1947-01-17, #4: Doctors' Trial (late afternoon)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Any further cross examination of this witness?
BY DR. VORWERK (Counsel for defendant Blome):
Q: Witness, do you know what position Dr. Conti held in the German medical service at the time of the execution of the "euthanasia" program?
A: Dr. Conti was in the Ministry and in charge of the medical service.
Q: And did he have another position besides that?
A: He was city physician of Berlin. I don't know...
Q: Do you know the name of the Reich Health Leader?
A: Yes.
Q: Who was that?
A: That was Wagner. I think Blome was the last one.
Q: No, I want to suggest to you that at first Wagner was the Reich Health Leader and his successor was then Conti. According to that, Conti held two positions. Now, if Conti was dealing with the "euthanasia" program, in what capacity did he act - meaning, referring to the two different situations that he held?
A: I am not informed about that. If I should express any opinion it would be merely an opinion.
Q: But you do know that the execution of the "euthanasia" program was a Reich matter and was dealt with in the Reich Ministry of the Interior?
A: Yes.
Q: And, therefore, if Conti had anything to do with that program it would be in his capacity as Under Secretary of State of the Ministry of the Interior and he wouldn't have dealt with it in a capacity of Reich Health Leader?
A: That is to be assumed.
Q: Do you know what position Blome at that time held in the Reich Health Ministry?
A: No, I don't know.
Q: Do you know whether Blome had anything to do with the entire program, and I mean the "euthanasia" program?
A: No, I don't know.
DR. VORWERK: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Any further cross examination of this witness by defense counsel?
(No response)
Any redirect examination by Counsel for the Prosecution?
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. McHANEY:
Q: Dr. Mennecke, you were put a number of questions by defense counsel for Hoven with respect to your visit to Buchenwald in November, 1941. As I recall, the record probably now shows that you stated that only Jews were selected on the occasion of that visit in November, 1941. Accordingly, I wish to put to you again your letter of November 25, 1941, written at Weimar, on page 45 of the English document book, Document NO 907, Prosecution Exhibit 412. It is on page 39 of your book, Dr. Mennecke.
A: Yes.
Q: Now, towards the middle of the letter you state: "Afterwards we continued our examination until about sixteen o'clock and I myself examined 105 patients, Mueller 78 patients, so that finally a total of 183 reports were ready as a first portion. As second portion a total of 1200 Jews followed, all of whom do not need to be examined, etc."
A: Yes.
Q: And down a little lower -- down near the bottom of this excerpt it says: "After the Jews, another 300 Aryans as a third portion, who again will have to be examined." Now, after reading that, Dr. Mennecke, don't you want to correct the record so that it shows that you did examine persons other than Jews in Buchenwald in November, 1941?
In other words, Dr., you did in fact select some Aryans in November 1941, at Buchenwald, did you not? Examine some?
A: Yes.
Q: Another question -- did you send the questionnaires filled out on Jewish inmates to the same office as questionnaires filled out on Aryans?
A: Yes.
Q: And that was the office for the Reich Association Hospital and Nursing Establishments?
A: The Reich Foundation for Mental Institutions.
Q: Yes.
A: Tiergartenstrasse 4.
Q: You sent the questionnaires there?
A: Yes.
Q: The last question Dr. Mennecke. Would you be willing to tell the Tribunal how you now feel of about your participation in the "euthanasia" program?
A: Yes, I am willing to express myself on that subject.
I deeply regret the fact that in 1940 I was drawn into this program. But when, after the collapse, the whole extent of the extermination of human beings became public knowledge of which I had known nothing up to that date, I was ashamed that I had ever had any part in this program, even if in a subordinate position, and I am still ashamed today. That is what I have to say.
MR. McHANEY: Thank you, Dr. Mennecke.
I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Has defense counsel any further questions regarding the last portion of the testimony of this witness?
For the record, during the afternoon recess the defendant Herta Oberheuser informed the Tribunal that she was ill and asked that she be excused from further presence in court this afternoon.
