Q. And the Reich Committee was headed by A. (Interrupting) I must tell you I don't know from my own knowledge.
Q. Then you say that you received authorization? It was in writing?
A. Yes, it was in writing, authorizations for every individual case.
Q. You received separate authorizations for each case; that these deformed children - idiots, etc. - were to be treated by the modern methods of therapy and if these cases wore hopeless then the life should be shortened? Is that true?
A. Well, it didn't say that the children's lives should be shortened.
MR. HARDY: May it please Your Honors, I object to these leading questions on the part of the defense counsel. It seems to me that the witness is a psychiatrist, he is the chief of a mental institution, and that he is familiar with the euthanasia program and is fully capable of answering the questions without being led in this manner.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, I am not aware of having asked any leading questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may proceed.
BY DR. FROESCHMANN:
Q. Doctor, the last question in this connection. Do you know who, in Berlin, reached these decisions that a child was to be assigned to the Reich Committee Station?
A. I learned later that the questionnaires on children which were received were examined and the medical opinion was expressed on them. Who decided, I don't know.
Q. Then, I shall close this chapter about the Reich Committee for Children with Severe Heriditary Diseases and I come to the second procedure: Euthanasia of the incurably insane.
Q I should like to ask you first to explain to the Tribunal your fundamental attitude on the question of euthanasia?
A Gentlement, I have a positive attitude toward the idea of euthanasia. I am an advocate of the subject of euthanasia. I know the literature on the subject. I have given considerable thought to the problem of euthanasia. I was interested in it already as a medical student. When my father was dying, he suffered severe euremic attacks repeated every few minutes, a terrible sight, not only for myself but for my poor father. The doctor finally shortened my father's life. Later I became an advocate of it as a practicing psychiatrist, after a sight of the misery in the mental institutions and the distress of the mothers and fathers of these children. That is why I looked at euthanasia positively. And I put myself at the disposal of the Reich Work Union when I was called upon. I know the opinion of important German professors and their attitude upon euthanasia, and I personally and seriously accepted the idea.
Q Doctor, is it true that there are two kinds of euthanasia up to 1939, namely, aid in dying, that is relieving the pain or failure to administer stimulants, and aid to die, that is giving drugs if if was certain that death would occur very shortly, and the terrible death struggle such as you have just described in the case of your father could be shortened?
A Yes, this distinction was made. I once talked of a major and a minor euthanasia, the minor euthanasia the simpler aid in dying and the major euthanasia which is intended for individuals incapable of living, such as Kretschmer and Hans Jacob and others have advocated.
Q Doctor, what was done in 1939, if I judge the matter correctly, is considerably different from the type of euthanasia customary up to that time, that is to shorten the lives of the incurably insane who might live for years or decades possibly in this painful condition in as painless a way as possible, is that true?
A That is true only insofar as those patients, of course, were not in eminent danger of death and were included in the drive of the Reich Working Union, but even these cases could not in any case be expected to live very long.
Nobody can predict that, of course, but I wrote a paper once on the life span of incurably insane people and I proved my statistics that, outside of institutions these cases have a shortened life span. This work was given great attention in Dutch medical circles, and I got a good criticism in a Dutch paper which was sent to me by a Dutch doctor.
Q Now, doctor, how did it come about that you worked in the so-called euthanasia program, in the general consideration of the procedure within the euthanasia program?
A One day, I am afraid I don't know the time exactly, I thought it was in 1940, but I can't deny the possibility that it might have been in the early winter or late fall of 1939, I received a registered letter from the Chancellory of the Fuehrer with a request to report in Berlin at the Chancellory of the Fuehrer for a conference, at a certain meeting.
Q Well, now let me interrupt you; do you know whether the invitation itself came from the Chancellory of the Fuehrer or from the Reich ministry of the Interior in the office of the Chancellory of the Fuehrer?
A As far as I recall the envelope had a stamp on it "Chancellory of the Fuehrer", and as far as I remember it was signed "Bouhler."
Q That will be enough, Witness, now what was the subject of the discussion at this meeting?
