D. Euthanasia

a. Introduction

The defendants Karl Brandt, Blome, Brack, and Hoven were charged with participation in and responsibility for the execution of the so-called “Euthanasia Program” in the course of which hundreds of thousands of human beings, including nationals of German occupied countries, were murdered (pars. 9 and 14 of the indictment). On this charge the defendants Karl Brandt, Brack, and Hoven were convicted, and the defendant Blome was acquitted.

The prosecution’s summation of the evidence on euthanasia is contained in its closing briefs against the defendants Karl Brandt and Brack. Extracts from these briefs are set forth below on pages 795 to 813. A corresponding summation of the evidence by the defense on this program has been selected from the closing brief for the defendant Karl Brandt and from the final plea for the defendant Brack. It appears below on pages 813 to 839. This argumentation is followed by selections from the evidence on pages 842 to 896.

b. Selections from the Argumentation of the Prosecution

EXTRACTS FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST THE DEFENDANT KARL BRANDT

The Euthanasia Program

A. Procedure

On 1 September 1939 Hitler charged the defendant Karl Brandt and Reichsleiter Bouhler with the execution of the Euthanasia Program. The letter of appointment stated:

“Reichsleiter Bouhler and Dr. Brandt, M. D., are charged with the responsibility of enlarging the authority of certain physicians to be designated by name in such a manner that persons who, according to human judgment, are incurable can, upon a most careful diagnosis of their condition of sickness, be accorded a mercy death.” (630-PS, Pros. Ex. 330.)

This document in no way limited the application of euthanasia to insane persons but included anyone who might be designated as “incurable.”

The witness Mennecke testified that the program was carried out in the following way:

Every German mental institution received questionnaires from the Reich Ministry of the Interior which were to be completed for each inmate of the institution and to be sent back to the Reich Ministry of the Interior. Experts then had to examine the questionnaires after they had been photostated; they had to express their medical opinion on them, and had to return them, with their opinion, to the Reichsarbeitsgemeinschaft (Reich Labor Association). (Tr. pp. 1872, 1873.)

This Reichsarbeitsgemeinschaft cooperated with the “Stiftung” (Charitable Foundation for Institutional Care), and the Patients Transport Corporation. The “Stiftung” was in charge of the financial side of the program, while the Patients Transport Corporation was used when patients were moved from one institution to another in order to bring them closer to the euthanasia institutions and finally into the euthanasia institutions themselves. These three organizations, Reichsarbeitsgemeinschaft, “Stiftung,” and Patients Transport Corporation, were in fact camouflaged names for the operation of the Euthanasia Program and were under the supervision of one management. They did not work independently but together. (Tr. p. 1874.)

As to the questionnaires, three experts received photostated copies, and, independently of each other, they expressed their opinion on individual cases. Then so-called top experts expressed their opinion. A list was made up of the patients who were judged subject to euthanasia, and the patients were removed from the institution to so-called collecting points, and from there were transferred to euthanasia institutes. (Tr. pp. 1877, 1878.) Non-German nationals and Jews were subjected to euthanasia as well as Germans. (Tr. p. 1881.)

The activities of the experts were extended in the early summer of 1940 to inmates of concentration camps. A doctors commission, which consisted of doctors and officials from the Euthanasia Program, filled out the questionnaires on inmates from among those who had been preliminarily selected by the camp doctors. Numerous concentration camps were visited, some of them twice, in the period between 1940 and the end of 1941. (Tr. pp. 1882, 1883.) Dr. Mennecke, who visited a number of concentration camps to select inmates, received the orders for these activities from the top experts in the Euthanasia Program and from the defendant Brack. (Tr. p. 1882.) Announcements about these trips were made from the Berlin agency of the program to the individual concentration camps. (Tr. p. 1885.) Non-German Nationals and Jews who were inmates of concentration camps were subjected to the Euthanasia Program in extensive numbers. (Tr. p. 1887.)

Another function of the Euthanasia Program was the killing of mentally and bodily deficient children. The witness Walter Schmidt testified that the agency which handled this part of the program was called the Reich Committee for Research on Hereditary and Constitutional Severe Diseases [Reichsausschuss zur wissenschaftlichen Erfassung von erb- und anlagebedingten schweren Leiden]. The questionnaires were filled out by the health departments, the chief of children’s clinics, physicians, doctors, midwives, hospitals, etc., and reports were made to Dr. Linden’s office in Berlin. Linden was a member of the Ministry of the Interior. There a committee of chief experts, on the strength of these reports, decreed euthanasia through so-called authorizing orders in the form of a photostatic copy of the report, which had been approved in writing. These activities continued until 1944. (Tr. pp. 1833, 1834.) Schmidt himself was in charge of a special department for the killing of such deformed children. (Tr. p. 1833.)

Workers from the occupied eastern territories who had become unfit for labor were executed pursuant to the Euthanasia Program. Busses belonging to the Patients Transport Corporation, which were operated by the personnel of the Patients Transport Corporation, took these victims to the extermination center of Hadamar, where they were killed. (Tr. pp. 1842-1845; NO-1116, Pros. Ex. 415.)

This evidence on the method of carrying out the program is corroborated by the affidavit of the defendant Brack (NO-426, Pros. Ex. 160), the affidavit of Pauline Kneissler (NO-470, Pros. Ex. 332), the chart drawn by Brack (NO-253, Pros. Ex. 331), as well as numerous other documents in the record.

The evidence concerning the activities of the top experts and experts of the Euthanasia Program in the various concentration camps is corroborated by the affidavit of the camp doctor of the Dachau concentration camp, Dr. Muthig (NO-2799, Pros. Ex. 497), who states that in the fall of 1941, Professor Heyde, as leader of a commission of four psychiatrists, came to the Dachau concentration camp. This doctors commission selected inmates, unable to work, for extermination by gas. Heyde was the first top expert of the Euthanasia Program. (Tr. p. 2495.) The affidavit of Dr. Gorgass reveals that he and Dr. Schumann, both of whom were active in the Euthanasia Program, visited the Buchenwald concentration camp in June 1941. Gorgass states explicitly that the purpose of this trip was to acquaint himself with the assignment of concentration camp inmates to euthanasia institutions. This visit was made on the order of Brandt, and was transmitted by the defendant Brack. (NO-3010, Pros. Ex. 503.)

B. Non-German Nationals and Jews

Non-German nationals and Jews, who were inmates of the concentration camps, were victims of the Euthanasia Program which operated in these camps under the code name “14 f 13.” (NO-429, Pros. Ex. 281.)

A few documents submitted by the prosecution on one “14 f 13” action in Gross-Rosen show how the Euthanasia Program operated in concentration camps. The list of concentration camp inmates of the Gross-Rosen concentration camp, who were sent to the Bernburg euthanasia station for extermination, contains many names of non-German nationals and non-German Jews. (NO-158, Pros. Ex. 410.) Jews in protective custody, Poles in protective custody, Jews who were habitual criminals, Jews who were “shirkers,” Jews who “defiled the race,” Czech “shirkers,” and Czechs in protective custody were among the inmates selected by the camp physicians for “examination” by the experts. (1151-PS, Pros. Ex. 411.)

By comparing the names on the lists contained on Documents NO-158 and 1151-PS, it is proved that, of the 240 names listed for extermination in the Bernburg euthanasia station, at least 51 were of Polish or Czech nationality. How many of the Jews listed were of non-German nationality cannot be ascertained from these documents, but a substantial number of them were born in countries other than Germany, as the list contained in Document NO-158 shows, and it is therefore apparent that a further substantial number of the inmates selected for extermination were of non-German nationality. (NO-158, Pros. Ex. 410; 1151-PS, Pros. Ex. 411.)

On 17 March 1942, 70 inmates were transferred to Bernburg for extermination. (NO-1873, Pros. Ex. 556.) Of these, 27 of the non-Jewish prisoners on the transport list were of Czech or Polish nationality. Compare transport list with list of inmates originally selected in Gross-Rosen. (1151-PS, Pros. Ex. 411.) On 19 March 1942 an additional 57 inmates arrived at Bernburg from Gross-Rosen. (NO-158, Pros. Ex. 410.) Of these, 15 of the non-Jewish prisoners of the transport list were of Czech or Polish nationality. Thus, of the total of 127 inmates proved to have been sent to Bernburg in March 1942, at least 42, or one-third of the total, were non-German citizens forcibly detained in an enemy country. That all of these inmates were exterminated in Bernburg is conclusively proved by the laconic report from Gross-Rosen to the Economic and Administrative Main Office that “special treatment of 127 prisoners was concluded on 2 April 1942.” (1234-PS, Pros. Ex. 555.)

This evidence as to Action 14 f 13 is amplified by the testimony of the witnesses Neff (Tr. pp. 600-605), Kogon (Tr. pp. 1210-13), Roemhild (Tr. pp. 1634-37, 1641), and Holl (Tr. p. 1060).

Non-German nationals and Jews other than those in concentration camps were not exempt from the program, and many of them were killed. Besides the evidence cited under A above, there is ample proof that non-German nationals were subjected to extermination from the beginning of 1940 through the war. (NO-1135, Pros. Ex. 334; NO-818, Pros. Ex. 373.) Jews of German and Polish nationality and stateless Jews were also subjected to the program. (NO-1310, Pros. Ex. 337.) Polish and Russian nationals and other non-German nationals were subjected to the program. (NO-720, Pros. Ex. 366.)

The questionnaires had a space provided for “race”, being defined: German or similar blood (of German blood), Jew, Jewish mixed breed Grades 1 or 2, Negro (mixed breed). (1696-PS, Pros. Ex. 357.) This question would have been completely unnecessary if non-Germans were exempted from the program. Questionnaires had to be filled out about all patients who were not of German nationality or German related blood, indicating their race and nationality. (NO-825, Pros. Ex. 358.) These questionnaires had to be processed by the experts. (Tr. p. 1881.) Those who were active in euthanasia never received an order that non-German nationals were to be excluded from the program. (NO-817, Pros. Ex. 368.) The witnesses Mennecke (Tr. pp. 1877, 1922) and Schmidt (Tr. pp. 1860-1) also testified to this effect. Hugo Suchomel, LL. D., the highest official after the Minister in the Austrian Federal Ministry of Justice, says in his affidavit that when Brack, as representative of the defendant Brandt, gave a lecture on euthanasia in the Ministry of Justice in 1942, he enumerated, as the classes of persons who were exempted from the program, the war-wounded and persons who had become insane as a result of air attacks. Foreigners and Jews were not mentioned among the groups of persons who were excluded. (NO-2253, Pros. Ex. 557.) Brack admits having held the lecture. (Tr. p. 7589.)

