A I have already said that I transmitted this request of Himmler to the T-4, I further said that I had no idea who on the part of T-4 was entrusted with the medical examinations.
Q Alright, I would like to put to you Document No. 3010; Prosecution Exhibit 503 for identification, Your Honors. This is an affidavit of Dr. Gorgass, who was also in the Euthanasia program as you told us Friday, I am reading from paragraph two:
"In the beginning of my activities in the Euthanasia program I was informed that Professor Karl Brandt was the chief and Viktor Brack the executive head of Euthanasia. I was convinced that Brandt was the leading spirit and Brack the operator of the so-called Euthanasia.
"In June 1941 I was ordered to accompany Dr. Schumann on an official trip to the concentration camp Buchenwald. The purpose of this trip was to acquaint me with the assignment of concentration camp inmates for Euthanasia institutions. This was my only visit to any concentration camps. Dr. Schumann was shown approximately 100 concentration camp inmates by the camp physician in charge and questionnaires were filled out. They were not merely insane persons. According to my best knowledge and belief our one day visit in the concentration camp Buchenwald was made at Brandt's order issued by Brack.
Police Captain Wirth; whom I knew personally and who was administrative director in several Euthanasia institutions; told me late in summer 1941 that he had been transferred by the 'foundation '" and I put to you that was the foundation for Euthanasia care...." to a Euthanasia Institute in the Lublin area."
You do not know anything about that?
A No, I know nothing about that; nor do I know that I had sent Mr. Schumann to the Buchenwald concentration camp.
Q Is the name Morgen familiar to you, M-o-r-g-e-n?
A Yes.
Q You know who he is, will you tell the Tribunal who Morgen is?
A During the trial here the testimony of Morgen was shown to me by my defense counsel and for that reason I know that Morgen was a former SS judge and testified before the International Military Tribunal.
Q As a defense witness for the SS; did he not?
A I don't know that.
Q He was a defense witness for the SS organization and I would like to read to you parts of his testimony here. This is Document No. 2614, Prosecution Exhibit 504 for identification. Your Honors.
DR. SERVATIUS: (Counsel for the defendant Karl Brandt) Mr. President, in connection with the Document No. 3010, I reserve the right to call the witness Gorgass to the stand in order to examine him in cross-examination. I shall make a written application to that effect, This is again one of the documents wherein is stated by the witness that it was made clear to him that Professor Brandt played a considerable role in that program. I should like to at least have one of the witnesses here in order to have him tell us just exactly what was done here and what was made clear to him. It is my impression that a certain amount of propaganda was made in connection with the name of Dr. Karl Brandt after he had withdrawn from the Euthanasia program for a long time. That is the reason why I want this witness to testify here and I shall make a written application to that effect.
THE PRESIDENT: If the counsel for the defendant Karl Brandt will file his application it will be promptly acted upon by the Tribunal.
BY CAPTAIN HOCHWALD:
Q I am reading from the last answer on page two, Your Honors.
"When Wirth took over the extermination of the Jews, he was already a specialist in mass destruction of human beings. He had previously carried out the task of removing the incurably insane. On behalf of theSS Fuehrer himself, through the Chancellory of the Fuehrer.
." and the Chancellory of the Fuehrer was Bouhler's office; was it not?
"....At the beginning of the war he had set up a detail probably from agents and spies of the criminal police. Wirth described how he went about carrying out this assignment. He received no aid, no instructions, but had to do it all by himself. He was given an institution in Brandenburg. There he undertook his experiments. After much consideration and many individual experiments, he came to his later system, and then this system was used on a large scale.
"A commission of doctors previously investigated the files, and those insane who were considered to be incurable were put on a separate list. Then the institution one day was told to send these patients to another institution. From this institution, the patient was transferred again, often more than once. Finally he came to Wirth's institution. There he was killed by gas and cremated.
"This system which deceived the institutions and made them unknowing accomplices, this system that he worked out with very few assistants for being able to exterminate large numbers of people, this system was now employed with a few improvements in the extermination of Jews. He was also given the assignment by the Fuehrer's Chancellory to exterminate the Jews."
Question by the defense counsel: "The statements which Wirth made must have surpassed human imagination. Did you believe Wirth?
