JUDGE SEBRING: It occurred to us that if the film could be shown here with the presence of no or two of the translators, the Commissioners appointed by the President could view the film and here and could have the benefit of their explanations from the translation box.
MR. HcHANEY: And that would be very desirable, and I will try to arrange that for 3:45.
JUDGE SEBRING: 3:35.
Q. McHALEY: 3:35, yes, sir.
DR. FROESCHMANN: I should like to request that the defendant Brack be allowed to attend this performance.
THE PRESIDENT: The request is granted. The defendant Brack, when the nature is shown, may attend the showing.
Counsel for defendant Brandt may proceed.
BY DR. KAUFMANN:
Q. witness, I now put to you Document Book No. 9. This concerns, among other things, securing the skulls of Jewish Belshevistic Commissars. Please look at page 1 of Document No. 085, Exhibit 175. This is document of 9 February 1942, addressed to you. It is a secret communication, and it bears Sievers' signature. There are two annexes to this document. One of them concerns research into microscopy and the other one concerns the suggestion for securing the skulls of Jewish Bolshevistic Commissars for the purpose of scientific research. Now, I ask you whether you received this document and whether you are familiar with the contents of this letter, and whether you still remember it today?
A. I received the letter with the inclosures, but I recall as little on his as I recall on the other matters.
Q. Do you wish to say then that you did not road the two inclosures to this letter?
A. I really sh uld like to s ay that because, as I have already said, is reports which were destined for the Reichsfuehrer were put into the mail that he was to read personally, and in the case of Professor Hirth's report, which is really incomprehensible to a lay reader, this report Would not have been comprehensible as I said.
Q. Perhaps I might remind you that the two inclosures are closely bound together. The first incl sure should concern itself with the microscopic research, and the second inclosure should concern the securing of skeleton.
Q. that also your opinion?
A. Yes, that is the way the letter states it, First, cases the miscroscopic study and then the skulls.
Q. Now, I ask you, with particular regard to the fact that you arc justifying under oath, did you know details or did you know particularly that, as can be seen from this report, human beings were to be killed and that then the skulls or skeletons were to be Sent to the University of Strasburg? Did you know those details?
A. No, I did not know those details.
Q. Would you tell us just what you did know, in broad terms?
A. I knew the contents of the letter, which I also sent on to Eichmann.
Q. This is Document 116, Exhibit 168, page 12. In this letter you inform Eichmann that everything necessary would be done to build up this collection of skulls and this would be done for Professor Hirth and you say court ?? that SS Cbersturmbannfuehrer Sievers will communicate with Eichmann as to the details of this. Now, I ask you, what is Eichmann?
A. I don't believe that I had any idea who Eichmann was at that time. Sievers sent me this draft of this letter which I certainly did not send on this for as it appears here. As was always the case, I showed it to Himmler and only then did I send, it on, and I am quite sure that I heard Eichmann is name at that time for the first time I didn't know him there wise nor did I know him later.
Q. Can you not tell us whether you didn't have some idea or other what was going on here in this whole business? When, for instance, it says here that a collection of skeletons is to be mere than one would very likely ask oneself or one would ask whether one didn't have some there nations about what was really going on?
A. I certainly made on other associations in this matter except those that would arise in connection with the collection of skulls for anatomical purposes, on it would never gave occurred to that any we would be used for this except prisoners who had died a normal oath.
Q. Mr. Brandt, did you work in this matter independently hereafter or you submit it to Himmler for his decision.
I draw your attention new to page 12, exhibit 181 No. 057, this is page 15, a letter dated 21 June 1943 from Sievers to Eichmann. The letter was apparently sent by Seivers with copies for two other persons and also with a copy to be sent to you. This letter says in to 115 persons were worked on and that these selected persons should be sent to the concentration camps at **tzweiler. How was such a letter handled by you in your registry office and I refer now to the copy which was sent to you; did you again submit it to Himmler, did he draw up the letter or did someone else; just how was it handled?
A I do not remember ever having soon this letter. The note on it carries a file that not mine, but of my collaborator Borg's notation and he rise drew up several of the documents in the document book.
