This was all that I was told and that the relatives would be informed by the other institution about the patients arrival and his well being That is how it was as far as I can remember.
Q. Well now Doctor when did the occasion arise of necessity for you to ask your employees in the institute to take an oath, similar to the oath that we see here in the Documents that they would keep secret all the activities concerning this particular phase of your work; when did that occasion arise? Doctor, in Document Book No. 17, there is on the next page, page 8, an affidavit on an obligation signed by Erich Frank, I presume Erich Frank was one of your employees?
A. That was my administrator, deputy administrator as the administrator was away in the war.
Q This obligation by Erich Frank is dated 20 February 1942, and then on Page 7 there is an obligation of contract so to speak, signed by three women. That is dated April, 1941, I don't happen to have any others here at the present time, but when did it become necessary for you to require your employees to sign such obligations or contracts? If Defense Counsel has German Document Book 17, I would appreciate it if he would submit it to the witness for his perusal.
A Yes, please. I can remember both these documents, that is, I can only remember seeing photostatic copies. These photostatic copies were shown to me during an interrogation here. I don't remember the date. Was it in October or when?
DR. FROESCHMANN (For Defendant Brack): Mr. President, may I interrupt for a moment? I should merely like to point cut that this obligation in Document Bock 17, Page 7 refers to proceedings before the Reich Committee, that is, regarding children, while the one on Page 8 refers to measures regarding the adult incurably insane patients.
THE WITNESS: I may say the following: These two obligations have nothing to do with euthanasia. They wore drawn up after the creation of the Reich Committee especially for children, expressly at the suggestion of one of the men who asked me to set up this Reich Committee Station in my institution. That is completely separate from euthanasia. That is why I didn't follow you, Mr. Prosecutor, because the Reich Working Committee -Reich Working Union and Reich Working Committee were confused. The two things were entirely separate in my mind. This is something about the Reich Committee, and it referred only to this personnel. For the moment I didn't remember these obligations at all during the interrogation here. I thought they were forgeries. But I thought it over for a long time, and then I remember that I had to issue them. That was after the visit, as far as I can remember, after I had to send the pediatrician to Berlin, and he came back and told me it was top secret, and that the person working on it had to be obligated to secrecy. That referred only to my administration and to the personnel for observation and treatment in the Reich Committee Station, that is the nursing personnel.
Now, to go over to the Reich Working Union, the real euthanasia, Gentlemen, I never issued any written obligation. I said to the personnel, I don't remember exactly when, that the transports were to be kept secret, that they were not to be discussed or talked about. It was not merely secrecy of the official to which he obligates himself under an oath of office, but beyond that there were things which one does not talk about, because the personnel discussing them might start rumors. I said, "I don't talk about it either."
A man visited me once at the institution. I think it was Dr. Schmalenbach. He came from Berlin, and he suggested to me -- He had questionnaires from me that he was checking on, the questionnaires, to see whether the patients who were reported there were called ready for transfer from me. That is, he had a certain supervision. I had a fight with him because I objected to that. He was a rather young man. I was an old, experienced psychiatrist, and I said that I considered this thing and took care of it carefully with my physicians and my own personnel, and I didn't think this was necessary, but I couldn't object. Of course I couldn't do anything about it. He said to me, "Is your personnel obligated to secrecy?" I said, "I told them in January that they would keep it secret, but I did not tell them that there was a death penalty." He said, "You have to tell them that before our conference begins." This was a conference with the heads of all the departments and the heads of the nursing personnel and I objected to that. I said, "Dr. Schmalenbach, if you have such an assignment you can do it yourself," and at the beginning of this conference about the patients, he did so. I didn't.
Q (By Mr. Hardy) Approximately when did that occur, Doctor? The conference.
AAgain I must say that I really can't remember the time. I can only reconstruct that it must have been after four or five or maybe even six transports. I can't say exactly, but several transports left before that time because patients who wore on transport lists, I had keep them back, the same thing that I discussed on the telephone with Falkenhauser, that I refused, if I was supposed to give up a patient, and I thought that the prerequisites for transfer and possible euthanasia were not given I retained the patient.
That is not a defense on my part but proof that as an expert I took seriously the safeguards involved in the procedure.
Q This conference that took place, that is the conference wherein your employees and your employed personnel were warned and told of the secret nature of this work, that must have taken place in the fall or winter of 1940, is that about right, after the fourth or fifth transport, is that correct?
A I can't say for sure. I don't remember exactly when the transports began. I can only say that it might have been in the winter. I don't know for sure. I think it was warm in the office, but it might have been in the spring of 1941 or the winter of 1940. I don't know exactly when, but transports left before that time.
