He says:
"The medical care given to the prisoners of war in Gerran Prisoner of War Camps and hospitals for prisoners of war can generally be called good. The effects of the participation and use of 'enemy doctors' for taking care of the POW's was particularly beneficial. Cooperation between the German camp doctors and the enemy doctors was gratifying in general. In the course of the war, the German camp doctors and the enemy doctors was gratifying in general. In the course of the war, the German camp doctors were professionally used also outside the camps to take care of the civilian population, and had, therefore, became overburdened with work to such an extent that the prisoners of war were in many cases almost exclusively in the care of enemy doctors.
"Until the end, there were clear differences in the medical care given to the prisoners of war in the various Service Commands. This circumstance clearly showed how very much depended also in this case on the personality of the medical officer in charge of such a command, and of his assistant handling matters concerning Prisoners of War. Deficiences observed were regularly communicate to the representatives of the Armed Forces High Command, the prisoner of war organization, to the medical inspectorate, as well as to a representative of the Foreign Office, at the closing meeting of the mixed commission. The medical inspectorate, which subsequently because the Medical Services of the Armed Forces, often issued special instructions to the medical officers in charge of Service order ta remove the deficiencies which had been criticized at the closing meeting.
"It must, therefore, be stated that Generaloberstzbsarzt Prof. Dr. Handloser omitted, nothing to improve the medical care of the Prisoners of War during the World War - 1939 - 1945."
Then it goes on to say:
The second question: "Did the medical care -considering the possibilities existing in Germany - correspond to the provisions of the Geneva convention and to the principles of generally practiced medical treatment of human beings?"
The answer:
"As soon as the provisions of the Geneva Convention had becomes known to all German agencies concerned, the Medical care in Germany corresponded in general with the principles of the Geneva Convention.
"The chairman of the mixed medical commissions were able to state that good will prevailed and that efforts were made to observe the provisions of the Geneva Convention.
"The Generaloberstabsarzt Prof. Dr. Handloser always favored a medical humane treatment of the Prisoners of War. As a consequence of the development of the war in the direction of a 'total war' in particular, however after Prisoners of War questions came under Himmler's jurisdiction in July 1944, the fate of the Prisoners of War became considerably worse also in its medical - humane aspects. This applied in particular to members of enemy air forces. The x-raying of Prisoners of War was limited to a minimum owing to the shortage of x-ray films, in the same way, the supply of the Prisoners of War with artificial teeth broke down progressively.
"But I would like to state explicitly that this decided turn for the worse in the fate of the Prisoners of War occured completely outside Generaloberstabsarzt Professor Dr. Handloser's jurisdiction."
I will not read the answer to Number three, because it concerns the personality of Dr. Handloser; I will do that later. With reference to this Document, I offer this statement of Professor Dr. v. Erlach as Exhibit No. 26.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now be in recess.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. NELTE: I now want to offer to the Tribunal Document No. HA-46 in document book No. 2 on page 70, and I offer it as Exhibit 27. This is an answer to the questions to Colonel Brunner at Kuestnacht in Zurich, a physician who knows conditions in Germany as a result of his official task.
If the prosecution does not put any special emphasis on it, I do not want to read the answers, because in general the answers contain the same judgment which was also expressed by Dr. von Erlach and which I have alread; presented. The only thing of importance seems to be in question number 2 that the Medical care was in accordance with the Geneva convention and international law that human medical treatment was given. "In any case, as long as I worked in Germany as chairman of a medical commission from June, 1940 to 1942."
In this case also I would like to later on read the character judgment of professor Handloser, that is, when professor Handloser is not on the witness stand anymore. I now offer this document as Exhibit 27 and request that it be admitted in evidence.
BY DR. NELTE:
Q Professor Handloser, I am now handing to you document book number 10 about sulfanamide experiments. In this book in page 94 you will find Document NO-472 which is contained in document book number 10, Exhibit 234. In this document No. 472 on page 94 there is an affidavit by Dr. Fischer.
