The letter on page 46 is a covering letter from Guertner to Lammers, in which he encloses a copy of a letter from the General Public Prosecutor in Naumburg. The Public Prosecutor in Naumburg has quite extensively outlined cases which have come to his attention of people who had died and were detained in mental institutions.
The letter on page 52 was written by Dr. Sucbomel, who was Chief Public Prosecutor in Linz. I believe the letter was written to the State Secretary, Dr. Freisler, and concerns inquiries which have reached him, Dr. Suchomol, of the extermination of patients in mental institutions.
On page 53 in the English text, page 58 of the German text, is a letter from Dr. Schlegelberger to all Presidents of the Courts of Appeal and the Chief Public Prosecutors, and entitled: "Extermination of useless lives."
Dr. Schlegelberger says:
"I request that in your district in all cases where the question of the extermination of useless lives if of any importance, you have each single case reported to you."
I think there is an error in the German translation. I understand the word "verbal" should be included there before "reported", so the last part of that sentence should read: "you have each single case verbally reported to you."
That note was also sent to the President of the Sureme Court, the President of the People's Court, and the Chief Public Prosecutors of the Reich.
The letter on page 55 is addressed to Schlegelberger and comes from Brack, in which Brack asks for a clarification of certain records which were put at his disposal, and the letter concerns the individual cases about which there was some question. All of them were concerned with the Euthanasia killings.
The letter on page 56 in the English text, 62 in the German text, was addressed to the attorney General in Duesseldorf . It is not clear as to who signed that letter, but it did come from the Reich Minister of Justice.
THE PRESIDENT: I did not understand what you said about the Attorney General.
MR. KING: The letter was sent to the Attorney General in Duesseldorf, and came from the Reich Minister of Justice, but it is not clear who actually signed the letter. The letter says that the writer is in agreement that the deaths of persons housed in mental institutions should be reported as promptly as possible.
The letter on page 59 comes from the Chief Public Prosecutor in Jena, and was addressed to the Reich Minister of Justice. It is a complaint by the Chief Public Prosecutor that the Public Prosecutors in his district tell him that they are not informed when a patient dies in "liquidating institutions." It causes these Public Prosecutors an unnecessary amount of work, since they continue working on cases when it becomes quite pointless to do so.
The letter on page 62 is another in the series from Brack to Schlegelberger, is marked "Strictly personal", and dated Berlin, l8th of April 1941. It is largely a covering letter for a folder of forms which the liquidation program needs for further processing a patient after he has been eliminated.
That, very briefly and perhaps sketchily summarized - is Document NG--265, which we at this time would like to introduce as Exhibit 392. May I suggest that if defense counsel wishes to examine these letters -as the Court is aware there is a considerable number of them -- that we offer defense counsel the photostat original now, and perhaps formally receive this in evidence after lunch, because, I think, to take time out now to examine them would unnecessarily delay. The prosecution would be very willing to have the final offering delayed until some later time when they have had opportunity to examine them. But that is entirely up to defense counsel.
THE PRESIDENT: If defense counsel desire to examine these documents in detail, then the matter will be postponed until after lunch, on the offering, unless you are ready to act upon them sooner.
DR. KUBOSCHOK (for defendants von Ammon and Schlegelberger): Only a small technical question: The last document which the gentlemen of the prosecution mentioned, the letter from Brack to Schlegelberger, of the 18th of April 1941.
This letter is identical with Document 84 -Exhibit Number 389. It would probably be proper that, therefore, the Document is eliminated from the new Exhibit Number, and introduced only under the original number, 389.
MR. KING: Yes, there is, as he pointed out, that duplication. I think that occurred in this way: That in many cases, apparently, more than one copy of a letter was made, and it was placed in more than one filing folder, so that when the whole folder was processed, the letter appeared again among the considerable number of documents; but, as pointed out, I am certainly in hearty agreement with him; there is no point in having it in evidence twice. May we ask the Court not to receive it in evidence -- when it is offered, page 62 in the English, page 68 in the German, of the letter dated 18 April 1941, to Schlegelberger, from Viktor Brack.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it does not seem to make very much difference. The duplication will cause no difficulty and it can't be considered twice. Whatever arrangement you desire to make will be agreeable to the Tribunal.
JUDGE BRAND: Mr. King, may I ask for information, if you are prepared now to give it. I realize you may not be now prepared. In some of these Exhibits introduced this morning, there has been reference to the fact that there was no law for Euthanasia, and that, therefore, proceedings would have to stop; and later reference to the fact -- apparent fact -that a law was ready. Now, do you know under what statute, if any, these proceedings purported to be carried on in 1941 -
MR. KING: To the best of our knowledge, your Honor, there was never a law passed, other than the decree which we first read and offered.
