A I said yesterday that the approval of the parents was necessary for the euthanasia of children, and I am of the opinion that such an approval was actually given,
Q Was the approval written approval or verbal approval?
A That I don't know. I cannot say that.
Q Have you ever seen any written approval?
A I believe that during the first period, when this authorization was submitted for signature to Bouhler and me, all the other papers were together with it, such as approvals, etc. It may be that during the later period we were only concerned with the authorization papers and that the other papers were left with the Reich Committee. However, I did see such letters of approval but I don't believe that they were in every case in writing but I think they were partly given orally through the local physician or other agency which dealt with that case.
Q Well, witness, let's look at this letter again. I find some difficulty in reconciling your testimony about the necessity of consent by the relatives of the child with what's written here in this letter. For example, the third line reads. "It seems that the relatives of Anna Gasse tried to obtain her release by every possible means." If, witness, it was necessary to obtain consent why was there any question about releasing Anna Gasse?
A I cannot say that either. According to my opinion, the child could not be kept in an institution if the parents wanted it at home.
Q And the last sentence which reads, "If from a medical point of view such release is warranted, one could perhaps take into consideration whether one should not perhaps comply with such request in the interest of the good reputation of the institution." Don't you find that language just a bit restrained, witness?
A Yes, I think it is very restrained.
Q Let's pass on to another matter.
What happened to the insane asylums in Poland and in Russia in the areas which were overrun by the German army?
A I cannot say what happened to these institutions. I saw one single institution in Winiza which was completely evacuated since Wehrmacht units had moved in. Otherwise, I saw no other institutions for mental patients and I don't know what happened to them.
Q Doctor, you had authority under the order of 1 September 1939 up until the Spring of 1942. By that time all of Poland and a substantial part of Western Russian had been overrun?
A Yes.
Q Didn't you obtain information about what was being done with the patients in Polish and Russian asylums?
A No, I received no information about it.
Q Do you know what happened to them?
A No, I don't know that either.
Q Do you know whether euthanasia was extended to such areas?
A It is not known to me that euthanasia was extended to these territories.
Q Suppose we get your reaction to Document NO. 1758.
Witness, the document which has been handed to you consists of extracts taken from the diary of General Halder and I would like to direct your attention to some of these excerpts.
I ask that this document be marked as Prosecution Exhibit 444 for identification.
Do you see the excerpt taken from Volume VII, page 92 of the original, dated 21 September 1941?
A Yes.
Q It reads "General Wagner (Quartermaster General)" and then Item d says, "Attitude towards the inmates of insane asylums in the occupied territory." Do you find that?
A Yes.
Q And then on page 100 on 26 September 1941 "General Quartermaster Wagner" Item h "Insane asylums in area of Army Group "Nord". Russians consider feeble minded people holy. Despite of that, killing necessary."
A Yes.
Q And on page 106, "October 1, 1941, General Wagner (Quartermaster General).......Insane asylums Nowgorod.........." Does this document indicate to you that Euthanasia was extended to asylums in Russia?
A It says here, "Despite of that, killing necessary" that is under the 26 of September 1941. I did not speak to General Quartermaster Wagner nor with Mr. Halder regarding these questions. I did not speak to him nor did he approach me so that I can say nothing further regarding these 3 indications than what is seen anyway. I do not know who was supposed to carry through this killing and I do not know what this one word "Insane asylums Nowgorod", that is the 1st of October 1941, means; this is just one word. It can well be the case that this was merely discussed or that something should happen there, but I do not know.
Q Herr Brandt, how much time did you spend in the Fuehrer's Headquarters on the Eastern Front?
A From 1939 until 1942, with very short interruptions, I was there. Later, the reverse was true. I was there on lesser occasions and was more on the way -- on journeys.
Q And you also have related to the Tribunal that you made an inspection tour in the front areas of the Russian Front before Moscow in 1941, the winter of 1941?
A In the winter of 1941, that is from the 7th until the 10th of January, I was there.
Q And you were never consulted in the Fuehrer's Headquarters about extending euthanasia to asylums in Russia?
A No. I did not take part in any conference where General Oberst Halder was present. I did not participate in any conferences where General Quartermaster Wagner was together with the Fuehrer. All this took place--those discussions of this kind, which were called discussions of the situation -took place somewhere else and I did not participate in them.
Q Do you find it curious that euthanasia was extended to Russia without consultation with one of the leaders of the euthanasia program in Germany itself?
A I must say that I was not included in that program and I was not informed by the Fuehrer about this question. It was never under discussion.
