1947-05-15, #1: Doctors' Trial (early morning)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nuernberg, Germany, on 15 May 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats. The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal I. Military Tribunal I is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal. There will be order in the courtroom.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, you ascertain if the defendants are all present in court.
THE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honor, all the defendants are present with the exception of the defendants Gebhardt and Oberheuser, absent due to illness.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary General will note the presence of all the defendants in court save the defendants Gebhardt and Oberheuser, who are absent on account of illness, pursuant to certificates by the prison surgeon which will be filed with the Secretary General. These defendants will be excused pursuant to the physician's certificate, it appearing that their absence will not prejudice their case.
Counsel may proceed.
DR. FROESCHMANN (Counsel for Viktor Brack): Mr. President, it has been called to my attention that in my German Document Book 2 mistakes have been included in the mimeographing. I should like to correct them. These are in the German Document 31, Document Book 2, an extract from German Justice on page 14, paragraph 2:
Fourteen well-known church leaders had openly expressed their opinion that the bills were not in contrast to the doctrines of Christ.
During mimeographing the word "not" was omitted, making the sentence read exactly the opposite of the intended meaning.
The other mistake is in Document 39 in Document Book 2. It is the affidavit of Gertrude Kallmeyer. Here it states in the original on page 62:
The Chancellory of the Fuehrer was in no contact with the Inspectorate of Concentration Camps. The Chancellory of the Fuehrer had nothing to do with it but many requests for release of concentration camp inmates were received.
This "release" (Entlassung) was changed to the word "Entlausung" which means "delousing". This, of course, gives an entirely different meaning to the word. They did not ask for delousing. These mistakes, however, are only in the German document book. Everything is correctly translated in the English.
THE PRESIDENT: I would suggest that counsel file with the Secretary General a written memorandum calling attention to these mistakes so that the Secretary General in his office may correct the original German documents on file in his office.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Yes, Your Honor.
VIKTOR BRACK — Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued)
BY DR. FROESCHMANN:
Q: Witness, first of all I should like to remind you that you are still under oath. Secondly, I should like to tell you that I want to finish your direct examination today, therefore, would you please make your answers as brief as possible.
A: Very well.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, I stated yesterday that I was finished with the pertinent general questions of secrecy. Last night, on looking over my record, I discovered that I still have four minor questions on this subject to put to the witness with your approval.
BY DR. FROESCHMANN:
Q: The first question, witness, did you wonder about Bouhler's announcement that the decree was strictly secret?
A: No, I did not. From my work I was accustomed to the fact that certain things had to be kept secret, and only a certain group of people were informed of them.
Q: The second question, do you know the reasons why Hitler ordered secrecy?
A: No, I did not.
Q: The third question, what was the immediate consequence of this secrecy which was ordered?
A: This resulted in the camouflage of everything connected with euthanasia, simultaneously the camouflage of the central direction and the various organizations who were executing euthanasia.
Q: What are you thinking of; what do you mean?
A: The people working with euthanasia had to come in contact with the outside world, for example, with the institutions. They had to acquire equipment, they had to be in contact with various governmental agencies, there were legal obligations, and so forth. Someone had to hear the responsibilities for these things. The individual expert was out of the question, and it couldn't be the Chancellory of the Fuehrer either, so special organizations had to be created which in my interrogations I designated as camouflage organizations.
Q: I can recapitulate briefly from the examination so far that three such organizations were created, first, the Public Foundation for Institutional Care, which was the economic part of the organization?
A: Yes.
Q: Then, second, the Reich Working Union for Mental Institutions. What was the purpose of this organization?
A: It did the scientific work and was in contact with the mental institutions and the medical experts.
Q: And third, the Public Patient Transport Company. What was the purpose of it?
A: This organization was in charge only of the transfer of the patients.
Q: Now, briefly what was the legal form of the two organizations, the two first mentioned, organizations?
A: I can't remember clearly. It was an entity and a public law. The Transport Company was a GMBH. All three organizations were able to appear in public.
Q: Then, I have finished the subject of secrecy. Mr. President, I now come to the chatter of preparatory measures for euthanasia and I shall discuss the legal basis of euthanasia, Mr. President, I have taken the liberty to submit as an example — but not in order to read it into the record, merely for the legal information of the tribunal — the opinion of a well known German university professor, professor Dr. Karl Engisch in Heidelberg, as Document No. 34 in my Document Book II. Just as the Prosecution did with its various opinions and extracts from public law I intend to use this document merely as [illegible] basis for my final plea.
