1947-05-12, #3: Doctors' Trial (afternoon)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The Tribunal reconvened at 1330 hours, 12 May 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for the defendant may re-examine the witness.
HERMANN PFANNMUELLER — Resumed
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY DR. FROESCHMANN (Counsel for the Defendant Brack):
Q: Witness, in the cross-examination by the prosecutor you essentially repeated, all the statements that you had made during the direct examination, only in a few points could your answer perhaps be clarified to avoid any errors, and it is these points upon which I should like to question you now. First of all, a personal question Doctor, you, yourself, are a neurologist.
A: Yes.
Q: And consequently, know the term "prison psychosis" from science. Is it true that you, witness, found yourself in such a state in Frankfurt on the Main?
A: No, I did not have a prison psychosis any longer in Frankfurt, as far as I remember, it was the beginning of October until almost a year ago now. This prison psychosis was terrible, and I wouldn't want my worst enemy to go through what I experienced.
Q: Doctor, I do not want to know the condition, I simply want to know when you had this prison psychosis. It seems to have been 1945-46.
A: There were the acute symptoms hallucinations and illusions, condition of mental clarity, but not complete, and then I was in a transition positive personality, and in Frankfurt it became worse again.
Q: Doctor, I am interested in this connection in only one further question. Does this prison psychosis still have an effect on you now, particularly in regards to dates?
A: My memory has become considerably weakened since I was ill, and perhaps even before that time, because of all the conditions of arrest and removal from my work.
I don't know; but there are many things that I can't remember at all and many things that I can only remember partly.
Q: Doctor, I ask this question only because the prosecutor at the beginning of his cross-examination, submitted various things to you that you had said in Frankfurt to the American interrogator or the German investigating official, and because the impartial observer must gain the impression that what you said in Frankfurt does not agree with what you said during your direct examination.
A: During the interrogation here, before I went into Frankfurt, I was in worse condition. Suddenly being locked up was a terrible experience for me, and I believe I can say that I had signs of hallucinations. I was not aware of any difference.
Q: Doctor, it is my impression that you made visible efforts to speak the absolute truth?
A: I think I can say that.
Q: And did so in all the questions that the prosecutor asked you. Let me now turn to the matters that I should like to discuss with you myself. The first subject is the following. You spoke of the how Top Secret matters were treated. Do you know that it was a general rule in Germany that administrative officers, Wehrmacht officers, etc., had specific orders, according to which the so-called top secret matters were to be handled only by people who were specifically authorized to?
A: Yes, that was the case even before the war when my personnel were drafted into the army. I myself was obligated. I put the papers into the safe myself.
Q: Can you also say that on the basis of this order authorized people were obligated by a handshake and were informed of the provisions of German law, that if they failed to maintain secrecy they would be subject to severe penalty and to the death during wartime.
A: Yes, I know that when the mobilization orders came out I myself was obligated to secrecy by a handshake by my superior authority, and I was told that there were severe penalties and perhaps even the death penalty.
Q: Then this obligation to was a general secrecy measure in the interest of the security of the German Reich?
A: I assume so, as the oath of office of the civil servant is the basis of his function.
Q: Now, the second subject I should like to breach. The Prosecutor has charged you on the basis of Document No. 1313 in Document Book 17, page 6 of the English Document Book. This is the letter that Dr. Hoelzel sent to you?
A: It is on page 4.
Q: Yes, page 4. It is dated 28 August 1940. I am now interested only in the date. I would like to discuss this letter with you briefly. Do you have the book before you now?
A: No, I handed it in.
MR. HARDY: May it please Your Honor, Defense Counsel has stated erroneously that the Prosecution has charged this witness with some activities. I don't know what he is referring to, in connection with this document. I merely put the document to the witness for an explanation, I haven't charged the witness with anything, to my knowledge, and I wish that to be clarified.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, I quite agree with the Prosecution, but I do believe it will help the Tribunal if I did ask one question regarding this letter.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may propound the question.
BY DR. FROESCHMANN:
Q: In this letter on page 4 I shall hand you the document.
What has endeared to me the worn in the Children's House was not the scientific interest, but the physician's urge, amidst our often fruitless labor, to help and at least to improve many of our cases here. The psychological evaluation, and the curative and pedagogic influence were always much closer to my heart than anatomical curiosities, no matter how interesting they were.
And so it comes about that, although I am sure that I can preserve my full objectivity in giving expert opinions, I feel myself somehow tied emotionally to the children as their medical guardian.
Doctor, my question to you is, it can be seen from this letter of Hoelzel that at that time you wanted to commission him with the direction of this children's home, so that he could apply new therapeutical methods there?
A: I cannot deny that possibility, but it is also possible that at the time the first questionnaires were given out for the registration of these children, I don't remember.
Q: Thank you. The third question. At the conclusion of your testimony, it was said that you, witness, did not ask the consent of the parents of the children who were to be subjected to Euthanasia?
A: No, that was not done.
Q: Now my question is, do you know that the consent of the parents for admission to the Children's Home and thus to the possibility of Euthanasia had to be given to the Amtsarzt [Medical Officer]?
A: I know that the Amtsarzt could send the children to the institution on the basis of the questionnaire. I also knew that the children could be accepted only with the consent of the parents. The child simply came to me, I did not ask the parent's consent either. They were sent by the Amtsarzt or by the family; but I don't know what the parents were told about the treatment given to the Children.
