Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 16 May 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court room 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 in the court with the exception of the Defendants Gebhardt and Oberheuser, absent due to illness.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will note for the record the presence of all the defendants in court save the Defendants Gebhardt and Oberheuser. The Tribunal has certificates from the prison surgeon certifying that Defendants Gebhardt and Oberheuser are unable to attend court on account of illness. Pursuant to these certificates, these defendants will be excused from attendance before the Tribunal today, it appearing their absence will not prejudice their case.
The Secretary-General will file the medical certificates.
The Tribunal has some further questions to propound to the witness.
VIKTOR BRACK — Resumed EXAMINATION BY THE COURT (Continued)
BY JUDGE SEBRING:
Q: Witness, I think you said yesterday afternoon that these six euthanasia stations were located at Bernberg, Brandenburg, Hadamar, Hartheim, Grafeneck and Sonnenstein, is that correct?
A: Yes, that is correct.
Q: When were the gas chambers at these euthanasia stations built?
A: When the institutions were set up as euthanasia institutions
Q: Can you remember the approximate dates?
A: No, I cannot remember the dates. I just know the years when the institutions became euthanasia institutions — approximately. I know that Grafeneck and Brandenburg were the first institutions, the first to become euthanasia institutions. It began at the end of 1939, at the earliest, the beginning of 1940, at the latest. I might say in the early summer of 1940 Sonnenstein and Hartheim were set up. In the early summer or in the spring. And the institution at Bernberg was set up in the fall or winter of 1940. Hadamar, in the winter or spring of 1941. This is as accurate as I can give it.
Q: You said the winter or spring of 1941. Do you mean the winter of 1940 or the spring of 1941? You said the winter or spring of 1941.
A: If I say winter '41, I mean January '41, but it might have been March too, I don't know.
Q: And you think that Hadamar was the last one that was set up?
A: I am quite certain that Hadamar was the last one.
Q: Now, of what materials were these gas chambers built? Were they movable gas chambers very much like the low pressure chambers that Professor Dr. Ruff talked about, or were they something that were built permanently into the camp or installation?
A: No special gas chamber was built. A room suitable in the planning of the hospital was used, a room attached to the reception ward, and the room where the insane persons were taken, where they were kept. That was made into a gas chamber. It was sealed, it was given special doors and windows, and then a few meters of gas pipe were laid, some kind of pipe with holes in it. Outside of this room there was a bottle, a compressed bottle, with the necessary apparatus, necessary instruments, a pressure gauge, etc.
Q: Now what department had the responsibility for constructing or building these gas chambers, what department of the party or of the government?
A: No office of the party. I don't understand the question.
Q: Somebody had to build these chambers. Who gave the orders and who had the responsibility of building them, was that your department?
A: The orders, I assume, were given by the head of the institution but I don't know who actually gave the orders.
Q: In other words, were these chambers not build according to some specifications, plans and specifications?
A: I can't imagine that, every chamber was different. I saw several of them.
Q: Do you know what department gave the order for having the chambers built? Was that your department under Bouhler?
A: No, that was Bouhler himself.
Q: And he gave the order to the various heads of institutions to install this chamber, is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Now, how would the heads of each of these institutions know how to install a gas chamber unless there were certain plans and specifications given to them?
A: I never saw any such plan. I don't know of any.
Q: Would you know how to go out and build a gas chamber unless some engineer or planner had told you? Certainly I wouldn't.
A: I don't know whether I would know it either. Presumably he called on a mechanic.
Q: That's what I'm trying to say. What mechanic or engineer or group of engineers were responsible for seeing that these gas chambers were built so that they would do the job they were supposed to do?
A: There was certainly not a group of engineers. I presume that there was somebody at the institutions who had enough technical ability to do it. I don't know.
Q: Then, so far as you know, some one at one of these institutions would be told by Bouhler to construct a gas chamber and he would call — the head of the institution then would call on some one, you don't know whom, to go out and build the chamber? Is that correct?
A: That is how I imagine it.
Q: Well, wouldn't it make considerable difference whether the chamber was to be constructed for euthanasia, by carbon monoxide or by some other means? Wouldn't there have to be some technical information available to the head of the institution so that he could give directions to his mechanic to build the thing to do the thing it was supposed to do?
A: I must say honestly I really don't know anything about that. I can't judge.
A: Do you know whether or not any department of the government, under Bouhler, or under Brandt or under anybody else, was responsible for seeing that the gas apparatus was installed properly?
A: I don't know, but I don't believe so because I would probably have heard of it.
Q: How large were these gas chambers?
A: They were of different sizes. It was simply an adjoining room.
I can't remember whether they were 4 x 5 meters, or 5 x 6 meters. Simply normal sized rooms, but I can't say the exact size. It was too long ago. I can't remember.
Q: Were they as large as this court room?
A: No, they were just normal rooms.
Q: Well, a man of your intelligence must have some idea, about the size of these rooms. The assertion "normal size" doesn't mean anything in particular.
A: By that I mean the size of the normal room in a normal house. I didn't mean an assembly room or a cell either. I meant a room, but I can't say the size exactly because I really don't know it. It might have been 4 x 5 meters, or 5 x 6 meters, or 3½ x 4½, but I really don't know. I didn't pay much attention to it.
Q: Have you ever visited a concentration camp or a military camp or any kind?
A: I visited a concentration camp, and I was once in a military camp as a soldier.
Q: Have you ever seen a shower room or shower bath built into a camp of that kind where the inmates of concentration camps, or where soldiers in a military barracks, can take showers?
A: Yes, I have. In my own barracks.
Q: And would you say that this euthanasia room at the various institutions was about that dimension?
A: I think it was much smaller.
Q: Well, perhaps we can get at it this way. I thought perhaps you knew something about the mechanical construction that I supposed everybody knew something about. This room of yours that you talk about, how many people would it accommodate?
