1947-05-09, #3: Doctors' Trial (afternoon)

AFTERNOON SESSION (The Tribunal reconvened at 1345 hours, 9 May 1947.)

THE MARSHAL: Persons in the Court room will please find their seats.

The Tribunal is again in session.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may proceed.

DR. PFANNMUELLER — Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY DR. FROESCHMANN (Counsel for Viktor Brack):

Q: Witness, I remind you that you are still under oath.

Mr. President. I may repeat what I have filled to note this morning, namely, document 1133, Exhibit 349 is in English document volume 14, page 151, 1696 PS Exhibit 347 is to be found in English document book 14, page 209.

Witness, this morning we stopped discussing the question whether you still remembered the questionnaire which was used during the euthanasia procedure in the case of incurable mental patients. And first I should like to interpolate a question. You were an expert, as an expert, did you ever give any opinion about questionnaires which had to be filled out about the patients of your institute?

A: No.

Q: Why did that not happen?

A: Because we received directives that we could not give such expert opinions on questionnaires which came under our own institute.

Q: According to what principles did you exercise your expert opinions when expertizing these questionnaires?

A: I observed the following principles when filling out the questionnaire, when filling out the left lower corner of that questionnaire. The principles were told us in Berlin during that expert conference which I have already mentioned. We were told with regard to feeble mindedness that it was divided into three forms, the light feeble minded, the medium feeble minded and the severe idiotic form.

When charging feeble mindedness, one has to take into consideration the degree of the intellect and the personality involved. In the cases of schizophrenia, the cause of the illness, the mental picture and the condition of the patient, the form of schizophrenia, and most important, we were then concerned with a condition which has to be considered when giving an expert opinion, the valuation to be attached to the degree of damage to the personality of the man involved, and when giving the prognosis of the mind. In the case of organic psychosis and in this connection I may in particular mention epilepsy and paralysis, and just to mention too one has to observe in what stage the paralysis is and what kind of treatment has preceded that stage. One has to observe whether there is a refractory therapy condition, which is a condition which can no longer be treated, a completely final condition. One has to take into consideration whether any such condition has resulted. In the case of epilepsy one has to find out whether the personality of the man involved has changed in any way, whether he is subject to attacks, et cetera. Psychosis regarding age has to be rejected. The treatment in itself and the care in an institute would have to be considered whenever giving a judgment about the case. People who were injured as a result of war should not be expertized positively especially in those cases when the damage as a result of war is not either an organic connection or any other connection with the mental condition of the patient. At a later date the question was discussed whether people who received damages as a result of work should not bo expertized positively. This question was not dealt with economically according to groups, for instance house work, or paper work. In other words, it was not graded as to light work, medium work or heavy work and no mention was made about agricultural work, et cetera, but this merely was used as a diagnostic psychiatric aid in order to evaluate the ability of the patient to work within his environment. It was ex pressed that this question was to be considered in a very serious way and the occupation of the patient should have to be changed very favorably.

Furthermore, mention was made that the medical expert and especially the previous experts who were used would only have to deal with medical points. In no case were they to touch upon other questions contained in the questionnaire, questions concerning visits, et cetera.

Q: Doctor, may I ask you to make a small pause between your individual sentences. Will you please continue?

A: The Jews who were at the Institute from a medical point of view were to be considered in the same way as any other Aryan. Race should make no difference. Foreigners were not to fall under the question of giving an expert opinion. We were told that Jews, as well as foreigners, do not fall within the concept of euthanasia, as it was meant here. Also a deciding factor for the expert was the way the questionnaire was filled out. Whenever no firm decision could be arrived at, we had not the right to insert either a class major or minor at the lower lefthand corner, but we could call a case questionable, we could add that was done by either expert, at any rate, by me. These were sent on, the case history, or else a personal examination of the patient in necessary All of these things were actually observed. There was even the possibility to insert a detailed remark on the back of the questionnaire about any matter which was left unclear, or about any investigation which still may be necessary. I think these were the broad outlines on those points which I can mention.

Q: Can you still remember, witness, who issued these directives?

A: These directives are the consequences of a talk among the expert physicians who participated in this conference, of experts. This was the summing-up of this entire conference. I think that I said that I don't know whether Bouhler was there, but I think that he may have been one of the people who were in the Praesidium, but it was not of psychiatrists.

Q: Doctor, by inserting in your answer that statement, you answered also another question as to what category the persons were eliminated.

Can you tell me why in spite of this exception, it was sot down that the questionnaire had to be filled out regarding foreigners?

A: A questionnaire, I never saw a questionnaire about foreigners.

Q: What exactly do you mean? Doctor, I should like to point out to you that a so-called regulation sheet was attached to the questionnaire?

No, I never received that.

