A. Yes, one can assume that.
Q: And you were willing to take this chance even though you knew that Himmler would as soon kill a person as not?
A: I was ready to take any consequences.
Q: When did you divorce your first wife, Dr. Pokorny?
Q: In the middle of 1935. The divorce became effective the first of April 1936.
Q: When did the Nurnberg laws go into effect?
A: I do not know. I studied the Nurnberg laws when they became of significance for me, that is, for my children,
Q: Did they go into effect in the year 1935?
A: I do not know. I read them. I was in Czechoslovakia. We didn't have them. They didn't touch me at the time. I don't know whether they were issued at that time. I probably read them in 1939 - 1939, I think.
Q: And you state the reasons for your divorce were not for National Socialistic reasons?
A: Nothing whatever.
Q: Were they for what purpose - or for what reason did you secure a divorce from your first wife?
A: I have testified that our characters developed in different directions.
Q: You mean infidelity?
A: No not infidelity. Those were secondary consequences.
Q: What was your second wife's name?
A: Trux was her maiden name.
Q: How do you spell that, please?
A: T-r-u-x.
Q: And you married her in 1943?
A: September 1943.
Q: Could you tell us whether or not the name Ulzeva means anything to you. Spelled U-l-z-o-v-a.
A: Yes
Q: What does that name mean to
A: Yes.
Q: What does that name mean to you?
A: That is the lady to whom I was engaged at one time, a Czech lawyer.
Q: When was that?
A: That was about 1936 to 1940. I don't quite understand what that has to do with this trial. I am not being tried because of my divorce.
Q: Just a moment. What was her job? Was she an Aryan and wasn't she a lady district judge?
A: Yes.
Q: Now you have told this Tribunal a story concerning communications by your first wife in the year 1942 and that she was in Prague and called you on the telephone and was in dire need of assistance. Is that right?
A: That was right. I can't give the exact date. It was 25, 26, or possibly 24 January 1942.
Q: Well, that was in 1942, January 1942, And then an SS man or some officer came to you and warned you not to go to see your wife in Prague as he intercepted the telephone message. Is that right?
An That was on the same day, in the evening. I think it was about 6:30 or 7.
Q: And what did he tell you he would do to you if you went to see your wife in Prague?
A: He said that I would be shot in my consulting room.
Q: What was his rank, do you remember?
A: I don't know.
Q: Captain? Was he a Lieutenant? or a Sgt.?
A: He had a black uniform coat. His collar was turned up. He showed me his credentials. He told me what he had to say and went away again.
Q: And then you as a result of that could not muster up sufficient courage to go to your wife's or your former wife's, assistance in Prague?
A: That was not possible since I could assume that my house would be guarded that night and if I had gone out with the car it would not have been necessary to help my wife.
Q: But you were the man who had sufficient amount of courage to write a letter to no less a man than the Reichsfuehrer-SS in an effort to sabotage his sterilization program, knowing fully well that if you were discovered the results would be fatal that your family perhaps would be threatened? Yet, you didn't have sufficient courage to go to the aid of your wife in Prague. How do you reconcile this, doctor?
A: The situation is entirely different in respect to Himmler than the situation I found myself since I knew that my house would certainly be watched and that any attempt to get to Prague would have the most serious consequences.
Q: Now you have stated here that in the spring of 1942 you received an inquiry regarding the production of the drug. What drug are you referring to in that inquiry?
A: I testified that I did not understand this question because I did not know that the Madaus firm had a drug called caladium-D-1. Consequently I did not understand this incident.
Q: Why would Himmler or an SS agency have to write to you to determine the producing of a drug when they themselves had the publications from Madaus and Koch. And, in addition, thereto, they already had men and representatives going to the Madaus Company to work?
A: I wondered about that too. If I had got a paper in my hand filed by Madaus I would have assumed that Madaus produced the drug. That's why I wondered. Besides I think you are mistaken in the time of the document. The first representative to the Madaus firm was later.
Q: Well don't you suppose that Himmler had contacted Madaus after receiving your letter.
