1947-06-26, #5: Doctors' Trial (late afternoon)

THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.

THE PRESIDENT: With reference to these documents which are under consideration, being extracts from publications which are deemed relevant by counsel, the Tribunal will be inclined to admit in evidence extracts from publications which are approved medical journals, or publications which are recognized generally in the countries in which they are published by physicians and other persons as being responsible publications. That, of course, will require each document to be presented and considered by the Tribunal and the ruling made on each document as it may be offered.

When I spoke of responsible publications, I intended to say publications which are regarded as responsible insofar as medical matters and surgical matters are concerned.

Counsel may proceed.

DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, I should like to say something of a fundamental nature about the admissibility of other documents over and beyond the ruling which the Tribunal just made. I should like the whole question to be examined from this point of view. The evidence in this trial refers to the entire legal aspect of the matter, because the prosecution asserts that the defendants have offended the principal penal laws of all civilized countries. There are no laws to this effect, even in America today. The witness Professor Ivy only said that a commission met which was going to make some regulations of an administrative sort. What the law actually is in the world we can only judge from what has happened. The situation is the same as it is in international law where the effort is made to ascertain international law. The I.M.T. maintained this law always existed and was simply drawing on it. In that case we must proceed as a legislature proceeds. We must have a view of this whole medical field as a whole and take into account the opinions of all, not only the authorities, but also the entire population. For that reason the statements made in the press in articles by less prominent authors are of great importance. They are all a reflection of real life.

We should try to ascertain the situation as a whole. This is a sort of mosaic, which must be assembled. You cannot take only authorities; you must take other voices, too, which are a part. The structure must include all of them. Only from the total facts can real life be seen and ascertained what the real opinion of humanity is.

THE PRESIDENT: As I stated, each document will be considered as it is presented. Suppose you reserve this argument until some document is presented and objected to. We can consider it as concrete when it is presented to the Tribunal as a document.

DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, I offer Document Karl Brandt No. 110 as Exhibit 44; that is the paper by Professor McCance in connection with experiments.

THE PRESIDENT: Did you say that was published in "The Lancet"?

DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, and 1936 is the date, a paper by Professor McCance.

THE PRESIDENT: Has counsel for the prosecution any objection to the admission of this document?

MR. HARDY: The prosecution would like the defense counsel to state what is the reputation of "The Lancet", as I am not familiar with it.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal is. The reputation of the magazine is very good; it is an English medical journal.

MR. HARDY: No objection.

THE PRESIDENT: Karl Brandt Document No. 110 will be admitted as Brandt Exhibit 44.

DR. SERVATIUS: Karl Brandt Documents 121 and 117 are not yet translated into English. Karl Brandt No. 117 is an exhaustive document, a doctor's thesis of 1937 regarding the experiments effecting human beings.

THE PRESIDENT: Doctor, these documents will be considered when the Tribunal has before it the translation.

DR. SERVATIUS: Then I will postpone putting in these documents.

Perhaps I can have it as early as tomorrow.

Now comes Document Karl Brandt 94; this will be Exhibit 45. This is an excerpt from the German Medical Weekly, an excerpt from the British Medical Journal 1945, an article by Frances Gardner. This is an article on artificially produced jaundice and its effect on rheumatic arthritis. The purpose of this document is to prove that jaundice is a non-hazardous disease and that volunteers, because it is not dangerous, are willing to submit to it.

The next document, Karl Brandt 105 and Karl Brandt 108, I shall put in as Exhibits 46 and 47. They deal with the same question.

THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, counsel. Karl Brandt Document No. 94 will be admitted as Brandt Exhibit 45.

DR. SERVATIUS: Then I put in Document KB 105, a work on hepatitis by Professor Neefe. It is an excerpt printed in the Medical Monthly; the article itself is from The American Journal of Medical Science 1945. This document is put to prove that hepatitis is not dangerous.

THE PRESIDENT: That document Brandt will be admitted as Karl Brandt Exhibit 46.

DR. SERVATIUS: Then follows Karl Brandt 108, a paper on hepatitis by the same author, Professor Neefe, an excerpt from the Journal of the American Medical Association, 11 August 1945. This concerns itself with the question of voluntary consent in hepatitis and the volunteers in these experiments were conscientious objectors. It says that the experiments were made possible through the cooperation of the National Board of C.O.'s and the American Friends Service Committee. Volunteers were given hepatitis and I shall later deal with the question of voluntary consent.

THE PRESIDENT: That exhibit may be admitted as Karl Brandt Exhibit 47.

DR. SERVATIUS: I then put in Karl Brandt 109, an excerpt from the periodical "The Lancet" of 12 August 1944. It is entitled "Transmission of Infective Hepatitis to Human Volunteers". This I put in reference to the question of voluntary consent, too.

THE PRESIDENT: That document may be Karl Brandt Exhibit 48.

