I take the liberty of pointing out, further, that in all these nine counts of the Indictment, for example, the experiments on Polygal are not mentioned.
Then, months after the beginning of the trial, the Prosecution comes with new charges. This is in opposition of the Charter, and the rights of the defendants are being infringed upon. Those rights were to be protected by these rules.
I, therefore, make application that the intention of the Prosecution to introduce new charges be rejected.
MR. McHANEY: I think the Tribunal understands the position of the Prosecution on this point, I do not want to even begin to engage in extended argument. It comes as something of a surprise to hear any defense counsel, who participated in Case Number I before the International Military Tribunal, suggest that we have not advised the defendants of the nature of the crimes with which they are charged.
The Indictment in this case contains so many more particulars and is so much more definite than the Indictment which was sustained before the International Military Tribunal that there is no comparison between the two. The prosecution has made an effort to advise each and every defendant in the dock of the major charges against him.
We now hear the suggestion made that we are to be limited because of the particulars which we have given. The crime charged against these defendants is that they have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity in that they they have unlawfully and criminally experimented upon involuntary human subjects. I submit that it would not have been a closed question if Paragraph 6 without any particulars whatsoever would have been a sufficient indictment, particularly in face of the Indictment which was sustained in Case I.
Also, in the charge sheets which are submitted to the defendants before the Military Commissions, such as the one at Dachau, they have tried upwards of 79 men on a charge sheet of not more than one page and which contains only general language of crimes.
It is not here a question of dismissing any paragraph of the Indictment. These men are charged under Paragraph 6 and under Paragraph 11 with having committed war crimes and crimes against humanity respectively. We describe the way in which those crimes were submitted.
If the Prosecution is prepared to concede it has not proved that Karl Brandt was implicated in the high-altitude experiments or that Blome was not implicated in one of the other experiments; it is not a question of dismissing any part of the Indictment. The crime charged is contained in Paragraph 6. The Prosecution nay well concede we have made no proof on a particular sub-paragraph thereof; but it constitutes no dismissal of anything against that particular defendant.
It does relieve him of the liability of going forward with proof that he was not implicated in that. Of course, this Tribunal has every right to now review the evidence in the prima facie case made by the Prosecution. If it decides we have not put in a prima facie case against Karl Brandt on the high-altitude experiments, the Tribunal can so advise Karl Brandt, and he will not have to go forward with proof on that particular experiment. But, certainly, there is no question of dismissing anything in the Indictment. Karl Brandt stands equally accused under Paragraph 6.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel's position is correct in ruling that if the prosecution has not made a case under a count, it would not call for a dismissal. It would call for a ruling that the defendant would be relieved from going ahead with rebuttal evidence on that certain charge or count or what it might be called.
MR. McHANEY: That is correct. That is the way the Prosecution understands it.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has taken note of the questions raised by the defense counsel as to whether, as a matter of law, not a matter of fact, the defendants may be held to answer the charge of conspiracy to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity. This is a basic legal question which, because of its extreme importance, the Tribunal is of the opinion should be answered only after the question has been fully briefed and argued by all parties to the cause. Therefore, the Tribunal will not pass upon the question at this time, but will reserve its ruling thereon until final hearing and after full consideration end argument and will incorporate its conclusions on the question in such opinion and, judgment of the Tribunal as will finally be rendered.
Second: Something was said by the Prosecution immediately prior to the afternoon recess of the Tribunal to the effect that it was not the desire of the prosecution to put any defendant upon proof as to any charge which the prosecution might feel it had failed to establish. In view of the statement of the prosecution, which the Tribunal commends, the Tribunal suggests to the prosecution that it be prepared to make any announcement upon that matter which it wishes to make prior to the opening of the defendants' case on Monday, 3 February 1947.
Third: Concerning questions raised by defendants' counsel as to evidence introduced by the prosecution concerning acts of defendants not specifically charged as crimes by paragraph 6 and paragraphs "A" to "L", inclusive, of the Indictment, the Tribunal announces that it reserves its ruling upon any such question until the close of the case.
Is there any further matter to be called to the attention of the Tribunal?
MR. MCHANEY: In connection with the Tribunal's ruling on the second point, I would like to ask if it would be satisfactory if on Monday we made such announcements as we may have to make with respect only to the case of Karl Brandt.
