1947-03-07, #1: Doctors' Trial (early morning)

[Administrative note: due to a scheduling mistake this post is being sent to doctorstrial.substack.com subscribers two days late, instead of on the morning of March 7, 2022 as intended. — ASH.]

Official transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nuernberg, Germany, on 7 March 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.

THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom 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 courtroom.

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

THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honor, all the defendants are present in the court with the exception of the defendant Oberheuser, who is absent due to illness.

THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary General will note for the record the presence of all the defendants in court with the exception of the defendant Oberheuser who has been excused on account of illness.

Counsel may proceed.

KARL GEBHARDT — Resumed CROSS EXAMINATION — Continued

DR. SEIDL: I have no more questions to put to the defendant Dr. Gebhardt.

THE PRESIDENT: Any cross-examination of this defendant by any defense counsel?

BY DR. NELTE (Counsel for the defendant Handloser):

Q: Witness, when did you meet Professor Handloser?

A: I believe it was in 1941, after he had been in his new position about six months. After Professor Waldmann on the Hohenlychen Board became sick, he asked whether he might take his position. It was only one visit. The next time I saw him at the meeting in 1943.

Q: It was in 1942, wasn't it?

A: One year after the death of Waldmann. I don't know exactly, the end of '41 or the beginning of '42.

Q: You had told us with the Kuratorium.

A: Yes.

Q: Did that Kuratoriun have any influence on the medical management or on the manner in which patients were treated?

A: In no way. The Kuratoriun and the Sanitarium were the peacetime form before '43. At that time Hohenlychen was purely a tuberculosis institution. It was under a welfare society, the Red Cross for Hohenlychen. This legal form was maintained in 1933 because this saved taxes and so forth. After the group of persons had changed, people had left, and so forth, this group of persons was supplemented according to my suggestion. The actual influence on the medical direction of what we wanted to do at Hohenlychen was the three men I mentioned, Dr. Tschammer-Osten, Dr. Todt, and my scientific superior, Dr. Kruemmel, Director of the Educational Ministry. The Kuratoriun itself never met and I never called on Handloser in any way as Curator for Hohenlychen.

Q: From then onwards did you have any personal contact with Professor Handloser?

A: Actually, only in 1944 at the meeting at Hohenlychen. At the third meeting I reported to him like any other speaker in a purely military form. I certainly did not speak to him afterwards. At the end of the meeting, or during the meeting, I always went out to Hohenlychen and came back the next morning. I cannot remember that I met him officially at the front in any way. As far as I can recall, Handloser had always just been there or was just coming there with the greatest difficulties. At the meeting in '44 he was my guest and during these three days I not only showed him my clinic but, since we all had great respect for Handloser, I took great personal care of him.

Q: Mr. Fischer said in his affidavit No. 472 that Professor Handloser had been to Hohenlychen on the occasion of the 10th anniversary. Is that true in that form?

A: Dr. Fischer will probably be able to comment on his affidavit himself and we have expressly agreed that he is my junior who has got into the situation through me and will be able to present his case as he thinks right, without any special agreement.

As for the 10th anniversary meeting, I should like to say that he is mistaken.

Q: The 10th anniversary?

A: The 10th anniversary was an internal university celebration. I might say that I had chosen as my report the subject "Conflict Between Doctor and Soldier in These Times". I did not invite anyone except my old teachers. Geheimrat Sauerbruch was there, the students from his school and my school, and the Director of the University of Berlin, Professor Kreutz, whom I asked, whom I have applied for as a witness or for an affidavit. No military agency was represented and no man from the SS was there for this family celebration.

Q: How was the official relationship between Handloser as the Chief of the Array Medical Department to the Medical Service of the Waffen SS in particular, was it in any sense under the Chief of the Medical Service?

