1947-02-24, #2: Doctors' Trial (late morning)

THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.

JUDGE ROBERT TOMS: If Your Honors please, as presiding judge of Tribunal II, which is now in session trying the case of United States against Erhardt Milch, I respectfully request that the Marshal be directed to remove the defendant Rudolf Brandt from this Tribunal to Tribunal II, where he has been approved as a witness for the defense. Tribunal II is now ready to hear his testimony if your Honors see fit to release him from this Tribunal at this time.

THE PRESIDENT: The presiding judge of Tribunal II having requested that defendant Rudolf Brandt be excused from attendance before this Tribunal for the balance of this morning's session to serve as a witness before Tribunal II, it appearing to the Tribunal that the absence of Rudolf Brandt at this time will not prejudice his case, the Tribunal directs that the Marshal remove defendant Rudolf Brandt from the dock before this Tribunal and escort him to Tribunal II, returning him to this Tribunal when his testimony is ended before that Tribunal.

Counsel may proceed.

MR. McHANEY: Herr Professor, I think you will probably now appreciate the significance of Report Number 4 where it is stated that they were carrying out a test with a certain drug on a Russian prisoner of war; and I assume you have now read Report Number 7. For purposes of the record I will now read this report. It is stamped: "Top Secret (military); 3 copies; 3rd copy."

To the Fuehrer's General Plenipotentiary for Sanitiation and Health Matters Surgeon — General Prof. Dr. BRAUDT, Berlin Ziegelstrasse 5/9, Surgical Clinic at the University.

7th Report:

On the protective effect of hexamethylentetramine for phosgene poison Experiments were carried out on 40 prisoners on the prophylactic effect of hexamethylentetramine in cases of phosgene poisoning.

12 of those were protected orally, 20 intravenously and 8 were used as controls.

The method:

The chamber has a capacity of 20 cbm. In experiment I to XIV the chamber was given a coat of paint which had a strong deteriorating effect on phosgene. This decrease in concentration was measured after experiment IX. The curves are shown on chart I.

The heaviest decrease measured was taken as basis for the calculations of the average concentration for experiment I to XI. In experiments XII to XV, the initial concentration and its decrease were measured separated in each case. In the tables II and III Co stands for the quantity of phosgene infused into the chamber in mg/cbm, cm for the calculated average concentration, t for the time of reaction. Cm was measured as an arithmetic medium from 5 to 7 and calculated on the curve values obtained through interpolation.

The experimental subjects were throughout persons of middle age, almost all in a weak and underfed Condition. On principle, the healthier were used as control, only control number 39 (J. Rei) and the orally protected experimental subject No. 37 (A. Rei) had a localized cirrhotic productive tuberculosis of the lungs. With the others, no pulmonary disease could be found. In the first experiments up to 6g hexamethylentetramine were given orally, later despite the much higher concentrations 0.06 g/ kg body weight, orally as well as intravenously.

Results: The intravenously protected experimental subjects, without exception, all survived the phosgene poisoning with a c.t. of 207 to 5400. There were no symptoms of pulmonary edema after intravenous protection, even with a c.t. of 2970. Only experiment no. 10 with a c.t. of 3960 caused pulmonary edema of the first degree, which was overcome without any therapy; and in experiment no. XIV the intravenous protection was penetrated to an extent as to cause pulmonary edema of the 3rd degree, which however was overcome by oxygen inhalation. The experimental subject recovered.

All control subjects fell ill. With a c.t. of 768 and 1180 a first degree pulmonary edema resulted which was overcome. With a c.t. of 227, one control subject died, the second contracted a second degree pulmonary edema but recovered.

A c.t. of 5400 killed one control subject after hours; the other after 14 hours.

