1947-01-29, #1: Doctors' Trial (early morning)

Official transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 29 January 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.

THE MARSHAL: Persons in the Court Room will please find their seats.

The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal 1.

Military Tribunal 1 is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal.

There will be order in the Court.

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, will you ascertain that the defendants are all present in court.

THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honor, the Defendant Oberheuser is absent today in continuation of the illness of which she was absent yesterday.

THE PRESIDENT: The other defendants are all present?

THE MARSHAL: The other defendants are all present.

THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will note for the record the presence of all the defendants save Defendant Oberheuser who is absent on account of illness.

The Defendant Oberhouser's defense will not be jeopardized in the proceeding this morning. The Tribunal will proceed.

EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS

DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, you asked me to give you notice about the time the individual defense counsel would need for their introductory statements. By asking around, I had a list compiled which, however, did not include every defense counsel since some want to make particular statements about it. From that list it can be seen that the time which is at the disposal —- this is 18 minutes — will total 465 minutes by defense counsel listed there. Defense counsel for Blome, Ruff and Romberg did not give the time required. Individual defense counsel have listed more than thirty minute three of them. Others need less time. So that it all equals itself out.

THE PRESIDENT: The schedule prepared by defense counsel appears to be fair and adequate. Counsel may proceed.

DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, I have a few technical questions before the proceedings. First, with reference to the start of the submission of the evidence, the time which was at our disposal could not be used fully since we were not able to speak to witnesses freely as we pleased, and we could only speak to them for three hours at the most and which led to the fact that we could only speak to two witnesses during one morning. The preparation of affidavits could, therefore, not be concluded by me. With my client I have not been able to discuss every question with reference to his examination. I would therefore be grateful if the Tribunal could tell me when they expect me to start with the submission of evidence. I would be prepared to do so coming Monday.

THE PRESIDENT: I didn't hear the last statement of counsel.

DR. SERVATIUS: I have not been able to discuss sufficiently with my client all the questions which I want to put to him in examination and I should therefore be grateful if the start of the submission of evidence would be postponed to the coming Monday, which would mean one day of pause, one day of adjournment.

THE PRESIDENT: At the close of the arguments the Tribunal has already determined to recess until Monday.

DR. SERVATIUS: I have yet another request, that is, to excuse the defendant Karl Brandt this afternoon and tomorrow morning so that I can use the time in order to prepare his examination. This is a procedure which was also adopted by the International Military Tribunal.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will grant counsel the request about the excusing of Karl Brandt for this afternoon and tomorrow.

DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, may I then begin with my introductory statement?

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may proceed.

DR. SERVATIUS: I may say that I have not yet seen the English text of my statement. I think it is now being submitted to the Tribunal.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal now has the English translation of the statement.

DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, I should like to point out that the last pages have contained the text of the law to which I referred in the beginning of my statement. It is an excerpt from the Charter of the International Military Tribunal and an excerpt from the Law No. 10. This would make it easier to follow my first introductory statements.

Opening statement on behalf of the Defendant Karl Brandt.

DR. SERVATIUS: The examination of the indictment against the Defendant Karl Brandt reveals that on several counts it is devoid of foundation, since it lacks in part a legal basis, in part the factual conditions.

I therefore make application that the charge against the Defendant Karl Brandt be declared insufficient.

1) for legal reasons in regard to Count 1 of the Indictment, Conspiracy to Commit War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity,

2) For factual reasons in regard to Count 11 of the Indictment. War Crimes.

Count A, high-altitude experiments Count B, freezing experiments Count C, malaria experiments Count G, sea water experiments In explanation of this application I cite the following:

The Indictment of 25 October 1946 under Count I charged all the defendants with the crime of a common design or conspiracy to commit crimes against humanity and war crimes.

This charge has no basis, in law; it is an inadmissible extension of the charge transgressing beyond the limits set for this trial.

The legal limit is constituted by Control Council Law No. 10, to Article II of which the Indictment refers.

This law, however, does not contain any provision that a conspiracy to commit war crimes or crimes against humanity is punishable in itself as a separate type of crime; the conspiracy which is declared punishable there is only conspiracy to commit a crime against the peace.

No charge of such a crime has been made, however.

The wording and the system of the law show that the planning of war crimes and crimes against humanity is only a form of participation and not an independent type of crimes.

The limitation of the law is also demonstrated by the decision of the International Military Tribunal in Trial. No. I, where punishable conspiracy is also expressly restricted to conspiracy to commit a crime against peace.

On this subject, the following is to be said in detail:

Since there is no charge of breach of the peace, the Tribunal is competent to examine only three questions; whether the defendants have committed war crimes, whether they are guilty of a crime against humanity, and whether they are punishable as members of a criminal organization.

