Later he was transferred to Bavaria, to Amberg, although he had served his sentence for a long time, and from that you can see quite clearly that it did not matter how great the sentence was, but the main thing was they were sentenced and brought away from home.
Q. Father Wein, it is correct then, I take it, to say that in Amberg prison, during the latter stages of the war, there were housed several hundred Polish prisoners who had been forced to leave Poland for labor in the Reich? Is that correct?
A. Yes, I had that impression. I did not ask them specifically about that, but I had the impression that these people had not come voluntarily to Amberg. They were all prisoners; there were no volunteers amongst them; they were forced. There were some very young fellows amongst them who told me that at the age of 15 or 16 they had been taken away from their homes. They certainly did not come voluntarily at least, one could not assume that.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: I have no further questions, your Honors.
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY DR. JUBOSCHOK:
Q. You said before, during the time of Guertner, he was humane and then Thierack came and the trouble started. About the time of Guertner's death when Schlegelberger was in charge of the Ministry of Justice, during that period was there any change in the prison?
A. After the death of Dr. Guertner, it was quite for a while, and we wondered, not merely myself, but the late popular Hopp with whom I worked, wondered whether changes would be made. Schlegelberger liked Guertner very much, and we were already afraid and wondered what was going to happen Who was going to some after him.
There was a time when nothning happened, as long as Dr. Schlegelberger was in office, his name was mentioned frequently. He did not make any changes in the prison. Everything was quiet during this entrim period. He probably thought he did not want to make too many changes, but then when Dr. Thierack came one noticed it quite strongly that it was going down hill and then, mercy had died.
Q. Then, let us summarize, under Schlegelberger, there was a continuation of the same area that was under Guertner?
A. Yes.
BY DR. LINK:
DR. LINK: May it please the Tribunal, statements made by the witness go beyond that which has become known to the defendant Engert, from the affidavit. That is a considerable pressure, and, therefore, I want to make the suggestion and the request to be permitted to report to the defendant, who is still in the hospital, about the statements made here, to which the witness testified, and then to conduct my cross examination after having done so, provided that now another witness could be called for whom I do not have to be present. I should be prepared and would submit that I conduct the cross examination of this witness after the noon recess.
THE PRESIDENT: There seems to be no objection on the part of the prosecution, and the Tribunal sees no reason why that is not a reasonable request. I am wondering whether any other--I am wondering whether any other defense counsel would like to crossexamine this witness at this time, or whether they care to crossexamine this witness at any time.
DR. KOESSL (for defendant Rothaug):
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY DR. KOESSL:
Q Witness, in your capacity as prison clergyman, did you see anything of the files?
A Yes.
Q Do you remember that the Poles frequently stated how they came into Germany?
A I did not speak to the Poles. I do not speak Polish.
Q Could you see anything from the files about that - as to how they came into Germany?
A No, really, I didn't.
Q You said before, that the Poles did not come to Amberg voluntarily?
A Those boys who were there didn't; we had prisoners in the penitentiary, and from that you can assume they had been forced to come there. I told you how it had happened. That was the way I was told by the clergyman who was with them. His sentence was for a quarter of a year for illegal border crossing, he was in difficulty for over a year, and that would seem he did not come voluntarily. Many of them died.
Q The Polish clergyman, whom you mentioned, apparently until he was sentenced - had been in Poland, and then he was brought to Amberg-
A --From Schiratz.
DR. KOSSL: Thank you.
BY THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE BRAD):
Q Mr. Witness, were you informed, as to the purpose for which you performed the screening of the prisoners, before the time when Engert rescreened them?
