A. They had already been selected by the camp physicians.
Q. Were you given any other special instructions with respect to your work in the concentration camps?
A. No.
Q. Were you ever warned that you would be severely punished if you sabotaged the work in the concentration camps in any way?
A. Not only with reference to my work in the concentration camp, but also with reference to my entire activity within the program. Such warnings were repeatedly brought to my attention. They either spoke about my transfer into concentration camps or sometimes even shooting was mentioned.
Q. Doctor, will you refer again to the letter you wrote from Meimar in November 1941?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you see the name Hefen mentioned there as being camp physician, SS Obersturmfuehrer Dr. Hefen?
A Yes.
Q Was he one of the men you worked with in the camp, who presented these inmates to you?
A He land the camp inmates presented to me. I never really worked together with him. As far as I knew I only greeted him and was introduced to him on one occasion and then we parted.
Q But he was one of the authoritative leaders, as you say in the camp who was to assist you in doing your job?
A I don't know anything about him assisting me in my work The fact is that he was one of the leading camp people, and there is no doubt about that since he really was the camp physician.
Q Now, Doctor, will you look again at the letter. It's the second line of the excerpt in which you state: "On Thursday and Friday a meeting will be held in Prina within the frame of the action, in which problems of the future will be discussed and in which Schmalenbach will take part as the medical adjutant of Herren Brack." And, then in parentheses is the name "Jennerwein." You find that?
A Jennerwein, yes.
Q What does Jennerwein mean?
A Jennerwein was the pseudonym of Mr. Brack.
Q What was the code name which he used in connection with his activities in the Euthanasia Program?
A He generally allowed us to address him with his real name, Brack.
Q Jennerwein was his pseudonym, as you put it?
A Yes.
Q Can you tell us who elso in the Program used pseudonym?
A No, I don't know of any more.
Q Will you turn to page 40 of the book in front of you, page 46 in your Honors' book? The excerpt from the letter which you wrote from the Hotel Wegert, 12 January 1942.
A Yes.
Q The second paragraph of the letter states? "Now I will say goodbye to Dr. Schidlausky, then I will take a motor car and ride to the hotel." Hasn't Dr. Schidlausky the camp doctor at Ravensbruck?
A Yes.
Q What is the reference to Karl in the first paragraph of that excerpt?
A You mean Karl?
Q Yes.
A That concerns my brother. This is a personal matter which at that time was discussed by my brother with the minister of Justice and he had some dealing with the Reich Chancellery. That has nothing to do with that Program, purely a private matter.
Q Now, Doctor, in the first line of this letter you say: "I hope to learn from Prof. Nietsche what exactly our next 'tour' will be." Does the reference to "tour" mean a visit to another concentration camp?
A Well, this is just the way I expressed myself. Well, this is just how. I expressed myself. Under "tour" in this case I really understood my next activity.
Q Doctor, will you turn to page 45 of the Document book in front of you, 49 of the English Book, letter No. 4, dated Heidelberg, 15 June 1942?
A Yes.
Q It starts off: "Just now I finished the thing for Berlin, in order to send it registered tonight, the photocopy for the Tiergartenstrasse as well as the answer to Nerren Jennerwein."
That is reference to Viktor Brack, is it not?
(Interpreter stated there was some question in the translation of this last question and asked that it be repeated.)
Q "Just now I finished the thing for Berlin, in order to send it registered tonight, the photocopy for the Tiergartenstrasse as well as the answer to Herren Jennerwein."
A Yes, with that I mean Mr. Brack.
Q. Now, a few lines down you state: "I want to show it to Prof. Schneider with whom I discussed it this morning and who was very interested in this 'recommencement'". What do you mean by "recommencement"?
A. It was probably concerned with the recommencement of Euthanasia in the Euthanasia Institute and I mainly thought of Hadanar since Hadamar was locate in our area. But I cannot now say with certainty what exactly I did mean by recommencement". I would, assume, however, that it was concerned with recommencement of Euthanasia activity.
Q. And was it not recommenced?
A. No.
Q. Why not? Why do you say that?
A. As far as i received any knowledge of it, it wasn't recommenced, at least not in Hadamar. Whether it was done in other places I don't know.