A: Yesterday I said that, according to my estimate, it might have been twenty-five or thirty people.
Q: And that is still your estimate today? I remembered yesterday that you said that, and that is still your estimate today, that it could comfortably take care of twenty-five or thirty people?
A: Yes, that's my estimate.
Q: Now, the carbon monoxide gas that was used for the purpose of euthanasia where did it come from? I know you said yesterday that it came out of tubes very much like oxygen came in, but where did the tubes come from? Do you know?
A: I don't know. They were the normal steel containers that can be seen everywhere.
Q: Do you know how they reached the camp?
A: That I don't know.
Q: Do you know whether any department of the government was responsible for furnishing the gas to the camp?
A: No, they were probably bought.
Q: You think then that perhaps the superintendent of the institution, if he wanted some carbon monoxide gas, would just walk downtown and walk into a store and buy a steel tube of it and put it under his arm and carry it on back to the camp; pay for it out of his pocket?
A: No, not out of his own pocket but through the institution. The institutions bought it, I mean.
Q: Do you know from what sources the institution bought it?
A: Yes. All the funds came from the Reich Ministry of the Interior. They were advanced to him by the Party treasurer.
Q: Well, now, at that time, wasn't virtually everything in Germany of a critical nature on some sort of priority? Do you understand what I mean?
A: No.
Q: Would not the diversion of this carbon monoxide in tubes to the various institutions have to be given a priority rating and approved by some one or by some department in the government and thus be made available to the hospitals?
Don't you understand what I mean?
A: Yes, I understand. I have no idea, but I don't believe so. Why?
Q: What was done with the bodies of these people after mercy deaths were given?
A: When the room had been cleared of gas again then people came in with a stretcher and took the bodies into an adjoining room and then the doctor examined them to determine whether they were dead.
Q: Then what happened to the bodies?
A: When the doctor had ascertained death, he freed the bodies for burning and then they were burned.
Q: After he had freed the bodies, had determined that they were dead, they were then cremated? Is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: There was a crematory built for every one of these institutions?
A: Yes, crematoriums were built in the institutions.
Q: Do you know whether or not — what department or agency, either under the government, that is, the Reich Government, or under the superintendent of the various institutions, was responsible for this detail of cremation?
A: I don't understand, Bouhler ordered the cremating. Bouhler ordered, on principle, that the bodies were to be cremated after death. There was no office for that.
Q: Was there any report made to anyone of the fact that certain people, who had been selected for euthanasia, had finally arrived at these institutions, had actually been accorded the privilege of mercy deaths and then had been cremated?
A: No, I know nothing about that.
Q: No records were kept at all?
A: Oh, I thought you said reports. Now you mean records?
Q: I don't care what you call it. There must have been a report or record of some kind kept of these people. Was there?
A: Yes, of course. Not only the case histories, but the personal date of the individual patients, were collected at the euthanasia institution and there the death records were added to them and whatever else there was. In my direct examination I pointed out that there were announcements to the agencies concerned, for example, the guardianship court. These files were all sent to T-4.
Q: They were finally sent to Tiergartenstrasse 4?
A: Yes.
Q: Isn't it true that only in that way could an accurate record or report of this program be made?
A: I didn't understand whether this fact created accurate records about the people, or whether records were kept?
Q: Records were kept, were they not, of this entire transaction of each individual from the time he was expertised?
A: Yes.
Q: Until finally he was cremated?
A: Yes.
Q: And those records were filled with T-4?
A: Yes, they were kept there.
Q: Now, I believe you said that these euthanasia chambers were built to resemble shower rooms?
A: Yes, that's how I remember it.
Q: And the only people that were accorded euthanasia were people who were incurably insane, I think you said?
A: Yes.
Q: These were people who, as you put it, on ethical grounds, did not have the mental capacity either to consent or to resist the decision to grant them euthanasia, and that consequently as you viewed it, it was a humane procedure to accord them a mercy death; is that correct, did I understand you correctly?
A: Yes.
Q: Now, were these people, the ones whom you saw, so insane as not to understand where they were or what was going on around them?
A: I can only say that of course I am not a doctor and not in a position to judge the condition of such a patient, but when I was at such institutions I myself saw that the patients, insofar as they were able to walk, went into these chambers or rooms where they were told to go without any objection and sat down on the benches there or lay down and were quite quiet.
How far they could realize where they were, I don't know, but I do know they were not in any worried, but perfectly calm. Bouhler had ordered that the doctors were to arrange it so that the patients would not realize what was being done to them.
Q: And that was the reason that the gas chambers were constructed to resemble shower rooms, I suppose?
A: Yes.
Q: And these people thought that they were going in to take a shower bath?
A: If any of them had any power of reasoning, he no doubt thought that.
Q: Well now, were they taken into the shower rooms with their clothes on, or were they nude?
A: No, they were nude.
Q: In every case?
A: Whenever I saw it, yes.
Q: And you said, I believe, yesterday that you witnessed perhaps some 10 or 12 or 15 or 20 occasions when groups were accorded mercy deaths?
A: No. I said that I was at each of the institutions, with the exception of Hadamar, at least once, perhaps twice.
Q: And on each occasion did you witness the according of a mercy death to a group?
A: Yes.
Q: And I believe you said yesterday that some of these groups were adults, that some groups were men, other groups were women, and that on some occasions the groups were made up of both men and women, is that correct?
A: No, I apparently did not express myself clearly. They were either men or women, but I saw both.
Q: And you think perhaps you saw as many as 20 to 30 comfortably accommodated in the chamber?
A: Yes, quite comfortably. There was plenty of room.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q: Witness, will you please state again briefly the reasons assigned in these various meetings which you attended for the establishment of this euthanasia idea?
