and after having looked at all this work he said "I know that there may be numerous enormous purposeless applications and letters by people who just grumble or denounce among that heap of mail, but I think that in one case or another questions may come up where the persons concerned are calling for help, where valid situations of emergency exist, and I demand that those be helped. That, of course, gets a very thorough dealing with the correspondence necessary. We often had mail and it constituted applications for pardons and releases from concentration camps. There were applications regarding racial questions regarding mitigation in dealing with the Jewish question. There were complains and applications with reference to the hereditary laws for the prevention of hereditary diseases.
Q. Did you ever discuss certain difficulties with the defendant Brack which he experienced when dealing with these matters in connection with a third person who played a public part at that time? I am now particularly referring to Martin Bormann, whom you just mentioned, and I am also referring to Obergruppenfuehrer Heydrich.
A. In both cases because of a number of reasons great controversy ensued, and that for different reasons. In the case of Heydrich I know that Heydrich wanted the elimination of Brack from Bouhler's office, because he did not agree with the attitude of the defendant.
Q. What was that attitude?
A. In the case of Heydrich this was mostly concerned with complaints regarding the work of the Gestapo and questions regarding the release from concentration camps. I remember on the basis of a report which I received from Bouhler, because he was accumstomed to discuss all these basical questions with me, that Heydrich had demanded that he should separate himself from Mr. Brack, because he would have to accuse Mr. Brack of a grave breach of confidence. I don't know this incident in its details. I only know the basic attitude of Mr. Brack towards that incident. For that reason I know that we were here concerned with a breach of confidence as Heydrich called it regarding the questions of secrecy of SD files concerning a defendant of the SD.
Q. Do I understand you correctly, witness, it seems to be that Brack had given a defendant, an accused of the SD, insight into these documents in order to enable him to defend himself?
A. Yes, that is correct. Some person had been charged with something and Brack enabled that person to gain insight into the documents.
Q. That is sufficient. Thank you. How about the affair with Bormann, why did he quarrel with Bormann?
A. The difficulties with Bormann lie somewhere else. These difficulties find their reasons in the controversy between Mr. Bouhler and Mr. Bormann. The enmity of Mr. Bormann to Brack, which he only considered one point of opposition because his desires were extended through the entire field of work of Bouhler. From Bormann we always received complaints that the attitude of department two too was not rigid enough in its ideological outlook according to Bormann's ideas. He thought that this attitude was too mild. He wanted that a change he effected by Mr. Bouhler. Bormann succeeded in eliminating Bouhler's right of reporting to Hitler about questions of release from concentration camps, and so forth. This, of course, had as its result a radicalization, because naturally the manner in which these matters were reported to Hitler had its effect in the decision that Hitler reached.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, I only put these questions because this relationship between Martin Bormann and Bouhler and Brack and Bouhler will play a considerable part later on. I ask you to excuse my taking up so much time of the Tribunal.
MR. HARDY: Enough time has been taken up with this question, exactly one hour, and I fail to sec the materiality of the testimony thus far. I can't see the connection, I can't understand the testimony. After the witness is through testifying the Prosecution may well request an affidavit or something so that we can have a clarification of the testimony. The issues against Brack are very simple, the connection between Brack and Buehler are quite simple. This witness on the stand has testified he perhaps knows more about the activities of Brack than any man alive and I think we can get the facts of this case quickly rather than going around Robin Hood's barn in this manner.
THE PRESIDENT: Does counsel expect to continue with the examination of this witness in the morning?
DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, I have concluded two-thirds of the examination of the witness Hederich. What I want to hear now refers essentially to euthanasia.
THE PRESIDENT: If the witness will testify to some facts relevant to the issues before the Tribunal we will hear him again in the morning; but I would suggest in the meanwhile that you talk the matter over with the witness and instruct him to answer to questions directly and rather more briefly and give the facts which will be of assistance to the Tribunal.
The Tribunal will now recess until nine-thirty tomorrow morning.
The Tribunal will meet the Committee.
(The Tribunal adjourned at 15:27 hours.)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 9 May 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court room will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal I.
Military Tribunal I is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the courtroom.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, you ascertain if the defendants are all present in court.
THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honor, all defendants are present in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will note for the record the presence of all the defendants in court.
Counsel may proceed.