A It was stated -- it was at the end of 1942 or the beginning of 1943 -- I was told in a conference by Oberregierungsrat Hopp -- not only I was told, but it was stated, that only the files of those with life sentences, and long sentences down to eight years, had to be screened -- that is to say, a later day included those down to eight years. First they said only the life-long sentences, then they included those down to eight years -- they had to be screened as to the asocial attitude of these people. That was the assignment. Then he told me, -- I have to ask you, and we could do that because the Ministry had given us the assignment to take part in the asocialogical screening; some weeks we had to do two screenings, apart from our normal work, -- and I said, -- Yes, I will help. But I had a certain feeling that that whole affair was not quite clean, and I said, -- I should like to ask you, that those who are questionable, or to be considered asocials, according to the principles which would be laid down, that you take those, and you take care of those. I refused to have anything to do with that. I took the rest. I could do that easily because I knew the people whom I had in Straubing, and I knew that among those I would not have to declare anybody as asocial without doing anything against my own conscience; and another official, selected the files, and from that entire file I took about fifty whom I was sure they were not dangerous, and I screened them, and I considered by my own knowledge, and before God, that I did not write anybody asocial, and if there were any, I put them aside; I divided the work; I had to work because the other official, Director Woerth, was physically and mentally unable to do it -- that is, to render a judgment. That was the reason why I was also asked to help. Then we screened the files.
I did not declare anyone asocial; Oberregierungsrat Hopp picked out about six of them, and told me again yesterday, that I was told yesterday, by the man who had to do the clerical work at that time. In other words, from the major number of files, only six of them had been marked as asocial. That was how it happened. And if it weren't for that commission that came afterwards, nothing would have happened. That commission only changed matters completely. Throughout all the work we had done, regardless whether they had been marked social, or asocial, - regardless whether they had twenty-five, or five years -- one could only guess what principles they applied; but one could not recognize it right away. From the very beginning one could not imagine - one did not know - any of them had to be sent to Mathausen. We thought maybe they would be sent to Straubing, in protective custody, or to Crailsheim, where - shortly before that time - a group of politicals -- political prisoners -- had been sent. One could not assume that these people were to be "removed" - in that cruel way, as it was done in Mathausen. Nobody among us know that. We only had a certain suspicion - a certain feeling:there is something wrong; we have to be careful. That is the truth.
Q I understand your answer. Then, the classification in which you took part resulted in about six persons being classified as asocials? Did I understand you to that effect?
A Yes; yes.
Q To what extent was the asocial list increased by the rescreening under Engert? Merely briefly.
A That is difficult for me to say. The first shipment, there were about twenty, or more -- I could not say that for sure - I did not make that list. I only saw it superficially. The second list, there were twelve or fifteen. About the later shipment, I could not say. They went very fast. Suddenly, we were told that some more had been transferred.
Yesterday the gentleman who made them prepare the list at the time, told me that about one hundred of them were transferred. I could not say anything more about that.
Q And the transfer of about one hundred was the result of the classification which took place under Engert -- is that correct? That is all I want to know.
A Yes, yes; and contrary to the first classification. By the first classification nobody would have been sent to Mathausen at any rate.
Q Did you receive any statement from Engert as to the reason for the increased number of persons so classified as asocials, and transferred?
A No; I neither saw Engert, nor met him officially; nor did I ever see any signature of his. I only heard that these things care down without signature - these instructions. That was what I was told.
JUDGE BRAND: Thank you.
WITNESS: (Continuing) -- Mostly, there were no signature, because they were secret instrctions, and we did not have any information, any opportunity, to see this.
JUDGE BRAND: Thank you.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: No further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: If any other of defense counsel expect, at any time, to cross-examine this witness, other than Dr. Link, they will be required to conduct that cross-examination now. (Pause.)
Father Wein, you will be requested to return at one--thirty this afternoon for another questioning on the part of Dr. Link; you will be back at that time please.
WITNESS: Yes.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Can the witness be excused?
THE PRESIDENT: The witness will be temporarily excused.
(Witness temporarily excused.)
THE PRESIDENT: I wonder if Dr. Link has something he could proceed with at the moment?
