1947-03-24, #3: Doctors' Trial (afternoon)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The Hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 24 March 1947)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
RUDOLF BRANDT — Resumed
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will hear counsel in regard to the showing of the film "I accuse."
DR. FROESCHMAN: Dr. Froeschman for Brack. Mr. President, the prosecution this morning protested against the admissibility of the film "I accuse," because the film does not represent any factual proof, but a freely conceived action, and because moreover the translation of the German film would take a great deal of time and this translation would be superfluous if it were found that the film is not admissible as evidence. I should like to say to that the following: I have already in the course of these proceedings had several opportunities to speak with definitive and important witnesses here in this Court Room regarding the question of euthanasia. I have gone into the basic concept of euthanasia, and as assistance to a dying person, I have gone into euthanasia in its extended sense and finally I have repeatedly touched upon the question whether the witnesses or specialists in the cases of human life which cannot possibly be saved, consider it ethically, religiously, legally and philosophically justified that euthanasia in its widest sense should here be employed. I have not done this without reason. I wanted in this way to prepare the ground for the defense of the defendant Viktor Brack. I consider there is a sharp discrimination between this sort of euthanasia and the sort of euthanasia that in the years 1943 and 1944 took place in the East. The Prosecution has characterized euthanasia in the case of incurable patients as a first step towards this second sort of euthanasia, and whoever embraces the notion of euthanasia will most sharply repudiate that notion.
The defendant Viktor Brack was in his collaboration in what the Prosecution calls the euthanasia program, only motivated by ethical considerations, by considerations of sympathy with the patient. That I could prove through his collaborators Hevemann, Blankenburg, and whatever their names were. These witnesses cannot be found. Since November of last year I made efforts in conjunction with the Court to find those witnesses, but, we were not able to do so. The film "I Accuse" is the only and most effective proof of the defendant Viktor Brack's attitude at that time, for Viktor Brack was the one who conceived the notion of this film in its development, and made his notion known to the competent film manager, who told him of his points of view and brought it home to him by way of a book, that what could be found in that book should be communicated to the public.
THE PRESIDENT: Tell, Counsel, do you know then that film could be show to some of the Judges, acting as Commissioners on behalf of the Tribunal? Could that be shown to day after half-past three when the Tribunal will recess? Do you know, Mr. McHaney?
MR. McHANEY: If the Tribunal please, I fell sure that could be arranged unless there is a previous engagement of the projection room but I could ascertain that and have Mr. Hardy report to the Tribunal after the intermission Or, since there is no intermission, I could have him report immediately after adjournment of court.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, I will appoint Judge Sebring, Judge Crawford and Judge Swearingen, on behalf of the Tribunal, to see the film and then report to the Tribunal as to whether or not, in their opinion, it contains matter of probative value and shoud be shown to the Tribunal as evidence in the case.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Let me say the following in this connection, Mr. President Having a person or a Judge who does not speak German, it will be quite different to understand the words spoken by the characters in the film, and for that —
THE PRESIDENT: (Interrupting) Counsel, one of the interpreters informed me that an interpreter could be furnished with the Commissioners to see the film who would translate the matter to them so that they would understand it.
DR. FROESCHMANN: He recently showed the film among yourselves and it turned out that in the first part of the film the sound track is rather poor so that even Germans had difficulty in understanding it. Consequently, it will be all the more difficult for an interpreter so to interpret the first part of the film that the court could understand it this afternoon. Therefore should suggest, Mr. President, that we be allowed to find the text of this film which I have been trying to do lately. I think I should be able to find the script of this film within the next days and that will, of course, make it much easier. The defendant Brack worked personally in the script for the film. Therefore, it is actual factual proof which I wish to introduce and I believe that, for this reason, we cannot deny the defendant Brack, when has no other defendant to make this point for him, to present this film as part of his evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: I wonder if the film could be shown in the court room here with the sound tracks.
MR. McHANEY: As the suggestion of Dr. Froeschmann, I think the court may very well postpone any decision on that matter until after it has looked at the film. As far as the first portion of the film is concerned, it seems to me that it runs for an intolerable length of time and does not present anything that, in any way, approachs anything having to do with this case, in any event, you could leave but the first hour an still have nothing lost as far as Dr. Froeschmann or his defendant are concerned.
DR. FRCESCHMANM: Mr. President, any cuts made in the film would make incomprehensible the conclusion, and such a work of art cannot be cut into pieces and no piece simply removed. If there is a trial run of it I should again suggest that the court view the entire film as soon as we have the script and it has been translated.
JUDGE SEBRING: Can it be ascertained whether or not any of the interpreters in the Translation Division, now presently here in the court room, have already seen the film?
