1947-03-25, #1: Doctors' Trial (early morning)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal I in the matter of the United States of America, against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 25 March 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court room will please find their scats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal I.
Military Tribunal I 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, you ascertain that the defendants are all present in court?
THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honor, all defendants are present in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will note for the record the presence of all the defendants in court.
Counsel may proceed.
RUDOLF BRANDT — Resumed
DR. KAUFMANN (Counsel for the defendant Rudolf Brandt): Mr. President, at the moment I have no further questions to the defendant.
THE PRESIDENT: Any questions to the witness on the part of any of the defense counsel?
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY DR. NELTE (Counsel for the Defendant Handloser, also representing Dr. Servatius who appears for Professor Karl Brandt):
Q: Dr. Brandt, you said yesterday that you were never in a concentration camp.
A: I never visited a camp.
Q: Did your activities ever bring you into contact with the execution of these human experiments in the concentration camp?
A: No. I never had anything to do with these experiments, anything more than can be seen from the documents. These are documents which I wrote by order of Himmler either as a dictation or I transmitted them as copies.
Q: Did anyone discuss these experiments with you who personally carried them through?
A: No, no such conversation ever took place.
Q: Did anyone who personally experienced such experiments discuss them with you?
A: That was not the case either.
Q: So you can say neither from your own knowledge nor from direct personal report, anything that went on as regards human experiments in concentration camps?
A: No, I cannot do that.
Q: You said yesterday that the gentleman who submitted these affidavits to you for your signature had discussed documents with you before and made certain statements in connection with these documents. That, as I remember, was your description yesterday, is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: In that case he put the conclusions to you which he derived from these documents?
A: Yes, and to which I agreed.
Q: And he then asked you whether that wasn't your opinion too, is that right?
A: I can't tell you now whether he put that question to me directly—
Q: I mean according to the sense?
A: Yes, according to the sense, that is correct.
Q: Who actually caused the affidavits to be formulated in the way we see them now? Did you do that by dictating in that form, or were they submitted to you in the finished form?
A: I did not dictate these statements. They were submitted to me. I had, of course, an opportunity to make corrections.
Q: May I summarize your testimony of yesterday to the effect that if there are any factual statements made in the affidavits which you signed then these statements cannot be based on what you said but are only based on the documents which have been submitted to you in connection with the subject?
A: Yes, it can be based on the document and conclusions which I derived.
Q: But conclusions are not facts, are they? I now want to limit myself to the facts.
A: Yes, that is right, no facts.
Q: Now, I shall have the document book number 8 shown to you. This is the document book regarding Jaundice. In this document book you will find on page 3 a letter by Dr. Grawitz directed to Himmler. In that connection and concerning that subject you made the affidavit NO 371, Exhibit 186. This affidavit starts:
Dr. Grawitz, Reichsarzt-SS wrote to Himmler around the middle of the year 1943 that Dr. Karl Brandt desired to obtain prisoners in order to find the cause for epidemic jaundice.
Is it correct if I assume that the letter dated the 1st of June 1943 had been submitted to you and that this sentence which I have just read was to be a copy of the first sentence in that letter?
A: This is possible. During that interrogation I remember I had a telephone conversation with Dr. Brandt, but I did not remember exactly what it was about. It may be that I brought that telephone conversation in connection with that incident.
Q: Well, you are here saying that Dr. Grawitz wrote, around the middle of 1943, to Himmler, or hasn't this document been submitted to you at all?
A: Well, I really can't tell you that any more. It is possible that it was submitted to me, but I can't tell you that at the moment.
Q: At any rate, this is an indication of a letter which Grawitz was supposed to have sent to Himmler. But then your testimony in your affidavit continues as follows:
He did research work in this field with the collaborate of Dr. Dohmann and the Robert Koch Institute.