DR. SERVATIUS: Next comes Karl Brandt 104; I am not sure whether the Tribunal has that in English.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, it is contained in this book.

DR. SERVATIUS: This is an article from the Readers Digest of January 1947 entitled "I Starved for Science". This is an article from a fiction magazine which contains semi-scientific information also and there are some scientific works. This a report by a volunteer who, as a conscientious objector, went through a hunger experiment with 35 of his comrades. I out it in first of all in order to refute what Professor Ivy said, namely, that such experiments do not involve pain, simply minor unpleasantness.

MR. HARDY: I shall not object to the introduction of this document but, however, counsel should reserve any argument as to the probative value of this document for the arguments and then the probative value of the document can be determined by the Tribunal. The document is not refuting the testimony of Dr. Ivy. It can be seen it simply states how volunteers subjected themselves to dietic experiments. At the end everyone was happy and they had a whopping party. There is nothing in it to refute Professor Ivy's testimony; that is the reason I am not objecting to it. I think if he has any comment to make on the document it should be reserved for argument.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal is not disposed to admit this offered article in evidence. It will not be received.

MR. HARDY: I understand it will not be received?

THE PRESIDENT: This offered exhibit will not be received in evidence.

DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, since I have similar documents here, may I please say the following: if I may use these documents only in my argument then I shall have to bring them to the attention of the Tribunal later in my concluding plea or not even then? Am I understanding you correctly?

THE PRESIDENT: The argument of counsel must be based upon evidence which is received and admitted before the Tribunal and not upon extraneous matters.

DR. SERVATIUS: Then Mr. President I am not in a position to base my argument on anything because I will have no practical case to refer to but must refer only to hypothetical cases. I think I must be given an opportunity to substantiate what I am going to present. I can not rely purely on theory.

THE PRESIDENT: That was what I am trying to say that the arguments of counsel are supposed to be based on the evidence which is before the Tribunal, from the facts and evidence which have been received. That is not limiting counsel's argument to theory but on the contrary gives counsel evidence which is before the Tribunal upon which to base his argument. Counsel, of course, in his argument may draw deductions from matters which are in evidence. He does not have to argue only the evidence. That matter can be taken up later if counsel is in doubt about the argument.

DR. SERVATIUS: I then come to Karl Brandt Document 106, this will be Exhibit 49.

MR. HARDY: Your Honor, for the clarification of the record I want to inform the Tribunal that I did not formally object to the admission of the last document.

THE PRESIDENT: I under and that.

DR. SERVATIUS: Karl Brandt 106 comes from the Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics. This is an essay by Arthur R. Cushny on Mustard Gas from the year 1918. It deals with the question of experiments with Lost Gas, the two methods of administration, in drops being one of them. I put this in because of the chart that is to be found in it, from which it can be seen that the experimental subjects went through it for altogether different periods, from a few seconds to ten minutes, and that here the experiments were of varying lengths of time. I intend to use this in my argument, referring to degrees of voluntary consent, namely, the persons desiring to volunteer for only one second, another person volunteers for the whole minutes. If you will look through the list you will see that the last ones are colored persons and that has something to do with the degree of voluntary consent.

THE PRESIDENT: Karl Brandt Document 106 is admitted in evidence as Brandt Exhibit No. 49.

DR. SERVATIUS: How comes KB 107, likewise an article from the Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics of the year 1919. This also deals with mustard gas experiments. I put it in to prove that such experiments with Lost Gas have been customary in medicine since 1918.

THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence as Karl Brandt Exhibit No. 50.

DR. SERVATIUS: Next comes Karl Brandt 110. This will be Exhibit 51, an extract from the Archives of Pathological Anatomy and Physiology and Clinical Medicine, edited by Rudolf Virchow. This is an old periodical from the year 1885. This also deals with the question of voluntary consent. Here a case is described where children in the last stages of infection are experimented on and two of them die. It says:

I reserved to myself the continuation of further culture experiments and I shall not fail to report on any eventual, positive results.

This again deals with the question of voluntary consent of children as far as it is considered possible at all.

THE PRESIDENT: The document will be admitted as Karl Brandt Exhibit No. 51.

DR. SERVATIUS: It would be expedient now if I would deal with Document Book III because there are a number of articles therein dealing with experiments

THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, Counsel, wait just a moment.

DR. SERVATIUS: It begins with Document Karl Brandt 45.

THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, counsel.

MR. HARDY: Your Honor, wouldn't it be more expedient and logical to carry on in this document book he has just given us and have the numbers in sequence so that we will have our document book in rather chronological order as to exhibit numbers and we won't have to jump from one to the other?

THE PRESIDENT: There is a question whether it will be simpler to follow in chronological order or through the exhibit books by subject matter.

MR. HARDY: It is immaterial to me, Your Honor. I can follow either way but it would seem simpler to follow through each book if we are going to hold a book together like that.

