Another little incident which gave impetus to the selection so far as the SS was concerned was the assassination of Heydrich in June 1942. Heydrich was shot while riding in an automobile in Prague but I think he was leaving Prague on his way to Germany and the bullet went through the back part of the automobile and through the cushion seat and penetrated the back of Heydrich. Apparently the wound itself was not of a fatal character. As it happened, in any event, the chances are that Heydrich would have survived but as it was the bullet upon entering the back of the car went through the cloth and carried with it a piece of cloth and also horse hair used for stuffing in the car seat and such things as that and gave rise to a very serious infection for the whole length of the bullet wound. The defendant Dr. Gebhardt was called in to treat Heydrich and he defends his treatment with some vigor before the Military Tribunal No. 1. In any event, Heydrich died and, as the Fuehrer described it, it was a military disaster so far as the German nation was concerned. That is the way Hitler described the loss of Heydrich, as a military disaster of the first quarter. Gebhardt was criticized among the medical circle because he apparently had not used as much sulfanilamide as they thought he should have used, and there is some indication that this experiment at Ravensbrueck was followed very shortly after the death of Heydrich at their subsidiary purpose; at least, for the justification of Gebhardt's treatment, he persistently maintained all along that the sulfanilamide would not mend or would not prevent a deep-seated infection, and that the only proper way of treating such an infection was by the traditional operative technique, and that what he claimed is precisely what he proved on the experiments at Ravensbrueck. In other words, the result was that sulfanilamide is not a positive preventive of infection. After the men is wounded you cannot give him sulfanilamide and expect that the infection will be prevented. In the course of this experiment as I recall they operated on roughly 70 Polish women, and before the Polish women were used they operated on some German men, about ten in number, but they in turn turned to the women in Ravensbrueck. The defendants who were impli cated in this experiment admit that at least three people died as the result of the experiment.
The prosecution has presented evidence that five died and that I think in addition the five were killed after the experiment, that is, that they were shot.
On page 53, Document NO-2465, which will be Prosecution No. 271, an extract of testimony of the defendant Karl Gebhardt from the medical cases. This has been included in the document book simply to show that there was a conference in July 1942 when the sulfanilamide experiments were discussed. Bluecks, the subordinate of the defendant Pohl and chief of Amtsgruppe D, WVHA, was present.
On page 56, Document NO-861, Prosecution Exhibit 272 --
DR. SEIDL: Dr. Seidl for the defendant Pohl. May it please the Tribunal, I object to the admission of documents NO-861 and NO-874. There are two affidavits here, one from Zofia Maczka, which witness was called before Tribunal - Military Tribunal No. 1 in the case against Karl Brandt, as a witness. In the course of her interrogation before the Military Tribunal the witness has repudiated her affidavit on very important points. The witness is now located either in Stockholm or in Warsaw. Due to the distance involved it would be appropriate to have this witness called here once more. I, therefore, request that these affidavits not be admitted in evidence and I would ask the prosecution, just like on the previous documents, to present an extract from the court session which contains her testimony and which also contains the statement which the witness has repudiated, if that was stated here exactly right, where the presentation of Document NO-2465 by the Prosecution has also presented part of the court record.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl, is it your claim that this witness in her testimony before the Tribunal I repudiated this affidavit or made contradictory statements?
DR. SEIDL: The witness Zofia Maczka was heard by Military Tribunal. She was examined there. Her two affidavits were not presented to her by the prosecution at that time. She testified to the state of affairs only from her own knowledge. She then repudiated several statements which she had made in her affidavit. She has corrected them there.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the transcript of her testimony before Tribunal I is available to you, is it not?
DR. SEIDL: We have a copy of the transcript, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you are at liberty to offer that testimony, that transcript, to show that it is different from the affidavit.
DR. SEIDL: May it please the Tribunal, I make my suggestion for the purpose of simplifying the procedure. If the Prosecution by itself presents the correct record and refrains from submitting these two affidavits to the Tribunal, then this will expedite the trial, and all argument about the creditability and the correctness of the various documents will no longer be necessary.
THE PRESIDENT: What is there to this point, Mr. McHaney!