THE PRESIDENT: It appears to the Tribunal that it would be only fair to the defendants if that announcement were made as soon as possible. It might not necessarily be made Monday morning, but, if any such announcement is to be made, it would be well to make it as soon as possible so that the defendants would be advised that as to any such specification or charge it would not be necessary for them to procure witnesses or introduce evidence. That was the only point in the mind of the Tribunal in suggesting that announcement be made Monday morning. The Tribunal is not holding the Prosecution to anything in connection with that matter, and if the announcement, if any, is made as soon as possible, with due regard to the matter which I have just mentioned, that would be satisfactory to the Tribunal.
MR. MCHANEY: Very well, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Does that answer your question?
MR. MCHANEY: Yes, indeed.
DR. RAUSCHENBACH (Counsel for Defendant Schaefer): Mr. President, I have a question which has been touched upon neither by the discussion before the recess nor by the ruling which has just been given by the Tribunal. It is a question connected neither with the question of the conspiracy nor with the statements by the Prosecution.
I made the request with regard to the defendant Schaefer that his case be immediately dismissed. I believe that I have understood the member of the Prosecution correctly to the effect that he means that such a dismissal could only be decided upon when the case is being presented. However, when the case is being presented and the presentation of evidence has been completed, then we may just as well wait until the verdict.
It is the practice of the English and American courts to which I have referred, as far as it has come to my knowledge from the literature which has been made available to me, has the effect of finishing the case before the presentation of evidence; that is, after the presentation by the Prosecution when it is already demonstrated that the defendant can not be sentenced. Therefore, I want to point out once more the possibility with regard to the case of Schaefer to make a ruling to this effect before I present evidence on behalf of the defendant Schaefer. That is the question of the dismissal of the proceedings against Schaefer and his discharge from confinement.
DR. WEISGERBER (For defendant Silvers): Mr. President, may I be permitted to ask one more question with regard to point No. I? If I have correctly understood the ruling of the High Tribunal, then the decision can only be made on Point I when the defense has made a statement with regard to this question.
In my presentation this morning I stated that I have not taken any stand with respect to the question of the conspiracy because I have joined in the statement of my colleagues, and, therefore, I have not made any statement of my own in this connection in order to avoid repetition. If the Tribunal should desire a statement of all the Defense Counsel who have not touched this question specifically, then I would request the Tribunal to make a statement with regard to this subject.
THE PRESIDENT: I stated that this question would be reserved until the close of the case when all defendants may be heard upon the matter. The ruling of the Tribunal is made strictly without prejudice to the right of any defendant to urge the matter of the conspiracy charge and its inapplicability to any or all defendants.
The right is expressly reserved to any or all defendants. The right is expressly reserved to the defendants to argue and present that question at the proper time at the close of the case.
Upon the question just suggested by Counsel for the defendant Schaefer, which has been suggested by other Defense Counsel, the Tribunal will reserve its ruling upon any such motions, which may be renewed at an appropriate time. The Tribunal strictly preserves to the defendants the right to urge the question which has been suggested. The Tribunal at this time reserves its ruling.
There being no further question to come before the Tribunal, the Tribunal will recess until 0930 o'clock Monday Morning.
(The Tribunal recessed until 0930 hours, 3 February 1947)
Official transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Murnberg, Germany, on 3 February 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.
THE MARSHAL: The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal.
Military Tribunal 1 is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, you ascertain if the defendants are all present in the courtroom.
THE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honor, all the defendants are present in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will note for the record the presence of all the defendants in the court.
The defense may proceed.
MR. MCHARNEY: May it please the Tribunal, prosecution wishes to announce that in order to shorten the trial and to eliminate argument it voluntarily removes as issues in this action. The following charges contained in the indictment. Against the Defendant Karl Brandt, the Charge in paragraph, 6a concerning participation in the high-altitude experiments; against the Defendant Handloser, the Change in paragraph 6a concerning participation in high-altitude experiments. We will have further announcements of this sort to make in the course of the next few days we expect. It is understood that the removal of these issues from the case with respect to the foregoing-defendants constitutes no admission by the prosecution that such defendants did not as a matter of fact participate in these experiments.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will note for the record the elimination of the Charges as stated by the prosecution.
The defense may proceed.
MR. SERVATIUS (Counsel for the Defendant Karl Brandt): On behalf of the Defendant Karl Brandt, and with the permission of the Tribunal I shall call the defendant to the witness stand at once.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal grants the permission. Defendant Karl Brandt will take the witness stand.