DR. SERVATIUS: This is a case of expediency.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will follow the suggestion by counsel for Karl Brandt and will now take up Document Book III.

DR. SERVATIUS: As Exhibit 52, I should like to put in Karl Brandt 45. This is an extract from the book "Men against Death" by Paul de Kruif, which is certainly known to the Tribunal. The last two documents are also from a book by Paul de Kruif, the second book being —

MR. HARDY: The last three documents which are extracts from books by Paul de Kruif, the prosecution strenuously objects to. It is fiction and nothing in the book is based on medical facts and as Dr. Ivy pointed out from the stand he couldn't give an opinion on matters of this type in as much as it is not approved medical literature.

It is written for purposes of the lay reader and not written for the purpose of this Tribunal or for the purposes of physicians and medical studies.

DR. SERVATIUS: May I say something in this regard? Your Honors, the public opinion is not formed by the reading of scientific works, but a book like Paul de Kruif's is known through the world. It can be purchased anywhere and humanity does not ask what the eminent Professor so and so said but bases its opinion on what Paul de Kruif tells him. This opinion has a great influence again on the general opinion of the government representatives in turn since they represent the population. If you would ask anyone's opinion on the medical question he would e.g. refer to this book.

THE PRESIDENT: I did not hear the last, was that a translation of a previous statement or was it only the Interpreter repeating?

DR. SERVATIUS: I said that this book was written for general public, in order to make these ideas understandable to the public as a whole, and has much greater dispersion than a scientific work that a scholar draws up in his study, consequently I believe that it has probative value because it represents public opinion as a whole and should be admitted into evidence.

MR. HARDY: I might ask, Your Honors, what is the purpose of these documents, if that is the purpose of the documents, if it is the purpose to show that like experiments, that the same type of experiments are being conducted as in Germany there might be some consideration, but I can't see for which purpose Dr. Servatius has expressed that he wants them admitted.

DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, as far as I know, Paul de Kruif is a professor of biology; he is not a layman. In this book, experiments are described in a clear way; these descriptions give a clear insight into what has happened in the last 30 years. He describes the problem that lies behind the experiments and the difficulties; he gives details also. From many cases here I can approach the question of voluntary consent. For instance, the case of the plastic surgery experiments on the prisoner, where lawyers had to be called in to determine whether the prerequisite of voluntary consent existed. Now Paul de Kruif shows it is not the doctor who decides this and has the responsibility by the director of the prison, in other words, the State. These statements must be admitted as evidence. I could, if necessary, go into this in detail in order to demonstrate this to the Tribunal.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, counsel, the probative value of all exhibits will be before the Tribunal to consider.

MR. HARDY: I did not hear, your Honor.

THE PRESIDENT: I said the probative value of these exhibits will be before the Tribunal to consider and this offered exhibit will be admitted.

MR. HARDY: Now I understood we were discussing the 3 exhibits by Paul de Kruif, is that correct?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, it is a book. Considering Karl Brandt Document 45.

MR. HARDY: And Document 46, which is also from the same book? And Document 47, written by Paul de Kruif, "Hunger Fighters" which is a fictional story about the pellagra experiments does that also come under your Honors' ruling?

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has made some examination of Karl Brandt Document Book 3 and of the documents offered in that book; they will all be admitted in evidence for what they may be worth, except Karl Brand Document 49, Karl Brandt Document 55 and Karl Brandt Document 74, which will be rejected.

DR. SERVATIUS: Would you be so good as to repeat those documents numbers, your Honor — the ones that are not admissible?

THE PRESIDENT: Karl Brandt Document 49.

DR. SERVATIUS: In that case KB-45 becomes Exhibit 52, 46 becomes Exhibit 53 and 47 becomes Exhibit 54. The next, 48 —

THE PRESIDENT: Karl Brandt Document 55 will not be admitted.

MR. HARDY: Your Honor, in connection with all these various documents which Dr. Servatius is introducing to show that non-volunteers were used in other countries, it is the opinion of the Prosecution that the burden of proof is on Dr. Servatius to point out in each one of those publications wherein the description, the status of the subjects used, is elicited; and if the article does not specify this so that we are unable to ascertain whether or not the subjects were volunteers or were non-volunteers, it is clearly irrelevant.

THE PRESIDENT: The probative value of these will be before the Tribunal. Of course, the burden rests upon defendant Brandt, in his brief, to show the probative value of such portions of those documents and what probative value they have.

MR. HARDY: The Prosecution does not clearly understand what each document is introduced for and we would like to have that pointed out whether they are introduced to show whether they were non-volunteers in America or whether they are introduced to show they were volunteers and whether they were conducted so that deaths occurred, or what is the purpose?

THE PRESIDENT: That burden rests upon the defendant, Karl Brandt. Karl Brandt Document 73 is not admitted in evidence. Now the numbers of these exhibits may be put on later. The others are admitted in sequence.

