1947-05-16, #3: Doctors' Trial (afternoon)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing convened at 1415 hours.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. HARDY: May it please the Tribunal, before the continuation of the cross examination of the Defendant Brack by Mr. Hochwald, I have two questions to take up with the Tribunal.
The defense counsel has requested that the case of the defendant Beiglboeck come before the case of the Defendant Hoven, so that the cases of Becker-Freyseng, Schaefer and Beiglboeck will be continuous, in as much as the three cases delve into the sea-water experiments and it won't break up the continuity of the presentation of the evidence. The prosecution has agreed with the defense counsel if it is agreeable to the Tribunal and we would like to hear the case of the defendant Beiglboeck before the case of the defendant Hoven.
THE PRESIDENT: The suggestion made by counsel for the prosecution and for the defense will be approved and adopted by the Tribunal.
MR. HARDY: In addition to that, defense counsel for the defendant Mrugowsky, Dr. Flemming, has notified me this morning that he intends to call another witness on behalf of the defendant Mrugowsky. He wishes to call that witness after the testimony of the defendant Brack has been completed. I have no knowledge as to what that witness will testify and have not been able to formally object or acquiesce and I should like to hear from the defense counsel for the defendant Mrugowsky as to the name of the witness and what the witness will testify to.
THE PRESIDENT: The defense counsel for the defendant Mrugowsky will advise the prosecution and the Tribunal.
DR. FLEMMING: Mr. President, we are here concerned with the witness Scharlau.
The witness Scharlau has been approved to be heard here on behalf of the defendant Mrugowsky. He will first of all testify as to the time during which the meeting took place in the Ministry of the Interior on 29 December 1941. In addition, he will testify concerning a number of questions in connection with the Hygiene Institute. He will speak about the discussion to which the hand-note of the defendant Sievers refers. It says there that the field of work of Rascher was discussed with Mrugowsky. Scharlau had been present during that conference and his presence is mentioned by Sievers in that file note.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, due to the fact that this application has been approved by the Tribunal, I have no objection to the calling of the witness, however, I might ask the defense counsel if it would be possible to secure an affidavit from the witness, then perhaps the prosecution could stipulate with the defense counsel and then perhaps avoid calling him before the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: How long do you estimate, counsel, that the testimony of this witness will require?
DR. FLEMMING: Perhaps one hour, Mr. President; and I am now speaking of the direct examination which I think will last at most for one hour.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the Counsel for the defendant think it possible to have the witness prepare an affidavit and use that in place of calling the witness in open court?
DR. FLEMMING: I shall investigate the question once more and then come to some agreement with the Prosecution.
MR. HARDY: It is apparent, Your Honor, that the case of the defendant Brack may well be completed early Monday morning. In that event it will be necessary to call this witness on Monday, and I assume that Dr. Flemming can ascertain whether or not an affidavit will meet his needs this afternoon, and we can agree on it the first thing Monday morning, and bring it up before the Tribunal at that time?
THE PRESIDENT: I assume that Counsel for the defendant can make up his mind whether or not an affidavit will be sufficient on behalf of his client before very long. The Tribunal would hear the witness following the case of the defendant Brack, if the Counsel for the Prosecution had no objections to the matter as stated.
MR. HARDY: The Defense Counsel has outlined three points that the defense witness will testify too, and it seems to me those points can well be taken care of in an affidavit as well as taking up the time here before the Tribunal. In that event I would stipulate with the Defense Counsel after he has executed the affidavit. If the prosecution does not desire to cross examine I do not think it is necessary to bring the witness here on direct examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I understand the position of Counsel. The Counsel will consult and decide at the earliest possible moment as to the course the Defense Counsel desires to follow. The witness can be heard following the case of the Defendant Brack, if it is not deemed by the Defense Counsel that an affidavit is sufficient.
The cross examination may continue.
VIKTOR BRACK — Resumed CROSS EXAMINATION (continued)
BY DR. HOCHWALD:
Q: May it please the Tribunal, Herr Brack, before the recess we spoke about the Binding and Hoche book on Euthanasia, did we not?
A: Yes.
Q: I would like to refresh your memory as to the contents of this book. I have here a few short excerpts. This is document No. 2893, which will be Prosecution's exhibit 496 for identification, Your Honor. Do you have the document before you?
A: Yes, I have it before me.
Q: This is the book you were speaking about, were you not?