KARL HEINRICH HEDERICH - Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR. FROESCHMANN(Counsel for the Defendant Brack):
Q. Witness, might I remind you first of all that you are still under oath. Yesterday you had been speaking about the Defendant Brack' activities in Department 2 of the Fuehrer's Chancellory. I want to put this question to you. Did Brack in this office, Department 2 that is, have authority to make decisions on his own?
Q. This authority to make decisions, did Reichsleiter Bouhler handle that alone?
Q. What was the relationship between Bouhler and Brack with regard to the point whereby Brack knew Bouhler's attitude regarding the treatment of tasks assigned to him, Bouhler?
A. The relationship was such that Brack had to know Bouhler's attitude regarding this sphere of influence of his.
Q. Yesterday you had already talked about the fact that Bouhler's attitude as Chief of the Chancellory had been a tolerant one, is that correct?
Q. Have you been able to make sure that Brack's attitude regarding the treatment of tasks which approached him, particularly regarding the release of concentration camp inmates and applications coming from various half-Jewish persons, was tolerant?
A. As far as I had opportunities to learn of Brack's activities, I saw them as being tolerant and generous.
Q. Another question. The Defendant Brack during his interrogation has spoken about a so-called Madagascar plan which in 1940 came up for discussion in the Chancellory of the Fuehrer and was dealt with there. Do you have any knowledge of a Madascar Plan?
Q. What do you know about it? What was the aim of that plan?
A. It was the aim of that plan to defelope and submit suggestions regarding the solution of the problem of homeless Jews which was to be solved by creating a new order in Europe which would give them a state system of their own. This was done from the point of view adopted by German policy of the time, namely, with consideration of the situation in Palestine and the Arab question.
Q. You've just spoken about the situation in Europe --I think that must be a mistake, you mean the situation in the world? Or was your statement aiming at the Jews living in Europe at the time?
A. In connection with the Madascar Plan, I'd heard at the time that the possibility existed that the war would come to an end, and correspondingly that suggestion had been made to Great Britain, and in connection several plans of a different nature had been developed and in this connection I came across the problems contained in the Madagascar plan.
Bouhler in his sphere of work had it dealt with or dealt with it himself.
Q. This Madagascar Plan, did that have an anti-Jewish tendency?
A. As far as I am able to speak on the strength of my own knowledge here, no. It was my impression that this was an effort, as I'd said at the beginning, to solve the problem of homeless Jews by means of creating a special state.
Q. This special state, was that to create a home for the Jews on the Island of Madagascar? Is that correct?
DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, may I have your permission is this connection to quote from my document book, Volume No. 2, page 3. I am referring to Document NO 27, and it is Exhibit No. 2, which I would like to offer to the Tribunal at this point. It merely contains-
MR. HARDY: The prosecution has not yet received Document Book No. 2 of the Defendant Brack.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has not received the volume either.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, may I remark in this connection that my document books have been handed to the Secretary-General's office three or four weeks ago, and that, therefore, I had the right to expect that these document books would be at the disposal of the Tribunal at the time. Only the Appendix 3 could be completed during recent days because a number of exhibits were contained therein which I myself only received in recent days. I need not read the document I referred to, I am merely offering it to the Tribunal with the request that you take judicial notice of it.
THE PRESIDENT: Will counsel again refer to the document number in his book.
DR. FROESCHMANN: It is Document No. 27, in the 2nd volume of my document book, and it is on page 3. It merely contains extracts from the encyclopedia and it deals with the psychological facts of Madagascar.
THE PRESIDENT: What exhibit number do you assign to this document?
DR. FROESCHMANN: Exhibit No. 2, Mr. President.
MR. HARDY: May it please your Honor, the Secretary-General has put at my disposal a copy of Document Book No. 2, and if defense counsel cares to introduce it now, the prosecution will agree. However, I have an objection to the document in as much as the document is concerning the proposed plan to send the so-called homeless Jews to Madagascar, and this Tribunal is not dealing with matters of that nature. It appears to the prosecution that the document is immaterial and I object to its admission in evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the materiality of this document, counsel?
DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, in the course of the examination of the Defendant Brack I shall deal with the circumstances in detail why Brack particularly, and his collaborators, turned their thoughts upon the Island of Madagascar. The objection might be raised that that island was so uneconomical that the plan of settling Jews there could be considered just as cruel as their destruction, the extermination of the Jews, and in order to help this High Tribunal, which, I assume, of course, has full knowledge of these matters, it should also have a documentary basis to decide upon, and I had taken the liberty of submitting the document. That was all I was aiming at through it.
