There was always danger that if I happened to be away there would be no one in the camp to get these political prisoners off the list. Therefore, we arranged that these lists were first sent to the hospital, and from the current card index which we had there in the hospital, which gave ail the previous convictions of o.ll prisoners, the German and foreign prisoners selected the worst traitors and stool pigeons. Their names were known to the prisoners, but we wanted to make sure by moans of the card index who they were to get an exact picture of it. This list was sent to the head of the protective custody camp who took over prisoners whom he did not approve of, That was supposed to be the final decision; but we were forced again to strike off the names put on the list by the head of the protective custody camp if they were political prisoners, German foreign. It was a very difficult matter. Finally, the list came to Block 46, and I can very well imagine that there was the rumor prevalent in the camp, that I was responsible for selecting the prisoners.
Q: Witness, the witness Roemhild, according to page 1633 of the English transcript, testified that selection of experimental persons was done on the basis of the card index in the office of the hospital. What do you have to say about that?
At I have just told you how it wa.s done. I mentioned the card index in the prisoners hospital. That is the same card index Roemhild was referring to.
Q: Now, who selected these people -- these traitors or stool pigeons who were exchanged for valuable political prisoners. You personally, or did you let the prisoners do that?
A: I will be very precise on this point. I never selected even a single experimental person or a prisoner for an experiment -- never. The representatives of the German and foreign prisoners only reviewed the names of the prisoners selected. The purpose was to prevent the SS of the Gestapo from putting German and foreign political prisoners in these experiments, Then, when the list had been reviewed by the prisoners, I signed it.
Neither the prisoners nor I actually had anything to do with the selection of the experimental subjects, because the fact that experimental subjects were selected could not be changed either by the prisoners or by myself, but we could prevent the SS or the Gestapo putting unpopular political prisoners whom they did not like in such experiments, not from the medical point of view, of course. And actually these measures prevented German and foreign political prisoners being taken for these experiments. This was my connection and that of the German and foreign political prisoners with the selection of experimental subjects.
Q: Did any of your superiors, especially Grawitz or Lolling, over give you the assignment of selecting these prisoners for experiments?
A: No, neither of these tow persons gave me such an order; neither Grawitz nor Lolling, and I don't believe that they had anything to d with the selection of experimental subjects. It was exclusively up to the Gestapo or the camp administration.
Q: Did some experimental subjects volunteer for the experiments?
A: As far as I know, there were volunteers for some experiments?
Q: Did the experimental subjects get any special privileges or any advantages?
A: As far as I know they did have some advantages. They had good and ample food, which is always a special inducement; and then they got out of hard work details, and so forth.
Q: Dr. Kogon on page 1167 of the English transcript testified that the experimental subjects selected fro Block 46 included not only Germans but Poles, Russians and Frenchmen in the last year. What do you have to say about this?
A: Of course, Dr. Kogon's statement is true. That was the reason why the prisoners asked me to see to it to take some part in the selection. While I was active I cannot imagine foreign prisoners being used for experiments. The foreign and German political prisoners were in charge of reviewing the lists of experimental subjects just so that no political prisoners would be taken. Kogon says that in the last year Russians, Poles and Frenchmen were used for experiments. I can't say whether that is true or not. At that time I was under arrest by the Gestapo.
Q: And I tell you that Kogon testified that there were prisoners of war among the experimental subjects. This is page 1167 of the English transcript. What do you have to say about that?
I believe that I have already explained that, where I interfered the German and foreign prisoners reviewed the lists of experimental subjects; there could not have been any prisoners of war on the list, because they were considered political prisoners; and it was our purpose, as I have said repeatedly, to prevent German and foreign political prisoners being put on the lists.
Q: Did the illegal camp committee select political prisoners for the experiments?
A: No, because the committee consisted of political prisoners, Germans and foreigners.
Q: The witness Kogon on page 1162 of the English transcript testified that the selection of experimental subjects was wot the same at different times. described it as follows: in the first period, volunteers; later, subjects provided by the camp doctor or the camp administration; from the Fall of 1943 the Reich criminal police office supplied criminals.