The wording of that sentence is not the same as it is contained in the letter but is composed in such a manner that any one reading it must assume that you were saying that from your own knowledge. Otherwise, you would have said "Grawitz said in that letter that Dr. Brandt carried on research work" or you would have had to formulate the sentence by saying: "that he was supposed to have carried on research work in that field." You did neither of these things. You are an academic person and you know the German language. Is it correct that such a sentence when read to a non-participant and especially when read to the Tribunal, must create the impression that you yourself knew about the matter which is contained in that letter? Is that right?
A: Yes.
Q: Would that impression be incorrect?
A: Yes, that impression is incorrect.
Q: Did you choose this formulation consciously, or was it submitted to you without having realized what was behind it?
A: I did not choose this formulation. It was contained in the statement in that form when it was submitted to me.
Q: Do you now realize that this formulation gives something incorrect? Do you?
A: Yes.
Q: And now I ask you to look at Figure 4:
Himmler wrote to Grawitz that Dr. Dohmann had the permission to carry out these experiments in Sachsenhausen concentration camp, and obtained a number of prisoners from WVHA who were to be used as experimental subjects.
In the book which was submitted to you you will find, on page 5, the letter which was sent by you as a copy to Pohl.
Was this letter submitted to you when you were interrogated?
A: I think, yes.
Q: And you are adding the following sentence in your affidavit:
I know that these experiments were carried out and that, as a result, a few of the prisoners died.
We are here concerned with hepatitis research and you already yesterday mentioned the testimony of Professor Gutzeit. Nobody up to that time knew that human beings died as a result of the experiments. How were you in a position to say: "I know that, as a result of these experiments, a few of the prisoners died"?
A: I have no knowledge of that. That is also a conclusion which I arrived at on the basis of the interrogation.
Q: Well, Dr. Brandt, if you had said "I believe" or if you had said "I assume" then one could discuss that question, but here you are saying "I know" a formulation which cannot be misunderstood, and I am asking you — did you use that formulation during the interrogation, namely, that "I know that prisoners died"? Did you?
A: I don't believe so because I really didn't know it.
Q: In that case you are saying that you did not formulate the sentence in that manner; "I know"?
A: I am quite sure that I did not.
Q: In that case you would logically have to say that the interrogating officer formulated the sentence in that manner and in that manner submitted it for your signature, although you actually did not say that?
A: That can only be explained in that way.
Q: You are saying, under oath, today that neither at that time nor today you knew that prisoners died as a result of these experiments? Is that correct
A: I don't know it.
Q: Under Figure 5 it says:
Dr. Eugen Haagen, Oberstabsarzt of the Luftwaffe, also carried out experiments in the Concentration Camp Natzweiler in order to discover effective vaccines against epidemic jaundice.
You are saying then: "As I remember, Dr. Dohmann worked with Haagen in the year of 1944 in the Concentration Camp Natzweiler." When one says: "As I remember", one is expressing that one remembers that event, that is, that one knows about that incident.
Do you want to state that you told the interrogating officer that you remember that Dohmann and Haagen worked in Natzweiler together?
A: I cannot have said that in that form because I had no positive knowledge about that.
Q: Let us leave out the words "positive knowledge". I am just asking you — did you know that Dohmann worked in the camp of Natzweiler, or didn't you?
A: No, I had no knowledge about that.
Q: Wouldn't you also think that this formulation, must create the impression as if you were testifying something that you yourself kept in your memory and stated?
A: This impression must arise.
Q: The next sentence reads:
Experiments on human beings who did not volunteer were carried out and such experiments resulted in fatalities.
You are here saying "experiments on human beings were carried out (a) on human beings who did not volunteer, (b) and in which cases deaths occurred." Did you tell that to the interrogation officer at that time as being part of your knowledge?
A: No, I could do that just as little as in the preceding case.
Q: Then you are saying: "That it is impossible because I didn't know that then just as little as I do today." Is that right?
A: Yes.
Q: Are you aware that one would arrive at the logical conclusion that the interrogating officer must have written down something other than you had said?
