DR. NELTE: I would be far more expedient if the prosecution would perhaps withdraw all the affidavits, which were made by Rudolf Brandt. In that case, we would not have to concern ourselves with the affidavits at all.
MR. McHANEY: That is hardly the same thing as we suggested. We will not withdraw the affidavits, the witness on the stand signed then under oath and we maintain the affidavits. We are willing to stipulate that this witness will state that his affidavits were not based on his personal knowledge. He has testified that way already to four or five, I understand that he testified on direct that they were all not based on his person knowledge. We want to stipulate at the same time that he will testify in the same way with respect to the other affidavits, which Dr. Nelte is about to ask him about that he would testify.
DR. NELTE: I don't know whether this is the purpose of the examination, the prosecution is just telling me that the witness is going to say the same thing all the time; if the prosecution would tell me that they assume that all the facts which concern my clients have been made without any personal knowledge, merely on the basis of the documents presented, merely on the basis of conclusions, then I may perhaps be satisfied with it, or if the prosecution would say that on the basis of these affidavits of Rudolf Brandt versus Prof. Handloser, they will not draw any evidential conclusions. If they don't do that, I must bring the proof in every case where the defendant Handloser is concerned that this supposition is incorrect.
MR. McHANEY: If the Tribunal please, I think that the distinction I make is quite clear to Dr. Nelte and also to the Tribunal. We have no intention to draw any assumptions at all on the basis of these affidavits. We are simply willing to stipulate that this witness will testify, as he has already done in general and to specific affidavits put to him by Dr. Nelte, that they were not based on his personal knowledge; we wish to stipulate that with respect to the remainder of the affidavits. I don't think there is any choice on the part of Dr. Nelte, i think it is inexcusable if the time of the Tribunal is consumed by putting this type of question. The witness has gone the whole way with everything and he can do nothing more for Dr. Nelte and his client than he has already done.
He was put under a very short examination for about three hours and I think it is inexcusable that the defense counsel will take up another day or so putting the same type of questions to him, which he has already answered. We are willing to stipulate, as I have already outlines, that he will continue to testify in the same way on the other affidavits and I don't think there is anything more that he asked for.
DR. NELTE: We are not concerned here with time, time can make no difference as we are concerned with the finding of the truth. I an seeking truth and if the truth is in any way covered over, it has to be uncovered and clarified, but I think I an satisfied with the statements made by Mr. McHaney, namely, that he or rather the prosecution, will not draw any conclusions as to the guilt of those people that these affidavits incriminate.
MR. McHANEY: And of course not bound by what he stated my stipulation was; its in the record, it's perfectly clear and Dr. Nelte must understand it since it's been repeated three times.
JUDGE SEBRING: I an afraid that is what you said, that you would not draw any conclusion, that is precisely what you said, you would not draw any assumption from the statements made by Brandt in his affidavits.
MR. McHANEY: He asked us to stipulate, as I understood it, that this man's affidavits were based on documents submitted to him and he had no personal knowledge. Obviously the prosecution will not stipulate to any such thing. He will stipulate that that is what this witness will testify, which is an entirely different matter. All the witness can do now is to testify that he based the affidavits on documents submitted to him, he has testified this repeatedly, that is the fact. The prosecution does not admit that, but we admit he will continue to testify in that way. In order to save time, we are willing to stipulate that he will testify in that respect, but we, of course, certainly don't admit the truth of it. In that regard, we can say no more than we have already said.
DR. NELTE: In that case the prosecution is admitting that the affidavit of Rudolf Brandt only contain the matters which are contained already in Documents, that is, they are not going to draw any conclusions from the testimony of Rudolf Brandt, but only from the Documents.
I an quite satisfied with that statement by the prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: I did not understand the statement of counsel for the prosecution as Dr. Nelte does. Counsel for the prosecution stated that he will admit that this witness, Rudolf Brandt, Defendant Brandt, now on the sta will testify as to other affidavits, which may be presented to him on cross examination by Dr. Nelte, as he has in the past, that statements in those affidavits were not based on frets within his personal knowledge.