Is that true?
A: I consider this subdivision that he makes correct, but that there were volunteers in the first period I cannot say. I knew only that there actually were volunteers. How many and at what time I do not know. As to Point 2, Kogon heard that at the request of the German and foreign political prisoners I intervened and that the lists went back and forth. He didn't know the details, of course, since that was an agreement between the illegal camp administration and the representatives of the foreign prisoners and myself. Now, as t the selection of the experimental subjects in the fall of 1943 on I can say nothing because I was under arrest by the Gestapo.
Q: On page 1633 of the English transcript Roemhild testified that, predominantly, criminals and homosexuals were selected. Is this true?
A: It may be. I did not know that mainly homosexuals were taken since neither the illegal camp administration or I would be able to prevent experimental subjects being taken. Cur endeavor was t prevent German and foreign prisoners being taken for these experiments; when such persons were on the list the names were taken off the list and the names of the informers were put in their place.
Q: Did you select passage persons?
A: No, I never heard anything about passages at my time. I didn't know why such passages would be made. I learned that during this trial from the prosecution.
Q: Now, I should like to refer you to Document NO 257, Prosecution Exhibit 283. It is on page 11 in the German and English Document Book 12. This is a statement. Page 11 -- I beg your pardon -- that is page 10 in the English. Ding makes die following statement -- "page "11" of the English, third paragraph from the bottom: "Dr. Hoven had the order to get the prisoners (professional criminals sentenced to death) that had been released for the experiments from the Reich Security Office and the chief of the concentration camps, ready for the vaccination or the infection after an examination of their physical fitness."
Is this true?
A: There is not a word of truth in it. I hear it for the first time that professional criminals condemned to death were used for experiments during my time. Dr. Ding tries to indicate that the selection was made by me but I think even the prosecution witnesses have proved that this was not the case. Any and how I selected or had the persons selected has also been shown. Dr. Ding forgot to say that he, in the last analysis, had to decide who was used for these experiments because he was the one that carried them out; an order from the R.S.H.A. to the inspector of the concentration camps about the selection of the experimental subjects never reached me.
Q: How do you explain this incorrect statement by Dr. Ding-Schuler?
A: Persons condemned to death were not in the concentration camp Buchenwald, at least not at my time. It did happen that persons who were in concentration camps were condemned by SS and police courts or the execution was ordered by Himmler himself but these were exceptions and these persons were executed shortly after sentence was passed. There was no large number f persons condemned to death in the concentration camp Buchenwald. This alone shows that Ding's statement is not true. A large number of Poles -- I think 70 -- were t o be hanged because of sexual relations with German women and girls but since this depended on the doctor, there was not a single execution actually carried out. These Poles didn't all come to Buchenwald at once but over a course of three quarters of a year. I should like to say that during my time not a single professional criminal condemned to death entered Block 46. This is true until the 12th of September 1943. For the rest I refer to the testimony of Dr. Kogon who described very correctly how and in what way the experimental subjects were selected. He mentioned the camp doctor in addition to the other officers which actually did select the experimental subjects because Kogon no doubt heard for what reason I intervened in the selection of experimental subjects.
During my time the political prisoners and I did everything possible to prevent German and foreign prisoners being used for experiments.
Q: I now come to the affidavit of the defendant, Dr. Hoven, in his document NO 429, prosecution Exhibit 281, on page 1 of Document Book 12.
I should like to Gall the special attention of the Tribunal to the decision on page 1079/80 of the English transcript in the session of the third of January 1947, the Tribunal made the following decision on this document during the session of 3 January 1947: "The affidavit would be accepted temporarily independent of later objection. The affidavit docs not show whether the defendant Hoven was answering any questions, if he was interrogated without having been warned, he can indicate that later on the witness stand; if he did not understand English and this affidavit was not translated, he may clarify this point also. But at this time the affidavit will be admitted provisionally without influence on the right of his defense counsel to object to it later; and if then the Tribunal believes that this affidavit is not to be admitted, then it will be stricken from the record." Mr. President, I don't know whether the transcript of the 3rd of January 1947 is in the hands of the Tribunal at the moment; therefore, I have brought it with me. Shall I hand it to the Tribunal?
