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.
Pfannmueller letter to Reich Committee of 17 January 1941. (NO-1139, Pros. Ex. 346.) It refers to agreement of 10 December 1940 in connection with decision of 18 August 1939.
Kaufbeuren documents. (1696-PS, Pros. Ex. 357.) According to this, euthanasia was carried on in the Irrsee Institute, even after the occupation in 1945.
Supplement, Affidavit of Weese. (Karl Brandt 129, Karl Brandt Ex. 105.) Opinion on the state of disease was arrived at objectively by medical examination.
Legal basis. Legal basis was the authorization of 1 September 1939, which had not been suspended or annulled for the activity of the Reich Committee.
Decree regarding treatment of malformed children. (Brack 52, Brack Ex. 43.) Circular of 1 July 1940, published in the Ministerial Gazette. There, compulsory reporting of malformed and insane children is provided for.
Organization.
Affidavit of Sprauer, according to which the direction of the Reich Committee was in the hands of von Linden at the Reich Ministry and not under Karl Brandt. (3896-PS, Pros. Ex. 372.)
Testimony of Karl Brandt, according to which the direction was with Linden of the Reich Ministry of the Interior. (Tr. p. 2433.)
Affidavits of Engel and Schaub. Karl Brandt was attached to the Fuehrer’s General Headquarters. (Karl Brandt 81, Karl Brandt Ex. 85; Karl Brandt 80, Karl Brandt Ex. 98.)
Testimony of Mennecke. (Tr. p. 1903.) Mennecke never saw a document signed by Karl Brandt. He never saw him and never heard him speak. Karl Brandt was only available to give advice. In a few cases, he was consulted when there were doubts about the final expert opinion.
Testimony of Brack. (Tr. p. 7612.) According to this Bouhler and Brandt voiced their opinion on the judgment of experts only in questionable cases. Further observation was indicated if there were doubts at all.
Testimony of Karl Brandt. (Tr. p. 2532.) According to this, Karl Brandt resigned from the Reich Committee in the summer of 1942. He was not used as an expert.
Letter of the Reich Committee of 16 November 1943 regarding the child Anna Gasse. (NO-890, Pros Ex. 443.)
Testimony of Karl Brandt. (Tr. p. 2541.) By virtue of this letter, addressed to Karl Brandt, an inquiry by the Reich Committee is addressed to the Eichberg Institution. This incident is the outcome of the claim of an incompetent person. The letter shows precisely that Karl Brandt did not have an office of his own, but that he remitted the letter to the competent official authority.
Execution.
Registration was handled by the Reich Ministry of the Interior. (NO-1132, Pros. Ex. 341.)
The notification about the children was made, as required by law, by physicians, midwives, and clinics.
Testimony of Pfannmueller. (Tr. p. 7312.) According to this, the registration sheets were published in the gazette of the Reich Ministry.
Sick records had to be attached to the report. (NO-1133, Pros. Ex. 335.)
Directive issued by the Reich Ministry of the Interior to the effect that personnel and sick records are to be attached. (NO-1132, Pros. Ex. 341.)
Letter of 30 April 1941, with regard to the child Thalmeyer. (NO-1138, Pros. Ex. 349.) In that case a medical report on the child was especially required.
Testimony of Schmidt. (Tr. p. 1828.) According to this, the registration followed upon information obtained from health offices, midwives, and clinics for children.
Medical opinion was given by special advisers who cooperated with official physicians.
Affidavit of Weese. (Karl Brandt 129, Karl Brandt Ex. 105.)
The transfer of partly Jewish children has no connection with the Reich Committee.
Directive issued by the Provincial President Bernotat of 15 May 1943 concerning the collection of part Jews. (NO-893, Pros. Ex. 426.)
Consent of the parents.
Letter of the Reich Committee of 9 January 1943 to the health office at Tuttlingen. (Karl Brandt 40, Karl Brandt Ex. 84.) There the competent authority declares that a transfer of a child is not permissible in principle if the consent of the parents is not given.
Testimony of Brack. (Tr. p. 7612.) The consent of the parents was secured by the official physician or by the physician in charge, in other words, before the child was taken to the clinic.
It was up to the practicing physicians to inform the parents of the type of treatment which the child would undergo and of the prospects of success. (Brack 52, Brack Ex. 43.) The probability of death was stressed.
Testimony of Karl Brandt. (Tr. p. 2399.) According to this, the parents were treated with care while being questioned, in order that their conscience should not bother them later.
Testimony of Karl Brandt. (Tr. p. 2544.) According to this the consent of the parents was not put into writing but was given orally and then a note made of it in the files. No child was removed against the express wishes of the parents.
How the killing was done.
Testimony of Pfannmueller (Tr. p. 7331) rebuts affidavit of Jordans (3882-PS, Pros. Ex. 371). According to this, where treatment was not possible any more, putting to sleep by narcotics was effected by the physician of the institution. There was no National Socialist nursing staff to carry out the killing.
Testimony of Pfannmueller. (Tr. p. 7304.) Comment on the statement in the affidavit of Lehner according to which euthanasia was not practiced on children before the war.
Testimony of Pfannmueller. (Tr. p. 7329.) Comment on the conference of the Bavarian Ministry of the Interior in 1942. According to this, the starvation process had not been ordered but on account of the general food situation no additional food supplies were permitted which exceeded the rations of the civilian population.
Affidavit of Weese. (Karl Brandt 129, Karl Brandt Ex. 105.) Graph indicating cases of death of insane persons in the Kaufbeuren Clinic from 1910 till 1944. (Karl Brandt 123, Karl Brandt Ex. 93.) The graph shows that during the membership of Karl Brandt in the Reich Committee the number of cases of death did not really exceed those of World War I. Only after his retirement does the curve rise suddenly.
Performance of experiments by Professor McCance on children not fit to live in the Military Hospital, Wuppertal, in 1946. (Karl Brandt 93, Karl Brandt Ex. 29.)
