I was there and I knew his wife and his children and his mother there. I must say that my memories of these people are among the most valuable of my life. I would never have considered it possible at that time to be quite en famille with a woman and chilren who treat one normally as in normal life. That is quite in contrast with the children cf the other SS officers who only cursed the dirty prisoners. And I met his wife and his mother, whom after sometime when they realized they could trust me, we discussed Hitler and the Nazis in the same form as we did in the camp among the political prisoners. I must mention that Mrs. Hoven at this time, that is when Germany was still fictorious on all fronts she tell me the English news which she had heard on the radio every evening and I was to pass it on in the camp. And his mother was a very decent elderly woman. She always spoke to me to the same effect. Another example is a Frl. Dr. Gabrielle Krebser, a friend of Dr. Hoven, whom I was painting outside of the camp with whom I had extensive political conversations, and who was an outspoken Nazi hater; and I made an illegal painting of conditions in the camp which I cut in pieces and smuggled out of the camp, and I gave it to this woman to keep until later when everything was over. Whether this painting, whether Fr. Dr. Krebser, who lived in Stuttgart still exists, I can not say, because the city was badly hit. Another example is a professor from Freiburg, an old gentleman, a. nationalist or an old central German, I don't know exactly what he was, but at least he was an opponent of Hitler's a very nice old gentleman who knew nothing about what was going on in Duchenwald, and then Jan Robert, and I told him about conditions in Duchenwald. I assume if the family cf a man like Dr. Hoven and his close friends all are discovered to be anti-Nazis, there is little other possibility for him. but I am not sitting here to make conclusions.
Q I have three final questions by way of summary. On the basis cf your daily meetings with the defendant Hoven, did you have extensive knowledge of his personality?
A Yes, a fairly good knowledge.
Q Were all cf the endeavors cf the defendant Hoven directed toward helping the political prisoners, particularly the non-German prisoners?
A Yes, certainly.
Q On the basis of this personal knowledge do you trust the defendant Hoven, do you believe the defendant Hoven could have done any thing toward prisoners which was not to support the political prisoners in their fight against the professional criminals and which wore not necessary to preserve the life of the political prisoners?
A Seen from within the framework of conditions at Buchenwald and the war situation, I believe not.
Q Have you anything to add to this testimony?
A No, not really, but two small points I should like to mention, if I may. It is really only one thing all together. My presence here seems very peculiar to me, Doctor. I would never have considered it possible myself, since long before the War I was always on the Democratic and the anti-Fascist front, and later became a victim f the Nazis when they came into Holland. After more than four years of imprisonment and everything that my wife suffered, and so forth, I say I would never have considered it possible to come here to Nurnberg, to sit on this chair in the defense of an SS man, but I believe I can say that it is praise of the Democratic and objective manner in which you, the American Tribunal, administer the law quite in contrast to what we experienced in the Third Reich, that I sit here and can speak and that I have the feeling that I am helping you, that I am on your side to help you to administer the law objectively. I thank you.
DR. GAWLIK: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Do any of the defense counsel desire to propound any questions to this witness?
DR. FLEMMING: Dr. Flemming for the defendant Mrugowsky.
BY DR. FLEMMING:
Q Witness, you were in Buchenwald for sometime in Block 50?
A Yes.
Q Did you ever hear the name of the defendant Mrugowsky there?
A Yes, frequently. If I remember right he was Dr. Ding's superior, who was the head of Block 50.
Q In what connection did you hear the name Mrugowsky?
A He was the chief.....what do you mean?
Q Did you see Mrugowsky in Buchenwald?
A I can't say for certain, I don't believe so. Mrugowsky was a sort of mythical theme to us, there were many people with nice uniforms who came from Berlin in fancy cars. We had to polish and clean everything. We did not always know the names of the people, but it is possi ble that Mrugowsky was there once, but to my knowledge I never saw him. I only tell you that the term Mrugowsky was a very special one with us. Mrugowsky meant that we had to polish; that was always the threat that the Capo used, Mrugowsky is coming tomorrow, or he is coming this after noon, then we had to polish, polish, polish and everything had to be as clean as possible. This is as much as I knew of Mrugowsky.