DR. HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, the exhibits offered by the Prosecution in this respect were official German commentaries and judgments of German Courts and such commentaries were all before the time of 1945. We wanted to put in these commentaries in order to show that Euthanasia was illegal in Germany even before that time. German judgments and judgments from German Courts and all these exhibits' were objected by the Tribunal and the objection of by Dr. Froeschmann against these exhibits was sustained. Therefore I object against the admission of this legal opinion which was made at Koch for this trial and wants to solve the problem which is entirely the task of the Tribunal, It is a legal opinion. It is not a statement of facts — what Dr. Froeschmann is offering.
MR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, Professor Karl Engisch in Heidelberg is a declared opponent of Euthanasia. I went to an opponent in the true aim of getting quite an objective opinion. I do not intend to use this opinion any way in this point. I intend to use it merely as means of orientation for the tribunal as to the point of view of a German legal expert who, as I said is an opponent of these ideas and I will also use it as a basis for my final plea.
I believe if I offer it only in evidence and give it an exhibit number it will be quite sufficient. I shall not mention it later, with one word.
DR. HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, Dr. Froeschmann told us himself that he is not using this legal opinion in evidence so I don't know why he is offering it.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for defense may in his argument cite any law that he desires and make any legal argument that appear to him to be sound. The weight of that argument will be for the Tribunal to determine. Jut such a document as now offered as an exhibit clearly should not be admitted, as an exhibit in the case. Counsel will have the benefit of that in any other legal opinions or statements or judgments that he desires to use in his argument.
The objection of Prosecution to admission of this document is sustained.
Q: Witness, did you consider Hitler's assignment a legally valid and public law?
A: Yes. I myself and my associates, as well as all other persons who came into contact with Hitler, considered this decree a valid legal basis for the execution of Euthanasia.
Q: In your opinion did Hitler have the right to issue such a decree with binding legal force?
A: In my opinion, yes, because the head of the state who marches into Austria without consulting anyone or who reaches an agreement with Statesmen of other countries or who begins a war without consulting anyone, who even before that had settled various things by force, no doubt had the right in this case to is ue a decree which would form he legal basis.
Q: And to whom?
A: To all Germans.
Q: Did you see Hitler's handwriting from Bouhler or Brandt?
A: Yes, Bouhler showed me Hitler's original handwriting and I had a photostatic copy of it in my own safe.
Q: Then was that At the end of 1939 at the earliest, possibly only early in 1940 — not the date of issue.
Q: In the external form of the document by Hitler did you see anything objectionable?
A: No. I saw nothing objectionable. I was not able to judge whether any prescribed form might have been violated here. I would have liked to see anyone object to a document signed by Adolf Hitler no matter what the external form of it was.
Q: Witness, you have stated that you considered the decree a completely valid legal statement of Hitler with the force of law?
A: Yes.
Q: But in repeated discussions you have told me that you were working on the draft of law. How does this agree with what you have just said?
A: Such an idea would not have occurred to me but the doctors and lawyers who were concerned in the matter held, the the point of view that law had to be passed.
Q: How did these doctors and lawyers explain this opinion?
A: They said that Hitler's secrecy order is known to only a limited number of persons. Euthanasia, however is not a matter which can be left to the individual or the government but effects everyone — in the long run it cannot be kept secret from the public. Primarily people want to know what conditions are required for Euthanasia and what safeguards have been introduced so that there will be no issue of it. That, of course, if possible only if a law is proclaimed with definite provisions but that does not mean that the decree itself does not appear perfectly binding.
Q: Did you agree with this opinion?
A: I was not able to judge. I carried out Bouhler's assignment and I worked on the drafting of a law.
Since I didn't understand these matters myself I asked lawyers and doctors to suggest various opinions of the law.
Q: And, briefly what did this law contain?
A: Basically it contained all provisions which are necessary for the execution of euthanasia and practice, a very cumbersome process of judging the patients, all kinds of legal precautions which would prohibit any misuse of euthanasia from a legal or medical point of view. I remember the title now — law for granting medical aid to the incurably sick persons.
Q: Was this law to put an end to all the secrecy?
A: Yes, of course. That was something that we all rejected. In my institution I have already said what I personally said at the time about the secrecy. Something that I consider right I don't have to keep a secret.