Q: There seems to be a little misunderstanding between us. You are right that under the activity of the experts, which you just described, you only know of the photostatic copy of the questionnaire, perhaps in addition to the case history. However, I am now asking you about the filling out of the questionnaire, the filling out of the questionnaire on the basis of the previous questionnaire, which had been sent to your mental Institution. You were asked to fill out the questionnaire according to the categories which were laid down in the previous sheet of which I am speaking. Do you have Document NO-825 before you? That document, you will find it in the German Document Volume 14, page 138. I shall have that Document Book handed to you. The document is NO-825, Exhibit No. 358. I already cited the page in the English Document Book No. 216, Document Book No. 14, part II. Would you please look at this sheet, I think it was on green paper?

A: I never received that, never did.

Q: Didn't you?

A: No, I never did. I never even saw it. I would have remembered that. I am sure I would have remembered if there was something like that there on green paper. However, I never received it.

Q: May I interpolate a question. When in the Fall of 1939, or the beginning of '40, you were asked to fill out questionnaires about certain patients in your institution, such a questionnaire would have to be directed to your office, is that right?

A: Yes. Those questionnaires were sent to me, yes.

Q: I asked also, perhaps you cannot remember it, that a regulation sheet was attached to that questionnaire, whether it was on green or white paper really makes no difference, and I think that in this regulation sheet a certain category of persons was set down who were to be considered when filling out the questionnaire. First, those persons who were suffering of illnesses and could therefore not be used for any work at all; secondly, such persons who for a number, of years, I think five years, had been in an institution; thirdly, persons who from a legal point of view could be considered, and fourthly, foreigners. I want to ask you whether you know for what reasons the filling out of questionnaire was necessary for foreigners in spite of the statement which you just made to the effect that foreigners did not come under euthanasia. Do you understand me?

A: Yes.

Q: If you don't know that, please don't make any assumption. Just say so.

A: I only received those directives during the expert conference, and I can not remember having received previously any regulation sheet attached to the questionnaire, so far as I can remember. I just received the questionnaire.

Q: In other words, you can not tell us anything about that. You can not say why a questionnaire had to be filled out about those foreigners?

A: No, I can not say that.

Q: In that case I wish to conclude this chapter by putting two questions. On the basis of those questionnaires, could a reliable decision bo made about the fact that the mental illness of a patient concerned was still in effect incurable?

A: It is my point of view that a questionnaire is a sufficient basis for a psychiatrist expert in order to judge whether the case should be transferred to one of the care institutions of which I have spoken about previously, or not. In addition we were told during this expert conference that an opinion by three pro-experts should be subject to a commission of top experts, and that this commission of top experts should once more investigate the case concerned in case of anything that was unclear. They should either visit the patient concerned personally, or else obtain its case history. At any rate they should do something in order to obtain clarification regarding the cases. The decision would have to be made at the end. The physician who is to accept the patient into the institute is to have another vote.

Q: What you just said is of considerable interest, especially because the Prosecution has submitted Document 3865-PS, Exhibit 365, which is to be found in the German Document Book 14, page 156, and in the English Document Book at page 230. This is a document wherein a female witness points out that a commission of physicians visited your institute, who stayed there for a number of days, and there personally examined a number of patients, after having studied the case history. Do you think that this commission of which this female witness is speaking was probably the commission of which you were just speaking?

A: I can not remember that a commission of physicians was at my Institution in the year of 1940. I assume this concerns one physician who visited my Institute. I only assume that. I think that this must be the physician who gathered all the physicians of the entire personnel, and also the ones of the personnel who were to deal with the questionnaires which were to go to Berlin. He wanted more investigating of those questionnaires in order to arrive at some decision. I think that was the case. But I don't think it was a commission.

Q: Doctor, you told me that the questionnaire meant for you a sufficient basis for judging the degree of mental illness. But I would rather generalize this question, in view of what the president has told me this morning, and I would not like to limit it to your case. The psychiatrist physicians who were generally intended to be experts, could they also recommend the degree of mental illness on the basis of the questionnaire?

A: So far as I know only the most experienced expert physicians were used for these expert jobs. Among them, so far as I know, there were the "University Professors," the Ordinariuses, the extra-Ordinariuses, and the practical psychiatrists. I don't know the names of the experts in detail, because that was never told to me. From later reports, however, for instance, from Heidelberg, I know that only the most efficient people were selected. I know and I think that these people had the same point of view as I had. However, I am not sure about that.

Q: Doctor, in spite of your opinion that, on the basis of these questionnaires, the degree of the mental illness could be determined very clearly, do you think that errors were possible?

A: Doctor, there is a principle which says "Errare humanum est". To err is human. Even in the case of trials which are lasting for decades, trials of a purely legal nature, errors have been made and errors will continue to be made. This is exactly the same situation as in the case of an expert. These experts were used in the same way as all the experts are used during any trial and it is possible also for them to make an error once in a while, but I do think that we're here only concerned with singular cases.

I don't think that any principal errors were possible.

Q: Doctor, I only have a few questions to put to you. One question may yet have to be discussed in that connection. In the course of the evidence the prosecution has raised the charge that these questionnaires were expertized by these experts in huge numbers and within an incredibly short period of time.