Testimony of Brack. (Tr. p. 7716.) According to this, the consent of the parents was secured in some form or other.
Authorization. The authorization was given for each case separately on the basis of the files.
Testimony of Pfannmueller. (Tr. p. 7304.) About the types of children in question.
Affidavit of Leusser. (3864-PS, Pros. Ex. 367.) There it is pointed out that the children stood at the lowest level of idiocy.
Testimony of Schmidt. (Tr. p. 1821.) The witness names the type of diseases in question. He says that the consultants and chief consultants gave the authorization.
Testimony of Pfannmueller. (Tr. p. 7314.) According to this, the authorization orders did not read that the life of the children was to be shortened, but it was only an authorization for treatment.
Affidavit of Schmidt. (3816-PS, Pros. Ex. 370.) The witness has seen many certificates of authorization, all of which were signed by Hegener.
Special authorization. The Reich Committee could not issue special authorizations for adults. The signature of Hegener in individual cases is in contradiction to issued directives. It was an arbitrary evasion of the decreed cessation of euthanasia.
EXTRACTS FROM THE FINAL PLEA FOR THE DEFENDANT
BRACK[[108]]
The defendants in this trial, who are doctors, were accused in General Taylor’s opening speech of having committed atrocities under the guise of medical science. The defendant Brack is not one of these doctors. Brack would probably not even have appeared before you as a war criminal had his superior Bouhler been still alive. Brack worked as an expert in the Fuehrer’s Chancellery and in his field of work had nothing to do with medical problems. Nor is Brack accused by the prosecution of having participated in medical experiments.
However, Brack is accused of participation in the genocide policy of the Third Reich insofar as he participated in the Euthanasia Program and the sterilization experiments, and was conscious of their destructive purpose.
In the judgment of the IMT the word “euthanasia” or “Euthanasia Program” is not used at all. It only mentions measures that were taken for the purpose of killing all the old, mentally ill, and all those who had incurable diseases, in special institutions; this included German nationals and foreign workers who were unable to work. In the separate judgment of the defendant Frick,[[109]] too, only these measures are mentioned.
Any connection, or even the possibility of such a connection between these measures and persecution of the Jews, dealt with in a separate chapter, in particular with the plans drawn up in the summer of 1941 for a “final solution” of the Jewish question in Europe, was never established by the IMT nor even hinted at.
Until 1939 the word “euthanasia” was unknown to Brack as well as to large circles of the German population. That this word originally meant the “art” of dying, or to meet death with serene calm, had remained the secret of those scientists who were interested in the Greek language.
During the course of centuries the meaning of this word changed. It first became the expression for the attempt of the physician—originating in human compassion, developed by medical science—to alleviate the end of a dying person by soothing his pain. But then the meaning of the word, and with it the concept of euthanasia, was expanded, and towards the end of the 19th century it meant assistance in dying through an abbreviation of life if the life of the suffering person had lost its value in view of immediate and painful death, or as a result of an incurable disease.
It is a fact that this kind of euthanasia has been applied throughout the world since time began and can be traced back to the Twelve Tables of Ancient Rome and to the epoch of state socialism in antiquity.
The assertion of the prosecution that euthanasia was the product of National Socialism and its racial theories can be indisputably refuted by history.
Even if the prosecution is of a different opinion, the Tribunal cannot overlook the fact that the testimony of Karl Brandt, Brack, Pfannmueller, Hederich, Schultze, Grabe, Gertrud Kallmeyer, and Walter Eugen Schmidt, all stated independently that the measures started according to Hitler’s will in the autumn of 1939 only applied to incurable, mentally ill persons, and were suspended in 1941. For these measures, the participants used the word and the concept of “euthanasia” in the meaning of the final medical assistance, whether justly or injustly, will be discussed later.
It is not uninteresting to note that the word “Euthanasia Program” appears for the first time in the Brack affidavit (NO-426, Pros. Ex. 160), which was drawn up by the prosecution after several interrogations; Brack at that time was in a state of physical and mental exhaustion and, therefore, not in a position to realize clearly what he said.
The defense, in agreement with the prosecution, refrained from presenting an expert medical opinion, but did not, as the prosecution now asserts, refuse to present it.
I regret very deeply that the prosecution, when using the word “Euthanasia Program” coined by them, characterizes without sufficient proof the euthanasia applied in 1939-1941 for the incurably sick as the conscious and deliberate precursor of the different actions of annihilation which mark the milestones of the mental and moral ruins left to the German people by men who had become insane.
If the prosecution had been sure of their assumption, they would not have had to submit those extremely doubtful documents with which they tried to prove in cross-examination that the defendant Brack participated in planning the mass extermination of the Jews.
How, in the face of such insufficient evidence which is opposed by numerous cases of intervention for Jews in that period of time—I only recall the cases Warburg and Georgii—and in the face of Brack’s sworn statements about his attitude towards Jewry, can the prosecution assert that Brack participated in planning the extermination of the Jews? In this way, the prosecution closed the circle incriminating Brack, which they drew round the euthanasia of incurable mental patients, the Action 14 f 13, and the final measures to exterminate the Jews.
