1947-06-26, #4: Doctors' Trial (mid afternoon)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is agin in session.
DR. SERVATIUS: For Karl Brandt:
Mr. President, I have the documents in a new order for the convenience of the Court. I shall hand you this copy. There are no new documents in there. They are simply in a different order.
MR. HARDY: May it please Your Honor, this supplemental document book Dr. Servatius has just passed up to your Honors contains on the front page an index which starts out with Karl Brandt Exhibit No. 82, and runs down through Exhibit 30. If he puts them in evidence this index will start out with his first exhibit being No. 30. Now it would be most convenient for the Prosecution and I am sure for the Tribunal if at a later date Dr. Servatius could supply us with an index of the first 29 exhibits, then we could take all the documents which he is not offering and delete them from the document book and then we would have them in chronological order, 1 through 29, and then follow along in the manner in which he is going to offer them and it would be much simpler for the Prosecution, and then we would know just what documents he intends to introduce.
THE PRESIDENT: That suggestion will be followed, of course. Each member of the Tribunal should have a complete document book, but meanwhile we can proceed with the submission of these documents as we now stand with one document book in which the exhibit numbers will be noted.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, the document which I intend to offer fall into two categories, one affidavits about definite counts of the indictment. The rest is extracts from literature as evidence as to the lack of reliability of the experiments on euthanasia.
First, I shall offer the affidavits on the actual charges, document Karl Brandt 82, I offer as Exhibit 30. This is an affidavit by an Assistant Judge Geist, who was in contact with Karl Brandt through the office of planning and economy through 1943. He testified about the activity of this office, especially the relationship of the office of planning and economy to the office for science and research.
He says that the greatest influence was with business economy, not with planning and research. He says Professor Brandt never brought any political point of view into the work, and that the planning office did not have any political character, members of the office did not belong to the party.
Now comes document 47 as Exhibit 31, it is an affidavit of the Arms Adjutant of the Fuehrer, Adolf Hitler, who speaks of Brandt's connection with the Hitler office and his activities.
The next document from the supplemental volume II is document KB 91, an affidavit by Heinrich Hoerlein, pharmaceutical technical department of the I.G. Farben Industry. He speaks of Brand't office and he confirms what Luebke said about planning and research. He also says that he believes Brandt was against the interruption of industry and prevented great damage at the end of the war.
The next document, KB-102, is an affidavit of Dr. Luebke, who also worked in the Office of Planning and Research, of November '43, also an office reply on research. He confirms that this office had more influence than the one for science and research and speaks about Professor Brandt's actual activity. He also says that the office never had any political character. On the contrary, industry frequently asked this office for protection.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, for the sake of the record assign an exhibit number to each one of these. The last one that you just referred to is Exhibit 33.
DR. SERVATIUS: 33.
THE PRESIDENT: Announce the exhibit number with each document for the sake of the record.
DR. SERVATIUS: Now I offer KB-112, which will be Exhibit 34. This is a chart of Karl Brandt's office. The Court asked the defendant Karl Brandt to prepare such a chart. This chart shows the working connections. Brandt's subordination was limited to the offices for science and research and planning and economy. I don't intend to go into this chart in detail. That would take too much time and in my opinion it is not of any special significance.
THE PRESIDENT: Do I understand, counsel that this is Karl Brandt Document 112?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, 112, Exhibit 34.
THE PRESIDENT: The number of the document is missing from the copy in this book. That's why I inquire.
DR. SERVATIUS: KB-112, affidavit of Professor Karl Brandt about this chart.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, the next document in your book does not correspond with the index which you handed the Tribunal. On this index you have Karl Brandt Document 120, and that is not contained in the book. The next document in the book is Number KB-88.
DR. SERVATIUS: One document is missing, KB-120, Number 188. It has not been translated yet.
That will be the one following KB-112, after the chart.
MR. HARDY: Might I inquire whether Number 188 is the document which has been offered by the prosecution or is that a new document?
DR. SERVATIUS: I obtained this document from the Defense Information Center. It has not yet been offered by the prosecution. I intend to offer it now. We have not yet got the English translation. I offer KB-120 as Exhibit 35. It is not very long.
THE PRESIDENT: That is the document which is missing from this book, counsel.
DR. SERVATIUS: Is the affidavit KB-120 by Luebke missing?
THE PRESIDENT: KB-120, Number 188.
DR. SERVATIUS: That is the document that I want to offer now. That is missing. It has not been translated yet.