THE PRESIDENT: That is the transcript that counsel has just read?
DR. GAWLIK: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: That is sufficient.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q.- In what language was this affidavit given to you?
In English. Alter I had given this affidavit, I was called again two or three days later. This time I was given the first part of the affidavit, that is, my life history; but not in English, in German. And it turned out that there were so many mistakes in the German text that the interrogator had. to go through it again with me. Then he had it copied again, and I signed it for the second time.
Q.- In order to make it quite clear, this life history was handed to you in Germany after you had signed the whole affidavit in English?
A.- That is true. The affidavit included my life history in English and this part of the affidavit was given to me three days later in Ger man to sign.
MR. HARDY: Your Honors, to clarify for the record, I might call to the attention of the Tribunal the affidavit he is referring to is the German language one contained in Document Book No. 1, which is the document book which lists the position of the defendants. Defendant Hoven executed two affidavits. One was a small one which is document Book No. 1 and the affidavit that is at issue here was executed by the Defendant Hoven for me. As a matter of fact, I wrote it, then the defendant Hoven corrected it in my presence.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q.- Would you please comment on this, witness?
A.- What Mr. Hardy says is true, but after I had gone through the affidavit with Mr. Hardy in English and it was ready to me in English, after that, three days later, I was called again and part of the affidavit giving my life history was given to me in German with the explanation that there were mistakes in this part of the affidavit which the interrogator had noticed, and then the interrogator -- and it wasn't Mr. Hardy -- went through my life history copied again after I had made corrections- and then I signed it again. That was after I had given the affidavit to Mr. Hardy.
Q.- And you only signed the life history the second time?
A.- Yes, in German.
Q.- Part of the affidavit which said nothing about the charges against you, only your life history?
A.- Yes, that is right.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to examine the original of this affidavit. The Tribunal would like to examine the original affidavit. Is it available here or in the office of the Secretary General? If it is not here, it can be produced Monday morning.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
A.- I speak English well enough to carry on a conversation. There are many words that don't come to me, but in conversation I can avoid them.
I am sure I did not understand the exact wording and the exact sense of the affidavit.
Q.- Did you study English in school?
A.- No.
Q.- When were you in the United States?
A.- 1921 to 24.
Q.- After that did you have an opportunity to refresh your knowledge of English?
A.- No.
Q.- From this entire affidavit as contained in Document Book 12, page 1, did you see a German translation before you signed it?
A.- No.
Q.- To make it quite clear, I am talking about this entire affidavit in Document Book 12. Was it translated to you orally before you signed it?
A.- No, with the exception of the life history; but that was a few days later; a.s I have already said.
Q.- To make it quite clear the life history was translated for you after you signed the whole affidavit?
A.- Yes, three days later.
Q.- Did you. dictate this affidavit in Document Book 12?
A.- No.
Q.- Does the wording come from you?
A.- No.
Q.- Who drew up the affidavit?
A.- I don't know.
Q.- Were you present when it was set up?
A.- No.
Q.- On the basis of what material was it set up?
A.- I don't know.
Q.- Were you interrogated before hand?
A.- Yes.
Q.- Were notes taken at this interrogation?
A.- Yes.
Q.- Did you sign these notes which were taken down before hand?
A.- No.
Q.- Mere these notes shown to you for your approval?
A.- No.
Q.- Did you have any knowledge of what was taken down?
A.- No.
Q.- Before the interrogation were you informed that you could refuse to testify if you might incriminate yourself?
A.- No.
Q.- Did you read the affidavit before you signed it?
A.- Yes, I read the English, I did not see any German text. I was given the English text. It was read to me and I read it myself.
Q.- Did you understand the general sense of the affidavit?