Q Then you see on page 15 of the document book, no, please look at Document No. 083 whore there again is a mark by this chap, Borg. Please look at page 16, No. 091 and page 18, here there is **** attributed to Dr. Brandt signed by Borg. This reproduces a talk that Berg had with sievers; do you remember seeing this notation?
A I do not remember having seen it.
Q Let me point out the date 23 October, 1944.
A. This day was the lust dry of our stay in our East Prussia branch. The *** ans were very close to our neighborhood. Borg draw up this memorandum, so that I could got a final report to Remmler but since we had to clear out by that evening there were more important things to do that to submit such a memorandum, so that possibly I did not show it to him at all.
Q How I show you Document book 12 used draw your attention to Document 008, you see the No. 304. This is a tap secret matter to Pohl from the Reich Research counsel and concerns the production of a now type of typhus vaccine. In this letter there is motion that research into the production of typhus vaccine was to be undertaken and for this purpose one hundred suitable prisoners were to taken to Natzwoiler; would you care to make u statement about this document?
A I can remember as little about this letter as the theres, but I would say that it would be directed to Oberoruppenfuehrer Pohl and that I received only a copy and then there was nothing more to be done about this. I simply glanced over the first part of the letter and probably only glanced at the second part, which concerned a publication which was to be made. Himmler rosdrved for himself the right to decide Whether anything was to be published. My reply t" Sievers which is on the next page of the document book only concerned itself with the second part of this letter.
Q Was that the sentence where you state and I quote: "I ask you to decide whether the Reicksfuehrer SS should be named or the W.V.H.A. or tho institute for Medical Military Research as the supporting agency," did that attract your attention and when you saw that you became active in the matter?
A Yes that is so. The rest of it was pertaining to an agreement that was reached earlier.
Q Now, I ask you to compare document 009 on page 95. This is a letter from the Reichsfuehrer SS personal and your copy dated 6 June 1944 directed to Sievers and registered; a registered letter is not the same as a secret letter?
A No.
Q Now please take a look at this letter and toll no That you think of it?
A That page is it?
Q Page 95 of the German. The second- sentence roads as follows: "I have informed the Reichs Fuehrer SS as the matter seemed important enough." Then you say that certain offices could be named as supporting offices and that Himmler also could be named to a support office; now what do you have to say what that?
A This was Himmler's task which I communicated to Pohl on the basis of the last sentences in his letter.
Q Now, please look at Document 370, Exhibit 294, page 74 of your document book. This is an affidavit on your part regarding experiments on typhus, please lock at paragraph 5 in paragraph 6 you say, "I am also quite sure that as a result of some of those experiments some prisoners died." Now are you making a statement as to whether you know that human being experiments were being carried out and for what did you know that human beings had allegedly died?
A I know in general that human being experiment were under way, as that could be soon from the correspondence, but I had no knowledge that worsens had died. The statement here is again a deduction, which I drew from the documents submit to me and from what the interrogator told me. It could also be soon from the documents that experimental subjects who had been sent to **tzweiler died on the way. Perhaps I drew sore association between that fact and this here, so that w uld be tho explanation for my statement here. As to the other statement in this affidavit, that tho experimental worsens were neither oriented nor could they avoid tho experiments. I have no actual knowledge either from written statements or from oral statements on tho part of third persons.
Q Now I should like to speak to you about Document Book No. 2, concerning tho high altitude experiments of Dr. Rascher; you said this morning that you know Rescher?
A Yes.
Q Did you see him frequently?
A Very few times in tho course of four to five years.
Q Did he come to your office and speak with you?
A Twice, shortly before a train left Munich, whom he and his wife might a letter to Himmler to tho station and give it to me.
Q And what did ho want when he came to Himmler's anti-room and saw you?
A Either he brought a report or a letter; as I said this could net have happened more than four or five times.
Q Were you ever present when Himmler talked with Rascher?
A No. I was never present at those conferences.
Q Did Rascher ever tell you personally either before or after a conference with Himmler why he had come?
A No. Afterwards we never spoke about these visits together because I had no time for that.
Q But you do not want to deny that you knew that Rascher was carrying out experiments on human beings in Dachau?