INTERPRETER: Yes, Your Honor.
JUDGE SEBRING: Did you have any difficulty in understanding the sound track?
INTERPRETER: They were immaterial, Your Honor — the difficulties.
JUDGE SEBRING: I know, but could you understand the sound track?
INTERPRETER: Yes, very well, Your Honor.
JUDGE SEBRING: Can arrangements be made then, Mr. McHaney, for projecting the film here in the court room?
MR. McHANNEY: You mean after the recess, Your Honor?
JUDGE SEBRING: After the close of the day at 3:30.
MR. McHANEY: I shall certainly inquire. I don't know whether it will be more convenient for the projection people to handle it in Room 153 or in the Court room, but off hand, I don't know any reason not to do it in the
JUDGE SEBRING: It occurred to us that if the film could be shown here with the presence of one or two of the translators, the Commissioners appointed by the President could view the film and here and could have the benefit of their explanations from the translation box.
MR. HcHANEY: And that would be very desirable, and I will try to arrange that for 3:45.
JUDGE SEBRING: 3:35.
MR. McHANEY: 3:35, yes, sir.
DR. FROESCHMANN: I should like to request that the defendant Brack be allowed to attend this performance.
THE PRESIDENT: The request is granted. The defendant Brack, when the feature is shown, may attend the showing.
Counsel for defendant Brandt may proceed.
BY DR. KAUFMANN:
Q: witness, I now put to you Document Book No. 9. This concerns, among other things, securing the skulls of Jewish Bolshevistic Commissars. Please look at page 1 of Document No. 085, Exhibit 175. This is document of 9 February 1942, addressed to you. It is a secret communication, and it bears Sievers' signature. There are two annexes to this document. One of them concerns research into microscopy and the other one concerns the suggestion for securing the skulls of Jewish Bolshevistic Commissars for the purpose of scientific research. Now, I ask you whether you received this document and whether you are familiar with the contents of this letter, and whether you still remember it today?
A: I received the letter with the enclosures, but I recall as little on this as I recall on the other matters.
Q: Do you wish to say then that you did not road the two enclosures to this letter?
A: I really should like to say that because, as I have already said, is reports which were destined for the Reichsfuehrer were put into the mail that he was to read personally, and in the case of Professor Hirth's report, which is really incomprehensible to a lay reader, this report would not have been comprehensible as I said.
Q: Perhaps I might remind you that the two enclosures are closely bound together. The first inclosure should concern itself with the microscopic research, and the second inclosure should concern the securing of skeleton. Is that also your opinion?
A: Yes, that is the way the letter states it, first, cases the microscopic study and then the skulls.
Q: Now, I ask you, with particular regard to the fact that you are testifying under oath, did you know details or did you know particularly that, as can be seen from this report, human beings were to be killed and that then the skulls or skeletons were to be Sent to the University of Strasburg? Did you know those details?
A: No, I did not know those details.
Q: Would you tell us just what you did know, in broad terms?
A: I knew the contents of the letter, which I also sent on to Eichmann.
Q: This is Document 116, Exhibit 168, page 12. In this letter you inform Eichmann that everything necessary would be done to build up this collection of skulls and this would be done for Professor Hirth and you say court?? that SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Sievers will communicate with Eichmann as to the details of this. Now, I ask you, what is Eichmann?
A: I don't believe that I had any idea who Eichmann was at that time. Sievers sent me this draft of this letter which I certainly did not send on this for as it appears here. As was always the case, I showed it to Himmler and only then did I send, it on, and I am quite sure that I heard Eichmann's name at that time for the first time. I didn't know him otherwise nor did I know him later.
Q: Can you not tell us whether you didn't have some idea or other what was going on here in this whole business? When, for instance, it says here that a collection of skeletons is to be mere than one would very likely ask oneself or one would ask whether one didn't have some there nations about what was really going on?
A: I certainly made no other associations in this matter except those that would arise in connection with the collection of skulls for anatomical purposes, or it would never gave occurred to that any we would be used for this except prisoners who had died a normal death.
Q: Mr. Brandt, did you work in this matter independently hereafter or you submit it to Himmler for his decision.
I draw your attention new to page 12, exhibit 181 No. 057, this is page 15, a letter dated 21 June 1943 from Sievers to Eichmann. The letter was apparently sent by Seivers with copies for two other persons and also with a copy to be sent to you. This letter says that 115 persons were worked on and that these selected persons should be sent to the concentration camps at Natzweiler. How was such a letter handled by you in your registry office and I refer now to the copy which was sent to you; did you again submit it to Himmler, did he draw up the letter or did someone else; just how was it handled?