Q. You only knew about Hadamar?
A. Yes.
Q. Haven't you told us already that you continued to receive questionnaires on patients for your opinion during the year 1942?
A. Yes, during the year 1942 I still received them up to December 1942. photocopies for my expert opinion. Starting from the fall of 1942 I didn't receive them any longer.
Q. Well, but I course wasn' that the time you had your quarrel with Bernadotte and this activity was becoming less in the fall of 1942?
A. Yes.
Q. I noticed in this letter that Prof. Schneider is mentioned. Was Schneider working in Heidelberg?
A. Schneider was the director of the University of Heidelberg.
Q. Do you know whether or not Schneider received the brains of some of one persons who were subjected to the Euthanasia program for examination?
A. Yes.
Q. Doctor Mennecke, will you look at the next letter, letter no. 35, dated 7 April 1943? 1898
A. Yes.
Q. You say: "The letter of Herren Plankenburg, the answer on my 'report' sent to him about a fortnight ago is as follows: " What was the nature of your report to Herren Blankenburg?
A. The connections in that natter are as follows: After my quarrel with Barnardotte I was excluded from Eichberg and again transferred to the Medical Services of the Army. I was sent to eastern France as front line physician, then sent to Charkow and Belgorod, and in the summer of 1943 I lived the severe activities taking place near Charkow. At that time I became ill with Basedow's disease and it was extremely difficult in the German Army at that time to be relieved from the front and sent back home even in cases of severe illness. I, however, had the aim to euro my disease as quickly as possible and I then remembered that at the time I was excluded at the end of 1942 the mention was made that perhaps after onehalf year my return would be possible and that Dr. Schmidt would be sent to the front. Now, in order to receive an assurance that my being declared indispensable was carried through, I wrote to Mr. Blankenburg since I knew it was this agency of Mr. Blankenburg; which could succeed in managing my being classified as indispensable with the adjutant's office of the Fuehrer. That was the content of my letter to Blankenburg. That is what I assumed. However, I was surprised that in his reply he doesn't mention that at all.
Q Now, doctor, will you turn to letter number 99, dated September 14 1944?
A Yes.
Q I see a reference in there to Professor Brandt. Is that Professor Karl Brandt?
A Yes, that is Professor Kark Brandt, the personal physician of the Fuehrer.
Q And does this letter have anything to do with the euthanasia program?
A No
Q Can you tell us very briefly what it concerns?
A The Dr. Bettinger mentioned in that letter, during peace and during war, was the chief physician of the institution of Hoechenschwand, near the Black Forest. At the time I was there as a patient, I spent a few weeks in Hoechenschwand and at that time established connections with Dr. Bettinger, who was the physician who treated me at that time. He told me about difficulties which he had with the Party, and in this connection he said that he could turn to Professor Brandt, who would do something for him and intervene in his favor. That is all. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the program.
Q Now, witness, can you tell us something more about this so-called interruption, and whether or not the program was resumed, and, if so, in what manner?
A The interruption of the general program can be seen in the light of many rumors, but, so far as positive knowledge is concerned, that is something I never had. I heard a few things by way of rumor. For instance, it was said that one day Hitler in his special train had gone from Munich to Berlin and that near Hof in Bavaria his special train suddenly stopped. When Hitler wanted to know the reason for this stop and turned to the window, he saw a crowd of people standing outside who were watching the loading of a transport of insane persons. These people very plainly expressed their annoyance at this procedure, and when they then saw the Fuehrer from the window of his special train, they became even more annoyed.
In connection with that rumor, it was said that subsequently Hitler had ordered that action to stop.
Q That was then the summer of 1941?
A Yes, that must have been in the summer of 1941.
Q Your only definite knowledge is that Hadamar stopped operations in August 1941; is that right?
A Yes.
Q But your visits to concentration camps continued until June 1942? Is that right?
A Yes.
Q And your activity as an expert continued until the summer of 1942? Is that right?
A Yes.
Q. Do you know whether the program was reactivated at Hadamar or elsewhere after August, 1941, in any manner?
A. The program in its original form was not started again. However, the functions of the Reich Committee were extended. The Reich Committee originally was concerned only with child patients up to the age of three years. This age limit was later increased to eight years, twelve years, and, I think even up to the age of sixteen or seventeen years. That in itself is one extension which was to be some sort of a substitute for the program that had stopped.
