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.
In answer to the question of the Tribunal, you tried to make it clear that these "gas chambers" perhaps the term was not very fortunate - were solid parts of the building of the euthanasia institution, is that true?
A Yes, that is correct, it was a room which was from the very beginning an organic part of such a building.
Q Then if these gas chambers should have been dismantled, then is it true that nothing would have been left but a heap of ruins as is made of a building after an air raid?
AAs far as I can judge it would have been actually technically impossible. One would have had to remove a piece from a house. That isn't possible.
Q Then it was not the case that these parts of the building could have been loaded on a truck and removed in one piece?
A No, that would have been quite impossible.
Q But you, witness, pointed out that the pipes consisted of the same sort of pipes that can be bought anywhere in the world for very little money?
A It was a pipe such as is used for water or gas anywhere. In every room you can find such pipes.
Q The Judge also asked you in regard to the questionnaires about the nationality of the people who were subjected to euthanasia in your presence. I believe it was in Brandenburg, if I understood you correctly, this occurred in 1940, is that true?
A Yes, I don't know exactly. I said either the end of 1939, or the beginning of 1940.
Q At that time at the end of 1940, could you have had the idea that of the poor men who are now subjected to euthanasia that these poor men could be foreigners?
A No, the idea could never have occurred to me and it would not have been possible to find out such a thing. The poor beings there, one could not talk to them at all.
Q The Judge also asked you a few questions about the Jews, specifically he asked you how many Jews there were in 1939 in Germany. If my impression was correct, you thought over the answer and then gave a figure finally of two to three million, is that true, that you gave that figure?
A Yes, I believe so. I don't know. It was just an estimate.
Q You are anticipating. I merely wanted to know whether you said two to throe million?
A Yes.
Q Now, what evidence do you have for giving this number, two or three million Jews?
A I have no evidence for it.
Q Then it was simply an estimate?
A Yes, just an assumption on my part.
Q Your Honors, in this connection, I should like to explain something. I have had my colleague ascertain in the meantime on the basis of the Statistical Year Book for the German Reich, I believe, of the year 1940, that the number of Jews in Germany, in the old Reich, was 375,000, and in the entire Great or German Reich, that is including Austria, and the territories incorporated up to 1939, was about 700,000. I have also learned that there were at most about 200,000 part-Jews. Witness, do you know of any data from the Statistical Year Book which were far below your estimate?
AAt that time I knew of no statistics.
Q Then you very carelessly gave the figure for which you had no official evidence, is that correct?
A Yes, that is true, but I will state I need evidence and I don't have any.
Q Then you should say: "I don't know." In any case, according to the evidence which I have obtained in the meantime there were at the most one million Jews and partJews.
DR. HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, the Prosecution objects against this kind of questioning. Defense counsel has not produced a document showing that the assumption of the witness was wrong, the numbers given by the defense counsel may be correct. I am not able to check it.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal understands that. Counsel has simply offered those figures and if the Prosecution upon investigation believes those figures to be incorrect, it may introduce evidence if it desires to the contrary, and if it agrees that those figures are approximately correct, it may so state later on. The figures given by defense counsel are in no wise binding upon anybody at this time.
DR. HOCHWALD: Thank you, Your Honor.
BY DR. FROESCHMANN:
Q. The next question. The Judge also asked you whether and to what extent veterans of the World War 1914-1918 were included in euthanasia or were to be included. Do you recall this question?
A. Yes.
Q. The Judge pointed out that insanity is said to be connected with a brain injury. As you have repeatedly said, you are not a doctor. I merely want to have you clarify one point. That is, what veterans of World War 1914-1918 were to be exempted from euthanasia. I would like a very clear, precise answer.
A. These were to be exempted in whose cases the insanity was the result of any injury incurred during the World War, regardless of whether it was a brain injury or any other type of injury.
Q. That is what I wanted to know.
The Court also asked you whether there was a central office in the Party or in the Reich for equipping the gas chambers; on whose instructions these gas chambers were set up in the various euthanasia institutions. I ask you, and please answer this question with "yes" or "no", was there such a central office in the Reich? Do you know that it organized the gas chambers according to a certain plan, a certain scheme.