I wish to stress again that everything that happened after the stop in August 1941 in the way of abuse by the euthanasia institutions had nothing to do with the euthanasia of the incurably insane which was supported by Brack. An opposing view would only be suitable to make a historical record which is not supported by the weight of the judgment of the International Military Tribunal, but merely corresponds to a conjecture which in the decisive points themselves is void of every substantiated basis.
d. Evidence
| Prosecution Documents | |||
| Pros. Ex. | |||
| Doc. No. | No. | Description of Document | Page |
| NO-426 | 160 | Extract from the affidavit of defendant Brack, 14 October 1946, describing administrative details and procedure of the Euthanasia Program. | [842] |
| 615-PS | 246 | Letter from Dr. Hilfrich, Bishop of Limburg, to the Reich Minister of Justice, 13 August 1941, protesting against the killing of mentally ill people. | [845] |
| NO-429 | 281 | Extract from the affidavit of defendant Hoven, 24 October 1946, concerning the transfer of concentration camp inmates to euthanasia stations for extermination. | [847] |
| 630-PS | 330 | Letter from Hitler to Karl Brandt and Bouhler, 1 September 1939, charging them with the execution of euthanasia. | [848] |
| NO-1135 | 334 | Confirmation, 30 August 1940, of the transfer of mental patients with list of transferred patients attached. | [848] |
| 1696-PS | 357 | Letter from Dr. Conti to the Mental Hospital in Kaufbeuren, 16 November 1939, requesting that questionnaires (attached) be filled out for individual patients; letter from the General Sick Transport Company to the Mental Hospital in Kaufbeuren, 12 May 1941, stating that the company would remove mental patients; report from the Provincial Association for Social Welfare in Swabia, 6 May 1941, that all transferred patients had died; letter from Gaum, 24 November 1942, to Dr. Leinisch stating that epileptics would be made available for research. | [849] |
| 3896-PS | 372 | Extract from the affidavit of Dr. Ludwig Sprauer, 23 April 1946, concerning the organization of the Euthanasia Program. | [853] |
| NO-520 | 374 | Letter from the chief of the institution for feeble-minded in Stetten to Dr. Frank, 6 September 1940, requesting that euthanasia be carried out only after legal basis was created. | [854] |
| NO-660 | 377 | Note by Sellmer, 6 December 1940, describing the method of selection for euthanasia. | [855] |
| NO-018 | 404 | Letter from Himmler to Brack, 19 December 1940, requesting that Euthanasia Station Grafeneck be discontinued and that motion pictures be shown to dispel rumors. | [856] |
| NO-842 | 405 | Letter from Brack to Dr. Schlegelberger, 18 April 1941, forwarding forms for euthanasia and suggesting that death notifications should not follow a stereotyped form. | [857] |
| NO-158 | 410 | Letter from Hirche, administrator of the Mental Institution Bernburg, to camp commandant of the Gross-Rosen concentration camp, 19 March 1942, with list of inmates transferred from the concentration camp to Bernburg. | [858] |
| NO-907 | 412 | Extract from letter from Dr. Fritz Mennecke to his wife, 25 November 1941, concerning his activities as physician selecting inmates of concentration camp Buchenwald for euthanasia. | [861] |
| NO-1007 | 413 | Circular from Gluecks to concentration camp commandants, 27 April 1943, stating that in the future only insane prisoners should be used for Action “14 f 13” (euthanasia). | [862] |
| NO-891 | 414 | Directive of the Reich Minister of the Interior, 6 September 1944, ordering euthanasia extended to insane Eastern workers. | [863] |
| 1553-PS | 428 | Extract from the field interrogation of Kurt Gerstein, 26 April 1945, describing the mass gassing of Jews and other “undesirables.” | [865] |
| NO-365 | 507 | Unsigned draft letter from Dr. Wetzel to Rosenberg, 25 October 1941, dealing with Brack’s collaboration in the construction of gas chambers for the extermination of Jews. | [870] |
| Defense Documents | |||
| Doc. No. | Def. Ex. No. | Description of Documents | |
| Karl Brandt 18 | Karl Brandt Ex. 15 | Extracts from the affidavit of Dr. Werner Kirchert, 29 January 1947, stating that Karl Brandt was not involved in the Euthanasia Program. | [871] |
| Karl Brandt 19 | Karl Brandt Ex. 16 | Affidavit of Alfred Rueggeberg, 23 January 1947, concerning radio discussions on euthanasia. | [872] |
| Karl Brandt 23 | Karl Brandt Ex. 19 | Affidavit of Eduard Woermann, 18 January 1947, concerning discussion of Karl Brandt and Pastor Bodelschwingh on euthanasia. | [873] |
| Pokorny 19 | Pokorny Ex. 27 | Affidavit of Dr. Helmuth Weese, 19 March 1947, concerning use of caladium seguinum for sterilization. | [874] |
| Testimony | |||
| Page | |||
| Extracts from the testimony of prosecution witness Dr. Mennecke | [875] | ||
| Extracts from the testimony of defendant Brack | [876] | ||
| Extract from the testimony of prosecution witness Walter E. Schmidt | [890] | ||
| Extracts from the testimony of defendant Karl Brandt | [892] | ||
PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-426
PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 160
EXTRACT FROM THE AFFIDAVIT OF DEFENDANT BRACK, 14 OCTOBER 1946, DESCRIBING ADMINISTRATIVE DETAILS AND PROCEDURE OF THE EUTHANASIA PROGRAM
The Euthanasia Program
4. The Euthanasia Program was initiated in the summer of 1939. Hitler issued a secret order to Professor Dr. Karl Brandt, Reich Commissioner for Medical and Health Matters, and at that time personal physician to the Fuehrer, and to Philipp Bouhler, charging them with responsibility for the killing of human beings who were unable to live, that is, the according of a mercy death to incurably insane persons. Prior to the issuance of this secret order, Bouhler had a conference with Dr. Brandt and Dr. Leonardo Conti, the Reich Chief for Public Health and State Secretary in the Ministry of Interior. On the basis of this order of Hitler, Bouhler and Brandt were to select doctors to carry out this program. Inasmuch as the insane asylums and other institutions were functions of the Ministry of Interior, Dr. Herbert Linden became the representative of the Ministry of Interior. Dr. Karl Brandt and Philipp Bouhler appointed Professor Dr. Heyde and Professor Dr. Nietsche along with several other medical men to aid in the execution of this Euthanasia Program.
5. Professor Dr. Karl Brandt was in charge of the medical section of the Euthanasia Program. In this capacity, as shown in the chart I have drawn, dated 12 September 1946, Dr. Karl Brandt appointed as his deputies Professor Heyde and Professor Nietsche. In charge of the administrative office under Brandt was first Herr Bohne and later Herr Allers. Three different names were used by Brandt’s section in order to disguise the activities of the organization. The names of the organization are as follows:
Reich Association—Mental Institutions.
