1947-01-17, #3: Doctors' Trial (early afternoon)
AFTERNOON (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 17 January 1947)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. McHANEY: In connection with the objection that I raised just before the luncheon recess, I would ask, if the defense counsel wishes to continue or insists upon the line of questioning which he is adopting, that the stenographic note be obtained on the testimony of the witness with respect to the dates on which he visited Buchenwald and have those read aloud so that the witness can be properly advised of the testimony he has already given.
THE PRESIDENT: Is defense counsel desirous that the record be searched to find that evidence and read it?
DR. SERVATIUS: I do not intend to put another question the witness on that matter. The record will show later on what the correct situation was.
THE PRESIDENT: The cross-examination may proceed.
FRITZ MENNECKE (Resumed) CROSS-EXAMINATION (Continued)
BY DR. SERVATIUS:
Q: Witness, you have stated that during the time you were in St. Blasien in the hospital, an officer had told you that Brandt was connected with the collection of insane persons and Jews in Lublin?
A: Yes.
Q: That was a matter which interested you very much, wasn't it?
A: Yes; it interested not only me; it also interested the gentlemen who talked about it, that whole group of people we were with.
Q: Witness, you were an expert on the subject of insane persons and you had already worked in the so-called Euthanasia Program?
A: Yes.
Q: Well, in that case you must have been especially interested in that.
A: Yes, I was interested in it.
Q: A very special interest, wasn't it?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you on any other occasion receive some confirmation of that rumor?
A: Not aside from this case.
Q: I am sure that you would have remembered it, wouldn't you?
A: Probably.
Q: I have a lot her question to put to you. Do you know the original decree where Brandt and Bouhler were authorized and where physicians were authorized to conduct Euthanasia?
A: In the trial at Frankfurt I had an opportunity to read a photostatic copy of this decree.
Q: At that time, during that first conference in Berlin, was this decree presented?
A: No not this decree.
Q: But were you told at that time that a critical judgment of the case history was important for the selection of the sick?
A: Yes.
Q: That was told you?
A: May I hear your question once more?
Q: At that time you did not see the decree. You saw it later, didn't you?
A: Yes.
Q: I mean the decree where it said that a critical judgment of the case history of the patient would be made and only then could Euthanasia be authorized?
A: There was a special memorandum on the principles to be considered in forming this opinion, and also for filling out the questionnaires.
Q: Witness, we will come to that later. I am now asking you about the decree itself.
A: This decree which mentioned Brandt and Bouhler I did not see in February 1940, in Berlin.
Q: But you saw it later, during the trial?
A: During the trial at Frankfurt.
Q: And what did it contain?
A: It said that physicians were permitted to give "mercy killing" to insane persons. I do not know whether that was the exact wording. I can not recall the text. It wasn't much. It was about this much text. (Demonstrating.)
Q: You said before that at any rate there were medical points of view which were decisive for the selection?
A: Yes.
Q: Now you further state that even in the case at the inmates in the concentration camp, questionnaires had to be filled out. You further stated that political prisoners and Jews were expertized in that manner?
A: Yes.
Q: What points of view were decisive in their cases?
A: That has already been discussed. The Jews were not judged according to their health but from the point of view of the reasons for their arrest.
Q: So there were political and racial considerations?
A: Yes.
Q: Who gave you the order to use these points of view in your procedure?
A: I also said that before. That varied. Sometimes it was Professor Nietsche, sometimes Professor Heyde, or Mr. Brack. These were the people who indicated the procedure to be used.
Q: Was not this completely in contradiction to what had been said at the beginning?
A: At least it had nothing to do with Euthanasia of the insane.
Q: When did you start proceeding according to this point of view,--that is, racial and political consideration? Was it already during your first visit to the concentration camp?
A: No.
Q: Well, when did it happen?
A: In my opinion that could only have been begun in Buchenwald or maybe at Dachau.
Q: Will you just name a date, an approximate date? Was it before the stop or after the stop, -- I mean the Euthanasia stop?
A: Probably before the Euthanasia stop.
Q: And what was the procedure before that? What was your task in the concentration camp before that?
A: The examination of prisoners who were presented, to determine whether they were psycho or pathological.
Q: Well at first it was a medical question and later on it became a political and racial question?
A: Yes. That is, in addition to the political and racial question there were later purely medical considerations, cases which had to be judged from the medical point of view.
Q: So later there were two cases. There were the insane people who, according to medical considerations, had to be expertized; and the others, who had to be judged according to political and racial considerations?
A: One cannot separate the two, they were not clearly divided from each other.