MR. McHANEY: If the Tribunal please, I do not recall that the witness, in any substantial manner, contradicted her statement in any significant matters. She may have done so in some insignificant way. I am not prepared to say. We put in the affidavits rather than extracting her testimony because it was considerable more convenient for us. We already had the translations of these documents. They were in proper form. All we had to do was include them in the book, and, just as the Tribunal has suggested, if Dr. Seidl feels that there is anything to be shown by offering her testimony, or any part of her testimony, he is certainly at liberty to do so.
THE PRESIDENT: Veil, of course, the Tribunal cannot exclude this affidavit upon the ground that there may be a contradictory statement somewhere else. The Defense may bring in any contradictory statement in this woman's testimony before Tribunal I and show that it differs from the affidavit. We can not assume that it is different. We have not even seen that testimony. You can show it to us if you wish.
DR. SEIDL: May it please the Tribunal, I shall then read those parts, these etracts from the transcript which show that the witness in the course of her examination before the Tribunal has made other statements on very important points. I want only to point out one example right here, which I can remember very well. At the end of Document 861, the paragraph before the last--page 58 in the German text and page 63 in the English document book.
"A few abnormal protective prisoners (physically ill) were chosen and brought to the operating table and amputations of the whole leg (at the hip joint) were carried out, or on others amputations of the whole arm (with the shoulder-blade) were carried out. Afterwards the victims, (if they still lived) were killed by means of evipan injections and the leg or arm was taken to Hohenlychen and served the purposes known to Professor Gebhardt. Ten such operations, approximately, were carried out."
All these statements Were repudiated by the witness in the course of her examination, and only the fact remained that in the case of one prisoner who had been condemned to death a shoulder blade was removed and was inserted into another patient.
THE PRESIDENT: All you have to do is show us that by a transcript of her testimony in which she repudiated this statement. Bring in your transcript and show us where she stated something differently.
DR. SEIDL: In my presentation of the defense of Oswald Pohl, I shall present this extract.
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
DR. PRIBILLA (Counsel for the defendant Tschentscher):
May it please the Tribunal, I also want to address the Tribunal in connection with this case. With regard to a document which has just been presented, I have exactly the same question. I have reached the conclusion that it would be most appropriate to present the contrasting statement and testimony given in the medical trials However, the President has just asked attorney Seidl if he stated that in the other trial the same witness had contradicted and repudiated his testimony or if the testimony had only varied to some extent. However, I am not now quite certain how such an objection can be treated if in the previous trial the witness has actually repudiated his entire testimony.
I refer now to Document NO 371, Prosecution Exhibit 267, by Rudolf Brandt, who in his personal testimony repudiated this affidavit in its entirety.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean that Brandt testified differently than the woman did in the affidavit?
DR. PRIBILLA: No. What I am trying to say is that the Prosecution presented an affidavit by Rudolf Brandt and that Rudolf Brandt himself later on repudiated this affidavit in its entirety.
My question to the Tribunal now is: Should I act differently from the way Dr. Seidl has decided, or would it be appropriate in this case also for me to present the affidavit which has been repudiated?
THE PRESIDENT: When you get to presenting your defense, when you offer testimony in defense, then you may show that Brandt's affidavit was repudiated or that it is wrong or that he stated something else at another time, or attack it in any way you please.
That should be done at the time of your defense.
DR. PRIBILLA: Thank you very much, Your Honor.
MR. McHANEY: The affidavit which I have just introduced as Prosecution Exhibit 272 states that 74 Polish women were used in the operation of the sulfanilimide experiments, and also an analysis of the document shows that the affiant states that five of such experimental subjects died as a result of the experiments and that six were later shot.
A. Supplementary statement by the same affiant, Zofia Maczka, is on Page 65 of the document book, Document NO 874, which will be Prosecution Exhibit 273.
We come now to a different subject. On page 67 of the document book, Document NO 2467, which will be Prosecution Exhibit 274, is an extract from the defense of the defendant Karl Gebhardt in the Medical Case, concerning certain experiments with a drug called Polygal. I think that several days ago I explained to the Court that Rascher conducted experiments in an effort to test a blood coagulant which was known as Polygal. During the course of the experiments prisoners were shot in order to see whether the coagulent would arrest the flow of blood. This extract from the testimony of Gebhardt, we submit as proof that persons actually were shot during the course of the blood coagulation experiments.