After oral protection; a c.t. of 247 to 768 was suffered without any edema, even when the protective solution of hexamethylentetramine was drunk only 2/3 minutes before the inhalation of the phosgene. 2 control subjects showed a marked edema with a c.t. of 768. With a c.t. of 1485 one protects subject fell seriously ill with a second degree edema; a second subject like wise protected; having breathed the same phosgenic air, was unaffected. The cause of this striking difference must be sought in the different resorption of the hexamethylentetramine on the one hand and in the different reaction and the different volume of respiration of the experimental subjects on the other hand. Even a c.t. of 2275 resulted in only a slight pulmonary edema in an orally protected test subject, whereas one control subject died after 4 hours, and a second contracted a second degree pulmonary edema. The oral protection was penetrated by a c.t. of 5400. The protected test subject died; as did the two control subjects.

Experiment XV is characteristic of the test schedule and its results, and will therefore again be specially described. Of 4 test subjects; the first was protected orally; the second intravenously; the third received an intravenous injection of Hexamethylentetramine after the poisoning, in order once more to ascertain the effect of therapeutic treatment; the fourth was not treated at all. The four subjects were placed in the chamber in which a phial containing 2.7 grains of phosgene was smashed. The test subjects remained in this concentration for 25 minutes. The phosgene content was measured three times during the inhalation. The readings showed an average concentration of 91 mg per cbm. The subject protected intravenously remained healthy; and did not show the least sign of difficulties or symptoms. The orally protected subject contracted a slight pulmonary edema, subsequently bronchopneumonia and pleurisy; from which he received One control subject also survived his pulmonary edema; the second die" hours later, end the autopsy showed the characteristics of very serious pulmonary edema.

Summary: The conclusions of the experiment are impaired by the varying constitutions and the general poor state of nutrition and of physique of the experimental subjects, as well as by the different behavior and the different volume of respiration of the experimental subjects under gas, which was here demonstrated for the first time. But the experiments gas the following decisive conclusions:

1. A previous intravenous injection of 3 grams of Hexamethylentetramine completely prevents serious toxic and fatal phosgene poisoning from a c.t. of 2275.

2. An endurable quantity of Hexamethylentetramine taken prophylactically weakens a fatal poisoning to such an extent that it can be overcome without treatment, c.t. = 2275.

3. Non-fatal, but nevertheless edema producing poisonings are made positively ineffective by intravenous application and arc weakened by oral applications. c.t. 250 to 1960.

4. The oral application of Hexamethylentetramine is no longer effective against phosgene poisoning of a c.t. = 5400. The intravenous injection, however, weakens the effect to such an extent that the protected subject is able to overcome a lung edema.

5. THE DOSIS LETHALIS MINIMA (minimum lethal dose) based on these experiments cannot yet he determined with certainty. One c.t. of 2275 resulted in the death of one experimental subject; and the second developed second degree edema of the lungs which was cured.

6. Some of the protected experimental subjects who did not develop edema of the lungs remained completely healthy; others suffered from slight bronchitis with a. brief fever, in every case they recovered without treatment.

Attached to this report is an appendix. There we find Table II, which shows intravenous injections, Table III, which shows oral injections. The tables list the experimental subjects, who were numbered from 1 to 40. You see the current number to the left-hand column; next the experiment; then the name of the experimental subject, which is given only with initials. In them you find the various technical data concerning the injections, the amount of phosgene which was used; and then in the last column to the right we see that the effect of the phosgene poisoning on the subject after treatment with this drug is shown with certain characters, a plus sign being an edema of the first degree, two plus marks being an edema of the second degree; and the large plus sign with the cross-hatch marks on either end of the cross bars means death from edema of the lungs.

I note for purposes of the record that experimental subject Number 30 on Page 20 of the English translation, which was under Experiment 15, a man identified with the initials "J. Rei," was killed as a result of these experiments. The same is true of experimental subject Number 35, second from the bottom of the page on Page 20. In experiment number 14, identified by the initials “A. Eck”, the subject was also killed, as was the following experimental subject Number 46. In experiment Number 14, name, A. Ho., the subject was also killed. On the next page, under Table 3, page 21, of the English translation, we find that four additional experimental subjects were killed, namely, Number 39, who is the fifth number from the bottom of the page; Number 33; Number 35; and Number 36.