The request was granted, Defendant Oberheuser not being charged under the euthanasia count. So she is absent from court for the balance of this afternoon. The Secretary General will note that fact for the record. It will also be included in the transcript.
The Prosecution may proceed. The witness is excused.
MR. McHANEY: It has been called to my attention that on the 16th of January, on Page 1,787 of the English transcript a mistake was made, in that Document NO 752 was not given an exhibit number. In fact, it was admitted as Prosecution Exhibit 424.
JUDGE SEBRING: It appear from my document book that it was admitted as Prosecution Exhibit 424.
MR. McHANEY: Yes, sir, it undoubtedly appears in your document book. The mistake was made by the persons transcribing the record, so that as it now reads, it says: "The next document on Page 105 of the document book is NO 752, which will be Prosecution Exhibit from the Hadamar case." It should read, "Will be Prosecution Exhibit 424, also from the Hadamar case." I just want than to appear in the record.
THE PRESIDENT: The record may be corrected to show the fact that the exhibit referred to is numbered Prosecution Exhibit 424.
MR. McHANEY: At this time the Prosecution would like to submit to the Tribunal the certificate made by Gen. Taylor with respect to the right of certain employees of the Office Of Chief of Counsel for War Crimes to administer an oath. The certificate reads as follows:
Pursuant to Executive Orders 9,547 and 9,679, and to order of the Military Governor of 24 October 1946, General Order No.301, I am authorized to prepare and prosecute charges of atrocities and war crimes against leaders of the European axis powers and their accessories.
In the discharge of the responsibilities conferred on my by the above mentioned orders, I have authorized and detailed members of my staff who are engaged with me in the preparation and prosecution of cases, including attorneys, interrogators, and other investigators and agents of the Office of Chief of Counsel for War Crimes to conduct interrogations and investigations, and in the course of such interrogations and investigations to administer oaths. A list marked "Schedule A" of the names of the attorneys, interrogators, and other investigators and agents of the Office of Chief of Counsel for War Crimes who have been authorized to administer oaths is attached hereto. As additional persons are authorized to administer oaths, their names will be submitted to the Secretary General for the information of the Tribunal. Signed, Telford Taylor, Brig. Gen. USA, Chief of Counsel for War Crimes.
I shall not read the attached schedule. It consists of a number of names of those persons who are authorized to administer oaths, and I would like to file the original certificate, together with a copy thereof, with the Secretary General for the information of the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you hand the certificates to the Tribunal, please?
DR. SERVATIUS (Counsel for Defendant Karl Brandt): Dr. Servatius for Karl Brandt.
Mr. President, it cannot be seen from the document whether these persons were already authorized at the time they administered the oath. Neither do I know whether Gen. Taylor himself has the authorization to employ such persons and give them such qualifications which are needed in order to administer an oath. I think that a special qualification has to be proved. I don't know whether foreigners, neutral foreigners who can prove no special qualifications, can be employed by an American Tribunal, and I want the Tribunal to clarify these matters.
THE PRESIDENT: The position of defense counsel for Karl Brandt is certainly well taken, insofar as the certificate does not show the respective dates at which these persons were appointed. In order to validate an affidavit or statement taken at some prior date, it must appear that the person who took or certified the affidavit was then qualified to so act. It would seem also that certified copies of the orders referred to might well accompany the certificate.
MR. McHANEY: If I understand the Tribunal, they would like to have included information as to the date of employment of each of the individuals shown on there by the Office of Chief of Counsel.
THE PRESIDENT: That would not be necessary. But certain exhibits by the Prosecution were provisionally offered and received, subject to a later showing that at the time that particular affidavit or statement was sworn to or certified, the person who administered the oath or made the certificate was then qualified to so act. As to names on this list of persons who did not certify any of the affidavits or statements which have been offered, the dates of their appointment might well be immaterial, because this would show their appointment and service at this time. But as to those exhibits, offered exhibits which are still in suspension, it would certainly be necessary to show that at the time they were made the persons were then qualified to act on behalf of the Prosecution of the United States.
