A It is terribly complicated on a chart which is supposed to show organization, at the same time, functions and that is the case here. I myself do not know what these various lines arc to indicate. Are they to show the course taken by the patients, or are they to show organizational subordination? As you explain it, these lines going up on the right, the observation and euthanasia institutions if these do not represent the course of the questionnaires and the patients, but simply the authority, then these lines arc wrong and your idea is correct that these institutions arc supposed to be under the experts. That was not the case. These institutions continued under the authority of the Ministry of the Interior.
Q Well, lot us go on to the next point. How about the questionnaire section?
A This does not therefore belong to the Foundation, but to the Reich working Union for Mental Institutions. I realize that clearly on the basis of the prosecution documents when I saw that the sending out of the questionnaires to the expert, Pfannmueller, wont through the Reich Forkin' Union and that the questionnaires were sent back by him to the Reich Forking Union, not to the Foundation. This again, I have considered when I corrected the chart. I have spoken about Blome yesterday. I need not say anything about that today. In the corrected plan, I believe that the confusion between organization and functions has been avoided. I have indicated, by arrows, and explained the organization and the execution of the transfers.
All other lines refer not to functions, but to subordination. But I should like to emphasize once more that such a chart never existed before and I merely had to draw it up according to the best of my knowledge and after refreshing my memory through the documents. It never existed earlier in this form or in any similar form.
Q Now, please put the chart aside.
Witness, secrecy led to unfortunate circumstances in the execution of euthanasia and, in the last analysis, to the complaints of which the prosecution has submitted several examples, but we shall come back to this later. Now, I should like to go on to the discussion of your specific activity within euthanasia so that the Tribunal will know what your work was. And please answer this question briefly. What was the nature of your work in the framework of euthanasia?
A It is not simple to explain this work, it was very complicated. I do not intend to deny that I had something - to do with it, but I shall attempt to explain how far my activity wont. The T-4 was geographically, and from the organizational point of view, separate from my own office. Bouhler himself was not able to move his office to T-4. He remained in his office in Vosstrasse and people working at T-4 came to see him to report to him. If Bouhler was not there, they came to me or to one of my associates. The prosecution has used the words "liaison man" for me. This is confusing. As far as I can remember I did not raise any objection to that term at the time. Perhaps I even used it myself, but I have just realized that a liaison man must be located at the place in which he has to establish the contact with someone. I did not. I remained in Vosstrasse in the Chancellery of the Fuehrer because I had most of my work there.
Not only for these reasons, but also for other reasons, I was never so completely informed about Bouhler's ideas and the execution of euthanasia as the prosecution may assume. I continuously received instructions, decisions, orders, from Bouhlor which I passed on to the people working at Tiergartenstrasse - doctors and administrative officials. It was in the nature of things, therefore, that at the beginning especially I took care of setting up the iaorganization and gave my aid and support. But I myself never really worked at T-4. I could not issue instructions on my own initiative either because Bouhler considered himself alone responsible for euthanasia and he always made this quite clear to me. I would never have dared to carry on independent policies here. I could never have taken that responsibility.
Q. Witness, just a brief remark. The Document No. 156 of the prosecution has been mentioned repeatedly, which the defendant Karl Brandt made Brandt Exhibit 4-A and 4-5. I should like to show you this document and ask you to answer the question, do you recognize the signature, as the witness Hederich said, of Bouhler under this document?
A. Yes, that is the signature of Bouhler.
Q. And you know the contents of this document?
A. Yes, I know of the contents. I also know the letterhead. This is the stationery that Reichsleiter Bouhler used at that time in the service of the Chancellory of the Fuehrer and NSDAP.
Q. Now, another question. Did you later learn of this specific letter of Bouhler when you talked to the Reich Ministry of Justice?
A. Yes, I learned of this letter.
Q. Then will you please put the letter aside and continue in describing your functions?
A. My right to give instructions, if I may call it that, was completely secondary. I think that covers the situation. In the course of time I had naturally become acquainted with the material. I was often present at the discussions of experts, as well as the administrative discussions. In many cases I was present officially as Bouhler's representative, so that outsiders might very well get the impression that I was the influential man in euthanasia. The witness Mennecke doubtless had this impression, but I can only emphasize that his impression is not correct. I was nothing but Bouhler's deputy, or, as the prosecution called me in its opening speech, Bouhler's assistant for these questions.