A As far as I can remember this meeting, which was a very long time ago, my impression was that the separation of the mental institutions into curable cases and incurable cases. That was my impression at this conference. The transfer of certain patients, to provincial institutions, was discussed. I thought that certain serious cases who could not be treated psychiatrically were to be transferred to special institutions.
Q Was the word "euthanasia" used?
AAs far as I can remember the word "euthanasia" was not used.
Q Witness, after this meeting passed, a few weeks later, even longer, were you asked to work as an expert in a procedure judging these insane people?
A Yes, I was in Berlin repeatedly. I took care of the questionnaires of the patients in my institute on whom questionnaires were drawn up, and then I was called into a meeting in Berlin where as far as I remember I think there were some professors there too, but in any case there were psychiatrists and doctors. I considered that a meeting of expert judges, and we had a discussion and were given directives on judging the questionnaires, and I believe this was beforehand that I was asked to work as an expert judge.
Q Who was in charge of these conferences, was that Boohler or Linden?
A No, I think Linden was there. I think Dr. Brack was there, but I can't say for certain. I don't believe Boehler was at this conference, maybe only temporarily, I can't say for certain.
Q Now, what did you do as an expert judge?
A I received an appointment, a letter from the Reich Ministry of the Interior. I can't say exactly whether it was signed by Linden, but I received a letter in the name of the Reich Work Union, and I don't know how it read, but in any case in the program of the Reich Work Union I was asked to work as an expert judge, and I considered it my duty to do so, because I was in favor of euthanasia.
Q Now, this work consisted of passing judgment on these questionnaires, is that right?
A Yes, photostatic copies of them.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Now, these questionnaires, Mr. President, are contained in the German Document Book NO. 825, Exhibit 358, in the German Document Book 14, part 2, page 133.
In the English Document Book, I shall give you the page number this afternoon.
Q Doctor, do you remember the contents of these questionnaires or shall I show you the document?
A I would appreciate it if you would give me the document.
THE PRESIDENT: Before going into this matter of the document book, the Tribunal will be in recess until 1:45 this afternoon.
(Thereupon the noon recess was taken.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The Tribunal reconvened at 1345 hours, 9 May 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the Court room will please find their seats.
The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may proceed.
DR. PFANNMUELLER - Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. FROESCHMANN: (Counsel for Viktor Brack)
Q Witness, I remind you that you are still under oath.
Mr. President. I may repeat what I have filled to note this morning, namely, document 1133, Exhibit 349 is in English document volume 14, page 151, 1696 PS Exhibit 347 is to be found in English document book 14, page 209.
Witness, this morning we stopped discussing the question whether you still remembered the questionnaire which was used during the euthanasia procedure in the case of incurable mental patients. And first I should like to interpolate a question. You were an expert, as an expert, did you ever give any opinion about questionnaires which had to be filled out about the patients of your institute?
A No.
Q Why did that not happen?
A Because we received directives that we could not give such expert opinions on questionnaires which came under our own institute.
Q According to what principles did you exercise your expert opinions when expertizing these questionnaires?
A I observed the following principles when filling out the questionnaire, when filling out the left lower corner of that questionnaire. The principles were told us in Berlin during that expert conference which I have already mentioned. We were told with regard to feeble mindedness that it was divided into three forms, the light feeble minded, the medium feeble minded and the severe idiotic form.