DR. NELTE: It is on page 96 of the English document book. Because of paragraph 7 of this affidavit, the Prosecution has presented it in the accusation and in the case against Handloser, and paragraph 7 states:
"When the sulfanilamide experiment started, I was told by Professor Gebhardt, my military and medical superior, that those experiments were carried out by order of the Chief of the Medical Office of the Wehrmacht and the Chief of the Medical Office of the State."
Q Did you as Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service or in any other capacity give such an order to Professor Gebhardt, or did you pass it on from a higher agency, according to which the experiments carried out by Dr. Gebhardt, Oberhauser and Fischer were ordered?
May it please the Tribunal, I am now presenting two affidavits by Dr. Gebhardt and Dr. Fischer. This is HA-8, in Document Book 2, page 12, and I offer it as Exhibit 28. Dr. Fritz Fischer states in this affidavit: "I have signed an affidavit which in the present trial has been submitted as evidence by the Prosecution." In paragraph 7 of this affidavit it is stated, and then follows what I have just read. And, I continue with the affidavit of Fischer: "This affidavit originated under circumstances which I am going to explain in detail when I shall be questioned on the witness stand. In reply to Professor Dr. Handloser's Defense Counsel, I declare that it is not correct to say in this affidavit Professor Dr. Gebhardt had told me that the experiments must be performed by order of the chief of the Medical office of the Armed Forces. Nor did I make such a statement. I must emphasize in this connection that the interrogation took place in the English language, and that the above affidavit dated 21st October 1946, represents a summary of a long interrogation record. This summary, which was drawn up by members of the Prosecution Staff, was submitted to me ready for signature. I, myself, don't master the English language sufficiently well to have myself noted, this misunderstanding, but since I have, myself, no knowledge of such an order of the chief of the Medical Services of the Armed Forces, Professor Dr. Handloser, I hereby rectify item seven of my affidavit, dated 21 October 1946."
I request that this Document be admitted as Exhibit 28.
In the affidavit, HA-9, Document Book 2, Page 14, which I am presenting as Exhibit 29, Dr. Gebhardt has states the following: "It is not true that I ever told Dr. Fritz Fischer that these experiments were being carried out by order of the Chief of the Medical Office of the Wehrmacht. In this connection Dr. Fischer must have made a mistake, or the affidavit dated 21 October 1946 must have been based upon a misunderstanding of the facts given by Dr. Fritz Fischer. At any rate, I am not aware of any such order from the Chief of the Medical Service of the Wehrmacht, Professor Dr. Handloser. Nor did I discuss it with Professor Dr. Handloser before the beginning of this experiment. The experiments for testing, the sulfonamides were carried out on Hitler's and Himmler's orders, upon direct instructions from the Reich Physician SS and police, Dr. Grawitz."
I request that this affidavit be admitted as Exhibit 29.
Q. What was Professor Gebhardt's connections to you?
A. Professor Gebhardt was a chief Hygienest for the Reich Physician SS. And, neither as Army Medical Inspector not as Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical service did he stand in any official connection with me.
Q. In an affidavit presented by the Prosecution, of Dr. Fischer, it is stated that you had participated in the ten years' anniversary at Hohenlychen: is that correct?
A. No, that is not correct. Dr. Fischer is making a mistake there. I have not participated at the ten years' anniversary celebration nor did I know anything about it. I never received any invitation to attend it.
Q. Did you ever have any official contact with nursing home at Hohenlychen?
A. I did not have any official contact; however, I must state here that the following incident occurred: It may probably have been in the year of 1942 when Conti or Gebhardt, I do not remember exactly any more, came to see me in my office at Berlin, and they requested to enter the Kuratorium of some nursing home at Hohenlychen. I would not be spending my time to much in any other way, but after the men had suggested Dr. Waldmann, since he had been in the Kuratorium; they also considered it desirable that I, as a successor, would also enter the group. I had no cause not to comply with the request, and there was no cause for any objection on my part.
Q. Did you participate in any section of the Kuratorium, this committee?
A. I have not participated in any discussion not have I over received an invitation to attend such a conference.
Q. The Prosecution has stated here, in connection with the Conference of Consulting Physicians in 1944, has described Hohenlychen here as the center of the SS. Can you state anything in connection with it?