THE PRESIDENT: Defendant Brack is directly charged by the indictment with certain specific offenses. The Tribunal is in doubt as to the probative value in connection with any such proof as you mentioned as bearing upon the issues in this case, in so far as Defendant Brack is concerned.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Defendant Brack wishes to deal with the allegation of the prosecution that he had been hostile to the Jews and that he had participated in the plans of the extermination of the Jews, and wants to prove that his attitude was directly opposite to this and he has always done everything possible in order to counteract the plans of Jewish extermination that he had heard of.
That is, of course, the reason why this Madagascar Plan, of which the defendant has spoken during his interrogation, is considered to be relevant by me.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal is of the opinon that the matter--at least at this time -- is entirely without any probative value in connection with the issue before this Tribunal. The objection will be sustained with leave to re-offer the document later. As the evidence developes it may be determined that the letter has some probative value, but at this time the objection is sustained. The document will not be admitted.
BY DR. FROESCHMANN:
Q. Witness, when and how did you learn of the euthanasia, measures adopted in Germany?
A. May I at this point draw your attention to my affidavit dated the 28th of June of last year which Dr. Robert Servatius submitted to the International Military Tribunal in Nurnberg?
Q. That document is not a document which I myself have submitted and therefore you cannot refer to it, but I do think that you can tell the Tribunal such parts of that document as may be of interest with regard to this special question which I put to you.
DR. FROESCHMANN: May I ask the Tribunal to give permission that witness Hederich may read from the affidavit submitted to the International Military Tribunal, such a few sentences as can answer the question which I have put to him just now?
THE PRESIDENT: The Document to which you refer has not been called to the attention of the Tribunal with the request that the Tribunal take judicial notice of the document.
DR. FROESCHMANN: The document was submitted during the trial before the International Military Tribunal.
It was submitted by my colleague, Dr. Servatius, as an exhibit.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand that, but it hasn't as yet been brought to the attention of this Tribunal. The Tribunal would like to examine the document.
MR. HARDY: May it please your Honor, the document referred to is obviously an affidavit of the witness on the stand. If he is going into the problem of euthanasia or the issues in this case, the witness is here, he can ask the witness without bothering with this document, or asking the court to take notice of another document. He has the witness available and can question him on that point.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to examine the document. Will you submit it to the Tribunal?
DR. FROESCHMANN: The document is in the hands of the witness. I myself don't have it.
(Document in question is handed to the Tribunal.)
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any English translation of this document available?
DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, I myself don't have an English translation because I myself wasn't going to refer to the document. It was the witness who wanted to know something from it and inform the Tribunal of these parts.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the witness may use the document to refresh his recollection, answer any questions that are material to this inquiry.
BY DR. FREOSCHMANN (Continuing)
Q Witness, I repeat my question as to when and how did you learn of the euthanasia measures adopted in Germany, and I also would like to ask you to use the document in the sense which the President has just instructed you.
A Of the so-called euthanasia procedure, I heard at the beginning of 1940, when the matter had to some extent already made considerable progress, and according to my recollection there were sources of the clergy who got into touch with the Catholic Church and the Protestant Church, sources with whom I was working together.
Q So that until the beginning of 1940 you had no knowledge that Bouhler or Brack were occupying themselves in any way with euthanasia measures, is that right?
A That is correct, I had no knowledge.
Q Did you speak about this with Brack?
A I don't think that I talked about these questions in detail with the defendant, but I did speak about them in detail to Bouhler.
Q In this connection I am only interested in one single question. Did Bouhler tell you in this connection about the fact that euthanasia measures which he was carrying out, or had carried out, had been discussed by him with judicial sources in the Reich?
A That was a very focal point of Bouhler's and one of the leading problems which occupied him for a long time.
Q What did Bouhler tell you about that at the time, as to whether he considered Hitler's decree of the 1st of September 1938 to be a legal basis of legal nature?
A Bouhler himself -
Q Would you mind leaving the Mr. and Mrs. off because Bouhler is enough for us, you know.
