1947-07-16, #5: Doctors' Trial (mid afternoon)

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will hear from counsel for the defendant Rudolf Brandt.

DR. KAUFFMANN (For the defendant Rudolf Brandt): Your Honors, the final plea which you have before you I have marked with red lines at some points. If the Tribunal will look at the plea they will see some red lines at the margin and only these parts are what I intend to read. I believe the Tribunal does not yet have copies but I have just handed them up.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has the copies, counsel, but I do not see any red lines on them.

The Tribunal now has the marked copies, counsel.

DR. KAUFFMANN: Mr. President I should like to point out that on pages 1 to 17 you will see some places marked with red lines but, at the moment, this afternoon, I shall not read these passages. My client has asked me not to read these passages although I should like to emphasize that he agrees with the contents of my statement but he had his own personal reasons. In these passages from 1 to 17 I have spoken of general principles and I have examined whether it is advisable to discuss these principles within the frame work of a final plead. But, opinions differ so greatly in this room, I believe I could say that truth could not hurt anyone, not even the defendants, because I believe that truth alone makes free. Now I shall turn to page 17 and I shall begin:

1. Who is Rudolf Brandt, what do his former positions mean?

The indictment has characterized this 37-year-old man, who in the witness chair, stood out conspicuously among the rest of the defendants because of his clumsy defense, as an influential personality who had a considerable and evil influence on Himmler. This view of the prosecution seems natural to the casual observer, for Rudolf Brandt held the rank of an SS Standartenfuehrer [Colonel], he was the head of the "Ministers' Bureau" and of the "Personal Secretariate of Himmler." As far as the rank of SS Standartenfuehrer is concerned, I wish to point out that Himmler gave Brandt this rank so as not to subordinate him to other members of the General SS, whereas in the Waffen SS he only held the rank of Oberscharfuehrer which corresponds to the rank of Staff Sergeant in the Army.

It would certainly be wrong to consider Brandt merely a stenographer, even a good one. He was, of course, more than that. But the fact that all those who observed him at closest range and for many years, considered the technical aspect of his job with Himmler as absolutely predominant, should be food for thought.

What all witnesses have unanimously testified to is their observation of a subaltern, intellectually insignificant, but morally clean personality, without great scope or resourcefulness, led astray and then without resistance. A descendant of working-class people, he came to Himmler for reasons of poverty and neediness, not out of personal inclinations received only modest salary, and remained without means to the end because he only wanted to earn what he needed to support his wife, his children and his parents.

If his unceasing diligence had not, already during his early youth, as a student, made him one of the best stenographers in Germany, he would have never set foot in Himmler's office. But he set foot in it and did not leave this dreadful place, even though he could no longer answer for his presence there. Brandt originally wanted to become a stenographer by profession and had to have an academic degree as required by regulations. Thus his university studies are connected with this ideal and did not originate from any particular scientific inclination. I shall not quote from the affidavit of Dr. Herrgesell but shall continue farther down.

Rudolf Brandt is not guiltless, but he has not incurred the death penalty, either.

His entire conduct is based on these characteristics; none of his signatures or other actions in the service of Himmler should be explained causally by assuming any criminality of his character. I believe him that he realized the crimes only when he was put on trial.

The deficiency of his conscience cannot be ignored, in view of the fact that not all of his signatures were executed without knowledge of the text and the contents of the orders issued by Himmler and passed on by him. But the reaction of that conscience was at that time already only a weak one; it did not rise in protest as a normal conscience would have reacted, and a person with a normal conscience would never have let himself be misused for signing such documents. Rudolf Brandt knew — starting from about 1941/42 — about experiments on human beings, carried out on prisoners sentenced to death whom, in Brandt's opinion, such experiments offered a chance of survival. Later on he must have known that there were only a few prisoners left who voluntarily seized the opportunity to receive a pardon and that therefore compulsion had to be used to make the experimental subjects submit to the experiments, I do believe him that he did not know, did not read, much less studied most of the incoming and outgoing papers of medical character, among these thousands of monthly incoming and outgoing papers coming under "personal-referat"; I hold it to be true that without exception he did not know the specialized medical reports and their details.

The testimony of Professor Ivy (Morning session of 16 June 1947) with which I agree namely, that even a layman can recognize the violation of medical ethics, gives me no reason to qualify my remarks; because the statement of Professor Ivy assumes, of course, that the layman did actually read the report and specifically those passages which are contradictory to medical ethics. At first glance the contradiction to the reported experiments can certainly not be recognized by the layman. But I should not dare to say that Brandt executed all signatures with closed eyes and did not know one of the documents, at least in its essentials, which the Prosecution has now submitted him. His defense on the witness stand, to the effect that he could not remember this or or that document, not sufficient in itself does not say or prove anything about his knowledge at that time.

