1947-01-10, #4: Doctors' Trial (late afternoon)

THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.

THE PRESIDENT: Concerning the exhibit that was offered by the prosecution, the Netherlands' exhibit, the Tribunal having had insufficient time to have examined this exhibit, will reserve its ruling upon it's admissibility.

MR. McHANEY: The prosecution would now like to offer NO-444.

THE PRESIDENT: Here's the original exhibit.

MR. McHANEY: As Prosecution Exhibit 328. The report by the Netherlands was offered as 328 but since the Court -- it might be, if the Tribunal please, -- it might be better to preserve that number after being offered as Prosecution Exhibit 328 pending the ruling of the Tribunal on its admissibility.

THE PRESIDENT: That's correct. The offered exhibit will be marked Prosecution Exhibit 328.

MR. McHANEY: Document NO-444, will therefore, be Prosecution Exhibit 329. This is another affidavit by the defendant Rudolf Brandt. I might that this is being offered provisionally until such time the certificate of General Taylor is furnished to the Tribunal with respect to the right of Walter Rapp to administer an oath. The affidavit reads as follows:

I, Rudolf Brandt, being duly sworn, deposed and state:

1. I have heretofore given affidavits concerning low-pressure, freezing, seawater, spotted fever, sterilization, lost and jaundice experiments. As I have stated, these experiments were conducted on concentration camp inmates.

2. Before an experiment could be conducted on inmates of a concentration camp, Himmler's permission had to bo secured. Himmler was very much interested in medical matters, and it was easy for the physicians concerned to obtain his permission. This was particularly the case if it seemed that the experiment concerned might aid the war effort.

3. Prisoners to be experimented on were selected by Oswald Pohl, Chief of the Economic and Administration Main Office. (WVHA) Unless he did it himself, Himmler used to order me to inform Pohl that a certain number of prisoners should be kept ready for a particular experiment. The people to be experiments on were generally earmarked by Himmler --for instance, Jews, Gypsies, Poles or criminals condemned to death.

The individuals to be used were selected at the camp out of the groups specified beforehand by Himmler. Later on Himmler no longer ordered that only volunteers condemned to death were to be used, and it is quite obvious that concentration camp inmates normally did not volunteer for the said purpose. They simply were selected and experiments on without asking their consent. The physicians and other persons involved in these experiments appealed to Himmler since it was impossible to get volunteers. No one involved in these experiments could fairly believe that only persons volunteering for that purpose were used.

4. In some cases prisoners condemned to death were used for these experiments, but not always. In the course of the low pressure and freezing experiments Himmler order the death sentence to be commuted to imprisonment for life for those who should survive the experiments. This directive, however, did not apply to Poles, Russians and Jews. Prisoners of several nationalities were used for the experiments. Usually non-German nationals were used because of Himmler's racial theories.

5. A number of people close to Himmler were well informed of these experiments. Karl Brandt, Grawitz and Gebhardt were consulted on this matter by Himmler. The aforementioned were members of the SS-Gruppenfuehrer Corps, and often the experiments were topics of discussion in private talks at Gruppenfuehrer meetings. Such a fundamental matter as were they experiments on human beings simply could not go on at all, without the men knowing of it and taking a position with respect to it. Mrugowsky and Poppendick both members of Grawitz' office, as well as Sievers, were as familiar with these experiments as I was by virtue of the orders I received. Kurt Blome, in his capacity of deputy to Conti must have been as well informed as Conti himself. High-ranking representatives of the Luftwaffe, the Army, and the Navy Were also involved in this affair, because many of the experiments were conducted on behalf of the Wehrmacht, Hippke, Schroeder, and Milch certainly did know about the low-pressure, freezing and sea-water experi ments as well as the experiments conducted by Haagen at Natzweiler.

It would not be sticking to the truth if one were to say that these experiments were exclusively an affair of the SS. /s/ Rudolf Brandt.

MR. McHANEY: This affidavit, of course, sums up in a few words what has become so abundantly apparent from the proof heretofore submitted to this Tribunal.

The Prosecution will have occasion, I think, before we finally rest our case in chief to present perhaps a few additional documents concerning medical experimentation. However, at this time we turn to a somewhat different phase of the case and that is the so-called "euthanasia program" carried out in Germany between the summer of 1939 and the end of the war.

