1947-05-14, #2: Doctors' Trial (late morning)

THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may proceed.

VIKTOR BRACK — Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued)

BY DR. FROESCHMANN:

Q: Witness, before the recess you had concluded discussing Document No. 205 and you were dealing with Document No-206; and you had emphasized that the experiments, which were apparently performed by Dr. Schumann without your knowledge, after one and a half years came to a negative result.

A: I should like to correct an error — not 206. I had referred briefly to Document No-208 which is Exhibit 166. I said that as far as I can judge now Bouhler had succeeded in delaying the beginning of the experiments by arranging that the x-ray machines were delivered late, because this time was a year and a half later. But, I myself had nothing more to do with these things from that moment on. Consequently the answer letter to Himmler, which was NO-206, did not come to my attention. Exhibit 164, on page 41 of the Document Book VI. This letter shows that Himmler accepted the slogan "workers" and now I see from this document that Himmler sent a carbon copy to Pohl. This document NO-206 also shows that Himmler wanted to perform experiments first. Thus, the delay which I had intended in case Himmler should give up his intention of exterminating the Jews had been successful, because the execution of the experiments would have been senseless if the extermination of the Jews had continued at the same time. Today I am convinced that by performing these experiments hundreds of thousands, if not more, Jews were saved. This letter also shows that Himmler in the last analysis considered me merely a middle man between himself and Bouhler because he says:

I would be grateful to Reichsleiter [Reich Leader] Bouhler if he would place physicians at my disposal.

Whether my successor Blankenburg was able also to carry on delaying tactics against Hitler I do not know. Document NO-206, Exhibit 165, Document Book VI, page 42 in the English, shows that in this letter to Himmler he had agreed to establish contact with the Chief of the Main Office for Concentration Camps. That allows one to conclude that he also attempted to delay the matter, but I didn't know what assignment Bouhler had given him until these letters were submitted here during the trial.

I had no idea of their existence and later I never asked Bouhler what happened in this matter and whether he made any doctors or one doctor available. I can merely say from hearsay that Dr. Schumann was made available, but if this was done by Bouhler then Bouhler certainly urged Dr. Schumann to take as much time as possible with the experiments. Now I can refer again to Document NO-208, Exhibit 166, page 43 of the English Document Book VI. This last letter, which was submitted by Prosecution in this connection, indicates clearly that the delay which at least I intended, even if complete success was impossible, did occur, because the letter was written only one and one half years later. I don't know what Schumann's work was that is mentioned here. I don't know about it. That Blankenburg in this letter asserted that Himmler had asked me to continue Schumann's work is not true. Such a request as seems to be mentioned in this letter was never expressed to me by Himmler. Blankenburg apparently concluded from the letter — NO-206, Exhibit 164 — that Himmler was making such a request. That is, however, wrong, because in this letter Himmler says that he himself is interested in having the experiments carried out. The request to make the doctors available to him proves that Himmler himself wanted to arrange for and carry out these experiments. The letter which I just mentioned, NO-208, Exhibit 166, on page 43 in the English Document Book VI, proves finally that in practice the procedure suggested was a perfectly good method.

Q: Witness, we have finished the discussion of these letters which the Prosecution submitted to prove your collaboration in the Program for the Extermination of the Jews. You have explained everything to the Court. I need not repeat. I should merely like to express my personal opinion and ask whether it is true, and whether you admit, that actually you were acting with a humane intention and from stupidity let yourself be involved in a matter which you did not understand. Is that true?

A: Yes, that is true.

Q: Now, Mr. Brack, the names of two doctors mentioned in these letters which were the subject of discussion at your interrogation one is Dr. Schumann, who has been mentioned repeatedly, and the other is Dr. Eberle. In the course of this trial the Prosecution has repeatedly expressed the suspicion that Schumann had some connection with the T-4 Euthanasia Program or participated in the extermination of the Jews. Can you quite briefly give the Court your personal knowledge about these matters?

