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.
Brandt does not inwardly approve of these new practices and orders of Himmler, but fulfils them by signing letters etc. takes dictations from which he must realize, in broad outline, the misanthropical course of Himmler. He remains silent. That is his guilt which cannot be denied. But it is based, in part, on a centuries old heritage of the Germans, namely the devotion in the face of the "order" of the superior starting from the order of the non commissioned officer, up to that of the general, the king or the emperor -; and this devotion regarded such an order as almost sacrosanct and implied release from any personal responsibility. But much greater guilt lies with the person who devised and issued such orders that with a man like Brandt who passed them on without ever having influenced their origin or having even had the possibility of influencing their origin or execution. The sabotage which Brandt might have been able to carryout would by no means have influenced or even impressed Himmler, Dr. Rascher, Dr. Ding, Professor Hirt, Professor Hagen and others. As a result of the evidence I emphasize the fact that Rudolf Brandt was not one of the cynical brutal National Socialists. The witnesses for the Defense call him an "idealist".
Medizinalrat Felix Kerster, who knew him well, testified that Brandt did not even hate or feel enmity toward the Allies; on the contrary, he always dreamed of an understanding among all peoples on a peaceful basis. A man who committed crimes against humanity - and Rudolf Brandt is indicted as such - is congenitally a misanthrop. Hitler, Himmler, Goebbels, Bormann, and many others were such enemies of any human being who opposed them. An offender against humanity will be able to conceal only for a short while the lowness of his moral corruptness, because at some point even the most wily hypocrite will drop his mask. Here, too, one could think of Hitler, Himmler, and others; after all, they left documents, speeches, and other things to humanity, and they committed acts which - thank God - have radically destroyed the legend that they were honorable men. Nothing of all that applies to Rudolf Brandt, if I may mention him at all in connection with the foregoing. He, who only had a chance to occupy himself for seconds or minutes with these matters and who, like Brandt, had neither the education nor the knowledge of a physician or a scientist in this particular field, certainly deserves different judgment than he, who by profession and by the authority invested in him, performs experiments and conducts research. In the mind of a medical scientist ideas and plans of the sort shown in this trial develop only slowly and are only rarely born spontaneously. The scientist has a definite idea or at least approximately recognizes the significance of the experiment. To employ this way of thinking in the case of Rudolf Brandt should lead, at least to a certain extent, to a mitigation of'punishment. If he had influence Himmler in one of the criminal plans or orders under consideration here, if he had discussed them with Himmler, as it might well become the duty of the so-called private secretary, then I would not lose many words in Dr. Brandt's defense. But the situation is different here. There is no doubt that Brandt was a National Socialist. Whatever one's attitude towards the question whether according to program and character of National Socialism cruelty and contempt of humanity was the essential part - which question should be answered in the affirmative, being the inevitable consequence of making national and racial values absolute and whether this was recognizable for anyone - which question should be answered in the negative - Hitler at any rate continuously spoke about peace and the uninitiated learned about his devilish tricks only when it was too late and the terror made any opposition hopeless.
I continue on page 24 This trial too, and particularly the IMT trial, has uncovered one of Hitler's biggest secrets which was the main cause of his extension of power, namely, his mastery of keeping secret even the most extensive and most gruesome crimes.
To be sure, the average German knew about the concentration camps and the complicity of the Secret Police. He also knew that the existence of the concentration camps and the system of treating the people in these camps was a still lower form of violence toward human beings than the militarism of the last years, particularly since Hitler's star began to descend and since he tried to free this instrument of any tradition. But details of the terror, of the executions, the liquidation of hundreds of thousands of people by gas, overwork, and other methods were known only to a few compared to the total of 80 million Germans; perhaps several thousand knew about it. No commandant of a concentration camp or his guards who committed such atrocities would have had any reason to publish such cruelties; for they knew that it would have earned for them the contempt of the overwhelming majority of the German people. Secrecy then has a psychological aspect: Atrocities are committed by the perpetrator only with a loudly or at least secretly throbbing conscience. The conscience is never silent. Whoever commits cruelties feels guilty and avoids the light of day.
It is my conviction that details which took place behind the walls and the electrically charged wires of the concentration camps, the many thousands of tragedies, were never known to the large masses of the people.
Despite the fact that Rudolf Brandt spent approximately 13 years in Himmler's anteroom, he had no more knowledge of the shame of the concentration camps than many another official, except that he knew, since 1942 that prisoners were being used for medical experiments.
