A I know that Rostock on the Lasisoof publication about polygal in tho Munich Medical Weekly (Munchner Medi inische Wechenschrift) wrote to the addresses given in tho magazine itself to find out what it was about. Rostock certainly did not find cut that the testing of the preparation polygal was carried cut as a human experiment.
Q You have previously mentioned that you had knowledge of experiments on human beings concerning the chemical treatment of poisonous water, is that correct?
A That is not right in such a case as you speak of experiments. I was of the opinion that this water was tested in some way. It could just as well have been a troop experiment or anywhere else in the population.
Q Do you know upon whom these experiments were conducted?
A. No, I do not know that. I assume that Mrugowsky will be able to tell you that.
Q Didn't you receive any report about these experiments?
A No, I did not receive any report about them. This question of apparatus for decontamination of water came up because in connection with the general apparatus the question of water decontaminating apparatus was also discussed. Within the Wehrmacht there was no agreement upon methods which were not suitable and the Civilian Air Raid authorities were agreed. In the Ministry for Ammunition and War Production there was a special routine for the production of such decontamination apparatus. I asked the head of this committee to have these who were interested in this question and could tell me about it to come to see me. He did so and since he also know from the production side that such an apparatus had been constructed with which Mrugowsky was in sort of connection, I am not sure what the connection was, Mrugowsky was also invited to this conference. I spoke to him afterwards. An apparatus for decontamination of drinking water was discussed which was such a success that it could be put into production. I cannot say whether that was actually done - it might have been in the summer of 1944 when there were certain raw material difficulties and it was decided to bring fresh water into such endangered areas.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn until 0930 tomorrow morning The witness to be put to cross examination will be kept separate from the other witnesses.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 7 February 1947 at 0930 hours)
Official transcript of the American MilitaryTribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nuremberg, Germany on 7 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 i.
Military Tribunal 1 is new in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal.
The PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, you ascertain if the defendants are all present in the courtroom.
THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honors, all defendants are present in the Courtroom.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary General will note for the record the presence of all the defendants in the courtroom.
The Prosecution may proceed.
KARL BRANDT (Resumed) CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued) BY MR. McHANEY: May it please the Tribunal.
Q. Horr Professor, we were discussing the poisoned water experiments. Did you suggest experiments with poisoned water?
A. At the discussion which took place on the question of the possibility of removing peisen from water, there were two fundamental points of view; one, as far as I recall, was that certain decontamination apparatus was needed, I no longer remember the name of the procedure. The other was a procedure where chloric acid was used. The result of the discussion was that by virtue of the situation a decision as to which was the most suitable procedure was not possible.
My opinion at the time was that in case of poisoned water one would have to bring fresh water in tank cars or other containers from an area which had not been poisoned. The two representatives of the decontamination processes were of the opinion that their apparatus was good. No decision was reached at this mooting.
I issued instructions to continue testing the apparatus. I said that the tests should be continued but in no concrete form.
Q. Why did they come to you with this problem? Was that in your capacity as General Commissioner?
A. That was in my function of the question of production of apparatus to combat was in general. It was connected with my function as General Commissioner only to the extend that it was a special assignment, not otherwise.
Q. Did you not suggest that experiments be conducted with poisoned water?
A. I may possibly have suggested that the apparatus and the process should be tested. These were primarily laboratory tests and were no doubt continued after this discussion as they had been Carried on before.
Q. Don't you know that it was necessary to ... don't you know that the experiments were in fact carried out on concentration camp inmates?
A. That was not known to me in that form.
Q. You didn't concern yourself with the manner in which these experiment would be carried out?
A. No, I did not.
Q. You just gave these men carte blanche to do what they wanted to?
A. I did not give them carte blanche to do whatever they wanted. The offices concerned with it continued their work as they had been carrying it on before. It is not possible in general to establish the manner in which tests are to be carried out. I was interested only in learning whether a certain apparatus for decontaminating water was considered the best and the easiest to produce in this special committee in the Speer Ministry, or whether there was any such apparatus. These conferences were devoted only to the possibility of producing apparatus.