Q Then ha was always used as a threat to make you polish things; but you did not see him?
A I don't believe personally and that I ever saw him, I don't be lieve so, but I cannot say positively.
Q Then I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any questions to be propounded to this witness on the part of any defense counsel?
There being none, the Prosecution may cross-examine.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. HARDY:
Q. Mr, Pieck are you considered a apinter of cod reputation in Holland?
A. Modesty forces me to limit myself, but I think I can say yes. As evidence, I could give you my book of drawings at Buchenwald, which is well known in Holland.
Q. Pardon me a moment, witness, do you desire to testify in English?
A. Well, I would prefer speaking in English now if you don't mind.
Q. Will you change the channels so he will get the English on his ear phones?
A. I only hope you will pardon my English, it is not so good as I have not spoken English in about eleven years.
Q. Have you make your livelyhood through portrait painting?
A. I beg your pardon, I didn't understand it very well. Maybe I can arrange it so that I can listen to the German earphones and I will reply in my bad English.
Q. Maybe it will be better if you will continue to testify in German Mr. Pieck, I think it will be quite satisfactory.
I repeat my question; have you made your livelyhood through portrait painting?
A. No, evidently not to a large extent, but may I have an illustration? I am an architect for foreign exhibitions and that is my real job. For example, now I have no time to lose because I am working on an agricultural exhibition for the Government and am needed there.
Q. Now, you painted, according to your testimony, a portrait of Hoven and his family; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. You also painted portraits of some of Hoven's friends; is that right?
A. Friends of Hoven; yes, yes.
Q. Now did you ever See Hoven kill anyone, Mr. Pieck?
A. No, never.
Q. Did you ever occur to you that Hoven may have killed people; that is people other than these selected as political prisoners?
A. As far as my knowledge goes, I do not believe that he did.
Q. Were you aware of the policy within the Third Reich that people who were unable to work, were useless eaters and in concentration camps they were usually exterminated?
A. I, personally cannot say that. I assume that it existed; the worst thin, that human beings can imagine existed in concentration camps in Germany.
Q. You never discussed any of the activities of Hoven in connection with these inmates who reported to the hospital in such a physical condition they were unable to work?
A. I, Certainly not.
Q. Then, it is possible that Dr. Hoven could well have administered phenol injections to such people without your knowledge; wasn't it?
A. Such a thin is of course possible, but I would not consider it possible. I cannot say, I was never there.
Q. Were you ever in Block 46, witness?
A. Yes, of course.
Q. Did you ever see Hoven in Block 46?
A. Yes, no I never saw him personally in Block 46. I was sent to Block 46 to draw an exemplification of typhus cases; that was for a report for Ding for Berlin. I was to draw the exemplification of the patients.
Dr. Hoven was in Block 46 frequently where he had concealed his people who were working for him, show-makers, etc. Whether Dr. Hoven did anything, whether he had any connection with Ding's work, I don't know. In the camp the general opinion was exactly the opposite. Ding undertook this work and sent the charts, etc., to Berlin and when Ding was not there, Hoven did his work for him.
Q. Doctor, I am going to ask you to kindly confine yourself to the question I ask and we will finish much more rapidly.
Now, Doctor Ding was the chief of Block 46, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, from your understanding and your knowledge of records chats with other inmates, in your capacity as one of the workers in Block 50; you understood that Dr. Mrugowsky was the superior of Dr. Ding; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. You also understood that whenever Dr. Ding had to make a trip, such as one to Paris or to be away for any extended length.
of time that his deputy was Hoven; is that right?
A. Yes, I believe so, but I could say that Dr. Ding was in the hospital and made the first experiments in Block 46 before I arrived in Buchenwald and that another series of experiments made later and after the arrest of Dr. Hoven was continued also by Dr. Ding.