Q: Now I should like to interpolate a question. This draft took some time to work out didn't it?
A: Yes. I was revised several times. The first draft was finished rather quickly but it was improved again and again. I assume there were ton if not more revisions.
Q: Why was this law not passed?
A: I don't know. I know that Bouhler brought it to Hitler's attention repeatedly, Hitler refused-he approved of the contents, out said that he didn't want it made public before the end of the war.
Q: Did you learn Hitler's reason for this opinion?
A: No.
Q: Did Bouhler and Brandt repeatedly ask Hitler to have this law passed?
A: Yes, I know of that the Case of both of them. I know, as I just said, that Bouhler submitted this draft to Hitler personally and beyond that I learned from Bouhler, as well as Brandt, that they had repeatedly asked the Fuehrer to make public the law which he already know about.
Q: Is a copy of this draft available?
A: I don't know. I've given you all the addresses where it might be. It was sent to various state agencies and also to other people; to church authorities, for example, because the opinion of the church was very important, but, unfortunately, no copy of this draft has been found. I have also tried to reconstruct it, but that would be too long to give all those details here.
Q: Did you doubt the validity of the law because of the element of secrecy?
A: No, I said before that, in many cases, the Fuehrer issued secret decrees and this did not affect the validity in any way. For example, the creation of the Ministerial Council for the Defense of the Reich. That was a secret decree with the absolute force of law.
Q: Now, the decree does not speak of incurably insane, but incurably sick. That means that tuberculosis patients, cancer patients, etc., could also be subjected to euthanasia if the prerequisites required in the law were given.
A: Yes, that is true, but I said before I saw the decree itself for the first time perhaps in 1939, more likely in 1940 — Bouhler showed it to me. In his instructions to me, Bouhler only spoke of the incurably insane. I never received any instruction about incurably sick persons being included in euthanasia; only incurably insane. Only cases where the mental condition had led to a complete destruction of personality and the life expectation — physical life of the insane is not of nay importance in that connection.
Q: According to the defendant Karl Brandt, the decree was dated back to the 1st of September 1939. Do you know why this particular date was chosen?
A: No, I do not know that. Bouhler didn't tell me.
Q: Witness, to conclude this subject I should like you to discuss Document No. 253, Exhibit 331 the chart which the prosecution has submitted, and your new chart of the organization of euthanasia.
Mr. President, I have submitted this as Exhibit 35 yesterday.
Witness will you please answer the following questions briefly:
Did you draw the prosecution's chart yourself?
A: No, I did not draw that myself. It was done by someone else.
Q: Did you make a sketch for it?
A: I tried to make a sketch, but it did not succeed.
Q: And what objections do you still have today to this chart insofar as you have not already mentioned them?
A: First of all, the organization. Bohne and Allers office and Heyde and the transport company are directly under Brandt. Also the experts and chief experts. That is not correct. This whole organization — this whole machine was not under Karl Brandt. This can be seen from my corrected chart, what the actual subordination was. Then, neither I myself nor my associates had any supervisory relationship to the experts or the other agencies of T-4 and there was no right on our part to give instructions. The instructions came from Bouhler. Then, in this prosecution chart, the B and E institutions — the observation and euthanasia institutions were presented as being directly under the euthanasia authorities. That is not true. They were still under the Reich Ministry of Interior, as always.
Q: Witness, from the chart of the prosecution I see that the observation and euthanasia institutions were not, as you say under the organization in general, but were directly under the experts and then indirectly under T-4. Am I not right?
A: It is terribly complicated on a chart which is supposed to show organization, at the same time, functions and that is the case here. I myself do not know what these various lines are to indicate. Are they to show the course taken by the patients, or are they to show organizational subordination? As you explain it, these lines going up on the right, the observation and euthanasia institutions if these do not represent the course of the questionnaires and the patients, but simply the authority, then these lines are wrong and your idea is correct that these institutions are supposed to be under the experts. That was not the case. These institutions continued under the authority of the Ministry of the Interior.
Q: Well, let us go on to the next point. How about the questionnaire section?
A: This does not therefore belong to the Foundation, but to the Reich Working Union for Mental Institutions. I realize that clearly on the basis of the prosecution documents when I saw that the sending out of the questionnaires to the expert, Pfannmueller, went through the Reich Working Union and that the questionnaires were sent back by him to the Reich Working Union, not to the Foundation. This again, I have considered when I corrected the chart. I have spoken about Blome yesterday. I need not say anything about that today. In the corrected plan, I believe that the confusion between organization and functions has been avoided. I have indicated, by arrows, and explained the organization and the execution of the transfers.
