It must not be overlooked that the deterioration claimed in connection with this trial are connected exclusively with the problem of experiments on human beings and with euthanasia, but that no accusations are made against the professional practice of the German physicians in any other respects, especially there are no accusations referring to the relationship between the sick patient and the physician whom he had chosen as a helper and confidant, to restore his health. This confidence between the attending physician and his patient remained completely untouched by this trial.
Your Honors, we Germans have our own opinion about our physicians, we know their conscientiousness and willingness to render help; we have been able to observe and appreciate especially during the war their readiness to sacrifice themselves; we know that the good qualities that made the German physicians and researchers a model in former decades, were not lost during Hitler's time and it would be a pity if the abuses which have been revealed and proved by this trial should serve to undermine the confidence of the German people in their physicians and expose them to the contempt of all civilized nations.
Individual researchers, who through ambition or a passion for research did not value a human being's life more than that of a rabbit should not be considered representatives of the German physicians profession, nor should those physicians of the concentration camps, who for lack of a conscience or for some other wicked reason made fatal injections on prisoners or tortured them to death be regarded as representative of the German medical profession. No: representative of a model German physician also during Hitler's time is the non-political, practicing physician, who, even if he did perhaps formally belong to the Party, strongly opposed from the bottom of his heart all kinds of violence and intolerance, who is closely bound to his nation and its needs, the practicing physician who had cared for his patients in the most devoted manner day after day and night after night during the time of total war and fearful bombardments, which is especially hard for a physician, or who as military physician served at the front far from home, from his practice, from his family, fairly sharing all the hardships, dangers and privations of his soldiers.
And the surgeon who, as director of his clinic, operated and cured and helped from morning till night wherever he could help without having time to breathe, let alone to take part in political activity, he also is representative of the model German physician also during Hitler's time.
I do not know what verdict you will arrive at respecting one or the other of these defendants; but as defense counsel for the former deputy Reichsaerztefuehrer I beg you to make it clear by your verdict that in judging the defendant if you must condemn him you do not condemn and defaming the entire German medical profession but that the abuses which were committed, were individual acts such as, perhaps, happened in all professions during Hitler's time without necessitating a condemnation of the entire profession. These were individual acts arising perhaps partly from personal criminal tendencies of individual fanatics, partly from being connected with the excesses of a total war in a dictatorship of unscrupulous violence.
If beside the 23 defendants, Your Honors, there is a 24th sitting in the dock, invisible to our eye, it is not the German medical profession as was said in the German press, but the SS spirit of Himmler and of a dozen other murderers of millions of people. This spirit might have led a fanatic to forget his professional ethics and to commit crimes. But the entire medical profession remained sound and counscious of their duty.
May your verdict, Your Honors, not completely rob the German people of their confidence in their physicians, but restore it to them and I have no doubt that after the present crisis has been overcome and in more normal circumstances the German medical profession will prove to their people that in its entirety it never forgot nor will ever forget the professional ethical commandments of the Hippocratic oath.
So much for my plea in writing, Your Honors.
In order to come back to the case Blome, no guilt of the defendant has been proved, but only that he tried to help wherever he heard, help was needed and that he did so with success, although often endangered, and that he saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of people who, by Himmler Hitler and Greiser, had already been condemned to death, and I would, therefore, like you gentlemen of the Tribunal, to acquit the defendant.
THE PRESIDENT: I would ask the representative of the office of the Secretary General what translations of the arguments of counsel are on her desk, available to the Tribunal.
The Tribunal is informed that the translation of the argument in behalf of defendant Rudolf Brand is available, but I do not see his counsel present in court.
DR. MERKEL (Defense counsel for defendant Genzken): Mr. President, as far as I know, the translation of my speech is in the hands of the translators.
INTERPRETER: We have it, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: I am aware of the fact that the translators have it.
Counsel for defendant Genzken may proceed.
Before opening the argument, the Tribunal will be in recess.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for the defendant Genzken may proceed with his arguments.