That the law knows only a crime of conspiracy against the peace is shown by Article II 1a, which reads:

Participation in a common plan or a conspiracy for the purpose of the execution of one of the crimes listed above.

These crimes listed above are only the crimes of paragraph 1a against the peace.

No such regulation regarding a conspiracy to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity is included in the law.

That this limitation of conspiracy to "conspiracy against the peace" is intentional, is shown also by the decision of the International Military Tribunal in Trial No. 1, of 1 October 1946, where charges which went beyond this were expressly rejected.

At the end of Section 6 of the judgment it says:

Count 1, however, charges not only the conspiracy to commit aggressive war, but also to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity.

But the Charter does not define as a separate crime any conspiracy except the one to commit acts of aggressive "wars. Article 6 of the Charter provides:

Leaders, organizers, instigators, and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan.

In the opinion of the Tribunal these words do not add a new and separate crime to those already listed. The words are designed to establish the responsibility of persons participating in a common plan. The Tribunal will therefore disregard the charges in Count I that the defendants conspired to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity, and will consider only the common plan to prepare, initiate, and wage aggressive war.

In the same way, the International Military Tribunal confirms this concept of the law by saying under No. 8 of the judgment:

As already stated, the Charter does not describe every conspiracy as a separate crime, but only a conspiracy dealing with crimes against the peace and listed in Article 6 (a).

This decision of the International Military Tribunal was necessary in the face of the ambiguous formulation of the Charter. The provision mentioned, concerning the responsibility of all leaders, organizers, etc., who participated in a common plan or conspiracy had been included as the last paragraph of the regulation which had previously mentioned war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Law No. 10, which forms the basis for this trial, contains no such provision which might lead to doubts; the text of the law is clear and intelligible.

Law No. 10 knows only certain forms of participation, which are summed up in Article II, Paragraph 2. There, under (d), it is stated, concerning the three crimes declared punishable, — crimes against the peace, against war, and against humanity, — that in addition to perpetrators and other participants, anyone who was connected with plans or enterprises involving its commission' is to be punished.

Here we are concerned with 'plans' and 'enterprises'; that is not the same as the technical expressions of 'common plan or conspiracy'.

That the phrase 'connected with plans' does not necessarily involve the concept of conspiracy is shown by Article II 1a, whore 'planning' is mentioned before conspiracy against peace is declared punishable. This would be senseless if it were intended to introduce the concept of conspiracy.

The prevision of Article II Paragraph 2d, 'whoever was connected with its planning and execution', means merely a form of conspiracy. The bracketing of the words 'planning and execution' shows that planning is a preliminary to execution, that is, attempt. The technical term ' common plan or conspiracy' cannot, however, fall under that heading.

The system applied by Law No. 10 corresponds to the intent of the law. In Article II a clear distinction is made between the type of crime in paragraph 1 and the form of participation in paragraph 2. Paragraph 1 lists as types of crimes only the followings:

1) the individual crimes of breach of the peace.

2) conspiracy against the peace

3) the individual war crime

4) the individual crime against humanity.

There is no mention here of a conspiracy to commit war crimes or a conspiracy against humanity. Paragraph 2 of Section II, on the other hand, deals only with the form of participation in the above mentioned crimes of Paragraph 1. In addition to the principal, accomplice, instigator, accessory abettor, the person with guilty participation in certain organizations, and the person with guilty connection with crimes against the peace on the basis of an especially high position in public life, there appears, under d, in a logical interpretation of this provision, the person who participated in the preparations for or the execution of one of the crimes under No. 1 "Law No. 10, which was systematically and carefully worked out, cannot contain such a fundamental error as to introduce an especially important type of crime for the first time in the section devoted to forms of participation in crimes.

Consequently, we come to the conclusion, that there is no law under which the alleged conspiracy for the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity, which is here charged, is punishable. Only participation in individual crimes, proved in individual cases, can be punishable. The Prosecution must present such proof in detail.

Since there is no legal basis for Count I of the Indictment, the charge must be declared insufficient for legal reasons, and the case under this count must be dismissed.

The second group of charges against Karl Brandt is insufficient for factual reasons.

There are the following five counts:

1) Count II A high-altitude experiments.

According to the Prosecution the low-pressure experiments in the Dachau camp began in March 1942 and were concluded about the end of August 1942. According to the transcript (German text, page 287), however, the final report was made to Himmler as early as 28 July 1942, that is, on the same day on which the Defendant Karl Brandt received his first official position as Special Agent of the Fuehrer for certain tasks.

Because of this coincidence of time alone, he cannot be brought into any connection with these experiments on the basis of his official position alone. At that time there was not as yet any Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service, to whom the Prosecution refers, and at that time the Defendant Karl Brandt could not yet have been in any official relationship to the medical heads of the Wehrmacht branches or the SS.