According to his own plausible statement on the witness stand Brandt had never visited a concentration camp, none of the defendants or other doctors had ever reported to him a single detail - but the fact remains: Brandt lived in darkness as far as Himmler was concerned and he did see the salvation of his people and country in Hitler's program. Brandt had insufficient knowledge of general Christian concepts. He never came into personal or official contact with the Christian philosophy of life and therefore grew up with those ideals, which certainly, in their theoretical formulation had their good points, too, especially in so far as they propagated the renunciation of egotism as a way of life. Brandt did not realize that these ideals were based on annew paganism and for that reason alone were bound to lead to violence and slavery. Thus Brandt accepted Himmler's personality for many years, even during the war. This is natural, if one admires and respects a person, Brandt did no longer lead a family life, and if one looks closely, Brandt no longer thought or acted independently but it was Himmler rather who spoke and acted through him. This is true, I beg you to remember, not only for the medical experiments incriminated here but also for matters completely outside the bounds of criminal law, with which he had to occupy himself very largely every day. I will not go so far as to say that Brandt was completely incapable of forming his own opinions and degrade him to the level of an unthinking tool, but it is nevertheless true that Brandt, already at the beginning of the war, was no longer a person of whom one could have expected any intellectual resistance against Himmler. Brandt had lost his own standard, to be more exact, Himmler had become his standard more and more, so that he could not master any resistance even when Himmler dictated the wellknown letters, orders etc. or ordered Brandt to pass them on. Brandt's conscience, it is true, still rebelled as it did not agree with the experiments on humans which had been ordered; but we notice no reaction in the sense of an open or hidden resistance against Himmler's view in these matters.
Himmler gave the orders and the orders of this unbelievably powerful man completely overwhelmed a man still comparatively young who, by nature, was neither politically inclined nor a revolutionary, who was neither cruel nor ambitious, who saw his goal in life attained when he could put to use the only talent he possessed, namely, to write quickly.
I continue on page 28.
Some weeks ago sentence was pronounced against the former Field Marshal Milch. The Tribunal knows that it was not a sentence of death. I have studied this verdict and appreciate the conscientiousness with which the judges examined and considered all imaginable arguments of the defense. Is it permitted to establish a relation between the Milch trial and the doctor's trial, particularly with regard to the person of the defendant Rudolf Brandt? As far as each trial has its own peculiar history, any comparison is out of the question. As far as there is, however a similar train of thought in both trials, the defense counsel may establish such a relation. As a matter of fact, the judges in the Milch trial refrained from sentencing this man to death despite his extremely high position, despite the initiative and strong energy he applied in executing his plans, despite his numerous, incontrovertible remarks. This encourages me to intervene once more in Brandt's behalf and to ask the Tribunal for a mild sentence. In comparing the two personalities and series of acts nearly everything turns out in favor of my client, and I do not fail to recognize that Himmler's orders resulted in shameful excesses against the life and liberty of innocent people. Yet I do not hesitate to say that in the case of Milch a guilt can be expiated by a relative punishment, the punishment for Rudolf Brandt should not open the gate to eternity.
I conclude this discussion with a question which also played a part in the cross examination: Will Rudolf Brandt's good character description as show by the affidavits of the defense become dimmed or even influenced in an entirely unfavorable way by the sworn affidavits which he gave to the prosecution, but which are wrong in essential points?
I have to answer this question in the negative. The entire controversy about Brandt's own affidavits shows that this defendant lacked intelligence and will power and that his poor state of health evidently aggravated both even more. Brandt signed affidavits for the prosecution the contents of which were objectively contadictory to the truth and which he could have corrected on the witness stand after calm reflection and examination of the facts. The fact that Brandt was prepared at that time to sign affidavits for the prosecution which were in part objectively incorrect, and that he evidently did so without raising any serious objections, should give us pause for a moment, when the Tribunal examines the importance of his signatures, which he gave just as quickly in his "personal Referat", perhaps even much more quickly. I emphasize here that I have no intentions of reproaching the prosecution. It only seems relevant to me to show in this example which came up hero during the trial how quickly a signature can be given, even though the person giving the signature has not fully realized the importance of the statement signed by him at the time he signed it. Brandt expressed his opinion, partly even reported facts about some of his co-defendants which lack sufficient foundation without there being any reason for enmity, aversion or any other selfish motives towards his co-defendants. Brandt simply signed these affidavits under the erroneous assumption that his signatures confirmed things that were correct. In order to judge this peculiar situation it should be noted that it is not the statements which turn out to be untrue that are to be considered as a lie or, if made under oath, as perjury, but only the statements which are consciously false. In the case in question no other reproach could be made against Brandt except that he had made a,n objectively incorrect statement by mistake. I do not consider this a symptom of unscrupulousness of character.
I continue - page 43:
Rudolf Brandt does not consider himself innocent. During his interrogation in the witness box he answered the question whether or not he considered himself guilty:
"I am honest and consistent enough not just to deny all guilt. If a more or less important stenographer becomes guilty because he takes down dictation and passes on such dictation to subordinate stenographers, or composes letters on orders from Himmler, then in this sense I am not without guilt... I realize that it is almost impossible for Your Honors to place yourselves in the position in which I found myself then. Your Honors could not do so even with the best of intentions since those conditions were unique and cannot be re-constructed; nevertheless; in asking for a just verdict, I would again and again refer to the three aspects because I myself am deeply impressed by the extremely weighty evidence brought against me. Today, in calm retrospect, viewed from the green table, so to speak... I would be happy not to have signed these letters because they more contrary to my sentiment and convictions. I have, to date, not had to change this conviction."
(Page 4921 of the English transcript)
If, after all, Brandt's guilt remains, it is nevertheless quite evident that his person comprises both the good and the evil so that I could not but plead for a lenient sentence. The demoniacal strength inherent in a giant organism makes a mock of a man like Brandt who is meek and weak by nature, barely good enough to be its passive tool, an automaton, yes, though hardly still a man.
