DR. NELTE: Gentlemen of the Tribunal, with reference to what my colleague, Dr. Servatius, has said I should like to add the following, and else as a reply to what has been said earlier, namely, that the difficulties we had were of a figurative nature and were not of a concrete nature.
May I please point cut to you that on the 26th of November I had already submitted application, to which even today I am still without a reply. In that application, dated 26th of November, I had named six experts and witnesses who are of general and great importance to this trial. In consideration of the fact that the trial was scheduled to start as early as 9th of December I had requested to be given the possibility of calling these doctors who reside in Heidelberg, Wurtzberg, Cologne, and as far as I know, Tuebingen, and that I night be given the opportunity to visit there. I still have not received a reply to this application today. I have not been able to visit these important witnesses and I believe that the raising of the points which Prosecution have submitted in today's letter cannot be applicable to my case. They state that the Defense had ample time in order to call experts. It might have been possible to visit these doctors in the course of this week, if my application dated 26th of November had received an early decision.
I, also, on the 2nd of December submitted an application to the High Tribunal in which I referred to five experts capable of dealing not only with general medical questions but also with the limits and dividing lines of what might be considered legal and medically sound in each individual case, or not permissible.
Quite often it would be possible that the decision could be made with reference to the application as early as today. What I was trying to express was the time which we, the Defense, had at our disposal considered from the point of view of advancing the proceedings and the point of view of preparation had been utilized by you although could no more beyond time and circumstances, as they have been described by my colleague, Dr. Servatius, and present that. I hope that this High Tribunal will believe us, the Defense counsels, when we say that everything we do and everything we apply for will be raised in the connection that with it and through it we act in general best interest, not only of ourselves but the Tribunal and Prosecution, since it is our aim and our ambition to assist in the greatest possible clarification of the real circumstances and material throughout this case.
It is for that reason that the objection raised by the Prosecution, namely, that there is no legal regulation according to which the documents and any other material should be submitted in good time is not, I think, quite applicable in our case, because we, both the Prosecution as well as the Defense, have the mutual duty to contribute everything we can in order to elucidate and investigate the circumstances throughout and place at your disposition, your Honor, material as complete and as necessary to finding the truth.
THE TRIBUNAL (Judge Beals): The Court has a question to propound upon the Prosecution. I understand that Counsel for Defense, Dr. Servatius, I believe, has said that although many of these documents are now in the Defense Information Center, yet there is no list of the documents and from which they can work adequately. Can you advise the Court about that, sir?
GENERAL TAYLOR: Prosecution furnished the Information Center with a list of these documents in numerical order. The list does not break the documents down into an index by subject, but does list the documents by numbers. As far as I know there is no reason why the Defense Counsels could not have divided them among themselves and dealt them around so those applicable in each case would come into the hands of the lawyer in that particular part of the case. Such a list was forwarded to the Information Center. Furthermore, I stopped by there on my way to Court and very cursory locked around and saw the document file in a drawer in numerical order. I say that hesitantly because it was a cursory lock but that is what appeared to me to be.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, may I answer briefly. There is a list of documents, yet -- but it does not correspond to what we had formerly. It is only a list of numbers and reads 001, 005, 200. I see the numbers but I do not know what they mean. I can't select what is of importance for me but I might see "Letter to Himmler". That is important to me. I see only 005.
I can't see that on the documents. A list of numbers is useless to me. It is only of use to the person in charge of the documents as he knows which documents are there. I cannot exchange with my colleagues because I do not know who has the important documents. I believe if the Tribunal would investigate the question the documents are there but, in short, in going through them on Saturday with the assistance of Lt. Garrett I checked them. It took an hour and a half to go through the documents -- about one hundred documents. As long as I was working there no one else could use them. In practice they are not really available to us.
GENERAL TAYLOR: I believe what Dr. Servatius has said confirms what I said about the list: That list is a check list. We are certainly, I believe, under no obligation to give the Defense Counsels an index from which they can determine a document's importance. There is no way we can save them from work. They have to go through and we which document relates to each part of the case. I say again they are in a very much better position to review because they can understand them. They do not have to deal with translators. Sometimes if is very late when they are translated. I have had access to very few documents.