DR. PELCKMANN: Mr. President, The Prosecution has no objection to my interrupting this presentation briefly at this moment with a question concerning the statements of defense counsel. I have already yesterday made a written request to the Tribunal with regard to this question which will be unknown at this time to the Tribunal.

The Tribunal has in the meantime announced after the noon recess that a postponement will take place after the conclusion of the presentation by the Prosecution. Now, as the Tribunal has suggested, the defense will consult each other about their procedure to be followed. However, for the preparation of this discussion I would request that two additional points be clarified at this time:

First: For how long will the postponement last?

Let us take an example: If as the Prosecution has planned it will conclude it's presentation on the coming Thursday, that will be the 17th, and we should have an additional ten days for our preparation, and the recess would be over on the 27th. If we have understood the Tribunal correctly, with this limitation of time, then one more question remains open:

What will happen if up until the 27th of January the defense has been unable to contact the witnesses which it has called. No decision has been reached yet about the interrogation of witnesses by the defense, and as far as I know not a single witness for the defense has arrived in the meantime in Nurnberg. I recognize the difficulties which exist in order to bring these witnesses here until the end of this ti e limit which will be the 27th. However, on the other hand, I request that the following be considered:

If I am supposed to develop the theory of my defense, that is, if I am to state in brief words what I want to prove in order to disclaim the allegations by the Prosecution, then I must know if I am actually in a position to prove this. However, I can only know that if I can previously talk to the witnesses whom my client has requested to appear in his defense. I am afraid that this will not be possible by the 27th of January. I have, therefore taken it upon myself to suggest, that the opening speech, and in this case I am only speaking of the client whom I represent, that I will only want it for my client at the beginning of my presentation of evidence. I assume that up to that time more days and weeks will pass, and the dame thing will apply to the defense counsel whose turn comes later and they will be able to make their opening statement and to also prepare their evidence properly. I believe that this should be suggested in order to get out of this calamity, and may I point out in conclusion, that also the Prosecution when it made it's opening speech already had the documents available upon which it was based and also on the basis of interrogations which had taken place in the pre-trial procedure, and believed that it would bo certainly able to actually prove that which it had claimed.

MR. McHANEY: If the Tribunal please, I am not sure I got the suggestion of Dr. Pelchmann. If I understand it correctly he is asking that the Tribunal permit each defense counsel to make his opening statement and then present his evidence, instead of each of the nineteen defense counsel making something in the nature of an opening statement on two days, or however much time is allowed to them for that. Is that correct?

THE PRESIDENT: It is correct.

MR. McHANEY: I don't know that I am prepared at this time to express a general opinion on this subject. It would inconvenience the Prosecution to the extent that we would not be advised of the nature of the defense being put up by each defendant until immediately before he began the presentation of evidence. In other words, we have gotten nothing in the way of a bill of particulars, nor have we been advised, as the defendants themselves were, by the indictment as giving information about what their defense will be.

It will naturally take us a little time to prepare our cross examination, our documents and rebuttal which will go in while the defense is presenting it's case, so it may be this would work an imposition or hardship on the prosecution as to it's course or procedure. However, unless the Tribunal wishes to make a ruling at this time, I would be glad to consult General Taylor on this matter and secure his opinion, and I also would like to state that it seems to me that defense counsel had had a considerable period of time. The indictment itself was filed, as I remember on the 5th of November, in which was given in quite some detail the charges as against the defendants, and the trial began on the 9th of December, and we still have some days to run plus adjournment, a minimum of seven days, for further preparation by the defense, so I don't see that they have been Really imposed upon with respect to the matter of time.

Now as to bringing the witnesses to Nurnberg, I don't suppose that these nineteen defense counsel are suggesting that we should have in Nurnberg within the next week, or at least prior to the time the first defense counsel begins presenting his defense, all of the witnesses which the defendants propose to use. I do not know precisely how many witnesses they have requested, but I think it is rather a substantial number, and the movement of all of these witnesses to Nurnberg, and the maintenance of all of these witnesses in Nurnberg, until the close of this trial, would I think, be an impossibility. If I have the number the defendants have decided and the order in which they are presenting their case, then I could work out some sort of schedule for the movement of the witnesses. Prosecution also intends to begin a review of the case made by defendants, and see, if in certain instances it would not be possible to stipulate certain facts, which would obviate the necessity of the appearance of certain witnesses. Here also I think any procedure should be modified from time to time to meet the facts and difficulties, and I think it is calling upon the Tribunal to do quite a lot to set forth these rules before these difficulties arise.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal is aware of these questions which will arise and as to the recess, after the Prosecution closes, which is now next Thursday or Friday, the Tribunal would be in recess until a week from the following Monday, and if the case of the Prosecution rests any longer than this, a matter of a recess will again be considered by the Tribunal. As to the opening statements by the defendants, at the present time the Tribunal is of the opinion that when the defense opens its cases, each defense counsel should make some statements concerning his defense, and what he expects to prove. That would not limit him necessarily, because when that particular defendant's case is called the defendant could then make some further statement, if it was found advisable or necessary in the protection of the rights of his client to do so.

