A. (Cont'd.) There is a difference in discussing the machine teds to decontaminate air and apparatus to decontaminate water.
Q Do you know whether a German law provides for imprisonment in concentration camps of criminals tried by ordinary German courts?
A. No.
Q You were a condemned criminal in April of 1945. were you not?
A Yes.
Q Sentenced to death for the alleged treason; is that right?
A Yes.
Q I assume that you do not regard your trial as a fair one -- that is the trial for treason?
A No, because the sentence had been established beforehand.
Q Herr Brandt, of your own personal experience with German criminal justice, must you not conclude that hundreds cf thousands of concentration camp inmates were improperly incarcerated and condemned to death?
A On the basis of my own experience I am convinced that that is so.
Q How many concentration camps have you visited?
A I did not visit concentration carps exactly; once I was with Hr. Dickenbach; I was outside the camp of Natzweiler where he had his animal station, and had set up an emergency laboratory which he wanted to give up and he wanted to show no what it was all about. On this occasion we were at the camp itself and we picked up some administrative official there who conducted us. Then, as far as I recall, it was during the war; I went through the camp Mauthausen, when the stone quarries were to be examined and the Fuehrer was in the neighborhood.
Q Were these the only two concentration camps you have ever been in?
A These were the camps which I saw.
Q Had you ever been in Saxon Hausen or Granienburg?
A I was in Oranion urge once before the war.
Q You were never there during the war?
A I think it was before the war; perhaps in August or July, 1939.
Q Have you ever been in Dachau as the witness Neff testified?
A No.
Q Have you ever been in Buchenwald?
A I was not in Buchenwald.
Q I am glad to hear you mention that you had been in Natzweiler in connection with Dr. Dickenbach; you neglected to say anything about that when we discussed Bickenbach a few minutes ago, and we will return to that subject a little later. Now, Herr Brandt, do you remember having been interrogated in my presence on 5 November 1946; at the interrogation-the interrogation you went over with your attorney last Tuesday afternoon; the document that was introduced in the record. That was Document No. 1730, Prosecution's Exhibit 441. I don't have a German copy to hand you right at oho moment, but I just want to review with you some answers you gave mo on that occasion, and to ask you then if you still maintain the correctness cf the answers you gave. The question was put to you to give us a grief statement of what you know concerning medical experiments on human beings. You answered: "There is nothing else I could say besides that which has already been recorded here and which was said in the course of the interrogation by the persons interrogated."
The next question was: "I only would like to know what you know about these experiments" Answer: "I only knew about the experiments of following this matter came to my knowledge only after I was arrested in day of last year" Question:
And what did you know before yon were arrested Answer: "Before my arrested in day of last year I know the matter Dr. Gebhardt and Dr. Wiseler emphasized, I refer to the question Mrugowsky anything else in The way of experiments did not come to my knowledge. I had no contact with any of the offices, institutions and persons which played a part therein, nor did I knew them previously. Herr Pohl and I met for the first time when he passed the death sentence on me as President of him Summary Court."
Question: "What I would like to knew is what you had to do with the experiments." Answer: "I had nothing to do with them."
Question: "What do you know about Mrugowski?" Answer: "I said that Mrugowski was attending this meeting and was explaining some problems concerning the decontamination of water."
Question: "Did you know before of any experiments being made on human beings?" Answer: "As I have already stated the matters were Gebhardt's."
Question: "Do you know that Gebhardt was making experiments on human beings previous to 1943?" Answer: "In 1943 he gave a lecture at the Military Academy. He spoke about experiments on human beings."
Question: "What did Mrugowski tell about experiments made on human beings?" Answer: "Mrugowski was only explaining matters concerning decontamination of water."
Question: "Were these experiments concerning decontamination ever made on human beings?" Answer: "I am of the opinion that people drank this water."
Question: "Has anybody else carried through experiments besides Mrugowski?" Answer: "That I do not know."
Question: "Do you know anything about low pressure experiments?" Answer: "No."
Question: "Do you know anything about typhus experiments?" Answer: "No."
Question: "Do you know anything abut bone experiments?" Answer: "No, I cannot say anything at all about that; I did not hear of these things."
