I have had patients myself whom I had to transfer there.
Q That is enough, thank you. Ansbach and Erlangen, they are the institutions of which you have heard that they are overcrowded. You have not been there personally?
A Oh, yes, I have. I know Ansbach and Erlangen from my very own observations.
Q But you know nothing of Eglfing?
A No, I know nothing personally of Eglfing.
Q Nevertheless, this morning you spoke of Eglfing in a manner which at least made me think that you were referring to Eglfing, gave a clear picture of the conditions at Eglfing.
A These descriptions were of a general nature for all institutions in postwar Germany. You will find that if you interrogate other people they will agree with what I have said.
Q Witness, we have now found that you only know conditions in Erlangen and Ansbach. If you want to generalize them please say so, and we will know where we are. That is what I wanted to prove to you, you cannot speak about conditions in Eglfing as though you knew them, whereas in reality you only know Erlangen. Is it true that you did that?
A Yes.
Q How do you arrive at the figure 3,000 patients in Eglfing?
A I found that in the transcript of the court sessions of last Monday.
Q Why do you not say from the same transcript that the 3,000 patients were looked after by 400 nurses?
A Well, that was-- A question mark was put behind that by the witness himself. He does not show it himself.
Q Yes, you are quite right. He said about four hundred. Why did you tell us this morning that the patients in Eglfing could not see doctors for days. How do you arrive at that conclusion?
A Patients told me this who had come from Eglfing.
Q And why do you disregard Dr. Steichele's statement that there were two examinations per day?
A I cannot investigate that. He assumes that.
Q But how can you confirm then that for days they didn't see a doctor?
A I know that from statements by patients.
MR. ROBBINS: I think there has been a misstatement of the testimony here, because the doctor said there were only twelve doctors for three thousand patients, and I don't believe he said that the doctor visited each patient.
DR. VON STAKELBERG: Twice a day.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Twice a day. He said twelve doctors visited three thousand patients twice a day. That is what he said.
THE PRESIDENT: They were very fast doctors.
DR. VON STAKELBERG: I don't know how fast they are. I only know the testimony, your Honor. What I want to prove here, your Honor, is merely that this witness quite obviously is prejudiced, that he is lacking in any degree of objectivity.
Q (By Dr. Von Stakelberg) Who has told you, Witness, that the nurses in Eglfing were intimately acquainted with the euthanasia program?
A The fact mentioned by Dr. Steichele last Monday, that the majority of the nurses had been employed before the war, shows the fact that they must have been under the effect of the euthanasia propaganda.
QQuite so. That is exactly what I assumed. Once again you have expressed an assumption as though it was a fact. How do you know that they were told again and again? Do you know anything about the secrecy side of the euthanasia program? You don't know any details, and yet you make these statements here. Who told you that Otto showed himself to be obedient and subservient?
A This becomes clear from the case history if you want to look at it.
Q I don't have to. I only wanted to know. Finally, you told that the letter which Otto wrote to the public prosecutor entirely fits the picture, the positive picture which you have formed of Otto, namely that he rebelled against the fact that his alleged act was described as a piece of villainy and murder? You told us this morning the prosecutor had told Otto, "This is murder and villainy." How do you know that the prosecutor said that?
A Otto, of course, told me.
Q Otto told you? And if you had read the transcript of Freitag's testimony you could have seen that Freitag denied strongly to have ever said anything of the sort.
A Well, there you have one man's word against the other.
QQuite, but if you want to make out an expert opinion, surely you must take into consideration the material and not only take the side of the patient one-sidedly, with which you have charged the older psychologists.
A The testimony of Freitag I was never shown. I have never seen it.
Q Witness, then you have given wrong information. You said that you had read the testimony about that material.
A The comments of the public prosecutor about the letter is not contained in the files.
Q I must repeat I am getting the transcript always, so late, but I heard myself the public prosecutor say that he did not, he never used the terms murder and villainy. I heard him say that myself.
A I never saw the files myself.