DR. LINK (for defendant Engert): May it please the Tribunal: It is not quite clear to me whether another witness will be called now. I would have to be present. I am just wondering who will be the next witness?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: May it please the Court, the prosecution is prepared, in the face of deferred cross-examination of this witness, to proceed with documentary evidence, for the rest of the morning.
THE PRESIDENT: This documentary evidence will not refer particularly to defendant Engert?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: It will not, your Honor. It is Document Bonk 8.
MR. KING: May I ask the Court and defense counsel to turn to document book VIII-A.
The first five exhibits in Book VIII-A have previously been introduced in connection with other document books. They are included here in the index only to show that they have some relationship to the general subject to which this document book pertains. Those documents which previously have been introduced, together with the book in which they were introduced, are as follows:
NG - 293 was introduced in Book I NG - 346
THE PRESIDENT: Are you able to give the exhibit numbers at this time, Mr. King?
MR. KING: One moment. I may not be able to give all of them at the moment, Your Honor. I will, however, supply those. On the first one, 293, I am not able to at the moment. On NG-346, also introduced in Book I, it was Exhibit No. 101. NG-275, also in Book I--I am sorry I do not have that exhibit number at the moment. NG-392 was introduced in connection with Book V, and it was Exhibit 373. Exhibit NG-410 was introduced in connection with Book III. I do not have that exhibit number. Those exhibit numbers will be supplied, however, probably in the next few minutes. I would like to turn first to document 630-PS, which appears on page 8 of the English document book VIII and on page 9 in the German. This is an order dated 1 September 1939 to Reichsleiter Bouhler and Br. Brandt, signed by A. Hitler. It gives Bouhler and Brandt the responsibility for setting up a euthanasia program and a note at the bottom on this copy which we are presenting shows that a copy of this order was handed to Dr. Guertner on the 27th of August 1940, almost a year later. We introduce at this time the document 630-PS as Exhibit 383.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MR: KING: The next document, NO--833, is to be found on page 9 of the English document book, and on page 10 of the German book.
This letter, dated Berlin, 27 July 1940, is a note from Schlegelberger to Lammers, enclosing a letter from Guertner to Lammers, who, apparently because he left town on a vacation for a brief period, was not able to send the letter to Lammers himself. We introduce, as soon as defense counsel has completed his examination of the original, document NO-833 as Exhibit 384.
DR. BEHLING (Counsel for the defendant Schlegelberger): Only for purposes of clarification, may I say that this letter is addressed to Reichsleiter Bouhler and not to Lammers.
MR. KING: I am perfectly willing to accept Dr. Behling's explanation of it. It would appear, therefore, that a copy of the letter which Guertner did. in fact send to Dr. Lammers was sent by Schlegelberger to Reichsleiter Bouhler.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MR. KING: I have now the exhibit numbers of those exhibits introduced in connection with other books. NG-293 is Exhibit 59. NG-275 is Exhibit 25. NG-410 is Exhibit 147. That is 142, instead of 147, Your Honor. The next exhibit, which will be 385, will be NO-832, which is to be found on page 10 of the English document book, and page 11 of the German. NO-832 is the letter, a copy of which was sent to Reichsleiter Bouhler by Dr. Schlegelberger, as indicated in NO-833. I might point out a certain deficiency which apparently appears in the German text. If Your Honors will note, on the left-hand margin in the English text of the document NO832, there are certain handwritten marginal notes. I am informed that those handwritten marginal notes do not appear in the German version of this document. For purposes of clarification and expediation, we will not rely upon those notes. However, the Court should be aware that the German copy does not have them on.
THE PRESIDENT: You stated that it was signed by Schlegelberger. I notice this copy indicates it was signed by Guertner.