Question: "Do you know anything about the Lest Experiments?" Answer: "No."
Question: "Do you know anything about the work in experiments at the University of Strasbourg?" Answer: "I heard about it once, but these were not experiments on human beings. Sievers went to me once only and told me about experiments on animals made by Prof. Hirt; it was a very short visit only. I talked to Prof. Hirt and he showed me microscopic slides of rabbits, but no word was uttered then concerning biological experiments on human beings."
Question: "But you told us that you had no contact at all with these SS people, and new you say that these people have Visited you." Answer:
"Seivers visited, me just once. That Prof. Hirt is an SS nan is not known to me to this day."
Q Her Brandt, do you have anything to add to what was stated in that interrogation, or to what has been so far stated by you in connection with experimentation on human beings?
A I should like to go back to these experiments of Pro. Hirt once more. The report of the findings cf the Final Report. I read, here carefully: If one is locking for the question of human experiments, one could got the impression that they definitely were made. If one considers the question from a chemical point cf view and wants to make his observations in that respect, then this question of human experiments, expecially in connection with concentration camps would not be recognized, When I visited Prof. Hirt I did. not talk t him about experiments on human beings; and after that I did not become aware of any fact that night indicate then.
Q Witness, I want to put a report made by Hirt to you. This is document NO 099 and was introduced as Prosecution Exhibit 266. Can you say whether this is the report which you received from Sievers?
A I assume that it is this report.
Q And you, I think, have already admitted that if one reads this report carefully, one reaches the conclusion that experiments were carried out with Lost on human beings; is that right?
A That is quite possible.
Q Have you also observed that mention is made of heavy, medium, and light wounds caused by Lost?
A Differentiations were made between the various types of wounds with reference to their severity, general symptoms and local symptoms.
Q You had mentioned in an earlier stage of the interrogation that you did not think that Lost experiments were dangerous. Does not this report indicate to you that some of the experimental subjects were rather severely injured?
A This report is not a report of findings about individual experimental subjects. It is a general report, from which one can conclude, however, that supplementing previous general experience and evidence, further experiments can be made. I have said that the Lost experiments, as generally conducted and as I knew them, as they have been described to me in the Military academy, are unimportant, at first painful local skin symptoms, which later heal. In the meantime I have seen literature on the subject which confirms this.
Q Well, Herr Brandt, you did read this report, and you got it from Sievers in April 1944, did you not?
A I read it later. At that time I merely received it.
Q Did you read it before you visited Hirt in Strasbourg?
A Yes, I no doubt read it before that.
Q And didn't you observe upon reading it, just as you have now observed here, that it was perfectly obvious that he had experimented on human beings?
A I did not examine the report to that effect. I examined it to see whether there was anything for me to do in connection with the result, and what seemed significant to me was the reference to vitamins.
Q Yes, it says, does it not, that the "organism stands the best chance of absorbing the damage caused by Lost if there is a large vitamin reserve in the body"? Didn't you further Hirt's experiments after reading this report?
A No, this final report had established the result, and at that time I attempted to create a certain vitamin reserve, seeing in that a certain protection. I did not support Hirt himself.
Q You deny that you and Rostock issued priority orders concerning Hirt's Lost experiments?
A I do not understand what you mean by "priority orders".
Q Did you issue any orders to any institution concerning Hirt's expert ments with gas?
A I don't know.
Q Herr Brandt -
A Do you mean any mention of Hirt's results or the fact that vitamin reserves were important?
Q No, I mean, did you issue any orders supporting research by Hirt with gas?
A I don't recall that I did. On the contrary, from a statement that has been made now that Hirt is supposed to have complained that I did not help him. I am not aware that I gave Hirt any special aid or special support of any kind. It might be that there was something in the Institute, since the name of Rostock was mentioned. It might be in connection with the general demands on the Institute from the University, addressed to Rostock, but I do not remember anything of that kind.
Q But you do not exclude the possibility that somewhere along the line there may have been some support by your office of Hirt's work?
A I don't know. I can only say that I do not remember anything of the kind. It might have been something to do with the question of vitamins. That might have been possible. I just said that I tried to create a vitamin reserve.