Q Very well. Then finally Otto has obviously told you that he had applied to the VVN, the Association of the Victims of National Socialism, here in Nurnberg.
A In Munich.
Q This morning you said Nurnberg.
A No, I said Munich.
Q You did say that.
A I did not say that.
Q You did.
A No, I did not. I said that via the VVN he came to Nurnberg.
THE PRESIDENT: You see, this is one man's word against another. This is one man's word against another as to whether he said Nurnberg or Munich.
DR. VON STAKELBERG: Yes, your Honor, but I am not making proper use of it. I am not the man who is giving expert opinion. If I had to give an opinion I would mention myself that it is one man's word against the other. That is with what I charged the witness. He gives an expert opinion without taking all the facts into consideration.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it is your opinion that he said Nurnberg.
DR. VON STAKELBERG: That is a fact. My ear, not my opinion, has told me so. Something which I heard, other than opinion, told me that he had said Nurnberg. He probably misexpressed himself.
THE PRESIDENT: Either that or you misunderstood it.
DR. VON STAKELBERG: Yes, quite. But, nevertheless, your Honor, I want to say that this is something different from what I charge him. He should know everything but he does not take everything into consideration when he wants to give an expert opinion.
MR. ROBBINS: I can't help remarking that the Defense called a doctor here who gave very categorical and dogmatic statements about the Witness Otto, and he never had even seen the witness.
DR. VON STAKELBERG: The expert of the Defense has admitted that he has never seen him. He has never alleged that he ever saw him. But I am accusing this witness of giving an expert opinion, in giving us the impression as though he had tested all the facts, which is not so.
Q (By Dr. Von Stakelberg) Witness, what are your relations with Otto? Is he a relative of yours, or a brother-in-law? which is your relation to the prosecution?
THE INTERPRETER: The witness shakes his head.
THE PRESIDENT: Shakes his head which way? I mean, what does he shake?
THE INTERPRETER: He shook his head not. It seems to be not. He shook his head, if your Honors please, sideways.
Q (By Dr. Von Stakelberg) What are your connections with the Prosecution?
A The Prosecution have invited me on Saturday to give an expert opinion on the Witness Otto, and as a prison psychiatrist I met their request. Needless to say I have no friendly relations of any sort with the Prosecution, nor unfriendly ones.
Q Tell us, please, as a prison psychiatrist, whom are you dependent on; who employs you?
A I am employed by the director of the prison.
Q The director of the prison?
A Yes, yes.
DR. VON STAKELBERGER: By the American prison director. Yes, I see. I have no further question at this point.
THE PRESIDENT: Do other Defense counsel wish to cross-examine this witness?
(No response)
THE PRESIDENT: Any redirect examination, Mr. Robbins?
MR. ROBBINS: I only have-
THE PRESIDENT: Two short questions.
MR. ROBBINS: Two short questions.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q. Witness, do you have the file there of the district attorney?
A. Yes.
Q. Will you open it, please, and turn to the paragraph marked II where it says, "Returned to the district attorney in Munich since we refuse to take this case over." It is signed by Freitag.
A. Just a minute, please. Yes, here it is. Oh, yes.
Q. Will you read the reason given by Freitag for quashing the proceedings?
A. Well, "I, Suspended; II) Refusing to take it over, back to Public Prosecutor Munich. The accused is arrested in the district there. No eye witnesses are available. The identity of the perpetrator is not certain at all, and the description of the deed has raised considerable doubts. Augsburg, 5 November 1946. The Public Prosecutor, by order Freitag."
Q. Nothing is mentioned there about Otto's sanity, is there?
A. No, nothing is said there at all.
Q. Doctor, I have just received Dr. Von Bayer's diagnosis, and I would like to hand it to you. I don't have a copy.
DR. VON STAKLEBERG: May it please the Tribunal, I object to the introduction of this certificate as evidence. I request to be given the right to cross-examine Dr. Von Bayer.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the instrument, the paper, hasn't been offered in evidence. It has just been handed to the witness.
MR. ROBBINS: Do you object to his commenting on it?
