This order originated with the Reich Committee, and it was passed on to us through Herr von Hegener.
This matter continued until 1944. In 1944, towards the middle, the connections with the Reich Committee were broken off. Probably it was the approach of Russian troops toward Berlin which was responsible for the cessation of connections.
Q. Now, witness, let's go back and consider what happened in Eichberg with respect to grown-ups. You came to Eichberg in March or April, 1941; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And the euthanasia program had been operating in Eichberg prior to that time?
A. Yes, the euthanasia program had been in operation since 1940. During the initial period of that program I was not present.
Q. Do you have any information of what happened at Eichberg prior to the time you arrived there in March or April 1941?
A. Yes, I heard it from Dr. Mennecke in the course of conversations, and also from the male and female nurses of the institute.
Q. Approximately how many patients were in Eichberg in 1940?
A. The average was 1500 patients.
Q. Now, were these 1500 patients who were in Eichberg At the beginning of 1941 transferred out to Hadamar?
A. Not all of them. Approximately 40 to 50 percent, I would say.
Q. Do you know how fast that transfer took place and when it was completed?
A. Well, the situation was that very early in the morning the busses arrived and in the evening, as far as I had learned from Dr. Mennecke, the patients were dead.
Q. I do not think you understood my question, witness. I meant to ask you how soon after the 1st of January, for instance, 1940, had they eliminated the 50 percent or 750 patients who were in Hadamar, I mean in Eichberg?
A. Of these 1500 present in Eichberg at the beginning of 1940 approximately half went to Hadamar; that is to say, they were the so-called incurably insane as they were called at the time. The others, who had only just fallen ill and who were considered capable of being treated or capable of carrying on work and certain other categories, remained behind.
Q. Well, after approximately half of the 1500 patients had been exterminated in Hadamar, did new patients come on to Eichberg?
A. Yes. be received repeatedly transports from other institutes, part of which were meant to be transferred to Hadmar but which, because of the cessation of work in Hadamar, remained in our institute so that we had up to 1800 people in our institute and were overcrowded.
Q. Well, didn't they transfer out some of these new patients at Eichberg though, before Hadamar closed down?
A. Yes, at the beginning a few of these new patients were transferred. That happened until August 1941. be received the first patients from outside approximately a t the beginning of June.
Q. June 1941?
A. Yes, July. June and July.
Q. Now when was Hadamar shut down?
A. In August 1941.
Q. Do you know why it was shut down?
A. I do not know the reason.
Q. Do you know whether or not it resumed operation?
A, Hadamar did not recommence its functions as a Euthanasia Institute, at least not in the shape of gassing. That I know for certain, but later on I learned that there were injections being used in order to carry on with Euthanasia in another form.
Q. Well, witness, don't you know that that happened in 1942 at Hadamar?
A. I do not know what happened in Hadamar in 1942 now.
Q. I am asking you if you don't know that Hadamar resumed operations in 1942 in exterminating patients, whether by injections or by gas?
A. Well, no. These gas chambers at Hadamar were dismantled in 1941 and the Institute at Hadamar was again used as an ordinary asylum or sanatorium. I had been informed up to that point but now I know that Hadamar employed injections to continue Euthanasia.
Q. Well, that is what I wanted to find out, witness. Don't you know that that occurred in 1942 in Hadamar? Don't you know that they began using injections in 1942?
A. I do not quite understand your question.
Q. Didn't they begin using injections in Hadamar in 1942?
A. Yes.
Q. Now it is quite interesting about these gas chambers at Hadamar. Do you know what happened to those?
A. They were dismantled.
Q. Do you know where they were sent?
A. No, I do not know that.
Q. Can you give us an approximate figure of the number of grown-ups who were sent to Hadamar from Eichberg for extermination?
A. From Eichberg you mean?
Q. Yes.
A. Well, in my opinion, it must have amounted to something like 1,000.
Q. Now what happened with respect to grown-ups, after Hadamar shut down in August 1941, in Eichberg?
A. Nothing was going on there.
Q. Do you mean to say that Eichberg had approximately 1500 to 1700 patients from August 1941 until the end of the war?
A. No. Later on we passed a large number of our patients on to other asylums such as Gutstein and Hadamar because we were opening other establishments. We had a new hospital and a new lung sanatorium and a new field hospital. It is for that reason that a large number of our patients went to outside establishments.
Q. Well, where did these patients go?
A. To Weilmuenster, Gutstein and Hadamar.
Q. Do you know whether any of those patients were exterminated in any one of those institutes?
A. I assume that at least the possibility existed that they were exterminated at Hadamar, as far as I am informed today, that is.