A: There were various reasons. The first meetings which were called by Bouhler were not meetings of the experts. Bouhler was there, and doctors, and jurists or administrative officials, whom Bouhler called as a council of experts in order to determine what was to be done.
Q: I don't want you to go into detail, but tell me the reasons that were assigned at the various meetings for the establishment of this idea?
A: At the meeting of experts the experts were asked to discuss questions of evaluating the questionnaires, purely medical questions; how the various diseases had to be judged, and so forth.
Q: But at these meetings, what reasons were advanced in favor of or against the establishment of euthanasia as a practice in Germany at that time; I don't mean the mechanical details of operation, but the reasons for or against the establishment of the practice; were there any?
A: Of course the justification for euthanasia was discussed, but, as far as I can remember, only by the participants in the meeting recognizing the need for it.
Q: What reasons did they give for recognizing the need for it?
A: Different people had different reasons. A doctor has medical reasons, and a layman like Bouhler, for example, has reasons of a purely humane nature.
Q: Well, what were these reasons that were advanced besides that of a humane nature?
A: I don't know any other reasons.
Q: The only basis, then that you heard mentioned as a foundation for the establishment of euthanasia was simply the humane idea that it would benefit the in same people, is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: You heard no other reason advanced at all.
A: I did not hear any other reasons.
Q: Was it ever suggested that it was advisable as a war measure?
A: No, nobody suggested that.
Q: Had you ever heard of the idea or of the practice of the idea before it was first suggested as you have testified; when was it you first heard of this program?
A: When Bouhler told me about it.
Q: About what date was that?
A: That was in the summer of 1939, either July or August.
Q: Had you ever heard of euthanasia before that time?
A: No, I had heard nothing about euthanasia before that.
Q: Why was it to be a secret operation?
A: I don't know. Hitler had ordered that.
Q: Did you hear anyone state any reasons for his having ordered it to be a secret operation?
A: I heard only assumptions. Everyone had a different assumption.
Q: What were those assumptions?
A: Some said it was because of the Church, others said it was because of foreign politics, others said the population had to be educated to the idea gradually and it could not be made public suddenly, but Bouhler never told me and perhaps he didn't even know — what the real reason was why Hitler wanted it secret.
Q: At these meetings, did you hear any of what you call assumptions as to the reason for establishing the program other than that to benefit the insane people?
A: No, such reasons were not discussed.
Q: If the sole object of the euthanasia practice was for the benefit of the people, of the insane people, why did they exempt the operation of the decree war veterans whose insanity was due to a war injury; did you hear anyone explain that?
A: Bouhler said that. War had broken out in the meantime, and Bouhler said that for war psychological reasons, one could not include include war veterans whose insanity was due to war injuries.
Q: Did he say why, if it was for the benefit of the sufferer?
A: That was to their disadvantage, but for psychological reasons this step was taken.
Q: What psychological reasons?
A: I don't know how I should say it.
Q: Try.
A: The fact that in the war which had begun there would again be wounded with brain injuries and injuries which might make them insane could make the relatives, if they learned about euthanasia, worry about their own relatives who were wounded and would become insane. They would feel that they too might be subjected to euthanasia. Since these relatives did not fear the long duration and the terrible condition of insanity, since they did not know it from their own experience they would have an entirely different idea of euthanasia than the people who had been under this impression for years or for decades. This was more or less the explanation which Bouhler gave at the time, but I can only give you the general sense of it.
Q: But the exemption of one suffering a war injury which caused the insanity extended to those persons who were wounded in the first war in 1914 — 1915; did it not?
A: No, to all of them.
Q: But it did include the wounded of the first World War of 1914, '15, '16; did it not?
A: Yes.
Q: They had then been suffering from insanity for many years; had they not?
A: Yes.
Q: But it was concluded to exempt them from this method of administering a mercy death?
A: Yes.
Q: Was it considered that the relatives of an insane person, whose insanity was not caused by a war wound, would welcome the idea of administering to that insane person a mercy death; would the objection be limited only to relatives of war veterans?
A: I cannot judge that. I acted according to Bouhler's instructions. I never thought of the matter in that way.
Q: Did you think there would be any difference in the feeling of the relatives of an insane person toward administering that person a mercy death, whether that person were insane from disease or from a war wound would there be any difference in the feeling of the relatives?
A: According to the mentality of the time and the impression of the war which had just started. I consider it possible, but I really cannot judge.
Q: The order to establish euthanasia was signed by Hitler; was it not?
A: Yes, by Hitler.
Q: That was considered sufficient authority to proceed and act under the decree?
A: Yes, it was considered sufficient.
Q: Was there any limitation whatsoever upon the authority of Hitler to sign a decree ordering anything he might happen to wish?
A: I don't believe that there was any limitation on Hitler, since he was the chief of the state, but that is a legal question which I cannot answer correctly.
Q: I am asking you for your opinion, witness; I understand you are not a lawyer. You know of no limitation upon his authority or power?
A: As chief of the state, it seem to me that Hitler was authorized to sign any legal order.
As I said yesterday, he started the war, he ordered the invasion of Austria.
Q: You said his authority to sign a legal order; what do you mean by a legal order.
A: What I just said, he could sign orders which had the force of law.
Q: That any order he signed, then, did have the force of law?
A: Yes.
Q: Who issued the order to stop the administration of euthanasia?
A: It came from him.
Q: Was that a written decree?
A: I received this order orally.
Q: That is the order to cease the operation euthanasia?
A: Yes. I received it orally.
Q: Do you know whether there was a written order to suspend euthanasia?
A: I don't know.
Q: From whom did you receive the information or the direction to stop the administration of euthanasia?
A: I don't remember; it could only have been Bouhler or Brandt.
Q: When was that?
A: In August of 1941.
Q: Where did you receive the order?
A: I was in the office in Berlin, in Voss Strasse.