All other lines refer not to functions, but to subordination. But I should like to emphasize once more that such a chart never existed before and I merely had to draw it up according to the best of my knowledge and after refreshing my memory through the documents. It never existed earlier in this form or in any similar form.
Q: Now, please put the chart aside.
Witness, secrecy led to unfortunate circumstances in the execution of euthanasia and, in the last analysis, to the complaints of which the prosecution has submitted several examples, but we shall come back to this later. Now, I should like to go on to the discussion of your specific activity within euthanasia so that the Tribunal will know what your work was. And please answer this question briefly. What was the nature of your work in the framework of euthanasia?
A: It is not simple to explain this work, it was very complicated. I do not intend to deny that I had something — to do with it, but I shall attempt to explain how far my activity went. The T-4 was geographically, and from the organizational point of view, separate from my own office. Bouhler himself was not able to move his office to T-4. He remained in his office in Vosstrasse and people working at T-4 came to see him to report to him. If Bouhler was not there, they came to me or to one of my associates. The prosecution has used the words "liaison man" for me. This is confusing. As far as I can remember I did not raise any objection to that term at the time. Perhaps I even used it myself, but I have just realized that a liaison man must be located at the place in which he has to establish the contact with someone. I did not. I remained in Vosstrasse in the Chancellery of the Fuehrer because I had most of my work there.
Not only for these reasons, but also for other reasons, I was never so completely informed about Bouhler's ideas and the execution of euthanasia as the prosecution may assume. I continuously received instructions, decisions, orders, from Bouhlor which I passed on to the people working at Tiergartenstrasse — doctors and administrative officials. It was in the nature of things, therefore, that at the beginning especially I took care of setting up the organization and gave my aid and support. But I myself never really worked at T-4. I could not issue instructions on my own initiative either because Bouhler considered himself alone responsible for euthanasia and he always made this quite clear to me. I would never have dared to carry on independent policies here. I could never have taken that responsibility.
Q: Witness, just a brief remark. The Document No. 156 of the prosecution has been mentioned repeatedly, which the defendant Karl Brandt made Brandt Exhibit 4-A and 4-B. I should like to show you this document and ask you to answer the question, do you recognize the signature, as the witness Hederich said, of Bouhler under this document?
A: Yes, that is the signature of Bouhler.
Q: And you know the contents of this document?
A: Yes, I know of the contents. I also know the letterhead. This is the stationery that Reichsleiter [Reich Leader] Bouhler used at that time in the service of the Chancellory of the Fuehrer and NSDAP.
Q: Now, another question. Did you later learn of this specific letter of Bouhler when you talked to the Reich Ministry of Justice?
A: Yes, I learned of this letter.
Q: Then will you please put the letter aside and continue in describing your functions?
A: My right to give instructions, if I may call it that, was completely secondary. I think that covers the situation. In the course of time I had naturally become acquainted with the material. I was often present at the discussions of experts, as well as the administrative discussions. In many cases I was present officially as Bouhler's representative, so that outsiders might very well get the impression that I was the influential man in euthanasia. The witness Mennecke doubtless had this impression, but I can only emphasize that his impression is not correct. I was nothing but Bouhler's deputy, or, as the prosecution called me in its opening speech, Bouhler's assistant for these questions.
Q: Witness, from the cross examination of Mr. Hardy with the witness Mr. Pfannmueller I gather that the prosecution apparently placed great importance on whether you were ever in charge of such a meeting, whether you ever presided over such a meeting, or whether you took a solemn oath from any of the experts or other such externals. Do you deny these things or take them as a matter of course?
A: I in no way deny them. In many cases I presided over such meetings. Exactly what meetings they were I don't remember. It sounds exaggerated to say "preside" because the discussions weren't in such a form. We actually sat at a round table and at a round table there is no chairman. I certainly never took a solemn oath, but it is quite possible that in one case or another I spoke to one man or another on behalf of euthanasia, or what he learned at these meetings. I certainly do not deny these things.
Q: Now, witness, in this connection I am interested only in two specific meetings which the prosecution has cited as proof of your importance in the euthanasia program, that is, the meeting in Munich and then the meeting of the lowers. I ask you to comment briefly on these two meetings. What was the Munich meeting about or what was the meeting of lawyers about?