In addition, I heard byway of conversation with other collaborators of the program that it was desired that one or the other physicians in these institutions, incase he was ready to do it, was to kill a patient by injections or overdoses if he was convinced of the necessity of ending his life. This procedure then would have continued without any organization or official procedure. Whether and how for any such action was carried through I cannot say.
Q. Dr. Mennecke, the Reich Committee for Research on Hereditary and Constitutional Diseases never interrupted its program, did it?
A. As long as I have known anything about this program, no.
Q. And to the extent that the program was continued after August 1941, was it continued by the some people and the same organizations?
A. You mean the program of the Reich Committee?
Q. No, I mean the program as a whole.
A. Tell, the leadership of the program still remained in the same hands.
Q. And the Reich Association and the Stiftungen and the Patient Transport Corporation continued to exist after August 1941, did they not?
A. At first, yes. Whether they were later dissolved or not I cannot say. At least I don' t know the period of time when they were dissolved.
Q. Well, were they in existence as long as you were connected with the program, which was up until the end of 1942?
A. In this respect there was no change.
Q. Now, Doctor, let's go back to the position of Karl Brandt in connection with this program. Will you tell the Tribunal all you know with respect to Brandt's connection with euthanasia?
A. I know very little about that. As I said before, I knew that at the end of 1941 he was included in this program as its leader. I never saw any letters written by him. I never saw him personally. I never heard him speak. He really did not appear during the course of this program. When in 12944 I was treated as a patient in the army hospital in St. Blasien, I found out through conversations with officers that Professor Brandt had an essential part in the collection of insane persons in the area of Lublin, Poland. That is really all I can say with reference to the case of Professor Brandt. It is not possible for me to say any more about him.
Q. Do you remember who told you that Brandt was connected with some action at Lublin?
A That was one of the officers at St. Blasien. I don't remember his name and I really don't know who he was, but I heard it by way of conversation.
Q Where is St. Blasien located?
A St. Blasien, South Black Forests, not far from the Rhine and the Swiss frontier.
Q Did your informant tell you when this Lublin action took place?
AA certain period of time was not mentioned, but it must concern itself with time up to 1944.
Q Did he say whether or not this Lublin action had any connection with the extermination of the Jews?
A There was mention made about Jews. Insane and Jews, it was said, were collected in Lublin in larger numbers.
Q Did you ever hear Viktor Brack's name mentioned in connection with this Lublin action?
A No.
MR. McHANEY: I have no further questions at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel will cross-examine the witness. Dr. Servatius, counsel for the defendant Karl Brandt.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. SERVATIUS:
Q Witness, a chart was presented to you from which the organization can be seen, which prevailed in the Euthanasia Program; you saw that chart, didn't you?
A Yes.
Q What activity did Professor Brandt exercise, according to your opinion?
A I really cannot answer that question, since I know nothing whatsoever about his activities. I only knew that he had a leading position. What kind of leading activity he hold, I do not know.
Q Witness, if you don't know the activity, then you cannot know whether it was loading or not.
A The fact that it concerned a loading activity I heard.
Q In that way you only confirmed this chart according to what you hoard, with reference to tho personality of Professor Brandt.
AAs I said before, I only knew that Brandt was a participant in this program at the end of 1944.
Q Well then, you cannot say whether Bouhler had a leading position, can you?
A Bouhler is not a physician. Brandt is a physician. It is possible that Hitler, in addition to this administrative agent, Bouhler, had commissioned a physician as the second leader of them program. I think that is entirely possible.
Q Well, in that case you don't know the distribution of the work between Bouhler and Professor Brandt?
A No.
Q Witness, you were present during the first conference in Berlin at the Columbus-Haus?
A Yes.
Q After that, it was continued in tho Reich Chancellery?
A Yes.
Q What was said at that time, and how was your task interpreted at the Columbus-Haus?
A. At the Columbus-Haus, my task was not interpreted.
Q. What were you told in the Reich Chancellery?
A. In the Reich Chancellery, we were told that we had been commissioned with the activity of experts; that is to say, to make an expert opinion on the basis of the entries in the photostatic copies, an expert opinion in the sense of the euthanasia question. That menat that we had to decide whether the life was worthy of continuing or not.