Q Now, Dr. Pfannmueller, did you ever see anyone refuse to participate in this work, that is, any of your employees that did. not wish to take this oath of secrecy when they were asked to do so?
A No, no one refused. I only had four people hero and they had nothing to do with the Reich Working Union. These were the three nurses in Document Book 17, these three nurses and my deputy administrator, Erich Frank. Otherwise I didn't administer any oath.
Q I am referring to the group in 1940, the conference you held wherein you refused to tell your employees, and your visitor, Dr. Schmalenbach, was there, who administered the oath or told the employees of the secrecy of the mission and so forth. I am referring to that time, and did anyone refuse to continue their work there?
A No, no. All the personnel, all the doctors who were there were the heads of departments and all the chief nursing personnel who were present attended the meeting. I believe a protest would have had no value. It was a discussion about the condition of the patients. Gentlemen, it was necessary, so that nothing would happen, that the doctors and the nurses be present, but nobody objected. It was an oral talk without any discussion.
It was an order, you know. It was an order that they come. A statement by Schmalenbach was what it was.
Q Now, Doctor, here in 1940 then, in the fall or the winter, after the visit by Bouhler, you, for the first time realized that eventually the patients leaving in transports would go to other institutions and be accorded mercy deaths, that is, if their condition was such that they were suffering and that a mercy death would be the proper thing to do. Was that the first time, in the fall or winter of 1940 that you realized that?
A. I believe that was about that time. The rest was assumption but I thought at any rate that this time I heard of it for the first time. A time when the driver was to begin was never mentioned. I don't know that at all. I always thought that at first there would be a general registration of all German institutions and that Euthanasia measures might then subsequently be ordered by the agencies in Berlin which I had nothing to do with.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, I believe that the time when the witness learned of Euthanasia has been discussed so long and so often that no more questions on the subject are necessary and I ask that Prosecution go on to another subject.
THE PRESIDENT: Objection on the part of counsel for defendant Brack is over-ruled. Counsel may proceed.
BY MR. HARDY:
Q. Dr. Pfannmueller, when I asked you about the administering of oaths to some employees, I was referring to page 4 of Document Bock 17 that you have in front of you. Do you still have that there? This is German Document No. 1313. I believe it is on page a of your Document Book - a letter from Hoelzel to you. Now, would you kindly read that through and explain to the Tribunal just what the situation was at that time?
A. This letter which I read once before when I was looking at the documents I cannot remember. It is a letter from Oberarzt Dr. Hoelzel from the year of 1940 in which he states he was at Scwanzsee near Kitzbuchel on leave. I can't remember the letter because at this time nothing had been said about Euthanasia at all, I assume, Gentlemen that the date in this letter is wrong, I assume so.
I don't know whether Dr. Hoelzel who went over to the Supply office, although I asked hip to remain at my institution. He explained his resignation by saying that his career would be advanced better in the Supply Office. There wore many such cases among psychiatrists at that time. I asked him to stay and what was the immediate cause for this letter I don't remember if I over received it. But of all-this in 1940 I can't imagine that. What was Dr. Hoelzel to collaborate with and what way was ho to collaborate. He had no collaboration except what every doctor in every institution in Germany had to do. And I don't know of a single case in which an institutional doctor in Bavaria or head of an institute in Bavaria, after the beginning of the removal of patients and after these measures the concept of Euthanasia became generally known, decided to resign. I don' t know of a single case. Therefore, I don't understand it at all. Does he mean conference of the Schmalenbach type or release of the patients. I don't know but the date, gentlemen, I must put throe question marks after it. And, I can't remember this letter at all.
Q. Now, Dr. Pfannmueller, at the bottom of the letter, I note here on the English copy I have, it status - in handwriting appears the following language "Received 29 August 1940 1600 hours" and then initialed Pfannmueller. Now, do you wish for me to got the original copy we have here or the photostatic copy and see whether or not that date is different?
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal desires to have the original of this document procured and shown to the witness.
MR HARDY: Will the Secretary General kindly go to the Document Division and bring Document No. 1313 which is in English Document Book No. 17. Miss Johnson will give you the Exhibit number.
DR. PFANNMUELLER: May I add something. A reception notice of time - I never had any such stamp as long as I was director at Egelfing-Haar. It never happened that a date was recorded on incoming mail. I must assume that that was added later. It is very difficult for me to say that it is a forgery but --- it never was done by me.
