1947-02-10, #4: Doctors' Trial (late afternoon)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session. May it please your Honor the defendant Oberhauser is absent in accordance with the approval of the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary General will note for the record that the defendant, Herta Oberhauser, is absent with the consent of the Court.
The question of admitting an exhibit was being considered by the Court before the recess.
DR. FLEMMING: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal is ready to rule on that question. The Court has considered the document of the defendant Brandt as Exhibit No. 1, and without establishing any rule which will be a precedent in any future case, each case as it arises will be individually considered by the Tribunal. The Tribunal admits in evidence the defendant's Karl Brandt, Exhibit No. i.
DR. SERVATIUS (Attorney for defendant Karl Brandt):
Document No. 2, Exhibit No. 2, I submit the periodic list of experiments; it hasn't been made ready in the English yet, and it will be submitted to the Tribunal in the English translation at a later date.
As Exhibit No. 3, I am submitting the chart, which can be seen on the wall, together with an affidavit of the co-defendant Brack, which was already read into the record. This will become Exhibit No. 3 A; it is Document KB 15, Exhibit No. 3; KB 8, Exhibit 3 A.
THE PRESIDENT: The Court will require that copies be furnished to each member of the Tribunal.
DR. SERVATIUS: They haven't been made available as yet since the mimeographing department is overburdened, but they will be submitted to the Tribunal at a later date. Mr. President, I submit the originals and I shall see to it that the Tribunal will receive their copies.
THE PRESIDENT: That will be sufficient; you may submit the copies.
JUDGE SEBRING: Is it the chart, Doctor, or Brandt's affidavit that you are asking to be submitted as Exhibit 3?
DR. SERVATIUS: The chart as 3, and the attached affidavit as 3-A. I further submit as Exhibit 4-A the Document KB-29, which was the document of the prosecution, NO-150. That will become Exhibit 4-A and 4-B. It was already submitted during the course of the examination.
MR. HARDY: What does that document refer to that you just mentioned, Doctor?
DR. SERVATIUS: The contents of the document constitute a letter by Bouhler according to which he has to give directives with reference to the execution of euthanasia.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, where is that document to be found? Is that contained in Brandt's document book?
DR. SERVATIUS: No, it is not contained in the document book. It was submitted during the examination. It was submitted by the prosecution and you will receive copies later, and I have already submitted the photostat.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I do not recall that Document NO-150 was submitted by the prosecution. I believe it was submitted by defense counsel in examination of Brandt, and I imagine English copies are available and I will try to assist Dr. Servatius in getting them for you.
DR. SERVATIUS: It has been submitted to the Language Division but was not yet returned. I shall submit it as soon as I have it.
I am now offering an affidavit of Miss Alike Krohne. She is an employee who worked in the office of Brandt. It can be found in the document book, page number 7 under KB-4. I have a technical question in that connection. There are two document books. This is contained in document book number 1, page 7.
THE PRESIDENT: Copies of this document book furnished to the Tribunal do not have the pages numbered. Where do we find this document?
DR. SERVATIUS: There is an index at the beginning of the document book, and the document books are numbered according to their figures so that you can easily find document KB-4.
THE PRESIDENT: Unfortunately, the index page of the Brandt document book 1 is illegible.
DR. SERVATIUS: Your Honor, it is page number 8. Your Honor, the English text isn't quite legible.
THE PRESIDENT: we have found the document, Karl Brandt Exhibit 4.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, I would be grateful if you would tell me how you want me to read the documents. Will it be sufficient if I just roughly tell you the content and then cite certain passages, or is it necessary to read the document in its entirety? I may point out that during the trial before the IMT it was considered sufficient if merely the essential points were referred to in order to shorten the proceedings.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal is of the opinion that that will be sufficient, to call attention to essential portions of the document.
MR. HARDY: May it please the Tribunal, I have two questions to ask Dr. Servatius in connection with this affidavit.
JUDGE SEBRING: May I ask first, that is coming in as what exhibit number?
DR. SERVATIUS: It will be Exhibit Number 5.
MR. HARDY: In connection with Exhibit Number 5, as I see it from my copy, I believe this document was not signed in the presence of Dr. Servatius, and not having the rules of the Tribunal before me now in connection with the procedure necessary to receive a document here in evidence in good form, I question the right to admit this into evidence due to the fact that such certificate that it is a correct signature was not obtained by Dr. Servatius or in his presence. It shows on the face of the document that the affiant is from Bremen. I reserve the right now to object to this document later after I have had time to peruse the rule of the Tribunal in connection with the admissibility of affidavits.
