1947-03-25, #3: Doctors' Trial (afternoon)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 23 March 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court room will please find their seats.
The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment Counsel, The Tribunal having received the certificate signed by the prison surgeon certifying that Defendant Oberheuser should be excused from this afternoon's session, the Secretary General will file the certificate.
Yesterday afternoon, three members of the Tribunal, having been designated as commissioners to observe and hear the film "I accuse", accomplished their mission and saw and heard the film. They reported that the translations were entirely effective and the the film with the accompanying sound track was both heard as well as seen. The commissioners have unanimously reported to the Tribunal that in their opinion the film is of no probative value whatever in this case. The Tribunal having considered their report, it is unanimously of the same opinion. The Tribunal, therefore orders that the film will not be shown to the Tribunal as evidence, being entirely lacking in materiality or probative value.
Counsel may proceed.
RUDOLF BRANDT — Resumed CROSS EXAMINATION — Continued
BY DR. WEISGERBER (Counsel for the Defendant Sievers):
Q: Dr. Brandt, before the recess I asked you whether Himmler attached value to the maintenance of greatest secrecy Regarding his research assignment. You affirmed that question and you furthermore stated that according to your knowledge there was in existence a special order for the maintenance of secrecy. When speaking about this special order were you speaking about the basic order Number 1 regarding the maintenance of secrecy, namely, the order of Hitler, or was there yet another special secrecy order issued by Himmler which just concerned his research assignments?
A: At the moment I cannot remember that, I would assume that another order was especially issued for that purpose; but I can't tell you that now for sure.
Q: In that case you cannot remember the year in which this order was issued?
A: No.
Q: I shall now have the document Volume 3 shown to you. I am referring to the affidavit which you made on the 6th of September 1946 and which was submitted by the prosecution as Document NO-242, Exhibit 80. On page 4. I will refer to a paragraph which starts with "Sievers was annoyed", and I am going to show you this document book so that you can define your attitude towards it.
(Document book handed to witness.)
Q: (Continuing) This passage can be found at the end of the page. It starts with "Sievers was annoyed".
Sievers became annoyed at the intervention of Dr. Grawitz and immediately raised objections against his gaining control of the experiments. Sievers was also annoyed with a report of a conference between Grawitz, Rascher and Obersturmbahnfuehrer [Lieutenant Colonel] Poppendick, in which Rascher quoted Grawitz as having said that it was an untenable state of affairs, that one who was not a physician such as Sievers should have jurisdiction over medical matters.
Would you please turn to page 126 of the German translation in the very same document volume. We are concerned with the document NO-320, exhibit of the prosecution 103.
This is a letter sent to you by Sievers on the 28th of January, 1943. Would you please read through that letter and then answer the following questions? First, was this letter submitted to you during your interrogation? Were the contents of this letter transferred to your affidavit of 6 September 1946 that you subsequently made?
A: I assume that this letter was submitted to me, but really what I then said in my affidavit would be contradiction to the contents of the letter.
Q: Where do you see that contradiction?
A: Nothing about "being annoyed" can be derived from that letter.
Q: I attach importance to whether you can remember that this letter was submitted to you during your interrogation of the 6th of September, 1946. Can you still remember that?
A: I believe it was submitted to me.
Q: If you look at the letter, the Document No. 320, Exhibit 103, are you then still of the opinion that Sievers sent this letter to you on your own initiative, and that he personally was annoyed about the behavior of Dr. Grawitz, or is this letter kept along the general line which of necessity was a consequence of the directives of Himmler?
A: The latter is true.
Q: Then you are of the opinion that Sievers personally had no special interest in the development of the situation between Grawitz and Rascher, but that he had to write this letter in order to carry out the directives of Himmler who wanted the collaboration of Rascher with Ahnenerbe [Ancestral Heritage]?
A: Yes.
Q: You know Sievers' diary, don't you? Do you know Sievers' diary?
A: Yes, I have seen it here.
Q: You didn't know it before?
A: I don't remember.
Q: Were such diaries dept in all of the agencies of the Reichsfuehrung-SS?
A: Yes.
Q: That was the result of an order by Himmler?
A: Yes.
Q: From Sievers' diary it can be seen that he repeatedly had conferences with you.
How did that come about, and what generally was the subject of such conferences?
A: Himmler originally wanted to receive Wuest and Wievers personally in order to discuss their affairs with them since he was personally very interested in the work of Ahnenerbe. However, it was not possible for him from the point of view of time to carry on these intended conferences. In this manner the only way out was that Wuest and Sievers approached him by way of writing, that is, writing to him personally or sending their letters to me. In order to avoid an extensive correspondence, Sievers and I arranged that he would visit me from time to time; I could then note down whatever he had to say and then read my notes to Himmler, and then inform Sievers about his decision either orally or by telephone, that was his order.
Q: That always concerned very concrete cases?
A: Yes, very concrete cases. There were various points of discussion which had accumulated through the week.
Q: And then Sievers turned to you: you shortly noted the contents of the points of discussion and then submitted them to Himmler who made his decision
A: Yes.