JUDGE SEBRING: Now, Mr. McHaney, don't you have a duplication there?

MR. McHANEY: I think you are quite correct, your Honor, I am just now observing that. That is quite correct. There were apparently a total of four deaths, namely, numbers 33, 35, 36, and 39; there being duplication of the three which I read on the first page.

BY MR. McHANEY:

Q: Now, Herr Professor, must you not conclude on the basis of this report number 7 that Bickenbach and his associates carried on experiments on human beings contrary to the testimony of the defendant Brandt?

A: First I should like to say this report which I have here is not signed. I do not know who drew it up. I did not. I did not work on these experiments either. The report was not addressed to me. I did not read it. It has no connection whatever with me personally. I assume that I am being asked as an expert witness on the contents of the report. Of course. I must admit that there were four cases of death in these experiments. The effect of this hexamethylentetramine was new to me. I did not know about it.

Q: You swear to this Tribunal that you have never seen this report before today, that you know nothing about the experiments which Bickenbach was carrying out. Is that right?

A: I did not see this report before.

Q: Did you ever talk to Karl Brandt about Bickenbach's work?

A: Brandt did not tell me anything about it.

Q: I think you will agree with me that we can assume this report was received shortly after 11 August 1944, that it was sent to Karl Brandt at his office in the Surgical Clinic where you maintained an office two or three doors away from him?

A: Brandt had his office at the clinic, yes, but in Ziegelstrasse 5-9 there were the Third Universe Polyclinic, the Eye Clinic; the Designer of the University even had his studio there at one time. I do not know what kinds of letters and reports were received by all men who had offices in this big building. I did not read this report — the whole thing.

Q: In spite of the fact that you were Chief of Brandt's office for Science and Research?

A: I believe I have said this for the second time now — the department for defense measures against gas had nothing to do with me. That was Brandt.

MR. McHANEY: If the Tribunal please, I offer this Document NO-1852as Prosecution Exhibit 456 for identification.

DR. SERVATIUS (for Karl Brandt): Mr. President, not the original documents but photostatic copies are presented here. I must make application to have the originals submitted. That is especially important in this case. I must also ask that the report be submitted which led to the finding of the documents.

The documents show that the last two reports which are so specially significant here were apparently never sent. They are the first copies — the first preparation — with the original signature which could not have been sent. Page 1 — the cover page — of this collection shows that/under No. 6 it says "first copy", and under No. 7 again says "first copy". The first document in this connection is also designated as a "first copy" — also Document 6. The last document is designated as "first copy" on the envelope but inside it says "third copy".

The original will show that they are not folded, that they were never in an envelope. For that reason I consider it important that only the originals be admitted. It is also shown that the letters are in part not dated, in part they have the original signature, while in cases of carbon copies there is usually no signature. If one considers that the letter No. 7 is of 11 August 1944 and it seems one knows that Strassbourg was evacuated soon after that, then it seems quite likely that these last two reports were not sept, that the originals were left behind and that my client, defendant Karl Brandt, never received them.

This is of decisive importance. Karl Brandt on the witness stand said that he knew nothing about these things. Therefore, I apply for submission of the originals and the report how these documents were found, indicating where and under what circumstances they were found so that one can judge how these various copies were made.

MR. McHANEY: If the Tribunal please, this folder of reports was received by the prosecution following the time when Karl Brandt had left the stand. Consequently, they were not available to put to him during cross examination. The only things that we have received are the photostatic copies which the Tribunal now has before it. These were received from French authorities. They were found in the apartment of Professor Bickenbach in the folder of which there is a Photostatic copy here before the Tribunal. That is all we have. We do have letters and certificates showing where the documents came from. However. I submit that we should not be required to produce the originals since that may very well be impossible since they are in the possession of the French. We will, of course, be happy to produce the letters which to received along with the Photostatic copies.