A. No, there was no such office.
Q. You were also asked how could the head of an euthanasia institution hit upon the idea of installing a gas chamber in his institution for the purpose of euthanasia. I ask you, do you know when the idea of the use of gas came up in the deliberations of the doctors, the experts?
A. I really don't remember that.
Q. Do you remember that originally the idea was that these incurably insane persons were to be given an injection of morphine or something similar?
A. I informed them. At first it was said that the patients were to be given some drug, whether it was an injection or pills I don't know, but I don't remember when and who made the suggestion to Bouhler that world be impossible or that gas should be used for other reasons.
That was a purely medical matter.
Q. Another question in this connection. Do you know or do you merely assume that Bouhler as the man alone responsible for euthanasia gave instructions to the heads of the mental institutions to build such gas chambers, to have them built by their local mechanics?
A. Bouhler did not give such instructions. Bouhler did not take any direct interest in what went on in the institution. The institutions were under the Ministry of Interior. The Ministry of Interior gave necessary instructions as to what had to be done. That was in 1937.
Q. That was not quite clear from your testimony before. Is it clear now that you said that already you were of the opinion that it was the Ministry of the Interior which gave instructions to heads of mental institutes about technical matters concerning the incurably insane? Now, I should like to interpolate one brief question.
When did you visit a concentration camp?
A. Once in my life I saw a concentration camp. That was in 19371938. That was camp Oranienburg. That was the only time.
Q. Than in answer to the question of the President you stated that in the various discussions and preliminaries before euthanasia was introduced you were told that the reason and the motive for euthanasia, or rather you felt that the reason and motive for euthanasia was always sympathy with the patient and the idea of releasing them from their suffering, that you never had any other reason, for example expediency, is that true?
A. Yes, that is true.
Q. And the question was rise brought up during your examination whether Hitler in your opinion could decide about the life of the insane without the consent of the relatives. Is it true and do you know from what went on at that time, that the consent of relatives of the insane was not considered desirable so that any personal intentions of the relatives against sick persons could be eliminated -- any intentions of obtaining the property of relatives by bringing about the relative's early death?
A. I thought I had already said that that was the same reason why a doctor in the institution could not pass judgment on the questionnaires of his own patients, in order to eliminate any possibility of intentions to obtain the property of the insane person.
Q. And another subject brought up by the President. Is it true that in euthanasia of incurably insane after the questionnaire had been filled out and judged by experts and top experts, the Reich Minister of Interior, Linden's office, assigned the incurably insane person to observation institutions and later to euthanasia institutions?
A. Yes, that is true.
Q. Is it true that in the proceedings before tho Reich Committee which is emphasizing the expert, the final expert who passed on the questionnaires assigned the patient through Linden to the Reich Committee Station?
A. I do not know to what extent the doctor giving the treatment and the doctor assigning the patient to the institution was the final expert, for I do not know Linden's system and procedure in the Reich Committee.
Q. But is it true that on general principle no such child could be assigned to the Reich Committee station without the parents having previously being explicitly asked whether they consented to this assignment even with the danger that upon application of modern therapy the child might die?
A. Yes, that is what happened and that is what I explained to the Tribunal.
Q. In this connection, Mr. President, I should like to refer once more to my exhibit Brack 41. It contains the sentence: Since on principle I do not assign children to the Reich Committee Station against the consent of the parents, I should like to consider the case of the Franz child settled." Witness, again an answer to the question of the Tribunal as to why Jews were to be exempted from euthanasia you stated that euthanasia was considered a benefit which should not be given to Jews.
Was that your personal opinion or was that the distorted opinion of Hitler?
A. That is what I can say about it now. I can only draw the conclusion now looking back; to what extent these conclusions belong to the fact I don't know that might have been purely political.
Q. Witness, you have not answered my question yet, whether this opinion you have expressed here was your personal opinion or whether you were opposed to this opinion?
A. No, that was not my personal opinion. These are my conclusions.
Q Now, I come to the cross examination of the Prosecutor himself. I can be very brief.