On page 70, Document NO 615, which will be Prosecution Exhibit 275, is a letter from Pohl to Dr. Rascher concerning a report which Rascher published on the blood coagulation experiments, and Pohl takes Rascher to task because he had mentioned the address Dachau 3 K in this published report, and, as he states, it was quite possible that people could conclude from this report that experiments on prisoners were involved, and he reprimands Rascher for having done that. Note that a copy was sent to Rudolf Brandt and to Sievers, Business Manager of the Ahnenerbe.
On page 72, Document NO 656, Prosecution Exhibit 276, on page 76 of this document we find a letter from Sievers to Pohl, which reads in part as follows:
"Re: Large scale production of the haemostyptikum 'Polygal' "Dear Obergruppenfuehrer:
"Favorable agreements concluded some days ago concerning availability of working space and machines for the production, enable us already now to start production of the coagulating medicamentation 'Polygal' with the most insignificant means. The quantities required for the intended large-scale experiment will thus be available."
He goes on to state that a number if prisoners are necessary to carry out the production and asks Pohl to take care of that.
Turn now to Page 78, Document 3546-PS, which will be Prosecution Exhibit 277. The Tribunal will recall that we have previously submitted in evidence Sievers' diary for the year 1943. This is the Sievers' diary for half of 1944. I am sorry, this covers all of '44. We had half of '43. I guess that is the way it was. I would like to call a few passages from this to the Tribunal's attention.
Under the entry of 6 January, on Page 78, under Note 2c, we see the entry, "Writing Reichsfuehrer-SS to SS Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl concerning support of scientific research work," and the entry, "Space for execution of freezing experiments." The Tribunal will recall this is the year 1944, and they are still talking about freezing experiments. The ones which were carried out with the cooperation of the Luftwaffe occurred between August and October, 1942.
The entry under 9 January on Page 78, "Report on conference SSObergruppenfuehrer Pohl in connection with production of polygal." Under 21 January we also see a little note about freezing experiments for Dr. Rascher.
On Page 79 under the entry for 28 January, the Tribunal sees the word in Item 2, "Institute R." That is the Department Rascher of the Institute of Military Scientific Research under Sievers. The entry for 31 January at the bottom of Page 79, we see the entry, "Economic and Administrative Main Office with SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Rascher to see SS-Standartenfuehrer Lolling." Lolling was in Amt D-3 of the WVHA.
On Page 88, the entry for 15 June 1944, we find the entry, "SS-Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl: Production of polygal and settlement with Feix. Report on Rascher case. With SS-Standartenfuehrer Mauer - Assignment to work of prisoner-scientists." Mauer was in Amtgruppe D and in charge of labor committment. By this time in June 1944 Rascher had been arrested rand tried for some of his misdemeanors by the SS and so the story goes was subsequently executed. I assume the Tribunal has probably heard that story. In any event we see that from this diary that the production of the polygal was actually taken over by Pohl's organization.
On the next page, Page 89, under the entry for 27 June, at the top of the page, we see the note, "Report on production of polygal. Discussion with SS-Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl on 15 June 1944. Renaming: Styptoral."
On Page 91, the entry for 6 October, we find the entry under Item 3, "Production: Own business or in connection with Deutscher Heilmittel-GMBH." I would like to call the Tribunal's attention to the fact that the Deutscher Heilmittel was a pharmaceutical laboratory under the control of Amtgruppe W of the WVHA, so the question is here being posed by Sievers as to whether the blood coagulant shall be produced directly by Silvers or whether they will turn it over to the Deutscher Heilmittel-GMBH, which was controlled by the WVHA.
On Page 92 we see that the Deutscher Heilmittel in fact did take over the production. Under the entry for 8 December we see that Sievers had a talk with SS-Hauptsturmfuehrer Riecks, Manager of Deutscher Heilmittel-GMBH, Prague, concerning the production of styptoral, and a similar entry immediately under that.