A: I have attempted to describe the enormous degree of improvisation which prevailed in the Waffen SS, and how it changed from time to time, depending on whether it had the confidence of the Fuehrer or whether it did not have the confidence of the Fuehrer. I believe I may repeat in three sentences: The Waffen SS went into the War as three separate groups, the Verfuegungstruppe, Totenkopfuerbande and the Leibstandarte Adolph Hitler. They were a selection of volunteers and had no special military character. Then at the front they were loosely attached to the Army, but from the special privileges which they had, as the situation advanced, it was so unfortunate and confused, as is shown by my position. Attempts were repeatedly made by me to attach material and doctors but when the Army tried to intervene with us in any way it was said the SS was independent, so there was never any sensible contact. In the decisive years, 1942, the development doubtless was that Himmler was given the assignment from Hitler, in all those crises to create a new confidential part of the Wehrmacht, that is next to the Army which was involved in all these crises, and no doubt did the situation much netter. It was not only a reliable political instrument, but a military instrument. I, as chief clinician, got express instructions, for instance, that Handloser was not to be given clear information about our personnel or our reserves. As for personal contacts with the Army and such an impressive person as Professor Handloser, I should like to say that it existed, nevertheless the line was contrasting, and was in independent relationship to Oberstabsarzt Grawitz.

Q: May I sum up what part the Medical Department of the SS did not fall under the competence of the head of the Wehrmacht Medical Service?

A: Yes.

Q: And as far as the Fuehrer Decrees of 1942 and 1944 show that there is a direct line which should have lead to balancing of those two departments.

The Medical Department of the Waffen SS showed itself to be very reserved, if not hostile?

A: Yes, that is correct.

Q: You showed yesterday, when you were giving evidence, a statement from November 1944, which bore the signature of Professor Handloser, as the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Services, and which was issued to you as Army Medical Chief; in that certificate, in that legitimate reference, was mention made of a special assignment, which you were given; in order to clear this up, I should be grateful if you could make a statement as to what were the contents of this special assignment?

A: Yesterday I briefly referred to the chaotic conditions in November 1944. I mentioned that I was at the two positions where there were certain the greatest worries from the medical point of view, in the West after the collapse of the front, and in the East from the Vistula to the Oder. The problem in the air raids, in the advance of the enemy troops, was not the Army, especially not the front units, because they had experience of war and would manage to get through all those catastrophes. On the other hand all plans for the Homeland which overnight had become the theatre of war, broke down completely. On the other hand, in severely bureacratic separation, in spite of all efforts and fuehrer decrees, we still had quite independent orders in the civilian sector. A particular example, I myself was in Kolmar, as a surgeon against the brave American Third Army. I was stationed at Muehcheim (on the Rhine, had behind me the whole Rhineland up to Freiburg, with huge air raids going on, where after three hours the civilian sector was out of the picture, and as reserve behind it the two provinces Baden and Wurttemberg. It was possible to get everything in order but to make these two bureaucratic installations of these two civilian land provinces Baden and Wuerttemberg cooperate was impossible. Therefore, I went to Berlin to see the only man who could adjust this difficulty, Brandt I took Conti with me, who was responsible for the civilian sector. I prove that neither in transport, nor with hospital space, not in any other way, could I give medical aid for the civilian sector any longer; and I asked Brandt to decide that the civilian sector, at least in my sphere, should cease to exist; that only the last support, which survived the War, the medical officers in the Army, was of importance.

That in every city there should be an Army physician, who should be responsible for all medical matter whether civilians, labor service, reserve units, or front units, and should also be responsible for all hospital space. This proposal was accepted, and was decided by Brandt, in my favor, and now I had to have a legitimation that I could ask every post physician to take care of the whole sector too. There was only one man of sufficient standing to demand that, that was Professor Handloser, and that was the purpose of all this pass.

Q: In other words, this is a typical case, where the conditions had to be balanced, as the wounded, the ill, and the refugees had to be put somewhere?

A: Yes.

Q: Did this special order contain any other authorization, in regard to research?

A: At this time that was the worry, and there was certainly no other thought either in the conference or in our minds.

Q: In your third interrogation you said that the Medical Department of the Waffen SS did not fall under the Wehrmacht Medical Service. In order to be quite complete, I have to ask you now whether there were any official relations, that you know of, between Professor Handloser, as Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Services, and the various medical research offices of the Waffen SS, and the SS, viz Ahnenerbe?

A: I have attempted to describe that. I opposed this, that I did not know all these secret agencies. That was some special, a pseudo-scientific existence outside of anything military. I have no idea, I never heard the name of any Wehrmacht agency nearby, or never heard anything about it.

Q: What were the relations between Himmler and Professor Handloser?

A: I can report only from a single mooting. When Himmler took over the reserve Army, that was in 1944 in the summer, the question was what prime positions in the reserve army were to be replaced by the SS; and for example Obergruppenfuehrer Juettner, who had been in change of the main office of the SS, came over, as Chief of the Reserve Army, under Himmler as Chief of Staff, as administrative man for the question whether in the medical sector, that is as a chief of the Army, an SS man should be appointed.