Just how many of those offered exhibits there were, I do not remember. There were not a great many.
MR. McHANEY: Relatively few.
THE PRESIDENT: Neither the Tribunal nor defense counsel will be interested in the dates the other persons were appointed. That statement will be subject to the exception that if affidavits are offered at a later date, then the same question would arise if they had been taken heretofore.
MR. McHANEY: Well, that question might arise in other cases. I don't think it will arise in this one. Since this certificate is designed to cover the whole complex of cases which will be presented here in Nurnberg, it affects cases other than our own.
We will undertake to rectify these deficiencies and submit additional evidence with this certificate at the time the court reconvenes Monday a week.
At this time I have four additional documents which the Prosecution would like to submit in evidence with respect to the Euthanasia Program, the first of which is Document NO 1430, which will be Prosecution Exhibit 429.
Defense counsel, I think, have not received this document within the prescribed twenty-four hours before its offer, and consequently we are now submitting it with the understanding that they can raise reasonable objections to the admission of the document.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be considered with that understanding.
MR. McHANEY: The first page of this document is a letter dated 15 August 1944 from the Reich Working Association, Mental Institutions and I would like to say that is the same organization shown on the chart as the Reich Association, Hospital and Nursing Establishment. It's to the Director Dr. Faltlhauser, the Kaufveuren Allgaeu Mental Institution:
Dear Mr. Faltlhauser:
With reference to my letter of 11 August 1944 I should be glad if you would also include the insane Eastern workers whose names appear on the attached list, and hand them over to the Head of the Transport on 5 September 1944. A question mark behind the name of the patient on the list indicates that their arrival is not certain.
With Kind regards and Heil Hitler /s/ Dr. Schw.
The next second page of the same document is quite similar, dated 11 August 1944 from the Reich Working Association, Mental Institutions. Director Dr. Faltlhauser:
Dear Mr. Faltlhauser:
The Eastern workers, whose names appear on the attached list, will arrive at your Institution by 2 September 1944. Mr. Rohloff, our Head of this Transport, will transfer these patients from your Institution on 5 September 1944. Please send also all Eastern workers whom you already have in your Institution and whose names are entered on the list with his transport.
Heil Hitler Dr. Schw.
MR. McHANEY: The next four pages of the document are the attached lists of Eastern workers, there being a total -- well, it's impossible to give the total. There seems to be some duplication of names on one or two of the lists but this does list the names of Eastern workers who were being transported. The next document will be NO-1436 and Prosecution Exhibit 430.
This is dated 9 October 1944. The address from which the letter originates is Tiergarten in Strasse 4 and the Tribunal has just heard the witness Mennicke testify concerning that address. It's from the Chief of the Budge Office of the Mental Institutions.
To the Mental Institution Kaufbeuren
Concerning Easter workers.
1. Assets:
Underwear and clothing may be used by the institution. I should like you to keep valuables and souvenirs for a certain time as there is a possibility that relatives equally employed in the Reich might put in a Claim. Money, also foreign exchange, will have to be accounted for to this office.
2. Cost of Transportation
New arrivals will mostly come from other institutions as it will hardly ever be possible to make direct delivery to the collecting centers.
I must ask you to advise the accompanying personnel of transports from other institutions that claims for cost of transport, etc., will have to be referred to me. As a matter of routine I must stress the fact that this does not apply if the patients are brought to the collecting centers straight from their place of work.
3. Forms
Within a few days we will be sending you forms for arrivals and medical statements.
We are sorry that the printing of these forms has been slightly delayed.