A: These questionnaires came to the pre-expert in a registered package and these questionnaires were to be dealt with as quickly as possible. That was desired during the expert conference, but it was also pointed out that they were to be dealt with carefully. When dealing with any such questionnaire and when considering the period of time it takes, one must bear in mind that time is really not the important factor. There are persons who are in a position to work quickly and others who work more slowly. There are people who have their desks littered with files and can never get anything done, and there are the people who sit at their desks and never leave it before their job is finished. In the case of these questionnaires, the contents of the questionnaire is the most important thing. A questionnaire can be kept in such a form that when underlining psychiatric questions with red or blue pencil one might often come to a decision within a period of one minute. One could perhaps reach a negative decision, not necessarily a positive decision.

However, there were other questionnaires, and that particularly in the case of the later questionnaires when the cases were more difficult and not as clear as before, that one could ponder about such a questionnaire for days and not get finished with it. In that case, a question mark had to be put down and the decision had to be left to other agencies. In any case, I don't want you to accept that as any defense of any personal nature, but I want to put that to you as a defense for all experts. I have dealt with these questionnaires as carefully as possible and in order to be quite sure personally looked through a few hundreds of these questionnaires one morning, let them lie, then perhaps looked at another bunch of these files in the afternoon, and then once more looked at the first heap of these questionnaires and only then gave my opinion on them.

Q: Doctor, this brings me to the end of the most extensive point of view regarding the procedure which was adopted by the Reich Committee within the euthanasia procedure. It is now only necessary for me to put a number of small questions to you which arose from your activity and which have to be illustrated somewhat. Did you, at any time, hear that these poor mental patients, and these poor children were designated as "useless eaters"?

A: The expression "useless eaters" I heard for the first time while being here. I never heard this expression when dealing with any agencies with which I was in contact. You may believe me that if any serious minded person had heard that expression he would have thrown everything away and would have said "I am not going to cooperate."

Q: Doctor, one witness has stated in an affidavit that in the year of 1942 there was a conference in the Ministry of the Interior during which the directors of the institutes were to have received the directive to kill these useless eaters by slow starvation.

Do you know of any such conference in the Bavarian Ministry of the Interior?

A: There was a conference in the Bavarian Ministry of the Interior of all the institute directors coming from Bavaria. This conference was called by the Bavarian Ministry of the Interior. I don't know what the names of all the participants were, but, as far as I remember, the directors of all those institutes were actually present as far as they held the offices. There was the following reason for the calling of this conference. The public mental institutions, from the point of view of nourishment, were treated in a manner which is equal to certain institutions which do not correspond to mental institutions; for instance, work houses. We were subjected to whatever we were dished out in the way of rations. When, in the later years, nourishment became a problem and, in particular, the rations were reduced, difficulties began to arise within the institutions. In particular, those patients who were working within the productive program of that institution had to starve. They could no longer eat to their satisfaction and, as a result, became worse in their condition. As other directors of institutions, I attempted to increase the ration by making a number of applications at the Food Office in Munich. I tried to get a special ration of food to the same extent as was given to heavy workers. I had to visit this office for ten times and I only received rations for that personnel in my institution who were engaged in the heaviest work and only that after many, many tedious negotiations. I only received that for tubercular patients and people who had to stand on guard for as long as ten hours. The whole thing was reflected for the patients. Then, of course, I had to make a complaint to the district office and I also turned to the Ministry of the Interior in Bavaria. At a later date I learned during that conference that the same thing had happened in the case of other directors of institutions without being able to come to any understanding.

However, nothing was given to us. Some adjustment had to be made with the rations which we received at the institute and it was then determined that the patients had to be treated in a different way who were at a much lower social level for the benefit of the other patients, and I think I want to point out something else- I would not have been in a position to maintain one of my insulin departments if hadn't received enough nourishment.

Q: Doctor, if I understand you correctly, this dealt with the giving of nourishment to these institutions by the Food Office which had nothing to do at all with euthanasia. Now, another question— among the mental patients who were transferred to an euthanasia station from your institution, were there any such people who could be considered as valuable workers?

A: Gentlemen, I filled out the questionnaires of my institution by having every one of my patients presented to me personally. This was done by the head nurse of that particular department. That was done in the presence of the head nurse and in the presence of the physician of the department, who had previously filled out the questionnaire. Also in the presence of the ordinary nurse or the person who was controlling the work of that patient. I looked at the case histories. I don't really know what other safeguards I could have taken.

Q: At any rate, you say "no" to the question that any valuable workers were transferred to the euthanasia program?

A: No, that is out of the question.

Q: Did you ever gain knowledge that patients were transferred from mental institutions for euthanasia?

A: Now, Doctor, I think I forgot something from before. I kept back patients and I didn't send them on to the transportation cases where I didn't think they should be transferred to the transfer institutions.

Q: Now, I shall once more repeat the question. Did you ever again knowledge that patients were transferred from mental institutions into euthanasia stations in order to create sufficient space for wounded personnel?