A. Yes, I can make the following statement: I cannot understand this opinion because prior to the war Hohenlychen was a well known hospital center which, as far as I know, was also well known outside of Germany, and where from all circles of the population, patients were accepted there. And, where above all, surgery was practiced in special fields, and where special confidence was gained in this field. As far as I can remember and from my memory, I can state that we, in the Wehrmacht, sometimes were really glad that our officers, those included high officers, whose relatives if, for example, they were suffering from joint disease and where they needed operations, they did not go, into our hospitals; for example, in Berlin we had an excellent surgical specialist, but they believed they could only be helped at Hohenlychen.
This applied also to injuries occurred in sports, especially injuries to the joints of the knees. And, about, the center of the SS, I understand any institution which works a strictly according to the political practice of the SS, but which is not a hospital with three hundred civilian patients from all classes of the population and with three and four hundred wounded and sick soldiers of the Wehrmacht, and furthermore an additional three hundred injured and sick patients of the Waffen-SS are located. What I want to say is, that according to the whole constellation, I do not find any cause to see that the hospital at Hohenlychen was the center of the SS. In order to make this statement complete, I only want to add here that I have seen Hohenlychen for the first time; that I have visited several stations there on the occasion of the Conference of the Consulting Physicians in May 1944.
The facilities there, especially these for the subsequent treatment of severe injuries and where arms and legs were again restored to activity, were so impressive to me that later in 1944. I sent my son there. He had seen severely injured in the Caucasus and was severely hampered in breathing because of four or five operations in his chest. I also brought him to Hohenlichen because, I have later on repeated, I could not have found any better institution for that purpose; and I really would have had quite a number of hospitals at my disposal for my son.
Q. Why was Hohenlychen selected for the conference in May 1944?
A. It was selected for the following reasons. The previous conferences took place in the Military Medical Academy at Berlin; also the conference of May, 1943. Ever after the air attacks on Berlin in the fall of 1943, which increased to an enormous extent every month, the Military Medical Academy had suffered some sort of damage in everyone of the air attacks. After the severe attacks in the middle of February and in March and in April of the year 1944 the Academy had been damaged to such an extent that it could not be utilized at all any more. In addition to this, because of the constant air alarms, even if no actual attacks were taking place, there would have been no possibility in Berlin or in its vicinity to hold any meeting there where after all two hundred to three hundred physicians had to be billeted there for a period of two days.
Therefore, I was confronted by the problem when I came to Berlin on one occasion in April of actually not knowing where I should go for this conference whose preliminary work had already been concluded. At that time Prof. Gebhardt offered Hohenlychen to me; and I really was very glad to accept this offer which later on was confirmed by the Reichsfuehrer. Hohenlichen was about ninety kilometers from Berlin; and around the vicinity there, not only in the vicinity of the hospital but throughout the region, no bomb had ever been dropped; and we actually were able undisturbedly to carry on the conference from the 16th to the 22nd. That was the only reason why this conference took place at Hohenlichen.
Q. At the conference at Hohenlichen in 1944 how many reports were presented
A. Outside of the printed report, 168.
Q. How many of these were by SS physicians?
A. Three.
Q. On Page 96 of the document book you will find NO-619 about the meeting and conference at Hohenlichen. This is Exhibit 236. About this list of the participants Dr. Fischer states in one of his affidavits that the lists contained in Document 619 are representative lists of all these who participated in all four conferences. Is that correct?
A. No. In this case it was forty. In this case Fischer is mistaken. The participants in the four conferences were only in part the same; and probably it should not be a representative list but lists of those present.
Q. I think that it should be a Representative list; that these participants actually represent the conspirators in their entirety who regularly attended the conferences of the consulting physicians. Perhaps Dr. Fischer has not meant it in this way; but that is the way in which it was presented here.