Q Herr Brandt, after 1942, don't you think that you had sufficient power and authority to put a stop to killing of Eastern workers in euthanasia institutes?
A I did not know anything about it. I did not know that Eastern workers were killed in euthanasia institutions. Consequently it was not possible for me to do anything against it in any form whatsoever. If I had learned that healthy persons were killed in these institutions I am sure that I would have done everything to prevent it, not only because these were institutions for the sick.
Q Herr Brandt, let's move along to a different subject. I listened to your testimony with respect to your own power and authority as General Commissioner and Reichs Commissioner and also as to the power and authority of the Defendant Handloser and the Defendant Rostock, with great attention, and from the picture you have drawn it seems that one must conclude that you had very little authority and very little power; and that although Handloser was appointed as Chief of the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht in July 1942, he really was not Chief of the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht because he didn't have any power; and although Rostock was Chief of your office for Science and Research, he had no concern with matters of science and research and that that was just a gross misnomer, and was really concerned only with the matter of economy and the allocation of medical supplies, except that it may have had some passing concern with trying to keep medical schools open. I would like to investigate with you some of those matters now and I suggest that we first discuss for a moment the position of the Defendant Handloser. He was the Army Medical Inspectorate from 1941 until September 1944, was he not?
A You must take into consideration the double position which he held by being Army Physician and Amy Medical Inspector. In his capacity as Army Physician he was tied to the OKH; in his capacity as Army Inspector he belong to an institution which belonged to the Home Territory. Since Generaloberstab sarzt Handloser was tied to the OKH, his position as Army Medical Inspector was administrated by him together with the OKW and this position he held, I think, up until August of 1944, when, on the strength of a new decree, this union was separated and he himself became, in 1942, the Chief of the Medical Services of the Armed Forces.
Q Witness, which branch of the Wehrmacht had the largest medical service?
A Certainly the Army and for that reason at that time, in 1942, the Chief of the Medical Service of the Army was promoted to Chief of the Medical Services for the Armed Forces, which includes all branches.
Q Would you say that the medical service of the army was larger than the medical services of the other branches of the armed forces combined?
A I cannot say that with certainty but I would assume that, according to figures, that is with reference to the number of medical officers, it was larger than the Luftwaffe and Navy together.
Q And didn't the Army Medical Inspectorate handle substantially all medical problems for all branches of the Wehrmacht with the exception of those medical problems which related primarily to one of the other branches of the armed forces, for instance, aviation medicine?
A The individual branches of the armed forces worked on medical questions by themselves. Because of this independent activity, remarkable happenings occurred. For instance, in the same locality, let us assume it is the Crimea, where there were certain Navy units, the same vaccination procedure was carried out which was done at different periods by the Army, Navy and Air Force. This is merely an indication that within the individual Wehrmacht branches there was a basical independency of action and it was the desire of the independent Wehrmacht branches to maintain their special position, even with reference to their own academies. Therefore, it was not the case that the Army was in any way in a leading position regarding its measures which it took within its own branch and was in any way suggestive to the measures of the Navy and Air Force.
Q Now, Herr Brandt, after Handloser was appointed as chief of the medical services of the Wehrmacht, on 28 July 1942, was he or was he not the superior of Hippke?
A He was not the official superior of Hippke.
Q Now, Herr Brandt, we are not in this trial concerned with the right of the superior to punish his subordinate or matters of that concern. I am, however, concerned and this case is concerned with whether or not Handloser could stop certain research work which was being carried on by Hippke as the Luftwaffe Medical Inspectorate?
AAccording to my opinion that would only have been possible; that is, to stop them or not to stop them, if we were concerned with matters which equally concerned all branches of the armed forces. But this word, mutual, I think, was expressly mentioned in the decree so that everything which does not represent a mutual basis was outside the jurisdiction of Handloser and was within the framework of the respective Wehrmacht branch which dealt with any such matter. It may have been the Navy or the Air Force.
Q As I put it to you, medical research on typhus, medical research on epidemic jaundice, medical research on yellow fever, are mutual problems. Could Handloser issue orders to Hippke initiating or stopping research work with respect to such matters?
A Before giving my reply may I look at the decree once more, which is relevant in connection with this order? That is the decree of the 28th of July.
(Document handed to witness).
A (Cont'd.) On the basis of this decree and its formulation and in view of the situation which prevailed, I would not assume that Handloser was in a position to give such a directive. The entire complex of science and research was not mentioned in this decree at all, and if I take into consideration the history of the creation of this decree and taking into consideration the lack of materials, a special readiness for commitment had to be gained.