The Prosecution has not presented any facts which might show that the Defendant Karl Brandt knew of and approved these experiments.

On the contrary, the Prosecution itself submits that Himmler order the continuation of the orders; one may conclude therefrom that he also began them.

The Prosecution further submits that Himmler inspected the experiments himself and that he received the final report.

Thus it has been established that the Defendant Karl Brandt had no connection with the alleged experiments. The Prosecution case is insufficient on this count.

2) Count II B, cold experiments.

According to the Prosecution, the freezing experiments began, in the Dachau camp following the cooling experiments in August 1942 and lasted until May 1943.

There were two types of experiments: the water cooling experiments were concluded with a report on 16 October 1942, and the dry cooling experiments were concluded with a report on 17 February 1943.

The Prosecution has not presented any facts which could prove the direct participation of the Defendant Karl Brandt. It has been established that he did not participate either in the Nurnberg conference on freezing experiments on 26 and 27 October 1942.

Nor has it been proved that the Defendant Karl Brandt, by virtue of his position as special deputy, would have gained knowledge of those xn experiments through the Decrees of 28 July 1942. According to this Decree, the Defendant Karl Brandt had to carry out only certain special tasks on special instructions: the Prosecution has not contended that any such assignment or any such instructions actually existed and were carried out.

Nor has it been proved that, as a member of the presidial Council of the Reich Research Council, the Defendant Karl Brandt, gained knowledge of the experiments and the nature of their execution and that he approved them, or that he was in a position to prevent them.

Nor has it been proved that the Defendant Karl Brandt had at that time any contact with the Wehrmacht Medical Mountain School in St. Johann, which allegedly collaborated with Dr. Rascher in experiments.

On the other hand, the Prosecution has submitted that there was a research assignment from the Luftwaffe, and a witness for the Prosecution has testified that the experiments were carried out by Himmler on the basis of a private agreement with General Milch.

This shows that the charge against Karl Brandt on this count is insufficient.

I come now to Count IIC, malaria experiments.

According to the prosecution, the malaria experiments took place in Dachau from February 1942 until April 1945, at Himmler's orders. The latter fact is revealed by the official report on the trial of Professor Schilling in Dacheu, page 446 of the German transcript.

The prosecution does not present any facts which might indicate any direct participation of the defendant Karl Brandt in the malaria, experiments.

The circumstance that the defendant Karl Brandt, by decree of 5 September 1943, was appointed Commissar General with more extensive powers and that he became Reich Commissar on 25 August 1944 is not in itself sufficient proof that, by virtue of this position, he gained knowledge of the type of experiments. The prosecution has not presented any especially incriminating facts revealed by the confiscated documents.

The same is true of the knowledge of the defendant Karl Brandt as a member of the Presidial Council of the Reich Research Council. Here, too, no specific proof was presented.

The only evidence against the defendant Karl Brandt is said to be an affidavit by the witness Pohl, who expresses the opinion that Himmler discussed his experiments with the doctors in his circle. Pohl lists there among others the name of the defendant Karl Brandt, Pohl does not give any facts on which he could base his opinion; on the other hand, it may be considered a fact that the defendant Karl Brandt did not belong to Himmler's circle.

The conclusion to be drawn from the above statements is that the participation of the defendant Karl Brandt in the malaria experiments has not been proved. His non-participation is emphasized by the fact that his name does not appear in any of the documents submitted and, in particular, that he was not mentioned in the Dachau trial against Schilling for malaria experiments.

Examination of the charge therefore shows that it is insufficient.

I come now to Count II G, Sea Water Experiments.

According to the prosecution, the sea water experiments took place in Dachau from about June 1944 until September 1944.

Here also the prosecution has not presented any facts which show direct participation of the defendant Karl Brandt in these experiments; not even the name of the defendant Karl Brandt appears in connection with these experiments.

That the defendant Karl Brandt's position alone is no proof of knowledge and approval of unwarranted experiments has already been explained. This fact is confirmed by the prosecution, since it makes no charge against Karl Brandt under Count K, Poison Experiments, and Count, L, Experiments with Incendiary Bombs, although the same official relationships exist here.

The only material which the prosecution has is the affidavit of the codefendant Schaefer, who states that the sea water experiments were an open secret in the "highest medical circles". The only fact which Schaefer can give as a reason is his report on his experiments to his supreme superiors who were collaborating with him. That anyone else gained knowledge of the nature of the experiments and that, in particular, the defendant Karl Brandt knew of it are not proved.

Apart from the contents of this affidavit, the statement of the codefendant Schaefer can not he used against the defendant Karl Brandt since there has as yet been no opportunity for cross-examination.

Finally, I must point out that according to the submission of the prosecution the experiments were the special business of the Luftwaffe and the Navy, in direct collaboration with Himmler. There was therefore no place there for the participation of the defendant Karl Brandt.