A: Yes, the title is correct.
Q: So, I quote from page 28:
But one conclusion results as unconditionally necessary: The full regard of the will of life of all human beings, of the most sick and the most tortured and the most useless ones too.
and, you will find another quotation from page 34:
As already stated above, any authority of annihilating is to be excluded if connected with breaking the will of life of the individual to be killed or the killed.
Do you agree with this point of view?
A: I have already said this morning these purely legal considerations cannot be commented on by me; I can only say that I was not in a favorable disposition toward these considerations. Maybe I did not understand them, because I am not a lawyer. Maybe it is because these considerations contain aspects to which I could not agree. At any rate, these are considerations which have nothing at all to do with the considerations which prompted me — which were initiated simply by pity for the human being — rather than by calculated reasoning.
Q: All right, but, so you are of the opinion that the privilege of mercy death can also be given to people who still have the possibility to resist and who want to live, is that your opinion?
A: No, no, in no way at all. If somebody has the will to live it would no longer constitute an act of mercy.
Q: But, you do remember the document D-906, Prosecution's exhibit 376, that is in document book 14, part 3, page 281, Your Honors. And I want to quote only one sentence. Unfortunately I do not have the German, but it is only one sentence. I want to quote:
The wildest scenes imaginable are reported to have taken place then, as some of these people did not board the bus voluntarily and were therefore forced to do so by the accompanying personnel.
Do you not think these people had still the possibility and power to resist and they did resist? Didn't they?
A: No I do not believe that. There are two possibilities here. Either this is a statement which is based upon a rumor which may have resulted in connection with and because of the secrecy, and an exaggeration of something which really took a different course entirely or in the case as it is represented here we are concerned with patients of the kind I saw on my visits to these institutions who had been locked into the so-called strong houses and who constituted severe danger for entire humanity.
Q: If they were behind lock and key the danger for humanity wasn't so big, was it? This is an official report so far as I can see from the document and not information of rumors. Do you know that the ideas of Binding and Hoche were by no means universally approved in Germany and in other places?
A: I really cannot judge that because as I already said up to the time Bouhler received that order I did not at all concern myself with the problem of euthanasia but during conversations I heard just as many approving as rejecting opinions.
Q: All right. The letter of authorization which we have been speaking about, Exhibit 330, to Bouhler and Brandt says that Brandt and Bouhler had the responsibility of enlarging the authority of certain doctors by name. Who did select these doctors?
A: Bouhler selected them.
Q: Bouhler was not a medical man. Did he know the doctors?
A: No, but he had that order by Hitler. Professor Hoffmann or Professor Schneider couldn't select these physicians. It was Bouhler who had received that order to increase their authority.
Q: I take it from the document Brandt and Bouhler got this authorization from Hitler, and not Bouhler alone.
A: Yes. Brandt, of course, had to give his approval but Bouhler at first made the selection among the physicians which were designated to him by name.
Q: And Brandt gave his approval, is that right?
A: I don't know. I must assume so. I wasn't always present during conversations between Brandt and Bouhler.
Q: Did you ever receive a list of names of doctors who were authorized to administer euthanasia?
A: No. I already stated that I don't know whether I did receive such a list. I don't know whether any such list existed. At any rate I didn't receive one. I also said that considering the small number of physicians I hardly think that any such list was compiled.
Q: Am I right in assuming that it must have come to your knowledge whether such a list existed or not?
A: No.
Q: Where could a list have been without that you would have seen it?
A: Such a list could have existed in Bouhler's office. It could have been the same in Linden's office.
Q: Who selected the doctors in the euthanasia stations about whom you told the Tribunal today that they had the last judgment whether mercy death should be administered or not?
A: I cannot give you any information about that in detail. I do know, however, that Linden made such proposals to Bouhler and I furthermore know that Bouhler then had these physicians call on him and then talked to them.
Q: Bouhler alone, in other words, selected these people on his own responsibility?
No. I was just saying that Linden made the corresponding presentation to him.
Q: You said that Linden made the proposals but that Bouhler selected them, is that correct?
A: Bouhler decided, yes, which ones were to be actually selected. When and how he discussed that matter with Brandt I really don't know.
Q: You named some of the doctors who were active in euthanasia stations. Do you know who was in charge of the euthanasia station Brandenburg?