DR. NELTE: But, Mr. McHaney was also kind enough to say that the prosecution is admitting that Rudolf Brandt only wrote in his affidavits what could also be seen from the documents and that therefore they are not relying, on the affidavits, which were made by Rudolf Brandt, but they are only concerned with the interpretation of the documents and that is the way I understood Mr. McHaney, namely that he docs not wish to draw any conclusions from the statements of the defendant Rudolf Brandt; if that is correct, if I understood it correctly, I am completely satisfied.
MR. McHANEY: Dr. Nelte, you understood it exactly one hundred percent wrong for the third time. The Tribunal correctly stated the form of the stipulation, namely that the witness will testify here that these affidavits were based on documents submitted to him and not on his personal knowledge. The prosecution does not stipulate that in fact is or was the case. We do stipulate that he will testify that that's the way it was, and that is all we will stipulate, and that is all that the witness can testify to here, and he has already testified to it at least twenty five times.
DR. NELTE: Mr. McHaney, you have just heard that Judge Sebring has understood your testimony exactly as I did, namely that you said you were not going to draw any conclusions from what Rudolf Brandt has said. Now, you are saying that you are merely stipulating that Rudolf Brandt, as he did in previous case would continue to say that he would not know anything more than that which was written in the documents, which has been submitted to him.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal does not desire to enter into any particular discussion over what has been said, it has been heard and it is in the record, Mr. McHaney at least has stated now what his stipulation will be; and if that, is not satisfactory to Dr. Nelte, Dr. Nelte may continue with his examination but his questions should be limited strictly to the point which has been referred to, unless he can show that the witness on the stand will state that his affidavits were false and he knew the statements he made then were false.
Q. In the Document No.-444, which is an affidavit you made, the selection of the concentration camp is being discussed. You were saying that it needed the express approval of Himmler to carry out the experiments on concentration camp inmates; is that correct; did you say that here?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, in this affidavit you stated that it was easy for the physician concerned to gain his permission to carry out experiments on concentration camp inmates; do you know whether Professor Handloser, or one of his agencies that is chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service or Army Medical Inspectorate; did ever try to gain such permission from Himmler?
A. I don't know about that.
Q. You were saying furthermore that a number of persons from Himmler environment were well informed about the experiments, and you were mentioning a number of gentlemen. Furthermore, in some vague form, you say "high representatives of the Luftwaffe, the army and navy were also involved in this matter." Although you have not mentioned any names here, the formulation could raise suspicion against any highly placed medical officer, as for instance Handloser. Can you state any fact which could show that Professor Handloser, for instance, actually was involved in that matter?
A. No.
Q Are there any facts which justify the conclusion that the chiefs of his staff, for instance, Generalarzt Wuerfler, Chief of Medical Services, or Generarzt Schmidt-Bruecker had anything to do with that matter?
A No, I don't even know these gentlemen.
Q It could well be possible that you saw something in your correspondence which could indicate such a connection?
A No.
Q I have another few questions which concern the Defendant, Professor Karl Brandt. In your affidavit, Document 440, you were saying, speaking about the sterilization experiments, that Dr. Karl Brandt certainly knew of these sterilization affairs. In this connection you are not giving us any factual proof from which it could be concluded by whom Dr. Brandt was informed about these sterilization experiments. Can you still maintain that statement that you then made under oath?
A No.
Q When speaking about "lost" gas experiments in your affidavit, you said the following under figure 5:
"In March, 44, the Fuehrer ordered SS-Brigadefuehrer, Dr. Karl Brandt, the Plenipotentiary General for Health and Medical Services, to carry out medical research in connection with the gas attacks."
"Brandt sent a copy of this letter to Himmler in order to distribute it among the competent persons in the SS and ask them to establish contact with Brandt. Since it concerned experiments, I distributed copies of this Fuehrer Order to Dr. Grawitz, Reichsarzt-SS and Police, Standartenfuehrer Sievers, from the Ahnenerbe, SS-Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl from the WVHA also received a copy of this Fuehrer Order."
Do you remember the contents of the Fuehrer Order which you mentioned and which ordered Dr. Karl Brandt to work on chemical warfare agents?
A No.
Q You are saying that in this order medical research work was mentioned as a special task. Do you maintain this statement?
A No, I cannot do that.