This letter is dated October 1941 and there is a letter on page 5 of Document Book 6 which is Document NO-036 wherein Himmler personally addresses a letter to Oswald Pohl telling Oswald Pohl to get in touch with Dr. Madaus about the publications and offer him possibilities of doing research with the Reich Physician SS on xeiminals who would have to be sterilized in any case. Now didn't it seem unnecessary he would have to refer to you when you were, as you state, somebody who had read the publications?
A: I don't understand your question. I wondered at receiving this inquiry. Besides you see a certain amount of success here already. Himmler had gone into the idea if experiments were to be performed they would be performed on criminals in as much as they had to be sterilized anyway.
Q: That's good you point that out, doctor. That is an aid to the Prosecution rather than to the defense. Himmler here is conducting human experiments as you point out, and here you have proposed he continue further experiments with caladium. Well this indicates he is following through the program given to him, as he says in the first sentence of this letter to Pohl: "I read Dr. Pokorny's very interesting memorandum ...." Your memorandum had considerable effect on him, didn't it, according to this letter?
A: It was supposed to.
Q: I have no further question your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may redirectly examine the witness.
DR. HOFFMANN: Mr. President, I have no questions. I should like to call a witness now but I don't know whether it would be expedient or not to call him at this time.
MR. HARDY: If your Honor pleases, is it the witness Trux that will appear first?
DR. HOFFMANN: Yes.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. SAUTER for the defendant Blome:
Q: Witness, I am afraid I have to ask you a few questions arising from your answers to the cross examination by the Prosecution. The Prosecution called you an expert and questioned you about things regarding the medical profession and you answered these questions. Witness do you really consider yourself an expert for such professional questions for the German Medical profession during the Hitler time?
A: I did not answer as an expert. I do not consider myself an expert. I answered merely as a private citizen, as common sense dictates. That my testimony is colored to a certain degree will probably not surprise you since you have learned my life history today.
Q: Witness, I believe you realize that the Prosecution is hardly interested in what you think as a private citizen.
A: I don't know what the prosecution is interested in.
Q: But that is quite clear, witness, you were asked because of special knowledge which you were assumed to have and you answered the questions. Now, I would like to ask you a few questions on this subject. Where did you study?
A. In Prague.
Q. In Prague. Were you born in Prague?
A. No, I was born in Vienna.
Q. You were born in Vienna. In Prague and Vienna. Did you know German conditions of the medical profession, medical science, and the medical faculties before 1933 from your own observation?
A. Yes.
Q. Where?
A. From congresses, visits to the universities. I was the senior member of the dermatological Society in Czechoslovakia. I had scientific contact, not, of course, to the extent that other people did.
Q. Did you attend German universities as a student?
A. No, I only visited them briefly.
Q. What do you mean visit, two hours? Did you just look at the building, or were you there for 6 months to learn how they operated? Please explain that.
A. To be informed about German science and research before 1933, one does not have to be in the anteroom of a university. One can judge that from quite a different point of view.
Q. From Vienna and Prague?
A. Yes, and from the Reich.
Q. But you didn't live in the Reich, you didn't study in the Reich?
A. But as a person of scientific interests, I was informed.
Q. Did you have insight into the medical training, scientific training of young doctors in German universities?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. By visiting a German university here and there, when you can't tell me how long the visit was?
A Because we had a certain contact with our German colleagues. Dr. Sauter, you will concede that the first German university was formed in Prague.
Q We don't have to go back to the Middle Ages. I am talking about your own studies.
A The discovery of America was a very important event. The founding of the first German University was also an important event, and that was in Prague.
Q You said before that the medical training of young doctors in the Third Reich receded in its level; and you said that on various occasions you talked to medical students; did I understand you correctly?
A Yes.
Q When was that? What years?
A These medical students that was in 1943; the beginning of '43.
Q '43. And did these medical students in 1943 have insight into conditions before 1933?
A I can't tell you that. They came from the student company in Leipzig.