THE PRESIDENT: That is missing?
DR. SERVATIUS: It has not been translated yet. It is one page long and I should like to read it into the record.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, the document will be supplied for the document book later?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be Exhibit 35.
DR. SERVATIUS: I shall only give the contents. This refers to the position of the Ahnenerbe [Ancestral Heritage] office. It is a very characteristic document of the ambitions of this office to seize all research. First there is an order by Himmler which says the Reichsfuehrer-SS has entrusted the Ahnenerbe with the execution of all scientific research assignments. Then comes a notice about a telephone conversation of the 17th of August 1942 saying Hitler is to be asked to issue an order saying that all scientific research work in the SS is to be under the control of the Ahnenerbe, and it is added:
Such an order is of great importance and special urgency. He could not say any more.
Finally, there is a letter to Himmler, speaking of the foundation of the Ahnenerbe, and I quote:
In a short time it must come to the point where we surpass the efforts of Reichsleiter [Reich Leader] Rosenberg and that it will become the research office for National Socialism.
This will be possible only if we all stand together and if everything connected with research, no matter what field, is in the Ahnenerbe and is directed from there.
I believe this document is of great significance in judging the position of Himmler and the Ahnenerbe in research.
Now, there follow a number of documents on the experimentation on human beings. First, KB-88 which I offer as Exhibit 36. This is the affidavit, the first one, of Dr. von Kleng, who was an assistant of Dr. Ambros in the special committee of the Ministry for Armament and War Production. He speaks about "N" product which is a subject of the indictment and explains the significance of this material. He says that it is not a gas and was out of the question for such purposes but that later the problem was taken up anew by the SS and worked on themselves.
Now follows KB-89 which is Exhibit 37. This is another affidavit of Dr. von Kleng, speaking of the gas decree, the text of which is not known. He says that this decree entrusted Karl Brandt with anti-chemical warfare.
The next is KB-97 which is offered as Exhibit 38. It is the testimony of a Dr. Gutermut who speaks of the danger of liver punctures which was discussed here during the trial. He says it is very harmless and is performed in all modern clinics in the world.
The next document is KB-98 which I offer as Exhibit 39. It is an affidavit by the witness Dietzsch who was examined here. He stated at the time that Professor Brandt had been in Buchenwald at one time. He says here:
I declare that I made my statements solely on the basis of the information given by Dr. Ding; that is, that I myself never saw Professor Karl Brandt in Buchenwald.
There follows KB-99 which will be Exhibit 40. It is an affidavit by the co-defendant Professor Schroeder about the question of the ointment for burns. The defendant Brandt was accused of having passed on an ointment for experiments for phosphorous burns. This affidavit says that such an ointment was offered to the Luftwaffe, too, and it says here that Professor Brandt made an ointment available to him which was supposed to be suitable for use on phosphorous burns, and the doctor who reported this to Professor Schroeder said, no, Professor Schroeder said he told the doctor to get in touch with the firm to obtain amounts for tests in hospitals and first aid stations.
The Court will remember that was the statement of the defendant Brandt, that he had not passed this ointment on for research purposes but only for tests.
There follows Document 101, Exhibit 41, an affidavit by Dr. Ambros, who speaks about chemical warfare agents. He worked for I.G. Farben and had to work on chemical warfare agents and protective agents. He says that in 1944 he came into touch with Karl Brandt. On that occasion Professor Brandt said that he had to take an interest in chemical warfare agents and countermeasures. At the same time he showed a letter from Hitler and said that he was primarily concerned with obtaining materials for gas masks. He went to two factories with Brandt and Brandt wanted to get a general picture of chemical warfare agents. He says there was great uneasiness at the time about getting protection against chemical warfare as it was thought that the Allies would use poisonous gases. It was said that they had brought poisonous gas over with them when they landed at Tunis. It was also said that the Russians had new gas masks which fact pointed to the possibility of the use of a new poison gas. On the German side, there was definitely a serious shortage of chemical warfare protective equipment, the reason why Karl Brandt was given the special assignment to obtain gas masks.
The next document is KB 103. I offer it as Exhibit No. 42. This is an affidavit by Dr. Walter Mielenz who speaks about the gas decree of 1 March 1944. He states:
As far as I remember, the decree was worded approximately as follows:
I have ordered my Commissioner General for the Medical and Health Service (Prof. Dr. Brandt) to take a major part in all matters concerning protection against chemical warfare (of the army and the civilian copulation) and to issue orders to the stations (military and civilian) established for this purpose. In questions of the protection of the civilian population against chemical warfare, he must obtain in advance the approval of the Reich Air Minister and Commander in Chief of the Luftwaffe.