May I make a comment while at the podium about Dr. Nelte's point about expert witnesses. I do not know of circumstances concerning two particular requests for experts that he has mentioned. All those requests come to the Prosecution and I am informed in every case, except two, we have indicated approval. We have no objection to requests and sent back to the Information Center. Those two or three cases where we have not given consent was because awaiting call of witness from London, Paris, or some distant point. In all cases we have said we had no objection to calling of witnesses in Germany. I cannot believe any objection by Prosecution has been put in from securing witnesses from Heidelberg, Cologne, or elsewhere.
THE TRIBUNAL (Judge Beals): The Marshall will clear the Court while the Judges come to a decision of this motion. All persons remain at attention until summoned into the Court Room.
THE PRESIDENT: The court has considered the briefs filed in connection with this matter and the argument of counsel; the Tribunal rules that the motion for a continuance will be denied without prejudice, however, to the rights of the defendants to present any appropriate motions during the course of the trial for any necessary reasonable recess, either to secure expert witnesses or consultants to be present during the course of the Prosecution's case in chief; or to secure other witnesses or documents. The Tribunal will attempt to dispose of all motions or applications for the presence of witnesses or production of documents no later than tomorrow. Will the counsel for the Prosecution step to the podium? The Tribunal is interested, General, in whether or not you could supplement this list of documents which has been filed so that as to each document which is listed, there might be, in connection therewith, a short general statement as to the subject matter of that document.
GENERAL TAYLOR: I will ask Mr. McHaney to answer that question.
MR. McHANEY: If your Honor, please, would it be necessary that this descriptive list of documents be translated into German? I think that possibly we could get up such a list without too much difficulty in English, but our translation facilities at the present time are extremely burdened; and if possible, we would like to be relieved of the task of having this translated into German; or if Defense counsel would also take considerable more time, we could provide it to them in English within, I think, 24 hours or 48 hours, I should think, at least.
THE PRESIDENT: It is not the idea of the Tribunal that the statement should be very long. I know nothing of your translation facilities. I would assume that if a brief statement in English were filed, it would probably materially assist the counsel for the defendants, just to give each one a brief notice of the contents and the nature of the document so that the defendants who are interested in certain specifications under the charge would know from that that document did or did not concern them.
MR. MCHANEY: Yes, indeed, we shall do that.
JUDGE BEALS: I would like to ask Defense Counsel a question. Do you think, Counsel, that the filing of a brief statement in English would be of material assistance to you and would be sufficient until possibly a German translation could be provided?
DR. SERVATIUS: It would be of great assistance to us. If a number of Defense Counsel have difficulties, we would be able to help each other. We would be very glad to get it soon. May I ask about the number of documents, if we could have twenty-three lists, one for each defendant? There are twenty-three defendants, if we could have twenty-three copies.
JUDGE BEALS: I would ask Counsel for the Prosecution to furnish that if possible. You are excused.
JUDGE SEBRING: General Taylor, is it mechanically possible to do that?
GENERAL TAYLOR: Yes, Your Honor, I believe it would be by stenciling it.
JUDGE SEBRING: Within what period of time?
GENERAL TAYLOR: Well, we will do our best to have it in within twenty-four hours. Until I check with the clerical facilities I am a little reluctant to say definitely that we can do it in twenty-four hours, but we will shoot for that and I think we will certainly be able to have it in forty-eight.
JUDGE BEALS: This informal session of the Tribunal will now adjourn.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 9 December 1946, at 1000 hours.)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 9 December 1946, 1000-1700, Justice Beals, presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Military Tribunal No. 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: The Secretary General will ascertain that all the defendants are present.
THE MARSHAL: The Secretary General will call the roll of the defendant.
(The Secretary General: Karl Brandt, Siegfried Handloser, Paul Rostock, Oskar Schroeder, Karl Genzken, Karl Beghardt, Kurt Blome, Rudolf Brandt, Joachim Mrugowsky, Helmut Poppendick, Wolfram Sievers, Gerhard Rose, Siegfried Ruff, Hans Wofgang Romberg, Victor Brack, Hermann BeckerFreyseng, Georg August Weltz, Konrad Schaefer, Waldemar Hoven, Wilhelm Beiglb?? Adolf Porkorny, Herta Oberhauser, Fritz Fischer.)