These statements show that the charge against Karl Brandt on this count is also insufficient.

Now, Count II I, Sterilization.

According to the prosecution, the sterilization experiments took place from March 1941 until January 1945 in Auschwitz and Ravensbrueck and at other places. The prosecution does not present any facts here, either, which might prove direct participation of the defendant Karl Brandt.

The prosecution bases its charge on the fact that, in addition to general knowledge on the basis of the defendant Karl Brandt's official position, material was actually presented here which allegedly indicates indirectly participation in the experiments.

The prosecution has incontestably submitted that an X-ray specialist from an office of Bouhler—-that is. Dr. Schumann-was transferred for the purpose of conducting sterilization experiments and that other Personnel of this office was sent to the extermination camps in the East, where sterilizations were performed.

It has not been proved that the defendant Karl Brandt had anything to do with these transfers. In particular, it has not been proved that he knew the purpose of the transfers and thus approved and supported the alleged crimes.

The fact alone that the Defendant Karl Brandt was given special powers, together with Bouhler, by the Euthanasia Decree of 1 September 1939, does not prove that Bouhler's office was his agency or that he was competent for personnel matters in the Chancellery of the Fuehrer.

The affidavit of the co-defendant Brack, which has been submitted, contains only his opinion that the defendant Karl Brandt had knowledge of Dr. Schumann's transfer. No facts are given which might support this opinion.

The affidavit of the co-defendant Rudolf Brandt, No.440, also merely presents an assertion that, among others, the defendant Karl Brandt "surely knew of these sterilization matters". This opinion of the witness is obviously based on the defendant Karl Brandt's official position which he assumed only after the conclusion of the experiments in Auschwitz and Ravensbrueck in 1944 when he became Reich Commissar.

Apart from the fact that that affidavit does pot contain any fact, it cannot be used against the defendant Karl Brandt because there has been no cross-examination.

The prosecution itself, however, presented important points in favor of the defendant Karl Brandt, clearly indicating that he had no knowledge of the experiments.

First, it is shown that the co-defendant Brack in letters to Himmler repeatedly pointed out, with reference to Bouhler's agency, that he had transferred "his" people and emphasized that "he" had promoted the experiments.

I refer to pages 582 and 583 of the German transcript.

Moreover, Bouhler himself, in Document NO 156, states that he alone is responsible for the execution of the measures to be taken in the Euthanasia program. The defendant Karl Brandt could therefore not have had any responsibility in this agency.

The prosecution's case also shows that the sterilization experiments were conducted exclusively by Himmler as a "state secret of the greatest importance" — I refer to page 566 of the German transcript — and that "strictest secrecy and the special obligation of everyone concerned is emphasized" because this was the preparation for a mass sterilization which however, never came about. That the defendant Karl Brandt, in spite of this special secrecy, was informed of the events has not been proved.

These arguments show that the charge against Karl Brandt on this count, also, is insufficiently supported.

Insofar as the charges on one of the above counts may, contrary to this application, be declared sufficient merely on the basis of an affidavit which has not been subjected to cross-examination, application is herewith made to reserve the right after cross-examination to submit a new application concerning the charges.

I now come to the presentation of evidence with reference to the counts of the indictment concerning illegal experiments.

The prosecution bases the general responsibility of the defendant Karl Brandt in regard to the undertaking of illegal experiments on his official position and on the organization of his office. What authority the defendant Karl Brandt had in virtue of the three decrees of 28 July 1942, 5 September 1941 and 25 August 1944, which gave him special powers, is a matter of interpretation and evaluation.

The evidence for the significance and extent of the powers of the defendant Karl Brandt is brought by the prosecution primarily by the presentation of charts.

The prosecution at first on 9 December 1946 presented a report entitled "Basic instructions about the German Medical Offices" with a chart, which was not submitted as evidence but was handed to the Tribunal. The report and the chart are misleading in so far as it cannot be seen from them that in regard to the person of the defendant Karl Brandt the chart could have had validity at the earliest for the period after the third decree of 25 August 1944, when the position of Reich Commissar was created; at that time the events which form the subject of the indictment had for the most part been concluded.

The correctness of the "Basic Instruction" itself is also being contested, since on page 2 of the expose it says that the defendant Karl Brandt had already in 1942 occupied the position of a superior of Handloser and Conti and had powers regarding all offices in Germany.

For the incorrectness of this statement I shall submit evidence by examination of the defendant himself, and of the co-defendants Handloser, Schroeder, and Mrugowsky.

The prosecution furthermore submitted in evidence six charts about the medical offices, the correctness of which was confirmed by affidavits. Since the witnesses could not be subjected to a cross examination, these charts can be used as evidence only against the person who made them, however as a precaution, I will deal with them.