Himmler thought of me, because of the whole question of Chief Clinician, and so forth. And it was out of the question as far as I was concerned, because I was not up to the work of "Army Group Physician," as I was a reservist and always had to have a somebody else to do the technical work. But I suggested to come to an agreement with the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service, and to decide to what extent changes are desirable and to what extent they were possible. This one discussion took place, and as far as I recall, and I remind you what terrible times there were and how great the worries were, Himmler who was setting up his new People's Grenadier Division wanted to have large replacements; and from some point of view, which I did not understand, he thought that in the hospitals there were an enormous number of "gold bricks" and people that could be used, that we had to take quite different measures. At this discussion he said this quite suddenly and undisguisedly; and Professor Handloser quite clearly explained his point of view, that this constantly changing concept of physical fitness, that gradually all the patients were also becoming physically fit, and that the combing out of the hospitals was not possible, and he would not take the responsibility for that and did not think it right; he could, prove it by statistics how many went in and how many went out, and so forth. I was quite convinced, and Himmler said nothing. And that Himmler did not agree with Handloser's opinion and did not agree with my position, I conclude, because Professor Handloser went back without any decision from Himmler, and I went to the front; and without our knowledge days or weeks later an Army physician, was appointed, that is a position between Professor Handloser and us, who had not been provided for by anyone in this sense, who was sick himself and certainly did not apply for the position; but unfortunately Himmler noticed him, because the chronically sick patients had been put into action at Breslow.

I should like to say at the one meeting the two opinions were definitely opposed, and Himmler expressed his disapproval and opposing point of view by appointing someone without consulting Handloser and without the approval of Handloser. I do not know of any other matters of discussion.

Q: On the third meeting of the consulting physicians in May of 1943, you gave an opening lecture referring to Dr. Fischer's lecture upon experiments with sulfonamide; did you on the occasion of that lecture and on the occasion of Fischer's statements; did you talk with Handloser before?

A: No; in the morning I drove in directly from Hohenlychen to my lecture. Handloser made his opening speech, if I remember correctly, speakers were behind the presiding officer, and reported to me and that was all.

Q: Now; did you speak to him days before?

A: No, I saw him when I entered the room; I was one of the many officers present.

Q: Did you talk to Handloser after the lecture, the next day perhaps or on any other occasion did you talk to him about the lecture?

A: Certainly not and that was not the relationship. Handloser was the chief medical officer of Germany, and I had no personal connection with him at that time. He did not call me, he did not ask me anything about my lecture, and of course I did not go to see him.

Q: Later on, on any other occasion, when you two met, there was an opportunity for you to discuss the question, which after all was very important to you?

A: I saw Handloser only again in 1944, that is a year later, and he never mentioned this lecture. For me the situation was like this, please believe me and every arzt in Hohenlychen will confirm it, after I had gone through all this, I did not have any talks with anyone on my own initiative. I had no interest in it.

Q: Now you described the circumstances under which this lecture was held; you spoke of charts and graphs on the wall?

A: Yes.

Q: Was that an unusual thing, or was that the rule with other lectures too?

A: That was as in every scientific meeting. In my next lecture, I spoke again afterwards about my nerve matters, I had the same wall and the same pictures, and the other gentlemen too; everyone brings his material, charts and cables to illustrate his lecture.

Q: So, therefore, it was nothing unusual?

A: No, it is done at every scientific congress in the world.

Q: In particular, there were no photographs, such as we have seen here in the Document book?

A: No, there was clinical evidence showing what was done scientifically and therapeutically with the individuals.

Q: Tables, charts, etc?

A: Yes, as I described them yesterday, it was clear what was being done.

Q: Yes, quite. Could one see what person was involved, what individual, or that it only concerned a given experiment?

A: Yesterday I said clearly that I sent the individual material to Grawitz through Schreiber, and but that from the representation one could only see it was a large scale experiment conducted on condemned persons, as I have said in my introductionary statement.

Q: Therefore, it could not be seen from those tables and records that women were involved?

A: The terms: women, Poles, and Ravensbruck were not mentioned, because in spite of the approval it was forbidden in public. Grawitz, however, had this information. However, it was known only that a large number of persons were concerned.