A: The meeting in Munich was probably a meeting of the heads of the Gau Office for Public Health and other doctors invited by Conti. Medical Questions were discussed at this meeting in general, but Conti had asked Bouhler to come to this meeting and to instruct these doctors about the decree and about the measures taken up to that time in euthanasia. Bouhler had promised to go but then was unable to and sent me in his place. I showed the decree of the Fuehrer at this meeting and I spoke briefly about the draft of the law which was being worked on.
Q: Just a minute, witness. Did the participants in this meeting in any way object to what you said or to your ideas? Later during the recess was any opposing opinion expressed?
A: When I left this meeting, I talked for half an hour or an hour with various people who had been present. Various suggestions were made about additions and improvements in the law, but no objections. I reported this to Reichsleiter Bouhler and he arranged that all those who were interested would get a draft of the law in its form at the time, so that they could send in their suggestions.
Q: Now, how about the meeting of lawyers?
A: This meeting in the Ministry of Justice was a meeting of lawyers who had to discuss all sorts of questions, and it was an answer to a request from Guertner to Bouhler that Bouhler was to explain the details of euthanasia at this meeting.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, I submit Document 36 from my Document Book 2, page 54. That is an extract from so-called German Justice, the Official Journal of German Jurisprudence, the year 1941, as Exhibit 36, and I shall quote. The book, Your Honor, from which I have taken this excerpt I obtained from the document section of the Tribunal, but as far as I am informed there have been difficulties, that when these books are given out or submitted to a court, the books are not returned to the document section soon enough. Consequently, I considered it expedient to submit merely a certified copy from this book.
MR. HOCHWALD: To offer the exhibit in this form is unusual, but it is usual in such cases that a certified copy is handed to the Tribunal and not a carbon copy, and we would like in the future to have such exhibits on the part of the defense offered to the Tribunal in this manner.
THE PRESIDENT: The preparation of the photostat copy from the page of the book is probably the better practice, and should be followed hereafter.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Very well, Your Honor. I quote from page 553, Document 36:
On 23 and 24 April a congress of the Presidents of the District Courts of Appeal and of the General Public Prosecutors took place in Berlin under the presidency of State Secretary Dr. Schlegelberger. The presidents of the Reich Supreme Court, the People's Court, and the Reich Patent Office, as well as the Chief Reich Public Prosecutors, took part in this congress.
The congress celebrated topical legal and administrative problems in speeches and discussions.
A number of people are then mentioned, Brack, university professor Dr. Heyde from the Chancellory of the Fuehrer. It is a certified copy. Please give the document to the General Secretary.
Q: Now, please continue, witness?
A: I attended this meeting actually as a representative of Bouhler, and just as at the meeting of doctors in Munich, I showed the people present a photostat copy, as a matter of fact, I showed them several copies of the Fuehrer's decree, so that everyone would be able to see it, and I also talked about the law which was being drafted. Why Buertner asked Bouhler to inform the various justice officials of these things can be seen from the prosecution documents. The Administration of Justice had had difficulties because of euthanasia, which I had not foreseen, but these difficulties arose because of the element of secrecy. As NO 156 shows, Bouhler told Guertner that he alone considered himself responsible for euthanasia, but then he tried by informing justice officials to dispose of these differences, and for this reason Bouhler authorized me to represent him at this meeting and inform the gentlemen.
Q: Witness, at this meeting did you hear any objections from the high justice officials from all parts of Germany, as I see from the Document?
A: No, there was no objection. As far as I recall the State Secretary and acting administrator of Justice Schlegelberger —
Q: Schlegelberger?
A: Yes, Schlegelberger said at the end of the meeting, now that they seen there was a legal decree of the fuehrer for these measures, they had no legal objection to the execution of Euthanasia; that is about what he said.
Q: Mr. President, in this connection, I submit in my Document Book 2, Document No. 37, page 55 as exhibit 37. This is an affidavit of the former Ministerial-director in the Reich Ministry of Justice Karl Engert, born 23 October, 1877. It is very short, but of great interest, because it shows the opinion of the influential jurists in this question to whom the lay-man Brack presented these matters:
In approximately spring 1941 Victor Brack gave an informative lecture about Euthanasia in the Reich Ministry of Justice on behalf of Reichsleiter Bouhler, who was prevented from attending. As a foundation for the moral justification of euthanasia, Brack quoted example and pointed out the useless existence of the incurably insane. Ethical reasons, above all compassion, demanded the release of those individuals from their sufferings. There was no mention of any kind of political or war aspect for the performance of euthanasia. He talked then about a Fuehrer decree to Bouhler and Brandt and dealt in full with the draft of a law, which had been submitted, or was to be submitted to Adolf Hitler. He mentioned the various provisions of this draft. I was convinced from Brack's statements that this draft law provided every guarantee for the protection of the incurably sick and insane. As far as I can remember, certain exceptions were stipulated for the performance of euthanasia, for instance persons suffering from injuries of the brain incurred during the first World War and I think foreigners were also excepted.
