1947-02-07, #2: Doctors' Trial (late morning)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
RE-EXAMINATION OF KARL BRANDT - Continued
BY DR. SERVATIUS:
Q: Witness, do you believe that it is correct to know whether the people with whom you collaborate are physically and mentally healthy or whether they are considered as suffering severely?
A: It certainly would be decisive to know about the possibility of efficiency of his collaborators.
Q: Do you believe that it is important for the state to know whether the responsible politicians or other personalities are physically and mentally competent?
A: The same thing as what I have just said will apply in this case an even to a larger extent.
Q: And do you believe that applies still more if the state is in danger as a result of the war?
A: That would be the same thing for both cases; and I would even say that in the last case it would be more acute.
Q: Do you believe that the state is entitled to make this information available to it?
A: The institutions within the state were from the very beginning following this procedure. For example, in this case I can refer to the Wehrmacht where losses on a large scale or even smaller losses were reported through normal channels.
Q: Witness, I am asking you once more to look at Document NO-119, which was presented yesterday in the course of the cross examination. This is a letter according to which doctors were told that they did not have to maintain their secrecy any more; and I want you to take a look at Page 3. Then I want to read the text to you once more. It is stated there:
Physicians, practitioners, and dentists are not only relieved from secrecy towards the General Commissioner Brandt but I am now obligating them to report immediately after their diagnosis of a serious and progressive disease to a person occupying a leading and responsible position within the state, the party, the Lehrmacht, the economy, and so on, and then to inform me for my own information. 23 December 1942. (Signed) Adolf Hitler.
In your opinion does this request violate the oath of Hippocrates? Is something being demanded here which the physician from his professional ethics should refuse?
A: In general the physician is obligated to maintain secrecy about what he finds out in the course of his profession and not to pass on any information. He is relieved from this moral law at the very moment when his knowledge implies a general danger because a physician knows that in some cases, for instance, in the case of the dangerous insane patient, he of course is obligated to impart the Knowledge which he has gained in practicing his profession and obligated to pass it on for general safety. Then the general interest exists; and it is far above the interest of the individual, patient. Therefore there can be exceptions. In the previously mentioned questions there is a reference toward the necessity, resulting from the decree of the 23rd of December 1942.
Q: Do you know the history and the origin of this decree?
A: Yes.
Q: What were the reasons for it?
A: There were two acute cases; in one case a gauleiter and in another case a general became insane. The physicians who were treating them, especially those of the general, maintained secrecy and carried out a treatment for a period of two years without any information being imparted to the public. These precise cases were the causes of this decree.
Q: And the obligation to maintain secrecy has been determined by law?
A: Yes.
Q: Was this is the only case where an exception was made from the obligation to maintain secrecy or were there other cases where reports had to be submitted about diseases?
A: I can once more refer to the military procedure. That is about the only thing that I remember at the moment.
Q: In the hospital is there an obligation to report?
A: Yes, naturally.
Q: Therefore I can conclude from your statements that the interests of the individual under certain circumstances must be subordinated to the interests of the public?
A: Yes.
Q: Witness, today several documents were presented to you about drinking water experiments and food and the testing of ointment. Now, first of all I want to ask you, is there any difference between experiments which were carried out for purposes of research and experiments in practice which were being carried cut with drugs?
A: Before a drug can be used in practice, theoretical laboratory preliminary tests are usually made. Under some circumstances certain experiments are carried out on animals; and it, of course, depends on what drug is concerned.
Q: In testing and practice there is a fundamental difference from making experiments in research?
A: From a certain period of time let us assume that a drug is ready for practical use and from that moment on this drug is used in such a way as though it had already been tested for years in practice.
Q: Witness, in your interrogation you have stated your views with regard to the individual experiments and you have judged them with regard to their necessity and with regard to the volunteers. Will you please tell us something about what has been mentioned today? Perhaps first of all you can tell us something about the question of drinking water, that is decontaminated water.
A: I want to state in connection with this that I am not acquainted with the exact procedure. The document shows that the testing of this decontaminated water no doubt already had behind it a long period of preliminary testing in laboratories. After all, those are special apparati and such apparatus was suggested for production.
Q: Witness, will you give me a brief statement as to the danger of the experiments which have been presented here?
A: I want to describe them as negative because the document itself set forth that no danger was implicated. In time of war the production and preparation of apparatus for the decontamination of drinking water is of the highest importance.
Q: How can you judge in this case the question of the volunteers?