Q. Who was Oberstarzt Dr. Wirth?
A. Oberstzt Dr. birth was the consultant for gas matters in the Military Medical Academy. I do not know whether that was his official title but in any case, in my opinion, he was the Chief of the men concerned with chemical warfare agents.
Q. And he conferred with you in these poisoned water experiments, didn't he?
A. I do not believe that he was present at this meeting. I cannot say for sure but I do not believe so.
Q. When was this meeting, to the best of your recollection?
A. In the summer of 1944,
Q. And did you not suggest that water be poisoned with Lost and then tested for the effectiveness of the decontamination process?
A. It is quite possible that something of this sort was said. It is a question of the apparatus itself. It has to be poisoned with some gas and then with some filter method of chemical method. The poison has to be removed, that is the point of this problem altogether.
Q. What is K substance?
A. That is a chemical warfare agent; gas in general.
Q. What is N substance?
A. As far as I am informed, it is a fuel which was to be used for explosive purposes but which the Weapons Office rejected at that time and it was thereby eliminated from the list of chemical warfare agents. In my opinion it was to be used in a similar way to phosphorous. I may be mistake; however, I have no exact knowledge about it.
Q. Could it be that N substance was a type of Lost gas or mustard gas?
A. No, certainly not.
Q. And you don't know whether or not these experiments were carried out on human beings?
A. In my opinion the water decontamination experiments were purely laboratory experiments with chemical tests. I did not see any myself but that was certainly the general method of tests.
Q. Did you follow up this matter and receive reports on it?
A. I did not follow up this question of decontamination myself. There was the head of a special committee for that purpose who tested these things. It is possible that I received one more report to the effect that one process or another was more suitable. No measures or steps were actually taken because the raw material was not available.
Q. What was this committee that was concerned with this matter?
A. That was the Special Committee for Drinking Water Decontamination Apparatus.
Q. Suppose we put Document No. 154 to you, doctor? I have put Document No. 119 to the witness but I failed to have that narked for identification. I would like that the record now show Document No. 119 has been offered as Prosecution Exhibit 445, for identification.
This is Document No. 154 which we offer as Prosecution Exhibit 446 for identification. Herr Professor, is the Reich Institution for Water and Air Purification the committee which you have made reference to?
A. No, the head of this committee which I mentioned was a Ministry of Henrich. I believe this committee which I mentioned belonged to the Ministry for Armament and War Production and was managed like the other special committees there.
Q. You stated that it was one, add that these experiments were not carried out on concentration camp inmates. Let us look at this document, which is Report No. 25, dated 31 March 1945, apparently made by the Reich Institution for Water and Air Purification and concerning experiments carried out at Hamburg-Neungamme, a report by Dr. Jaegers and Reg. Bauinspektor Kumpfert:
"In agreement with the Reich Fuehrung SS, experiments were carried out at Hamburg-Neungamme with drinking water preparation 44/5 in order to determine whether W-acid of various concentrations would cause any disadvantages to health and whether, if this were not the case, drinking water containing K substance would not be injurious to health after treatment with W-acid.
"The experiments were carried out on approximately 150 persons who comprised a single community. The camp doctors made the medical observations. Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Ebel also took part in the experiments for several days during which the high lewisite concentrations were used."
Do those first paragraphs indicate to you that concentration camp inmates were used?
A. Yes.
Q. I don't think it is necessary that we read the whole report but I would like for you to turn to the second Page. Do you see the sentence which says, "The camp doctors could not observe any effects harmful to the health of the experimental subjects."
?
A. Yes.
Q. And the following paragraph reads as follows:
"A third series of experiments was carried out with an agent of the Lost group, the asphyxiating gas Lost, in accordance with the suggestion made by Oberstarzt Dr. Wirth at the conference on 4 December 1944 with Reichskommissar Dr. Brandt. Since chemical analysis can prove the presence of the asphyxiating Lost only within a period of approximately one hour, the presence of K substance in the untreated water was probable in every instance, while in the case of potable water it was believed the level of probability (below 8.4 milligrams per liter) or the N-Lost had already been destroyed by the W-acid.
Is that the conference and meeting which you have been telling us about here, or is this another meeting held by you and your associates?