A Yes, that I knew.
Q Did you over visit Dachau yourself?
A No, I was not in Dachau nor in any other concentration camp.
Q Did you ever yourself take part in experiments on human beings?
A No.
Q Did you see these photographs which are supplements to the document books?
A I cannot recall ever having seen them.
Q Now, please turn to page 53. This is a letter from Rascher to Himmler in which he for the first time makes succestions to Himmler that human being experiments should be carried out in Dachau; and he says in this letter that in these experiments he would certainly have to count on a lethal consequence for some of the subjects, a fatal consequence. Do you remember receiving this letter? If you don't, can you say how you probably handled this letter when it came in?
A I do not remember the letter. As in all cases I certainly would have put this letter among the mail that Himmler would read personally after I had seen by one glance through it that this was a medical matter in which Himmler was in general interested.
DR. KAUFMANN We are speaking now, your Honor, of No. 1002-RS, Exhibit 44.
Q Now, please look at Page 57 of the German document book. This is 1582-RS, Exhibit 45, a letter from you to Rascher in which you tell him that, of course, prisoners will be gladly made available for high altitude experimentation.
"as this letter written on your own initiative or is it a case similar to all the other cases that you have brought up here, namely, a letter written on orders from Himmler?
A This letter does not originate with me but is to be traced back to clear orders on the part of Himmler.
Q Now, please take a look at Page 61, Document 1581-A-PS, Exhibit 48, a letter that bears your signature, addressed to Sievers. Here you write that low pressure experiments are being carried out by the- Luftwaffe in Dachau on prisoners there. Then look at the next document, Page 63, of the G German Document Book, Exhibit 49, Document 1971-A-PS, Page 60 of the English Document Book, a letter from Rascher to Himmler, In the first sentence of this letter there is mention of an enclosed intermediary report, and there is no doubt that this interim report was enclosed. Now, I ask you whether you read this interim report.
A I should like to assume that I id not because such medical reports were quite incomprehensible to me as a layman; and, secondly, because of all the work which I had to do, I Did not have enough time to concern myself with reports which, first of all, I didn't understand and, secondly, which did not interest me. Thus it is that I put this report in with the mail that Himmler was to read without reading it myself.
Q Now, please look at 1971-D-PS, Exhibit 32, Page 63 of the English Document Book, apparently a teletype message from Rascher to you. Here Rascher asks whether Poles and Russians also are to be pardoned if they have survived several severe experiments. In the Document 1971-E-PS, Exhibit 33, Page 66 is to be found your answer, a teletype message to Obersturmfuehrer Schnitzler in Munich. In this letter you say that experimental subjects are not to be pardoned if they are Poles or Russians. This document was given particular stress by the prosecution, and its cruel and atrocious nature was emphasized. Do you remember this document or can you give us any explanation of how it came about that you signed this teletype message?
A I have no memory of this communication. Of course, I cannot here state under oath whether this is one of those cases in which a teletype message was sent on Himmler's orders with my signature to it. It is quite as possible that I had seen this message and knew its contents and sent it off.
Q But I would think that a document with such contents would still be remembered by you today; and yet you say that you do not remember it?
A No, I don't. In view of the enormous number of orders that I got from Himmler, I could not concern myself with the details of each matter so that I would remember them for any length of time.
Q Do you perhaps know whether you discussed this matter with Himmler and then waited for his orders?
A I cannot say that. I assume that I put the teletype message among his mail and then received his orders along with all the rest of his orders.
Q Now, as last document from this document book, I bring up Document 402, Exhibit 66, Page 89 of the German Edition. This is a letter to the German Research Institute for Aviation. This letter accompanies a long report, the subject of which is rescuing pilots from high altitudes. Do you have that report now in front of you?
A Yes.
Q This is Page 82 of the document book. Did you work on this report or at least give a cursory glance at it?
A I certainly did not work on it; and I didn't even give a cursory glance at it, first of all because it's a medical report and, secondly, because it's much too long.