Q. What do you understand by "not worth to continue"?
A. This expression was used in the reports that were given to us, and, what I understood by "not worth of living", is an insane person, with a high degree of insanity, who has no real conception of his own life any longer, and who, because of his very severe symptoms of illness, is disturbing his own life without himself noticing it, and it is there where I understood the meaning of the words "unworthy of living".
Q. So, if I understood you correctly, the point of view of living for the patient -- that is to say, life for him -- held no value?
A. Yes.
Q. Was it mentioned also, that these persons had no value for the State any longer, and were therefore useless eaters?
A. Yes; that was pointed out too. It was pointed out that, during the war, in numerous cases, Healthy people had to give up their lives and these severely ill people continued to live, and would continue to live unless this action started, and that, in addition, the nursing situation and the nourishment situation would justify the elimination of these people.
Q. Well, what were the limits, and what exactly were the directives?
A. The measures taken were that, basically, patients who had not yet been in an asylum for longer than three years were excluded from that program completely.
Q. You didn't quite understand my question. What point of view, as a physician, was decisive for you in the selection, and in your judgment?
What were your directives given? Was it the medical point of view?
A. Yes; the medical point of view.
Q. And how about the other points of view?
A. In that case they were only mentioned as general observations. Yes.
Q. Well, how about the execution? According to which points of view did you really select these people, and judge them? Did you really keep to what was told you?
A. I acted according to purely medical criticism and purely medical conviction when making my expert opinion. And in numerous cases I decided on a "No", or "Doubtful", rather than to say "Yes".
Q. Witness, if you decided to say "No", couldn't the other experts outvote you?
A. Yes.
Q. In what manner was that done?
A. That obviously happened because otherwise Mr. Brack could not have reprimanded me, saying that my expert opinions wore far too soft and not rigid enough, and the manner in which this was being carried out was that a committee of experts consisted of three, the three of them received the same questionnaires, the same photostatic copies, and had to give their opinion of the same questionnaires independently of one another, and then, with their result, send them back to Berlin.
Q. Then, why wasn't such a questionnaire circulated? Why was the procedure selected that everyone independently received a questionnaire?
A. The gentlemen in charge of the organization could give you much more information on that point that I could, since I don't know according to what principles and what directives this whole procedure was built up.
Q. Witness, do you know, when one of these experts contradicted whether the judgment was negative, was the authorization refused then?
A. I don't know that. It certainly was not the case that when one expert said "No.", and the other two said "Yes," that then the patient in question did not fall under the Euthanasia Program. So, that is, it was not necessary to have a unanimous "Yes" by all the participants of the committee in order to lead the patient to the Euthanasia Program.
Q. Do you, from your own knowledge, know of any certain cases?
A. No.
Q. Then where do you gain your knowledge from?
A. From conversations with the collaborators, and from the directives which were given us, and which we were told to observe.
Q. Do you know of a case where you voted with "No", and where, in spite of that, an authorization was given?
A. No.
Q. Witness, in the year of 1942, or more correct, August 1941, there was a stop in Hadamar?
A. Yes; in Hadamar.
Q. Subsequently, wasn't there a basic change in the procedure after that?
A. Yes -- well, what do you mean by "basic change", Doctor?
Q When, for the first time, did you hear the name of Liebehenschel?
A What name?
Q Liebehenschel.
A I just now heard it for the very first time.
Q When, for the first time did you have any dealings with the camp of Oranienburg?
A That was in the summer of 1940.
Q What was the cause for that?
A The cause was directive from Berlin to go to Oranienburg with a number of other physicians, and there examine inmates and fill in questionnaires about them.
Q Who gave you these directives?
A I don't know who, in that case, gave them. It may have been Mr. Brack, it may have been Professor Heyde. Especially after such a long time has elapsed, I cannot say that.
Q Now, you have said before, when examined by the prosecution, that in 1942 you were in Buchenwald for the first time?
A 1941.
Q Oh, no; you said 1942.
A Well, I was in Buchenwald on two occasions. The second time was 1942.
Q Early 1942?