A Bouhler himself regarding the legality and moral basis of euthanasia had no doubts whatever. His objections dealt with the formal legal shape of the tasks assigned to him and the legal formula. Considering the far reaching effects of the task, he wanted to avoid misuse.
Q Therefore, if I understand you correctly, then the train of thoughts which Bouhler had was that Hitler's decree meant to him a legally sound basis, but that in his opinion it was essential with regard to the general public that all individual measures which were now being used through euthanasia, or should be used, should be clothed in a formal Reich's Law.
A That is correct, and Bouhler's opinion was strengthened when because of these difficulties he offered Hitler his resignation, and when in the discussion which arose in that connection the legality of these measures was confirmed to him in that connection.
Q Just one moment. Your testimony would lead to the conclusion that Bouhler had spoken with Hitler about the necessity of a legal formulation of the euthanasia decree or order, or decree -- whichever you want to call it.
Q And then your testimony would further show that Hitler with regard to Bouhler's suggestion had turned that down?
A I am not fully informed about the exact contents of the BouhlerHitler conference, but the outcome was that it became Bouhler's view that his task was lawful, and that became the subject of further discussions with the Reich Minister of Justice.
Q Did the further developments in 1940 make it known to you that Bouhler also conferred with sources of the Reich Ministry of Justice continuously, that a draft law was to be obtained from Hitler?
A Efforts made towards such a draft law go back to the early stages of euthanasia.
Q How do you know?
A Bouhler told me that when I approached him regarding reasons which I had mentioned to you at the beginning of my testimony. He told me that when he described to me the task Hitler had assigned to him and Dr. Brack.
Q Did Bouhler tell you at the time that through his collaborators, and particularly Brack, such a draft law was to be developed or had been developed?
A Bouhler not only told me so but he even showed me on that, and other occasions, of extensive material which was to serve the drafting of such a law.
Q Did you yourself read the draft law?
Q And then what happened to this draft law?
A Bouhler, when disregarding the formal wording of his task turned out to be considerable, and when he had to decide -
Q You said that already.
A May I ask you to repeat the question. I got lost.
Q I want to put this question to you. Did you as months went by in 1940 learn of the fate regarding this draft law?
A I thought I had answered that by saying that Hitler had turned it down.
Q But didn't Bouhler confer with the Reich Minister of Justice regarding its draft law?
Q Well, then, what was the attitude adopted by the Reich Minister of Justice?
A Mr. Bouhler adopted the view that this was a matter for the Reich Minister of Justice and the Reich Chancellory now to achieve the proper formulate for this law. He himself found himself in considerable difficulties because on one side he was referring to an order from the highest military commander at the head of the state, with all the functions which Hitler held, and on the other side he saw the responsibility of individual ministers whom he couldn't influence but from whom he was demanding that they in turn, if difficulties arose, should find the legal solution.
That wasn't, after all, his task.
Q I am asking you, what was the attitude adopted of the Reich Ministry of Justice with regard to Bouhler's wish that a draft law should become law?
AAs far as I know, the matter was left in abeyance. No further clarification was achieved except that on the strength of the conference between Bouhler and Hitler an agreement was reached between him and the minister that the matter was now being settled.
Q So that if I understand you correctly the Reich Ministry of Justice or the Reich Minister of Justice, in spite of Bouhler's considering representation, adopted the view that this matter was in order.
A That was my opinion, yes.
Q Did you hear about it, that the Defendant Brack too, had knowledge of the negotiations between Bouhler and the Reich Minister of Justice?
Q. Witness, in subsequent times you yourself didn't exactly deal with euthanasia measures but you had heard about them and you discussed then with various gentlemen in the Fuehrer's Chancellery, is that correct?
Q. On the strength of such conversations, or any other conversations, did you ever come across the words "useless eaters" and that they would have to be removed in this way? Did you ever come across that?
A. The tendency hidden behind the words "useless eaters" has now only become known to me through evidence submitted by the prosecution, but from Bouhler's statement, as far as this problem was concerned, they would never have given me an indication of such an attitude.
Q. Did you hear anything about the fact or the question why Hitler's decree was issued just at the beginning of the war?
A. From statements which have been made available to me I have learned that we were concerned with psychological considerations.
Q. Well then, what was the type of the psychological considerations?
A. They were of such nature that they believed that the understanding of biological and heriditary problems should be awakened among the population.
