1947-05-19, #2: Doctors' Trial (late morning)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal, please, I would like to ask the witness two or three more questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may proceed.
CROSS-EXAMINATION (continued)
BY MR. HOCHWALD:
Q: Herr Brack, when you made your report, your first report on sterilization to Himmler in March 1941, this is Document 203, NO 203, Prosecution Exhibit, No. 161 on page 35 to 37 of Document Book 6, Your Honor. You were very interested in the question whether the people going to be sterilized would know whether they are sterilized or not, would gain knowledge of this procedure; is that correct?
A: No, that was Himmler's wish.
Q: That they should not know?
A: Yes, That the people shouldn't notice it.
Q: Let's turn now to Document 245, which is in the same book on page 39, and Prosecution Exhibit 163,—
JUDGE SEBRING: Dr. Hochwald, is that the one dated 23 June 1942?
DR. HOCHWALD: Yes, it is this one, 23 June 1942.
Q: In this document there is no mention made any more about that, but you say here
I think that at this time it is really irrelevant whether the people in question become aware of having been castrated after some weeks or months, and they feel the effect.
So you dropped or Himmler dropped this pretense; is that correct?
A: It was like this, in the first letter to Himmler it was pointed out that an execution of sterilization without the persons noticing it was unlikely. Those doubts which Himmler had, had to be dissipated so that he might approve this suggestion; that is how I explained this sentence.
Q: Were you of the opinion then, in June 1942, Herr Brack, that the war was won for Germany, or as good as won?
A: That I really can't say.
Q: I remember that you told me something of this kind when I questioned you today on this document, that you expected in a very short time the victory of Germany, and therefore wanted to postpone the final solution of the Jewish program and hoped that the few months which your suggestion will give the Jews would suffice for them to survive the War?
A: No, I said that I hoped that the War would end soon, whether that would be a clear German victory no one could predict, but in any case I and all of us hoped the War would come to an end.
Q: But you did not expect then that Germany would lose the War in a short time?
A: In June 1942?
Q: Yes.
A: No.
Q: So you expected that Germany would if not win 100 percent, would have a very good outcome of the war, didn't you do that?
A: Yes.
Q: Isn't it a matter of fact then that this presumption was dropped only because you had nothing to fear any more, — that Germany was going to win the War, — whether the victims knew or did not know whether they were sterilized or not?
A: That had nothing to do with it.
Q: Why was it then done? Why was it changed then, the whole idea?
A: This fact was included in the first letter, so that Himmler should not carry out his sterilization plans, and so I assume that in this second letter the sentence was included so that Himmler's doubts which had arisen from the first letter would be done away with.
Q: All right, but in the first letter you made the direct suggestion how it could be avoided, that the people should know they were sterilized; in the second letter you say it doesn't make any difference any more; I do not know, but it seems to me you did not answer my question?
A: I did answer it.
Q: Is this the only explanation you can give for this?
A: I cannot give any other explanation.
Q: All right, you named here six euthanasia stations, as far as I can remember?
A: Yes.
Q: Will you tell the Tribunal where these euthanasia stations were located in Germany?
A: I told the Tribunal that.
Q: Will you repeat that please, as far as you can?
A: Grafeneck was in Wuerttemberg; Hadamar was in Hessen; Sonnenstein was in Saxony; Hartheim was in Austria; Brandenburg near Brandenburg, and Bernburg in Dessau or in Anhole near Dessau.
Q: Can you tell me what concentration camps were in the vicinity of these different euthanasia, stations?
A: No, I cannot.
Q: Do you know, for instance, how far or whether it is true or not that Mauthausen was in the vicinity of Hartheim?
A: No, Mauthausen is near Linz.
Q: And where is Hartheim?
A: Yes, Hartheim is also near Linz.
Q: You know that Hartheim is not far from Mauthausen?
A: I assume so. I was never at Mauthausen, I don't know exactly where it was. If they say Mauthausen is near Linz, I know that Hartheim is not far away from Linz and then Mauthausen is not far from Linz.
Q: What do you know about the location of the Gross-Rosen concentration camp?
A: The Gross-Rosen camp is in Silesia; I have learned that now.
Q: How far is that from Bernburg?
A: I really don't know — two hundred, three hundred, or four hundred kilometers.