A: I didn't know that it was possible, however, that I cannot remember this, during the conference in Berlin, Dr. Bouhler's conference, a release of space was discussed and the furnishing of that space for Army purposes. At to be vacated for particularly discussed that this space was to be vacated for purposes of healing, but not within the framework of euthanasia, euthanasia was not at all discussed.

Q: I have one more question to you; to whom were the euthanasia stations subordinated from an official point of view?

A: From an official point of view they were subordinated to the Ministry of the Interior medically, from the economic point of view they were subordinated to the Reichsarzt [Reich Physician] President, that is the district president, who had a certain expert for that department. He was a legal man who was detached for that department.

Q: Doctor, was there a National Socialist Nurses Corps?

A: I never heard of anything like that in my life.

DR. FROESCHMANN: I should like to point out that the Prosecution has submitted Document 3882PS, Exhibit 371, Document Book 14, page 183 of one German edition, and in the English edition page 262.

This is the affidavit of Jordans, wherein it is stated these injections in the case of children were introduced by physicians and nurses of the so-called National Socialist Nurses Corps.

THE WITNESS: Gentlemen, that is madness. That is complete madness. We had nurses who came from a free nursing association. We had male personnel and female personnel nurses, and I know of no other nurses. I never heard of the National Socialist Nurses association. I would have known it if such a thing had existed.

Q: Now, the one last question, Doctor. Do you know that euthanasia had been carried out because of defensive and political reasons?

A: No, during my interrogation by the American gentlemen I have been asked about that question, but I don't know anything about that.

DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, in that connection I refer to another document which has been submitted by the Prosecution, Document No. 3896, Exhibit 372, in volume 14, page 184 in the German edition, and page 263 of the English document book, which deals with the affidavit of Dr. Sprauer, where he says that mention was made during the conference in Berlin that euthanasia was necessary for defensive and political reasons.

Q: Now, I have one other question. Did you gain knowledge that euthanasia was to be extended to elderly people?

A: No, on the contrary.

DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, in this connection I refer you to Document 818, Exhibit 373, Document Book German 14, page 187, and the English Document Book page 365. This is an affidavit by the just mentioned Dr. Sprauer.

Q: Now, one last question. When discussing the exceptions you were saying that people who were injured as a result of the war were to be excepted, perhaps you didn't express yourself quite properly. I am putting to you that in a document, which I don't find, submitted by the prosecution, there was a list of a number of death cases where death notices were contained, and I think that three or four participants in the World War, 1914 to 1918, were also mentioned there. Doctor, it is my question now, is it correct that only those participants in the World War were to be excepted where the mental illness was in connection with a wound which was inflicted during the war, or and that I can hardly assume, that all participants in the World War were to be excepted who became mentally ill as a result of their injury?

A: Well, I can't tell you that. I can only tell you that in the case of those people who suffered injuries as a result of the war, and in which case there was a connection between that injury and their mental condition had to be considered in a negative way. As for the others, I cannot tell you how they are judged. I think it says here "military conscription from the year of 1914-1918" and then we inserted either "yes" or "no". The expert opinion does not depend on that at all. All the medical psychiatric questions of the transfer which really had nothing to do with the expert. Now, something else, gentlemen, I think I can remember that this was outlined in the file. Whenever participants in the World War were mentioned you must consider that it is quite possible that we didn't know from the case history whether the person concerned actually was a participant in the War or not, because that was not laid down. It is quite possible that a "no" was inserted at first, because one only set it down according to the administrative files on that person, and one doesn't at all find out whether the man was in the war.

If on the other hand he had a very visible injury, as a result of the war, supposing one of his arms was missing or one of his finders was missing, or supposing a severe physical condition has resulted because of the war, as tuberculosis, I can assure you that these people were not considered positive.

DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, I have no further questions to the witness.

JUDGE SEBRING: Witness, the Tribunal has one or two questions it would like to ask.

BY JUDGE SEBRING:

Q: As I recollect your testimony you said that at the meeting of the Reich Committee in Berlin where the euthanasia problem was considered it was there determined that Jews were not to be included in the euthanasia program; did I understand you correctly?

A: I am afraid I wasn't in a position to follow your question exactly.

Q: State whether or not Jews were to be included in the euthanasia program?

A: I didn't know that Jews were to be included. I never heard of that.

Q: Then you don't know whether they were to the included or excluded?

A: That I really don't know. The cases in my institutions were treated equally. I made no difference at all.

Q: Then so far as you know in expertizing these various cases a person would be expertized and a decision made from a psychiatric and mental point of view with at the slightest consideration being made to whether he was a Jew or non-Jew, is that correct?

A: Well, I never made any difference when dealing with these cases, but none of them were transferred.

Q: None of whom?

A: None of the Jews, none of the jews were transferred. None of the Jews were sent to the euthanasia transport as far as I know.

Q: Why?

A: As I already said initially, the Jews were sent to a Jewish Institute through a collective transport on the basis of an order by the Bavarian ministry of the Interior.