As early as 1939 inmates of insane asylums in occupied Poland were killed. (3816-PS, Pros. Ex. 370.) In the autumn of 1940, funds for the evacuation of 1,558 inmates of mental institutions of East Prussia and approximately 250 to 300 insane Poles were made available by the defendant Brack, who was the administrative executive of the Euthanasia Program. As these transfers were carried out by a special detachment (Sonderkommando) of the infamous SD, which was used for special tasks, there is no doubt that these insane Poles were killed. (NO-2909, Pros. Ex. 500; NO-2911, Pros. Ex. 501.) In September 1941, an order was issued that the inmates of the insane asylums in Russia, in the occupation zone of the German Army Group “Nord,” were to be killed. (NO-1758, Pros. Ex. 444.)

Eastern workers were also dealt with. (NO-1430, Pros. Ex. 429; NO-1436, Pros. Ex. 430.) Eastern workers, who had been forcibly brought into Germany, who were no longer able to work, and who were considered a burden on the mental institutions of Germany, were brought together in a collecting institution and, unless they could be discharged in a matter of six weeks, they were exterminated under the Euthanasia Program. (NO-891, Pros. Ex. 414; NO-1116, Pros. Ex. 415.) Half-Jewish healthy children (NO-1427, Pros. Ex. 431) and adult gypsies (3882-PS, Pros. Ex. 371) were also killed.

C. Inadequate Examination and Lack of Supervision

The selection and examination of the persons who were subjected to euthanasia were criminally negligent and inadequate.

The defendant Karl Brandt testified that the doctors in the Euthanasia Program were given enormous responsibility. (Tr. p. 2425.) He, together with Bouhler, had authority over the physicians who were participating in the program. (Tr. p. 2408.) He admitted, however, that he did not make observation in, or visits to, insane asylums. He was only once in the Bethel insane asylum and visited a special clinic in Kassel. He admitted having no expert knowledge in the field of psychiatry. (Tr. p. 2470.) He, the doctor of the two persons who were charged by Hitler with the execution of euthanasia (Bouhler was not a doctor), authorized the doctors to administer euthanasia. He did not make investigations as to the medical abilities of these men. (Tr. p. 2476.) He does not know one single name of the total of ten to fifteen doctors who, according to his testimony, were charged with the execution of euthanasia. (Tr. pp. 2478-9.) Brandt testified that he only visited one of the extermination stations, Grafeneck, in 1940, one time (Tr. p. 2480), and never went to an observation station. (Tr. p. 2481.) In winter 1939-1940, however, he visited, together with the defendant Brack, Bouhler, and Conti, the euthanasia station of Brandenburg, where the first gas chamber was set up. The purpose of this visit was to observe a test experiment in which four insane persons were gassed. (Tr. pp. 7645-6.)

Victims of euthanasia were condemned to death by so-called top experts who had never so much as seen the patient. The victims were only superficially examined on the basis of questionnaires. (NO-470, Pros. Ex. 332.) Pfannmueller, an expert, received no less than 159 shipments of questionnaires, averaging between 200 and 300 questionnaires each, prior to 15 April 1941, for judgment as to life and death. (NO-1129, Pros. Ex. 354; NO-1130, Pros. Ex. 355.) Since his main occupation was that of manager of an insane asylum, his judgment of the questionnaires was only a secondary activity. In a period of 18 days, this same expert passed judgment on no less than 2,058 questionnaires. (NO-1129, Pros. Ex. 354; Tr. p. 7384.)

Questionnaires on patients who were in an asylum for as short a time as one month were filled out and formed the basis for judgment as to whether the particular inmate should be killed. (NO-825, Pros. Ex. 358.) Many of these questionnaires were inadequately completed so that it was impossible in any event to form a clear medical opinion. Experts were also exposed to pressure to induce them to give positive opinions. (Tr. p. 1881.) Unanimous opinion of the experts was not necessary to bring about a positive judgment which would condemn the patient to be killed. The dissenting opinion of one expert did not suffice to save the life of the patient. (Tr. pp. 1907-8.)

In a concentration camp 105 Aryans were “examined” by the expert Mennecke in an afternoon. The “examination” of 1,200 Jews, which consisted in the transcription of the reason for their arrest from the files to the reports, took only a few days. In a letter to his wife, Mennecke himself put the word “examination” in quotation marks. It is impossible that any kind of mental examination of the patients was carried out. (Tr. p. 1892; NO-907, Pros. Ex. 412.) In fact, these Jews were mentally and physically healthy. (Tr. p. 1893.) It was impossible for Dr. Heyde and his doctors commission, which was active in the Dachau concentration camp, to examine the great number of inmates selected in the short time they spent there. The examination consisted solely in the cursory study of personal records in the presence of the inmate. (NO-2799, Pros. Ex. 497.) Doctors Schumann and Gorgass screened approximately 100 concentration camp inmates during a one day’s visit in the Buchenwald concentration camp. (NO-3010, Pros. Ex. 503.)

It was not the degree of insanity which was the decisive factor in the decision as to whether or not the inmates should be killed, but rather their usefulness for work. The manner of employment, the value of work, if possible compared with the average performance of healthy persons, had to be carefully filled out in the questionnaires. (1696-PS, Pros. Ex. 357.) Valuable workers were not sent to euthanasia stations. (3865-PS, Pros. Ex. 365.)

Patients who had arteriosclerosis, tuberculosis, cancer, and other disabling illnesses were included in the program. (3896-PS, Pros. Ex. 372.) “Useless eaters” were starved to death. (3816-PS, Pros. Ex. 370; NO-823, Pros. Ex. 399.) Persons who no longer had any value to the state were considered “useless eaters.” It was pointed out that during the war healthy people had to give up their lives while these severely ill people continued to live, and would continue to live unless euthanasia was carried out. In addition, it was stated the lack of food and nursing personnel justified the elimination of these people. (Tr. p. 1906.) Concentration camp inmates were examined as to their capacity for work and their political reliability and were selected accordingly for euthanasia. (NO-2799, Pros. Ex. 497.) Questionnaires were completed on concentration camp inmates who were not insane. (NO-3010, Pros. Ex. 503.) Prior to 27 April 1943, Action 14 f 13 encompassed the execution not only of insane persons, but persons suffering from tuberculosis, bedridden individuals, and others unfit for manual work. (NO-1007, Pros. Ex. 413.) Only inmates who were no longer fit for work were to be brought before the examining commission. (1151-PS, Pros. Ex. 411.)

In the case of killing of children, a previous consultation with the parents or relatives did not take place. (3864-PS, Pros. Ex. 367.) The defense witness Pfannmueller testified that, after having received authorization to kill the individual child, he invited the relatives to visit the child because it was sick. However, he never notified the parents or guardians that he was going to kill the child, as this was a top secret matter. (Tr. p. 7394.) From the documents submitted by the defendant Brack, it is clear that the parents were deceived about the purpose of the transfer of the children to institutions where they were to be killed. It was the business of the medical officers to induce the parents to send their children to such institutions. To accomplish this, the parents were told that in the case of individual diseases there was a possibility of achieving certain successes with treatment. (Brack 52, Brack Ex. 43; Tr. p. 7717.) The parents were told that the best care would be taken of the child in such institutions and everything possible in the way of modern therapy would be carried out. (Brack 51, Brack Ex. 42.) From these documents it is clear that the parents and relatives were not only not asked for their consent in the case of killing of children, but were deceived in order to make the transfer to a euthanasia institution possible. A letter from the Reich Committee for Research on Hereditary and Constitutional Severe Diseases to the Eichberg Sanatorium shows on its face that, in the case of euthanasia of children, the consent of the parents was not sought. (NO-890, Pros. Ex. 443.) This evidence is corroborated by the affidavit of Dr. Suchomel. (NO-2253, Pros. Ex. 557.) The defendant Brack testified that the consent of the parents to the killing of children was an absolute prerequisite. The medical officers who made the arrangements for the transfer of the children to the killing stations were allegedly charged with the task of informing the parents and requesting their consent. This statement is in contradiction to Brack’s own documents, which clearly show what the parents really were told, as well as the top secret character of the program. The proof has further shown that Pfannmueller himself was one of the doctors who had, according to the decree of the Minister of the Interior of 18 August 1939, to report deformed and deficient children. (NO-3355, Pros. Ex. 553.) He himself testified that he never informed the parents about the fate their children had to expect. Brandt admitted that in the case of the killing of insane adults, the consent of the relatives was not requested and their opinion not heard. (Tr. pp. 2427-8.)

There is abundant proof that the German public was horrified by euthanasia and the manner of its execution. A police report stated:

“The wildest scenes imaginable are reported to have taken place, as some of these people did not board the bus voluntarily and were therefore forced to do so by the accompanying personnel. There were people who were imbeciles and feeble-minded, and were said to have other epileptic illnesses as well, and whose upkeep the state and other public bodies up till now had to provide for completely, or at least for the greater part. People went so far as to formulate and disseminate more or less the following assertion: ‘The state must be in a bad way now or it could not happen that these poor people should simply be sent to their death solely in order that the means, which until now have been used for the upkeep of these people, are made available for the prosecution of the war.’ ” (D-906, Pros. Ex. 376.)

D. General Extermination of the Jews

Personnel active in the Euthanasia Program also took part in the extermination of the Jews in the East from about 1941 until the liberation of the eastern territories. Some time in the second half of 1941 part of the personnel, who were until then executing the Euthanasia Program in Germany, was sent to Lublin and put at the disposal of SS Brigadefuehrer Globocnik in order to assist in the mass extermination of the Jews, which was then common knowledge in the higher circles of the NSDAP. Among the doctors who assisted in the extermination of the Jews were Drs. Eberle and Schumann, both of whom had been previously active in the Euthanasia Program in Germany. All of this Brack admitted in his pretrial affidavit:

“The order to send these men to the East could only have been given by Himmler to Brandt, possibly through Bouhler.” (NO-426, Pros. Ex. 160.)

The connection between the “Stiftung” (Charitable Foundation for Institutional Care) and the extermination camps in Lublin was also known to the lower employees of the euthanasia stations. (NO-470, Pros. Ex. 332.) The witness Gorgass stated in his affidavit that Police Captain Wirth told him, late in the summer of 1941, that he had been transferred by the Foundation for Institutional Care (which was one of the code names under which the Euthanasia Program operated) to a euthanasia institute in the Lublin area. (NO-3010, Pros. Ex. 503.) The SS judge, Dr. Morgen, who investigated the Jewish extermination program in Lublin, testified before the International Military Tribunal that Wirth, having previously carried out the task of removing the incurably insane, was a specialist in mass destruction of human beings. The office from which Wirth obtained his orders was Berlin, Tiergartenstrasse, and among the people who were connected with this operation was Blankenburg. (NO-2614, Pros. Ex. 504.) Brack admitted that Wirth was an official of the Brandenburg euthanasia station. (Tr. p. 7733.) Brandt visited Brandenburg in the winter of 1939-40. (Tr. pp. 7645-6.) The central office for the Euthanasia Program was set up in Tiergartenstrasse 4, and Blankenburg was Brack’s deputy in the Euthanasia Program. (Tr. pp. 7563 and 7707.)