A.- There were many words that I did not understand, and they are important in such a document. I don't speak English well enough to understand the exact meaning of this statement. In general, of course, I know what it was about. I know ordinary conversational English. I do not know any special technical terms.
Q.- For what reasons did you sign the affidavit?
A.- I thought it was the form in which I said these things at the interrogation; and for that reason I only read it superficially. You must put yourself in my place at the time of the interrogation. I had been in Gestapo prisons for one year and in the concentration camp for half a. year; and I don't have to explain in this room what that means. Then I was in american captivity. My nerves and my health had suffered considerably from being in the custody of the Gestapo. Then I was in the PA camp at Krcuznach, Freibach, Freising, and August, 1945, I came to Dachau.
September '46, I came to Nurnberg. I was in noway acquainted with American penal procedure, and I was not informed whether I was to be a witness or a defendant. I did not know that I could refuse to sign this affidavit and demand that it be translated into German. The interrogator did not inform me about all these things.
DR. GAWLIK: Mr. President, with reference to the ruling of the Tribunal in the session of 3 January 1947, page 1079 and 1080 of the English transcript, I make application that the affidavit, Document NO-429 not be admitted and that it be stricken from the record. From the testimony of the witness it can be seen that he did not answer any questions. He was interrogated without being warned. Also he did not understand English well enough in order to get the meaning of the affidavit where every word is important, and the affidavit was not translated for him.
In regard to the final point, I refer especially to the work of Warden, Evidence in Criminal Cases, Volume 3, edition 1935, page 21-26 where it is expressly stated that it is absolutely essential to employ a translator if the person making the statement does not understand English.
EXAMINATION BY JUDGE SEBRING:
Q.- Witness, as I understand your testimony it is that the affidavit which appears in prosecution document book 12 at page 1, as prosecution document NO-429, prosecution exhibit 281 was taken in the English language, was then given to you in English, that you then read it over and signed it. Is my understanding of what you have said correct?
A.- Yes, Your Honor, it was read to me. It was read aloud and I read it myself, and as I already said, I can carry on a conversation in English. When I can't think of words I ca.n circumscribe them, I understood the general meaning of the affidavit but not the exact meaning and not every word.
Q.- Do you have before you now a copy of the English version of that affidavit?
A.- I have the German text.
Q.- ill the page hand to the witness the English text? Are you able to read English, witness?
A.- Yes, I think so.
Q.- Will you please -
A.- Pronunciation won't be quite right. I have been learning a little more English since this trial has been going on.
Q.- Well, you road English well enough to know, regardless of your pronunciation, when you come to an English word or phrase or sentence that you do not fully understand, don't you?
A.- Yes, your Honor. If something is read to me and I am just following, I understand the general sense and then I imagine that I understood, but afterwards I find out as in this case, that there are many words that I did not understand and sometimes the meaning was different from what I thought. For example, when I read books -- I have been reading some English books lately -- I understood the general sense and I knew what the story was about, but I didn't understand all the details.
Q.- Well, I am going to read to you the last paragraph of this document, your affidavit, and I want you to listen carefully and when I have finished with it I want you to talk into the microphone in German, giving you version of what you have understood this to mean, and I want you to get the English channel and; I read it to you, not the German channel. Can that be arranged? Are you hearing now?
A.- I am hearing in English.
Q.- Yes. Then I shall read the last paragraph.
A.- I shall not read with you, sir?
Q.- Can you hear me?
A.- I can hear you.
Q.- Yes. Well now, listen to what I read.
A.- Yes sir.
Q.- Quote: "The above affidavit written in the English language, consisting of five pages, is true and correct to the best of my know ledge and belief.
This affidavit was given by me freely and voluntarily without promise of reward and I was subject to no duress or threat of any kind." Unquote. Now, do you understand what that means as I have reat it to you?
A.- Shall I answer in German or in English?
Q.- You may answer in English if you care to.