A: It must be, of course, but naturally I can't remember in detail what it all was that I told the interrogation officer. My state of health was not adequate at that time, for my attitude regarding all these matters to be sufficiently critical. In addition, I was completely under the spell of the documents which had been submitted to me and also under the impression which I gained from the conclusions of the interrogation officer.
Q: But if you had said anything like that then it would have been incorrect?
A: It would have been incorrect, yes.
Q: In that case, there is only one alternative. Either the interrogation officer had written down something to be signed by you that you did not state, or the other alternative, what you have said is incorrect as you are saying under oath today.
Is that right?
A: Yes.
Q: And now, Figure 6 says, and that is something that was frequently used by the prosecution in order to attempt to prove that a certain circle of persons must have had knowledge of the experiments and the following words were put into your mouth:
Karl Brandt naturally knew of these experiments since he personally fostered them.
I believe that this sentence was submitted to you, since the name Brandt could be seen in the letter of the 1st of June, 1943. Is that right?
A: Yes.
Q: And then you were told, "Well in that case he must have had knowledge," is that right?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you know from your own knowledge that Karl Brandt had known of these experiments and how they were carried out?
A: No
Q: The next sentence reads:
Handloser and Schroeder must have been informed about that since Dohmen and Haagen were physicians in the medical corps of the army, the air corps,
Did you know Dohmen?
A: Dohmen? No, no, I didn't.
Q: Didn't you ever get in contact with him?
A: No.
Q: Did you know his position, his function?
A: No.
Q: In that case you only knew that he was a medical officer?
A: I knew only what I could see from the letter of the Reicharzt.
Q: And now it says here that Professor Handloser must have been informed about the experiments in Sachsenhausen and in Natzweiler since Dohmen was a physician in the medical corps of the army. Can you state, another reason, under oath, that Professor Handloser would have had to have knowledge of these experiments other than that Professor Dohmen was a medical officer in the medical corps?
A: No.
Q: In that case we are just concerned with a conclusion which I assume that not you made, but your interrogating officer, is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: You have stated in yet another affidavit, No. 372, exhibit 252, matters regarding experiments with Lost gas. I am submitting to you Document Book 13 and I am referring to your report, Document NO-097, which you can find on page 19, of the document book. This is a letter from Ahnenerbe, Dr. Sievers, to Rudolf Brandt, with an attached report by Hirt, regarding his experiments which he carried out by order of the Wehramacht, as it says there. Now just listen to me and see what you said in your affidavit:
SS Hauptsturmfuehrer [Captain] Dr. August Hirt, Professor at the University of Strasburg and co-worker at the Society Ahnenerbe [Ancestral Heritage], carried out before the year 1942, experiments on Lost, by order of the Wehrmacht.
Furthermore, you are saying that Hirt had been writing reports. It says:
My attention was drawn to Hirt's report when working in Himmler's office.
This report which is before you on Page 19—is that the report which was pointed out to you when you were interrogated?
A: I believe so, yes.
Q: Did you discuss that report with your interrogating officer?
A: It was not discussed but I think it was just shortly mentioned. However, I cannot remember any details.
Q: You have said in your affidavit:
SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Hirt had carried out experiments before 1942 by order of the Wehrmacht.
Doesn't that have to create the impression with the Tribunal that when Hirt was carrying out experiments he did so by order of the Wehrmacht, and, secondly, that he was a Hauptsturmfuehrer with the SS? In other words, that there was a connection there between the Wehrmacht and the SS in this field? Isn't that right?
A: Yes, that impression must be created.
Q: Do you know what the date of this report is which Hirt made and which is before you now?
A: It bears the date of April 1942.
Q: April 1942 is the date of the letter sent to you, isn't it?
A: No, this is the letter from Sievers to Hirt.
Q: No, From Sievers to Brandt and to you. It is dated 2 June 1942, is that correct—page 19?
A: Yes, 2 June 1942.
Q: The attached report about experiments shows what regarding the time of the experiments?
A: No, there is no date mentioned on it.
Q: Do you know when the campaign against France had started?
A: I think it was in June 1941.