Q: Whenever you examined a large number of Jews would you say that all of them were insane at the same time?
A: I have already answered that question. I have said that it is my opinion that they were not sick at all -- either insane or physically ill.
Q: But you did fill in these questionnaires?
A: Yes, those were the orders we had from Berlin.
Q: And who was to expertize and judge these questionnaires?
A: I do not know.
Q: Are you of the opinion that a physician was to do this judging?
A: I would not know what a doctor could learn from the questionnaires filled out about Jews.
DR. SERVATIUS: I have no further questions to put to the witness.
BY DR. FROESCHMANN: Dr. Froeschmann, counsel for defendant Viktor Brack.
Q: Witness, at first I have a question to put to you; before February 1940 were you in contact with leading circles in Germany who know about the health situation and were entrusted with the leadership of the health situation in Germany?
A: No.
Q: Before February 1940 were you already dealing with the problem of Euthanasia?
A: No.
Q: Neither in practice nor by way of writing?
A: As a student I occasionally read something in quite brief articles mentioning something about Euthanasia, but I did not read a great deal in that field.
Q: So you really made no publications about tint matter?
A: No.
Q: Were you a member of the S.A.?
A: No.
Q: Were you a member of the S.S.?
A: Yes.
Q: What was your rank in the S.S.?
A: I was adjutant of the S.S. Oberabschmitts, physician of Wiesbaden.
Q: And in the year 1939, or rather the beginning of 1940?
A: Yes, I was that at that time.
Q: Did you at that time already know Professor Heyde?
A: No.
Q: You only made his acquaintance later?
A: I met him only through the Euthanasia Program in Berlin.
Q: Did you at any time hoar for what reasons you were asked to attend this conference in 1940?
A: I never heard anything positive on that point, but I assume that the S.S. office of the S.S. Oberabschmitt Rhein in Wiesbaden, to which I belonged, had, without my approval recommended me for this work.
Q: Now, another complex of questions; this morning during the examination you repeatedly used the work "Euthanasia Program," now let us talk a little about the Euthanasia problem you stated before that at one time as a student you were slight interested in the question and dealt with it; did you at any ti before February 1940 deal with Euthanasia problems?
A: No.
Q: So it was something completely new for you, something completely new that you had in February 1940?
A: Yes.
Q: What did you understand at that time by "Euthanasia?"
A: The aid which a doctor gives a sick person who is dying and who makes the death easier in this way.
Q: Well, if I understand you correctly, you mean to say that euthanasia does not mean a shortening of the life, but a mild death, as mild as possible?
A: Yes.
Q: You know the Reich Penal Codes, don't you?
A: Yes.
Q: You also know that as in all other countries of the World the killing of human beings is forbidden?
A: Yes.
Q: And you further know that the criterion of murder consists in the fact that the will for life in another person's mind is being interfered with?
A: Yes.
Q: You know that, don't you?
A: Yes.
Q: Now, you were the director of a mental institution for insane people?
A: Yes.
Q: And according to the general purpose of that institution it was the task of the physician to give therapeutical treatment to the patients and to restore them to a certain degree of health?
A: Yes.
Q: And to try and cure them if possible?
A: Yes.
Q: Didn't you have any misgivings about what you heard in Berlin, and didn't you think that it was in contradiction to the prohibition of murder?
A: Such misgivings often occurred to me. On the other hand, however, there was always the positive assurance of the gentleman --
Q: One moment. I want to ask you to confine yourself to my question. I shall come to that point later. You were saying that in the year of 1940 -- in February 1940, you felt no misgivings whatsoever?
A: I did not say that.
Q: That is how I understood you.
A: I said that from time to time misgivings on this question did come to me.
Q: Later, after February 1940?
A: From the beginning of this activity.
Q: Did you, during the course of the period that followed, concern yourself with the euthanasia problem -- I don't mean the program, I mean the problem; do you understand my question?
A: Yes. In so far as finally taking into consideration all details and exercising medical judgment, I came to the realization that for absolutely hopelessly insane persons who had no feeling of their own life and no awareness of their surroundings, that for these people it would be better to be dead than alive. In this form the problem of which you speak appeared to me. But in addition to that, cases which do not fall into this category, which I have just described, cases outside this category, I always rejected.
Q: We haven't gone that far, Doctor. I an only interested in your personal attitude to the question of the euthanasia problem. You previously answered to that question Then I asked you what you understood about euthanasia, you said what was correct, namely to give a possible assurance of a mild death toward a severely ill person whoso fate cannot be adjourned?
A: Yes.