A. I cannot say. I had only one meeting with this committee about drinking water apparatus. I said that was in the summer of 1944. If the date is given here as 4 December, it is possible that the discussion was not in the summer but in December.
Q. And you now must conclude in fact that the experiments were carried out at the Hamburg-Neungamme concentration camp. Is that right?
A. On the basis of this document it appears that special tests were mad.e in the camp at Hamburg-Neungamme following the discussion. Yes.
Q. In order to be perfectly fair with you, Doctor, I want to point out the next to last paragraph of this report. It says that these experiments, which were suggested by Wirth in your presence and apparently with your support, that they did not cause any effects harmful to the health of the experimental subjects. Do you find that?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, Doctor, did you ever suggest any other experiments on concentration camp inmates?
A. As far as I know, I made no precise suggestions concerning concentration camp inmates. I must assume from the report that even before that the experiments had been carried out in a similar way, but none were special experiments.
This nitrogen-Lost experiment was made later. I do not recall, either in this case or in any other case that I suggested experiments on concentration camp inmates.
Q. Well, now, you have told us about your association with Bickenbach. You deny that he experimented on concentration camp inmates; you deny that you had any knowledge of Hirt's gas experiments on inmates at Last; you deny having supported Dr. Dohmen's jaundice work in Sachsenhausen. Did you ever have anything to do with incendiary bomb or phosphorus experiments on concentration camp inmates?
A. Not that I know of. The question of the treatment of phosphirus incendiary bomb wounds was discussed in 1943 and '44. As far as I know the decisive thing as the type of treatment, results coming from a Munich clinic concerning the use of copper sulfate solution.
Q. Did you ever ask tho SS through Himmler, Rudolf Brandt, Grawitz, Wolff, or any other person to put concentration camp inmates at your disposal for experiments of any kind?
A. I do n t recall any concrete case.
Q. Did you over write Karl Wolff a letter suggesting that food experiments be conducted on concentration camp inmates?
A. I cannot recall it. I do not know in what year that was supposed to have been.
Q. Well, let's refresh your recollection with Document NO-1419.
(Document handed to witness.)
Q. Is that your signature on that latter?
A. Yes, that is my signature.
MR. HcHANEY: We offer this document as Presecution Exhibit 447 for identification.
Q. Suppose you read this letter to the Tribunal?
A. "Obergruppenfuehrer Wolff, Headquarters of the Fuehrer"; the date is 26 January 1943. "Dear Obergruppenfuehrer, Since I have had ample material in the meantime about the development of concentrated food, as a special sector, for example, the area of the fortress of Stalingrad, I would like to repeat once more the matter as discussed at that time. Is it possible to carry out pertaining nutritional experiments in concentration camps?
In this connection I should think it necessary to contact Dr. Luft at the Medical Research Institute for Aviation and Ministerialrat Ziegelweier, the consulting nutritional expert with the Wehrmacht. A clear chart of the experiments, corresponding with the actual conditions, should then be drawn up jointly. I think it quite possible to obtain eventually now, valuable results in comparatively short time."
Q. Well now, witness -
A. The letter is signed by me.
Q. This was a contact by you with the SS, wasn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. I understood that y u have previously testified y u never had any official contact with SS men?
A. This Obergruppenfuehrer Wolff was at the fuehrer's headquarters. That is shown by the address. He was the liaison man with the SS. He was formerly the adjutant of Himmler and then in 1943 or the beginning of '44 he was replace. The discussions which are mentioned here, as the first sentence shows were results of concentrated food given to your Wehrmacht in surrounded areas in the East which was dropped to them by parachute.
Those concentrated rations consisted of various groups. There were distinctions especially in the manner in which the fat was included. They also varied according to the protein content. The rations interned for one man, as far as I recall, corresponded to about 3500 calories. These 3500 calorics were calculated on the basis of various sums of fat, carbohydrates and protein, and after the experience of Stalingrad it was n t clear, especially in view of the food which the Food Ministry could make available for this purpose, which was the most suitable form. In order to clear up this question I had made this suggestion to Mr. Wolff as this document shows, after I had informed the Fuehrer on the basis of a discussion with Mr. Ziegelweier that there was no agreement in this food question. He had said that this was pr badly the quickest way to solve the question, and I passed on this assignment I did not consider this anything special, and besides, I had forgotten about it Under other circumstances it would have been called a troop experiment.
