Q According to the decree of 1942, the research system fell within the framework cf the mutual tasks?
AAs far as I know, research was not mentioned at all in the decree.
Q Do you know the size of the working staff of this new Chief?
A Yes, I knew it.
Q Was it large or was it small?
A It was very small, very few people.
Q During the presentation of the Prosecution case, no differentation was made between the decree of 1942 and the decree of 1944. The chief of the Medical Service of the Armed Forces is continually being mentioned. The impression may be created thereby as in 1944, that is on the 1st of September there was just a little unimportant organizational extension of an already existing agency. Would you please tell me what was the real reason which led to the extension of the jurisdiction of this chief?
A Of course, it was the requirements of that period. In the last phase of the war it became necessary to concentrate everything that was possible. On the other hand, it was necessary, and that may be the decisive part of this decree, that through this second decree of the chief of the Medical Service of 1944, this position was separated toward to other offices which Generaloberstabsarzt Handloser occupied as Army Medical Inspector.
Q With reference to this decree which was brought into effect in December 1944, were any effects visible?
A It did not have any practical effect any more because at this period of time the possibility of effect of any decree became practically nil. I believe that this was about 6 or 7 months prior to the end of the war. In any case, it could not have a decisive effect any more.
Q Would it net have been of important in that regard, that this very minimum of a staff, as you described it, was newly extended and had to be extended?
A It falls within the same frame work which I have just hinted. During that period of time such a measure of time was not possible any more. I personally experienced the development of that office beside my own office, and I know exactly the difficulties which arose at the time which made the fulfillment of their task impossible.
Q At what period of time was your office, Science and Research, practically put into effect?
A From approximately the middle of February 1944.
Q Do you know whether General oberstabsarzt Handloser belonged to the Reich Research Counsel?
A I know that he was not a member of it.
Q You knew Generalstabsarzt Schriber; do you not? You mentioned that he belonged to the Reich Research Counsel as a Plenipotentiary for combating epidemics. Was Schrieber in that capacity, subordinated to Generaloberstabsarzt Handloser?
A He was subordinate to Handloser. I said this morning that the members of the operation staff of the Reich Research Counsel were subordinated to Goering personally, and thus they could not be subordinated to anybody else.
Q Do you know that Generalstabsarzt Schrieber exercised a double function. And I am putting the question to you for the reason - because I want to knew whether Schriber had to report to Handloser in his capacity as Sanitary Inspector?
A I do not think so, I don't think he had to do that, and I don't think he did it.
Q Do you think he was allowed to do so?
A In my opinion, he would have then had to obtain the permission of Goering.
Q Very well, did you ever discuss experiments on human beings as they were carried out in concentration camps with Generaloberstabsarzt Handloser?
A No, I have not even hinted at them.
Q Professor Leibrandt at one time mentioned Doctor Bernhardt as an Oberfeldarzt of the Armed Forces, and in order to clarify this point, I want to ask you what control did Dr. Branhardt exercise.
What was he in relation to Handloser, and to the chief of the Armed Medical Service?
AAs far as I know Doctor Bernhardt, as far as the Lehrmacht was concerned, belonged to the Air Division at Muenster. He was a member of the Luftwaffe. He was from there assigned to a certain task or he was classified as essential. At least he was working in the agency of Doctor Conti in the Reich Ministry of Interior, and there took over the mental functions. I have never heard anything about it.
Q Some that in this case, there was no connection with the chief of the Medical Service?
A No.
DR. NELTE: Thank you. I have no further questions.
BY DR. PRIBILLA:
Q Witness, Brandt, you know the defendant Professor Restock, and have known him for some time?
A Yes.
Q Were you active on the same clinic as he was?
A Yes.
Q And you went with him to Berlin, and you were then the Oberstabsarzt in that clinic, actually exercising that position until the beginning of the war, yes?
A I did not exercise that position practically during the war, although I was at the clinic and continued my work there,
Q But, even before the war, you were already escort physician of the Fuehrer, and your duties were performed at the clinic in so far as your activities as escort physician to the Fuehrer permitted?
A Yes, that is from the beginning of the war in 1939.
Q The situation changed in as much as you were more or less permanently outside and only on occasions visited the clinic?
A Yes.
Q During that time from 1939 to 1943; did you frequently see Professor Rostock?
A No, I met him on occasions. During the first part oi the war he was always continually outside of Berlin, so that little personal contact between us existed.
Q Whenever you did met him, and that is from the time of 1939 to 1943, did you then inform him about your activities a.s escort physician to the Fuehrer?