MR. MCHANEY: May it please the Tribunal, we have no objection to the defendant Brandt taking the witness stand at this time. However, I wish the record to show that the prosecution has not been advised that the Defendant Brandt would take the stand at this time and henceforth I will ask that all defense counsel comply with the rule of the Tribunal which requires that a minimum of 24 hours notice be given to the prosecution. It is to be expected that prosecution will have a few questions to put to one or the other of the witnesses to be called by the defense and we would like to have some time to consider those questions.
THE PRESIDENT: In the future the defense counsel will observe the rule and give the prosecution 24 hours notice of the calling of any witness whether a defendant or a witness.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, on Saturday the Marshal of the court asked me who the witnesses would be that I was going to call and I told him that the defendant himself would be the first to take the stand. I assumed that the prosecution too would be informed accordingly. That is how the error arose.
KARL BRANDT, a defendant, took the stand and testified as follows:
BY JUDGE SEBRING:
Q Hold up your right band and be sworn, repeating after me; I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. SERVATIUS:
Q Witness, state your name and when you were born.
A My name is Karl Brandt and I was born on January 8, 1904.
Q Will you describe to the Tribunal an element of your life until you started studying at the University.
A First of all, in my home town at Muehlhausen I visited school and secondary school. In 1919 when Muehlhausen and Alsace had been occupied by the French I was instructed to leave and I temporarily took up residence in Thuringia, where I visited a prep school for secondary school, and the last two years until my matric I spent at Dresden in a boarding school where I passed my matriculation examination. I passed my matriculation in 1923.
Q What did you decide to study and how did you arrive at that decision.
A On my mother's side my family was one of doctors. So that it was a fairly obvious thing to me to study medicine. A brother of my mothers has been a pupil of the first psychologist in Zurick, Professor Borel, recently mentioned by Professor Leibbrand.
A Where did you study until the completion of your studies?
A First of all at Jena. I should like to point out that those days were very difficult ones for us. It was the time of inflation with all its social complications. My studies at Jena did not proceed altogether too smoothly. Since I was studying medicine and was intending to become a doctor. I was short of connections with real patients during the pre-clinical part of my studies. Just as soon as my fourth term I visited the clinical lectures and in that manner I got into touch with my later chief. Professor Magnus, who in those days was the Chief medical officer at the surgical clinic at Jena. I owe it to him that after four terms I succeeded in passing my physicum examination so that I actually arrived at the clinic prematurely. After I had passed this physicum examination, I first of all preceded to Freiburg where I continued my studies, and since even in those days I had already decided I would he a surgeon, my further studies were adjusted accordingly to this surgical teaching and I changed universities quite frequently. I went to Berlin where I studied most of all under August Bier. I went to Munich because there Professor Sauerbruch was lecturing. And finally, for the purpose of passing my State examination, I returned to Freiburg where I was during 1927 and 23, during the winter terms, to pass my examination.
I immediately proceed did to pass my doctor examination so that the spring of 1928 for the conclusion of my studies at universities.
Q Then where did you actually receive your practical instructions as a practical doctor?
A I had previously mentioned the name Professor Magnus who at the time had been medical officer at the surgeons university clinic at Jena and in the meantime he had become chief doctor at the hospital at Bergmanns Heil at Bochum which was a large hospital with a great deal of accident surgery, accident cases. From there I went upon completion of my study and temporarily during my year of practice I also practiced at Chemnitz and at a General Hospital in Weimar. And from the beginning of 1929 I became assistant doctor at the surgeon's department at Bochum. Work in that hospital had the particular characteristic that the medical department was closely connected with the places of work where the actual accidents had occurred. As far as the coal mining industry is concerned, that and the ste** industry, was leading there.