A Yes.
Q Then you further said that shortly before that you had been there for the first time, which would have meant the end of 1941?
A Well, not 1940, but 1941; that is, after the start of the Euthanasia Program.
MR. McHANEY: May it please the Tribunal, I must object to these statements being made by the defense counsel. I very clearly put the question to the witness with respect to the letter he wrote from Weimar, in November 1941 -- asked him if that was the second time he visited Buchenwald?
the answer being "Yes". The next question was: "Then, was the first time you visited Buchenwald, late in 1940?" The answer was "Yes". The witness has never testified that he was in Buchenwald in 1942.
THE PRESIDENT: The record, in that connection will speak for itself. The Tribunal will now recess until 1:30 o'clock.
AFTERNOON (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 17 January 1947)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. McHANEY: In connection with the objection that I raised just before the luncheon recess, I would ask, if the defense counsel wishes to continue or insists upon the line of questioning which he is adopting, that the stenographic note be obtained on the testimony of the witness with respect to the dates on which he visited Buchenwald and have those read aloud so that the witness can be properly advised of the testimony he has already given.
THE PRESIDENT: Is defense counsel desirous that the record be searched to find that evidence and read it?
DR. SERVATIUS: I do not intend to put another question the witness on that matter. The record will show later on what the correct situation was.
THE PRESIDENT: The cross-examination may proceed.
FRITZ MENNECKE (Resumed) CROSS-EXAMINATION (Continued)
BY DR. SERVATIUS:
Q. Witness, you have stated that during the time you were in St. Blasien in the hospital, an officer had told you that Brandt was connected with the collection of insane persons and Jews in Lublin?
A. Yes.
Q. That was a matter which interested you very much, wasn't it?
A. Yes; it interested not only me; it also interested the gentlemen who talked about it, that whole group of people we were with.
Q. Witness, you were an expert on the subject of insane persons and you had already worked in the so-called Euthanasia Program?
A. Yes.
Q. Well, in that case you must have been especially interested in that.
A. Yes, I was interested in it.
Q. A very special interest, wasn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you on any other occasion receive some confirmation of that rumor?
A. Not aside from this case.
Q. I am sure that you would have remembered it, wouldn't you?
A. Probably.
Q. I have a lot her question to put to you. Do you know the original decree where Brandt and Bouhler were authorized and where physicians were authorized to conduct Euthanasia?
A. In the trial at Frankfurt I had an opportunity to read a photostatic copy of this decree.
Q. At that time, during that first conference in Berlin, was this decree presented?
A. No not this decree.
Q. But were you told at that time that a critical judgment of the case history was important for the selection of the sick?
A. Yes.
Q. That was told you?
A. May I hear your question once more?
Q. At that time you did not see the decree. You saw it later, didn't you?
A. Yes.
Q. I mean the decree where it said that a critical judgment of the case history of the patient would be made and only then could Euthanasia be authorized?
A. There was a special memorandum on the principles to be considered in forming this opinion, and also for filling out the questionnaires.
Q. Witness, we will come to that later. I am now asking you about the decree itself.
A. This decree which mentioned Brandt and Bouhler I did not see in February 1940, in Berlin.
Q. But you saw it later, during the trial?
A. During the trial at Frankfurt.
Q. And what did it contain?
A. It said that physicians were permitted to give "mercy killing" to insane persons. I do not know whether that was the exact wording. I can not recall the text. It wasn't much. It was about this much text. (Demonstrating.)
Q. You said before that at any rate there were medical points of view which were decisive for the selection?
A. Yes.
Q. Now you further state that even in the case at the inmates in the concentration camp, questionnaires had to be filled out. You further stated that political prisoners and Jews were expertized in that manner?
A. Yes.
Q. What points of view were decisive in their cases?
A. That has already been discussed. The Jews were not judged according to their health but from the point of view of the reasons for their arrest.
Q. So there were political and racial considerations?
A. Yes.
Q. Who gave you the order to use these points of view in your procedure?
A. I also said that before. That varied. Sometimes it was Professor Nietsche, sometimes Professor Heyde, or Mr. Brack. These were the people who indicated the procedure to be used.
Q. Was not this completely in contradiction to what had been said at the beginning?