The Tribunal is aware of the difficulty in the matter of witnesses and has endeavored to be liberal in approving the application for the bringing of witnesses and documents. Those have come to the Tribunal and have been approved by the Secretary General and a few have been denied, and with this approval seeing that those requests were carried into effect by the proper officials concerning operation.

The Tribunal at this time has no information, and certainly as counsel for the Prosecution has said, it cannot be expected that a large number of witnesses will be brought to Nurnberg and held here an indefinite time. When the matter of the order in which defendants' cases will be presented and determined upon is decided then it would seem to me that arrangements for the procurement of these witnesses can then be made with a special attempt to procure at the earliest possible time the witness who will be first called to the stand. That is also a matter in which many questions will arise doubtless and which will have to be determined when they do arise.

The Tribunal and the Prosecution has been cooperative and is of the opinion that the defense should have every reasonable opportunity to procure such witnesses and documents as are deemed necessary for the presentation of a proper defense.

Does this answer the question propounded by Dr. Pelchmann?

DR. PELCHMANN: Mr. President, I have understood your answer. However, I am afraid that again at a later period of time there will still be additional difficulties in procuring the witnesses, because if the witnesses are only brought here when the case of the individual defendant is brought before the Tribunal, or a short tine before that, then this will be impossible for technical difficulties which prevail in Germany at this time, also because of the cold and railroad conditions, and this also will become rather an impossibility.

THE PRESIDENT: Here I would say that when the defendant "A" presents his defense, and if you have certain witnesses which he desires and which are not then available, the matter of the evidence to be introduced by him in his defense will not be definitely closed, but that if a witness is not then available, but will be available later, the Tribunal would still hold his case open until he may present his witness.

DR. PECKMANN: But then it will happen, Mr. President, that the opening statement of each defense counsel will be very, very brief, because nobody wants to claim anything that afterwards may be impossible to be proved. However, I believe that it could still be considered, the suggestion which I have just made, that the opening statement be made before the presentation of evidence for each defendant. The only objection of the Prosecution to that is actually only that it will then have only a short time before the actual presentation of the evidence, and it will only be able to recognize the line of the defense at that time. However, the same objection has been raised from the very beginning to the presentation of the prosecution. The Tribunal will be able to recall that I have stated that the Prosecution does not even let it be known in the indictment tie charges which are made against the individual defendants, and therefore it is not correct, either, if the Prosecutor states that the defendants already had a sufficient time since the indictment was handed to them to prepare their defense. Nothing at all can be seen from the indictment.

THE PRESIDENT: At the present time the Tribunal, while it may change its ruling, is of the opinion that each defendant should make some opening statement when the defense case is called. But as I stated a moment ago, that defense may be amplified within reasonable limits, because at that time each defendant will be in a better position to state exactly the evidence which he expects to offer.

DR. PELCKMANN: Mr. President, because the translation was not quite complete, may I report your words thus. It will be left to the defense counsel at the beginning of his presentation of evidence to extend end to further broaden his opening statement. That is what I presume that the President stated, but it has not been translated, correctly.

THE PRESIDENT: Of course each defendant having made his opening statement at the opening of the defense may, when the case of that individual defendant is called, amplify the statement; he may retract certain parts from that statement; he may then state with more exactness exactly the proof that he expects to offer.

But the Tribunal is of the opinion that it would be helpful to everyone if at least some brief opening statement were made on the opening of the defense by all the defendants. Of course in all these rulings of the Tribunal it must be made to appear to the Tribunal that each defense counsel, in what he is doing, is acting in entire good faith with the Tribunal. When that appears, the Tribunal will endeavor to accord each defense counsel and each defendant every reasonable opportunity that it appears he should have.

