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.
Q How about the children?
AAt the time there was always talk about the final medical aid.
Q Well, if I understood you correctly, the matter was seen from a medical point of view. That was the decisive point of view.
A Yes. I have only taken notice of the medical point of view.
Q Now was the procedure actually carried through from this point of view? Wasn't this program actually conducted beyond their limits in its execution?
A In its execution the program was exceeded by far. I personally have not seen it, but on the basis of the reports I received, I must say that there certainly were excesses.
Q Witness, how was it in your institution with reference to excesses?
A In my institute things were only done on the basis as had been authorized by law.
Q You had therapy stations?
A We had three therapy stations. Of course, it was not a very nice view to watch these transports.
Q Well, you said that later eastern workers were picked up?
A Yes.
Q Wasn't that in excess of the original order which you received?
A I cannot say that. That just came to my knowledge.
Q Do you know where the order came from to transport these people away?
A From the Ministry of the Interior. It was given to us by an office of the Ministry of the Interior.
Q You mean the Reichsminister of the Interior.
A Yes.
Q You further mentioned that in August, 1941, the Action was concluded, that it stopped. Do you know the reason for that?
A Yes. I do not know the official reason, but I have heard of it unofficially. I have heard that Von Galen had raised a protest; and that for this reason the whole procedure was being stopped. I want to state that I cannot say that with certainty, but for me it was anyway a reason.
Q Well, was this procedure actually stopped at the end?
A No. I immediately assumed when Hadamar was being closed that some other institute would continue with this task or that the procedure would be followed up in some other way. That is also what Mr. Von Hegener said whenever he was present.
Q You said that these eastern workers were transported by the same buses as was the case before?
A Yes. Those were the same buses. They were big black buses, and the drivers were known because they used to come frequently.
Q Were they buses of the Gauleiter's office or who did these buses belong to?
A These buses were owned by the transport company, of the patients' transport company in Berlin. After all, the personnel had remained in part in Hadamar.
Q Wasn't their local personnel there?
A No, there wasn't medical personnel.
Q. You later said something about the excesses with reference to the program. Would you have to differentiate there how it was until the Action war stopped in 1941, or how it was later on? What excesses do you know of until the Action was stopped in 1941?
A You mean individually?
Q Yes, in your institution.
Q There were none at all in our institute. People were being moved and transported away.
Q In that case you acted according to directives?
A Yes, sir. I personally was not in charge of this Action, but I was only the director there, but as far as I know by the nursing personnel nothing indecent ever happened. Of course, some of the patients refused to enter the buses. Of course.
Q And weren't these cases extreme cases that were sent for this Euthanasia Program?
A Yes. Of course, it depends where the limit is drawn. One can maintain the concept that a large part of the patients, perhaps, might have been improved through modern shock treatment or some other modern methods of treatment that a certain change in the standard of the disease could have been brought about; but in considerably progressed cases of insanity, in my opinion, most of the patients could not be exchanged to have any joy of life.
Q Did you at that time hear about any Action 14 F 13?
A I have never heard anything about this Action. I do not know the -
Q Didn't you ever hear anything about it?
A Now during my interrogation I have been asked about the number, but I do not know anything about it.
Q You were speaking about special authorizations which were given in special cases?
A Yes.
Q Where did these special authorizations originate from and who signed them?
A Just like all the others, by Mr. Von Hegener.
Q With reference to the procedure in Wiesbaden, the proceedings in Wiesbaden where you were sentenced, was the activity of Karl Brandt mentioned?
A No, only a letter from Hitler to Brandt and Bouhler was presented.
Q Is that the so-called Euthanasia decree?
A That is the decree of the first of September, 1939.
Q Do you know Professor Karl Brandt?
A I have never seen him.
Q Haven't you ever seen his name underneath written letters?
A No.
Q DR. FROESCHMANN: Dr. Froeschmann, Counsel for the defendant, Viktor Brack.
Q Witness, this morning you were speaking on two occasions that Hegener in the year of 1944 had told you that Professor Brandt did not have the medical leadership but it was Brack who held that, is that correct?
A. Yes. Hegener told me on the occasion of his visit at Eichherg in '44 after the plot on Hitler that Brandt was not the director of the Action anymore, and not the person in charge, as he expressed himself, but that Brack was handling everything by himself.
Q. Did he tell you from what period of time Brack received the sole leadership?
A. No.
Q. Now if I was to tell you that Brack over since April, 1942, was at the front with the Waffen SS and in that way was not at all in the position to lead this Euthanasia Program, wouldn't you then think that you were the victim of a deception with reference to the name of Brack?
A. I do not believe so because he must have had some practical work in the Chancellery because the name of Brack was discussed at various occasions even in some other connections.
Q. In connection with what?
A. Also in 1943.
Q. 1943?
A. Yes, also.
Q. Did you have opportunity to observe the activity of Brack within the framework of the Euthanasia Program personally?
A. I personally did not, but my chief did.
Q. Then you cannot say personally whether Brack really made any personal decisions or whether it was Bouhler who did that? Did you understand my question?
A. I cannot tell you that.
Q. That you cannot tell me. You mentioned this morning the name of Heffelmann and then Hegener, and you mentioned these names in connection with the Reich Committee, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know anything about the fact that after Heffelmann was sent to the front Hagener became the so-called righthand of Linden?
A. Yes. I know that Linden in 1942 visited Eichberg, that he visited Dr. Mennecke, that on this occasion Dr. Linden was also introduced to me as the person in charge of the Euthanasia Program. To what extent he took over these assignments, I do not know.
