A. Do you mean these invalid transports to Bernburg?
Q. Yes.
A. I am sure that this was ordered by a higher agency.
Q. But you did not see an order?
A. I can not now exactly remember this correspondence but it could clearly be seen that this action was planned and ordered.
Q. But I was interested in what agency this order originated from and that is something you cannot tell me?
A. No, I can not.
Q. Thank you, I have no further questions.
DR. GAWLIK (Counsel for the Defendant Hoven):
Q. Witness, do you know Dr. Kogon?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know him well?
A. Yes.
Q. Since when do you know Dr. Kogon?
A. I made his acquaintance in the year 1940 in the camp after he arrived there in the year 1938; ever since then I know him very well and we are friends.
Q. Do you think that he is a credible personality?
A. Yes.
Q. Thank you. I now come to another point. You signed an affidavit for the Prosecution, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. In what language did you sign this affidavit?
A. I saw it in English and in German but I know English sufficiently well
Q. Now will you please answer my question-- in what language did you sign this affidavit?
A. English.
Q. Is English your mother language?
A. No, German.
Q. Do you know the English language?
A. Sufficiently well in order to understand the affidavit.
Q. Whereupon is your knowledge based?
A. What knowledge do you mean,--of English?
Q. Yes, of the English language.
A. I learned English in school and I later studied it at the University and then I further learned it...
Q. Well, now, tell me how many years did you actually study English at school?
A. Six years.
Q. How many years did you study English at the university?
A. For three years.
MR. McHANEY: Your Honor, I cannot see what pertinence the knowledge the witness has of the English language has to do with this case. The affidavit which he made out has not been submitted to the Tribunal and will, of course, not be. I think we are just wasting time interrogating the witness about his knowledge of the English language and I therefore object to this last examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Objection overruled.
Q. How long did you study English?
A. For six years.
Q. Until what year?
A. Until my matriculation.
Q. And at the university?
A. For approximately three years.
Q. Until what year?
A. Well, until 1925, and I later read English.
Q. And to what extent did you busy yourself with the English language after that date?
A. I read English literature.
Q. I now present to you this affidavit, in the German language, and I should like to ask you to translate this affidavit for me into English, in order to test your knowledge of the English language.
DR. GAWLIK: Mr. President, this can be found in Document Book 12 in the English language; it is the affidavit of Roemhild.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there a copy of this document book 12 on the Secretary's desk?
DR. GAWLIK: It is on page 54 of the English Document Book No. 12.
MR. McHANEY: If the Tribunal please, I do not like to take up time making these objections. I have objected to the materiality of the examination of the witness's knowledge of English but since that is being admitted, I would like to raise objection to this test. The affidavit was signed in English and presented to the witness in English. It is obviously no test of his ability to read and understand the affidavit in English by asking him now to translate out of German into English and if we wanted to call up examples we could do that out of our own translation department.
THE PRESIDENT: It appears to the Tribunal that a fair test of the witness's knowledge of English would be to submit to him the English affidavit and request him to translate it into German.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q. Do you think you will be able to translate this affidavit into German?
A. It will be difficult for me to translate this into German.
Q. Please confine yourself to answering my question with yes or no. Are you able to translate this affidavit into English?
A. No, not that.
Q. Thank you. Now I am giving you the English text.
JUDGE SEBRING: Counsel, at what page does this appear in the English Document Book and in the Deutsch?
DR. GAWLIK: That is page 54 in the German...I am sorry, page 54 in the English.
THE PRESIDENT: On what page of the German Document Book is this affidavit found?
DR. GAWLIK: Page 57, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness will proceed.
THE WITNESS: Shall I start translating?
Q. Yes.
A. Affidavit. I, Ferdinand Roemhild, under oath, depose the following and declare:
On the 11th of April, 1904, --- that is wrong. I was born in 1903. I was born in Frankfurt on the Main, and started national economy at the University, completing my education. I worked at a merchant firm in Frankfurt. Before the year of 1934 I was not active in any political circles. In the year of 1934 I became associated with the German Communistic Party and became engaged within the framework of writing leaflets with reference to the mistreatment of political prisoners.
On the 22nd of March 1935 I was arrested. In November 1935 I was sentenced to three years hard labor on a charge of high treason. I was placed in the prison hospital at Wehlheiden, and on the 2nd of April 1938 I was transferred to the Buchenwald Concentration Camp. From this date on I was classified as a political prisoner and remained an inmate of the Buchenwald Concentration Camp until the liberation of the camp by the Americans in April 1945.