Q But you can judge that, Doctor, if there were students in 1943 studying medicine, then before 1933 they were children, and children are not able to form comparative judgment on the question of medical training.
A Dr. Sauter; I was not referring to the comparisons which these medical students drew. I was the one who drew the comparison, what I know from earlier, and what I observed on these medical students. There is no purpose in wasting a great deal of this talk on this. One doesn't have to generalize. Far be it from me to run down German medicine and science and the medical profession. But one cannot deny you can't tell me how long the visit was?
A. Because we had a certain contact with our German colleagues. Dr. Sauter, you will concede that the first German university was formed in Prague.
Q. We don't have to go back to the Middle Ages. I am talking about your own studies.
A. The discovery of America was a very important event. The founding of the first German university was also an important event, and that was in Prague.
Q. You said before that the medical training of young doctors in the Third Reich receded in its level, and you said that on various occasions you talked to medical students, did I understand you correctly?
A. Yes.
Q. When was that? What years?
A. These medical students that was in 1943, the beginning of '43.
Q '43. And did these medical students in 1943 have insight into conditions before 1933?
A. I can't tell you that. They came from the student company in Leipzig.
Q. But you can judge that, Doctor, if there were students in 1943 studying medicine, then before 1933 they were children, and children are not able to form comparative judgment on the question of medical training.
A. Dr. Sauter, I was not referring to the comparisons which these medical students drew. I was the one who drew the comparison, what I knew from earlier, and what I observed on these medical students. There is no purpose in wasting a great deal of this talk on this. One doesn't have to generalize. Far be it from me to run down German medicine and science and the medical profession. But one cannot deny BY DR. SAUTER:
Q. Doctor, you spoke of the interference by the Nazis in the professional organizations. Did you have any close insight into German professional organizations in the Reich?
A. Yes, they came to us to our great joy in October 1938. If you want the exact answer to this question, I can help you. A certain Dr. Kress came to Aussig, to the KVD, and in the first meeting which we attended it was said that the exaggerated specialization had to be abolished, that the good old German general practioner had to return. I have nothing against a good old general practioner, but any sensible human being will not object to the development of medicine through specialization. The specialist is nothing but the expondnt of the clinic in the country, and what he does not achieve he sends to the clinic. Not all the measures which were taken by the German Reich Medical Association were ideal, not to mention what affected me personally.
Q. Doctor, you said that after 1933 people were appointed to the top positions of professional organizations who were no longer elected, but appointed, and consequently one could not judge whether they owed their office to personal efficiency or to other circumstances.
A. Yes.
Q. One of these persons was your co-defendant Prof. Blome.
A. Yes.
Q. Do you mean to say on the basis of your outstanding knowledge of conditions that Professor Blome is in any way responsible for the lowering of the medical profession which you allege took place.
A. I never said that. But you will admit that people were in charge of things of whom we never heard anything.
Q. I am talking about Professor Blome.
A. Just a minute, I will get around to him. We were used to the Head of the Dermatological Society being Prof. Unna at Hamburg, and in France it was Brock or Bauteriere and in America a man named Sutton. Those were names we knew. I was not referring to Dr. Blome on the contrary I am glad of this opportunity to clarify what might lead to a misunderstanding, that the confiscation of my X-ray machine, this measure against doctors with Jewish associations is not the fault of Mr. Blome. I believe the KVD went to the Ministry of Interior and there was a certain Grote, yes, that is the name, Grote, and this man Grote is responsible, not Blome.
Q. Did you go the Reich Physician Leadership at the time? That was your professional organization, represented by the Reich physician leader Dr. Blome?
A. Doctor, I don't think I would have got as far as the anteroom.
Q. But you could have tried. You got as far as Himmler. You could have got to Blome, too. You could have written him a letter. Why didn't you?
A. Dr. Sauter, I had enough experience with the lower offices, and I could imagine what would have happened if I went to a higher agency, and so I never even tried.