THE SECRETARY GENERAL: All of the defendants are present and accounted for.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary General will note for the record the prose of the defendants.
I have two questions now to propound to the defendants. As the name of each defendant is called he will rise in his place and proceed to the center in front of the microphone and answer the questions which I shall propound to him. Karl Brandt. Your name is Karl Brandt?
KARL BRANDT: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you received and had an opportunity to read the indictment filed against you?
KARL BRANDT: I have read the indictment, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you entered your plea of Not Guilty to this indictment and do you now plead Not Guilty?
KARL BRANDT: Yes, I am not guilty.
THE PRESIDENT: You may be seated. Paul Rostock.
PAUL ROSTOCK: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you received and have you had an opportunity to read the indictment filed against you?
PAUL ROSTOCK: I have read the indictment,
THE PRESIDENT: Have you entered your plea of Not Guilty and do you now plead not Guilty to the indictment?
PAUL ROSTOCK: I am Not Guilty.
THE PRESIDENT: You may be seated. Oskar Schroeder.
OSKAR SCHROEDER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you received and had an opportunity to read the indictment filed against you?
OSKAR SCHROEDER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you entered your plea of Not Guilty to this indictment and do you now plead Not Guilty?
OSKAR SCHROEDER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may be seated. Karl Genzken. Is your name Karl Genzken?
KARL GENZKEN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you received and have you had an opportunity to read the indictment filed against you?
KARL GENZKEN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you entered your plea of Not Guilty to this indictment and do you now plea Not Guilty to the indictment?
KARL GENZKEN: Not Guilty.
THE PRESIDENT: You may be seated. Karl Gebhardt. Is your name Karl Gebhardt?
KARL GEBHARDT: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you received and have you had an opportunity to read the indictment filed against you?
KARL GEBHARDT: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you entered your plea of Not Guilty to his indictment and do you now plead Not Guilty to the indictment?
KARL GEBHARDT: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Kurt Blome. Is your name Kurt Blome?
KURT BLOME: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you received and have you had an opportunity to read the indictment filed against you?
KURT BLOME: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you entered your plea of Not Guilty to this indictment and do you now plead Not Guilty to the indictment?
KURT BLOME: Not Guilty.
THE PRESIDENT: You may be seated. Rudolf Brandt. Is your name Rudolf Brandt?
RUDOLF BRANDT: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you received and have you had an opportunity to read the indictment filed against you?
RUDOLF BRANDT: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you entered your plea of Not Guilty to this indictment and do you now plead Not Guilty to the indictment?
RUDOLF BRANDT: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Siegfried Handloser. Is your name Siegfried Handloser?
SIEGFRIED HANDLOSER: Yes
THE PRESIDENT: Have you received and have you had an opportunity to read the indictment filed against you?
SIEGFRIED HANDLOSER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you entered your plea of Not Guilty to this indictment and do you now plead Not Guilty to the indictment?
SIEGFRIED HANDLOSER: Not Guilty.
THE PRESIDENT: You may be seated. Joachim Mrugowsky. Is you name Joachim Mrugowsky?
JOACHIM MRUGOWSKY: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you received and have you had an opportunity to read the indictment filed against you?
JOACHIM MRUGOWSKY: I have read it.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you entered your plea of Not Guilty to this indictment and do you now plead Not Guilty to this indictment?
JOACHIM MRUGOWSKY: I plead Not Guilty.
THE PRESIDENT: Helmut Poppendick. Is your name Helmut Poppendick?
HELMUT POPPENDICK: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you received and have you had an opportunity to read the indictment filed in this case against you?
HELMUT POPPENDICK: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you entered your plea of Not Guilty to this indictment and do you now plead Not Guilty to this indictment?
HELMUT POPPENDICK: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may be seated. Wolfram Sievers. Is your name Wolfram Sievers?
WOLFRAM SIEVERS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you received and have you had an opportunity to read the indictment filed against you?
WOLFRAM SIEVERS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you entered your plea of Not Guilty to this indictment and do you now plead Not Guilty to this indictment?
WOLFRAM SIEVERS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may seated. Gerhard Rose. Is your name Gerhard Rose?
GERHARD ROSE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you received and have you had an opportunity to read the indictment filed against you?