MR. HARDY: We will wait until the original document arrives, doctor, and we will then go into another subject.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now be in recess while the original document is being procured.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. MARX: Mr. President, as Becker-Freyseng's counsel I request that for the purposes of preparing his case that Becker-Freyseng be excused from attending the session this afternoon and tomorrow afternoon.
THE PRESIDENT: On request of counsel for defendant Becker-Freyseng the defendant Freyseng may be excused from attendance before the Tribunal this afternoon. I understand that Becker-Freyseng's case will be called following the case of the defendant Brack. I do not know when the defendant Brack's case will be closed, but defendant Becker-Freyseng may be excused this afternoon.
MR. HARDY: I understand, Your Honor, that defendant Brack ........
(German coning through the microphone as well as English, not understood.)
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant Becker-Freyseng may be excused before the Tribunal this afternoon, and did counsel ask for tomorrow afternoon also or tomorrow all day?
DR. MARX: Mr. President, I asked also for tomorrow afternoon.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant Becker-Freyseng may also be excused from attendance before the Tribunal tomorrow afternoon on request of his counsel in order to consult with the defendant in preparation of his case.
CROSS-EXAMINATION (Resumed) BY MR. HARDY:
Q Br. Pfannmueller, during the recess I presented the photostatic copy of the document No. 1313 - which is found on page 4 of the English Document Book No. 17, Your Honor. After reading that copy docs that bring any other thoughts to your mind, Dr. Pfannmueller?
A No, I see now that the copy of the document corresponds with the photostatic copy, and I see that handwritten remark at the bottom is mine, however, I can not recall that any agreements were made on the basis of this letter. Not at all so. Perhaps this letter was written after the Gutachter conference, or something, I don't know.
Q Well, then is that your initial on the document, Doctor?
A Yes. Yes.
Q Well, now in connection with this document is the writer of the letter referring to your work in connection with the Reich Committee, that is the children, the children patients in this institution?
A That I don't know any longer. But it could be that he was to be used as a psychiatric export or something of that sort, but I don't remember any more with the best will in the world.
Q Well, now, Dr. Pfannmueller, that is all the questions I have on that document. Will you please return it to the page? Now, when you were ordered to fill out questionnaires on each one of the patients in your Institute did such order require you to fill out a questionnaire on each and every last patient or only the patients which you deemed to be incurable?
A I don't know that for sure any longer, but I do know that in the course of the transports there was a registration required of all the inmates in the institution on the basis of the questionnaire. Then there was some directive by the Reich Minister of the Interior according to which these questionnaires should be filled out whenever now arrivals came.
Q Well, now, Dr. Pfannmueller, after you completed these questionnaires and they were sent to Berlin, then transports were arranged at your institute and said transports took patients to other homes, is that correct?
A Yes, those were questionnaires.
Q Well, now where did you receive patients from, did the patients also come to your institute from other institutes?
A Beds that became free in my institute in consequence of the transports were again occupied by patients coming from Bavarian nursing homes, and as far as I know Nussberg might have been among it. These beds were transferred to my institute. That was on the order, I believe, of the Reich Ministry of the Interior, I no longer know exactly whose order it was.
Q. Now, how many Jewish inmates did you have there; you had a considerable number of Jewish inmates?
A. I don't know now, how many Jewish patients I had, but there is a Document that I read here-just a moment.
Q. That is in Document Book No. 17, Dr. Pfannmueller cage 6, No. 1310.
A. Just a moment, please. I don't have it here. I am sorry, Page 91?
Q. Doctor maybe I can help you. I have one Document here, which I wish to refer and this may help us. Now if you will kindly read that over once, then I have some questions to put to you. This is Document No. 1310 in Document Book 17, Page 6.
(The Document is handed to the witness.)
Now, Doctor, this letter states under the subject, "Transfer of Mentally Ill Jews - Re: Ministerial Decision of 4 September 1940, No. 5236 a 44:" can you enlighten us as to the Ministerial Decision that you received?
A. That was the consequence of the Ministerial Decision, the transfer of Jews from my institute to a Jewish institution. I believe, there were about fifty Jewish patients who were in my own institute.
Q. Do you recall, Dr. Pfannmueller, just what this Ministerial Decision said; did you receive an order, a printed order, and do you recall the contents of the decision?
A. This Ministerial-Decision said that all Jewish patients in Bavarian Mental institutes were to be taken into my institution, where they were to be treated and cared for until on orders of the Ministry they were again Fetched away. The Bavarian Ministry of the Interior would turn these people over to me and then the Jewish patients in Bavarian institutes were to be transferred to Jewish institutes.