Q: I have yet another three questions which concern a different chapter. Do you still remember the case of Professor Seip who was the rector of the university at Oslo? Seip since the middle of 1942 was a prisoner of the Gestapo in the concentration camp of Sachsenhausen. Do you remember this cas
A: Yes, Sievers reported this to me.
Q: In what manner? Did he tell you that Professor Seip, the rector of the University of Oslo, was in Sachsenhausen?
A: Yes.
Q: What do you know about the further development of this case of Professor Seip. Did Sievers make an application to Himmler in the Fall of 1942 which had as a result that Professor Seip was released from the concentration camp Sachsenhausen Christmas of that year?
A: Yes, that is in accordance with what happened?
Q: Therefore, it was because of Sievers' intervention that Seip was released?
A: Yes.
Q: And now my last question: do you know the case of the several hundred Norwegian students who in the beginning of 1944 were interned in the concentration camp of Buchenwald?
A: Yes.
Q: Can you tell the Tribunal anything about upon whose intervention these Norwegian students were released?
A: Sievers here again was active.
Q: Do you know the reason which moved Sievers?
A: Well, I don't know them in detail, but I think that he interfereed because he was not in agreement with their imprisonment, and that he immediately wanted a change.
Q: Do you know when this change in effect occurred?
A: I don't know that, but I assume that it was done immediately.
DR. WEISGERBER: Mr. President, I have no further questions.
DR. STEINBAUER: Dr. Steinbauer, counsel for the Defendant Beiglboeck.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY DR. STEINBAUER:
Q: Witness, I have a very short question to put to you: were political considerations of importance regarding the assignments of physicians for certain experiments such as sea water experiments?
A: I don't remember that any such question ever arose.
Q: In that case you say that this was not the case.
A: Yes, I cannot remember it.
DR. HOFFMANN: Counsel Hoffmann for Dr. Pokorny.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY DR. HOFFMANN:
Q: Witness, I am going to submit to you Document Volume No. 6. In this Volume No. 6 you made an affidavit regarding sterilization experiments. Would you please look at page 2? There under paragraph 5 you write:
As a result of Pokorny's suggestion, experiments were carried out on concentration camp inmates in order to test the effectiveness of the drug.
On what is your knowledge based, and is what you say there correct?
A: I have no knowledge, and in this case, too, this is an assumption on the basis of the document material submitted to me and the subsequent discussion with the interrogation officer.
Q: Witness, what documents were submitted to you on that occasion? Can you remember? I assume that these were your own documents. Just turn to page 19 of the same volume; there you write to the Deputy Gauleiter in Lower Danube regarding this matter. Do you remember that letter?
A: Yes, after it was submitted to me I remembered it.
Q: And there in the second paragraph you say:
The growing in hot houses is a very tedious process and the yield does not seem sufficient to carry out the planned experiments on a larger scale.
You couldn't derive from this document that experiments were actually carried out, could you?
A: No, I couldn't.
Q: Then you had some further correspondence in that matter, and this brings us to the last document also in volume 6 which you find on page 25, and there you say in the last paragraph:
I have sent a copy of your letter to SS-Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl with the request for further action. I am sure that you will receive a reply from his agency within the next few days.
This letter originates from you and is also sent to the Gauleiter of Lower Danube by the name of Gerland. I assume from this letter that you gave the entire matter over to Pohl after the 25th of October, 1942, or did you do anything more in that matter? Did you continue to deal with it?
A: I don't remember having worked on that further.
Q: Then it is really true to say that you neither know that experiments were carried out nor that they were not carried out?
A: I can't tell you whether nay experiments were carried out.
Q: On page 19 I have submitted to you your letter of the 29th of August 1942, now let me turn back to page 13 of the same volume. Here you will find a file notation you, and on the one but last paragraph it is said:
The Reichsfuehrer SS also requests further that with the possibly existing ingredients of this plant on hand, sterilization experiments should now in any case be carried out in the concentration camps.
Then the next paragraph, which is:
Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl agreed to take the necessary steps at once.
This file notation dates from the 22nd of June 1942. On the 29th of August 1942 you are still speaking about planning. Therefore, it is not true that any experiments were carried out on the basis of that file notation is that right?
A: I don't know what was done as a result and I don't know what actually happened.
Q: But I am sure you wouldn't have written on the 29th of August 1942, that is about two months later, that these matters were still in a planning stage. Just look at the letter once more?
A: The letter addressed to Gerland is based on a directive by Himmler. I couldn't have written anything like that of my own knowledge.
Q: Very well, but you wouldn't have written experiments were planned, if any experiments had already been carried out, on the basis of the previous file notation from June.
A: Yes, that is to be assumed.
DR. HOFFMAN: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any further examination of this witness by defense counsel?
DR. FLEMING (Counsel for the defendant, Mrugowsky):
Q: Witness, how often did you personally see Mrugowsky?
A: I saw him once at Himmler's headquarters.
Q: Did you see him for any length of time?