Q: Now, subsequently to February 1940, did you concern yourself with the ethical attitude due followers of the opponents of the euthanasia problem?
A: I considered the following at the time from the ideological point of view; everything was based on the National Socialism Ideology and it was according to the National Socialism. Ideology that a euthanasia program in the sense that it was set up should be set up. Against these measures of the Government which was really identical with National Socialism, to oppose the ideas of the Government was quite inadvisable, and that had its effect on the inner attitude of the individual.
Q: I was asking you whether you concerned yourself with the attitude of the followers or the opponents of the euthanasia problem, whether you tried to inform yourself about their attitude after February 1940. What you have just told the High Tribunal may be very interesting with reference to your own personal attitude, but it does not answer my question. Today I am sure that you know that there was much talk and much writing about this problem. Sometimes books were published and utterances were made by jurists and medical men; do you know that?
A: As far as literature on the problem of euthanasia I do not know very much. I know the little compendium, by Binding-Heche.
Q: But you did not know any literature by Ebermayer, Walther, and Meltzer?
A: I did not know that.
Q: You had no reason after February 1940 to concern yourself with these matters?
A: I did not concern myself with then.
Q: During the conference of February 1940 not only medical non but lawyers were supposed to be present too is that correct?
A: I assume that Dr. Heffelmann is a lawyer.
Q: How about other gentlemen from the Reich Ministry of Justice, were they present too?
A: I cannot say the majority of the gentlemen. I have forgotten their persons as well as their names.
Q: Don't you remember any longer with reference to a legal basis of such a euthanasia, or was a basis made by one of the other gentlemen?
A: The legal basis was discussed. A law was mentioned, a regular law which permitted this activity, declared it free of punishment, and we were told that this law was valid and binding.
Q: With reference to this law you arc speaking of now, was there any mention made of it already in February 1940; are you sure that you aren't wrong about that?
A: In February 1940 a law was read.
Q: I am asking you because in February 1940 a law was not issued, not even the draft of such a law.
A: Then it could have been at a later meeting in Berlin this law was read.
Q: On the basis of the statements that were made in February, 1940, in a large circle, did you think that you wore justified to deprive insane persons of their lives and shorten them in a painless manner?
A: It was not my duty to shorten the lives of the insane persons, it was my duty to act as a medical expert.
Q: The activity, acting as an expert, included the approval of the attitude of other physicians or the approval of the acting of other physician who actually were to shorten the lives of these insane persons?
A: Yes.
Q: I am now asking you, did you feel yourself justified to participate in such an affair, if I may put it that way?
A: On the basis of the contents of the law, yes.
Q: And everything that was connected with Euthanasia was called by you the so-called Berlin action?
A: Yes.
Q: At any rate that is what you said in your letter to your wife?
A: Yes.
Q: This morning, already mention was made that certain circles of persons were to be excluded from this Euthanasia. At the moment we don't want to know just what circles were to be excluded, but what I do want to know is what I am asking you and that is whether in that discussion in February, 1940 if these exclusions were mentioned?
A: Yes, these exceptions were announced from the very beginning.
Q: And now, witness, I want to ask you what circles was that to extend to, and I am referring to the exceptions?
A: People who had not been three years in institutions, war veterans, also apoplectics and senile cases, also all organically sick persons with no mental disturbances.
Q: And was there not a group among them that was designated as a foreign group?
A: No.
Q: There was no talk about foreigners; or don't you remember it?
A: Foreigners were not mentioned.
Q: Are you sure of that? You told us yesterday that because of your physical illness your power of concentration has suffered somewhat. I don't want to cause you any trouble and. I am asking you again whether it might not be possible that these foreigners were discussed and maybe you don't remember it at the moment?
A: I am not aware that foreigners were mentioned in this connection.
Q: Witness, the Prosecution repeatedly pointed out that the decree of Hitler, with reference to which my predecessor here on the Prosecution asked you, was any reference made at that time that this decree was to be kept secret; do you know that this decree and the Euthanasia of insane persons was to be kept secret?
A: I learned of this decree, as I said before, only recently, but that the whole program of Euthanasia was to be kept secret we were told from the very beginning. It was to be kept a top secret matter.
Q: Did you not object to the fact that these directives were to be kept secret?
A: Yes, but the reasons for this secrecy were given as follows: they wanted to avoid unrest among the people, which was very important during the war and for that reason the thing should not be discussed.