Charitable Foundation for Institutional Care.
General Patient Transport Company.
6. In the early stages of this program, Dr. Karl Brandt visited Philipp Bouhler and discussed with him many details of this program. As a matter of fact, after such meetings between Brandt and Bouhler, I received many orders, more often from Bouhler than from Brandt directly.
7. In my capacity as Chief of Office II of Bouhler’s Chancellery, I was ordered to carry out the administrative details of the Euthanasia Program. My deputy was Werner Blankenburg, who eventually became my successor, that is, in the beginning of 1942 when I joined the Waffen SS. Von Hegener, Reinh, Vorberg, and Dr. Hevelmann were members of my staff.
8. In the Ministry of the Interior, Dr. Linden was in charge of the Euthanasia Program and his deputy was Ministerialrat Franke. The Department for Public Health in the Ministry of the Interior had authority over all insane asylums of the Reich, and in this position, my department as well as the office of Dr. Brandt maintained close liaison in order to operate this Euthanasia Program efficiently.
The Procedure
9. By order of Dr. Linden, the directors of all insane asylums in the Reich had to complete questionnaires for each patient in their institutions. These questionnaires were drafted by Bouhler, Heyde, Nietsche, and others in several of their many conferences. The questionnaires were then forwarded to the Ministry of the Interior to be distributed to the various insane asylums and similar institutions. Theoretically, Dr. Linden’s office had the questionnaires returned and then forwarded them to the administrative section of the office of Dr. Brandt. The program was so arranged that photostats of each questionnaire were to be sent to four experts consisting of about 10 to 15 doctors. I do not remember the names of all the members of this panel, but Dr. Pfannmueller, Dr. Schumann, Dr. Faltlhauser, and Dr. Rennaux are fresh in my memory in this connection. Each of these experts indicated by making a certain comment on the questionnaire whether or not the patient could be transferred to an observation institution and eventually killed. The questionnaire was then forwarded to a senior expert. According to the regulation, the senior expert was only entitled to order the transfer of the patient when all four experts voted for the transfer. This senior expert also marked the questionnaire and then submitted it to Dr. Linden who ordered the insane asylum to transfer the patient to one of the observation institutions. Offhand I can remember, among others, the names of the following observation institutions: Eglfing-Haar, Kempten, Jena, Buch, Arnsberg.
10. At these institutions the patients were under the observation of the doctor in charge for a period of 1 to 3 months. The physician had the right to exempt the patient from the program if he decided that the patient was not incurable. If he agreed with the opinion of the senior expert, the patient was transferred to a so-called Euthanasia Institution. I can recall the names of the Euthanasia Institutions—
Grafeneck—under Dr. Schuman.
Brandenburg—under Dr. Hennecke.
Hartheim—under Dr. Rennaux.
Sonnenstein—under Dr. Schmalenbach.
Hadamar—(I do not remember under whose leadership).
Bernburg—under Dr. Behnke or Dr. Becker.
In these institutions the patient was killed by means of gas by the doctor in charge. To the best of my knowledge, about fifty to sixty thousand persons were killed in this way from autumn 1939 to the summer of 1941.
11. The order issued by the Fuehrer to Brandt and Bouhler was secret and never published. The Euthanasia Program itself was kept as secret as possible, and for this reason, relatives of persons killed in the course of the program were never told the real cause of death. The death certificates issued to the relatives carried fictitious causes of death such as heart failure. All persons subjected to the Euthanasia Program did not have an opportunity to decide whether they wanted a mercy death, nor were their relatives contacted for approval or disapproval. The decision was purely within the discretion of the doctors. The program was not restricted to those cases in which the person was “in extremis”.
12. Hitler’s ultimate reason for the establishment of the Euthanasia Program in Germany was to eliminate those people confined to insane asylums and similar institutions who could no longer be of any use to the Reich. They were considered useless objects and Hitler felt that by exterminating these so-called useless eaters, it would be possible to relieve more doctors, male and female nurses, and other personnel, hospital beds and other facilities for the armed forces.
Reich Committee for Research on Hereditary Diseases and Constitutional Susceptibility to Severe Diseases
13. This committee, which was also a function of the Euthanasia Program, was an organization for the killing of children who were born mentally deficient or physically deformed. All physicians assisting at births, midwives, and maternity hospitals were ordered by the Ministry of Interior to report such cases to the office of Dr. Linden in the Ministry of Interior. Experts in the medical section of Dr. Brandt’s office were then ordered to give their opinion in each case. As a matter of fact, the complete file on each case was sent to the offices of Bouhler and Dr. Brandt in order to obtain their opinions and to decide the fate of each child involved. In many cases these children were to be operated upon in such a manner that the result was either complete recovery or death. Death resulted in a majority of these cases. The program was inaugurated in the summer of 1939. Bouhler told me that Dr. Linden had orders to obtain the consent of the parents of each child concerned. I do not know how long this program continued, since I joined the Waffen SS in 1942.
The Connection between the Euthanasia Program and SS Brigadefuehrer Globocnik
14. In 1941 I received an oral order to discontinue the Euthanasia Program. I received this order either from Bouhler or from Dr. Brandt. In order to preserve the personnel relieved of these duties and to have the opportunity of starting a new Euthanasia Program after the war, Bouhler requested, I think after a conference with Himmler, that I send this personnel to Lublin and put it at the disposal of SS Brigadefuehrer Globocnik. I then had the impression that these people were to be used in the extensive Jewish labor camps run by Globocnik. Later, however, at the end of 1942 or the beginning of 1943, I found out that they were used to assist in the mass extermination of the Jews, which was then already common knowledge in higher Party circles.