Q: But you don't remember from whom you received it?
A: No, I really cannot remember.
Q: Now, as to these questionnaires that were signed by the doctors concerning these insane patients; when the questionnaire was fully completed by the medical men, where did that questionnaire go?
A: This questionnaire was sent to Tiergartenstrasse 4, but I don't know exactly whether it came directly from the institution or whether it went through the Ministry of the Interior or whether it went partly through the Ministry of the Interior and partly directly.
Q: But it finally came to rest at Tiergartenstrasse 4?
A: Yes.
Q: Who was the head of Tiergartenstrasse 4?
A: The head of Tiergartenstrasse 4 was first Bohne and later Allers.
Q: Who signed the final order directing that euthanasia be administered to these insane persons?
A: There was no final order signed.
Q: Do you mean to say that these institutions would send people to the gas chamber without any order to do so?
A: No.
Q: Well, who signed the order directing them to administer euthanasia to these people?
A: Bouhler authorized the individual euthanasia doctors under the prescribed safe guards and gave them the authority to administer euthanasia, that meant that they could administer euthanasia if the prescribed procedure of judgment and observation had been carried out.
Q: Was there any order to that effect signed by Bouhler?
A: There was the obligation enjoined on these doctors by Bouhler.
Q: Do you mean to say that these people were gassed in these chambers without the authority of any written order?
A: No, I don't mean to say that.
Q: Well, who signed that written order?
A: Hitler had signed it.
Q: Well, Hitler established the process of euthanasia, but he never signed an order that Johann Schmidt would be administered euthanasia. Who signed an order that these individuals in these institutions should be sent to the gas chamber?
A: There was not a single order in that form. It was the result of examinations by various systems, and the sum of these examinations and checks was what Hitler had wanted with his order.
Q: Well, these questionnaires that were signed by the doctors must have gone some where for final action, did they not?
A: Yes.
Q: Where did they go?
A: Then the experts and the chief experts had finished with the questionnaires, and the patients had undergone their period of observation, then the questionnaires came, with the transfer list of the Ministry of Interior, to the euthanasia institutions.
Q: That is Tiergartenstrasse 4?
A: No.
Q: Where?
A: One of these six institutions I named. The questionnaires were sent there. I said yesterday that the last doctor, the one who actually administered euthanasia had to compare the questionnaire with the case history and personal data of the patient, which came with the patient.
Q: Well, was there no central office in Berlin to which these questionnaires were sent by the doctors who had worked over them? I thought you said they went to T-4?
A: They were sent there from the institutions where they were filled out in the beginning, but then came the whole procedure of judging each individual patient, and only when this process was finished.
Q: But, where was that process accomplished; where were they judged?
A: By the individual experts. Photostat copies were made of the questionnaires at Tiergartenstrasse 4, and then one photostat — you said Johann Schmidt, I shall use that name for an example — the questionnaire about Johann Schmidt was sent in three copies to three different experts. Bouhler had ordered that these three experts could not include any doctors who were treating this patient.
Q: I know, but when these three experts had accomplished the questionnaire and recommended that the subject be administered euthanasia, where did they go — the questionnaires?
A: They sent the questionnaires back to Tiergartenstrasse 4; from there the entries from the three questionnaires were transferred to a fourth copy — the opinions of the three doctors. This fourth questionnaires of Johann Schmidt also contained the opinion of the three different experts, and this was sent to the chief expert. The chief expert then decided whether this Johann Schmidt was to be transferred to an observation institution or not. If he decided that Johann Schmidt was to be transferred to an observation institution, he informed the Reich Ministry of the Interior. The Reich Ministry of the Interior then ordered the transfer of Johann Schmidt from institution A to an observation institution. In this observation institution there was a doctor, not necessarily the head of the institution, who was authorized to observe these patients who had been transferred there. If his observations agreed with the opinion of the experts, then he drew up a list which he sent to Tiergartenstrasse 4, or the chief experts discussed that personally with him when they visited his institution and examined the patients. Who drew up the list of what patients were to be transferred from the observation institution to a euthanasia institution, I frankly do not know. Then, the Ministry of the Interior sent a list to the observation institution of the patients who were now to be transferred to a euthanasia institution; and then Tiergartenstrasse 4 sent the euthanasia institution the photostat on which the chief expert had entered the observation notations, so that the euthanasia doctor would have all the records on the patient, because he alone had to make the final decision.
Q: You said, "he alone had to make the final decision". Who is "he"?
A: The doctor in the euthanasia institution had to decide alone, whether, on the basis of the record and opinions which he had, he wanted to administer euthanasia to the patient or not.
Q: Who was that doctor?
A: There were several of them.
Q: Who were they?
A: I have given their names. As far as I can remember them: Dr. Baumhart, Dr. Hennecke, Dr. Schmalenbach, Dr. Eberle, Dr. Schumann, and from the documents I have got the name Dr. Boerneck, but I had forgotten that name. I had remembered his name as Berner or Berneck, something like that, but I think the name in the document is right, Boerneck. Also, there were a few others, but I do not remember their names.
Q: Those were the men who gave the final order for the administration of euthanasia to Johann Schmidt or the other insane persons?
A: No, they did not give any order, but they actually carried out euthanasia.
Q: Well, pursuant to whose direction, did they carry out euthanasia, the Ministry of the Interior?
A: No, on nobody's order, but on the basis of the authority given them by the Fuehrer order.
Q: They simply acted upon the questionnaire and carried the results into effect from their judgment on the questionnaire?
A: They acted medically on the basis of the questionnaires, and the examination and the case history. Legally they could act only on the basis of the authorization of the Fuehrer, the Fuehrer decree.