Q: What about the location of Buchenwald?
A: I don't know.
Q: In connection with the location of Bernburg?
A: I don't know where it is.
Q: I have no further questions, Your Honor.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q: Witness, in your testimony with reference to the euthanasia operations as applied to defective children you testified concerning the consent of the parents. Now, was that consent given to the administration of euthanasia to their child or did the doctors in the institution where the child was inform the parents that something might be done for the child to help the child, which might be dangerous? Just what was the information conveyed to the parents by the doctors in charge of the child?
A: I should like to point out again that on this question I know only as a layman through Linden to the best of my recollection the doctor who sent the child to the institution — that is, not the doctor at the Reich Committee Station but the doctor who noted the deformity spoke to the parents and told them that if the child was sent to a Reich Committee station it would be healed if there was any possibility of it, but he also pointed out that the treatment in such severe cases is always connected with extraordinary danger and then he asked the parents whether, in spite of this unusual danger, which in many cases led to the death of the child, whether they would make the decision and give their consent. Only if the parents did give their consent for the risky treatments by which only a small percentage of the patients were cured, then this doctor sent the child to a Reich Committee station.
Q: And then the child was sent to the station for the administration of euthanasia, is that correct?
A: No, the head of the Reich Committee station first of all had to try every possibility beyond normal care to make this child capable of real living.
As far as I, as a layman, can judge, there were very serious operations which might be fatal.
Q: Well then, the fact that the child was placed in the institution would not the doctors immediately endeavor to restore the child to something like a normal state as soon as possible?
A: I am sorry, I did not understand your question, Your Honor. What do you mean, a normal way of life; you mean to attempt this cure immediately?
Q: When a defective child was sent to a governmental institution for care, would not the doctors there immediately examine the child and, if they felt that any treatment or any operation would really benefit the child, would they not proceed with that treatment immediately, probably after advising the parents, but they would not delay in order with an endeavor to help the child to as nearly a normal state as possible, would they?
A: I cannot judge as a layman how long a period of observation would be necessary and how a child might first have to be nursed and brought into good condition before an operation could be performed. I cannot judge these things, but certainly in my opinion the doctors made every effort, as far as human aid was possible, to make the cure permanent.
Q: Was euthanasia administered to these children if there was any possibility of rehabilitating the child so that the child could lead a fairly normal life?
A: No, not in that case.
Q: Have you any idea as to the number of children to whom the euthanasia operation was applied in these mental institutions?
A: In my first interrogations I believe I gave a figure. I don't remember what it was. I can only say with a good conscience that I cannot give any figures because in 1942 I went to the service and I don't know what happened from 1942 to 1944 in the way of authorizations issued by Bouhler. Up to the time when I was still in Berlin with Bouhler, and sometimes I gave Bouhler the documents to be signed, the number was very low.
I pointed out that Bouhler, although he was not a doctor, in many cases decided against the opinion of the experts and did not give the authorization in spite of this opinion and the child had to be observed for one, two, three, or more years before authorization for euthanasia could be given.
Q: Have you any idea that the doctors in charge of an institution where defective children were confined ever asked the parents if they desired that euthanasia be administered either by an operation or by administering euthanasia to that child?
A: I don't know but I don't believe that these doctors asked the parents. That was up to the doctor who assigned the child to the institution. As Linden said he had to discuss the matter with the parents as tactfully as possible so as, on the one hand, not to leave them the responsibility as a spiritual burden, but on the other hand he had to make it clear to them that it might be possible to release these children from their suffering.
Q: Did they advise the parents that the child were ill?
A: In what form it was put I don't know.
Q: Did you hear Dr. Pfannmueller's testimony?
A: Pfannmueller said that he did not talk to the parents about it. That is what I recall.
Q: As I remember his testimony he stated that after the commencement of the administration of this drug, which would cause the death of a child after a certain number of days, he would advise the parents that the child was ill, and that they should come to see the child so that they would see the child before it died? Do you remember that testimony?
A: Yes. I do.
Q: Now that is no wise the equivalent of informing the parents that a dangerous operation might result in helping the child or it might result in the death of the child. That is a very different thing, is it not?
A: Yes, I said that I didn't believe that the executing doctor talked to the parents. It was the doctor who sent the child to the institution. To be more explicit it was the doctor who had this child sent to a Reich Committee station, not the doctor in charge of euthanasia.