15. Among the doctors who assisted in the Jewish extermination program were Eberle and Schumann; Schumann performed medical experiments on prisoners in Auschwitz. It would have been impossible for these men to participate in such things without the personal knowledge and consent of Karl Brandt. The order to send these men to the East could have been given only by Himmler to Brandt, possibly through Bouhler.
TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 615-PS
PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 246
LETTER FROM DR. HILFRICH, BISHOP OF LIMBURG, TO THE REICH MINISTER OF JUSTICE, 13 AUGUST 1941, PROTESTING AGAINST THE KILLING OF MENTALLY ILL PEOPLE
The Bishop of Limburg
Limburg/Lahm, 13 August 1941
To the Reich Minister of Justice
Berlin
Regarding the report submitted on July 16 (sub. IV, pp. 6-7) by the Chairman of the Fulda Bishops’ Conference, Cardinal Dr. Bertram, I consider it my duty to present the following as a concrete illustration of destruction of so-called “useless life”.
About 8 kilometers from Limburg in the little town of Hadamar, on a hill overlooking the town, there is an institution which had formerly served various purposes and of late had been used as a nursing home. This institution was renovated and furnished as a place in which, by concensus of opinion, the above-mentioned euthanasia has been systematically practiced for months—approximately since February 1941. The fact is, of course, known beyond the administrative district of Wiesbaden because death certificates from the Hadamar-Moenchberg Registry are sent to the home communities. (Moenchberg is the name of this institution because it was a Franciscan monastery prior to its secularization in 1803.)
Several times a week busses arrive in Hadamar with a considerable number of such victims. School children of the vicinity know this vehicle and say: “There comes the murder-box again.” After the arrival of the vehicle, the citizens of Hadamar watch the smoke rise out of the chimney and are tortured with the ever-present thought of depending on the direction of the wind.
The effect of the principles at work here are that children call each other names and say, “You’re crazy; you’ll be sent to the baking oven in Hadamar.” Those who do not want to marry, or find no opportunity, say, “Marry, never! Bring children into the world so they can be put into the bottling machine!” You hear old folks say, “Don’t send me to a state hospital! When the feeble-minded have been finished off, the next useless eaters whose turn will come are the old people.”
All God-fearing men consider this destruction of helpless beings a crass injustice. And if anybody says that Germany cannot win the war, if there is yet a just God, these expressions are not the result of a lack of love for the Fatherland but of a deep concern for our people. The population cannot grasp the fact that systematic actions are carried out which in accordance with paragraph 211 of the German Penal Code are punishable with death. High authority as a moral concept has suffered a severe shock as a result of these happenings. The official notice that N. N. died of a contagious disease and, therefore, his body had to be burned, no longer finds credence, and official notices of this kind which are no longer believed have further undermined the ethical value of the concept of authority.
Officials of the Secret State Police, it is said, are trying to suppress discussion of the Hadamar occurrences by means of severe threats. In the interest of public peace, this may be well intended. But the knowledge, and the conviction, and the indignation of the population, cannot be changed by it; the conviction will be increased with the bitter realization that discussion is prohibited by threats, but that the actions themselves are not prosecuted under penal law.
Facta loquuntur.
I beg you most humbly, Herr Reich Minister, in the sense of the report of the Episcopate of 16 July of this year, to prevent further transgressions of the Fifth Commandment of God.
[Signed] Dr. Hilfrich
I am submitting copies of this letter to the Reich Minister of the Interior and to the Reich Minister for Church Affairs.
[Initialed by the above]
PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-429
PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 281
EXTRACT FROM THE AFFIDAVIT OF DEFENDANT HOVEN, 24 OCTOBER 1946, CONCERNING THE TRANSFER OF CONCENTRATION CAMP INMATES TO EUTHANASIA STATIONS FOR EXTERMINATION
AFFIDAVIT
I, Waldemar Hoven, being duly sworn, depose and state:
Transfer of Inmates to the Bernburg Euthanasia Station for Extermination
I became aware in 1941 that the so-called Euthanasia Program for the extermination of the mentally and physically deficient was being carried out in Germany. At that time, the camp commandant Koch called all the important SS officials of the camp together and informed them that he had received a secret order from Himmler to the effect that all mentally and physically deficient inmates of the camp should be killed. The camp commandant stated that higher authorities from Berlin had ordered that all the Jewish inmates of the Buchenwald concentration camp be included in this extermination program. In accordance with these orders 300 to 400 Jewish prisoners of different nationalities were sent to the euthanasia station at Bernburg for extermination. A few days later I received a list of the names of those Jews who were exterminated at Bernburg from the camp commandant and I was ordered to issue falsified death certificates. I obeyed this order. This particular action was executed under the code name “14 f 13”. I visited Bernburg on one occasion to arrange for the cremation of two inmates who died in the Wernigerode branch (Aussenkommando Wernigerode) of the Buchenwald concentration camp.
TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 630-PS
PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 330
LETTER FROM HITLER TO KARL BRANDT AND BOUHLER, 1 SEPTEMBER 1939, CHARGING THEM WITH THE EXECUTION OF EUTHANASIA
[Letterhead: A. HITLER]
Berlin, 1 September 1939
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.
[Signed] A. Hitler
[Handwritten note]
Given to me by Bouhler on 27 August 1940
[Signed] Dr. Guertner
PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-1135
PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 334
CONFIRMATION, 30 AUGUST 1940, OF THE TRANSFER OF MENTAL PATIENTS WITH LIST OF TRANSFERRED PATIENTS ATTACHED
CONFIRMATION
In accordance with the decision of the State Ministry of the Interior (Public Health Division), dated 8 January 1940, on orders from the Reich Association of Mental Institutions [Reichsarbeitsgemeinschaft der Heil und Pflegeanstalten] and as responsible chief of the General Sick Transport Company G.m.b.H. [Gemeinnuetzige Krankentransport G.m.b.H.], I have taken charge of the transfer to a Reich institution of the patients enumerated in the list below.
