Response to the letter to the editor by William E. Seidelman: Hermann Stieve's clinical–anatomical research on executed women during the “Third Reich”

Letter in response to Winkelmann and Schagen and Hildebrandt regarding: Hermann Stieve's clinical anatomical research and the history of anatomy in the Third Reich

“…Winkelmann and Schagen's (Winkelmann and Schagen, 2009b) is incorrect and misleading. As documented in my Letter to the Editor (Seidelman, 2009) the communication involved three individuals and four letters over a period of 4 months; September-December, 1997.…”

“…. .indirect by any standards and must be called weak at best'' they do not however discount the evidence of professors Coper, Rosenkotter, or Mattheis with respect to their own similar recollections of Stieve's lectures, recollections that were provided over 60 years after the original event (Winkelmann and Schagen, 2009b). 3. I have never asserted that Vogel was a direct witness to Stieve's research during the war years.…”

“…'' 4. With respect to the translation, I appreciate Winkelmann and Schagen's clarification of Vogel's original statement in German (Winkelmann and Schagen, 2009b). While I accept Winkelmann and Schagen's translation using the term ''human zygote'' instead of ''human sperm'' I find their interpretation confusing in that in 1943 a human zygote could only be the result of the in vivo fertilization of an ovum by a sperm as a result of insemination of a female by a male through an act of intercourse or coitus.…”

“…. .during his lectures Stieve had spoken openly about his research on tissue taken from executed women (Winkelmann and Schagen, 2009b). '' 4.…”

Letter in response to Winkelmann and Schagen, Seidelman and Levi: Call for a new era in research on “Medicine/Anatomy in the Third Reich”

“…After reading the letters by Seidelman (2009) and Levi (2009) concerning the paper by Winkelmann and Schagen (2009a) regarding Hermann Stieve as well as the response by the authors, (Winkelmann and Schagen, 2009b), I believe a note of caution is in order. Seidelman and Levi recognize the Winkelmann and Schagen study as an important piece of research on the topic but find fault with the representation and interpretation of information concerning Stieve's possible subjection of victims of the National Socialist regime to putative rape.…”