Q. Was the experiment carried out?
A. I cannot say whether it was carried out.
Q. Didn't y u have some contact with 66 Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl in connection with this matter?
A. I do n t recall that I receive." any information from Pohl about it. It might be, bait it is possible that according to the suggestion made here the continuation of this question was "one by Ziegelweier and Luft themselves.
Q. And this matter came up long before the Second Fuehrer decree which explicitly covered medical science and research, din't it?
A. The date of this letter is the 26th of January 1943. This was not a question of research. It was a question of practice.
Q. Don't you remember that Wolff was sick about this time and that he passed your letter on to Pohl?
A. No, I don't remember that. It is possible that he was sick at this time. It is also possible that he passed the letter on to Pohl.
Q. You said the other day that you had only met Pohl here in the prison. Are you sure that Pohl did not get in touch with you in connection with this matter?
It is possible that he wrote to me. I cannot remember it. As far as I know I saw Pohl f r the first time here in the prison. I might have met him once before without knowing that it was Pohl, but I do not remember.
Q. Do you remember whether Pohl told you about certain feed experiments he was carrying out in concentration camps, experiments with poisonous foods?
A. I cannot remember having Spoken to Pohl at any time before I was arrested hero. It is, of course, possible. It is possible that the relieving of poison from food was said to me on same occasion, but without any document I cannot remember it. Perhaps I mi ht explain it just as I have explained this case here if I have a document before me.
Q. Yes, it's always nice to know what's in the document.
A. In this document here, yes, it is very clear what's in it.
Q. Herr Professor, did you ever suggest that any drugs be tested on concentration camp inmates?
A. I do not believe so. I cannot remember. What specific drugs?
Q. Suppose we see if Document NO-1382 will refresh your recollection in that regard? This is offered as Prosecution Exhibit 448 for identification. This is a teletype from the defendant Rudolf Brandt to SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Baumert, marked secret.
"Dear Paul, SS Brigadefuehrer Professor Dr. Brandt called up and requested the approval of the Reichsfuehrer SS that ten prisoners from Oranienburg should be made available as of tomorrow for two days, to test a certain drug. Nothing would happen to them.
"The tests have already been discussed and must be started tomorrow morning, 3 February. SS Gruppenfuehrer Dr. Grawitz is only waiting for permission from the Reichsfuehrer SS. Please obtain the decision and pass it on immediately to Dr. Grawitz, Heil Hitler, signed, yours, Rudi."
A. I do not remember what this was about. I don't know.
Q. Do you deny the possibility that you requested Grawitz or some other SS man to have these prisoners made available to you?
A. According to the teletype message here, I did that, assuming that this is authentic, but I cannot remember what it was about. There ie no indication -- it says two days. I don't remember it.
Q. You see the second page of the document, witness, indicates that the prisoners were made available. This is dated 8 February 1944, Field Command Post. "SS Gruppenfuehrer and Generalleutnant of the Waffen SS Gluecks hereby confirm approval of Reichsfuehrer SS, for ten prisoners from Oranienburg to be placed at the disposal of SS Brigadefuehrer Professor Dr. Brandt (SS Gruppenfuehrer Professor Dr. Grawitz). Signed, Grothmann."
Tell the Tribunal who Gluecks was, witness?
A. Gluecks was the head of all the concentration camps. I did not know him. I did not even know his name. I was of the opinion that that was Pohl, but I have learned here that it was Gluecks, and that Pohl had only an intermediate or a liaison position between Gluecks and Himmler.
Q. Well, Herr Brandt, whether or not you knew Gluecks you knew where to go when you needed concentration camp inmates for experiments, didn't you?
A. If there had been anything like that I addressed Wolff in this case, as in the first letter in '43, and here apparently through the same channels an appeal went to Himmler.
Q. But you have very expressly denied any connection with the jaundice matter which is the content of the letter of June 1943 where it says you were furthering Dohmen's experiments and wanted ten prisoners from Oranienburg.