Share this post
1947-05-16, #1: Doctors' Trial (early morning)
Share this post
Previous
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 16 May 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court room 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 in the court with the exception of the Defendants Gebhardt and Oberheuser, absent due to illness.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will note for the record the presence of all the defendants in court save the Defendants Gebhardt and Oberheuser. The Tribunal has certificates from the prison surgeon certifying that Defendants Gebhardt and Oberheuser are unable to attend court on account of illness. Pursuant to these certificates, these defendants will be excused from attendance before the Tribunal today, it appearing their absence will not prejudice their case.
The Secretary-General will file the medical certificates.
The Tribunal has some further questions to propound to the witness.
VIKTOR BRACK — Resumed EXAMINATION BY THE COURT (Continued)
BY JUDGE SEBRING:
Q: Witness, I think you said yesterday afternoon that these six euthanasia stations were located at Bernberg, Brandenburg, Hadamar, Hartheim, Grafeneck and Sonnenstein, is that correct?
A: Yes, that is correct.
Q: When were the gas chambers at these euthanasia stations built?
A: When the institutions were set up as euthanasia institutions
Q: Can you remember the approximate dates?
A: No, I cannot remember the dates. I just know the years when the institutions became euthanasia institutions — approximately. I know that Grafeneck and Brandenburg were the first institutions, the first to become euthanasia institutions. It began at the end of 1939, at the earliest, the beginning of 1940, at the latest. I might say in the early summer of 1940 Sonnenstein and Hartheim were set up. In the early summer or in the spring. And the institution at Bernberg was set up in the fall or winter of 1940. Hadamar, in the winter or spring of 1941. This is as accurate as I can give it.
Q: You said the winter or spring of 1941. Do you mean the winter of 1940 or the spring of 1941? You said the winter or spring of 1941.
A: If I say winter '41, I mean January '41, but it might have been March too, I don't know.
Q: And you think that Hadamar was the last one that was set up?
A: I am quite certain that Hadamar was the last one.
Q: Now, of what materials were these gas chambers built? Were they movable gas chambers very much like the low pressure chambers that Professor Dr. Ruff talked about, or were they something that were built permanently into the camp or installation?
A: No special gas chamber was built. A room suitable in the planning of the hospital was used, a room attached to the reception ward, and the room where the insane persons were taken, where they were kept. That was made into a gas chamber. It was sealed, it was given special doors and windows, and then a few meters of gas pipe were laid, some kind of pipe with holes in it. Outside of this room there was a bottle, a compressed bottle, with the necessary apparatus, necessary instruments, a pressure gauge, etc.
Q: Now what department had the responsibility for constructing or building these gas chambers, what department of the party or of the government?
A: No office of the party. I don't understand the question.
Q: Somebody had to build these chambers. Who gave the orders and who had the responsibility of building them, was that your department?
A: The orders, I assume, were given by the head of the institution but I don't know who actually gave the orders.
Q: In other words, were these chambers not build according to some specifications, plans and specifications?
A: I can't imagine that, every chamber was different. I saw several of them.
Q: Do you know what department gave the order for having the chambers built? Was that your department under Bouhler?
A: No, that was Bouhler himself.
Q: And he gave the order to the various heads of institutions to install this chamber, is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Now, how would the heads of each of these institutions know how to install a gas chamber unless there were certain plans and specifications given to them?
A: I never saw any such plan. I don't know of any.
Q: Would you know how to go out and build a gas chamber unless some engineer or planner had told you? Certainly I wouldn't.
A: I don't know whether I would know it either. Presumably he called on a mechanic.
Q: That's what I'm trying to say. What mechanic or engineer or group of engineers were responsible for seeing that these gas chambers were built so that they would do the job they were supposed to do?
A: There was certainly not a group of engineers. I presume that there was somebody at the institutions who had enough technical ability to do it. I don't know.
Q: Then, so far as you know, some one at one of these institutions would be told by Bouhler to construct a gas chamber and he would call — the head of the institution then would call on some one, you don't know whom, to go out and build the chamber? Is that correct?
A: That is how I imagine it.
Q: Well, wouldn't it make considerable difference whether the chamber was to be constructed for euthanasia, by carbon monoxide or by some other means? Wouldn't there have to be some technical information available to the head of the institution so that he could give directions to his mechanic to build the thing to do the thing it was supposed to do?
A: I must say honestly I really don't know anything about that. I can't judge.
A: Do you know whether or not any department of the government, under Bouhler, or under Brandt or under anybody else, was responsible for seeing that the gas apparatus was installed properly?
A: I don't know, but I don't believe so because I would probably have heard of it.
Q: How large were these gas chambers?
A: They were of different sizes. It was simply an adjoining room.
I can't remember whether they were 4 x 5 meters, or 5 x 6 meters. Simply normal sized rooms, but I can't say the exact size. It was too long ago. I can't remember.
Q: Were they as large as this court room?
A: No, they were just normal rooms.
Q: Well, a man of your intelligence must have some idea, about the size of these rooms. The assertion "normal size" doesn't mean anything in particular.
A: By that I mean the size of the normal room in a normal house. I didn't mean an assembly room or a cell either. I meant a room, but I can't say the size exactly because I really don't know it. It might have been 4 x 5 meters, or 5 x 6 meters, or 3½ x 4½, but I really don't know. I didn't pay much attention to it.
Q: Have you ever visited a concentration camp or a military camp or any kind?
A: I visited a concentration camp, and I was once in a military camp as a soldier.
Q: Have you ever seen a shower room or shower bath built into a camp of that kind where the inmates of concentration camps, or where soldiers in a military barracks, can take showers?
A: Yes, I have. In my own barracks.
Q: And would you say that this euthanasia room at the various institutions was about that dimension?
A: I think it was much smaller.
Q: Well, perhaps we can get at it this way. I thought perhaps you knew something about the mechanical construction that I supposed everybody knew something about. This room of yours that you talk about, how many people would it accommodate?