Q Herr Brandt, can it not be definitely concluded from the report given on the sulfanilamide experiments by Gebhardt that those experimental subjects were deliberately infected with gas bacillus and gangrene in order to test the effectiveness of sulfanilamide?
A If experiments were conducted with certain infections, they were certainly conducted, if sulfanilamide was used, therapeutically, in order to show the effectiveness of sulfanilamide.
Q Do you see any reason for the necessity of artificially infecting women with gas gangrene when you had thousands of German soldiers who had such infections?
A It might in such a case be a very precise question which caused such an experiment.
Q But do you see any reason now, or can you give us any reason why these experiments could not have been carried out on German soldiers who had been wounded?
A It was perhaps necessary because one wanted to have quite clear differentiations, definite conditions of the wounds. I have already pointed out once before that the question of sulfanilamide was a problem to all of us and that the idea, of having a wounded soldier accompanied, as it were, from the time he was wounded until he was healed is a solution, but that the comparative effect of sulfanilamide is more difficult -- the realization of the effect is mere difficult because the conditions of each wound are different. I could speak of these more easily if I knew mere precisely the events from the side of the people who actually carried out the experiments. The onesided presentation makes it difficult to judge because those who participated for example, Dr. Fischer, I know personally as human beings, and I am convinced that they would have been willing to Conduct such experiments only for definite reasons or under definite conditions. It was certainly not merely the desire to conduct experiments. It would perhaps be easier for me to answer the question when those who have participated in the sulfanilamide experiments have spoken themselves.
Q Witness, isn't it a fact that this Lost gas decree or chemical warfare decree which you received from Goering on 1 March 1944. concerned itself not only with gas masks, but also the treatment of wounds caused by gas?
A It referred to the apparatus against poison gas in general, That included decontamination including calcium chloride and other drugs.
Q But did it include medical therapy of gas wounds?
A It did not include therapy, but it included the materials for therapy.
Q Well, witness, how can it include materials for therapy such as drugs-I assume you have drugs in mind -- unless there has also been some study as to how effective such drugs and material are on wounds caused by gas?
A It did not include the studies. I said that originally it included only gas masks and that in the course of time the program was expanded* As far as the drugs needed for the treatment of gas wounds was not established only until 1944, the methods of treatment in general are the same as in the First World War and have not changed in principle. New gases have been added. The effectiveness of these new gases was not quite clear and special experiments were certainly necessary.
Q Can you suggest any reason why this decree of 1 March 1944, which you sent to Himmler, should have been forwarded to Grawitz and Sievers if it didn't concern Lost experimentation and gas experimentation?
A I certainly did not pass it on to Sievers and Grawitz. I only a approached Himmler. I have already said that I approached Himmler because the Reich Ministry of the Interior was competent for certain measures of air raid precautions, of the air raid police, and because I needed information on the need of air raid precaution apparatus. It was passed on to these two gentlemen by Rudolf Brandt, apparently because they misjudged the situation. He was presumably of the opinion that because I had passed on this decree as a doctor it was a medical matter. It was, in principle, not a medical matter but it was my task in the controlling of production.
Q Herr Brandt, I want to put to you an extract from the Sievers' Diary for 1944. This was Document 3546-PS, Prosecution Exhibit 123. On the 2nd of February 1944, Sievers made the following entry.
"Met Professor Bickenbach in Karls Ruhe and he put his research work under the control of General Commissioner Professor Dr. Brandt. Discussion with SS-Hauptsturmfuehrer Hirt. Professor Dr. Bickenbach, without instructions from Hirt and Professor Stein contacted General Commissioner Professor Dr. Brandt concerning the phosgene experiments that were in Natzweiler with him. Commissions to be withdrawn. For our part, Natzweiler is to be closed."
Tell the Tribunal what "phosgene" is, witness.
A Phosgene is a chemical warfare agent in gas form which can be used in gas form.
Q What was the Professor Bickenbach doing with the research station at Natzweileiler?
A He had been given animals at Natzweiler and had conducted his animal experiments there. There was obviously a tense relationship between him and Hirt so that he wanted to disassociate himself from the group there. He asked me to help him and I did help him then to establish this laboratory which was independent of Natzweiler. It was near Strassburg. And there he wanted to resume his phosgene experiments and ha didn't begin to work -- later his work was broken off through the war conditions; about in September.