We are dealing with the following charts:

"The Wehrmacht Medical Service" signed by Handloser of 24 September 1946, Document No. NO-282.

"Plan of Organization of Aero Medical Research" by Professor Schroeder. There are two charts, the first one far the period from November 1941 till December 1943, made out on 2 October 1946, Document No. NO-418; and the second for the period from 1 January 1944, on, made out on 2 October 1946, Document No. NO-419.

There is further "Plan of Organization of the Medical Service of the SS" by Professor Mrugowsky. Here again we have two charts, the first for the period up to 31 August 1943, made out on 11 October 1946, Document No. NO-417; and the second for the period from September 1943 on, made out on 11 October 1946, Document NO-417.

And finally, there is the "Working Plan of the Office of the General Commissar and the Reich Commissar for the Medical and Health Service" of 7 November 1946, Document NO-645. This has merely been signed by the defendant Karl Brandt.

I shall submit evidence that the position of the defendant Karl Brandt as superior as it is expressed in these charts is incorrect by examination of the defendant himself and the co-defendants professors Handloser, Blome, Schroeder, Rostock, Mrugowsky and Genzken, I may introduce affidavits of these witnesses. Furthermore, as proof of the position of the defendant Karl Brandt, I shall introduce the record of an interview on the Germanradio on 18 January 1944, from which it is evident that that defendant Karl Brandt expressly did not consider himself as the top of the German medical apparatus, but as "Differential".

The charges against the defendant Karl Brandt then are based on the general official connections which he had due to his position. The charges of participation in unwarranted experiments is based on the official contact between the Office for Medical Science and Research with the research offices; further, on the official connection which the defendant Karl Brandt had with the research offices as a member of the Presiding Council of the Reich Research Council.

I shall submit evidence that the defendant Karl Brandt did not in this manner gain any general knowledge of all the experiments which were conducted anywhere and that in particular he did not gain knowledge of the kind of experiments and the conditions. I shall hear the following witnesses: For the Office of Science and Research I shall hear Professor Rostock and the defendant himself; for the Presiding Council of the Reich Research Council I shall hear the business manager Mentzel and the co-defendants Sievers and Rudolf Brandt, and finally the defendant himself.

If necessary, I shall also submit evidence that the general statements in the affidavits of the co-defendant Rudolf Brandt can be objected to, to the extent that they assert that the defendant Karl Brandt had knowledge of the experiments.

The prosecution further deduced the general responsibility of the defendant Karl Brandt from the knowledge about the experiments which he was alleged to have gained on the basis of attendance at medical congresses with lectures on the experiments. I shall introduce evidence against this by the examination of the defendant himself.

Furthermore, the prosecution refers to the personal relations of the defendant Karl Brandt to the University of Strasbourg, where individual members of the University allegedly have conducted illegal experiments. It is not necessary to introduce evidence against these relations, since the prosecution has not submitted any facts which show such relationships.

Finally, the prosecution pointed out that the defendant Karl Brandt belonged to the staff of Himmler and gave him medical advice. Evidence against this will be introduced by examination of: the witness Grothmann, Himmler's adjutant; the witness Ehlich, Medical Office of the SD; and the co-defendants Rudolf Brandt, Gebhardt and Silvers; and, finally, the defendant himself.

Now the special responsibility in the individual experiments. The accusation extends be the following five experiments: Count D of the indictment, Lost; Count E of the indictment, Sulfonamide; Count F of the indictment Transplantations and Regenerations; Count H of the indictment, Jaundice; and Count J of the indictment,Typhus.

In regard to Count D of the indictment, Lost:

First, the defendant Karl Brandt is held responsible for the experiments which were allegedly carried out in October 1939 in Sachsenhausen to test the drug F 1001. In this connection, a final report of 5 January 1940 by Grawitz is referred to. In regard to this particular point, a participation of the defendant Karl Brandt is not to be considered, as he did not yet hold any official position at the time and no facts have been produced by the prosecution which could indicate participation.

In regard to the experiments in Buchenwald which were concluded in May 1942 and I refer to the affidavit of Dietsch, Document NO-1314, no facts have been produced wither which incriminate the defendant Karl Brandt.

The defendant Karl Brandt is however held responsible, and the details are given, for the experiments which as the prosecution claims, were carried out by Professor Hirth in Natzweiler since 6 June 1942, and which were allegedly started on order of the Wehrmacht and continued on order of Himmler.

In this connection the prosecution bases its case on the following points:

a. on the chemical warfare agents decree of 1 March 1944, which it does not know;

b. on the notations of 11 April 1944 in the diary of the co-defendant Sievers concerning Sievers informing the defendant Karl Brandt about the experiments of professor Hirth;

Further on the claim that the defendant Karl Brandt had a conference with Hirth about the details of these experiments in Natzweiler;

And, finally, on the visits of the defendant Karl Brandt to factories producing chemical warfare agents and their antidotes.