For the first year in the Buchenwald Concentration Camp I performed manual labor. In the summer of 1939 I was assigned to the prisoners' hospital as a clerk.
Q. Will you go on to the next page, to the medical experiments.
A. Medical experiments at the Buchenwald Concentration Camp. At the Buchenwald Concentration Camp medical experiments on typhus and virus took place in Block-46. I received my information on the happenings in Block 46 from various people, who originally worked in my office and were later transferred to Block 46. As far as I can remember the names of some of these people are as follows: Alfred Leikam, Stuttgart, Karl Brauer, Halle, the Capo of Block 46, Arthur Dietzsch. Also I was in my capacity as secretary and clerk in camp hospital and was placed in charge of money belonging to patients located in Block 46. Since I had these personal obligations, I had also to visit Block 46 on various occasions.
Q. Witness, doesn't it mean in German "as the administrator of personal property; due to holding these personal belongings," it says here?
A. Yes, holding these personal belongings. That is all right.
Q. Please continue.
A. Block 46 was established as an experimental station for research on spotted fever and virus, December 1941.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal is of the opinion this test has proceeded far enough. It has formed its own opinion concerning the knowledge on the part of the witness as to the English language. We will proceed to something else.
Q. Witness, you stated that the defendant Hoven in the year 1941, that is the spring of 1941, became the first camp physician. I now suggest to you that the defendant Hoven only in July 1942 became the first camp physician.
A. I cannot recollect the exact date when Dr. Hoven became the first camp physician. At any rate I do know during the action prisoner which took place in the summer of 1941 Dr. Hoven had already played the leading part in the hospital. As to the exact date when he did become the first camp physician I couldn't tell you.
Q. In the spring of 1941 there was another person who was first camp physician?
A. It is possible. I cannot recollect.
Q. If you could tell me the person.
A. Yes, I forgot, Dr. Blanke was physician after Dr. Popitsch. I forgot him.
Q. Is it correct the defendant Hoven only in July 1942 became the first camp physician?
A. I cannot give you the exact date. I cannot tell you exactly when Dr. Blanke was transferred.
Q. Is it possible the date of July 1942 is correct?
A. It could be. I cannot say so exactly.
Q. But you would admit a possibility, wouldn't you?
A. Well, I do know that a camp physician was then -- so that a camp physician --it is possible.
Q. Do you know that Dr. Hoven was at first the Standortarzt physician and had nothing to do with the camp?
A. That is not quite correct. Later the camp physician and Standort physician were amalgamated.
Q. That is correct, But I just want to suggest to you that the activity of the Standort physician has nothing to do with the camp?
A. Yes, that is perfectly correct.
Q. What were the tasks of the Standort physician?
A. The Standort Physician had to look after the SS and had to exercise a certain control function over the camp physician. At tines when the camp physician wasn't available-
Q. That doesn't interest me. I Want to know the pure activity of the Standort physician.
A. I don't know exactly what the Standort really did. At any rate he had to administer to a large circle of people, even outside the camp.
Q. I now come to the selection of the subject for the typhus experiments. In this connection I am going to put to you the testimony of Dr. Hogan, who said something entirely different than you did. On this page 197 of the German record, the witness Dr. Hogan stated that the selection of the experimental subjects did not agree at various times and he said there were four different methods.
The first one, that is during the early period, there were voluntary subjects. These were the first two experiments. Secondly, Dr. Ding asked the camp physician or the S.S. camp administration, to put persons at his disposal for the experiments. That is camp physician and S.S. administration. The third method was that the Reich criminal police office was taking charge of it, and during the last experiments from various concentration camps and prisons in Germany transports were sent to Buchenwald.
Q. I am now asking you, is this description of the Fitness Hogan correct?
A. Certainly Dr. Hogan must know much more about these things than I, since for years he was Dr. Ding's secretary and as such was informed about these methods.
Q. Well, I was speaking about the first two experiments.
A. Yes.
Q. And if I understand you correctly, Fitness, you said that Dr. Hogan, as secretary of Dr. Ding, has more knowledge about this matter, about the selection of the experimental subject; is that correct?