A. Well, this is a completely out of the question because the participants in these conferences which took place participated for the following reasons. The Wehrmacht branches were able to express their wishes toward the subjects to he discussed as well as those who were making the speeches. Then these people who had to be there were selected by me either because they were to give a speech or because they were told to participate in discussions or because they were specialists in the particular field. Of the number which resulted then there were those who had to participate in an official capacity. There were a certain number of medical officers from the medical inspectorate of the accomodated; and this number was divided into army, Wehrmacht, Luftwaffe, the Waffen SS, the labor service; and then it was left to the branches of the Wehrmacht to send whom they wanted to the places which were put at their disposal.
Therefore, regular members were only those who had something in particular to do with it in their official capacity or with regard to their skill.
Q. Now, let us refer again to the experiments at Ravensbruck. It has been determined that you did not have anything to do with the beginning and the execution of these experiments of Prof. Gebhardt and Dr. Fischer. With regard to those experiments which were carried out at Ravensbruck, were there any lectures held by Prof. Dr. Gebhardt and Dr. Fischer on the invitation of the conference in May 1943 at the military Medical Academy? Did. you attend the speeches by Prof. Gebhardt?
A. I assume yes.
Q. You say you are making an assumption. Don't you know that for certain?
A. Yes. I really cannot remember the speech any more. However, it is actually impossible that I should not have been there because in the course of that conference the first day I made an official and rather long address. I oponed the conference and then built the framework of the specialist group for surgery; and then the working session of the surgery groups commenced.
In this conference about six or seven lectures were given on sulfanilimide experiments; and I assume for certain that I attended. It cannot remember the address; I cannot remember any details. It may be that after I came from my opening speech then I occupied myself with all the other questions. I can only say one thing. It did not have an effect on me to the extent that I was especially impressed or that he should have given me any cause to reach some conclusions.
Q. Then I cannot actually address any further question to you with an objective content. Therefore, I can only ask you questions after you have received knowledge here of what has been said there. How do you explain the fact that this lecture did not cause any particular re-action of yourself. Is there any plausible explanation for that?
A. Yes, there is only one explanation, that the lecture according to it's formation and after the description of the course of the medical measures caused the impression that they had been done in accordance with the rules of the medical profession.
Q. If after the conclusion of every lecture a discussion took place, were you present at the discussions?
A. Yes, I am quite certain of that.
Q. Did anybody make objections then with reference to the lectures by Gebhardt and Fischer?
A. As I gather from the report of Dr. Schweiss, speaking on the subject immediately afterwards, and at the conclusion of the sulfanalimide lectures, there were about six or seven, to which those of Gebhardt and Fischer also belonged, about six or seven people spoke in the course of the discussion.
Q. Did not any cumplaint reach you subsequently through official channels or any voice of opposition?
A. Neither after the lecture, not in the recess which was called, nor during the lunch which was also taken in the Academy or in the course of the day or the following day or any other time nobody approached me in any way, who expressed that he had the impression that something unjust was being done here which would call for opposition.
Q. Had the lecture by Gebhardt and Fischer been submitted to you before the conference?
A. No, that would have been somewhat difficult because in the first half of the month of May, 1943, I carried out inspections in Italy, Greece and Crete, and then I returned to Berlin and I stayed there for a very short period of time and then I went by plane to the headquarters, and I only returned to Berlin a very short time before the conference, but even in the course of my very brief stay in Berlin, where I certainly asked the working staff of the conference if everything was going in order, because it was rather difficult to organize something of this kind, and if there were any special questions, nothing was brought to my attention, any complaint about the lectures and about the course of the coming conference.
Q. May it please the Tribunal, with regard to this complex, I request to present the following document, first of all affidavit by Professor Dr. Frey, Document HA-10, Document Book 2, page 16, which I offer as Exhibit No, 30, Professor Frey's answer to the question:
"As far as the field of sulfonamide experiments and experiments with bone, muscle and nerve regeneration, as well as bone transplantation, is concerned, can you say from your own knowledge whether Prof. Dr. Handloser, in his capacity as Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service and Army Medical Inspector, ordered experiments in contradiction to all recognized medical and scientific methods?"
