"I assume, Gentlemen, that you share my joy and that you feel justified satisfaction in this honoring of medical officers. It is an appreciative thanks for the indefatigable effort in which the individual is immediately effective through his own personality, but in the long run vanishes in an army of millions: But, we should be proud of that too.
The front knows that, The front knows what we mean to them. Calling for the medic has long since ceased to be ridiculous. Today it means justified expectation of help and care.
In spite of all that, we do not want to over rate ourselves and we want to be grateful to recognize fulfillment of our life in the fulfillment of our vocation. Who is still able to do that today? The war demands of us always to be both physician and soldier. This we are and want to be. And now I conclude this train of thought and pictures of the front again are covered by pictures of the homeland. It is not destruction of terro-bombings alone, which is causing trouble for and testing the homeland and posing addition problems for us physicians.
Five years of war are shoeing effects:
We must clearly recognize and express this. We can meet a danger only if we perceive it. Mental and physical over-strain cause mental and physical instability. To combat and repress them are duties as difficult to fulfill as those of the soldier at the Front. Only the outward appearance will be different.
How toilsome it is for the practitioner at home to care for the innumerable patients with stomach troubles during his consultation hour, how difficult is it for him in this time of need to carry out a positive, but necessary fight, against Tuberculosis. Enormous tasks are to be accomplished in this field and they are being accomplished: But all of us have to help, and we all want to help. There are no limits to competence. There is no exceptional position either. Only the mutual solution of all these most difficult problems can be considered. We know without further discussion what Tuberculosis, for example, means. Where does it not appear? There is it not possible that it might appear? Must not all we physicians stand prepared and concentrate all our attention on that alone?
It goes without saying that the physicians stand prepared wherever he is needed. He is combating tuberculosis in the city, as well as in the country. He fights against it in adults and in children He fights against it in soldiers and in women:
It is the 'disease' which concerns us physicians, and it does not matter what positions or what sphere of responsibility the individual positions or what sphere of responsibility the individual physician might hold. If we want to master the problem, which the people and state have given us, we physicians must face this concept of 'disease as such' in one phalanx.
Therefore, no difference exists between the practicing physician and the medical officer and in the long run no differentiation can exist among or against medical officers. If the Fuehrer, foreseeing this, gives his judgment, we recognize his fundamental decision.
In combatting a disease it is most clearly expressed! In the fight against Tuberculosis, for instance.
We are facing it in a common effort. We have to attack it jointly and from all directions, and consequently we want to trust the leadership of the best exports. Professor Baemeister, here your work stands before us. You helped to take up the fight against tuberculosis at an early date. During the World war, you already were Chief of St. ***sien Army Hospital. Your temporary duty in the fortress hospital at Holigeland assured your inner bond with the Navy. Then, came the toilsome reconstruction work of the inflation and postwar period, which besides a long established and unreserved appreciation of your person, brought about today's honors. Your infinite knowledge and experiences will help us in this war too, to master tuberculosis.
May I present to you, the Flottenarzt, the well deserved Fuehrer decoration. He has bestowed on you the Knight's Cross to the War Service Cross with Swords.
In conclusion, I think I should tell you a word which building a bridge over the past to the present, which find us prepared. It is Gerhard Wagner's maximum, which may be a vow for us for the future too. The word of dedeceased will keep our heart strong:
Faithful to oneself!
Faithful to the people!
Faithful to the Fuehrer!
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will no recess until 1:30 o'clock.
(The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 28 January 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. MCHANEY: We come now to Count Four of the indictment which deals with membership in a criminal organization. That is paragraph 16 of the indictment. It reads as follows: "The defendants Karl Brandt, Genzken, Gebhardt, Rudolf Brandt, Mrugowsky, Poppendick, Sievers, Brack, Hoven, and Fischer are guilty of membership in an organization declared to be criminal by the International Military Tribunal in Case No. 1, in that each of the said defendants was a member of Die Schutzstaffel der National Sozialistischen Deutschen Arbeiterpartei, commonly known as the SS, after 1 September 1939. Such membership is in violation of Paragraph 1 (d) Article II of Control Council Law No. 10."