A. I do not remember that I turned to Grawitz on behalf of Dohmen or that Grawitz approached me in this form. These three letters which I have here, the first with the food question, there is nothing which could fall under the concept of experiment. The second letter, this teletype, it's not clear to me what could have been the causes of it. I do not know whether anything was done. Certainly I did hot know whether anything was done. Certainly I did not do anything. Otherwise I am sure I would remember a drug. I don't know what it was.
Q. But, Herr Brandt, it says you called up and requested -
A. Yes, I can read that here, but I do not remember what it was about, what it could have been about. I want to clear up this concept of experiment. This document that you showed me before, of the 26th of January '43 on the food question; that is not what we normally understand by an experiment. It is a parallel use of certain foods, but it not an experiment on human beings.
Q. Well, Herr Brandt, it does show though that you were in contact with the SS and that you had gone there to obtain prisoners for whatever purpose, and you have very vehemently denied that earlier in this interrogation and in other interrogations that you had anything to do with the SS, and now we find that you knew exactly where to go when you had some little test that needed to be made on human beings.
Now, do you want to tell us about any further experiments where you went to the SS for prisoners?
A. I have already said I do not remember any. I have no idea of any.
Q. Well, maybe you will remember this one a little better. Let's have a look at Document NO-1620. This is offered as Prosecution Exhibit 449 for identification.
(Document handed to witness)
Q. Herr Professor, will you please read this document aloud?
A. Yes. A letter signed by Grawitz to the Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler.
"SS Brigadefuehrer Professor Dr. Brandt has approached us with the request to test a new ointment for treatment of phosphorous burns which is still in the experimental stage.
"As I consider trying out this ointment on German civilians for burns received in terror raids, would take too much time and would be unreliable in respect of testing methods, and as, in view of the importance of the problem, I do not believe that experiments on animals would produce sufficiently conclusive evidence, I respectfully ask you, Reichsfuehrer, to grant permission for experiments to be made in the hospital of the Sachsenhausen concentration camp on individual prisoners and prisoners who are unfit for work on account of illness. Signed, Grawitz."
Q. Do you remember anything about this matter?
A. I remember this ointment. I believe it was made by a firm in Bonn. I went to various agencies with it which had something to do with air warfare. I gave it to the civilian air raid service and I no doubt also gave it to the Reich physicians of the SS and police. In this letter Grawitz says:
"As I"... meaning himself, ..."consider trying out this ointment on German civilians for burns received in terror raids, would take too much time and would be unreliable in respect of testing methods, and as in view of the importance of the problem, I "...Grawitz..." do not believe that experiments on animals would produce sufficiently conclusive evidence, I "...Grawitz...." respectfully ask you, Reichsfuelier, to grant permission"... and so forth.
I certainly did not give this ointment to Grawitz in order to have it tested on any concentration camp inmates. I gave it to him as well as to other people, to other agencies, so that it might be tried in practice. This suggestion did not seem right to Grawitz so that on his own initiative he translated my suggestion of a test, and he considered that it would take too much time to test it on civilians in air raids. I say expressly that I gave it to him to be tested in this way.
Q. This letter is only about three months after the jaundice letter from Grawitz, isn't it?
A. Yes, three months later.
Q. And it is only twenty-five days after the issuance of the Second Fuehrer Decree which you state was the first time you could have had any possible interest in medical science and research?
A. The dates are correct, but an appointment which I pass on to other agencies because it was given to me has nothing actually to do with the lem itself, What is generally meant by science and research is a more ext cursive concept than the reference to the testing of a salve.
Q. Let's look at the second page of the document, Herr Brandt. It is dated 7 October 1943. It is a letter from the Defendant, Rudolf Brandt to Grawitz.
"The Reichsfuehrer-SS agrees to experiments being made with the ointment for phosphorous burns at the Sachsenhausen Concentration Camp on individual prisoners who have become unfit for work through illness." with the initials "BR". I would like to remind you, Doctor, that the incendiary bomb experiment as charged in the indictment in this case took place in November 1943, at the Buchenwald Concentration Camp. Do you think that there is any possibility that these documents which you have before you now really represent the starting point of the incendiary bomb experiments which took place at Buchenwald rather than Sachsenhausen?