Q. In that connection, Doctor Pokorny, you spoke of the Conti-Action. You know about this?
A. I learned about it here.
Q. Did you hear nothing in your home town of a Conti-Action?
A. No.
Q. Then in 1943 in Prague, there was no persecution of Jewish doctors. They weren't taken out of their homes, they weren't removed from their practice?
A. Dr. Sauter, that was already done in 1938 or 39. The doctors were removed as early as '42, since I have testified that my wife, my former wife was sent to a concentration camp in January '42, as I learned later, it was Theresienstadt; and there were a few other things that happened there that I didn't mention.
Q. Isn't that a mistake, Doctor, don't you mean 1943? You say that the Jewish Doctors were taken away in '42? I am informed that that was in 1943.
A. Doctor, you may be right for this country, but let me point out that the whole development of National-Socialism differed in our country and the Reich. Here it developed slowly, but the movement broke over us like a flood; and perhaps I am qualified to judge this since my own divorced wife was sent to a concentration camp in January of '42, and she asked me for help. I know that very well.
Q. Doctor, that has nothing to do with the removal of Jewish doctors. Your wife was an entirely different case than the removal of the doctors.
A. But she was an X-ray specialist, X-ray practioner, and the machinery was taken away. She was not only Jewish, but she was also a doctor.
Q. Do you know on the basis of what regulations that was done? I will make the question more specific.
A. I can't tell you, Doctor.
Q. Was that on the basis of a regulation of the professional organization or was that a Reich law?
A. I cannot give you any information about that. It must have been a regulation which was in effect in Czechoslovakia, that is, in the Protectorate. I can tell you nothing about it. I only know the fact.
Q. You don't know whether the Reichs-Aerzte Fuehrung, or the leadership had anything to do with it, or Prof. Blome had anything to do with it?
A. I don't know anything about that.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, how much longer will the examination of this witness probably continue?
DR. SAUTER: A few minutes. Perhaps it would be better to interrupt it now.
MR. HARDY: Your Honors, is all this extensive examination necessary. I think that it----
THE PRESIDENT: I was about to suggest to counsel that the Tribunal does not see any particular objective in his examination of the witness in his cross examination. I think that everything along the line that is followed so far, at least, has already been accomplished. If the cross examination would take any ether line, of course, that would be a different question. I think the Tribunal will now recess until 9:30 o'clock tomorrow morning.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will recess until 9:30 o'clock tomorrow morning.
(A recess was taken at 1700 hours, 25 June 1947 until 0930 hours 26 June 1947.)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nuernberg, Germany, on 26 June 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats. The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal I. Military Tribunal I is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal. There will be order in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, will you ascertain if the defendants are all present in court.
THE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honor, all the defendants are present in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary will note for the record the presence of all the defendants in court.
ADOLF POKORNY - Resumed
THE PRESIDENT: Any further questions to be propounded to this witness by defense counsel?
DR. SAUTER (Counsel for the defendant Blome): Mr. President, before I continue the examination of this witness, I should like permission to give a few suggestions about procedure in the near future. A few days ago the prosecution announced five more witnesses. If we understood correctly, some of them are to be on sea water questions and some of them on general questions. The prosecution also apparently has the intention of presenting further documentary evidence. This prevents some of the defense counsel from writing their final arguments or briefs and turning them in for translation because these defense counsel expect that the evidence which will still be presented by the prosecution will give some of the defense counsel occasion to change or add to these statements which they intend to make. Now, so that the closing speeches and briefs may be turned in for translation as soon as possible, we would consider it expedient if the prosecution, after the conclusion of the Pokorny case, would first submit their new evidence and examine the witnesses and if then after that the defense were to submit what evidence remains we believe that that will expedite proceedings.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, in this regard the prosecution, of course, is adverse to complying with the wishes of defense counsel because that would then afford what you would call a rebuttal on the part of the defense to a rebuttal on the part of the prosecution. However, I am informed this morning that our first rebuttal document book has been filed with defense counsel today, which is long before the time necessary. In addition to that, the witnesses that will be called, due notice will be given to them. Now, I assume that particularly defense counsel in the position that Dr. Sauter is in, inasmuch as he is representing Blome and Ruff, that his briefs are all written and that all he will have to do now is add new evidence in a supplementary brief to supplement the briefs that he has now completed. That should be the case in most instances inasmuch as the last few days the discussion has been sea water which doesn't affect many of the defendants to any great extent with the exception of Beiglboeck, Freyseng, and Schroeder.