Q You have sent the order to Sievers, Grawitz and Pohl. Do you know why this was done?
A Here in the document I saw the handwritten notation of Himmler, which ho made on the original, where he himself ordered that the three mentioned gentlemen were to receive a copy The distribution was not made on my own initiative.
Q Did Professor Karl Brandt desire any such notification?
A This cannot be seen from the document.
Q In that case, are you saying that your knowledge is merely based on the document and that, therefore, the distribution was only carried out on the desire of Himmler?
A Yes.
DR. NELTE: I have no further questions to this witness.
DR. MARX: Dr. Mars, Counsel for the Defendant Professor Dr. Schroeder) Mr. President, I ask you to permit me to put a few questions to the witness.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY DR. MARX:
Q Witness, in a number of affidavits you among others mentioned the name of Professor Dr. Schroeder. You asserted that experiments were carried out under the protection and by order of the Luftwaffe Medical Inspectorate. For that reason I should like to put a number of questions to you in order to clarify a number of points. At first I shall have the document book of the Prosecution, the document of the Prosecution No. 44 Exhibit 129, shown to you. This can be found in the document book No. 5 of the Prosecution concerning sea-water experiments, and it can be found on page 1.
Have you that document before you?
A Yes.
Q Would you please tell the Tribunal what you Know about this complex of questions or what you know about that complex of questions from your own knowledge and your own memory.
A During the interrogation I only remembered the fact that a request was made to Himmler on the part of the Luftwaffe to carry out experiments in order to render sea-water potable. I vaguely remembered -
Q And that is what I am going to ask you.
A I vaguely remembered that we were concerned with the testing of two procedures of which one was more dangerous than the other.
Q Yes, and now would you please look at figure 3 of this document. There ft says:
"The Luftwaffe had at its disposal two methods to make sea water drinkable. One of them was extremely dangerous." You were saying something else, weren't you? You say that one was more dangerous then the other. That, of course, is something completely different than saying one of them was extremely dangerous, isn't it? Well, what is correct?
A Well, I can't remember to have used the word "extremely".
Q Did you say that one was more dangerous than the other
A I would assume so because I vaguely remembered that.
Q In that case I must assume that you did not wish to ex press in your affidavit that one of the methods to hake sea water drinkable was extremely dangerous. You did not wish to express that thought, did you?
A No, I did not.
Q. You are continuing with your affidavit: "Consequently that is for this reason that one of those methods was extremely dangerous, General Schroeder, Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe, requested Himmler to place experimental subjects at the disposal of the Luftwaffe at Dachau. How did you get that knowledge?
A. I have no knowledge about that.
Q. Well then how is it that this passage gets into your affidavit? Well no other conclusion can be drawn but that General Schroeder, or Professor Schroeder, in his capacity as medical chief of the army, requested Himmler to place experimental subjects at his disposal, since he considered these experiments extremely dangerous, or at least one of those methods extremely dangerous isn't that right?
A. I couldn't draw that conclusion at that time.
Q. You couldn't draw it and you didn't want to draw it?
A. No.
Q. Was this affidavit submitted to you in that form afterwards? After your interrogation?
A. Yes.
Q. Why didn't you object against it?
A. I repeatedly told you the reasons. I had no power of differentiation because of my State of Health to differentiate between positive knowledge and conclusion.
Q. Witness, I must ask you these questions in this case because it is clear that any further statement would be extremely incriminating for my client if it wasn't correct. In that case I ask you not to get annoyed if I put such questions to you. In figure 4 it is further stated -- have your found figure 4? "Himmler approved Schroeder's request and the experiments were carried out. It was expected that some of the prisoners would die as a result of the experiments but I do not remember whether deaths occurred." I ask you how did this passage originate, namely, that it was expected that some prisoners would die as a result of the experiments?
A. As I remember there is a report contained in the document, and I think that this report was submitted to me. On the basis of this report and our subsequent discussions this formulation was chosen on the part of the Prosecution.
Q. Were you asked what conclusions you drew from said report?
A. I cannot remember any details but I don't think so.
Q. Did you consider yourself capable to draw any such conclusions from a report?
A. No.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel at this time the Tribunal will be in recess.
(A short recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
Dr. Seidl: (for the defendant Dr. Oberheuser: Mr. President, the defendant Oberheuser asks to be excused from the afternoon session because she is still suffering somewhat from the consequences of her operation. A medical certificate will be submitted later.