Q Herr Brandt, is it not a fact that Bickenbach was performing phosgene experiments on inmates of the Natzweiler camp?
A Bickenbach conducted animal experiments there.
Q What kind of animals did he use?
A He had dogs. I did not see the experiments there myself. I visited him. I saw cat experiments in Franzecki. I assume that there may have been cat experiments too. When I was there, that was in February; we were there only and about ten minutes and he showed me the kennels and the cages to give me an idea of the extent of this experimental station in Natzweiler; in comparison with what he intended to establish in Franzecki.
Q Bickenbach was a Strassburg University Professor like Hirt and Hagen, wasn't he?
A He worked at the Polyclinic in Strassburg, the Medical Polyclinic. Hagen was the hygienist.
Q was Dickenbach an SS man?
A I do not know that.
Q Do you know that the Strassburg University was in effect an SS University, don't you?
A No, I do not know that either. The only SS members that I know, according to the documents here, where Hirt himself was an SS man.
Q Witness, since we are talking about the Sievers' Diary of '44, I would like to put another entry to you, this one dated 1 June. "To Dachau, SSHauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Ploetner and SS-Unterscharfuehrer Eben. Answer of Inquiry concerning Polygol from Professor Rostock. By order of the Deputy of the General Commissioner for Medical and Health Matters." Do you know that Rostock got in touch with Sievers concerning polygol which had been developed at Dachau?
A I know that Rostock on the Lasisoof publication about polygal in tho Munich Medical Weekly (Munchner Medi inische Wechenschrift) wrote to the addresses given in tho magazine itself to find out what it was about. Rostock certainly did not find cut that the testing of the preparation polygal was carried cut as a human experiment.
Q You have previously mentioned that you had knowledge of experiments on human beings concerning the chemical treatment of poisonous water, is that correct?
A That is not right in such a case as you speak of experiments. I was of the opinion that this water was tested in some way. It could just as well have been a troop experiment or anywhere else in the population.
Q Do you know upon whom these experiments were conducted?
A. No, I do not know that. I assume that Mrugowsky will be able to tell you that.
Q Didn't you receive any report about these experiments?
A No, I did not receive any report about them. This question of apparatus for decontamination of water came up because in connection with the general apparatus the question of water decontaminating apparatus was also discussed. Within the Wehrmacht there was no agreement upon methods which were not suitable and the Civilian Air Raid authorities were agreed. In the Ministry for Ammunition and War Production there was a special routine for the production of such decontamination apparatus. I asked the head of this committee to have these who were interested in this question and could tell me about it to come to see me. He did so and since he also know from the production side that such an apparatus had been constructed with which Mrugowsky was in sort of connection, I am not sure what the connection was, Mrugowsky was also invited to this conference. I spoke to him afterwards. An apparatus for decontamination of drinking water was discussed which was such a success that it could be put into production. I cannot say whether that was actually done - it might have been in the summer of 1944 when there were certain raw material difficulties and it was decided to bring fresh water into such endangered areas.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn until 0930 tomorrow morning The witness to be put to cross examination will be kept separate from the other witnesses.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 7 February 1947 at 0930 hours)
Official transcript of the American MilitaryTribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nuremberg, Germany on 7 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 1 is new in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal.
The PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, you ascertain if the defendants are all present in the courtroom.
THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honors, all defendants are present in the Courtroom.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary General will note for the record the presence of all the defendants in the courtroom.
The Prosecution may proceed.
KARL BRANDT (Resumed) CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued) BY MR. McHANEY: May it please the Tribunal.
Q. Horr Professor, we were discussing the poisoned water experiments. Did you suggest experiments with poisoned water?
A. At the discussion which took place on the question of the possibility of removing peisen from water, there were two fundamental points of view; one, as far as I recall, was that certain decontamination apparatus was needed, I no longer remember the name of the procedure. The other was a procedure where chloric acid was used. The result of the discussion was that by virtue of the situation a decision as to which was the most suitable procedure was not possible.