DR. VON STAKELBERG: Yes, certainly. I want Dr. Von Bayer's cross-examination, but then I object also that the witness should read the certificate, that it would reach the record. I must have the right to cross examine the man who has given the certificate. Surely that is one of the basic laws of an American trial.
THE PRESIDENT: But the certificate hasn't been offered, the witness hasn't been asked to read it, and no question is pending.
MR. ROBBINS: I withdraw the certificate and the question.
THE PRESIDENT: If Dr. Haensel were here he would say "Much Ado about nothing, Shakespeare."
DR. VON STAKELBERG: Had I not interfered, your Honor, it might not have been withdrawn.
RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY DR. VON STAKELBERG:
Q. Witness, to exclude any possibility of doubt, the correspondence between the two Public Prosecutors, regarding their competence, the thing which you just read, I mean which is only available in part because there is no answer -
A. No.
Q. Is dated when?
A. 5 November, 1946.
Q. And the decision to suspend on the basis of Paragraph 51?
A. 17 January 1947.
DR. VON STAKELBERG: I see.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q. Witness, is it my understanding that your diagnosis and that of Dr. Von Bayer is basically in agreement?
A. Yes.
Q. Is there any difference in it?
DR. VON STAKELBERG: I must object to that question, if the Tribunal please. If reference is made here to Dr. Von Bayer's certificate I must cross-examine Dr. Von Bayer.
MR. ROBBINS: I am not talking about the certificate now. I am talking about the conferences they had. The Defense doctor came down and testified about a conference he had with nurses and all sorts of unidentified doctors.
I would just like to --
DR. VON STAKELBERG: I would not have objected if Mr. Robbins would have asked one of the doctors of Eglfing to be taken into cross-examination, but as the Prosecution did not demand it, I did not do so. But I, on the other hand, insist on a cross-examination of Dr. Von Bayer.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection is sustained on the ground that the answer calls for a conclusion of the witness.
MR. ROBBINS: No further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: No further question, Dr. Von Stakelberg?
DR. VON STAKELBERG: No further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: This witness may be released from confinement.
(Witness excused.)
DR. VON STAKELBERG: If the Tribunal please, by permission of the Court, I would now like to hear Defendant on this accusation.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the Prosecution have any other witnesses to offer?
MR. ROBBINS: No, your Honor. We do have some documents.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, the Defendant Fanslau may take the witness stand.
HEINZ KARL FANSLAU, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Doctor, I thought you told the Tribunal that you wanted to put on additional witnesses and then put the Defendant Fanslau on the stand at the end.
DR. VON STAKELBERG: Yes.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: And now you haven't put on those witnesses at all, but you are putting Fanslau on.
DR. VON STAKELBERG: Because of the question put to me the other day by Judge Musmanno, I have changed the sequence of my witnesses. I shall hear Fanslau first and the witnesses will come later.
Incidentally, the witnesses aren't here yet. They are still travelling.
BY DR. VON STAKELBERG:
Q. Witness, you are still under oath from your first examination.
A. Yes.
Q. You are aware of that?
A. Yes.
Q. Now you know what Otto has told us?
A. Yes.
Q. Are the statements about the establishment of the Viking Division in Dachau and the early history of the transfer to Poland correct?
A. Yes.
Q. What ranks did you have in the Viking Division?
A. I was a divisional administrative officer, and I combined in my own person the commanding officer of the battalion.
Q. Since when were you in that position?
A. Since 1 December 1940.
Q. When did you leave the Viking Division?
A. In the last days of September of 1941.
Q. Will you please describe briefly what you did while you belonged to the Division. First of all you were with the divisional staff , - in where?
A. The division was established in the Munich district. The divisional staff itself was in the City of Munich. The supply battalion was established in the troop training camp of Dachau.
Q. And then were you with the divisional staff through out that period of time?
A. Yes, with one interruption. On the 15th or 16th of April, I went to Berlin to have a conference. I know that date so well because on the occasion of that conference, I visited my mother in the country near Berlin when she had her sixtieth birthday on 18 April.