A: During my interrogations I already stated that I could no longer say with certainty where or at what stations these physicians were working. I thought at the time to remember and I already stated what I knew at that time. However, I don't know that it is all quite correct.
Q: Is the name Wirth (W-i-r-t-h) familiar to you in this connection?
A: Yes, I know that name.
Q: Will you tell the Tribunal who Wirth was?
A: Wirth was a Captain in the Police who was in charge of the local registry office at Grafeneck.
Q: Is the name Gorgass familiar to you, G-o-r-g-a-s-s?
A: The name Gorgass, yes. I heard the name Gorgass now as the result of reading the newspapers. I, of course, cannot remember whether he was active as an expert or in any other function within the euthanasia program.
Q: But you know that he had a function in this program, don't you?
A: Yes, I remember that again.
Q: You named some of the doctors who were active in the euthanasia program. Now, I would like to know whether you can advise us how many experts there were? Experts?
A: I really cannot give you the number. I know there was quite a number of them, 10, 15 or 20. I am afraid that I can't give you the exact number.
Q: How many top experts were there?
A: There were three top experts at any rate, there may have been four.
Q: You gave us the names of three. I understand you are right? They were Heyde, Nietsche, Falkelhauser. Is that right?
A: No, Schneider.
Q: Heyde, Nietsche, and Schneider? Who was the fourth one?
A: The fourth may have been Professor Decrinis but I no longer know that with certainty.
Q: You were chief of Office II of Bouhler's office, is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Would you say you were something like a deputy to him as far as the euthanasia program was concerned?
A: No, certainly not.
Q: You were his collaborator, is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: What exactly was your activity concerning the euthanasia program?
A: My activity varied. At first I had to establish connections with all those agencies who could name physicians. I had to get into contact with the physicians themselves.
Q: Which were the agencies which gave you the names of these doctors?
A: There was the Ministry of the Interior, that was Dr. Linden, then there was the Reichsarzt-SS [Reich Physician] Dr. Grawitz.
Q: Somebody else?
A: No, nobody else.
A: What else did you do to get the program in operation?
A: I participated in the conferences. I arranged conferences for Bouhler whenever he intended to hold them and many more things like that.
Q: You could possibly state this a little bit more in detail, can't you?
A: It is rather difficult to state it in greater detail. My duties were of such a varied nature that I could hardly recall the details after 7 or 8 years have lapsed. Nobody could demand that from me.
Q: What did you do after the euthanasia program was in progress? Euthanasia stations worked, questionnaires were filled out, the people were administered mercy deaths, what was your activity in the program then?
A: I no longer or hardly any longer concerned myself with that part of Bouhler's assignment because I didn't have to, since it ran by itself, and I again turned to the tasks within my own sphere of work to a full extent.
Q: All right. But, for instance, who supervised the operation of T-4? It was the place where all these questionnaires were kept. It was the heart of the thing, wasn't it?
A: Yes. T-4 had its own chief.
Q: Who was the chief?
A: That was, at first, Bohne, and later Allers.
Q: And what was the position of the top experts in T-4, or in connection with T-4, especially Heyde and Nietsche?
A: That is very difficult to say. One could perhaps say that Bohne, to all intents and purposes, was the Chief of T-4, hut really, as far as medical matters were concerned, Heyde made the decisive decisions. Bohne was no physician.
Q: And you made the liaison between Heyde and Bouhler, isn't that correct?
A: Yesterday I rejected the words "liaison man" which, at one time, I did recognize because, after all, I didn't have my office in T-4 but was located in my office on Vosstrasse. I may have been the mediating man between Bohne and Bouhler. Whenever Bohne or Linden came to Bouhler's office, Bouhler was not always there, was not always in a position to receive them, and often detailed me to listed to them personally and then, in turn, report to him in the course of the general reports that I had to make daily.
Q: Euthanasia, as you said yourself, involves a considerable medical problem, isn't that correct?
A: Yes, certainly.
Q: Who was in charge of this part of the program?
A: All the persons who were designated by Bouhler, as experts and partly as consultants. There were psychiatrists, there were physicians, there were professors.
Q: So, and the top expert — the first top expert — was Heyde, was he not?
A: Yes, he was one of the top experts.
Q: So, he was directly under Bouhler, was he not, according to what you just said?