Eglfing, 30 August 1940 [Signature illegible]
Commissioner of General Sick Transport Company G.m.b.H.[[110]]
TRANSFER MEMORANDUM FOR NIEDERNHART
Handed over were—
1. 149 patients with their own clothing, underwear, money, and belongings.
2. 149 files with personal records (case histories).
3. A list of the amount of money of each patient. A receipt was made out for this purpose.
4. A list of the names. Eglfing-Haar, 30-8-40
[Signed] Head Nurse Lotte Zell
TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 1696-PS
PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 357
LETTER FROM DR. CONTI TO THE MENTAL HOSPITAL IN KAUFBEUREN, 16 NOVEMBER 1939, REQUESTING THAT QUESTIONNAIRES (ATTACHED) BE FILLED OUT FOR INDIVIDUAL PATIENTS; LETTER FROM THE GENERAL SICK TRANSPORT COMPANY TO THE MENTAL HOSPITAL IN KAUFBEUREN, 12 MAY 1941, STATING THAT THE COMPANY WOULD REMOVE MENTAL PATIENTS; REPORT FROM THE PROVINCIAL ASSOCIATION FOR SOCIAL WELFARE IN SWABIA, 6 MAY 1941, THAT ALL TRANSFERRED PATIENTS HAD DIED; LETTER FROM GAUM, 24 NOVEMBER 1942, TO DR. LEINISCH STATING THAT EPILEPTICS WOULD BE MADE AVAILABLE FOR RESEARCH
The Reich Minister of the Interior
Berlin, NW 40, Koenigsplatz 6, 16 November 1939
IV g 4178 /39-5100
Telephone:
Dept. Z, I, II, V, VIII 11 00 27
Dept. II, IV, VI
(Unter den Linden 72); 12 00 34
Tel. Address: Reichsinnenminister.
To the Head of the Hospital for Mental Cases
Kaufbeuren
or his deputy in Kaufbeuren.
With regard to the necessity for a systemized economic plan for hospitals and nursing institutions, I request you to complete the attached registration forms immediately in accordance with the attached instruction leaflet and to return them to me. If you yourself are not a doctor, the registration forms for the individual patients are to be completed by the supervising doctor. The completion of the questionnaires is, if possible, to be done on a typewriter. In the column “Diagnosis” I request a statement as exact as possible, as well as a short description of the condition, if feasible.
In order to expedite the work, the registration forms for the individual patients can be dispatched here in several parts. The last consignment, however, must arrive in any case at this Ministry at the latest by 1 January 1940. I reserve for myself the right, should occasion arise, to institute further official inquiries on the spot through my representative.
per proxi: Dr. Conti
Certified:
(Sd.) [Illegible]
Administrative Secretary.
| Registration Form 1 | To be typewritten | |
| Current No. | ||
| Name of the Institution: | ||
| At: | ||
| Surname and Christian name of the patient: | ||
| At birth | ||
| Date of birth: | Place: | District: |
| Last place of residence | District: | |
| Unmarried, married, widow, widower, divorced: | ||
| Religion: | Race[[111]]: | |
| Previous profession: | Nationality: | |
| Army service when? 1914-18 or from 1-9-39. | ||
| War injury (even if no connection with mental disorder) Yes/No | ||
| How does war injury show itself and of what does it consist? | ||
| Address of next of kin: | ||
| Regular visits and by whom (address): | ||
| Guardian or nurse (name, address): | ||
| Responsible for payment: | ||
| Since when in Institution | ||
| Whence and when handed over: | ||
| Since when ill: | ||
| If has been in other institutions, where and how long: | ||
| Twin? Yes/No | Blood relations of unsound mind: | |
| Diagnosis: | ||
| Clinical description (previous history, course, condition; in any case ample data regarding mental condition): | ||
| Very restless? Yes/No | Bedridden? Yes/No | |
| Incurable physical illness: Yes/No (which) | ||
| Schizophrenia: Fresh attack | Final condition | Good recovery |
| Mental debility: Weak | Imbecile | Idiot |
| Epilepsy: Psychological alteration | Average frequency of the attacks | |
| Therapeutics (insulin, cardiazol, malaria, permanent result: | ||
| Salvarsan, etc. when?) | Yes/No | |
| Admitted by reason of par. 51, par. 42b German Penal Code, etc. through | ||
| Crime: | Former punishable offenses: | |
| Manner of employment (detailed description of work): | ||
| Permanent/Temporary employment, independent Worker? Yes/No | ||
| Value of work (if possible compared with average performance of healthy person) | ||
| This space to be left blank. | ||
| Place, Date | ||
| Signature of the head doctor or his representative (doctors who are not psychiatrists or neurologists, please state same). | ||
General Sick Transport Company, G.m.b.H.
Dept. II/d, H/K
Berlin, W. 9, 12 May 1941
Potsdamer Platz 1.
To the Director of the Hospital
of the District Association of Swabia,
Kaufbeuren/Bavaria.
Dear Director,
By order of the Reich Defense Commissioner, I must remove mental cases from your institution and from the branch at Irrsee to another institution. A total of 140 persons are to be transported, 70 on 4 June and 70 on 5 June. I forward you herewith Transport Lists Nos. 8, 9, 10, and 11 in triplicate. The additional names on the lists are intended for possible deficits (discharged meanwhile, died, etc.).
The marking of the patients is most suitably done by means of a strip of adhesive tape, on which the name is written in indelible pencil, to be pasted between the shoulder blades. At the same time the name is to be put on an article of clothing.
The hospital reports and personal histories are to be prepared for the transportation and to be handed to our director of transport, Herr Kuepper; in the same way, the personal possessions of the patients, as well as money and articles of value.
I enclose property information cards and information cards as to the defrayer of the expenses, which must be completed accurately and handed in at the time of transportation. Money and articles of value, besides being noted on the property information cards, must also be noted on separate special lists (in duplicate).