Q. What year?
A. 1941. I went to the hospital in Berlin where I had an operation. From there I went from Berlin to Trepnitz near Breslau in the time between 9th and 12th of June 1941, following the division.
Q. Where were you reunited with the division in the area of Breslau?
A. The divisional staff was then at Trepnitz near Breslau.
Q. Where was the division transferred then?
A. It marched over land into the area west of Lublin. On the eve of the outbreak of war we arrived at this new area. As we were marching I heard in the morning that fighting had started with Russia.
Q. When did the division take up combative duties?
A. Excuse me, I have got the Court calendar here.
Q. Oh, yes.
A. Can I just look that up? Either on the 29th or the 30th of June, 1941.
Q. Where did the division go? What we are interested in now is, of course, more the supply battalion.
A. The division itself at the head began on 26th or 27th of June to march away from the area west of Lublin. A day or two later, on the 27th, 28th, or at the latest 29th, the supply column began to march. Up to 2nd July the supply battalion marched via Zammoc and Lemberg. I should correct it here, the battalion did not march through Lemberg, as I remember it. We drove around Lemberg. I myself, however, went through Lemberg itself because I had separated myself from the battalion and went ahead to contact the divisional staff. Then to Zclozow and Tarnopol. In Tarnopol we stayed for three, or at the most four days, after the 5th or 6th of July until the 10th of July. We went via Broskorow to Stara Konstantino. In the area of Stara Konstantine we stopped for two or three days.
On the 13th or 14th of July we went to the area of Shitomir. There we stopped for two, or perhaps three days, and on the 16th or 17th of July via Skwira we went to Biala-Zerkiev.
In Skwira itself we stopped for only one day and changed over our supplies and then left Skwira for Biola Zierkiev. At Biela Zierkiev the supply battalion stopped for the first time for some length of time, we stopped there from the 18th or 19th of July until the 30th or 31st of July. I am inclined to think even that we stopped there until the 1st or 2nd of August, because so far as I remember, we then said: "This is now only one day short of two weeks". From there we marched via Tarasche to Korsum Bugoslaw. In this area of Bugoslaw we stopped three or five days; between the 5th and 6th of 7th of August, we went by Gorodice, to Smela. In Smela we were cut off from the division by a Russian break through, and I told the supply battaliento go back by Gorodice, with a pause at --- I forget what village it was -- to Fyororki. At Fyordorke we stopped for sometime again. I can not tell exactly how long, for as I stated there, for a short period of time, I think, one day, and then by order concerning supplying of winter clothing and such supplies, I went home to the Reich. It must have been between the 25th and the 30th of August. The supply services were then transferred from Fyodorke to Wlosewatka, a distance of about seventy or eighty kilometers to the west of Dneropetrowsk.
THE PRESIDENT: What date did you say it was when you went back to the Reich. What date did you say?
THE WITNESS: I can not give you an exact date, Your Honor. It must have been between the 25th and the 30th of August. I returned only during the middle of September.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean you returned to the division later on in September?
THE WITNESS: Yes, I returned to the division during the last days of September, and I, for instance, did not see the arrival of the supplies which I had caused myself, anywhere.
BY DR. STAKELBERG:
Q. Witness, it was not quite clear, I am told, whether on the 26th, between the 26th and 30th of August you left the division and went where?
A. I went to Berlin.
Q. To Berlin, but why?
A. To arrange for some supplies of winter clothing, and in order to negotiate with the Army group en route, in order to be given a transportation of army vehicles, and in order to make an exchange of goods or clothing for something ahead for the division.
Q. Then you returned to the division?
A. I said that must have been the 10th and 15th or the 12th and 15th of September.
Q. And you finally left the division?
A. When I was given an order to prepare myself for the administration of the tank corps. I was to be an administrative official, and it was either on the 29th or 30th of September, when I reported to the Commanding Officer of the division and took leave.