MR. HARDY: May it please Your Honor, inasmuch as defense counsel is going to a new subject I have something to take up with the Tribunal. If you will permit me to do it at this time when it will be most convenient. Several months ago the Prosecution was concerned with locating Dr. Eugen Hagen - that is, the same Dr. Hagen who worked at Strasbourg and Natzweiler. During the course of several months, Dr. Hagen was located and the Prosecution then did not take forward steps to have him brought directly to Nurnberg. In the meantime, the defense counsel requested Hagen as a witness. Hagen has arrived here now in Nurnberg and is classified as a "prosecution witness." Due to the oversight of the prosecution to call him as their witness, and inasmuch as defense counsel did call him as a witness, the prosecution now relinguishes their right to call Hagen and will give the defense counsel the opportunity to interrogate him first. At the completion of the interrogation by the defense counsel, if they do not see fit to call him here before the Tribunal as a witness, then we should like to have the opportunity to examine him. Due to the fact that this change of category has arise, defense counsel is in a position wherein they must petition the Secretary General which must be done a reasonable time before this particular interrogation. Dr. Tipp, the defense counsel for Becker-Freyseng, is not in a position to do this at this time because his case with Becker-Freyseng will begin either late today or tomorrow, and he would like to interrogate Dr. Hagen this evening; so if the Secretary General can make a note to change the classification of Hagen from a "prosecution" to a "defense" witness, then I understand Dr. Tipp can carry out his intentions without any interference.
THE PRESIDENT: May I hear from defense counsel.
DR. TIPP (Defense Counsel for the defendant Becker-Freyseng): I will be grateful, Mr. President, if the Tribunal should take notice of this decision of the prosecution and should ask the General Secretary to make this decision today, and, if possible, during the noon recess and to inform Room 57 so that I can speak to Mr. Hagen tonight already. That is the only formality which still has to be settled.
THE PRESIDENT: In view of the statements by the prosecution and counsel for the defendant Becker-Freyseng, it is satisfactory to the Tribunal to have the counsel for BeckerFreyseng interview the witness at noon and put him on the stand tomorrow or this evening, if possible.
MR. HARDY: As I understand it, Your Honor, it isn't the purpose of defense counsel to call Hagen here as a witness now. He just wants a pre-trial interrogation.
THE PRESIDENT: That may be permitted. Defense counsel may interview the witness this noon or this evening and call him as a witness if he desires.
MR. HARDY: In order to expedite matters, if the Tribunal would request Mr. Travis, the Secretary General of this Court to clarify this discrepancy in the Secretory General's Office, then Dr. Tipp can make his arrangement without too much trouble.
THE PRESIDENT: The clerk of the court will inform the Secretary General. I would suggest that counsel for the prosecution and for the defendant accompany the clerk of the court to the office of the Secretary General so that the entire matter will be clarified at one time, and everybody be advised.
DR. TIPP: Thank you.
DR. FROESCHMANN: May I continue?
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may proceed.
BY DR. FROESCHMANN:
Q Witness, in cross examination, a number of documents were shown to you and I have a very few final questions about these documents. Is it true that in Document NO-2799, Exhibit 497, it mentions the "Aktion Heyde" in the Fall of 1941 and that you know nothing about it until the moment this document was submitted?
A I knew nothing about "Aktion Heyde".
Q Is it true that you did not know anything about the "Aktion Lange" either which is in Exhibit 500, of the Prosecution, Document NO-2909, until this document was submitted here?
A No, I know nothing about it.
Q Mr. President, from the moment I took this case I have tried to clarify as objectively as possible all matters which accused or excused the defendant Brack. In the last few days, since this document has been submitted, I have been trying to trace this "Aktion Lange" through witnesses, because I am still looking for that one person who is responsible for Aktion 14-F-13. I ask for permission that until my colleagues have concluded their cases I may continue to submit evidence, perhaps affidavits, to clarify that "Aktion", because I am interested in having even the slightest suspicion of the defendant Brack, on the basis of these documents, refuted.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal grants the permission requested by counsel.
DR. HOCHWALD: May it please Your Honor, if Dr. Froeschmann should desire to present affidavits as to the question of "Aktion 14-F-13" in evidence it should be in a time when the prosecution is still in the position to call the witness for cross-examination.