Q. Did you have any special training in any medical branch?
A. During this accident surgery, injuries to the skull played a particularly leading roll; surgery upon extremities; and, one important chapter, injuries to the spine. Perhaps I shall have to go into this more thoroughly. Every assistant doctor at the hospital ay Bergmanns Heil found it his most difficult task having to take care of patients with injuries to the spine. These people were usually paralyzed in the lower organs of their bodies. And they meant to us the greatest human demands. Every one of these patients knew there was no help for him, and that his fate during a period of weeks, months, or in exceptional cases, years, would be ended. There was a tremendous neuralgic pain, never leaving the patients a moment's peace, day or nights. And, to all of us it was a great effort, again and again, having to visit these patients, having to step up to their beds, and having to say a few words of greetings, which practically were nothing other than just words. After a certain time, again and again, these patients would make the same request. "Doctor, give me an injection! I cannot stand it any more." I think that any description of this situation, however extensive it might be, would always fail to live up to reality. I did not intend, when I first went to Bochum, to remain there for good. I was intending to complete my training as a surgeon. During my period of studies I had already made contact with a man known not only m Germany, but beyond the borders of this country a doctor named Albert Schweitzer. And, I intended, once trained as a surgeon, to assist him with his work as a doctor in Lambarene, French Kongo; when, in 1932, I was ready for the carrying out of this plan it was no longer possible since a request was made that I should serve in the French army, which probably would have meant having to adopt French citizenship.
Q. So, you dropped the plan?
A. Yes, that was the reason why I abandoned that plan.
Q. So, one could say there was a national consideration?
A. Yes.
Q. Then, what did you do after your time at Bochum?
A. There was one particular interruption during the time I spent at Bochum. In 1933, more by accident than by design, I was present when a car accident occurred, during which the fuehrer's Adjutant, Vilhelm Brueckner, suffered a severe fracture of the skull. And, a niece of Hitler's was travel ling in the same car, and other passengers also being injured. At that time, I carried out immediate care on the persons, and certain surgical treatments, and by request of the Fuehrer, I spent six weeks in a small village hospital attending to Wilhelm Brueckner, as a doctor, and then in the autumn of 1933, I went back to Bochum. In 1934, in January, my chief at Bochum, Professor Magnus, was called to join the University Clinic at Berlin, meanwhile having been vacated by Professor Bier.
Q? You, yourself, were at Bochum. And, who became your chief then?
A. Professor Magnus went to Berlin, and I went to Berlin with him, and likewise, Professor Rostock to Berlin, and again he became the first assistant to the chief; so that altogether I have been with him now for 19 years.
Q. And, then until the beginning of the war, you remained in Berlin; did you not?
A. I was in Berlin, yes, until the beginning of the war. There I worked at that clinic, where I was, first of all, the head of one station. And, beginning in 1936, I think, I took charge of the accident section, and the Polyklinik which I headed. The Polyklinik had a large intake of patients, amounting to approximately 18 to 20 or 21000 patients per annum passing through.
Q. What happened at the beginning of the war? Did the situation change at all?
A. I shall have to come back to that at a later time, showing, which after 1934, I acted as Escort Physician to Hitler; which meant, that during the period of the war I had a special task, that of Inspector of the Armed Forces, attached to the Headquarters of the Fuehrer.
Q. Did that mean your complete separation from the clinic?
A. No, I did not separate from that Clinic. I tried everything I could to remain in contact. And, later on, when I become General Commissioner for Health and Sanitation, and even as Reich Commissioner, I had my office there. I was doing my work and directing it from that clinic.
Q. Which personalities in the medical field, had influence upon you in your medical profession?
A. If I am to give you the names of my teachers once again, passing through them quickly; then, first of all the Surgeon Lexer, von Moeller, Hiss, and the general psychiatrist, Hocher and Freiburg in Munich, ere the decisive personalities in my medical training.
Q. Through having met these outstanding experts, did you ever find your, self drawing toward scientific activities?
A. No; in the first place I was interested in the clinical work, and as far as scientific work was concerned it was more or less a hobby with me.
Q. Did you work on any scientific things at all?
A. Together with my chief, Prof. Magnus, I did carry out a certain amount of work, writing works about surgery on skulls, injuries of the spine; and there were certain special examinations which I carried out during inspections of choice. But it would be wrong to say that I had played any leading part at all in any scientific field.