My opinion at the time was that in case of poisoned water one would have to bring fresh water in tank cars or other containers from an area which had not been poisoned. The two representatives of the decontamination processes were of the opinion that their apparatus was good. No decision was reached at this mooting.
I issued instructions to continue testing the apparatus. I said that the tests should be continued but in no concrete form.
Q. Why did they come to you with this problem? Was that in your capacity as General Commissioner?
A. That was in my function of the question of production of apparatus to combat was in general. It was connected with my function as General Commissioner only to the extend that it was a special assignment, not otherwise.
Q. Did you not suggest that experiments be conducted with poisoned water?
A. I may possibly have suggested that the apparatus and the process should be tested. These were primarily laboratory tests and were no doubt continued after this discussion as they had been Carried on before.
Q. Don't you know that it was necessary to ... don't you know that the experiments were in fact carried out on concentration camp inmates?
A. That was not known to me in that form.
Q. You didn't concern yourself with the manner in which these experiment would be carried out?
A. No, I did not.
Q. You just gave these men carte blanche to do what they wanted to?
A. I did not give them carte blanche to do whatever they wanted. The offices concerned with it continued their work as they had been carrying it on before. It is not possible in general to establish the manner in which tests are to be carried out. I was interested only in learning whether a certain apparatus for decontaminating water was considered the best and the easiest to produce in this special committee in the Speer Ministry, or whether there was any such apparatus. These conferences were devoted only to the possibility of producing apparatus.
Q. Who was Oberstarzt Dr. Wirth?
A. Oberstzt Dr. birth was the consultant for gas matters in the Military Medical Academy. I do not know whether that was his official title but in any case, in my opinion, he was the Chief of the men concerned with chemical warfare agents.
Q. And he conferred with you in these poisoned water experiments, didn't he?
A. I do not believe that he was present at this meeting. I cannot say for sure but I do not believe so.
Q. When was this meeting, to the best of your recollection?
A. In the summer of 1944,
Q. And did you not suggest that water be poisoned with Lost and then tested for the effectiveness of the decontamination process?
A. It is quite possible that something of this sort was said. It is a question of the apparatus itself. It has to be poisoned with some gas and then with some filter method of chemical method. The poison has to be removed, that is the point of this problem altogether.
Q. What is K substance?
A. That is a chemical warfare agent; gas in general.
Q. What is N substance?
A. As far as I am informed, it is a fuel which was to be used for explosive purposes but which the Weapons Office rejected at that time and it was thereby eliminated from the list of chemical warfare agents. In my opinion it was to be used in a similar way to phosphorous. I may be mistake; however, I have no exact knowledge about it.
Q. Could it be that N substance was a type of Lost gas or mustard gas?
A. No, certainly not.
Q. And you don't know whether or not these experiments were carried out on human beings?
A. In my opinion the water decontamination experiments were purely laboratory experiments with chemical tests. I did not see any myself but that was certainly the general method of tests.
Q. Did you follow up this matter and receive reports on it?
A. I did not follow up this question of decontamination myself. There was the head of a special committee for that purpose who tested these things. It is possible that I received one more report to the effect that one process or another was more suitable. No measures or steps were actually taken because the raw material was not available.
Q. What was this committee that was concerned with this matter?
A. That was the Special Committee for Drinking Water Decontamination Apparatus.
Q. Suppose we put Document No. 154 to you, doctor? I have put Document No. 119 to the witness but I failed to have that narked for identification. I would like that the record now show Document No. 119 has been offered as Prosecution Exhibit 445, for identification.
This is Document No. 154 which we offer as Prosecution Exhibit 446 for identification. Herr Professor, is the Reich Institution for Water and Air Purification the committee which you have made reference to?
A. No, the head of this committee which I mentioned was a Ministry of Henrich. I believe this committee which I mentioned belonged to the Ministry for Armament and War Production and was managed like the other special committees there.