A: I only saw him when he was introduced, that is on the occasion of lunch or dinner.
Q: What do you know about Mrugowsky's activities?
A: I have no conception at all what activities he really exercised.
Q: I shall have the Prosecution Exhibit 170 submitted to you. It can be found in document book No. 6, on page 58 of the German copy. Would you please read the last paragraph? It is page 54. Witness this is a file notation regarding a discussion about sterilization. Would you please read the last paragraph:
The Reichsfuehrer SS emphasized to us all participating gentlemen that we are here concerned with top secret matters which can only be discussed internally, whereby those who are asked to attend visits or conferences had to keep secrecy.
Do you remember this file notation?
A: I only remember it because it was submitted to me.
Q: Now would you please look at document No. 440 in the document book Exhibit 141, which can be found on page 1. This is an affidavit made by you. Did you find it? This is an affidavit made by you which also concerns sterilization experiments. In the last paragraph, No. 8, you say:
Karl Brandt, Reichs Physician SS Dr. Grawitz, and Dr. Gebhardt certainly were familiar with this sterilization matter. Blumenreuter, Poppendick and Mrugowsky probably had knowledge of it also.
Taking, into consideration the file notation which you just read wherein is contained the express order by Himmler to keep all matters secret, pertaining to sterilization, how do you base your assumption that Mrugowsky knew about sterilization?
A: I can no longer maintain that assumption.
Q: Did your statement at that time base itself on any facts, facts known to you that would indicate the participation of Mrugowsky in any sterilization matter?
A: No.
Q: I shall now have shown to you the document No.444, Prosecution Exhibit 329. This document can not be found in any document volume. It was singly submitted by the Prosecution.
It is an affidavit made by you dated the 24th of October, 1946. Won't you please turn to paragraph 5 on the second page? It says there, approximately the middle of the paragraph 5:
Mrugowsky and Poppendick, both members of Griwitz' office, as well as Sieves, must have had knowledge about the experiments just as I did on the basis of the orders given me.
We are there concerned with the section of the prisoners used for these experiments. You were just saying, witness, that you had no conception of Mrugowsky's activities. How then can you justify this statement that Mrugowsky must have known just as much about these experiments as you on the basis of orders given to you?
A: I cannot maintain that statement either.
DR. FLEMING: Thank you, I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any further cross examination of this witness by the defense counsel?
There being none, the Prosecution may cross-examine him.
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. HARDY:
Q: Dr. Brandt, for the past two days the witness Meine appeared in this court room to testify in your behalf. Now regarding the witness Meine, was he your subordinate?
A: Yes.
Q: When I questioned Meine concerning his knowledge of medical experimentation upon human beings in concentration camps, he answered that he had no knowledge thereof, do you recall that?
A: Yes.
Q: In addition when I put the document signed by Meine concerning the transfer of one, Dr. Wimmer, to the Waffen SS for the purpose of collaborating with Professor Dr. Hirth, Meine stated he had no knowledge whatsoever as to the specific experiments referred to in the document. Do you recall that?
A: Yes.
Q: Now, to your knowledge, did Meine have knowledge as to whether or not Professor Hirth was working on LOST?
A: If he said that there is no contradiction there because of the fact because he was my subordinate. His place of work was Berlin. I was at the headquarters.
Q: Well, now, of course, you do not deny that you knew about Professor Hirth's work with lost gas?
A: Not any more than can be seen from the documents. That is fact itself.
Q: That is sufficient.
MR. HARDY: May it please the Tribunal, unfortunately I just uncovered this document which I could not put to the witness. (Meine got off the stand before I have found the document.) It has not been translated. I didn't intend to put it in as an exhibit but it is a document signed by Brandt, and I want him to read it for identification and ask him a few questions thereon. It is very short. I don't think we will have too much of a translation problem with it. This is Document NO-1368.
Q: Is that your signature, witness?
A: Yes.
Q: Will you kindly read that letter slowly so that the interpreter may follow you?
A: (Reading)
Dear Comrade Sievers —
DR. KAUFMANN: Mr. President, may I interrupt for a minute. I believe that it is the rule of the Tribunal that the defense counsel may know about the document which is being submitted to the witness for the first time during cross examination and I should like, therefore, to ask for copies of that document.
MR. HARDY: I submit again, your Honor, that we do not have copies of this document. I just secured the document. The defendant is now on the stand. It would be unreasonable to expect me to recall the witness at another time to put this document to him. It's a document signed by the defendant.
I am requesting him to identify it. The defendant will read it. Defense counsel should have due notice thereby.
THE PRESIDENT: Under the rules of the procedure, counsel is entitled at this time to have the witness identify the document. It may be marked as identification but the document should not be read until copies have been furnished to defense counsel. The witness may be recalled at some later date in order to consider the document.
MR. HARDY: Well, your Honor, may I at this time submit the copy to defense counsel for perusal? I will continue my examination. Later on in the afternoon I will revert back to this particular document.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand you have copies of the document?