The signature is apparently illegible. I come now to Document. NO-1427, which will be Prosecution Exhibit 431. This is an affidavit sworn to by Irmgard Huber. It's offered provisionally as it is sworn to before Fred Rodell, Interrogator of the Office of Chief of Counsel and his authority to administer an oath will have to be clarified by these certificates to be submitted to the Tribunal. The affidavit reads as follows:
I, Irmgard Huber, swear, depose and state:
1. I was born on 9 June 1901 in Reisach in the District of Wasserburg Inn and from 1914 to 1917, after leaving the Volksschule, attended the continuation school. From 1920 to 1925 I was apprentice nurse at the institution Gaversee and passed my state examination and was a state licensed nurse. From 1932 to 1945 I worked in the state institution Hadamar as nurse and after 1944 as head nurse.
2. On the basis of my long years of service in mental institutions and my service as head nurse in the institution Hadamar, I am in a position to state the following:
3. In May 1943 Mischlings, half Jews -- all children -- were brought to the institution Hadamar. I cannot give the exact number of children, but to the best of my knowledge there were 15 to 20 girls. Almost all these children were healthy. Several had skin eruptions. These children were all killed by injections. When I returned to Hadamar in October 1943 after a 24 day leave, I was told that all the children were gone.
4. From July 1944 until the collapse of Germany four hundred Russians and Poles, men, women and children, all of whom ostensibly had tuberculosis, came to the mental institution Hadamar. These people were always killed by injections immediately after their arrival.
/s/ Irmhard Huber
If the Tribunal please, it occurs to me that this document dealing with half Jews ties up with the exhibit which we presented either yesterday or the day before.
It's the exhibit which we presented either yesterday or the day before. It's the exhibit I referred to which was an order dealing with half Jews but it did not show what happened to them. This affidavit shows us what the original order meant. We had submitted an affidavit or a statement taken before a public prosecutor which was not sworn to, which gave similar testimony but which was ruled out because of the fact that no oath had been administered. This affidavit, Prosecution Exhibit 431, ties up that bit of evidence. The next document is NO-1428 which will be Prosecution Exhibit 432. This also is offered provisionally subject to the acceptance of the certification by General Taylor as to the right of Mr. Rodell to administer the oath.
I, Hermann Wesse, M. D. swear, depose and state:
1. I was born on 22 January 1912 in Duesseldorf, Germany, studied at the Koeln University from 1931 to 1936 with an interruption from 1932 to 1934, and from 1936 to 1939 at the Medical Academy in Duesseldorf where I passed my state examination.
DR. SERVATIUS: Dr. Servatius, counsel for Karl Brandt. Mr. President, we have not yet received these documents. I am just receiving one document and my colleagues have not received any at all. We have to work on such an extensive amount of material that we could not really work if we have something in hand. I do not want to stop proceedings but I think too much is being demanded of us and this is why I have to object to further exhibits being offered.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand this is the last document to be offered this afternoon. Is that correct, counsel?
MR. McHANEY: It is the last document which Defense Counsel has not received. I may be mistaken about that. I am not certain. However, I am sure there will be no dispute as to the next three documents that are to be offered.
THE PRESIDENT: It was understood, at the time, that Defense Counsel would urge any objection they might have later. They are received now only provisionally. It is expected that the Tribunal will recess at the close of this afternoon's session until Monday, January 27, 1947. At that time Defense Counsel may urge their objections.
MR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, we will be working on the documents during the adjournment. We shall be at a disadvantage since we shall not be in a position to know what the documents contain. We will not know whether they are finally admitted or not.
THE PRESIDENT: The documents will not be finally admitted until counsel for the defense have had an opportunity to object to them. I understand Defense Counsel will be furnished with copies of these documents.
MR. McHANEY: I will again continue to read from the affidavit which is Prosecution's Exhibit 432.