We turn now to Page 94, NO-409, the Prosecution Exhibit 278. This concerns itself with certain sepsis or phlegmen experiments carried out in the Dachau concentration camp. This report is dated August 29, 1943. This shows that they were concerned with trying to study the best method of treating various diseases which were for the most part artifically brought on.
Here they were using what they called biochemical means for the treatment of sepsis, and as it states on Page 95 the cases of sepsis were mostly artifically provoked, and also immediately under that, "All sepsis cases died." The tabulation on Page 94 shows that concerned at least eight people. On Page 96 in the same report where they sum up they state that, "Finally it must be said, that from a total number of 40 cases there are 1 positive case and 4 positive cases with certain reservations, contrary to 35 failures of which 10 ended fatally," and he remarks that the experiments are being continued. The last paragraph of the same document also mentions certain sepsis experiments in the concentration camp Auschwitz, and he points out that all three of these cases ended in fatalities.
The following document on Page 97 will be Prosecution Exhibit 279, which is Document NO-994. I shall not read this document, but I think the Tribunal certainly should. It is dated. It shows the course of one of these sepsis experiments during the month of November, 1942, from the moment they injected pus into this man's thigh and later into his arm up until the time he finally was sent from the hospital some months later, and it is in a number of respects a rather remarkable document.
THE PRESIDENT: It is a single case history?
MR. McHANEY: Yes.
This completes the documents in Book No. 8.
THE PRESIDENT: We will take up the next document book after recess.
THE MARSHAL: This Tribunal is in recess for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: Tribunal No. 2 is again in session.
MR. MCHANEY: Before turning to Document Book No. 10, I should like now to offer formally one of the documents for which I reserved a number in Book 9. The Tribunal will recall that the index showed Document No-390, which was a typographical error. It should have been NO-590, which was an affidavit of one Ferdinand Holl concerning the Lost gas experiments by Dr. Hirt in the Natzweiler concentration camp This document should be inserted in Book 9 following Page 48 and for identification within the book the book itself, it might go in as Page 48A. I reserved the Exhibit No. 236 and accordingly offer Document NO-590 as Prosecution Exhibit 236. I shall not read the affidavit. It outlines the observations of the affiant during the time when he was stationed in one of the departments of the hospital at the Natzweiler concentration camp. He mentions in here that in some cases the experimental subjects drank a liquid before being injected with the gas. I might point out to the Tribunal that this liquid to which he makes reference but does not explain was undoubtedly a solution containing vitamins because Hirt had developed the theory that drinking certain vitamins, particularly Vitamin A, offered considerable protection against the pernicious effects of mustard gas, so I think it is quite clear that what the experimental subjects were drinking was a solution of vitamins, Vitamin A.
I turn now to Document Book No, 10, which concerns itself with euthanasia as carried out in the concentration camps, I outlined rather briefly in my opening statement the operation of the euthanasia program. It is not contended by the prosecution that the Defendant Pohl or the WVHA had administrative control or were prime movers in the euthanasia program. We do contend, however, that the program was extended to concentration camps and that thousands of inmates were transported from the concentration camps to the extermination centers of the euthanasia program and there executed under the pretense that the inmates suffered from some mental disability.
The first document in the Book on Page 1, is Document NO-2680, Prosecution Exhibit 280. This is an extract from the judgement of the IMT which makes reference to the euthanasia program and contains a finding that exterminations carried out under the euthanasia program were murder. That extract concerns primarily the judgment against Frick in Case No. 1 before the IMT. Frick was up until August 1943 with the Ministry of the Interior. The Ministry of Interior was one of the agencies through which the euthanasia program operated. That is, it was carried out through some of the facilities of the Ministry of the Interior. Himmler succeeded Frick as Minister of the Interior in the latter part of 1943. I would just like to point out to the Tribunal the IMT estimated that some 275,000 people were killed during the course of the euthanasia program. I am not sure that I offered this as Prosecution Exhibit 280.
The document on the next page, NO 630-PS, will be Prosecution Exhibit 281. This is offered simply as one of the basic documents to show how the euthanasia program operated and the persons who were appointed by Hitler to supervise its execution.
THE PRESIDENT Can you tell us who Reichsleiter Bouhler was?