Q. You said this morning that Brack was the leader of the Reich Committee. Where did you gain that knowledge?
A. From a Mr. Von Hegener.
Q. Mr. Von Hegener. Well, you don't know anything about that personally?
A. No, I have never had any personal contact with Brack.
DR. FROESCHMANN: In that case I have no further questions.
DR. SAUTER: Dr. Sauter counsel for the defendant Blome.
DR. SAUTER:
Q. Witness, with reference to the chart which is behind you. I want to put to you one question. This morning you confirmed the accuracy of the chart with a few exceptions. Will you please take one more look at the chart next to the name of Dr. Conti you see a yellow square, and then a brown square with the name of Blome, connected with the name of Dr. Conti with a green line. Do you know what that means, witness?
A. Yes.
Q. Well, I am now asking you, can you from your own knowledge say that Professor Blome was connected with the euthanasia program?
A. I do not know that from my own knowledge. I only know that Professor Blome was Deputy to Conti.
Q. Where did you get that knowledge from?
A. I was in a position to know that.
Q. This general statement of yours is not sufficient. I want something particular about it. How did you know that Professor Blome was active in the Euthanasia program?
A. I don't know that.
Q. You don't know that.
MR. STAUTER: In that case I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Any further questions of this witness by any of the other defense counsel? Any re-direct examination by the Prosecution?
RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION by MR. MCHANEY:
Q. Witness, I have about four short questions to put to you. Did you ever get an order to exclude non-German Nationals from the Euthanasia program?
A I did not receive such an order, no. I have not received any orders of this kind. I received none at all.
Q Was the euthanasia restricted to persons about to die, that is, persons whom you might describe as being on their deathbed?
A Well, that was what we understood by it. If these persons were insane, or if they had a severe malformation of insanity or idiocy, and then if there was additional physical illness.
Q Witness, the question I put to you is whether only such persons were in fact exterminated?
A Yes, I assume so.
Q Witness, in your own station at Eichberg, is it not true that you just stated on cross examination that persons resisted getting into the bus?
A Yes.
Q That persons was not about to die, was he or she?
A No. It was like this. I have already stated that there can not be an exact limit named with these insane people, with insane persons who have become complete idiots, and they can not be rectified with any medical aid, those were also included in the euthanasia program.
Q Witness, was not the same people in charge of the euthanasia program after August 1941 as were in charge of the euthanasia program prior to that date?
A Yon mean in a leading position?
Q No, I mean, witness, did not you receive your orders from the same organizations after August 1941 that you did before?
A Yes, received them from the same organizations. They were always signed Herr von Hegener, by some of their gentlemen.
MR. McHANEY: That is all.
DR. SERVATIUS: Dr. Servatius for Karl Brandt.
DR. SERVATIUS:
Q Witness, you yourself were only concerned with children, is that correct A (No answer)
Q Can you describe, witness, what cases you were concerned with which lead to the euthanasia later on?
A There were all kinds of brain malformations, which also caused a sort of idiocy. They were mostly a multiple disease which caused euthanasia.
Instability together with hereditary disease, or they were multiple diseases expressed as schizaphrenia, a severe insanity which is schizaphrenia.
Q I take it there were no papers to this effect?
A No, these papers were destroyed by order of the Reich Archives.
Q Another question in reference to foreigners. Did I understand you correctly to say that no foreigners were in the institute?
A Yes, we did have foreigners, but only a very few, and they were partially moved in signal transports. There were probably ten individual transports which were accompanied by nursing personnel, and later on they were moved with these collective transports, as I have stated before.
Q Were these civilian workers?
A Yes, we did not have any others. They were only civilian workers.
Q Was that after the action was stopped in 1941?
A Yes, that was even after the discontinuance.
Q. How was it before in reference to foreigners, do you know of any such cases?
A I was not there previously.
Q Then you don't know it?
A No.
DR. SERVATIUS: I have no further questions.
DR. FOERSCHMANN: Dr. Foerschmann for the defendant Brack. Mr. President, the re-examination by the Prosecutor has caused me to put a few more questions to the witness.
DR. FOERSCHMANN:
Q Witness, you were speaking of the fact that in the Autumn of 1941, that is, after the stopping of the action, you were still receiving directives from Berlin?
A Yes.
Q Did these directives refer to the Reich Committee, or to the so-called euthanasia program of insane persons?
A They referred to the Reich Committee.
Q The Reich Committee, all right.
DR. FOERSCHMANN: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any further questions to be asked the witness? There being no further questions of the witness, the witness will be excused.
The witness excused.
DR. GAWLIK: Dr. Gawlik, counsel for the defendant Hoven. Mr. President, I want to say the following. On the 10th of December I asked for an examination of the witness coming from Holland. The General Secretary told me by way of writing yesterday that the calling of this witness was denied, in view of the fact that many difficulties prevail in getting the witness here, and in dealing with the foreign jurisdiction. High Tribunal, I ask you to re-consider that decision, and thereby consider the following points of view. The case of the defendant Hoven has a special significance. The defendant Hoven is the only defendant who for sometime was a camp physician in a concentration camp. Through proceedings against the defendant Hove, it will be an important factor just how the defendant Hover behaved towards the non-German inmates. Especially, whether in the case of non-German inmates he committed any crimes. Proper witnesses for the purpose are former non-German inmates of the Concentration Camp Buchenwald, and it is for that reason that I ask that some of these persons be called to the witness strand.