Q. Now, witness, didn't you know at the time they were transferred that the purpose was for extermination?
A. No, that was unknown.
Q. What makes you say now that you think some of them were exterminated at Hadamar?
A. Because now, during my internment, I heard of the trial at Hadamar.
Q. Witness, let us go back to Eichberg again and describe the operation of the children's ward. You were in charge of that ward, weren't you?
A. Yes, I was chief medical officer at that institute. I was a department chief medical officer of the children's section. The Institute had orders to give the "mercy death" to these children; that is to say, Berlin sent us so-called "authorizing documents" and these children, after a little while, would arrive too. Then we examined the children and if it turned out correct, the children were assisted in dying. That is to say, if they were physically very ill and at the same time, of course, insane. And then every month we made a report to Berlin, directly to the Reich Committee, sent to a postal address, and then we received our mail from Berlin which was signed by Herr von Hegener.
Quite repeatedly Dr. Heffelmann or von Hegener came to visit us and they would discuss this and that so that we hid liaison, in practice, with these two men only.
Q. While we are on this liaison with Heffelmann and Hegener, did you ever discuss with them the leadership of the Euthanasia program?
A. Yes. During the meeting at the Reich Chancellery when I was present. I sat together with a number of gentlemen and von Hegener was one of them. Naturally I took an interest in finding out who these so-called "secret state tasks" were being directed by. It was on that occasion that von Hegener replied to me that Professor Brandt was in charge, that is to say, medically in charge. This was in 1941. This, of course, remained my firm conviction until 1944, when von Hegener told me, during one of his visits, that this was no longer Professor Brandt who was the leading personality in charge; he was then only speaking about Brack.
Q. What about these visits in 1942 and 1943 that you mentioned - did you also have some discussion with them then about Brandt?
A. That I can't remember. I don't think we spoke about it, or I can't remember it.
Q. Well, how can you say that Brandt was in charge of the program from 1941 to 1944? On what do you base your statement?
A. Merely on this first conversation in the Reich Chancellery, when I was told that Brandt was the leading man; and, of course, also upon this conversation in 1944 when von Hegener told me that this was no longer Professor Brandt.
Q. Well, did not Hegener indicate that Brandt had recently left?
A. No, he merely told me, "No, Brandt's no longer the toes." I think this happened after the attempt on Hitler's life. I was not Quite sure and I did not want to ask because Hegener was always very tight-lipped.
Q. All right, witness. Let's go back to the children's department at Eichberg. When was the killing of children started in Eichberg?
A. The action started in 1941, approximately in the autumn and it con tinued until 1944.
Q. In other words, the children's action did not start until after you came to Eichberg?
hell, it had started already, ever since March, but at that time we had only a. very few children. The station was really very small; on the average we had 20 children there and at first there were only 5, 6, or 7.
Q. And you state that you received authorizations from the Reich Committee for Research, on hereditary and constitutional diseases?
A. Yes, I received the authorization, the so-called "authorization."
Q. And that was signed by von Hegener, did you say?
A. Well, Hegener signed them. He signed the so-called "authorization". The authorization reports, one could say. And a photostat copy was attached so that every patient had a so-called "report".
Q. How many children were killed in Eichberg, from the time the program started in 1941, until it was completed in the middle or latter part of 1944?
A. About 80 children altogether. There were some special authorizations among them which concerned some adults who were deformed. I remember one cripple who was 30 years old.
Q. Was his name Kessler?
A. No; Kessler was another man. He was deaf and dumb and. deformed, and he was a psychopathic case too, and an epileptic.
Q. Now you mentioned "special authorizations". Those special authorizations concerned grown-ups?
A. Yes; the so-called "special authorizations", in these cases, sometimes originated from members of their family or other agencies.
Q. From whom did these special authorizations come? The Reich Committee?
A. Yes; the Reich Committee,
Q. How many of these special authorizations did you receive?
A. Approximately 13 to 20.
Q. How old wore these children who were killed in Eichberg?
A. At the beginning, there were only very young children. Later older children were added, and later on, adults too.
Q. How were they killed?
A. Well, they were treated with sedatives.
Q. What kind of sedatives?
A. We had morphine and Luminal.
Q. Were the grown-ups, who were killed under the special authorizations, executed in the same way?
A. Yes. These adults were usually severely ill and were close to dying.
Q. Were any of these children non-German nationals?
A. I cannot remember that. I don't think that was the case, however.
Q. You didn't have any children born of eastern workers in Germany, in Eichberg?
A. No; we did not.
Q. Were any of the grown-ups non-German nationals?
A. No; I cannot remember that. Sometimes authorizations came along which concerned so-called "racial Germans", but they were not foreigners. That was in two or three cases, I think.