Q: This morning you said, in answer to a question by the Prosecutor which had to do with the collection of Jewish mental patients in your institution and their later transfer to Poland; do you remember that?
A: Yes.
Q: I put to you now Document No. 1135, an excerpt of which is contained in Document Book 14, Page 25. This is the collection of the transport lists, which had to be shown to the director of the mental institute by the transport company whenever there was a transport and the patients who were listed were compared with the list given the institution. Now please take a look at this list and tell me what you know about the accompanying letters from the transport company, how does it begin?
A: (Reading)
In accordance with the decision of the state ministry of the Interior, I have upon order of the Reich Association of Mental Institutions, Reichsarbeitsgemeinschaft [Reich Working Group], and as responsible chief of the General Patients Transport Company G.m.b.H., taken charge of the transfer of the patients enumerated in the list below to a Reich institution.
I don't know the letter.
Q: You do know this letter, don't you?
A: No, I never saw it.
Q: Your administrative officer saw it, is that what you mean?
A: No, we did not fill that out, we never saw it.
Q: You don't understand my question. If a transport train reached your institution and fetched away patients, you had previously received some sort of a notice to prepare for the transport a certain number of patients; isn't that so?
A: No, the method was a little different. I was given transport lists; these lists said that the patients were to be picked up on such and such a day by the General Patient Transport Company.
Q: And then the leader of this transport filled out this certification that you just read?
A: I don't know, I merely had him give me a confirmation that he had taken such and such patients.
Q: And it says here,
In accordance with the decision of the State Ministry of the Interior, I have, upon order of the Reich Association of Mental Institutions.
A: I don't see that. No, this is signed by the commissioner.
Q: But in the confirmation itself, it says,
In accordance with the decision of the State Ministry of the Interior and upon order of the Reich Association of Mental Institutions;
I lay particular weight upon those two words. Now, if you will turn a few pages over where I stuck the little slip of paper, this is a list of the Jewish patients who were taken away on 10 September 1940, is there an accompanying letter?
A: No, there is no accompanying letter, no, no.
Q: Please examine the document carefully.
A: Oh, yes, here it is; on page 13, you mean.
Q: Now, when adult incurably insane persons were fetched was there not a printed form that was used?
A: No, this paper — the patients were taken by me today, leader of the transport, Eglfing-Haar and the date — that is by me, because I told the man I wanted a receipt for the patients, otherwise he would not have given me any.
Q: Now, from this document please note; that regarding all other incurably insane persons there were form lists of transports which were printed; you find transport lists six, seven, eight, etc.
A: I don't believe I filled them out, I don't know.
Q: I don't believe you did either. I simply want to ask you, and this is the point of my whole series of questions; in the transport of 20 September, 1940, in this document I have shown you, this list of the Jewish patients; was this list also contained in the printed form or was it made up especially by you?
A: I am sorry, I did not understand your question.
Q: In the document I have just out to you, the list of the Jewish patients, of 20 September 1940—?
A: The 23rd you mean?
Q: No, the 20th.
A: The 20th? On page 18 it says 23.
Q: Well, never mind the date, at least its September 1940. Let's go on. Now, I will ask you again. Is this list on a printed form list for transports, or is this list of the Jewish patients something that you yourself prepared on a special paper?
A: No, that is the list which I was given, it is a transport list giving the names and their dates of birth.
Q: And who wrote this transport list?
A: I received it from the transport company as far as I know. I don't know exactly how it was in the transfer of the Jews, but in any case the transport company brought the list. It probably came from the ministry in Munich; I don't know.
Q: If I understand you correctly, you said five minutes ago that you saw to it that you got such a list so you would have something in your hands by way of a receipt?
A: No, no, that is a misunderstanding. I got a receipt, a certificate on a copy of the transport list. The man in charge of the transport had a list, and I had earlier received a list of the patients who were going to be picked up, and on the list which I had received, on the carbon copy of it, I had the man give me a certificate that he had taken these patients. That is how it happened.
Q: Then this morning you said also that you were told that these patients were taken to Poland?
A: The man in charge of the transport told me that, I believe.
Q: Am I wrong in saying that on Friday morning you said that these Jewish mental patients were to be sent to a Bavarian Jewish institution?
A: I can't remember saying that they went to a Bavarian institution, but a Jewish Institution, an institute for Jewish insane patients, but I don't remember exactly.
Q: Do you know, Doctor, that one of the Jewish women named on this list died in Schelm, according to your own report?
A: No. When I got a book or a collection of documents, from you, I found something in there about death notice in Schelm. I can't remember the name? Schelm.
Q: Now, another question. When was the second meeting in Berlin in which you took part?
A: The meeting of experts?
Q: The second meeting.
A: I don't know Doctor. With the best intentions, I can't remember. I have said so repeatedly, but it was about I think, a few months, perhaps three months, later. I don't know exactly.
Q: In connections with this meeting, you were then asked to take up your activities that is how it was.
Doctor, you have repeatedly said, that it was in your ideas at the first meeting that this was to be a total registration of all insane persons for the purpose of transferring them separate mental institutions; is that so?
A: Yes.
Q: Now, in the course of the second meeting, was there any mention of any measures, without using the word "euthanasia," which did, however refer to euthanasia?
A: Doctor, this question is very difficult to answer. I cannot deny the possibility. I cannot remember anything in detail in this connection, but I really must admit the possibility that euthanasia or measures for eliminating such patients were discussed, but I repeatedly said in Frankfurt, too, that after all these years and in view of my condition in cannot remember details.