Q. Just a moment. The eugenic and heriditary biological trends of thought, did they have a decisive value with regard to euthanasia?
A. As far as I am informed, that was the basic point of euthanasia; namely, that the problem of useless living beings - the living beings who had dropped below a certain level - should be solved by means of the mercy death.
Q. I think you have expressed yourself somewhat incorrectly there. The question of eugenics and heriditary biological theories do not, of course, have anything to do with what you just said.
A. Well, I wasn't really going to try to link it up.
Q. Well, I am coming to my final questions. Did you gather from Bouhler's statements any knowledge regarding the point of view which he and Brack might have had when they considered euthanasia to be justified?
A. From the events I had more than sufficient opportunity to learn of Bouhler's attitude with regard to these questions. First of all, there were his considerations of a legal nature, and then there was the type of action he took with the objections raised from clerical sources. I had the impression there that the religious momentum connected with euthanasia, in connection with the objections raised by the church, occupied first place with Mr. Bouhler. I also learned from the legal arguments which he raised, a similar point of view that he was fighting for it passionately, that he wasn't merely concerned with the formal formulation of a task, but that he was interested in the legal conception and the lawful idea of the whole affair.
Q. Did Bouhler also tell you that the defendant Brack shared these views?
A. I always assumed that since Brack, with regard to all these questions, was, after all, only the deputy - the man to whom a task was assigned by Bouhler.
Q. I was just about to cone to this last question. I have asked you earlier during your testimony whether Brack in his Department 2 had authority to make decisions of his own and you answered that question, of course, in the negative. Now, I wish to ask you which position Brack actually occupied within the framework of this so-called euthanasia program. Was he of the same rank as Bouhler? Did he have similar responsibilities, or was he acting on his behalf, or how can you describe his position?
A. Bouhler called himself the only responsible person when he talked to me about the problem of euthanasia and Mr. Brack. The part which Mr. Brack played was that of a subordinate official who had administrative and organizational tasks.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, in the course of this trial, if I'm not mistaken, Karl Brandt's defense counsel submitted the document NO 156.
It was offered as Brandt's Exhibit No. 4A and 4B. That document dealt with a letter from the Chief of the Fuehrer's Chancellery, addressed to the Reich Minister of Justice Guertner, in which the author states that "on the basis of the authority issued by the Fuehrer, I am considered as the sole responsible person for the carrying out of the tasks which I consider necessary and I have given corresponding instructions to my collaborators". At the time the signature below this document could not be clearly identified. May I submit this document to this witness with the request or the question whether the signature over which this document appears will be recognized by him as being that of Bouhler?
THE PRESIDENT: The document may be submitted to the witness. If he can identify the signature, he may testify.
(The document was submitted to the witness.)
BY DR. FROESCHMANN:
Q. Witness, will you please read through this document and will you answer my question as to who has signed this document? This is a photostatic copy, by the way.
A. The signature is that of Bouhler.
Q. Can you recognize it without doubt as being Bouhler's?
A. I can recognize it for certain.
Q. Well, I come back to my initial question now; namely, what was the position held by the defendant Brack within the framework of the euthanasia program?
A. I repeat, Brack's position was of a very subordinate nature and he was depending on Bouhler's orders.
Q. Would it be right for me to say that Brack, within the so-called euthanasia program occupied the position of a general secretary, shall we say?
A. I would say that expression is too strong.
Q. It is, is it? Well, he was less than a general secretary?
A. I would say that the expression is too strong since Brack's authority with regard to other departments was limited and since Bouhler always emphasized, when talking to me, that apart from his own sphere of influence the sphere of influence of the Reich Ministry of Interior prevented independent action and position in the euthanasia program.
Q. May I then state finally that, according to your statement, the defendant Brack, in the so-called euthanasia program, only had a subordinate position on the strength of which he had to obey Bouhler's instructions without questioning and in connection with which his activities were confined to the carrying out of such instructions as Bouhler would give him.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, for the moment I have no further questions to this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Has any defense counsel any question to propound to this witness in connection with the case as it affects their respective clients?
DR. FROESCHMANN: I have no further questions, Mr. President.
BY DR. HOFFMANN (Counsel for the defendant Pokorny):
Q. Witness, you said that in 1940 the Madagascar Plan had been developed. What was the reason for which this plan was developed? Surely you could have left the Jews in Germany.