"Answer: At first it seemed completely fantastic to me, but in Lublin I saw one of his camps. It was a camp in which I found part of the property of his victims. From the number of them -- there were a great number of watchespiled up -- I had to realize that atrocities were being committed here. I was shown the valuables. I never saw so much money, especially foreign money -- all kinds, from all over the world. In addition, there were gold bars.
"I also saw that the headquarters from which Wirt directed his operations was very small and inconspicuous. He had only three or four people working there for him.
I spoke to them too. I matched his courier arrived from Berlin, Tiergarten Strasse, the Fuehrer's Chancellory. I investigated Wirth's mail.
"Of course, I did not do all of this at this first visit. I was there frequently. I persecuted Wirth up to his death.
"Question: Did Wirth give you names of people who were connected with this operation?
"Answer: Not many names were mentioned for the simple reason that the number of those who participated could be counted on ones fingers. I remember one name: I think the name was Blankenburg, in Berlin."
Blankenburg was your deputy, was he not?
A. Yes, Blankenburg was my successor when I left for the front.
Q. Were you not mistaken in testifying here that Bouhler would never have lent his hand to the extermination of the Jews?
A. I can only say according to my knowledge Bouhler gave no assistance for that purpose. What the witness Morgen is testifying here is the contents of a conversation he had with Wirth in the year 1943. I was a soldier in the year 1943.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Counsel for the defendant Viktor Brack.
Mr. President, perhaps the Prosecution would be kind enough to ascertain from the transcript to what time the statement of Morgen referred. As far as I can see from the original document it refers to the year 1944, it is for 1943 or 1944.
DR. HOCKWALD: I can't tell you that. The examination was made in 1944 but I am not able to say when this thing took place. Would you give me again this thing. (Document)
DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, I think it is very important to find out here to what time this statement of Morgen refers. In the year 1944 the defendant Brack had been with the army for two years and in the year 1943 he had been there for one year. I think it is one of the most primitive requirements for the prosecution to ascertain what year the statements refer to.
DR. HOCKWALD: I think Dr. Froeschmann is at liberty to use this whole document, so he can ascertain from the document whatever he wants. It is the right of the Prosecution to put to the witness questions from a part of the document.
THE PRESIDENT: It is, however, only fair to tho witness to give the witness all of the information tho document discloses.
DR. HOCKWALD: Your Honors, I certainly will.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for the Prosecution will ascertain as soon as possible to what year the witness was testifying to when he gave the testimony which is before the Tribunal in tho transcript.
DR. HOCKWALD: I shall do so at the earliest possible moment.
WITNESS:
A. To what extent this report of Wirth's to Morgen corresponds to the facts I cannot judge in anyway. One thing, however, is quite clear. What he has described as his activities and participation in the euthanasia program does not correspond to the facts, because Wirth was employed as a registrary official and as such had to do office work and could in no way have the possibility of actively participating in the euthanasia. That was exclusively tho task of the responsible physician and never the task of the civil servant. To that extent his information regarding Brandenburg must be altogether false as far as I can judge.
BY DR. HOCKWALD:
Q. You never cooperated in the program of examination of the Jews, is that correct?
A. No, I personally never did.
Q. Is the name Eichman, Obersturmbannfuehrer Adolf Eichmann, familiar to you?
A. Yes, the name became known to me now.
Q. You didn't know him before? That means during the war?
A. No, not to my knowledge.
A. Did. you know anything about his activities during the war, from your own knowledge, not what you heard now?
A. I cannot remember ever having heard the name Eichman before.
Q. In order to keep the record straight I would like to offer document No. 2737. This is an excerpt of the judgment of the International Military Tribunal about the activities of Eichman and I would like to ask the Tribunal whether I should give an identification number to this document or whether the Tribunal will take judicial notice of the document?
THE PRESIDENT: While the Tribunal will take judicial notice of the document mentioned, it would be convenient to have an identification number for the purpose of identification only.
DR. HOCHWALD: So it will be Prosecution Exhibit 505 for identification then: Extract of the judgment of the International Military Tribunal.
INTERPRETER: Will you wait one moment, doctor?