Q. Witness, from the cross examination of Mr. Hardy with the witness Mr. Pfannmueller I gather that the prosecution apparently placed great importance on whether you were ever in charge of such a meeting, whether you ever presided over such a meeting, or whether you took a solemn oath from any of the experts or other such externals. Do you deny these things or take them as a matter of course?
A. I in no way deny them. In many cases I presided over such meetings. Exactly what meetings they were I don't remember. It sounds exaggerated to say "preside" because the discussions weren't in such a form. We actually sat at a round table and at a round table there is no chairman. I certainly never took a solemn oath, but it is quite possible that in one case or another I spoke to one man or another on behalf of euthanasia, or what he learned at these meetings. I certainly do not deny these things.
Q. Now, witness, in this connection I am interested only in two specific meetings which the prosecution has cited as proof of your importance in the euthanasia program, that is, the meeting in Munich and then the meeting of the lowers. I ask you to comment briefly on these two meetings. What was the Munich meeting about or what was the meeting of lawyers about?
A. The meeting in Munich was probably a meeting of the heads of the Gau Office for Public Health and other doctors invited by Conti. Medical Questions were discussed at this meeting in general, but Conti had asked Bouhler to come to this meeting and to instruct these doctors about the decree and about the measures taken up to that time in euthanasia. Bouhler had promised to go but then was unable to and sent me in his place. I showed the decree of the Fuehrer at this meeting and I spoke briefly about the draft of the law which was being worked on.
Q. Just a minute, witness. Did the participants in this meeting in any way object to what you said or to your ideas? Later during the recess was any opposing opinion expressed?
A. When I left this meeting, I talked for half an hour or an hour with various people who had been present. Various suggestions were made about additions and improvements in the law, but no objections. I reported this to Reichsleiter Bouhler and he arranged that all those who were interested would get a draft of the law in its form at the time, so that they could send in their suggestions.
Q. Now, how about the meeting of lawyers?
A. This meeting in the Ministry of Justice was a meeting of lawyers who had to discuss all sorts of questions, and it was an answer to a request from Guertner to Bouhler that Bouhler was to explain the details of euthanasia at this meeting.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, I submit Document 36 from my Document Book 2, page 54. That is an extract from so-called German Justice, the Official Journal of German Jurisprudence, the year 1941, as Exhibit 36, and I shall quote. The book, Your Honor, from which I have taken this excerpt I obtained from the document section of the Tribunal, but as far as I am informed there have been difficulties, that when these books are given out or submitted to a court, the books are not returned to the document section soon enough. Consequently, I considered it expedient to submit merely a certified copy from this book.
MR. HOCHWALD: To offer the exhibit in this form is unusual, but it is usual in such cases that a certified copy is handed to the Tribunal and not a carbon copy, and we would like in the future to have such exhibits on the part of the defense offered to the Tribunal in this manner.
THE PRESIDENT: The preparation of the photostat copy from the page of the book is probably the better practice, and should be followed hereafter.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Very well, Your Honor. I quote from page 553, Document 36:
"On 23 and 24 April a congress of the Presidents of the District Courts of Appeal and of the General Public Prosecutors took place in Berlin under the presidency of State Secretary Dr. Schlegelberger. The presidents of the Reich Supreme Court, the People's Court, and the Reich Patent Office, as well as the Chief Reich Public Prosecutors, took part in this congress.
"The congress celebrated topical legal and administrative problems in speeches and discussions."
A number of people are then mentioned, Brack, university professor Dr. Heyde from the Chancellory of the Fuehrer. It is a certified copy. Please give the document to the General Secretary.