How many of the documents of the Prosecution Brandt actually read, found correct, understood in their purport and approved, at that time and before he signed then, cannot be ascertained. If the statements of Brandt himself and of the witness Meine regarding the excessive workload and the pace of the daily working routine are accepted as true, as they are confirmed by the most varied witnesses in the affidavits produced by the Defense, then the eye of the judge, in order to judge fairly ought to leave the "council table" on which the documents are lying today, stern and inexorable, and go back to the time of the occurrence of these events.

Then he will notice also all the special circumstances which exerted a lasting and predominant influence up on Brandt. To bring about letters, orders etc. on one's own initiative and authority is one thing, to pass such documents on without knowledge or with only a slight knowledge of then or to give a merely technical help, is another thing It is true that even a cursory knowledge is a knowledge, but it is limited to the passing moment, perhaps only minutes, and then the "conveyer belt" on which Dr. Brandt was working would again bring completely different events within his horizon. I shall now continue on page 21.

A German poet states a general truth in saying that in the first step we are still free, in the second we are slaves. We should trade the path which the 25 year old Brandt followed from the day on which he decided to become a member of the personal staff of Himmler. It is an old experience that a young man with a sound character is the more likely to attach himself to a powerful man if this man stands out before his inferiors as a model of good fellowship and industry. In this and no other way did Brandt regard Himmler through the years until he, particularly after the outbreak of war, appeared brutal even in the eyes of his inferiors, devising individual orders of an inhuman nature together with others and thereby losing the character of being a just personality also in the eyes of Rudolf Brandt.

Brandt does not inwardly approve of these new practices and orders of Himmler, but fulfills them by signing letters etc. takes dictations from which he must realize, in broad outline, the misanthropical course of Himmler. He remains silent. That is his guilt which cannot be denied. But it is based, in part, on a centuries old heritage of the Germans, namely the devotion in the face of the "order" of the superior starting from the order of the non commissioned officer, up to that of the general, the king or the emperor — and this devotion regarded such an order as almost sacrosanct and implied release from any personal responsibility. But much greater guilt lies with the person who devised and issued such orders that with a man like Brandt who passed them on without ever having influenced their origin or having even had the possibility of influencing their origin or execution. The sabotage which Brandt might have been able to carryout would by no means have influenced or even impressed Himmler, Dr. Rascher, Dr. Ding, Professor Hirt, Professor Hagen and others. As a result of the evidence I emphasize the fact that Rudolf Brandt was not one of the cynical brutal National Socialists. The witnesses for the Defense call him an "idealist".

Medizinalrat [Medical Councilor] Felix Kerster, who knew him well, testified that Brandt did not even hate or feel enmity toward the Allies; on the contrary, he always dreamed of an understanding among all peoples on a peaceful basis. A man who committed crimes against humanity — and Rudolf Brandt is indicted as such — is congenitally a misanthrope. Hitler, Himmler, Goebbels, Bormann, and many others were such enemies of any human being who opposed them. An offender against humanity will be able to conceal only for a short while the lowness of his moral corruptness, because at some point even the most wily hypocrite will drop his mask. Here, too, one could think of Hitler, Himmler, and others; after all, they left documents, speeches, and other things to humanity, and they committed acts which — thank God — have radically destroyed the legend that they were honorable men. Nothing of all that applies to Rudolf Brandt, if I may mention him at all in connection with the foregoing. He, who only had a chance to occupy himself for seconds or minutes with these matters and who, like Brandt, had neither the education nor the knowledge of a physician or a scientist in this particular field, certainly deserves different judgment than he, who by profession and by the authority invested in him, performs experiments and conducts research. In the mind of a medical scientist ideas and plans of the sort shown in this trial develop only slowly and are only rarely born spontaneously. The scientist has a definite idea or at least approximately recognizes the significance of the experiment. To employ this way of thinking in the case of Rudolf Brandt should lead, at least to a certain extent, to a mitigation of punishment. If he had influence Himmler in one of the criminal plans or orders under consideration here, if he had discussed them with Himmler, as it might well become the duty of the so-called private secretary, then I would not lose many words in Dr. Brandt's defense. But the situation is different here. There is no doubt that Brandt was a National Socialist. Whatever one's attitude towards the question whether according to program and character of National Socialism cruelty and contempt of humanity was the essential part — which question should be answered in the affirmative, being the inevitable consequence of making national and racial values absolute and whether this was recognizable for anyone — which question should be answered in the negative — Hitler at any rate continuously spoke about peace and the uninitiated learned about his devilish tricks only when it was too late and the terror made any opposition hopeless.