The answer reads as follows:
"I know Prof. Dr. Handloser in his capacity as Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service and Army Medical Inspector. I do not know and have never heard, that he or any of his offices carried out or ordered any experiments in contradiction to recognize medical and scientific methods. According to my knowledge of the character of Prof. Dr. Handloser I cannot imagine that he ordered or even approved of such experiments."
I now request that this affidavit be admitted as Exhibit No. 30, and a further affidavit of the same Professor, in which Dr. Frey deals with the impressions during the lecture by Dr. Gebhardt and Dr. Fisher, and states here:
"In the lectures of Gebhardt and Fischer, which is mentioned in this letter of 27 of January, 1943 is contained a report about the result of a series of experiments which was carried out simultaneously on human beings. This series was concluded and after the series had been completed a repetition of the series was out of the question. In the lecture in question we discussed people who had been condemned to death and that experiments on concentration camp inmates were carried out against their will was not expressed. So far as I know I personally maintain the point of view that such experiments on healthy people with the intention to cause symptoms of diseases on them on them and to test their therapeutic influence would he prohibited by the ethical rules, and that theory must be disapproved."
I want to point out expressly that the next sentence is an objective subsequent opinion by Professor Frey, and he does not state any fact.
MR. McHANEY: This document which has just been read is not in the document book and I must object to it's being offered until I have an opportunity to look at it and see what it is.
THE PRESIDENT: I was going to ask counsel if the document can be found in the document book.
DR. NELTE: It is contained in document book No. 3, which has not become available as yet. The same applies to the document HA 43, which I have just offered, and it is an affidavit by Dr. Professor Randeralf and I request that both documents be admitted with the reservation that the documents will later on be presented to you and the Prosecution and that they can then object to them.
MR. McHANEY: The Prosecution has no objection to his reserving an exhibit number in sequence and no particular objection to his now reading the affidavit However, I would like to have it clearly understood that it is incumbent upon Dr. Nelte to re-offer these documents at a later stage when we have the translations before us, because otherwise the burden is on the Prosecution to keep a check on these documents provisionally admitted and are going to lose track of them.
The PRESIDENT: I was going to suggest if counsel has the documents he could offer new in his document book, they should be offered first and these documents reserved until the document is prepared and given to the Prosecution, and the Tribunal, Is counsel advised as to when this Document Book No. 3 will probably be prepared?
DR. NELTE: I was told it would be ready by this morning but I guess it was not completed. In the document book there are only four documents. It contain an additional four documents, and perhaps it would be appropriate to admit them, because otherwise the complex of the question would be impaired.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may offer them provisionally if he desires and reserve the number, but it must be read again when the documents are again offered as exhibits.
DR. NELTE: Yes, Your Honor.
Professor Randeralf states at the third working session of the consulting specialist physicians from the 24th to the 26 of May, 1943, in connection with the lectures by Fischer and Gebhardt, I have not participated in the discussion, out after hearing the lecture with regard to injuries sustained by bullet wounds, this lecture did not have anything to do with lectures by Gebhardt and Fischer, who are completely unknown to me.
My lecture was completely in dependent from the report by Gebhardt and Fischer. It was supported by experiences which I myself had gained by dissecting the corpses of German soldiers who had died in battle, and which were supported by studying world literature. I have not made any remarks in the discussions to Gebhardt and Fischer.
"I can't remember in detail any more the lectures by Gebhardt and Fischer but as far as I remember it could not be seen by reports from Gebhardt and Fischer that experiments on concentration camp prisoners had been carried out. The consulting specialists physicians have discussed the medical experiences at this conference, in all combats, and in all hospitals at home in order to gain new methods of treating wounded and sick soldiers. As a result of this conference of the consulting physicians the new medical experiences were changed by the Army Medical Inspectorate to directives and through these medical directives it was possible to bring these experiences to the young physicians who were used in the hospitals at the front and were unable to attend these conferences.
DR. NELTE: I request to provisionally admit this document as Exhibit 32.