Q: Dr. Pfannmueller was in charge of the euthanasia and in charge of the institution, was he not?
A: Yes.
Q: He did not send the children to the institution?
A: No, and he said that, that the children were sent to him. That he himself did not send any one to the institution.
Q: Well, the doctor who sent the children to the institution would have nothing to do with the operation of euthanasia, would they?
A: No, they had nothing to do with it.
THE PRESIDENT: Has the counsel for the defendant Brack any further questions to the witness?
Do I understand counsel for the defendant Brack has no further questions to propound to the witness?
DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President I should like to examine my client but the defense counsel for Dr. Pokorny wishes —
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for defendant Brack will proceed with the examination of the witness first.
BY DR. FROESCHMANN:
I should just like to get my document. Mr. President, I have only a very few questions to put to the witness Brack based on the cross examination which has just been concluded.
Q: Witness, the Tribunal has asked you whether you were ever present at euthanasia of incurably insane in mental institutions, and you said "yes." When you were present on such occasions of euthanasia on insane, did you take any active part in the killing of these insane persons, even by only manipulating some lever or any other kind of machinery?
A: No, I did not participate. That was up to the doctor.
Q: Witness, from the questions of the Tribunal, I believe to have gathered that the Tribunal has a certain assumption that the gas chambers in which euthanasia was performed on incurably insane persons could be taken apart and moved to other places.
In answer to the question of the Tribunal, you tried to make it clear that these "gas chambers" perhaps the term was not very fortunate — were solid parts of the building of the euthanasia institution, is that true?
A: Yes, that is correct, it was a room which was from the very beginning an organic part of such a building.
Q: Then if these gas chambers should have been dismantled, then is it true that nothing would have been left but a heap of ruins as is made of a building after an air raid?
A: As far as I can judge it would have been actually technically impossible. One would have had to remove a piece from a house. That isn't possible.
Q: Then it was not the case that these parts of the building could have been loaded on a truck and removed in one piece?
A: No, that would have been quite impossible.
Q: But you, witness, pointed out that the pipes consisted of the same sort of pipes that can be bought anywhere in the world for very little money?
A: It was a pipe such as is used for water or gas anywhere. In every room you can find such pipes.
Q: The Judge also asked you in regard to the questionnaires about the nationality of the people who were subjected to euthanasia in your presence. I believe it was in Brandenburg, if I understood you correctly, this occurred in 1940, is that true?
A: Yes, I don't know exactly. I said either the end of 1939, or the beginning of 1940.
Q: At that time at the end of 1940, could you have had the idea that of the poor men who are now subjected to euthanasia that these poor men could be foreigners?
A: No, the idea could never have occurred to me and it would not have been possible to find out such a thing. The poor beings there, one could not talk to them at all.
Q: The Judge also asked you a few questions about the Jews, specifically he asked you how many Jews there were in 1939 in Germany. If my impression was correct, you thought over the answer and then gave a figure finally of two to three million, is that true, that you gave that figure?
A: Yes, I believe so. I don't know. It was just an estimate.
Q: You are anticipating. I merely wanted to know whether you said two to throe million?
A: Yes.
Q: Now, what evidence do you have for giving this number, two or three million Jews?
A: I have no evidence for it.
Q: Then it was simply an estimate?
A: Yes, just an assumption on my part.
Q: Your Honors, in this connection, I should like to explain something. I have had my colleague ascertain in the meantime on the basis of the Statistical Year Book for the German Reich, I believe, of the year 1940, that the number of Jews in Germany, in the old Reich, was 375,000, and in the entire Great or German Reich, that is including Austria, and the territories incorporated up to 1939, was about 700,000. I have also learned that there were at most about 200,000 part-Jews. Witness, do you know of any data from the Statistical Year Book which were far below your estimate?
A: At that time I knew of no statistics.
Q: Then you very carelessly gave the figure for which you had no official evidence, is that correct?
A: Yes, that is true, but I will state I need evidence and I don't have any.
Q: Then you should say: "I don't know." In any case, according to the evidence which I have obtained in the meantime there were at the most one million Jews and partJews.