I ask the Tribunal to fake judicial notice of the following excerpt from the judgment of the International Military Tribunal in Case No. 1 with respect to the criminality of the SS. This is an excerpt which is taken from the judgment, pages 16,958 and 16,959 of the official English transcript and this excerpt has been certified as being true and correct by Colonel John E. Ray, General Secretary of the International Military Tribunal. It reads as follows:
"Conclusions: The SS was utilized for purposes which were criminal under the Charter involving the persecution and extermination of the Jews, brutalities and killings in concentration camps, excesses in the administration of occupied territories, the administration of the slave labor program, and the mistreatment and murder of prisoners of war. The defendant Kaltenbrunner was a member of the SS implicated in these activities. In dealing with the SS the Tribunal includes all persons who have been officially accepted as members of the SS (including the members of the Allgemeine SS, members of the Waffen SS, members of the SS Totenkopf Verbaende, and members of any of the different police forces who were members of the SS. The tribunal does not include the so-called SS riding units. The Sicherheitsdienst des Reichsfuehrer SS (commonly known as the SP) is dealt with in the Tribunal's judgment on the Gestapo and SD.
"The Tribunal declares to be criminal within the meaning of the Charter the group composed of those persons who had been officially accepted as members of the SS as enumerated in the preceding paragraph who became or remained members of the organization with knowledge that it was being used for the commission of acts declared criminal by Article 6 of the Charter, or who were personally implicated as members of the organization in the commission of such crimes, excluding, however, these who were drafted into membership by the State in such a way as to give them no choice in the matter, and who had committed no such crimes. The basis of this finding is the participation of the organization in war crimes and crimes against humanity connected with the war; this group declared criminal cannot include, therefore, persons who had ceased to belong to the organizations enumerated in the preceding paragraph prior to September 1, 1939."
The next affidavit of each of the defendants charged in Count Four of the indictment contains admissions that such defendants were members of the SS following September 1939. There is no ground for any of these defendants to assert that they fall within the exception made in the IMT's finding of criminality where it stated that those drafted in the membership of the SS shall not be considered as having belonged to the criminal organizations. That exclusion was made by the Tribunal for the reason that late in the war the evidence showed that certain members of the Waffen SS were drafted in the service much like members of the Army, the Navy, the Luftwaffe, and so forth, but aside from that exception, which were not very numerous, the SS was essentially a volunteer organization. In addition to the admission of membership in the SS as made by the defendants, the prosecution would like to submit two documents which corroborate those admissions. The first of these is a document No. NO-1437 which will be Prosecution Exhibit 438. This is a document containing excerpts from the so-called "Diensfaltersliste der Schutzstaffel der NSDAP". This is in effect an order list of certain members of the SS and this first document deals with members who held rank "SS Oberst Gruppenfuehrer" down through "SS Standartenfuehrer". The rank "SS Oberst Grupenfuehrer", I think, was held by only three men and was the highest rank in the SS other than the position held by Himmler himself as Reichsfuehrer of the SS.
"SS Standartenfuehrer" corresponds roughly to the rank of "Colonel" in the United States Army.
We see on page four of this document that the names of certain of the defendants charged with having been members of the SS are extracted in this document. I might also point out that this order list is dated 9 November 1944. We find on page four that Dr. Karl Genzken was an SS Gruppenfuehrer which was the rank roughly of a Major General in the United States Army. Genzken was No. 133 on the order list of the SS. He is noted as having been attached to the SS Fuchrung Hauptamt, that is, the SS Operational Office, as chief of the Amtsgruppe D in the SS Fuehrung Hauptamt; and the Tribunal will recall that Amtsgruppe D was the medical service of the Waffen SS, the chief of which was the defendant Genzken. His Party number, that is, his Nazi Party number, is listed as 39913, a very low number, and shows early membership in the Nazi party. His SS number is 207954.
The next column shows his birth date as being June 8, 1885. The next column shows that he was a Lt. General in the Waffen SS and shows in the last group that he attained the rank of Gruppenfuehrer on January 30, 1943.