Q. Did you carry out any laboratory work?
A. Apart from the fact that temporarily I was the head of the laboratory at the clinic, I did not carry out any laboratory work. Maybe I might and at this point that approximately in 1936 I spent some extra time working in laboratories due to the fact that an event occurred outside which influenced the situation. May I refer you to the testimony given here recently by Prof. Leibrand, which might mean that it is important that I should go in to detail. There was a man called Von Brehmer who had appeared, Stating that he had found, the cause of cancer. Through those channels he went to Goering with this story; and Goering took this tremendous discovery to Hitler, who in turn instructed me to discuss the affair with Herr Von Brehmer. In order to give the matter scientific and expert background, we obtained my chief's permission, the permission of Prof. Magnus, to ask Brehmer to come to Berlin, where investigations carried out on his instructions produced no unanimous results, no clear-cut results, so that the idea had been and could be turned down by experts, meaning that cause or one of the causes of cancer appeared not to have been found. Then the results from Brehmer were taken under the wing of Mr. Streicher right here in Nurnberg. Streicher established patients' department, to which he gave the name Paracelsus Institute; and there one can well say in the most irresponsible manner examinations and observations were carried out. The result, however, was that the seriousness of these experiments of Brokmer's was pointed out to Hitler, this time by Streicher.
Therefore, once again I was instructed to carry out certain observations, this time here in Nurnbere, and to confirm if possible what Von Brehmer had already stated. In order to be quite sure of these observations, I brought along with me a photographer; and the findingson the cancer patients were photographed and recorder over periods of weeks. The result was absolutely negative. Although this was so, Streicher used this opportunity to make public statements without criticism, without responsible dealing with these possibilities for treatment produced by Brehmer. He was not even shamed to publish photographs which I had made. For instance, in the case of one scientific cancerous infection of the breast of a women, a photographed was taken in order to check the diseased one; but a healthy one was published in the reverse, saying that this was the cured previously diseased breast.
In that connection, of course, I had a very serious arguments with Streicher, which, as far as I was concerned, had two practical results, Firstly, the president of the police suggested to me that if possible I should avoid coming to Nurnberg, where as on the other hand I received the information from the Fuehrer never to go to Nurnberg without him, in other words only when accompanied by him. This I carried out.
In order to demonstrate how in fact this charleton business was actually progressing in Germany after 1933, then after Brohmer had discontinued his work here in Nurnberg, on the strength of the documentary evidence Himmler first of all took him under his win I was still receiving photographs in connection with which Himmler himself was making statements in relation to the investigation of fact as to whether the person was either suffering from cancer or might have become a cancer patient.
Q. Witness, did you have any additional surgical training?
A. I have told you that in them in my training as adjutant surgeon took place mostly in Bechum. I had further surgical training in Berlin, which, as years went on, was supplemented by the fact that I was working under Geheimrat Reichel where a special method of operating on stomachs was being used. In addition to that, with an order to acquire additional knowledge of stomach surgery, I spent several months at the University Clinic of Bonn. In order also to collect experience with breast surgery, I spent several months with Sauerbruch.
Q. Just before that you had mentioned these special tasks with reference to the Brehmer-Streicher matter. Did you have any other special tasks given to you which actually fell outside your normal scene of activity?
A. The work in Berlin had the difficulties which the construction of the task from the point of view of space brought with it. It meant to us at the clinic in Berlin the task of having to plan new buildings. In 1937 I received the task at the time in collaboration with Speer, the plenipotentiary of the reconstruction of the capital, and the special task of architects of developing plans first of all only for a surgical clinic and later for the entire university clinic at Berlin. This was work which extended over a period of years and which led to the result that during the first years of the war there was a final plan concluded. I Shall give you the cost of the building so as to give you an idea about the matter. It amounted to approximately two hundred eighty million. The buildings which reached the height of the radio tower in Berlin and which could house all the students in addition to four thousand patients belonging to the various clinics, all the pre-clinical institutes were there, the pathological and anatomy institutes, and so on. Arising from this connection were building plans.
I carried out the planning for the evacuation hospitals during the war which then received the special name of special evacuation hospitals.
Q We shall come back to that matter later. During the planning of these works in Berlin for the Clinic, did you have any other medical assistance?
A It was necessary to carry through this building program and it was necessary to have assisting physicians. My closest collaborator was prof. Rostock. At that time Professor Rostock had become my clinical chief since Professor Magnus in the meantime had transferred to Munich. I asked Professor Rostock to give me his assistance mainly because of his organization of talent. In addition, I knew that because of the personal friendship which existed between us there could be found a special reliability. Here perhaps I may point out the personality of Professor Rostock. Every person who had any dealings with him will at first say, and the expression used in Germany would be that Rostock is a good man, and as our common teacher Magnus he had a consciously human attitude towards patients and then this attitude can be found in Rostock, and it originates from a born friendliness. With reference to the treatment of his subordinates in the clinics and the nurses or assistants, it is a fact that they, as well as the patients, respected him. He is medically absolutely reliable, and all of his activities were devoted to the benefit of the patient, and he was superb teacher for the students. The prosecution has already pointed out the respect which has to be granted to him as a scientist and rightly so. How magnificent it is may be seen from the fact that the faculty of Berlin nominated as their Dean and with that they showed very clearly and with that he became very clearly representative of all the German medical faculties.