MR. HARDY: No. I say, would it be possible for me to let defense counsel peruse this copy that I have, a single copy. I will proceed to another subject of my examination and before I complete my examination I can return.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, that will be permissible.
The document should be marked as an identification.
MR. HARDY: The document is document NO-1368. It will be marked as Prosecution Exhibit 464 for identification.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel will, of course, at the same time copies of this document are delivered to the defense counsel, copies will also be delivered to the Tribunal.
MR. HARDY: Yes, your Honor, I intend to have it translated and due copies made.
BY MR. HARDY:
Q: Dr. Brandt, if I understood you correctly, during a direct examination you stated regarding condemned prisoners being experimented upon, that such would be permissible if the risks were at a minimum. Therefore, may I assume that you are fully in accord with experimentation on human beings who have been condemned to death. Is that your feeling?
A: Yes. These weren't my considerations at that time but these are formulations which I make retrospectively.
Q: Well, at that particular time did you think it permissible to experiment on human beings who had been condemned to death?
A: It wasn't up to me to decide on that.
Q: Now, these particular individuals that were supposedly condemned to death but subjected to experiments, were they volunteers?
A: I cannot say that. I cannot say whether the people concerned had the opportunity to decide themselves or whether they were assigned in every case for that purpose.
Q: Well, now you can recall the document which was introduced here by Prosecution wherein Himmler stated, in substance, that a man may be pardoned after being subjected to severe experimentation, and he used the following language. This is Document 1971-B-PS which is on page 64 of Document Book 2, and it is Prosecution Exhibit 51. This document was forwarded by you to the Chief of Security Police in the SD and also to SS-Brigadefuehrer Gluecks. Paragraph 3 of the document states:
Considering the long continued action of the heart the experiment should be specifically exploited in such a manner as to determine whether these men could be recalled to life. Should such an experiment succeed, then, of course, the person condemned to death, shall be pardoned to concentration camp for life.
Now, that is what Himmler meant when he said a person experimented upon could be pardoned. In other words, did he mean, they kill a man and if he survives, if you can recall him by respiration or what have you, then he may be pardoned. Is that what he meant?
A: He didn't speak to me about that, and I can say nothing further than what the document shows.
Q: Well, now, then you state that it is your opinion that it is permissible to experiment on persons condemned to death. What about these Poles and Russians that were used at Dachau wherein you sent instructions to Rascher stating that this pardon or amnesty did not apply to Poles and Russians?
A: I transmitted this directive, according to my orders, to Munich Agencies. That is not my own decision.
Q: You transmitted this to the Munich Agencies over your signature didn't you?
A: Yes. But that is a directive by Himmler.
Q: You know I notice throughout these documents whenever you were authorized to do something by Himmler you always started off your letters, or cables, or telegrams, or whatever it may be, with language similar to the following: "By order of Reichsfuehrer-SS" or "The Reichsfuehrer-SS requests this" or "the Reichsfuehrer-SS requests that". Here in this cable you didn't refer to any request or order of the Reichsfuehrer-SS. You state in this document, which is Document 1971-E-PS, which is Prosecution Exhibit 53, page 6 of Document Book 2:
Teletype to SS-Obersturmfuehrer [Lieutenant] Schnitzler — Munich. Please inform SS-Untersturmfuehrer [Lieutenant] Dr. Rascher with regard to his teletype inquiry an instruction given some time ago by the Reichsfuehrer-SS concerning amnesty of test persons does not apply to Poles and Russians.
Now, you were sending along to Rascher instructions that the Reichsfuehrer issued several months or weeks ago. Did you consult with the Reichsfuehrer at this time before sending this cablegram?
A: May I again see the text of the teletype?
Q: Do you have Document Book No. 3, the German copy? Pardon me, No. 2.
MR. RAMLER: It is Document Book No. 2, Mr. Hardy.
A: What page is it?
Q: Page 66 of the English. Document No.1971EPS.
A: I cannot find it in this book.
Q: Well, we will go on and disregard that question, doctor.
A: But I can answer the question. We are not concerned with directives that were given weeks ago. This teletype was submitted to Himmler by me. I am sure that I didn't refer to any directive which had been given weeks ago in that character.
Q: Well, then what was Himmler's reasoning behind his order that this amnesty did not apply to Poles and Russians. Didn't Himmler consider that Poles and Russians were human beings?
A: I cannot judge that. I cannot judge what he believed or what he wanted to express. As in all cases I only wrote it down — what his decisions were. He never saw any reason for justification about whatever he ordered.
Q: Now, did Himmler over cloak you with the authority to issue orders and directives in his absence?
A: No, I never had that authority. During my entire time of duty. I never made any decision on my own initiative and I never issued any directives. Even in the cases which concerned letters dealing with welfare questions or similar contents, I only acted after a decision was made by Himmler and only then sent letters to the various agencies. Of course, that does not include preparatory clarification of doubtful questions which would only enable a decision on the part of Himmler.
Q: Now, how many letters and reports per month did you receive in Himmler office? You state that you sent out about thirty-five hundred letters a month. How many did you receive, approximately? Round figures, doctor.