DR. HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, the Prosecution objects against this kind of questioning. Defense counsel has not produced a document showing that the assumption of the witness was wrong, the numbers given by the defense counsel may be correct. I am not able to check it.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal understands that. Counsel has simply offered those figures and if the Prosecution upon investigation believes those figures to be incorrect, it may introduce evidence if it desires to the contrary, and if it agrees that those figures are approximately correct, it may so state later on. The figures given by defense counsel are in no wise binding upon anybody at this time.
DR. HOCHWALD: Thank you, Your Honor.
BY DR. FROESCHMANN:
Q: The next question. The Judge also asked you whether and to what extent veterans of the World War 1914-1918 were included in euthanasia or were to be included. Do you recall this question?
A: Yes.
Q: The Judge pointed out that insanity is said to be connected with a brain injury. As you have repeatedly said, you are not a doctor. I merely want to have you clarify one point. That is, what veterans of World War 1914-1918 were to be exempted from euthanasia. I would like a very clear, precise answer.
A: These were to be exempted in whose cases the insanity was the result of any injury incurred during the World War, regardless of whether it was a brain injury or any other type of injury.
Q: That is what I wanted to know.
The Court also asked you whether there was a central office in the Party or in the Reich for equipping the gas chambers; on whose instructions these gas chambers were set up in the various euthanasia institutions. I ask you, and please answer this question with "yes" or "no", was there such a central office in the Reich? Do you know that it organized the gas chambers according to a certain plan, a certain scheme.
A: No, there was no such office.
Q: You were also asked how could the head of an euthanasia institution hit upon the idea of installing a gas chamber in his institution for the purpose of euthanasia. I ask you, do you know when the idea of the use of gas came up in the deliberations of the doctors, the experts?
A: I really don't remember that.
Q: Do you remember that originally the idea was that these incurably insane persons were to be given an injection of morphine or something similar?
A: I informed them. At first it was said that the patients were to be given some drug, whether it was an injection or pills I don't know, but I don't remember when and who made the suggestion to Bouhler that world be impossible or that gas should be used for other reasons.
That was a purely medical matter.
Q: Another question in this connection. Do you know or do you merely assume that Bouhler as the man alone responsible for euthanasia gave instructions to the heads of the mental institutions to build such gas chambers, to have them built by their local mechanics?
A: Bouhler did not give such instructions. Bouhler did not take any direct interest in what went on in the institution. The institutions were under the Ministry of Interior. The Ministry of Interior gave necessary instructions as to what had to be done. That was in 1937.
Q: That was not quite clear from your testimony before. Is it clear now that you said that already you were of the opinion that it was the Ministry of the Interior which gave instructions to heads of mental institutes about technical matters concerning the incurably insane? Now, I should like to interpolate one brief question.
When did you visit a concentration camp?
A: Once in my life I saw a concentration camp. That was in 1937-1938. That was camp Oranienburg. That was the only time.
Q: Then in answer to the question of the President you stated that in the various discussions and preliminaries before euthanasia was introduced you were told that the reason and the motive for euthanasia, or rather you felt that the reason and motive for euthanasia was always sympathy with the patient and the idea of releasing them from their suffering, that you never had any other reason, for example expediency, is that true?
A: Yes, that is true.
Q: And the question was raised — brought up during your examination whether Hitler in your opinion could decide about the life of the insane without the consent of the relatives. Is it true and do you know from what went on at that time, that the consent of relatives of the insane was not considered desirable so that any personal intentions of the relatives against sick persons could be eliminated — any intentions of obtaining the property of relatives by bringing about the relative's early death?
A: I thought I had already said that that was the same reason why a doctor in the institution could not pass judgment on the questionnaires of his own patients, in order to eliminate any possibility of intentions to obtain the property of the insane person.
Q: And another subject brought up by the President. Is it true that in euthanasia of incurably insane after the questionnaire had been filled out and judged by experts and top experts, the Reich Minister of Interior, Linden's office, assigned the incurably insane person to observation institutions and later to euthanasia institutions?
A: Yes, that is true.
Q: Is it true that in the proceedings before the Reich Committee which is emphasizing the expert, the final expert who passed on the questionnaires assigned the patient through Linden to the Reich Committee Station?
A: I do not know to what extent the doctor giving the treatment and the doctor assigning the patient to the institution was the final expert, for I do not know Linden's system and procedure in the Reich Committee.