A No, I did not inform him about any details.
Q Did you inform him about your other activities, for instance, in connection with the Euthanasia program?
A No. The only subject of which I informed him was in the preliminary work which was connected with the sick transport and other latter hospital facilities.
Q For what reason did you not inform him about your authority and activities which you exercised?
A That was in the fundamental part of the orders which I received, which I was not even able to state to Rostock in detail. It was necessary for me to keep this thing to myself and to only inform those who were immediately effected by them. That was a directive which we always strictly complied with, and which applied to all of those who were in the close circle around the Fuehrer.
Q If I understand you correctly, there was a concrete order to that effect, namely, to keep everything secret?
A Yes, secrecy by all means, yes.
Q And, you personally felt, yourself, obligated to carry out that order, even toward your acquaintances?
A Yes, naturally.
Q Now, through a decree of the 17 of August 1942; and that is Document 080, Exhibit No. 5, did you receive certain coordination tasks on the economic field between the civilian sector on one side and the military agencies on the other. You knew the decree?
A That is a decree which also simultaneously appointed me General Commissioner, yes.
Q And, that was in August 1942?
Q. In order to exorcise these tasks did you institute a new office?
A. Not in the beginning. At the beginning I exercised this activity from the Fuehrer's Headquarters and only had a mail connection with the Reich Chancellery, but then I did not have any further office.
Q. kith reference to this activity which started on the basis of the decree of 1942, did Rostock take over any official activity for you?
A. No.
Q. And then in September 1943 the second decree was issued, and that is Document 081, Exhibit No. 6. On the strength of this decree the co-ordination tasks were extended and you wore given the task of co-ordinating the various interests, that is, in the field of health services, and, as it states in the decree, you were to steer these matters according to directives or by way of directives. How could that have been understood, judging from your knowledge at that time?
A. I myself received certain directives and I had been given the authority by virtue of the same degree to appoint deputies with reference to Rostock, in the course of the subsequent time, on the occasion of the second decree, he took over the office for Science and Research again by virtue of the directive which I gave to him.
Q. You already previously stated a number of tasks which were taken over on the basis of this decree. I shall not revert to that once more. Later, in connection with the office of Rostock it will again be clarified. But I want to ask you very concretely whether, on the basis of this decree, there was any directive from which could be seen that you had to deal with research, that is create research assignments or research fields?
A. No, these were not concrete fields out in the beginning we were dealing with fundamental questions of the higher schools, which Rostock was to handle. That was the maintenance and continuance with regard'to students as well as with regard to teachers. Of these tasks there is perhaps one which I could name now --collaboration with the Office for Planning and Economy, which dealt with natters and saw that these supplies were set according to medical viewpoints. It was a fixed task for Rostock which arose from the office of Planning and Economy.
Q. Witness, if I understand you correctly, I can conclude from your answer that you were concerned with general questions but were not concerned with any concrete assignment of tasks in the field of research?
A. No, there were no concrete tasks in the field of research.
Q. You already mentioned, witness, that you chose Rostock because he was a scientist and you gave him the task in order to maintain scientific levels in Germany and you mentioned the differences with other agencies which you experienced. How did it come about that you managed to choose Professor Rostock as your collaborator? Was there any political intention, any tactical intention, in connection with that?
A. I selected Rostock because in my official position I wanted to have men to represent my two office groups who could certify to the outside that this was a medical office. I initially selected Rostock because he was a professor at the University and because I knew him; any political considerations did not play any part whatsoever. If they had played a part I would probably not have selected Rostock.
Q. Witness, my question was not quite answered. When I asked you whether you had any political reasons, then I could also have meant that you either wanted to choose a specially active representative of National Socialism or that you wanted the contrary.
A. In connection with Rostock there was no question of any political considerations. Rostock was a strictly non-political person. He did not pursue a political extreme in any way.
Q. I would like to frame my question even more concretely. When giving somebody this task, didn't you want to give it to some non-political personality in order to establish a counter-balance against Conti, etc?
A. This fact already resulted out of ay position because when I selected Rostock for this office of Science and Research I was already engaged in a severe struggle with the political exponent, Dr. Conti.
Q. And the line pursued by Conti was in contradiction to a scientific and medical purpose?
A. It had nothing whatsoever to do with it. These were two different worlds.
Q. The work in your department, Science and Research -- did that already start in December 19-5, or only later?
A. No, it practically began in February 1944, when this branch agency for this agency at Belitz was ready, so that we could both move in.