A: In this case I cannot judge whether these experiments were carried out on volunteers or not.
Q: You used the words "troop experiments." Is a troop experiment a voluntary experiment?
A: A troop experiment in my opinion is quite natural. An order is issued on the basis of considerations which have been made previously; and then within the unit a corresponding order is issued to test and to carry out the experiment. The question of using volunteers or not using volunteers is of subordinate importance in this case because in the imposition of such an experiment the danger and other considerations are not even considered.
Q: Were the experiments which were carried out or suggested with regard to concentrated food important experiments?
A: They were important experiments which were not in any way dangerous. They actually meant the contrary. The ration contained twice or more the number of calories; and certainly those who took them were not subjected to any danger.
Q: Can you perhaps describe to us more in detail of what such experiments consisted and with what they dealt? If I am informed correctly, then such food in concentrated form was to be dropped from the air.
A: These were rations which had been computed in relation to the demands of front-line soldiers; and I think that the rations had been set at 3500 calories. This number of calories was to be brought together in as small an area as possible. The selection of special fats, oils, and so on as a substance played an important part in order to fill the intestines. Various kinds of protein had been selected, consisting of various meat substances and various sorts of meat. There were differences which lay within this field.
Q: Was the experiment carried out to see if this food was dangerous to the health of those who were taking it?
A: We wanted to test the composition of these food substances as to what composition would be perhaps the most agreeable and easily digested. However, most of all we wanted to test which would be the most suitable in helping a soldier to carry out his assignment.
Q: Will you please state your view with regard to the question of the treatment of lost burns and also with regard to their danger?
A: Yes, I will mention this phosphorous ointment. I believe that I received such an ointment from a factory with the corresponding label; and it was pointed out that this was particularly suitable for the treatment of phosphorous burns. We tested this ointment and used it in our clinic at Berlin. However, in order to reach quicker results, I passed this ointment on to other agencies.
Q: Professor, I should now like you to state your views with regard to their danger and importance. We know the rest of the subject.
A: At that period of time such an ointment was very important to us. The danger depends on the size of the phosphorous burns.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, I do not have any further questions for the witness. I would like to clarify a mistake which has been made in the translation. I am informed now that the following has been wrongly translated. We spoke here of "obligations of reporting contagious diseases" and then it was translated as "compulsory reporting of diseases in hospitals". I believe it will suffice for me to point out that this has been a misunderstanding.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that in one of the documents, or in the witness's testimony?
DR. SERVATIUS: This term was probably misunderstood by the interpreter.
THE PRESIDENT: My question for information was whether the mistake was in one of the documents or a mistranslation of witness's oral testimony on the stand.
DR. SERVATIUS: It was a mistake in the oral statements. I do not have any further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness may be excused, there being no further examination of the witness.
MR. HARDY: Prosecution has no further questions, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness may be excused.
DR. SERVATIUS: May it please the Tribunal I now want to call the witness Lammers.
THE PRESIDENT: The Marshal will summon the witness Herr Hans Lammers.
JUDGE SEBRING: Mr. Marshal, place the head phones on the witness.
HANS HEINRICH LAMMERS, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE SEBRING: You will held up your right hand and repeat after me the following oath:
I swear by God, the Almighty and omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. SERVATIUS:
Q: Witness, please state your name and date of birth?
A: Hans Heinrich Lammers. Born on 27 May 1879 at Lubinitz.
Q: What position did you occupy during the War?
A: I was Chief of the Reich Chancellery.
Q: What was your assignment and your activities?
A: The Reich Chancellery was the office of Adolph Hitler in his capacity as Reich Chancellor and it was the agency which normally handled the contacts between the Ministries and the Reich Chancellor as far as no other channel was prescribed. Its main task consisted in the formation of directives, of the legislation, laws, decrees, and Fuehrer decrees which were submitted by the Ministries or which were requested by the Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor.
Q: Witness, I am now handing three decrees to you. According to one the defendant, Karl Brandt, got a special position as Commissioner for the Medical Services and also as Reich Commissioner. Do you know of these decrees?
A: Yes, I know of these decrees.
Q: Did you play a part in their drafting?
A: Yes, I have helped to draft them and I have submitted these three decrees to the Fuehrer for his signature.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, have these documents been admitted in evidence in the case?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: For the sake of the record, will you refer to the numbers of the exhibits?
DR. SERVATIUS: They were presented as exhibits.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you refer both to the document numbers and exhibit numbers so the record will identify them?