Q. Now, please continue, witness?
A. I attended this meeting actually as a representative of Bouhler, and just as at the meeting of doctors in Munich, I showed the people present a photostat copy, as a matter of fact, I showed them several copies of the Fuehrer's decree, so that everyone would be able to see it, and I also talked about the law which was being drafted. Why Buertner asked Bouhler to inform the various justice officials of these things can be seen from the prosecution documents. The Administration of Justice had had difficulties because of euthanasia, which I had not foreseen, but these difficulties arose because of the element of secrecy. As NO 156 shows, Bouhler told Guertner that he alone considered himself responsible for euthanasia, but then he tried by informing justice officials to dispose of these differences, and for this reason Bouhler authorized me to represent him at this meeting and inform the gentlemen.
Q Witness, at this meeting did you hear any objections from the high justice officials from all parts of Germany, as I sec from the Document?
A No, there was no objection. As far as I recall the State Secretary and acting administrator of Justice Schlegelberger......
Q Schlegelberger?
A Yes, Schlegelberger said at the end of the meeting, now that they seen there was a legal decree of the fuehrer for these measures, they had no legal objection to the execution of Euthanasia; that is about what he said.
Q Mr. President, in this connection, I submit in my Document Book 2, Document No. 37, page 55 as exhibit 37. This is an affidavit of the former Ministerial-director in the Reich Ministry of Justice Karl Engert, born 23 October, 1877. It is very short, but of great interest, because it shows the opinion of the influental jurists in this question to whom the lay-man Brack presented these matters:
"In approximately spring 1941 Victor Brack gave an informative lecture about Euthanasia in the Reich Ministry of Justice on behalf of Reichsleiter Bouhler, who was prevented from attending. As a foundation for the moral justification of euthanasia, Brack quoted example and pointed out the useless existence of the incurably insane. Ethical reasons, above all compasion, demanded the release of those individuals from their sufferings. There was no mention of any kind of political or war aspect for the performance of euthanasia. He talked then about a fuehrer decree to Bouhler and Brandt and dealt in full with the draft of a law, which had been submitted, or was to be submitted to Adolf Hitler. Ho mentioned the various provisions of this draft. I was convinced from Brack's statements that this draft law provided every guarantee for the protection of the incurably sick and insane. As far as I can remember, certain exceptions were stipulated for the performance of euthanasia, for instance persons suffering from injuries of the brain incurred during the first World War and I think foreigners were also excepted.
"Brack's statements reassured me, because according to them, it was to be definitely assumed that a Reich Law would then be enacted in the customary form, ie., by publication in the Reich Law Gazette. I saw no reason why any difficulties should arise."
MR. HARDY: May it please, Your Honor, in the case of Becker-Freysing, which will come before this Tribunal after the completion of the Defense of defendant Vokter Brack, the Prosecution has charge the Defendant Becker-Freysing in the Indictment under count one with Conspiracy, under count to which special responsibility for and participation in the high altitude experiments, the freesing experiments, the sea-water experiments, the epidemic jaundice experiments, and the sulfanilamide experiments, spotted fever experiments and in count three it has charged the defendant Becker-Freysing with these experiments as set four in count two. At this time the Prosecution wishes to withdraw the charge against the defendant Becker-Freysing insofar as he was connected with the sulfanilamide experiments. If the Tribunal requests, I will submit this in writing. We will withdraw only one charge. If you want me to file a writing with the Secretary-General and comply with it.
THE PRESIDENT: The Prosecution will file its withdrawal of this charge in writing with a full statement and give counsel for the Defendant Becker-Freysing a copy.
MR. HARDY: Yes Sir.
BY DR, FROESCHMANN:
Q Witness do you remember s statement by the representative of the Reichs Ministry of Justice at this meeting to the effect that the Hitler decree, which you showed to these, present, was absolutely a valid, legal basis for euthanasia?
A Yes, I said that before. That was the statement of the acting Minister of Justice, state Secretary Schlegelberger, that was the highest official at that time, because Guertner had died in the meantime.
Q Then Mr. President; I have finished the subject with the defendant Brack's work in connection with euthanasia. In the examination of the Defendant Karl Brandt the Prosecution placed great emphasis on clarifying the question of what persons were to be effected by euthanasia.
Consequently, I see myself obliged briefly to go into this question.
Witness, now we come to a subject, which is very much debated, you know that according to the decree the doctors to be appointed by Brandt and Bouhler were to have their functions extended to the point that thou could grant euthanasia to incurably sick persons and you have just said that the law, which was being drafted, was to contain all provisions which had become necessary from the practice of euthanasia?