THE PRESIDENT: The prosecution may reserve the right to object to the document.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, I signed this document and thereby certified that it was signed in my presence.
I believe it is an error on the part of the prosecution to say that just because the woman was in Bremen it wasn't signed in my presence; it actually was. If this explanation doesn't suffice I would have to bring a new certification of the witness saying that she signed this in my presence.
MR. HARDY: The prosecution accepts the word of counsel that it was signed in his presence and refrains from objection.
THE PRESIDENT: To save future trouble a corrected certificate should be found showing that the witness signed the document in presence of counsel.
DR. SERVATIUS: The witness Krohne was employed as a secretary with the defendant Brandt from the beginning of the war until January 1944, and she says that the agency was normally in the Reich Chancellery but to that in reality Brandt worked in the surgical university clinic. She knows about the order of March 1944 which referred to the anti-chemical warfare counts and she says that that decree was very brief. I quote:
I definitely know that it did not contain directives on experiments with poison gas nor did I see later on in the correspondence or elsewhere anything that would have intimated that Professor Brandt had anything to do with such.
End quote.
Then the witness refers to a radio interview regarding the office of Professor Brandt and she says the following, and I quotes:
In January 1945 Professor Brandt participated in a radio interview by Dr. Ott in the Berlin Broadcasting Station and made the following declaration as to the functions of his new agency. I remember that upon the question as to the character of his position towards the other agencies of the Reich he replied that one had to consider his position as that of a sort of 'differentiate'.
The witness continues and I quote:
I wrote that interview together with the secretary Hanke at the time and was also present when it was being recorded and was comparing the transmission with my manuscript.
Finally the witness states that the professor Brandt was active as an Oberarzt in addition to his other duties, in addition to his other organizational duties.
This brings me to my next document which can be found in the document book under KB-5. It is an affidavit made by a certain Dr. Richard Reinhardt who was commissioned to institute the treasury and who received all the material connected with that agency. The witness, as a member of the Wehrmacht was commissioned and assigned to Agency Brandt in 1945. My text by error has 1943; that is, he was only assigned to this agency near the end of the war out on the basis of his special tasks received insight into the entire files. He settles in detail the structure of the office; he pictures the legal foundation; and he confirms what we already know from the testimony of witness Dr. Lammers, namely, the size of the office, the scarcity of funds, and then comes to the question of euthanasia, and in that connection he says, and I quotes:
I can give the assurance that among the controlled cash receipts no items pertained to or were in connection with the euthanasia program.
The witness knows something about the gas defense decree of the 1st of March 1944 which was recorded under the designation, Noli, and in that connection he says the following and I quote:
The decree which was filed among tie usual secret records of the agency had been handed over to me by the secretary for a quick study. I do not recollect its wording exactly but it reads about as follows: 'charge my General Commissioner Professor Dr. Karl Brandt to intervene authoritatively in questions of gas defense. The Reich Minister for Armament and War Production is instructed to give Professor Brandt admittance to tie assembly shops at any time and to offer him all necessary assistance and information he might require.'
I now come to the following document which is Document KB-6 which I offer as Exhibit Number 7. It is the affidavit of another employee, a certain Frau Jutta Rach.
From the 1st of April 1943 until April 1945 she was active in Karl Brandt's office. She was in charge of keeping the registry and she became familiar with the contents of the records kept there, amongst them Hitler's initial euthanasia decree to Brandt and Bouhler, and in that connection she says the following and I quote:
With reference to this euthanasia decree there was no special correspondence and what there was only in the form of reports from doctors or parents on births of physically or mentally handicapped children for whom euthanasia was requests. They were dealt with only insofar as it was advised to consult recommended medical authorities for study of the case or to get financial assistance. Approvals for the requested euthanasia were never given.
The witness further makes statements about the persons that had access to the office and says the following, and I quote:
Reichsleiter Bouhler and the agency chief Brack I am acquainted with as members of the Fuehrer's Chancellery. There was no official correspondence with them in any way connected with euthanasia or Reich committee. The names of Professor Dr. Hayde, Professor Dr. Nietsche are unknown to me. If they had anything to do with an agency in my time I would necessarily have known them.