MR. KING: I am sorry, Your Honor. I meant to say, if I didn't say, that NO-833 is signed by Schlegelberger, and the document NO-832 is the copy of the letter to which Schlegelberger refers in the letter which he signed. The document NO-832 is this letter to Lammers from Guertner, in which he says, in effect, that since Hitler refuses to issue a law authorizing euthanasia killings, all such killings should cease at once, and I would like to read the third paragraph in that letter. Dr. Guertner says:
"It is extremely difficult to reply officially"--he is referring to these inquiries about what has happened to certain people who have been victims of mercy killings--"for reference neither to the fact nor to the content of a Fuehrer order can be made. It is impossible to pretend that the Reich Justice Administration knows nothing of this matter."
We offer as Exhibit 385, the document NO-832.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received in evidence, and we will take the morning recess at this time for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken)
MR. KING: The next Exhibit 386 will be the Document NO-156which is to be found on page 12 of the English Document Book, and on page 12 also of the German Document Book. The document consists of two letters; the first one is a letter dated the 15th of July 1940 from the General Prosecutor of Stuttgart to the Reich Minister of Justice, in which he passes on rumors that unnatural deaths have occurred in institutions for the feeble-minded. There is a note at the bottom, apparently placed there by personnel in the Ministry of Justice, which states that the matter has been discussed with Dr. Treisler; no objection is to be taken; and that the letter and the enclosures are to be kept together with other things connected with this matter.
The other letter in this document is a note from Lammers to Guertner in which Lammers says that he is the person solely responsible for the execution of the measures to be taken and that it is not necessary to have any further written explanatory instructions.
We offer as Exhibit 386, the Document NO-156.
DR. SCHILF: Schilf for the defendants Klemm and Mettgenberg. Mr. King just read the second letter of the document NO-156. He said that it was signed by Lammers. According to the German Document Book, page 12, the letter is signed by "Bouhler".
MR. KING: There is, indeed, a difference in the two books. The German book says "Bouhler" and the English book says "Lammers". Perhaps we would solve this if we looked at the original. The signature on the original is that of "Bouhler" and not of "Lammers".
With that change, we offer the document as Exhibit 386. I understand that before it is handed up that Dr. Schilf would like to examine it further.
THE: PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MR. KING: The next document, 1524-PS is to be found on page 15 of the English text and on page 14 of the German text and will become, when introduced, Exhibit No. 387. The first letter in this document is one addressed to a Kreisleiter in Nurnberg by the name of Zimmermann, who has apparently written to another party member by the name of Hoffmann concerning the Euthanasia Program.
The letter here is signed by Martin Bormann and dated 24 September 1940. I would like to read two paragraphs of that letter, the second and third:
"It Was confirmed again yesterday that notifications to relatives are composed with varied texts. But, of course, it might happen that two families, living in close proximity, receive a letter with the same wording.
"It is self-evident that the representatives of the Christian philosophy of life object to the steps taken by the commission; it must be as self-evident that all Party Offices are to assist the commission when necessary."
The other document with the other letter in this document is to be found on page 16 in the English text and page 15 in the German. It's a rather cryptic note in the handwriting of one, Sellmer. It is dated the first of October 1940. It states that there have been hardly any failures up to now; that 30,000 have been finished; that an additional 105 to 120 thousand are waiting. The note also says that later on there will be an expansion and the notifications are to be made in a clearer or different form starting immediately. There are also instructions as to questions that are to be asked.
When defense counsel have completed their examination of the photostat original, we will offer this document, 1524-PS, as Exhibit 387.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you able to identify this Sellmer whose signature appears here?
MR. KING: No, Your honor. At the moment I am not able to identify the person Sellmer.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MR. KING: The document No. 621-PS is to be found on page 17 of the English text and on page 16 of the German text and will be when introduced, Exhibit 388. It is a letter of acknowledgment, signed Dr. Lammers, to Dr. Guertner, acknowledging that letters which Guertner has forwarded to Lammers concerning the death of sanitarium inmates have been received, and that these also have been passed on to the Reich Minister of the Interior and the Reich Chief for Public health.