Q: Consequently, you will also admit the possibility that when carrying on your activity as an expert you knew, if not in detail, then at any rate in general, that the purpose of this expert activity was to separate the curable from the incurable mental patients?
A: Yes, of course.
Q: Now, one last question Doctor: You were specifically instructed by the Tribunal to refuse to answer questions that might serve to incriminate you. You have made no use of that right, and particularly in answer to the question of the Prosecutor, as to how many children there were whose lives you shortened in your institution by the use of luminal you answered in a most credible way that you gave a mercy death to 100 or 120 of these wretched creatures.
A: I don't remember the numbers exactly.
Q: I am not so much interested in the actual numbers as in the fact. You further replied, with no regard for your personal safety, that you had been known as an advocate of euthanasia for more than twenty-five years. Is that true?
A: Yes.
Q: You also said explicitly that in cases of malformed or feebleminded children you felt justified, in view of the ministerial decision and of what was said in this expert conference in granting these children euthanasia after you had received previous authorization to do so, is that true?
A: Yes.
Q: Finally, you admitted and said that the manner of administering death that you chose was the method that could put these poor children out of their misery with the least pain to themselves, is that so? Is that true?
A: Yes.
Q: In other words, you acted with complete conviction of the legality of what you did?
A: Yes.
Q: Now, my colleague Servatius, has called one final question to my attention, which I should, like to discuss with you briefly. Doctor at the beginning of my direct examination, you said that you had about 2900 insane patients in your institution in 1939 and 1940, approximately.
Is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Now, when you received these questionnaires, regarding roughly how many people did you fill out questionnaires?
A: I did not understand your question.
Q: When you received the questionnaires regarding the incurable mental cases, you had to fill them out?
A: Yes.
Q: My question is: Regarding how many mental cases, approximately, did you fill out these questionnaires?
A: I don't remember. I think it was less than 1000.
Q: Less than 1000?
A: Yes about a third.
Q: Were foreigners among them?
A: I can't remember any foreigners. I don't know exactly. I had a few.
Q: How many mental patients were taken away, transferred, from your institution?
A: Do you mean patients from my own institution?
Q: I mean only your own incurable ones.
A: Certainly many less than the number if questionnaires.
Q: I want to ask you how many approximately?
A: Well, approximately, may be 500 to 600, I estimate. It was like this: These transports generally affected the people in transit.
Q: I simply wanted to know roughly how many of the people covered by questionnaires were in the course of time transferred elsewhere.
A: I can't give figures exactly, of course, but certainly not as many as were recorded in the questionnaires.
Q: And these questionnaires which were made out by you, they were expertised by other experts?
A: Yes, of course. They were done by other people.
Q: Now, if they were expertised with a plus sign, were they pretty much in the same proportion as the questionnaires which you yourself expertised? Were there more or were there less?
A: Quite a number of cases which I had judge positively were not picked up.
Q: In other words to the best of your knowledge, the patients whom you designated as positive were apparently declared by other experts to be ready for euthanasia?
A: I cannot tell you the reason why they were not picked up, Doctor, There might have been some other reason, but the transfer cases sent to my institution from idiot institutions were considered more urgent for transfer than my own cases, and for that reason perhaps my own cases were put aside. I cannot say, because the project did not go on.
I don't know the reasons.
Q: Doctor, this morning the Prosecution brought to your attention the number of questionnaires that you had expertised. Do you remember that?
A: Yes.
Q: At the last moment I got hold of one of the questionnaires of the original type.
I cannot of course, put this questionnaire in as a document because the time available is too short, but, with the permission of the Tribunal and the Prosecution, I should like to show such a questionnaire form to the witness and ask him to tell the Tribunal briefly, if possible, whether the contents of such a questionnaire, if it sets down the condition very briefly of the patient, whether it could be put aside by you as positive, en masse, so to speak, or whether or not it couldn't be seen right from the beginning that hundreds of the questionnaires were filled out incorrectly and so were just put aside.
How was that?
A: In many cases in filling out questionnaires I saw from the very beginning that this was not a case for transfer. In other cases, however, I was able to see immediately, if it was filled out right — that is an old idiot, that is congenital idiocy, that is an old case of schizophrenic deterioration, where on can judge only positively.
MR. HARDY: Prosecution has no objection to use of this document, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may proceed.
Q: Witness, please take a look at this questionnaire. Now, from what you see there can you say whether this man is plus or minus, or just what is he?
A: Am I supposed to form a judgment on the patient on this form?
Q: The entry there.
A: It seems to me that it is not filled out completely. It says here — First of all, it is not clear —
MR. HARDY: Just a moment, witness. May it please your honor, apparently I misunderstood the import of Defense Counsel's question. I though he merely wanted to use the questionnaire as a form to put to the witness. There are some pencil notations on this form, however, it doesn't appear from my quick perusal and my lack of German knowledge that this purports to be an application or a questionnaire completely filled out in said manner that he would have received such a questionnaire when he was acting in his capacity as an expert. If that is what Defense Counsel desires to do here, I suggest that he outline a hypothetical question in far more detail than he has done on that questionnaire and explain to the Tribunal his purpose.
Thus far I can't ascertain his purpose, what is on the questionnaire, and obviously the witness can't either.