A Yes.
Q Now, the first question comes up is, and when the Prosecution asks rightly what persons were effected by this decree, were there any exceptions, provided and who determined the exception, in your examination before interrogator you oddly enough have said nothing about this. In studying the records, I observed that this important point is not mentioned at all in your affidavit, was that forgotten, what was the reason?
A I don't know. In my interrogation, I discussed these things properly. I said tha foreigners, World was veterans, in this case whore the war injuries wore the cause of their insanity and Jews were excempted from euthanasia. A list was shown to me and I had to assume it was a transfer list from one institution to a Euthanasia Institute, on which Jews were listed.
Q Mr. President, I should like to interrupt the defendant briefly here and refer to the document. The document here just mentioned is No. 158, Exhibit 410, English Document Book, 16 page M. Please continue and get that document bock. This was the document which was shown to you.
A I believe that this was the list, which I was shown, here various persons whose names indicate they are Jews, as well as various persons who were born outside of Germany are listed. It seems that I can remember very clearly that foreigners had to be exempted and that this was based on a personal order from Hitler. I was not confused, but insofar as the Jews are concerned, I myself began to have doubts and on the advise of the interrogators I did not insist that Jews were exempted.
After seeing all the documents again and having memory refreshed, I know that Jews were exempted in the same way. I must add something that I also forgot in the interrogation. Labor victims persons injured in Industrials accidents from which insanity resulted were also-exempted.
Q We will go into this in detail to make it perfectly clear.
THE PRESIDENT: Before pursuing this matter in detail, the Tribunal will be in recess (A recess was taken)-.
THE MARSHAL: All persons in the courtroom will please find their seats. The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: The counsel may proceeds.
BY DR. FROESCHMANN:
Q. Witness, before the recess I asked you whether foreigners were exempted from euthanasia.
A. Yes.
Q. From whom did you learn that?
A. I learned that from Bouhler, and he said that was done upon the express order of Hitler. Only Reich Germans could be subjected to euthanasia.
Q. When did you learn that?
A. I learned that during one of the first conferences where Bouhler already communicated that fact to me and to all the other participants in the conference. He later repeatedly pointed to it and demanded that everyone who was in any way concerned with the dealing of this matter, especially the department of the questionnaires, would have to be thoroughly informed about that fact.
Q. Mr. Brack, will you take that upon your oath; will you take it upon your oath that Bouhler gave you this directive and all the other participants?
A. Yes, I want to do that, and every participant will be able to confirm it.
Q. Witness, it seems somewhat peculiar to me. I may assume that Bouhler was not interested in having a questionnaire filled out about every mental patient in Germany, if a special category of patients, would not be concerned with euthanasia, is that right?
A. That is correct. It does appear that way for the outsider. It seems that it was superfluous for the department which has to fill out the questionnaires as well as for T-4.
Q. Witness, I now want to put to you Document No, 825, which is in German Document Book 14, volume 2, page 134; English Document Book 14, page 216.
I will now ask you to look at that document. There you will see a copy of the questionnaire as it was sent to all the mental institutions. On page 217 you will find a note which is to be observed when filling out the questionnaires. Such a leaflet was sent to the institutions in order to instruct them as to how this questionnaire was to be filled out, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. This instruction note states exactly the category of patients on which Questionnaires had to be filled out, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, I shall read the first sentence to you: "All patients are to be enumerated," and then follows paragraph 1, 2, and 3, which we shall skip for the moment, and then it says in paragraph 4, "Who are not of German nationality or of German blood, indicating the race and nationality." I now ask you, would you not have to change your testimony to the effect that foreigners are to be excepted from euthanasia in view of the fact that paragraph 4 says very specifically that questionnaires have to be filled out by all patients of non-German nationality?
A. No, I cannot change my testimony.
Q. I do understand that you will now insist that you were following your directive which said that all foreigners have to be excepted, but I have to find out why, as the prosecutor will have to find out why, Questionnaires were at all introduced about non-Germans and secondly why Questionnaires were filled out on all non-Germans, whether they specifically fell under figures 1, 2, and 3 of the instruction leaflet or not.