We offer the Document 621-PS as Exhibit 388.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MR. KING: The next document, NO-842, is to be found on page 18 of the English text and on page 17 in the German text; end will become, when introduced, Exhibit, -- or rather when offered, Exhibit 389, This is a letter dated Berlin, 18 April, 1941: it is marked top secret, and is addressed to Dear party comrade, Dr. Schlegelberger, and signed Brack. The letter states that there are enclosed certain agreement forms to be used in the Euthanasia program, which Brack advises Schlegelberger to keep locked up. I would like to read a short portion of this letter, beginning in the English text with the sentence, "thereto."
"Thereto belong, for instance the death-notifications to the relatives of the patient. These are to be kept somehow different according to the district and kind of relatives; they must frequently be altered to avoid stereotyped texts and therefore sample letter would only irritate. I would like to call your attention especially to the card files No. 13 and 14; on their reverse sides you will find a list of authorities who are to be informed.
When reviewing the files again which you put at my disposal I found some details which ought to be clarified and settled; I would be thankful to you for doing so. Therefore I shall forward them to you individually Monday or Tuesday next week."
We offer as Exhibit 389 the Document NO-842.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MR. KING: As Exhibit 390, we now introduce the Document NO-681-PS, which is to be found in the English text on page 20 and page 18 of the German text. This is a letter from Schlegelberger to Lammers, which in general terms discusses the effect on the Administration of Justice caused by the Euthanasia program. Schlegelberger encloses certain booklets which discuss in great detail the problems raised by the Euthanasia program as affecting the Ministry of Justice. I would like to read a short portion of this letter. On page 21 of the English text, beginning seven lines from the bottom, with the sentence, "It repeatedly."
That may be found at the bottom of page in the German text.
"It repeatedly happened, that condemned persons, living in a sanatorium or asylum, escaped the notice of the prosecuting authorities because they were removed from the asylums without a hearing and were subsequently liquidated. This proved especially embarrassing, if the court had to decide on a prolongation of the detention of the perpetrations according to article 42 of the Penal Code. The fundamental principles of penal procedure were seriously affected inasmuch as export physicians declared that in all good conscience they could no longer give a diagnosis in dubious cases of the increased insanity of accused persons, in order to establish a basis for their confinement in a sanatorium or asylum because such confinement, in its result, was equivalent to the execution of a death sentence with a previous trial in court."
That letter is signed: "Schlegelberger". We now offer tho Document NO-681--PS as Exhibit 390.
DR. BELLING (Assistant Counsel for Defendant Schlegelberger):
Lay it please the Court, the document which we have before us is merely a copy on the typewriter, on which the name Dr. Schlegelberger is written on the typewriter. Any handwritten signature or initials of the defendant, be it under the letter, at the bottom of the letter or any other place on the margin, for instance on the left-hand margin, is not there. The letter does not have any remarks certifying it at the bottom; no certificate on it, no stamp of the Ministry of Justice. Moreover, the letter described is a copy expressly, a carbon copy; one cannot see from the original document whether this is merely a draft or a letter which never left the Ministry of Justice. Therefore, I object to the introduction of this document.
MR. KING: I think that it is perfectly clear from the letter that it is an office copy, and it is also true that, as Dr. Behling pointed out, that there is no handwriting on tho letter; in fact, there is only one stamp on the letter, on the original, that is the stamp apparently placed there in the office of the senate, which is marked "Top Government Secret."
With that exception, there is no indication that the letter was actually delivered to the addressee; it is an office copy like so many others of the documents introduced here have been. We are not able to offer a receipt that it was delivered.
THE PRESIDENT: Consistent with the many other rulings of this Tribunal, the document will have to be received in evidence.