Q Now, I should like to discuss with you Document Book Number 13. That concerns mustard gas experiments. Let me point out Document 198, Exhibit 254. It's a top secret matter, a letter to the Personal Staff of the Reichsfuehrer SS. In this letter there is mentioned a then accompanying report on the use of a cure for mustard gas burns, a letter from Grawitz. Now, what is your memory of this matter?
A I don't remember it at all.
Q Please look now at your affidavit, Page 1, NO-372. You say here that experiments were carried out on concentration camp inmates; "So far as I was aware, the experiments were directed toward giving the experimental subjects wounds in various parts of their bodies, and these wounds were then infected with Lost."
Q. And on the next page of the document you state, "The result was that some of the inmates died." Do you wish to say that this was the knowledge you had of the matter at that time, or do you wish to say that you acquired this knowledge after you had seen all the documents here, and in context?
A. This is a statement of what I know today. At that time I could not have known these interconnections because I had to do with these matters only from a purely external, technical point of view, namely, submitting them to Himmler and then passing on his orders to the competent officers. With the best mind in the world I could not have concerned myself with the content of such a report.
Q. They you will grant me that I am right when I point out to the Prosecution that the way this is formulated here in this affidavit can lead to errors?
A. At the time I was interrogated I was in such a state of health that I could not be so critical as to discriminate between what I was setting down as matters that I knew of at the time under question, and what I could deduce later from seeing the documents. I also attempted by using such words as, "certainly; probably; and so on," to express the fact that I really did not have actual knowledge of these things.
Q. Now, as last document book, we are to bring up Document Book No. 3, which concerns itself with the freezing experiments. I first bring to your attention your affidavit on page 1, NO 242, Exhibit No. 80. This is your most extensive affidavit and contains various other names, the names of other defendants. On the last page, page 6 of the document book, you say (Page 50, I believe):
"The Experimental subjects were kept for fifteen hours in the open air, naked."
In April of '43 a report on this matter was sent to Himmler. A person who reads this, of course, gains the impression that you, yourself, had read the entire report and that in this affidavit you are simply stating that at that time you knew not only what was going on in general but what was going on in detail. Would you like to state that this affidavit also is a statement regarding which you can say what you have already said in general about your affidavits?
A. The same thing is true here.
Q. Now, I ask you specifically whether you read the document 428--rather, correction--1613 PS, Exhibit 90, page 27, which is a letter from Rascher to Himmler, again with an extensive report on cooling or freezing experiments on human beings.
A. Because of the length of it alone I most certainly did not read this. Let me say now in regard to that affidavit of mine that you just brought up, in Document 371, Document Book No. 8, Exhibit 186, page 1; it says--that is the document book on epidemic jaundice--"I know that these experiments were carried out and that as a consequence of it some of the inmates died."
Prof. Gutzeit testified here that the danger of such experiments is not so certain, nor is it certain that the experiments were carried out--or could have been carried out. Now, the question is, how did this sentence ever get into my affidavit? Because, on the basis of facts I could not have made the statement; I can not know more that Prof. Gutzeit knows. This again this was merely a deduction that I drew from what the interrogator told me, and which I have certified in this affidavit by putting my signature to it.
Q. Mr. Brandt, I should like to take up now the question what your id were about the permissibility of such experiments on human subjects. You so today that you knew that experiments were being carried out on human beings, and that non-volunteers were being used in such experiments, and, finally, that fatalities must be expected. Now, I should like to know from you what your ideas are regarding the moral or ethical aspects of such experiments.
A. In taking care of requests that were addressed to Himmler, I always tried to put myself into the position of the person making the petition, and to work on the petition from that point of view. The same is true also for experimental subject. If I were in the position that an experimental subject finds himself, I certainly should wish not simply to be assigned to some experiment; rather I should like to be asked whether under certain condition I should be willing to submit to an experiment in order in this way, for example, to be pardoned, if my sentence were death. I am convinced that the would have been enough volunteers for such experiments if they were approach in the correct manner, and if they were treated as human beings -- even the they might be criminals condemned to death -- they should not be treated simply as chattel or as numbers. And in the way that the experiments were carried out a certain guarantee must be given that the risk for the subject is of a minimum. Now, I will be told that I am making these excuses now, as I admit that it is now that you have expressed such ideas for the first time But according to my whole nature it is true that I was of the same opinion that time, as the opinion I am now expressing. On the other hand, I doubt whether at that time I reflected along the lines which I am discussing now. First, that wasn't part of my work; secondly, I was so overworked that it was only with great difficulty that I managed to take care of the purely technical aspects of these matters; and thirdly, because I was ignorant of the details I was not in the position to calculate the implications of all these matters. I am convinced that if experiments are carried out of the s I have just described, it would not have to be repudiated by any one.