So it seems to me that their briefs are all completed now and whatever manner we finish up in the next few days in our cleaning up process that they could, in a matter of hours, write a supplementary brief to accompany the briefs which should have been completed up to this time.
THE PRESIDENT: Defense counsel will, of course, have the privilege of writing, as suggested by counsel for the prosecution, a supplemental brief. It is not necessary to delay translations of their principle briefs because the Tribunal would accept a supplemental brief bringing in any new matter or changes in a brief that has already been filed. It seems to me that that would meet the questions presented by Dr. Sauter.
DR. SAUTER: Then, Mr. President, I have a second request. The question is still open. What time is set for giving the closing briefs and the response to them? There are a few other minor questions which have to be cleared up. It would be expedient to discuss these matters, not here in court, but in a personal discussion with the Tribunal and the prosecution.
We should like to ask the President to give the defense counsel an opportunity to discuss these questions which need to be settled with the Tribunal and with the prosecution in the near future. There are only a few minor questions of a certain importance for the defense counsel, however. We should be very grateful for this opportunity.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I am apparently not clear in what Dr. Sauter has said. He said "in answer to the briefs". I feel sure that the prosecution isn't going to write another brief in answer to defense brief. I don't know just what he is referring to. The prosecution will file their briefs and I feel as far as the prosecution is concerned that will be the last brief we will write.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has fixed no deadline for the filing of these briefs, simply assuming that counsel for the prosecution and for the defense would expedite the preparation and filing of their briefs to the greatest possible extent, but there has been no deadline dixed for the filing of briefs. The Tribunal simply wants them as soon as possible. We fix no deadline and shall not do so unless we find undue delay somewhere, some delay which strikes the Tribunal as unreasonable. I think the Tribunal can meet a committee of defense counsel at 6 o'clock this afternoon, after the adjournment of court. If defense counsel desires to appoint a committee to meet with the Tribunal and with the prosecution, we can meet with them in the consultation room at 5 o'clock today.
DR. SAUTER: Thank you, Mr. President. We shall be there at 5 o'clock.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may proceed.
BY DR. SAUTER:
Q Mr. President, I shall follow your suggestion made at the end of the session yesterday and in the name of the Defendant Blome, I shall put no further questions to this witness. I should, however, like to ask a few questions for the Defendant Ruff and the Defendant Romberg, with the consent of their defense counsel.
Witness, did you yourself carry out any human experiments?
A No.
Q Did you study international literature on human experiments before the beginning of this trial, witness, I mean international literature from which we have heard excerpts here?
A It depends on how you interpret the concept, experiments on human beings. It is a matter of course that at the clinic we tested a drug or a small piece of skin was removed in order to make a diagnosis, possibly also as the basis for a scientific paper, but such things cannot be interpreted as experiments on human beings. They happen daily throughout the world. Such tests, of course, were performed at our clinic too, but experiments on human beings, such as are meant here, that is what I meant in my first answer when I say we had not performed any.
As to your second question, I had a slight knowledge of this type of experiments because one can attain such a knowledge in part even from lay-literature. I never took a special interest in the subject before September of 1941 when the subject was brought to my attention.
Q Then in September of 1941, Doctor, did you study this international literature, which we have discussed here, for examples, Professor Leibrandt and Professor Ivy, and then in a number of the document books; did you study this international literature in 1941; this is primarily literature which was published abroad in foreign languages, or were you unfamiliar with it until the beginning of this trial?
A I did not study this literature in any specialized fashion, but the subject was discussed with great interest by me and two doctors, who were friends of mine but there is no point of introducing them in the trial, because one of them died in a concentration camp and the other committed suicide. The extent of the experimentation on human beings, which has been brought out by this trial, I did not know of course.