A: Dr. Schumann was the head of a Euthanasia Institute and in part also acted as an psychiatric expert. I saw Schumann the last time in the Rescue work in the East where he was in charge of a medical post. As far as I recall, after that he left the service of the Euthanasia organization and resumed his private practice. When and where he was assigned to the sterilization experiments I do not know. But, I must assume that Bouhler did that himself with the intention, however, of delaying the sterilization experiments, since Schumann was personally known to him. I myself had nothing to do with this appointment. It was long after my time. Dr. Eberle was also knew to me from T-4; of his participation in the 14F13 drive I know nothing. Of his activity in an extermination camp I heard about in 1943 once or twice through third parties. He also, when the Euthanasia program was stopped, left the organization of T-4, I believe, because I never saw him again.

Q: Now, witness, I come back to the affidavit 426, Exhibit 160, English Document Book 14, page 10, and it is No. 15 that interests me at this point. I shall quote:

Among the doctors who assisted in the Jewish extermination program, were Eberle and Schumann. Schumann performed medical experiments on prisoners in Auschwitz. It would have been impossible for these men to participate in such things without the personal knowledge and consent of Karl Brandt. The order to send those men to the East could have been given only by Himmler to Brandt, possibly through Bouhler.

But it says there very definitely that you had knowledge about this, that Schumann performed medical experiments on prisoners in Auschwitz and also that these experiments could not have taken place without the defendant Dr. Karl Brandt knowing about it. This does not agree with your testimony so far. What can you tell us about that?

A: The inclusion of this paragraph in the affidavit was not done by me, but by the person who drew up the affidavit. I was told that paragraph 15, just like paragraph 12, came from me. At first, I refused to sign it but I was told that that was merely a logical conclusion from all the things that I had said before. As I have just said, I told them that I had heard from a third party that Eberle had participated in the extermination of the Jews. I did not mention the name of Dr. Schumann in connection with the extermination of the Jews because I knew nothing about it. When the affidavit was given to me, I saw in number 15 that Schumann was mentioned in this connection. I therefore demanded that the sentence be added that Schumann had not carried out "sterilization experiments", and then I changed the expression to "medical experiments". And it was the same with the matter of Brandt's knowledge. I objected to this formulation because the fact was quite unknown to me, and the interrogator said "was impossible", would be changed to "it would have been impossible", to indicate that it was merely a deduction.

Q: Just a minute, witness. In the original affidavit which was given to you for your signature did it say "it was impossible for these men to participate in such things without the knowledge of Brandt"?

A: I can't say that with absolute certainty, but I do believe I can remember it.

Q: I'm asking you, witness, because you said "was" was changed to "would have been"?

A: Yes, that's what I remember, but I can't say for certain. I did not want to sign this wrong sentence, but I was told again and again that this was only a deduction, and if this deduction, which merely reproduces your opinion is not true, it is quite possible for Brandt to correct it. I was in a condition at that time which did not allow me to realize that I was in no way obligated to accept a deduction of other people as my own deduction, and that is how it came about that I signed #15.

Q: And then at the end it reads, "possibly through Bouhler". Did you put that in?

A: Yes, because I did not know the relationship between Himmler and Brandt, while I knew, through the euthanasia assignment, how Bouhler and Brandt worked together.

Q: Now, witness, in #16, and this brings me to the end of this affidavit, there is a sentence,

Himmler demanded that a name of a doctor be given him. Schumann, as far as I can recall, gave me and Bouhler a report on his experiments.

Is that true?

A: That does not really correspond to the facts. That was what the interrogator told me — that Himmler asked for a specialist doctor. I was not able to check the correctness of this statement and assumed that it was correct. The report which is mentioned in #16 was not the 1944 report, which is mentioned in Document No. 208. It refers to a vague recollection of mine of information from Schumann that he himself had some knowledge of X-ray matters and had earlier carried out experiments in it. The report which he gave in 1944 I learned about only here.

Q: Then, I have finished the discussion of the charge of sterilization. Do you have anything more to say on this subject?