I continue on page 24.

This trial too, and particularly the IMT trial, has uncovered one of Hitler's biggest secrets which was the main cause of his extension of power, namely, his mastery of keeping secret even the most extensive and most gruesome crimes.

To be sure, the average German knew about the concentration camps and the complicity of the Secret Police. He also knew that the existence of the concentration camps and the system of treating the people in these camps was a still lower form of violence toward human beings than the militarism of the last years, particularly since Hitler's star began to descend and since he tried to free this instrument of any tradition. But details of the terror, of the executions, the liquidation of hundreds of thousands of people by gas, overwork, and other methods were known only to a few compared to the total of 80 million Germans; perhaps several thousand knew about it. No commandant of a concentration camp or his guards who committed such atrocities would have had any reason to publish such cruelties; for they knew that it would have earned for them the contempt of the overwhelming majority of the German people. Secrecy then has a psychological aspect: Atrocities are committed by the perpetrator only with a loudly or at least secretly throbbing conscience. The conscience is never silent. Whoever commits cruelties feels guilty and avoids the light of day.

It is my conviction that details which took place behind the walls and the electrically charged wires of the concentration camps, the many thousands of tragedies, were never known to the large masses of the people.

Despite the fact that Rudolf Brandt spent approximately 13 years in Himmler's anteroom, he had no more knowledge of the shame of the concentration camps than many another official, except that he knew, since 1942 that prisoners were being used for medical experiments.

According to his own plausible statement on the witness stand Brandt had never visited a concentration camp, none of the defendants or other doctors had ever reported to him a single detail — but the fact remains: Brandt lived in darkness as far as Himmler was concerned and he did see the salvation of his people and country in Hitler's program. Brandt had insufficient knowledge of general Christian concepts. He never came into personal or official contact with the Christian philosophy of life and therefore grew up with those ideals, which certainly, in their theoretical formulation had their good points, too, especially in so far as they propagated the renunciation of egotism as a way of life. Brandt did not realize that these ideals were based on a new paganism and for that reason alone were bound to lead to violence and slavery. Thus Brandt accepted Himmler's personality for many years, even during the war. This is natural, if one admires and respects a person, Brandt did no longer lead a family life, and if one looks closely, Brandt no longer thought or acted independently but it was Himmler rather who spoke and acted through him. This is true, I beg you to remember, not only for the medical experiments incriminated here but also for matters completely outside the bounds of criminal law, with which he had to occupy himself very largely every day. I will not go so far as to say that Brandt was completely incapable of forming his own opinions and degrade him to the level of an unthinking tool, but it is nevertheless true that Brandt, already at the beginning of the war, was no longer a person of whom one could have expected any intellectual resistance against Himmler. Brandt had lost his own standard, to be more exact, Himmler had become his standard more and more, so that he could not master any resistance even when Himmler dictated the well known letters, orders etc. or ordered Brandt to pass them on. Brandt's conscience, it is true, still rebelled as it did not agree with the experiments on humans which had been ordered; but we notice no reaction in the sense of an open or hidden resistance against Himmler's view in these matters.

Himmler gave the orders and the orders of this unbelievably powerful man completely overwhelmed a man still comparatively young who, by nature, was neither politically inclined nor a revolutionary, who was neither cruel nor ambitious, who saw his goal in life attained when he could put to use the only talent he possessed, namely, to write quickly.

I continue on page 28.

Some weeks ago sentence was pronounced against the former Field Marshal Milch. The Tribunal knows that it was not a sentence of death. I have studied this verdict and appreciate the conscientiousness with which the judges examined and considered all imaginable arguments of the defense. Is it permitted to establish a relation between the Milch trial and the doctor's trial, particularly with regard to the person of the defendant Rudolf Brandt? As far as each trial has its own peculiar history, any comparison is out of the question. As far as there is, however a similar train of thought in both trials, the defense counsel may establish such a relation. As a matter of fact, the judges in the Milch trial refrained from sentencing this man to death despite his extremely high position, despite the initiative and strong energy he applied in executing his plans, despite his numerous, incontrovertible remarks. This encourages me to intervene once more in Brandt's behalf and to ask the Tribunal for a mild sentence. In comparing the two personalities and series of acts nearly everything turns out in favor of my client, and I do not fail to recognize that Himmler's orders resulted in shameful excesses against the life and liberty of innocent people. Yet I do not hesitate to say that in the case of Milch a guilt can be expiated by a relative punishment, the punishment for Rudolf Brandt should not open the gate to eternity.