BY DR. HOCKWALD:
"In the summer of 1941, however, plans were made for the X 'final solution' of the Jewish question in all of Europe. This 'final solution' meant the extermination of the Jews, which early in 1939 Hitler had threatened would be one of the consequences of an outbreak of war, and a special section in the Gestapo under Adolf Eichmann, as head of Section B4 of the Gestapo, was formed to carry out the policy.
******* "Adolf Eichnann, who had been put in charge of this program by Hitler, has estimated that the policy pursued resulted in the killing of 6,000,000 Jews, of which 4,000,000 were killed in the extermination institutions."
Q. Did you ever have any conferences or discussions with Eichmann concerning the extermination of tho Jews and the solution of the Jewish problem?
A. I already said that I did not remember having heard the name Eichnann at all.
Q. I want to put to you document No. 997, which is Prosecution Exhibit 506, for identification, your Honors. This is a draft of a letter from the Reich Minister for the Occupied Eastern Territories to the Reich Commissioner for the East:
"Solution of the Jewish Problem.
"Reference: Your report of 4 October 1941, concerning the solution of the Jewish problem.
"I have no objection against your suggestion for the solution of the Jewish problem. Attached please find a memorandum concerning the conversation between my referent Amtsgerichtsrat Dr. Wetzel, Oberdienstleiter Brack from the Chancellory of the Fuehrer and Sturmbannfuehrer Eichman, referent to the Reich Security Main Office. From this memo, please be advised about the details of the matter. Will you, please, take the necessary steps at the Reich Security Main Office and with Oberdienstleiter Brack from the Chancellory of the Fuehrer via your Higher SS and Police Leader. Please keep me informed.
(Handwritten) F.D. H.H.
(For the minister)
(2) Copy (A) Reich Security Main Office (B) Chancellory of the Fuehrer Attention:
Oberdienstleiter Brack, Copy of (1), including enclosure for information."
Did you receive a copy of this letter.
A. May I first ask you what the date of this letter is?
Q. Only 1941 is mentioned here. But this is the date of the draft that is what I told you. Did you receive a copy of this letter, Herr Brack?
A. I did not receive a copy of it nor did I even see a copy of that letter nor do I know this Amtsgerichtsrat Wetzel.
Q. Did you have conference with Richmann on this problem, on the solution of the Jewish question?
A. I already said I cannot even remember the name Eichmann, nor can I remember the name Wetzel.
Q. Do you know something about the matters discussed at this conference as to the solution of the Jewish problem?
A. No, I know nothing.
Q. You have no idea. You never made any suggestions as to what kind of treatment or what kind of gas chambers should be used for the solution of the Jewish problem? You never did do that?
A. I can remember nothing in this connection.
Q. You were questioned by the Tribunal, questioned by the Tribunal last Friday, as to whether plans were made for the construction of the gas chambersin the euthanasia stations or whether the engineer or specialist was ordered to assist the directors of the stations in setting up such gas chambers, were you not?
A. Yes.
Q. You were not able to give any information to the Tribunal on that fact, were you?
A. No, I was saying I didn't concern myself with these matters.
Q. Is the name Kallmeyer, K-a-l-l-m-e-y-e-r, familiar to you?
A. Yes, but I really don't know just where he belongs.
Q. His wife executed an affidavit for you here, that is your Document 39, Exhibit 23, page 60 of your Document Book II. Do you remember him now?
A. Yes, yes, I remember him now.
Q. Was Kallmeyer the engineer, or he was a chemist, who made these plans for gas chambers and assisted the directors in euthanasia stations in setting up these gas chambers?
A. No. Kallmeyer was to check that the gas chambers were always operating properly, but I don't believe he made any plans for that purpose.
Q. Kallmeyer was the man who supervised these gas chambers, was he not?
A. I believe, yes, but not for long, only for a short time.
Q. All right. And does the name Kallmeyer refresh your memory as to eventual plans you made together with Eichmann about the solution of the Jewish problem, Herr Brack.
A. No.
Q. I want to put to you Document NC-365, which will be Prosecution Exhibit 507 for identification, Your Honors. This is a draft of the Reich Ministry for the Occupied Territories dated Berlin, 25 October 1941.
"Referee AGR. Dr. Wetzel "Re: Solution of the Jewish Question.