DR. FROESCHMANN: In showing this questionnaire to the witness in its German original I wanted to give the witness the opportunity to read the contents of the questionnaire and tell the Tribunal what he has to say about what the entries in this questionnaire, so that the Tribunal can see whether an irreproachable evaluation of this patient could be undertaken. That was the purpose of my question.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I feel certain the Tribunal will be as interested as I will to hear the answer of the witness. However, this questionnaire has not been filled out, and if the questionnaire is not filled out I don't see now the witness can answer the question asked.
THE PRESIDENT: Submit the document to the Tribunal.
JUDGE SEBRING: Counsel, in this form that you have submitted to the witness there appears to be a considerable number of questions to be answered if the form is to be complete. However, in some of the vacant spaces after questions appears handwriting by someone. Whose handwriting is that?
DR. FROESCHMANN: That I cannot tell you at the moment, because during the noon recess I recess I received this questionnaire, and a doctor wrote what is on that form in, as an example, so to speak. Now, I wanted to hear whether, if the witness had received such a questionnaire, he should have been in a position to say right off "I can characterize this as plus or minus," or would he have to say "I would have to return this questionnaire as incomplete".
JUDGE SEBRING: Will it not be necessary that you ask certain preliminary questions before you get to that question? One, to the witness, "What is the paper I now hand you" "Do you recognize the form?" If he should say, "Yes, it is a form often used by us in our clinical work in determining the diagnosis and prognosis of a disease of a certain person," then, "state whether or not the hypothetical clinical finding that I have written in this familiar or compares with any clinical findings you have ever seen, or is it similar to the one that was used?" Then, "Can you say from that type of clinical finding whet would have been your result, plus or minus?"
DR. FROESCHMANN: Then may I ask that I be given the form again? The questionnaires are in Document book 14 II.
MR. HARDY: May it please your honor, would it be possible for the benefit of the Prosecution that Defense Counsel outline the hypothetical question set forth in this questionnaire before it is put to the witness for an answer?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, the Tribunal see no objection to that.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, in the clinical description in this questionnaire the following is said:
Schizophrenia — 2 relapses — last one 1917 — since 1915 final condition reached — very restless — several attempts at suicide.
It says further,
Schizophrenia New case? No. — Final condition? — Yes. Cure? — No.
Furthermore
Therapy twice. — Permanent results? — NO.
Those are the entries.
MR. HARDY: Might I further inquire, Your Honor, what the note is on the too of the questionnaire?
DR. FROESCHMANN: I didn't read that.
MR. HARDY: Then I assume that the witness is to ignore the note on the top of the questionnaire?
DR. FROESCHMANN: No.
JUDGE SEBRING: Dr. Froeschmann, I suppose that from the statement of facts that you have now propounded to the witness, you want him to say whether or not merely from a cursory examination he would recommend this man for the privilege of a mercy death. Is that the point?
DR. FROESCHMANN: Yes, that is right.
Witness, did you hear the judges' explanation?
A: Whether I would judge this case positively or not. Gentlemen, this questionnaire is useless. You can see that in this minute I was not able to reach any decision. The Tribunal could see that, I wanted to make a similar note before. It says two relapses 1917. At the bottom it says, since 1915 final condition. That is a lie. That questionnaire is inaccurate. If that man was in a final condition in 1915 he can't have relapses in 1917. I say that case can't be dealt with.
DR. FROESCHMANN: That suffices. Thank you.
DR. PFANNMUELLER: Besides, it says nothing about therapy.
DR. FROESCHMANN: That quite suffices. Mr. President
DR. PFANNMUELLER: Such questionnaires would never have been sent out by my institution, thanks to my doctors and the intelligence of my nursing personnel.
DR. FROESCHMANN: But, you as an expert did see such questionnaires?
A: Oh, yes, I got very inadequate ones.
Q: And does that explain your statement this morning that you could take whole piles of these questionnaires and say they were completely useless?
A: Yes, I put a red line through such things and that was that.
Q: No further questions, your Honor.
BY DR. SERVATIUS (for the defendant Karl Brandt):
Q: Mr. President, please permit me one question regarding the number of foreigners in the institution at the beginning of the war, in 1939? Witness, how many foreigners in the institution when the war started?
A: Doctor, it is impossible for me to answer that question. Just consider, that was 7-8 years ago or something like that. I don't know.
Q: Witness, you must have some sort of impression?
A: No, I have no impression at all. I had so few foreigners — I don't think more than 5 or 6.
Q: In other words, you are able to answer the question — 5 or 6.
A: But I don't know exactly, doctor. I can't remember any more foreigners at that time.
Q: No further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Any further questions in behalf of Defense Counsel?
There being none, has the Prosecution any further questions?
MR. HARDY: The Prosecution has no further questions to put to this witness, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness Pfannmeuller is excused from the witness stand.
DR. FROESCHMANN (For Defendant Viktor Brack): Mr. President, with the permission of the Tribunal, I should like to call the Defendant Viktor Brack as a witness at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: At the request of his counsel, the Defendant Viktor Brack will take the witness stand.
JUDGE SEBRING: You will raise your right hand and take the oath, repeating after me.
I swear by God, the almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
JUDGE SEBRING: You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY DR. FROESCHMANN:
Q: Mr. Brack, please state your full name.
A: Viktor Hermann Brack.
Q: When were you born?
A: 9 November, 1904.
Q: Your father was a doctor, a general practitioner in Wachenhein?