When charging feeble mindedness, one has to take into consideration the degree of the intellect and the personality involved. In the cases of schizophrenia, the cause of the illness, the mental picture and the condition of the patient, the form of schizophrenia, and most important, we were then concerned with a condition which has to be considered when giving an expert opinion, the valuation to be attached to the degree of damage to the personality of the man involved, and when giving the prognosis of the mind. In the case of organix psychosis and in this connection I may in particular mention epilepsy and paralysis, and just to mention too one has to observe in what stage the paralysis is and what kind of treatment has preceded that stage. One has to observe whether there is a refractory therapy condition, which is a condition which can no longer be treated, a completely final condition. One has to take into consideration whether any such condition has resulted. In the case of epilepsy one has to find cut whether the personality of the man involved has changed in any way, whether he is subject to attacks, et cetera. Psychosis regarding age has to be rejected. The treatment in itself and the care in an institute would have to be considered whenever giving a judgment about the case. People who were injured as a result of war should not be expertized positively especially in those cases when the damage as a result of war is not either an organic connection or any other connection with the mental condition of the patient. At a later date the question was discussed whether people who received damages as a result of work should not bo expertized positively. This question was not dealt with economically according to groups, for instance house work, or paper work. In other words, it was not graded as to light work, medium work or heavy work and no mention was made about agricultural work, et cetera, but this merely was used as a diagnostic psychiatric aid in order to evaluate the ability of the patient to work within his environment. It was ex pressed that this question was to be considered in a very serious way and the occupation of the patient should have to be changed very favorably.
Furthermore, mention was made that the medical expert and especially the previous experts who were used would only have to deal with medical points. In no case were they to touch upon other questions contained in the questionnaire, questions concerning visits, et cetera.
Q Doctor, may I ask you to make a small pause between your individual sentences. Will you please continue?
A The Jews who were at the Institute from a medical point of view were to be considered in the same way as any other Aryan. Race should make no difference. Foreign ers were not to fall under the question of giving an expert opinion. We were told that Jews, as well as foreigners, do not fall within the concept of euthanasia, as it was meant here. Also a deciding factor for the export was the way the questionnaire was filled out. Whenever no firm decision could be arrived at, we had not the right to insert either a class major or minor at the lower lefthand corner, but we could call a case questionable, we could add that was done by either expert, at any rate, by me. These were sent on, the case history, or else a personal examination of the patient in necessary All of these things were actually observed. There was even the possibility to insert a detailed remark on the back of the questionnaire about any matter which was left unclear, or about any investigation which still may be necessary. I think these were the broad outlines on those points which I can mention.
Q Can you still remember, witness, who issued these directives?
A. These directives are the consequences of a talk among the export physicians who participated in this conference, of experts. This was the summing-up of this entire conference. I think that I said that I don't know whether Bouhler was there, but I think that he may have boon one of the people who were in the Praesidium, but it was not of psychiatrists.
Q Doctor, by inserting in your answer that statement, you answered also another question as to what category the persons were eliminated.
Can you tell me why in spite of this exception, it was sot down that the questionnaire had to bo filled out regarding foreigners?
AA questionnaire, I never saw a questionnaire about foreigners.
Q What exactly do you mean? Doctor, I should like to point out to you that a so-called regulation shoot was attached to the questionnaire?
No, I never received that.
Q There seems to be a little misunderstanding between us. You are right that under the activity of the exports, which you just described, you only know of the photostatic copy of the questionnaire, perhaps in addition to the case history. However, I am now asking you about the filling out of the questionnaire, the filling out of the questionnaire on the basis of the previous questionnaire, which had been sent to your mental Institution. You were asked to fill out the questionnaire according to the categories which were laid down in the previous sheet of which I am speaking. Do you have Document NO-825 before you? That document, you will find it in the German Document Volume 14, page 138. I shall have that Document Book handed to you. The document is NO-825, Exhibit No. 358. I already cited the page in the English Document Book No. 216, Document Book No. 14, part II. Would you please look at this shoot, I think it was on green paper?
A I never received that, never did.
Q Didn't you?
A No, I never did. I never even saw it. I would have remembered that. I am sure I would have remembered if there was something like that there on green paper. However, I never received it.
Q May I interpolate a question. When in the Fall of 1939, or the beginning of '40, you were asked to fill out questionnaires about certain patients in your institution, such a questionnaire would have to be directed to your office, is that right?
A Yes. Those questionnaires were sent to me, yes.
Q I asked also, perhaps you cannot remember it, that a regulation sheet was attached to that questionnaire, whether it was on green or white paper really makes no difference, and I think that in this regulation shoot a certain category of persons was set down who were to be considered when filling out the questionnaire. First, those persons who were suffering of illnesses and could therefore not be used for any work at all; secondly, such persons who for a number, of years, I think five years, had been in an institution; thirdly, persons who from a legal point of view could be considered, and fourthly, foreigners. I want to ask you whether you know for what reasons the filling out of questionnaire was necessary for foreigners in spite of the statement which you just made to the effect that foreigners did not come under euthanasia. Do you understand me?