"1. To the Reich Commissioner for the East.
"Re: Your Report of 4 October 1941 Concerning Solution of the Jewish Question.
"Referring to my letter of 18 October 1941 you are informed that Oberdienstleiter Brack of the Chancellery of the Fuehrer has declared himself ready to collaborate in the manufacture of the necessary shelters as well as the gassing apparatus. At the present time the appa ratus in question are not on hand in the Reich in sufficient number; they will first have to be manufactured.
Since in Brack's opinion the manufacture of the apparatus in the Reich will cause more difficulty than if manufactured on the spot, Brack deems it most expedient if he sent his people directly to Riga, especially his chemist Dr. Kallmeyer, who will cause everything further to be done there. Oberdienstleiter Brack points out that the process in question is not without danger, so special protective measures are necessary. Under these circumstances I beg you to turn to Oberdienstleiter Brack in the Chancellery of the Fuehrer through your Higher SS and Polizeifuehrer and to request the dispatch of the chemist Dr. Kallmeyer as well as of further aides. I draw attention to the fact that Sturmbannfuehrer Eichmann, the referee for Jewish questions in the RSHA, is in agreement to this process. On information from Sturmbannfuehrer Eichmann camps for Jews are to be set up in Riga and Minsk to which Jews from the old Reich territory may possibly be sent. At the present time Jews being deported from the old Reich are to be sent to Litzmannstadt, but also to other camps, to be later used as labor (Arbeitseinsatz) in the East so far as they are able to work.
"As the affairs now stand, there are no objections against doing away with those Jews who are not able to work, with the Brack remedy. In this way occurrences such as those which, according to a report presently before me, took place at the shooting of Jews in Wilna and which, considering that the shootings were public, were hardly excusable, would no longer be possible. Those able to work, on the other hand, will be transported to the East for labor service. It is self-evident that among the Jews capable of work men and women are to be kept separate.
"I beg you to receive advice regarding your further steps."
Q. Herr Brack, are you still going to maintain what you said here in direct examination that you tried to protect the Jews and to save the Jews from their terrible fate and that you never were a champion of the extermination program?
A. I should even like to maintain that misuse, terrible misuse, was made with my name. I see from this letter and from the date of this letter that all these negotiations were carried out at a time when I was far away from Berlin, when I was on sick leave. If I have the possibility, I hope I shall be able to bring witnesses who will testify to that effect. I must openly admit that at this period of time something was going on which was entirely in contradiction to my opinion but that this only could be done under misuse of my name and my agency. I did not declare myself ready for these things.
Q. Can you tell me, Herr Brack, where Riga and Minsk are located?
A. Riga is in the Baltics in Latvia and Minsk is in Russia.
Q. These two places were outside of Germany, were they not?
A. Yes.
Q. Prosecution has no further Questions at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now be in recess for a few minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal, please, I would like to ask the witness two or three more questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may proceed.
CROSS-EXAMINATION (continued) BY MR. HOCHWALD:
Q Herr Brack, when you made your report, your first report on sterilization to Himmler in March 1941, this is Document 203, NO 203, Prosecution Exhibit, No. 161 on page 35 to 37 of Document Book 6, Your Honor. You were very interested in the question whether the people going to be sterilized would know whether they are sterilized or not, would gain knowledge of this procedure; is that correct?
A No, that was Himmler's wish.
Q That they should not know?
A Yes, That the people shouldn't notice it.
Q Let's turn now to Document 245, which is in the same book on page 39, and Prosecution Exhibit 163,-
JUDGE SEBRING: Dr. Hochwald, is that the one dated 23 June 1942?
DR. HOCHWALD: Yes, it is this one, 23 June 1942.
Q In this document there is no mention made any more about that, but you say here "I think that at this time it is really irrelevant whether the people in question become aware of having been castrated after some weeks or months, and they feel the effect." So you dropped or Himmler dropped this pretense; is that correct?
A It was like this, in the first letter to Himmler it was pointed out that an execution of sterilization without the persons noticing it was unlikely. Those doubts which Himmler had, had to be dissipated so that he might approve this suggestion; that is how I explained this sentence.
Q Were you of the opinion then, in June 1942, Herr Brack, that the war was won for Germany, or as good as won?