THE PRESIDENT: This exhibit is not now offered in evidence but merely marked for identification by prosecution. When the exhibit is formally offered in evidence, it will be subject to any objection or argument that any counsel might have. It would seem that the prosecution might well make an effort to at least procure a loan of the original document, Evidence is certainly available as to where it was found and by whom and when. The matter is not now before the Tribunal because the exhibit is not being offered on evidence. Counsel for the defendant Brandt may make an application to the Tribunal for Production of the original document. The Tribunal will then consider the application, the written application, for production of the original document.

BY MR. McHANEY:

Q: Witness, I now want to hand to you Document NO-692.

Q: I now hand you the photostatic copy of the original and ask you if you did not sign this letter?

A: Yes, that is my signature.

Q: I now offer Document NO.692 as Prosecution Exhibit 437 for identification. witness, this is a letter on the letter head of the Commissioner for Medical and Health Matters the Delegate for Medical Science and Research, is it not?

A: Yes.

Q: Dated Berlin 14 September 1944, is it not?

A: Yes.

Q: And it's address to the Reich Research Council?

A: From the copy which I have here I can't see that. It has the heading "List of medical institute working on problems of research which were designated as urgent by the discussion research on 26 August 1944 in Berlitz. Summary according to the 650 orders for research submitted to us."

Q: Now, witness, is this something which you wrote up after this first meeting in the summer of 1944 which you have previously testified to?

A: That is probably what it is.

Q: But does not this document indicate that you and your associates went ever 650 specific research assignment as listed on this document, were classified as urgent?

A: I think I must thank you for presenting this document. This is a single document from all my files and in it shows first quite clearly that I was a little mistaken in the date. I spoke of summer. It was the 26th of August if you can call that summer and this is how it happened. We discussed twelve subjects. We, not I but one of my associates, selected which research assignments which affected. I can't remember to whom this document was sent. Maybe the original shows that. I only saw it for a short time and I didn't notice that. If I sat down and had time I could see from this what fields were considered urgent at that time.

Q: Well, but this document doesn't speak of fields of research. This document lists 45 specific research assignments and it gives the place where the scientist was working, his name and the subject of research, and I submit that it was not a very accurate description which you gave us earlier today about simply designating broad fields of research, I must assume that you went over a list of 650 research assignments and picked out these 45 and classified them "urgent".

A: Now, that's not right. First, we decided which fields were urgent and then one of my associates sat down and went through the 650 index cards in the card index and picked but which ones, research assignments in this card, index fitted those twelve groups. I did not do that myself.

Q: Will you look at the photostatic copy of the original and tell me the significance of the hand written initials RFR up at the top of the document on the first page? I take it those stand for the Reich Research Council — Reichsforschungrat?

A: It's quite possible, but those letters were no doubt not on my original letter. There are all kinds of notes. There's the receipt stamp with all kinds of indications which I don't know. That RFR might have been put on by the Reich research Council. I don't know. Some agency might have put it on. I don't know, I can't tell. At the top right hand corner my name is printed. I don't imagine that I wrote that. I assume that was put on later and whether this receipt stamp here is that of the Reich Research Council, that I cannot —

Q: You don't know to whom you sent this letter, is that right?

A: To whom this copy went I don't know.

Q: Well, can you tell us to when you sent any copy?

A: That one sent to the Reich Research Council I consider quite certain. The Armament Ministry too and the various medical branches of the Whermacht and the committee for economic expansion, but I don't know where this particular copy went.

Q: Will you hand the document to Mr. Hardy and will he pass it up to the Tribunal, please?

Now, Doctor, let's look at some of the research assignments on this document No.692, Prosecution Exhibit 457, for identification. We find your own name under #5. "#5 — University Clinic for Surgery Ziegelstrasse (Restock) — chemotherapy, penicillin". I assume you know what you were "#6 we find Robert Koch Institute (Gildemeister) — typhus, malaria, Chemotherapy". You know Gildemeister, of course?