DR. MERKEL (Counsel for the defendant Genzken):
Mr. President, Your Honors:
The defendant Dr. Genzken - the first and only director of the Medical Corps of the Waffen-SS - is the fifth man in the dock. If the order in which the defendants sit in the dock is supposed to express, purely superficially, their importance and the degree of their responsibility, this, in any case, is not justified as far as the defendant Dr. Genzken is concerned. This is not to say that the extent of his work, his missions, and his responsibility as medical director of the Waffen SS is in any way being minimized. But the field in which he worked and his responsibility lay in a completely different sphere and was entirely separated from the experiments which are under discussion and judgment in this trial.
As in the case of the first four and most of the other defendants, Dr. Genzken is not charged with the actual, active conduct of the experiments on concentration camp inmates; he is under indictment merely because among those who conducted the experiments there were persons who were allegedly under his command or because he is said to have had knowledge of the experiments at the time they were carried out and thus tolerated and aided them, if only tacitly, or at least not to have prevented them.
In this connection it must definitely be stated right away that the purely formal subordinate relationship never constitutes a punishable fact as such. In addition there must be either exact knowledge of the punishable acts of the subordinate in question, or the superior must have ordered the subordinate to take these actions. Only then and only in this single concrete case can there be any question of a punishable act, and then it is not the subordinate relationship which is the essential and decisive factor - it is the giving of the order to take the action or knowing of it and not preventing it.
It is not necessary to explain that any one who in any way induces another person to commit a punishable act is liable to punishment as an instigator. It is also a generally recognized legal principle that participation in a crime can also consist of omission when action is not taken despite existing legal obligations to do so. But also it obviously assumes that the accomplice has exact knowledge of the criminal act of the actual perpetrator and that he wants to bring this act about if it were his own.
Whether these assumptions are present in the case of the defendant Dr. Genzken, who did not personally conduct the two experiments (sulphonimide and spotted fever) with which the Prosecution charges him, will be determined when the evidence is considered.
As far as the person of the defendant, his position, and his activity as director of the Medical Corps of the Waffen-SS are concerned, the Tribunal can find these in the appendix to the plea.
The character of tire defendant, as it has been described by the witnesses, and as it has emerged from his examination before this Tribunal, is illuminated by an especially note worthy statement of one of these witnesses. He calls Dr. Genzken the "Father of the Waffen-SS physicians". It is just this impression which points to his fatherly concern for his soldiers. The medical care was his most important principle and the guiding star for his every action.
Count I charges all defendants with having participated in a so-called conspiracy to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity.
On the basis of the decision of the High Tribunal, announced on 14 July, count 1 of the Indictment is to be eliminated, therefore I need not dwell on this charge.
Whatever may be said in regard to conspiracy as a form of participation, I may draw the Tribunals attention to the closing brief of the defense.
According to Count 11, No. 6 K and J, the defendant Dr. Genzken is charged with special responsibility for the sulphonimide and spotted fever experiments and with participation in these.
In this matter I would like to begin by stating that during the almost three months in which the Prosecution presented its case the name of Dr. Genzken was mentioned only rarely. Document No. NO-1657, Prosecution Exhibit 484, which was submitted by the Prosecution during the cross-examination of Sievers, was, to be sure, directed to Dr. Genzken to be handed to Professor Mrugowsky in his capacity as consultant in hygien in the Ministry of the Interior, but it has nothing to do with the experiments on human beings; it concerns itself, as its conten proves beyond a doubt, solely with counteracting a typhus, epidemic in the concentration camp Neuengamme, which was located in the territory of the State of Hamburg. Even though the Prosecution submitted more than five hundred documents, the Prosecution was unable to produce a single document, a single letter, a single order or directive, which bears the signature or counter-signature of the defendant, or which was addressed to him in reference to the experiments. This fact proves better than many words the non- participation of the defendant in the experiments with which he is charged, especially when one considers the completeness of the documentary proof submitted by the Prosecution.
Considering the entire case of Dr. Benzken objectively one cannot escape the impression that Dr. Genzken is in the dock only because in addition to the Director of the Medical Corps of the Wehrmacht -- Professor Dr. Handloser and the Director of the Medical Corps of the Luftwaffe -- Professor Dr. Schroeder -- they wanted to produce, for the sake of completeness, the Director of the Medical Corps of the Waffen-SS in the person of the defendant Dr. Genzken.