Q: This morning, answering a question of the Prosecuting Counsel, the question being whether sabotage was punishable by death in concentration camp you answered "yes" and were repeatedly told that in such cases would be transferred into a concentration camp and that moreover there was a possibility of shooting. Do you remember that? Were you not a little wrong in expressing yourself? The Prosecutor was asking you about sabotage; were you not referring to the breach of secrecy when you made that reply? Do you understand the difference?
A: The breach of secrecy is also sabotage considered from the point of view on the whole.
Q: But, one may have a difference of opinion on that. What I did want to know was, this morning did you properly understand the word, "sabotage" or did you mean the general obligation to keep the matter secret?
A: By sabotage I mean constant interference and if a top secret matter is talked about, that is from my point of view constant interference of the execution of what the top secret matter wants.
Q: Witness, this morning during the cross examination by the Defense Counsel of the Defendant Brandt, you voiced the opinion and you said that it was not only had the unanimous judgment, but also a majority decision was the basis for an insane person to be transferred to a Euthanasia Institution?
A: Yes, not all the opinion had to be positive.
Q: Yes, that is what you said.
A: That is why the opinion of the top expert was obtained; they had no right to our opinion.
Q: I was just going to speak of that question; you were named an expert?
A: Yes.
Q: The top expert quite independent of you and quite independently of the judgment of the other experts had the responsible obligation and had to decide whether in fact the condition of the patient was serious enough to warrant the Euthanasia of that patient?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you see in this fact a sufficient safeguard that errors with reference to the condition of the patients were excluded?
A: I saw at least an extensive safety vent. I know that a University professor is not infallible and even in the medical field, but in general these gentlemen have great experience and one can have a certain amount of confidence in their work. To that extent the activity of the top expert over us as experts gave me certain inner confidence that in the case of an unconscious mistake on my part, the top expert would still be able to correct it.
Q: You already said this morning that during the further course of the program you were active as an expert. As an expert you were asked to attend you were asked to become an expert during this meeting of February, 1940. Upon whose suggestion were you asked that? Did Professor Nietsche suggest you or did Professor Heyde suggest you?
A: No, those of us who were invited to attend were all asked to participate in this work.
Q: With reference to your appointment as an expert, did you receive any written confirmation?
A: No.
Q: Now, Witness, this morning and yesterday you repeatedly spoke about the agency in Berlin?
A: Yes.
Q: And I want to talk to you about that for a little while; Just what agency you considered at that time. You do know that in addition to Dr. Brandt, Bouhler was authorized by Hitler by that decree to authorize certain physicians to give mercy deaths to certain incurable patients. Now where did Bouhler have his office in Berlin?
A: In the Reich Chancellery.
Q: What street?
A: Vosstrasse 4.
Q: Correct. In addition to that office in Vosstrasse 4, was there another office in Berlin where medical questions were dealt with?
A: In February, 1940, not yet; but soon thereafter in Tiergartenstrasse 4, the Reich Association for Mental Institutions was set up.
Q: In the Tiergartenstrasse 4, yes, I am interested in that office. Who was active there?
A: Professor Nietsche, Professor Heyde, Mr. Allers, a certain Mr. Meumann whose name I remember who worked on the questionnaires, and I don't know the names of the others.
Q: You already mentioned one name this morning, a man who was supposed to be there. I am now asking you, was Oberregierungsrat Bohne there?
A: Bohne? I don't know about that.
Q: He is unknown to you?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you over go to Tiergartenstrasse 4 personally?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you know how this office was named in inter-office communications?
A: I know this office only under the name, Tiergartenstrasse 4.
Q: Have you ever heard of the designation "T-4"? That is, the abbreviation for Tiergartenstrasse 4?
A: I don't remember hearing that.
Q: Now, it is correct that in Tiergartenstrasse 4 there was an office where Professor Heyde and Professor Nietsche were active?
A: Yes
Q: Did this office have anything to do with the sending of questionnaires during the following period?
A: Yes.
Q: Only this office?
A: Only this office.
Q: Do you know the connection between Tiergartenstrasse 4 and the Reich Ministry of the Interior?
A: No.
Q: This morning you yourself mentioned the name of the official who was active in the Reich Ministry of the Interior with reference to questions of Euthanasia. Do you still remember that name?
A: Yes.
Q: Dr. Linden. You said with reference to Dr. Linden that he was a dead influence?
A: Yes.
Q: But he was very active, wasn't he?
A: Well, I can only say how he looked to me, and according to his appearance I can only say that he was very little active and always gave the impression of a completely apathetic person.
Q: Did you have any dealings with Linden?
A: No.
Q: Not even questions of the Reich Committee?
A: I don't recall that I ever had any lengthy conversation with him.