A: I do not remember ever having soon this letter. The note on it carries a file that not mine, but of my collaborator Berg's notation and he drew up several of the documents in the document book.
Q: Then you see on page 15 of the document book, no, please look at Document No. 083 whore there again is a mark by this chap, Berg. Please look at page 16, No. 091 and page 18, here there is [illegible] attributed to Dr. Brandt signed by Berg. This reproduces a talk that Berg had with Seivers; do you remember seeing this notation?
A: I do not remember having seen it.
Q: Let me point out the date 23 October, 1944.
A: This day was the last day of our stay in our East Prussia branch. The Russians were very close to our neighborhood. Berg draw up this memorandum, so that I could got a final report to Remmler but since we had to clear out by that evening there were more important things to do that to submit such a memorandum, so that possibly I did not show it to him at all.
Q: How I show you Document book 12 used draw your attention to Document 008, you see the No. 304. This is a tap secret matter to Pohl from the Reich Research counsel and concerns the production of a now type of typhus vaccine. In this letter there is motion that research into the production of typhus vaccine was to be undertaken and for this purpose one hundred suitable prisoners were to taken to Natzweiler; would you care to make a statement about this document?
A: I can remember as little about this letter as the theres, but I would say that it would be directed to Obergruppenfuehrer [Senior Group Leader] Pohl and that I received only a copy and then there was nothing more to be done about this. I simply glanced over the first part of the letter and probably only glanced at the second part, which concerned a publication which was to be made. Himmler reserved for himself the right to decide whether anything was to be published. My reply to Sievers which is on the next page of the document book only concerned itself with the second part of this letter.
Q: Was that the sentence where you state and I quote:
I ask you to decide whether the Reicksfuehrer SS should be named or the W.V.H.A. or the institute for Medical Military Research as the supporting agency,
did that attract your attention and when you saw that you became active in the matter?
A: Yes that is so. The rest of it was pertaining to an agreement that was reached earlier.
Q: Now, I ask you to compare document 009 on page 95. This is a letter from the Reichsfuehrer SS personal and your copy dated 6 June 1944 directed to Sievers and registered; a registered letter is not the same as a secret letter?
A: No.
Q: Now please take a look at this letter and tell me what you think of it?
A: That page is it?
Q: Page 95 of the German. The second- sentence roads as follows:
I have informed the Reichs Fuehrer SS as the matter seemed important enough.
Then you say that certain offices could be named as supporting offices and that Himmler also could be named to a support office; now what do you have to say what that?
A: This was Himmler's task which I communicated to Pohl on the basis of the last sentences in his letter.
Q: Now, please look at Document 370, Exhibit 294, page 74 of your document book. This is an affidavit on your part regarding experiments on typhus, please lock at paragraph 5 in paragraph 6 you say, "I am also quite sure that as a result of some of those experiments some prisoners died." Now are you making a statement as to whether you know that human being experiments were being carried out and for what did you know that human beings had allegedly died?
A: I know in general that human being experiment were under way, as that could be seen from the correspondence, but I had no knowledge that persons had died. The statement here is again a deduction, which I drew from the documents submit to me and from what the interrogator told me. It could also be seen from the documents that experimental subjects who had been sent to Natzweiler died on the way. Perhaps I drew some association between that fact and this here, so that would be the explanation for my statement here. As to the other statement in this affidavit, that the experimental persons were neither oriented nor could they avoid the experiments. I have no actual knowledge either from written statements or from oral statements on the part of third persons.
Q: Now I should like to speak to you about Document Book No. 2, concerning the high altitude experiments of Dr. Rascher; you said this morning that you know Rascher?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you see him frequently?
A: Very few times in the course of four to five years.
Q: Did he come to your office and speak with you?
A: Twice, shortly before a train left Munich, when he and his wife brought a letter to Himmler to the station and gave it to me.
Q: And what did he want when he came to Himmler's anti-room and saw you?
A: Either he brought a report or a letter; as I said this could not have happened more than four or five times.
Q: Were you ever present when Himmler talked with Rascher?
A: No. I was never present at those conferences.
Q: Did Rascher ever tell you personally either before or after a conference with Himmler why he had come?
A: No. Afterwards we never spoke about these visits together because I had no time for that.
Q: But you do not want to deny that you knew that Rascher was carrying out experiments on human beings in Dachau?
A: Yes, that I knew.
Q: Did you over visit Dachau yourself?
A: No, I was not in Dachau nor in any other concentration camp.
Q: Did you ever yourself take part in experiments on human beings?
A: No.
Q: Did you see these photographs which are supplements to the document books?
A: I cannot recall ever having seen them.