To be sure, Dr. Genzken held the title of a medical director of a "Medical Corps", like the medical director of the army components. His jurisdiction was, however, considerably more restricted when compared to the so-called medical directors and the medical inspector. According to Himmler's express orders, Dr. Genzken was not allowed to call himself a "medical inspector".
As Director of the Medical Corps of the Waffen-SS he was an army medical officer and he was directed solely to build up the entire medical service for troops of the Waffen-SS and to supervise it responsibly. In contrast to the medical inspectors offices of the three components of the armed forces, the Medical Office of the Waffen-SS was never concerned with scientific research and plans, these were exclusively earned on by the Reichsarzt SS, Dr. Grawitz, and his agencies, Grawitz had express written orders from Himmler to that effect.
After the Prosecution has withdrawn the charge against Dr. Genzken arising out of Cont II No. 6 K of the indictment -- experiments with poisons -- and No. 6 L -- experiments with phosphorus incendiary bombs-further explanations concerning these two counts are unnecessary.
Thus, according to the indictment and the oral statement of the Prosecution, the remaining charges against Dr. Genzken contain only the sulphonimide experiments in the concentration camp Ravensbruck -- and the typhus experiments in the concentration camp Buchenwald.
In its closing brief the Prosecution has in addition charged Dr. Genzken with Dr, Rascher's altitude and freezing experiments, and the sterilization experiments of Dr, Clauberg. I must protest against the fact that now, after the submission of evidence by the Prosecution and Defense has been concluded, new special charges are brought up against the defendants. According to the indictment only the defendants listed in it specifically are charged with special responsibility for the experiments relating to them. The Defense presented the entire evidence under the assumption that tho defendants would have to answer only for those experiments for which they have been charged with responsibility.
Dr. Genzken is not charged with any special responsibility for the high altitude or tho freezing or the sterelization experiments. He can therefore not afterwards be charged with these experiments.
It seems as if the Prosecution is not convinced of the fool-proof quality of its evidence against Dr. Genzken and therefore attempts at the last moment to produce further incriminating material against him.
Regarding the sulpahnimide experiments, the following:
Although the prosecution's presentation of these sulphanimide experiments took almost three days, Genzken's name was only mentioned twice.
Whether these two references can be construed an incrimination the High Tribunal can gather from my exhaustive exposition in the supplement to my final plea.
I shall here present merely a brief compendium of what is explained there in detail.
It is true that Dr. Genzken found out about the sulphanimide experiments in Ravensbrueck shortly after Gebhardt and Fischer read their papers. His participation in them at this time, was no longer possible since the experiments had long previously been concluded. Culpable participation, however, either as instigator or as accessory in the way obviously intended by the indictment, is only conceptually possible if the participant is active at a time when the culpable act is not yet completed. Participation after the act is, at least for these experiments, out of the question.
Dr. Genzken was not present when Professor Gebhardt and Dr. Fischer read their papers in May 1943 in the Military Medical Academy in Berlin; nor did he know anything of the delivery of cultures, etc. He did not himself order the experiments to be undertaken, nor was he over present at the discussions between Gebhardt and Himmler. He never visited the concentration camp Ravenbrueck or the clinical station there.
He was never informed by Professor Gebhardt and only long after he experiments were over did he find, out about them, but here also only as a third person, and no more than the public at larger The prosecution could produce no letter or other document bearing on the Ravensbrueck sulphanomide experiments which was signed or counter-signed by Dr. Genzken, or addressed to him, or in which he was even mentioned.
Since any criminal responsibility of Dr. Genzken for these experiments must therefore be denied, I ask that the defendant Dr. Karl Genzken be acquitted on Count II, No. 6E.
What the indictment calls the "murderous" typhus experiments in Buchenwald have been portrayed by the prosecution as one of the most serious charges in the whole trial. In order to avoid unnecessary and tiresome repetition, I as counsel for the defendant Genzken, shall refrain from entering into the question of the necessity, admissibility, or inadmissibility of these typhus experiments. Counsel for the co-defendant Professor Mrugowsky will dilate on this matter.