A: Yes.
Q: And then in Bad Duorkhein your father opened a children's sanatorium?
A: Correct, yes.
Q: Your mother was a German of foreign birth?
A: Yes.
Q: What was the consequence?
A: In my youth I was sent to my relatives abroad, and got to know the Baltic States and Russia.
Q: How were you brought up in your own home?
A: We were all very strictly brought up. My mother was a very strict Catholic.
DR. FROESCHMANN: In this connection, Mr. President, I submit from my Document Book 1, Document No. 19, page 53. This will be Brack Exhibit 2. I shall read from this affidavit by a Dr. Albert Buerklin of Wachenhein in the Palatinate, of 27 January 1947, signed and certified by a notary. I shall read from Paragraph 4 the first and second sentences.
Brack's home was distinguished for its especially highly cultivated and refined intellectuality. Viktor Brack was brought up in this environment, and it was here that he absorbed the values of helpfulness, decency, and purity of thought.
BY DR. FROESCHMANN:
Q: Witness, what schools did you then attend?
A: First I had private instructions, because I was abroad a great deal when I was a child. Later I went to public school in Wachenheim, Duerkhein, secondary school, Realschule in Bad Duerkheim, later the Oberrealschule in Ludwigshafen and Munich.
In 1923 I was graduated in Munich. Of course, all my schooling was made uneven by the many changes, the war, and the shortage of teachers.
Q: How did it happen you were graduated in Munich? Was there some event in your family life that necessitated your moving to Munich?
A: In 1921 my parents were expelled from the Palatinate. My father had to find a new way of earning a living, end went to Munich. He settled in Munich as a general practitioner. He had difficulties, but they were overcome in a few years, because he had settled in a workers' quarter, in the suburbs of Munich, so that soon he had a very extensive practice.
Q: Witness, then you lost your home in 1921, and your father lost his means of livelihood?
A: Yes, he lost his sanatorium and then he lost his fortune through the inflation.
It was a consequence of the Treaty of Versailles, wasn't it?
A: Yes, it was the result of the expulsion from the Palatinate, on the basis of that treaty.
Q: At that time you were seventeen years old. Now, did these events have any influence on your further development?
A: Yes, of course. We were refugees in Munich, as people today come from the east, perhaps, and are refugees here. We were received there accordingly. We had to try to adjust ourselves anew. That, of course, made a great impression on young people.
Q: You have already said that your father then settled in a suburb of Munich in a working peoples' community?
A: Yes.
Q: And then your father through his practice got himself back on his economic foot again. Did you then have occasion to make a closer acquaintance with your father's practice, and if so, what impressions did you gain from becoming acquainted with your father's practice?
A: The practice was very extensive, because it was a suburban practice. My father needed a car to take care of his practice. He himself could not drive, and so I drove him until 1932 almost constantly when I was free, in addition to my work, in addition to my studies. I accompanied him everywhere. I got to know not only his practice but above all his patients. During these years when unemployment was constantly increasing, distress and lack of funds constantly increasing, one, of course, obtained strong impressions in these families of my father's patients.
Q: Then in the normal course of events you came in touch with families where sickness was a great calamity. Could you also note that the spiritual life of the families suffered under these circumstances?
A: That is difficult to define. At that time, as a young man, I did not accept these things rationally but emotionally. It was absolutely clear to me, however, that when there was a long and serious illness of a member of the family, there was an automatic moving away of the family from the patient. That does not mean at all that this was malicious or unfeeling, but the relatives were often not able spiritually to cope with the length and extent of the sickness.
Q: But in this way you experienced a certain feeling of pity for the sick person?
A: No, I can not say that this just arose then. Sympathy with the sick is a natural thing in everyone, but from this personal observation it was increased. I can remember very clearly at this time a remark of my father on some occasion, "For him it would really be a release if he could die soon," but, of course, in all its implications I did not understand this remark.
Q: Witness, what was it your original intention to become?
A: I wanted to become a farmer. I began to study agriculture. I studied agriculture for three semesters.
Q: Were you able to continue in these plans?
A: No, I could not continue my plans. I changed horses. I began to study economics. I had to earn my own way. My father had enough to do to earn a living for the family, especially for my younger brothers and sisters. I did different kinds of work. I participated in motorcycle races.
Q: When did you get your diploma as an economist?
A: In 1928 I got my diploma as an economist at the Technical College in Munich.
Q: Up to that time or later, did you concern yourself with politics?
A: I did not concern myself with politics directly. However, because of the influence of my friends and follow students, from about '23 to '27 I belonged to the artillery unit of the SS regiment in Munich, a group which had arisen from an NSDAP unit which existed before 1923, but my studies, my work, and my great interest in sports kept no away from politics.
Q: What did bring you to politics then, was it general considerations or something else?
A: All kinds of influences affected me, primarily, of course, the great social tension, the unemployment, the general distress; on the other hand, the fact that my parents were interested in politics, although they were not active — for all those reasons I went to political meetings, especially National Socialist meetings.