The defendant Brack reported to Himmler about these activities on 23 June 1942, as follows:

“On the instructions of Reich Leader Bouhler I placed some of my men—already some time ago—at the disposal of Brigadefuehrer Globocnik to execute his special mission. On his renewed request I have now transferred additional personnel. On this occasion Brigadefuehrer Globocnik stated his opinion that the whole Jew action should be completed as quickly as possible, so that one would not get caught in the middle of it one day if some difficulties should make a stoppage of the action necessary. You yourself, Reich Leader, have already expressed your view that work should progress quickly for reasons of camouflage alone * * *.” (NO-205, Pros. Ex. 163.)

The affidavit of Kurt Gerstein, which also mentions Wirth, gives a vivid description of the terrible way in which the victims were killed by the thousands by order of Globocnik. (1553-PS, Pros. Ex. 428.)

In October 1941, Brack, the administrative head of the Euthanasia Program, forwarded plans whereby Jews who were unable to work should be exterminated by gas. He declared his readiness to send some of his assistants and especially his chemist, Kallmeyer, to the East, where the necessary gassing apparatus could be easily manufactured. Eichmann, whom Hitler had charged with the extermination of the Jews, was in agreement with these plans. Consequently, there were “no objections to doing away with those Jews who are unable to work, by means of the Brack remedy”. (NO-365, Pros. Ex. 507.)

Kallmeyer, who was charged with the manufacture of the gassing apparatus and equipment, had been trained for this task in the Euthanasia Program. Previously he had been responsible for the proper operation of the gas chambers of the different euthanasia institutions. (Tr. p. 7743.) According to Eichmann’s own estimate, four million Jews were killed in extermination institutions. (NO-2737, Pros. Ex. 505.)

E. Legality

The evidence outlined above makes it clear that the Euthanasia Program can only be described as mass murder. This Tribunal is not called upon to define with juridical nicety what a state may lawfully legislate with respect to euthanasia. The prosecution asks only that this Tribunal find, as other tribunals have already held, that there was no valid law in the Third Reich permitting euthanasia, and that the execution of persons under the guise of euthanasia, with the connivance and assistance of certain defendants in this dock, constituted the crime of murder—a war crime and a crime against humanity.

The first and foremost authority on the legality of euthanasia as practiced under the Nazis is in the judgment of the International Military Tribunal.^[93]

These findings draw no distinction between German nationals executed under the program and non-German nationals. These executions are described with the word “murders” and constitute war crimes and crimes against humanity under the Charter and Control Council Law No. 10. This was one of the principal crimes which led to the judgment of guilty and the sentence of death against Frick.^[94]

The Review of the Deputy Theater Judge Advocate in the case of the U. S. vs. Klein, Wahlman, et al., held at Weisbaden, Germany, from 8 October through 15 October 1945 is a clear precedent that the execution of non-German nationals pursuant to the Euthanasia Program was a crime. (NO-1116, Pros. Ex. 415.)

The defendants were there charged with the execution of some 400 persons of Polish and Russian nationality, alleged to be suffering from incurable tuberculosis, at the Hadamar euthanasia station between July 1944 and April 1945. They were not charged with murdering German nationals and that issue was not considered. After taking judicial notice of the fact that foreign laborers were pressed for service in Germany, the reviewing authority held that the killings in issue were a violation of the international laws of war and of Article 46 of The Hague Convention. Three of the seven defendants were sentenced to death.

According to German law, euthanasia was nothing other than murder. Paragraph 211 of the German Criminal Code, in its old form reads:

“Whoever kills a person willfully will be punished by death for murder if the killing was premeditated.”

In the new form, which was in effect from 4 September 1941 on, the section stated:

“The murderer will be punished by death.

“A murderer is one who kills a person out of sheer desire to murder, for the satisfaction of the sexual instincts, for covetousness or other vile motives; one who kills another maliciously or cruelly, or by publicly dangerous means, or to create the preconditions for another punishable action, or to conceal such an action.

“Certain exceptional cases where capital punishment is not appropriate will be punished by life sentence.” (NO-705.^[95])

For expert commentaries on the legality of euthanasia, see NO-708 and NO-706.^[96]

The defense witness Hans Lammers, a German legal expert, testified that the Hitler letter to Bouhler and Brandt was not a law, and that official legislation was necessary to legalize euthanasia. (Tr. pp. 2672-2679.) The Reich Minister of Justice, Guertner, on 24 July 1940, wrote a letter to Lammers informing him that, as the Fuehrer had refused to issue a law it was necessary to discontinue immediately the secret extermination of insane persons. (NO-832, Pros. Ex. 393.) A copy of this letter was sent to Bouhler on 27 July 1940. (NO-833, Pros. Ex. 394.)

During Brack’s lecture in the Ministry of Justice, referred to in B above, the legal authorities present were completely misinformed about the extent of the program. From the remarks of the speaker, the impression was obtained that only a very limited circle of persons, at the utmost several hundred, throughout Germany, Austria, and the Protectorate Bohemia and Moravia, would be affected. The opinion created was that only very dangerous patients and delirious maniacs who might injure themselves would be subjected to the program. (NO-2253, Pros. Ex. 557.) This obviously was done to quiet the misgivings of the persons present. Brack, when questioned as to whether, during the lecture, he gave an approximate number of persons who would be subjected to euthanasia, could or would not give any answer. Contrary to the impression created during the conference in the Ministry of Justice, the defendants Brandt and Brack now admit that about 50,000 to 60,000 people were killed in the Euthanasia Program in Germany and Austria alone. (Tr. p. 2465; Tr. p. 7610.)

Since the end of the war, German and Austrian courts have repeatedly held that the killing of persons of any nationality under the guise of euthanasia was in violation of the German Criminal Code and punishable as murder. The witnesses Schmidt and Mennecke who testified before this Tribunal had themselves been convicted by a German court for participation in the Euthanasia Program and sentenced to life imprisonment and death, respectively.

The Court of Assizes in Berlin, at the session on 25 March 1946, found the defendants Hilde Wernicke and Helene Wieczorek guilty of murder and sentenced them to death.

The Court of Appeals in the same case rejected the appeals of both, defendants. The following quotation from the findings may be of interest:

“It cannot be mistaken that the defendants Wernicke and Wieczorek are only the last links of a long chain, and that they are preceded by persons whose guilt is still greater.” [Emphasis added.] (NO. 447^[97]).

Thus it is established that euthanasia was murder according to German law.

In connection with this question, it is again pointed out that the whole program was kept completely secret. Hitler’s letter of 1 September 1939 (Tr. p. 1516) marked “Top Secret” was never published, and the Minister of Justice received a copy of it only one year after its issuance. (630-PS, Pros. Ex. 330.) Transfers of inmates of insane asylums to euthanasia stations were allegedly carried out by the order of the Reich Defense Commissioner. (NO-1133, Pros. Ex. 335.) The officials active in the program had to sign a written oath of secrecy. (NO-1312, Pros. Ex. 338; NO-1311, Pros. Ex. 339.) The doctors who performed euthanasia were warned that they would be severely punished if they sabotaged the work. (Tr. p. 1894.) The whole program of euthanasia was to be kept secret, as they were told from the beginning that it was a top secret matter. The reason given was to avoid unrest among the population. Breach of secrecy was considered sabotage. (Tr. p. 1923.) Others had to sign a written oath binding them to secrecy. It was known that the result of breach of this oath was confinement in a concentration camp. (Tr. p. 1826.)

F. Personal Responsibility of Karl Brandt

Brandt was put in charge of the program, together with Bouhler, by the above-quoted letter of Hitler of 1 September 1939. His position as highest authority in the Euthanasia Program is outlined in the affidavit of Dr. Boehm, one of the oldest members of the NSDAP. When, in November 1940, Boehm approached Martin Bormann^[98] with the request to obtain an audience with Hitler to complain about the execution of the Euthanasia Program, Bormann referred him to Brandt as the responsible authority for the execution of euthanasia. As a result, Boehm had a discussion with Brandt and when he complained, among other things, that the Euthanasia Program was not regulated by law and should not be carried out in a secret manner, Brandt admitted that the Minister of Justice, Guertner, had also urged legislation. From his conversation with Bormann and Brandt, Boehm was sure that Brandt was the leading personality in the program. (NO-3059, Pros. Ex. 558.) Brandt admitted that it was necessary to set up a special organization to carry out euthanasia. (Tr. p. 2407.)

He, together with Bouhler, had authority over the physicians who were participating in this program, and furthermore he had to keep Hitler informed from the medical point of view (English translation is garbled, therefore reference is made to German Tr. p. 2420) and had to maintain contact with Bouhler. (Tr. p. 2408.) He further admitted that authorizations for the killing of children were submitted to him and Bouhler. (Tr. p. 2544.)

He stated that he resigned his job some time in 1942. (Tr. p. 2433.) While this is of no material significance, it is established that he held his position as the leading figure in the program until 1944. Dr. Ludwig Sprauer, in his affidavit, stated:

“I heard the name of Professor Dr. Karl Brandt for the first time at a conference in Berlin in the middle of 1941. At this conference I learned that Karl Brandt and Philipp Bouhler were the leading figures in the Euthanasia Program. The conference was called by Dr. Linden on behalf of the Department of the Interior, and problems of institutions and asylums were submitted. Dr. Linden directed the proceedings.

“To the best of my knowledge and belief, Philipp Bouhler as well as Professor Dr. Karl Brandt were the leading figures in this so-called Euthanasia Program from 1941 to the collapse of Germany.

“The connection between the Department of the Interior and Professor Karl Brandt, in the framework of the Euthanasia Program, was that Karl Brandt gave orders to Conti and Linden, which were passed on by these persons on behalf of the Department of the Interior. Brandt was the dominating figure without doubt.” (NO-818, Pros. Ex. 373.)

The witness Wesse said in his affidavit that Brandt was in charge of the Euthanasia Program at least until March 1944. (NO-1428, Pros. Ex. 432.)

The witness Mennecke testified that he learned in the beginning of 1941 that the defendant Brandt was active in the Euthanasia Program. (Tr. p. 1874.) He further testified:

“When, in 1944, I was treated as a patient in the army hospital at St. Blasien, I found out through conversations with officers that Professor Brandt had an essential part in the collection of insane persons in the area of Lublin, Poland.” (Tr. p. 1903.)

He further testified, in connection with this Lublin action, that it must have continued up to 1944 and that it was said that insane persons and Jews were collected in Lublin in large numbers. (Tr. p. 1904.)

The witness Schmidt testified that Professor Brandt had the medical direction of the program, and only in 1944 was he told that Brandt had left the program. (Tr. p. 1825.) He also knew that Brandt played the leading part in the task which had to be accomplished (Euthanasia Program), that he (Brandt) was to accomplish this task. (Tr. p. 1847.)

Both witnesses, Schmidt and Mennecke, also testified that the chart (NO-253, Pros. Ex. 331), which shows Brandt in the center of the program, is correct. (Tr. pp. 1833, 1876.)