Q: Now, please turn to page 53. This is a letter from Rascher to Himmler in which he for the first time makes suggestions to Himmler that human being experiments should be carried out in Dachau; and he says in this letter that in these experiments he would certainly have to count on a lethal consequence for some of the subjects, a fatal consequence. Do you remember receiving this letter? If you don't, can you say how you probably handled this letter when it came in?
A: I do not remember the letter. As in all cases I certainly would have put this letter among the mail that Himmler would read personally after I had seen by one glance through it that this was a medical matter in which Himmler was in general interested.
DR. KAUFMANN We are speaking now, your Honor, of No.1002, Exhibit 44.
Q: Now, please look at Page 57 of the German document book. This is 1582-PS, Exhibit 45, a letter from you to Rascher in which you tell him that, of course, prisoners will be gladly made available for high altitude experimentation.
Was this letter written on your own initiative or is it a case similar to all the other cases that you have brought up here, namely, a letter written on orders from Himmler?
A: This letter does not originate with me but is to be traced back to clear orders on the part of Himmler.
Q: Now, please take a look at Page 61, Document 1581-A-PS, Exhibit 48, a letter that bears your signature, addressed to Sievers. Here you write that low pressure experiments are being carried out by the Luftwaffe in Dachau on prisoners there. Then look at the next document, Page 63, of the German Document Book, Exhibit 49, Document 1971-A-PS, Page 60 of the English Document Book, a letter from Rascher to Himmler, In the first sentence of this letter there is mention of an enclosed intermediary report, and there is no doubt that this interim report was enclosed. Now, I ask you whether you read this interim report.
A: I should like to assume that I did not because such medical reports were quite incomprehensible to me as a layman; and, secondly, because of all the work which I had to do, I did not have enough time to concern myself with reports which, first of all, I didn't understand and, secondly, which did not interest me. Thus it is that I put this report in with the mail that Himmler was to read without reading it myself.
Q: Now, please look at 1971-D-PS, Exhibit 32, Page 63 of the English Document Book, apparently a teletype message from Rascher to you. Here Rascher asks whether Poles and Russians also are to be pardoned if they have survived several severe experiments. In the Document 1971-E-PS, Exhibit 33, Page 66 is to be found your answer, a teletype message to Oberstrumbenfuehrer Schnitzler in Munich. In this letter you say that experimental subjects are not to be pardoned if they are Poles or Russians. This document was given particular stress by the prosecution, and its cruel and atrocious nature was emphasized. Do you remember this document or can you give us any explanation of how it came about that you signed this teletype message?
A: I have no memory of this communication. Of course, I cannot here state under oath whether this is one of those cases in which a teletype message was sent on Himmler's orders with my signature to it. It is quite as possible that I had seen this message and knew its contents and sent it off.
Q: But I would think that a document with such contents would still be remembered by you today; and yet you say that you do not remember it?
A: No, I don't. In view of the enormous number of orders that I got from Himmler, I could not concern myself with the details of each matter so that I would remember them for any length of time.
Q: Do you perhaps know whether you discussed this matter with Himmler and then waited for his orders?
A: I cannot say that. I assume that I put the teletype message among his mail and then received his orders along with all the rest of his orders.
Q: Now, as last document from this document book, I bring up Document 402, Exhibit 66, Page 89 of the German Edition. This is a letter to the German Research Institute for Aviation. This letter accompanies a long report, the subject of which is rescuing pilots from high altitudes. Do you have that report now in front of you?
A: Yes.
Q: This is Page 82 of the document book. Did you work on this report or at least give a cursory glance at it?
A: I certainly did not work on it; and I didn't even give a cursory glance at it, first of all because it's a medical report and, secondly, because it's much too long.
Q: Now, I should like to discuss with you Document Book Number 13. That concerns mustard gas experiments. Let me point out Document 198, Exhibit 254. It's a top secret matter, a letter to the Personal Staff of the Reichsfuehrer SS. In this letter there is mentioned a then accompanying report on the use of a cure for mustard gas burns, a letter from Grawitz. Now, what is your memory of this matter?
A: I don't remember it at all.
Q: Please look now at your affidavit, Page 1, NO-372. You say here that experiments were carried out on concentration camp inmates:
So far as I was aware, the experiments were directed toward giving the experimental subjects wounds in various parts of their bodies, and these wounds were then infected with Lost.
And on the next page of the document you state:
The result was that some of the inmates died.
Do you wish to say that this was the knowledge you had of the matter at that time, or do you wish to say that you acquired this knowledge after you had seen all the documents here, and in context?
A: This is a statement of what I know today. At that time I could not have known these interconnections because I had to do with these matters only from a purely external, technical point of view, namely, submitting them to Himmler and then passing on his orders to the competent officers. With the best mind in the world I could not have concerned myself with the content of such a report.