Q. So it is true that when Dr. Ding was away his deputy was Dr. Hoven?
A. Yes. I don't know these internal matters very well, as well as Dr. Kogon for example, but we always considered that Dr. Hoven was the man who took his place.
Q. Now, defense counsel has submitted some affidavits, those of other inmates, former inmates at Buchenwald concentration camp and therein one of the inmates said he was injected with typhus virus; now I want to ask you did you know of any cases where Dr. Hoven injected inmates with typhus virus while he was at Block 46?
A. I do not know any such cases, definitely no.
Q. However, you do not exclude the possibility that Dr. Hoven may well have given typhus injections to inmates without your knowledge; is that right?
A. That would be quite possible, but I assume that I would have had to know about it more or less, because in our internal camp circles we always said exactly the opposite.
Q. Did you know or ever hear the name of Dr. Genzken; Gruppenfuehrer Genzken?
A. Yes, I know the name and I even drew him once, if I remember correctly, not personally that is, but a photograph to do him a favor.
Q Was Dr. Genzken ever at Buchenwald?
A. Just as in the case of Mrugowsky, or whatever his name is, I cannot answer exactly. I only remember a name that was Prince von Waldeck if that happened t be his name, but otherwise we didn't have much interest in the names of these visitors, and I can't tell you, but, of course, it is possible.
Q Did you understand that Dr. Genzken was also one of the big chiefs over Ding?
Q. I believe so. I believe so, but my testimony in this case is certainly not as valuable as the testimony of Dr. Kogen, for example, who was the clerk of Dr. Ding and who in doing his work was exactly informed about everything.
Q Witness, will you look ever at the dock and see if you can look down the line of each one of these defendants and determine whether or not you have ever seen any of them in Buchenwald.
A I have a very good memory fur faces, but without all the get-up with which they usually appeared in Buchenwald and climbed around, it is rather difficult for me to pick anybody out. It is worthless to say that there is one there whom I think I have seen before. That is quite worthless, I assume. I can't say anything definite.
MR. HARDY: Thank you, witness. I have no further questions.
EXAMINATION BY JUDGE SEBRING:
Q Can you state with anymore exactness than ye-u have heretofore what you understood Mrugowsky's official connection with the camp was?
A Unfortunately, I am not able tc answer that question, but here again I can say that Eugen Kogon would be the right man to give you all the necessary information because he was the clerk of Dr. Ding and he knew everything, and I, as I said, was a painter there and had nothing to do with the organization.
Q You have the impression, then, from what you knew of Kogon's activities that he would be m a position to detail accurately what transpired within the limits of his knowledge and range of observation while he was at tho camp?
A Yes, definitely, and, above all, with reference to Block 50, the personality of Dr. Ding, the production of typhus materials, the injections at Block 46, because as far as I know, everything went through Kogon administratively, through Kogon's hands, that is. There is a big difference.
Q How well did you know Kogon?
A I was in the same detail with him for almost one year. We ate together; we lived together.
Q What would you say concerning your estimate cf his reputation for truth and veracity and his ability to detail accurately at some later date the things that he had observed or bad experienced at a prior date?
A I believe that there is hardly anyone better able to give testimony of a quality such as Dr. Kogon was able to do, not only because Kogon was in a position to have extensive knowledge, but also because he is a man with a good memory, good literary ability and a man to be taken seriously as a Christian. He studied theology, and I know him as a serious and, above all, very truthful man.
Q Would it be your opinion from your acquaintance with Dr. Kogon that ho would be a man who would understand the quality of an oath taken as a condition precedent to giving testimony in a case of this type before a Tribunal?
A In my opinion, Kogon is a man whom I would not expect to assert anything on his own responsibility which did not correspond to his definite conviction and knowledge.
JUDGE SEBRING: Thank you very much.
DR. GAWLIK: I have no further questions, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness is excused, there being no further questions to be propounded to him, and the Tribunal will now be in recess until one-thirty o'clock.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hoaring reconvened at 1330 hours, 20 March 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: Tho Tribunal is again is session.