Q: Did you ever have any negotiation with Professor Heyde and Professor Nietsche?
A: That's happened more often.
Q: Especially Professor Heyde?
A: As long as Professor Heyde was still working in the program.
Q: How long was Professor Heyde active in that program?
A: It must have been during 1941 that he left.
Q: Do you know why he was excluded?
A: No, I did not find that out.
Q: Don't you know who caused his departure?
A: I once heard something of a personal dispute between him and another younger physician, but whether that was the reason for Professor Heyde's leaving I doubt very much, and I don't know the name of the other doctor. I don't know the reasons.
Q: Well, what do you think of Professor Heyde, looked at as a human being?
A: Professor Heyde was an SS Fuehrer and head of the University Nerve Clinic.
Q: No, I mean his personality.
A: He was friendly.
Q: Was he a convinced adherent to the Euthanasia thought?
A: Yes, he was interested in this problem.
Q: Did you speak to Heyde about his career?
A: No.
Q: Do you know that Heyde was the medical consultant on the staff of the Gruppenfuehrer Eicke? Doesn't Eicke mean anything to you?
A: I know the name.
Q: Is it correct that Eicke was the inspector of concentration camps?
A: I don't know, but I do know the name, Eicke.
Q: Do you know whether there was any connection between Eicke and Heyde?
A: No, I do not know.
Q: So you know nothing about the question whether Heyde was caused by Eicke or a certain Brigadefuehrer Gluecks to carry out these measures in the concentration camp within the framework of Euthanasia?
A: I know nothing about that.
Q: Didn't Heyde ever speak to you about that?
A: No.
Q: So I can deduce from your statements that the center point of the Euthanasia program was at the "T-4" where all the questionnaires and reports expertized or not expertized were collected and centralized, and from then on were passed on to other agencies; is that correct?
A: As far as I knew anything about things in Berlin I can say yes.
Q: In one of your letters to your wife; that is, the letter of the 14th of January 1942, you spoke of the fact that you could not find the Defendant Brack because he had departed for the East with a number of people belonging to this organization "T-4" in order to prepare the action with reference to German wounded; is that correct?
MR. McHANEY: I suggest that the paper be put in front of the witness so he can see what he has written.
THE PRESIDENT: That would be proper if the witness could not remember the document. If he does remember it there is no occasion for refreshing his memory.
BY DR. FROESCHMANN:
Q: I wanted to ask you, did you know at that time that Brack, a long time before that had gone to the Eastern front? That was already at Christmas of 1941.
A: I can say the following: I was in the Concentration Camp Ravensbruck. I had been working in the Concentration Camp Ravensbruck. I went back to Berlin in order to deliver the questionnaires which had been filled out at Tiergartenstrasse 4. This was before Christmas, 1941. When I came to Tiergartenstrasse there was quite considerable confusion there. When I asked for the reason I was told that a largo part of the personnel of the Reich Association for Mental Institutions was employed at the Eastern front to give aid to German wounded and that vehicles of the Sick Transport Company were also being used, and that many of the people had left for the East.
Q: But you knew nothing about the detail of Brack to the Eastern front?
A: I heard nothing about that.
Q: Witness, were you often in contact with the Defendant Brack?
A: Not very often.
Q: What is your impression of the defendant Brack?
A: I always talked to him very pleasantly even when he reproached me for being too lax in my opinions. He did not oppose my objection very strongly, and in other cases when we had discussed purely business matters it was always without friction, without difficulties on either side.
Q: So he was ready to give assistance and he was pleasant?
A: Yes. I never noticed anything to the contrary.
Q: Do you know what position Brack really held in the Chancellery of the Fuehrer?
A: He held the position of a second administrative official. Brack was the second man.
Q: How do you know that?
A: I learned that. Dr. Heffelmann probably talked about it.
Q: Isn't it true that Brack just as four or five of his colleagues was entrusted with a certain sphere and that Bouhler as the Reichsleiter in the Chancellery of the Fuehrer had no deputy at all? Do you know anything about that?
A: On these organizational questions at the top of the total program I do not understand these things.
Q: Well, let us leave out the word "program." I am just speaking of the Chancellery of the Fuehrer, and I am asking you did you know what general task the Chancellery of the Fuehrer had?
A: I knew that the Fuehrer Chancellery was a function of the Party.
Q: I cannot contradict you here because this goes beyond the framework of the questions which interest us here, but I do want to ask you do you know that Hitler in order to free himself from the influences of the Party created a Chancellery under Bouhler in order to see to it that decisions were made and examined by people who had nothing at all to do with the Party?