The witness also says that there was no research assignment in connection with chemical warfare.
He also says that the initiation of chemical warfare was shortly to be expected because the enemy had large amounts of gas ready. He also confirms the presence of gas shells in Tunis and Dakar and says that there was great alarm by the capture of Russian gas masks because it was assumed that the Red Army had succeeded in introducing special chemical warfare agents. He also says that the civilian population was defenseless against gas attacks, that the supply of gas masks was completely inadequate, the average figure being about 32 percent, and for children about 7 percent. It was assumed that 15,000,000 civilian gas masks had already become quite useless so the civilian population was completely unprotected. Forty-five million gas masks would have had to be produced and that was the purpose of Brandt's assignment. According to the witness, Professor Brandt himself objected strenuously to the initiation of chemical warfare by Germany. The witness further speaks about N agent, which was not a gas. And then he speaks on another subject which is of interest to the proceedings, that is the removal of poison from drinking water. He says he knows there was a special commission in the Armaments Ministry for the decontamination of drinking water. This had neither been established by Brandt nor was it under his command. The task of this commission was the production of decontamination equipment.
He also says the work was discussed in a meeting in December 1944 at which he was present. Professor Brandt, who was present, already agreed with the general opinion that Haase's efforts, designer of the apparatus which was discussed here, would not constitute an improvement in present methods and should therefore be rejected. He had therefore asked me to work toward this end.
This is advanced against the charge that Karl Brandt had ordered drinking water experiments in the concentration camp.
There follows KB 122
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel—
DR. SERVATIUS: It has not been translated yet.
THE PRESIDENT: I was calling this to your attention, the fact that this document was not contained—
DR. SERVATIUS: I can tell you briefly what the contents are. I can bring the document itself later. It is an affidavit of the witness Neff, who was a witness, and in cross examination I examined him. When I asked whether he actually had seen Karl Brandt at the concentration camp (he had previously stated that he recognized Brandt's striking face), now here he says the following:
About two months after this examination I met Professor Karl Brandt in the waiting room for prisoners. Professor Karl Brandt spoke to me, asked me whether I knew him. I said, 'Mr. Bartels?' then I mentioned another name, and then Professor Brandt said, 'But, Mr. Neff, you recognized me the other day, or spoke about me or something like that.' I don't know whether Professor Brandt or I mentioned his name. Then I said, 'Yes, I know you by sight.' Professor Brandt said he had certainly never been in Dachau. Then I said then, 'You must have a double.' Finally, Dr. Robert Servatius, who examined me before the Tribunal, I did not recognize again.
Then the witness said, "Before the examination I was show a number of pictures of the defendants without being told what their names were. I looked at the pictures and when I came to the picture of Karl Brandt, whose name I didn't know, I said, 'That was a high ranking SS officer who was certainly in the hospital before 1942.
I was then asked if I could pick out this person from a number of other persons and I answered that I could. And then I was about two weeks later in court and was asked if I recognized any of the defendants and I said, 'Among others I recognize the first one in the first row as the person whom I had seen in the hospital.' This was the first time that I heard the name Karl Brandt.
I shall let the Court judge the value of this recognition. That was Document KB-122, Exhibit 43.
I now refer to Document KB-93 which is already offered as Exhibit 29 but it was not admitted at that time.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I believe when this was offered as Exhibit 29 prosecution strenuously objected to the admission of this document in evidence, deeming it immaterial. I don't know whether Your Honors recall the extensive argument by counsel in this regard but I would again like to reiterate the objection on the part of prosecution to the admission of this document in evidence.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, I consider it very important for this document to be admitted. The Tribunal gave me permission to send questionnaires to Professor McCance and Dr. Sabers, medical counsellor in Cologne. These questionnaires were received by these gentlemen but neither of them has answered. I assume the German gentleman has not as yet received permission by the authorities and the English gentleman isn't inclined to answer this questionnaire. Therefore, it is all the more important for me to submit this document. About the relevance of the document we have already argued. In my opinion the Reich Committee for the killing of deformed children is of decisive importance. One can see here that children, when they are incapable of living, are not subjected to euthanasia but something worse — that is, experiments. I don't think one can say parents voluntarily gave up children for this purpose. Then this case applies whether experiments on non-volunteers or whether conforms with medical science and ethics. We see here a foreign official agency issues an order that all German agencies pass the matter on with out scruples and that at a time when this trial has been going on for some time and everyone presumably has read about the terrible things in the press.