KURT BLOME Resumed
DR. FLEMING: (Counsel for tho Defendant Mrugowsky): Mr. President, tho case of tho Defendant Mrugowsky will be dealt with on Monday or Tuesday. I bog to request that he be released from this session for this afternoon so as to give me an opportunity to discuss a. number of matters with him.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for tho Defendant Mrugowsky, whoso case has boon called next, has requested that Defendant Mrugowsky be excused from attendance before tho Tribunal this afternoon in order that his counsel may consult with him preparatory to presenting his defense. Tho request is granted. Defendant Mrugowsky. may be excused from attendance before. tho Tribunal for this afternoon's session.
MR. HARDY: I wish to clarify that, is it their intention to put on tho case of Mrugowsky prior to that of Rudolf Brandt?
THE PRESIDENT: Is it counsels understanding that the Defendant Mrugowsky ease will procede tho evidence to be offered by Rudolf Brandt?
DR. FLEMING: No, Mr. President, Mrugowsky will be dealt with after Rudolf Brandt. I think, however, that tho case of Rudolf Brandt will not take up a long time.
THE PRESIDENT: Upon request of counsel for the Defendant Mrugowsky tho defendant may be excused from attendance before tho Tribunal this afternoon
DR. SAUTER (Counsel for tho Defendant Blome): Mr. President, at tho conclusion of tho session tho Prosecution submitted a now document against which I objected yesterday. This is the Document Number 190. Mr. Hardy was kind enough to give me tho original of this document last night and I find myself forced to maintain my objection to tho admissibility of this document. Looking at this document in its original --- you will---
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, this document has only boon offered for identification, not offered as an exhibit in evidence in the case. Not up to this time has it been offered as an exhibit.
DR. SAUTER: In this case I ask tho prosecution to state whether they intend to use this document against the Defendant Blome, or whether they are going to withdraw that document.
MR. HARDY: May it please your Honor, at such times when tho prosecution will formally introduce each one of their exhibits, that is, after tho case of the defendants is in, I assume we will introduce all the exhibits that have been offered at this time and during cross examination for purposes of identification, only then we will be able to answer Dr. Sauter's question. At this time I am not prepared to answer same.
DR. SAUTER: Well, Mr. President, if tho prosecution intends to use this document, no matter under what designations it may use it, we must be clear about whether this document can be used, whether it is authentic, and where from it originates. Nothing is gained by tho defense if it is said by tho prosecution that we are merely submitting this document to tho defendant, that tho Tribunal will take judicial note of it, and then at a later date it is said that it will got no exhibit number. I know it is being discussed here, it is being submitted here, and in my opinion it has to be clearly established whether it is permissible to use that document.
THE PRESIDENT: Tho question suggested by counsel for tho Defendant Blome is at this time purely a moot question as the document had not been offered it has not been proven, no foundation for its admission has boon laid, The Tribunal does not know tho purpose of tho prosecution. It may be usod simply for purposes of asking questions. Tho Tribunal will have to decide such questions as they arise, but tho question is premature at this time.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, excuse me if I again revert to this point. Tho question already came up yesterday regarding that document. This document was submitted to tho defendant, this document was distributed among all defense counsel, and I assume that the prosecution intends to make use of that document. I, therefore, don't understand, Mr. President, why tho question regarding the authenticity or the admissibality of this document should not be discussed at this present stage because tho prosecution certainly will not be able to use this document in any other way but showing it to tho defendant, and this already happened yesterday. It was done by Mr. Hardy.
THE PRESIDENT: At this time there is no question whatever before tho Tribunal. We will await the further proceeding and cross examination by counsel for the prosecution. If counsel for tho Defendant Blome dooms any question propounded by tho prosecution objectionable, counsel may then object to tho question but there is nothing before the Tribunal at this time.
CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued) BY MR. HARDY:
Q Dr. Blome, during the course of your direct examination you have stressed that tho euthanasia program was of no concern to Dr. Conti in his capacity as Reichsarztefuehrer and Reichsgesundheitsfuehrer, to tho contrary, only of concern to Conti in his position as Secretary of the State for Health Matters in the Ministry of the Interior. Is that right?
A I have stated that that was stated to me by Dr. Conti.
Q Isn't it true that your former chief, Dr. Wagner, in his position as a predecessor to Conti, was very much concerned with the euthanasia program?
A I don't know that. Perhaps you can give no more explanations about that matter. In that case I shall be glad to answer you.
Q I am going to ask you to read tho section in your book on page 272, which is duly marked in rod pencil. This is a survey of a speech of Wagner, which was hold in tho Reichs Party Congress in 1934. Will you kindly read this page, doctor? Read slowly so that tho interpreters can follow you.
A We are concerned with tho reproduction of a speech made by tho late physicians leader, Dr. Wagner, on tho occasion of tho Reichs Party Rally in the year 1934. I quote the passage underlined by tho Prosecution.
"The economic burden placed upon tho people by sick persons suffering from hereditary diseases, people who without their own guilt, are in such a moral and physical state from the parents side, that any independent life is impossible for them without any help from outside, who became a danger to the State and to society. If these people were listed all together it is necessary to have 301 million Reichsmarks per year for the upkeep of these hereditary sick people, not included is tho expenditure for 200 thousand drunkards and about 400,000 psychopathic cases. The funds for that purpose have been asessed at about 200 million, and the work which cannot be permitted owing to the hereditary diseases, amounted to nether 300 million per year. Wagner then pointed out how these inferior familes are through wrong selection tho ones who have the most children and thereby permitted such a distorted picture of to future to arise. Whereas, tho population of tho German Reich in tho year 1870 amounted to a population of 41 million people, and in the year 1910 had increased to 65 million, the number of insane people who were housed in institutions increased during that period from 40,375, that is one out of a thousand of tho population, to 220,881 which is equal to 3.4 per thousand of the population. This is an increase of the population from 50 to 100. We have an increase of the insane cases of 450%, and ho declared very deliberately that the right of tho healthy strong man had to be affirmed against the weak and disappearing life, for we are believing in the future and the greatness of humanity.
The problem of racial mixture which he mentioned, as the last subject, was described by using very impressive figures. In the years from 1910 to 1920 thirteen Jews emigrated doily from Eastern Europe into Germany, thereby overcrowding all of the free professions. In the case of physicians, one found in the year 1945 there were 32% Jewish persons in the profession, and in the case of lawyers their participation was even greater, with 50.2 per cent. Berlin in the year of 1931 had fifty per-cent Jews at its faculty, and Goettinger in it's judicial faculty had 45 per-cent Jews, and Frankfurt on tho Main 55 per-cent. In that connection I should like to rend also a short excerpt which was not underlined by the Prosecution because this would bettor illustrate tho sense of what Wagner said.
Q Go ahead.
A We are convinced, said Wagner, at the time of his speech, that in the not too distant time every nation and every people will realize that in the purity of its spirit and blood there lies its stronght. We believe that in the clear differentiation between blood and blood, between spirit and spirit there lies tho only guarantee for a peaceful life, together, of the various kinds of human beings living in this world.
Q Now, doctor, will you return the book, please. I am glad that you read that last extract in addition to what I have outlined. Aren't you convinced that speech gives every thing from the Nazi point of view to justify euthanasia and stresses very much tho high expenses incurred for the insane and oven goes so far as to define people who are bodily and mentally deficient as a danger to tho state and society, doesn't it?
A No, were you a physician, you wouldn't say such a thing. These statements no doubt refer to tho sterilization law which was already active at that time. It say in tho passages which I have just read that it was not considered to be desirable to continue to let live useless heritage. In addition, however, it was stated that tho life of the most severely ill group of people is certainly a life without value, This letter fact cannot be contested by any human being, be it physician or be it layman.