Q: There was a great distinction between the evidences which you sent to Grawitz and what the spectators saw?

A: Yes.

Q: If I understood you correctly, the purpose of your opening lecture was that you considered these sulfonamide experiments legal; you described those experiments on the basis of your reports and you considered them to be legal and that the carrying out of these experiments was in accordance with the strictest medical rules, which you thought were essential and which were regarded as essential by all the other doctors; is that so?

A: Yes.

Q: From your statements, I seem to reach the conclusion that these lectures on the experiments were given in front of a large body of surgeons, physicians, pathologists, etc., in order to escape the suspicion you had been engaged in something which would have been harmful to one's reputation as a famous physician; is that correct?

A: Yes, of course. I will point out that at the end I can look back and see clearly I have come a distance from all these things and everything I had heard about them. At the time, I was under constant pressure and tension and acting on orders, and I believe that I chose the right thing if one recognizes the situation as I saw it at the time, and the only possible way, if it was ordered and if it was to be of any value, we must be allowed to speak of it publicly. If a man like myself, who kept away from such things, is involved, then he must have the right to comment on it freely, for that if the only possible way to get out of the matter with honor.

It is always clear to me, and I am convinced if Germany won the war, it would have been just as necessary to say to the International Surgical Society, who might have stricken me from its list, and some other societies, and to explain how much pressure there was from all sides. My opinion is quite clear in the question of execution and in the question of protection for the people. Please examine all these matters. That was distinctly my opinion at the time, and now I emphasize it especially, as I look back on these things.

Q: Perhaps we misunderstand each other. In my opinion your emotional feeling and the explanation you gave is quite correct. It is obvious that you and the man, who might risk his reputation, wanted to use this body of the most famous physicians and doctors, in order to explain that what you were engaged in was right, and that you acted as a patriot and corresponded to the conditions in which you found yourself?

A: Yes.

Q: And you said also that the case, the purpose, which you justi ably pursued had to be explained in a manner, which was convincing?

A: Of course, that is the difficult thing. Now, in looking back at the time in Germany, as the head of Hohenlychen, I could see that was a well known clinic. I appeared at every congress with my assistants, and I appeared at this Congress with five others and then presented, with all the clinical evidence so that someone would not go on an assumption that I forged the evidence and on the other hand, one would discuss it openly and frankly if it had any clinical value.

Q: It seems to me that what you had to say on this point, had you said so at the time, under the point of view which I just expressed; do you feel if on that occasion you had not said publicly these were political prisoners, if the fact that concentration camp inmates had not been mentioned; if women were not referred to and if on the other hand you explained that you had acted on a special order from the highest authority and that they were only criminals who had been promised pardon if they survived the experiments and if furthermore you had expressed under what conditions you had to carry out these things; don't you think — don't you believe — that those present, the physicians present, would have been convinced that the impression created by your lecture would have been to the effect that they could not suspect anything illegal or medically improper; is that correct?

A: I can only agree with you under certain conditions, Dr. Nelts, the word "criminals" was not used.

Q: But...?

A: It was expressly said that persons condemned to death.

Q: But, these must have been criminals?

A: That was not my opinion.

Q: We don't want to go into a legal discussion.

A: I cannot agree with you. I have thought carefully what I was to say at this decisive point in my life and against all orders I discussed it, as I explained yesterday and I described the way the experiments were ordered there; they were prisoners condemned to death and they were given the chance for clemency, that was said.

The Third Reich was at the height of its power. We were soldiers who know about war and about emergency. I was a respected clinician, and there was a definite impression that it was done with sense of responsibility and that a general attempt was made to do something scientifically valuable and to see to it to take care of it therapeutically. That was enough for the listeners. Had I said "criminals", I would not have told the truth. The first half were criminal or less than a third, and others were agents and spies who had been condemned political reasons, that is, no criminals.

Q: But you did not say aLl that when you addressed the physicians.

A: I did not say that in the lecture, but that was in the written evidence.

Q: And apart from this term "criminals" for which you said "prisoners condemned to death", do you agree with my other statements?

A: Honestly, I was so shocked by the word "criminal" that I don't know exactly what I am agreeing with. This is something which I want to have quite clear in the interest of everyone. Please formulate that again carefully. I believe I explained it clearly yesterday. That is how it was.