A: I can only say that I believe that in my testimony so far I have explained that I never had any intention of exterminating the Jewish people, but attempted to achieve the contrary, to protect the Jews and save them from a terrible fate. That I attempted something that was far beyond my power, my position, my ability, I must admit is true. But since, in all my life, I have always been helpful toward and never had any hatred of Jews, I can't imagine why I should have become a champion of the extermination of the Jews.

Q: Are you finished? Mr. President, I should like to make one brief remark concerning sterilization. I have endeavored to have the associates of the defendant Brack concerned with this subject found. My efforts and the efforts of the prosecution, as far as I am informed, have been unsuccessful.

For that reason, I must unfortunately depend on the testimony of the defendant Brack alone in this connection. I am convinced that if I had succeeded in finding one of the men who are mentioned, as a witness, the Court would hear a confirmation of Brack's statement. I conclude my evidence in regard to sterilization experiments and now I turn to the charge that Brack collaborated in euthanasia for as a preliminary step toward genocide. Witness, you know that on the basis of the testimony of the witness Mennecke, the prosecution attempts to bring you into connection with the superficial — almost too weak a word — examination of political prisoners, Jewish prisoners, prisoners in preventive custody, in the concentration camps. What do you have to say to this charge of the prosecution?

A: True, the prosecution called euthanasia a preliminary step toward genocide. Considering the documents and the witnesses available to the prosecution, I can understand such an assumption on the part of a representative of the United States. The secrecy which surrounded Hitler's decree of the 1st of September, 1939, and the elimination of political opponents, prisoners of war, members of other nations, and finally, the murder of millions of Jews could and had to perhaps give the prosecution the impression that the government of Germany, from the beginning of the war, had the intention of making the euthanasia arrangement an instrument to be used against all real or imaginary enemies of Germany, within the framework of an ostensible euthanasia program. This assumption, however, is definitely mistaken — that euthanasia, in the hour of its birth, had been intended as such a method, or that the thought could have even arisen that, for reasons of expediency, the whole German people were to be freed from the so-called "useless eaters" and then, in the future course of events, enemies of Germany would be exterminated under the pretext of euthanasia. When euthanasia was introduced, we welcomed it, because it was based on the ethical principle of sympathy and had humane considerations in its favor, of the same sort that the opponents of euthanasia claim for their own ideas.

I admit that there were imperfections in its execution, but that does not change the decency of the original idea, as Bouhler and Brandt and I myself understood it.

Q: Witness, we know from the case so far that, in the course of time, euthanasia installations were used for this Action 14-F-13 and everything that followed. Do you consider it possible that Himmler, from your knowledge of things today, might have gotten such ideas from some words which Hitler dropped in conversation and from these ideas created the Action 14-F-13? Is it possible that men like Himmler, knowing that these sterilization experiments would be unsuccessful these experiments that we were just speaking about — that he, in applying euthanasia, with these means and methods saw a more useful tool than the useless sterilization experiments?

A: As I judge Himmler today I consider that possible.

Q: Then would that not lead us to the conclusion that Himmler committed the crime against humanity since he took the idea of euthanasia about which one might have different opinions on the idealogical point of view, distorted it for reasons of hatred or bigotry, and used it for the murder of Jews?

A: Yes, that is doubtless possible, because the idea of euthanasia was mis-used by the commission of all of these crimes. What was done here has nothing to do with euthanasia as a benefit to the person who is living a life unworthy of living. I don't want to say a great deal here about the ethical basis of euthanasia, but by way of introduction to this subject, I should like to say that my whole attitude was based on religious up-bringing. Only my helpfulness toward everyone and especially towards the sick made me an advocate of the idea of euthanasia.

Q: Now, witness, I asked you at the beginning to speak about Mennecke's testimony. You thought it right to give briefly your ethical attitude toward euthanasia; how, how about Mennecke's testimony?