A.- Since this trial there are many words I have heard now which I didn't know before, One word, sir, you started was I think "quoted", "I quote". And that's a word I have heard many times now in these sessions. I didn't know it before.
Q.- What other words are there in the quotation I have read you which you do no understand?
A.- "Subjected."
Q.- Will you repeat, please?
A.- "Subjected", I think you said.
Q.- Perhaps if you will turn to the English version at page 6, that last paragraph, and read that if you will, and then explain to us any words there you do not understand?
A.- It is the word "affidavit". I only knew it after the beginning of this trial. I didn't hear it before.
Q.- What other words?
A.- It seems to be very funny, but it's true, "voluntarily", I didn't know it before, but of course, I know it now as I heard it many times.
Q.- "Reward", (spelling) r-c-w-a-r-d. And as I told you before, "Subjected", and the word "threat", I didn't know. My opinion was it means a traitor or something like that.
Q.- Now, are there other words?
A.- No, that's all, sir.
Q.- In other words, you said that prior to the time you signed this affidavit you were not familiar with the word "affidavit"?
A.- Yes, that's right/
Q.- You were not familiar with the word "voluntarily"?
A.- That's right.
Q.- You were not familiar with the word "subjected"?
A.- Yes, that's right.
Q.- You were not familiar with the word "duress" (spelling) d-u-r-e-s-s; is that correct?
A.- Duress -- I think it was "reward" (spelling) r-e-w-a-r-d.
Q.- Reward?
A.- Reward.
Q.- You did not know what the word "reward" meant?
A.- Yes, sir.
Q.- And then the final word that you did not understand was the word -
A.- "Throat" (spelling) t-h-r-e-a-t. But I know it now of course.
Q.- Threat, you did not know that word?
A.- "True"?
Q.- No, (spelling) t-h-r-e-a-t?
A.- "Threat", yes, that's right.
Q.- You did not know that word?
A.- No.
Q.- So then if we are to take those words out of the final paragraph in the first line then will appear this statement, which as I understand you say you understood at the time.
A.- Yes, sir.
Q.- Quote: "The above written in the English language, consisting of five pages is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. This affidavit -- you said you did not understand "affidavit", so I will delete that, so it would read: "This was given by me freely and without promise." Now, isn't that the effect of you understanding of that final paragraph?
A I think the misunderstanding arises because I do know a little conversational English; as I have already said in the course of this trial I have frequently listened to the English translation and have learned a great deal in that way. And since I could carry on a conversation more or less by circumscribing the words I did not know, then I thought that what was read to me and what I followed w as right but there were some words that I did not understand; but I thought that I understood the meaning and that it was more or less what I had testified. Besides, it went off rather fast and I had the impression that there were a great hurry for me to sign it an I did sign it.
Q Will you be prepared when the Tribunal convenes on Monday, to have gone over the English text of this document and its translation, and then advise the Tribunal from the witness stand just what portions of it you now say that you did not understand at that time?
A Your Honor, I shall be glad to do that. I should like to point out once more that at the time, I did not quite realize the meaning those various words because I did not know the purpose of this affidavit. I did not know that it was going to be used in an indictment against myself. There were individual matters which could have been clarified or explained and they disort the meaning without being explained. I found out quite definitely that part of the affidavit, concerning the selection of experimental subjects, was never said by me in this form, never. Since on the whole I understood the general form of this document and saw a few words that were right, I assumed that it was just what I said. I realize that if the person who wrote this affidavit was not present at the interrogation it would be very easy to distort the meaning.
Q Well suppose you prepare yourself to comply with the request of the Tribunal regarding such portions of the affidavit in the English language as you are prepared to say that you did not know at the time you signed the affidavit what you were signing and then, following that, be prepared to tell the Tribunal what portions of that affidavit you now say are true and what portions you say are untrue and.
do not reflect what you said at that time or do not reflect the truth.
A I shall try, Your Honor, to follow your instructions. It will take some time especially since in the meantime I have learned a good many words, especially words which appear repeatedly in this affidavit, but I shall try to reconstruct what I know at that time.