Q. What do you mean by "racial Germans"?
A. Once they came from Upper Silesia, and really had German nationality?
Q. Did you make cut a list in the institution at Eichberg on these children who had been killed?
A. We made a monthly report. However, we did not make a real list.
Q. Well, didn't you make a report which gave the name of the child, and the date of birth, and diagnosis, and the date of the authorization, and the date of death?
A. No. These authorizations came from Berlin and were registered, and then, at the end of the month, we reported the names of the children who, at that time, were at this Reich Committee. In addition, the names of the children who, during the course of that month, were admitted, and then, also, such children who, during the course of that month, had died, together with their birth date, and then, at the end of this report, we summarized which cases were still at the Reich Committee.
Q. Witness, I will hand you Document NO-1146, which has been introduced in this case as Prosecution Exhibit No. 353, and we'll ask you if this sort of list is familiar to you -- not this particular list, but a similar type of list?
MR. McHANEY: If the Tribunal please, this is not in any one of the Document Books before you. It was in one of the earlier Euthanasia Document Books.
A. We never made such a list. Our report only referred to six questions, which were contained on that form.
Q. Witness, I don't understand the last statement which you have made, Will you repeat it please?
A. Our reports consisted of answering six questions, which were put to us by the Reich Committee on a form which we received too.
Q. And what were those six questions?
A. The first question was: "How many children were admitted from the Reich Committee during the course of that month?" Then, "How many children were at the station at the beginning of the month?" "How many such cases died during that month?" "How many were released?" "How many are there at the time?" And these had to be listed, pernname.
Q. You never made any report, by name, of those who had been killed to the Reich Committee?
A. Yes: that was question three. It was asked: "How many children died?" And then the list was given.
Q. They did not ask you for any diagnosis of the ones who had died?
A. Well, no; the Reich Committee didn't ask us that.
Q. In any event, you're clear that you never made any such report as I have just presented to you?
A. Not I; no. Since the diagnosis was already established at the Reich Committee, they had already been expedited. I assure that they merely wanted to register that, then.
Q. Now, witness, you are familiar with an order, received from the Reich Ministry of the Interior, concerning Poles and eastern workers, are you not?
A. Yes. That came in 1943 or 1944. An order came, according to which people who were not fit for labor or such eastern workers who were not healthy and could not be restored to health, were to be transported back to where they lived.
Until that time, we sent such transport back to their home, but now, one large scale transport was to take place. That's what was said at the time.
MR. McHANEY: I want to present a document to you. It is the Document No. 891. Prosecution Exhibit 414. It is on page 52 of the English Document Book, and on 49 of the German Document Book.
Q. Is the nature of this document familiar to you?
A. No, it is not. Don't know it.
MR. McHANEY: It is on page 52 of the book, the last page of this document.
THE WITNESS: Page "52"?
MR. McHANEY: The last page of Document No. 891.
THE WITNESS: I don't quite understand the pagination of that book.
MR. McHANEY: Will you stand up there, and help him turn to page 49, first?
THE WITNESS: "49". Now, I have it.
MR. McHANEY: Will you turn to the page?
THE WITNESS: Yes. I know this document. Yes. That was the document that I was speaking about.
Q. By Mr. McHaney: Did you receive this document from Bernadot?
A. That came to us through channels, from the Ober-President.
Q. What took place upon the receipt of this document?
A. That was a collection of these insane and Eastern workers that were not fit for work, and they were to be sent on a transport to an unknown destination.
Q. Will you repeat the answer, please, witness?
A. That was the order for a collective transport for Insane Eastern workers who were unfit for work, and they were to be sent to an unknown destination.
Q. How about the transportation of these Eastern workers?
A. They were picked up by the same busses that previously had picked up the Insane.
Q. The same busses that had previously transported these Insane workers to extermination centers picked up these Eastern workers?
A. Yes.
Q. Were the same people operating these busses?
A. Yes, I remember that I recognized the sane personnel.
Q. Do you know where these Eastern workers were taken?
A. No, I do not. But, after the trial had started in Hadamar; I must assume that a collection point was located at Hadamar.
Q. The document states that certain of these Eastern workers were to be taken to Hadamar: It says: "for Kurhessen, Naussau in Land Hossen Mental Institution."
A. Well, then, it must be assumed that these patients were sent to Hadamar; a letter once was found saying it was to be at Hadamar; there was a collection point where Euthanasia was carried out.
