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?
A. At least it had nothing to do with Euthanasia of the insane.
Q. When did you start proceeding according to this point of view,--that is, racial and political consideration? Was it already during your first visit to the concentration camp?
A. No.
Q. Well, when did it happen?
A. In my opinion that could only have been begun in Buchenwald or maybe at Dachau.
Q. Will you just name a date, an approximate date? Was it before the stop or after the stop, - I mean the Euthanasia stop?
A. Probably before the Euthanasia stop.
Q. And what was the procedure before that? What was your task in the concentration camp before that?
A. The examination of prisoners who were presented, to determine whether they were psycho or pathological.
Q. Well at first it was a medical question and later on it became a political and racial question?
A. Yes. That is, in addition to the political and racial question there were later purely medical considerations, cases which had to be judged from the medical point of view.
Q. So later there were two cases. There were the insane people who, according to medical considerations, had to be expertized; and the others, who had to be judged according to political and racial considerations?
A. One cannot separate the two, they were not clearly divided from each other.
Q. Whenever you examined a large number of Jews would you say that all of them were insane at the same time?
A. I have already answered that question. I have said that it is my opinion that they were not sick at all -- either insane or physically ill.
Q. But you did fill in these questionnaires?
A. Yes, those were the orders we had from Berlin.
Q. And who was to expertize and judge these questionnaires?
A. I do not know.
Q. Are you of the opinion that a physician was to do this judging?
A. I would not know what a doctor could learn from the questionnaires filled out about Jews.
DR. SERVATIUS: I have no further questions to put to the witness.
BY DR. FROESCHMANN: Dr. Froeschmann, counsel for defendant Viktor Brack.
Q Witness, at first I have a question to put to you; before February 1940 were you in contact with leading circles in Germany who know about the health situation and were entrusted with the leadership of the health situation in Germany?
A No.
Q Before February 1940 were you already dealing with the problem of Euthanasia?
A No.
Q Neither in practice nor by way of writing?
AAs a student I occasionally read something in quite brief articles mentioning something about Euthanasia, but I did not read a great deal in that field.
Q So you really made no publications about tint matter?
A No.
Q Were you a member of the S.A.?
A No.
Q Were you a member of the S.S.?
A Yes.
Q What was your rank in the S.S.?
A I was adjutant of the S.S. Oberabschmitts, physician of Wiesbaden.
Q And in the year 1939, or rather the beginning of 1940?
A Yes, I was that at that time.
Q Did you at that time already know Professor Heyde?
A No.
Q You only made his acquaintance later?
A I met him only through the Euthanasia Program in Berlin.
Q Did you at any time hoar for what reasons you were asked to attend this conference in 1940?
A I never heard anything positive on that point, but I assume that the S.S. office of the S.S. Oberabschmitt Rhein in Wiesbaden, to which I belonged, had, without my approval recommended me for this work.
Q Now, another complex of questions; this morning during the examination you repeatedly used the work "Euthanasia Program," now let us talk a little about the Euthanasia problem you stated before that at one time as a student you were slight interested in the question and dealt with it; did you at any ti before February 1940 deal with Euthanasia problems?
A No.
Q So it was something completely new for you, something completely new that you had in February 1940?
A Yes.
Q What did you understand at that time by "Euthanasia?"
A The aid which a doctor gives a sick person who is dying and who makes the death easier in this way.
Q Well, if I understand you correctly, you mean to say that euthanasia does not mean a shortening of the life, but a mild death, as mild as possible?
A Yes.
Q You know the Reich Penal Codes, don't you?
A Yes.
Q You also know that as in all other countries of the World the killing of human beings is forbidden?
A Yes.
Q And you further know that the criterion of murder consists in the fact that the will for life in another person's mind is being interfered with?
A Yes.
Q You know that, don't you?
A Yes.
Q Now, you were the director of a mental institution for insane people?
A Yes.
Q And according to the general purpose of that institution it was the task of the physician to give therapeutical treatment to the patients and to restore them to a certain degree of health?
A Yes.
Q And to try and cure them if possible?
A Yes.
Q Didn't you have any misgivings about what you heard in Berlin, and didn't you think that it was in contradiction to the prohibition of murder?
A Such misgivings often occurred to me. On the other hand, however, there was always the positive assurance of the gentleman --
Q. One moment. I want to ask you to confine yourself to my question. I shall come to that point later. You were saying that in the year of 1940 -- in February 1940, you felt no misgivings whatsoever?
A I did not say that.
Q That is how I understood you.
A I said that from time to time misgivings on this question did come to me.
Q Later, after February 1940?
A From the beginning of this activity.
Q Did you, during the course of the period that followed, concern yourself with the euthanasia problem -- I don't mean the program, I mean the problem; do you understand my question?
A Yes. In so far as finally taking into consideration all details and exercising medical judgment, I came to the realization that for absolutely hopelessly insane persons who had no feeling of their own life and no awareness of their surroundings, that for these people it would be better to be dead than alive. In this form the problem of which you speak appeared to me. But in addition to that, cases which do not fall into this category, which I have just described, cases outside this category, I always rejected.
