Extract from the official Transcript of Military Tribunal I in the
matter of the _United States of America_ vs. _Karl Brandt et al._,
defendants, sitting at Nuernberg, Germany, on 21 November 1946, Judge
Beals presiding.
PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: We will now proceed to arraign the defendants on
the cause now pending before this Tribunal. As the names of the
defendants are called each defendant will stand, and will remain
standing until told to be seated. Mr. Secretary General of the Tribunal
will call the roll of the defendants.
THE SECRETARY GENERAL: Karl Brandt, Siegfried Handloser, Paul Rostock,
Oskar Schroeder, Karl Genzken, Karl Gebhardt, Kurt Blome, Rudolf Brandt,
Joachim Mrugowsky, Helmut Poppendick, Wolfram Sievers, Gerhard Rose,
Siegfried Ruff, Hans Wolfgang Romberg, Viktor Brack, Hermann
Becker-Freyseng, Georg August Weltz, Konrad Schaefer, Waldemar Hoven,
Wilhelm Beiglboeck, Adolf Pokorny, Herta Oberheuser, Fritz Fischer. (As
their names are called, the defendants rise.)
If the Honorable Tribunal please, all of the defendants are in the dock.
PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: The defendants will be seated.
The counsel for the prosecution will now proceed with the arraignment of
the defendants.
[Here Brigadier General Taylor read the indictment in full. See
pp. 8-17.]
PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: I shall now call upon the defendants to plead
guilty or not guilty to the charges against them. Each defendant, as his
name is called, will stand and speak into the microphone. At this time
there will be no arguments, speeches, or discussion of any kind. Each
defendant will simply plead either guilty or not guilty to the offenses
with which he is charged by the indictment.
Karl Brandt.
DR. PELCKMANN: Mr. Chairman, before the defendant pleads guilty or not
guilty, may I say a word? I am defense counsel for the defendant
Schaefer, number 18.
PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: For which defendant?
DR. PELCKMANN: Schaefer, number 18.
PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: We are now receiving the plea of the defendant
Karl Brandt. You do not represent him as counsel, do you?
DR. PELCKMANN: No.
PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Then I see no reason for counsel for another
defendant making any remarks at this time.
DR. PELCKMANN: May I speak before the defendant Schaefer speaks? A
formal objection.
PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: When the name of the defendant Schaefer is
called, you may address the Court.
Karl Brandt, are you represented by counsel in this proceeding?
DEFENDANT KARL BRANDT: Yes.
PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: How do you plead to the charges and
specifications and each thereof set forth in the indictment against you,
guilty or not guilty?
DEFENDANT HANDLOSER: Yes.
PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Be seated.
Siegfried Handloser, are you represented by counsel in this cause?
DEFENDANT HANDLOSER: No, I have no counsel yet.
PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Do you desire that the Tribunal appoint counsel
for you?
DEFENDANT HANDLOSER: I hope that today or tomorrow I may receive an
affirmative answer from a defense counsel.
PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Are you at this time ready to plead to the
indictment, guilty or not guilty?
DEFENDANT HANDLOSER: Yes.
PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: How do you plead to the charges and
specifications and each thereof set forth in the indictment against you,
guilty or not guilty?
DEFENDANT HANDLOSER: Not guilty.
PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Be seated.
[At this point the defendants Paul Rostock, Oskar Schroeder,
Karl Genzken, Karl Gebhardt, Kurt Blome, Rudolf Brandt, Joachim
Mrugowsky, Helmut Poppendick, Wolfram Sievers, Gerhard Rose,
Siegfried Ruff, Hans Wolfgang Romberg, Viktor Brack, Hermann
Becker-Freyseng and Georg August Weltz were arraigned. All were
represented by counsel. All pleaded not guilty to the
indictment.]
DR. PELCKMANN: Your Honor, may I speak?
PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: What is the purpose of the remarks you desire to
make?
DR. PELCKMANN: I should like to object to the indictment. I should like
to say that in my opinion, as far as Schaefer is concerned, the
indictment does not conform to Ordinance No. 7. I can explain that.
PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: How much time do you desire to present your
argument?
DR. PELCKMANN: Three minutes.
PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: You may proceed. First, have you filed in the
proceeding any written notice of the objection to the indictment and
served it upon the prosecutor?
DR. PELCKMANN: I have not had the indictment long enough. I have just
had the written material for 2 days. What I have to say I could submit
in writing later. Because of the brief time, I ask to be allowed to make
a brief statement now.
PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: You may make a brief statement and submit
argument in support of your objection within 5 days.
DR. PELCKMANN: Very well. May I now say something?
PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: You may proceed for 3 minutes.