Q: But is it true that on general principle no such child could be assigned to the Reich Committee station without the parents having previously being explicitly asked whether they consented to this assignment even with the danger that upon application of modern therapy the child might die?
A: Yes, that is what happened and that is what I explained to the Tribunal.
Q: In this connection, Mr. President, I should like to refer once more to my exhibit Brack 41. It contains the sentence:
Since on principle I do not assign children to the Reich Committee Station against the consent of the parents, I should like to consider the case of the Franz child settled.
Witness, again an answer to the question of the Tribunal as to why Jews were to be exempted from euthanasia you stated that euthanasia was considered a benefit which should not be given to Jews.
Was that your personal opinion or was that the distorted opinion of Hitler?
A: That is what I can say about it now. I can only draw the conclusion now looking back; to what extent these conclusions belong to the fact I don't know that might have been purely political.
Q: Witness, you have not answered my question yet, whether this opinion you have expressed here was your personal opinion or whether you were opposed to this opinion?
A: No, that was not my personal opinion. These are my conclusions.
Q: Now, I come to the cross examination of the Prosecutor himself. I can be very brief.
MR. HARDY: May it please Your Honor, inasmuch as defense counsel is going to a new subject I have something to take up with the Tribunal. If you will permit me to do it at this time when it will be most convenient. Several months ago the Prosecution was concerned with locating Dr. Eugen Hagen — that is, the same Dr. Hagen who worked at Strasbourg and Natzweiler. During the course of several months, Dr. Hagen was located and the Prosecution then did not take forward steps to have him brought directly to Nurnberg. In the meantime, the defense counsel requested Hagen as a witness. Hagen has arrived here now in Nurnberg and is classified as a "prosecution witness." Due to the oversight of the prosecution to call him as their witness, and inasmuch as defense counsel did call him as a witness, the prosecution now relinquishes their right to call Hagen and will give the defense counsel the opportunity to interrogate him first. At the completion of the interrogation by the defense counsel, if they do not see fit to call him here before the Tribunal as a witness, then we should like to have the opportunity to examine him. Due to the fact that this change of category has arise, defense counsel is in a position wherein they must petition the Secretary General which must be done a reasonable time before this particular interrogation. Dr. Tipp, the defense counsel for Becker-Freyseng, is not in a position to do this at this time because his case with Becker-Freyseng will begin either late today or tomorrow, and he would like to interrogate Dr. Hagen this evening; so if the Secretary General can make a note to change the classification of Hagen from a "prosecution" to a "defense" witness, then I understand Dr. Tipp can carry out his intentions without any interference.
THE PRESIDENT: May I hear from defense counsel.
DR. TIPP (Defense Counsel for the defendant Becker-Freyseng): I will be grateful, Mr. President, if the Tribunal should take notice of this decision of the prosecution and should ask the General Secretary to make this decision today, and, if possible, during the noon recess and to inform Room 57 so that I can speak to Mr. Hagen tonight already. That is the only formality which still has to be settled.
THE PRESIDENT: In view of the statements by the prosecution and counsel for the defendant Becker-Freyseng, it is satisfactory to the Tribunal to have the counsel for Becker-Freyseng interview the witness at noon and put him on the stand tomorrow or this evening, if possible.
MR. HARDY: As I understand it, Your Honor, it isn't the purpose of defense counsel to call Hagen here as a witness now. He just wants a pre-trial interrogation.
THE PRESIDENT: That may be permitted. Defense counsel may interview the witness this noon or this evening and call him as a witness if he desires.
MR. HARDY: In order to expedite matters, if the Tribunal would request Mr. Travis, the Secretary General of this Court to clarify this discrepancy in the Secretory General's Office, then Dr. Tipp can make his arrangement without too much trouble.
THE PRESIDENT: The clerk of the court will inform the Secretary General. I would suggest that counsel for the prosecution and for the defendant accompany the clerk of the court to the office of the Secretary General so that the entire matter will be clarified at one time, and everybody be advised.
DR. TIPP: Thank you.
DR. FROESCHMANN: May I continue?
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may proceed.
BY DR. FROESCHMANN:
Q: Witness, in cross examination, a number of documents were shown to you and I have a very few final questions about these documents. Is it true that in Document NO-2799, Exhibit 497, it mentions the "Aktion Heyde" [Heyde Action] in the Fall of 1941 and that you know nothing about it until the moment this document was submitted?