MR. McHANEY: One final word before we move on to Euthanasia. I trust and hope that defense counsel is net awaiting the movement of witnesses to Nurnberg before contacting them in finding out what they know about this case, because if they are doing that, it is going to mean that we call a great number of people here who will not be prepared to offer any relevant testimony to the case and will just burden everyone. It will also mean that defense counsel's case will be much slower in being presented to the Tribunal if they delay their contacts until that date. So I have assumed that when they have put in a request for a witness that they have in same manner, either by telephone or mail or by a trip to see the witness, established that the witness has something relevant to the case to testify to. I hope I am not --

THE PRESIDENT: As I stated a few moments ago, in considering any request by defense counsel, the Tribunal would have to be assured that defense counsel had acted in entire good faith, that during this period counsel for the respective defendants have made every effort possible to contact the witnesses and ascertain what they will say.

Certainly it would not be reasonable to request a witness from a distance without having any idea as to what he would testify. Contacts should certainly be made by telephone, by personal application, by letter, and possibly in other ways. Defense counsel would be expected to exert every possible effort in ascertaining at the earliest possible date what witnesses they wanted and what they would testify, and then determine whether or not such testimony would be relevant or material, or possibly whether or not, as was stated a moment ago by counsel for the Prosecution, what the witness night testify to what might be agreed to and stipulated by the Prosecution.

DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, may I express myself on the question which we are discussing? The Prosecution has stated that the defense counsel could got a clear picture about their witnesses through letters, through telephone, or by making trips. In most cases this is quite impossible for us, because first of all, if we try to ask questions by letters, we will find out very little, and we will not be able to gain a clear picture about what the witness may know or may not know.

I do not need to waste any words about the subject of the telephone, because with a telephone I will be unable to contact distant places, and if I have succeeded in getting the right connection, then I will be interrupted after maybe five or ten minutes. The only thing that is left open to me, then, are the trips, and I must state the following in this connection:

About a year and a half age we were offered motor vehicles for trips of this kind. Of course, we have never obtained these motor vehicles. To make these trips today by railway is completely impossible for us, because we defense counsel, after all, have to attend the sessions here. I cannot bo away for a week and then only limit myself to reading the record afterwards.

And with the conditions prevailing on our railroads today it is also quite impossible to get anywhere by train. For example, in the last week I required more than eleven hours to take a trip from here to Munich, and I arrived at Munich, at three o'clock in the morning, instead of at 1900 hours in the evening, if that happned to me in another city where I am a stranger, then with the cold which, is prevailing right now I could stay in the station all night.

All these conditions are so difficult for us that under the conditions under which we have to work here in Nurnberg it cannot be expected of us that we be constantly traveling from Monday to Friday. I wanted to point out those difficulties so we will have clarity on that subject from the very beginning, that we will plainly be unable to fulfill this demand.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal well recognizes the difficulties suggested by counsel. The only thing the Tribunal requires is that every reasonable effort be made by counsel in order to procure the attendance of their witnesses and expedite the trial. It cannot be expected that the Tribunal will order that every possible witness who might have some evidence material or more or less material must be brought to Nurnberg. The difficulties of transportation work both ways.

Now, besides the methods offered, which of course are complicated and difficult and in some ways inadequate, it would appear that on some occasions, at least, a letter could be written to some lawyer in the town who email interview the witness. I am just suggestion those things. They are matters which every lawyer knows. Many of the applications for witnesses which have been made have been applications for the attendance of men who would answer letters. It is very evident from the names and the positions occupied by tin witnesses that they would communicate what evidence they would or would not give.

The Tribunal does not intend to demand the impossible or in any way to be even unreasonable in view of all the circumstances. But at the same time it is necessary that the trial be reasonably expedited and not unduly prolonged, always with due regard to the rights of the defendants to present their evidence in the best manner possible to them. As specific questions arise, the Tribunal will always be open and will listen with attention to any reasonable application for relief in any specific circumstances.

As I said a moment ago, the case of each defendant would not necessarily be closed when he had offered all the evidence then available to him. His care could be held open to offer evidence which became available at some subsequent time. I know nothing more that the Tribunal can say at this time.

MR. McHANEY: In the few minutes remaining to us this afternoon I should like to begin with the presentation of evidence with respect to the so-called "euthanasia program" as it was carried out in Germany from about September 1939 until about April 1945.