Against that I shall introduce evidence to the effect that the decree of 1 March 1944 contained only a commission for production, but did not, according to its proper meaning, contain any commission for research; I shall do this by examination or presentation of affidavits of the following witnesses; Speer, Schieber, Kehrl, Quasebarth, and Mielenz, and through the examination of the defendant himself. Further through presentation of a letter of 11 October 1944 by Speer to Keitel concerning attitude toward production of gas.

I shall furthermore introduce evidence that the defendant Karl Brandt, after the conclusion of the experiments of Professor Hirth, received only a report on instructions for the treatment of wounds inflicted by chemical warfare agents which was distributed to him without being informed about the method of the experiments in detail. I shall do so by examination of the co-defendant Sievers and the examination of the defendant Brandt himself.

Thereupon I shall introduce evidence that the defendant Karl Brandt did not gain any knowledge about illegal experiments during the visit with Professor Hirth in Strasbourg. I shall do that by examining the defendant himself. And, further, that Professor Hirth complained to Sievers that the Defendant Karl Brandt was not paying any more attention to him. I shall do that by examining the co-defendant Sievers.

Finally, I stall introduce evidence that even after the promulgation of the chemical warfare agents decree of 1 March 1944 Himmler gave orders for the execution of experiments with N-gas, on his own, by examination of the co-defendant Professor Gebhardt and witness Gonz.

Finally, I shall introduce evidence, of an expert, that experiments with Lost are, within certain limits, internationally customary and regarded as permissible by examination of the export. I mention Professor Flury, but he is very ill and I shall have to call another expert.

We now come to Count E of the indictment, Sulfonamide. The indictment states that from about July 1942 to about September 1943 experiments to investigate the effectiveness of sulfonamide were conducted illegally at the Ravensbruck Concentration Camp for the benefit of the German Armed Forces and that the defendant Karl Brandt was responsible for that.

The charge is based on the following, in detail:

1. On the allegation that the Defendant Karl Brandt participated in the meeting of the Military Medical Academy in Berlin in May 1943 and that he there gained knowledge through a lecture of the illegal experiments: Against to this I shall introduce evidence to the effect a) that from the report of the Berlin meeting it cannot be seen that the experiments were illegal.I shall do that by examination of the co-defendant Gebhardt. b) that the Defendant Karl Brandt did not visit the Ravensbruck Camp and did not participate in the experiments by examination of the co-defendant Fisher and the defendant himself; and finally, that the defendant Karl Brandt did not have any conferences in the sense of experiments on human beings with the interested parties by examination of the co-defendants Professor Rostock and Professor Handloser.

I now come to Count F of the Indictment, Transplantations and Regenerations. The indictment charges that from about September 1942 to about December 1943 illegal experiments on human beings were conducted at Ravensbruck and that the defendant Karl Brandt was responsible for this.

The charge is based on his presence at the meeting of the Military Medical Academy in Berlin in May 1943, where reports were made about the experiments.

Against this, evidence will be presented that the Defendant Karl Brandt was not present during the decisive lecture about the transplantations and did not gain any knowledge about the manner of their execution by examination of the co-defendants himself.

Now, Count H of the Indictment, Hepatitis. According to the Indictment from June 1943 to January 1945 experiments with Hepatitis were conducted on human beings in the camps Sachsenhausen and Hatzweiler in the interest of the German Armed Forces. To the extent that the experiments in the Dachau concentration camp formed the substance of the evidence, presented by the prosecution, no position will be taken in regard to them, since these experiments are not the subjects of the indictment.

The Defendant Karl Brandt is charged with having carried out the experiments in Sachsenhausen through the physician Dr. Dohmen, whom he commissioned, and is charged with having known about and promoted similar experiments in Natzweiler in the year 1944.

In answer to this, I shall introduce evidence to show the following:

First, that the Defendant Karl Brandt never engaged in or promoted research on Hepatitis and that Dr. Dohmen never worked on order of the Defendant Karl Brandt. I shall do so by examination or affidavit of the witness Professor Gutzeit, of the co-defendant Professor Rostock and the defendant himself.

Further, that the Defendant Karl Brandt was in no way connected with the experiments with Hepatitis which were planned in Natzweiler and that these were not undertaken, by examination of the Defendant himself.

3. That the Defendant Karl Brandt was in no way connected with the giving of the order for or the direction of the Hepatitis experiments and that he neither spoke to nor corresponded with the business manager of the Reich Research Council about this question: by examination of the witness Mentzel, business manager of the Reich Research Council and the defendant Sievers:

4. That the Defendant Karl Brandt, with the exception of the Document NO-010, that is, letter from Gravitz to Himmler, was never mentioned in connection with Hepatitis research.