A: I knew nothing about "Aktion Heyde".
Q: Is it true that you did not know anything about the "Aktion Lange" either which is in Exhibit 500, of the Prosecution, Document NO-2909, until this document was submitted here?
A: No, I know nothing about it.
Q: Mr. President, from the moment I took this case I have tried to clarify as objectively as possible all matters which accused or excused the defendant Brack. In the last few days, since this document has been submitted, I have been trying to trace this "Aktion Lange" through witnesses, because I am still looking for that one person who is responsible for Aktion 14-F-13. I ask for permission that until my colleagues have concluded their cases I may continue to submit evidence, perhaps affidavits, to clarify that "Aktion", because I am interested in having even the slightest suspicion of the defendant Brack, on the basis of these documents, refuted.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal grants the permission requested by counsel.
DR. HOCHWALD: May it please Your Honor, if Dr. Froeschmann should desire to present affidavits as to the question of "Aktion 14-F-13" in evidence it should be in a time when the prosecution is still in the position to call the witness for cross-examination.
THE PRESIDENT: That is certainly true. Those matters will have to be arranged in accordance with the circumstances depending upon each individual case, but an opportunity will be accorded the prosecution and accorded the defense to call witnesses up to the time that the evidence is closed under circumstances which are fair to both sides.
DR. HOCHWALD: The only thing I wanted to point out is if twenty-four hours before the closing of the case, an affidavit is submitted by either the prosecution or the defense, the opposite party is not in a position to call the witness for cross examination if the witness can not be produced before the Tribunal in such a short time.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, that is true and there would have to be a deadline fixed beyond which such affidavits or witnesses could not be offered, of course.
DR. HOCHWALD: Thank you.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, I shall certainly act in accord with the prosecution on that procedure since I am only grateful to them for the documents which they have submitted today.
BY DR. FROESCHMANN:
Q: Witness, I don't know whether you noticed a little word this morning which the prosecutor used in asking one question. He asked you about your letter on sterilization plans. He asked you whether you wanted
to avoid still more ruthless measures.
The word is "Still". Do you understand me? You said in your interrogation that with your suggestion you wanted to prevent the brutal measures of a Himmler and at least delay them. You answered this question to the prosecutor in the affirmative, and with this answer you would admit that your suggestion could already be considered a ruthless measure measure while, according to you, it was something entirely different, that is, to bring Himmler from his intention to use ruthless methods.
I ask you, do you intend to admit that with your suggestions you wanted "to prevent ruthless measures but not still more ruthless measures?"
A: I should like to formulate that very concretely again. I wanted, as far as possible, to prevent or at least redirect all measures. I can't say it any other way.
Q: Is it also true as your answer to the question of the prosecutor just indicated, if I understood it correctly, that you were convinced of the complete inefficiency of your sterilization suggestion?
A: I believe I explained clearly that I was convinced that the suggestions could not be carried out in practice.
Q: The prosecutor also asked you, referring to the effect that you suggested the sterilization of two to three million Jews, what was to be done with the other seven million Jews. For you, in your official capacity, was there any obligation to try to frustrate Hitler's or Himmler's plan to exterminate the Jews? Yes or no?
A: No, there was no obligation.
Q: The prosecution finally submitted documents to you bringing you in connection with Eichmann and a Dr. Kallmeyer and drafts by a Dr. Wetzel. Did I understand you correctly that the name Eichmann was completely unknown to you at that time and that until these documents were submitted this morning you knew nothing about the talks which Dr. Wetzel or some one else is supposed to have had with Oberdienstleiter Brack in 1941?
A: Until these documents were submitted I had no knowledge of it. I can not even remember the name of Dr. Wetzel or Wetzler.
Q: Mr. Brack, is it true that in the course of our many conversations I myself mentioned the name Eichmann, to find out if this Eichmann had any plans for the extermination of the Jews, and is it true that I made an application to call this Eichmann as a witness on your behalf; that this application was approved, and that it was only discovered later that Eichmann was dead?
A: Yes, that is true.
Q: My final question. At the end the prosecution asked you whether the sentence in the second letter of the 23rd of June 1942
it makes no difference whether these Jews become aware of sterilization
or something like that is connected with your first letter? You said "yes". Is that true?