DR. SERVATIUS: They are: Document NO-080 — that is Exhibit 5, document NO-081 — that is Exhibit 6, and document N0-082 — which is Exhibit 7.
BY DR. SERVATIUS:
Q: Witness, will you now state your view with regard to the decrees, first of all with regard to the first decree. What was the purpose of this first decree?
A: The purpose of the first decree was to appoint a Commissioner who was to carry out the coordination between the interests of the Military Medical Services and the Civil Medical Services. Furthermore, it sets forth that the person to be appointed Commissioner for the Medical Services, Dr. Brandt, was to handle certain special tasks in the Military and Civil sectors, also for the coordination between the two sectors, and particularly he was given the right to be constantly informed and given authority to include himself in his responsibility.
Q: As a result of this did Karl Brandt become the superior of other officers?
A: In my opinion Professor Brandt did not become the superior of the agencies which have been enumerated expressly here. He only had the right to issue directives according to State legal procedures which we used. Such a right to issue directives did not yet establish a superior relationship. A typical example for this is probably the Commissioner for the Four Year Plan, Goering. He had the extensive right to issue directives toward all agencies of State and Party and he still did not become superior of these agencies. This decree had also been intended that Brandt did not become superior. He could only issue orders and issue directives if he wanted to include himself and he had that special right.
This authority depended on the fact that a certain directive existed — that he issued such a directive to these agencies for the fulfillment of his tasks. And, such a directive had to be complied. with a by all agencies and he could only give such a directive in two field of his special task. He was only authorized to issue orders within the frame work of his tasks.
Q: What was the meaning of the second decree?
A: The second decree, in my estimation, is only a relatively unimportant extension of the first decree in which Brandt was appointed to represent tasks and interests of the Medical Services and in this supervision were included certain special tasks in the fields of Science, Research, and organizational establishments a r the distribution and production of medical supplies. He had also been given the authority to appoint certain commissioners and deputies for the fulfillment of his tasks.
Q: In the order regarding science and research, what did the subject deal with?
A: This individually were the orders which Dr. Brandt received, I cannot remember it all. I only know that they were in the fields of the Medical Services or that they were connected with this field.
Q: Now, give us the reasons for the second decree, and what is its importance?
A: In the year 1944 the Fuehrer wanted a considerable extension of the authority of Dr. Brandt for the fulfillment of the task which had been assigned to him expressly. I had several notes handed notes me. I received the order to draft this decree. I myself maintained the point of view that the new authority would have to be limited that it would have to limit the competencies with regard to the other agencies of the medical Services. I feared that extensive authority would lead to strong competition in the administrative field. Therefore, as I can remember exactly, I drafted approximately four different decrees in which, first of all, I precisely limited the competencies and in the third one less, and then in the fourth and fifth decrees which was not limiting them very close.
I myself favored the most limited draft for giving the authority. The Fuehrer, however, favored the most extensive version, that is, the version which was contained in the decree of 25 August 1944. For the previously mentioned reason I did not like this very much and I made the remark that it would be better to transfer the whole Medical Service from the Reich Ministry of Interior and the other Ministries and to appoint a Minister of Public Health. Then the Fuehrer replied, "That is exactly what I do not want.
Brandt is only to have as free hand as possible for his special task, an extensive right to issue directives." Because this as legally of the utmost importance to me I expressly stated, that as a result of the third decree the authority of Brandt from the first and second decrees were not rescinded and the Fuehrer answered this question in the affirmative and as a result this result this third decree also contains the words "at the same time". At the same time has was Reich Commissioner for Sanitation and Health System and this was to show that the two other decrees and authorities were continued, in existence. However, as a result of this I then publicized the third decree in the Reich legal code without rescinding the two other decrees because the first two were to remain effective. In this decree, namely in the first, it is stated that the main direction was with the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service and Chief of Health Service and Ministry of the Interior, competent State Secretary, and then what is not contained in the decree, naturally, to the Reich Ministry of Interior what was the superior of the Chief of the Medical Service.
Q: Witness, you are speaking of the right to issue directives. Did the first and second decrees already issued give such authority to issue directives or was this given only in the third decree?
A: Please permit me to look at the decree for a minute.
In the first decree paragraph 3 sets forth that for the special tasks Brandt will receive personal directives from the Fuehrer. However, in the first decree I do not see anything about a right to issue directives and only about the authority to intervene in a responsible manner. Of course, this may have meant a certain right to issue directives. In the second decree I do not believe that this is particularly mentioned. But then the third decree sets forth that Brandt is authorized to issue directives to organization of the state, Party, and Wehrmacht.