A: No, he really had a free hand. Heyde wasn't Bouhler's employee, in the same way as Professor Schneider or Professor Kiener or anybody else weren't Bouhler's employees. These physicians were the representatives of the medical thought which prevailed during the execution of euthanasia.
Q: But Bouhler was in change of the execution. Bouhler and Brandt were the two people who got the assignment by Hitler, were they not, so it seems to me natural that these people were just in charge of Heyde.
A: Well, in that case it would have had the result in Heyde giving up his position as a lecturer and going over to Bouhler and Brandt as their employee if there was to be a definite relationship of subordination, but that certainly wasn't the case.
Q: Isn't there a possibility that one person has two different tasks?
A: Yes, that is possible, but these are considerations which didn't prevail at that time and I can hardly give you any authentic statement now as to how to distinguish between these relations.
Q: But you know that Heyde was the first top expert? That you know, don't you?
A: Heyde was the first top expert.
Q: You testified here that you are convinced that a man like Heyde never would have lent himself to the carrying out of the euthanasia program in concentration camps, is that correct? In the way it was described by the witness Mennecke?
A: I don't think that Heyde would have placed himself at the disposal of something like that.
Q: You have further testified that he and Nietsche and Falkelhauser were the people who gave you the assurance that the examination which was carried out in concentration camps by order of Himmler, or at the request of Himmler, would be for the benefit of the inmates and that these people never would have taken part in such measures as Action 14F-13 was. Is that correct?
A: No, what I said was that I did not believe that people like Heyde or Nietsche would have participated in anything like that. I certainly never discussed that with them.
Q: But I understood you testifying that you know that doctors who were connected with the euthanasia program carried out examination in concentration camps. Isn't that correct? On the request of Himmler? Didn't you say that? Examinations?
A: No, I said that I was convinced that such people, if they have performed any such examinations, have performed them in a way which corresponded to their scientific ideas and would have done that correctly.
Q: Did you know that examinations of insane or mentally disturbed people were carried out in concentration camps?
A: No, I didn't know that. I received the order and I passed it on. I don't know, however, whether, how, and by whom this order was executed.
Q: To whom did you transfer this order?
A: I already said that I no longer knew whether I transferred this order to Heyde, Nietsche, or Allens. I assume that it must have been one of these three gentlemen.
Q: And this order was purely for the carrying out of examinations, not of the applying of the mercy death to people who were found insane in these concentration camps, was it?
A: Yes this was done exclusively for the purposes of examination.
Q: Do you know anything about a connection of Heyde with the Action 14-F-13?
A: No, I know of no connection whatsoever.
Q: Would you, as collaborator of Bouhler, take the responsibility for such activities of Heyde about whom you testified here that you are convinced that it would have been impossible that he would have lent himself to such activities?
A: I cannot assume responsibility for any acts of any person of which I know nothing. If I say that I am convinced that some person did the right thing, this certainly does not constitute a positive knowledge that the person concerned always acted correctly. This is purely an expression of my conviction. If any third person should have acted in an incorrect way, I certainly cannot assume responsibility for his acts.
Q: But you were the close collaborator of Bouhler, and Bouhler was in charge of the program. The top expert, the first top expert, of the program was Heyde and Heyde carried out these measures. I want to put to you Document No. NO-2799, which will be Prosecution Exhibit 497 for identification. This is an affidavit of a camp doctor in Dachau, Muthig. I am reading from paragraph 3 — no, paragraph 4 — I'm sorry:
In the fall of 1941 during an official visit by Dr. Lolling to my infirmary I was informed by him that a commission of four physicians under the direction of Professor Heyde would visit the Concentration Camp Dachau in a short while. The purpose of this commission was to select concentration camp prisoners who could not work for transfer for the purpose of euthanasia and to transfer them to the Concentration Camp Mauthausen to be gassed. The announced commission appeared a short while after this conversation with Dr. Lolling. It consisted of four psychiatrists, and the leader of the commission was Professor Heyde, who was also one of its members. I myself as well as the other camp doctors of the Concentration Camp Dachau had nothing to do with the commission or their work. I did see, however, that these four doctors were sitting at four separate tables between two barracks, and that many hundreds of concentration camp prisoners were formed up before them, and had to go to one of the doctors one by one. The prisoners were screened there according to incapability to work and their political documents and were selected accordingly.