MR. MC HANEY: Boulhler was a member of the Fuehrer's Chancellery and the Fuehrer's Chancellery, together with Defendant Karl Brandt in the medical case were the primary agencies through which the program was carried out. In this document, dated 1 September 1939, Hitler charges Bouhler and Brandt with the responsibility, as they put it, of enlarging the authority of certain physicians to grant what is called a mercy death to persons who according to human judgment are incurable. I would point out that the word, "insanity", does not appear in this Fuehrer letter or order or, in other words, those who might be subjected to euthanasia were not limited to insane persons at all but to those described as "incurable", and, as a matter of fact poisons who were simply over-worked, exhausted, feeble minded persons, persons with severe cases of tuberculosis, syphilis, and similar diseases, were executed pursuant to this program.
Following the issuance of this order 1 September 1939, which is Prosecution Exhibit 281, a rather earnest machinery was set up to carry out the program. That machinery is described in Document NO-426 on page 3, which will be Prosecution Exhibit 282. This is an affidavit of the Defendant Brack in the medical case. Brack was a subordinate of Bouhler in the Fuehrer's Chancellery, and Brack was very active in the euthanasia program. They had set up an organization which had its headquarters in a place in Berlin, the street address of which was Tiergartenerstrasse 4, and the organization of the euthanasia program came to be known as T-4, which was an abbreviation of the street address. In brief, certain experts were appointed by Brandt and Bouhler and it was the task of those top experts to study the questionnaires which were sent in to T-4 from the asylums all over Germany. We shall see a sample of these questionnaires at a little later point in the document book, but, in any event, questionnaires were filled out by directors of all insane asylums in Germany. These questionnaires flowed back by various channels and were studied by top experts. The top experts reviewed these questionnaires and made a positive or negative judgment. A positive judgment was that a men would be subjected to euthanasia, to the contrary if the judgment was negative. Having reached a positive or negative judgment an order or list of poisons within a certain asylum was sent from T-4 to that asylum. Those persons were then moved generally to a collecting station where a larger group was gathered and then from the collecting station they were shipped to one of the euthanasia stations which was the point at which the persons were executed, normally by gas. That briefly is a very simple explanation of how the program actually operated. The affidavit of Brack here gives you considerable more detail. For the purpose of this case it is not necessary to know all the fine points of the operations of the program, because we are interested here only in the program as it applied to the concentration camps.
So I might point out in the affidavit of Brack on page 6 in the middle of the page is lists of Euthanasia extermination institutes, and there are six that are listed already. I want to call the Tribunal's attention to Hartheim and to Bernberg. Hartheim was the Euthanasia station located near Linz, Austria. Bernberg, I don't know exactly its location. It was much farther north in Germany, and it was apparently these two extermination centers to where as concentration carps the inmates who were subjected to euthanasia were sent to be killed, and we will see reference to those two places in the documents to be presented later.
As a matter of interest I might also point out on page 7 of this affidavit, paragraph 14, page 7 of the Document Book Brack outlined the part which the doctors trained in the euthanasia program played in the extermination of Jews, and he said in paragraph 14 and paragraph 15 that some of these doctors were shipped from the extermination centers of the euthanasia program to the East to assist in the mass extermination of Jews in Lublin and in Globocnik, which I had mentioned to the Tribunal before, and also I think one or two went to Auschwitz, although he did not clearly state so here. There was a certain Dr. Eberle, who was one of the doctors at Auschwitz who played a very substantial part in the extermination of the Jews, and as I understand they welcomed Eberle who was trained in mass executions in the euthanasia program.
On page 10 of the Document Book, we have Document No. 1151-PS which will be paragraph 283. These documents are not really in proper arrangement, so I shall skip around through it and properly connect it up for the Tribunal. Beginning on page 10 through page 13 we have a sample of the questionnaire which was used in the euthanasia program. I shall first ask the Tribunal to turn to page 15, which is a matter dated 10 December 1941, from Liebehenschel, who was at this date a member of the concentration camp inspectorate, and he is here sending this letter to the camp commandants at Dachau, Sachsenhausen, Buchenwald, Mauthausen, Auschwitz, Flossenburg, Gross-Rosen, Nouengramme and Niederhagen, and he advises these concentration camps that the Doctors Commissions will he appearing in certain named concentration camps to make the selection of prisoners for "Action 14-F-13."