A: I do not know about that. I did not have anything to do with these matters.
Q: Do you know that it was Brack's general task at first to pass on complaints and applications for mercy and other applications to the Fuehrer and deal with them?
A: No.
Q: Do you know that Brack in the year of 1939 after the issuance of the Hitler decree regarding Euthanasia was asked by Bouhler to assist him in the organization of this affair in addition to his other duties?
A: I am not aware of that.
Q: And you don't know that the Euthanasia activity of Brack was only a side activity?
A: I always understood that. Euthanasia was the main field of Brack's work.
Q: That is what I wanted to know from you. I wanted to know whether you are acquainted with that at all. Do you know that the activity of Brack in the framework of the Euthanasia Program only took him half an hour daily?
A: It is not known to me.
Q: Do you know that Brack had nothing more to do with it than answer letters and questions regarding Euthanasia, then passed them on to another agency? Do you know that?
A: I know nothing about all that.
Q: But maybe you know something else. Was Brack innerly, just as you were, convinced of the justification of Euthanasia with reference to insane persons?
A: Yes.
Q: Did he repeatedly talk to you about it?
A: Not only to me, but to -
Q: No. I mean in private discussions.
A: There were hardly any private conversations between us.
Q: Then how about official conversations? Didn't Brack at any time talk about the matter that he was moved by similar considerations?
A: Official conversations are always with a larger number of people, not with individuals.
Q: So you can say nothing further about that?
A: No,
Q: What do you understand by an "adjutant"?
A: This is an assistant.
Q: To what extent was Dr. Schmalenbach such an assistant of Brack?
A: It was always said Schmalenbach was the adjutant of Brack, and that was the impression I got, and I always considered him Brack's adjutant.
Q: So that is not your personal opinion, but it is something that you know from heresay?
A: It is not based on any objective experience.
Q: Very well. What nature did your discussions have, the discussions you had with Dr. Heffelmann?
A: I frequently talked to Dr. Heffelmann. I don't know what you mean.
Q: Well, I am referring to what you said this morning, that you repeatedly spoke to Heffelmann, and I wanted to know what nature these discussions had.
A: I discussed the Reich Committee with Heffelmann. Also in January, '42, Heffelmann called me in and -
Q: I don't want to know any details, just generally.
A: Yes.
Q: Did you speak about the questions of the Reich Committee? Did you speak about the questions of Euthanasia?
A: Yes. That is true.
Q: Was Dr. Heffelmann very lively?
A: Yes.
Q: He was?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you know Blankenberg personally?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you have any scientific conversations with him?
A: No.
Q: According to your knowledge, when did Brack speak to you about concentration camps?
A: As I said, it is possible that was the first time that Mr. Brack introduced the concentration camp activity. That would be in the summer of '42, Oranienburg, Sachsenhausen.
Q: Summer of 1942?
A: Summer of '40, I mean.
Q: In what connections did he speak about concentration camps at that time?
A: I can't say this for a certainty.
Q: You cannot say with certainty that you spoke to him about that at that time?
A: It might have been Professor Heyde or Professor Nietsche
Q: Well, I just wanted to establish that, and that makes it necessary for a number of further questions. I want to establish that brack did not speak to you about any of your activities in the concentration camps.
A: activity in the concentration camps was discussed with me by Professor Heyde, Professor Nietsche and Brack.
Q: Well, now, you say again that you did speak to him about it.
A: Yes, but I don't know in which case one person discussed it, or in which case another person, and in which case the third person.
Q: And what was said with reference to your activity very generally? What activity were you to exercise in the concentration camp?
A: Filling out the questionnaires.
Q: Witness, up to that time you were merely an expert with reference to Euthanasia of the insane persons?
A: Yes.
Q: Now, if suddenly you are approached and asked to go to a concentration camp and there exercise some sort of an activity, you would have asked, "Why? How come? Why choose no?" Didn't you ask about the reason?
A: This morning I said that on our first visits to concentration camps it was the quest on if there were psychotic or psychopathic disturbances. Only at a later time did our activity in the concentration camps go beyond these questions to other persons.
Q: Well, may I take it that your reply is that in the summer of 1940 you were given the order to examine inmates in the concentration camp on their mental state of mind as far as they were in certain psychopathic stages? That was completely in compliance with the field in which you had worked in preparation for Euthanasia.
A: Yes.
Q: - Did you have any misgivings about that, and did you have any thoughts about this being somewhat abnormal?
A: No.
Q: And you think you can remember on that occasion that Brack gave you some orders in that connection?
A: Yes. Only I don't know in which case it was.