Transportation takes place:
On 4 June, 8:46 a. m. from Kaufbeuren—70 patients
On 5 June, 8:46 a. m. from Kaufbeuren—70 patients
Our director of transport, Herr Kuepper, will visit you the previous day in order to discuss further details with you.
I further request you to provide the patients with food (2-3 slices of bread and butter each and some cans of coffee).
Heil Hitler!
(sd) [Illegible]
General Sick Transport Company, G.m.b.H.
PROVINCIAL ASSOCIATION FOR SOCIAL WELFARE
SWABIA
Address: Augsburg 1, P. O. Box Regierungspraesident
Tel. No. 5842
Cashier’s Office: Principal Govt.
Cashier’s Office Augsburg.
Post Office check account: Munich No. 1624
Director Dr. Faltlhauser, of the Hospital,
Kaufbeuren.
Your reference: 2080. Your letter of 13 November 1940.
Our reference:
(must always be
referred to).
II-B-7-2.
Augsburg, 6 May 1941
Concerning the transfer of patients.
I have the honor to inform you that the female patients transferred from your institution on 8 November 1940 to the institutions in Grafeneck, Bernburg, Sonnenstein, and Hartheim all died in November of last year.
[Signed] [Illegible]
Enclosures:
Copy
No. 5255 c 39
State Ministry of the Interior
Munich, 24 November 1942
to the Director of the
Hospital, Kaufbeuren,
Obermed. Rat
Dr. Faltlhauser.
To: Chief Physician, Dr. W. Leinisch
Guenzburg.
Re letter of 13-11-1942.
Dear Doctor,
In your letter of 13-11-1942 you requested me to send suitable epileptics for the carrying out of your research work. I had an opportunity to discuss this with the Obermedizinalraete Dr. Faltlhauser and Dr. Pfannmueller. Both will willingly deliver suitable patients to you. For various reasons patients from the Institution at Kaufbeuren are primarily to be chosen. If this institution has no suitable material, I agree to the transfer of patients from Eglfing-Haar to Guenzburg for your research work. I request that you get in touch with Dr. Faltlhauser.
Heil Hitler!
[Signed] Gaum
PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 3896-PS
PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 372
EXTRACT FROM THE AFFIDAVIT OF DR. LUDWIG SPRAUER, 23 APRIL 1946, CONCERNING THE ORGANIZATION OF THE EUTHANASIA PROGRAM
AFFIDAVIT
I, Dr. Ludwig Sprauer, born on 19 October 1884, now living at Konstanz, Baden, Salmannsweilergasse 2, make the following statement under oath:
I passed my state examination for medicine in Freiburg in 1907, and since 1919 was active in the civil service. During the following 14 years I was active as Bezirksarzt in Stockach, Oberkirch, Konstanz. I joined the NSDAP in 1933. From 1934 until 1944 I was the highest medical officer of Baden and held the title Ministerialrat. My highest superior was the Reich Minister of the Interior, Dr. Frick. As Frick’s subordinate I traveled several times, perhaps every 2 to 3 months to Berlin, to take part in discussions, conferences, etc., in the Reich Ministry of the Interior.
These took place in the Reich Ministry of the Interior, Berlin, Unter den Linden 72-74; later in the Reich Ministry of the Interior office on Voss-Strasse. On one such occasion in Berlin, Dr. Linden, Ministerialdirigent in the Reich Ministry of the Interior, stated that it was planned to introduce a euthanasia law. For military-political reasons to create more space, the incurably insane were to be done away with. The asylums thus vacated were in part asked for by the SS to be used for national political educational institutions.
A transportation company was founded for the execution of all these measures. This company worked hand in hand with the so-called Reich Committee for Research into Hereditary Ailments. This Reich concern was managed by Frick’s Ministerialdirigent Dr. Linden.
In the course of these measures from 1941 through 1944, thousands of persons were transferred from Baden’s asylums to places like Hadamar, Grafeneck, etc., and were killed there. The killings, however, were not solely confined to the mentally sick. In the course of the same campaign, steps were taken by order of the Reich Ministry of the Interior to eliminate particularly old but also young people who were ill.
The persons killed in the course of this program included not only those who were mentally sick, but also those who suffered from arteriosclerosis, tuberculosis, cancer, and other ailments. Most of those were older people who were inmates of public institutions at the state’s expense, and who in a respectable society would have been taken care of from public funds. These people were brought from public asylums in Baden to Hadamar, Grafeneck, and other asylums and killed there. In what manner they were killed, I do not know. In this way space was made available in the institutions for the armed forces and for the National Socialist educational institutions.
The whole program was camouflaged on the outside and falsified death certificates were made out.
PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-520
PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 374
LETTER FROM THE CHIEF OF THE INSTITUTION FOR FEEBLE-MINDED IN STETTEN TO DR. FRANK, 6 SEPTEMBER 1940, REQUESTING THAT EUTHANASIA BE CARRIED OUT ONLY AFTER LEGAL BASIS WAS CREATED
L. Schlaich, Stetten i. R.
Chief of the Institution
for Feeble-Minded and Epileptics.
Stetten, i. R., 6 September 1940
To the Reich Minister of Justice, Dr. Frank
Berlin
Dear Reich Minister,
The measures at present being taken with mental patients of all kinds have caused a complete lack of confidence in justice among large groups of the people. Without the consent of relatives or guardians, such patients are being transferred to different institutions. After a short time they are notified that the person concerned has died of some disease. In view of the abundance of death notices people are convinced that these sick people are being done away with.
Since from the institution under my direction altogether 150 of the patients entrusted to me are to be transferred to such an institution (75 on the 10th and 75 on the 13th of September) I take the privilege of asking: Is it possible for such a measure to be carried out without a pertinent law having been promulgated? Is it not the duty of every citizen to resist under all circumstances an act not justified by law, even forbidden by law, even if such acts are carried out by state agencies?