DR. SERVATIUS: I should like to go through these documents in a general way, or does the Tribunal prefer that I reserve this for my final plea?

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel can do that more effectively in his brief or in a separate brief devoted to this branch of the case.

DR. SERVATIUS: Yes. I do not understand how the exhibits are to be numbered. From Document Book 3 all documents are admitted except 55, 49 and 74?

THE PRESIDENT: That is correct, counsel.

DR. SERVATIUS: Then may we put down exhibit numbers. 48 is Exhibit 55; 50 becomes 56; 51 —

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, did you read that into the record? Were the stenographers getting that?

JUDGE SEBRING: Counsel, by your leave, the Tribunal will read into the record the manner and the order in which they will receive those exhibits so that it may be quite clear.

Karl Brandt Document 45 will be received as Karl Brandt Exhibit 52.

Document 46 as Exhibit 53, Document 47 as Exhibit 54, Document 48 as Exhibit 55, Document 50 as Exhibit 56, Document 51 as Exhibit 57, Document 52 as Exhibit 58, Document 53 as Exhibit 59, Document 54 as Exhibit 60, Document 56 as Exhibit 6l, Document 57 as Exhibit 62, Document 58 as Exhibit 63, Document 59 as Exhibit 64, Document 60 as Exhibit 65, Document 61 as Exhibit 66, Document 62 as Exhibit 67, Document 63 as Exhibit 68, Document 64 as Exhibit 69, Document 65 as Exhibit 70, Document 66 as Exhibit 71, Document 67 as Exhibit 72, Document 68 as Exhibit 73, Document 69 as Exhibit 74, Document 70 as Exhibit 75, Document 71 as Exhibit 76, Document 72 as Exhibit 77, Document 73 as Exhibit 78, Document 75 as Exhibit 79 and Document 76 as Karl Brandt Exhibit 80.

DR. SERVATIUS: And now, your Honors, I should like to turn back to my first supplemental volume. Here are some documents referring to biological warfare.

MR. HARDY: The Prosecution objects to the next 3 documents being admitted. The Tribunal could consider then and rule on it without any further comment by the Prosecution.

DR. SERVATIUS: In regard to these documents—

I put in KB-118, an article from Popular Science entitled "Germ Weapons were Ready". This concerns bacteriological warfare and I intend to put it in in reference to the question of humanity. One of the main charges of the Prosecution is that the defendants acted contrary to the laws of humanity. If you cast a glance on the bacteriological warfare that was prepared here and the discussion in this document, you must compare that with what the defendants are charged with. Aside from the fact that bacteriological warfare is also a Count in the indictment; although it is not specified precisely what the defendants are alleged to have actually done in bacteriological warfare. I can only state that here in these articles it is clearly stated what happened on the other side. It can be seen from this that it was much more that the Prosecution is charging the defendants with.

That is the reason I wish to put it in. The fact that it appeared in a popular pseudo scientific magazine docs not, in my opinion, minimize its probative value. Just the opposite, it proves how popular these ideas were. I should like, at the same time, to put in document 124. That would be Exhibit 82. There it says that the Japanese —

THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, counsel — Karl Brandt Document 118 will not be received in evidence by the Tribunal.

DR. SERVATIUS: Then I put in Document 124. I put it in to prove that in Germany, as counter distinction to what happened in other countries, not much was done in the field of bacteriological warfare. This is an article from the New York Times Overseas Weekly, Sunday, 6 October 1946, and it says here:

United States continues work in field in which Japanese made many experiments.

It says here:

The Japanese are known to have experimented considerably with biological warfare but the Germans had done little.

This is the reason why I am putting it in.

MR. HARDY: If the Tribunal please, I also object to this document.

THE PRESIDENT: Karl Brandt Document 124 will not be received in evidence.

MR. HARDY: While I am on my feet, your Honor, I object to the next one, Karl Brandt Document 125.

DR. SERVATIUS: I also put in Document 154 for the same reason. It also deals with the question of bacteriological warfare and shows the official attitude concerning the question of the admissibility of such warfare. On page 2 it says:

Some authorities view germ warfare as a horrible and inhumane thing, which this country should use only in self-defense. Major General Alden H. Waitt, Chief of Chemical Warfare Service, is spokesman for another school of thought.

MR. HARDY: Before Dr. Servatius continues to read this document, this is Document 125, not 154, your Honor. I wish to again render my objection before he reads the document.

THE PRESIDENT: We are considering Karl Brandt Document 125.

DR. SERVATIUS: Let me say something about this, Mr. President. This states official policy, to be sure, in a popular periodical but whoever wants to wage such war must also carry out the necessary experiments and that can be seen —

THE PRESIDENT: If I understand this document, counsel, it is a condensation by "Reader's Digest" from an article in "Collier's Weekly", is that correct?

DR. SERVATIUS: That is so, yes.

THE PRESIDENT: The document will not be received in evidence.