Q: Then you will grant me that I am right when I point out to the Prosecution that the way this is formulated here in this affidavit can lead to errors?
A: At the time I was interrogated I was in such a state of health that I could not be so critical as to discriminate between what I was setting down as matters that I knew of at the time under question, and what I could deduce later from seeing the documents. I also attempted by using such words as, "certainly; probably; and so on," to express the fact that I really did not have actual knowledge of these things.
Q: Now, as last document book, we are to bring up Document Book No. 3, which concerns itself with the freezing experiments. I first bring to your attention your affidavit on page 1, NO 242, Exhibit No. 80. This is your most extensive affidavit and contains various other names, the names of other defendants. On the last page, page 6 of the document book, you say (Page 50, I believe):
The Experimental subjects were kept for fifteen hours in the open air, naked.
In April of '43 a report on this matter was sent to Himmler. A person who reads this, of course, gains the impression that you, yourself, had read the entire report and that in this affidavit you are simply stating that at that time you knew not only what was going on in general but what was going on in detail. Would you like to state that this affidavit also is a statement regarding which you can say what you have already said in general about your affidavits?
A: The same thing is true here.
Q: Now, I ask you specifically whether you read the document 428—rather, correction—1613 PS, Exhibit 90, page 27, which is a letter from Rascher to Himmler, again with an extensive report on cooling or freezing experiments on human beings.
A: Because of the length of it alone I most certainly did not read this. Let me say now in regard to that affidavit of mine that you just brought up, in Document 371, Document Book No. 8, Exhibit 186, page 1; it says — that is the document book on epidemic jaundice:
I know that these experiments were carried out and that as a consequence of it some of the inmates died.
Prof. Gutzeit testified here that the danger of such experiments is not so certain, nor is it certain that the experiments were carried out—or could have been carried out. Now, the question is, how did this sentence ever get into my affidavit? Because, on the basis of facts I could not have made the statement; I can not know more that Prof. Gutzeit knows. This again this was merely a deduction that I drew from what the interrogator told me, and which I have certified in this affidavit by putting my signature to it.
Q: Mr. Brandt, I should like to take up now the question what your ideas were about the permissibility of such experiments on human subjects. You said today that you knew that experiments were being carried out on human beings, and that non-volunteers were being used in such experiments, and, finally, that fatalities must be expected. Now, I should like to know from you what your ideas are regarding the moral or ethical aspects of such experiments.
A: In taking care of requests that were addressed to Himmler, I always tried to put myself into the position of the person making the petition, and to work on the petition from that point of view. The same is true also for experimental subject. If I were in the position that an experimental subject finds himself, I certainly should wish not simply to be assigned to some experiment; rather I should like to be asked whether under certain condition I should be willing to submit to an experiment in order in this way, for example, to be pardoned, if my sentence were death. I am convinced that there would have been enough volunteers for such experiments if they were approach in the correct manner, and if they were treated as human beings — even though they might be criminals condemned to death — they should not be treated simply as chattel or as numbers. And in the way that the experiments were carried out a certain guarantee must be given that the risk for the subject is of a minimum. Now, I will be told that I am making these excuses now, as I admit that it is now that you have expressed such ideas for the first time. But according to my whole nature it is true that I was of the same opinion that time, as the opinion I am now expressing. On the other hand, I doubt whether at that time I reflected along the lines which I am discussing now. First, that wasn't part of my work; secondly, I was so overworked that it was only with great difficulty that I managed to take care of the purely technical aspects of these matters; and thirdly, because I was ignorant of the details I was not in the position to calculate the implications of all these matters. I am convinced that if experiments are carried out of the sort I have just described, it would not have to be repudiated by any one.
DR. KAUFFMANN (Counsel for the Defendant Brandt): I have one or two more questions, but before I ask the next question I should like to have the Court's approval.
The Court will remember that on last Friday the Prosecution objected to a certain question relating to the question of Himmler's influence and the whole milieu around him, could have on a man like Brandt. It is my opinion that this question must be ventilated.
It is my opinion that this question must be ventilated so that we may, so to speak, resurrect Himmler here for a few moments. That Himmler was Germany's grave-digger is perfectly clear, but this is a question which could lead to an extenuation of Brandt's guilt. The question: how did it happen that an innocent young man was so seduced? The seducer is always guiltier than the person seduced, and here it is Brandt who was seduced.
I should like to ask that he be allowed to say a few words about the influence that the demon, Himmler, had over him for years, and which finally led him to sign letters and documents which absolutely contradicted his own humane views.