A. Yes.
Q If you don't know that, please don't make any assumption. Just say so.
A. I only received those directives during the expert conference, and I can not remember having received previously any regulation shoot attached to the questionnaire, sofar as I can remember. I just received the questionnaire.
Q In other words, you can not tell us anything about that. You can not say why a questionnaire had to be filled out about those foreigners?
A No, I can not say that.
Q In that case I wish to conclude this chapter by putting two questions. On the basis of those questionnaires, could a reliable decision bo made about the fact that the mental illness of a patient concerned was still in effect incurable?
A It is my point of view that a questionnaire is a sufficient basis for a psychiatrist expert in order to judge whether the case should be transferred to one of the care institutions of which I have spoken about previously, or not. In addition we were told during this expert conference that an opinion by three pro-exports should be subject to a commission of top experts, and that this commission of top experts should once more investigate the case concerned in case of anything that was unclear. They should either visit the patient concerned personally, or else obtain its case history. At any rate they should do something in order to obtain clarification regarding the cases. The decision would have to be made at the end. The physician who is to accept the patient into the institute is to have another vote.
Q What you just said is of considerable interest, especially because the Prosecution has submitted Document 3865-PS, Exhibit 365, which is to be found in the German Document Book 14, page 156, and in the English Document Book at page 230. This is a document wherein a female witness points out that a commission of physicians visited your institute, who stayed there for a number of days, and there personally examined a number of patients, after having studied the case history. Do you thing that this commission of which this female witness is speaking was probably the commission of which you were just speaking?
A I can not remember that a commission of physicians was at my Institution in the year of 1940. I assume this concerns one physician who visited my Institute. I only assume that. I think that this must be the physician who gathered all the physicians of the entire personnel, and also the ones of the personnel who were to deal with the questionnaires which were to go to Berlin. He wanted more investigating of those questionnaires in order to arrive at some decision. I think that was the case. But I don't think it was a commission.
Q Doctor, you told me that the questionnaire meant for you a sufficient basis for judging the degree of mental illness. But I would rather generalize this question, in view of what the president has told me this morning, and I would not like to limit it to your case. The psychiatrist physicians who were generally intended to be experts, could they also recommend the degree of mental illness on the basis of the questionnaire?
A So far as I know only the most experienced expert physicians were used for these expert jobs. Among them, so far as I know, there were the "University Professors, the Ordinariuses, the extra-Ordinariuses, and the practical psychiatrists. I don't know the names of the experts in detail, because that was never told to me. From later reports, however, for instance, from Heidelberg, I know that only the most efficient people were selected. I know and I think that these people had the same point of view as I had. However, I am not sure about that.
Q. Doctor, in spite of your opinion that, on the basis of these questionnaires, the degree of the mental illness could be determined very clearly, do you think that errors were possible?
A. Doctor, there is a principle which says "Errare humanum est". To err is human. Even in the case of trials which are lasting for decades, trials of a purely legal nature, errors have been made and errors will continue to be made. This is exactly the same situation as in the case of an expert. These experts were used in the same way as all the experts are used during any trial and it is possible also for them to make an error once in a while, but I do think that we're here only concerned with singular cases.
I don't think that any principal errors were possible.
Q. Doctor, I only have a few questions to put to you. One question may yet have to be discussed in that connection. In the course of the evidence the prosecution has raised the charge that these questionnaires were expertized by these experts in huge numbers and within an incredibly short period of time.
A. These questionnares came to the pre-expert in a registered package and these questionnaires were to be dealt with as quickly as possible. That was desired during the expert conference, but it was also pointed out that they were to be dealt with carefully. When dealing with any such questionnaire and when considering the period of time it takes, one must bear in mind that time is really not the important factor. There are persons who are in a position to work quickly and others who work more slowly. There are people who have their desks littered with files and can never get anything done, and there are the people who sit at their desks and never leabe it before their job is finished. In the case of these questionnaires, the contents of the questionnaire is the most important thing. A questionnaire can be kept in such a form that when underlining psychiatric questions with red or blue pencil one might often come to a decision within a period of one minute. One could perhaps reach a negative decision, not necessarily a positive decision.