Q. Doctor, yesterday, you spoke about the rules for experiments on human beings, I am not quite clear about this, however, therefore, I ask you regarding your statement yesterday on the subject, were you expressing your personal, private opinion, which you formed for yourself without any knowledge of foreign literature, or did you mean to say that what you said on the subject yesterday was in your opinion the recognized version of the German medical profession as a whole?
A Dr. Sauter, I believe I answered this question yesterday, when you asked me whether I spoke on the subject as an expert. It is not the opinion of the German medical profession, I had no way of checking that. I had no occasion or opportunity to talk about it, that is the subjective opinion of mine and I attack all problems from the point of view of common sense. I believe that is the aurea mediocritas, which is the only level for a person of my caliber for juding a problem.
Q I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any questions to the witness by any defense counsel?
Has the Prosecution any further questions?
MR. HARDY: The Prosecution has no further questions, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The Defendant Pokorny, witness on his own behalf, may be excused from the witness stand and resume his place in the dock.
DR. HOFFMAN: Mr. President, I should like to call the witness Trux.
THE PRESIDENT: The Marshal will summon the Witness, Rudolf Trux.
Rudolf Trux, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
BY JUDGE SEBRING:
Q Please raise your right hand and be sworn.
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
JUDGE SEBRING: You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. HOFFMANN:
Q Witness, you were born 11 January 1900 in Komotau, at that time in Austria Hungary?
A Yes.
Q You are now a resident of Kremsminster in the American Zone of Austria?
A Yes.
Q Witness, please tell the Tribunal briefly about your life.
A I come from a family, which for about 400 years has been in the Sudetenland. I spent my youth in my home town of Komotav and about half of my youth, fourteen years, in Prague and the rest in the Sudentenland. Since 1937 or 1938 I have been living in Reichenberg, the capital city in the Sudetenland. Since November of 1945, I have lived in Kremsminster.
Q Witness, have you ever belonged to the N.S.D.A.P. or any of its affiliated organizations?
A I never belonged to the party or any of its affiliated organizations.
Q Witness, are you related to the Witness Pokorny?
A Yes, he is the husband of my youngest sister, my brother-inlaw.
Q Did you know Dr. Pokorny earlier?
Q Yes, before we became related.
Q Was there any friendly connection between you in addition to your relationship?
A Yes, before we became related there was a connection between us. The Sudetenland with its three and one half million German residents was more or less one big family, everyone knew everyone else through business or family connections or otherwise and everyone was connected. Dr. Pokorny was a well known man, he was known in Prague from the German Society of Physicians, the German Ice Hockey Association, and several organizations. He frequented the Prague casino and was a well known sportsman and well know tennis player.
Q Did you often discuss ideological questions with Dr. Pokorny?
A Yes, we frequently discussed ideological questions.
Q What kind of an attitude did he have?
A In the course of the years a degree of confidence developed between Dr. Pokorny and myself, which I might call a true friendship. There were no inhibitions and apparent frankness existed between us. This might be in part explained by conditions under the regime. Everyone who thought with a certain degree of responsibility was more or less isolated and look for contact with persons who shared this point of view. While Dr. Pokorny was a military doctor, we often met on his leaves in Reichenberg, in Komotav or in Chennowitz.
Q Witness, did you know about the difficulties Dr. Pokorny had after the occupation of the Sudetenland.
A Yes, the fact of his former marriage to a Jewish woman, his liberal attitude and other circumstances were occasion enough for the party to make difficulties for him whenever possible. These difficulties ran like a red thread through all phases of his private and professional life. I may give you the following example from memory. Proceedings of the N.S.D.A.P., shortly after the occupation of the Sudetenland began, with the purpose of hurting his practise and recalling his license. The main reason I remember was his close contact with Czechs and Jews, his half Jewish children, pacifists, etc., As a result of indiscretions he knew his house and his contacts were being watched and spied upon by the Gestapo.