A. Yes, no doubt.
Q. And then I further understood you to say as far as this testimony differs from the testimony of Dr. Hogan, you who really did not have the same knowledge as Dr. Hogan since you were not in Block 46, were erroneous and you would prefer to believe the statement of Dr. Hogan?
A. That only could refer to facts of Block 46, but I really know Dr. Hoven better than Dr. Hogan; then since Dr. Hoven come the activity was in our block. With reference to typhus experiments Dr. Hogan knows more about them than I do.
Q. Witness, do you further know that Dr. Hoven, if he would concern himself with the selection of experimental subjects for the experiment, he did so at the express command of the legal camp administration; I want to put to you that this is what the Witness Hogan concerned, and I ask you to consider this when making your reply?
A. It is possible that the demand of the legal camp management, the political leadership of the camp, played a part during this selection, but that can only concern a part of these persons who were used for these experiments. It could only concern such personalities who could have endangered the camp. This personality, however, existed. I personally had nothing to do with the selection, and I personally did not know the leading people in the camp. How well Dr. Hoven knew these leading people in the camp I do not know. I doubt whether he knew them all very well.
Q. That is just what I wanted to ask you, Witness; considering the circumstances in the concentration camp you cannot say that everyone knew the legal camp management, and conversation which was carried out with defendant Hoven with the legal camp administration; you did not attend them, did you?
A. Certainly I wasn't present during many times.
Q. Then if it was concerned here that the defendant Hoven, as far as he selected part of the subjects for these experiments, did so at the request of the legal camp management; can that be correct?
A. Yes, certainly.
Q. I don't know where you got your information from; did you get it from Dr. Hogan?
A. I don't quite understand you.
Q. Where did you have the information? Listen, I just want you to answer my questions, and nothing else.
A. There was a possibility in this typhus experimental station to save people, people that were looked for by tho camp administration; it often happened that they disappeared and then often Dr. Hogan agreed to save these people. That is quite clear to me.
Q. It is then correct, or you at least cannot exclude the fact that the defendant Hogan, as far as he is concerned himself with the selection he did so with the request of the legal camp management?
A. I think it is possible that he considered certain of their wishes.
THE PRESIDENT: At this time the Tribunal will recess until 1:30.
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 14 January 1947) THE MARSHALL:
The Tribunal is again in session FERDINAND ?ROEHI?
?: - Resumed CROSS-EXAMINATION (Continued.)
BY DR. GAWLIK? Counsel for Defendant Hoven:
Q. Witness, you were then speaking about the death reports. Is it correct that the death reports were issued by order of Dr. Ding, or his superiors, or don't you know that?
A. As far as I know, there was an order of some superior agency that the typhus experiments should not come to public knowledge and that no doubt was an order coming from higher agencies, so that typhus was never mentioned as the cause of death.
Q I now come to another point. Do you know, witness, that the Orderlies Weingartner, Adelf Schwarz, the laboratory assistant, Karl Brauer and you were supposed to be sent to the same camp by order of Commandant Kech and that was a camp where Walter Kraemer and Karl Feichs were killed?
A. I am now hearing about that for the first time and I am now hearing for the first time that I was in the same danger. At the time Karl Feichs and Walter Kraemer were arrested, there was only Adelf Schwarz and Arthur Dietsch present; the other were not.
Q You, therefore, don't know that the Defendant Hoven had tried to, prevent that?
A No.
Q I now come to Euthanasia, 14 F 13 and I believe, witness that considering the length of time that has elapsed in the meantime, your statements are partly mixed up. I should like to put the following to you and the witness Kogon also confirmed that two actions, 14 F 13, took place; one took place in the year of 1941 and the other in the year of 1942; do you know anything about that?
A I have already stated that in the year of 1941 there were two transports of criminal and partly political prisoners and they were sent on the transport for that action and then there was another one in the year of 1942, in the spring; they were Jewish invalids amounting to approximately six hundred. I think Dr. Kogon's statement also referred to these two transports.
Q Well, I am not referring to the individual transports and I am not referring to Dr. Kogon, but what I mean to say is that there were two orders; one was in the year of 1941 and after this first order of the year 1941 for this action, 14 F 13, all Jews were to be transferred?
A I did not see these orders. I have already said that only in the year 1943 as a clerk, I had an occasion to receive insight into secret files. I merely saw this correspondence with Dr. Eisele.