I consider it more important to come back to the decisive testimony of Fischer because Fischer had only this one point. That was his business. After that I spoke on five other lectures so I can't say anything in detail. The sense was what I told you yesterday.

MR. McHANEY: If the Tribunal please, I think that this particular point has been labored long enough. The witness has explained it two or three times, and I think Dr. Nelte's efforts to formulate what was said in his own words, particularly in the form of conclusions which he is assuming were settled in the minds of the listeners, is an improper way of conducting the interrogation. The witness has stated as well as he remembers what he said, and I think that is sufficient.

THE PRESIDENT: The point raised by Counsel for the Prosecution is well taken. That matter has been sufficiently covered by the examination and the cross-examination up to date.

The objection is sustained.

DR. NELTE: Mr. President, the witness, as he said himself, has not answered to my last question yet. By your decision do you wish to declare my question improper, or do you wish that the witness does not answer to it?

I would be grateful for a decision.

THE PRESIDENT: The matter has been fully covered both in the direct examination and the cross-examination and the counsel is now proceeding. The matter has been sufficiently elaborated.

DR. NELTE: Then I have no further questions to this witness.

DR. SAUTER: Dr. Sauter for Defendant Blome.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY DR. SAUTER: For defendant Blome

Q: Witness, I have only one question which refers to a completely different complex of questions than the ones dealt with recently. You must, therefore, switch your mind over to this new problem.

Witness, you recall that the Prosecution, and Professor Leibbrandt, based their statements on the fact that the scientific and ethical level of German Doctors deteriorated strongly during the Hitler regime, and against the Defendant Blome, in particular they raised the accusation that he, as the deputy of the Reichsarzte-Fuhrer, was responsible for the deterioration of the level of doctors, at least more or less.

Witness, whether that accusation is justified or not, I shall not ask you; but in that connection I would like to hear your answer on one definite point, if you remember it at all. Roughly, in October, 1938, a meeting is said to have taken place with Hess at Hess' office. Hess was Hitler's deputy at the time. It was the meeting in Wilhelmstrasse in Berlin with Hess presiding. You are said to have been present at that meeting, and the main topic of that meeting is said to have been whether it should be tried in Germany to remove freedom to cure and also with other doctors, medical practitioners should be admitted to give medical treatment. Medical practitioners are people who treat patients without having scientific training. I ask you do you recall that meet.

A: Yes.

Q: Can you tell us what attitude was taken by Dr. Blome towards these problems?

A: Perhaps I may say that I have seen Blome functioning twice in my life, as I can emphasize with complete conviction that I considered him one of the most active doctors working for the interest of the doctors in the Third Reich on both of these occasions.

It must be remembered that the Third Reich, like ever revolution, wanted to take away all the power of the doctors. The first occasion must have been in the very first weeks in May, 1933, when I came to Berlin, and this meeting was also with Hess. I believe there were two meetings. This meeting was called because the medical organization hitherto prevailing-and Mr. Leibbrandt did not bring this out well — if one considers the doctors officers, then all the enlisted men, that is, the nurses and other types of personnel, were formerly in one big consecutive organization of medicine. In spite of a desperate objection by Blome, who represented the medical profession at the time, it was not possible to have this enlisted personnel, that included thousands of people retained in the medical organization. They were put in the NSV or whatever else was organized, and I consider that one of the main weaknesses which we had after that time is that all the subsidiary organizations became independent. At that time Blome was the only man who advocated keeping all medical personnel together, and I remember the second meeting because I was in a sense the last witness in this disagreement. Hess was an advocate of naturehealing, and like Himmler represented the point of view, that a danger, which existed all the time, that a health ministry should exist in Germany, and that the health ministry should be directed by a layman. As I recall, Gauleite*** Roewer or someone else provided that there should be equal groups underneath, departments. Doctors, nature-healing medical practitioners, and so forth, should be given equal rights next to each other. Blome again represented the doctors, and fought for the superior concept of the doctor, for restrictions on medical practitioners, for keeping them under control but without schools and training new recruits — that was the important thing — the ideal was to let them die out and keep them under control. And I was called because Mr. Hess had been injured in the shoulder as a flier, and had been treated successfully for one year by medical practitioners, and then I had restored his health, so that Blome could refer to my example, that it was not advisable to use the services of these medical practitioners unrestrainedly.