GERHARD ROSE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: have you entered your plea of Not Guilty to this indictment and do you now plead Not Guilty to this indictment?
GERHARD ROSE: Yes, Not Guilty.
THE PRESIDENT: You may be seated. Siegfried Ruff.
SIEGFRIED RUFF: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you received and have you had an opportunity to read the indictment filed in this case against you?
SIEGFRIED RUFF: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you entered your plea of Not Guilty to this indictment and do you now plead Not Guilty to this indictment?
SIEGFRIED RUFF: Yes, Not Guilty.
THE PRESIDENT: Hans Wolfgang Romberg. Is your name Hans Wolfgang Romberg?
HANS WOLFGANG ROMBERG: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you received and have you had an opportunity to read the indictment filed against you?
HANS WOLFGANG ROMBERG: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you entered your plea of Not Guilty to this indictment and do you now plead Not Guilty to this indictment?
HANS WOLFGANG ROMBERG: Not Guilty.
THE PRESIDENT: You may be seated. Viktor Brack. Is your name Viktor Brack?
VIKTOR BRACK: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you received and have you had an opportunity to read the indictment filed against you?
VIKTOR BRACK: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you entered your plea of Not Guilty to this indictment and do you now plead Not Guilty to this indictment?
VIKTOR BRACK: I plead Not Guilty.
THE PRESIDENT: You may be seated. Hermann Becker-Freyseng. Is your name Hermann Becker-Freyseng?
HERMANN BECKER-FREYSENG: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you received and have you had an opportunity to read the indictment filed against you?
HERMANN BECKER-FREYSENG: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you entered your plea of Not Guilty to this indictment and do you now plead Not Guilty to this indictment?
HERMANN BECKER-FREYSENG: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may be seated. Georg August Weltz. Is you name Geog August Weltz?
GEORG AUGUST WELTZ: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you received and have you had an opportunity to read the indictment filed against you?
GEORG AUGUST WELTZ: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you entered your plea of Not Guilty to this indictment and do you now plead Not Guilty to this indictment?
GEORG AUGUST WELTZ: Not Guilty.
THE PRESIDENT: You may be seated. Konrad Schaefer.
KONRAD SCHAEFER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you received and have you had an opportunity to read the indictment filed against you?
KONRAD SCHAEFER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you entered your plea of Not Guilty to this indictment and do you now plead Not Guilty to this indictment?
KONRAD SCHAEFER: I plead Not Guilty.
THE PRESIDENT: Waldemar Hoven. Is your name Waldemar Hoven?
WALDEMAR HOVEN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you received and have you had an opportunity to read the indictment filed against you?
WALDEMAR HOVEN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you entered your plea of Not Guilty to this indictment and do you now plead Not Guilty to this indictment?
WALDEMAR HOVEN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may be seated. Wilhelm Beiglbock. Is your name Wilhelm Beiglbock?
WILHELM BEIGLBOCK: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you received and have you had an opportunity to read the indictment filed against you?
WILHELM BEIGLBOCK: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you entered your plea of Not Guilty to this indictment and do you now plead Not Guilty to this indictment?
WILHELM BEIGLBOCK: I plead Not Guilty.
THE PRESIDENT: Adolf Pokorny. Is your name Adolf Pokorny?
ADOLF POKORNY: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you received and have you had an opportunity to read the indictment filed against you?
ADOLF POKORNY: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you entered your plea of Not Guilty to this indictment and do you now plead Not Guilty to this indictment?
ADOLF POKORNY: Nor Guilty.
THE PRESIDENT: Herta Oberhauser. Is your name Herta Oberhauser?
HERTA OBERHAUSER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you received and have you had an opportunity to read the indictment filed against you?
HERTA OBERHAUSER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you entered your plea of Not Guilty to this indictment and do you now plead Not Guilty to this indictment?
HERTA OBERHAUSER: Not Guilty.
THE PRESIDENT: You may be seated. Fritz Fischer. Is you name Fritz Fischer?
FRITZ FISCHER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you received and have you had an opportunity to read the indictment filed against you?
FRITZ FISCHER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you entered your plea of Not Guilty to this indictment and do you now plead Not Guilty to this indictment?
FRITZ FISCHER: Yes, Not Guilty.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary General will note the questions and answers propounded to the defendants.