Q: Yes, very well. You already stated this morning that, with reference to the second action, you were concerned with the examination of Jews; you could not state, with certainty, whether any directives were given to you by Brack; isn’t that correct?
A: I cannot say with certainty. I cannot say it.
DR FROESCHMANN: I have no further questions.
BY DR. GAWLIK (Defense counsel for defendant Hoven):
Q: Witness, in agreement with the Prosecutor, I understood you to say that in the winter of 1940, and the second time in 1941, in the concentration camp you saw the defendant, Hoven, there.
A: I must have -- I must base my evidence on my letter.
Q: The letter is dated November, 1941; I am going to show it to you later.
A: On that occasion I saw Dr. Hoven.
Q: Did you see him on the occasion of the preceding visit when you were back?
A: I don't remember.
Q: Would you recognize defendant Hoven again?
A: No.
Q: I am now submitting to you this letter of the 25th of November 1941. Mr. President, this is Document NO 907, on page 39 of the German Document Book and 45 of the English Document Book, Document Book No. 16. Can you find the name of SS-Obersturmfuehrer Dr. Hoven?
A: Yes.
Q: You say in that letter Camp Physician SS-Obersturmfuehrer Dr. Hoven -
A: Yes, Camp Physician.
Q: One moment please. I should like to put to you that at that time the Camp Physician was Dr. Blancke; the defendant, Hoven, was the second camp physician.
A: Then I was misinformed.
Q: So is there a possibility of an error?
A: An error on the part of some one else.
Q: Thank you. Now, you don't need the letter any longer. During the examination you said that you only met Dr. Hoven when you were introduced to him. What can you say, from your own knowledge, as to what extent Dr. Hoven assisted you in your activities. I only want facts which you can remember.
A: He did not help us at all.
Q: He did not assist you at all; thank you. It is correct that you filled out questionnaires for all Jews in the concentration camp at Buchenwald?
A: Those headings had already been filled out in the camp.
Q: I am submitting to you this document once more; you say in that letter that you filled out questionnaires for 1200 Jews.
A: 1200 Jews, yes.
Q: I now put to you that there were only 1200 Jews in the entire camp of Buchenwald. Therefore, you filled out questionnaires for all Jews?
A: That was how it was ordered then.
Q: Very well. You further made a -- you may put the document away -- you further already stated that the question of health did not play any part in the case of the Jews.
A: That is right.
Q: Is it correct that only the reason for arrest played a part?
A: The reasons for arrest were entered on the questionnaires.
Q: Is it correct that you found the reasons of the arrest in the criminal files?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you know that the criminal files were in the political department of the concentration camp?
A: Yes. I don't know the organization of the concentration camp well enough to know the term political section; it doesn't mean much to me.
Q: In any case, it has nothing to do with criminal files?
A: No.
Q: It can, therefore, be seen therefrom that the camp physician played no part in that decision whatever?
A: What the duties of the camp physician were in these matters I cannot say; I don't know.
Q: Well, if you consider the fact that the physical state of the Jews played no part but the only thing that played a part was previous sentences - - from that it can easily be seen that it did not rest on the medical decision.
A: No.
Q: You further said during your examination that the camp physician had these inmates selected for you. Now, please consider what I just put to you. Wouldn't you have to correct your reply?
A: The persons concerned were presented to me by the camp physician, or he had them presented to me and at the same time the questionnaires, the question of data, had already been filed.
Q: Even in the concentration camp of Buchenwald in November 1941? Please differentiate between camps. We are not concerned now how it was in other concentration camps. I am only interested how it was in November 1941 in the concentration camp of Buchenwald.
A: The Jewish prisoners were presented to me and at the same time the records.
Q: Who presented them to you?
A: Well -
Q: Was it the camp physician, was it the labor detail leader, was it the political commissioner, or was it by the Gestapo?
A: It was not the camp physician. It was the SS men who were assigned to that duty. I don't know their rank.
Q: Then, I understood you correctly to say that you have no clues at all for the fact that the camp physician made the selection and under no circumstances can you say that the defendant Hoven was instrumental in this selection in November 1941, in any way whatsoever. Is that correct?
A: If it's correct that in Buchenwald there were only 1200 Jews altogether, then it is difficult to say that any one had selected 1200.
Q: Yes.
A: But one can assume that it was ordered that the Jews in the concentration camp at Buchenwald all had to have questionnaires filled out and that the camp physicians cooperated in this, I don't believe. I am a physician myself and I know that there was nothing of a medical nature on these questionnaires.