I recall that Blome worked for the independent and the superior position of the medical profession. I can't tell you the details of the discussion.

Q: If I have understood you correctly, witness, your statements show that Dr. Blome at that time advocated the suspension of the freedom to cure medically, and he also opposed medical practitioners?

A: And that is what he suggested, and that is what happened, that the freedom to cure was repealed in Germany, that an examination committee was set up consisting of, I believe, half doctors and half medical practitioners — I don't know the chairman — and that the rest of the medical practitioners were to be tested. The seventy or sixty — I don't know how many — percent were recognized, but they could no longer have any schools, and they were to die out, and those who did not pass the test, they were to be stricken off the list. That is about how it was, but that is more or less outside my memory.

Q: Dr. Gebhardt, a final question. Can you, if you try to recall that meeting, can you remember that the defendant Dr. Blome, at that time when he became afraid that he could not carry his point, said to him, I quote verbatim as Dr. Blome remembers this part:

If you should decide here that apart from the doctors themselves there should be a second class of medical practitioners which will be admitted, to wit, that of medical practitioners, you, Herr Hess, will be the grave-digger of new German medicine.

This is, Dr. Gebhardt, how Dr. Blome recalls it now and I am asking you as I told you whether you can recall this, whether that had remained in your memory as the attitude which Blome took at that time?

A: I cannot possibly remember the wording but I believe that what he said, the suggestion that was made at the time, more or less corresponds to that. I know that there was a big uproar about a patient, either the doctors walked out and the others stayed, and in any case the health ministry was not created. There were two factions but it is quite impossible to remember the details.

DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, I have no further questions but there is one mistake in the translation which I wish to correct. When I asked Dr. Gebhardt, I used the term "Stellvertretender Reichsaerztefuehrer", which was Dr. Blome's position, deputy leader of Reich doctors. This was translated as Deputy Reichsarzt, which is a very unfortunate translation because Dr. Blome never was Deputy Reichsarzt. May I just correct this? No other statements.

THE PRESIDENT: The record will show counsel's statement.

DR. SAUTER: Thank you very much.

DR. KAUFMAN: Defense counsel for Rudolf Brandt.

BY DR. KAUFMAN:

Q: Professor, in the last few days you said quite a few things on the character of Himmler and how much Himmler moved about and which would, therefore, also apply to Rudolf Brandt. I should be grateful if you could extend your explanation a little farther and tell the Court how you ob served Rudolf's character, his official position, perhaps also his personality.

How long did you know Rudolf Brandt?

A: I met him for the first time in 1939 when I went to Poland as escort physician. The whole staff of Himmler was on the same train. I can deduce that he was there but Brandt was such an inconspicuous person that I cannot remember. He was just there some time or other, but I certainly did not see him before that.

Q: What were your observations regarding his influence on Himmler? The prosecution describes him as Himmler's personal expert as though he had a very large influence on Himmler. Could you bear out those observations or what do you think Brandt's position was in regard to Himmler?

A: First, don't demand of me that I know all the details of Himmler's staff because Mr. McHaney will say, "We always said he knew that", but as for the rest of it, I can only tell you how it was more or less externally. We never reported to Mr. Brandt when we came or when we left and unfortunately yesterday in my exhaustion I made a statement, which might have been true but not very decent, about his mental qualifications. I withdraw the form but not the content. We reported to the Adjutant and then the Adjutant let us wait forever and a list was made up of who was to come to see Himmler and in all of this time I never saw and never heard from any one else that Brandt was present. The characteristic thing of staffs in the Third Reich, and for all in the revolutionary foundation, it is bitter for us that we always have to mention the bad side here, but first of all we had grandiose names and arrangements and then appointed just anybody to fill the position, and whether he had the name of personal expert I do not know, but in the sense of the old ministerial expert who was present at all technical questions as I know from the days of my farther, that did not exist with Himmler, as then I must have known something about him, and at the decisive moment he would not have been unaware of the most important things, but on the other hand somewhere aside from all of those things and the military form which was even exaggerated, Brandt, of course, did not fit into this background, because he was no soldier at all. There was someone who organized all of the mail and I had contact with him because in the evening or at night the couriers came with enormous mail bags and like myself one does not stick to channels.