A: That is very hard to say. I think the ingoing mail was about 50% more extensive than the outgoing mail. That is, if I take an average of thirty-five hundred as outgoing mail, one has to take into account about five thousand in going letters.
Q: Well, now, I have noticed throughout all the documents we have here with your name thereon, and documents that were sent to the Reichfuehrer's office and reports that these reports were directed in a large majority not to the Reichsfuehrer himself but the Chief of the Personal Staff, Rudolf Brandt. Now, a great many of these incoming letters were addressed to you, were they not, in your position?
A: Well, in the translation I heard Chief of Personal Staff. I was never Chief of Personal Staff. It was known that I was sitting in Himmler's anteroom and I could do nothing about people writing to me. When, however, they did write to me they meant Himmler. They did not mean me. That was generally known.
Q: I see, and your name became synonymous with that of Himmler's? Is that right?
A: That is not what I want to express. When I answered "by order of Himmler the person concerned did perhaps not turn to Himmler personally, but would turn to me without knowing (a) what position I held, or (b) what caused Himmler to ask me to sign the letter.
Q: Well now, you received approximately six thousand letters per month. How did you determine what letters Himmler should see? Did you give him the whole six thousand letters each month?
A: I don't understand your question.
Q: Well now, approximately six thousand letters per month came into your office. Anything that was addressed to you or came to your office was for Himmler, not for Rudolf Brandt. However, Rudolf Brandt received them and Rudolf Brandt then forwarded them to Himmler. Do you tell me now that you forwarded to Himmler each and every letter that was received in your office or did you determine that Himmler didn't want to see some of them, was disinterested in the contents of some of them, and decide to act on them yourself or to send them to a subordinate to act on, or did Himmler, in each instance — did he receive the letter whatever it may have been and read it himself?
A: No, he didn't read them all himself.
Q: I don't imagine he could, Doctor, could he? He was a very busy man, wasn't he?
A: He was a very busy man, but he reserved, in every case, the decision for himself and it was my task to submit these letters to him. Either given them to him among the mail that he had to read or report them to him verbally.
Q: Well then, how did you determine which letters to give to Himmler?
A: Well I really didn't make any distinction. I submitted every case to Himmler. I only examined before hand to see whether any doubtful questions had to be cleared up in order to enable a decision by Himmler. But afterwards, finally, the letter was always submitted to Himmler.
Q: Well then, you had to read the letters yourself to determine that and to advise Himmler if other letters had been received on the same subject, didn't you?
A: Yes, for that purpose I had an official who worked with me and who took part of the burden of this work. I couldn't possibly do that alone.
Q: That's right and Himmler couldn't do it alone either, could he?
A: No.
Q: Then, as a matter of fact, actually Himmler didn't know any more than you knew about these experiments?
A: That is something entirely different. Himmler personally informed himself about the experiments. I didn't inform myself about them. I explained yesterday that any such reports which one could recognize immediately as being medical reports or after reading the first paragraph or after looking at the address, such reports were always included among the mail which he had to read. I was glad for everything I didn't have to read that.
Q: Well now, you stated also in direct examination that approximately thirty-five hundred letters were written each month in your office, and now you state that about six thousand were received. I'll assume those are round figures. And you more or less elaborately explained to the Tribunal in figure that out of three thousand there were only some one hundred and ten documents introduced here by the prosecution pertaining to medical experiments — of which some thirty signed by Himmler, some sixty signed by Brandt, and you intended to create the impression that these were minor matters compared to the over-all picture in your office, and as these letters did not contain any criminal activities and because of the small quantity of these letters that you may have read them but you passed over them and didn't realize the crimi nature because you were so busy. Now, is that the true picture?
A: Approximately it is correct.
Q: Well now, how about all these other criminal activities other than medical experiments? Say that these medical experiments were minor and that everything else was nice and good and clean-cut work that Himmler's office engaged in like getting fruit juices for pregnant mothers, getting special dis pensations for this SS man and that SS man, taking care of families? What about such things as the "flier action"? Do you recall the propaganda put out by Goebbels wherein he published literature and made speeches that Americans and the British were "terror fliers" and then, in due course, an order was issued whereby the police were instructed not to hinder or not to stop the Germans from abusing the fliers or stop the Germans from abusing the fliers and eventually lynching them? Now, were you familiar with that activity that went through the office of Himmler?
A: That is a matter which belonged to the jurisdiction of the police. I know that a document is available. Something that I am sure you are going to submit to me.
Q: I certainly am. Go right ahead.
A: This document which I signed, although I practically had nothing to do with it. And here again is another case where my name is to be found.
Q: Well then, Doctor, you admit that you passed on the "flier order"? Is that right?
A: Himmler principally only signed one copy or, at the most, two copies Whenever copies had to be distributed among higher SS, and police leaders, these copies were either signed by the police, adjutant, chief adjutant, or by me, and then transmitted. That is, they were signed and then they went on in normal channels in Berlin. The document which you are going to submit to me falls within the competency of the police. It was dictated by Himmler, and the accompanying letter also originates from Himmler on the strength of which his order was transmitted. The secretary, probably by order of Himmler prepared the letter for signature, and I then signed it.