No. 134 is Doctor, Professor Karl Gebhardt, and he is shown as being attached to the D. St. Reichsarzt-SS and Police Oberster Kliniker, who was Dr. Grawitz. His Party No. was 1723317. SS. No. 265894. Date of birth December 23, 1897. Lieutenant General in the Waffen-SS. Gruppenfuhrer, January 3O, 1943.
No. 172 is Professor, Doctor Karl Brandt, and he is shown as attached to the SS Fuhrg., H.A. Party No. 1009617. SS No. 260353. Date of birth January 8, 1904. Lieutenant General in the Waffen-SS. He claimed the rank of Gruppenfuehrer on April 20, 1944.
I think it might be interesting for the Tribunal if I passed up the photostatic copy of the original list from which these extracts were taken, and you can see the manner in which the book was set up. It starts off listing No. 1., which is Henrich Himmler, and-so-forth on down.
(The book was given to the Tribunal)
According to the rank of SS-Oberfuehrer, which is a rank between a full Colonel in the United States Army and a Brigadier General, a rank which we have designated as Senior Colonel, we find the name of Viktor Brack, Mo. 571. He is noted as attached to the Staff of the Reichfuehrer-SS. Party No. 173388. And a very low SS No. 1940. He was born November 9, 1904. He is listed as a Sturmbannfuehrer in the Reserve, and claimed the rank of SSOberfuehrer November 9, 1940.
No. 695 is Professor, Doctor Joachim Mrugowsky. He is shown as attached to the Reichsarzt-SS and Police. Although his position is not shown, it corresponds to that of Professor Gebhardt. Mrugowsky was the Oberster Hygieniker, the Chief Hygenic Officer. His Party No. is shown as 210049, and a low SS No. 25811. He was born August 15, 1905. He was an Oberfuehrer, and claimed the rank of Gruppenfuehrer on April 20, 1944.
Also an SS-Oberfuehrer is the defendant Helmuth Poppendick, shown as No. 721. He was attached to the Reichsarzt-SS and Police. His Party No. 998607. His SS No. 36345. His birthday is January 6, 1902. He claimed the rank of SS-Oberfuehrer on September 1, 1944.
Holding the rank of SS-Standartenfuehrer is Wolfram Sievers, with the Order No. 1096. He was attached to the Personel Staff of the ReichsfuehrerSS. Party No. 144983. SS No. 275325. Birth date, July 10, 1905. Claimed the rank of Standartenfuehrer on November 9, 1942.
Also listed as a Standartenfuehrer is the defendant Rudolf Brandt whose Order No. is 1284. He was attached to the Personal Staff of the ReichsfuehrerSS. His Party No. 1331536, and his SS No. 129771. Date of birth, June 2, 190! He claimed the rank of Standartenfuehrer April 20, 1944.
The next Document is Document No. NO-1438, which will be Prosecution's Exhibit No. 439, and this consists of extracts taken from a list similar to the one now before the Tribunal. The first page there shows the Order from SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer down to SS-Sturmbannfuehrer, and the Order List is dated 1 October 1944.
On page 4 of the Document we find listed SS-Sturmbannfuehrer, Order No. 3960, the defendant Fritz Fischer, who was attached to the 42nd Standart, which is a Regiment, as I understand it. His Party number is not listed, indicating he was not a member of the Nazi Party. His SS No. is 2O3578. He was born October 5, 1912. He was a Sturmbannfuehrer in the Reserve, and claimed his rank of Sturmbannfuehrer on August 25, 1944.
Prosecution's Exhibits Nos. 438 and 439, which I have just read covers all the defendants charged with having been members of the SS with the exception of the defendant Hoven. These two lists do not purport to contain the names of all members of the SS since they are numbered at several million, as I understand it, and the defendant Hoven's name is not included in either of these two volumes. However, he has stated in his affidavit that he was a member of the SS and was attached as camp doctor in the Concentration Camp of Ravensbruck after 1 September 1939, and this has been corroborated by the testimony of Ferdinand Roemhild and Eugen Kogon.
I come now to Document No. NO-1441, which will be Prosecution's Exhibit 440. This is an excerpt taken from a booklet called the "SS- The Soldiers' Friend". It was compiled by the SS-Hauptamt, which is the SS Central Office Main Office, dated August 1, 1942, and on the second page of this Document we find the oath which was taken by all members of the SS.