Q. It is correct that Professor Rostock, up until the end of the war, continued his activity as dean of the medical faculty and the leadership of the Surgical University Clinic in Berlin?
A. Yes.
Q. Isn't that in contradiction to the tasks which you had given him? Didn't you want him to remove himself completely from that activity?
A. No. I have already just stated that I had selected Rostock because he was dean of the medical faculty of the University of Berlin. I wanted to occupy my office with a clear exponent of the higher schools of learning so that this office would not be brought into a manner of acting as was the case with other political offices. I also wanted Rostock to continue directing his clinic. I have stated that I also remained in this clinic for the same reason, in order to clearly emphasize the medical aspect.
Q. So I may summarize that you approved the continuance of Rostock's activities right from the start?
A. Yes.
Q. For you, es Commissioner General for Medical and Health Services, were there other fields of work which were not included and worked upon by the Department of Science and Research and the other office?
A. Yes. For me there were decisive tasks which I had to handle myself and with which the just previously mentioned offices did not have anything to do.
Q. With reference to these tasks which were not included by these two just mentioned offices, but which you worked upon yourself, did the program Of the combatting of chemical warfare agents -- was this program included?
A. Yes, that also was included.
Q. Did you personally work on these Questions or did you have any collaborators?
A. Within the combatting of the chemical warfare agents I handled all these questions by myself. My collaborators were not From my office but they were from establishments which until then had occupied themselves with these problems. There were certain offices of the Speer Ministry and there were individual man from the proving grounds, there were responsible people from air raid precaution system, etc.
Q. You at least informed Rostock about thest tasks which you kept fop yourself?
A. I did not bother him with them because Rostock had so much to do With the clinic that I was glad when I could devote all my time to these other tasks. He did not receive any further information from me.
Q. Now if your were informed about one of these fields, and I am, for instance, thinking about the information given to you by Dr. Sievers about the results of experiments of Professor Hirt with reference to Lost damages, didn't you then inform Dr. Rostock about this question either?
A. No, I did not inform Rostock about that.
Q You received yet another authority and that was in March of you were to summarize medical questions within the Reich Research Counsel. Will you please oce more confirm that this was actually in March of 1945?
A It certainly was in the year 1945; it may be that it was in April when I received this decree, which was signed by Goering. In any case, in this connection I did not answer nor did I do anything else, because at that period of time Berlin was already located within the zone of operations.
Q Were your informed by Rostock, as the head of the Science Research, anything from which you could conclude that the office of Rostock received knowledge about experiments on human beings? Do you remember any such information coming to you?
A I had not received any information of that kind from Rostock, however, I am convinced that if he had had it himself, or if he had known anything at all about that, he would have informed me of that fact at that time. I want to conclude that he did not know anything at all about them. I did not discuss this problem with him and I have only, with regard to experiments, discussed the program of animals with him, which had been detailed and requested to him by some institute. In any case, we did not discuss any experiments on human beings.
Q Would it have been the duty of Rostock to inform you of such matters if he had come to know about them?
A He certainly would have informed me. It would also have been his duty to inform me ashe was my subordinate in this case.
Q And you can confirm that from the practice that when you collaborated in such a case, you would have been informed by him?
A I certainly would have been informed by him.
Q Thank you, I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Papers to the Secretary General.
DR. SEIDL: Counsel for the Defendants Gebhardt, Oberhauser and Fischer.
BY DR. SEIDL:
Q Witness, yesterday when you discussed the Sulfanilamide Experiments, you mentioned penicillin; what did you mean by that?
A I mentioned penicillin in order to express the fact that we, in Germany, in the years from 1941 to 1942 reconsidered Sulfanilamide as the therapeutical medicine, which was discussed wherever doctors assembled; similarly as on the other side the problem of penicillin was taken. I only meant to make a comparison in this way.
Q And on that occasion you mentioned Professor Krueger; is it correct that Professor Krueger was the consulting surgeon with the Army and Navy in Research?
A Professor Krueger was consultant physician with the Group South and Group Center in the East. I have at one time seen him in the vicinity of Posna and I had also visited him later on, He was problematical personality and from the very beginning he had decided himself for a certain Sulfanilamide drug at a period of time when the effectiveness of Sulfanilamide for prevention of injuries did not seem secure. For this reason, he was combatted in his opinions because it was believed that the younger medical officer depends too much on the effectiveness of Sulfanilamide and as a result of this might neglect the necessary treatment of the wounds.