Q From your answer, I take it that the statement that Dr. Kogon made in that regard could be completely correct and that you from your own knowledge, cannot give us the necessary statements; did I understand you correctly?
A It may well be that Dr. Kogon did not receive certain information when working with Dr. Ding.
Q During this first action, in the year of 1941, the inmates were selected by a Berlin commission and not by the Defendant Hoven.
A Certainly; at this time it was this action against sexual criminals and political criminals.
Q And the Jews were to be added to that?
A No; I do not know anything about that. I know that during this transport there were no Jews present.
QQuite right; I was just coming to that and I wanted you to confirm that fact.
But, you consider it possible that according to the order, in the year of 1941, all Jews were to be transferred, as it was confirmed by the witness, Dr. Kogon?
A I think it is entirely possible, however, I do not know of this order.
Q And now you, yourself, said that you, from your own knowledge, know that Jews were actually not transferred?
A Not during this first action; no, during this first action, as far as I know, there were no Jews.
Q Well, do you also know - and that is something that Dr. Kogon confirmed - that this was only due to the work of the Defendant Hover with reference to orders of the illegal camp management in collaboration with the Defendant Hoven working against this action, 14 F 13?
A I don't know the collaboration of the Defendant Hoven with the camp illegal management very exactly. I am sure that Dr. Hoven must have been able to postpone the matter, because it is a fact that in 1942 these invalid Jews were actually transferred, but a large number of these Jews remained in Buchenwald; yes, those that were fit for work.
Q And beyond that there were others, as Dr. Kogon confirmed. Dr. Kogon told us about a so-called building action which was intended to save Jews?
A But that was much later. It was approximately in the autumn of 1942 and in 1943 that all Jews were trained as builders and were then sent to Auschwitz and there a large part were exterminated; but that was not really an extermination action as it was the case in Bernburg, but this was one of the many transfers into other camps. The fact that transfer to Auschwitz meant that to many Jews was obvious, but I do not believe that the transfer of Jews to Auschwitz had anything to do with the order 14 F 13.
I am now asking you, is it not possible that you are making an error?
Try to refresh your memory and think about it very carefully, witness, because Dr. Kogon confirmed that this action referred to 14 F 13?
A I don't believe it.
Q However, you are not excluding the possibility?
A But, there were two separate actions.
Q Will you please answer my question? Do you want to exclude the possibility?
A If this action . . . .
Q You can answer the question with "yes" or "no"?
A I cannot answer it with "yes" or "no", just like that.
Q One moment, but I take it that you do not exclude the possibility 100 percent?
A No, that is correct.
Q Do you know that during this first action, 14 F 13, the Defendant Hoven selected, or later saved Jews, Czechs and Poles by receiving a thesis on anthropological measurements from Dr. Lolling, and where did that take place; in the pathological department?
A Yes.
Q But what detail in Buchenwald are you referring to; I am asking if you know about it?
A Well, the possibility exists that people were actually saved by Dr. Hoven.
Q Now, is it further correct that during this first action in the year of 1941, the Defendant Hoven was not yet the first camp physician? I am reminding you that at the beginning of my cross-examination you pointed out it was Dr. Blacke.
A I know that in the autumn of 1941 when the two hospital Capes, Walter Kraemer and Karl Feichs were arrested, at that time Dr. Hoven had not yet the power to save them. No would have done so if he could. You could collect from that at that time he was not yet the first camp physician, although I do not remember exactly who was the camp physician at that time, I thought it was Dr. Blancke.
Q. Until what time do you think Dr. Blancke was camp physician?
A. Dr. Hoven only became camp physician in 1942, but at least at the beginning of 1942 he had a very strong position in the camp since at that time he included himself into this fight between the criminal and political prisoners. As far as I know Dr. Blancke was the so-called standart-physician and the first camp physician at that time, but he was only the first camp physician in a nominal character. The real leadership of the camp was at that time in the hands of Dr. Hoven already.
Q. Your further stated, Witness, that the second transport did not leave, and that was due to the influence of the Defendant Hoven. Will you please describe to the Tribunal what the Defendant Hoven actually did in order to prevent the departure of the second transport?
A. As far as I am informed, in November and December of the year of the a further transport was intended and in this transport there were some loading political inmates included which apparently endangered the camp administration. The fact that a large influence was exercised on Dr. Hoven at that time is known to me, or rather, became known to me and as far as I found out, Dr. Hoven did not give his approval for this action. At any rate this action then really was dropped entirely.