A That I really can't say.
Q I remember that you told me something of this kind when I questioned you today on this document, that you expected in a very short time the victory of Germany, and therefore wanted to postpone the final solution of the Jewish program and hoped that the few months which your suggestion will give the Jews would suffice for them to survive the War?
A No, I said that I hoped that the War would end soon, whether that would be a clear German victory no one could predict, but in any case I and all of us hoped the War would come to an end.
Q But you did not expect then that Germany would lose the War in a short time?
A In June 1942?
Q Yes.
A No.
Q So you expected that Germany would if not win 100 per cent, would have a very good outcome of the war, didn't you do that?
A Yes.
Q Isn't it a matter of fact then that this presumption was dropped only because you had nothing to fear any more, -- that Germany was going to win the War, -- whether the victims knew or did not know whether they were sterilized or not?
A That had nothing to do with it.
Q Why was it then done? Why was it changed then, the whole idea?
A This fact was included in the first letter, so that Himmler should not carry out his sterilization plans, and so I assume that in this second letter the sentence was included so that Himmler's doubts which had arisen from the first letter would be done away with.
Q All right, but in the first letter you made the direct suggestion how it could be avoided, that the people should know they were sterilized; in the second letter you say it doesn't make any difference any more; I do not know, but it seems to me you did not answer my question?
A. I did answer it.
Q. Is this the only explanation you can give for this?
A. I cannot give any other explanation.
Q. All right, you named here six euthanasia stations, as far as I can remember?
A. Yes.
Q. Will you tell the Tribunal where these euthanasia stations were located in Germany?
A. I told the Tribunal that.
Q. Will you repeat that please, as far as you can?
A. Grafeneck was in Wuerttemberg; Hadamar was in Hessen; Sonnenstein was in Saxony; Hartheim was in Austria; Brandenburg near Brandenburg, and Bernburg in Dessau or in Anhole near Dessau.
Q. Can you tell me what concentration camps were in the vicinity of these different euthanasia, stations?
A. No, I cannot.
Q. Do you know, for instance, how far or whether it is true or not that Mauthausen was in the vicinity of Hartheim?
A. No, Mauthausen is near Linz.
Q. And where is Hartheim?
A. Yes, Hartheim is also near Linz.
Q. You know that Hartheim is not far from Mauthausen?
A. I assume so. I was never at Mauthausen, I don't know exactly where it was. If they say Mauthausen is near Linz, I know that Hartheim is not far away from Linz and then Mauthausen is not far from Linz.
Q. What do you know about the location of the Gross-Rosen concentration camp?
A. The Gross-Rosen camp is in Silesia; I have learned that now.
Q. How far is that from Bernburg?
A. I really don't know - two hundred, three hundred, or four hundred kilometers.
Q. What about the location of Buchenwald?
A. I don't know.
Q. In connection with the location of Bernburg?
A. I don't know where it is.
Q. I have no further questions, Your Honor.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Witness, in your testimony with reference to the euthanasia operations as applied to defective children you testified concerning the consent of the parents. Now, was that consent given to the administration of euthanasia to their child or did the doctors in the institution where the child was inform the parents that something might be done for the child to help the child, which might be dangerous? Just what was the information conveyed to the parents by the doctors in charge of the child?
A. I should like to point out again that on this question I know only as a layman through Linden to the best of my recollection the doctor who sent the child to the institution - that is, not the doctor at the Reich Committee Station but the doctor who noted the deformity spoke to the parents and told them that if the child was sent to a Reich Committee station it would be healed if there was any possibility of it, but he also pointed out that the treatment in such severe cases is always connected with extraordinary danger and then he asked the parents whether, in spite of this unusual danger, which in many cases led to the death of the child, whether they would make the decision and give their consent. Only if the parents did give their consent for the risky treatments by which only a small percentage of the patients were cured, then this doctor sent the child to a Reich Committee station.
Q. And then the child was sent to the station for the administration of euthanasia, is that correct?
A. No, the head of the Reich Committee station first of all had to try every possibility beyond normal care to make this child capable of real living.
As far as I, as a layman, can judge, there were very serious operations which might be fatal.
Q. Well then, the fact that the child was placed in the institution would not the doctors immediately endeavor to restore the child to something like a normal state as soon as possible?