It is alleged in Count 2, Paragraph 9 of the indictment as follows:

Between September 1939 and April 1945 the defendants Karl Brandt, Blome, Brack, and Hoven unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly committed War Crimes, as defined by Article II of Control Council Law No. 10, in that they were principals in, accessories to ordered, abetted, took a consenting part in, and were connected with plans and enterprises involving the execution of the so called "euthanasia program" of the German Reich, in the course of which the defendants herein murdered hundreds of thousands of human beings, including nationals of German-occupied countries.

This program, involved the systematic and secret execution of the aged, insane, incurably ill, or deformed children and other persons by gas, lethal injections, and divers other means in nursing homes, hospitals and asylums. Such persons were regarded as 'useless eaters' and a burden to the German war machine. The relatives of those victims were informed that they died from natural causes such as heart failure. German doctors involved in the Euthanasia program were also sent to the Eastern occupied countries to assist in the mass extermination of the Jews.

The same facts are charged on paragraph 14 of count III of the indictment as constituting a crime against humanity. I would like to make clear at the outset that the Prosecution does not take the position that no State can validly enact a law dealing with euthanasia. I understand that some few countries have euthanasia laws. It goes without saying, however, that any such law would have to be carried out under proper safeguards. The Prosecution does take the position that the German Reich never enacted a euthanasia law or to put it more broadly, one euthanasia law was ever promulgated in any form. German courts have already so hold repeatedly an these Judgments will be brought to the attention of the Tribunal in due course. We further contend, even though it be assumed, arguende, that a valid German law was promulgated, there was no right, moral or legal, to apply such an assumed law be non-German nationals, peoples of German occupied countries. Here again, we are not without legal precedent, as it was hold by a United States Military Court in the Hadamar case that the application of the so-called euthanasia to non-German nationals was a crime and several defendants wore condemned to death. This Judgment will also be presented to the Tribunal in due course. The Tribunal has already heard considerable testimony concerning the operation of the euthanasia program in this case. Such testimony was concerned, with the infamous action known as "14 F 13". We have heard the witnesses Freising, Neff, Ferdinand Paul, Kegen testify concerning this action "14 F 13", and they have made it amply clear that this action was applied to nonGerman nationals.

They have also made it clear that this systematic execution of peoples incorporated in concentration camps was applied not simply with so thought to be incurably insane, but to those afflicted with their diseases, even extending to people who had members of their body amputated.

Proof in this case shall make it amply clear that the action "14 F 13" was a part of the euthanasia program, and I will remind the Tribunal in that regard that the witness Kegen has only recently testified of the movement of concentration camp inmates from the Buchenwald Concentration Camp to the euthanasia institute at Bernburg; and the Tribunal will hear this name again and again as the documents are presented on this portion of the case. There can be no dispute that Bernburg among others was one of the institutions in which the execution of the insane, the aged, and other persons was carried out under the euthanasia program.

Before proceeding to the presentation of evidence, I respectfully ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of the Judgment of the International Military Tribunal in the case of the United States of America, France, Great Britain, and the USSR against Hermann Wilhelm Geering and others; the portion of the Judgment which deals with the so-called euthanasia program is to be found on pages 16,916 to 16,917 and page 17,007 of the official English transcript. These so excerpts have been included in the first euthanasia document book which is now excerpt the Tribunal. They are on page 1 and 2. The first excerpt which is the one appearing on pages 16,916 and 16,917 of the official English transcript is on page one of the English Document Book. It reads as follows:

Reference should also be made to the policy which was in existence in Germany by the summer of 1940, under which all aged, insane, and incurable people.

'Useless eaters', were transferred to special institutions where they were killed, and their relatives informed that they had died from natural causes. The victims were not confined to German citizens, but included foreign laborers, who were no longer able to work, and were therefore useless to the German war machine. It has been estimated that at least some 275,000 people were killed in this manner in nursing homes, hospitals and asylums, which were under the jurisdiction of the defendant Frick, in his capacity as Minister of the Interior. How many foreign writers were included in this total it has been quite impossible to determine.

The second excerpt is from page 17,007 of the official English transcript, and it appears on page two of the English Document Book. It reads as follows:

During the war nursing homes, hospitals, and asylums in which euthanasia was practiced as described elsewhere in this Judgment, came under Frick's jurisdiction. He had knowledge that insane, sick and aged people, 'useless eaters', were being systematically put to death. Complaints of those murders reached him, but he did nothing to stop them. A report of the Czechoslovak War Crimes Commission estimated that 275,000 mentally deficient and aged people, for whose welfare he was responsible, fell victim to it.