Q: When? You mean Russia. I am speaking about France.
A: That started in June 1940.
Q: Let us say May 1940. Now look at page 3 of that report which is before you, quite at the bottom:
The application of these experiments on human beings could not be carried out since the campaign against France called me back to my front duties, from which I only returned in May 1941.
In that case this report refers to experiments which Hirt carried out when he was still medical officer of the army, at the beginning of 1940. At that time there was no Wehrmacht Medical Service as yet. And if you had read the report you would have found out that this was done on animals and officer-candidates of the medical military academy. If you are then saying in your affidavit "SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. August Hirt" and now you are not mentioning the date "early 1940" but you are just saying "before 1942" and by order of the Wehrmacht carried out experiments with Lost gas," then that must create a wrong impression which has to be corrected.
First when the experiments were carried out that was before May 1940; secondly, Hirt was not Hauptsturmfuehrer as you have stated but he was medical officer of the army; thirdly, I must again ask you—it says he was a collaborator with the Ahnenerbe. Are you saying that Hirt, when carrying out experiments by order of the Wehrmacht, was a collaborator with the Ahnenerbe—now I remind you, the date was 1940?
A: Whether at that time he already belonged to the Ahnenerbe I do not know.
Q: But you are saying that here. Are you now saying, under your oath, that you do not know it?
A: I can't remember when Professor Hirt started to work with Ahnenerbe for the first time.
Q: Since when had you known him?
A: I only saw him once or twice at Himmler's headquarters during the war.
Q: And you cannot give me any dates, can you?
A: I think it must have been 1942 or 1943.
Q: Thus 1942 or 1943 for the first time.
MR. McHANEY: If the Tribunal please, I don't think this type of cross-examination is proper. I don't understand that the witness is being hostile to Handloser at this stage. He can state generally that his assumptions of knowledge on the part of Handloser with regard to these matters was an assumption on his part but this cross-examination is highly argumentative. He is now taking documents, captured documents, here and arguing with the witness on the basis of these documents about statements in his affidavit. He can ask the witness a direct question about a statement in his affidavit and the witness can give a short answer and we can proceed; but I must object to this argumentative type of examination based upon documents which speak for themselves and upon which Dr. Nelte can make his arguments in his summation and in his briefs.
He can point out any inconsistencies between the affidavit of this witness and the documents in the record but I don't understand that the witness is being hostile to Dr. Nelte. It seems to me that it is a great waste of time to spend the whole morning going over each of these affidavits and comparing them with the great number of documents in the record.
DR. NELTE: Mr. President, we are not here concerned with one affidavit by one witness. We are here concerned with a series of affidavits of a certain witness, or rather co-defendant. This series of affidavits was used by the prosecution when submitting their evidence. It was partly submitted in connection with matters where there was no other means of evidence, but these affidavits. When conducting this examination I attach importance to show that we were here concerned with a certain method, namely that some documents which you, as well as the prosecution and we, are reading and from which the conclusion can be drawn that from those document, testimonies were made in a manner as if this witness not only just repeated the contents of these documents, but that he himself knew and experienced what is contained in the affidavits. This is to be proved in the case of all of these documents, and in my opinion that is of high importance for the judgment of all the matters which are being touched upon by these affidavits; and I therefore ask you to permit me to conduct my demonstration of evidence in the same way as the Prosecution in that respect.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel now examining the witness is entitled to examine the witness as to these affidavits in which the names of the clients of examining counsel are used, but insofar as the questions by counsel are purely argumentative they are improper. Counsel may ask the witness generally if he was personally advised as to the facts stated in these affidavits. So far the witness has said he was not; but the objective sought by counsel can be accomplished, it seems to the Tribunal, without lengthy arguments with the witness. A few short brief questions to the Wetness Brandt on the stand as to his knowledge of these affidavits would very likely elicit the statements already made that he made statements not based on his own personal knowledge. Counsel could propound his questions without argument in a more simple form, and the Tribunal is of the opinion his right would exist to cross-examine the witness as to these statements.