JUDGE BRAND: The Fuehrer's Decree?
MR. KING: The Fuehrer's Decree.
JUDGE BRAND: So far as you know?
MR. KING: That is the only authority under which the entire program operated.
THE PRESIDENT: I beg to suggest at this time, that I think I have seen an old German law on the subject of Euthanasia, and I would like to point out to the prosecution and defense counsel, when we return after lunch.
MR. KING: The fact that Guertner and others repeatedly said that there was no law, at the time the statements were made in 1940 and 1941, have made us believe that another evidence -- that if there were an earlier law, it certainly did not go to the extent that this one did, which permitted liquidations without examination before a specially constituted Board, such as is often done where people are committed to asylums and institutions under the system of law which we know. But I should be grateful for a reference to an earlier law, if your Honor can find that.
The next document, 615-PS, is to be found beginning on page 64 of the English text, and on 67 in the German text. This will be Exhibit 393 when introduced. This is a letter from the Bishop of Limburg to the Reich Minister of Justice in Berlin, and it concerns in some detail, the reaction of the populace in the neighborhood of Hadamar, to the program of Euthanasia liquidation there. It refers to the fact that school children were well aware of what was happening, and would say - in taunting their schoolmates - that, to quote: "You're crazy; you'll be sent to the baking oven in Hadamar." The Bishop goes on to give his versions of the justice, or lack of it, in the program.
We offer the Document 6l5-PS, as Exhibit 393.
DR. SCHILF (Counsel for the defendants Klemm and Mettgenberg):
I have taken the liberty of submitting the photostat to Mr. Kind. It is not legible; with the best will, it is not legible. If there is no other photostatic copy which can be submitted, the document would have to be rejected. I am asking the Tribunal themselves to look at the photostat and then to make a decision about it. I admit the possibility that perhaps there is a better photostat available. The one which has been submitted here is absolutely illegible and cannot be used for that reason.
MR. KING: I think it is true that the technical job done on this photostat is not good. However, I am not quite in agreement with Dr. Schilf that it cannot under any circumstances be read. It is difficult, but I think it is not as bad as the one the Court rejected the other day. The print appears to be fairly legible.
THE PRESIDENT: We are not able to say, but perhaps with the aid of a strong glass it may be done.
MR. KING: May I suggest that this exhibit be received conditionally, and we will endeavor to have a more legible copy produced. It appears to me that it is probably a technical slip-up in reproduction.
THE PRESIDENT: I think that would be a fair order to make. Evidently the translator thought he could do something with it. If defense counsel can make a better showing, or if the prosecution cannot show a better photostat, it will be a proper subject matter for further investigation.
MR. KING: I recognize the fairness in having a copy that the defense counsel can read in their hands. I think probably, in the first place, this one could be read, as you suggest, with a strong glass. But we will endeavor to produce a copy that is legible to the naked eye.
THE PRESIDENT: We will receive the document conditionally.
MR. KING: If Dr. Schilf has objections to the copy that he can read, of course he will not be foreclosed in making them.
The next document will be Exhibit 39-1 when offered, and is document 626-PS, which is to be found beginning on page 67 of the English text and 71 of the German text. This is a letter from the General Prosecutor in Stuttgart, dated 1 August 1940, to the Minister of Justice, Berlin. He refers to his earlier reports and again suggests that there are rumors that unnatural deaths are occurring in the asylum, and that the death notices to relatives of the deceased are strikingly similar. He again asks for instructions as to how he can supply information to the people who have inquired.
We offer the document 626-PS as Exhibit 394.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: If Your Honors please, in connection with the direct examination of a witness that I hope to call this afternoon or early in the morning. I would appreciate it if the Court would make an order now asking the Secretary General to deliver into the Court Exhibit 20-1, which was document NG-151.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you give us that again, please?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Yes. Exhibit 204, which was document NG-151.
THE PRESIDENT: You formally gave the proper form for that?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Yes. I want the exhibit which went into evidence returned by the Secretary General's office, and if the Court will note that it orders it done, I think that will be sufficient to permit Mr. Nesbit to get it, or possibly a form filled out.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will gladly make that order, but I thought the rule required a written order.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: No, Your Honor. If you will recall, I simply suggested that it might make it easier if the Court would make a short written order and then deliver it to Colonel Nesbit. It is a purely mechanical matter. It makes it easier for him to get the document out.
THE PRESIDENT: We will make the oral order now, and follow it up with the execution of the form.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Thank you.