Q. How many of these foreign workers were sent from Eichberg?
A. On the basis of this order, there were approximately two or three transports. It may be that there was three people at one time; but I can remember two, at any rate. I don't remember the third one. And then some were picked up by the Labor Office, but I don't know whether they were sent to the same place. It was said at the time that they were to be sent back to Eastern Territory. And I also know, that there was some correspondence with reference to the approval for the journey. It may be that this occurred, many more times, but I really can't remember it.
Q. How late in 1944, did this extermination of children at Eichberg continue?
A. You mean until what date?
Q. Yes.
A. That was the middle of the winter, sometime around September; that was the time when Russian troops were advancing toward Berlin.
Q. Do you know any other places where the extermination of children was being carried out.
A. Yes, I know Itstein, Kantenhof and Goerden; but I think there were some more.
Q. Do you know what position VIKTOR Brack held?
A. Yes; I assume that he was entrusted with the leadership at the Reichs-Kommittee; that he really represented the Reichs-Kommittee; Dr. Menneke spoke of him a lot, but I don' know how he got in contact with him.
MR. McHANEY: May we have the regular recess at this time?
THE PRESIDENT: We will take a recess.
(Recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any of the defense counsel desire to cross examine the witness?
CROSS EXAMINATION BY:
DR. SERVATIUS: (Counsel for Karl Brandt)
Q. Witness, what activity did Professor Brandt exercise in the Euthanasia program?
A. What activity did he exercise? I myself do not know that personally, but in the session when I was initiated into the program I was told by Dr. Hegener to my question who was in charge of this assignment, that this was Professor Dr. Karl Brandt.
Q. But you don't know his activity?
A. No.
Q. Then you neither know what agencies were subordinated to him or whether any agencies were subordinated to him?
A. I cannot say that. I only know that he played this loading part in the tasks which had to be accomplished, that he was to accomplish these tasks.
Q. You mean that he was supposed to have these tasks. Do you know what position Brack held?
A. I know Brack as Director of the Reich Committee itself which was an organization of the whole task. I do not know from when until what time.
Q. Was Brack a physician?
A. I do not think so. As far as I know, no, but I used to think that he was a professor.
Q. Witness, I am submitting to you a document; that is, Document NO-165-- I beg your pardon -- NO-156 -
MR. McHANEY: If it please the Tribunal, in order that I may not be too late with an objection, I think that defense counsel should be permitted to put only one question to this witness with respect to this document, if he is allowed to put any at all, and that is; is he familiar with the document?
I think I must object, however, to the witness even being shown the document in face of the fact that we have received no translation of the document which is in German.
I personally do not know precisely what the document says.
THE PRESIDENT: The document is already an exhibit before this Tribunal; is that correct?
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, I am not quite sure whether it was submitted. It is a document that was given to me in the Defense Information Center and it is for that reason that I have these photostat copies. I am sure that it will become evidence, and I am sure that if the Prosecution does not submit it I shall have to submit it myself since it is of decisive importance.
MR. McHANEY: It is true that the Document NO-156 was obtained by defense counsel from the Defense Information Center where it had been sent by the Prosecution. However, we have sent a large number of documents to the Defense Information Center several months ago which have not been presented in evidence, and I can say with respect to this particular document that it has not been offered in evidence by the Prosecution and will not be offered in evidence.
Now, if defense counsel later wishes to present the document on his own behalf, that, of course, I suppose will be permissable. As a technical matter he now has no certificate authenticating the document. However, I don't wish to be understood as objecting to the document on the ground that it is not authenticated, because we would provide him with such authentication. But the fact is, if we can make this clear, that I don't have a translation of the document. It has never been translated by the Prosecution and I have none at hand, and I do not know exactly what this document is, and I am at a less to understand how the Tribunal knows what it is.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has no information whatever concerning this document. Just exhibit that document to the Tribunal now.
(Document handed to Court.)
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, I intend to read the second page.
THE PRESIDENT: The document may be submitted to the witness with the question as to whether or not the witness can identify the document. The question should go no further than that, and the witness will make no further answer than whether or not he can identify the document, that he knows what it is.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, the witness will not know the document, and I cannot submit it to him for that purpose. The question we are concerned with is the following: The Prosecution has here submitted a chart -
THE PRESIDENT: The Marshall will conduct the witness to the witness room until this preliminary matter is settled.
(Witness excorted from courtroom.)
THE PRESIDENT: We will now hear counsel for Defendant Brandt as to the document and what counsel desires to prove thereby.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, a chart was submitted from which the responsibility of Karl Brandt for the Euthanasia program can be seen or rather, should be seen. The witness said that the chart was correct as it was submitted basically.