DR. PELCKMANN: Ordinance No. 7, in Article IV (_a_), prescribes the
following according to the English text: “The indictment shall state the
charges plainly, concisely and with sufficient particulars to inform
defendant of the offenses charged.” Schaefer is charged only on one
count, count two (_G_). Experiments with sea-water in Dachau are charged
against 12 defendants. In two sentences the indictment goes on to say
that the 12 persons who are then named are charged with special
responsibility for these crimes and participation in them. I am of the
opinion that this does not contain sufficient particulars.
“Responsibility” and “participation” are legal concepts. There is no
evidence of “sufficient particulars,” which implies details.
The indictment, in my opinion, must give facts to indicate how and why
each one of these 12 defendants who, ostensibly, participated in these
experiments, is responsible and participated. My client cannot tell what
the nature of his participation is supposed to have been.
The indictment says, in count one, number 2, that all defendants were
principals in, accessories to, ordered, abetted, took a consenting part
in, and were connected with plans and enterprises involving the
commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Those also are
only legal concepts.
PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: You may file a written brief in support of your
position.
DR. PELCKMANN: I should like to add, without the knowledge of the
indictment, my client is not ready to answer the question as to whether
he is guilty or not guilty.
PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: You will serve a copy of your brief upon the
prosecution and file it with the Secretary General.
DR. PELCKMANN: Very well, your Honor.
PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: In connection with this matter, General Taylor,
do you desire to make any remarks or suggestions?
BRIGADIER GENERAL TAYLOR: Your Honor, needless to say, we have no
objection to the making of this motion or the filing of this brief. It
is needless to say, also, that we think the indictment quite adequately
specifies the date, place, and type of experiment charged. The
defendant’s connection with it is better known to the defendant than to
anyone else. There is no reason why he should not enter his plea at this
time.
JUDGE SEBRING: That would not go to the jurisdictional aspect of the
indictment, but it would go to the question of particulars. The
consideration is whether or not upon the showing of the motion, more
particulars as to the charges specified, should be included. Do you
understand my point?
BRIGADIER GENERAL TAYLOR: Yes, your Honor. That is what I understood.
The prosecution will consider the motion, and if need be, submit
particulars, although we think the indictment is adequate enough. We
think there is no challenge of the jurisdiction. The defendant should be
required to promptly plead.
JUDGE CRAWFORD: How do you plead to the charges against you?
DEFENDANT SCHAEFER: Not guilty.
PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Be seated.
[At this point the balance of the defendants: Waldemar Hoven,
Wilhelm Beiglboeck, Adolf Pokorny, Herta Oberheuser and Fritz
Fischer were arraigned. All were represented by counsel. All
pleaded not guilty to the indictment.]
DR. SERVATIUS: Servatius for the defendant Karl Brandt. Your Honor, may
I make an application regarding the submission of documents by the
prosecution?
PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: You may state your application.
DR. SERVATIUS: Your Honor, I ask the Tribunal to instruct the
prosecution that the documents be submitted to the defense in time, the
documents on which the charge is based. This would make the proceedings
easier and give the defense an opportunity to examine the documents in
time, and to obtain counterproof.
In the first trial before the International Military Tribunal, we were
given a list of documents with the indictment; although these documents
were not enclosed, we could look at them and we could work on them. Up
to now we have nothing on which we can build our defense. In other
words, on the 9th of December, we will have proceeded no further than
today, and we will not be able to advise our clients.
PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: You may be seated and we will hear from the
prosecution, Brigadier General Telford Taylor.
BRIGADIER GENERAL TAYLOR: Your Honor, the counsel for the defense who
has just spoken is thoroughly familiar with the procedures used in the
prior case. The prosecution in this case plans to follow the same
procedures and give the defense counsel the same opportunities and, if
possible, more. The Defense Information Center, which is the place where
the documents have in the past been made available, will be supplied in
advance with copies of the documents on which our evidence is based. I
would suggest, your Honor, that after all counsel for the defense are
here that it would be most useful if there be a meeting between
representatives of the prosecution and the defense so that procedures
can be developed. But at the moment only half of the counsel for the
defense are here and it would be economical if these matters could be
arranged after they are all present.
DR. SERVATIUS: Your Honor, may I ask one question? May I add one thing,
that the documents be given to us in German. In the previous trial,
there was difficulty at the beginning because we got them in English.
PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: I believe if counsel for the defense will refer
to the rules promulgated by this Tribunal on 2 November 1946, you will
see that a requirement is made that all such matters be submitted in a
language that is understood by each of the defendants.
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, but for technical reasons that was not always done.
There were great difficulties. The conferences with the prosecution will
make it possible to eliminate the difficulties. If it is not possible, I
will address the Court again.
PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Do you have anything further, General Taylor?
BRIGADIER GENERAL TAYLOR: Your Honor, the prosecution merely wishes to
note that it has filed with the Secretary General a motion to amend the
indictment in paragraph 8 of count two and paragraph 13 of count three,
by changing 1943 to 1944. The motion has been filed with the Secretary
General and copies of the motion are in German and are in the hands of
defense counsel.
PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: How many of the defendants are concerned with the
amendment to the indictment? My point is that if the—
MR. MCHANEY: If the Tribunal please, the amendment occurs first in
paragraph 8 on page 14 of the indictment and it affects only two of the
defendants; namely, Blome and Rudolf Brandt. The amendment is also made
in paragraph 13 because the same facts are there charged as a crime
against humanity. In paragraph 13 only the same two defendants are
involved; that is, defendants Blome and Rudolf Brandt.
PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: What are the particulars of the amendment?
MR. MCHANEY: The only change made by the amendment is to say the date
January 1944 for the date January 1943; in other words, it extends the
period covered by the crime for 1 year. The date 1943 was inserted by
mistake in the indictment as filed with the Tribunal.
PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Are these two defendants represented by counsel
here present this morning?
MR. MCHANEY: I think that Rudolf Brandt answered “Yes”.
DEFENDANT BLOME: Yes, your Honor.
PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Has this motion been served upon counsel for
these two defendants?
MR. MCHANEY: Your Honor, my understanding is that the motion for
amendment was filed with the Secretary General. If we understand the
rules correctly, the Secretary General then serves it upon the
defendants.
PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: I was just asking for information whether they
had received copies of the motion.
MR. MCHANEY: That I don’t know. Yes, the counsel for these defendants
say “Yes”.
PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Does counsel for defendant Blome raise any
objection to the amendment of the indictment?
DR. SAUTER: No.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Kauffmann for Rudolf Brandt. I have no objection to the
change.
PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: You represent Rudolf Brandt?
DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes.
PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Well, the other defendant affected is defendant
Blome, I understand. Is he represented here?
DR. SAUTER: Dr. Sauter for the defendant Blome. We don’t have any
objection.
PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: The indictment will be amended in accordance with
the motion.
Is it agreeable to counsel for these two defendants that the arraignment
as to them upon this count which has just been amended be considered as
pleas to the count as amended now—their pleas of “Not Guilty”?
DR. SAUTER: Yes.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes.
PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: These matters will appear in the records of the
Tribunal. The pleas of the defendants will all be entered in the minutes
of the Tribunal.
III. STATEMENT OF THE TRIBUNAL ON THE ORDER OF TRIAL AND RULES OF
PROCEDURE, 9 DECEMBER 1946[6]
PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: 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 30
minutes to each defendant.
3. The prosecution shall, not less than 24 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 24 hours before a witness is called to the stand, either by
the prosecution or by any defendant, the party who desires 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 whom 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 whom it desires to call, the
defendant shall at the same time as 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 asks this Tribunal to notice such documents,
rules, or regulations judicially, and places a copy thereof in writing
before the Tribunal.
This Tribunal has learned with satisfaction of the procedure adopted by
the prosecution with the intention of furnishing 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
I, pursuant to law, through properly empowered military authorities, and
the defendants having been brought before Military Tribunal I pursuant
to the indictment filed 25 October 1946 in the Office of the Secretary
General of the Military Tribunal at Nuernberg, 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 indictment having been served
upon each defendant for more than 30 days prior to this date, and a copy
of the indictment in the German language having been furnished to each
defendant and having been in his possession more than 30 days and each
defendant having had ample opportunity to read the indictment, and
having regularly entered his plea of “not guilty” to the indictment, 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
precedents 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 courtroom. Passes will therefore be issued by the appropriate
authorities to those who may enter the courtroom. 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 held each day this week commencing at 9:30 o’clock
through Friday. The Tribunal will reconvene at 9:30 o’clock, Monday, 16
December 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, 2 January 1947, when the Tribunal will convene at the
usual time.
-----
[6] Tr. pp. 9-11.
IV. OPENING STATEMENT OF THE PROSECUTION BY
BRIGADIER GENERAL TELFORD TAYLOR,
9 DECEMBER 1946.[7]
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 hundreds 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.
It is owed, not only to the victims and to the parents and children of
the victims, that just punishment be imposed on the guilty, but also 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 they know the consequences to Germany:
defeat, ruin, prostration, and utter demoralization. Most German
children will never, as 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 a 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 worthwhile, 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 Nuernberg
were, indeed, reduced to rubble by Allied bombs, but in a deeper sense
Nuernberg 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 Nuernberg 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 others 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.