Q. In 1941, you mean?
A. Yes, quite.
Q. During your absence, where were you usually?
A. As a rule, I would be in the divisional headquarters with the commanding officer of the division, and with I-A, who is the first general staff officer; or I would be with the Quartermaster General, I-B, which is known as the second general staff officer. Further, I had to maintain liaison with the administrative officer of the corps, of the Army Corps, which was superior to us. Temporarily, also, I was in immediate contact with the Army in charge of us. In certain cases, at certain intervals, for days, I would also be in the rear with the supply battalion.
Q. How were you located physically so far as the battalion was concerned?
A. That depended. Sometimes the supply battalion would be ten or fifteen kilometers behind the staff of the Quartermaster General. In some cases fifty, sixty or seventy kilometers. That was decided upon by the supply depots, as from the read we had to keep up our line of supply communications in the course of the battle areas, and the places where the various regiments were located.
Q. The supply battalion itself, was that always together? Did it always march in close formation?
A. That also depended. The supply column would move about in whatever active service necessary. The Butcher Company, for instance, it was quite possible that it could be shifted somewhere else. The Butcher Company marched together with the supply columns in those cases. The Baker Company on the other hand could not suddenly remove itself. It had always to finish its baking. Moreover, the bread, or the new bread had to be left behind in some vehicles in order to be sent up afterwards. Whilst some of the Baker Company marched ahead in order to establish its bakery at the new location, the remainder of the Baker Company packed up, and some vehicles at least would be left behind for the new bread to be sent up latter on.
Q. Witness, how was your state of health at that time?
A. At first I was still ailing, from the operation I had, but later on I was all right. The first one or two weeks, perhaps, I was not feeling too well.
Q. How were you released from that state? Were you released as fully recovered?
A. I was released at my own request, because of the fact the division had been transferred and I wanted to go back to the division and I had sufficiently recovered to be able to be used again.
Q. Now, witness, from Otto's statement, you know what this charge is in detail?
A. Yes.
Q. Let's first of all turn to the incident at Zloczow. When did you march through Zloczow?
A. I had severed myself from the supply column before, and went ahead to the divisional staff. I was not together with the supply column when it marched through Zloczow. I was then with the Quartermaster General of the division between Zloczow and Tarnopol. We were on a field in a camp under canvas, north to the advance march road, on the same site was also the medical officer of the Army Corps, as well as the Quartermaster General of the Army Corps, and the Administrative Officer with his staff. It was there that I was given a report about the new supply situation, which was drawn up from sheets in view of the military situation. New orders were issued about supplies by the officer under the general staff, and for the supply service the area around Tarnopol and the City of Tarnopol itself was selected.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Dr. Stakelberg, I think your question was, when was your march through Zlotzow?
DR. STAKELBERG: Yes, I think it is too much.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: I have not as yet heard when?
BY DR. STAKELBERG:
Q. Witness, when did you march through Zlotzow?
BY DR. STAKELBERG:
Q. But in any case it is a public shed document, which was printed and published and at the time to anybody.
A. Yes on the basis of these gazette the battles have been entered in all and as much of principle, all entries are made of battles in to the individual military papers for the soldiers.
Q. That is all. By this you mean that is a public document, a public gazette that you can see there?
A. Yes it is perfectly an official publication.
Q. From this plan of campaign you see what? What can you see, can you see your own movement there from it, or the movements of the Supply Battalion?
A. This does show the division march in the various areas, the battle days and always entered at large intervals.
Q. I see.
A. And on the basis of these entries from the exact dates one is in a position to arrive at a conclusion about the supply situation and the march in order to refresh ones memory.
Q. I see what you mean. These battle calendars are concerned with the movement of the whole division.
A. Yes.
Q. And if you see the dates of the movement of the whole division, you can conclude the dates when the supply battalions marched, and whether it marched slightly behind the speerhead?
A. Well, this remained the same always. The monent when the division advanced, I cooperated at the head to issue the orders with regard to the supply problem. After all I am the general staff officer worked on the orders for the supply column.
THE PRESIDENT: Take a recess, Dr. Stakelberg.