Q: During your examination you further answered to a question of the prosecutor that you would not have been in a position to do your work if the inmates were not presented to you by the physician. Well, just think of what you told me before. Wouldn't you have to correct that answer too? I am referring to the concentration camp of Buchenwald in November 1941.
A: I did not understand the beginning of your question.
Q: When examined by the Prosecutor, you stated the following: That you would not have been in a position to do your work if the inmates had not been presented to you by the physician.
A: Now I can answer. I mean the following: In a concentration camp an indefinite number of prisoners are presented to me. If I had to select them myself, that would be impossible; and for that reason the group of prisoners concerned was set beforehand and were presented as a group and in the case of Buchenwald this consideration, strictly speaking, was the question of the 1200 Jews.
Q: And, in other cases, as I said before, the reason for arrest only played a part, and you said, yourself, there was nothing medical to be filled out in the questionnaires, and naturally these questionnaires could be given to the camp leader without the knowledge of the camp physician. Is that not correct?
A: Filling out the questionnaires?
Q: Yes.
A: It could have been done without any medical assistance, yes.
Q: You further said that the list was made through official channels by order of the camp physician.
A: What list?
Q: The list that was given to you; that is what you said during your direct examination. The list of persons who were to be examined. Was such a list made?
A: Lists were made on occasions, but not generally. It was different in different cases.
Q: Could you say that in November 1941, in the Concentration Camp Buchenwald, that such a list was compiled?
A: I believe that no list was made in Buchenwald at that time because it was a complete group of 1200 Jews. There was no doubt about the limits of the group.
Q: Very well; now, I will read to you what the Prosecution said about the case of Buchenwald on the 9th of December 1946.
Mr. President, that is on page 107 of the German Transcript, and page 59 of the English Transcript.
The defendant Hoven, as the Chief Physician of the Concentration Camp of Buchenwald, took part in the program and personally ordered the transfer of at least 300 to 400 Jewish inmates belonging to various nationalities to the Euthanasia Station in Bernburg.
I am submitting this transcript to you.
MR. McHANEY: May it please the Tribunal, I object to any question put to the witness or any excerpt, which is apparently from the opening statement of General Taylor's. It does not constitute proof in the record because it obviously calls for an expression of an opinion by the witness, and from all indications, the witness's knowledge is limited to two visits to Buchenwald, and which does not include any activities by the defendant Hoven on other occasions.
JUDGE SEBRING: Hand it up Mr. McHaney, please.
(The document was given to the Tribunal.)
DR. GAWLIK: Page 50 of the English Transcript, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Counsel for the defendant Hoven is quoting from the opening statement of the Counsel for the Prosecution, and that is not a proper subject for the cross examination of this witness. The objection is sustained.
DR. GAWLIK: I then want permission to ask this witness if the defendant Hoven ever ordered the transport of the 300 to 400 Jews to Bernburg.
THE PRESIDENT: I did not hear the question. Will the question be repeated?
DR. GAWLIK: The question I want to put to the witness is: Did the defendant Hoven ever order the transport of the 300 to 400 Jews to Bernburg?
MR. McHANEY: If the Tribunal pleases, I think the question will be proper if he sets some date or time, or simply asks the witness if he knows whether Hoven ever transferred, on his personal orders, 300 to 400 Jews. I do not want reference made to the opening statement to the Tribunal. If he will fix the time, I think the question is proper.
THE PRESIDENT: The Counsel for the defendant Hoven will fix some date concerning the incident which took place at Buchenwald which the witness might have some knowledge of, and the question will be proper.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q: Did the defendant Hoven, in connection with the Euthanasia Program, in November 1941, order the transfer of 300 to 400 Jews to Bernburg?
A: I do not know.
Q: Did the defendant Hoven have the possibility in the framework of the Euthanasia Program to get such an order?
A: I do not consider it possible that Hoven could give such an order because in general the transfer of inmates of the institution or camp to the Euthanasia Institution was done on the basis of the lists from Berlin.
Q: You were further speaking about sabotage, Witness, in stating that the defendant Hoven prevented the execution of the measure 14 f 13 by a counter action, 13 f 14. The 1200 Jews for whom you filled out the questionnaires, according to your own letters, were really not transported away from Buchenwald, And, I am now asking you what punishment would have been given for such a sabotage?
A: I do not belong to the Penal Committee of the Sabotage Section, and never did. I cannot give the prognosis for such an action.
Q: But you can, you, yourself, say what punishment would follow if there was a breach of security?
A: If it had been me, I would have been afraid of being shot.
DR. GAWLIK: Mr. President, I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will take a recess.