MR. HARDY: May it please Your Honor. I submit again that Heinrich Himmler or Himmler's influences are not on trial here. This case is against the man in the witness box, Rudolf Brandt. I can't see that any discussion as to the character of Himmler will be material. Therefore, I object to any interrogation along the lines of the influences of Himmler.
JUDGE SEBRING: Well, Mr. Hardy, if your contention is correct, then what does that portion of the underlying law which guides this Tribunal which deals with superior orders mean when it said that superior orders shall not constitute a defense but that the fact of superior orders may be heard in mitigation of the sentence? Now if that does not allow a considerable inquiry into the type of superior order and the circumstance under which it was given and the relation that existed between the superior and the subordinate, what does it mean?
MR. HARDY: I follow Your Honor quite clearly up to the point until you get into what influence Himmler had on this subject here. Himmler's superior orders may well be pleaded in mitigation, but I don't see that the influence of Himmler upon the personality of one Rudolf Brandt has any bearing thereon.
JUDGE SEBRING: As a superior on one hand and as a subordinate on the other.
MR. HARDY: Well, we may well argue on that from now until Doom's Day, but I myself don't see where it has any materiality here.
JUDGE SEBRING: Well, if you were to take the other end of the discussion and all that would be ever relevant would be simply the statement from the witness: "I acted on superior orders" and quit, and the Court under those circumstances would never have any yardstick by which it could measure the question of mitigation if it thought that mitigation was proper.
MR. HARDY: I have no further comment, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Under these circumstances the witness may give the Tribunal a picture of the situation where he stood at the time, a brief succinct statement.
Counsel may propound to the witness the question which he suggested.
BY DR. KAUFMANN:
Q: Dr. Brandt, for years and years since 1934, you worked with Himmler, and the Court certainly has some impression of your purely exterior activities. Now would you please say how you saw Himmler's personality and what influence Himmler's personality exercised on you during the course of the years? I want to know what memories you have, what feelings you had and how your whole orientation was influenced by Himmler's manner of thinking.
THE PRESIDENT: The question should also include the matter of the official relations between the witness and Himmler. That is the main point of the question, the official relations and how Himmler's character affected this witness in his official duties in the position which he occupied.
BY DR. KAUFMANN:
Q: Witness, did you understand?
A: Yes.
Q: Please start.
A: Professor Gebhardt has already to a certain extent given a description of Himmler's personality. When I now describe Himmler and the SS as I understand them and as I experienced them, then I ask you not to construe that as propaganda because after all that we have found out in the meantime, there is no occasion for any such propaganda.
I emphasize particularly the fact that I clearly disapprove of Himmler the way every decent man does and must, first, because of the crimes he committed, secondly, because he committed suicide.
When I went to Himmler I was a young SS man, young both in years since I was not even twenty-five in the year 1934, and young also in my membership in the SS of which I had been a member less than four months. The first impression that a young and immature person has of the intentions and plans and of the human and official behavior of his superior make a particular impression on him and, in general, determine what his future development will be. Himmler's manner of working, working late at night, carrying out many official trips, brought it about even at the very beginning that I was subjected to the same working conditions. He took me everywhere with him to finish up the work that he was doing so that to a certain extent I was his body stenographer and was almost like his shadow. He dictated letters to me in the trains, airplanes, automobiles in the morning and at all hours of the day and night.
During the numerous official trips I saw how modest Himmler's behavior was in hotels where we spent the night, how friendly and polite he was to the servants. I saw how simply his way of living his life was and saw that he made no special demands, and in this connection I should like to remark that Himmler was one of the few leading Party or State officials who didn't play the "big shot" and who did not augment their legal incomes with a little money from the side. I saw how considerate he was for the welfare of women and children who were in distress because of the death of the bread-winner. These women should not have to deal fruitlessly with an unfeeling bureaucracy. The local SS offices relieved them of their cares and difficulties and to a large extent took care of the children.
This help was not restricted to the wives of members of the SS. Every woman who turned to him could be assured of SS assistance.
Himmler loved children, and for this reason played Godfather to a large number of children. Presents for these Godchildren on birthdays and on Christmas he chose himself, and until the very end he saw to it that all the children of an SS man who had fallen in battle received presents for Christmas. However, the SS men themselves were also the beneficiaries of his consideration. Front-line Waffen-SS units and SS field hospitals received special allotments of fruit, cigarettes, etc. on his orders; and I should like to say here that the correspondence that dealt with such matters was also under my competence.
It was a matter of course for Himmler during the War to spend Christmas Eve and Christmas Day with front-line soldiers of the Waffen-SS. He spent no Christmas at home during the war.