The names of Dr. Pfannmueller, Schumann and Falken-Hauser were not know to me in the agency either. Correspondence with Dr. Linden's office, so far as I know, was limited to bombed out hospitals and their transfer. There was no correspondence either with Dr. Conti in connection with euthanasia and Reich Committee matters. So far as I knew there was also no written correspondence with Blankenburg, Hegener and Haefner. Blankenburg and Haefner are indeed known to me but only for the reason that they worked in the same office building.
I do not know of any discussion on Euthanasia with Bouhler's office. I would have necessity known of this.
I now skip a paragraph and I come to the part where the witness speaks about Bodelschwing, and I quote:
I further testify that at that time professor Brandt enjoyed thoroughly friendly relations with Pastor von Bodelschwing. In the Summer of 1943 I was present when Pastor von Bodelschwing once.spent a whole afternoon as a guest in Professor Brandt's residence, and both of them conversed very unreservedly. I can further recall that Pastor von Bodelschwing once spoke publicity of the fact that his institutions had been spared such encroachments.
I now come to Document KB 7, which I am offering as Exhibit No. 8.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment. What document did you offer as Brandt's Exhibit 6.
DR. SERVATIUS: Exhibit 6 is Document Karl Brandt, KB 5, and the document which was just road, KB 6, will become Exhibit No. 7. That is the document of Jutta Rach.
I now come to Document KB 7, which will become Exhibit No. 8. It is an affidavit of the nurse Netty Germann. It only has a general content and shows that the defendant Karl Brandt was active a s physician in the clinic and that he carefully cared for his patients. This is being submitted in order to show in what manner the activity of Karl Brandt was exercised and how he was engaged in his various tasks.
And, the Document KB 8 has already been submitted, and that brings me down to Document KB 9, which will become Exhibit No. 9. This is an affidavit of Professor Werner Schulemann. Doctor Schulemann is a specialist in Malaria research, and I quote:
During the war I was a full professor of pharmacology at the University of Bonn and was a consultant at the Special-Malaria Hospitals Godeshohe and Rheinblick in Bad Godesberg, in the Army Command District VI. In these hospitals in connection with my institute Malaria research was carried on, and carried on in accordance with the methods recognized and customary with specialists at home and abroad.
I came in contact with Professor Karl Brandt in the Summer of 1943 when I approached him in order to make the Malaria hospitals secure from other claims and was successful in winning his help. In the scientific discussions on Malaria research which took place then Professor Karl Brandt never made any suggestions or gave any directions to me, or even made any allusion to the effect that experiments should be performed on human beings in an unlawful manner. In particular, he did not speak of Malaria experiments which had been carried cut in Dachau.
If Professor Karl Brandt had been active in this type of research he would have had to discuss the questions involved with me especially as I am known as a specialist in this field. I received very high scientific distinctions for my achievements in the production of synthetic malaria medicines, among others the Mary-Kingsley medal of the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine in 1938; and after the occupation by the allied troops I immediately got permission to continue the work in my institute. On the basis of all that I know about Professor Brandt. I consider it highly improbable that he had anything to do with criminal experiments, or that he approved of them, asked for them or suggested them.
I met Professor Brandt twice during the war and each time I was pleased at his clear, clean and frankly critical attitude towards the entire development. I emphasize especially his frankness and his understanding for academic-scientific problems.
I drop out Document KB 10, which is the witness Gutzeit, and I submit now Document KB 11, Exhibit No. 10. This is an affidavit of Doctor Schieber. It is designated as Affidavit II, since, more than one was given by him. The witness Schieber speaks about the "Action Brandt". This work was Already mentioned during the course of the proceedings and. he explains the "Action Brandt" as the execution of a medical program. He goes on to speak about these special orders which Brandt received and I quote: This order was issued at the beginning of March 1944 as a parallel to the medical program, "Action Brandt". This decree in its contents, is addressed to the Speer Ministry and was, according to its purpose, immediate production order by which Professor Doctor Karl Brandt was opposed to the manufacture, as a buyer, and conceding the production had full powers of control at the same time.
As far as I remember there was no scientific medical research order for professor Karl Brandt attached to it. We are here concerned with the anti-chemical warfare decree.
And, I now come to the next document which was also made by the witness Schieber. It is KB 12, which I am submitting as Exhibit No. 11. It deals with the fact that Defendant Karl Brandt managed to get animals at great expense in the Summer of 1944, and that he transferred them from Spain to Germany. It says here in order to carry out the task, and we are concerned with biological research parallel to human beings, as certain animal action was started by me and Professor Karl Brandt for the Armament office, of approximately 200,000 Swiss Franks, and after my recognition as Chief of Army Supply Office in October 1944, from the Speer Ministry, I made strenuous efforts together with Professor Karl Brandt to have a large number of animals brought by extremely difficult air transportation from Spain to Germany. These were put at Professor Karl Brandt's disposal for experimental purposes.