DR. KAUFFMANN (Counsel for the Defendant Brandt): I have one or two more questions, but before I ask the next question I should like to have the Court's approval.
The Court will remember that on last Friday the Prosecution objected to a certain question relating to the question of Himmler's influence and the whole milieu around him, could have on a man like Brandt. It is my opinion that this question must be ventilated.
It is my opinion that this question must be ventilated so that we may, so to speak, resurrect Himmler here for a few moments. That Himmler was Germany's grave-digger is perfectly clear, but this is a question which could lead to an extenuation of Brandt's guilt. The question: how did it happen that an innocent young man was so seduced? The seducer is always guiltier than the person seduced, and here it is Brandt who was seduced.
I should like to ask that he be allowed to say a few words about the influence that the demon, Himmler, had over him for years, and which finally led him to sign letters and documents which absolutely contradicted his own humane views.
MR. HARDY: May it please Your Honor. I submit again that Heinrich Himmler or Himmler's influences are not on trial here. This case is against the man in the witness box, Rudolf Brandt. I can't see that any discussion as to the character of Himmler will be material. Therefore, I object to any interrogation along the lines of the influences of Himmler.
JUDGE SEBRING: Well, Mr. Hardy, if your contention is correct, then what does that portion of the underlying law which guides this Tribunal which deals with superior orders mean when it said that superior orders shall not constitute a defense but that the fact of superior orders may be heard in mitigation of the sentence? Now if that does not allow a considerable inquiry into the type of superior order and the circumstance under which it was given and the relation that existed between the superior and the subordinate, what does it mean?
MR. HARDY: I follow Your Honor quite clearly up to the point until you get into what influence Himmler had on this subject here. Himmler's superior orders may well be pleaded in mitigation, but I don't see that the influence of Himmler upon the personality of one Rudolf Brandt has any bearing thereon.
JUDGE SEBRING: As a superior on one hand and as a subordinate on the other.
MR. HARDY: Well, we may well argue on that from now until Doom's Day, but I myself don't see where it has any materiality here.
JUDGE SEBRING: Well, if you were to take the other end of the discussion and all that would be ever relevant would be simply the statement from the witness: "I acted on superior orders" and quit, and the Court under those circumstances would never have any yardstick by which it could measure the question of mitigation if it thought that mitigation was proper.
MR. HARDY: I have no further comment, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Under those circumstances the witness may give the Tribunal a picture of the situation where he stood at the time, a brief succinct statement.
Counsel may propound to the witness the question which he suggested.
BY DR. KAUFMANN:
Q. Dr. Brandt, for years and years since 1934, you worked with Himmler, and the Court certainly has some impression of your purely exterior activities. Now would you please say how you saw Himmler's personality and what influence Himmler's personality exercised on you during the course of the years? I want to know what memories you have, what feelings you had and how your whole orientation was influenced by Himmler's manner of thinking.
THE PRESIDENT: The question should also include the matter of the official relations between the witness and Himmler. That is the main point of the question, the official relations and how Himmler's character affected this witness in his official duties in the position which he occupied.
BY DR. KAUFMANN:
Q. Witness, did you understand?
A. Yes.
Q. Please start.
A. Professor Gebhardt has already to a certain extent given a description of Himmler's personality. When I now describe Himmler and the SS as I understand them and as I experienced them, then I ask you not to construe that as propaganda because after all that we have found out in the meantime, there is no occasion for any such propaganda.
I emphasize particularly the fact that I clearly disapprove of Himmler the way every decent man does and must, first, because of the crimes he committed, secondly, because he committed suicide.