Q. How many persons did this transport envelop?
A. I cannot say that since we could only find out the amount of people in the transport when the lists were compiled.
Q. But there were many hundreds?
A. Yes, certainly there should have been many hundreds.
Q. And it is therefore correct to say that owing to the interference of the Defendant Hoven many hundred Jews were saved from certain death?
A. Not only Jews, but at that time we were mainly concerned with Aryans, and it is quite sure that Dr. Hoven did an enormous amount of work in favor of the inmates in the camp.
Q. Perhaps you can tell the Tribunal about further services of the Defendant Hoven for the benefit of the camp?
A. I know that many members of French and Dutch origin who were to be sent to Natzweiler in this so-called. Night and Fog Action were held back by him. Among them there was the Dutch painter, Piek, the Dutch sports instructor, Jan Robert, and a number of other Frenchmen, No doubt they have to thank Dr. Hoven for being saved.
Q. And it is further correct that the Defendant Hoven when saving these foreigners risked his own life?
A. I am sure it was very dangerous for him.
Q. I now come to the second action, the second action called 14 F 13. You were speaking, when examined, about a correspondence which referred to Action 14 F 13. Do you know that this correspondence referred to the second Action 14 F 13 in the year of 1942?
A. I had reason to believe that this correspondence referred to all such actions.
Q. Well, how large really was this correspondence? How many letters did you really see?
A. There were about two or three copies.
Q. Just two or three copies. What year did these copies come from?
A. As far as I remember they came from the year of 1941.
Q. Again?
A. 1941.
Q. Well, as there a possibility that they really originate from 1942, or do you want to exclude that possibility?
A. That I cannot say with certainty any longer.
Q. Do you further know that this second action, 14 F 13, which was ordered for the year of 1942 was not actually carried through in Buchenwald?
A. I only know that the invalid Jews were sent away to Bernburg, and that they were all exterminated there. I don't know whether this action was planned against all the Jews or only against the invalids, or whether this action was just confined to the invalids through the interference of Dr. Hoven.
Q. And you neither know -- well, you only know the transports, but you don't know whether these transports belonged to the first or to the second action of 14 F 13?
A. No, we assumed that it was all concerned with the same action.
Q. You wore speaking about the tuberculosis action and you said in that connection correctly that this action was conducted by Dr. Eisele but you further said, "As far as I know, during the first action, the Defendant Hoven was the first camp physician".
A. Since at that time I had forgotten the name of Dr. Blancke; he could. have been the first camp physician at that time.
Q. You were then speaking about the killings. The Defendant Hoven part admits these killings out is it correct that these killings had nothing to do with the Action 14 F 13?
A. I don't believe so because these were measures which were a habit in the camp.
Q. Would you dust repeat your answer?
A. I don't believe that these current killings have anything to do with any action like that.
Q. So your answer is no?
A. Well just repeat your question once more
Q. Had these killings anything to do with the Action 14 F 13?
A. These killings did not only take place during the time when this action was running.
Q. May I interrupt? Maybe you can first answer my question with yes or no, and then give a reason.
A. Well then, no.
Q. The Defendant Hoven maintains that he only killed persons by request of the legal camp management. The witness Kogon confirmed that fact. He cited one case here in detail and he made it very clear that it was necessary to kill persons in order to save the majority of the decent inmates.
He described in detail the case of Kazimiera Kurowska, and the witness kogon further spoke about a state of emergency in the camp, and I am now asking you, can you say with certainty that persons were killed without it's being ordered by the legal camp management or conducted by the legal camp management, or can you merely say that, "I don't know it".
A. But I do know it.
MR. McHANEY: If the Tribunal please, I think the witness is entitled to know that he is being questioned with respect to information given by the witness Kogon; that Kogon testified at a minimum that, so far as he know, the Defendant Hoven had not committed killings unconnected with recommendations made by the illegal camp government, but Kogon very learly stated in addition that he was not personally informed on the activities of Hoven in the camp hospital, and he therefore, was not testifying with respect to alleged killings by Hoven in the camp hospital. The witness here was in the camp hospital and has testified as to killings by Hoven in the camp hospital, and I therefore submit that it is unfair to the witness to put Kogon's testimony to him in the form which defense counsel has done.