Q: Have you seen this document since your arrival here in Nurnberg?
A: Yes, I have seen it in Nurnberg. Last year.
Q: Last year?
A: Yes, last year.
Q: You remember it quite well?
A: Yes, I don't know who asked me about it. At any rate, it was shown to me and I was asked how this order originated.
Q: Well then, you do admit that one Rudolf Brandt passed on the "flier order", don't you?
A: Well, there was nothing else I could do.
Q: Well, that indicates that the office in which you worked was not only engaged in medical experimentation correspondence; they had other things that were equally as shady. Can you tell the Tribunal about some of the correspondence that you handled concerning the kidnapping of Czechoslovakian children?
A: The conclusion which you are drawing that I concerned myself with this is erroneous. In the case of this Flyer Order all copies would have had to be destroyed in order to obtain the signature of the Police adjutant. I think that would have been the correct procedure and I wish that that would have been done. But for reasons of saving, and I do not know what the procedure was, why Himmler had to sign this letter before the courier arrived, but I think that there probably was no time to change this procedure then. However, this signature does not in any case allow the conclusion that this matter had anything to do with my task.
Q: Well, of course, you realize that this Flyer Order was criminal in nature, don't you? It was a breach of every law of war, wasn't it?
A: I certainly did not carry out the order. I just signed my name on it. Probably I did not even then know what was in it.
Q: Well, you passed it on to all Higher SS and Police Leaders, with two other cover letters, one to all Higher SS and Police Leaders wherein you stated:
I enclose a decree by order of the Reichsfuehrer-SS with the request that the commanders of the constabulary and of the security police be informed and that they pass it on verbally to the subordinate offices. Furthermore, the Reichsfuehrer-SS requests that the competent Gau Leaders be informed verbally of this instruction.
And boldly, the signature Rudolf Brandt. And a similar letter was addressed to all SS Divisional Chiefs. Now you certainly knew the content of that Flyer Order, didn't you?
A: That was a clear dictation by Himmler and all I did was put my signature underneath it. I did not dictate this letter on my own initiative.
Q: Well, we will go on, Doctor. What do you know about the germanization of these Czechoslovakian children?
A: At the moment I remember nothing about it.
Q: Well I will submit to you Document No. NO-435, which I will mark for identification, Your Honor, as Prosecution Exhibit 465, Now this letter is dated 13 June 1944, in Prague, from the German Minister of State for Bohemia and Moravia, addressed to SS-Standartenfuehrer [Colonel] Dr. Brandt, Personal Staff, Reichsfuehrer-SS, Field Command post.
Dear Comrade Brandt:
Concerning the matter 'children of executed Czechs' I wish to reply to your letter directed to SS-Obergruppenfuehrer Frank, dated 6.2. of this year — diary index No. 26/2/44 g Bra/H, that the conversation between SS-Obergruppenfuehrer Frank and SS-Standartenfuehrer Sollmann took place on July 2 of last year in Prague. Standartenfuehrer Sollmann stated during this conversation that racially valuable children up to six years would be consider eligible by the 'Lebensborn'. In individual cases even children up to 12 years could be adopted, but experience has shown, however, that difficulties would arise in such cases, when adopting them by a German family.
The commander of the Security Police and the SD has instructed the Superior State Police Offices, Bruenn and Prague, to bring about a registration of Czech children, whose parents were executed under martial law or had died in a concentration camp.
It was intended to have children up to six years and suitable for germanization brought into German families through the 'lebensborn'. The other children, who were no longer suitable to be brought into a German family, were to be housed collectively somewhere outside the Protectorate, in order to attempt, a collective re-education.
There is no necessity of reading any further. Now these matters were of concern to your office in addition to these minor criminal matters pertaining to medical experimentation, weren't they?
A: In no way at all.
Q: Then why is this fellow writing to you?
A: This document is proceeded by a letter of Himmler to Sollmann and Sollmann, on the 21st of June 1943, wrote to Himmler.
Sollmann is here merely giving a report to Himmler which he sent to me for he knew that this report would at any rate get to Himmler. That is the reason why my office had nothing else to do but receive the letter and then submit it to Himmler and then again receive the order by Himmler and transmit it. This is one of the cases that do not belong to it practically.
Q: The letter is addressed to you, is it not?
A: Yes, but it was meant for Himmler.
Q: Now, doctor, did you know when this —
A: In addition, as I see now, this letter concerns the accommodation of children who have lost their parents because of their parents having been executed by martial law. That really is not an inhumane activity if these children are now being cared for.
Q: You knew all about the activity, however, before reading this document, didn't you?
A: I didn't know anything about it.
Q: Doctor Brandt, what do you know about the Warsaw Ghetto Action?
A: I have no recollection at all.
