUGUST 1942, CONCERNING EXPERIMENTS
WITH BIOCHEMICAL REMEDIES CONDUCTED AT THE DACHAU AND AUSCHWITZ
CONCENTRATION CAMPS
The Reich Leader SS Berlin W 15, 29 August 1942
Reich Physician SS and Police Knesebeckstr. 50/51
Telephone: 924249.924351.924373. [Stamp]
924406 Personal Staff
Az.: 738/IV/42 Reich Leader SS
G 213
Subject: Biochemical treatment of sepsis, etc., with biochemical
remedies.
To the Reich Leader SS H. Himmler
Berlin SW 11 Prinz Albrechtstrasse 8
Reich Leader,
With regard to previous results of biochemical treatment of sepsis and
other cases of illness, I beg to submit the following provisional
report.
1. The following _40 cases_ were treated with biochemical remedies in
the SS hospital _Dachau_ in the time mentioned in the report. Besides
septic processes, such diseases were treated where a decisive change for
the better should be achieved by means of biochemistry.
Phlegmonous-purulent processes 17
Sepsis 8
Furuncles and abscesses 2
Infected operational incisions 1
Malaria 5
Pleural empyema 3
Septic endocarditis 1
Nephrosis 1
Chronic sciatica 1
Gall stones 1
According to the indications of the biochemistry applied to the
different cases, we used the following remedies:
Potassium phosphoricum D6
Ferrum phosphoricum D6 and D12
Silicea D6
Sodium muraticum D6
Calcium phosphoricum D6
Sodium sulfuricum D6
Magnesium phosphoricum D6
Sodium phosphoricum D6
Calcium fluoratum D6
The cases of sepsis were mostly artificially provoked.
Up to now we found that the unfavorable course of the severe cases could
scarcely be stopped by means of biochemical remedies. All sepsis cases
died. The malaria cases were not influenced by it.
The cases of extended purulent processes, with development of abscesses,
the pleuralempyeata, the septic endocarditis, the nephrosis, the chronic
sciatica and the gall stones showed no definite influence from
biochemical treatment. Insofar as they were conducted with positive
results, they did not show a different result from the ones where,
according to medical experience, patients were restricted to staying in
bed without receiving any special treatment.
The impression of a favorable effect on morbid cases of sickness by
biochemical means proved to be satisfactory in five cases only, four of
which were comparatively slight. The fifth case involved a 17-day-old
child with severe furunculosis. In this case an improvement set in only
a few days after treatment had been applied. However, an error occurred
in the experimental procedure, for at the beginning of the treatment a
sulfanilamide preparation was used.
The strong formation of pus, clearly noticeable in a few cases, is
perhaps due to the biochemical remedies applied. The doses of sugar,
which were frequently given and mainly consisted of pure milk sugar in
the form of biochemical tablets, probably promoted the effect.
Experiments for orientation are to be made. In a case of a joint mould
the antiseptic potassium phosphoricum D 6 was given as a prophylactic
because the incision of the operation was greatly endangered by
infection. In spite of that, the temperature rose to 39° on the
following day. Consequently, the biochemical treatment could not prevent
appearance or breaking-out of an infection, although potassium
phosphoricum D 6 was given immediately and intensively.
It is also to be noted that very soon all the seriously ill cases flatly
refused to take biochemical tablets, because it meant torture to them to
take the tablets every 5 minutes, even at night.
Finally it must be said that from a total number of 40 cases there are 1
positive case and 4 positive cases with certain reservations, against 35
failures, of which 10 ended fatally.
The experiments in Dachau are being continued.
Besides the hitherto existing program, special attention is directed to
research of twin cases in similar conditions, of which one will receive
an allopathical, the second a biochemical treatment.
[Marginal note.] Seen at Ravensbrueck 3-9-1942, [Signature] K.
GEBHARDT
2. In the concentration camp of Auschwitz, three typical cases of
sepsis, which developed from phlegmons, were treated—according to
prescription—with potassium phosphoricum D 4. In none of these cases a
therapeutical influence on the progress of the disease could be
observed. All 3 cases ended fatally.
The experiments are being continued.
[Signature] GRAWITZ
TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-2734
PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 473
EXTRACTS OF LETTER FROM GRAWITZ TO HIMMLER, 7 SEPTEMBER 1942, AND REPORT
ON GAS GANGRENE EXPERIMENTS
The Reich Leader SS Berlin, W 15, 7 September 1942
Reichsarzt SS and Police Knesebeckstrasse 50/51
Telephone: 924249. 924351. [Rubber stamp]
924373. 924406 (Personal Staff Reich Leader SS
File No. 748/IV/42 Archives)
(File No. AR/31/13)
[Signature] GEBHARDT
Subject: 1. _Experiments by SS Brigadefuehrer Gebhardt on the Combating
of Gas Gangrene._
2. Experiments on the Treatment of Sepsis by Biochemistry.
Enclosures: -2-X
To the Reich Leader SS H. Himmler
Berlin
Reich Leader:
Attached please find a provisional report by SS Brigadefuehrer Professor
Dr. Gebhardt on his clinical-surgical experiments at Ravensbrueck
concentration camp, furthermore a concluding provisional report on
experiments on the biochemical treatment of sepsis as performed at
Dachau concentration camp.