THE PRESIDENT: On request of Dr. Seidl, attorney for the defendant Oberheuser, that she be excused from this afternoon's session if her absence will not prejudice her she may be excused. A medical certificate is to be filed in due time with the Secretary General.
BY DR. MARX:
Q. With the approval of the Tribunal I shall now continue with the examination of the witness. Witness, I shall show you the excerpt from the document book again. We had stopped at the point in number 4 where you said that "Schroeder and his associates in the Luftwaffe must have known, according to my opinion, that these experiments, as well as the low pressure and freezing experiments, would not have been conducted on volunteers only. Now I ask you, did you have any factual evidence for this assertion?
A. No.
Q Then how did this come to be put in the affidavit?
A. It was an assumption of mine on the basis of Officer Schroeder's position.
Q. Then the question was brought up whether volunteers were used in these experiments, is that so.
A. Yes.
Q. And you said that in your opinion the experiments were conducted on non-volunteers; and didn't you see that at all yourself?
A. I cannot remember details. It is possible that I said that.
Q. Did you realize that this was a very important change, that this would be a very important charge, or didn't you realize that?
A. No.
Q. Now, will you please look at Document No. 371, Prosecution Exhibit 186 in Document Book VIII. That is the second part of the excerpt. On Page 1 it says "This is your affidavit of the 14th of October 1946." In this document you spoke about experiments of Dr. **********, Officer Dr. Dohmen and Dr. Hagen; what did you know about these experiments from your own observation or what did you know remember when you were brought to Numbers?
A I did not know or remember anything.
Q But you expressed certain knowledge; were documents shown to you by the Prosecution?
A I cannot say from memory.
Q Now, a few questions on the document itself. You say under No. 5 that Dr. Eugen Hagen, Oberstabsarzt of the Luftwaffe, and Constultant Hygienist, and also been doing research work at the Natzweiler Camp in an effort to discover effective innoculation against epidemic and jaundico I ask you first, how does it happen the emphasis is given to Dr. Hagen's capacity as Oberstabsarzt in the Luftwaffe and Consultant Hygienist; did you yourself give these, in fact?
A No.
Q Did you know he was Oberstabsarzt in the Luftwaffe?
A I don't believe that I knew it.
Q. Did you know he was consultant hygienist?
A No, unless that was indicated in the document.
Q Do you know what a consultant hygienist is at all; please tell the Tribunal?
A I have no actual conception of his work.
Q Did you know that Officer Hagen, aside from his position as Oberstabsarzt in the Luftwaffe and consulting Hygienist in the Air Fleet Reich, was something else, that he had a civilian position at the University of Strasbourg, did you know that?
A Not unless the document showed it.
Q Do you know it today?
A From the files of the trial, yes.
Q Did you know what the work of an officer of hygiene was, what he had to do with Reich Agencies at the Reich Research Council; or other agencies; I mean research work; research assignments; do you know anything about that?
A No.
Q And you also say under the same number; No. 5, that it is true that Dohmen collaborated with Hagen in 1944 in concentration camp Natzweiler and experiments on involuntary human beings were conducted; and you also say that deaths occurred; can you remember making such a statement?
A But not on the basis of my own knowledge.
Q Well; then why did you make such a statement in that affidavit; such a serious charge; you surely must have realized the nature of an affidavit; you knew that that is a violation of an oath if you make incorrect statements; or even negligent statements; did I understand you correctly if I say that all of your statements on this point are based merely on assumptions on your part; that you had no factual knowledge of these experiments?
A Yes.
DR. MARX: Your Honors, I should like to point out one thing. The Tribunal will recall that the witness Schmidt called by the Prosecution on the 9th of January 1947, testified here, German Transcript page 1375, and said that no human experiments were conducted at all concerning hepatitis.
Q Now, my last question on this subject. Witness; you say under No. * in the same document; which is before you, that Professor Schroeder was informed of these ostensible experiments; and he must have been informed before Professor Hagen was a doctor in the medical service of the Luftwaffe?