A: Yes, of course.

Q: Were you acquainted with the details of his research on typhus?

A: No, I was not. This document, which is the only one of my office that I have seen, shows very clearly what I know about the individual matter I know that Gildemeister was working on typhus and malaria and chemotherapy. Who in my office didn't know about those things? And I was told at the time that the Anatomical institute, Herr Hirt was working on chemical warfare agents. I had forgotten that and I believe that there is hardly anyone in this room who had a card index with 650 entries two years age and today still remembers all 650 entries.

Q: Now, Professor, maybe you can enlighten us about those check marks plus marks and minus marks that appear on this document. You see, at the bottom of the first page where it says "check mark equals scientific research commission already submitted to PL or BL — office"? What does that mean?

A: The PL office — that was probably the planning office in the Reich Research Council and the WFG is probably the military research commission. A document of that has been submitted here. I don't have my notes. It was a prosecution document. You probably know it. Then, the plus sign "Circular #5 already sent"— I could say that means but my associate who was in charge of the research card index will probably appear as a witness here and maybe you could ask him about this matter. He will probably know more details about this.

Q: You don't know what the minus sign means either?

A: No. I cannot remember what circular #5 was.

Q: Were those notations put there by your office?

A: I don't remember exactly. When working through the document just now I didn't note that. I don't know. Perhaps if I might see the photostatic copy again I could tell something from it.

(Photostatic copy was handed to the witness.)

Yes, I think I understand the matter now. This RFG — that was added later in handwriting. It was probably like this. This copy here went to the Reich Research Council and the report in the Reich Research Council put those checks and plus and minus sign on. That Circular #5 which I could not remember as I have said once before was not circular of mine. It was a circular of the Reich Research Council and this chuck means that the works marked with this check were some applications to the planning office by the Military Research commission. Those checked and so on at the button that was added after the letter had left my office.

I think that is quite clear.

Q: I suppose you have already observed that research assignments 42, 43 and 44 concerned Strasbourg and related to research work by Haagen, Bickenbach and Hirt respectively?

A: Yes.

Q: Do you still any that you know anything in detail about the experiments carried out by Haagen?

A: Yes, I must admit that I didn't notice it at the time when the 650 cards were shown me. I'm quite certain that I did not remember it but only what is given here as the facts. Just a few words about the type of the research assignment.

Q: And in spite of the fact that research assignments by Bickenbach and Hirt were determined to be urgent by your meeting in August, 1944, you deny that you had any knowledge about the research work of Hirt and Bickenbach?

A: No, I known details about it.

MR. McHANEY: I have no further question.

RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY DR. PRIBILLA (Counsel for the defendant, Professor Restock):

Q: Professor, today we have discussed primarily the research assignments of Bickenbach and Hirt. Yesterday, the Prosecution repeatedly asked — that is Friday, the Prosecution repeatedly asked about similar assignment in the field of chemical warfare agents. Before that, in submitting to Karl Brandt, the prosecution said that your office was in the same building as his. The Prosecution concluded from this fact and asked whether you did not read these reports. Therefore, I should like to ask once more quite clearly was the field of defense measures against chemical warfare agents among those fields under the office for Science and Research according to decree of the fall of 1943?

A: No, such measures against chemical warfare wore not under the section for science and research. This field was taken care of by Mr. Brandt personally as he testified too, in connection with a number of other institute in this sector which already existed.

Q: Do you know the basic decree, on account of which Herr Brandt was in charge of chemical warfare defense?

A: The criminal decree of March, 1944, I believe I did not know that such a decree existed. That he had such an assignment I knew.

Q: Then if a report on chemical warfare questions came to Karl Brandt now was it handled in the office as far as you know?

A: Such a report did not come to me. I did not receive Karl Brandt letters. I did not open it. If we received such a report I assumed that passed it on to the persons concerned who w re consultants for this specific sphere.