A: Yesterday I said that, according to my estimate, it might have been twenty-five or thirty people.
Q: And that is still your estimate today? I remembered yesterday that you said that, and that is still your estimate today, that it could comfortably take care of twenty-five or thirty people?
A: Yes, that's my estimate.
Q: Now, the carbon monoxide gas that was used for the purpose of euthanasia where did it come from? I know you said yesterday that it came out of tubes very much like oxygen came in, but where did the tubes come from? Do you know?
A: I don't know. They were the normal steel containers that can be seen everywhere.
Q: Do you know how they reached the camp?
A: That I don't know.
Q: Do you know whether any department of the government was responsible for furnishing the gas to the camp?
A: No, they were probably bought.
Q: You think then that perhaps the superintendent of the institution, if he wanted some carbon monoxide gas, would just walk downtown and walk into a store and buy a steel tube of it and put it under his arm and carry it on back to the camp; pay for it out of his pocket?
A: No, not out of his own pocket but through the institution. The institutions bought it, I mean.
Q: Do you know from what sources the institution bought it?
A: Yes. All the funds came from the Reich Ministry of the Interior. They were advanced to him by the Party treasurer.
Q: Well, now, at that time, wasn't virtually everything in Germany of a critical nature on some sort of priority? Do you understand what I mean?
A: No.
Q: Would not the diversion of this carbon monoxide in tubes to the various institutions have to be given a priority rating and approved by some one or by some department in the government and thus be made available to the hospitals?
Don't you understand what I mean?
A: Yes, I understand. I have no idea, but I don't believe so. Why?
Q: What was done with the bodies of these people after mercy deaths were given?
A: When the room had been cleared of gas again then people came in with a stretcher and took the bodies into an adjoining room and then the doctor examined them to determine whether they were dead.
Q: Then what happened to the bodies?
A: When the doctor had ascertained death, he freed the bodies for burning and then they were burned.
Q: After he had freed the bodies, had determined that they were dead, they were then cremated? Is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: There was a crematory built for every one of these institutions?
A: Yes, crematoriums were built in the institutions.
Q: Do you know whether or not — what department or agency, either under the government, that is, the Reich Government, or under the superintendent of the various institutions, was responsible for this detail of cremation?
A: I don't understand, Bouhler ordered the cremating. Bouhler ordered, on principle, that the bodies were to be cremated after death. There was no office for that.
Q: Was there any report made to anyone of the fact that certain people, who had been selected for euthanasia, had finally arrived at these institutions, had actually been accorded the privilege of mercy deaths and then had been cremated?
A: No, I know nothing about that.
Q: No records were kept at all?
A: Oh, I thought you said reports. Now you mean records?
Q: I don't care what you call it. There must have been a report or record of some kind kept of these people. Was there?
A: Yes, of course. Not only the case histories, but the personal date of the individual patients, were collected at the euthanasia institution and there the death records were added to them and whatever else there was. In my direct examination I pointed out that there were announcements to the agencies concerned, for example, the guardianship court. These files were all sent to T-4.
Q: They were finally sent to Tiergartenstrasse 4?
A: Yes.
Q: Isn't it true that only in that way could an accurate record or report of this program be made?
A: I didn't understand whether this fact created accurate records about the people, or whether records were kept?
Q: Records were kept, were they not, of this entire transaction of each individual from the time he was expertised?
A: Yes.
Q: Until finally he was cremated?
A: Yes.
Q: And those records were filled with T-4?
A: Yes, they were kept there.
Q: Now, I believe you said that these euthanasia chambers were built to resemble shower rooms?
A: Yes, that's how I remember it.
Q: And the only people that were accorded euthanasia were people who were incurably insane, I think you said?
A: Yes.
Q: These were people who, as you put it, on ethical grounds, did not have the mental capacity either to consent or to resist the decision to grant them euthanasia, and that consequently as you viewed it, it was a humane procedure to accord them a mercy death; is that correct, did I understand you correctly?
A: Yes.
Q: Now, were these people, the ones whom you saw, so insane as not to understand where they were or what was going on around them?
A: I can only say that of course I am not a doctor and not in a position to judge the condition of such a patient, but when I was at such institutions I myself saw that the patients, insofar as they were able to walk, went into these chambers or rooms where they were told to go without any objection and sat down on the benches there or lay down and were quite quiet.
How far they could realize where they were, I don't know, but I do know they were not in any worried, but perfectly calm. Bouhler had ordered that the doctors were to arrange it so that the patients would not realize what was being done to them.
Q: And that was the reason that the gas chambers were constructed to resemble shower rooms, I suppose?
A: Yes.
Q: And these people thought that they were going in to take a shower bath?
A: If any of them had any power of reasoning, he no doubt thought that.
Q: Well now, were they taken into the shower rooms with their clothes on, or were they nude?
A: No, they were nude.
Q: In every case?
A: Whenever I saw it, yes.
Q: And you said, I believe, yesterday that you witnessed perhaps some 10 or 12 or 15 or 20 occasions when groups were accorded mercy deaths?
A: No. I said that I was at each of the institutions, with the exception of Hadamar, at least once, perhaps twice.
Q: And on each occasion did you witness the according of a mercy death to a group?
A: Yes.
Q: And I believe you said yesterday that some of these groups were adults, that some groups were men, other groups were women, and that on some occasions the groups were made up of both men and women, is that correct?
A: No, I apparently did not express myself clearly. They were either men or women, but I saw both.
Q: And you think perhaps you saw as many as 20 to 30 comfortably accommodated in the chamber?
A: Yes, quite comfortably. There was plenty of room.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q: Witness, will you please state again briefly the reasons assigned in these various meetings which you attended for the establishment of this euthanasia idea?