MR. HARDY: May it please Your Honor; before the witness answered this question; defense counsel stated witness Schmidt on January 9 testified not hepatitis experiments had been conducted on human beings. If my recollection is correct I directed the examination of that particular witness, and I believe the witness stated to her knowledge no experiments were conducted as to the research of hepatitis, and I want to clarify that before the question is put to the witness.
DR. MARX: Your Honor, I can not say with certainty, but as far as I remember the witness Schmidt in answer to my question, I believe, said that she could not assert that the hepatitis experiments were experiments on human beings. If the Prosecutor thinks his memory is better, I will say nothing, but until the contrary is proved I should like to maintain my point of view. But this isn't important. The only question here is the witness admits what was said on this point was not said on the basis of his own knowledge.
Q Witness, now I come back to my question, under No. 6, in this document which is before you you said that Professor Schroeder, and you also mentioned Handloser, but Schroeder is the one I am interested in, you said Officer Schroeder must have knowledge of these ostensible experiments because Hagen was a doctor in the medical service of the Luftwaffe. I ask you, am I to take it that this assertion is again merely an assumption on your part?
A Yes.
Q You did not have any factual evidence for it?
A That is true.
Q The next document -- please keep your affidavit of the 14th of October 1946 before you -- you spoke of the typhus experiments as well, is it again the case that you did not speak from your own knowledge and your own memory and describe the facts, but that you were merely drawing conclusions as subsequently, from documents?
A Yes.
Q. Did you know anything at all about typhus experiments over? Did you over hear anything about typhus experiments?
A. As far as the documents - the correspondence of our office indicated, yes, but nothing beyond that.
Q. If you look at No. 4, you make the assertion that Haagen was under the protection of the Medical Office of the Luftwaffe. Do you mean to say that these alleged experiments were conducted on concentration camp inmates on behalf of and with the knowledge of the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe?
A. I have no facts substantiating that.
Q. I am interested in the expression "under the protection of the Medical Chief of the Luftwaffe." You didn't use this expression yourself?
A. No.
Q. And then only one more question. Under No. 8 in the same document you say that "Generaloberstabsartz Dr. Oskar Schroeder certainly know about Haagen's experiments on human experimental subjects." On what do you base this assertion? It is only an assumption, but why did you say "certainly"? You did not make this statement yourself?
A. Yes I did. That was probably a limitation which I made.
Q. One could also say that it is an intensification. If I say "certainly" I could easily give the impression that that is to confirm the statement.
A. No, but it was meant in a sense of "probably".
Q. You meant to say "I assume that he might have known about it."? That is what you meant to say?
A. Yes.
Q. You know how that was translated into the English? Did you see the Translation? Did it say "I suppose"?
A. I didn't see the translation.
Q. Then may I state in conclusion that all your assertion: which concern Professor Schroeder or the Medical Inspectorates of the Luftwaffe are merely assumptions or conclusions drawn by you from documents presented to you?
A. Yes.
Q. But you admit that you have no factual evidence from your own knowledge for making such statements?
A. No, I did not.
Q. And you admit that you have no right to draw such conclusions. First, from the point of view of your state of health at the time and, in the second place, because it was not your job but the job of the court to draw conclusions from documents?
A. I did not realize that.
Q Do you admit that, in a careful examination of your knowledge and your mental capacities, you should have refused to make such statements?
A. Yes, I should have.
Q. DR. MARX: I have no further questions to put to this witness.
BY DR. SAUTER (Defense Counsel for the defendant Blome):
Q. Witness, I must put an affidavit to you which you made on the 4th of October, 1946, to the prosecution. This affidavit is the Document Book 9, On the Extermination of tubercular Poles. Its number is 441, Exhibit 205. Do you remember this affidavit?
A. Yes.
Q. It is the same affidavit which has been read here twice I believe, and at the end of which was mentioned the figure of 8-10,000 tubercular Poles, which you then had changed to -"Numerous". You remember this affidavit?
A. Yes.
Q. Witness, do you know when the defendant Dr. Blome became acquainted with Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler?