One asked Brandt if there was any mail and asked him to get it out and then Brandt sat in his office and everything was full of mail and secretaries and people, and according to a system which I don't know, he brought everything into some kind of disorder, and then the next day he delivered it all. How long it took or what he did I don't know. In the morning everyone was there all night and we had breakfast together in the morning and that was broken off with Brandt coming in with a pile of folders and a couple of orderlies with letters, and then Himmler was inaccessible for hours and we all had to wait because Brandt submitted all of the mail and took dictation personally. There was no secretary there. I don't know whether he dictated all of it or whether he had experts. In any case I know he was originally a stenographer or some such thing and he took care of all of this mail, and then because we all wanted to get away, because we all had important business or something, Brandt disappeared and I never saw him again all day, and he had to carry out work and write out all of these letters which had been dictated in the morning, and in the evening the same Brandt came back for the signatures, and I assume everything was signed. I don't want to offend him but I always considered him a very unimportant personal typewriter, and I had no contact with him, only a few hours when we came back from the front and from operating, and it was an international custom, we sat down with a bottle of cognac and I considered Mr. Brandt a little too stupid for that purpose.

Q: One more question, Professor. Did you observe Brandt's health in all of these years? What can you tell us about this?

A: I believe it happened several times that Brandt was either sent on leave, because of some suspicions of disease of a joint, and had to be called back because Himmler did not want any strange people around him; or else he did not get away because Himmler couldn't dispense with him. There was something about his leaving, about going away for a year. That was certainly discussed.

There was nothing surgical and I don't remember these things very well. I was not directly involved.

Q: Thank you very much. I have no further questions.

DR. FLEMING: Defense counsel for Mrugowsky.

BY DR. FLEMING:

Q: Professor, if I understood you correctly, in the course of your interrogation you said that Mrugowsky had nothing to do with sulfonamide experiments. Would you please confirm that now?

A: Yes, the question of whether the sulfonamides were to be tested through bacteriology, basic research, or whether it was a clinical front problem; I was the clinical man and Mrugowsky was the hygienist, and there were two different conceptions of experts. When I appeared Mrugowsky had no purpose any longer and I certainly did not see him personally. I would remember if he had appeared.

Q: You know that the prosecution alleges that these cultures for these sulfonamide experiments were supplied by the Hygienic Institute of the Waffen SS. Do you know who caused these cultures to be delivered?

A: I can only say they certainly came from Berlin and were sent to us by Grawitz's orders. On the other hand I can say I did not have any bacteriological cultures in Hohenlychen. They did not come from me. That is certain. The other thing is clear with reference to discussing it with Grawitz. I did not have drugs in large enough quantities, they came from Berlin to me. As far as I recall, I can't be so definite about all of these details. From the very beginning, at least in every group, I think more often twelve or so, because for every experimental subject we had to have mixed cultures prepared, which I have described, which is sometimes only two and sometimes one, and sometimes only gangrene, we had to get them, but we had to have agents prepared and so forth and that came from the Grawitz agency and it came from Berlin. It could only have been from the Hygiene Institute, for he would not have got it from a civilian agency. It came by car and from a young man who came from Fischer. I remember it came from Berlin every time. It was not Mrugowsky.

Q: Do you recall when these deliveries of culture began to be supplied for you and when they were finished?

A: I can confirm the details only to the extent that the cultures were there when these experiments were conducted. They were there from the whole time from July until November, but I can't give you any more details.

Q: My final question is: What germs were used?

A: The mixed cultures were streptococci or staphyloccus cultures, plus the gas gangrene, and there was a certain distribution, and they were separated. Other additional germs were not asked for, such as tetanus. They would not have fitted into the experiment and that did not occur through chance experiment either, for we would have noted that in the preliminary experiment.

Q: Tetanus, contrary to what was said by one of the witnesses, has not been used by you?

A: No.

Q: Thank you very much.

DR. FRITZ: Defense counsel for Rose.

BY DR. FRITZ:

Q: Professor, before the collapse did you have contacts with Professor Rose?

A: I believe I have mentioned that already. We had no contact with each other. We worked in quite different fields. I can recall somewhere at a meeting or in preparations for the fourth meeting or some such thing Rose was there; and on the other hand I did not have any personal conversation with him, as we had nothing to say to each other and I had nothing to do with hygienics of the Waffen SS, but I certainly knew him as the famous hygienist Rose.

Q: In the course of your talks with Grawitz and Himmler, Rose did not come into that?

A: I explained I had no personal relation.