DR. SERVATIUS: I should then like to put in evidence KB-113. That's an article from the newspaper, "Stars and Stripes" which has already been discussed before this Tribunal.

MR. HARDY: May it please the Tribunal, the other day, during the close of one of the cross examinations by Dr. Servatius — I believe it was the examination of Dr. Ivy — the Tribunal ruled that this document had no materiality and would be inadmissible. This is the one written by the Sergeant published in the "Stars and Stripes".

THE PRESIDENT: Letter to "B Bag" from a Sergeant. The Tribunal has already ruled that this document is inadmissible, and the Tribunal adheres to that ruling.

DR. SERVATIUS: I then come to document KB-114. This is an excerpt from "The People" London, of 3 March 1946. This document also concerns itself in part with the experiments on prisoners. It was in part put to a witness here and I should now like to put it in evidence. It is entitled "Nurnberg, Just One More Allied Trick" by Richard Llewellyn.

One particular point — one passage interests me here which already has been a matter of discussion in this trial; namely, the question of the idea of atonement, and, it can be seen that experiments are not approved only for volunteers but for all sorts of people.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, in the opinion of the Tribunal, this document has absolutely no probative value and it is rejected.

DR. SERVATIUS: I now come to a series of documents that concern euthanasia, KB-24, as Exhibit 81. This is an affidavit by Anneliese Schmundt. The affiant makes statements regarding a case of euthanasia which was undertaken after the affiant had spoken with Professor Brandt.

It was undertaken against a relative of hers and she says that she hardly knew Professor Brandt at that time, and that the idea of euthanasia was alien to her. "In order to get information, "she says,

I asked Dr. Karl Brandt who was very little known to me at that time. His explanations were completely clear and comprehensible, and after careful consideration we had to agree to them, since this meant deliverance of the patient from his sufferings, and deliverance of my 80-year old stepfather, who bestowed infinite pains and money on the support of this boy who never had anything to expect from life.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, this document will be received in evidence as Karl Brandt Exhibit — what is the number please?

DR. SERVATIUS: 81, your Honor. The affiant continues that the most striking thing about Professor Brandt was his attitude which was full of sympathy and aroused great confidence and showed his sense of responsibility.

The next document is KB-25 which will be Exhibit 82. This is an affidavit by the Provincial Bishop Wurm.

MR. HARDY: May I call the attention of the Tribunal — excuse me, your Honor, the original has a jurat thereon. No objection.

DR. SERVATIUS: Provincial Bishop Wurm states here that the Reich Health Leader Conti informed him that there was law or at least, legal basis for euthanasia which was, however, not made public for purely political reasons. This concerns the question of the legal permissibility of euthanasia.

The next document, KB-26, I ask to put in as Exhibit 83. This is an affidavit by Count von Schwerin Krosigk. He is personally acquainted with Pastor Bodelschwingh, director of the Bethel Hospital where insane, epileptic and deformed people, as well as other patients, were kept. He says that at that time Pastor Bodelschwingh told him about conversations he had with Professor Brandt and he says —

THE PRESIDENT: Several of these documents in the document book which I have are now printed in German and not in English.

DR. SERVATIUS: Then Document KB-26 is missing in English, if I understand you correctly.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Document 40 also. I now have a copy of 26 in English.

MR. HARDY: I have both of them in my document book, your Honor.

DR. SERVATIUS: I ask your pardon that this omission occurred. This document, first of all, shows Pastor Bodelschwingh's attitude. He told Schwerin Krosigk at that time:

He could understand that, from a medical and political point of view, it might be argued that the painful life of individuals who vegetate like animals should be shortened. He further states that a committee had visited Bodelschwingh at that time, and Bodelschwingh expressed his opinion —

THE PRESIDENT: Has the Secretary another copy of supplemental documents Karl Brandt 26 and so forth in English?

Proceed, counsel.

DR. SERVATIUS: At the end of this affidavit the affiant testifies regarding Pastor Bodelschwingh's attitude toward Professor Brandt and also about Professor Brandt's attitude toward euthanasia. He says:

He had all the more reason to appreciate the attitude of Professor Dr. Brandt. Dr. Brandt had defended his point of view in a way which really called for respect and Professor Dr. Brandt had also shown complete understanding for Pastor Bodelschwingh's opposite opinion.

This will go to prove what Professor Brandt's real attitude actually was concerning the alleged "extermination of useless eaters."

The next document is KB-40. This is a part of Document 1696-PS.

THE PRESIDENT: Karl Brandt Document 26 is admitted as Karl Brandt Exhibit 83.

DR. SERVATIUS: The next one is KB-40, Exhibit 84. This is a letter from the Reich Committee for Scientific Study of Heredity directed to the Director of the State Health Office in Tuttlingen, dated 9 January 1943. It is very brief and reads:

Thank you very much for your letter of 22 December 1942 with appendix. Since on principle I never send children to the Reich Committee Stations against the wishes of their parents or guardians, I would ask you to consider this matter closed.