In the heading of this decree, the first sentence is of importance, which says: "The utilization of personnel and material in the field of medical and health matters demands a coordinated and planned direction."
And this refers to paragraph 1, namely, the coordination of all tasks common to the medical services of the Wehrmacht, et cetera. I am of the opinion that on the basis of this decree Dr. Handloser quite apart from the question whether he had any knowledge or not, could not have been in a position to give any orders to Hippke in his field of science.
Q Well, this opening paragraph you have referred to talks of "The utilization of personnel and material in the field of medical and health matters demands a coordinated and planned direction"; is that right? Is medical research not a problem very directly concerned with the coordinated and planned use of personnel and material?
A But that is not meant in this decree. I have just said that you have to take into consideration in addition, the history of the creation of this decree. Nobody, when speaking of personnel and material, will connect this with research work as such.
Q Is that right? Well, let's look at Document NO-924 -
A I would like to ask you once more, did you ask me whether that is correct or not? I said that personnel and material questions have nothing to do with research.
Q That's exactly what I understand you to say. Now let me put to you Document NO-022 which was introduced as Prosecution Exhibit 435, and read you the words of Generaloberstabsarzt Handloser himself, and these words were spoken at the meeting of the consulting physicians of the Military Medical Academy from 30 November to 3 December 1942, approximately six months after this Fuehrer order that we have been studying was issued. He opens his address:
"Gentlemen: The demands and extent of this total war as well as the relationship between needs and availability of personnel and material require measures also in military and medical fields which will serve the unification and unified leadership. It is not a question of marching separately and battling together, but marching and battling must be done in unison from the beginning in all fields. As a result, as concerns the military sector, the Wehrmacht Medical Service and with it the Chief of the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht, came into being.
Not only in matters of personnel and material, even as far as this is possible in view of special fields and special tasks which must be considered, but also with the view to medical scientific education and research, our part in the Wehrmacht Medical Service must and will be a unified one. Accordingly the group of participants in this second work conference East which I have new opened is differently composed from the first work conference in May of this year. Then it was a conference of the Army. Today the three branches of the Wehrmacht, the Waffen SS and police and labor service and the organization Todt are participating and unified."
Do you wish to change your testimony, witness?
A No, I do not want to change my testimony. If this has happened in this case and if these questions went parallel to scientific questions too, it was not something that was based on an order which was initiated by Prof. or Dr. Handloser, but it was the realization of the participating Wehrmacht branches to try on their own accord to coordinate their functions. That wasn't the case everywhere, and even on the occasion of such meetings of the East and I don't know who was detailed to attend these meetings, there was some copying done with reference to the various Wehrmacht branches.
Q Well now, Herr Brandt, I think that is actually what the situation was. Weren't the various branches of the Wehrmacht being coordinated by Handloser and weren't they being coordinated in the field of medical research as well?
A The academics were not carried on as Wehrmacht academies, but there was the academy of the Air Force, the academy of the Army and the academy of the Navy. Even the Waffen SS had later started to institute their own SS academy. That may have been earlier too. At any rate the academies are not sub-organs of the chief of the armed forces medical services but they remained institutions of the competent Wehrmacht branches and had their names. Dr. Handloser, as medical inspector and Army physician, had the Military Medical Academy and similar situation was with the Navy.
Q And he used the Military Medical Academy to coordinate research activities in all the branches of the Wehrmacht, did he not?
A We were then concerned with the meeting of the consulting physicians to which you probably point. These meetings of the consulting physicians were for the purpose of exchanging of experiences, but according to a channel of command Handloser certainly could not interfere with any of the other research branches. In such a case the respective chiefs of the Navy or Air Force would have referred to this decree which only speaks of personnel and material direction.
Q Herr Brandt, before we adjourn for the evening I would like to put some of your own words to you in connection with the position of the defendant Handloser, and I want you to recall to mind the words that you spoke at the meeting of the Military Medical Academy at Hohenlichen in May of 1944 which I need not remind you, was before the decree of August 1944 which you assert extended Handloser's powers somewhat. This is Document NO-924, Prosecution Exhibit 437. You said the following:
"Generaloberstabsarzt Handloser, you, a soldier and a physician at the same time, are responsible for the use and the performance of our medical officers." You went on to say, "I believe, and this probably is the sole expectation of all concerned, that this meeting which today starts in Hohenlichen will be held for the benefit of our soldiers. The achievements to date of your physicians, Herr General Oberstabsarzt, confirm this unequivocally and their readiness to do their share makes all of us proud, and I may also say confident."