I now come to the Document Book about the Sea Water Experiments. That is Document Book V and the affidavit by Dr. Becker-Freyseng, NO-448, which is not contained in this Document Book. The exhibit number of the Becker-Freyseng affidavit cannot be determined as yet. The exhibit number of NO-449, that is the affidavit by Professor Schroeder, and this will be exhibit 130. This will be exhibit 31. This book I am handing to you does not contain any documents with the exception of Document NO-449 which mentions your name directly. In the affidavit of Professor Schroeder, N0-449, which is exhibit 130 by Professor Becker-Freyseng certain statements are contained which might give cause to the conclusion as if you had been in some way connected with the sea water experiments or in the very least that you had knowledge of them. Will you please make a statement with regard to the assumption that has been expressed by the two other defendants?
A. In connection with this I can only say that I have heard of the sea water experiments here in Nurnberg. Before they were completely unknown to me.
DR. NELTE: May it please the Tribunal, I therefore request that the affidavit by Professor Schroeder, Document Book II, page 30, document HA-22, be admitted as Exhibit 33. Professor Schroeder states here under paragraph 2 "Under No. 8 I said that Professor Dr. Handloser knew about the medical research experiments carried out by the Luftwaffe.
I have to add the following in that connection:
"a) My testimony refers only to the time of my tour of duty as Chief of the Luftwaffe Medical Service from 1 January 1944 on. About the procedures before that time I am in no position to make any statements.
"b) Luftwaffe research was not subordinated to the Chief of the Vehrmacht Medical Service; it was not among the "common" tasks of the Wehrmacht Medical Service. That is why a report to the Chief if the Wehrmacht Medical Service was not considered.
"c) When the Luftwaffe handed out research assignments about strictly aviation medicine fields, the consent of the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service was not necessary. The Chief of the Luftwaffe Medical Service could on his own responsibility carry out research in his aviation medical research institute without informing the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service.
The information concerning research assignments given to third persons was connected with the assignment given to Professor Dr. Brandt in 1943, to guide the whole research work in order to avoid duplication of work. After that time all proposed research assignments had to be reported to the office of the Reich Commissioner, Office for Science and Research. This was done in the following manner: Copies of the letter sent to the men assigned the research job were sent to the Office for Science and Research (Professor Restock); and additional copy went to the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service for his information. These reports contained no information about place, methods of execution of such research, assignments, nor were any possibly contemplated experiments on human beings mentioned in them.
"d) As far as the sea water experiments (No. 5 of my affidavit of 15 October 1946), it becomes evident from Document No. 177 that no representative of the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service or the Army Medical Inspectorate participated in the preliminary conference in 19 May 1944; it further becomes evident from the distribution list that this record was not submitted to the Chief of the Wechmarcht Medical Service.
Not was a copy of the letter which was sent to the Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler, bearing my signature, forwarded to the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service. No research assignment was issued in this matter."
I request that this document be admitted as exhibit #33. Dr. Becker-Freysen status in Document HA-23---
THE PRESIDENT: Before entering upon any further documents the Tribunal will recess until 0930 tomorrow morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 13 February 1947 at 0930 hours.)
Official transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 13 February 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the Court Room will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal 1.
Military Tribunal 1 is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the courtroom.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, will you ascertain that the defendants are all present in court.
THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honor, all defendants are present with the exception of the Defendant Oberheuser who is absent with a continuation of her recent illness.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will note for the record the presence of all the defendants save the Defendant Oberheuser, the Defendant Oberheuser being absent on account of illness according to a doctor's certificate which I will hand to the Secretary-General.
(Certificate handed to Secretary.)
DR. KURT KAUFMANN (For the Defendant Rudolf Brandt): Mr. President, I request permission to make a request before the defense continues to present its case.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may proceed.
DR. KAUFMAN: May it please the Tribunal, I want to make a request that the Defendant Rudolf Brandt be permitted to be absent from the courtroom after the recess this morning for such a period of time until it has been determined by a medical examination by the prison physician that he is able to participate in the courtroom sessions. In my opinion Rudolf Brandt is sick and, according to the symptoms which I have the opportunity to observe, he is in my opinion severely ill. He only weighs 50 kilograms and he is barely able to even follow the proceedings. His mental capacity is deteriorating from day to day, so that it becomes questionable to me if the defense can even be concluded in a professional manner.