Q: Dr. Brandt, you have submitted another affidavit, NO-370, Exhibit No. 294, and there you speak of experiments which were carried out with typhus serum in the concentration camp Natzweiler; here under Figure 6 you have said:
I am not informed about the technical details of these experiments. I know, however, that these experiments were carried through. Moreover I am sure that a number of prisoners died as a result of these experiments.
Will you please state where from you gained that knowledge?
A: I know nothing about that. I can only give the same answer as I already did before.
Q: But it could not be seen from the documents which exist about that matter and which were submitted to you that prisoners died; now can you state "I am sure that a number of prisoners died?"
A: I signed the formulation in that form.
Q: Without actually knowing what you signed?
A: Yes.
Q: And in the next paragraph it says "As far as I remember, Haagen was carrying out experiments on human beings in Natzweiler with reference to other diseases, yellow fever, influenza, epidemic, jaundice, hepatitis, cholera, and so forth, and nephritis." Do you know what nephritis is?
A: I don't know it.
Q: But you wrote it, and you signed it, didn't you?
A: Yes.
Q: How could you say "as far as I remember Haagen was carrying out these experiments?"
A: It was submitted to me in that form, and I already pointed out that I could not differentiate between actual knowledge and the conclusions which I made from what the interrogating officer said, and from what I saw in the document.
Q: At any rate you cannot allow the sentence which I just read to be regarded as having been stated from your knowledge?
A: In no way at all.
Q: On the next point it says:
SS Gruppenfuehrer [Lieutenant General], Dr. Karl Brandt, Reich Commissioner for the Medical and Health Service, Generaloberstabsarzt [Chief Medical Officer] Dr. Siegfried Handloser, Chief of the Medical Service of the Wehrmacht, Generalarzt [General Physician] Dr. Paul Rastock, Plenipotentiary for Science and Research, (Generaloberstabsarzt) Dr. Oskar Schroeder, Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe, must have known about Dr. Hagen's experiments on human experimental subjects.
Do you know any concrete facts which would in any way justify you to say that the indicated persons had knowledge of the experiments on human subjects?
A: No.
Q: And now there is a final sentence in that affidavit which I think is of particular importance, and there it says:
These gentlemen were informed of all that happened in connection with scientific and medical research and these experiments could not have been carried out without their knowledge and approval.
Did you tell that to the interrogating officer?
A: No.
Q: Can you maintain that statement under your oath today.
A: You mean what I said in the statement?
Q: Yes.
A: No, I cannot maintain it.
Q: Can you tell me any incident from which you could derive this information about all these gentlemen?
A: I have no facts, knowledge.
This is merely a conclusion on the basis of the position that the gentlemen concerned had held.
Q: Now, you made an affidavit NO-444, Exhibit 329, which mainly concerns itself with the selection of concentration camp inmates —
MR. McHANEY: I wonder if it would satisfy Dr. Nelte if the Prosecution stipulated that the witness will testify to the same facts as to all the remaining affidavits which he signed. I don't know what more he can ask the witness to do than he has already done, and the Prosecution is perfectly willing to stipulate that he will testify to the same effect as to all the other affidavits, and it will save us all the time and trouble of having the same questions put to each affidavit.
DR. NELTE: I would be far more expedient if the prosecution would perhaps withdraw all the affidavits, which were made by Rudolf Brandt. In that case, we would not have to concern ourselves with the affidavits at all.
MR. McHANEY: That is hardly the same thing as we suggested. We will not withdraw the affidavits, the witness on the stand signed then under oath and we maintain the affidavits. We are willing to stipulate that this witness will state that his affidavits were not based on his personal knowledge. He has testified that way already to four or five, I understand that he testified on direct that they were all not based on his person knowledge. We want to stipulate at the same time that he will testify in the same way with respect to the other affidavits, which Dr. Nelte is about to ask him about that he would testify.