Furthermore, I wont to draw your attention to tho foot that this speech was given directly after the sterilization law had been promulagated in Germany in the years 1933 and 1934. I point out to you that tho necessary understanding was not shown towards sterilization law by all circles, but at tho same time I must point out that during the course of the years, the sterilization law was accepted and became a matter of course in the realm of tho moral thoughts of the German people, as it is true of all nations of the earth.
Q Be that as it may, doctor, it seems to me that the difference you have made in direct examination in your entire defense against the charge of euthanasia is that Conti, the Secretory of State, the Ministry of the Interior, and not Conti the Reich Health Leader was concerned with euthanasia, is that right?
A I said very clearly that Conti dealt with euthanasia in his capacity as under Secretory of State in the Reich Ministry of the Interior.
Q Well now are you aware of tho foot that among German legal circles, even Lammers, they were not so sharply concerned with tho fact that this was only Conti's job in so for as he was Secretory of the State. I want to have you lock at the document, 621-PS, which hes been admitted in evidence as Prosecution Exhibit 595. The German is on the bottom and tho English on the top. Now you will note this is a short letter from Lammers to The Reich Ministry of Justice, Dr. Guertner, which states: "Dear Dr. Guertner I herewith acknowledge your letters of 26 September, forwarded to me with further material about the death of inmates of nursing homes. I forwarded the enclosed reports of tho Chief Prosecutors of Stuttgart and Nurnberg to tho Reich Ministry of tho Interior, Reich Health leader, for further action So now that indicates that those reports were not received by Conti only in his capacity as Secretary of State, but as it states in the Document, by Conti, the Reich Health Leader, were they not?
A No, that is not correct. Perhaps I may read the same text to you once more.
Q No, you need not bother, doctor, you needn't bother reading the text. I have rod the text. It is very clear. No will continue.
A Well, if you are reading a charge against no, you Must give me an opportunity to defend myself, accordingly, that is my right.
Q We will let the document sped for itself, doctor. There is no necessity of you reading it. I have previously rod it read I do not wish you to red it. We will go on to another question.
A In that case I am not permitted to answer to that charge which you have must made against me.
Q I asked you a question.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness may explain what he desires in connection with that document.
A In this document it says clearly "I have given the letter to the Reich Minister of Interior -- Reich Health Leader, for further dealing. Dr. Conti was quite generally designated as Reich Health Leader in the German Reich. He didn't want to be called Secretary of State and, as it here, Reich Minister of Interior (Reich Health Leader), it means very clearly that the Reich Minister of Interior is meant, and in this the Department of Health. The head of the Department of Health was also the Reich Health Leader and Secretary cf State Conti. He was that in his State capacity in his function as leader of the Professional Association of German Phy That is what I wanted to say about that document.
Q We won't quibble about it any further. We will allow the document to speak for itself but I must say the words "Reich Health Leader" do n appear in parentheses. Now, Doctor, do you approve of Euthanasia as it was carried cut in Germany during the War?
A I wouldn't want to be impolite now. It is very far from me and is not within my dignity. I believe, however, to have made it clear made it absolutely clear - in my book and in my statement so far what my tude toward Euthanasia was.
Q I was going to ask you to read that, Doctor. You may do so. It page 222 of your book, marked in red pencil.
A Do you mean the passage underlined?
Q The passages circled in red pencil, doctor, on page 222. Read that passage where it is marked.
A May I draw your attention to the fact that this has already be submitted as a document and has received an exhibit number. That can in my document book.
Q All right. Read it for me, Doctor, please.
A In that case I ask you to let me read it in the way which does tear it out of its context but I want to read it as submitted by me in document book, otherwise I would not care to read it once more.
THE PRESIDENT: bill the witness please read the portion of the be requested by Prosecution. After reading it he may make any explanation desires to make within reason.