I would call the Tribunal's attention to the fact that these findings by the International Military Tribunal draws no distinction between German nationals, subjected and executed through the euthanasia program, and non-German nationals.

The second excerpt makes in distinction whatever, and all of those executions are described with the word "murders".

We turn now to Document630-PS which we offer as Prosecution Exhibit 330. This is on page 3 of the English Document Book. This document was presented in evidence in the trial before the International Military Tribunal, and was there admitted as USA Exhibit Number 542.

This is a letter dated 1 September 1939, on the letterhead of A. Hitler.

THE PRESIDENT: What is that date, counsel? My page here, it is impossible to read it.

MR McHANEY: I will pass the original up, Your Honor.

DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, ths document is just being introduced as a letter of Hitler. I would like to state at the very beginning that it is not a letter. A letter is addressed to an addressee, but I claim it is a decree. It was compiled with the assistance of Karl Brandt. I only want to state here that this is not a letter, but that it is a decree. I would like to emphasize this at the very beginning.

MR. McHANEY: I take it that is a matter of argument whether it is a letter or a decree. In any event, I would like to have the document passed up to the Tribunal, and they can see for themselves just what the document looks like. In any event, it is dated Berlin, 1 September 1939. It reads as follows:

Reichsleiter Beuhler and Dr. Brandt...

The translation "N. D.", I don't know whether that should be "N. D." or not...

are charged with the responsibility of enlarging the authority of certain physicians to be designated by name in such a manner that persons who, according to human judgment, are incurable can, upon a most careful diagnosis of their condition of sickness, be accorded a mercy death. /s/, A. Hitler

with a handwritten note at the bottom, "given to me by Beuller on 27 August 1940, /s/ Dr. Guertner."

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel the pages in the Document Book furnished the court is not numbered.

MR. McHANEY: Is not numbered?

THE PRESIDENT: Is not numbered. Please explain this part which was left out.

MR. McHANEY: If the court please, at the conclusion of today's session, if you will please hand your books back, I shall see that they are numbered.

DR. FRUERCHMANN: Mr. President and Mr. McHaney, I am defense counsel here for Brack-Viktor Brack. The prosecution now intends to make the chart--Mr. President, the prosecution now intend's to make the chart the subject of discussion. I object to the admission of the chart as evidence, and I shall give a full reason for my objection. The chart was compiled in the course of a preliminary procedure by the gentlemen of the prosecution as from the defendant Brack and as a sketch without any further documentary support, and the official relations between the persons for which they are interested was shown to the Prosecution in this matter; in this way there is the picture of coordination, subordination, organization, and system between the defendants Brack, Karl Brandt and Blome and of Frick and so on; an organization which in reality never existed. The affidavit itself was not compiled by the defendant Brack, but by one of the interrogators. It was only submitted to the defendant Brack on the 12 October 1946 for his signature. It was compiled from the statements of five or six of his interrogations. At that time Brack had protested against the contents and the formulation of the affidavit because of using inappropriate German words, which had become completely incorrect. It was so admitted by Brack to one of the interrogating officials that the text of the affidavit was not correct on all the points, and did not agree on all the points in the text of his affidavit, and on two points the affidavit contained a conclusion which had been drawn by the prosecution; also from the translation into the English language also showed some linguist difficulties. However, it was further stated that it was not so much the words as rather the meaning of the declaration. Since, however,

MR. McHANEY: As to the date on the top of this document shows that is 1 September 1939, this letter of Erlab's, or order, was issued on the very day of Germany attack on Poland, on the day when the highest war lord of Germany certainly was not concerned with humanitarian and eugenic matters. This date alone proves that the measures to be carried out were not intended for the benefit of humanity, but for the benefit of total war. The other day he handwritten note on the bottom of the letter showed that Guertner, the Minister of Justice, received it almost one year after its issuance, If the persons who were charged with the responsibility for the execution of these instructions would have considered this piece of paper to constitute a law, they would not have hesitated to submit it immediately to the highest legal authority in the Reich in which the sphere of influence would have widely affected this program.

At this time I ask the Tribunal to recall the affidavit of the defendant Karl Brandt, which was document NO-475, introduced as Prosecutor's Exhibit No. 4; also the affidavit of the defendant Viktor Brack, which was document NO-820, introduced as Prosecution's Exhibit No. 34, and the affidavit of the defendant Blome, which was document NO-471, introduced as Prosecution's Exhibit No.238.