Under this count also Dr. Genzken is not charged with actively carrying out any typhus experiments, but is charged only because Ding was his subordinate and because he is alleged to be incriminated by an entry in the so-called Ding Diary. For me, as Genzken's counsel, therefore, the only important questions are: Did Dr. Genzken participate in any way in the typhus experiments, and did he have any supervisory duties in these experiments; or, at the time when the experiments were still being conducted and it might have been possible to interrupt them, did he have full knowledge of them, and, if so, was he in a position to have them stopped?
As the extensive evidence assembled in the closing brief shows experiments were decided on and ordered by Himmler or Grawitz without Grawitz's in any way participating. Then Himmler, on Grawitz's suggestion, commissioned Dr. Ding in Buchenwald to carry them out; this commission was not communicated to the defendants Genzken or Professor Mrugowsky.
Mrugowsky, who had repudiated the typhus experiments, was merely the Hygienic Consultant for the Reich physicians. This activity of his had, from the point of view of his duties as supervisor, nothing to do with his official position as Chief of the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen-SS or as Hygienic Office Chief in the Medical Service of the Waffen-SS. Dr. Genzken himself issued no orders or directives that typhus research experiments were to be undertaken in Buchenwald or elsewhere. Since Genzken issued no such orders to the Director of the Research Department, and since this order went directly from Himmler or Grawitz to this Director, namely Dr. Ding, Ding could to this extent never be Genzken's subordinate, but was the immediate subordinate of the person from whom he had received his research assignment, that is to this extent he was immediately subordinate to Grawitz.
Dr. Ding had a written order to carry out typhus experiments from Grawitz. The stamp of the experimental station in Block 46 read, "Reichsfuehrer SS, Typhus Experimental Station Buchenwald." Thus Ding was subject to supervision by the Reich Physician and not by the Chief of the Medical Service of the Waffen SS. The evidence presented, particularly the prosecution witnesses themselves, proved that the experiment station in Block 46 on the one hand, in which the typhus experiments were carried out, and the vaccine production station in Block 50 on the other hand, were completely separate entities in the concentration camp Buchenwald as regards location, personnel, organization and consequently also supervision, of both of which, however, Dr. Ding was in charge. Scientific research, pl planning and therefore also the institution and maintenance of research institutes belonged to the duties of the Reich physician. Consequently Ding as chief of the research institute, in other words of the experimental station, was his immediate subordinate. Only with regard to the vaccine production Ding was subordinate to the Chief of the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS and therefore would have been subordinate of Genzken, if this production had started before September 1943. That was not the case, however, since the institute moved to Block 50 only as late as August 1943 and the production there only began towards the end of 1943.
A supervision of the research institute in Block 46 or any other jurisdiction over the experiments therefore never existed for Dr. Genzken.
As Dr. Genzken never was in charge of supervision he never received any reports from Dr. Ding on his typhus experiments. All the reports by reason of competency went to Ding's superior, the Reich physician Grawitz.
The reason why Genzken was not informed by Grawitz about the experiments was thoroughly explained by me in the plea, where I described the position of the Reich physician vis a vis Dr. Genzken.
Dr. Genzken therefore could not know anything about the typhus experiments, or the sulfonamide experiments or about any other experiments, when planned, prepared or carried out, because he was never initiated by Himmler and even less by Grawitz in these secret research assignments. The Reichsfuehrer and the Reich physician considered him as a persona ingrata et incerta, that is as an unreliable person, and he had neither the confidence of one nor the other. Grawitz with exaggerated jealousy defended his duties and competencies and carefully protected his secret always fearing for his position. He prevented any interference of Genzken by repeatedly telling Mrugowsky that Dr. Genzken had nothing to do with the scientific experiments.
He furthermore could not even have given any orders for the execution of such scientific research work in a concentration camp. The research institute was located in the Buchenwald concentration camp and was administratively and economically under the administration of this concentration camp. Dr. Genzken had no medical authority to give orders within a concentration camp. The medical supervision within the concentration camp was Grawitz' duty.