A. No.
Q. You said "no"?
A. No, I cannot say.
Q. Do you know it now? According to the trial?
A. I've forgotten again.
Q. Please?
A. I've forgotten again.
Q. You've forgotten? But you were here in the court room when the defendant Blome said, under oath, that he not Himmler only in July or August of 1943. Do you remember now?
A. Yes, that's right.
Q. Could that be right? Could it be true what the defendant Blome said on oath here that he not Himmler in July or August 1943? I'm asking you because you were always with Himmler and you were his special confident. According to your knowledge can that be true?
A. I have no reason to think that it is not true.
Q. Do you know, or when you made your statement on the 24th of October, 1946, did you know when this plan for the extermination of the tubercular Poles existed? In what year?
A. I did not remember this at all when the document was shown to me.
Q. You didn't remember the thing at all?
A. No.
Q. Fitness, you remember from Document Book 9 this project - drive against the Poles? That a number of documents were submitted here but this terrible drive which was planned and that these documents originated with you?
That you yourself had passed on many documents and that you signed your name to this notation? And, today, you are telling us, under oath, that you've forgotten all this? Have I understood you correctly?
A. Yes.
Q. Then, in a short time, you have forgotten that the plan went through your hands - the plan to kill eight or ten thousand Poles, or twenty-five thousand or thirty thousand Poles? You've forgotten that completely? Do you really want to say that, under oath, witness.
A. Yes
Q. Witness, you know today that the plan for the extermination of these tubercular Poles existed in the 1942? You know that certainly from the trial and from the documents? Isn't that true?
A. Yes.
Q. In your affidavit which I quoted just now you say as follows: (I quote)."Dr. Blome, from time to time, called *n Himmler and supported Greiser's suggestion". Greiser's suggestion, which you are referring to here - that was his suggestion to have these twenty-five or thirty thousand incurably sick tubercular Poles liquidated? Isn't that true? Isn't that true?
A. Yes.
Q. And the suggestion was made in 1942? You just greed to that didn't you?
A. Yes.
Q. Then, how do you come to say that this plan was discussed by Blome with Himmler - or rather that Blome called on Himmler from time to time for that purpose in 1942, whereas you have just said that you have no reason to believe that he knew Himmler in 1942; that he met him only in 1943?
Do you still assert today, that at the time of this plan in 1942, as it says here, Blome called on Himmler from time to tine?
A. I never meant to say that.
Q. But it says so here witness. You can read, can't you, witness? If it says here Dr. Blome called on Himmler from tine to tine and supported Greiser's suggestion there can be no difference of opinion on this sentence, not even for you, and I should like to know from you how did you come to make such a statement, under oath? Under oath, witness? Explain it to me.
(No response).
Q. (continuing) "Witness, I am waiting for your answer.
A. The same thing is true of this affidavit as of all the others. I signed it in the form in which it was submitted to me.
Q. Witness, I cannot accept that answer. In this case you cannot get out of it with that explanation. Witness, in all the other cases you have always said what had been shown to you was only conclusions which you had drawn from documents, isn't that true? Now tell me a single document, witness, where it is supposed to have said that Blome called on Himmler from time to time to support Greiser's suggestion. Tell me of even one document if it exists at all.
A. There are no documents for this.
Q. But witness, the interrogator or the prosecution could not have shown you such a document then. He did not have any documents for this.
A. He asked me whether Professor Blome ever called on Himmler and I said "Yes." Then these two sentences were probably set up like that although they did not belong together from a point of view of time
Q. And you, Dr. Brandt, signed it on your oath, didn't you?
A. Yes.
Q. Then today you no longer maintain this statement?
A. No.
Q. Witness, in your affidavit of the 24th of October 1946, that is the same affidavit, there is the following sentence. You say first that Dr. Blome called on Himmler from time to time and supported Greiser's suggestion, a statement which you cannot maintain today. Then you say, and I quote: "The end of 1942 and beginning of 1943, Greiser carried out the extermination of the Jews in the Warthe Gau, and the drive against tubercular Poles was completed at the same time with the drive against the Jews. According to my memory as a result of the suggestion made by Blome," ... you say Blome, witness, ..."and Greiser, 8,000 to 10,000 Poles were exterminated." End of quotation. Then later you changed this number to read "numerous Poles." Witness, do you want to maintain this statement today, under oath?