A: Yes.
Q: If I am not mistaken, during your direct examination, you said that you made this remark in the second letter because at that time in 1942 the Jews already suspected their fate and no indications that sterilization was intended would have been necessary. Do you understand my question?
A: As far as I remember, I said during my direct examination that the Jews had an idea of their fate.
Q: And my very final question, the Prosecutor this morning spoke of Document NO 426, perhaps I may formulate all of the statements in this one question. Is it correct in the formulation of this affidavit there was a fight about it, how it would be worded?
A: Yes. As far as in my condition at the time I was able to understand things or grasp things, there was a fight; but there were many things I really didn't understand, and didn't fight about them.
Q: Witness, finally I should like to ask you the most fundamental question resulting from the cross-examination; were you convinced of the legality of Hitler's Decree of 1st September 1939?
A: I was firmly convinced of the legality of that decree.
Q: Were you aware that in collaborating with the euthanasia program you were committing a penal offense?
A: No, I was not aware I was participating in a penal offense.
Q: Did you act in full cognizance of the legality of what you were doing?
A: Yes.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, I have no further questions to this witness.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q: Witness, please describe a euthanasia station, of what buildings did it consist?
A: A euthanasia station was a mental institution, for example the institution at Sonnenstein.
The institution at Sonnenstein consisted of several buildings in a large piece of grounds. In those buildings were the necessary rooms for the personnel, for therapy, etc. For euthanasia specifically one of these buildings was used. It remained as it was, except that one of these rooms was arranged as a euthanasia room. I can't describe it in any other way. The euthanasia institutions were not built, and they were institutions already in existence which were used as euthanasia institutions.
Q: Were they already occupied by other sick or insane persons?
A: No. The patients were transferred there on instructions from the Ministry of the Interior.
Q: What had the buildings been used for before that?
A: That differed. One of them at Graffeneck, I believe was a home for cripples of the Samariter Foundation, and the inmates were transferred and the institution was made available for euthanasia. In this connection a Wurttemberg institution was turned over from the Wurttemberg Ministry of the Interior to the Reich Ministry of the Interior.
Q: How many of the persons to be subjected to euthanasia would be in such a station at one time?
A: I can't say. There was, of course, room for a great many, but how many were there at the same time I don't know.
Q: How long after a shipment of persons arrived at a euthanasia station would they be subjected to the euthanasia?
A: I can only say from what the doctor at the euthanasia institution told me. I said before that I was at these euthanasia institutions several times. I saw patients who had been there only a short time for observation by the euthanasia doctor, and also patients where the euthanasia doctor told me that he was still in doubt as to whether he would subject them to euthanasia, or whether he would send them back to the observation institution, or their original institution. That depended on how long the euthanasia doctor needed to observe the individual patent in order to form his own conclusion, because it was he who had the final responsibility.
Q: Would there be as many as 100 of these persons in the group of buildings at one time?
A: There were certainly buildings which would house a hundred, I believe so. I would say a hundred, yes.
Q: Was the gas chamber a separate building or just a room in one of the other buildings?
A: That was only one room in the building.
Q: But it was a room in the building and not a separate construction?
A: No, no, there was not a separate building.
Q: Where was the crematory located?
A: That varied too. In Grafeneck, I believe the crematorium was at some distance from the institution, in another building, while at Sonnenstein it was in the main building. It varied: I have no very clear recollection of that. In Sonnenstein I am pretty sure it was in the main building.
Q: And these persons were to be subjected to euthanasia, after remaining several days in the building and they were put in the gas chamber, would just think they were going to be given a shower bath?
A: I don't believe they had any idea where they were going at all.
Q: Do you mean because they were insane or incapable of having an idea or simply if they had some degree of intelligence they didn't know what was going to happen?
A: Yes, I meant the former.
Q: Do you know anything about the station at Hadamar?
A: I have already said. Hadamar is the only station of which I know nothing, because it was the last one which was built. That was when I was no longer much concerned with these things. I think that Hadamar was made a euthanasia institution in 1941.
THE PRESIDENT: Has counsel any further questions?
DR. FORESHMANN: No, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: It is now time for our no on recess.
The Tribunal will be in recess until 1:30.
(Thereupon the noon recess was taken.)