Even if Ding during his activity in Buchenwald was several times in Berlin, it has to be taken into consideration that Genzken was not informed by him about these experiments and their details, and that therefore Dr. Genzken did not get any knowledge about the kind, the extension and the length of the experiments. The experiments began in January 1942. Dr. Mrugowsky once informed Genzken officially about these experiments in April 1943, at a time when they were concluded to such an extent that a result on the vaccine production had been ascertained and Ding intended to make a public report on the experiments. This report was very brief. Standing up, Mrugowsky reported about the amount of vaccine which was intended to be produced for the troops Details about the experiments, such as artificial infections, the number of experimental subjects, and the number of deaths were not mentioned, and the defendant only got the knowledge of these details during these proceedings.
The impression of Mrugowsky's information on Genzken who had no bacteriological or serological training, was that of a regular scientific series of experiments. But he did not suspect that they were any criminal experiments on human beings. A reason and the possibility for interference therefore did not exist for Genzken besides the fact that he was not in charge of the supervision.
The entry of 9 January 1943 in the so-called Ding Diary may, at first glance, seem to incriminate Dr. Genzken. The Prosecution thought they could infer from this entry that the research station in Block 46 belonged to the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS and thus, through Mrugowsky, came under the Chief of the Medical Service of the Waffen SS, Dr. Genzken. What is to be said in general concerning the probative value of the Ding diary, the High Tribunal can see from the supplement to the final plea. There I have explained in detail that the so-called Ding diary can by no means be considered a regularly kept diary and therefore can have no full probative value. Nor does the entry of 9 January 1943 contain anything which particularly incriminates Genzken.
For, as is also explained in detail in my closing brief we are here concerned solely with the issuance of approval for a change of name for the vaccine production site, the suggestion having originated with Ding and not Dr. Genzken. This took place as late as fall of 1943.
Consequently the diary entry does not form a firm basis for the conception of the Prosecution, which is not supported by any other reason for suspicion. The foundation is removed from it completely by the extensive evidence which clearly shows that Genzken as Chief of the Medical Service of the Waffen SS was eliminated in every respect from questions of research work in Block 46. In this connection I refer to the sworn testimony of the witness Kogon and the before-mentioned affidavit of Joachim Ruff (Doc.
Mrugowsky No. 109, Exhibit 103.)
If I can, in conclusion, state that during the war Dr. Genzken never entered either the concentration camp Buchenwald or the typhus research station or the production site, then I believe that I have every right to assert that Dr. Genzken did not participate in the planning and execution of the typhus experiments in Buchenwald or Natzweiler as leader, instigator, accomplice, or in any other capacity, and I therefore ask that he be found not guilty under Count II No. 6 J of the Indictment.
Under Count III all the Defendants are accused of a crime against humanity since the medical experiments listed in Count II No. 6 are also represented as crimes against humanity.
The defendant Dr. Genzken can only be sentenced according to Count III, figure 11, if the prerequisites for such a sentence are given according too any of the counts under II, figures 6 - 9. Count III, figure 11 contains no independent criminal act, but only the statement that the experiments on human beings listed under Count II figures 6 - 9 are considered as crimes against humanity by the prosecution. Therefore punishment according to Count III, figure 11 is possible only in connection with punishment according to Count II, figures 6 - 9.
Since Dr. Genzken did not participate in the sulfanomide experiments nor in the typhus experiments as principal, accomplice or instigator within the meaning of the indictment therefore the possibility of sentencing him according to Count III, figure 11 is excluded, since independent punishment is not possible on this count.
In Count IV Dr. Genzken finally is charged with having been a member of the SS, and thus a member of a criminal organization.
According to the text of the IMT Judgment (page 16503 of the German record of the IMT) the mere membership does not suffice for a person to be included in the declaration of criminality.