Q: You never heard of the Warsaw Ghetto Action, wherein they razed the ghetto at Warsaw and they removed some 50,000 people therefrom; wherein 10,000 or better were killed — you never heard of that in your capacity on the person staff of Himmler?
A: I don't remember it.
Q: That was some more of the correspondence that you just merely looked at and let it go by, is that it?
A: Considering the numerous correspondence, I could not possibly remember individual details.
Q: Nobody ever mentioned to you that they were going to remove the ghetto and transfer some 50,000 people, which you considered sub-human, to a concentration camp? It seems to be a pretty important thing to be passing through one's hands and not knowing about it.
A: Well, I can't remember it
MR. HARDY: I have another document, Your Honor, which I want to put to the witness in the same manner as the first one. However, I have only the original copy, which I will let the defense counsel peruse while I am going into the other subject in regard to the first document.
Q: Now, doctor, going back to the knowledge of the witness, Meine, you stated that — you agreed that Meine knew nothing about the Lost gas experiments and knew nothing about the work of Hirt, and when he wrote the letter regarding the transfer of Grimme, that he had no knowledge of any of the other activities connected thereto. Now I ask you to read slowly this letter to the Tribunal so that the interpreter may follow you.
A: (Reading)
Dear comrade Sievers: Please establish contact as quickly as possible with SS-Brigade Leader and Major General of the Police, Dr. Gerloff. SS-Oberst Gruppenfuehrer Daluege told Reichsfuehrer-SS, on the 12th of May, that gas experiments were carried out without any effect having been achieved. This complex of questions would interest SS-Hauptsturmfuehrer Professor Hirt. In addition, SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Meine will shortly have something to tell you about it Verbally.
Q: Now will you read that last sentence again?
A: (Reading)
In addition, SS-Hauptsturmfuehrer Meine will shortly have something to tell you about it verbally.
MR. HARDY: This again, Your Honor, is to be offered as NO-1368, Prosecution Exhibit No. 464, and when I have acquired the necessary copies I will at that time formally introduce it for identification.
Q: Well, now, in view of that letter that you signed, and the mention of Meine, and that he will report more specifically and verbally on these matters, don't you think the witness Meine, in answer to my questions in crossexamination, was being a little bit careless with the truth?
A: This conclusion cannot be drawn.
Q: No, in regard to the Warsaw action, I have only one document that I wish to have you identify in order to refresh your recollection. I would like to have you read this document, which you forwarded to Obergruppenfuehrer Krueger; just that one page, doctor. I would like to have you read that out loud, Doctor.
A: (Reading)
I order the institution of a concentration camp in the Ghetto of Warsaw, all Jews living in Warsaw will be transmitted to the concentration camp. It is prohibited for Jews to work in private concerns. The private concerns existing up to that moment existing in the Ghetto of Warsaw will be transferred into the concentration camp (Reich enterprise) —
Q: Pardon me, just a moment, Doctor. Will you bring the document to me sergeant so I can look it over; I think he is reading the wrong document. Now, Doctor, when you read that will you include the date and the head line; read the whole Document through?
A: "16 February, 19—" I cannot read the rest of the year.
Q: 1943.
A: (Reading)
1943, To the Higher Leader of the SS and Police, East, SS Obergruppenfuehrer Krueger, Cracow. For reasons of security, I order that the Ghetto of Warsaw be razed after the concentration camp has been transferred whereby all the valuable property of that Ghetto would have to be exploited before razing the Ghetto to the ground. The razing to the ground of the Ghetto and the transfer of the concentration camp is necessary, for probably it would otherwise never be possible to get Warsaw quiet. Criminals cannot be exterminated as long as the Ghetto still exists there. A plan is to be submitted to me for the razing of the Ghetto. In any case it has to be achieved, that the housing space, which was available for 500,000 sub-human beings up to that period of time, and which would never be suitable for Germans be exterminated from the face of the earth and Warsaw the city of millions, which was always a place for disintegration and riots, be made smaller.
That is a letter by Himmler to Obergruppenfuehrer Krueger, and I sent a copy of that letter to the chief of the Security Police.
Q: Your signature likewise appears on that Document; doesn't it?
A: Yes, my signature unfortunately appears on many letters; there was nothing I could do about that.
Q: You don't know anything about that document or the Warsaw action either; I presume?
A: No.
Q: Then everything that passed through your hands; you just signed it and let it go on through; you were not even interested in reading it; is that right?
A: I had no time to read them; I had too much work.
Q: Than all these criminal letters, and we could introduce thousands of others, but we don't have the time, Doctor, passed through your hands unnoticed?
A: Yes, unfortunately that is right.
Q: Well, now when were you appointed chief of the personal department on the personnel staff?
A: Chief of the personal staff?
Q: Chief of the Personal Department in the personnel staff?
A: I was never officially appointed to that position. Yesterday I tried to explain that this designation, namely 'personal referent' was only created for technical reasons for the table of organization of the personnel staff and that happened in the year 1937 or 1938.