On 1 April 1933 I joined the NSDAP and held party number 1706063; in 1936 I became a member of the NSV. Early in 1941 I was drafted into the Wehrmacht in the Grenadie Replacement Unit 588 in Elberfeld but after three weeks was again classified as deferred. On December 1, 1943, I was again taken into the Infantry Replacement Unit 488 in Hannover; in February 1944 I came to the Medical Replacement Unit 11, in Bueckeburg and from there was summoned by teletype in March 1944 to the Reich Chancellory and had to report there to Herr von Hegener. My last rank in the army was that of Medical Soldier (Sanitaetssoldat.) From May 1944 till the entry of the American troops, I worked, in the Mental Rehabilitation Institution (Heilerziehungsantalt) Kalmenhof in Idstein. During this time I was Chief Medical Officer of the above mentioned institution. In my capacity as Chief Medical Officer of the Mental Rehabilitation Institution Kalmenhof, as well as expert for the Reich Committee for Research on Hereditary Diseases and Constitutional Susceptibility to Severe Diseases as well as my professional connection with Herr von Hegener, I am in a position to make the following statement:
2) In March 1944 I was summoned by teletype to the Reich Chancellory and had to report there to Herr von Hegener. Herr von Hegener informed me about the so-called 'Euthanasia Program' and swore me to silence about it. It was made absolutely clear to me that the Euthanasia Program was carried out along two separate lines, namely, the killing of mentally ill adults who were unfit for work on the one hand, and the killing of mentally inferior and asocial children on the other. I heard the name of Professor Dr. Karl Brandt for the first time in this connection. It was made clear to me that Brandt was one of the leading personalities of the entire Euthanasia Program.
3) I know for sure that the Euthanasia Program, for children was carried on until six weeks before the Americans marched in.
This affidavit is signed by Herman Wesse.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, I should like to reserve the right to cross-examine that witness, that is, I should like to reserve that right for Karl Brandt.
THE PRESIDENT: The prosecution will make available in court the Affiant, Hermann Wesse, M.D., if possible, in due time, when the defense case is over.
MR. McHANEY: Defense Counsel will file an appropriate application?
THE PRESIDENT: The Defense Counsel will file such an application. They will request that the witness will be called for cross-examination.
At this time the Tribunal will recess until Monday morning, January 27 at nine-thirty o'clock. This recess is taken in order that the defendants may have suitable time within which to prepare their defense. During the coming week, Defense Counsel will advise the Tribunal as to whether or not they have agreed upon the time to be allocated to each counsel for the purpose of making his opening statement. Defense counsel will be allowed two days to make their opening statements.
If Defense Counsel cannot agree upon the allocation of time, the Tribunal will be allocate the time when the Tribunal re-convenes on Monday morning, January 27.
The Prosecution will continue its case until it is completed; the Defense Counsel will open. Are there any questions on the part of anyone?
I would like to ask the Prosecution how long it anticipates it will take to close after the Tribunal re-convenes?
MR. McHANEY: If the Tribunal please, I am quite sure that it will not take more than one trial day. I might state briefly what we have to do before we close our case. We have to present three documents with respect to additional proof on membership of the defendants charged in Count IV.
THE PRESIDENT: I was merely asking counsel for a general statement. Prosecution will not be limited. I desire that Tribunal and Defense Counsel have a general idea as to what to expect.
MR. McHANEY: The only difficulty is the length of cross-examination of the Leibrand, Professor Leibrand. I do not think direct examination will take more than an hour or an hour and a half. I am unable to say how long Defense Counsel plan to cross-examine Professor Leibrand. Except for that open problem, I should think we certainly should finish on Monday.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, I have only a technical question in connection with the translation. The Document Book which we want to submit must be delivered to the Translation Division in advance. In the trial before the International Military Tribunal, this took from five to six days. That would mean that approximately on the 22nd or 23rd, we would have to submit all documents which we want to submit in evidence. The adjournment cannot be used to advantage for the Defense.
The next question--
THE PRESIDENT: Let me answer your first question. Would it be necessary that all documents to be offered by all the defendants be submitted at that time?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendants will naturally present their cases separately. Could not the documents which will be required later be submitted later?
DR. SERVATIUS: The first defendants are in a greater hurry than those whose case comes up later. Of course the first defendants have the most extensive proof.
The second question, which refers to everyone, is whether statements and briefs have to be submitted for translation so they can be read by the interpreters, and will be available in writing before the member of the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Do I understand that before the International Military Tribunal, the preliminary statements of counsel for the defendants were translated before they were delivered before the Tribunal?