A. I beg your pardon, the exact date I can only get from my diary. I can not tell it from my memory to you.
Q. All right, give it on the basis of your knowledge there, it does not matter?
A. It must have heeb either in the last days of June, or in July, it might have been around the first or second.
Q. The end of June or the beginning of July?
A. Yes, quite, the first or second of July.
Q. All right. Important is, from what can you arrive at those dates?
A. This is the official battle calendar from the official gazette, No-43-23, issued on 1 December 1943, page 126, No. 476, Battle Names of the SS-Armor Division, Wiking, the 1 December 1940 to 18 November 1942.
Q. This then is an official - -
MR. ROBBINS: May I ask that this official document be marked in evidence.
BY DR. STAKELBERG:
Q. Have you got the official document there?
A. It is only printed extract from that document. I assume that somewhere in the Court archives the original must be available, because I have heard that these gazettes are available.
THE PRESIDENT: You can ask to see this in cross examination, Mr. Robbins.
Q. Where did you get the printed page that you are using?
A. Am afraid I can not tell you. I saw - - - got it from Tschentscher and I don't know where he got it. I assume however, it must have come somewhere from some defense counsel, perhaps, from some gezettes.
Q. Anybody could get one from the record room, or the place where the books are kept.
A. I don't know the conditions of course - well, of course I do not know.
THE MARSHAL: There will be a recess for fifteen minutes.
(recess)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. VON STAKELBERG: Your Honor, may I continue with my examination of this witness?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes Please.
BY DR. VON STAKELBERG:
Q. Witness, before the recess we stopped when we discussed the time when you passed through Zclozow. You stated that this happened, If I recall correctly, between the 29th of June and the 1st or 2nd of July.
A. Nes, that is correct.
Q. Now, please tell me how and in whose company did you come through Zclozow?
A. I can't recall that with certainty any more. I don't know who accompanied me there. Who of my companions was with me, I cannot say. Either it was my ordinance officer and my driver or it was just my dirver. I don't know whether both of them accompanied me. However, with certainly I can say that it was one of them.
Q. Were you passing through Zcloosw in a car?
A. Yes.
Q. And with what unit did you pass through Zcloozow? Were you going through the twon with your supply battalion?
A. No.
Q. And were you before or behind your supply battalion?
A. I was ahead. I was going ahead of the supply battalion.
Q. Did you go with your divisional staff or any other unit, or by yourself?
A. I drove ahead through the area between Lemberg and Samotsch alone in a vehicle by myself. It is possible that my first collaborator was with me in another car. However, I can't recall that exactly any more. It has always been the case that whenever I was on the way from one place to the next that I would come back from the division, or when the the division was on the march I would go grom my supply battalion again ahead to the division.
It was approximately so that I had to by-pass between 3,000 and 4,000 vehicles on that strip of the route. In order to get to the head of this supply battalion during a march to the division staff,
Q. Can you state with absolute certainty because I know exactly that I was coming from the head, from the division and the head of the supply battalion, that was Tschentscher, was with the Bakers Company east of Samotsch - -I beg your pardon, it was not Samotsch but Scloozow. He had arrived at the east of Zcloozow shortly before and Tschentscher was with the office and he had arrived there together with the food office some time before, and he was standing on the road with the vehicles, while the Bakers Company had already arrived there and they actually were operating. I myself brought the order that the Bakers Company was to move ahead. It was raining very hard at the time and I myself went immediately back up ahead to the division.
Q. At this time where was the food office located.
A. It was to the east of Zcloozow.
Q. Zcloozow?
A. Yes, it was to the east of Zcloozow. However, I don't know precisely any more today whether the city was 1, 2, or 3, kilometres further back.
Q. Was the food office also to the east of the citadel?
A. I can't say that anymore. Tschentscher was directly at the bivouac area with this vehicle; that was the bivouac area of the Bakers Company.
Q. If we can consider the situation here which Otto has presented to us, then this must have been to the east of the citadel.
A. I said before that I can't recall houses on streets or any bigber buildings along that road at all.