I then submit Document KB 13, as Exhibit No. 12. This is an affidavit by the co-defendant Rudolf Brandt, which I am going to read, and I quote:
I, Rudolf Brandt, defendant in Case I before the Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, Germany, have given a series of affidavits which were produced in evidence by the Prosecution during this case. I affirm, under oath, that after having been duly warned that I am liable to punishment if I make a false statement. My statement corresponds to the truth and was made to be offered in evidence at the Military Tribunal I at Nuremberg, Germany.
In this affidavit I have given the the Prosecution, and which were produced as evidence, I declared that toe co-defendant Professor Karl Brandt, surely has had knowledge of the Sterilization and that, of course, he had known of the Euthanasia experiments, and that he surely had known of the Typhus experiments.
I do not have any actual evidence for this statement made by me. I nave signed the affidavit as it was presented to me without proper knowledge and no knowledge of the circumstances, an the fact which justified this conclusion. In one affidavit I declared further that the decree dated 1 March 1944 concerns the chemical warfare agents, had contained an authorization for Professor, Doctor Karl Brandt to sponsor medical research in connection with gas raids, and I mentioned that this concerned experiments.
I have signed this precise wording, although the contents of the decree were not present to my mind. Likewise, I cannot ascertain that from my own knowledge, when Professor, Doctor Karl Brandt, had been informed of the details of the Mustard Gas Experiments.
I further submit the Document KB-14 as Exhibit 13. This is a further affidavit made by the witness Schieber. It concerns a letter from Minister for Armament Speet to the Field Marshal Keitel, which is attached as an annex. The witness here in this affidavit confirms that the text is correct. And, in this connection, I would like to say that he has a copy on his person, only I mention here the omission of the details. I submit this letter in order to prove that in the distribution list at the end of the letter, Karl Brandt was not mentioned, and, therefore, dealt directly with Keitel in matters of as. In the letter itself, the limitations as production are set out.
The next document is an affidavit by the witness Lammers. I am just told by the Prosecution that the original letter is available, with the Prosecution.
MR. HARDY: I do not wish to be understood as saying that I asked Dr. Servatius if the original German document was available. But that I understood him to say that it was available. He has a copy certified by himself.
DR. SERVATIUS: I then have the document KB 16 which I am offering as Exhibit 14. It is a chart on Euthanasia in the Reich Committee which has not been completed as yet. A copy will be presented to the Tribunal at a letter date. We are here merely concerned with the Chart.
THE PRESIDENT: What was the last exhibit before this Chart which counsel has referred to.
DR. SERVATIUS: That was Exhibit 13, Document KB 14.
THE PRESIDENT: That's correct; I have a note of it.
DR. SERVATIUS: Document No. 17 can be left out, since it was made by Lammers, who was examine here. And I now submit Document KB-18 as Exhibit 15, which is a document in the form of an affidavit made by Dr. Werner Kirchert, who was former medical officer of the Waffen-SS, and he was concerned with the leadership of an Euthanasia institution. And I quote from the affidavit:
In September 1939 Reich Physician SS Dr. Grawitz summoned me and asked me to make a list of the German Lunatic asylums and their number of inmates, based on the data in the Reich Medical Calendar.
The reason, I was told, was the fact that because of the evacuation of the Westwall zone the inmates had to be transferred to other asylums. After I had finished compiling the list and had handed it in, Grawitz sent me to Dr. HefelmannChancellery of the Fuehrer-. There I learned that actually it was a matter of euthanasia of the insane, and that the transfer was only a pretext. It was pointed out to me that it was done on direct orders from the Fuehrer and that Reich Leiter Bouhler had been instructed to carry them out. I was very shocked at such an order from the Fuehrer and I spoke again to Dr. Gravitz and had another two r three discussions with Dr. Hefelmann to which Professor Dr. Heyde of Wuerzburg was also called in. The entire euthanasia procedure was still entirely in its early stages and a plan was drafted as to how the matter should be carried out. It was to be done in several institutions. At first 3 institutions in different parts of Germany were mentioned. The insane people concerned who should come under the program were to be selected, whereby Heyde as chief expert reserved the final decision for himself. Everything should be based on strictly medical views and only such persons were to be selected who in a psychiatric meaning could be called "chronically" ill. Heyde himself wanted to visit the lunatic asylums, to select the personnel and instruct it accordingly. As I could not and would not approve of such a plan I told Gravitz that I refused to take over an euthanasia institute. He, therefore, deemed it advisable that I leave Berlin as soon as possible and ordered me to take over a medical company of the Waffen-SS which I did on 7 Oct. 1939. During all the negotiations the names which were mentioned or the persons who took part were:
GRANITZ, HEFFELMANN, HEYDE, BLANKENBURG, BRACK, and BOUHLER. Not a single word was said about Dr. Karl Brandt. Everything at that time was still in the early stages.