It reads as follow "THE CUTE OF THE SS RECRUIT "I swear allegiance and bravery to you, Adolf Hitler, as Fuehrer and Chancellor of the Reich.
I vow to be obedient to you and my superiors appoint ed by you until death, so help me God."
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, I do not know if the whole excerpts here are to be received in evidence, and what is to be the importance of the documents. In the table of contents it has been listed, and has been stated with some titles, that I do not know the contents of this article. Therefore, I would like to receive an explanation from the Prosecution as to what this document is supposed to signify.
MR. McHANEY: Frankly, I have never so much as seen the book from which this oath was taken. I simply issued instructions that a copy of the oath taken by members of the SS be obtained, and the oath was found in this booklet. ***s is customary when we submit only a partial translation of a document we include the cover page and generally the index. The table of contents, as given in this translation here indicates that this pamphlet deals with a variety of subjects concerning the SS. On page 1, we see an utterance of the Fuehrer, the title page; page 4, the oath of the SS which I have just read, Pages 5 to 8, personnel stating statistics, and telephone numbers. The main offices of the Reich SS and their tasks. The order on engagements and marriages, and a great number of items concerning various functions of the SS with explanatory remarks.
The only purpose for which we offer this document is to show the SS oath. The Document is apparently some 256 pages long.
JUDGE SEBRING: Mr. McHaney, I suggest that perhaps the document as handed up to us, has not been prepared in order, and that perhaps the second page, as it is here, follows the table of contents, and so far as that part of the table of contents which refers to "The oath of the SS recruit", page 4, might be material. Do I make myself clear?
MR. McHANEY: I think, if your Honor pleases, I will pass up the original which is apparently here in the court room. Although, I am not clear why since it is U. S.... Exhibit 441 of the International Military Tribunal. I very seriously doubt if it can be permanently kept with the record of this Tribunal. If I may look at it just a moment I will be able to clarify your question, I think.
MR. McHANEY: I think the arrangement of the translation is probably correct. I will pass the book up to you and you can see for yourself that the oath of the SS recruit comes before the Index. It is in the nature of a pocket diary which was issued to SS men.
(Document handed to Tribunal.)
DR. SERVATIUS: I do not have any objection to the document if it is only being presented in order to show the oath which the SS man, who, after all, was fighting as a soldier, had to give.
JUDGE SEBRING: Can you say whether or not, Mr. McHaney, this books pretends to have incorporated in it arty rules of land warfare if the German army had such rules?
MR. McHaNEY: I can't say offhand, your Honor. By looking at the table of contents, I would conclude that it does not contain any reference to the rules cf land warfare. We are offering the document simply for the purpose of proving the oath taken by SS members in which unqualified obedience is sworn to the Fuehrer and to the superiors appointed by him.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit offered and limited to the statement of counsel for the prosecution will be admitted in evidence.
MR. McHANEY: We come now to Document NO-1730, which I offer as Prosecution Exhibit 441. This is the transcript of an interrogation of the defendant Karl Brandt taken on 5 November 1946.
DR. SERVATIUS: Dr. Servatius, counsel for defendant Karl Brandt. Mr. President, the document which is to be presented here by the prosecution is an interrogation which has not been signed by Karl Brandt; and it has not be read to him. The time it took place was on the day when the indictment was handed to him. As a result of this, the interrogation was interrupted. This extensive document, which includes more than twenty pages, has only been handed to me this morning; and I have not yet been able to discuss it with my client. It deals with a large number of questions which are the subject of the accusation. It is for this reason that I want to object to having it admitted at this time. However, I am also objecting to the fact that it shot be presented at all. The defendant Karl Brandt will become a witness in a few days, and then the prosecution can ask him all these questions in the course of the cross examination.
Those are all of my statements.