The evidence shows further that Brandt gave orders in the Euthanasia Program as late as July 1943. In a letter from the Patients Transport Corporation, dated 20 July 1943, to the Mental Institution Hadamar—which was, as documents and testimony show, an extermination station—the following sentences are found:

“I order transfer of insane persons to your institution also, by order of Professor Brandt, the Commissioner General of the Fuehrer for Medical and Health Service. You will get, on 26 July 1943, 150 insane women from the Mental Institution Warstein if the Reichsbahn will furnish the necessary cars as requested.” (NO-892, Pros. Ex. 442.)

Brandt was the person who had to be approached if one were to save a child from euthanasia. In a letter from the Reich Committee for Research on Hereditary and Constitutional Severe Diseases, dated 16 November 1943, to Dr. Schmidt’s sanatorium, Eichberg (as the evidence shows, a killing station for deficient children), we find the sentence:

“On the basis of a letter directed to Professor Dr. Brandt concerning the above mentioned, I request an elaborated diagnosis about the mentioned Anna Gasse who is reported to be in your institution at present.”

And further:

“If from a medical point of view such a release is warranted, one could take into consideration whether one should not perhaps comply with such a request in the interest of the good reputation of the institution.” (NO-890, Pros. Ex. 443.)

That the defendant Karl Brandt was in a position to issue instructions and assign tasks to insane asylums in Germany is further corroborated by the affidavit of the defendant Rose, who said that in 1943 Brandt put an insane asylum in Thuringia at his disposal and made arrangements that this institution would not be converted into a general hospital; and further, that in 1944 Brandt made arrangements for the better feeding of inmates of this asylum in order to enable Rose to proceed with his malaria therapy. (Tr. p. 1717.) If this statement in itself has nothing to do with euthanasia, it shows the scope of influence and power Brandt still commanded over insane asylums in 1943 and 1944. (NO-872, Pros. Ex. 408.)

According to his own testimony, Brandt was in charge of euthanasia until 1942. (Tr. p. 2433; Tr. p. 2532.) There is no proof, other than his own statement, that he resigned his commission at that time. On the contrary, the proof has shown that he was active in this field until some time in 1944. In any event, the program was criminal in its inception. The murder of concentration camp inmates pursuant to euthanasia began as early as 1940. Non-German nationals were included in substantial numbers. Healthy Jews were exterminated without examination. Trained killers from euthanasia stations were sent to the East as early as 1941 to aid in the mass murder of Jews. Persons whose only crime was physical inability to work were subjected to euthanasia from the very beginning. Indeed, the elimination of “useless eaters” was the principal rationale of the whole program.

Brandt stated that an order existed which exempted non-German nationals, but he was unable to give any explanation as to how this order operated, who received it, and why, if such an order existed, questionnaires for foreign nationals were filled out at all. (Tr. pp. 2499-2503.) The evidence has shown that non-German nationals were never exempted and were killed in large numbers. There is nothing to be said in mitigation for Brandt.

EXTRACTS FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST DEFENDANT BRACK

Moral and Humanitarian Justification

In the brief against Karl Brandt the prosecution has summarized the overwhelming proof that euthanasia, far from being “an act of grace”, was a measure to eliminate “useless eaters” and other “undesirable” persons. Brack himself, when questioned by the Tribunal, was unable to explain why war veterans of the First World War (1914-18) were exempted from this “act of grace.” (Tr. pp. 7650, 7664.) Contrariwise, he could not explain why this grace was extended to insane criminals, irrespective of the length of time they had spent in an insane asylum. (NO-825, Pros. Ex. 358.)

Brack personally reprimanded Mennecke, who was an expert in the Euthanasia Program, on the ground that his expert opinions were far too soft and did not recommend euthanasia as often as he desired. (Tr. pp. 1881, 1907.) The so-called “observation stations” where the patients, according to Brack’s statement, were examined for several weeks by expert doctors were nothing but collecting points for the victims. (Tr. pp. 1822, 1878, 1879.)

Brack admitted that the work of Binding and Hoche is considered the standard work on euthanasia. (Tr. p. 7633.) This work leaves no doubt that the will to live, of even those who are most seriously ill, suffer most gravely, and are of least use, should be fully respected, and that any authority for the annihilation of life is excluded in cases where the will to live must be broken. (NO-2893, Pros. Ex. 496.) Brack himself admitted that euthanasia is inadmissible in cases where the patient has the will to live. (Tr. p. 7701.) The witness Schmidt testified that the victims, who obviously knew or suspected their fate, had to be forced to enter the busses which took them to the extermination stations. (Tr. pp. 1856, 1861.) This evidence is corroborated by documentary proof. (D-906, Pros. Ex. 376.) While many of those victims may have been insane, they certainly did not lack the will to live. Moreover, Brack himself admitted, when questioned by the Tribunal, that Bouhler ordered that the arrangements for the killing had to be made in such a way that the patients would not realize what was being done to them. (Tr. p. 7660.) The gas chambers where the victims were annihilated resembled shower rooms. (Tr. p. 7659.) The patients were deceived into thinking that they were to take a shower bath and, therefore, had to undress. (Tr. pp. 7644, 7660.) Such precautions would certainly not have been necessary if the victims had desired the “privilege of a mercy death.”

Action 14 f 13^[99]

If the testimony of Brack and Brandt as to the number of doctors who were active in the Euthanasia Program is correct, it is clear from the record that all doctors active in this program collaborated in Action 14 f 13. Brandt estimated the number of doctors who were charged with the execution of the Euthanasia Program as 10 to 15 (Tr. p. 2478), Brack, as 12 to 15. (Tr. p. 7573.) Mennecke testified that about 15 doctors from the Euthanasia Program were commissioned to carry out the “examinations” in the concentration camps. (Tr. p. 1891.)

Brack was unable to explain how it came about that concentration camps inmates selected in Action 14 f 13 were killed in euthanasia stations. (Tr. p. 7541.)

Legality

Even Brack’s own documents reveal that he misinformed the legal authorities about the legal situation in respect to the Euthanasia Program. The ministerial director in the Reich Ministry of Justice, Karl Engert, states in his affidavit (which, according to the defense counsel of Brack, is “of great interest because it shows the opinion of the influential jurists on this question”): “Brack’s statements reassured me because, according to them, it was to be definitely assumed that a Reich law would then be enacted in the customary form, i. e., by publication in the Reich Law Gazette. I saw no reason why any difficulties should arise.” (Brack 37, Brack Ex. 37.) Needless to say, Brack did not mention that Hitler had refused to issue such a law until after the war.

That Brack was well aware of the fact that the Euthanasia Program was a criminal one is proved by his attempt to destroy evidence prior to the occupation of Germany by the Allies. The affidavit of Claussen proves that he sent the following teletype to the commandant of the concentration camp at Mauthausen (NO-2429, Pros. Ex. 498):

“To the Concentration Camp Mauthausen, SS Standartenfuehrer Ziereiss.

“Hartheim must be destroyed immediately. Execution must be reported by order of the Fuehrer.

[Signed] Oberfuehrer Brack”

Brack admitted that Hartheim was a euthanasia station where the victims of the Euthanasia Program were killed. (Tr. p. 7714.)

General Extermination of the Jews

That the defense of Brack is fabricated is proved by other evidence in the record. SS judge, Dr. Morgen, who investigated the criminal case of Wirth, testified before the International Military Tribunal that when Wirth took over the mass extermination of the Jews, he was already a specialist in the extermination of human beings. He had previously carried out the task of annihilating the insane. He had received this assignment from the Chancellery of the Fuehrer, Bouhler’s office. A system which Wirth had devised in his activities in the Euthanasia Program made it possible to exterminate large numbers of people with the help of only a few assistants. The same system, with a few improvements, was employed for the extermination of the Jews. Wirth’s assignment for the extermination of the Jews came from Bouhler’s office, from the very office where Brack was active. Morgen investigated Wirth’s mail and found out that the courier who brought this mail came from the Fuehrer’s Chancellery, Tiergartenstrasse, the place where the office of the Euthanasia Program was located. Among the people connected with this extermination program, Morgen remembers Blankenburg, Brack’s deputy. (NO-2614, Pros. Ex. 504.) Brack admitted that Wirth was active in the Euthanasia Program. (Tr. p. 7733.) It may well be that Morgen started his investigations in July 1943^[100] but by the affidavit of Gorgass, it is proved that Wirth received his assignment from the “Foundation”, one of the camouflaged societies of the Euthanasia Program, as early as the summer of 1941. (NO-3010, Pros. Ex. 503.)

This evidence is fully corroborated by the affidavit of Gerstein. Globocnik was in charge of the extermination camps near Lublin, and Wirth collaborated with him in the extermination of the Jews. The gas chambers were camouflaged as “bath and inhalation” rooms and called “Foundation” Heckenholt. Doctors’ commissions toured the towns and villages of Poland and Czechoslovakia in order to select persons for extermination. (1553-PS, Pros. Ex. 428.) Brack when questioned by the Tribunal, admitted that the gas chambers of the euthanasia stations where the victims of the Euthanasia Program were killed were camouflaged as “shower rooms”. (Tr. p. 7659.) “Foundation” was one of the code names under which the Euthanasia Program operated. (NO-3010, Pros. Ex. 503.) The similarity between the extermination arrangement in the euthanasia stations and that used by Globocnik and Wirth is not coincidental.

The proof has shown that Brack himself advanced plans for the mass extermination of the Jews. In the beginning of October 1941 Brack had a conference with Eichmann from the Reich Security Main Office of the SS and Wetzel of the Reich Ministry for the Occupied Territories on the “solution of the Jewish question”. (NO-997, Pros. Ex. 506.) Brack declared himself ready to collaborate in the manufacture of the necessary gas chambers and gassing apparatus for the extermination of all Jews who were unfit to work. Since the manufacture of this apparatus was easier to accomplish in the East, Brack agreed to send some of his collaborators, and especially his chemist, Kallmeyer, there for this purpose. Brack proposed outright extermination of all Jews who were unable to work. Since Eichmann, whom Hitler had charged with the solution of the Jewish question, was in agreement with Brack’s proposals, no objection was voiced against the extermination of those Jews who were unable to work with the “Brack remedy”. (NO-365, Pros. Ex. 507.) Kallmeyer was the technical expert on operation of the gas chambers in the euthanasia station. (Tr. p. 7743.)

c. Selections from the Argumentation of the Defense

EXTRACTS FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF FOR DEFENDANT KARL BRANDT

Euthanasia

Position taken in the indictment

Position of the defense

The aim of euthanasia was to solve an old medical problem.

Statement of Karl Brandt according to which the subject of “useless eaters” was never mentioned in the presence of Karl Brandt. (Tr. pp. 2397, 2434.)

Statement of Schmidt according to which the ethical points of view were stressed during the conference of the experts in Berlin, 1941. (Tr. p. 1852.)

Statement of Mennecke according to which medical motives were given at the informative conference. (Tr. p. 1906.)

Statement of Brack regarding what was involved was the solution of the old medical problem. (Tr. p. 7544.)

The ethical aims of the euthanasia planned can also be seen from the drafts of a final bill of law.