DR. FROESCHMANN: In this connection, Mr. President, I shall take the liberty of putting in from my Document Book I Document 20, page 55, Exhibit 3, an affidavit by August Pfundt, a painter in Munich, dated 27 January 1947, signed August Pfundt, certified by a Notary by the name of Nobis. I shall confine myself to reading from this affidavit only the last nine lines on page 55, where it says:
In spite of his own material needs, he Brack always, however, was helpful and willing to make sacrifices for third persons, whenever the need of others had to be mitigated. This characteristic may not have been the least reason for his taking up National Socialism, the idealistic premises of which he trusted faithfully. However, he allowed politically differently minded people to keep their own opinion, and never looked upon such persons as political adversaries who had to be combatted. I experienced this for myself, because I was an adversary of National Socialism, and at frequent meetings I discussed political questions with him.
I further submit, as Brack Exhibit 5, Document 23 from Document Book I, page 62, an affidavit by Carl Reuther of 18 March 1947, certified by the Notary's Office in Mannheim I, and I ask the Tribunal to take notice of it, I need not read it.
Q: Witness, we have now reached the time when you entered political activity. Before we consider this matter further, I should like to discuss the theme that I told the Tribunal I was going to take up, namely Count IV of the Indictment, conspiracy, and I should like to ask you whether, besides euthanasia and sterilization experiments, you had any connections with the people now in the dock; nor, Mr. Brack, regarding the question of conspiracy I ask you, which of the defendants did you know before 1945?
A: I knew the names of Handloser, Rostock, Genzken, and Gebhardt. I never talked to any of these men personally. I never had anything to do with them officially. I knew personally Karl Brandt, Blome, and Rudolf Brandt. I saw Rudolf Brandt a few times when I was in Himmler's office.
Aside from speaking to him, passing the time of day, I had nothing he do with him. I have known Blome since the middle or end of the 1930's, from official meetings where we saw each other and spoke to each other. Between the offices, the Chancellery of the Fuehrer on one hand, where I worked, and the Reich Chamber of Physicians on the other hand, where Mr. Blome worked, there were certainly official connections such as the Chancellery of the Fuehrer had to all Party and state agencies, but I cannot remember and I do not believe that I ever myself had any official contact with Blome.
Q: Dr. Brack, let me anticipate here, within the framework of the euthanasia program you are charged with having been present at the Munich conference with Blome, and having spoken with him there; would you please say briefly whether and to what extent you had official relations or even personal relationship with Blome at this conference?
A: Later I shall have to go into the meeting in detail, but about Blome I can say; I was sent to this meeting on behalf of Bouhler, as his representative. The meeting was called by Conti and not by Blome. I do not remember having seen Dr. Blome there. I cannot exclude the possibility that Blome was also at this meeting, I definitely did not have anything official to do with him at this meeting, and Blome never had any official contact with me about euthanasia.
Q: How about the Defendant Professor Karl Brandt?
A: I knew Karl Brandt since about 1933 or 1934. The acquaintance, however, up to 1939 was limited to very superficial contacts, as in the case of Blome. Only through the euthanasia assignment from Hitler did I come into closer contact with Brandt. I shall have to speak about that in detail later.
Q: Yes, and how about the rest of the defendants?
A: All the rest of the defendants I met personally and even by name only during the trial.
Q: Now, what answer do you give to the question as to whether you admit or wish to deny having taken part in a conspiracy for the commission of war crimes or crimes against humanity with any of the defendants whom you have just mentioned?
A: I deny having been in a conspiracy with any of the defendants to commit war crimes or crimes against humanity.
Q: So far as you were concerned, the Prosecution has made no limitation regarding certain of the experiments with which several of the defendants are charged; I must therefore assume that the Prosecution still alleges that you could have participated in experiments other than sterilization or euthanasia.
Now, I ask you, aside from euthanasia and sterilization experiments, did you have any connection with any experiments which are subjects of the indictment in this trial?
A: No, I was not in contact with them, nor did I know anything about them.
Q: I can leave that point now and go on to the next point, I must concern myself here with the affidavit that you made for the Prosecution. This is Document No. 426, Exhibit 160, English Document Book 14, page 10, German Document Book 14, Volume I, Witness on 20th May 1946 you were arrested?
A: Yes.
Q: The next day you were sent to the prison at Traunstein, on 19 June to the Moosburg Camp, and on 24 August 1946 you were brought to Nurnberg, is that correct?
A: Yes, that is right.
Q: You know that earlier I objected to the submission of this affidavit in evidence, and also objected to the conclusions that the Prosecution drew from this affidavit. I should like to give you an opportunity today before this High Tribunal to make a statement regarding this, in which connection I may tell the Court that with the agreement of the Prosecution, I have in the meantime received expert testimony on the part of the prison physician. This statement of Dr. Buerkner reached me through the Prosecution a few days ago. I don't believe it is necessary to put this as a document in evidence.
I assume that both the Prosecution in its cross-examination and I in my direct examination will keep the contents of this statement in mind. Now, witness, will you please tell Tribunal in what condition you —
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, this document he is referring to the Prosecution has agreed, as stated by defense counsel, but if he wants to use it he must offer it in evidence.
DR. FROESCHMANN: If I understood the Prosecutor correctly, he wishes this document to be put in evidence, namely the questionnaire that I sent to Dr. Buerkner, with the aid of the Prosecution, and which then was answered by him, is that correct?
MR. HARDY: May it please Your Honor, my colleague Dr. Hochwald is more familiar with this then I am, and I wish he would address the court on this matter and tell the circumstances surrounding this document.