A: There were various reasons. The first meetings which were called by Bouhler were not meetings of the experts. Bouhler was there, and doctors, and jurists or administrative officials, whom Bouhler called as a council of experts in order to determine what was to be done.
Q: I don't want you to go into detail, but tell me the reasons that were assigned at the various meetings for the establishment of this idea?
A: At the meeting of experts the experts were asked to discuss questions of evaluating the questionnaires, purely medical questions; how the various diseases had to be judged, and so forth.
Q: But at these meetings, what reasons were advanced in favor of or against the establishment of euthanasia as a practice in Germany at that time; I don't mean the mechanical details of operation, but the reasons for or against the establishment of the practice; were there any?
A: Of course the justification for euthanasia was discussed, but, as far as I can remember, only by the participants in the meeting recognizing the need for it.
Q: What reasons did they give for recognizing the need for it?
A: Different people had different reasons. A doctor has medical reasons, and a layman like Bouhler, for example, has reasons of a purely humane nature.
Q: Well, what were these reasons that were advanced besides that of a humane nature?
A: I don't know any other reasons.
Q: The only basis, then that you heard mentioned as a foundation for the establishment of euthanasia was simply the humane idea that it would benefit the in same people, is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: You heard no other reason advanced at all.
A: I did not hear any other reasons.
Q: Was it ever suggested that it was advisable as a war measure?
A: No, nobody suggested that.
Q: Had you ever heard of the idea or of the practice of the idea before it was first suggested as you have testified; when was it you first heard of this program?
A: When Bouhler told me about it.
Q: About what date was that?
A: That was in the summer of 1939, either July or August.
Q: Had you ever heard of euthanasia before that time?
A: No, I had heard nothing about euthanasia before that.
Q: Why was it to be a secret operation?
A: I don't know. Hitler had ordered that.
Q: Did you hear anyone state any reasons for his having ordered it to be a secret operation?
A: I heard only assumptions. Everyone had a different assumption.
Q: What were those assumptions?
A: Some said it was because of the Church, others said it was because of foreign politics, others said the population had to be educated to the idea gradually and it could not be made public suddenly, but Bouhler never told me and perhaps he didn't even know — what the real reason was why Hitler wanted it secret.
Q: At these meetings, did you hear any of what you call assumptions as to the reason for establishing the program other than that to benefit the insane people?
A: No, such reasons were not discussed.
Q: If the sole object of the euthanasia practice was for the benefit of the people, of the insane people, why did they exempt the operation of the decree war veterans whose insanity was due to a war injury; did you hear anyone explain that?
A: Bouhler said that. War had broken out in the meantime, and Bouhler said that for war psychological reasons, one could not include include war veterans whose insanity was due to war injuries.
Q: Did he say why, if it was for the benefit of the sufferer?
A: That was to their disadvantage, but for psychological reasons this step was taken.
Q: What psychological reasons?
A: I don't know how I should say it.
Q: Try.
A: The fact that in the war which had begun there would again be wounded with brain injuries and injuries which might make them insane could make the relatives, if they learned about euthanasia, worry about their own relatives who were wounded and would become insane. They would feel that they too might be subjected to euthanasia. Since these relatives did not fear the long duration and the terrible condition of insanity, since they did not know it from their own experience they would have an entirely different idea of euthanasia than the people who had been under this impression for years or for decades. This was more or less the explanation which Bouhler gave at the time, but I can only give you the general sense of it.
Q: But the exemption of one suffering a war injury which caused the insanity extended to those persons who were wounded in the first war in 1914 — 1915; did it not?
A: No, to all of them.
Q: But it did include the wounded of the first World War of 1914, '15, '16; did it not?
A: Yes.
Q: They had then been suffering from insanity for many years; had they not?
A: Yes.
Q: But it was concluded to exempt them from this method of administering a mercy death?
A: Yes.
Q: Was it considered that the relatives of an insane person, whose insanity was not caused by a war wound, would welcome the idea of administering to that insane person a mercy death; would the objection be limited only to relatives of war veterans?
A: I cannot judge that. I acted according to Bouhler's instructions. I never thought of the matter in that way.
Q: Did you think there would be any difference in the feeling of the relatives of an insane person toward administering that person a mercy death, whether that person were insane from disease or from a war wound would there be any difference in the feeling of the relatives?
A: According to the mentality of the time and the impression of the war which had just started. I consider it possible, but I really cannot judge.
Q: The order to establish euthanasia was signed by Hitler; was it not?
A: Yes, by Hitler.
Q: That was considered sufficient authority to proceed and act under the decree?
A: Yes, it was considered sufficient.
Q: Was there any limitation whatsoever upon the authority of Hitler to sign a decree ordering anything he might happen to wish?
A: I don't believe that there was any limitation on Hitler, since he was the chief of the state, but that is a legal question which I cannot answer correctly.
Q: I am asking you for your opinion, witness; I understand you are not a lawyer. You know of no limitation upon his authority or power?
A: As chief of the state, it seem to me that Hitler was authorized to sign any legal order.
As I said yesterday, he started the war, he ordered the invasion of Austria.
Q: You said his authority to sign a legal order; what do you mean by a legal order.
A: What I just said, he could sign orders which had the force of law.
Q: That any order he signed, then, did have the force of law?
A: Yes.
Q: Who issued the order to stop the administration of euthanasia?
A: It came from him.
Q: Was that a written decree?
A: I received this order orally.
Q: That is the order to cease the operation euthanasia?
A: Yes. I received it orally.
Q: Do you know whether there was a written order to suspend euthanasia?
A: I don't know.
Q: From whom did you receive the information or the direction to stop the administration of euthanasia?
A: I don't remember; it could only have been Bouhler or Brandt.
Q: When was that?
A: In August of 1941.
Q: Where did you receive the order?
A: I was in the office in Berlin, in Voss Strasse.