Q Professor Krueger was then the representative of the groups, which attached a special importance to Sulfanilamide when combatting wound infections contrary to other groups, which were of another opinion?
A In contrast to others, yes. At the time, the opinions were still completely experimental and the effectiveness of Sulfanilamide had not as yet been determined.
Q Yesterday, you spoke about the difficult situation of the German troops in Russia during the winters of 1941 and 1942; will you agree with me when I say that in view of the experiences of that winter the question of the effect of Sulfanilamide was a military, medical problem of the first degree?
A I agree with this concept.
Q I have no further questions.
DR. WEISSGERBER for Defendant Sievers.
BY DR. WEISGERBER.
Q Witness, this morning you told us that you saw the Defendant Sievers one single time and that you spoke to him then; is that correct?
A Yes.
Q Did you know his official position?
A No, I did not know his official position.
Q Did you know that an institute for military science and research was affiliated to the office of Ahnenerbe?
A No, I did not know that.
Q When talking to Sievers that one tune, did Sievers then tell you that he had an order to speak to you about the Lost Research work of Professor Hirt?
A No, he told me that he had the order to give me this final report about the Lost work of Professor Hirt and he had to do that by order of Himmler, but he did not say he had the order to discuss the contents of these matters.
Q At that time was any mention made about any other experiments?
A No, we did not discuss experiments at all. Sievers merely handed this report to me as the final report of Professor Hirt regarding Lost treatment; as such there was no further connection.
Q You knew that Sievers was not a physician?
A I had to assume that immediately, otherwise ho would have approached me in a different manner; I did not know him and I did not have any conception whatever where he came from; what agency he came from and I did not ask him about it.
Q You, therefore, had no reason whatsoever to discuss any experiments with him?
A No, I did not speak to him about that.
Q Did you know Professor Hirt?
A No, at that time I did not know Professor Hirt?
Q But later you became acquainted with the official position of Professor Hirt?
A Yes, I was told he worked at Strassburg University.
Q This morning you spoke about the military necessity of the institution of a skeleton collection and you denied that necessity; would such a necessity be confirmed under different points of view?
A From the point of view of a scientific interest it would be correct if skeleton collections were made. I know of very extensive collections which are affiliated with every anatomical institute. In particular, I know of a large collection at the Museum in Berlin, These arc really purely scientific interests, but certainly not military interests.
Q Could a layman, a man who is not a physician, make the decisive judgment about the necessity of such a collection?
A I cannot answer that question.
Q I have no further questions.
BY DR. FRITZ: (Defense Counsel for Defendant Rose) Q witness, did you know the defendant Rose before the 8th of May 1945, that is, before the collapse,
A Yes, I spoke to him once. I met him once, yes.
Q Did you ever have any other official connections with the defendant Rose as are mentioned in his affidavit of September 1946 which is Document 872, Exhibit 408?
A I only had two dealings with Rose, and since I don't know what document you are speaking of I think that we are there concerned with malaria treatment of paralytical questions, and then again there were nourishment questions concerning the same persons. 1 think these are questions where I dealt with Professor Rose.
Q Did you at any time speak to him about any points as were mentioned by the prosecution before May 1945?
A No.
Q Did you have any correspondence with him or did you deal with him in any other form directly or indirectly?
A No, neither directly or indirectly, nor by way of writing.
Q Did you ever see the defendant Rose as a participant in a discussion where the points were discussed which are here under indictment or where reports were made on those points?
A In order to answer this question, one would have to assume a common participation in such meetings, but I cannot remember any one occasion where I saw him or spoke to him. I said this morning what meetings I attended. If Professor Rose also attended these meetings it is certainly possible that I saw him, but certainly we did not establish any contact or speak to one another.
Q Witness, you were just speaking about meetings. I meant conferences, discussion. Meetings usually mean to describe larger congresses.
A I had no discussions whatsoever where Rose was present or where I met him. I cannot remember that.
DR. FRITZ: Thank You. Mr. President, I have no further questions.
BY DR. KAUFMANN: (Defense Counsel for Defendant Rudolf Brandt)
Q Dr. Brandt, I have one single question to put to you. The prosecution designates the defendant Rudolf Brandt as the so-called special referent of Himmler. Would you agree with me if I say that Rudolf Brandt was everything but a counselor of Himmler in matters which are the subject of this trial?
A That is my conviction. It is my conviction that first Himmler did not accept any advice in his questions on principle because had this been the case, such matters would not have been dealt with by him, and I am quite sure that Rudolf Brandt in particular would not have been in a position to give any advice to him. He would not have tolerated it.