[Signature] GRAWITZ
[Rubber stamp] } [Handwritten]
} 16 September 1942
Personal Staff RF-SS Enclosures } Settled, after conversation with
In: 9 September 1942 } RF-SS. Obersturmfuehrer F.
Journal No. AR/40/7/42 2 } Fischer has been given new
? RF } instructions for Ravensbrueck
} and Dachau.
[Signature] GEBHARDT
Copy!
[Rubber stamp]
(Personal Staff Reich Leader SS Archives)
(File No. AR/31/13)
Professor Dr. K. Gebhardt
SS Brigadefuehrer and Brigadier General of the Waffen SS
To the Reichsarzt SS Gruppenfuehrer Grawitz
Provisional Report on Clinical Experiments at Ravensbrueck Concentration
Camp for Women
By order of the Reich Leader SS, I started on 20 July 1942 at
Ravensbrueck concentration camp for women on a series of clinical
experiments with the aim of analyzing the sickness known as gas
gangrene, which does not take a uniform course, and of testing the
efficacy of the known therapeutic medicaments.
In addition, the simple infections of injuries which occur as symptoms
of war surgery had also to be tested, and a new chemo-therapeutic
treatment apart from the known surgical measures had to be tried out.
* * * * *
I appointed SS Obersturmfuehrer Dr. Fischer as co-worker. SS Oberfuehrer
Dr. Blumenrent put the complete surgical instruments and medicaments at
my disposal. SS Standartenfuehrer Mrugowsky put his laboratory and
co-workers at my disposal.
SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. Lolling, Chief of Office IIID at
Oranienburg, assigned as co-workers: SS Obersturmfuehrer Dr.
Schiedlausky, garrison-physician at Ravensbrueck concentration camp for
women, and Fraeulein Dr. Oberheuser, camp physician at Ravensbrueck
concentration camp for women.
* * * * *
The question was to define firstly, by way of a preliminary experiment,
the mode of infection, making use of the known results from experiments
upon animals. In these questions I was advised by SS leaders of the
Hygienic Institute of the Waffen SS who had taken over the culture and
dosage of the inoculation material.
The point was to implant the lymph cultures on the damaged muscle
tissue, to isolate the latter from atmospheric and humoral oxygen
supply, and to subject it to internal tissue pressure. The inoculation
procedure was as follows: a longitudinal cut of 10 centimeters over the
musculus peroneus longus; after incision into the fascia the muscle was
tied up with the forceps in an area the size of a five mark piece; an
anaemic peripheral zone was created by injection of 3 cc. adrenalin and
in the area of the damaged muscle the inoculation material (a gauze
strip saturated with bacterii) was imbedded under the fascia,
subcutaneous adipose tissue, and skin sutured in layers.
In the first series of experiments (preliminary experiments), three
selected prisoners of as much the same constitution as possible were
used. They were inoculated as follows:
The first: Aerobic mixculture (staphylococci, streptococci, bact. comm.
try. a 5 Mil).
The second: Para Oedema Malignum, sarc, flav. 4.5 mg.
The third: Bact. Fraenkel and earth. Stimulus 4.5 mg.
The experiment was concluded after 10 days. After an initial local
swelling in the inoculation area and an increase in temperature up to 39
degrees, the inflammation died down, the wound having broken open on the
fourth day. There was no danger to the life of any of the prisoners. We
succeeded in producing locally the symptoms of gas gangrene in the third
prisoner. After 20 days the prisoners were released again to their
working blocks.
The course of the preliminary series of experiments had proved that we
were not successful in producing the same symptoms as of clinical gas
gangrene. In a conference with the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS
the nature of the infection and the conditions for the germs were not
considered to be equivalent to the natural conditions in war surgery and
consequently the experimental arrangements were varied.
Bacterium coli were added to the acrobe culture and the germ number was
increased to 20 millions. Bacterium coli and dextrose were added to the
mixture of para oedema malignum.