Statement of Lammers in which the witness compiled a draft according to medical and ethical points of view. (Tr. p. 2683.)

Statement of Brack stating that Bouhler worked out a draft in cooperation with Brack based on scientific contributions. The heading “Law relating to the granting of ultimate medical assistance to incurable persons” shows the characteristic features of the law. (Tr. p. 7581.)

The peculiar individual attitude of Karl Brandt is of an ethical nature.

Affidavit of Schwerin-Krosigk, according to which Pastor Bodelschwingh, chief of the mental institutions of Bethel, declared that Karl Brandt had stated his point of view as regards euthanasia in a respectful way, making every allowance for the contrary opinion of Bodelschwingh. (Karl Brandt 26, Karl Brandt Ex. 83.)

Affidavits of Pastor Woermann. The witness, successor of Pastor Bodelschwingh, said that Bodelschwingh had told him about the idealistic attitude of Karl Brandt and said that Karl Brandt had supported euthanasia for the fully extinct spirit. (Karl Brandt 23, Karl Brandt Ex. 19.)

Affidavit of Rueggeberg. The witness reported on a radio interview of the London radio commentator Robert Graham with Pastor Bodelschwingh in the summer of 1945. Bodelschwingh himself declared there that one should not consider Karl Brandt as a criminal but as an idealist. (Karl Brandt 19, Karl Brandt Ex. 16.)

Affidavit of Rach. According to the statement of this witness, Bodelschwingh visited Karl Brandt at his house in Berlin as late as the summer of 1943 and spent an afternoon there in a friendly discussion. (Karl Brandt 6, Karl Brandt Ex. 7.)

Suspension of euthanasia in August 1941.

Affidavit of Kirchert. According to this statement euthanasia was stopped in the summer of 1941 although at that time economic reasons had become rather more important than before. The statement of the prosecution admits with certain limitations that euthanasia had been stopped in August 1941. (Karl Brandt 18, Karl Brandt Ex. 15; Tr. p. 1752.)

Special responsibility and participation of Karl Brandt.

The authorization of 1 September 1939 was founded on a purely medical point of view, namely euthanasia for incurable persons “under most careful scrutiny of their state of illness.” An economic or political motive as the basis is therewith rejected. The drafts for a law for further implementation of the euthanasia idea also show medical and ethical motives.

The report sheets and memorandum slips were sent to mental institutions only, which proves that euthanasia was practically restricted to insane persons. Had the elimination of “useless eaters” been the aim, this restriction would have been meaningless for there were “useless eaters” in other places too (nursery homes for cripples, hospitals, etc.). Undesirable foreigners were rarely to be found in mental institutions at the start of the Euthanasia Program since aliens entered the area of the Reich only with the beginning of the allocation of foreign labor.

The suspension of euthanasia in August 1941 argues against the intention to eliminate “useless eaters”, for only from that time on economic reasons of that kind acquired a certain importance.

The transfer of sick persons by order of the Reich Defense Commissioner did not point to a special war interest but was an administrative and local measure in order to evade difficulties as regards competence. The Reich Defense Commissioner was a new regional administrative office which made it possible to combine the various offices without regard to their competencies for the different tasks. It seems possible that it was only a camouflage. The blank draft contains contradictions, for according to that draft the director of a mental institution gives directives to the general public prosecutor and refers to a decree of the Reich Defense Commissioner. (NO-841, Pros. Ex. 360.)

The motive of elimination of “useless eaters” appears only in the subsequent statements of the ideological opponents as a propaganda measure of the resistance movement where a symptom is passed off as a motive. At the conferences, no economic reason was given for the euthanasia measures; but this was mentioned only as a secondary phenomenon.

The attitude of Karl Brandt himself was proved by the statements of Bodelschwingh as the authoritative leader in matters of medical and nursery treatment among convinced Christians. Bodelschwingh’s attitude towards Karl Brandt would be inconceivable if he had enforced the liquidation of all undesirable sick persons. (Karl Brandt 115, Karl Brandt Ex. 91.)

The statement in the judgment of the International Military Tribunal is subject to revision on the grounds of the evidence material of this trial.

Legal Foundation of Medical Euthanasia

Position taken in the indictment

Position of the defense

The authorization of 1 September 1939 was a sufficient legal basis. (630-PS, Pros. Ex. 330.) The form of the authorization was sufficient.

The sheet with the golden eagle chosen for that purpose shows the special importance of the authorization.

No recipient was mentioned to whom the authorization in the form of a letter may have been addressed. (Tr. p. 2396.)

Karl Brandt took part in working out the text by inserting the words “under the most careful scrutiny of their state of illness.”

Statement of Lammers, expert in constitutional law. (Tr. p. 2678-9.) According to that document the form chosen was not usual, but such violation did occur and flaws were adjusted. Hitler did not care about the form.

Statement of Lammers, stating that Hitler as the Fuehrer was authorized to alter the form: “I thought him authorized to do such things.” Apart from the form of the authorization which is on hand here, there existed still another version. (Tr. p. 2686.)

Statement of Pfannmueller. According to this document, the authorization contained the passage: “To the Reich Minister of the Interior.” The document was of a different form from the authorization in question. (Tr. p. 7362.)

Affidavit of Kirchert. Grawitz told the witness that there existed an authorization with the additional signature of Goering as the Chairman of the Reich Defense Council. (Karl Brandt 18, Karl Brandt Ex. 15.)

Statement of Mennecke. At the conference in 1940 the law was read word by word. (Tr. p. 1921.)

File note of the Gauleitung of Franconia dated 1 April 1940, “The Fuehrer gave the order, the law is made.” (D-906, Pros. Ex. 376.)

Publication of the authorization was not necessary for its coming into force.

Statement of Lammers says that there existed legal provisions which had not been published. (Tr. p. 2689.)

Affidavit of the Regional Bishop Wurm. Conti told the witness that there existed a law that had not been published for political reasons. (Karl Brandt 25, Karl Brandt Ex. 82.)

The obligation of secrecy does not prove the illegality of euthanasia.

Statement of Brack. The offices were informed. The decree of 1 September 1939 was transmitted to the Reich Minister of Justice on 27 August 1940, according to his special wish, but he had been informed of it earlier. (Tr. p. 7689.)

Statement of Pfannmueller. The witness states that the obligation of secrecy was usual. “I was bound to keep Reich matters secret. I was bound with regard to the Reich Penal Code.” (Tr. pp. 7343, 7397.)

Statement of Schmidt. The witness says that an ordinary obligation of secrecy form was signed without a special threat of punishment.

Camouflage.

Files of the Gauleitung of Franconia concerning correspondence with Marie Kehr. According to this, instructions were given after they were convinced of her good sense. (D-906, Pros. Ex. 376.)

Book of Meltzer: “The Problem of Abbreviation of Worthless Lives.” According to a statistical summary, on the whole, relatives of the mentally diseased do not wish to be informed. (Karl Brandt 85, Karl Brandt Ex. 94.)

Recognition of the Decree. The point of view of German literature and the administration of justice does not consider the present state of constitutional law. After taking cognizance of the decree, all authorities acknowledged it as the legal basis.

Testimony of Lammers. “The Reich Minister of Justice Guertner considered this regulation legal and stopped the pending actions.” (Tr. p. 2686.)

Testimony of Brack. Guertner, the Reich Minister of Justice, declared that the decree was not to be doubted. (Tr. p. 7590.)

Extract from the periodical “German Law” [Deutsche Justiz] 1941. Transfer of the supreme officials of the Justice Department in Berlin on 23 and 24 April 1941. According to this, photostatic copies of the decree of 1 September 1939 were delivered to all participators and its legality acknowledged by them. (Brack 36, Brack Ex. 36.)

Affidavit of Suchomel. This witness erroneously places the date of the conference in the 2d half of the year 1942. That means some time after the stoppage. (NO-2253, Pros. Ex. 557.)

Letter of 15 July 1940 of the General Prosecutor of Stuttgart to the Reich Ministry of Justice containing a report concerning illegal euthanasia. The following remark is made on the letter by the department chief of the Reich Ministry of Justice: “There is nothing to be ordered.” (NO-156, Karl Brandt Ex. 4.)

Schlaich to the Reich Ministry of Justice on 6 September 1940—Nothing has been attempted. (NO-520, Pros. Ex. 374.)

Testimony of Schmidt. The witness states that during a conference of jurists in Berlin 1941 the action was declared legal. This refers to the conference mentioned above, as it was mentioned in Document Brack 36, Brack Exhibit 36. (Tr. p. 1852.)

Preliminary Conference. Karl Brandt did not take part in the preliminary conference.

Testimony of Karl Brandt. According to this, Karl Brandt was invited unexpectedly, because he was available as an attendant-physician, when the conference with Bouhler took place. He was uninformed before this. Preliminary conferences concerning euthanasia took place between Hitler and Bouhler, Hitler and Conti.

Testimony of Lammers. According to this, during a conference in the autumn of 1939 in the presence of Lammers, a commission was given to Conti to start euthanasia. (Tr. p. 2668.)

Testimony of Lammers. According to this, Bouhler declared that Hitler wanted to give him the commission to carry out euthanasia. (Tr. p. 2669.)

Testimony of Brack. According to this a rivalry existed between Bouhler and Frick, Conti and Bormann, concerning the commission. Bouhler went to Hitler and said he would consent to accept the commission. Bouhler received the commission. (Tr. p. 7556.)

Particular responsibility and participation of Karl Brandt. According to the existing conditions of constitutional law, the decree of 1 September 1939 was to be looked upon as a legal order, and Karl Brandt, in his capacity as a physician, could rely on the organizations of the state and the opinions of the jurists.

The belated objection to the decree today is not made because of its external form, but in reality because of its contents. The circumstance that no publication of the decree took place was explained with politically intelligible reasons, corresponding to similar regulations issued for other measures.

The obligation of secrecy corresponds with the general regulations of the administration; a warning with reference to the regulations of penal law was usual. The so-called “death threat” is an exaggeration without any sense; according to practice, a reference to penal regulations concerning the revelation of secret matters had to be made where capital punishment was provided as the severest punishment in the Reich Penal Code. The opposition of all the persons interested in the procedure was directed against the camouflage of measures, with its inevitable consequences, the establishment of sham offices, the drawing-up of false death certificates, false information for the relations.

Karl Brandt accepted these regulations because they were the necessary consequence of the consideration not to disturb the part of the population involved. Neither the patient nor his relatives were to be alarmed, and the relatives had to be released from their feeling of responsibility. This motive is expressed in the correspondence concerning Marie Kehr, where the proper information was given and served as reassurance and warranted an expectation of understanding.

Karl Brandt did not partake in the organization of the Euthanasia Program. His connection with it, as an expert adviser for Hitler, is due only to the accident that he was in the headquarters of the Fuehrer. He received only a limited commission compared with Reichsleiter Bouhler, who, according to his own offer, was charged with the execution of this task.

Organization

Position taken in the indictment

Position of the defense

Karl Brandt was not the leading person, Bouhler was the head of the organization. In the decree of 1 September 1939 Karl Brandt is listed in second place, after Bouhler who had the rank of a Reich Minister.