Q: And do you know whether or not at that Jewish Institution selections were made for mercy deaths?

A: No, I don't know that. I had nothing to do with that.

DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, may I state that the witness is somewhat deaf, and that is why I ask that the interpreter speak a little louder when speaking in German to the witness.

THE PRESIDENT: Has defense counsel any further questions to this witness? There being none the Prosecution may cross examine.

CROSS EXAMINATION

BY MR. HARDY:

Q: Dr. Pfannmueller, have you been interrogated by Mr. Rodell?

A: Yes, I only learned his name a little later.

Q: And you have been interrogated by Dr. Hochwald, the Czecho Slovakian attorney working for the Prosecution here in Nurnberg?

A: Yes, there was another gentleman there. I don't know whether that was Mr. Hochwald or not. I later learned a certain Mr. Hochwald was there.

Q: Have you been interrogated by the Prosecutor of the German Court in Frankfurt?

A: Yes, I was interrogated by a number of investigating judges, three or four of them.

Q: When you were interrogated by Mr. Rodell and Mr. Hochwald were you under oath?

A: Yes.

Q: Were you under oath when you were interrogated by the German Prosecutor?

A: No.

Q: Then you realize, of course, you are under oath here?

A: Yes, certainly.

Q: Will you kindly tell the Tribunal in your opinion why the euthanasia program was instituted in Germany?

A: I don't know that. I am not informed about that and I, therefore, cannot tell you that. Only at a later date I had. occasion to see the Reichsleiter [Reich Leader] Bouhler, where he showed me a letter, according to which a decree had been issued by the Fuehrer which constituted the basis for the execution of the euthanasia program. Bouhler showed me that personally upon my request. I don't know whether at that time I already knew about euthanasia or whether the question was just pending then. At any rate I assumed that euthanasia may come into question.

Q: Did Bouhler show you a letter from the Fuehrer?

A: Yes, I thought that this was the original. I saw the photostatic copy in Frankfurt. I can no longer remember that exactly but I do know that in the letter which Bouhler showed to me —

Q: We have the letter. I just merely want to ask you a few questions about it. Can you tell us the date on the letter, was it 1 September 1939?

A: I didn't write any letter.

Q: I am asking you about the Fuehrer letter that Bouhler exhibited to you?

A: Oh, the Fuehrer decree, yes. Would you please repeat your question?

Q: What was the date on the letter?

A: I no longer know that. I think in Frankfurt I saw that it was 1 September 1939, that is, the photostatic copy which was shown to me in Frankfurt. That was the first of September 1939. May I add that I already stated in Frankfurt that I can no longer say with certainty whether that was the document. I had always thought that on the left lower corner there was a remark: "Reich Ministry of the Interior" or something like that. At any rate I can't remember that document exactly. I also believe on the document shown to me there was "Reichsleiter Bouhler and Brandt."

Q: We have the document. You don't need to explain the document. I merely asked you the date. Now you pay attention and answer the questions I am asking you. Now Doctor, in the course of your direct examination here did you have notes written out. Do you have notes there before you?

A: Here, no.

Q: You don't have any papers there with notes written thereon. You were reading from a paper this morning. Do you have notes written on the paper, any pencil notes or notes supplied to you by defense counsel? What do you have there before you?

A: Before me I have excerpts from the document books. Yes, I made some notes on the pages of those documents.

Q: Now, doctor, you noted on the photostatic copy of the Fuehrer letter the date 1 September 1939, do you recall the date that the Germans invaded Poland?

A: No, I don't know that.

Q: Wasn't that 1 September 1939?

A: Well that may be but I don't know that exactly. I wasn't active militarily with the exception of having been conscripted to the home guard at the end, but otherwise I wasn't in any military service. The war started on the 1st of September, 1939. I do know that.

Q: You have answered my question. Now do you recall in your interrogation of 21 September 1946 when asked the same question that I asked you here today as to what was your opinion as to why the euthanasia program was instituted and at that time you said that you thought it was a military measure for hospital purposes. Do you recall answering that in your interrogation in September?

A: No.

Q: Remember you are under oath here, doctor.

A: I don't remember details any more. I may say one thing. I was interrogated so rapidly at that time that I hardly had any possibility to think, and one more thing — it is possible that I said that hospital measures were taken into consideration for the purpose of the army. I still say today it is possible that wounded people were discussed but I can no longer remember exactly. I don't want to say anything which is untrue.

Q: Well now when did you receive your invitation from Bouhler to participate in the euthanasia program?

A: Well, I just mentioned that there was no talk of euthanasia when I was with Bouhler. At that time I had not yet seen the decree. During the Bouhler conference there was only talk about transfer into the county care institutions. As far as I know this was a measure to separate cases for care and cases for treatment.

Q: Well now when did you receive your invitation from Bouhler? What date in the summer of 1940?

A: I repeatedly stated that I can no longer remember the dates.

Q: You remember, witness — You remembered it very well in Frankfurt.