In paragraph five of the affidavit of Karl Brandt, he admits his connection with the Euthanasia program. So it is with the defendant Brack in paragraph five of his affidavit, Prosecution's Exhibit No. 34, and, defendant Blome in paragraph five of his affidavit, Prosecution's Exhibit No.238, admits his knowledge of the program itself, and in the row which was played by the defendants Karl Brandt and Brack. For the convenience of the Tribunal we have included the affidavit of Karl Brandt and Viktor Brack in the document Book on page four and page seven respectively. The affidavit of Blome should be included in one of the following document books on Euthanasia.

I now offer into evidence Document NO-253.

THE TRIBUNAL: Just a moment, counsel. Regarding the remarks made by Dr. Servatius; of course, the description by the Prosecution of this document or letter is not binding. The document speaks for itself subject at all it had been incorrectly introduced, in reply to this Brack has also objected to the change of the formulation that took place on some points.

However, Brack at that time was physically and mentally in a very bad condition, and therefore, he did not realize that the affidavit submitted to him, together with the chart, contained numerous mistakes, misunderstandings, and incorrect statements. He therefore gave in to your official and signed the affidavit. With this story as I have just described it to you, the affidavit and the chart, which was part of the affidavit, is not a correct declaration which came out of the defendant Brack himself, and therefore, it seems to be and to have lost its legal admissibility as evidence.

MR. McHANEY: If the Tribunal please, the argument seems to be somewhat confusing, by the fact that a great number of the remarks made by the defense counsel were addressed against the document, which has already been admitted into evidence, namely, the affidavit of Viktor Brack. I did not quite understand his objection at the start.

THE PRESIDENT: Of course, in the matter of the affidavit already received in evidence as made by the defendant Brock is subject to any attack by him, which he may have the privilege of making when he takes the witness stand, as to his physical and mental conditions at that time. On the other hand, the prosecution must be prepared to establish that chart new under discussion is correct.

DR. FRUERCHMANN: May I still make another statement.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

DR. FRUERCHMANN: When the affidavit was presented, the chart was not enclosed with the affidavit.

The chart was only submitted as a document to the defendant Brack two days ago, and therefore, he was not able to previously take any stand whatsoever in connection with this chart.

DR. SERVATIUS: Dr. Servatius for the defendant Karl Brandt. Mr. President, I have just found out the objections which exist against the admissibility of this affidavit. I, therefore, object to its use against Karl Brandt, and I ask that the prosecution be requested to present the original interrogation and files so comparison can be made to what he has personally stated, and what has later been put into the affidavit.

MR. McHANEY: I would like to repeat that the affidavit, if I am correct, is already a part of the record, so I don't understand the objections being made to the affidavit itself. I now want to offer into evidence the chart, which is going offered as sinned by the defendant Viktor Brack. This affidavit is true, and it contains same description material which we will read into the record, but the affidavit itself has long since been admitted, and is Prosecution's Exhibit No. 34, Document No-320.

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. McHaney, is this chart which is now on the wall a correct facsimile or the chart -

MR. McHANEY: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: -- If the smaller chart which you are preparing to offer an evidence, or is it a composite chart made from several charts, as was the case in reward to the composite charts that were referred to at the inception of the trial?

MR. McHANEY: The court room chart which is used for the convenience of the court only purports to be a reproduction of the chart drawn and signed by the defendant Brack. The big chart, of course, is not offered into evidence. It is a copy of the smaller chart. The smaller chart, which is signed to by the defendant Victor Brack, is the document being offered at this time.

THE PRESIDENT: Of course, it's very important to all concerned that any chart offered and received in evidence, studied by the Tribunal and the respective parties, is in fact correct.

At the time, the Tribunal will recess until nine thirty o'clock on Monday morning. The counsel for the prosecution should make every effort in the meantime to ascertain whether or not this chart is, as a matter of fact, a correct representation of the facts, and we will take the matter of the presentation up in the morning.

MR. McHANEY: I would like, before the Tribunal adjourns, to correct the record. It was stated that the affidavit of Brack was document NO-320, Prosecution Exhibit 34. That is, in fact, an affidavit of Victor Brack. However, the one with which we are here concerned is another affidavit by Brack which is Document NO-426 which was admitted as Prosecution Exhibit 160.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now recess until Monday morning.

THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will net recess until nine thirty Monday morning.