The indictment denotes Bouhler as the chief of Karl Brandt. (Tr. p. 1531.)

Bouhler’s letter to the Reich Minister of Justice of 5 September 1940. “On the authority of the Fuehrer and as the only responsible person for all measures to be carried into effect, I have given the orders which seemed necessary to me to my collaborators.” (NO-156, Karl Brandt Ex. 4a and 4b.)

Affidavit of Lammers (supplement). The witness certifies as Bouhler’s the signature on the documents mentioned above. (Karl Brandt 92, Karl Brandt Ex. 86.)

Letter from Bormann sent to the Gauleitung of Franconia. Here, too, Bouhler is quoted as the Chief of the Committee of Physicians. (D-906, Pros. Ex. 376.)

Testimony of Lammers, according to which Karl Brandt never appeared before Lammers; in the Reich Ministry of Justice also; Bouhler was the only person who made an appearance. (Tr. p. 2672-3.)

Affidavit of Kirchert. The witness had a conference with Grawitz, who wanted to interest him in the use of euthanasia. Grawitz declared to the witness that Bouhler was charged with euthanasia. To him Karl Brandt had never been mentioned. (Karl Brandt 18, Karl Brandt Ex. 15.)

Affidavit of Prince of Hesse (supplement). The witness declares that he protested to Hitler and Bouhler because of the euthanasia project. Karl Brandt had not been called in at that time, though he could have been reached at once in the Fuehrer Headquarters. The witness is convinced that Karl Brandt was not connected with the matter in a decisive way. (Karl Brandt 115, Karl Brandt Ex. 91.)

Statement of Mennecke. The witness has never seen Karl Brandt, nor did he receive any order from him; he only knows the position of Karl Brandt within the framework of the euthanasia project from hearsay. (Tr. pp. 1903-5.)

Statement of Schmidt. The witness did not know Karl Brandt and did not see any order signed by him. He only knows by hearsay from Hegener that Karl Brandt “was supposed to be the medical chief” in 1941. In 1944 the witness learned that Karl Brandt was no longer involved, but could not state if he had still any influence in 1942 and 1943. (Tr. pp. 1857-8.)

Karl Brandt had no administrative organization of his own.

General items

New plan of organization by Brack. (Karl Brandt 8, Karl Brandt Ex. 3; Karl Brandt 15, Karl Brandt Ex. 3.) Testimony of Karl Brandt. (Tr. p. 2403.)

Affidavit of Brack. (Tr. p. 7550.)

Judgment of the International Military Tribunal^[101] according to which Frick, as Reich Minister of the Interior, is made responsible for the carrying out of the euthanasia project.

Direct correspondence of the Bouhler office with the competent authorities prove that Karl Brandt was not involved: Letter from Brack to Schlegelberger. (NO-842, Pros. Ex. 405.) Letter from Brack to Freisler. (NO-843, Pros. Ex. 406.) Letter from Himmler to Brack. (NO-018, Pros. Ex. 404.)

Complaints of the national and ecclesiastical authorities and of civilians did not reach Karl Brandt.

Complaint by Schlaich, Chief of the Mental Institution of Stetten. This director who worked in this specialized field does not know anything of Karl Brandt. (NO-520, Pros. Ex. 374.)

Affidavit of Sprauer of 23 April 1946. The witness does not mention Karl Brandt in this affidavit. (3896-PS, Pros. Ex. 372.) (Only in a later affidavit of 19 November 1946, does he add a pertinent, general statement.)

Actual complaints are transferred by the ministries to the Bouhler office, not to Karl Brandt. (616-PS, Pros, Ex. 403.)

Specific examples.

Statement of Pfannmueller, according to which the invitation for the experts’ conference was made by Bouhler. (Tr. p. 7316.)

Statement of Pfannmueller. Bouhler took the chair in the second conference in Berlin; Karl Brandt was not present. (Tr. p. 7359.)

Statement of Brack, according to which Karl Brandt made no speeches on problems of euthanasia, and he was not expected to do so. (Tr. p. 7588.) This is confirmed by the testimony of Blome.

Statement of Mennecke, according to which Brack was chairman of the conference in February 1940. (Tr. p. 1869.)

Statement of Schmidt. Karl Brandt also was not present at the conference in February 1941, but there were present representatives of the Reich Ministry of the Interior and of the Reich Ministry of Justice. (Tr. p. 1819.)

Statement of Pfannmueller, according to which the experts were appointed by the Reich Ministry of the Interior. (Tr. p. 7377.)

Statement of Brack, according to which the physicians were chosen by Linden and Grawitz. (Tr. pp. 7703, 7705.)

Affidavit of Kneissler, according to which the persons in charge of euthanasia were instructed by Blankenburg of the Bouhler office. (NO-470, Pros. Ex. 332.) Karl Brandt was not mentioned.

Affidavit of Sprauer, according to which the mental institutions were under the control of the Reich Ministry of the Interior. (3896-PS, Pros. Ex. 372.) Answering a complaint of Sprauer, Conti stated: “That is the business of the Reich Ministry of the Interior.”

Affidavit of Jordans. (3882-PS, Pros. Ex. 371.) Also confirms that the mental institutions were under the control of the Reich Ministry of the Interior.

The order for evacuation from Warstein to Hadamar was not given at the suggestion of the Reich Defense Commissioner or for “systematic registration”, but with regard to the air raid danger. (NO-892, Pros. Ex. 442.) Karl Brandt was a member of the committee for air raid damage, and it was his special task within this committee to allot the space available in hospitals fairly. The order was given in 1942, after the great air raids in the area of Cologne and the industrial areas. It refers to an institution in the interior of Westphalia which was considered as a reception district at that time; the euthanasia facilities at Hadamar were removed and the institution was returned to the former owner. (See indictment in the Hadamar Trial.^[102])

Affidavit of Steinbrecher. (Karl Brandt 84, Karl Brandt Ex. 87.) The activity of Karl Brandt on occasion of the removal of the mental institution from Dueren shows that Karl Brandt was not engaged as chief of the mental institutions, but in advisory capacity beside the competent authority, because he had influence and was charged with a special task in the field of air raid protection, in view of his general allocation tasks. Here Karl Brandt was able to help directly on account of his special tasks connected with the Committee for Air Raid Damage.

Statement of Rose. (Tr. p. 6362.) Opinion of the witness as to affidavit, NO-872, Prosecution Exhibit 408. From this it is seen that Karl Brandt here did not have charge of the patients, but was to endeavor with the other authorities to have the institution placed at his disposal.

Real Position of Karl Brandt. The position of Karl Brandt within the framework of the Euthanasia Program was limited.

Statement of Karl Brandt, according to which it was his task to inform Hitler and to license physicians of the euthanasia institutions according to the decree on the basis of personal responsibility of the physicians. (Tr. p. 2408.)

Statement of Brack. The witness says that Karl Brandt had nothing to do with the carrying out of the Euthanasia Program, “for he was the delegate of Hitler”. (Tr. p. 7571.) He had no office at Tiergartenstrasse 4, and to the knowledge of Brack, he was never in the office “T 4”.

Affidavit of Reinhardt. (Karl Brandt 5, Karl Brandt Ex. 6.) The witness was occupied as an auditor in the office of Karl Brandt, and he states that in this capacity he did not find in the office of Karl Brandt any accounts or items with entries referring to euthanasia.

Affidavit of Schaub, according to which Karl Brandt was bound to the Fuehrer Headquarters and to Hitler and thus was not able to make any inspections. (Karl Brandt 80, Karl Brandt Ex. 98.)

Affidavit of Rach. (Karl Brandt 6, Karl Brandt Ex. 7.) The witness confirms the connection of Karl Brandt with the Fuehrer Headquarters and with the clinic in Berlin.

Execution

Position taken in the indictment

Position of the defense

Time. The practice (of euthanasia) by virtue of the authorization started at the beginning of 1940 and lasted until August 1941, when it was stopped. Statement of Karl Brandt. (Tr. p. 2431.) Statement of Brack. (Tr. p. 7543.) According to both statements, the practice was suspended because of an oral order by Hitler to Karl Brandt. (Oral order of suspension was sufficient, since the legal ordinance itself was not revoked, because in principle euthanasia was supposed to be continued after the war. Continuation of the Reich Committee for Children.)

Suspension of euthanasia is confirmed through the following depositions: Statement by Blome. (Tr. p. 4653.) Statement by Pfannmueller. (Tr. p. 7348.) Statement by Dr. Schmidt. (Tr. p. 1823.) Statement by Dr. Mennecke. (Tr. p. 1879.) According to these testimonies, euthanasia was discontinued in Hadamar in August 1941 and the gas chambers removed. (See record of Hadamar Trial, especially indictment^[103].)

The witnesses say further that euthanasia was no longer practiced at Eichberg either.

Affidavit of Irene Asam-Bruckmueller. The witness confirms suspension in Ansbach; she places this in the year 1942. (3865-PS, Pros. Ex. 365.)

Affidavit of Jordans. According to this, the witness learned in March 1942 that there had been a euthanasia program in other institutions, too, which now had been discontinued. (3882-PS, Pros. Ex. 371.)

Kirchert affidavit. According to this, suspension occurred in the summer of 1941. (Karl Brandt 18, Karl Brandt Ex. 15.)

Mennecke correspondence. The witness writes on 15 June 1942 of “re-commencement” of euthanasia. (NO-907, Pros. Ex. 412.)

Number of dead.

Statement by Karl Brandt on the number of insane falling under the authorization of 1 September 1939. (Tr. p. 2465.) Brack estimates them at 50,000 to 60,000. (Tr. p. 7610.)

Pfannmueller statement. The number of report forms which were made out does not equal the number of persons marked for euthanasia. This number contains only a fairly small percentage of persons, who were judged eligible for euthanasia. (Tr. p. 7384.)

Registration by report forms.

In general.

Statement by Karl Brandt. (Tr. p. 2401.) According to this, Karl Brandt did not assist in drawing up the report forms. They were drafted by the Reich Ministry of the Interior (Linden).

Pfannmueller statement. (Tr. p. 7322.) According to this, the directives were worked out as a result of the conference of experts at which Karl Brandt was not present.

In detail.

Pfannmueller statement. (Tr. p. 7324.) According to this, no persons incapable of work were supposed to be registered, but only the insane, with whom the inability to work was a special characteristic of their diseased state.

Wesse Affidavit (in lieu of cross-examination). (NO-129, Pros. Ex. 105.)

Statement of Karl Brandt. (Tr. p. 2465.) According to Karl Brandt, the registration of Jews, foreigners, and war wounded was presumably carried out for statistical reasons.

Statement of Brack. (Tr. pp. 7596-8.) According to Brack the opinion of Karl Brandt about the reasons for the inclusion of the above-mentioned question is false and is based on “lack of professional knowledge” by Karl Brandt. Brack says that the questions were included only for the purpose of concealing the practice of euthanasia in the sanatoriums and nursing homes, from their personnel and their patients, and to veil the true purpose of the questionnaire. (For the same reason the purpose of the transfer was given out as “planned economic registration.”)