With this I want to prove that the real attitude of the medical profession is different than the press and propaganda. What the press publishes is only false propaganda which damages science and has some political aims. For that reason, in the interest of science I must offer this document and prove that Karl Brandt did nothing different that what is approved by highest authorities today. I feel this must be admitted.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I still don't see the value of the document. Furthermore, the document hasn't been authenticated as yet in a manner prescribed by the Tribunal. It may be an isolated document. Secondly, it isn't in outline as to the procedure used; it has not been substantiated; its materiality is in question. Whether it has any probative value or not I am not wishing to argue right at this point. I am arguing the authenticity of the document first of all, then the probative value later.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, on 22 May 1947 I received a letter from the Secretary General—
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, this document is not available to the other members of the Tribunal.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I was under the impression that the Tribunal had ruled that if this document was properly authenticated it would be accepted into evidence and gave Dr. Servatius ample time to authenticate the document. That he hasn't done.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I was going to say this document not being available to all the members of the Tribunal the authenticity is not easy to study. I suggest that this be passed.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, may I first explain. On 22 May 1947 the Secretary General wrote to me:
Subject: Procurement of Documents.
To: Dr. Servatius.
Herewith copy of letter NR/PH 2457 dated 22 June 1946 from Deputy Regional Commissioner, North Rhine Region, to Oberpraesident, North Rhine Province, which has just been received from British authorities in Duesseldorf.
For the Secretary General: R.E. Benford.
Copy is inclosed. This is an official statement and an official copy. I don't believe for formalism one can go so far as to ask Deputy Regional Commissioner Brigadier Wallace to have this certified. I shall hand you the document.
MR. HARDY: From this addition, Your Honor, which isn't in my document book, if he has had it properly authenticated, I withdraw my objection.
THE PRESIDENT: The document may be accepted as Karl Brandt Exhibit No. 29.
MR. HARDY: Of course, I did not withdraw my objection to the probative value. If the Tribunal deems it to have probative value, then, of course, it is admissible. I objected originally as to its authenticity.
THE PRESIDENT: The document is admitted as Exhibit 29. The probative value is before the Tribunal to decide. Counsel, of course, in their briefs, may argue pro and con on the matter of the probative value of the document.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, as for the questionnaires sent out on this subject, I ask for permission to submit them later, if they should be received.
Mr. President, I should like to offer the following document No. 110, for the following reasons. In this document KB-93, speaking of McCance's experiments, it is said that they are harmless and painless; they are kidney function examinations. One has no idea of what that means and if the questionnaires are not answered we will be in the dark. Now, by pure coincidence, I happened to find an article in "The Lancet" by this Professor McCance, where one gets some idea of what is to be done by these children. It is said that these kidney function tests are best performed on human beings and then it is said that the study of the amount of sodium chloride in the body can be performed by an analysis of small animals, or upon analysis of fetuses and new born children. Then he goes on with his animals about examination of the kidney function. I believe that is important since Professor Ivy said here that if such experiments are performed they are not an evil. The analysis can be performed only when the children are dead.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, having looked over the rest of the documents in this particular complex in the sequence as Dr. Servatius wishes to introduce them, the Exhibit No. 29 that was just accepted into evidence and these other exhibits are all exhibits dealing with literature, literature on experiments and work in other countries. I now request that the Tribunal rule whether or not such literature will be admissible in toto and then whether or not each document will be admissible as it is introduced; this has been delayed by the Tribunal, and if so, it seems to me that perhaps all these could be put in together for all of the defendants.
Several of these are merely articles from Reader's Digest; "The Lancet" I do not know — I must ask counsel here — whether or not they are admissible, but first of all, before they are introduced, I think it would be incumbent upon the Tribunal to rule whether or not this type of evidence will be accepted. This has been delayed now and if the Tribunal rules that they will accept it then, of course, we can object to each document as it goes in. But it is my understanding that as yet the Tribunal has taken the position that they do not wish to rule as to the admissibility of any of this evidence.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, I wanted to comment on the question of literature later and offer some affidavits now on euthanasia and at the end bring up the question of literature.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, that is perfectly all right, but this is going to come up with all the defendants and I wonder if the Tribunal is in a position to rule on that now, or does the Tribunal want to delay that further?
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now be in recess for a few minutes.
(A recess was taken.)