Q: But you don't remember from whom you received it?
A: No, I really cannot remember.
Q: Now, as to these questionnaires that were signed by the doctors concerning these insane patients; when the questionnaire was fully completed by the medical men, where did that questionnaire go?
A: This questionnaire was sent to Tiergartenstrasse 4, but I don't know exactly whether it came directly from the institution or whether it went through the Ministry of the Interior or whether it went partly through the Ministry of the Interior and partly directly.
Q: But it finally came to rest at Tiergartenstrasse 4?
A: Yes.
Q: Who was the head of Tiergartenstrasse 4?
A: The head of Tiergartenstrasse 4 was first Bohne and later Allers.
Q: Who signed the final order directing that euthanasia be administered to these insane persons?
A: There was no final order signed.
Q: Do you mean to say that these institutions would send people to the gas chamber without any order to do so?
A: No.
Q: Well, who signed the order directing them to administer euthanasia to these people?
A: Bouhler authorized the individual euthanasia doctors under the prescribed safe guards and gave them the authority to administer euthanasia, that meant that they could administer euthanasia if the prescribed procedure of judgment and observation had been carried out.
Q: Was there any order to that effect signed by Bouhler?
A: There was the obligation enjoined on these doctors by Bouhler.
Q: Do you mean to say that these people were gassed in these chambers without the authority of any written order?
A: No, I don't mean to say that.
Q: Well, who signed that written order?
A: Hitler had signed it.
Q: Well, Hitler established the process of euthanasia, but he never signed an order that Johann Schmidt would be administered euthanasia. Who signed an order that these individuals in these institutions should be sent to the gas chamber?
A: There was not a single order in that form. It was the result of examinations by various systems, and the sum of these examinations and checks was what Hitler had wanted with his order.
Q: Well, these questionnaires that were signed by the doctors must have gone some where for final action, did they not?
A: Yes.
Q: Where did they go?
A: Then the experts and the chief experts had finished with the questionnaires, and the patients had undergone their period of observation, then the questionnaires came, with the transfer list of the Ministry of Interior, to the euthanasia institutions.
Q: That is Tiergartenstrasse 4?
A: No.
Q: Where?
A: One of these six institutions I named. The questionnaires were sent there. I said yesterday that the last doctor, the one who actually administered euthanasia had to compare the questionnaire with the case history and personal data of the patient, which came with the patient.
Q: Well, was there no central office in Berlin to which these questionnaires were sent by the doctors who had worked over them? I thought you said they went to T-4?
A: They were sent there from the institutions where they were filled out in the beginning, but then came the whole procedure of judging each individual patient, and only when this process was finished.
Q: But, where was that process accomplished; where were they judged?
A: By the individual experts. Photostat copies were made of the questionnaires at Tiergartenstrasse 4, and then one photostat — you said Johann Schmidt, I shall use that name for an example — the questionnaire about Johann Schmidt was sent in three copies to three different experts. Bouhler had ordered that these three experts could not include any doctors who were treating this patient.
Q: I know, but when these three experts had accomplished the questionnaire and recommended that the subject be administered euthanasia, where did they go — the questionnaires?
A: They sent the questionnaires back to Tiergartenstrasse 4; from there the entries from the three questionnaires were transferred to a fourth copy — the opinions of the three doctors. This fourth questionnaires of Johann Schmidt also contained the opinion of the three different experts, and this was sent to the chief expert. The chief expert then decided whether this Johann Schmidt was to be transferred to an observation institution or not. If he decided that Johann Schmidt was to be transferred to an observation institution, he informed the Reich Ministry of the Interior. The Reich Ministry of the Interior then ordered the transfer of Johann Schmidt from institution A to an observation institution. In this observation institution there was a doctor, not necessarily the head of the institution, who was authorized to observe these patients who had been transferred there. If his observations agreed with the opinion of the experts, then he drew up a list which he sent to Tiergartenstrasse 4, or the chief experts discussed that personally with him when they visited his institution and examined the patients. Who drew up the list of what patients were to be transferred from the observation institution to a euthanasia institution, I frankly do not know. Then, the Ministry of the Interior sent a list to the observation institution of the patients who were now to be transferred to a euthanasia institution; and then Tiergartenstrasse 4 sent the euthanasia institution the photostat on which the chief expert had entered the observation notations, so that the euthanasia doctor would have all the records on the patient, because he alone had to make the final decision.
Q: You said, "he alone had to make the final decision". Who is "he"?
A: The doctor in the euthanasia institution had to decide alone, whether, on the basis of the record and opinions which he had, he wanted to administer euthanasia to the patient or not.
Q: Who was that doctor?
A: There were several of them.
Q: Who were they?
A: I have given their names. As far as I can remember them: Dr. Baumhart, Dr. Hennecke, Dr. Schmalenbach, Dr. Eberle, Dr. Schumann, and from the documents I have got the name Dr. Boerneck, but I had forgotten that name. I had remembered his name as Berner or Berneck, something like that, but I think the name in the document is right, Boerneck. Also, there were a few others, but I do not remember their names.
Q: Those were the men who gave the final order for the administration of euthanasia to Johann Schmidt or the other insane persons?
A: No, they did not give any order, but they actually carried out euthanasia.
Q: Well, pursuant to whose direction, did they carry out euthanasia, the Ministry of the Interior?
A: No, on nobody's order, but on the basis of the authority given them by the Fuehrer order.
Q: They simply acted upon the questionnaire and carried the results into effect from their judgment on the questionnaire?
A: They acted medically on the basis of the questionnaires, and the examination and the case history. Legally they could act only on the basis of the authorization of the Fuehrer, the Fuehrer decree.
Q: I understand that.
THE PRESIDENT: I have no further questions.
The Tribunal will now be in recess.
(Thereupon a recess was taken.)
Next