A: I repeatedly said in Frankfurt that I cannot remember the dates which were mentioned. I don't know whether it was in the spring of 1940 or in the fall of 1939. I really can't remember that and I repeatedly said so.

Q: Well now, doctor, we fortunately have records of your previous interrogations. Now, doctor, during the course of your examination in Frankfurt you stated that when you went to the Fuehrer Chancellery in the summer of 1940 that Bouhler gave you as a reason for the execution of the euthanasia program that it was necessary to get more space for the purpose of the armed forces, and in addition to that you stated that it was also a program wherein you would get rid of inmates who were not fit for work. Now don't you recall telling that in an examination in Frankfurt?

A: In Frankfurt? I am sure I didn't say it there. I really don't remember it.

Q: You don't remember that you stated that one of the insane asylums, the name was Gabersee, spelled G-a-b-e-r-s-e-e-, was handed over to the euthanasia program?

A: I beg your pardon. Gabersee was the sister institution of mine, located in upper Bavaria. Gabersee was then vacated. I already said in Frankfurt I no longer know to which of these institutions but a number of patients were sent to my institute from Gabersee and I already stated in Frankfurt so far as I remember that patients had already been sent away a little while after they had come. I did not participate in the vacation of Gabersee. I said that in Frankfurt the vacation of the Gabersee institution was carried out without my assistance. On the contrary—

Q: I didn't ask you that, doctor. I asked you whether or not you stated that in connection with the euthanasia program at Gabersee

A: Yes.

Q: Kindly answer my questions, doctor, and wait until I complete my questions before you start answering. My questions will be brief and your answers like wise may be brief.

Now who took charge of the insane asylum Gabersee at that time?

A: The Mental Institution at Gabersee was taken over by the DAF, the German Labor Front, so far as I know.

Q: That is the German Labor Front, isn't it? The DAF?

A: Yes.

Q: Thank you.

A: Yes. Without my presence, of course.

Q: Now, when you entered the euthanasia program, did you take an oath?

A: Well, I think that at any rate I was obliged to keep matters a secret. I think that that happened in Berlin at one time. At any rate, during the first conference it was said at the end that the entire conference fell within the designation, Secret Reich Hatters, Top Secret.

Q: I ask you again, did you take an oath?

A: No, I was told that I was to say nothing about these negotiations, and that under the circumstances, a death sentence would be carried out.

Q: Who told you that?

A: — if that was violated.

Q: Who told you that?

A: I don't know exactly who told me that. At any rate I can not remember it. At any rate I was obliged to keep the secret in a sense.

Q: At the time the individual told you that, did he also shake hands with you to indicate by his handshake that it was agreed that you were admitted?

A: Yes.

Q: And who was it?

A: That was not a ceremony, there was no ceremony with that. If it were otherwise I would have remembered that instance, but really it was an obligation in the sense of secrecy, and in the sense of my task which was given to me in the Reich Ministry of the Interior, in my capacity as an expert.

Q: Doctor, who else did that. Did someone else ask you to keep these matters a secret?

A: I beg your pardon.

Q: You had testified in a previous interrogation that the entire group of individuals took this oath who directed the work of euthanasia program, and that the oath was taken in the form of a handshake, and you said you must keep this a secret, and now I want to tell this Tribunal who that was, just what was said, and all the incidental conversations that accompanied it. You know just what I am referring to, I believe?

A: I no longer know. When this Reich Committee was created, I was obliged to secrecy anyway, and I can no longer state that in exactitude who the agency was, that obliged me thus.

Q: When were you interrogated? When were you interrogated by the prosecution in Frankfurt, the German prosecution?

A: I have not got the date here. I think it was in January or February.

Q: It is not five years ago?

A: It can be in April.

Q: It is not five years ago, Doctor. It is a matter of months?

A: Yes, but at the time also in Frankfurt I stated that I no longer know who that was. I don't know whether it was Munich Ministry of the Interior, or whether it was in Berlin. I really don't know that exactly.

Q: Who conducted the meeting in Munich of the Ministry of the Interior?

A: The meeting at the Ministry of the Interior was headed by Ministerial Director Schulze.

Q: That is right?

A: That is right.

Q: You don't recall telling any one within the past few months that it was Victor Brack who shook hands with you when he swore you to secrecy?

A: I certainly was not sworn in in any way. There was no swearing, and I really would have remembered it had such a thing taken place. I was only obliged to keep the matter a top secret, but it is possible Victor Brack would have to know that himself. I no longer know that. I would not exclude the possibility.

Q: Did you ever have such a meeting with Victor Brack wherein you shook hands with him at the time, considering the secrecy of the euthanasia program?

A: Well, however, we are coming back to the same thing again. I no longer know of these things, and I can not state them exactly. These things are so many years back, gentlemen, that I can not no longer recall all these details; all these dates are mixed up in my mind, and I could only reconstruct them truly on the basis of the document.