I conclude this discussion with a question which also played a part in the cross examination: Will Rudolf Brandt's good character description as show by the affidavits of the defense become dimmed or even influenced in an entirely unfavorable way by the sworn affidavits which he gave to the prosecution, but which are wrong in essential points?

I have to answer this question in the negative. The entire controversy about Brandt's own affidavits shows that this defendant lacked intelligence and will power and that his poor state of health evidently aggravated both even more. Brandt signed affidavits for the prosecution the contents of which were objectively contradictory to the truth and which he could have corrected on the witness stand after calm reflection and examination of the facts. The fact that Brandt was prepared at that time to sign affidavits for the prosecution which were in part objectively incorrect, and that he evidently did so without raising any serious objections, should give us pause for a moment, when the Tribunal examines the importance of his signatures, which he gave just as quickly in his "personal Referat", perhaps even much more quickly. I emphasize here that I have no intentions of reproaching the prosecution. It only seems relevant to me to show in this example which came up here during the trial how quickly a signature can be given, even though the person giving the signature has not fully realized the importance of the statement signed by him at the time he signed it. Brandt expressed his opinion, partly even reported facts about some of his co-defendants which lack sufficient foundation without there being any reason for enmity, aversion or any other selfish motives towards his co-defendants. Brandt simply signed these affidavits under the erroneous assumption that his signatures confirmed things that were correct. In order to judge this peculiar situation it should be noted that it is not the statements which turn out to be untrue that are to be considered as a lie or, if made under oath, as perjury, but only the statements which are consciously false. In the case in question no other reproach could be made against Brandt except that he had made a, n objectively incorrect statement by mistake. I do not consider this a symptom of unscrupulousness of character.

I continue on page 43:

Rudolf Brandt does not consider himself innocent. During his interrogation in the witness box he answered the question whether or not he considered himself guilty:

I am honest and consistent enough not just to deny all guilt. If a more or less important stenographer becomes guilty because he takes down dictation and passes on such dictation to subordinate stenographers, or composes letters on orders from Himmler, then in this sense I am not without guilt. —

I realize that it is almost impossible for Your Honors to place yourselves in the position in which I found myself then. Your Honors could not do so even with the best of intentions since those conditions were unique and cannot be re-constructed; nevertheless; in asking for a just verdict, I would again and again refer to the three aspects because I myself am deeply impressed by the extremely weighty evidence brought against me. Today, in calm retrospect, viewed from the green table, so to speak. —

I would be happy not to have signed these letters because they more contrary to my sentiment and convictions. I have, to date, not had to change this conviction.

(Page 4921 of the English transcript)

If, after all, Brandt's guilt remains, it is nevertheless quite evident that his person comprises both the good and the evil so that I could not but plead for a lenient sentence. The demoniacal strength inherent in a giant organism makes a mock of a man like Brandt who is meek and weak by nature, barely good enough to be its passive tool, an automaton, yes, though hardly still a man.

Only few are better able to judge the character of a defendant than his defense counsel because no one else can have a greater interest to probe below his surface. After many careful observations, I arrive at the conclusion that this man's spiritual constitution entirely conforms to the testimony deposed by the defense witnesses regarding Brandt's character and gentleness. He suffers the deepest remorse and is horrified at the human torments which emerge from the documents and confront him. He may well be the only man accused here who, in the witness box, made statements which reflect deep shame at his own actions and manifest genuine repentance.

By passing on orders and documents, etc. he somehow became a link in that fateful chain of events which frequently ended with the death of persons, and although he could not have thought of these himself, Brandt is ashamed of his actions. Should not the Tribunal also take into consideration Brandt's genuine regeneration when the question of the penalty arises?

Assuming it is proved what I have said regarding Brandt's personality, his rank, his position, his sphere and pressure of work, orders, etc., I consider it should be possible to see this man in a different light from that offered by the prosecution.

When a world is upside-down, the guiding spirits who feel responsible for regeneration must make justice the basis for the community. Then will follow peace and prosperity for which we Germans yearn after long years of barbarism. I could understand it if it was said that a tottering justice demands for its sake a harsh sentence. Perhaps as a warning to those who may be disposed to trample again upon these mainstays of civilization.

Greater wisdom, however, abides on the side of moderation; after all, hardly any nation in this century can be absolved of all moral guilt. Permit me, therefore, that I conclude with three momentous words, guides to a rebirth of the world: Truth, justice, and clemency.

Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess for a few minutes.

(A recess was taken.)