A. I am sorry, I did not understand your question, Your Honor. What do you mean, a normal way of life; you mean to attempt this cure immediately?
Q. When a defective child was sent to a governmental institution for care, would not the doctors there immediately examine the child and, if they felt that any treatment or any operation would really benefit the child, would they not proceed with that treatment immediately, probably after advising the parents, but they would not delay in order with an endeavor to help the child to as nearly a normal state as possible, would they?
A. I cannot judge as a layman how long a period of observation would be necessary and how a child might first have to be nursed and brought into good condition before an operation could be performed. I cannot judge these things, but certainly in my opinion the doctors made every effort, as far as human aid was possible, to make the cure permanent.
Q. Was euthanasia administered to these children if there was any possibility of rehabilitating the child so that the child could lead a fairly normal life?
A. No, not in that case.
Q. Have you any idea as to the number of children to whom the euthanasia operation was applied in these mental institutions?
A. In my first interrogations I believe I gave a figure. I don't remember what it was. I can only say with a good conscience that I cannot give any figures because in 1942 I went to the service and I don't know what happened from 1942 to 1944 in the way of authorizations issued by Bouhler. Up to the time when I was still in Berlin with Bouhler, and sometimes I gave Bouhler the documents to be signed, the number was very low.
I pointed out that Bouhler, although he was not a doctor, in many cases decided against the opinion of the experts and did not give the authorization in spite of this opinion and the child had to be observed for one, two, three, or more years before authorization for euthanasia could be given.
Q. Have you any idea that the doctors in charge of an institution where defective children were confined ever asked the parents if they desired that euthanasia be administered either by an operation or by administering euthanasia to that child?
A. I don't know but I don't believe that these doctors asked the parents. That was up to the doctor who assigned the child to the institution. As Linden said he had to discuss the matter with the parents as tactfully as possible so as, on the one hand, not to leave them the responsibility as a spiritual burden, but on the other hand he had to make it clear to them that it might be possible to release these children from their suffering.
Q Did they advise the parents that the child were ill?
A In what form it was put I don't know.
Q Did you hear Dr. Pfannmueller's testimony?
A Pfannmueller said that he did not talk to the parents about it. That is what I recall.
Q As I remember his testimony he stated that after the commencement of the administration of this drug, which would cause the death of a child after a certain number of days, he would advise the parents that the child was ill, and that they should come to see the child so that they would see the child before it died? Do you remember that testimony?
A Yes. I do.
Q Now that is no wise the equivalent of informing the parents that a dangerous operation might result in helping the child or it might result in the death of the child. That is a very different thing, is it not?
A Yes, I said that I didn't believe that the executing doctor talked to the parents. It was the doctor who sent the child to the institution. To be more explicit it was the doctor who had this child sent to a Reich Committee station, not the doctor in charge of euthanasia.
Q Dr. Pfannmueller was in charge of the euthanasia and in charge of the institution, was he not?
A Yes.
Q He did not send the children to the institution?
A No, and he said that, that the children were sent to him. That ho himself did not send any one to tho institution.
Q Well, the doctor who sent the children to the institution would have nothing to do with the operation of euthanasia, would they?
A No, they had nothing to do with it.
THE PRESIDENT: Has the counsel for the defendant Brack any further questions to the witness?
Do I understand counsel for the defendant Brack has no further questions to propound to the witness?
DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President I should like to examine my client but the defense counsel for Dr. Pokorny wishes
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for defendant Brack will proceed with the examination of the witness first.
BY DR. FROESCHMANN:
I should just like to get my document. Mr. President, I have only a very few questions to put to the witness Brack based on the cross examination which has just been concluded.
Q Witness, the Tribunal has asked you whether you were ever present at euthanasia of incurably insane in mental institutions, and you said "yes." When you were present on such occasions of euthanasia on insane, did you take any active part in the killing of these insane persons, even by only manipulating some lever or any other kind of machinery?
A No, I did not participate. That was up to the doctor.
Q Witness, from the questions of the Tribunal, I believe to have gathered that the Tribunal has a certain assumption that the gas chambers in which euthanasia was performed on incurably insane persons could be taken apart and moved to other places.