Finally, that the opinion of the co-defendant Rudolf Brandt about the knowledge of the Defendant Karl Brandt of these experiments is not based on actual facts, by examination of the co-defendant Rudolf Brandt, who at that time made this assertion.

I shall further produce an expert opinion to the effect that Hepatitis is not a fatal or painful illness and that experiments cannot have a fatal effect, by written expert opinion (possible examination) of the expert Professor Meythaler. I mention here that he is sick in bed. Under the circumstances I shall have to call another expert.

I now come to Count J of the Indictment, Typhus. According to the Indictment, the experiments from about December 1941 to February 1945 in Buchenwald and Natzweiler were carried out for the benefit of the German Armed Forces.

1. The charge against Karl Brandt regarding Buchenwald is based on the contention that he found out about the experiments, which had already been concluded in February 1942, afterwards, at a meeting of the Military Medical Academy in Hohenlychen in 1944 through a lecture by Dr. Ding and the simultaneous protest of Professor Rose.

In answer to this, evidence will be introduced to the effect that the Defendant Karl Brandt was not present during the previously mentioned lecture of the Hygiene division and that he was not informed about the happenings by examination of the co-defendant Rose and of the defendant himself.

2. The charge against Karl Brandt regarding the experiments in Natzweiler is based on the fact that a carbon copy of the research assignment from the office of the co-defendant Professor Schroeder was sent to the Office for medical Science and Research of the Defendant Brandt.

In answer to this I shall introduce evidence to the effect that from the written research assignment one could not determine where and under what kind of conditions the experiments more to be carried out, by examination of the co-defendants Professor Schroeder, Professor Rostock, Professor Rose and by the examination of the defendant himself.

We are now left with the Experiments with Polygal, Phlogmone experiments, experiments for the preparation of biological warfare, experiments with N-gas.

The prosecution touched upon these experiments during its presentation; they are, however, not contained in the indictment; therefore no position has to be taken with reference to them since they are not a subject of the Indictment.

If the Tribunal should admit the addition of now charges, I apply to reserve right to submit applications for evidence in regard to these counts.

I now come to Count 9 of the Indictment, to the question of Euthanasia.

The charge of the Prosecution is to the effect that (1) between November 1939 and April 1945, in the course of a so-called "euthanasia program", hundreds of thousands of human beings, including foreigners, were killed, and that (2) in connection with this "euthanasia program" collaborating physicians were sent to the extermination camps in the occupied Eastern territories in order to support the mass extermination of Jews there.

The charges in detail under the so-called "euthanasia program" are that the following were killed: a) sick ones, such as insane, incurable sick and deformed children; than concentration camp inmates and foreign workers, firstly for political and racial reasons, and then for inability to work.

The charge against Karl Brandt is based on, firstly, the Euthanasia Decree of 1 September 1939; secondly, participation in the organization for the execution of the "euthanasia program."

Against the authorization for euthanasia, evidence will be presented to show (1) that the Defendant Karl Brandt did not participate in the preliminary discussions, which stretched over years, between Hitler and administrative agencies concerning the introduction of the euthanasia law, by examination or affidavit of the witness Lammers, of the co-defendants Blome, Brack, and of the defendant himself; further, that the authorization, in spite of the secrecy observed, was considered by all state agencies concerned to be a legally binding law, by examination or affidavit, of the witness Dr. Lammers, Brack, Schwarz, Schulze, Engel and by the examination of the defendant himself; (3) that the contents of the law referred only to German citizens whose life, after a critical examination of the state of health from the medical and the human point of view, was judged to be nothing but pain, by examination of the defendant himself and of the co-defendant Brack. Further, that war wounded and those injured at work, whose injury was the cause of their ill health, were to be eliminated from consideration for euthanasia, by examination or affidavit of the witnesses Schaub, Engel, of the co-defendant Brack and of the defendant himself. That the Defendant Karl Brandt represented exclusively these points of view, by examination of the witnesses Oeynhauser or Pohlmann or Schwerin-Krosigk and by submission of an affidavit of Woermann (He is the present leader of the Mental Institution at Bethel), and an affidavit by Schmundt.

6. That cases of euthanasia proposed in the fall of 1941 on the basis of the medically established case history and under the Euthanasia Decree were forbidden by direct order of hitler, by examination of the witnesses Heide, Ehlich, Engel and the co-defendant Brack and the defendant himself; finally, that the Defendant Karl Brandt, when, after the prohibition of euthanasia, he heard that it was allegedly performed in 1944 to 1945 in institutions in Saxony and in Pomerania, reported this fact immediately to Beuhler, Hitler and Martin Bormann in order to have it stopped. I shall show that by examination of the witnesses Klepfer and Schaub.