However, there were other questionnaires, and that particularly in the case of the later questionnaires when the cases were more difficult and not as clear as before, that one could ponder about such a questionnaire for days and not get finished with it. In that case, a question mark had to be put down and the decision had to be left to other agencies. In any case, I don't want you to accept that as any defense of any personal nature, but I want to put that to you as a defense for all experts. I have dealt with these questionnaires as carefully as possible and in order to be quite sure personally looked through a few hundreds of these questionnaires one morning, let them lie, then perhaps looked at another bunch of these files in the afternoon, and then once more looked at the first heap of these questionnaires and only then gave my opinion on them.
Q. Doctor, this brings me to the end of the most extensive point of view regarding the procedure which was adopted by the Reich Committee within the euthanasia procedure. It is now only necessary for me to put a number of small questions to you which arose from your activity and which have to be illustrated somewhat. Did you, at any time, hear that these poor mental patients, and these poor children wore designated as "useless eaters"?
A. The expression "useless eaters" I heard for the first time while being here. I never heard this expression when dealing with any agencies with which I was in contact. You may believe me that if any serious minded person had hoard that expression he would have thrown everything away and would have said "I am not going to cooperate."
Q. Doctor, one witness has stated in an affidavit that in the year of 1942 there was a conference in the Ministry of the Interior during which the directors of the institutes were to have Take 16 Couirt I received the directive to kill these useless eaters by slow starvation.
Do you know of any such conference in the Bavarian Ministry of the Interior?
A. There was a conference in the Bavarian Ministry of the Interior of all the institute directors coming from Bavaria. This conference was called by the Bavarian Ministry of the Interior. I don't know what the names of all the participants were, but, as far as I remember, the directors of all those institutes were actually present as far as they held the offices. There was the following reason for the calling of this conference. The public mental institutions, from the point of view of nourishment, were treated in a manner which is equal to certain institutions which do not correspond to mental institutions; for instance, work houses. We were subjected to whatever we were dished out in the way of rations. When, in the later years, nourishment became a problem and, in particular, the rations were reduced, difficulties began to arise within the institutions. In particular, those patients who were working within the productive program of that institution had to starve. They could no longer eat to their satisfaction and, as a result, became worse in their condition. As other directors of institutions, I attempted to increase the ration by making a number of applications at the Food Office in Munich. I tried to get a special ration of food to the same extent as was given to heavy workers. I had to visit this office for ten times and I only received rations for that personnel in my institution who were engaged in the heaviest work and only that after many, many tedious negotiations. I only received that for tubercular patients and people who had to stand on guard for as long as ten hours. The whole thing was refected for the patients. Then, of course, I had to make a complaint to the district office and I also turned to the Ministry of the Interior in Bavaria. At a later date I Take 16 learned during that conference that the same thing had happened in the case of other directors of institutions without being able to come to any understanding.
However, nothing was given to us. Some adjustment had to be made with the rations which we received at the institute and it was then determined that the patients had to be treated in a different way who were at a much lower social level for the benefit of the other patients, and I think I want to point out something else- I would not have been in a position to maintain one of my insulin departments if hadn't received enough nourishment.
Q. Doctor, if I understand you correctly, this dealt with the giving of nourishment to these institutions by the Rood Office which had nothing to do at all with euthanasis. Now, another question- among the mental patients who were transferred to an euthanasia station from your institution, were there any such people who could be considered as valuable workers?
A. Gentlemen, I filled out the questionnaires of my institution by having every one of my patients presented to me personally. This was done by the head nurse of that particular department. That was done in the presence of the head nurse and in the presence of the physician of the department, who had previously filled out the questionnaire. Also in the presence of the ordinary nurse or the person who was controlling the work of that patient. I looked at the case histories. I don't really know what other safeguards I could have taken.