Then you said a little later on: "It is good simply to call these things by their names and to look at them as they are. This meeting is the visible expression of it is, it shall be, and it must be so in every respect. The consulting physicians are gathered around their medical chief. When I look at these ranks you, Generaloberstabsarzt Handloser, are to be envied. Medical experts with the best and most highly trained special knowledge are at your disposal for care of the soldiers. In reciprocal action between yourself and your medical officers the problems of our medical knowledge and capacity are kept alive."
Herr Brandt, were those words addressed to a man with no power and authority over those medical experts gathered from all branches of the Wehrmacht, including the Waffen SS?
A From what I have said can be seen that again medical officers are spoken of. That is in compliance with what is meant here in the formulation of the decree with personnel. It does not mean that Mr. Handloser was in the position to direct the work done by these gentlemen in their various branches. No doubt it would have been correct if we had some central medical service, but that did not exist and that can also be seen from the fact that scientific work within the academies was carried on under the designation of the own special arm and that it was not something of the chief of the medical services of the armed forces. Otherwise the medical offices would have to be exchanged; that at the academy for Air Force, Army physicians would have to be - but that was not the case. They were clearly separated. I think it was only twice a year when they reported on their activities.
Generaloberstabsarzt Handloser at that time was the chief of the medical services of the armed forces and was according to this name the exponent. He was just the representative, but he was not a representative according to the function.
MR. McHANEY: I guess the Tribunal wishes to adjourn now and I would like to state again that, of course, since the witness is now under cross examination he shall not be in contact with his defense counsel.
THE PRESIDENT: The rule announced at adjournment yesterday will be carried out again this evening. The witness will be secluded.
The Tribunal will recess until 0930 o'clock tomorrow morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 6 February 1947, at 0930 hours).
Official transcript of tho America Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 6 February 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the Court Room will please find their seats.
The Honorable, tho Judges of Military Tribunal 1.
Military Tribunal 1 is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the courtroom.
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: The Secretary-General will note for the record the presence of all the defendants in court.
Counsel may proceed with cross-examination.
KARL BRANDT -- Resumed.
CROSS EXAMINATION ( Continued ).
BY MR MC HANEY:
Q Herr Brandt, at the end of the session yesterday we were investigating the power and authority of General Handloser and I had put to you certain words which you had spoken in May 1944 at Hohenlychen. I want to ask you on which occasion you were right, whether when you stated as May 1944 that Handloser was responsible for the use and performance of the medical office, or whether, as you testified here, he was not so responsible?
A You must not consider the question of responsibility in the same sense, you must differentiate between the responsibility of the entire commitment of the medical officer within the army and within the troops, in reference to reserves, etcetera, and the things which are connected with research as we spoke about yesterday. In addition, it has to be added that when I spoke in Hohenlychen in the year 1944 I was speaking about a formal use, and it certainly wasn't some kind of an affidavit that I was making at the time. During such a meeting, where medical officers of the various armed forces branches have gathered, it is quite customary that the chief of one such Wehrmacht branch is mentioned.
It is a gesture, an appreciative gesture, rather than a fixing of his functions in various capacities.
Q Herr Brandt, let me put a hypothetical case to you. Suppose Handloser in August of 1942 made an inspection of the medical service of the Luftwaffe, if he at that time was under Hippke, and suppose Handloser found conditions which were not to his liking, could Handloser issue an order to Hippke instructing him to correct the conditions of which Handloser did not approve?
A He probably wouldn't have been in a position to give directives of that manner to Hippke since Hippke received his directives for the Chief of the Air Forces himself and was subordinated to him in a military way. Here we would concerned with a purely military order. He probably could have pointed out that something was wrong, but according to my opinion he would not have been in a position to give any orders to a different branch of the Wehrmacht as far as it was not concerned with material or personnel matters. Even in the case of material and personnel matters it would have been necessary even before such an inspection took place to inform the Chief of the respective Wehrmacht branch about his measures.
Q I take it that you excluded medical research from what you describe as the field of material and personnel?
A I already made that difference yesterday, in that decree the word research in not mentioned at all.
Q Let me put another hypothetical case to you. Handloser made the same inspection of the medical service of the Luftwaffe under Hippke and found conditions of which he did not approve. Handloser then went to Keitel and told Keitel that intolerable conditions prevailed in the medical service of the Luftwaffe. Would Keitel or would Keitel have not, sent an order down to Hippke to straighten out the affairs which were complained of by Handloser?