MR. McHANEY: IT is quite correct that defense counsel received this only this morning. Consequently, I would be willing to have the document admitted subject to any seasonable and more definite objection on the part cf Dr. Servatius. However, the fact that the interrogation is not signed by the defendant Karl Brandt certainly does not mitigate against its admissibility. The document has been certified as being a true and correct transcript of an interrogation taken on the 5th of November, 1946, by Mr. Meyer of the Interrogation Division, the transcript having been made by an employee of the Office of Chief of Counsel, a man by the name of St. Roeder, who has certified that this is a true and correct transcript of the interrogation.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you have the original there, Mr. McHaney?
MR. McHANEY: The Interpretation Department has it right now. We'll bring it right down. The Court has been advised by Dr. Servatius' statement that his client will take the stand and that we can interrogate him then. I submit that that has nothing to do with the admissibility of this document. The prosecution is now submitting its case in chief; and we are privileged to prove certain of the facts herein admitted as part of our case in chief; and certainly we need not rely upon cross examination cf the defendant Karl Brandt if and when he takes the stand.
JUDGE SEBRING: Where is Mr. Meyer at this time?
MR. McHANEY: Mr. Meyer? I suppose he is in the building. He is the interrogator who took the interrogation. However, I felt that his certification of the interrogation would add nothing to that of the stenographer who actually made the transcript. I felt that that was the critical certification.
JUDGE SEBRING: This Stefan St. Roeder was the stenographer who is supposed to have been present at the time this interrogation took place?
MR. McHANEY: Indeed, yes; the interrogation so shows on the first page.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal is of the opinion that the document offer is sufficient in form to entitle it to admission in evidence; but the Tri bunal does not like formally to admit the document until Dr. Servatius had an opportunity to examine it in the presence of his client, defendant Karl Brandt.
Dr. Servatius, if the Tribunal would take a recess for thirty minute could you in the presence of your client then check this over and ascertain if you have any objection to its contents?
DR. SERVATIUS: I am prepared to discuss the matter with my client during the recess.
THE PRESIDENT: How much material has the prosecution to offer this afternoon?
MR. McHANEY: This, if the Tribunal please, is the last document. As a matter of fact, if it might simplify matters somewhat, I could point out those portions of the interrogation which I wanted to make reference to. I am simply endeavoring to establish what I think will not be denied by the defendant Karl Brandt and that is that he was a member of the Reichsforschungsrat, the Reich Research Council, he had previously offered in evidence an affidavit which stated that fact, an affidavit made by Werner Osenberg; and the Tribunal refused to admit the affidavit on the ground that Osenberg was available, whereupon we did not call him to the stand and the affidavit did not go into the record. That affidavit would have proved that Brandt was a member of the Reich Research Council. By an oversight that was not included in Brandt's own personal affidavit; and, consequently, as the record now stands, there is no proof in the case in chief that he was a member of the Reich Research Council. This interrogation contains a series of around four questions which deal with that and in which the admission is made that he was a member. We also would refer to a very short answer, making reference to a certain relationship which Rostock had to the Reich Research Council. Those are the only two things that we would make reference to at this time. Of course, we are offering the document as a whole and if necessary we would perhaps use it to contradict the defendant on the stand if he made any statements inconsistent with answers given herein. But I don't think membership in the Reich Research Council will be disputed by the defendant or by Dr. Servatius.
THE PRESIDENT: Of course, the document being offered as a whole, the entire document, would be in evidence before the Tribunal; and the Tribunal desires that Dr. Servatius have a chance to examine and recheck this document with his client before it is formally admitted. Has the prosecution anything else to offer?
MR. McHANEY: No, your Honor, after this document has gone in, I would simply make a very few remarks about one or two open matters in the record; and then the prosecution is prepared to rest its case in chief.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now recess until 3:00 o'clock. Dr. Servatius may consult with his client concerning this document. Here is the original.
(A recess was taken.)
DR. SFRVATIUS (Counsel for defendant Brandt): Mr. President, I looked through the document and I found that it contains an important mistake. In its introduction it refers to two plans, which are also being mentioned in the record. There are two plans which were supposed to have been compiled in Dorsten. There is a mistake contained in that document. Karl Brandt was never at Dorsten.
These two charts were compiled after a discussion lasting one hour. The charts were very doubtful. During these discussions the charts were drawn and the views were discussed which Brandt held about these agencies. If this document is to be submitted here these charts have to be attached, including the interrogations which were made in that connection. That happened in Kranzberg.