MR. KING: The next exhibit number, 395
THE PRESIDENT (Interposing): We will be glad if you will clear up a little matter that seems to be troubling us here. Were you purposely omitting to offer 629-PS, or was it an oversight? That is at page 63 of the English document book.
MR. KING: I was under the impression that I had offered that as 394. Perhaps my bookkeeping is in error.
THE PRESIDENT: You offered 626-PS as 394, beginning at page 67. I thought there was some confusion.
MR. KING: Your Honor said 629? I am sorry; 629 will not be offered at the moment.
THE PRESIDENT: That clears up the situation.
MR. KING: Exhibit 395 will be document 619-PS, which is to be found beginning on page 69 of the English text, 73 of the German. This is a letter from the General Public Prosecutor in Stuttgart, dated 12 October 1940. It is addressed to the Reich Minister of Justice, and it refers again to the rumors and reports of unnatural deaths which have come to his attention. He ventures to suggest, in the closing paragraphs of his letter, that the whole program will create a profound mistrust not only against local authorities who are directly involved, but also against the jurisdiction which is not able or does not dare to prevent or at least punish such things. He also refers to the fact that a Catholic institution operated in the vicinity might use the difference in treatment for propaganda purposes. The note is signed by Wagner.
We offer the document 619-PS as Exhibit 395.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MR. KING: The next exhibit, 396, is document 618-PS, which begins on page 73 of the English text and on 76 of the German text. The letter comes from the General Prosecutor of Dresden and is addressed to the Reich Minister of Justice.
The letter itself contains a statement that certain individuals in the area of Dresden have been eliminated in the euthanasia program, and he encloses a list of 22 excerpts from letters which his office apparently had received from relatives of individuals who had been liquidated.
We offer the document 618-PS as Exhibit 396.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be receive d in evidence, and we will take the usual noon recess beginning at this time.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 28 April 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: I promised a little information at the convening of the Tribunal this afternoon, and it is not very valuable, but nevertheless I am making good.
Section 216 of the Criminal Code is on the subject of euthanasia, very brief.
"If one is induced to kill another by the latter's own expressed and earnest demand, he shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three years."
Apparently that enactment was amended May 29, 1943, RGBL 1, 340, where it says the attempt is punishable. Of course, that is the other way around. To kill anyone by his own consent -would be punishable. Of course, the real definition of euthanasia is very far from the subject that has been introduced here. The real definition is, it is an act of inducing; death painlessly or as a relief from pain.
Now, since I promised something, I am making good on it. It doesn't mean much.
Before resuming the session, we note with some satisfaction that the defendant Rothaug is again in court. It seems proper to inquire what we can learn about the defendant Engert.
DR. LINK (Counsel for Defendant Engert): To this question of the high Tribunal may I say that this noon I was informed by the doctor, the woman doctor, that the defendant Engert will not be able to attend the sessions for a considerable time. He is still in the City Hospital, Nuremberg, and until now nothing is known that he should be transferred to any other hospital.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal requests at this time that we have a medical report concerning Engert's condition.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Your Honor, I assume you want the Prosecution to arrange for that in the form of oral testimony?
THE PRESIDENT: Not necessarily.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Or any means?
THE PRESIDENT: So we have the information, I think if we have a certificate that should be satisfactory.
There is one other matter I will call attention to at this time. A great many requests have been made for the appointment and approval of assistants to defense counsel. We have granted every one of those requests, but in doing so I call attention to the fact that the rule forbids more than one defense counsel to be in this room at any one time. We haven't been enforcing that rule up to this time, but defense counsel are becoming so numerous, counsel and their assistants, that from now on the rule will be strictly enforced. Only one counsel representing a single defendant will be permitted in the room at one time.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: We inquire if defense counsel for Engert is prepared to commence cross examination.
DR. LINK: Yes, I am prepared to do so. With the permission of the Tribunal I begin my cross examination of the witness Father Wein.
BENEDIKT VEIN - Resumed CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR. LINK:
Q Father, I should like to ask you first to speak slowly, and after answering any question -- that is, after my question at first to make a short pause.
A Yes.
Q I may assume, Father, that your affidavit which you have signed on 26 December, 1946, is still fresh in your memory?
A Yes.
Q Do you have it before you?
A No.
Q Would it help you if I hand you a copy?
A I would be grateful for that.
Q It is document NC 566, Exhibit 274 in Document Book 4-C. Witness, I want to ask you concerning the scheme in which you helped upon the instruction of the director of the institution. Tell me, please, what instructions concerning the selection of inmates were given to you by the director of the institution.