DR. HOCHWALD: If your Honor please, I received the questionnaire of Dr. Froeschmann to the German prison doctor about a fortnight ago and attached some questions on behalf of the Prosecution to this questionnaire. All of these questions were answered by the doctor of the prison. If Dr. Froeschmann wants to use this document I do think it would be proper if he put it in evidence, the document as a whole, the answers to his questions and the answers to the questions which we put to the prison doctor.
THE PRESIDENT: Does Counsel for the Defendant understand the propositions put by the Counsel for the Prosecution?
If Counsel for the Defendant desires to use the document, the entire document should be presented before the Tribunal.
So far counsel, the decision to use the document rests with you, but if you do desire to use the document the whole document should be presented.
DR. FROESCHMANN: I take it from what the Prosecutor says that my assumption is correct, namely that the Prosecution also intends to use the document —
THE PRESIDENT: That was not stated, Counsel. The Prosecution did not state whether or not it would use the document if you did not.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I want to clarify this point. The situation merely is this that the defense counsel submitted interrogatories to the Doctor of the prison concerning the defendant Brack. At the same time Dr. Hochwald, on behalf of the prosecution, submitted cross interrogatories to the Doctor in the prison. The doctor in the prison answered all interrogatories put by the defense and the prosecution. I submit said interrogatories are one Document in its entirety and if the defense counsel for defense desires to use said interrogatories then we request that he use the entire documents, that he submit all interrogatories, namely his interrogatories as well as the cross-interrogatories of the prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: That was the proposition as stated by the Tribunal. If counsel for Defendant Brack desires to use this document, the entire document should be placed before the Tribunal. But so far as I am advised, the choice of whether or not the Document will be used at all, rests with counsel for the defendant.
DR. FROESCHMANN:
Mr. President, I shall not use the Document, because I consider that many parts of it go too far.
THE PRESIDENT: If counsel chooses that position then the Document, of course, should not be referred to in any way in the evidence before the Tribunal. The matter will rest right where it is now.
BY DR. FROESCHMANN:
Q: Witness, without reference to this Document, about which there was just a discussion, will you please purely subjectively tell your opinion of what your state of health was at that time and what the consequences were to you as a result of this state of health you found yourself in.
A: At that time I was considerably weakened by undernourishment as well as by the period in the Traunstein prison as well as in the Moosburg camp. I had some intestinal disorders, I don't know exactly of what nature, I had very painful spasms and I was under constant medical treatment.
Besides, during the previous weeks in Moosburg, I had received very had news from my family. Two of my children had tuberculosis because of under-nourishment. My wife had been arrested repeatedly and because of similar things I was very depressed mentally and very weakened physically.
About eight or ten days after being sent to this prison, I was called before an interrogator in this condition, who, without informing me as to whether I was a witness or a defendant, asked me to take an oath. I did so and then I was asked and interrogated about my work at the Chancellory of the Fuehrer, my collaboration in the Euthanasia question and other things including my membership in the SS, etc. I was also asked to make a sketch of the organization of Euthanasia. That was more or less what took place in the first interrogation; this was followed by many others. I was simply not capable of coping with these interrogations and I often tried feverishly to find words to explain some event. I was mistaken about many things, I was unable to remember many things and then I allowed myself to be persuaded again and again to accept the answer which the interrogator suggested as correct, although partly because of the German language and partly because of the circumstances, it was not always exactly true. I certainly was not capable at that time of judging these things correctly. Then, in the course of the interrogations, I don't know which one it was, I asked quite clearly whether I was under indictment, whether I was a witness, a defendant or just what I was. I said under German laws one has an opportunity to refuse to testify if one can incriminate oneself. This objection was simply rejected with the remark that this was not customary before American courts, that it had never happened that somebody refused to testify and besides I was only a witness insofar as the interrogator was concerned and he did not have to decide whether I would become a defendant.
Q: In one of the interrogations of 1 September 1939, you discussed Hitler's order?
A: Yes, the decree was shown to me and a conversation I might say followed back and forth as to whether this decree had the power of law for us. I answered that in the affirmative as well as I was able to express myself and at the end of this talk the interrogator asked me to sign an affidavit. It was indicated by the whole interrogation that it could only be about this one point, that is whether the decree had the force of law or not. At the next interrogation, after I had said yes, of course I will sign such a statement, to my surprise I was given the affidavit which has been presented as an exhibit. It contains a considerable number of counter-statements which I had made in the course of the interrogation. They are torn out of their context, in particular in the formulation they do not follows the wording which I used and the interrogator told me, or rather the interrogator drew his conclusions, which I myself did not draw.
Q: However, you did sign this affidavit; did you make corrections or any objections?
A: I made various corrections, but in many cases I allowed myself to be persuaded that what was written down should be accepted. This is the only way that I can explain it. Because of the long period of time, five, six, seven and even eight years, my recollection was very incomplete in many cases, but the interrogators had written evidence, documents. In perfectly good faith, I agreed with the interrogator because since they had documents in their hands, they had to be better informed about the facts than I who had to rely on my imperfect memory. I don't think it is fair and I could not imagine that the interrogators would deceive me into making incorrect statements as was done. There is no question of any deliberately untrue statements. I could tell in detail whenever incorrect words are used, incorrect sentences or when something was thrown out of its context or where conclusions were drawn that I never expressed, I must explain this.
Q: Witness, you have now stated your fundamental attitude toward this affidavit which was signed on that occasion, and I ask you to express yourself in the individual points where there are inaccuracies.
A: Yes.