DR. NELTE: I don't know whether this is the purpose of the examination, the prosecution is just telling me that the witness is going to say the same thing all the time; if the prosecution would tell me that they assume that all the facts which concern my clients have been made without any personal knowledge, merely on the basis of the documents presented, merely on the basis of conclusions, then I may perhaps be satisfied with it, or if the prosecution would say that on the basis of these affidavits of Rudolf Brandt versus Prof. Handloser, they will not draw any evidential conclusions. If they don't do that, I must bring the proof in every case where the defendant Handloser is concerned that this supposition is incorrect.
MR. McHANEY: If the Tribunal please, I think that the distinction I make is quite clear to Dr. Nelte and also to the Tribunal. We have no intention to draw any assumptions at all on the basis of these affidavits. We are simply willing to stipulate that this witness will testify, as he has already done in general and to specific affidavits put to him by Dr. Nelte, that they were not based on his personal knowledge; we wish to stipulate that with respect to the remainder of the affidavits. I don't think there is any choice on the part of Dr. Nelte, I think it is inexcusable if the time of the Tribunal is consumed by putting this type of question. The witness has gone the whole way with everything and he can do nothing more for Dr. Nelte and his client than he has already done.
He was put under a very short examination for about three hours and I think it is inexcusable that the defense counsel will take up another day or so putting the same type of questions to him, which he has already answered. We are willing to stipulate, as I have already outlines, that he will continue to testify in the same way on the other affidavits and I don't think there is anything more that he asked for.
DR. NELTE: We are not concerned here with time, time can make no difference as we are concerned with the finding of the truth. I am seeking truth and if the truth is in any way covered over, it has to be uncovered and clarified, but I think I am satisfied with the statements made by Mr. McHaney, namely, that he or rather the prosecution, will not draw any conclusions as to the guilt of those people that these affidavits incriminate.
MR. McHANEY: And of course not bound by what he stated my stipulation was; its in the record, it's perfectly clear and Dr. Nelte must understand it since it's been repeated three times.
JUDGE SEBRING: I am afraid that is what you said, that you would not draw any conclusion, that is precisely what you said, you would not draw any assumption from the statements made by Brandt in his affidavits.
MR. McHANEY: He asked us to stipulate, as I understood it, that this man's affidavits were based on documents submitted to him and he had no personal knowledge. Obviously the prosecution will not stipulate to any such thing. We will stipulate that that is what this witness will testify, which is an entirely different matter. All the witness can do now is to testify that he based the affidavits on documents submitted to him, he has testified this repeatedly, that is the fact. The prosecution does not admit that, but we admit he will continue to testify in that way. In order to save time, we are willing to stipulate that he will testify in that respect, but we, of course, certainly don't admit the truth of it. In that regard, we can say no more than we have already said.
DR. NELTE: In that case the prosecution is admitting that the affidavit of Rudolf Brandt only contain the matters which are contained already in Documents, that is, they are not going to draw any conclusions from the testimony of Rudolf Brandt, but only from the Documents.
I am quite satisfied with that statement by the prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: I did not understand the statement of counsel for the prosecution as Dr. Nelte does. Counsel for the prosecution stated that he will admit that this witness, Rudolf Brandt, Defendant Brandt, now on the stand will testify as to other affidavits, which may be presented to him on cross examination by Dr. Nelte, as he has in the past, that statements in those affidavits were not based on facts within his personal knowledge.
DR. NELTE: But, Mr. McHaney was also kind enough to say that the prosecution is admitting that Rudolf Brandt only wrote in his affidavits what could also be seen from the documents and that therefore they are not relying, on the affidavits, which were made by Rudolf Brandt, but they are only concerned with the interpretation of the documents and that is the way I understood Mr. McHaney, namely that he does not wish to draw any conclusions from the statements of the defendant Rudolf Brandt; if that is correct, if I understood it correctly, I am completely satisfied.