Q. You stated that it was one, add that these experiments were not carried out on concentration camp inmates. Let us look at this document, which is Report No. 25, dated 31 March 1945, apparently made by the Reich Institution for Water and Air Purification and concerning experiments carried out at Hamburg-Neungamme, a report by Dr. Jaegers and Reg. Bauinspektor Kumpfert:
"In agreement with the Reich Fuehrung SS, experiments were carried out at Hamburg-Neungamme with drinking water preparation 44/5 in order to determine whether W-acid of various concentrations would cause any disadvantages to health and whether, if this were not the case, drinking water containing K substance would not be injurious to health after treatment with W-acid.
"The experiments were carried out on approximately 150 persons who comprised a single community. The camp doctors made the medical observations. Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Ebel also took part in the experiments for several days during which the high lewisite concentrations were used."
Do those first paragraphs indicate to you that concentration camp inmates were used?
A. Yes.
Q. I don't think it is necessary that we read the whole report but I would like for you to turn to the second Page. Do you see the sentence which says, "The camp doctors could not observe any effects harmful to the health of the experimental subjects."
?
A. Yes.
Q. And the following paragraph reads as follows:
"A third series of experiments was carried out with an agent of the Lost group, the asphyxiating gas Lost, in accordance with the suggestion made by Oberstarzt Dr. Wirth at the conference on 4 December 1944 with Reichskommissar Dr. Brandt. Since chemical analysis can prove the presence of the asphyxiating Lost only within a period of approximately one hour, the presence of K substance in the untreated water was probable in every instance, while in the case of potable water it was believed the level of probability (below 8.4 milligrams per liter) or the N-Lost had already been destroyed by the W-acid.
Is that the conference and meeting which you have been telling us about here, or is this another meeting held by you and your associates?
A. I cannot say. I had only one meeting with this committee about drinking water apparatus. I said that was in the summer of 1944. If the date is given here as 4 December, it is possible that the discussion was not in the summer but in December.
Q. And you now must conclude in fact that the experiments were carried out at the Hamburg-Neungamme concentration camp. Is that right?
A. On the basis of this document it appears that special tests were mad.e in the camp at Hamburg-Neungamme following the discussion. Yes.
Q. In order to be perfectly fair with you, Doctor, I want to point out the next to last paragraph of this report. It says that these experiments, which were suggested by Wirth in your presence and apparently with your support, that they did not cause any effects harmful to the health of the experimental subjects. Do you find that?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, Doctor, did you ever suggest any other experiments on concentration camp inmates?
A. As far as I know, I made no precise suggestions concerning concentration camp inmates. I must assume from the report that even before that the experiments had been carried out in a similar way, but none were special experiments.
This nitrogen-Lost experiment was made later. I do not recall, either in this case or in any other case that I suggested experiments on concentration camp inmates.
Q. Well, now, you have told us about your association with Bickenbach. You deny that he experimented on concentration camp inmates; you deny that you had any knowledge of Hirt's gas experiments on inmates at Last; you deny having supported Dr. Dohmen's jaundice work in Sachsenhausen. Did you ever have anything to do with incendiary bomb or phosphorus experiments on concentration camp inmates?
A. Not that I know of. The question of the treatment of phosphirus incendiary bomb wounds was discussed in 1943 and '44. As far as I know the decisive thing as the type of treatment, results coming from a Munich clinic concerning the use of copper sulfate solution.
Q. Did you ever ask tho SS through Himmler, Rudolf Brandt, Grawitz, Wolff, or any other person to put concentration camp inmates at your disposal for experiments of any kind?
A. I do n t recall any concrete case.
Q. Did you over write Karl Wolff a letter suggesting that food experiments be conducted on concentration camp inmates?
A. I cannot recall it. I do not know in what year that was supposed to have been.
Q. Well, let's refresh your recollection with Document NO-1419.
(Document handed to witness.)
Q. Is that your signature on that latter?
A. Yes, that is my signature.
MR. HcHANEY: We offer this document as Presecution Exhibit 447 for identification.
Q. Suppose you read this letter to the Tribunal?
A. "Obergruppenfuehrer Wolff, Headquarters of the Fuehrer"; the date is 26 January 1943. "Dear Obergruppenfuehrer, Since I have had ample material in the meantime about the development of concentrated food, as a special sector, for example, the area of the fortress of Stalingrad, I would like to repeat once more the matter as discussed at that time. Is it possible to carry out pertaining nutritional experiments in concentration camps?