I know that this commission spent only a few days in Dachau and that it was impossible for them to give a medical examination to so many prisoners in so short a period. The examination consisted solely in the examination of the documents while the concentration camp prisoner was present. Selected in this action were prisoners, men of German nationality and citizens of other nations, Jews, etc. I can definitely state that Professor Heyde directed that commission, and that he was a member of it himself, although I have forgotten the names of the other doctors.
In December 1941, several weeks after this commission had left the CC Dachau, the first transport consisting of several hundred CC prisoners who had been selected by this commission of psychiatrists left for the CC Mauthausen to be gassed, and another transport of prisoners, also consisting of several hundred selected by the commission, left for the CC Mauthausen in January 1942. I cannot swear whether there were more transports, as I was transferred from CC Dachau shortly after the second transport. The action of selecting prisoners unable to work for the purpose of euthanasia in CC Dachau was known under the name 'Aktion Heyde'.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, I would like to put the question to the prosecution as to whether it intends to offer this Document NO 2799 in evidence.
DR. HOCHWALD: I offered it now for identification. We do intend to offer it as an exhibit but it was offered according to the ruling of the Tribunal for identification.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, until such time as this Document NO-2799 is offered as an exhibit officially I object to this document's being shown to the defendant, because first of all we have not yet had the opportunity to look at the document beforehand, in order to investigate its probative value. In addition, it seems to me that this Dr. Julius Muthig, who made this statement on 17 April 1947, can easily be made available so that he can be put on cross-examination.
DR. HOCHWALD: The witness is available for the defense for cross-examination. He is, as far as I know, in Dachau in confinement.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection is overruled. The counsel for prosecution may examine the witness concerning the document which has been identified and marked, which counsel states will be offered later. If counsel for the defense desires the witness for cross-examination, he will notify the Tribunal and the Tribunal will consider his request.
BY DR. HOCHWALD:
Q: Are you still of the opinion that the personality of Heyde gave you the assurance that an examination carried out by him in a concentration camp could be for the benefit of the inmates?
A: If the contents of this document correspond to the facts, I should have to correct my opinion. I may point out to you that Heyde in the Fall of 1941 had already left the administration of euthanasia.
Q: You were a collaborator of Bouhler's, were you not? How far was it you went on your own initiative?
A: That depends entirely upon the circumstances. I really don't know what you mean by initiative. Do you mean, was I am ardent representative of euthanasia, or are you referring to the extent of my authority?
Q: No, I am asking you whether, in the circles which were informed of euthanasia in spite of the top secrecy of this program, you were considered as a representative to a certain time, 1944 for instance.
A: The question didn't come through.
Q: I asked you whether the people who were working in this program did not consider you from 1944 on as the representative of the euthanasia program sometime in 1944?
A: That perhaps is possible. It is possible that because of some error somebody considered me as a representative of that program from the year 1944 on. I should like to emphasize again, however, that in the year 1942 I left for the front and since that time had nothing at all to do with euthanasia or its administration. If any person in the year 1942 is of the opinion that I was Bouhler's representative in the euthanasia work, if would only be a blatant error. I wasn't even in Germany at that time.
Q: Did you, when the allies occupied Germany, make some arrangements that the gas chambers of certain euthanasia stations may be destroyed so that the evidence of euthanasia may disappear?
A: No, I made no preparations of that kind. I wouldn't have been in a position to do so. I never even thought about any such thing.
Q: Do you know whether or not Hitler issued an order to this effect?
A: I do not know who issued such orders. I think I can remember that such orders were issued. I think that Bormann was the most likely to give the order to destroy all the files and what not, hut I really can't tell you that exactly.
Q: Did you pass down an order of this kind?
A: I really don't know when I should have done that.
Q: I do think in connection with the Hartheim euthanasia station — am I correct in assuming that you said that Hartheim was a euthanasia station?
A: Yes, Hartheim was a euthanasia station.
Q: Do you remember having passed down an order that Hartheim should be destroyed?
A: No, I don't remember that.
Q: I want to put to you Document NO-2429, which will be Prosecution Exhibit 498 for identification. This is an affidavit of a certain Claussen. He states:
That from the end of 1943 until March 1945 I was a prisoner on duty in the Arbeitseinsatz [work assignment] in Mauthausen where the administrative work was accomplished for Mauthausen and sub-camps; that in this office I did clerical work, such as making reports, keeping records, and corresponding with firms who used prisoners in the operation of their business; that in the course of my duties I saw a secret teletype message which to the best of my memory was as follows:
'TO THE CONCENTRATION CAMPS MAUTHAUSEN SS STANDARTENFUEHRER [Colonel] ZIEREIS, HARTHEIM MUST BE DESTROYED IMMEDIATELY EXECUTION MUST BE REPORTED BY ORDER OF THE FUEHRER.