A: According to the documents it is true that in 1941, according to 1151 PS, Exhibit 411, the Document Book 16, page 14 of the German, 12 in the English, it was on the 12th of November 1941 that Himmler sent medical commissions to the concentration camp to select the prisoners. I can say with a clear conscience that up to this trial I had heard nothing of the order of Himmler. The file note 14F 13 was completely — foreign to me as a concept, up to this trial. I cannot recall that I ever heard these numbers 14 and 13, or read them in this connection, but if that should have been the case then I certainly didn't think anything about it, but read it over just like any other file note that one gets when one gets thousands of letters a day. These file notes were always copied automatically from the incoming to the outgoing letter. But by admitting this possibility I do not mean to imply that I have even the slightest recollection of this 14F 13, but I can say very definitely that up to the beginning of this trial I did not know that these numbers indicated any particular action and certainly not this particular one.

If I had known the nature of the project which was concerned under this sign, 14 F 13, not only would I have not consciously participated in such a project, but I would have removed any possibility of supporting such a project in any form.

Q: Now, witness, what was the situation?

A: The witness Hielscher, on the 16th of April 1947, said that the prisoners in concentration camps, a small number of whom I became acquainted with made a terrible impression. He said that most of them were spiritual wrecks. He said that the majority of them remained sick for the rest of their lives, that their mentality and I might say vitality, were broken. This condition of the prisoners might have been known to Himmler from reports of the concentration camps. To what extent Hielscher's assertion is correct that Himmler expressly through his system broke the spirit and health of most of these prisoners I cannot judge. In this connection I should like to recall the conversation which I had with Himmler in January of 1941. I also saw flaws then when he spoke of his intentions of sterilizing the Jews. I had certain doubts then whether the impression I had of Himmler up to that time was quite correct, but these thoughts were somehow dissipated because I heard nothing more about it, and I thought Himmler had given up his intentions against the Jews. I considered it as a confirmation of this opinion of mine that Himmler had become more humane that in the summer of 1941 I was told by Bouhler that Himmler intended to have the most seriously ill persons in the concentration camps examined for their physical and mental condition. Himmler asked Bouhler to give him neutral doctors, since he did not have enough confidence in the ability of the camp doctors. Bouhler asked me to get in touch with the T-4 and inquire, or rather ask that experienced psychiatrists be assigned to examine the prisoners in the concentration camps. I did so. Whether I passed the request on to Nietzsche and Heyde, I really can't say.

Q: Witness, you just said something rather incidental when speaking of the personality of Himmler, you said you had the impression that Himmler had become more humane again in the summer of 1941, that Bouhler said to you that Himmler had asked him, Bouhler, to send doctors to the concentration camps to examine the people whom Hielscher has described; that might give the impression that you didn't think this thing is very important at the moment, but it seems to me that that was a very important assignment, a very important request that Himmler gave to Bouhler. Didn't you think that the thing was as important then as it may appear today?

A: At the time I thought the request was quite a secondary matter. I have to come back now to what I said day before yesterday.

I was overworked in the Chancellery of the Fuehrer. What work I did for the euthanasia organization was really only on the side, and at this time in 1941 was limited merely to passing on instructions from Bouhler, and the questions and requests of T-4. During that time I had much more work at the Chancellery of the Fuehrer. I mention this assignment merely because this made me think that Himmler had some good intention here, consequently I didn't have any very exact recollection to whom I passed it on, to one of the men in Tiergartenstrasse 4 [the Berlin street address that led to the T4 abbreviation], and I don't know what became of this assignment. It is possible that the result of these examinations was given to T-4, and then either to the Inspectorate of the Concentration Camps or to Himmler, but at the time I was not able to count on the possibility that Himmler, on the basis of these results, intended to exterminate prisoners, whom, according to my feeling at the time he was having examined for humane considerations. I could not assume that.

Q: You accepted this assignment from Bouhler in the framework of all the other assignments you were given at the time; you were glad that Himmler wanted to give a psychiatric examination to these poor people, but that you had no reason to think that this result might be used for such an action as the witness Mennecke described, is that true?

A: Yes.

Q: Now, witness, when you passed this assignment on you knew that it would be dealt with by Tiergartenstrasse 4; did the personality of the Doctors working at Tiergartenstrasse 4 offer you any certainty that these Doctors would carry out the assignment from a purely medical point of view?