A. The reason for the development of this plan I have already dealt with in my initial answer, I thought. It was general considerations with regard to a peace of the future which one thought was imminent at the time. During the development and representations of that period, plans and suggestions were made regarding any inter-European settlement of that problem. As far as I am informed, as far as I could gather from Bouhler's statements, that is, it had been indicated to him that he needn't bother about that plan any further since it would be the subject of discussions if and when the time came, and the way I always understood that was that it meant it would be of inter-European concern because the war was considered to be inter-European at that time.
France was interested - any plan about Madagascar couldn't be discussed without France - and England was interested.
Q. All right, witness, but were there different plans, further plans, dealing with the solution of the problem? To be very exact, was the question of sterilization mentioned?
A. I don't know anything about that.
Q. You don't know anything about that?
A. No, I know now by the material submitted by the prosecution.
Q. In that case, I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Any other question by defense counsel? If not, the prosecution may cross-examine.
MR. HARDY: May it please Your Honors, the prosecution has no questions to put to this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for the defendant Brack may proceed. The witness will be excused from the stand.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Of course, I haven't any further questions to the witness.
Mr. President, may I have the Tribunal's permission to call to the stand a witness whose name is Dr. Hermann Pfannmueller and his title is Obermedizinalrat?
THE PRESIDENT: The Marshal will summon the witness, Dr. Hermann Pfannmueller, to the stand.
(HERMANN PFANNMUELLER, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows.)
BY JUDGE SEBRING:
Q. You will raise your right hand and be sworn.
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. FROESCHMANN:
Q. Witness, please will you tell me your first and last name and the date of birth? Can you hear me?
Q. Please, would you put on your headphones and I'll repeat the question, and then will you please make a pause so that the interpreter can follow, and will you then answer it?
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel will propound his question to the witness again.
BY DR. FROESCHMANN:
Q. Please, will you state your first and last name and your date of birth?
A. Dr. Hermann Pfannmueller. Born 8th of June, 1886.
Q. Witness, please will you tell this Tribunal briefly of your career and will you emphasize your medical training and the positions you held?
A. I visited four forms of the elementary school in Munich and then I went to the secondary school in Munich where I obtained the certificate entitling me to university training. I then studied medicine at the University of Munich, made my preliminary exams there, and in 1911 passed the state exams with good results. Subsequently, I worked at several institutes and also as a practitioner; that is, I worked in several hospitals and practiced and this included Munich. I then went to Dresden to the Women's Clinic where I had further training for six months, and then in 1913, upon being persuaded by my teacher, Krepelin - I am a scholar of Krepelin in Munich - I went to the mental institute in Weinmuenster - Weinmuenster, by the way, is in Nassau - in order to work under the head of that institute towards reorganizing the institute for modern psychiatric diagnosis and treatment. This was actually done, and then war came.
During the war apart from working in this institute I also had to deputize for the local general practitioner, and I myself was the head of research occupation.
Q It won't be necessary for you to go into all these details. Just speak more generally.
Q I then entered the state institutions in Bavaria at Homberg, where I became a medical officer, from 1916 to 1919. At the end of 1919 I worked at Homberg and in Homberg I operated a Red Cross observation hospital. At the same time in 1919 I went to Ansbach and central Frankonia following a call, and I was promoted to the next highest civil service group, which was entitled Oberarzt.
Q What was the Institution?
AAnsbach, in the municipal essential institute at Ansbach. Then I took over the department for seriously sick persons, since I had received my complete training as a doctor at that time, and dealt with neurological cases, since I had complete training with that in Munich, and at that time I adopted modern therapy methods, and I had the honorary task of going to Degendorf and the Protestant Hospital of the Gruner Mission, where sick and insane children were stationed. At the same time I was building up a new department of a large hospital.
Q Doctor, will you speak a little more slowly, because the interpreters won't be able to follow you; everything you say must be translated into the English language, and therefore will you speak a little slower and take pauses?
A I assisted in the building up and equipping of a new nursing home for very badly deformed and insane children.
Q What was your further career?
A This took up the time until 1930. In 1930 I was appointed second deputy to the Chief of the mental institution at Kaufbeuren, and after a brief period he entrusted me with the organization of the welfare for mental patients in Suebia.