AAs much as I can recall, there were no specific instructions given about that, but we knew about that method before. As I have already stated previously today, it was nothing else but a sociological examination, and that was part of our work as chaplain of the institution. First of all, we had to develop the problem whether he was asocial or social, meaning the individual inmate, and there was also a question whether they were corrigible or incorrigible, dangerous or not dangerous to the public. But specific instructions wore not given. From experience, from years of experience still from the democratic era and later on from the Nazi era we have made these examinations.
Q Witness, you sand that the whole thing started in Berlin.
A Yes.
Q Didn't the director of the institution forward to you information received from Berlin with specific points of view?
A No.
Q Did you want to say something more?
A I cannot remember searches of that kind, because we had no insight into that secret decree. We were only ordered to help, to assist.
Q Yes. I would only like to know what was ordered.
A The examinations, those investigations, should be made to find out who was asocial.
Q And about the term itself, what one should understand by social and asocial, what one should take into consideration, about that nothing was said?
AAbout that nothing was said, because we knew already what was to be understood under these terms. Throughout years of practice we had become accustomed to think about these problems, and I said this morning that at every investigation of that kind the question was put in the end, "Is the man corrigible or incorrigible", d that would lead to the question that they were social or asocial.
Q I understood you this morning to say that there was a new method, a new method by which previously existing regulations had been modified. That seems to have been a mistake on my part, that impression. If I understand you correctly then, you say that you carried out an investigation on the basis of a routine which had existed for many years?
A Yes. But with the special direction given to investigate whether people were asocial or social, that goes further than just corrigible or incorrigible. May I explain that further. When we made those examinations, then in the end the result was a so-called prognostic, and that brought about three categories. One was corrigible, open for improvement. The other was questionable, endangered. And the third one was incorrigible, hopeless. That meant -- assumed on the basis of the investigation, and after these investigations we assumed in our recommendations that the individual who was investigated in the future in all probability would either prove good conduct, remain infected, or fall again. The latter was asocial. It was a question of bringing them back into society.
Q I understand you now, Father, but still it is not quite clear to me how that directive by the director of the institution came to you, that he did not toll you at all that an instruction had come from Berlin which included certain details.
A No.
Q That was not the case?
A No, I have not seen anything of the kind, have not heard of it. He himself was not quite clear how the natter should be conducted.
Q I see. Then if you say in your affidavit in describing that investigation, the work of examining the cases, if you speak of negative cases which you brought -- which you left to the director of the institution, then that judgment "negative cases" is based on your years of experience in examining such cases?
A I knew of many cases in advance. This once, for instance, will prove to be all right, and this one won't. On that basis I have selected 50 people who, beyond doubt, would not be among those in question, so that my conscience shouldn't be bothered in case that there should be any danger threatening these people.
Q The director of the institution whom you mentioned in the beginning of your affidavit as a man who not especially a friend of the clergy, that director, did ho agree right away that you took the good half of the files at the outset for yourself?
A Yes. He agreed from the outset because he also knew my misgivings.
Q Concerning the figures you have mentioned, Father, I should like to ask,is it correct that from the about 80 or 90 files which you mentioned in your affidavit, the 50 to 60 files which you put side are to be deducted and that then from the balance the Director's Institution marked six as asocial?
A That is correct.
Q Now, on the other hand, you say that after the investigation made by the Commission from Berlin, 100 were transferred in various shipments. Isn't that a misunderstanding? I should like to put my question in the following manner: that being transferred, according to the information you received of 100, doesn't that apply to several estimates of that kind?
Do you understand what I mean?
A I have never mentioned a definite figure--always approximately. It was impossible to give a definite figure. The first transfer, I assumed, were 20 to 30 approximately; the second shipment also approximately 15 to 20. One could not say that for sure. And as for the balance, I do not know how many there were in each individual shipment. For the total figures, I depend upon the statement of a witness, Hauptwachtmeister Prey, who always mentioned a figure of approxiamately 100 people.
Q One hundred people altogether who were transferred--criminals who fit the description of asocial?
A I said later in January, there were two more shipments going out. How many there were in these shipments, I do not know--but altogether about 100 people were transferred.
Q So we agree, Father, that the total transfer are not based on this one examination of files which you had made together with the director of the institution, and the investigation which was made a short time later by a Commision from Berlin which you mentioned?
A The first shipments, that is to say the people who were investigated together,they were again investigated by the Commission, you see. And all together, there may have been about 100 people because about a few ever 50--between 50 and 60--were investigated by myself.
Q I ask you Father, because in the same connection you answered a question put to you by the prosecutor. That question was as to how many prisoners remained after the so--called Engert selection, and that question you answered by saying there were about eight to ten of them who could not be transferred at the time.
A Yes.