A. Yes, Your Honor. "be considered it to be nonsensical that, for instance, insane people who threatened their own life as well as others, or idiots of a high degree who perhaps can not even keep themselves clean or eat by themselves, were brought up and kept alive with great effort and expense. In free nature these creatures would not be able to exist and would be exterminated according to the Divine law. We also did not understand that persons inferior in character and spirit, asocial creatures, who had murdered were, it is true, condemned to death, but were then pardoned principle and kept alive in penitentiaries at the expense cf the public; but also in quite different cases where it is not a question of putting an end to inferior life, we wondered whether the physician should not be give the legal possibility to end an unhappy life prematurely. We are thinking seriously suffering, incurable sick persons, who until their death had to expect only enormous mental and physical suffering and who themselves asked the physician to free them from their suffering." May I say something else.
Q Go right ahead.
A I further say I remember some cases of incurable suffering in my patients in which the patients implored me to put an end to their life. "Doctor, please give me another injection so that I don't wake up any more. I can't stand it any longer." Cases where the daughter drew me aside and also asked me, "Please help my father fulfill his request." There was nothing left for a to say, "According to the law a physician is forbidden to do that." And, yet there are cases in which the physician for deeply humanitarian reason considered his own sense cf responsibility as higher law.
Q Now, Doctor, in the passage you have just read, if my understanding clear, you say it was nonsense to keep alive insane people who were dangerous to themselves and others or those who had idiocy cf a high degree, with a of care and expense and further you speak about people cf little value, as call them, a social creatures, who may have committed murder and were pardon and kept alive in penitentiaries at the expense cf society. Don't you think this opinion is very much the same as the opinion of your Chief Conti in matter, and wasn't it on this basis that Euthanasia was planned and carried out by the Nazis?
A. In that connection I would like to tell you that this opinion, which I am repeating here, and as it is expressed by me in the preceding text, was not only my opinion but also the opinion of innumerable physicians. I ask t be permitted to say, with reference to your explanations of my book, to point out expressly what I actually wrote -- black and white -- in my book. No human being will be able t blame me that I have written such matters in my book, least of all will any sensible human being be in a position to assert these my statements were not driven by a moral and profound feeling of human.
Q. Doctor, how do you account for the statement, and I will quote from your book as it is here in this exhibit. "We also did not understand that persons inferior in character and spirit, a social creatures, who had murdered were, it is true, condemned to death, but then as a rule pardoned and kept alive in penitentiaries at the expense of the public." It was your opinion and the opinion of your colleagues, as described in this book, to also subject them to extermination under the guise of euthanasia, wasn't it?
A. In that connection I may point out that at least according to the translation as it came through my earphones, we are concerned with certain distortion of my words going by your description. I must say that we had no understanding for a situation that in Germany every criminal murderer who had been condemned to death, should be principally pardoned and never bo execute That is what I want to say in this very brief passage very clearly, and it has nothing to do with Euthanasia.
Q. All right, Doctor. First I want to tell you that we have had now seven of the defendants a n the stand, and you are the first that has had difficulty with the translations and interpretation of the men who are there the booth. I want to inform you that they are pretty capable men and I don't want you to complain any more about translations. We will continue.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal is aware that errors in translation may happen and if a witness, or any counsel, believes there has been an error in translation it is tho duty of this person to call the matter to the attention of the Tribunal at once.
MR. HARDY: Yes, sir.
You were present in a meeting in 1940 or 1941, according to your affidavit where Euthanasia was discussed. Now, at that mooting was Conti with you?
A. In my affidavit I stated that Dr. Conti one day, and I think that was in 1941, stated that during a meeting which was to take place in Munich, Professor Brandt would give an explanation about the so-called Euthanasia action in front of the Reich Chamber of Physicians. The reason why Conti told me that was that I wanted this situation clarified but could not obtain clarification. Thereupon ho one day told me that this meeting was going to take place. This meeting actually took place in 1941, I think, as far as I know it was 1941, in Munich. From what I still remember about the meeting that I repeated in an interrogation at Oberursel was sot down later in an affidacit.