A I don't believe that Keitel would have done so, and for the following reason, the medical service of the Air Forces was an independent institution and the supreme commander of the Air Forces has a direct channel to the Fuehrer. I have already pointed out that the position of Keitel was more or less a mock position since Keitel was circumvented by the various chiefs of the Wehrmacht branches and, therefore, it would not have been possible for Keitel to give Goering any such directives in any such event.
I think that it is out of the question. Keitel may have mentioned this matter to the Fuehrer so that he, over Goering, could give orders to Hippke and deal with the matter, but I don't believe that Keitel on his own initiative could have given any directives Hippke.
Q Wasn't it precisely the duty and the responsibility of Handloser to make such inspection trips? I think you yourself stated that you went on such inspection trips with him. Now, having made such an inspection trip just exactly what did Handloser do concerning the conditions which he Found? If I understand your testimony you are telling this Tribunal he could do nothing, is that right?
A If he undertook such a tour of inspection to the Crimea, for instance, or Poland, he informed the respective medical officers that he was on his way and it is quite probable that afterwards he made an according report to the medical officers. But here we are concerned with the questions as laid down in the decree, where it expressly said that it deals with the personnel and material commitment.
Q Herr Brandt, let's assume that the matter of which Handloser disapproves falls within the scope of the decree -- I am trying to find out precisely what Handloser's powers and responsibilities were in such a case and exactly what orders he could issue, exactly what man he could go to have such orders issued, and you have excluded the possibility of Keitel. You have excluded the possibility of Handloser himself issuing such orders and I am left with the picture that Dr. Handloser had no powers whatsoever.
A The fact that the power that he had at the time was not sufficient is confirmed by the fact that in the year 1944 a second decree was necessary where he received more extensive functions. If in 1942 on the strength of this decree he actually had become the medical chief of the entire Armed Forces, that is to say if he would have taken over the entire leadership and assumed a clear position of superiority over all Armed Forces branches, this second decree of August 1944 would not have become necessary. In this second decree the wasn't only the separation of his position as the Army Inspectorate and the Medical Chief of the Armed Forces, but it was very clearly established there that he received certain functions.
The functions which he received there certainly were not given to him before because otherwise this second directive would have become superfluous.
Q. Under the second directive could Handloser issue orders directly to the Chief of the Medical Service of the Army, of the Luftwaffe, and of the Navy?
A. May I ask you to give me this second decree together with the official directive?
Q. Herr Brandt, I would like for you to testify from your own knowledge of the medical service in Germany. After all, I think, you were in a position to know. The Tribunal has the decree of August 1944. And, if it is simply a question of interpreting the written words, I think perhaps we are competent to do that. I would like to ask you now to testify from your own knowledge. I asked you if Handloser could issue orders after the decree of August 1944 to the Chief of the Medical Service of the Army, Luftwaffe, Navy, and Waffen SS, as attached to the Wehrmacht?
A. According to my opinion, he could only do so within the framework of his entire tasks; that is, within the framework of his mutual tasks. I do not believe that it is clearly stated in the decree that he could have done so in such tasks that were not mutual. But, I still should like to see the decree once more together with the official directive. In any case, this second decree of 1944 compared to the decree of 1942, gave Handloser very clear powers and authority which previously were not existent.
Q. Is medical research a mutual task?
A. Apart from the special field, yes; and, I should like to designate aviation medicine as a special field.
Q. Well, could not Handloser issue a general order that there would be no medical experimentation on concentration camp inmates?
A. The prerequisite would have been that he had the knowledge that such experiments were being carried out to a certain extent or at all. If he did not know that it is very improbable that he would have issued such a decree. I do not believe that he would have had the influence to bring such a decree to its final effect, since he then would interfere in a field which was not medical and which was subordinated to Himmler. The only channel would have been to report to the Fuehrer, and have him deal with the matter. I am quite sure he could not have issued any order to Himmler.
Q Herr Brandt, you did not answer the question. We are not concerned with the likelihood a Handloser having issued an order. We are simply concerned with the power to do so. And, I have put the question to you: When in September 1944 Handloser, as Chief of the Medical Service of the Wehrmacht, could have issue an order to the Chief of the Medical Service of the Army, Navy, Airforce, and the Waffen-SS, as attached to the Wehrmacht, that no medical experimentation would be carried out by officers of these services upon concentration camp inmates?