Rather, the SS member can only then be punished if he is connected with war crimes or crimes against humanity through his direct participation or knowledge. Dr. Genzken by no means denies having been a higher SS leader and having joined the SS Verfuegungstruppe voluntarily. Moreover, he was never a member of a resistance movement and does not want to produce material in his defense in this or similar directions. Only where it was necessary did he, in complete frankness and honesty and with that energy and touchness peculiar to himself, fight for his points of view. When he was called by Himmler to become the successor of Grawitz as Reich Physician SS and of the police he rejected the appointment absolutely. Therefore, he was never appointed deputy of the Reich Physician Grawitz. Nor did he hesitate to put himself against the Reichsfuehrer SS whenever his (Dr. Genzken's) honor was involved. And it certainly took courage, resoluteness and mature conduct to state in front of the large number of SS leaders: "Not even Heinrich Himmler can limit my sense of honor."
The High Tribunal will not have to consider in detail the question of SS membership since his membership could only then have an aggravating effect on his sentence if the defendant were to be convicted for the experiments with which he is charged. However, the evidence submitted by the prosecution does not suffice for such a conviction. Dr. Genzken cannot be sentenced by this Tribunal for his SS membership alone.
Mr. President, Your Honors:
I am approaching the end of my speech. I must emphasize again that Dr. Genzken was a physician and a soldier, that he had already served his Fatherland as a physician and a soldier during the first World War 1914-1918, and that, in that same manner he saw his life's work in medical service for the Waffen-SS. He has accomplished his duty and mastered the many difficulties which appeared during the war. He was not supposed to exceed this task, nor did he want to do more, and actually he did no more than that.
His high rank and his position as medical chief of the Waffen-SS may not make it appear improbable, perhaps, that he was involved in the experiments in some form or other. If the High Tribunal will carefully examine and weigh the incriminating evidence of the prosecution and the material submitted in his defense, and I am firmly convinced that the High Tribunal will undertake this difficult task with its peculiar sense of responsibility and painstaking conscientiousness - then it will have to conclude, just as I must do, that the defendant Dr. Genzken cannot possibly have incriminated himself in the experiments as charged and that, therefore, he is not guilty in the sense of the other counts of the indictment.
Thus, Your Honors, I place the future fate of the defendant Dr. Genzken confidently into your hands and I am firmly convinced that you will pronounce a just sentence.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will hear from counsel for the defendant Rudolf Brandt.
DR. KAUFFMANN: (For the defendant Rudolf Brandt: Your Honors, the final plea which you have before you I have marked with red lines at some points. If the Tribunal will look at the plea they will see some red lines at the margin and only these parts are what I intend to read. I believe the Tribunal does not yet have copies but I have just handed them up.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has the copies, counsel, but I do not see any red lines on them.
The Tribunal now has the marked copies, counsel.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Mr. President I should like to point out that on pages 1 to 17 you will see some places marked with red lines but, at the moment, this afternoon, I shall not read these passages. My client has asked me not to read these passages although I should like to emphasize that ho agrees with the contents of my statement but he had his own personal reasons. In these passages from 1 to 17 I have spoken of general principles and I have examined whether it is advisable to discuss these principles within the frame work of a final plead. But, opinions differ so greatly in this room, I believe I could say that truth could not hurt anyone, not even the defendants, because I believe that truth alone makes free. Now I shall turn to page 17 and I shall begin:
B.
1. Who is Rudolf Brandt, what do his former positions mean?
The indictment has characterized this 37-year-old man, who in the witness chair, stood out conspicuously among the rest of the defendants because of his clumsy defense, as an influential personality who had a considerable and evil influence on Himmler. This view of the prosecution seems natural to the casual observer, for Rudolf Brandt held the rank of an SS Standartenfuehrer, he was the head of the "Ministers' Bureau" and of the "Personal Secretariate of Himmler. As far as the rank of SS Standartenfuehrer is concerned, I wish to point out that Himmler gave Brandt this rank so as not to subordinate him to other members of the General SS, whereas in the Waffen SS he only held the rank of Oberscharfuehrer which corresponds to the rank of Staff Sergeant in the Army.
It would certainly be wrong to consider Brandt merely a stenographer, even a good one. He was, of course, more than that. But the fact that all those who observed him at closest range and for many years, considered the technical aspect of his job with Himmler as absolutely predominant, should be food for thought.