Now if the Tribunal will look at the reference at the top of this letter, it first states "Doctor's Commissions" and it states, "Reference: Former correspondence of the 12th November 1941, 14-F-13. That apparently was the file number in the office of the inspectorate of the concentration camp, was that file number came to be known as the code name for the execution of the euthanasia program in the concentration camps. This letter goes on to state that during the first half of January 1942, the Doctors Commission will visit the camps of Flossenburg, Gorss-Rosen, Neuengramme, and Niederhagen, and that their examinations should be shorten as much as possible. He said that he is enclosing a form of a questionnaire, and he directs that those questionnaires be filled out by the concentration camps itself before the arrival of the Doctors Commission. Now what that meant, of course, was that the concentration camp doctors themselves initialed or screened the prisoners who were considered to be eligible for the euthanasia. Then they filled out the questionnaire which was enclosed with this letter of those prisoners insofar as they could. The Doctors Commission then came in at a later date, and examined, as we shall see the significance of the word a little later, some of those filled out as being eligible, and selected those to be subjected to the program. Those selected were then sent over to the concentration camp, to either Bernburg or Hartheim, and there executed. Consequently, as the Tribunal can see, the concentration camps played an important part in the program, which was not only the situs at which the people were picked out, but the concentration camp physicians made an initial selection, and the concentration camp supervisory authority in the inspectorate of the concentration camp, and later on to a certain extent controlled the whole matter. Supervising of it, of course, was by Bouhler and Brandt and his agency, which did supervise it as a whole, but on page 16, the last paragraph of the letter, it states there:
"Following the completion of the examination the inspector of the concentration camp is to make a report in which the number of the prisoners who were directed for the special treatment 14-F-13 are to be mentioned. The exact time of the arrival of the Doctors Commission will be announced in due time."
Now it happened as we can see on page 14 of the Book, that Liebehenschel failed to include the sample questionnaire. He said it was included in his letter sent to Himmler, and on page 10 we see the sample questionnaire, and I shall not take the time to analyze the particular structure of the questionnaire. I would like to point out again that this particular sample has the name of the executioner of the concentration camp, Wewelsburg. Of course, we can expect that this action was familiar also to the defendant Klein, since he spent a considerable part of his time at Wewelsburg.
I now move to page 26 in the Document Book. The court will recall that this is Liebehenschel's letter; the letter was dated 10 December. Later on, on page 26, is the date, 16 December, six days later, and this letter is an internal memorandum within the concentration camp of FrossRosen and six days later in Gross-Rosen 293 inmates had been selected as eligible for transport. It breaks down the 293, 70 inmates from the ward, 104 from the blocks, and 119 Jews. I call the Tribunal's attention to the last paragraph which makes it rather apparent that the camp had received an order, that you are to ship transport such and such a number, giving the fixed figure, because the gentleman who wrote this letter said since the transport is planned for a later date, he requested the number of inmates be exceeded by 43 in order to make room for eventual losses. In other words, it appears to me that they were ordered to pick out 250 and to throw these in for a good measure he picked out 293, 43 in excess on the eventuality that 43 might die before that transport reached its destination. How one in Berlin can initially decide they had 250 in camp that should be exterminated under the euthanasia program is, of course, only to see this letter on page 26, that at least 293 inmates who were actually selected within the camp before the Doctors Commission arrived, and that list is again on page 17 of the Document Book, and I believe that the Tribunal will find it most illuminating to glance briefly at the heading of the prisoners on this list, of those selected for transport in the concentration camp Gross-Rosen.
I might say right now that the document in this book will permit us to follow this whole action within Gross-Rosen from the time it started, 10 December 1941, until 127 of the inmates were selected who were exterminated in Bernberg on 2 April 1942. I think every one of the necessary documents you will find in this book. This is an initial--
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead.