Q: Then you confirm Karl Brandt's testimony — that was a specialized question which he himself worked on and did not come into your office.

A: Yes, I confirm that.

Q: Now I have another question referring to the creation of the office for science and research. The Prosecutor asked a question of you in this connection.

He asked whether at the beginning of your activities in and winter of 1943-1944, a whole field of science and research was transferred to Brandt. You did not answer this question quite accurately. You said what you did after taking over this office, what you considered your goals and your purposes. It would be interesting to clear up the condition in the office, the procedure. What office was created first, the office of economic planning or the office for economy and research?

A: First, the office of planning and economics existed. That was just as small an office as mine. There were four or five or six men, no more. This office of planning and economics needed a medical expert. There was pharmacist from a large firm and an economic jurist but no medical expert, and this lack in the office for planning and economics was the first cause of the creation of the office for science and research.

First, the activity, as I have said here, was to work on the economic basis, to create the medical basis for the production of drugs and to represent the medial interest in this industrial process, and another acute problem was to prevent the closing of the universities. After that had been done, only they had the basis been created which called for another subject to be taken up gradually, as I said here on Thursday or Friday. What I have just said was a prerequisite to what I said on Thursday or Friday. It must be considered as something that happened before.

Q: Do I understand you correctly if you say that at the time of the creation of the office of the Commissioner General as a result of the war emergency economic questions wore in the foreground. The office for planning and economics worked in this field first, and when certain limitations on production were necessary in the field of medical instruments, drugs, etc. whom and only then was the office of science and research created?

A: This is true in subject matter and in time.

Q: And the aims and intentions of which you spoke were added in the course of time?

A: Yes.

Q: The Prosecutor asked you about your position as Dean. You were Dean of the medical Faculty of the university of Berlin. The Prosecutor also asked you about Professors Mrugowsky and Rose, also on the faculty of the University of Berlin. From the fact that these men were Professors at the University of Berlin and that you were Dean of the Medical Faculty, he concluded that you were informed about the work of these men in the field of research. Can you tell me whether the position of a Dean of a Faculty in Germany necessarily entails the Dean's being informed about the research work of the Professors and does he have any influence on it?

A: The Dean of the German medical Faculty is in no way a superior of other members of the Faculty in a military sense. He is only primus inter pares, most important, that is the first among others. That is show by the fact that a dean is changed every year or two. One of his duties was to care for the interests of the academic instructions. He had to see to it that the lectures which were prescribed for the course of study in medicine were actually held, and he must tell an instructor to hold a certain lecture but if the man did not want to do that, the Dean had no authority to compel him to. He could report it through the Rector, to the Minis

Q: May I interrupt you a moment. You say that the work of the Dean was only in connection with the instructing work, the teaching work of those Professors. Did you know that these two Professors were also in charge of research institutes? Did you as Dean have anything to do with that?

A: I was just about to say that as far as the research work of the many members of the Faculty was concerned, the Dean had no influence at all and if the Dean had come to me in my clinic to check what I was doing there in a scientific sense then I would have told him bluntly but firmly it would be better if we discussed something else. I am quite convinced that all other Professors would have done the same thing, depending on their temperament, but if the Dean had come to me to talk to me as a scientist, then, of course, I would have been glad to let him see what I was doing.

Now to discuss the two examples which Mr. McHaney mentioned on Friday: Rose was a teacher of tropical hygiene. I could have talked to him about some lecture in that field, what he did as a section chief and Vice President in the Robert Koch Institute, and what he did as consulting hygienist in the Luftwaffe had nothing to do with me as Dean, and Rose would probably have refused to let me intervene, quite rightly.

Mrugowsky was an instructor, and later extra ordinary Professor for Hygiene, and what he did as a member of the SS and as head of the Hygiene Institute of the waffen SS I did not learn and I had no influence whatever on it.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will recess until one-thirty o'clock.

(A recess was taken until 1330 hours)