I saw also how industrious he was, how he made the performance of duty and work the prime consideration without ever thinking of his own personal enjoyments. He expected much more of himself than any other leading personage of the Party. These higher demands were generally valid for the whole of the SS but were made particularly on his closer collaborators.
I saw how understandingly and generously he received the many requests that were directed to him from members of the SS and from the entire population, how glad he was to help where financial or other assistance was necessary.
Right at the beginning of my job Himmler gave me the order that every letter addressed to him should be submitted to him no matter what its contents might be. No letter was to be filed away without being answered, much less thrown into the wastebasket, and his answer to such a letter was not merely a purely formal gesture. The person who sent the letter could see from the way it was treated and the contents of the letter with what human sympathy his application was being worked on.
Himmler's orders regarding the treatment of applications that came in corresponded with the way I felt about such matters. In my family, and later as a student, I had personal experience with distress and suffering, and I knew how difficult and impossible it often was for the simple man of the lower classes to protect himself against the cursory treatment on the part of people who were his social superiors. Thanks to Himmler's attitude on such matters I was enabled to help such people and along with Himmler all of my enthusiasm went into this work, which I did industriously, conscientiously, and which was the central point of all of my activity.
In conclusion, regarding my remarks as regards this matter about Himmler's readiness to help, was in agreement with his character as I came to know and to esteem. It was a matter of course, to him that a person's confidence in one should not be destroyed, a person who turned to him or to his office for advice or confidence. In the course of time I also found out when he spoke with guests during a meal and I was present, what his views were in one field or another, and I should like very much to give a few examples briefly. For example, he wanted to create a healthy working class
Q: Witness, I believe you could be a little more brief in this. Perhaps you could just outline the main points.
A: No, I just wanted to mention the fact itself. He wanted to extend credit to hard workers and peasants so that they could start a new livelihood. In the racial question Himmler frequently expressed the opinion that the Nordic race was a particularly selected race that was destined to take over the leadership in the reorganization of the community of Europe. The leadership of this main European people was not, however, to be restricted solely to Germans of the Nordic race. They were to be men from all nations and they should all be given an opportunity in peaceful competition to prove their fitness for this leadership.
A greater German Reich was to be the predecessor for this greater community that was to follow, and it was his view that such a community could not long endure if only the smaller nations were compelled to sacrifice some of their sovereignty. It could only exist if the more powerful states made even greater sacrifices voluntarily. When a person he was conversing with expressed the opinion that Germany would hardly be able to share the leadership with such people as Dutchmen, Swedes, Danes and so on, Himmler answered with an analogy from sport. He said it was a matter, of course, that fair rules should be observed as in soccer. In one year there would be a case, for instance, of a well known team from a large city, and in the next year it would be the small and unknown team from a small town group. Thus by analogy, the leadership in the European Community should change hands from time to time so that each nation could do its best for this European community. Himmler believed that in this way a totally different step would be taken in the development of mankind, what he conceived, namely, the first step in that direction through the creation of a kernel. For this State in German youth he tried to put in all nationalities through the Waffen SS. This Waffen SS included, if I remember correctly, 17 nationalities, French, Swedish, Lithuanians, even Musselmen were represented in these SS units. Germans as members lead as SS leaders, those belonging to these above mentioned European SS units, just as they were lead by leaders of other nationalities. In Germany the basis principle of these kernel troops were the same as those laid down in the SS as a whole.
Q: Witness, may I interrupt you a moment. Would you please concentrate your testimony more on the question of the influence these observations had on your manner of thinking?
A: All of these thoughts that were Himmler's and which were laid down in certain basic policies of his, I regarded as that which must be brought to realization. In some way or other these thoughts had to be made reality, and that was the direction in which my efforts were bent. Perhaps I, on the basis of my own ideals, I saw more in Himmler intentions than he really intended, but the difference cannot have been very great. It was clear to me that human insufficiency in general and the inevitable difference between theory and practice would push the achievement of these goals into the far future, but I was also of the opinion that we should try in every way to make reality from these thoughts. I should like to emphasize that what I have here said is not bused on conversations between me and Himmler, but that I saw these things in his letters and statements he made and in his basic orders to the SS. Thus I saw these goals being realized in my work and I believed a man who lived according to such basic rules and goals could only wish the good and would keep his hands clean of crime.
Q: Now, witness, my last question. At the beginning of this trial you stated that you did not consider yourself guilty and in the course of the presentation of the evidence you have stated how nevertheless you participated, and you explained this by saying that in part the enormous scope of your work lead to the fact that you were ignorant in many fields; that you were under orders always and as you have just said, Himmler's personality exercised a decisive influence on you. Now at the end of the presentation of evidence, I ask you whether you are still convinced after mature consultation with your conscience whether you considered yourself guilty or not guilty.