This is an essential point, and I should further mention that another chart was submitted here in evidence which was combined from these two original charts. I don't have the chart at my disposal at the moment, but maybe the Tribunal can remember that Karl Brandt struck out all the notes that went with that chart. In that document it is stated that the correctness of these charts is confirmed. The word "Correctness" can only refer to the original charts, but not to the fact that any consequence can be drawn from these charts.
Furthermore there are many omissions in that text. In twenty pages there is an interrogation lasting about an hour and a half. Actually more was said. A few mistakes are contained in the record itself, especially with reference to the Reich Research Council. There you find a wrong date. On Page 11 it says: "Q. When were you a member of the Reich Research Council? A. It may have been in 1943 or 1944."
He may have been mistaken in his answer because it was actually 1942.2 when he became a member. In the original interrogation, there are corrections made on page 3 where dates were altered, so it is probable that a mistake arose later. These alterations in the original were made with pencil. Exactly by whom they were made and when, I cannot tell.
There is another obvious mistake on page 14. It also shows that the document was not compiled correctly. It reads as follows:
"Q. I assume that you referred to a Fuehrer decree about that question?
A. Yes, in March of 1944. I am sorry, in February, 1944."
It is known that this decree dates from the first of March, 1944. There are further mistakes contained in that document. I shall not refer to them in detail. On page 16, it is mentioned that this interrogation was made under oath, but the document itself does not show that. According to my opinion, this document cannot be admitted. For formal reasons, I object to its admission and I shall refer, also, to statements made before the adjournment. That is all I have to say.
MR. McMANEY: If the Tribunal please, the remarks of Dr. Servatius, at best, indicate a mere normal human frailty as far as this transcript is concerned. I would be the last person in the world to say that it is letter-perfect. You always find mistakes even in the best of transcripts. However, I do submit, that it is as accurate as any interrogation report that is apt to be submitted to Brandt, I think the questions indicate it was in Dorsten. That is typographical error It has reference to a prison camp known as Dustbin. However, it is immaterial to me where these charts were made. I do not think it is necessary to have these charts attached so the document may be admissable.
As a result of this interrogation, another chart was drawn up and sworn to by Karl Brandt. It was submitted to the Tribunal. It is now in the record. The so-called mistake on dates is not really a fault in the transcript in at least one instant. I happened to have been present during the course of the interrogation and I directed that a question be put to him as to when he first became a member of the Reich Research Council.
My recollection is that he quite clearly said 1943 or 1944. I am happy to see his counsel correct that to read 1942. I, myself, thought, at the time, he was placing the date rather late. However, that is what he said. That is what was taken down.
I also think February, 1944, was the date he mentioned with respect to the Fuehrer decree which we of course very well know to be March, 1944. Those are things that cannot be controlled. That is what the man in response to the question. That was taken down. That is what appears in this transcript. I submit that the document is very clearly admissible.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel's objection is overruled. When the Defendant, Karl Brandt, takes the stand, he can explain it any way he pleases. He can bring before the Tribunal his theory of what was said. Obvious mistakes can of course be corrected.
MR. McHANEY: This, then, is Prosecution's Exhibit 441. As I have stated before, I do not wish to read the entire interrogation. I would first like to call the Tribunal's attention to a question appearing at the bottom of page 2 of the English translation, which is the second question at the top of page 4 of the original.
"Q. What exactly did Rostock do?
"A. Rostock at first took care of questions concerning universities, that is to say, he saw to it that the highest possible number of teachers came and that the number of students remained high. Later he picked out single tasks which had resulted altogether, practically in contact with the Reich Research Council. Among them were the questions of Penicillin, Kripps serum, as well as those of the whole literature, things that altogether were meant as an attack against medical education. Restock on my initiative, interferred then to stop that. Furthermore, Rostock had had a series of conferences concerning even the economic aspect, i.e. production together with what had to be done by the doctors."
The answer to this question merely indicates a collaboration to some extent between Restock and the Reich Research Council. I submit that the answer to the question is either garbled or a garbled answer was given it is one of the two.