MR. McHANEY: Dr. Nelte, you understood it exactly one hundred percent wrong for the third time. The Tribunal correctly stated the form of the stipulation, namely that the witness will testify here that these affidavits were based on documents submitted to him and not on his personal knowledge. The prosecution does not stipulate that in fact is or was the case. We do stipulate that he will testify that that's the way it was, and that is all we will stipulate, and that is all that the witness can testify to here, and he has already testified to it at least twenty-five times.
DR. NELTE: Mr. McHaney, you have just heard that Judge Sebring has understood your testimony exactly as I did, namely that you said you were not going to draw any conclusions from what Rudolf Brandt has said. Now, you are saying that you are merely stipulating that Rudolf Brandt, as he did in previous case would continue to say that he would not know anything more than that which was written in the documents, which has been submitted to him.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal does not desire to enter into any particular discussion over what has been said, it has been heard and it is in the record, Mr. McHaney at least has stated now what his stipulation will be; and if that, is not satisfactory to Dr. Nelte, Dr. Nelte may continue with his examination but his questions should be limited strictly to the point which has been referred to, unless he can show that the witness on the stand will state that his affidavits were false and he knew the statements he made then were false.
Q: In the Document No. 444, which is an affidavit you made, the selection of the concentration camp is being discussed. You were saying that it needed the express approval of Himmler to carry out the experiments on concentration camp inmates; is that correct; did you say that here?
A: Yes.
Q: Now, in this affidavit you stated that it was easy for the physician concerned to gain his permission to carry out experiments on concentration camp inmates; do you know whether Professor Handloser, or one of his agencies that is chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service or Army Medical Inspectorate; did ever try to gain such permission from Himmler?
A: I don't know about that.
Q: You were saying furthermore that a number of persons from Himmler's environment were well informed about the experiments, and you were mentioning a number of gentlemen. Furthermore, in some vague form, you say:
high representatives of the Luftwaffe, the army and navy were also involved in this matter.
Although you have not mentioned any names here, the formulation could raise suspicion against any highly placed medical officer, as for instance Handloser. Can you state any fact which could show that Professor Handloser, for instance, actually was involved in that matter?
A: No.
Q: Are there any facts which justify the conclusion that the chiefs of his staff, for instance, Generalarzt Wuerfler, Chief of Medical Services, or Generarzt Schmidt-Bruecker had anything to do with that matter?
A: No, I don't even know these gentlemen.
Q: It could well be possible that you saw something in your correspondence which could indicate such a connection?
A: No.
Q: I have another few questions which concern the Defendant, Professor Karl Brandt. In your affidavit, Document 440, you were saying, speaking about the sterilization experiments, that Dr. Karl Brandt certainly knew of these sterilization affairs. In this connection you are not giving us any factual proof from which it could be concluded by whom Dr. Brandt was informed about these sterilization experiments. Can you still maintain that statement that you then made under oath?
A: No.
Q: When speaking about "lost" gas experiments in your affidavit, you said the following under figure 5:
In March, 44, the Fuehrer ordered SS-Brigadefuehrer, Dr. Karl Brandt, the Plenipotentiary General for Health and Medical Services, to carry out medical research in connection with the gas attacks.
Brandt sent a copy of this letter to Himmler in order to distribute it among the competent persons in the SS and ask them to establish contact with Brandt. Since it concerned experiments, I distributed copies of this Fuehrer Order to Dr. Grawitz, Reichsarzt-SS and Police, Standartenfuehrer Sievers, from the Ahnenerbe, SS-Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl from the WVHA also received a copy of this Fuehrer Order.
Do you remember the contents of the Fuehrer Order which you mentioned and which ordered Dr. Karl Brandt to work on chemical warfare agents?
A: No.
Q: You are saying that in this order medical research work was mentioned as a special task. Do you maintain this statement?
A: No, I cannot do that.
Q: You have sent the order to Sievers, Grawitz and Pohl. Do you know why this was done?
A: Here in the document I saw the handwritten notation of Himmler, which he made on the original, where he himself ordered that the three mentioned gentlemen were to receive a copy The distribution was not made on my own initiative.