THE PRESIDENT: If there is nothing more to be said, the Tribunal will now take its recess.
Does counsel desire to make any other statement?
MR. HARDY: Of course I anticipate the Tribunal will not rule out this affidavit before I have had the opportunity to cross examine the witness on the affidavit?
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will certainly not rule before you have had an opportunity to cross-examine the witness.
The Tribunal will now be in recess until 9:30 o!clock Monday morning.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will now be in recess until 9:30 o'clock Monday morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 23 June 1947, at 09:30 hours.)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 23 June, 1947. 0930-0945: Justice Beals, presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal 1.
Military Tribunal I 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 the defendants are present in the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary General will not for the record the presence of all the defendants in Court.
The defendant Hoven is reminded he is still under oath.
Counsel may proceed:
DR. GAWLIK: Mr. President. May I make the examination about the affidavit, the words which the defendant did not understand or does the Tribunal want to ask him these questions?
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, in what document book is this affidavit found? The Tribunal does not have that reference.
DR. GAWLIK: Document Book 12, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: What page?
DR. GAWLIK: Page 1, the first document.
BY JUDGE SEBRING:
Q.- Witness, on Saturday of last week just prior to the time that the Court took it's recess we had under consideration prosecution Document No. NO-429, prosecution Exhibit 261, appearing in Prosecution Document Book 12. I believe your testimony was to the effect that this affidavit was made by you originally in the English language and signed by you and that at t he time you signed it there were certain English words or phrases in the affidavit which were strange or unknown to you and that consequently you did not understand the full and clearly legal import of the paper you were signing.
Is that the effect of you assertion to the Tribunal?
A.- Yes. exactly.
Q.- Do you have before you at the present time the English version of Document No. N*-429?
A.- Yes, Your Honor.
Q.- Will you be good enough to refer to that document beginning with paragraph one thereof and tell the Tribunal what words, phrases, clauses or sentences are contained therein, the legal import and the textual import of which was not fully understood by you at the time you signed the affidavit?
A.- In paragraph I, the word "affidavit." In the first sentence the word "duly", in the second line, the word "concluded", in the next line -
Q.- Wait just a moment, please. I do not see the word "concluded", in this affidavit.
A.- In the seventh line, Your Honor. "In 1939 I concluded my medical studies."
Q.- Very well, you may proceed.
A.- In the next line the word "joined."
Q.- You mean in the sentence which reads: Quote - "In 1934, I had joined the Allgemeine SS."
A.- Three lines before that, but it is the same word: "Joined the Waffen SS as a physician."
Q.- Very well.
A.- The same word is in the last sentence of the first paragraph.
Q.- Very well.
A In the second paragraph "assigned" in the first sentence. In the third line "I was appointed", the word "appointed". In the fifth lino "in charge". In the third paragraph.....
Q Very well.
A In the third line from the bottom on this page; paragraph three; "acquainted".
Q Very well.
A On page 2 "spotted fever". As far as I know today that is the wrong term. It should probably be "typhus". In the second lino of paragraph 4 "effectiveness".
Q Is that in paragraph 4?
A Yes, the second line at the end of the lino.
Q Very well.
A In the fifth line of paragraph the word "supervision".
Q In other words, the words "the direct supervision"? That was not understood by you.?
A That's right.
Q Very well.
A Then in the third line from the end of paragraph there is a word that looks like "chain"; c-h-a-i-n; "chain of command".
Q Very Well.
A In paragraph 5, the third word in the first line "recollect". Paragraph 6 on page 3 the first expression "in as much as". I know the word "much". I know what "as" moans but I don't know this whole expression "in as much as". And I don't know "constantly" either. I knew "very friendly" in the second lino of paragraph 6. I used the word "zweckfreundschaft" in German. The interrogator told me it meant the same thing.
Q I will ask the translators whether or not they agree that it moans the same thing?
INTERPRETER: Your Honor; "zweckfreundschaft" would moan "friendship of expediency".