Q: It is therefore correct that only from August 1944 on such a right issue directives had been specifically stated?
A: It was only specifically stated in the third decree.
Q: Witness, did Brandt, as a result of this, become the head of the entire medical service?
A: This question must be answered in the negative in my opinion because as I have already stated, he was not the superior of the other agencies of the health and medical service but was only equipped with the right to issue directives for certain specialized tasks and this right to issue directives he could exercise in accordance with the directives of the Fuehrer and according to his own estimation. The head of the medical service, like a Minister for Public Health, he could not be. First of all, it had been specifically stated he was not to occupy that position and secondly, with the small administrative machine at his disposal and with the limited amount of funds which had been granted to him for his tasks by me — and I had to grant them because I had been ordered to do so — then he could not have fulfilled all the tasks presented by the medical and health service.
Q: Is it correct that he was only to have a free hand for the execution of the special tasks which were given to him?
A: According to the directive and motives which were given to. me in drafting the decree, this authority was only to extend to these special task whose extent was, however, not known to me.
Q: Will you please put these decrees aside and we will come to a different subject.
That is the question of euthanasia. Do you know that a solution of the euthanasia program was suggested by Hitler?
A: Yes, I know about that.
Q: When did you first hear about this?
A: I heard of it for the first time in the year 1939, in the fall of that year. In the fall of 1939, it may have been at the end of September of the beginning of October, the State Secretary Dr. Conti, the Chief of the Civil Medical Service in the Reich Ministry of the Interior, was called by the Fuehrer to attend a conference. I was also consulted for this conference. On that occasion the Fuehrer discussed in my presence for the first time the problem of euthanasia. He stated that he considered it appropriate that life unfit for living of severely insane patients should be removed by intervention which would result in death. As far as I can remember, he named as an example the severe mental diseases in the course of which mental patients could only be bedded on boards or excelsior because they could not keep clean and in cases where patients took their own excrement as food, and in connection with this he stated that it probably would be most appropriate to exterminate the lives which were unfit to live of such patients.
He also started that this also meant a certain saving in hospitals, physicians, and nursing personnel. In my presence he issued the order to State Secretary Dr. Conti to occupy himself with this question and to use my support in handling the legal aspects. Dr. Conti replied that he also approved from the medical standpoint the extermination of such life unfit for living and that he would examine the question in detail. I had not been prepared to any extent for this subject and at that time I only made a very general statement that the subject included innumerable problems not only of a medical kind but also, to a large extent, inner political, foreign political, and also clerical political problems, and also problems of a religious and ethical kind, and I also stated that it did not seem appropriate to me to select a time of war for the solution of such problem and that the matter should be postponed, if possible.
I then stated further that if it had to be carried out under all circumstances then it would be only a question of establishing a law provided with all legal guarantees. The Fuehrer did not go into my statements in detail and stated that this still could be examined, but he maintained the order which he had given to Conti and dismissed us.
Q: At that time was the name of Professor Brandt mentioned?
A: During the discussion the name of Professor Brandt, according to my recollection, was not mentioned nor were any other names mentioned. The discussion only referred to the general solution of the problem and, immediately following the discussion, I told Dr. Conti I would think over this matter once more and that I would contact him later. I then began to draft a law which, as I imagined, would contain the legal guarantees which were necessary under all circumstances — exact limitations of the most severe cases which had to be determined by medical men, and exemptions which were to be made, for example, for those patients who had become insane during the war, during maneuvers and other civil service, or so-called "old age insanity" and similar cases. In my opinion it was also necessary to specifically state that only German insane patients should be subjected to this procedure in order to express the fact that foreigners would be exempted.
Q: Witness, these are views which you maintained with regard to the problem, However, that was not the subject of the discussion.
A: At that time this was not the subject of the discussion but I only finished this and I waited now for State Secretary Conti to contact me in accordance with the instructions he had received.
Q: Did Conti do this?
A: Conti refrained from doing this. Only after several weeks he telephoned me and told me that he had been relieved of this assignment by the Fuehrer and at that I considered this matter as closed. However, in the year 1940 I again had to occupy myself with the question. In the spring of 1940 Reichsleiter Bouhler visited me. He was the Chief of the Chancellery of the Fuehrer, NSDAP, and he visited me in my railroad coach in Belgium and told me that he was just coming from the Fuehrer and the Fuehrer now wanted to turn over the solution of the euthanasia question to him. I discussed the severe objections existing against that with him and also submitted the draft of the law to him and told him this would still be a solution if this subject could be approached in such a way so that a publicized Reich law was established.