DR. SERVATIUS: According to the Charter, such opening statements were inadmissible. At that time, it only referred to document books and to the final plea. If this is applicable here, it would mean that the adjournment, for technical reasons, would be too short.
THE PRESIDENT: It would seem if the opening statements by Defense Counsel, will have to be translated, then that presents a new problem to this Tribunal.
DR. SERVATIUS: The Language Division asked me when I would submit these statements. I said it would take two or three days. It has yet to be written. It must be assembled and distributed. If Saturday and Sunday be excluded, there is not much time left, and I would have to be finished by Wednesday at the latest.
THE PRESIDENT: Has Counsel for the Prosecution any suggestion in connection with this matter?
MR. McHANEY: I should think that if Defense Counsel could prepare their opening statements, which I assume will not be too extensive, in time, and present them to the interpreters before hand, so they can become familiar with them, in order to give a coherent and logical interpretation here in court, as it is read in German; I should think it would be satisfactory for them to prepare these statements in German and then have them translated by the translation department. I should think there might be some difficulty getting them processed and ready in time. As far as getting the documents translated, I seem to have a fairly good recollection that the International Military Tribunal required something more than five days' notice be given to the translation department.
I have in mind two weeks. Be that as it may, I can here and now advise defense counsel that as a practical matter they will not be able to get translations returned in five days especially if there is to be a considerable number of documents.
THE PRESIDENT: Has not the defense already submitted documents which they desire translated to the Translation Department?
DR. SERVATIUS: So far as I have been informed, no documents have yet been submitted for translation. The affidavits are not yet available and in many cases we have not yet received them. We are in many cases concerned with affidavits or short excerpts of medical literature. If altogether we had a 12-day adjournment, we could well manage. We had really assumed that the Prosecution would finish my the middle of this week. Then, of course, we could have managed by the 27th.
The Language Division suggested that if it were necessary they would work Saturday and Sunday so that the documents would be ready in time. If, for instance, we would start on the 29th, then we would have Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. That could be taken up with the opening statement and then the following monday we could start with the real submission of evidence. I think that could well be managed by the defense and also by the Language Division.
MR. McHANEY: If it please the Tribunal, the prosecution certainly would not look with favor upon any delay beyond Monday, a week. I have stated that we will take up approximately one full trial day to close our case. It was made perfectly clear two weeks ago, at least almost that long, that this adjournment would take place and that it might be as little as one week.
The material which has been going in the last week approximately concerned 4 of the 23 defendants. I am at a loss to see any ground for further delay. These gentlemen do not have any affidavits yet. They do not have any documents yet. Quite frankly, I do not know how it is all going to match together in these next seven days but, be that as it may, I think we should attempt to get the defense under way and see how it goes.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, my suggestion was to have two more days, that is, I ask that you start on Wednesday instead of Monday. The way it would happen would be as follows: The Prosecution would start for one day and then the defense. All we really want is an extra two days. That would give us Thursday and Friday.
THE PRESIDENT: I think it might be possible for defense counsel to be adequately prepared if the Tribunal would meet on Monday, January 27, at the closing of the case of the prosecution. Defense counsel might then be prepared to make their opening statements during the next two days. Then if further time is required for the translation of the documents, a recess of two more days could be taken at that time.
DR. SERVATIUS: That is a suggestion which is acceptable. We would prefer taking the time all at once.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal understands the defense counsel would prefer the other method but the Tribunal will follow the method just outlined. You may have this assurance: If it definitely appears the defense will be prejudiced by this proceeding, they may have a further recess.
DR. GAWLIK: Mr. President, I have another question. I stated that my most important witnesses are in Holland. I understood the Tribunal to say that I make application for questionnaires to be sent to Holland by way of a commissioner.
THE PRESIDENT: That matter may be taken up informally before me in my office in the morning. We will consider it and see what can be done in order to satisfy defense counsel.
The Tribunal will now recess until Monday morning, January 27, 1947.