A: Neither from Chief Expert Prof. Heyde nor Chief Expert Nietzsche was I ever able to observe that there was ever any inhuman or brutal treatment, but in addition, as far as a layman can judge, I had the impression that these two were outstanding Doctors. There were many other good psychiatrists who were called on to help them out in their work. I thought that this assignment was in the best hands.

Q: Now did you know that after this assignment was passed on in the summer of 1941 there was any influence at work, whether from Himmler, the Inspectorate of the Concentration Camps or anyone else, in dictating a criminal intent ultimately; did you know that?

A: All of a sudden I did not have the time to take any interest in the organization at Tiergartenstrasse 4. At the end of 1939 or beginning of 1940, by the order of Reichsleiter Bouhler, I took an interest in the organization of this new matter, but later that stepped. I hardly ever went to Tiergartenstrasse 4 myself. The office was under Bohne at first and later under Allers and it worked quite independently. My own office was on Vosstrasse and the Euthanasia office was at Tiergartenstrasse 4. I was therefore unable to observe the relations of Tiergartenstrasse 4 to other agencies and, of course, I was unable to observe whether in the meantime without my knowledge or Bouhler's knowledge, other influences had asserted themselves there. I can only assume that today; I consider it quite possible, however, that on the basis of the events, in the spring or summer of 1941, when Bouhler asked for the examinations, closer connections developed between Tiergartenstrasse 4 and the Inspector of the Concentration Camps or some other agencies, of which I know nothing and that suggestions came directly from there to Tiergartenstrasse 4 to have new examinations carried out in the concentrations camps, which would then fall under the Action 14-F-13.

Q: Witness, let us go back for a year for a moment. Witness Mennecks alleged that in the spring or summer, not of 1941, but of 1940, he received instructions from Nietzsche, Professor Heyde or yourself to visit the concentration camps and to fill out questionnaires there about prisoners, who were selected by the camp physicians; can you remember this testimony?

A: Yes, but I remember that in the Cross Examination, Mennecke changed this statement and he said he could not say with certainty that he talked to me at all about his work in the concentration camps. Mennecke's assertion that with the people whom he mentioned he visited the concentration camps in 1940, it seems to me, is doubtless an error in his memory. In the spring of 1940, Euthanasia was just beginning in the Euthanasia Institutes, the B-Institutes, etc., and at that time there was definitely not enough time to send Doctors to concentration camps on special assignments. I can only assume that the Witness Mennecke confused the year of 1940 with 1941 here. It is possible that he participated in this first examination and the whole physical and mental examination of the condition of the patients in concentration camps, which was ordered by Bouhler. These were perfectly legitimate examinations, as is shown by the names of the other Doctors whom Mennecke mentioned, Dr. Falkelhauser, Dr. Steinmeyer and Dr. Nietzsche. These are all serious older psychiatrists, who would certainly never have permitted themselves to be used for any non-medical action for political motives.

Q: Witness, the court does not know Falkelhauser, Steinmeyer and Nietzsche and I do not know them either, so that I could not judge. We are depending on your judgment, but I ask you are these men, Dr. Falkelhauser, Dr. Steinmeyer and Dr. Nietzsche, where they men like Dr. Pfannmueller?

A: Well, in particular they were older than Dr. Pfannmueller, I think they were all older. In any case, they seemed to me to be nature, worthy, highly decent human beings. I cannot give any other impression because they made a very out-standing impression.

Q: I was about to ask you whether those men were equally decent in their thinking, to say nothing of their action, at least as Dr. Pfannmueller showed himself to think here?

A: Doubtless, yes.

Q: Now, I have another question; Witness Mennecke said that in 1941 he received a summons to select Jews and foreigners orally from Heyde and Nietzsche and, as far as he could remember, from you, but as far as you were concerned, he later admitted he could not remember that definitely; what do you say about this? This was 1941, when could this assignment have been given?

A: According to his own letters, which were submitted by the Prosecution, this assignment must have been in October or November of 1941. At this time Heyde was not working at Tiergartenstrasse 4 anymore. He left in August or July of 1941, I don't know if it was July or August. To this extent it is definitely an error of memory on Mennecke's part, moreover, I consider it entirely impossible that Heyde, with all his decent personality, would have given such an assignment and this seems true of the old and serious Professor Nietzsche.