Q: Then I shall try to help you, doctor. I will not ask you to go back three or four or five years. I will ask you to recall your interrogation of the past few months. Do you recall telling just that to an interrogator, either to my staff, or the staff of the General Prosecutor in Frankfurt, that is not very difficult to remember, two or three months back?

A: What do you want me to remember. I don't quite know what you want.

Q: One of these interrogators had asked you if Victor Brack shook hands with you and told you the things must be kept a secret concerning the euthanasia program. Did you or did you not tell the interrogator that in Frankfurt, yes or no?

A: I really don't know that any more. I did not receive any copy of my interrogation, therefore, I can not tell you that.

Q: You have stated that they had a conference in Berlin in the summer of 1940, who attended that conference?

A: Well, I don't know what conference you are talking about. Would that be the expert conference? Was it the expert conference?

Q: How many conferences did you have in the summer of 1940?

A: I no longer know that. Sometimes I took the questionnaires up there, and delivered them to some agency, and then briefly spoke to these people. I only had two conferences in Berlin, so far as I remember. One of these conferences was the first conference to which I was invited by Bouhler, and the second conference was the expert conference in Berlin, about which we have been speaking today, wherein we received all our principles.

Q: Now let's take the first conference. You were invited to the first conference by Bouhler. Was that the first time you had heard about the institution of euthanasia program of the German Reich?

A: That was the first time I was over in Berlin. I had never been to Berlin before that, and I had nothing to do with it before that.

Q: Doctor, you will answer the questions briefly. Now you could have answered the last question, yes or no. Now, kindly try to do that, and we will proceed much more rapidly. Then this was the first time you ever heard of the euthanasia program when you were invited to a meeting or conference in Berlin in the Summer of 1940. That is the first conference you attended where Bouhler invited you. Now as Bouhler present?

A: Yes. Yes, Bouhler was there.

Q: And who else was there?

A: So far as I can remember, Conti was present, Linden was present, Professor Heide was there, and Hetze. I think Dr. Brandt was there.

Q: Yes.

A: Brandt and Brack, and I think I can still remember these.

Q: Now you say Dr. Brandt was there. Was that Dr. Karl Brandt?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Was Professor Nietzsche there?

A: So far as I can remember, Doctor Karl Brandt was there.

Q: Was Professor Nietzsche there?

A: I don't believe so.

Q: Was Warburg there?

A: Warburg? I don't know him.

Q: Was Hevelmann there? Do you know that man?

A: Heffermann?

Q: Hevelmann, yes?

A: I can not remember Hevelmann. I can not remember he was present during the conference.

Q: Was Blankenburg there?

A: Blankenburg? Yes. I made his acquaintance later, but I can not remember whether he was there.

Q: Was Dr. Schuhmann there?

A: No.

Q: Was Dr. Falkhauser there?

A: No.

Q: Was Professor Brack there?

A: I beg your pardon.

Q: Was Professor Brack there?

A: Brunck?

Q: Victor Brack?

A: Victor Brack, yes, I believe he was there?

Q: You say at that meeting a letter from the Fuehrer charged Dr. Karl Brandt and Reichsleiter Bouhler with the authority to give permission to other men to conduct the euthanasia program was exhibited to you for the first time?

A: No, I never said that. No letter was shown to me during that conference. This so-called decree of which I saw a photostatic copy was shown to me by Bouhler much, much later when he was at this very institution.

He did that upon my request. I wanted to know whether there was to be a transfer of patients, which had something to do with this question.

Q: That is correct, that this outline of the letter of the Fuehrer was not exhibited, is that correct?

A: No. I did not know anything about the euthanasia program.

Q: What was the purpose of the meeting?

A: The transfer of patients who were to be treated and to be separated to other institutions, and, persons who were to be taken care of, to be sent to other institutions, the separation of these two cases of patients.

Q: All right.

A: That is how I understood it.

Q: Then when was the first time that the inmates were to be exterminated?

A: I never heard anything about extermination. Pardon no if I say so, but I didn't know the expression "exterminated". I no longer know exactly when the thought arose that this was to be an euthanasia measure. I think it must have a happened when I visited Berlin or perhaps when I was in Munich. I no longer know that. I repeatedly said so. I can't tell you that now. At any rate, at the beginning of the action I was fully conscious that those people were to be sent to welfare institutions, probably for the purpose of euthanasia, but when exactly euthanasia was to start I did not know.

Q: May I ask you one question, Doctor, along these lines? Was there ever anyone, to your knowledge, killed under the euthanasia program. That is, accorded a mercy death, or helped along so that they could die without any further suffering. To your knowledge, do you know that?

A: No, I hoard about that for the first time in Frankfurt. One of the interrogators told me in Frankfurt that the action had continued after it was supposed to be stopped. I didn't know anything about that.

Q: Then you know about the commencement of that action? When did this begin so far as you knew?

A: Well, I don't know that either. I don't know when the action started. I never said that I did know it. I don't know it. I was never asked to participate in any discussions regarding that.

Q: How many children did you accord a mercy death in your asylum?