DR. KAUFMANN: Thank you. I have no further questions.
BY DR. SAUTER: (Defense counsel for Defendant Blome)
Q Dr. Brandt, you may perhaps remember that the prosecution in their material Submitted a file by Professor Klieve with reference to a meeting of the so-called Blitzableiter Committee. This so-called Blitzableiter Committee was known as the agency in the Wehrmacht which dealt with the preparation of the defense of biological warfare. In this file about the meeting of this Blitzbleiter Committee Professor Klieve writes and says that the defendant Dr. Blome made utterances during that meeting which were to the effect that the Blitzableiter Committee was working much too slowly; that it had to be dissolved. He said that Blome would have to turn to Brandt; that is, your, or to Goering. I don't know whether this man, Dr. Klieve, will appear as a witness. I asked for him, and I therefore want to ask you Dr. Brandt, at any time did defendant Dr. Blome turn to you in this matter? Did he make any proposals to you? Please reply.
A I heard this work, Blitzableiter, for the first time through this document Klieve. I did not know that before. kith reference to such a proposal Blome certainly did not turn to me as can be seen from this Klieve document, orally nor by writing. I had no conversation or correspondence with him at all, and he never approached me with reference to this problem, Blitza-bleiter.
Q Dr. Brandt, I have a further question, referring to a different chap ter.
This morning during your examination you repeatedly spoke about differences which you yourself had with the Reich physicians' leader, Dr. Conti, and you also spoke of differences which the defendant Dr. Blome had with the same Dr. Conti. Dr. Blome was the deputy of Dr. Conti, and I am interested to know whether you can give us any more information as to what kind of differences existed between Dr. Blome and Dr. Conti, and to what these differences referred?
A Without going into details, I would like to describe them as follows: whenever physicians are represented as a community Dr. Blome was of the opinion that only professional reasons must be decisive for the manner in which they are represented, but that it would not be correct to involve a physician in political questions and put him into a political harness, thinking that one could further medicine by that.
In this connection whenever I got into contact with Dr. Blome I had many discussions with him. At these occasions it was clearly mentioned that in addition to the personality of Conti himself, which brought difficulties of its own with it, these mentioned material reasons were decisive.
Q In this connection, Dr. Brandt, I should like to put the following question to you: During these conversations which were carried on by Dr. Blome with you, did he say anything about wanting, under all circumstances, to take out physicians from Party matters and that for this reason he desired to separate the union of personnel which existed between the Reich Chamber of Physicians on one side, and the Main Department for Public Health on the ether and he wanted to do that for the reason that this so-called public health office was an express Party institution?
A The situation was as you described it, yes, exactly. Even in December 1944 we discussed this question. I think it was even after the decree which was mentioned this morning, the decree number 2 where the Army Medical Chief was separated.
Q Dr. Brandt, do you remember anything about the following: With reference to these conversations which you had with Dr. Blome did he complain to you that Dr. Conti, the Reich physicians' leader, kept many things away from him, Dr. Blome, so that Dr. Blome was not informed about important matters in the Reich Chamber of Physicians and matters which concerned the leadership of the medical profession?
My question is whether he told you that or whether he complained to you about it?
A He did that and the personality of Conti was always mentioned, who was a distrusting person, a difficult person to cope with, who concentrated everything to himself personally, everything that happened in his office, so that not one collaborator of his could receive any insight in the activity which he himself exercised.
Q witness, one further question. Do you know that this Dr. Conti, apart from other offices, had two main positions? Which were these positions?
A These were the two positions. One was a Party position, Reich Health Leader, and the other, Under Secretary of State of the Ministry of the Interior.
Q That is Reich Health Leader; is that identical with the Deputy Reich Physicians' Leader?
A The position was that, as far as personnel goes, he was the physicians' leader, and at the same time, Reich Health Leader. In addition, in the state sector he was Under Secretary of State of the Ministry of the the Interior. Dr. Blome was his representative in his capacity as physician's leader; that is, merely partly a representative of Conti's personality, not on the state sector.
Q The latter is very important to me, On the basis of your knowledge of questions of competence, you said that Conti in his capacity as State Secretary was not represented by Dr. Conti?
A No.
Q For that he had other collaborators?
A Yes, for that he had officials of the Ministry of the Interior who represented him.
Q In that connection, Dr. Brandt, I want to put the following questions to you: This morning you told us what position you yourself held within the euthanasia program. You naturally knew the jurisdiction and tasks of the participating agencies and persons. Did the defendant Dr. Blome exercise any function in this euthanasia program? Was he in any war participating in it?