A: That is the decisive question for me. At any rate I do not feel myself to be guilty in the sense and within the scope of the indictment; for the Indictment characterizes me as Himmler's advisor, as a person of influence, who with a clear knowledge and cold calculation took part in the crimes against humanity. This is not the case. My guilt is, in my opinion, much slighter. On the other hand I am honest and consistent enough not to deny my guilt on principle. If a more or less exalted stenotypist in a relatively high position is guilty by having taken dictation and of having passed that dictation on to subordinate stenographers, or guilty by drawing up letters on Himmler's orders, then I am not without guilt in that sense. When if today after a calm reflection I must answer that question, and after I have discussed the documents with my counsel and he points out to me the tragedy for the individual human beings concerned, then I must say the following: The leaders mainly responsible to the German people in the last fifteen years are dead. Most of them took their own life — Hitler, Goebbels, Himmler, Goering and others. And, that is in my eyes a contradiction of the principles which these men represented while they were still alive. Aside from everything else they thereby offended against the principles of loyalty which they represented for other persons and persons whom they led. I condemn such an act and I myself would never have done anything similar. However, I am also of the opinion that my behavior can only be justly appraised after all the conditions are taken into consideration, which acted to determine my activity and my sphere of work. In the ante-room of one of the mightiest and most dangerous of men I never knew Himmler's soul. I don't know whether it can be traced back to the fact that I lack understanding for human beings, or that I am too trusting, or whether the reason lies in the fact that throughout all these years I lived more or less like a hermit with my eyes covered. Until the very few days before the collapse, I lived as a subordinate civil servant and never had any influence on Himmler. The reason for my promotion to Standartenfueher [Colonel] and Ministerial Councillor lies in the fact that Himmler did not want to offend me or let me occupy an inferior position as against his other employees.
I should like to mention that the chauffeur of his vehicle had the rank of Sturmbannfueherer in the Waffen SS which corresponds to the rank of Major. Let me remind you of the subordinate nature of my position, something which some witnesses will testify to in affidavits. SS Obergruppenfuehrer [Lieutenant Colonel] Dr. Martin is an eye witness who will describe in his affidavit that when there were conferences of a third person with Himmler I was called to him by a buzzer in the same way that, let us say, a director of a business concern calls for his stenographer or secretary.
Q: Mr. Brandt, we will avoid repetition. We have already gone into all these things.
A: That was one side. The other side for understanding this question of guilt rests on the fact that for years, since the beginning of my activities with Himmler, I was so over-burdened that I was unable to know the details of the hundreds and thousands of matters that went through my hands nor to reflect on all these matters. This is particularly true of the human being experiments which are here being discussed, which were entirely alien to my actual sphere of work, which has been corroborated by the testimony of the witnesses. These two points of view, namely on the one hand my insignificant position, secondly, my overwork, and thirdly, the rate of speed at which I had to work. All of these factors should play a role in the decision of the penalty which is to be layed upon me. I am sure that the Court will find itself almost impossible to place itself in the position in which I found myself at that time. They could not do so with the best will since that situation was unique and cannot be reconstructed. Nevertheless I call your attention to those three points of view that I have just enumerated when asking for a just verdict because I am deeply under the impression that the evidence brought up against me is very serious. Now, subsequently, as I look at it in peace I see my guilt as lying in the fact that I did not carefully study the in and out going mail that went through my hands or at least saved it for a time when I could study it at leisure which, however, I could not do because I was so overworked. In my basic attitude toward all people, even toward those who were persecuted in Germany for racial or other reasons, it would certainly have been impossible for me to sign these letters which unfortunately I actually did sign without taking this precaution of first reading them.
Consequently, in many matters I was too uninformed of the scope — the implication — that was going on and I should be happy today had I not signed those letters because they stand in such utter contradiction to my basic attitude, convictions which to this day I did not have to change.
MR. PRESIDENT: I would ask if the counsel is advised as to the film?
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, all arrangements have been made to project the film for the Commission at 3:35 here in the Court Room.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal sees no objection to any persons remaining to see the film who are now present in the Court Room with tickets authorizing them to be in the Court Room.
MR. HARDY: Pardon me, I didn't hear you, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: (did not come through ear phones) I say the Tribunal sees no objection to persons remaining to see the film who are now present in the Court Room with tickets authorizing them to be in the Court Room.
MR. HARDY: Does that include spectators too, your Honor?
THE PRESIDENT: Those who do remain should be willing to remain during the film so their departure during the film will not disturb the hearing of the film.
The Tribunal will now be in recess until 9:30 tomorrow morning.