Rosenau affidavit about camouflaging purpose of the report forms. (Karl Brandt 130, Karl Brandt Ex. 106.) Letter concerning the registration of workhouses. (NO-781, Pros. Ex. 379.) Not the old and disabled are registered, but only those cases of insanity that can no longer be treated.

Brack statement. (Tr. p. 7599.) Foreigners were sorted out in T 4.

Brack statement. (Tr. p. 7593.) According to this, foreigners were exempt from euthanasia. They were screened in the central office T 4. If single sheets for appraisal possibly went further, then this was because of incorrect transmission. Wounded veterans of World War I, just like Jews, were screened at the central office T 4. Report forms were made out for Jews, but they were not registered for the euthanasia procedure.

Classification procedure. The accomplishment of the classification procedure was guaranteed by the choice of the appraisers.

Statement by Pfannmueller. (Tr. p. 7377.) According to this, professional persons of proven ability were designated by the Reich Minister of the Interior.

Statement by Mennecke. (Tr. p. 1294.) According to this, university professors lecturing on psychiatry at colleges were appointed as appraisers. The appraisal was preceded by an examination of the patient. After the appraisal a re-examination was made in observation institutions and in the euthanasia institutions.

According to the scheduled procedure special commissions were appointed to examine the insane in nursing homes.

Affidavit of Irene Asam-Bruckmueller. Then came a commission which studied the case histories; among them were two physicians; the commission was in the institution for three days; after three months the transfer was effected. (3865-PS, Pros. Ex. 365.)

Granzer affidavit. In the autumn of 1940 there was a commission of 40 persons; all case histories were asked for and a conference with the local staff physicians followed. An inspection of the patients was held. (3867-PS, Pros. Ex. 369.)

Sellmer report of 6 December 1940, Gauleiter’s office, Franconia. According to this a commission came and examined the files and inspected the patients. (D-906, Pros. Ex. 376.)

Decision of the commission was based on the documents of the institution. (NO-660, Pros. Ex. 377.)

Pfannmueller statement. He recalls that a commission came in 1940. (Tr. p. 7325.)

Further re-examination took place in the observation and euthanasia institutions. The physicians were authorized and obliged to judge the patients on their own responsibility. On an average 4 percent to 6 percent were rejected.

Kneissler affidavit. Witness says that individual persons were rejected. (NO-470, Pros. Ex. 332.)

It appears from the reports that individual patients were sent back. (D-906, Pros. Ex. 376.)

Transfer of patients. Order of transfer.

Statement by Karl Brandt. “Operation Brandt” has nothing to do with the transfer. Through inquiries at sanatoriums and nursing homes, special Karl Brandt project concerning euthanasia order. According to this inquiry the hospitals of the special Brandt project accepted patients from areas endangered by air raids as evacuation hospitals. The transfer which became necessary had no connection with euthanasia. (Karl Brandt 86, Karl Brandt Ex. 88.)

Schnelle affidavit. According to this “Operation Brandt” meant the removal of patients and chronic sufferers to medicinal baths. (Karl Brandt 21, Karl Brandt Ex. 17.)

Miesen affidavit. According to this Karl Brandt charged them with the manufacture of ambulances which were then lacking. (From this it appears that up to that time other means of transportation had to be used, among others the Red Cross, etc., and also the General Sick Transport Company, which had likewise been used for transport purposes in the battle zones of the East.) Compare also the widely popular expression “Operation Brandt” in purely economic fields. (Karl Brandt 28.^[104])

Schieber affidavit. (Karl Brandt 22, Karl Brandt Ex. 18.)

Grabe affidavit. (Karl Brandt 86, Karl Brandt Ex. 88.)

Kehrl affidavit. (Karl Brandt 90, Karl Brandt Ex. 89.)

Order of transfer through other agencies. Collective transport of Jews takes place under the reference of “Initial Decree of the State [Bavarian] Ministry [of Interior] in Munich.” (NO-1141, Pros. Ex. 348.)

Collective transport of Eastern workers ordered by the Oberpraesident through Bernotat. (NO-891, Pros. Ex. 414.)

Transfer through Munich [Bavarian] State Ministry [of Interior]. (NO-1132, Pros. Ex. 341.)

Transfer through the Province Governor of Military District III. (NO-1133, Pros. Ex. 335.)

Transfer through Military District III. (NO-826, Pros. Ex. 356.)

Transfer through Munich Ministry. (D-906, Pros. Ex. 376.)

Motives for the transfer. The transfer from institutions was effected for various reasons as a result of wartime conditions, such as evacuation of districts endangered by air raids, evacuation on account of proximity to the front and evacuation under consideration of inner displacements.

Ganzer affidavit. (3827-PS, Pros. Ex. 369.) According to this, the evacuations became frequent on account of wartime conditions and it was not easily apparent to the outsider why they were effected. The evacuation from Warstein to Hadamar, where reference is made to an order by Karl Brandt, could not have taken place on account of euthanasia, as Hadamar at this time had discontinued euthanasia. The change was made for reasons of air raid precaution.

Carrying out of the evacuation.

Statement of Karl Brandt. The evacuation was carried out by the Cooperative Ambulance Company through Office T 4, which was not subordinate to Karl Brandt. The Cooperative Ambulance Company was not employed for euthanasia transports alone. Whenever it was used, the account was rendered through the clearing office which settled the matter centrally.

Affidavit by Schieber on procurement of lacking ambulance space through the defendant Karl Brandt. (Karl Brandt 22, Karl Brandt Ex. 18.)

Affidavit by Miesen. (Karl Brandt 28.^[105])

Statement of Mennecke on the assignment of the Cooperative Ambulance Company, 1941-42, in the East.

Deportation of Jews. Here a separation of the Jews according to nationality is carried out. Poles and Jews from Bohemia and Moravia shall not be transferred because they do not belong to the area of the transport. This shows that the aim of the deportation was not euthanasia, because separation according to nationality would have been senseless. (NO-1310, Pros. Ex. 337.)

Affidavit by Schnidtmann. He expresses his opinion on the transfer of workers from the East on 18 September 1944; they are to be returned to their home institutions. This would have been superfluous in the case of intended euthanasia. (NO-720, Pros. Ex. 366.)

Affidavit by Rosenau. (Karl Brandt 130, Karl Brandt Ex. 106.)

Reasons for euthanasia. Euthanasia was brought about on the basis of an authorization given to the directors of the euthanasia institutions on 1 September 1939. This authorization was no order to carry out euthanasia but merely gave permission to arrange for euthanasia after examination based on a critical judgment of the condition of the illness. Consequently, doctors acted on their own responsibility.

The means for the execution of euthanasia.

Statement of Brack. According to this statement, carbon monoxide (CO) was used as a means. This is scientifically proved to be the least painful manner of death. The use of other methods proves that such an execution of euthanasia does not conform with the intended procedure, but is carried out on personal initiative. (Tr. p. 7743.)

Statement of Rose. (Tr. p. 6363.) Opinion on the reduction of food in medical institutions. (NO-872, Pros. Ex. 403.) Rose declares that this did not result in any particular reduction or neglect of the patients.

Experimental killing of insane persons.

The handing-over of patients from the institution of Eglfing-Haar is under consideration. (No euthanasia). (1696-PS, Pros. Ex. 357.)

Issue of false death certificates and notices.

Meltzer opinion. (Karl Brandt 85, Karl Brandt Ex. 94.) This document contains an inquiry sent to 200 relatives regarding their attitude towards euthanasia. Most of the relatives agree to it; it is characteristic that many disagree but declare that they do not wish to be asked and that the matter had best be kept secret and covered up (death should come unexpectedly not influenced by the wishes and interests of others and should not burden the relatives). Professor Meltzer, an opponent of euthanasia, arranged for the examination as the director of an insane asylum in order to obtain an argument against the main advocates of euthanasia in Germany, Binding and Hoche, and he declared that he was surprised at the result shown by the questionnaire.

Euthanasia compared with Medical Euthanasia

Position taken in the indictment

Position of the defense

In addition to the prescribed euthanasia based on authorization a so-called “wild euthanasia” took place, upon which the defendant Karl Brandt had no influence, and of which he had no knowledge.

Euthanasia on Polish Nationals. The authorization by Karl Brandt was limited to the occupied territories, which were subordinate to special administration, like the administration for the Government of Poland and the Protectorate as well as the Communication Zone. Karl Brandt therefore cannot be held responsible for the events which took place in the insane asylums in Poland. The removal of Eglfing-Haar to the occupied territories was carried out by the Cooperative Ambulance Company, but the fact of the transport shows obviously that death was not intended, as such a deportation would have been senseless. The seizure of Poles in the Polish district Zichenau by the Reich Security Main Office proves that quite another organization is at work than the organization for euthanasia in Germany, which was Appointed by the Ministry of the Interior as supervisory authority.

Euthanasia in the Communication Zone.

Affidavit by Halder. (Karl Brandt 116, Karl Brandt Ex. 92.) Rumors that inmates of the insane asylum of Novgorod and others had been killed reached Halder. He knows that Karl Brandt was not mentioned in this connection as he held no authority in this field and that his appearance would be particularly noticeable.

Extermination in Auschwitz.

Letter from Brack to Himmler. (NO-205, Pros. Ex. 163.) The letter shows that the defendant Karl Brandt had nothing to do with the deportation of persons to Auschwitz. Brack designates the “men” as his “personnel” and on his own initiative offers further personnel in his direct correspondence with Himmler.

Statement of Brack. (Tr. p. 7530.) He points out that he had not accused Brandt himself of having any knowledge of or part in this, but merely that the possibility was presented to him during the interrogation by the prosecution. He had attempted to maintain his opinion through changes in the text of the affidavit composed for him. The text presented to him definitely mentioned Brandt as a confidant. It was stated there:

“It was impossible for these people to participate without the knowledge of Karl Brandt” further “that this order could have been issued by Karl Brandt only.” Brack has changed the text in the best possible way and has rearranged the sentence as follows: “It would have been impossible for these people to participate.” To the phrase “only by order of Karl Brandt” was added “possibly Bouhler.”

Statement of Hielscher. (Tr. p. 5982 ff.) On cross-examination, the witness testified to the trustworthiness of the witness Gerstein, who since submitting the affidavit can no longer be traced and is presumed to be hiding.

Statement of Mennecke. (Tr. p. 1912.) The witness has not learned any more in regard to the rumors of euthanasia in Lublin and the participation of Karl Brandt in these matters in spite of his particular interest.

The Workers from the East.

Statement of Schnidtmann. (NO-720, Pros. Ex. 366.) Subsequently the transfer of the insane Eastern workers to a home institution took place. No euthanasia was therefore carried out; a transfer for this purpose would have been senseless.