In any event, we read this into the record simply to show that there was cooperation and collaboration between the Defendant Rostock and the Reich Research counsel.
The next series of questions appear on Page 7 of the Englis Translation It is about the middle of Page 11 of the original.
Q What was your position in the National Research Council?
A I was a member of the National Research Council without any actual office until March 1945.
Q But you were a member of the National Research Council?
A Yes, I was a member but without any function at all. In March, I believe it was March 1945, I was commissioned by a special ordinance which was signed by Goering to consolidate the problems and tasks of medical research within tho compass of the National Research Council.
Q Was that not in the year 1944?
A No. It was in 1945, about 2 or 3 weeks previous to my arrest in Behlens. This, moreover pertains also to what I have said before.
Q Are you sure that you held no office in the National Research Council?
A I held no office in the National Research Council. From 1944 on tho lists issued monthly wore sent to me.
Q When did you become a member of the National Research Council?
A It may have been in 1943 or 1944.
I read this excerpt simply to prove that Karl Brandt was, in fact, a member of the Reich Research Council. We have boon advised that the dates given, 1943 or 1944 are a mistake, it should be 1942. Of course that is a matter which can be explained when the Defendant takes the stand if he does. I would also like to suggest that while there may be some difference about what holding an office in the Reich Research Council is, that there certainly can be no dispute about the fact that the Defendant Karl Brandt, along with other heads of ministries, such as Conti, wore members of the so-called Presidential Council of the Reich Research Council.
The Tribunal requested that we obtain a list of the affidavits which were provisionally admitted due to the lack of a certificate, at that time, showing the authority of certain employees of the Office of Chief of Counsel to administer oaths in connection with affidavits.
The first affidavit to be provisionally admitted was Document Number 372. It is an affidavit of Rudolf Brandt attested to by Walter H. Rapp. It was provisionally admitted as Exhibit 252.
Document Number 429 is an affidavit of Defendant Hoven attested to by Ivan Devries on 24 October 1946. It was provisionally admitted as Prosecution Exhibit 281. The affidavit of Mrugowsky, Document Number 423, attested by Herber Mayor, on 17 October 1946, was provisionally admitted as prosecution Exhibit 282.
Document Number 370 is another affidavit of Rudolf Brandt attested to by Walter RaPP and provisionally admitted as prosecution Exhibit 294.
Document Number 885 is an affidavit of Schuh attested to by Guy Favarger on the 18th of November, 1946. It was provisionally admitted as Prosecution Exhibit 314.
Document NO-883, affidavit of Eyer, attested to by Guy Favarger, 18 November 1946, was provisionally admitted as Prosecution Exhibit No. 320.
Document NO-444, another affidavit of Rudolph Brandt, attested to by Walter H. Rapp, on 23 October 1946, was provisionally admitted as Prosecution Exhibit No. 329.
Document NO-474, affidavit of Koesler - no, Knoisler, I guess it is, objected to by Fred Rodell October 14, 1946, was admitted as Prosecution Exhibit No. 332.
Document NO-427, affidavit of Hubor, attested to by Fred Rodell 4 January 1947, was provisionally admitted as Prosecution No. 431.
Document NO-1428, affidavit of one Wesse, and was attested to by Fred Rodell on 3 January 1947, was provisionally admitted as Prosecution's Exhibit No. 432.
Those are the only affidavits which were specifically objected to on the grounds that the person who attested to the affidavits was not shown to be authorized to administer an oath. However, there were subsequent initial objections male on the grounds of several more affidavits, which would fall within that objection, although at that time specifically raised with the documents, and wild are covered by the certificate of General Telford Taylor, which we have submitted to the Tribunal, and I might note that there are five of these.
The first one is Document 3865-PS, affidavit of S.A. Bruck Mueller attested to by Alfred II Booth, 2 April 1946, which was admitted as Prosecution's Exhibit 365.
Document N0-720, affidavit of Schmidtmann, attested to by Fred Rodell on 8 November 1946, and was admitted as Prosecutions Exhibit No. 366.
Document NO-817, affidavit of Gutckunst, attested to by Fred Rodell, 20 November 1946, was admitted Prosecution's Exhibit 368.