A I did not meet him at all, and I heard nothing about that.
Q Witness, I am putting this question to you for the following reason. You remember that on the wall behind you there used to be a chart which was made according to the statements of the defendant Brack, and on this chart which I think you had, there is in the center a square for the State Secretary Conti in the Reich Ministry cf the Interior, and you, I am sure, will remember that to the right of this square there was a smaller square which said Dr. Blome. You remember that, don't you? You already explained that Dr. Blome had nothing to do with the euthanasia program and did not represent Dr. Conti when he acted in his capacity as Secretary of State. Low, is it your opinion that this chart which was made according to the statements of the defendant Brack, is wrong in respect to the square where Dr. Blome's name is mentioned?
A This square with reference to Dr. Blome is wrong, and Dr. Brack in his now chart already corrected that.
DR. SAUTER: In that case I have no further questions, Mr. President. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Is in anticipated that there will be any further cross examination by any of the defense counsel tomorrow morning?
DR. FROESCHMAN: (Counsel for defendant Brack) Mr. President, I have a number of questions which I want to put to the witness, Dr. Brandt, which will take some time.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Secretary General, here is another paper that belongs in your custody.
The Tribunal will now recess until 9:30 tomorrow --
MR. McHANEY: If it please the Tribunal, I would like to ask that the Tribunal rule that the witness, Karl Brandt, be confined so that he may not be talked to by any of the defense counsel, including his own defense counsel, until he has completed his examination on the stand.
DR. SERVATIUS: I don't know whether I understood correctly. I certainly shall be able to speak to my client, or is that to be excluded?
MR. McHANEY: I think he has now taken the stand and is to be treated as any other witness, and I think it is proper that in the case of any ordinary witness appearing before this Tribunal that he not be talked to by either side during the course of his examination once that examination has begun.
JUDGE SEBRING: Mr. McHaney, does the Tribunal understand from your statements that during the course of prosecution when the witness had once taken the stand, that throughout the course of the examination no member of the prosecution or its representatives attempted to discuss any matter with him at any time during the course of the examination?
MR. McHANEY: Well, I think that has teen uniformly true, your Honor. However, I can't speak for everyone. However, in view of the Tribunal's position, or rather, the question just put, I will ask that when Karl Brandt goes under cross examination tomorrow, that his defense counsel not be per mitted to then confer with him; at least, I would like a ruling to that effect.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, I-would be in complete agreement with this ruling. As soon as the witness is at the disposal of the prosecution I will not speak to him. However, before cross examination has started I must have the possibility to speak to my client.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal is of the opinion that under the circumstances at this present time counsel for defendant Karl Brandt may speak to him until the defendant is turned over to the prosecution for cross examination, and after that time the witness should be under the rule to not talk to anyone until his cross examination by the prosecution is completed. I understand that counsel for the defendant, Karl Brandt, is in accordance with that principle?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: The same principle will be followed with the other defendants when they take the stand.
The Tribunal is of the opinion, and I think the Tribunal's ruling was clear, that defendant Karl Brandt's own counsel and. no other counsel for any other defendant or anybody else, should consult with the defendant Karl Brandt during the course of this night. That's understood.
The Tribunal will now recess until 9:30 o'clock tomorrow morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 5 February 1947, at 0930 hours.)
Official transcript of tie American Military Tribunal in the matter of the Unit ed States of America, against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 5 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 I is now is session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal.
There will be crier in the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, will you ascertain that the defendants are all present in Court.
THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honors, all defendants are present in the Court Room.
THE PRESIDENT: Tie Secretary General will note for the record the fact that the defendants are all present in Court.
MARL BRANDT - Resumed EXAMINATION BY DR. FROESCHMANN:
Q. Witness, yesterday in the last part of your discussion of the uethanasia program - I would like to address same questions to you in that connection, Do you know that in August, 1939, an oral order had already preceded the written decree by Hitler to Bouhler?
A. No, I do not know anything about that However, I consider it possible because otherwise this concrete order to Bouhler would not have been given. I assume tint perhaps Bouhler may have had a certain contact about the preparations which w ere taking place between Dr. Conti and Lammers which, at the time, were immediately discussed at Danzig in the middle of September.
Q. Yesterday you have already spoken of the exceptions -- the persons who were not allowed to fall under the euthanasia program - and in this connection you lave already mentioned the war invalids.