Brack's statements reassured me, because according to them, it was to be definitely assumed that a Reich Law would then be enacted in the customary form, ie., by publication in the Reich Law Gazette. I saw no reason why any difficulties should arise.
MR. HARDY: May it please, Your Honor, in the case of Becker-Freyseng, which will come before this Tribunal after the completion of the Defense of defendant Viktor Brack, the Prosecution has charged the Defendant Becker-Freyseng in the Indictment under count one with Conspiracy, under count to which special responsibility for and participation in the high altitude experiments, the freezing experiments, the sea-water experiments, the epidemic jaundice experiments, and the sulfanilamide experiments, spotted fever experiments and in count three it has charged the defendant Becker-Freyseng with these experiments as set four in count two. At this time the Prosecution wishes to withdraw the charge against the defendant Becker-Freyseng insofar as he was connected with the sulfanilamide experiments. If the Tribunal requests, I will submit this in writing. We will withdraw only one charge. If you want me to file a writing with the Secretary-General and comply with it.
THE PRESIDENT: The Prosecution will file its withdrawal of this charge in writing with a full statement and give counsel for the Defendant Becker-Freyseng a copy.
MR. HARDY: Yes Sir.
BY DR. FROESCHMANN:
Q: Witness do you remember s statement by the representative of the Reichs Ministry of Justice at this meeting to the effect that the Hitler decree, which you showed to these, present, was absolutely a valid, legal basis for euthanasia?
A: Yes, I said that before. That was the statement of the acting Minister of Justice, State Secretary Schlegelberger, that was the highest official at that time, because Guertner had died in the meantime.
Q: Then Mr. President; I have finished the subject with the defendant Brack's work in connection with euthanasia. In the examination of the Defendant Karl Brandt the Prosecution placed great emphasis on clarifying the question of what persons were to be effected by euthanasia.
Consequently, I see myself obliged briefly to go into this question.
Witness, now we come to a subject, which is very much debated, you know that according to the decree the doctors to be appointed by Brandt and Bouhler were to have their functions extended to the point that thou could grant euthanasia to incurably sick persons and you have just said that the law, which was being drafted, was to contain all provisions which had become necessary from the practice of euthanasia?
A: Yes.
Q: Now, the first question comes up is, and when the Prosecution asks rightly what persons were effected by this decree, were there any exceptions, provided and who determined the exception, in your examination before interrogator you oddly enough have said nothing about this. In studying the records, I observed that this important point is not mentioned at all in your affidavit, was that forgotten, what was the reason?
A: I don't know. In my interrogation, I discussed these things properly. I said that foreigners, World War veterans, in this case where the war injuries were the cause of their insanity and Jews were exempted from euthanasia. A list was shown to me and I had to assume it was a transfer list from one institution to a Euthanasia Institute, on which Jews were listed.
Q: Mr. President, I should like to interrupt the defendant briefly here and refer to the document. The document here just mentioned is No. 158, Exhibit 410, English Document Book, 16 page [illegible]. Please continue and get that document bock. This was the document which was shown to you.
A: I believe that this was the list, which I was shown, here various persons whose names indicate they are Jews, as well as various persons who were born outside of Germany are listed. It seems that I can remember very clearly that foreigners had to be exempted and that this was based on a personal order from Hitler. I was not confused, but insofar as the Jews are concerned, I myself began to have doubts and on the advise of the interrogators I did not insist that Jews were exempted.
After seeing all the documents again and having memory refreshed, I know that Jews were exempted in the same way. I must add something that I also forgot in the interrogation. Labor victims persons injured in industrial accidents from which insanity resulted were also exempted.
Q: We will go into this in detail to make it perfectly clear.
THE PRESIDENT: Before pursuing this matter in detail, the Tribunal will be in recess
(A recess was taken.)