Q: And did you yourself in November or at any other time in 1941 give Mennecke such an assignment to examine prisoners in a concentration camp; in a superficial way ignoring the medical point of view as Mennecke asserts?

A: I must deny that emphatically. I did not give Mennecke such an assignment and I never talked to him about such an assignment. That would have been against my whole moral, attitude. I believe I have already proved how intensely I worked for years against the institution of concentration camps. I would have had to be as two-faced as Himmler presumably was because this assignment was to be carried out in an irresponsible way, as Mennecke said and as the letters to his wife indicate. I would not have been willing to participate in that.

Q: Witness, in this connection I am interested in another statement of Mennecke, which is in contradiction to what you just said. The Witness Mennecke said that you had objected because in his judgment of the questionnaires; he took too strict an attitude, do you remember that?

A: Yes.

Q: What do you have to say about that?

A: I deny this too, according to contents at least it is untrue and possibly the fact that I discussed such a thing with him at all is untrue. I am not a Doctor and I could not criticize an expert any way concerning his medical work on his questionnaires concerning Euthanasia. But, I admit the possibility that at the requests of Professors Heyde and Nietzsche, I asked Mennecke in some other connection to be more careful, that is in filling out the questionnaires in his trips to the mental institutes, because if the questionnaires were not filled out carefully enough, as the Witness Pfannmueller testified here when he saw a questionnaire not completely filled out, then the psychiatrist does not have the material for judging the case and then the work has become senseless and there are no results. Since Mennecke, as his letters indicate, was striving to establish records, there is the possibility that he worked a little hastily, but I cannot remember that I talked to Mennecke at all on such a subject.

Q: Witness, then how do you explain this testimony of the witness Mennecke, the assertion whether it was in the summer of 1940-1941, and whether it was because of you Nietzsche or Heyde that he got an assignment to carry out action 14-F-13?

A: When Mennecke appeared here on the witness stand he was in a very bad or unfortunate situation. He had been condemned to death by another Court. Therefore, this testimony to the extent that it does not correspond to the truth, I can explain only from an effort in his difficult situation to shift the responsibility from himself to others, in this case to me, so that he could reduce his own responsibility and perhaps obtain clemency. It is quite possible that Mennecke received suggestions for what he did from Landesrat Bernotat and his associates. I have been able to learn now that the Hesse agent Bernotat was obviously a radical advocate of euthanasia and had a circle of such radical advocates of euthanasia. I also believe that Mennecke through Bernotat was recommended to Heyde or some one else as an expert.

Q: You mean that Mennecke through a third person or perhaps on his own initiative had a very superficial and peculiar activity without orders from Heyde or Nietzsche or you?

A: No, he was not even encouraged.

Q: Now, Mr. Brack, it has been established that the euthanasia institutions, I remember the unfortunate name Bernburg, opened their doors to these transports of invalids so that those unfortunate people who were not sick could be gassed there, a fact from which every decent human being must turn away in horror? Then in your opinion how could such a thing happen?

A: I learned that here during the trial. It is completely inexplicable to me. I knew nothing about it at the time. I can explain it only by influence from outside, from some other source, on T-4; perhaps the inspectorate of concentration camps, perhaps Grawitz, perhaps through Linden, who was Reich Deputy for mental institutions, I don't know.

Bouhler, if he had any idea of it would have immediately forbidden it and so would I.

Q: Witness, you have testified to your knowledge about the action 14-F-13, you admit that in the summer of 1941 through Bouhler you were authorized to pass on an assignment to T-4, to have doctors available for psychiatric examinations of prisoners, but you deny having anything to do with action 14-F-13, as the witness Mennecke described on the basis of the order of 20 November, 1941, is that correct?

A: Yes.

DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, then I have finished the charge of the Prosecution concerning the action 14-F-13, and now I come to euthanasia, Should I begin that now or does the Court wish to recess?

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now be in recess until 1:30.

(The Tribunal adjourned for the noon recess)