A. Karl Brandt, and I may say as a result of a lack of personal knowledge, had tried to answer this Question giving statistical reasons He said that the Reich Ministry of Interior was interested about the extent to which the institutions were used. But, Karl Brandt, on the other hand, only very seldom participated in this concern. He, there fore, could not know why there was an obligation to fill out this questionnaire for foreigners.
A. I personally was in a position to observe the development of these questionnaires and I was present when Linden and Bohne presented them to Bouhler for approval. These questionnaires were sent to all German mental institutions through the Reich Ministry of the Interior. They were partly sent there directly, partly through the subordinate county administrations. As I saw from the document, the decisive date was the 1st of September 1939. As I said before, Himmler ordered strict secrecy to be kept. In this covering letter to the mental institution it had to be prevented that the purpose of this enumeration of the mental patients be recognised for that reason the sentence was introduced in the introductory part of that letter, which reads, "With regard to the necessity of coordinating the mental institutions through planned economy --" etc.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, in that connection I should like to draw attention of the Tribunal to three documents which were presented by the prosecution. As I already mentioned - this is Document NO-625, and then there is one, 1696-PS, Exhibit 357, which is to be found in the English document Book, Volume 14, page 209; in the German Document Book, Part II, page 126... And I should also like to draw your attention to the Document NO-1133; Exhibit 335; which is to be found in the English Document Book 14, page 66. These are the covering letters of which the witness is now speaking.
BY DR. FROESCHMANN:
Q. Would you please continue?
A. Even if this sentence was intended as a camouflage sentence towards these institutions, such a systemized registration naturally prevailed; however, this registration had no connection at all with Euthanasia. I shall revert to that question later, when discussing the other questionnaires. At any rate, the heads of these mental institutions which had to deal with the filling out of these questionnaires, were told by this covering latter that this is a matter for registering all the severely mentally ill patients. If the foreigners would have been excepted according to the covering letter, many heads of the mental, institutions, and many of the clerical personnel, would have asked themselves about the reason for such an exception.
No practical reason could have been found which would justify foreigners being excepted. That, of course, would have opened a door to many a wild rumor. For that reason one took the reverse path in order to also register these foreign mantal patients. The question regarding nationality and race was contained in every questionnaire in Germany at that time, and could not create any undue attention. For that reason it could not create any attention if, in addition to the categories which are contained therein, -- criminals and patients of certain kind -- would also include nationality and race. In that way one achieved camouflage of the exception directives, and one also avoided questions being put by outsiders just why foreigners are to be excepted,
Q. Witness, if I understand you correctly - it was necessary for foreigners to fill out these questionnaires because, on the one hand, one wanted to keep the true reason from the head of the mental institute; and, on the other hand, one wan ted to give assurance to the Berlin head office in order to safeguard these foreigners by registering them?
A. Yes, these questionnaires, after having been filled out, went back via the Ministry of the Interior to the T-4; -and from there were sent to the exports. In the T-4, when dealing with these questionnaires there was the best possibility of sorting out the foreigners, and I personally convinced myself, and know, that in all cases where foreigners were reported this passage in the questionnaire was underlined with red pencil. It was sorted out and filed in a different cabinet. It wasn't even included in the photostatting procedure. Through the above procedure there was even more certainty of excepting every foreigner. The same procedure was adopted with reference to those who were injured during the world war. There, of course, wo had not that much certainty because they, of course, were excepted, but, on the other hand, were included in the expert procedure. In the case of a control made by Hitler, which Brandt has already described, it has actually been ascertained that in the three or four cases where the mental illness could have been in some connection with an injury as a result of the war, were actually subjected to Euthanasia because these questionnaires were not sorted out beforehand without any expert opinion being given.
Q. Witness, it is my impression that for reasons of security this procedure was handled in a somewhat difficult way, although it could have been done much simpler.
A. No, that is not quite true. If this procedure could have been handled simpler it could not have given us much assurance. It had to be done with an absolute amount of certainty.