MR. McHANEY: This is an initial selection within the concentration camp of Gross-Rosen with the 293 inmates, beginning on page 17, and first they listed those in protective custody. On page 19, Jews who were habitual criminals, and Jews who were shirkers, and in this list is also Jews who defiled the race.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: What is your definition of that phrase "Jews who defile the race."
MR. McHANEY: Jews who defile the race?
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Yes. The phrase seems to be used frequently, and I don't know that I have ever seen a definite statement on just what is meant by "Defiling the race." I don't know -- does it mean, marriage, or intimate relationship, or just what?
MR. McHANEY: I don't know just how much light I can throw on it, or to shape a comprehensive explanation. I can say that I think any one of the defense counsel can do it better. The German word is "Rassenschande" which means racial exclusion or racial disgrace, and I think it probably requires a multitude of sins, such as an intercourse between Jew and Aryian, and I think it applies in both cases, that both parties have committed a crime; of course, on the part of the Jew it is much more serious.
Of course, there are a lot of instances in which they were actually executed for that crime. In German I an quite sure it was "Rassenschande," racial exclusion. How much further than that it goes, I don't know.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: I see that you are just as far at sea as I was.
MR. MC HANEY: Yes, indeed.
Now, on Page 20 we have left the Jews who have been selected, and we come to the Aryans. The first one is "Prisoners in Protective Custody", and "Habitual Criminals", and then on Page 21, "Poles in Protective Custody". The defendants in the Medical case who were charged with euthanasia have contended long and hard that this program was limited to German nationals, to German citizens. It was a German law and could validly be applied to German citizens.
It so happens that in the so-called Hadamar case, tried by a United States Military Commission, it was found to constitute murder for non-German nationals to be executed pursuant to the euthanasia program. We read the judgment of the IMT to hold that any one executed pursuant to the euthanasia program constituted murder, and we think that the extract that we have put into evidence here so holds that whether it is a non-German national or German national, it nonetheless constitutes a crime under Control Council Law Number 10 or the London Charter.
In any event, the proof clearly shows that non-German nationals were subjected to the program, and on Page 21 we see that there is a list of Poles included, and on Page 22, Czechs.
THE PRESIDENT: What is S.A.W.?
MR. MC HANEY: I have never been able to discover. We have asked several people, and they don't know either. I can not say what that is.
On Page 22 is the laconic term "Shirkers" again.
On Page 24, additional Poles; and on Page 25, some more Czechs.
I move now to Page 28, a letter dated 10 January 1942 from Liebehenschel to the concentration camp Gross-Rosen, in which the camp commander is informed that Dr. Mennecke will undertake the selection of the inmates from the concentration camp Gross-Rosen beginning on 16 or 17 January 1942.
In other words, after the selection of the 293 inmates which occurred on 16 December, a member of the doctors' commission is coming to Gross-Rosen on 16 or 17 January to make his selections from that group of 293, and the man who went there was Dr. Mennecke. He testified in the Medical Case, and we shall offer an extract of his testimony at a later point.
Now, the next document is on Page 29, and this is a letter from the concentration camp Gross Rosen, dated 3 March 1942 to the mental institution, Bernburg, which, the Tribunal will recall, was one of the extermination centers of the euthanasia program. Of the 293 inmates selected in December 1941, they have narrowed the list down to 214 inmates. The mental institution Bernburg is given a copy of the list by this letter of 3 March 1942. Pardon me -- I analyzed that incorrectly. This letter is from Bernburg to Gross-Rosen, and it forwards a list of 214 inmates definitely selected by the doctors' commission. In other words, Mennecke, having made his selection Gross-Rosen and taken the questionnaires back to Berlin with him, apparently compiled the list of 214 names from the 293, sent that list to Bernburg, and Bernburg is now sending the list back to Gross-Rosen and ordering them to transport these 214 inmates to Bernburg and gives the instructions in this letter.
The list we have, and it begins on Page 30, and, without going through all the mechanics, the Tribunal can, by taking the initial list of 293 names picked out in Gross-Rosen which gives the nationality of Czechs and Poles, comparing it with this list of 214 names, which constitutes the selections for extermination from the total group of 293, you can compare the names, and it will show that at least 51 Czechs and Poles appear among these 214 names, showing that a substantial percentage was non-German nationals.