OBERFUEHRER [Senior Colonel] BRACK'
Do you remember the teletype now?
A: No.
Q: Do you maintain that you never sent such a teletype?
A: I never sent such a teletype.
Q: I want to speak briefly now with you about the euthanasia of children, the Reich Committee for Research on severe hereditary diseases. You testified here that you had nothing whatever to do with that, is that correct?
A: I may correct myself. I said that I was not in charge. I had something to do with it and I talked about that at great length, during my examination. Please don't misunderstand me. I don't want you to understand I had nothing to do with it.
Q: What was your activity in this?
A: I had to submit to Reichsleiter [Reich Leader] Bouhler those individual files which had been completed by Linden's office regarding individual expertised cases which had to be decided. In a few cases I dealt with that personally and in other cases associates of mine did that work. In the same way I submitted these files once or twice to Brandt personally. Normally they were sent to him because he wasn't present.
Q: Did I understand you correctly that you testified here that in the case of euthanasia of children the previous consent of the parents and relatives was required?
A: Yes. I always maintained that. I said that in euthanasia of children, contrary to the euthanasia of the insane, the consent of the parents was already obtained.
Q: The consent for what, the consent for the giving of mercy death, or the consent to the transfer in the institution of the Reich, committee?
A: No, the consent that all possible methods of treatment be used on this child, even in view of the danger that the child may die in that connection.
Q: In other words, their parents had to give their consent that Euthanasia would be administered to the child; is that what you want to say.
A: As far as I am informed, this was not always done in this particular form. A number of parents made direct applications, they said we ask that this child be relieved.
Q: Just moment, I understand that, but I do want to know what happened in the case where the parent did not ask for a mercy death of the child; were they informed they had to give their consent that the child may be administered a mercy death?
A: It was put to them that they give their consent for a mercy death being granted to the child and once they had given that consent the child was transferred to a Reichs Committee Institute by the treating physician.
Q: This Euthanasia of children was top secret; was it not?
A: I no longer know that, I don't believe it.
Q: Was it official in Germany and everybody could know about it and was informed about it; do you remember the witness Pfannmueller testifying here he never informed the parents a sit was a top secret matter.
A: The execution of Euthanasia itself was certainly carried out in secret, but certainly I am not informed about that in detail.
Q: The treatment of children, I am only speaking about children.
A: I am only speaking about children, yes.
Q: How could it be possible if it was very secret that every official doctor in Germany, who had to report these cases, could give the children's address and he was not supposed to know about it.
A: I beg your pardon, every person who had to deal with the secret matter was of course informed to it, that always includes the respective treating physician or the head of the clinic.
Q: Then approximately in 1940 50% of the German doctors know; is that right?
A: That I cannot judge, I cannot say how many there were.
Q: I will read now from your document book, Supplement 3, document 52, Brack exhibit 43 on page 23 of Supplement 3. Your Honors, the last sentence:
It is the business of the medical officers to inform the parents of the child in question, of the treatment available in the actual institute or department chosen and to induce them to send in their child more promptly. Here the parents should be told, that in the case of individual diseases, there is a possibility of achieving certain success with treatment even in cases which hitherto had to be regarded as hopeless.
I have received the impression from what I am reading here from your own document that the official doctors really had the task to ask the parents to give their consent to a mercy death of the child.
A: I cannot tell you anymore than I have already said, even during my interrogations, namely that that order had been given that the consent of the parents had to be obtained, even if in one or the other case that would have to be done in a somewhat camouflaged form. In principle, the parents were to be informed that it would be better if the child were put to sleep.
Q: So, I would like to read from page 21 of your Document book. This is your document 51, your exhibit 42, on page 21 of Supplement 2:
By virtue of the arrangements made by the Reich Committee, the best care will be taken of the child here and everything possible in the way of modern therapy will be carried out.
Can you read out of this sentence that the parents were informed that the children should be administered a mercy death?
A: I certainly cannot deduce that from this sentence, but you must in that connection have the basic decree dated 18 August 1939 and in addition the discussions and the conversations with their parents had with the doctors that were treating the child.