Euthanasia after Cessation in 1941

Position taken in the indictment

Position of the defense

With the cessation of euthanasia in August 1941, a new procedure appeared in which Karl Brandt no longer participated. Karl Brandt personally was fully occupied with special commissions in other fields (building of hospitals; since 1942 Commissioner General; since 1944 Reich Commissioner for Health and Medical Care). The cessation was ordered during August 1941. Subsequently euthanasia was discontinued.

Statement of Schmidt. (Tr. p. 1879.) Hadamar in August 1941. (Compare also the documents of the Hadamar Trial,^[106] particularly indictment.)

The same applies to Eichberg in August 1941. (Tr. p. 1879.)

Affidavit by Kirchert. According to this there was general cessation in the summer of 1941. (Karl Brandt 18, Karl Brandt Ex. 15.)

Affidavit by Asam-Bruckmueller. (3865-PS, Pros. Ex. 365.) According to this euthanasia was also discontinued in Ansbach.

Affidavit by Jordans. (3882-PS, Pros. Ex. 371.) Hereby euthanasia was also discontinued in other institutions in 1942.

(The statements regarding date of cessation may be erroneous inasmuch as they were made long after the end of 1941. It is also possible that in spite of the order to cease, some places still carried on upon the instruction of the local authorities.)

A new purpose for euthanasia is presented, which begins after the cessation. The motive is no longer medical and also has no more connection with the authorization.

Letter from Liebehenschel to the concentration camp of Gross-Rosen of 12 December 1941 on the discharge of prisoners. (1151-PS, Pros. Ex. 411.)

Correspondence of Mennecke. (NO-907, Pros. Ex. 412.) Therein a report is made about the cooperation of a new group, concerned with extermination. Under the date of 15 June 1942 Mennecke speaks about the “re-commencement” of euthanasia.

Statement of Brack. The witness reports of Bouhler’s worry that before requesting the euthanasia commission on 1 September 1939, Bormann and other powers might wish to use the opportunity and he feared they might abuse it (wild euthanasia).

Legal foundations. Karl Brandt is not acquainted with the legal foundation for such proceedings after expiration of the authorization of 1 September 1939. After the cessation of euthanasia in August 1941, the powers held on the basis of the authorization of 1 September 1939 could no longer be exercised.

Statement of Karl Brandt. (Tr. p. 2421.) According to this, Karl Brandt, in 1944 learned of two cases in Saxony and of one in Pomerania where euthanasia was carried out. He forwarded this report to Hitler, Bormann, and Bouhler because he felt that within Bormann’s sphere extremists were at work.

Organization. The old organization was abandoned or considerably reduced. (Compare the indictment of the Hadamar Case^[107] regarding the liquidation office.)

The physicians were dismissed in August 1941 from the Office, Tiergartenstrasse 4.

Letter from Brack to Himmler of 23 June 1942. (NO-205, Pros. Ex. 163.) Here he refers to the former transfer of personnel and once more offers people from the remaining personnel.

It seems that the organization was now under the influence of Himmler. Karl Brandt was eliminated by the cessation in 1941.

Affidavit of Beringer. (NO-808, Pros. Ex. 425.) The witness says, “it was an open secret in the Gau that Mennecke was charged by Himmler to search the mental institutions of Germany for insane persons.”

Activity of the former organization. Registration sheet.

Letter of the Reich Ministry of the Interior of 1 August 1940. (3871-PS, Pros. Ex. 359.) According to this all sick persons are now to be reported. The letter is addressed to the private clinic of Hertz at Bonn.

Testimony of Mennecke. (Tr. p. 1902.) According to this, the program was not resumed again in its original form.

Some of the experts had retired.

The killing no longer took place by carbon monoxide but by other means and by other methods.

In part the dead were not burned anymore but buried (as at Hadamar).

Elimination in the Concentration Camps

Position taken in the indictment

Position of the defense

Motive is not reconcilable with medical authorization; this does not allow euthanasia for political or economic reasons.

Testimony of Mennecke. (Tr. p. 1913.) The witness explains that the execution was a complete breach of the directive at the start of euthanasia. “At least it had nothing to do with the euthanasia of lunatics.”

Testimony of Karl Brandt.

Time.

Testimony of Mennecke. (Tr. p. 1933.) According to this Brack spoke of undertaking an examination in the KL [concentration camp] Oranienburg for the first time in the summer of 1940.

Testimony of Roemhild. (Tr. p. 1659.) The witness says that a second action 14 f 13 started in 1943 (therefore an independent action after the suspension of 1941). From that the independent character of the “first action 14 f 13” must be concluded, and it is to be assumed that it was ordered by the Reich Criminal Police Office, Berlin, as was the second action 14 f 13.

According to the testimony of Mennecke (Tr. p. 1914), Action 14 f 13 did not start with the first visit in 1940, but at first it was only an expert opinion according to medical points of view. In 1940 prisoners were examined by him in the concentration camp Buchenwald and registration forms filled out. At that time the examination extended to phychoses and psychopathy.

Affidavit of Muthig. According to this a transport went from Dachau to Mauthausen in December 1941 after examination by Heyde. (NO-2799, Pros. Ex. 497.)

Order. There were two parallel orders:

The order of the office of Bouhler in accordance with the Euthanasia Program, according to which from 1940 on the lunatics in the concentration camps were examined according to the directions.

Testimony of Mennecke. (Tr. p. 1935.) According to this, the order to visit the concentration camps was issued in the summer of 1940.

The order of Himmler to submit to the special treatment of action 14 f 13, or to kill undesirable prisoners, regardless of these examinations.

Letter of 10 December 1941 regarding the special action 14 f 13. (1151-PS, Pros. Ex. 411.)

Affidavit of Hoven. Order by Himmler was at hand for the execution of these actions. (NO-429, Pros. Ex. 281.) Further testimony of Hoven.

Report of Dr. Morgen in the proceedings against Hoven: “The right to decide about the life or death of prisoners in the concentration camps is assigned to the Reich Leader SS Himmler.” (NO-2366, Pros. Ex. 526.)

Organization. Two organizations working side by side have to be distinguished: (1) Organization for the selection of real lunatics according to the authorization of 1 December 1939. Here the organization of Bouhler is active up to summer 1941 within the framework of the former directives. (2) Organization for extermination contrary to the former directives, exclusively by Himmler and the Reich Security Main Office.

Testimony of Roemhild, about Action 14 f 13. (Tr. p. 1641.)

Testimony of Roemhild. (Tr. p. 1644.) According to this, Dr. Lolling participated, and was corresponding about it with Himmler.

Testimony of Roemhild. (Tr. p. 1659.) According to this, the second Action 14 f 13 started on the orders of the Reich Criminal Police Office, Berlin.

It was the independent work of Lolling in the concentration camp Oranienburg. (1151-PS, Pros. Ex. 411.)

Letter from concentration camp Gross-Rosen to the institution Bernburg. (NO-1873, Pros. Ex. 556.)

Report on special treatment to Main Economic and Administrative Office. (1234-PS, Pros. Ex. 555.)

Execution. Nothing was done before the suspension in August 1941.

Testimony of Mennecke. (Tr. p. 1933.) According to this, the first visit in 1940 was not the start. Until autumn 1941 there was only a general examination of the insane persons.

Testimony of Mennecke. (Tr. p. 1940.) There were no objections regarding the examination of insane persons in the first action.

Testimony of Mennecke. (Tr. p. 1890.) According to this, Mennecke himself filled out the registration forms, and they were treated in the same way as the registration forms of mental institutions. This was only so during the first visits of Mennecke, while the examinations were still taking place according to the prescribed medical points of view.

After autumn 1941 another procedure was adopted. The registration forms were no longer supplied by Tiergartenstrasse 4, but produced and filled out by the inspectorate of the concentration camp.

The filling out of the registration forms is restricted to a few points according to an order of the Reich Security Main Office. (1151-PS, Pros. Ex. 411.) It was sufficient to fill out the particulars of the form underlined in red. These were name, date of birth, religion, race, since when in institution, physical incurable complaints, disabled soldier, offense, former criminal offenses.

Testimony of Mennecke. (Tr. p. 1914.) He does not know what a physician is expected to tell from registration forms filled out in such a way.

No expert was present. (NO-907, Pros. Ex. 412.)

In the proceedings 14 f 13, the consideration of the disease was not the main thing.

Here there is talk about “special treatment 14 f 13”; it has nothing to do with euthanasia but is extermination. (NO-158, Pros. Ex. 410.)

Correspondence of the Main Economic and Administration Office with the concentration camp Gross-Rosen. (1234-PS, Pros. Ex. 555.) Only special treatment is mentioned. The word “euthanasia” nowhere appears.

Examination. The fact that the Mauthausen concentration camp is mentioned as a place of execution, which was not empowered to carry out the euthanasia within the framework of the order of 1 September 1939, shows the arbitrariness of the “action.” It must be assumed that Himmler included Bernburg, favorably situated to him, in the exercise of his own full powers. The difference in the examination according to the directions and according to the proceedings applied in the concentration camp is shown in the correspondence of Mennecke.

Correspondence of Mennecke. (NO-907, Pros. Ex. 412.)

Testimony of Mennecke. (Tr. p. 1882.) According to this, it later on depended only on ascertaining reasons for the arrest, and not on the medical examination.

Letter from the concentration camp Gross-Rosen to Liebehenschel of 25 March 1942. (1151-PS, Pros. Ex. 411.) According to this, a part of the “eliminated prisoners” became “fit for work” again.

Communication of the concentration camp Gross-Rosen of 16 November 1941 about the elimination of prisoners. (NO-158, Pros. Ex. 410.) The killing was done at the institutions of Bernburg and in the concentration camp Mauthausen.

Connection of Karl Brandt with the Concentration Camps.

Affidavit of Dietzsch. (NO-1314, Pros. Ex. 433.) According to this, Karl Brandt was said to have been in Buchenwald.

Appendix—Affidavit of Dietzsch. (Karl Brandt 98, Karl Brandt Ex. 39.) Dietzsch corrects his supposition and explains he did not see Karl Brandt in Buchenwald.

Testimony of Hoven. (Tr. p. 9911.)

The correspondence submitted was conducted exclusively by offices of concentration camps.

Appendix—Report of Dr. Morgen shows that the right over life and death is assigned to Reich Leader SS Himmler. (NO-2366, Pros. Ex. 526.) The name of Karl Brandt is not mentioned in the correspondence.

The witness Mennecke cannot give any information about the activity of Karl Brandt within the framework of the special treatment 14 f 13 attributed to him by the indictment.

Euthanasia Practice on Children (Reich Committee)

Position taken in the indictment

Position of the defense

Motive. From a medical standpoint, it is a humane motive to shorten the lives of children not fit to live.

Testimony of Schmidt. (Tr. p. 1854.) At the discussion in 1941 only medical viewpoints were dealt with. The Reich Committee was already being prepared before the authorization of 1 September 1939 (Leipzig case).

Time. Execution was in force from 1940 to 1944.

Testimony of Pfannmueller. (Tr. p. 7310.) Execution at Eglfing-Haar did not start before 1 June 1940.