A: I can't tell you that either exactly because I no longer know the number

Q: You applied —

A: (Interrupting) No, on the basis of the authorization I had those children fall asleep.

Q: What do you call that?

A: The children received luminal. In the case of those children a very little dose was sufficient in order to relieve the suffering of these pitiful little beings.

Q: How many children did you do that too? Two, three, two hundred, five hundred, one thousand, or eighty thousand?

A: For God's sake! I really don't know how many there were. I don't know whether there were a hundred cases or over a hundred cases. The cases who were purely put into a slumber must number around one hundred twenty. However, I can't tell you that with certainty. I am under oath here, you know.

Q: I realize that, Doctor. Do you know when the last child was accorded a mercy death in your institution?

A: No, I don't know that exactly but Dr. Rodell — I think, Dr. Rondell — said that in Frankfurt that shortly before the Americans arrived children were still treated with euthanasia. He mentioned one child — but I am not quite sure. At that time I was very excited as a result of these questions.

Q: Well, how long did you carry out euthanasia of children in your institution? From 1940 to what date?

A: In 1939 I had no euthanasia, I am quite sure that is wrong. I am quite certain it is wrong. I already mentioned a document today —

Q: (Interrupting) I didn't mention the date of 1939 to my knowledge. I said 1940. Maybe we got an incorrect translation. 1940 I said.

A: I think you said 1939.

Q: Well now, tell me, from 1940 on you were —

A: (Interrupting) Do you want to know when it started?

Q: I want to know when it started, yes.

A: Well, I really can't tell you that exactly. I said the same thing in Frankfurt. You can't expect from me that I remember all these single dates after so many years have passed. With the best of my will I can not tell you that. This is the question again and again.

Q: When did it stop?

A: What stopped? What do you moan?

Q: The killing of these children.

A: The killing of these children? The killing of these children was never stopped.

Q: The according of a mercy death to these children.

A: The authorization was never stopped, not until the very end. I never received any such stopping. The action regarding the grownups was stopped, and after that, grown up people were no longer subjected to euthanasia in my institution and were no longer transferred. There must be some mix up here.

Q: How many grownups were accorded a mercy death in your institution?

A: Well, these are the very same questions which have been put here before. Also in Frankfurt. I can no longer —

Q: (Interrupting) Just a moment, Doctor.

Just a moment. I will ask the questions and you answer them. If you do not choose to answer the question will you kindly say "I refuse to answer the question." Either answer the question or don't answer the question. I don't want to hear any more quibbling from you.

Now, let's continue. How many grownups — that is, adults — did you accord a mercy death in your institution

A: The mercy death, in my institution — I didn't grant that to any adult. I just transferred the patients.

Q: Well now, this first conference in Berlin — the first one, the one that Bouhler invited you to — that concerned the transfer of inmates from one institution to another? Was that its purpose?

A: The purpose of that conference was the transfer of patients, who could no longer be treated, into care institutions. These were county care institutions, and that was the expression I heard there for the first time.

Q: Then what happened immediately after that conference? Did you then go back to your institution and start to transfer the inmates affected, or then did you wait a while and have another meeting in Berlin, or did you have to attend another conference before the program got underway, or just what did happen?

A: I returned to Munich.

Q: You returned to Munich. Now did you then immediately start to transfer inmates?

A: No, I transferred the patients as soon as the first transport was demanded from me. That is quite impossible what you are saying.

Q: When was the first transport— I'm not saying anything. I'm questioning you. Now, let's not have this hostile attitude.

A: I beg your pardon. It hurts me because these are matters which I do not understand. It excites me.

A: Well, all right now, after your meeting in the summer of 1940, you returned to your institution. Now, when did you receive the first order to send patients away from your institution?

A: As far as I remember, I received that order during the same year, and I think that was probably in the late fall of 1940.

Q: Now, in the same summer, that is, the summer of 1940, did you attend another meeting or conference in Berlin.

A: Yes, the expert conference. I already said that.

Q: Now, will you tell me about the expert conference? Was Brack there?

A: I believe he was there, yes.

Q: Was Bouhler there?

A: I don't know that any more. It may be that he looked in, but I really don't know that exactly.

Q: Well, just about two hours ago, on direct examination you stated that at this conference of experts in Berlin, Brack was there but Bouhler was not. Is that what you said then?

A: I said that I believed that Bouhler was not there, but I can't remember these personalities now. I don't believe Bouhler was there. However, I can't exclude the possibility, if you are speaking of possibilities, I can hardly say "no".

Q: Was Brack introduced to the members of this conference?

A: I don't know. I can't tell you that. I don't know that.

Q: Who presided over the conference?

A: As far as I remember, the conference was presided over by Mr. Brack. As far as I remember, Professor Nietzsche spoke from the physicians. I also spoke. All the other physicians spoke. This was a general discussion.

Q: This is a good breaking point, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDENT: At this point the Tribunal will be in recess until 9:30 o'clock Monday morning.

(A recess was taken until 0930 hours, 12 May 1948)