Q Does that mean that all of the inmates who fitted the former requirements, that is, life term or at least protective custody for at least eight years--of all these, eight to ten remained in the institution?
A That means that of all those who had been investigated, these eight to ten people wore kept in the institution by the director of the institution.
Q By the director of the institution?
A Well they were just left over; they were not transferred for the time being.
Q But, Father, wasn't that the way it happened, that those who were transferred, if they proved to be useful and needed as artisans, couldn't they be kept by the management of the penitentiary?
A That I don't know. I don't know anything about that.
Q Therefore you could not deny the possibility that among these eight to ten who had been kept because they were needed, that there were people among them who also were slated to be transferred?
A Well they were people of the same type as the other--the same type of offenders--most of the murderers.
Q I have another question. I come now to the work of the commission from Berlin. You said this morning that you did not speak to any of the gentlemen who were in that commission nor did you see anyone.
A Neither do I know Engert. I never saw him--and the other gentlmen I saw as they crossed the street once and somebody in the office pointed out to me that they were the two gentlemen who had come with Engert; who worked together with Engert. Yes.
Q One of the two accomplices; as you said this morning, of Engert may have been Dr. Meier?
A Yes, Dr. Meier; and the name of the other; I cannot remember. It was mentioned but I don't know.
Q Now you said furthermore that you could not say; according to what points of view that commission worked. That is correct; isn't it?
A. Yes. That is to say, we did not know according to what principles they went to work because all our work was thrown out. We assumed, that is I did, but my superior told me upon my questioning him that all our work was good for nothing. He said he presumed that these people -- that was the opinion staled by Engert and the other gentlemen-- he presumed that these people -- meaning the inmates -in case of a revolution would become dangerous; that they would assume leadership. That was the reason.
Q. Yes. My main interest is to find out about your own observations in connection with the commission, how they worked, whether for instance each individual inmate was brought before that commission; you couldn't tell us whether there were rod of green or white slips used?
A. That I don't know. That happened in the office, and I wouldn't know.
Q. Could you tell us positively now that that commission at all chocked the previous work which you had done together with the director of the institution; that they saw the same files, or more or less the same files?
A. That I could not tell you -- not from my own observation, but I have heard -- I was told by the man who did the main work in the office, that is Hauptwachtmeister Prey, who told me he dealt with the political cases first of all, and that Dr. Meier and the other gentlemen dealt with the criminal cases. That I know.
Q, The examination of the so-called asocial, I don't know what you know about that, did not deal with the political cases at all. Therefore, it cannot be that this commission dealt with political and criminal -
MR. WOOLEYHAN: May it please the Court, I object to this lecturing of the witness. The testimony here is to be elicited from the witness, not to be exposited by counsel.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection will be sustained.
BY DR. LINK:
Q. Witness, do you happen to know, whether the cases which were to be examined, were criminal cases or also cases of political prisoners?
A. I know through that gentleman that not only criminal cases were dealt with but also political cases.
Q. Don't you know from your own work with the director of the institution whether there were also political cases among these?
A. At the moment, I could not remember a political case. As far as I was concerned. I dealt only with criminal cases.
Q. If I may summarize then, what you have stated on Page 2 of your affidavit, on the top of page 2, about the manner in which the commission worked: that is to say, that they went through all the files in a great hurry and throw everything out that you had done -- and that is not based on your own observations, but on informations which you have received from somebody else: and on the basis of that you made your statement. Isn't that correct?
A. That is true, but in a certain sense I know that the gentlemen were here only for a very short time. I know what a tremendous amount of work it was. It had been for us to go through these files, which in some cases consisted of entire books with all the export opinions attached. Sometimes we could work through only three cases in a day, if we were careful about it -- and we were careful about it. And the gentlemen, as much as I know, were at the most here only two days, and then they were all through. So if I say that they worked very fast, there is good reason to say that.
Q. To come bank to the two cases which you read this morning, if I am not mistaken, then the sexton -- your Catholic sexton -whom you mentioned as an example, that was Haff, wasn't he?
A. Yes. Haff.
Q. The one who testified here and who had been here sentenced for murder and pardoned?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you remember the name of the inn-keeper whom you also mentioned, who in his excitement had killed his wife?
A. I can tell you the name. His name was Wiesor, W-I-E-S-E-R. He was an inn-keeper of Brackelsrieth in the Bayrische Wald -- the Bavarian Forrest.
Q. Do you know that especially in cases of murderers, who were in a majority in the prison according to your statements, that in case of such examinations, the manner in which the act had been committed -
MR. WOOLEYHAN: I object. I don't remember as having been developed, either in direct testimony or thus far in cross, that the prison necessarily had a majority of murderers.