Q: Well now, when Himmler was appointed as Minister of the Interior, you then assumed the job of ministerialrat; didn't you, in the Ministry of the Interior?
A: I was Ober-Regierungsrat [senior governing councilor] before that and six months later I was promoted to the rank of ministerialrat [ministerial councilor].
Q: Well, now, as Ministerial Director in the Ministry of the Interior, were you in charge of a department?
A: I had only the so-called Ministerial Office under me. That was the place where matters from the Ministry of the Interior went to Himmler.
Q: Now tell me, how many employees were there in the Ministry of the Interior in Germany, thousands, weren't there?
A: In the Ministry of the Interior? I have no idea how many there were there.
Q: Well, now, the Ministry of the Interior was the largest agency in the Reich, wasn't it?
A: I don't know that.
Q: How many Ministerial Directors did they have in this Ministry of the Interior, do you know?
A: I don't know that either.
Q: You are sure there weren't more than five or ten Ministerial Directors in the Ministry of the Interior?
A: I can't give you the number because I don't know it.
Q: Well, you were Ministerial Director in an organization that had thousands and thousands of employees, as I understand it. It is a pretty big job for an office boy stenographer, isn't it?
A: I was Ministerialrat. These are two ranks below Ministerial Direct Director.
Q: Well, even Ministerialrat, there weren't many of these, were there?
A: There were quite a number of those.
Q: You were Chief of the apartment, though, weren't you?
A: Yes, it may have had that outer appearance. In reality I had three experts working there and added their expert opinions which I passed on to Himmler. I was only what is called "Primus Inter Paris," and the designation "Head of the Ministerial Office" creates a wrong impression. Moreover, there were just as few letterheads reading "Head of the Ministerial Office" as there were letterheads reading "Chief of the Personal Referat." All of that shows very clearly that the designations in themselves are not at all in accordance with the importance of the position
Q: Well, now, after you became Ministerialrat, did you continue in your position as Personnel Department Chief in the SS?
A: Yes. That ran parallel to my other duties. This just extended my work.
Q: Now how did you happen to avoid, Dr. Brandt, going to the front and serving in the front with the Waffen-SS like every good SS man had to do?
A: I didn't quite understand the question.
Q: How did you avoid being sent to the front to fight with the Waffen-SS like every good SS man had to do at one time or another?
A: Firstly, Himmler kept me. Secondly, I participated in the campaign in Greece with the Leibstandaete with the rank of an Overscharffuehrer [Sniper].
Q: Why did Himmler order that you be retained in your position and not sent to the front to fight with the Waffen-SS?
A: I can give you no explanation for that.
Q: Was it because of the duties which you fulfilled and the large burden of work you assumed for Himmler, that you were indispensable?
A: He was used to my work since the year of 1934. He knew that I was at his disposal from morning until late at night. He knew that I never uttered any requests, and that probably is the reason why he kept me there because I alleviated his work.
Q: Didn't the witness Meine state that you left and were away for one or two days, and Himmler sent out an SOS for your return?
A: I don't remember that. I don't know about it.
Q: What did Obergruppenfuehrer Wolf have to do with your securing your job with Himmler?
A: When in the year of 1934 I belonged to the agency of the Chief of Staff in Berlin, I took a number of dictations from Himmler. That happened in January, 1934 when Himmler spent two or three days in Berlin. Wolf, at that time Himmler's adjutant, holding the rank of a Sturmbannfuehrer, told me that Himmler had sent his clerk to a Fuehrer school. He furthermore said that his successor didn't quite live up to expectations. Since Himmler had been satisfied with my work, Wolf asked me whether I would be inclined to go to Himmler's office at Munich in order to work for him there.
I agreed to that, and in this manner went to Himmler's office.
Q: Now do you know that Obergruppenfuehrer Wold tells us that he was instrumental in getting you your job with the Reichsfuehrer? He further goes so far as to say that perhaps the only indispensable man in the SS is Rudolf Brandt. Do you concur with that?
A: In no way at all.
Q: For that reason — or is that the feeling that Himmler had in keeping you and not allowing you to serve with the troops in the front?
A: That I am sure is not the reason. That is exaggerated. I only did my duty. I was industrious, and Himmler knew it.
Q: Now, Doctor, in regard to these affidavits that you have executed in behalf of the Prosecution prior to the investigation of this case, I wish to ask you a few questions. Whenever an affidavit was submitted to you for your signature, you had the opportunity to read it, didn't you?
A: Yes. I already admitted that.
Q: You did read it, didn't you?
A: Yes, I read it.
Q: You had the opportunity to make corrections, didn't you? And on several you did make corrections.
A: Yes, I did.
Q: The interrogator didn't seduce you in writing those, or beat you over the head, did he?
A: No, in no way at all.
Q: No force was used on you?
A: No.
Q: You executed those affidavits under oath, didn't you?
A: Yes.
MR. HARDY: No further questions, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any further questions of this witness on the part of any defense counsel?
The Tribunal will be in recess until nine-thirty o'clock tomorrow morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 26 March 1947 at 0930 hrs.)