Q. At any rate, you say "no" to the question that any valuable workers were transferred to the euthanasia program?
A. No, that is out of the question.
Q. Did you ever gain knowledge that patients were transferred from mental institutions for euthanasia?
A. Now, Doctor, I think I forgot something from before. I kept back patients and I didn't send them on to the transportation cases where I didn't think they should be transferred to the transfer institutions.
Q. Now, I shall once more repeat the question. Did you ever again knowledge that patients were transferred from mental institutions into euthanasia stations in order to create sufficient space for wounded personnel?
A. I didn't know that it was possible, however, that I cannot remember this, during the conference in Berlin, Dr. Bouhler's conference, a release of space was discussed and the furnishing of that space for Army purposes. At to be vacated for particularly discussed that this space was to be vacated for purposes of healing, but not within the framework of euthanasia, euthanasia was not at all discussed.
Q. I have one more question to you; to whom were the euthanasia stations subordinated from an official point of view?
A. From an official point of view they were subordinated to the Ministry of the Interior medically, from the economic point of view they were subordinated to the Reichsarzt President, that is the district president, who had a certain expert for that department. He was a legal man who was detached for that department.
Q. Doctor, was there a National Socialist Nurses Corps?
A. I never heard of anything like that in my life.
DR. FROESCHMANN: I should like to point out that the Prosecution has submitted Document 3882PS, Exhibit 371, Document Book 14, page 183 of one German edition, and in the English edition page 262.
This is the affidavit of Jordans, wherein it is stated these injections in the case of children were introduced by physicians and nurses of the so-called National Socialist Nurses Corps.
THE WITNESS: Gentlemen, that is madness. That is complete madness. We had nurses who came from a free nursing association. We had male personnel and female personnel nurses, and I know of no other nurses. I never heard of the National socialist Nurses association. I would have known it if such a thing had existed.
Q. Now, the one last question, Doctor. Do you know that euthanasia had been carried out because of defensive and political reasons?
A. No, during my interrogation by the American gentlemen I have been asked about that question, but I don't know anything about that.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, in that connection I refer to another document which has been submitted by the Prosecution, Document No. 3896, Exhibit 372, in volume 14, page 184 in the German edition, and page 263 of the English document book, which deals with the affidavit of Dr. Sprauer, where he says that mention was made during the conference in Berlin that euthanasia was necessary for defensive and political reasons.
Q. Now, I have one other question. Did you gain knowledge that euthanasia was to be extended to elderly people?
A. No, on the contrary.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, in this connection I refer you to Document 818, Exhibit 373, Document Book German 14, page 187, and the English Document Book page 365. This is an affidavit by the just mentioned Dr. Sprauer.
Q. Now, one last question. When discussing the exceptions you were saying that people who were injured as a result of the war were to be excepted, perhaps you didn't express yourself quite properly. I am putting to you that in a document, which I don't find, submitted by the prosecution, there was a list of a number of death cases where death notices were contained, and I think that three or four participants in the World War, 1914 to 1918, were also mentioned there. Doctor, it is my question now, is it correct that only those participants in the World War were to be excepted where the mental illness was in connection with a wound which was inflicted during the war, or and that I can hardly assume, that all participants in the World War were to be excepted who became mentally ill as a result of their injury?
A. Well, I can't tell you that. I can only tell you that in the case of those people who suffered injuries as a result of the war, and in which case there was a connection between that injury and their mental condition had to be considered in a negative way. As for the others, I cannot tell you how they are judged. I think it says here "military conscription from the year of 1914-1918" and then we inserted either "yes" or "no". The expert opinion does not depend on that at all. All the medica psychiatric questions of the transfer which really had nothing to do with the expert. Now, something else, gentlemen, I think I can remember that this was outlined in the file. Whenever participants in the World War were mentioned you must consider that it is quite possible that we didn't know from the case history whether the person concerned actually was a participant in the War or not, because that was not laid down. It is quite possible that a "no" was inserted at first, because one only set it down according to the administrative files on that person, and one doesn't at all find out whether the man was in the war.