To support the charge of being guilty of euthanasia by virtue of participation in organization, the Prosecution has submitted an affidavit of the co-defendant Brack, which is the Document NO 426. Proof of the incorrectness or this affidavit, which was not subject to cross-examination will be given by examination of the co-defendant Brack himself; further by a presentation of the new charts concerned in the execution of the euthanasia program. I shall show that by the examination of the co-defendant Brak, and the witnesses, or the submission of affidavits of these witnesses. Proof will further be given that the Defendant Karl Brandt had no organizational part at any time in the execution of euthanasia, by examination of the co-defendant Brack and the witnesses Morgen, Erlich, Schwarz; and, further, that the Defendant Karl Brandt had no part in the procedure of having sick persons judged by experts, by examination of the witness Heide and of the co-defendant Brack.

I shall bring proof that the negotiations with Professor Rose concerning transfer of a mental institution to him had no connection with the execution of euthanasia; by examination of the co-defendant Rose and of the defendant himself. Finally, I shall bring proof that the Defendant Karl Brandt did not have to assume the execution or supervision of euthanasia in his official capacity as Hitler's escort physician by examination or affidavits of the witnesses Schaub, Engel.

III. Against the charge of extermination under the guise of euthanasia, evidence will be presented (1) that this measure took place only after euthanasia was forbidden in the fall of 1941, without the participation or knowledge of the Defendant Karl Brandt, by examination of the Defendant Karl Brandt himself.

I shall bring proof that the euthanasia performed in the concentration camps under the code name of 14 F 13 indicates a measure undertaken by the Economic and Administrative Main Office (WVHA), and that the code name 14 F 13as a sign of the filing system of that office. I shall show that by examination and affidavit of the witness Morgen; (2) that the measures of the Labor Offices, ordering a transfer of invalid workers to mental institutions, had no connection with the agency of the Defendant Karl Brandt, by examination of the witness Seldte and of the defendant himself. I shall further bring proof (3) that "Action Brandt", mentioned in the affidavit of the witness Schmidt, which was not submitted, is a classification which represented a certain priority a) in the economic production of medical supplies b) in the repair and construction program for medical buildings. (This included also the special hospital installations of the "Action Brandt", which were built by Karl Brandt from 1941 on in the districts under special danger of air raids.) I shall bring that proof by examination of the witnesses Schieber, Hoerlein, Rostock, Handloser, Grabe, Schroeder; information given by the directors of the hospitals and special installations will be presented. I shall further bring proof that the Defendant Karl Brandt had no connection with an order to starve the sick persons in the mental institutions and never demanded that the rations for these institutions should be reduced, proof; examination of the witness Backe.

As far as the charge is based on the affidavit of the witness Sprauer, NO 818, the defense objects to the use of this affidavit until it is possible to cross examine; I reserve the right to make later applications in this connection.

Evidence will be presented on the judging of the illnesses (and deformities) as well as their course and life expectancy — as far as they were affected by the Euthanasia Authorization of 1 September 1939, by the examination of the expert Professor Geuhlce. Professor Siegmund will probably not be able to appear before March, so I should have to confine myself to Professor Geuhle.

A written opinion on euthanasia will be presented from the point of view of medical history by Professor Diepken; from the point of view of forensic medicine by Professor Meuller-Hoss.

Concerning legal, moral and medical conceptions of the permissibility of euthanasia I shall submit a number of excerpts from international literature, with comments of doctors, theologists, and jurists.

The question of the dispatching of doctors for participation in the extermination of Jews in the camps in the East has been discussed under Count I, sterilization.

I now come to the last Count of the Indictment, Membership in the Organization of the SS. Evidence will be presented, on this count, that (1) the Defendant Karl Brandt was only a pro forma member of the SS. I shall show that by examination or affidavit of the co-defendant Blome, and further, that the Defendant Karl Brandt exercised no activity in the General SS or the Waffen SS, by examination or affidavit of the witnesses Berger, Eppenau, and of the co-defendant Genzken.

I shall bring proof that the Defendant Karl Brandt was not Himmler's medical advisor, and that the SS was forbidden to contact him in medical matters, by examination of the do-defendant Gebhardt and Genzken.

I shall further bring proof that the Defendant Karl Brandt was shunned by the extremists in the Party and that he was opposed, by Himmler, Goebbels, and Bormann, and which opposition finally resulted in his being condemned to death, by examination or affidavit of the witness Speer and the examination of the defendant himself. Further, I shall bring proof that the Defendant Karl Brandt was asked for assistance by important victims of political persecution, who considered him a politically objective and critical man, and that he promoted their interests, by submission of affidavits of Gerstenmeier, Meyer-Boeckhoff, Buerger-Prinz, Schacht, et al. I shall finally bring proof that the Defendant Karl Brandt, in his external conduct, was not an extremist, by submission of statements and persons removed from National Socialism.

And this is the end of my statement.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now recess.

(A recess was taken.)