A copy went to Dr. Falthauser for information. I think this is a very material point —

THE PRESIDENT: Who signed this letter, counsel? The signature is missing from this document.

DR. SERVATIUS: I don't have the original here. I shall inform the Tribunal of that hereafter. I also am not even sure whether there is a signature on the original or the copy I have of it.

THE PRESIDENT: Without a signature the document will have no value.

DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, but it has the same value as all the documents captured by the Allies. It is part of the whole document bundle, 1696-PS, which the prosecution put in. I shall try to have the original again in order to decipher the signature.

MR. HARDY: Dr. Servatius, that is correct, this is a captured document which was in the hands of the prosecution and when we turned over documents on December 4 or 5 to the defense counsel, this happened to be one of them, I believe.

DR. SERVATIUS: The next document is KB 81 and I offer it as Exhibit 85. This is an affidavit by Gerhard Engel, Waffen Adjutant for the Fuehrer Adolf Hitler. He testifies regarding Karl Brandt's position, that he was accompanying physician and had to stay at the Fuehrer's headquarters. He was closely tied to the Fuehrer's headquarters. He produces this to prove that Karl Brandt did not concern himself with the details of organization or carry out the program of euthanasia. That wasn't his task. He further states that Karl Brandt never participated in discussions on the general situation in which current questions were discussed. This is of some significance with respect to Halder's diary, where it says that the euthanasia program had been discussed in a discussion on the general situation at Nowgorod in Russia. The affiant states here that Karl Brandt never took part in such discussions. Finally, concerning the question of membership in the SS, the Waffen Adjutant states here:

I know that Karl Brandt and Himmler lived on considerably bad terms.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, apparently a copy of that document in the book before me. KB Ducument 81, is not complete because it does not seem to contain the statements you read.

DR. SERVATIUS: I shall check on it. Perhaps the translation is faulty. That is admitted in evidence as an exhibit for the time then? I ask because of the number.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, it may be admitted in evidence as Karl Brandt Exhibit 85.

DR. SERVATIUS: The next document is KB 92, the affidavit of the Minister Hans Lammers and concerns only the authenticity of Bouhler's signature which appeared in Document NO-156. That was Brandt Exhibit 4-a and 4-b. It was unclear at that time whose signature was appended to that document.

Now comes KB 84. I offer it as Exhibit 87. This is an affidavit by Dr. Steinbrecher which concerns the mental institute Dueren which as the Allied troops approached was evacuated. The witness says that Brandt turned up there and stated verbatim:

Professor Brandt showed great understanding in our situation and offered to participate in our fate.

I want to stress that, contrary to the other Party bosses, he did not express a single derogatory word on the insane. I put this in to prove that Brandt's attitude as a whole was a medical one and was not primarily one of extermination of these mentally ill persons.

The next document, KB-86, I put in as Exhibit 88. This is a statement by Grabe.

THE PRESIDENT: The next document on your index is Karl Brandt 90.

DR. SERVATIUS: I should like to insert one document here — KB 86. It must be in the document book in that order. That would then be Exhibit 88.

This concerns a whole series of questions. First of all, the term "Action Brandt" is mentioned here, and it says that a construction program was to be carried out. It shows here that the term "Action Brandt" is very often used and is used to cover a multitude of things. Then it mentions the attitude of Brandt toward half-Jewish doctors, his attitude toward foreigners, and ordered them to be treated like Germans in his hospital. He also states his opinion on the hospital action and the question of transferring patients in view of air raids. It says that the "Brandt Action" had nothing to do with extermination but was done as a precaution against air raids. He says he doesn't know of any cases in which patients were collected and transferred to extermination camps. This refers to special hospitals that Brandt had set up.

The next document is KB 90; I offer it as Exhibit 89. This is an affidavit by Hans Kehrl. He makes statements regarding the question of protection against chemical warfare. It says Karl Brandt concerned himself with the manufacture of protective installations against chemical warfare.

The next document will be KB 100; I offer it as Exhibit 90. I wish the Tribunal to consider especially whether it is admissible. I sent out a circular letter to all 16 hospitals of this "hospital Brandt action" and asked them all whether they knew anything about a directive regarding transfer of patients to euthanasia institutions.

I collected these actions. I have them in my room but I haven't given them in for translation yet because there are too many of them. However, I shall do so if the Tribunal wishes. This is a copy of the letter which I sent to these offices. I had my assistant certify the most important part of its contents. The unanimous answer was that the "Brandt Action" — that they knew of no "Brandt action" according to which patients unfit for work were taken from the hospital and sent to euthanasia institutions regardless of nationalities.

THE PRESIDENT: These cannot be considered until the answers are placed at the disposal of the prosecution and the Tribunal. We can tell nothing about the letters which counsel had sent to the hospitals.

MR. HARDY: I suppose all the answers were given under oath.

DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, such a thing of such volume as this could hardly have been done by way of affidavit. It would take too much time. This could only be done in somewhat of a certificate form in order to spare the Tribunal the necessity of making all these translations. Perhaps one of the judges might be appointed as a commissioner who could go through these answers. The IMT proceeded in a similar manner in order to handle their extensive material. I can't put in a thousand letters in evidence here — that would be too great a burden to put on the translation department.

MR. HARDY: If these letters have jurats on them, Your Honor, they can merely be admissible. However, if there are no jurats I don't see the point.

JUDGE SEBRING: If made in accordance with the form adopted by the Tribunal for statements in lieu of oath, would they not also be admissible?

MR. HARDY: When I say a jurat, I also include that regulation of the Tribunal.

DR. SERVATIUS: What I did was have my assistant swear an affidavit to the effect that he had received these answers and he testified to their contents.

I did this purely for reason of expediency and could have the same thing done by affidavit.

THE PRESIDENT: This document will be examined by a member of the Tribunal.

DR. SERVATIUS: This document is then admissible as an exhibit, is it not?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, this document may be admitted in evidence.

MR. HARDY: This document is merely a statement by the secretary that he has read all the letters that came in.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well, that will be subject to prosecution's objecting to it.

DR. SERVATIUS: The next document is KB-115. I put it in as Exhibit 91. This is an affidavit by Phillipp Prinz von Hessen. He expresses himself briefly about euthanasia and says the following:

During both my altercations — already known and brought down to record — with Hitler and Bouhler regarding the carrying out of so-called euthanasia in my province Professor Brandt was not only not asked to be present, although he could have been reached immediately, but his name was not even mentioned at all. This for me was proof of the fact that Brandt stood outside of the problems pertaining to the carrying out of euthanasia. Also later I never realized or heard that Brandt might have stood as the leading factor behind the idea of euthanasia.

THE PRESIDENT: The document will be admitted as Brandt Exhibit 91, Brand Document 115.

DR. SERVATIUS: The next is Document 116. This is an affidavit by major General Franz Haider, retired. We brought in the question of euthanasia in the Russian occupied territories. He was shown Doc. No. 1758 with a few notes appended to it, and he says regarding it:

These notes no not really constitute a diary, but are merely pencilled daily shorthand notes, which were to serve as reminders. Regarding the notes concerning asylums I recall that Quartermaster General Wagner told me that the possible evacuation of Asylums in the occupied Russian territory was being discussed outside the Wehrmacht and that it was said this might necessitate the killing of mental patients.

The manner in which Quartermaster General Wagner discussed this showed that he was in strong opposition to this idea and I took the same view. I Imagine that I would remember if the name of Prof. Karl Brandt had been mentioned in these discussions, as the official mention of the name of Brandt in my sphere of activities would have been quite unusual as all official contact was lacking.

The next document is KB 123. This will be Exhibit 93. This is a chart, a graph, covering the period 1910 to 1945. This is from Document 1696-PS from the Prosecution Document book, page 74.

MR. HARDY: May I inquire whether or not this chart is attached to 1696PS, a captured document?

DR. SERVATIUS: Yes; it is in the document book. Only it was smaller and was very difficult to read, consequently I had it redrawn. If I had it photostatted again it would have been almost illegible. I had it reproduced and enlarged.

MR. HARDY: Is it part of a captured German Document 1696-PS, is that right?

DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.

MR. HARDY: Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: What is the document, counsel?

DR. SERVATIUS: This is from the files of the mental institution Kaufbeuren, and refers to the mortality of the children in this institution from 1910 on. This document is of great interest for it shows that in the first World War the mortality rate of the children reached almost 12 percent, and now if we take the time when Professor Karl Brandt was active in the Reich Committee we see that during the war the curve also rises and rises even as high as 13 percent, but then it drops a bit. It shows that the actual increase in mortality of children goes as high as 26 percent only in years 1943 and 1944 after Karl Brandt had already left. I think this is good proof that Professor Karl Brandt was not carrying out annihilation here, but that there was some new action; from someone also that caused this. When Karl Brandt was there you find that breaking the curve where it drops from 14 to 11 percent, and it rises after he left. The graph also shows in the last war children died in much the same way as they died in this one.

The next document is KB 85, which I put in as Exhibit 94.

MR. HARDY: I object to the admission of this document in evidence. It is merely a treatise justifying the according of mercy deaths. I don't think that is an issue here. I don't think it would be relevant; I object to it.

DR. SERVATIUS: It is true this is a literature document showing the various opinions toward euthanasia, but it is of great importance for the general attitude that Karl Brandt found prevailed in Germany, and it also shows the connection between the idea of medical euthanasia and the consequence of an economic nature. It doesn't, however, touch the most essential problems of medical approval of euthanasia.

Above all, I submit it because Professor Maltzer, the author, who was himself the director of a medical institution sent out a questionnaire to 200 patients, asking them what their attitude towards the mercy killings of children was.