Q. We haven't gone that far, Doctor. I an only interested in your personal attitude to the question of the euthanasia problem. You previously answered to that question Then I asked you what you understood about euthanasia, you said what was correct, namely to give a possible assurance of a mild death toward a severely ill person whoso fate cannot be adjourned?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, subsequently to February 1940, did you concern yourself with the ethical attitude due followers of the opponents of the euthanasia problem?
A. I considered the following at the time from the ideological point of view; everything was based on the National Socialism Ideology and it was according to the National Socialism. Ideology that a euthanasia program in the sense that it was set up should be set up. Against these measures of the Government which was really identical with National Socialism, to oppose the ideas of the Government was quite inadvisable, and that had its effect on the inner attitude of the individual.
Q. I was asking you whether you concerned yourself with the attitude of the followers or the opponents of the euthanasia problem, whether you tried to inform yourself about their attitude after February 1940. What you have just told the High Tribunal may be very interesting with reference to your own personal attitude, but it does not answer my question. Today I am sure that you know that there was much talk and much writing about this problem. Sometimes books were published and utterances were made by jurists and medical men; do you know that?
A. As far as literature on the problem of euthanasia I do not know very much. I know the little compendium, by Binding-Heche.
Q. But you did not know any literature by Ebermayer, Walther, and Meltzer?
A. I did not know that.
Q. You had no reason after February 1940 to concern yourself with these matters?
A. I did not concern myself with then.
Q. During the conference of February 1940 not only medical non but lawyers were supposed to be present too is that correct?
A. I assume that Dr. Heffelmann is a lawyer.
Q. How about other gentlemen from the Reich Ministry of Justice, were they present too?
A. I cannot say the majority of the gentlemen. I have forgotten their persons as well as their names.
Q. Don't you remember any longer with reference to a legal basis of such a euthanasia, or was a basis made by one of the other gentlemen?
A. The legal basis was discussed. A law was mentioned, a regular law which permitted this activity, declared it free of punishment, and we were told that this law was valid and binding.
Q. With reference to this law you arc speaking of now, was there any mention made of it already in February 1940; are you sure that you aren't wrong about that?
A. In February 1940 a law was read.
Q. I am asking you because in February 1940 a law was not issued, not even the draft of such a law.
A. Then it could have been at a later meeting in Berlin this law was read.
Q On the basis of the statements that were made in February, 1940, in a large circle, did you think that you wore justified to deprive insane persons of their lives and shorten them in a painless manner?
A It was not my duty to shorten the lives of the insane persons, it was my duty to act as a medical expert.
Q The activity, acting as an expert, included the approval of the attitude of other physicians or the approval of the acting of other physician who actually were to shorten the lives of these insane persons?
A Yes.
Q I am now asking you, did you feel yourself justified to participate in such an affair, if I may put it that way?
A On the basis of the contents of the law, yes.
Q And everything that was connected with Euthanasia was called by you the so-called Berlin action?
A Yes.
Q At any rate that is what you said in your letter to your wife?
A Yes.
Q This morning, already mention was made that certain circles of persons were to be excluded from this Euthanasia. At the moment we don't want to know just what circles were to be excluded, but what I do want to know is wnat I am asking you and that is whether in that discussion in February, 1940 if these exclusions were mentioned?
A Yes, these exceptions were announced from the very beginning.
Q And now, witness, I want to ask you what circles was that to extend to, and I am referring to the exceptions?
A People who had not been three years in institutions, war veterans, also apoplectics and senile cases, also all organically sick persons with no mental disturbances.
Q And was there not a group among them that was designated as a foreign group?
A No.
Q There was no talk about foreigners; or don't you remember it?
A Foreigners were not mentioned.
Q Are you sure of that? You told us yesterday that because of your physical illness your power of concentration has suffered somewhat. I don't want to cause you any trouble and. I am asking you again whether it might not be possible that these foreigners were discussed and maybe you don't remember it at the moment?
A I am not aware that foreigners were mentioned in this connection.
Q Witness, the Prosecution repeatedly pointed out that the decree of Hitler, with reference to which my predecessor here on the Prosecution asked you, was any reference made at that time that this decree was to be kept secret; do you know that this decree and the Euthanasia of insane persons was to be kept secret?
A I learned of this decree, as I said before, only recently, but that the whole program of Euthanasia was to be kept secret we were told from the very beginning. It was to be kept a top secret matter.
Q Did you not object to the fact that these directives were to be kept secret?
A Yes, but the reasons for this secrecy were given as follows: they wanted to avoid unrest among the people, which was very important during the war and for that reason the thing should not be discussed.
Q This morning, answering a question of the Prosecuting Counsel, the question being whether sabotage was punishable by death in concentration camp you answered "yes" and were repeatedly told that in such cases would be transferred into a concentration camp and that moreover there was a possibility of shooting. Do you remember that? Were you not a little wrong in expressing yourself? The Prosecutor was asking you about sabotage; were you not referring to the breach of secrecy when you made that reply? Do you understand the difference?
A The breach of secrecy is also sabotage considered from the point of view on the whole.
Q But, one may have a difference of opinion on that. What I did want to know was, this morning did you properly understand the word, "sabotage" or did you mean the general obligation to keep the matter secret?