Here there is a letter from which it can be seen that this cannot be correct. Maybe now that the witness is absent I can read this short letter which only amounts to six lines. It is a letter: "Chief of the Chancellery of the Fuehrer, Berlin, 5 September 1940, addressed to the Reich Ministry of Justice, Berlin.
Dear Dr. Goertner: With reference to the telephone conversation of a few days ago I may state the following: On the basis of the authorization of the Fuehrer, In commissioned to carry out the measures and being responsible therefore, gave me necessary directives to my collaborators. Beyond that the decree of certain executive directive does not seem necessary to me." And then comes the signature, I wanted to show this letter to the witness, and I wanted to ask him whether he still remains at his statement; namely, that this chart which was submitted to him is correct according to his conviction.
THE PRESIDENT: By whom is the letter signed? Whose signature is it?
DR. SERVATIUS: It must be Bouhler, but I really don't know the signature.
MR. McHANEY: I am sure I don't know who signed the letter either. It doesn't look like Bouhler, but for purposes at this point I am ready to admit arguendo it's Bouhler. The point is, that the letter speaks for itself. There is no possibility, I think, substantial possibility that this witness has ever seen the letter, and of course -
JUDGE SEBRING: Can it be agreed that the letter is not signed by this man who is now in the witness box?
MR. McHANEY: Oh yes, indeed. I am sure that would be conceded.
DR. SERVATIUS: I didn't quite understand the question.
JUDGE SEBRING: Can it be agreed that that letter is not the letter signed by the witness who is now in the box?
DR. SERVATIUS: The witness did not sign it. It was Bouhler who signed it.
JUDGE SEBRING: Do you contend that letter was ever brought to the attention of this witness prior to this time?
DR. SERVATIUS: No, no, I cannot say that. I merely am using it to submit it to the witness, and to tell him that it is in contradiction to what the Prosecution has submitted before, and whether he still maintains what he said before with reference to the chart.
MR. McHANEY: That I think, if it please the Tribunal, is the very point that he is trying to argue with the witness on the basis of this letter. There is no prior contradiction by the witness himself, and it constitutes no impeachment of the witness. The witness has presumably truthfully stated what he knows. The letter speaks for itself and can later be admitted, and we will at that time properly certify it so it can be admitted.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal is of the opinion that this letter can nowise contradict the testimony of the witness. The witness stated simply his opinion that the chart was correct. Doubtless this letter may be admissible in evidence in due time, but the Tribunal is of the opinion that exhibiting it to the witness and cross examining the witness on this letter would add nothing to the situation as it now appears from the record.
The Marshal will recall the witness to the stand.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may proceed with the cross-examination.
Q (By Dr. Servatius) Witness, You have said that you were in Berlin for the purpose of a conference. What you said, later - was that in contradiction with what has been said at that conference at that time?
A I do not understand what you mean by contrast.
Q What kind of directives were given at that time about the execution of the Euthanasia program?
Q Well, the same directives as were finally carried out - to move the invalids from the Insane Asylum to the Euthanasia Institute and I personally received subsequently the orders from the Reichs Committee which had already been discussed during that meeting.
Q Did you at that time consider that an order for murder?
A In no way at all. Most people can explain the suicide of the orders to us that this was a legal matter and that it was a law of Hitler, or a law which had been - had legal value - all thought it was a law that had been duly approved, also if Hitler was authorized to issue such a decree was discussed and was answered in the affirmative, and we were told that this was a matter that was quite legal
Q Witness, a little slower.
A That it was a legal task of the State which had already been planned and which was also being planned in other countries and that we would not incriminate ourselves in any way, and to the contrary that a sabotaging of this order world be a criminal offense. The question of secrecy was also discussed in detail and it was stated that this was a new law; that the people could not have knowledge of such a law beforehand because otherwise the report would be submitted, and that was the reason why this law could not be published; that at that time we were engaged in war and that such a measure would have to be kept secret in the interior.
Q Who were the people that were to be concerned by the Euthanasia program?
A Who was that? That these were incurable severe invalids. Incurable sick patients. However, it was not quiet clear to me where the limit was to be drawn.
For me personally, such a measure could only be considered in the case of death.
Q Was there at that time any mention made of useless eaters and measures to be taken from an economic hardship?
A The words "useless eaters" I have actually never heard at all during the war.
Q. Was it mentioned at that time that the institution had to be kept free for other purposes and had to be evacuated and that was the reason?
A The reason for this measure was only touched upon briefly. We were told that these were tasks of the State which had become severely necessary as a result of the war, and there were tasks that were Eugenic, that is right.