I wish to add that I was told at the negotiations in the chancellery of the Fuehrer that euthanasia was regulated by decree of the Fuehrer and also by GOERING's signature, as chairman of the Reich Defense Council. I did however, not see these signatures. Later the problem arose again when I was a department head with National Health Leader Dr. CONTI, namely when at the one of the summer of 1941 the Fuehrer's order come that euthanasia should be stopped. Since approximately at the same time CONTI received a copy of the protest letter of Archbishop Count von GAHIEN of Muenster, in which the latter objected most strongly to the execution of euthanasia, CONTI said something like he had always warned against this unreasonable execution. But here toe the name of Professor Dr. Karl Brandt was never mentioned.
I know nothing of 14 F 13 in concentration camps. From the time of my work with CONTI and. with the Waffen SS I knew that relations between HIMMLER and Dr. Karl BRANDT were strained.
The next document made by factory owner Rueggeberg, which is KB 19, I now offer as Exhibit No. 16. The witness tells about an interview which Pastor Bodelschwingh had with the broadcaster GRAHAM and he says the following, and I quote:
He mentions that being "Questioned by the commentator, Pastor von Bodelschwing said, almost literally, — in any case in effect- "the following, in paragraph two: "You must no t picture Professor BRANDT as a criminal, but rather as an idealist." This radio talk left me under the impression that Pastor BODELSCHWINGH did not agree with the nature of Professor BRANDT's activities, yet he had a favorable opinion of his human qualities."
I am not submitting Document 20, since the witness is going to appear.
Then comes Document No. 21, which I am offering as Exhibit 17. This is an affidavit of the witness Dr. Schnelle, who appears about the "AKTION BRANDT" in a different sense, namely: the transfer of the special hospital institution and the evacuation of patients from cities into that institution.
It is in connection with the suspicion and the charge that the re-transfer of the sick and old was conducted for the purpose of Euthanasia. The witness affirms that these transfers took place because of air raid precautionary measures. Then, I am offering KB No. 22 as Exhibit 18. Again, it is made by the already mentioned Schieber. The affidavit sets forth in detail what was understood by "AKTION BRANDT" namely: the entire medical corps and the furnishing of medical equipment.
The next document is KB 23 which I am offering as Exhibit 19. This is an affidavit made by the successor of Pastor Bodelschwingh, at the mental institution in Bethal near Bielefeld; the witness says, as fellows, and I quote him:
The director of the BODELSCHWINGH institutions in Bethel near Bielefeld, pastor D. Friedrich von BODELSCHWINGH, who died on the 4th of January 1946, has had several discussions with Prof. Dr. Karl BRANDT over the question of "extirpation of life not worth living", in February 1941 and during the following months. Pastor D. BODELSCHWINGH has reported about this only very discretely within a very close circle of co-workers, to which I belonged. He emphasized then:
that, though they held fundamentally different view of these measures, he had met a willingness on Prof, Dr. BRANDT'S part to hear the objections.
that Prof. Dr. Brandt had talked about "completely extinguished life", while other exponents of these measures based them upon the formula "incurable" "hopeless".
that Prof. BRANDT was aware of the fallibility of these measures, and that he was prompted to act, not by brutality, but by a certain idealism which was inherent to his conception of life.
And this brings me to tie conclusion of the document book belonging to "VOLUME DOCUMENT BOOK 12. Do you wish no to continue?
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal does not wish you to proceed further this evening. I will ask the Secretary-General to take these books and have them furnish and combine No. 1. My volume of No. 1 is completely loose, and number the pages in the second document book, which makes reference more easy. Do you want to do that or not?
(pause)
The Secretary-General will have there ready for use in the morning. The Tribunal will be in recess until 9:30 o'clock tomorrow morning.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is in recess until 9:30 tomorrow morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 11 February 1947, at 0930 hours.)