THE PRESIDENT: I have a statement which I desire to make for the benefit of the prosecution, defendants, and all concerned: Before opening the trial of Case No. 1, the United States of America against Karl Brandt, et al, there are certain matters which the Tribunal desires to call to the attention of the counsel for the prosecution and the counsel for the defendants.
1. The prosecution may be allowed, for the purpose of making the opening statement in this case, time not to exceed one trial day. This time may be allocated by the chief prosecutor, between himself and any of his assistants, as he desires.
2. When the prosecution has rested its case, defense counsel will be allowed two trial days in which to make their opening statements, and which will comprehend the entire theory of their respective defenses. The time allocated will be divided between the different defense counsel, as they may themselves agree. In the event the defense counsel cannot agree, the Tribunal will allocate the time, not to exceed thirty minutes to each defendant.
3. The prosecution shall, not less than twenty-four hours, before it desires to offer any record or document or writing in evidence, as part of its case in chief, file with the defense information center not less than one copy of such record, document or writing for each of the counsel for defendants, such copies to be in the German language. The prosecution shall also deliver to the defense information center at least four copies thereof in the English language.
4. When the prosecution or any defendant offers a record, document or any other writing or a copy thereof in evidence there shall be delivered to the Secretary General in addition to the original document or other instrument in writing so offered for admission in evidence, six copies of the document. If the document is written or printed in a language other than English there shall also be filed with the copies of the document above referred to six copies of an English translation of the document. If such document is offered by any defendant suitable facilities for procuring English translations of that document shall be made available.
5. At least twenty-four hours before a witness is called to the stand either by the prosecution or by any defendant, the party who desired to interrogate the witness shall deliver to the Secretary General an original and six copies of a memorandum which shall disclose: 1. The name of the witness. 2. His nationality, 3. His residence or station. 4. His official rank or position. 5. Whether he is called as an expert witness or as a witness to testify to facts, and if the latter, a prepared statement of the subject matter on which the witness will be interrogated. When the prosecution prepares such a statement in connection with the witness who it desires to call, at the time of the filing of this statement, two additional copies thereof shall be delivered to the defense information center. When a defendant prepares such a statement concerning a witness who it desires to call, the defendant shall at the same time the copies are filed with the Secretary General, deliver one additional copy to the prosecution.
6. When either the prosecution or a defendant desires the Tribunal to take judicial notice of any official Government documents or reports of the United Nations, including any action, ruling or regulation of any Committee, Board, or Counsel, heretofore established by or in the Allied Nations for the investigation of War Crimes or any record made by or the findings of any Military or other Tribunal, this Tribunal may refuse to take judicial notice of such documents, rules, or regulations, unless the party proposing, ask this Tribunal to judicially notice such documents, rules, or regulations, place a copy thereof in writing before the Tribunal.
This Tribunal has learned with satisfaction of the procedure adopted by the prosecution with the intention to furnish to the defense counsel information concerning the writings or documents which the prosecution expects to offer in evidence for the purpose of affording the defense counsel information to help them prepare their respective defense to the indictments. The desire of the Tribunal is that this be made available to the defendants so as to aid them in the presentation of their respective defense.
The United States of America having established this Military Tribunal One, pursuant to law, through properly empowered Military authorities, and the defendants having been brought before Military Tribunal One, pursuant to indictments filed October 25, 1946, in the Office of the Secretary General of the Military Tribunal at Nurnberg, Germany, by an officer of the United States Army, regularly designated as Chief of Counsel for War Crimes, acting on behalf of the United States of America, pursuant to appropriate Military authority, and the indictments having been served upon each defendant for more than thirty days prior to this date, and a copy of the indictments in the German language having been furnished to each defendant, and having been in his possession more than thirty days, and each defendant having had ample opportunity to read the indictments, and having regularly entered his plea of not guilty to the indictments the Tribunal is ready to proceed with the trial.
This Tribunal will conduct the trial in accordance with controlling laws, rules, and regulations, and with due regard to appropriate precedence in a sincere endeavor to insure both to the prosecution and to each and every defendant an opportunity to present all evidence of an appropriate value bearing upon the issues before the Tribunal; to this end, that under law and pending regulations impartial justice may be accomplished.