When I went to Himmler I was a young SS man, young both in years since I was not even twenty-five in the year 1934, and young also in my membership in the SS of which I had been a member less than four months. The first impression that a young and immature person has of the intentions and plans and of the human and official behavior of his superior make a particular impression on him and, in general, determine what his future development will be. Himmler's manner of working, working late at night, carrying out many official trips, brought it about even at the very beginning that I was subjected to the same working conditions. He took me everywhere with him to finish up the work that he was doing so that to a certain extent I was his body stenographer and was almost like his shadow. He dictated letters to me in the trains, airplanes, automobiles in the morning and at all hours of the day and night.
During the numerous official trips I saw how modest Himmler's behavior was in hotels where we spent the night, how friendly and polite he was to the servants. I saw how simply his way of living his life was and saw that he made no special demands, and in this connection I should like to remark that Himmler was one of the few leading Party or State officials who didn't play the "big shot" and who did not augment their legal incomes with a little money from the side. I saw how considerate he was for the welfare of women and children who were in distress because of the death of the bread-winner. These women should not have to deal fruitlessly with an unfeeling burocracy. The local SS offices relieved them of their cares and difficulties and to a large extent took care of the children.
This help was not restricted to the wives of members of the SS. Every woman who turned to him could be assured of SS assistance.
Himmler loved children, and for this reason played Godfather to a large number of children. Presents for these Godchildren on birthdays and on Christmas he chose himself, and until the very end he saw to it that all the children of an SS man who had fallen in battle received presents for Christmas. However, the SS men themselves were also the beneficiaries of his consideration. Front-line Waffen-SS units and SS field hospitals received special allotments of fruit, cigarettes, etc. on his orders; and I should like to say here that the correspondence that dealt with such matters was also under my competence.
It was a matter of course for Himmler during the War to spend Christmas Eve and Christmas Day with front-line soldiers of the WaffenSS. He spent no Christmas at home during the war.
I saw also how industrious he was, how he made the performance of duty and work the prime consideration without ever thinking of his own personal enjoyments. He expected much more of himself than any other leading personage of the Party. These higher demands were generally valid for the whole of the SS but were made particularly on his closer collaborators.
I saw how understandingly and generously he received the many requests that were directed to him from members of the SS and from the entire population, how glad he was to help where financial or other assistance was necessary.
Right at the beginning of my job Himmler gave me the order that every letter addressed to him should be submitted to him no matter what its contents might be. No letter was to be filed away without being answered, much less thrown into the wastebasket, and his answer to such a letter was not merely a purely formal gesture. The person who sent the letter could see from the way it was treated and the contents of the letter with what human sympathy his application was being worked on.
A Himmler's orders regarding the treatment of applications that came in corresponded with the way I felt about such matters. In my family, and later as a student, I had personal experience with distress and suffering, and I knew how difficult and impossible it often was for the simple man of the lower classes to protect himself against the cursory treatment on the part of people who were his social superiors. Thanks to Himmler's attitude on such matters I was enabled to help such people and along with Himmler all of my enthusiasm went into this work, which I did industriously, conscientiously, and which was the central point of all of my activity.
In conclusion, regarding my remarks as regards this matter about Himmler's readiness to help, was in agreement with his character as I came to know and to esteem. It was a matter of course, to him that a person's confidence in one should not be destroyed, a person who turned to him or to his office for advice or confidence. In the course of time I also found out when he spoke with guests during a meal and I was present, what his views were in one field or another, and I should like very much to give a few examples briefly. For example, he wanted to create a healthy working class
Q Witness, I believe you could be a little more brief in this. Perhaps you could just outline the main points.
A No, I just wanted to mention the fact itself. He wanted to extend credit to hand workers and peasants so that they could start a new livelihood. In the racial question Himmler frequently expressed the opinion that the Nordice race was a particularly selected race that was destined to take over the leadership in the reorganization of the community of Europe. The leadership of this main European people was not, however, to be restricted solely to Germans of the Nordic race. They were to be men from all nations and they should all be given an opportunity in peaceful competition to prove their fitness for this leadership.