What all witnesses have unanimously testified to is their observation of a subaltern, intellectually insignificant, but morally clean personality, without great scope or resourcefulness, led astray and then without resistance. A descendant of working-class people, he came to Himmler for reasons of poverty and neediness, not out of personal inclinations received only modest salary, and remained without moans to the end because he only wanted to earn what he needed to support his wife, his children and his parents.
If his unceasing diligence had not, already during his early youth, as a student, made him one of the best stenographers in Germany, he would have never set foot in Himmler's office. Bur he set foot in it and did not leave this dreadful place, even though he could no longer answer for his presence there. Brandt originally wanted to become a stenographer by profession and had to have an academic degree as required by regulations. Thus his university studios are connected with this ideal and did not originate from an particular scientific inclination. I shall not quote from the affidavit of Dr. Herrgesell but shall continue farther down.
Rudolf Brandt is not guiltless, but he has not incurred the death penalty, either.
His entire conduct is based on these characteristics; none of his signatures or other actions in the service of Himmler should be explained causally by assuming any criminality of his character. I believe him that he realized the crimes only when he was put on trial.
The deficiency of his conscience cannot be ignored, in view of the fact that not all of his signatures were executed without knowledge of the text and the contents of the orders issued by Himmler and passed on by him. But the reaction of that conscience was at that time already only a weak one; it did not rise in protest as a normal conscience would have reacted, and a person with a normal conscience would never have let himself be misused for signing such documents. Rudolf Brandt knew - starting from about 1941/42 - about experiments on human beings, carried out on prisoners sentenced to death whom, in Brandt's opinion, such experiments offered a chance of survival. Later on he must have known that there were only a few prisoners left who voluntarily seized the opportunity to receive a pardon and that therefore compulsion had to be used to make the experimental subjects submit to the experiments, I do believe him that he did not know, did not read, much loss studied most of the incoming and outgoing papers of medical character, among these thousands of monthly incoming and outgoing papers coming under "personal-referat"; I hold it to be true that without exception he did not know the specialized medical reports and their details.
The testimony of Professor Ivy (Morning session of 16 June 1947) with which I agree namely, that even a layman can recognize the violation of medical ethics, gives me no reason to qualify my remarks; because the statement of Professor Ivy assumes, of course, that the layman did actually read the report and specifically those passages which arc contradictory to medical ethics. At first glance the contradiction to the reported experiments can certainly not be recognized by the layman. But I should not dare to say that Brandt executed all signatures with closed eyes and did not know one of the documents, at least in its essentials, which the Prosecution has now submitted him. His defense on the witness stand, to the effect that he could not remember this or or that document, not sufficient in itself does not say or prove anything about his knowledge at that time.
How many of the documents of the Prosecution Brandt actually read, found correct, understood in their purport and approved, at that time and before he signed then, cannot be ascertained. If the statements of Brandt himself and of the witness Meine regarding the excessive workload and the pace of the daily working routine are accepted as true, as they are confirmed by the most varied witnesses in the affidavits produced by the Defense, then the eye of the judge, in order to judge fairly ought to leave the "council table" on which the documents are lying today, stern and inexorable, and go back to the time of the occurrence of these events.
Then he will notice also all the special circumstances which exerted a lasting and predominant influence up on Brandt. To bring about letters, orders etc. on one's own initiative and authority is one thing, to pass such documents on without knowledge or with only a slight knowledge of then or to give a merely technical help, is another thing It is true that even a cursory knowledge is a knowledge, but it is limited to the passing moment, perhaps only minutes, and then the "conveyer belt" on which Dr. Brandt was working would again bring completely different events within his horizon. I shall now continue on page 21.
A German poet states a general truth in saying that in the first step we are still free, in the second we are slaves. We should trade the path which the 25 year old Brandt followed from the day on which he decided to become a member of the personal staff of Himmler. It is an old experience that a young man with a sound character is the more likely to attach himself to a powerful man if this man stands out before his inferiors as a model of good fellowship and industry. In this and no other way did Brandt regard Himmler through the years until he, particularly after the outbreak of war, appeared brutal even in the eyes of his inferiors, devising individual orders of an inhuman nature together with others and thereby losing the character of being a just personality also in the eyes of Rudolf Brandt.