The trial, of course, will be a public trial, not one behind closed doors; but because of limited facilities available the Tribunal must insist that the number of spectators be limited to the seating capacity of the court room. Passes will therefore be issued by the appropriate authorities to those who may enter the court room. The Tribunal will insist that good order be at all times maintained, and appropriate measures will be taken to see that this rule is strictly enforced.
For the information of all concerned, the Tribunal announces that hearings will be had each day this week commencing at 9.30 o'clock through Friday. The Tribunal will reconvene at 9.30 o'clock, Monday December 16, 1946, and will hold sessions every day of that week including Saturday, on which day, however, the Tribunal will recess until 9.30 o'clock, Thursday, January 2, 1947, on which day the Tribunal will convene at the usual time.
I should have stated that on Saturday of next week the Tribunal will recess at 12:30 o'clock.
The Prosecution may now commence its opening statement.
GENERAL TELFORD TAYLOR: The defendants in this case are charged with murders, tortures, and other atrocities committed in the name of medical science. The victims of these crimes are numbered in the hundred of thousands. A handful only are still alive; a few of the survivors will appear in this courtroom. But most of these miserable victims were slaughtered outright or died in the course of the tortures to which they were subjected.
For the most part they are nameless dead. To their murderers, these wretched people were not individuals at all. They came in wholesale lots and were treated worse than animals. They were 200 Jews in good physical condition, 50 Gypsies, 500 tubercular Poles, or 1,000 Russians. The victims of these crimes are numbered among the anonymous millions who met death at the hands of the Nazis and whose fate is a hideous blot on the page of modern history.
The charges against these defendants are brought in the name of the United States of America. They are being tried by a court of American judges. The responsibilities thus imposed upon the representatives of the United States, prosecutors and judges alike, are grave and unusual. They are owed not only to the victims, and to the parents and children of the victims, that just punishment be imposed on the guilty, and not only to the defendants, that they be accorded a fair hearing and decision. Such responsibilities are the ordinary burden of any tribunal. Far wider are the duties which we must fulfill here.
These larger obligations run to the peoples and races on whom the scourge of these crimes was laid. The mere punishment of the defendants, or even of thousands of others equally guilty, can never redress the terrible injuries which the Nazis visited on these unfortunate peoples. For them it is far more important that these incredible events be established by clear and public proof, so that no one can ever doubt that they were fact and not fable, and that this Court, as the agent of the United States and as the voice of humanity, stamp these acts, and the ideas which engendered them, as barbarous and criminal.
We have still other responsibilities here. The defendants in the dock are charged with murder, but this is no mere murder trial. We cannot rest content when we have shown that crimes were committed and that certain persons committed them.
To kill, to maim, and to torture is criminal under all modern systems of law. These defendants did not kill in hot blood, nor for personal enrichment. Some of them may be sadists, who killed and tortured for sport, but they are not all perverts. They are not ignorant men. Most of them are trained physicians and some of them are distinguished scientists. Yet these defendants, all of whom were fully able to comprehend the nature of their acts, and most of whom were exceptionally qualified to form a moral and professional judgment in this respect, are responsible for wholesale murder and unspeakably cruel tortures.
It is our deep obligation to all peoples of the world to show why and how these things happened. It is incumbent upon us to set forth with conspicuous clarity the ideas and motives which moved these defendants to treat their fellow men as less than beasts. The perverse thoughts and distorted concepts which brought about these savageries are not dead. They cannot be killed by force of arms. They must not become a spreading cancer in the breast of humanity. They must be cut out and exposed, for the reason so well stated by Mr. Justice Jackson in this courtroom a year ago:
"The wrongs which we seek to condemn and punish have been so calculated, so malignant, and so devastating that civilization cannot tolerate their being ignored because it cannot survive their being repeated."
To the German people we owe a special responsibility in these proceedings. Under the leadership of the Nazis and their war lords, the German nation spread death and devastation throughout Europe. This the Germans now know. So, too, do do they know the consequences to Germany. Defeat, ruin, prostration, and utter demoralization. Most German children will never, so long as they live, see an undamaged German city.
To what cause will these children ascribe the defeat of the German nation and the devastation that surrounds them? Will they attribute it to the overwhelming weight of numbers and resources that was eventually leagued against them? Will they point to the ingenuity of enemy scientists? Will they perhaps blame their plight on strategic and military blunders by their generals?