Q: Did Professor Karl Brandt desire any such notification?
A: This cannot be seen from the document.
Q: In that case, are you saying that your knowledge is merely based on the document and that, therefore, the distribution was only carried out on the desire of Himmler?
A: Yes.
DR. NELTE: I have no further questions to this witness.
DR. MARX: Dr. Marx, Counsel for the Defendant Professor Dr. Schroeder. Mr. President, I ask you to permit me to put a few questions to the witness.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY DR. MARX:
Q: Witness, in a number of affidavits you among others mentioned the name of Professor Dr. Schroeder. You asserted that experiments were carried out under the protection and by order of the Luftwaffe Medical Inspectorate. For that reason I should like to put a number of questions to you in order to clarify a number of points. At first I shall have the document book of the Prosecution, the document of the Prosecution No. 44 Exhibit 129, shown to you. This can be found in the document book No. 5 of the Prosecution concerning sea-water experiments, and it can be found on page 1.
Have you that document before you?
A: Yes.
Q: Would you please tell the Tribunal what you Know about this complex of questions or what you know about that complex of questions from your own knowledge and your own memory.
A: During the interrogation I only remembered the fact that a request was made to Himmler on the part of the Luftwaffe to carry out experiments in order to render sea-water potable. I vaguely remembered —
Q: And that is what I am going to ask you.
A: I vaguely remembered that we were concerned with the testing of two procedures of which one was more dangerous than the other.
Q: Yes, and now would you please look at figure 3 of this document. There it says:
The Luftwaffe had at its disposal two methods to make sea water drinkable. One of them was extremely dangerous.
You were saying something else, weren't you? You say that one was more dangerous then the other. That, of course, is something completely different than saying one of them was extremely dangerous, isn't it? Well, what is correct?
A: Well, I can't remember to have used the word "extremely".
Q: Did you say that one was more dangerous than the other
A: I would assume so because I vaguely remembered that.
Q: In that case I must assume that you did not wish to express in your affidavit that one of the methods to make sea water drinkable was extremely dangerous. You did not wish to express that thought, did you?
A: No, I did not.
Q: You are continuing with your affidavit:
Consequently that is for this reason that one of those methods was extremely dangerous, General Schroeder, Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe, requested Himmler to place experimental subjects at the disposal of the Luftwaffe at Dachau.
How did you get that knowledge?
A: I have no knowledge about that.
Q: Well then how is it that this passage gets into your affidavit? Well no other conclusion can be drawn but that General Schroeder, or Professor Schroeder, in his capacity as medical chief of the army, requested Himmler to place experimental subjects at his disposal, since he considered these experiments extremely dangerous, or at least one of those methods extremely dangerous isn't that right?
A: I couldn't draw that conclusion at that time.
Q: You couldn't draw it and you didn't want to draw it?
A: No.
Q: Was this affidavit submitted to you in that form afterwards? After your interrogation?
A: Yes.
Q: Why didn't you object against it?
A: I repeatedly told you the reasons. I had no power of differentiation because of my State of Health to differentiate between positive knowledge and conclusion.
Q: Witness, I must ask you these questions in this case because it is clear that any further statement would be extremely incriminating for my client if it wasn't correct. In that case I ask you not to get annoyed if I put such questions to you. In figure 4 it is further stated — have your found figure 4?
Himmler approved Schroeder's request and the experiments were carried out. It was expected that some of the prisoners would die as a result of the experiments but I do not remember whether deaths occurred.
I ask you how did this passage originate, namely, that it was expected that some prisoners would die as a result of the experiments?
A: As I remember there is a report contained in the document, and I think that this report was submitted to me. On the basis of this report and our subsequent discussions this formulation was chosen on the part of the Prosecution.
Q: Were you asked what conclusions you drew from said report?
A: I cannot remember any details but I don't think so.
Q: Did you consider yourself capable to draw any such conclusions from a report?
A: No.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel at this time the Tribunal will be in recess.
(A short recess was taken)