A If such an order had been issued, the success or non-success and, an order would have occurred whether or not it was in contrast to an order which any chief of the Wehrmacht received from his own superior. That is to say, if a directive had been given by Goering that such and such experiments were to be carried out, and if the order of Handloser was in contrast to this order, the order of Handloser's certainly would have no effect. It would have been merely illusionary.
Q Herr Brandt, I insist that you answer the question with a yes or a no. We are not concerned with any conflict between an order of Handloser's or an order of Goering's or an order Himmler's. We are simply concerned with the powers and the right of Handloser to have issued such an order to the Chief of the Medical Service of the Army, Navy, Luftwaffe, and the Waffen-SS, as attached to the Wehrmacht. I think you can answer that question with a yes or a no. Did he have such powers or did he not?
A Without seeing the decree once more, I cannot answer this question with either a yes or a no.
Q Alright, Herr Brandt, we will pass on. You do not care to answer that question without seeing the decree; is that right?
A I cannot answer the question in its precise form with yes or no, wi thout having once more the opportunity of seeing the decree together with the official directive.
Q You mentioned the mane Blome in connection with a position he held in the Interior.
A. In connection with the fact that he had no position in the Ministry of the Interior.
Q. I understood you to describe Blome as having two positions, one with the Party and one with the State?
A. That is an error. I do not think that I have stated that. Doctor Conti had a double position, but Blome was merely the representative of Conti in his capacity as leader of physicians. He was the deputy leader of physicians, while Conti was the leader of physicians. And, he was Reich Health Leader as a party/function and at the same time he was UnderSecretary of State in the Ministry of the Interior. Blome had nothing at all to do with Doctor Conti's position as Under-Secretary of State in the Ministry of the Interior.
Q. And, you testified that the only job that Blome had was that as Deputy Reich Health Leader.
A. In his relationship to Doctor Conti, he was only his Deputy Physician Leader.
Q. Herr Brandt, I did not ask you what his job was in relationship to Conti. I asked you what jobs he hold. Now, will you please answer?
A. Doctor Blome was the Deputy Leader of Physicians, and I think he had in addition a function in the Party with the main office for Public Health. He was active within the Reich Research Counsel as plenipotentiary for cancer research. And, I do not know how far his official position in the Party had something to do with the educational matter or whether he had some official name for it, I cannot say, but I did not hear about any other functions of Blome.
Q Herr Brandt, your attorney asked you, during the course of the direct examination, for your judgment on the importance of the experiments with which this case is concerned. Do you remember that?
A Yes.
Q I recall that you testified, in effect, that all of the experiments charged in the Indictment were important experiments with the exception of sterilization?
A When answering the question about the importance of experiments, I answered in the affirmative, but with that, I did not want to express that at the same time the manner of execution, and the experiments in this form, were important. I can only speak about that if I had heard them speak who participated in these experiments. The fact that such questions of sulfanilamide played an important part with us, and that its clarification was important, and that the effect that high altitude experiments could be of importance because of special demands of the Air-force. It was in this sense that I wanted to establish the importance of the experiments and I, in that connection, pointed to the skeleton collection and sterilization, and these are two groups which have to be excluded from consideration.
Q. Before continuing with this line of questioning, Herr, Brandt, I would like to clear up your relationship to the army. Is it true that you held a rank in the army?
A. Yes.
Q. What was your relationship to the army and what rank did you hold?
A. The last time I was Generalarzt of the Reserve.
Q. Did you have any function from the army?
A. I had no further connection with the army. After participating in the first exercises in the year of 1935 I continued the exercises up until the beginning of the war; and during the war I was commissioned to exercise functions at the Fuehrer's headquarters.
Q. Herr Brandt, do you regard as criminal experimentation on human beings without their consent?
A. That depends upon what experiments you are speaking about. The question of approval according to my opinion plays an essential role in the entire judgment of the experiments, that is, in judging if you want to use the word criminal.
Q. Well, Herr Brandt, why do you draw a distinction between the type of experiments? What difference does it make what type of experiment it is if the experimental subject has not consented to undergo the experiment?
A. You can speak about experiments when you start using a new drug. One is then of the opinion that it is of use without knowing it in its final details. Even such a thing can be considered as an experiment; and that is why I wanted to differentiate between the problem; and in addition the question of voluntary or involuntary nature with reference to an inmate plays a psychological part, and if one considered inmates therefore one would have to be clear if answering such a question from the start as criminal what experiment one is concerned with. The difficult points regarding two crimes are seen in three points. One is involuntary nature; then mainly the lack of necessity of such an experiment; and, third, the dangerousness of an experiment.