Q: I can now turn to the next point in my case, namely regarding Victor Brack's attitude toward the Jews in the preparation for the extermination of whom he is alleged to have participated. Mr. Brack, what was your attitude toward the Jews?
A: Precisely in view of the charge that I participated in the preparations for the extermination, I must state in the beginning that I never had any hatred of the Jews, neither against any individual or against Jewry as a whole. I rejected the bad ones and approved of the good ones perhaps to a higher degree than is customary some places in the world.
Q: Did you have personal friends among the Jews?
A: Of course I always had contact and I had some personal friendship with Jews. An old school friend of mine lived at our house and he was at our house almost every day until he went back to South America to his relatives.
Then there was another one with whom I was friendly, even after I had finished my studios, and I knew some half-Jews who were sometimes at my parents house; sometimes at our ski-hut, and even as a party member when I followed the program of the NSDAP for social reasons, and even approved the anti-Semitic paragraph of this program. It is better to add to the program that I continued to associate with the Jewish people who were my friends and remained my friends.
Q: One moment.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, in this connection I should like to submit a document from my supplementary volume as No. 140. This will be Brack's Exhibit No. 5, an affidavit by his brother, Eric Brack, of 17 April 1947, signed by Eric Brack, certified to by myself on the same day, and I should like to bring your attention in this connection to paragraphs one and two. I need not read this, and I ask the Tribunal to take notice of it.
BY DR. FROESCHMANN:
Q: Now, witness, please continue and give me the names of a few people who can corroborate through affidavits what you have just said?
A: You have just submitted an affidavit by my own brother, who can give the names of some of our friends. Then I would like to name my friend Hans Ollendorf, who was a three-quarter Jew according to the National Socialist ideas, who is one of the friends of mine, even today, who has also submitted an affidavit.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, I put in now as Exhibit No. 6 Document No. 9, page 26, from my Document Book No. I, an affidavit by Dr. Hans Ollendorf. I have already asked the Tribunal regarding this affidavit, which is not in exactly the form the Tribunal wishes, nevertheless, it is an affidavit which should be admitted because it is made in South America, and the Tribunal has told me that it would be acceptable.
THE PRESIDENT: Whom did you say informed you, counsel, that the affidavit would be accepted in its form? Did you say the Tribunal informed you?
DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President. On 19 February I applied in writing to the Tribunal that Dr. Hans Ollendorf and Gerhard Ollendorf had only on 5 October 1946 sent me enclosed affidavit. I stated that the originals were in my possession. That both gentlemen live in South America, and that the two men had assumed at the time that Victor Brack was not before an American Military Tribunal, but before a German denazification Court. Therefore, on the basis of the ruling of the court of 27 January 1947, I requested as the matter that these two affidavits be admitted in evidence exceptionally in the form in which they exist, and should be included in my document book, and, thereupon, on 6 March I received this letter from the Secretary-General, which I now show to the Prosecution, according to which the affidavits are admissible. I, of course, assumed that this ruling was something that originated with the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the document that counsel has stated?
MR. HOCHWALD: May I hand the document to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: It may very likely be that this affidavit may be received as stated in lieu of the note.
DR. FROESCHMANN: I now show the Tribunal Document No. 9, Brack's Exhibit No. 6.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, counsel, until we decide. This document from the Secretary-General says that the Tribunal approved permission on behalf of counsel for the defendant Brack to offer the documents. That does not say and that is not in regard to saying they would be admitted. That permission to counsel is given to offer them in evidence, but it would not be an admission. The Tribunal could make no ruling that the documents were admissible in evidence actually until the matter was considered. I know, however, that here the affidavit says that the following affidavit is to be presented before the denazification board, and that false statements in the affidavits are punished severely, and, therefore, declared the following on oath. I don't know. Has counsel for the Prosecution any objection to the admission of this document?
MR. HOCHWALD: According to the ruling of the Tribunal this document is not executed in the proper form, so the Prosecution, of course, objects to the offer of this document.
THE PRESIDENT: The original of the document contains some certification in Spanish, which is under the name of De Reed, or something. If some one would interpret the certificate for the benefit of the Tribunal, it might be of assistance.
DR. FROESCHMANN: May I point out to Your Honor that the translation is also there, the German translation of the original Spanish document.
THE PRESIDENT: The certification by some officer who witnessed the signature, have that translated.
DR. FROESCHMANN: This affidavit was originally in Spanish. Then at that time I had made a German translation and had it interpreted into my document book. Now there must be a translation of this into English in the English Document Book, that is, Exhibit 6, No. 9.
MR. HOCHWALD: Your Honor, I just have been informed by counsel for the defense that the original of the document is in Spanish and not in German. Moreover, I do not see any certification that this is a true and correct translation from Spanish into German. But it is not into German and I have no idea who translated this document into German. It is translated, I see, from German into English, but there is no certification whatsoever who made the translation from the Spanish into German. Now I would like to see a certification that any person who made this translation is entitled to do so.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, that is correct, counsel is correct in that the document book contains nothing concerning the translation of the document from Portuguese or Spanish into German. It is now time for recess, and I would suggest this matter be discussed and considered between now and tomorrow morning, and that counsel also consider the question of the competency of the first paragraph of the affidavit, and the effect of it might well be considered, to be made in lieu of this, which may be considered by the Prosecution.
MR. HOCHWALD: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will recess until 9:30 tomorrow morning.
(Whereupon the Tribunal adjourned until 13 May 1947 at 0930 hours.)