Q: In the document which I have just read, it is exactly stated what the doctor is supposed to tell the parents. All right, let us go on. You remember that Dr. Pfannmueller testified here about the treatment of Euthanasia of a child was initiated, he invited the parents and relatives to visit the child; do you remember that?
A: Yes, Dr. Pfannmueller said that.
Q: None of the parents or relatives ever told that they themselves gave their consent to give the child the privilege of a mercy death; otherwise he would not have stated here that it was a top secret matter and he would never have spoken to the parents about it.
A: Well, there is nothing I can say about that, I really don't know.
Q: I would like to put to you again document No. 823, this is Prosecution Exhibit 358, it is in document book 14, part 2, page 219. Your Honor, this is a Document which we have been speaking about at great length yesterday afternoon. You spoke yesterday about it.
A: I have not received the Document.
Q: You testified yesterday about this document in great length and told us why questionnaires were filled out about people who were not of German nationality or not of German or German related blood and for this simple reason these people were not administered a mercy death; is that right?
A: Yes, that is true.
Q: The Jews could not get these privileges because they were not considered Germans and also to foreigners the authorization of the Fuehrer did not apply; is that right?
A: Yes.
Q: Will you give me now your information why under number three, questionnaires had to be filled out for all interned criminally insane persons without the question of whether they were able to work or suffering from a disease; just all of them?
A: I don't know.
Q: You displayed considerable knowledge yesterday about this document; can't you inform us why that was done?
A: These are psychological conditions which I could not possibly evaluate. Regarding the ability to work, I also said that I could not judge to what extent the ability to work constitutes a source of psychological knowledge, and the same is true of criminality.
Q: That is absolutely right, but [illegible] the people under number three had also to have the questionnaires filled out, whether they could work or not. You say here before
number three, or are interned as criminally insane people,
and you yourself yesterday testified to the effect that it all makes a difference between point one and the other three.
A: I did not say that.
Q: I think so.
A: I said very clearly that either those would be considered who are contained in paragraph one, or those of paragraph two, or paragraph three, or paragraph four! That is what I said.
Q: Can you tell me then, why it was necessary to fill out questionnaires on all people who were interned as criminally insane persons, according to part three of the document.
A: Possibly because criminality also represents a special possibility for the psychiatrist to judge the progress of the illness. Personally I cannot evaluate that.
Q: Did that relate to all other persons — namely all insane persons, the privilege of mercy death that the subjects were given?
A: No, had that been the case a directive would have had to be issued to the experts to the effect that every insane patient, in whose case this paragraph was affirmed, would have to be released for Euthanasia, I, however, never heard of any such directives given to the experts.
Q: You testified this morning that you had no knowledge about Euthanasia carried out in Poland when questioned by the Tribunal; is that correct?
A: No, what I said was that I know of no Euthanasia institutions in Poland.
Q: Do you know of the carrying out of Euthanasia in Poland?
A: I know nothing of the execution of Euthanasia in Poland.
Q: Did you over concern yourself with the transfer of Polish insane people?
A: No.
Q: Did you ever issue the funds for such transfers.
A: I certainly did not.
Q: Did you ever make arrangements for the transfer from the Reich cashier or Reich Treasury?
A: In principle I had to apply for funds to be given to no from the Reich Treasury for Euthanasia by order of Bouhler, but I really cannot remember the details of this.
Q: I am asking you entirely about the transfer of insane people from Poland, not in Germany or in East Prussia?
A: I cannot remember that.
Q: I want to put to you document 2908 which will be Prosecution's exhibit 499 for identification. I would like for you to read — to read to you the first paragraph of this letter:
The so-called Special Detachment LANG, which has been put under my command for special tasks, was ordered to Soldau in East Prussia from 21 May to 8 June 1940, according to the agreement made with the Reich Main Security Office (RSHA) and during that time evacuated 1,588 patients from the Soldau transit camp.
Do you have any recollections now?
A: No.
Q: (Reading)
At that time I arranged with SS Gruppenfuehrer [General] Rediess that an amount of RM. 10. — would have to be paid for the evacuation of each patient. There would, therefore, be a sum of DM. 15,580 to be paid into the account of the SS Main Sector Warthe, according to the agreement.
I do not want to read any further. Do you remember anything about this money?
A: No, I remember nothing at all.