Bacterium coli were added to the gas gangrene culture by Fraenkel, and
while doubling the number of germs, earth was administered to produce a
similar environment. Six selected youthful prisoners were inoculated two
by two with the above mixture of bacteria in the subsequent first
experimental series. One of them remained untreated for control
purposes, the other one was powdered with cataxyn wound powder
immediately after the inoculation. The first change of dressing took
place 3 days afterwards, the following each second day. Those who
remained without treatment were covered with sterile layers, those
treated with cataxyn (indicated in the graphs as TK-cases) were
continuously powdered with cataxyn. The aerobe cultures in both cases
showed local abscesses which could be easily treated surgically.
The para oedema malignum inoculation produced a local inflammation with
central suppuration, small formation of necrosis in the depth and
moderate emphysem of the skin. The regional lymphatic glands were not
affected.
Those prisoners who were infected with Fraenkel’s gas gangrene, and who
immediately received tetanus-antitoxin for the administered earth,
produced by far the strongest inflammatory reaction: abscesses with deep
necrosis in the area of the inoculation, emphysem of the skin with
formation of blisters, and beginning necrosis collateral oedema
extending from above the joint of the knee to the lower third of the
thigh as far as the back of the foot. The inflammatory appearances
receded considerably after the opening of the injury on the first
dressing day. The effect of the opening of the wound was particularly
significant in the TK-cases which started inflammations in spite of
simultaneous therapy. Greater pressure of the tissue due to oxygen,
liberated by the medicament, was considered to be the reason for the
accentuated local inflammation.
Comparing nontreated cases with the TK-cases, the final critical
observation shows:
1. Immediate therapy does not prevent the occurrence either of an
ordinary suppuration or of a “gangrene”.
2. The cleaning of the wound is faster in TK-cases than in control
cases.
3. The formation of fresh wound granulations occurs earlier with
cataxyn.
4. The part played by the paranchymatic organs (liver, kidneys) is less
important under the influence of cataxyn.
Since in this experiment too definite gangrene could be produced
clinically speaking, yet its picture did not in any way correspond to
the one known in war surgery; after further consultation with the
collaborators in the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS, the vaccine was
changed by adding wood shavings. It is known in bacteriological
literature that the virulence of the bacteria in the experimental animal
can thereby be considerably increased.
The triple distribution was reserved for the second series of
experiments now in progress. Three prisoners in each group were
inoculated. One person was left without treatment as control, the second
was treated with cataxyn as before, and with the third the
Marfanilprontalbin powder manufactured by I. G. Farben was employed,
since this was strongly recommended by the Army Medical Inspectorate.
The powder was applied according to the Schmick procedure. This
experiment is still in progress.
Even if as yet nothing definite can be said about this series of
experiments it can already be stated that—
1. there is no decisive difference between cases which are treated and
those which are not treated,
2. that opening the wound, in addition to immobilization, has proved the
most effective means of controlling the inflammation,
3. the effect of the MP powder seems at least doubtful, since in the III
TM case the most definite gangrene observed up to now has developed.
We are now investigating the problem as to why the gangrene in the
present case did not fully develop. Therefore, the injuring of the
tissue and the exclusion of a muscle from the circulation of the blood
were undertaken during a separate operating session, and the large-scale
necrosis resulting therefrom was to be inoculated with bacteria strain
which had already had one human passage. For it is only when the really
definite clinical picture of the gangrene has appeared that conclusions
may be drawn on therapy with chemo-therapeutics in connection with
surgical operations.
[Signature] GEBHARDT
SS Brigadefuehrer
Copy certified correct
Berlin, 7 September 1942
[Signature] POPPENDICK
SS Obersturmbannfuehrer
* * * * *
EXTRACT FROM THE TESTIMONY OF PROSECUTION WITNESS
HEINRICH W. STOEHR[75]
_DIRECT EXAMINATION_
* * * * *
MR. HARDY: Witness, did you ever hear of the sepsis or phlegmon
experiments at the Dachau concentration camp?
WITNESS STOEHR: Yes, these experiments were conducted at my station.
Q. How did you gain your knowledge of these phlegmon experiments? Were
you an observer? Were you an assisting nurse, or by what way did you
gain the knowledge you have of these phlegmon experiments?
A. I was the nurse at that station. One day, I think it was in the late
summer and fall of 1943, a certain Sturmbannfuehrer Schuetz came to me,
with a Standartenfuehrer by the name of Laue or Lauer—I am not quite
sure which—and inspected the surgical department. He was shown a number
of patients. We had to take their bandages off, and he examined their
wounds—or rather, he just looked at them very superficially. After
that, the chief physician of the concentration camp Dachau, Dr. Walda,
was called in, and he received the order to see to it that the patients
received biochemical treatment for some time.
Q. Witness, will you kindly explain to the Tribunal in what manner these
phlegmon experiments were conducted; that is, the details of the
experiments? What did they do to the victim?