MR. KING: The next exhibit will be, when offered, NO. 391, and will be the Document NG-525, which is to be found on page 24 of the English text and on page 22 of the German. This document is a sworn affidavit by the former private secretary of Dr. Rothenberger. I will not read any portion of the affidavit at this time. We offer it in this book because the statements given by Mrs. Frau Frohboese -- I would say it would be pronounced --- indicate that the defendant Rothenberger took an active interest in the euthenic program during the time that this woman, his personal secretary, worked with him. We offer the Document NG-525 as Exhibit 391. It will be handed up as soon as Defense Counsel have completed their examination of it.
DR. DOETZER (Attorney for Defendant Rothenberger):
May it please the Court, I do not object at the submission of the document. I only want to correct something, namely, the statements of Fran Frohboese does not cover the statements made by the Prosecutor, as it came through in German translation. From her statement one cannot see that objectively speaking the defendant Rothenberger took part in the Euthanasia program. Frau Frohboese expressly points out that another gentleman could give more exact information on this point.
MR. KING: I think that the word I used before was "interest." I think we can best leave it to the document; the document shows that the defendant Rothenberger had an interest in the Euthenic program, as indicated in the document itself.
THE PRESIDENT: The statement of counsel is more a matter of argument, and does nothing to the competency of the document. The document will be received in evidence.
MR. KING: The next exhibit will be 392, and involves the document NG 263, which is to be found beginning on page 27 of the English text and on page 25 of the German text. It is a rather long document containing many individual documents, but we will summarize these briefly, one by one.
May I first refer to an inadvertence which appears at the very beginning if the document. There we have on page 27 a document which has already been introduced as document NO. 833, which was exhibit 384, and which appears at the beginning of document NG 265. It is certainly an inadvertence, and while we aren't going to ask that it physically be removed since it is already bound, in the book and appears in the photostat copies; we are going to ask only that it not be introduced the second time, that the Court ignore that document admitting the letter, in admitting 263 in evidence.
The first letter to which we wish to refer briefly begins on page 28 of the English text and on page 26 of the German text. It is a letter to State Secretary Dr. Freisler, and it is from the General Public Prosecutor's office in Dresden. The Public Prosecutor in Dresden is passing on to Dr. Freisler a number of reports of deaths in mental institutions that came to his attention no way or another. Those case histories he briefly summarizes and asks on page 31 for instructions as to how he may best reply to these inquiries.
The letter on page 32 of the English text, is a letter from the Attorney General in Dresden, and likewise concerns a case history of an individual who died rather without notice in a mental institution.
The letter on page 34 in the English text, 35 in the German, is the same general type of letter. It is from the President of the Provincial Supreme Court in Stuttgart, and the letter is sent to the Reich Minister of Justice, and it refers to the deaths that are occuring in Grafeneck.
It refers to the fact that there is growing uneasiness among families who have members in the mental institutions, and also refers to the difficulty of conducting probative administration when no notice is given of the deaths of the individuals.
The letter on page 35 is addressed to the Reich minister of Justice, Dr. Guertner, and comes from the Bishop of Wuerttemberg. The Bishop calls attention to the fact that the institution Grafeneck is now of German knowledge and states that a continuation of this type of thing will shake the peoples faith in justice as well as in their faith in the physicians as benefactors of mankind.
Perhaps of a greater interest is the letter which the Bishop encloses, and that is a copy of one which he sent to the Reich Minister of the Interior, Dr. Frick. That letter is of some length, and I am not going to read any portion of it at this time, but I recommend its reading by the Court, by the Defense Counsel, and perhaps by the Defendants, themselves, if they have not yet seen it.
The next letter is on page 43 of the English text, page 46 of the German, and is another letter addressed by the Bishop of Wuerttemberg to the Minister of the Interior, Dr. Frick.
The letter on page 44 in the English text, page 48 of the German, is a letter of complaint; a statement of the situation from the chief of the Institution for Feeble Minded and Epileptics at Stetten, addressed to the Reich Minister of Justice, Dr. Frank.
The following letter merely refers to the letter from the institution in Stetten.