Q: I would like to put to you then document No. 2909, which will be Prosecution's exhibit No. 500 for identification. This is a letter concerned with the same subject. It is to SS Gruppenfuehrer Wolff.
Enclosed I submit to you a demand of SS Gruppenfuehrer Koppe, addressed to the higher SS and police leader northeast, SS Gruppenfuehrer Sporrenberg, who has forwarded it t me for reply.
The letter of SS Gruppenfuehrer Koppe deals with the evacuation of 1,558 mental institution inmates of the provincial institutions of East Prussia. To those must be added, to my knowledge, about 250 to 300 insane persons (Poles) from the area of Zichenau, which has been annexed to East Prussia.
Do you remember anything about that now?
A: No, in no way at all.
Q: Please look at the second to last paragraph on page 4 —
Your Honor, this is wrong, it should be page 2, I am sorry.
The advance which Criminal Commissar Lange had received from the Inspector of the Security Police and the SD, SS Oberfuehrer Rasch was taken from government funds, to my knowledge. By virtue of this fact alone the matter assumed for me the aspect of a Reich assignment.
On the left side of the paragraph is a handwritten note, your name; do you remember that?
A: Oh, it is not here.
Q: I think it is there. Will you hand him this.
(A document was handed to the witness)
A: That is not my name.
Q: I did not say you wrote it, but it is your name. I did not say you wrote it.
A: I do not believe that is my name.
Q: Do you remember the case; do you or don't you?
A: I already said I kn w nothing at all about this matter.
Q: Will Your Honor permit me to — put another document to the witness So, I put to you then, document 2911, which will be Exhibit 501 for identification.
DR. FROESCHMANN: May I interrupt for a minute. I cannot see the name Brack contained in any of the two documents which have been submitted to me. All I saw was the name of Dr. Rasch.
Q: Did you ever have any telephone conversations with SS Gruppenfuehrer Wolff on this matter?
A: I do not know that.
Q: You told me just now you could not remember the case. Can you exclude the fact that you made arrangements for the transfer of these 250 or 300 Poles?
A: I can say nothing about that, because I do not remember the entire affair in any way.
Q: But you cannot exclude it, can you?
A: What do you mean I cannot exclude it?
Q: That you advanced the plans for this purpose, can you? You said that you could not remember. Can you exclude the fact that you over had anything to do with this case?
A: Yes, I would exclude the possibility.
Q: In spite of the fact your name appears on two of these three documents?
A: But, I know nothing of them.
Q: Somebody obviously got the money from you?
A: I must read the document and see whether anyone got any money. I cannot remember anything.
Q: Is it not obvious from this note — document 2909, which was sent to Obergruppenfuehrer [Lieutenant General] Wolff that he received the letter saying you forwarded this money, and that he spoke over the telephone, or one of his people in his office spoke to you over the telephone about this matter. Is it not obvious from those two documents?
A: Wolff could not give me any order to give money to any one or for any purpose.
Q: I did not say he gave the order, but he asked you for it, and it was used in the Euthanasia business?
A: That matter is entirely strange. I think it is quite impossible that even one pfennig had been given by Fouhler for that purpose. I am completely excluding that possibility.
Q: How do you then explain these two pencil notes on 2909, Brack; and 2911.
A: I can read these two notes and it is possible that it does say Brack, but I cannot explain them.
DR. HOCHWALD: If Your Honors, want to adjourn, I have no further questions to the witness on this subject.
DR. FLEMMING (For the defendant Mrugewsky): Mr. President, I shall not call the witness Scharlau, but I shall submit an affidavit by him. May I put no question, Mr. President.
The Tribunal on Thursday, last week, when discussing the form of pleas of the.argument had provided that a discussion would take place today. May I ask whether that is to take place today; if not, when such a discuss in will take place?
MR. HARDY: Your Honors, I don't know what attitude the Tribunal has taken on this but this proposition has slipped my mind for a day or two due to other matters and if possible to arrange the meeting on Monday or Tuesday it would meet with the approval of Prosecution.
I do not remember that the meeting was fixed for today. We said tentatively last Friday we would have the meeting this Friday and if convenient to the Tribunal we could meet the first of the week and discuss it more extensively.
THE PRESIDENT: That would be better. Counsel will consult with the Tribunal and we will discuss that in detail.
The Tribunal will now be in recess until 9:30 Monday morning.