If the Germans embrace those reasons as the true cause of their disaster, it will be sad and fatal thing for Germany and for the world. Men who have never seen a German city intact will be callous about flattening English or American or Russian cities. They may not even realize that they are destroying anything worth while, for lack of a normal sense of values.
To reestablish the greatness of Germany, they are likely to pin their faith on improved military techniques. Such views will lead the Germans straight into the arms of the Prussian militarists to whom defeat is only a glorious opportunity to start a new war game. "Next time it will be different." We know all too well what that will mean.
This case, and others which will be tried in this building offer a signal opportunity to lay before the German people the true cause of their present misery. The walls and towers and churches of Nurnberg were, indeed, reduced to rubble by Allied bombs, but in a deeper sense Nurnberg had been destroyed a decade earlier, when it became the seat of the annual Nazi Party rallies, a focal point for the moral disintegration in Germany, and the private domain of Julius Streicher. The insane and malignant doctrines that Nurnberg spewed forth account alike for the crimes of these defendants and for the terrible fate of Germany under the Third Reich.
A nation which deliberately infects itself with poison will inevitably sicken and die. These defendants and others turned Germany into an infernal combination of a lunatic asylum and a charnel house. Neither science, nor industry, nor the arts could flourish in such a foul medium. The country could not live at peace and was fatally handicapped for war. I do not think the German people have as yet any conception of how deeply the criminal folly that was Nazism bit into every phase of German life, or of how utterly ravaging the consequences were. It will be our task to make these things clear.
These are the high purposes which justify the establishment of extraordinary courts to hear and determine this case and other of comparable importance. That murder should be punished goes without the saying, but the full performance of our task requires more than the just sentencing of these defendants. Their crimes were the inevitable result of the sinister doctrines which they espoused, and these same doctrines sealed the fate of Germany, shattered Europe, and left the world in ferment. Wherever those doctrines may emerge and prevail, the same terrible consequences will follow. That is why a bold and lucid consummation of these proceedings is of vital importance to all nations. That is why the United States has constituted this Tribunal.
THE STATE MEDICAL SERVICES OF THE THIRD REICH I pass now to the facts of the case in hand.
There are twenty three defendants in the box. All but three of them -- Rudolf Brandt, Sievers, and Brack -- are doctors. Of the twenty-doctors, all but one--Pokorny--held positions in the medical services of the Third Reich. To understand this case, it is necessary to understand the general structure of these state medical services, and how these services fitted into the over-all organization of the Nazi State.
To assist the Court in this regard, the prosecution has prepared a short expository brief, which is already in the hands of the Court and which has been made available to defense counsel in German and English. The brief includes a glossary of the more frequent German words or expressions which will occur in this trial-most of them from the vocabulary of military, medical, or governmental affairs. It also includes a table of equivalent ranks between the American Army and the German Army and the SS and of the medical ranks used in the German armed forces and the SS. Finally, it includes a chart showing the subordination of the several German medical services within the general framework of the German State. This chart has been enlarged and is displayed at the front of the courtroom.
Following this opening statement, Mr. McHaney will, in opening the presentation of evidence on behalf of the prosecution, offer in evidence a series of detailed charts of the various German medical services, which have been certified as accurate by the defendants Handloser, Schroeder, Karl Brandt, Mrugowsky, and Brack. The chart which I am now directing to the attention of the Tribunal is a composite chart based upon those which Mr. McHaney will offer in evidence. The chart in the front of the courtroom to which I now referring will not be offered in evidence; it is intended merely as a convenient guide to the Court and to defense counsel to enable them to follow the opening statement and to comprehend the over-all structure of the German medical services.
All power in the Third Reich derived from Adolf Hitler, who as at one and the same time the head of the government, the leader of the Nazi Party, and the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. Hit title as head of the government was Reich Chancellor. He was the "Fuehrer" of the Nazi Party, and the "Supreme Commander-in-Chief" of the Wehrmacht. Immediately subordinate to Hitler were the chiefs of the armed forces, the principal cabinet ministers in the government, and the leading officials of the Nazi Party. The only defendant in the dock who was directly responsible to Hitler himself is the defendant Karl Brandt.