Q Witness, I shall now turn to your political career. When did you join the N S D A P?
A I became a member of the National Socialist party in January, 1932.
Q And what was the reason which load you to it?
A For me a decisive reason was the conception of the social question. At that time I was an assistant in the Ruhr territory and every person who records these years will imagine the hopeless situation which existed at that time. There was unemployment and suffering, a very unclear prospect of the future. There was unreliability. All of this in a country of this red earth demanded something from us. From the start, because of family acquaintances, I was close the the circles of Friedrich Naumann, and arising from this connection the decision to become a member of the Party was not very difficult.
Q Did you belong to any other medical association?
A I became a member of the National socialist League of physicians, but I came into no closer connection with them. Apart from this membership, I did not attend a single meeting and it may have been an oversight on my part that I remained a member. I then joined the League of Physicians with a condition which I put in writing, that I would not exercise any active duty in any SS or SA formation. I thought it was necessary at the time, so that as a physician I would not be considered a politician by my patients who followed devious political lines.
Q So then you exercised no activity in that association?
A No.
Q Well how did you come into contact with the Fuehrer in spite of that?
A I formerly pointed out the motor car accident of Brueckner and it was in 1934 when the first meeting of Hitler and Mussolini took place in Venice, and Hitler himself needed an escort Physician then because there was the possibility of an attempted assassination. Remembering this motor car accident his Adjutant Brueckher telephoned me in Berlin and ordered me to come to Munich and I flew with him to Venice, and this event really was the beginning of my subsequent function as the escort physician of Hitler. I should like to point out the differentiation which I made between the personal physician and escort physician. The personal physician is perhaps a physician who occasionally is called in cases of illness. In my case as an escort physician I had to be in readiness, at his disposal, and whenever Hitler had to leave Berlin it was my duty to accompany him. That, of course, entailed, at any rate after the beginning of the war, that I needed two representatives for this function, one was in Berlin and the other in Munich. Otherwise, I could not have remained in Berlin at all.
Q Were you at that time already a member of the SS?
A In 1933 I was a member of the SA, and only after the visit to Venice, I was transferred to the SS. This was for merely external reasons. Then all persons accompanying Hitler were SS uniforms and I had civilian clothing and in order to present a uniform picture he wanted me to wear a uniform.
Q Where did you serve your military duties?
A. I served with the Army -- it was in 1935 - at first with the Infantry Regiment. It was in Blankenburg/Hars and later after I became medical officer in the Army I served in hospitals where 1 served my yearly duties. I have been assigned to Berlin as a surgeon.
Q And what activities did you exercise during the War?
A By order of the Army Inspectorate I was assigned to the Fuehrer's Headquarters in the year of 1940 and also, because of former reasons, I was transferred to the Waffen-SS by the general SS without holding a command and also without leading a unit. Since I was still serving in the Army and Exercise thereto my promotions were approximately parallel. Usually I was first promoted by the Army. My last rank in 1943 was Generelarzt, and in accordance with that the SS promoted me.
Q Was such a combination of activities, both in the SS and in the Army, something customary?
A With the exception of my own case I know no other.
Q How was your relationship to Himmler? Did you belong to his closer circle?
A I had no personal relationship to Himmler. I pointed out before that I really had serious medical differences with him - von Bremmer and Streicher. And also during the War when a closer contact might have taken place there was certain personal tension of the circle around Hitler and the circle around Himmler.
Q Were you always officially asked to attend Gruppenfuehrer discussions held by Himmler?
AAs I said, I had no relationship to Himmler. This also extended to the official field. I took part in none of these so-called Gruppenfuehrer or SS leaders' discussions. I was never invited to attend any one of them. Even professionally there was no contact between us. Sometimes it even went so far, and documents will probably confirm that, that Himmler consciously tried to remove me from his circle and his path and sometimes even pronounced prohibition to get into any contact with me.