This book study was published in 1925, much earlier than Karl Brandt's time. There were 162 replies altogether — 119 answered "yes", and 43 answered "no". The main point for the reasons why the parents agree or approve or disapprove is above all they emphasize the fact that they don't even want to be asked the question of euthanasia to come up in connection with their children, and Professor Meltzer says most of them say "yes", even those that say "no" don't want to be confronted with with this question of conscience, but are agreeable to the acts being carried out without their being asked. Now, just that is a critical point in the charges against Karl Brandt. They are always asking him why parents weren't asked, or weren't informed, in connection with the death of their children. This is a penetration into the psychology really concerned in this matter. This gives us an insight into the thinking of those actually involved and their motives. For that reason I consider it particularly material.

THE PRESIDENT: This document will be admitted— Karl Brandt Document 85 will be admitted as Brandt Exhibit 94.

DR. SERVATIUS: In conclusion there are a few documents concerning the question of Brandt's membership in the SS, first an affidavit by a soldier by the name of Bonatz, who worked near Karl Brandt for a few months. I think that the attitude toward foreigners is important here. He says:

Above all I would like to stress that he treated the foreigners who were compelled to work there pleasantly and fairly. They said that they had no reason to complain and praised Professor Brandt as a pleasant and kindly man whom they had all reason to esteem.

THE PRESIDENT: What number are you giving it, counsel?

DR. SERVATIUS: Exhibit 95. The next document is KB 78, which I offer as Exhibit 96. This is an affidavit by Luise von Oertzon, chief official in the Red Cross during the war. She says that Professor Brandt's orientation was primarily medical, and he told her at that time he had been violently attacked by Conti and Bormann, because he was predominately a doctor and not a politician.

The next document KB 79 is Exhibit 97. That is an affidavit by Gottlieb Berger, Chief of the SS Main Office, regarding Brandt's position and his functions, in the SS. He says:

As Chief of the SS Main Office, I only know that Professor Karl Brandt belonged to the SS only as an Ehrenfuehrer [honorary guide]. I know of no single case in which Professor Karl Brandt exercised any function whatsoever or took over any task in the SS. He certainly never held any office.

I consider it impossible that Professor Karl Brandt was one of Himmler's consulting physicians; Himmler had his own doctors.

Now comes KB 80, Exhibit 98. This is an affidavit by Julius Schaub, Hitler's personal adjutant. It makes statements about Brandt's close attachment to the Fuehrer headquarters. It says that Professor Brandt was Hitler's escort physician from 1934, and as such had to be available when called upon. Further, it says Himmler was inimicable toward Brandt; and he describes a case where there was bitter altercation about the status of the medical officer, where Himmler maintains the point of view, first he is primarily a soldier and politician, and only secondly a doctor, and this lead to a considerable altercation. It also says "several times Karl Brandt found the opportunity of interceding with Adolf Hitler, particularly on behalf of the interest of Catholic nurses."

The next is a document KB 83, which will be exhibit 99. This is an affidavit by Josef Brunissen from the French, Alsacia, and he says the following:

I am a member of the Alsatian clergy and since 1925 have been spiritual director of the abbey on Mount Odile monastery on Mount Odile in France. During the German occupation, the Mount Odile monastery was to be converted into an SS school. The Commissioner General for Health and Medical Hatters, Prof. Dr. Karl Brandt willingly intervened in the matter in accordance with my wishes, and succeeded in preventing the conversion of the Mount Odile monastery into an SS school. We are indebted to Prof. Dr. Brandt for the preservation of our monastery and venerable place of pilarimage.

Now, comes KB 95, as exhibit 100. This deals with Brandt's connection with Professor Guasebart, and says that Brandt gave him assistance in many difficult situations and then everything he got for the civilian population.

And the last document KB 96, I put in as exhibit 101. This is an affidavit by Dr. Wille Gutermuth, Chief physician in the Clinic in Frankfurt on the Main. He makes statements regarding Karl Brandt's medical views and says he was sharply opposed by Conti and the Labor Front. He says also that Karl Brandt's offices did no political work and were not politically oriented.

That concludes my presentation of documents.

Now, Your Honor, I still have two witnesses, Huber and Wessel, I have agreed with the prosecution that I shall produce affidavits from both of them, and I ask permission to do so within a few days. The witnesses have been approved for examination by the Tribunal, but I wanted to put in instead the affidavits.

THE PRESIDENT: Were the witnesses procured by you, counsel?

DR. SERVATIUS: They are here in person, but in order not to take up the Tribunal's time, I simply didn't want to put them on the stand.

THE PRESIDENT: You may prepare the affidavits and submit them. For five or six minutes the Tribunal will meet with the committee of counsel, if they are ready to call on the Tribunal.

The Tribunal will now be in recess until 9:30 tomorrow morning.

(Thereupon at 1705 the Tribunal recessed)