A. Mainly, phlegmon was treated. It was very general in the camp. That
is to say, phlegmon was the typical camp disease. The biochemical
treatment was carried out in the following manner:
Three similar cases were observed. One of these cases was given
allopathic treatment; another biochemical, and the third one received
only ordinary surgical treatment. That is, the third one received no
drugs whatsoever, and the wound was treated in an ordinary way with
bandages and so on. These were the directives of the physicians who were
there. We saw on many occasions that the patient was cured much faster
who received no drugs or injections.
Experiments of that kind were conducted for many weeks, and if I may as
a layman make a judgment, I must say that the physicians, according to
my observations, were not satisfied with these experiments.
In addition, I have to emphasize that not only wounds were treated
according to these methods, but internal diseases, too. They tried to
find out whether biochemical treatment was suitable for treating the
thirst for water, which was so frequent in the camp. We saw that the
biochemical drugs had no influence whatsoever as to the cause of this
illness.
I emphasize that I am speaking as a layman and that all these are my
observations.
During the fall, this Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Schuetz told the camp doctor,
who was named Babo, to infect a number of people with pus. We nurses
were told nothing about that, and we did not know the purpose. These
experiments were conducted on a group of men, and they extended over a
period of approximately six to seven weeks.
First a group of Germans were infected with pus. We nurses had no idea
of the cause of the illness, and we gave the patients the drugs that
were ordered by the physicians. I emphasize again that half of these
people received allopathic and the other half biochemical treatment. As
nurses, we could observe the following facts:
The patients who received allopathic treatment were cured much quicker,
that is, if they had any power of resistance to their illness, but the
patients who had to take those pathological tablets, if I remember
correctly, died with the exception of one person. There were
approximately 20 persons who, at that time, were infected. The second
group consisted of 40 clergymen of all nationalities and brothers of
religious fraternities. These patients were selected from the block
where the clergymen were housed. They were selected by the Chief
Physician Dr. Walda and were sent to the operational room of the
concentration camp Dachau. They were operated on by Dr. Schuetz and Dr.
Kieselwetter [Kieselwecker (?)] I think that was his name—and these
experiments were conducted on them. A number of nurses, and also the
personnel of the operating room, and I myself, saw how the injections
were made. We were standing in the anteroom of the operating room.
Q. Witness, will you explain to the Tribunal what the word “phlegmon”
means?
A. Phlegmon, as far as a layman can answer that question—means an
inflammation of the tissues, and in the camp of Dachau phlegmons were
very numerous because the people there were mostly sent to the hospital
too late. Typical camp phlegmons, as far as I know, are caused by germs.
Persons got phlegmons who suffered from lack of water.
Q. Witness, did you say that inmates were used for experiments in which
they were injected with pus?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you see these injections of pus being administered?
A. Yes.
Q. How were the inmates to be used for these experiments selected?
A. I didn’t understand your question.
Q. In what manner did they select the inmates to be used for these
experiments which dealt with the injection of pus? In other words, how
were they selected? What type of prisoners? What were their
nationalities, etc.?
A. They were 40 persons coming from the so-called clergymen block.
Q. Were these inmates used for these experiments with injection of pus
healthy inmates?
A. Completely healthy and strong men.
Q. You have told us that they had one group, the first group, of ten
Germans. How many died in that group?
A. I believe that the first group consisted of ten people of whom, as
far as I remember, seven died.
Q. Now, you have told us of a second group of 40 clergymen. How many
died in that group?
A. I have seen a list of the survivors, and according to that list, 12
clergymen, or rather brothers, must have died.
Q. Were any prisoners of war used in these experiments?
A. I don’t know whether they were prisoners of war or not. We could not
tell the difference in the camp of Dachau, whether they were prisoners
of war or not; at least I could not.
Q. Were the victims used in these experiments treated by medical doctors
after they had been injected with pus?
A. The operation was done by physicians.
Q. Well, after they had been infected with pus what kind of treatment
was given to them?
A. After the injection, Sturmbannfuehrer Schuetz gave instructions to
the nurses that one-half of them should receive allopathic and the other
half biological treatment. I emphasize that the group which received
allopathic treatment had special drugs, the so-called sulfanilamide
drugs. We had the impression that the physicians wanted to prove that
the biological drugs were not suitable to cure such a severe disease.
Q. Then you say, Witness, that 50 percent were treated with
sulfanilamide and the other 50 percent with biological medicants?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, after these injections with pus, did abscesses develop on the
inmate?
A. The greater part of those who were treated biologically, or rather,
all of them, developed abscesses and very deep abscesses. Some of the
persons who received allopathic and prophylactic treatment with
sulfanilamide had no abscesses.
Q. Did the inmates who endured this treatment suffer pain?
A. Yes.
Q. Severe pain?
A. As far as I know, the pain was very severe.
* * * * *