Only few are better able to judge the character of a defendant than his defense counsel because no one else can have a greater interest to probe below his surface. After many careful observations, I arrive at the conclusion that this man's spiritual constitution entirely conforms to the testimony deposed by the defense witnesses regarding Brandt's character and gentleness. He suffers the deepest remorse and is horrified at the human torments which emerge from the documents and confront him. He may well be the only man accused here who, in the witness box, made statements which reflect deep shame at his own actions and manifest genuine repentence.
By passing on orders and documents, etc. he somehow became a link in that fateful chain of events which frequently ended with the death of persons, and although he could not have thought of these himself, Brandt is ashamed of his actions. Should not the Tribunal also take into consideration Brandt's genuine regeneration when the question of the penalty arises?
Assuming it is proved what I have said regarding Brandt's personality, his rank, his position, his sphere and pressure of work, orders, etc., I consider it should be possible to see this man in a different light from that offered by the prosecution.
When a world is upside-down, the guiding spirits who feel responsible for regeneration must make justice the basis for the community. Then will follow peace and prosperity for which we Germans yearn after long years of barbarism. I could understand it if it was said that a tottering justice demands for its sake a harsh sentence. Perhaps as a warning to those who may be disposed to trample again upon these mainstays of civilization.
Greater wisdom, however, abides on the side of moderation; after all, hardly any nation in this century can be absolved of all moral guilt. Permit me, therefore, that I conclude with three moment us words, guides to a rebirth of the world: Truth, justice, and clemency.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess for a few minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal is again in session.
The Tribunal is informed that the translators have the transcript of the arguments on behalf of the defendant Sievers. The counsel for the defendant Sievers may now proceed with his arguments.
DR. WEISGERBER: (Counsel for the defendant Sievers) Mr. President, I do not know whether the Tribunal has a written translation of my plea.
THE PRESIDENT: The translation is not available to the Tribunal, but the interpreters have the translation and the Tribunal will listen to the interpreters. Counsel may proceed.
DR. WEISGERBER: Mr. President, I have received the requisite number of translations and will be glad to give them to the Tribunal.
Mr. President, Your Honors .....
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, if you will speak in a little lower tone of voice, it will be easier for the Tribunal to hear the interpreters.
DR. WEISGERBER: Mr. President, Your Honors, "Sievers - a key figure," a special case, "Sievers and his collaborators in the Ahnenerbe Society were completely possessed of the vicious and horrible doctrines of Nazism." -- These are some of the slogan-like epithets that the prosecution used when presenting the case SIEVERS. It is my duty to discuss the case of SIEVERS with dispassionate objectivity in order to offer you, Your Honor, the basis for a judgment doing justice to all the details of this case.
SIEVERS' life history and his professional career are being discribed in my closing brief, in which I quoted a number of affidavits testifying to his good character and his high ethical attitude. SIEVERS met Dr. HIELSCHER for the first time in 1929 who with extraordinary insight recognized at a very early stage the dangers of National Socialism made SIEVERS an entirely realible, decided and faithful follower of Dr. HIELSCHER. On his instigation SIEVERS became a member of the NSDAP. On his instigation SIEVERS in 1935 resigned from his professional career in order to fill the position of a secretary general in the Ahnenerbe society.
He did this in order to make possible the execution of the tasks against National Socialism that Dr. HIELSCHER had assigned him. Alone the fact that Sievers renounced a safe position and took over a duty that since the beginning was connected with the greatest danger for his personal safety must be appreciated as an act of greatest self-denial.
I only want to deal very briefly with Sievers' position in the Ahnenerbe Society that I have described in detail in my Closing Brief. I consider this necessary because the Prosecution has described Sievers as the authority in the Ahnenerbe and the "director" of the Institute for Military Scientific Research. The erroneousness of this concept is of decisive importance. The President and therefore the highest authority for both institutes was Himmler. Under him was the curator and later Amtschef, Prof. Dr. Wuest, Rector of the Munich university, who was in charge of the scientific direction. If there was such a thing as a supervisory right and a supervisory responsibility for the scientific departments, it was exclusively Dr. Wuest's duty and not Sievers'. Sievers was the "Reich business manager" who was exclusively in charge of administrative duties, which, however, were limited to special fields. When in 1942 on Himmler's order Rascher's and Hirth's institutes were unfortunately annexed.
When in 1942, on HIMMLER's order, the "Ahnenerbe" -- until then exclusively culturally and humanistically oriented -- was unfortunately joined to the institutes of Dr. RASCHER and Dr. HIRT and later coordinated with them in the Institute for military scientific research, SIEVERS tasks remained exactly the same as before. They are designated exactly in HIMMLER's written order of 7 July 1942, and of 13 December 1942. Ordering research projects, giving orders, supervision and execution of research work, allocation of prisoners for experiments on human beings, all these did not belong to SIEVERS work. If yet there are papers in the documentary material of the Prosecution that deal with the allocation of prisoners, then these papers -- if at all -- were only forwarded to the competent authority by SIEVERS.