Q. How many Jewish patients were sent to you as a result of this decision?
A. This decision had nothing at all to do with Euthanasia.
Q. No, I am not referring to Euthanasia. I am merely trying to clarify the transfer of the Jewish patients were sent to your institute as a result of this order, just fifty or more; do you recall?
A. Those that were sent to my institute from elsewhere?
Q. Yes.
A. There was more than that, there was more than one hundred. I cannot tell you the exact number, but there were more than one hundred. It was all the Jewish patients from all Bavarian institutions, which were transferred to me and were put in a separate building.
Q. Now where did they go after having been received by you; do you know whether they were sent to Lublin, Poland?
A. I cannot tell you that for sure. I know only one thing, I was told to surrender these Jewish patients again because they were taken to a Jewish collective institute. This was to be done on directions from Berlin, it was said they were to be sent to Jewish institutes in Poland. That was never told to me officially by the Ministry, but I asked a man in charge of a transport, where he was going and that is what he told me. They were going to a Jewish institution in Poland. Whether the word Lublin was mentioned, then or later I heard the name Lublin, that I do not know.
Q. Now you say that at that time that is how the name Poland became known to you and later you understood they were transferred to Lublin; when you refer to later, do you mean now or much later; just what do you mean?
A. I mean by that when inquires regarding Jewish patients were made as to where the patients were. Now once when I was in Berlin, I was told that they were sent to a Polish institute and I think that was Lublin. Unless the man in charge of the transport lied.
Q. Well now, were you required to fill out questionnaires on these Jewish patients that passed through your institute?
A. No.
Q. Dr. Pfannmueller, it is my understanding, according to the evidence here and according to a chart drawn by Viktor Brack, later you were made an export and it was your function to expertise questionnaires from other institutes. And I imagine that the reason for your being an expert was, because of your years of practical experience in your institute, I would like to know just how you happened to become an expert; who requested you to take that position and what your functions were as an expert to expertise these questionnaires sent to you by Professor Heyde or one of the other top experts; do you understand what I am talking about, Doctor?
A. Yes, I get the rough idea. The Reich Ministry of the Interior wrote me personally asking me an expert within the framework of them and this fell to the Reichs Working Union. Then I was set up as an expert, as I said, upon what the basis was decided at the experts conference in Berlin.
I only received a photostatic copy from the various institutes. Plus or minus, all questionaires were marked by me, but only as a preliminary expert. I think there were three or four preliminary experts, then it went to a file expert in Berlin. Now what the decision was there was not my concern, so I don't know about it.
Q. Well, now you received these questionnaires from other institutions, what were you instructed by higher authorities in Berlin to do with the questionnaires?
A. I was to expertise on the Medical questions that were to be found in the questionnaire. In other words, to make a note in the left lower corner whether I thought that this case was one that should be transferred to a land nursing, home or not. I simply had to judge in the preliminary procedure from the medical psychiatric point of view and to put my observations down.
Q. Well now if you decided they should be transferred to a nursing home.....?
A. I had nothing to do with that and I had nothing to do with the transfer of these people, not the slightest. I simply had to make the preliminary expert judgment, whether the case should be transferred or not, or were emitable for transfer, was decided on the basis of my expert opinion. It was not my concern.
Q. Well now what recommendations could you make; could you make one, two, three or four different recommendations on each questionnaire submitted to you?
A. Of course.
Q. Well, now suppose.......
A. I had many doubtful cases.
Q. If you received a questionnaire regarding the case of a person who was incurable and the questionnaire completed outlined the conditions attending the patient and you decided upon reading the questionnaire that this particular patient was permanently incurable; what suggestions or recommendations could you make?
A. If he was incurable?
Q. Yes.
A. In my opinion?
Q. Yes.
A. Then I could out down that he was a positive case for transfer either plus or minus was written on the lower left hand corner, no case history was written or any personal examination. I made my judgment on the basis of my opinion of the questionnaire. According to my impression.
Q When you gave, say, for instance, an opinion, and your diagnosis was that this was a plus case, did you have knowledge as to whether or not that patient, if decided by the top expert and the other experts that it was a plus case, did you have knowledge as to whether or not that patient would be given the privilege of a mercy death?
A No, I didn't know that, because the final decision rested with the doctor at the institution to which the patient was sent. I found out that patients from my institution who had expert opinions expressed on them by other preliminary experts later died. That I did find out.
Q Well, did you know at all whether or not a questionnaire which went through all the experts and the top expert and was classified as a plus case, that patient would be accorded a mercy death?
A No, that was outside my competence. I did not know. I did not decide that.