Q: Thank you. I have no further questions.

BY DR. MERKL FOR THE DEFENDANT GENZKEN:

Q: Professor, in August 1943 there was a conference in which the reorganization of the Waffen-SS was ordered. In that conference was there said anything of experiments on concentration camp inmates or anything referring to concentration camps?

A: I have tried to show that I instigated this discussion and that it had a purely front purpose, that is, the collapse of medical arrangements and the lack of medical reserves, etc., in the Ukraine. The circle which was called together at my request were doctors from the Ukraine, Grawitz and Genzken, Stumpfegger was also there. This all referred to the acute problem at the front. It is true that Grawitz took advantage of this to acquire for himself something which would not have been necessary according to my suggestion. I needed material, doctors, from the police and the Waffen-SS, and a certain connection with hospitals in the rear. There was no point in making an organization from the bottomall we needed was an organization from the top. Four weeks before I had been shot down from a plane, and had come back, there was no other consideration. I cannot remember that any other things were discussed.

Q: The defendant Genzken is also accused of his alleged participation in sulfonamide experiments in Ravensbruck. When you talked to Himmler and Grawitz did you take in Genzken in this connection?

A: I have explained exactly who the people responsible were. Gruppenfueheres the Reich Fuehrer called — people responsible for building up his big new Waffen-SS. I don't know who was there. Nebe was still there as intelligence man at my time, Grawitz was there, and I was there. That was the group that discussed the whole thing, and carried it out. I had no reason to call in Genzken. That was not the level on which discussions were held.

Q: Did you write to him or talk to him orally about these experiments?

A: Certainly not. Genzken learned what everyone learned at the Third Meeting — publications and directives. Whether his expert told him anything or not of what was reported I don't know.

Q: That is not the point at the moment. All I wanted to know was if you reported to him personally — a final question. Dr. Flemming talked about the supplies of gas gangrene that were alleged to come from the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen-SS, including glass bits. Did you talk to Genzken on that affair?

A: I should like to say that, of course, I was glad to deal with the thing on a large scale and I take the responsibility for it. But, I only know that some subordinate officer brought the stuff with which it was carried out. I had more worries than that than to go to Grawitz and ask where the stuff came from which could only have been the case of the Hygiene Institute. It was only a question of delivery — no basic question.

Q: Thank you very much. I have no further questions.

DR. SERVATIUS FOR KARL BRANDT:

Q: Witness, do you recall the Tenth Anniversary in the autumn of 1944 in Hohenlychen? Do you know whether Karl Brandt was present?

A: No. I have already described the Tenth Anniversary Celebration. It was a personal celebration such as every clinic had — the clinical family celebration, that is, teachers and students. My relations to Mr. Brandt were so distant, we did not know each other personally very well, I would never have invited Mr. Brandt.

Q: I have no other questions.

DR. BOEHM for the defendant Poppendick:

Q: Professor, do you know anything of a Department of Planning in the office of the Reichsarzt-SS — an experimental department V, which dealt with planning or carrying out of experiments, as it is alleged?

A: No. How Grawitz carried out his service I don't know. I never heard of "Section V" or "planning." In my sulfonamide experiments I did the planning. I don't know anything else.

Q: Did you at any time talk to the defendant Poppendick on the experiments as described in the Indictment, or did you exchange information with him in any sense at all?

A: No. It was not that way. They were on the same level with varying weight, Grawitz who had the higher rank. And, when one refers to the Reich physician I certainly had more weight as a personality. But, of course, I was organized in the same way in connection with the Army and taught in the various other agencies; and Genzken was senior and had a certain position from that. It was not so that I had three adjutants and antichambers and I had to report. If I wanted something from Grawitz I called him up, I went in civilian clothes, and I told him I don't like this or I would like that. It is possible, of course, I knew Poppendick, and I certainly saw him, but Poppendick was never in my house. I never invited him. He never took part in a conference with me because I did not discuss these things on this level. I don't know that Poppendick was always there. He had another office too. On the other hand I always came from the front or Hohenlychen. I had other medical experiments. I told Grawitz I will come to Berlin next week. I will possibly come to see you and that is all I said. No one could know when I was coming exactly or whether I was coming for certain. That I went through Poppendick's personal office there is no question of anything like that. I can't tell you what Poppendick actually did.

Q: Thank you. No further questions.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will recess.

(A recess was taken.)