THE PRESIDENT: There is merit in counsel's objection. If this witness is to be cross examined at further length, the questions being based upon the testimony of the witness Kogon, the witness should be permitted to read the testimony given by Kogon in order that he may see exactly what Kogon testified to. This cross examination has continued at considerable length on matters which do not appear to be particularly material, with a great deal of repetition in the cross examination.
The Tribunal does not desire in any way to limit counsel in the cross examination of a witness, but it is net the purpose of cross examination to indulge in arguments with the witness. Counsel may proceed.
Q. (By Dr. Gawlik) You further mentioned the case of Dravinovitch?
A. Gavrilovitch was the name.
Q. Were you present during that incident?
A. I came there the moment the man was carried from the room.
Q. Well, your reply is, no, that you only arrived there at the time ho was carried away?
A. I knew about this case. I was told about it. I saw how this man was walking inside, and then I had to leave the room for some official reason, and as I left again, this man was carried out.
Q. Well, if I understand you correctly you weren't there when he was mistreated?
A. No.
Q. Well, isn't there a possibility -
DR. GAWLIK: Well, I have no further questions about this case.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any further cross examination of the witness on the part of any of the defense counsel?
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY DR. MERKEL: (Counsel for Defendant Genzken)
Q. Witness, you know that in Buchenwald in connection with the typhus experiments there were two stations in the camp, one research or clinical station in Block 46, and then the production station in Block 50?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know anything about the f act that in January 1943, according to an entry in the diary of Ding, preparations were made for the production block 50, and that at that time the experimental station changed its name from experimental station to department for tho research of typhus and virus?
A. I don't know anything about the development of this institute since Dr. Kogon is much better informed about these matters than I am.
Q. Well, in that case, you can neither say anything about the letterhead of the Institute before or after that period of time?
A. When exactly this Institute received, that name. I can't tell you exactly.
Q. Did you yourself see the Defendant, Genzken, at any time in Buchenwald
A. No.
DR. MERKEL: Thank you. I have no further questions to the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Any further cross examination of this witness? Has Counsel for the Prosecution any examination, re-examination of this witness redirect?
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. HARDY:
Q. Witness, in connection with this tubercular action, whether or not Hoven was first or second camp physician? Was he a higher-ranking man or doctor than Eisele?
A. T.B., certainly. Even before he officially became the first camp physician he had decisive influence.
Q. Witness, and do I understand you clearly in answer to my questions and the questions of the Defense Counsel for Hoven that Hoven selected the Jews m 1941 after physical examination, that said Jews were placed on a list, and that substantially the same Jews on that list were later transferred in 1942 to Bernburg for extermination?
A. He at least participated during the examination. It is possible that the lists at that time were still signed by Standartenfuehrer Brandt.
MR. HARDY: I have no further questions, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Do any Defense Counsel desire to cross examine this witness upon tHe testimony he has just given?
DR. GAWLICK: I request permission to ask one question, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be granted.
RECROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. GAWLICK:
Q. You said that the possibility existed that the defendant Hoven was the second camp physician during the TBC action -- and I must correct myself If I understood you correctly, you stated that during the TBC action Dr. Blancke had been the first camp physician at that time. I am now asking you did the defendant hoven have the possibility to prevent the TBC action which was carried out by Dr. Eisele? Please answer the question now with "Yes" or "No".
A. No.
DR. GAWLIK: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has noticed during the past few minutes some apparent difficulty with the electric lighting system in the courtroom. If it should happen that the electric lights are extinguished, everyone in the courtroom will remain quietly in his seat. The guards will immediately star at their post and remain standing there. The witness is excused.
(Witness excused)
THE PRESIDENT: The Prosecution may proceed.
DR. HOCHWALD: If it please the Tribunal, we would proceed with the presentation of the evidence on the Euthanasia Program in Book No. 15. I read from the first page of the document book and offer into evidence Document No. 629-PS which will be Prosecution Exhibit 380, dated 8 July 1940: "stamp: Reich Ministry of Justice, 9 July 1940, Department: III/IV. To the Reich Minister of Justices:
"I have a schizophrane son in a Wurttembergian mental institution. I am shocked about the following absolutely reliable information:
"Since some weeks insane persons are taken from the institutions allegedly on the grounds of military evacuation. The directors of the institutions are enjoined to absolute secrecy. Shortly afterwards the relatives are informed that the sick person had died of encephalitis. The ashes are available if so desired.