A. I cannot say whether there is any direct connection. I cannot eliminate the possibility. I can add that from 1943 on the problem of incendiary bombs and injuries from phosphorous was a general problem in Germany, and if one examines medical literature, one will find that there was probably a new mention of it in every weekly. It is quite possible that independently of each other experiments wore carried out in Buchenwald as well as in Sachenhausen and at other places. As far as time is concerned, at this time we were all interested in this question of phosphorous burns practically or theoretically.
Q. Doctor, isn't it a monstrous thing to conduct phosphorous experiments on concentration camp inmates when you have so many pitiful German civilians who had been burned in air raids?
A. I was not of the opinion that such experiments had to be carried out in concentration camps. The letter shows that this was Grawitz's opinion. If this was his opinion, he, no doubt, had the idea that in some cases of injuries which were kept parallel, a conclusion could be drawn more readily concerning the effectiveness of a therapeutic agent than if the primary injuries and burns were different, similar as in the case of gun shot wounds during wartime.
Phosphorous burns, no doubt, occurred in the concentration camps, too, because they were sometimes nit by air raids. As far as I know, that was the case particularly in Buchenwald. If one overlooks the primary pain involved in the injury and the wound is not too extensive so that there are general burn symptoms, the injury is not too serious. Decisive in the question of the therapeutic agent is what chemical is used to neutralize phosphorous which has a relatively low burning temperature. Experiments carried out in the camp Sachsenhausen, I did not learn anything about them from any report, and the first report on such burns inflicted for the purpose of therapeutic treatment I heard of in the trial.
Q. I can appreciate that you feel it necessary to justify these incendiary bomb experiments, Doctor. Do you deny that you asked Grawitz to test this ointment on concentration camp inmates after they had been deliverately burned with phosphorous?
A. In answer to this precise question I must say that I am nor aware that I recommended this ointment, presumably this Bonn ointment, to Grawitz in order to have it tested on concentration camp inmates. I do not know whether it was a suggestion by telephone or in writing from me. I cannot say.
MR. McHANEY: I have no further questions.
RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. SERVATIUS:
Q. Witness, at the beginning of the cross examination you were shown a document NO-890.
THE PRESIDENT: Let the record show that Counsel for Brandt is conducting the re-examination after cross examination.
BY DR. SERVATIUS:
Q. Document NO-890, Exhibit 443, was shown to you. The document refers to the child, Anna Gasse, and a letter reached you according to which you were asked to intervene in favor of the child. What specialized knowledge was necessary to take action in this case?
A. No specialized knowledge was necessary. The letter does not say what was wrong with the child so that this question could be cleared up by a general medical understanding.
In this case I had to get a general impress of the condition of the child.
Q. Witness, you told of the case in Leipzig where this child was born that was blind and without a hand and a foot. What specialized knowledge did you need at that time in order to fulfill the assignment which was given you by Hitler?
A. There was no question of specialized knowledge here. The decision was on a human ethical basis in regard to the child and the parents of the child.
Q. Witness, you talked to Pastor Bodelschwing on the question of Euthanasia. What specialized knowledge did you need then?
A. Here again it was not a question of specialized knowledge, either surgical of psychiatric. The talk was entirely on a medical and humane discussion of ideas. It did not require any special psychiatric knowledge on my part as far as the institution at Bethel was concerned. A part of the patients at Bethel were not psychiatric cases primarily. They were deformed and monstrous. A general medical knowledge was quite enough to be able to talk on these question in general.
Q. Then I may conclude that your activity was not that of a specialist basically?
A. It could not be if you mean my activity as far as the problem of Euthanasia was concerned. I did not exercise any function as a specialist in psychiatry. There were other doctors appointed for this function. I was concerned with the general medical questions.
Q. Then how was the decision of specialized question taken care of?
A. Specialists were appointed for that purpose. Three days ago I said that no only psychiatrists were included as experts and chief experts from general mental institutions but that the heads of university clinics participated, Wuerzburg, for instance, Berlin. I believe there were two or three others, too, Heidelberg.
Q. You were also shown a document NO-825, Exhibit 350. This is the questionnaire with the memorandum. Was this questionnaire sent to all hospitals in Germany?
A. No. It was sent only to the mental institutions, that is, to places where the patients were primarily insane.