Q. Witness, your testimony, according to which the questionnaires about foreigners were not photostatted in t he T-4 and were not sent to the expert, would you not have to change that testimony when reminding you of what Mennecke has said? Did not Mennecke say that he personally, as an expert, had filled out a number of questionnaires about nonGermans?
A. That is true... I remember Mennecke's testimony, but I can only emphasize again that the matter in which Mennecke participated i's in no way connected with Euthanasia - and, really, it does not deserve the name of Euthanasia. I must emphasize again and again that Euthanasia, after August 1941, was stopped by order of Hitler. The assertion of Mennecke - and I already spoke about it yesterday where he said that he had received Himmler's orders in the year 1940 must be incorrect. It can only concern the order of 1941. However, up to the stoppage in the year 1941 I can quite sure that no questionnaires which were handled by T-4 were photostatted and expertised.
Q. In the year 1939, what persons did you include among foreigners?
A. Among foreigners all were included who were of non-German nationality, whether they belonged to England, France, Italy, or any other country. Of course, members of such territories which were considered to have been incorportaed into the German Reich at that time -- Sudetenland, Austria -- of course, were not included.
For instance members of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia were considered to be foreigners; and in no case was any Czech subjected to Euthanasia.
Q How about the Warthegau and East Prussia?
A On the basis of a State agreement they were incorporated into the German Reich in 1939 and that is why it is quite clear that they fell within the euthanasia. I cannot say, however, whether any euthanasia were carried out within these gaus. That was something for Linden to do in the Ministry of Interior.
Q In the questionnaires, as well as in the instruction leaflet, there is a question about the race of the individual. As it can be seen from the footnote some of these people also were excepted.
A I have already stated earlier that as far as I remember Jews were also excepted. This was for the reason that Hitler had said that euthanasia can only be given to German citizens because it constitutes an act of grace.
Q And for the very same reasons wore Jews required to fill out these questionnaires as you already elucidated in the case of foreigners?
A The treatment of the questions was carried through in the same way in the case of Jews as was in the case of foreigners. I cannot imagine that Jews shouldn't have been excepted in the same way.
Q A little earlier you said that participants in the first World War were to be excepted from euthanasia whenever their mental illness stood in some connection with an injury which they had received from the World War. Now, considering your testimony I should like to point to Document NC-837, Exhibit 364, which is in the English Document Book 14), page 236. There you will find a list which was carefully compiled by the Prosecution - a list of 22 death notices taken from some Saxonian newspaper. In this list you will find a remark in Paragraph 3, that they are veterans of World War 1914-1917. On 4 you find he was bearer of the cross of honor for war veterans and you will find something similar in figure 3. These are participants in the World War who died at Linz and who were designated as veterans. How can you bring this fact in connection with the statement you just made?
A That is quite true what you say there, doctor. Let me say first of all that there is absolute inconsistency in the fact that Euthanasia a.s an act of grace could only be given to Germans and in the fact that war veterans were excepted from it. Thus- the presentation of this as an act of grace seems to lose its foundation. But, for purely psychological reasons in view of the fact that a war was then going on Bouhler, after many discussions with many doctors and other persons, decided that in order to avoid any unrest among the population the participants in the first World War were to be excepted under very special conditions which I shall elucidate in a moment. This was done to avoid anyone having the suspicion that persons wounded in the present war, let us say, with brain injury could be in danger of having their lives taken under Euthanasia. However, this exclusion of first World War veterans did not exclude veterans altogether. Excluded were only veterans in whom a war wound was the cause of mental illness. Thus a man who was paralyzed, let us say, or had received a severe leg wound, was not excepted from the euthanasia because this paralysis had nothing to do with the brain injury. That is the same for persons who sustained industrial accidents. I have said that before.
Q But you haven't answered my question yet. How was it these four or five war veterans were among those who received euthanasia.
A Here it says world war veterans but there is no indication there was any mental sickness in these people that had anything to do with war injuries.
Q Now I understand what you mean. We already dealt with the exceptions. Now, of those who actually did receive euthanasia you have already said that on instructions by Bouhler euthanasia within the framework of your activity could be applied only to incurably mentally ill persons, is that true?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q The Prosecution when examining Karl Brandt asked a number of questions of him in that connection and I should like to direct the same questions to you.