Bouhler didn't seem to approve of my draft and did not refuse it, but he told me that the procedure to be applied could be routed through administrative channels.
At the conclusion I told Bouhler that I would have to report to the Fuehrer once more about the matter. I did this a short time later. At that time the Fuehrer read over the draft of my law. He did not expressively disapprove of it; however he stated that for political reasons such a law seemed undesirable to him. Subsequently I did not hear anything more about the subject.
Q: At that time, during the discussion which you had with him, did the Fuehrer mention the name of Professor Brandt?
A: That name was not mentioned.
Q: Witness, when did you hear of the authority which actually was given to Brandt and Bouhler?
A: I was not informed about the authority which had been given to Brandt and Bouhler through official channels. As I have previously said, after many months, it may have been early in 1940, I received knowledge that action was actually under way of which I had not previously known. At that time I found out that the Fuehrer had actually given an authority to Brandt and Bouhler for the execution of the euthanasia program. This authority did not pass through my hands. Only in the course of discussions which later on I had with the Reich Minister of Justice I found out and was informed about the contents of these authorities.
Q: Now what sort of complaints were there which came to your attention?
A: These complaints were not very numerous. First of all they same from individual persons and there were some from relatives of those insane patients who had died. However, the most important complaints came from the church. I also can remember that there were two complaints which I believed it to be my duty to follow up immediately. One was from the Wuerttemberg Landes Bishop, Wurm, the evangelical Bishop, and the second came from the Catholic Bishop, Count Gahlen; I believe that he lived in Muenster. These complaints were officially handled by me; I passed them on to the Reich Minister of the Interior, who was competent for this, and I brought them to the attention of the Fuehrer; I also discussed the question with the Reich Minister of Justice. After the complaints were drawn to the attention of the Fuehrer the whole action was discontinued. However, I did not get any official information about this either.
I had not been consulted but I only obtained knowledge of the fact that in the year 1941, this may have been in the spring or the summer, the action was discontinued.
Q: Witness, weren't there also complaints by prosecutor's courts and other authorities?
A: Yes, we had such complaints, especially by judges and guardians who had to care for their adopted children. I followed up this matter and I contacted the Reich Minister of Justice. The Reich Minister of Justice started an investigation and I can remember exactly that two detailed reports arrived, one from the General. Attorney at Stuttgart and the second one from the Chief Prosecutor at Naumburg. These reports occupied themselves with these questions. The Reich Minister of Justice passed them on to me and I took them to the Fuehrer and then passed them on for further handling to the Reich Minister of the Interior. You have these complaints here in the form of documents and they have been presented to me in previous interrogations.
Q: Witness, what did the Reich Minister of Justice do then? Did he consider the matter illegal and did he declare it illegal or was it legalized in the end?
A: The Reich Minister of Justice, Dr. Guertner, came to see me and at that time he was in a great difficulty. He had grave misgivings and he did not know what to do. I advised him that he could only report to the Fuehrer — I myself could not give him any advice. I considered a law necessary under all circumstances. I had played no part in granting the authority and now I could also not take a stand at this time. However, the Reich Minister of Justice, Guertner, as far as I know, did not consult the Fuehrer but he probably maintained the point of view that in issuing the authority the Fuehrer had laid down a law which he had to comply with. I do not know—this is only an assumption on my part. Any later procedure which he wanted to do in this matter, was stopped.
Q: Do you know how the authority was distributed between Bouhler and Brandt
A: I do not know the least thing about it. I only know that only Bouhler confronted me in the matter in the spring of 1941. Brandt has never made his appearance before me.
I know that Bouhler has made his appearance with the Reich Minister of Justice. However, I have never dealt with Brandt at all in the whole matter, neither before the action or after the action, and I have only discussed with him a long time after the action, when I was a prisoner together with him at Mandorf, in Luxembourg, in 1945. However, I knew that the authority was in the name of Bouhler and Brandt.
DR. SERVATIUS: May it please the Tribunal, I do not have any more questions to put to the witness.
DR. FROESCHMANN: (Defense counsel for Defendant Viktor Brack): Mr. President, I want to ask the witness a number of questions. However, I believe that the time would now be appropriate to call a recess.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess until 1:30 o'clock.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours.)