Q What I am trying to find out, Doctor, is when you perused and studied one of these questionnaires and you were ordered by Berlin to make recommendations and you had three recommendations to make -- plus, minus, and so forth -- and you recommended that this particular patient was a plus case, what effect would your recommendation have? Were you informed as to what effect it would have?
A No, I simply received orders to act as a preliminary expert and to express my medical and psychiatric opinion on the condition of the case which was then to be sent by authorities with whom I had nothing to do, to a nursing home. I had nothing to do with these other things.
Q Now, when you were finally commissioned by Berlin as a expert, were you told by the top authorities in Berlin or did you have reason to believe that you were acting as an expert within the framework of the socalled euthanasia program?
A That I was working within the framework of the euthanasia program? That is probably what resulted from the whole affair, but directly within the framework of the euthanasia program I did not work. I worked simply as a medical specialist. As I said, I had no effect or influence on the out come of what I happened to do as a medical expert just as any medical expert appearing in a case before a court.
Q Now, Dr. Pfannmueller, did you have a Dr. Schmidtmann in your institute as your deputy?
A Yes. He was my first chief physician.
Q How long did he work as your deputy? Do you recall?
A From the moment that I was called to the institute at EglfingHaar as a director -- that was February 1938 -- until I was taken away on 1st of May 1945.
Q Well, now, did you, after you assumed these new duties as an expert to expertize questionnaires of other institutions, did you then have another deputy, or were you able to carry on both your work at the institute as well as your expert work?
A I did not have a deputy as an expert. I had been personally appointed as an expert. Consequently, I could not have any one else do this same work, and I did not try to. At the beginning I was very overburdened in my work, and the activities as an expert I took care of first because I thought that this was an honorary appointment. I filled out the questionnaires alone. I worked on the photostat copies alone.
Q How long did it take you to expertize each questionnaire?
A That question was asked me in Frankfurt. I can not be answered just off the cuff. Only an expert or a physician can answer that question. If I am working on such a questionnaire and if I have experience in working on such questionnaires, I can under some conditions take care of the questionnaire relatively rapidly according to psychiatric-medical questions. Some of them I get done soon; others I don't get done at all.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, I object. The witness has gone into these matters in direct examination at great length. I do not understand why the matter has to be ventilated again. Consequently, I object to the series of questions now being put to the witness.
MR. HARDY: May it please Your Honor, just as Defense Counsel said, these questions were taken up very elaborately in direct examination, and it is my understanding that the purpose of cross examination is for the Prosecution or the cross examiner to go over the material taken up in direct.
I can't go outside the material that was taken up in the direct.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection will be overruled.
BY MR. HARDY:
Q After you had received those new duties as an expert, did that require all your time? Were you able to still devote some of your time to duties as director of the institute?
A The fact that I was delivering expert opinions did not obligate me to give up my activity as director of the institution. I used every free minute to work on these questionnaires. Usually in the morning I did my regular duties at the institution, and then at night, often until midnight or one o'clock in the morning, I worked on the photostats of these questionnaires. I did not take off any Saturday or Sunday. Even on Sunday afternoon, instead of taking a walk with my wife and children, I sat and worked until late at night.
Q Well, Doctor, how many hours a day did you work as an expert; can you estimate?
A No, I can't toll you that. I don't know. I did not keep an eye on the clock, and this business of delivering expert opinions. I emphasize again, is not a matter of time but a matter of the content of the questionnaire. Sometimes I can look at a questionnaire for half an hour without being able to make anything out of it. I also went through every questionnaire twice, and between looking at it for the first and second time, I let a lapse of time of at least a morning or an afternoon take place before the questionnaire finally went out.
Q Now, Doctor, will you kindly turn to Document NO 1129, which is Prosecution Exhibit 354. I'll send a copy up to you to make it easier for you. This is in Document Book 14, Part 2.
THE PRESIDENT: What page is it on?
MR. HARDY: It is to be found on page 179, Your Honor.
BY MR. HARDY:
Q It will perhaps be easier for you to follow me, witness, if I pass you up the photostatic copies of this document.
A I'll take your word for it.
Q The first page of this document is a letter from you to the Reich Association of Hospitals and Nursing Establishments, Berlin, to the attention of Professor Heyde. Exhibit 354.
I might inform the interpreters that for the next two or three days we'll be taking up the problem of euthanasia while the defendant Brack is presenting his case, and it may well he that we'll discuss Document Book 14, Part 1; Document Book 14, Part 2; Document Book 14, Part 3, and Document Books 15, 16, and 17.