On account of the complete secrecy and camouflage under which the measures are carried out, not only are the wildest rumors circulating among the people (for example, that people unable to work on account of age or injuries received during the World War have also been done away with or are to be done away with), but it seems as if the selection of the persons concerned is performed in a wholly arbitrary manner.
If the state really wants to carry out the extermination of these or at least of some mental patients, shouldn’t a law be promulgated, which can be justified before the people—a law which would give everyone the assurance of careful examination as to whether he is due to die or entitled to live and which would also give the relatives a chance to be heard, in a similar way, as provided by the law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Affected Progeny?
With regard to the patients entrusted to the care of our institutions in the future, I urgently pray that everything possible be done to suspend the execution of this measure until a clear legal situation has been established.
Heil Hitler!
[Signed] Schlaich
I have forwarded a copy of this letter by the same mail to the chief of the Reich Chancellery, Reichsminister Dr. Lammers.
TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-660
PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 377
NOTE BY SELLMER, 6 DECEMBER 1940, DESCRIBING THE METHOD OF SELECTION FOR EUTHANASIA
Subject: Mental Institutions
The following is for your personal information. Please destroy this sheet afterwards.
For some time the inmates of mental institutions have been visited by a commission which functions on orders from some very high office. The commission’s task is to find out which inmates should be selected for transport to certain other institutions. The commission bases its decision on the records of the institution. The patients who are then transferred are examined again in the institution designated by the commission and then the decision is made whether they should be released from their sufferings.
The body itself is cremated and the ashes are placed at the disposal of the relatives. Small mistakes in notifying are naturally always liable to occur, and in the future it will not be possible to avoid them. The commission itself is anxious to avoid all mistakes. I could give you further information but I would like to abstain from it and beg you to look me up when you visit the Gauleitung.
I believe that we National Socialists can welcome this action which is extraordinarily serious for the affected individual. I beg you, therefore, to oppose all rumors and grumblings with the necessary emphasis by representing our point of view in regard to these matters.
Nuernberg, 6 December 1940
Heil Hitler!
[Signed] Sellmer
Gaustabsamtsleiter
[Stamp]
National Socialist German Labor Party
Gau Franconia
TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-018
PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 404
LETTER FROM HIMMLER TO BRACK, 19 DECEMBER 1940, REQUESTING THAT EUTHANASIA STATION GRAFENECK BE DISCONTINUED AND THAT MOTION PICTURES BE SHOWN TO DISPEL RUMORS
Top Secret
19 December 1940
SS Standartenfuehrer Viktor Brack
Staff Leader at Reichsleiter Bouhler’s Office
Berlin W 8
Dear Brack,
I hear there is great excitement on the Alb because of the Grafeneck Institution.
The population recognizes the gray automobile of the SS and think they know what is going on at the constantly smoking crematory. What happens there is a secret and yet is no longer one. Thus the worst feeling has arisen there, and in my opinion there remains only one thing, to discontinue the use of the institution in this place and in any event disseminate information in a clever and sensible manner by showing motion pictures on the subject of inherited and mental diseases in just that locality.
May I ask for a report as to how the difficult problem is solved?
Heil Hitler!
[Initialled] H[einrich] H[immler]
TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-842
PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 405
LETTER FROM BRACK TO DR. SCHLEGELBERGER[[112]], 18 APRIL 1941, FORWARDING FORMS FOR EUTHANASIA AND SUGGESTING THAT DEATH NOTIFICATIONS SHOULD NOT FOLLOW A STEREOTYPED FORM
| Viktor Brack Oberdienstleiter | |
| Berlin, 18 April 1941 | |
| [Stamp] | |
| 21 [Penciled] | |
| 26 April 1941 | |
| Dept: [Illegible] | |
| [Handwritten] Gg. | |
| Strictly Confidential | |
| My dear Party comrade Dr. Schlegelberger, | |
| [Handwritten] Top Secret | |
According to agreement I send you herewith a folder with forms needed for your ascertainment and partial medical preparation; also another folder with forms for further clerical elaboration resulting from the death of the patient.[[113]] The records are secret, however, and I would appreciate if you would keep them under lock and key. Some more things are, of course, necessary for proper recording and administrative routine, but I do not believe that they are of any interest to you. Thereto belong, for instance, the death notifications to the relatives of the patient. These are to be kept somehow different according to the district and kind of relatives; they must be altered frequently to avoid stereotype texts and therefore a sample letter would only irritate. I would like to call your attention especially to the card files Nos. 13 and 14. On their reverse sides you will find a list of authorities to be informed.
When again reviewing the files which you put at my disposal, I found some details which ought to be clarified and settled; I would be grateful to you for doing so. Therefore, I shall forward them to you separately on Monday or Tuesday next week.
Heil Hitler!
Respectfully yours
[Signed] Brack
PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-158
PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 410
LETTER FROM HIRCHE, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE MENTAL INSTITUTION BERNBURG, TO CAMP COMMANDANT OF THE GROSS-ROSEN CONCENTRATION CAMP, 19 MARCH 1942, WITH LIST OF INMATES TRANSFERRED FROM THE CONCENTRATION CAMP TO BERNBURG
| Mental Institution, Bernburg | Bernburg, 19 March 1942 |
| Reference: B e. vH. | Box 266 |
| Consultation only by appointment |
| To | [Stamp] |
| Camp Commandant | Concentration Camp Gross-Rosen |
| Concentration Camp | Administration |
| Gross-Rosen | Received: 23 March 1942 |
| Initials [Illegible] |
Registered
Subject: Transport of 19 March 1942
Enclosed you will find a list of the camp inmates who arrived here on 19 March 1942 from your concentration camp.
Heil Hitler!
[Signed] Hirche
1 Enclosure
List of the camp inmates transferred on 19 March 1942 from the Gross-Rosen concentration camp to Bernburg
| 139/K1. 19-3-1942 | Bernburg (Gross-Rosen) | ||
| [Signed] | |||
| [Signed] | |||
| [Signed] | |||
| [Signed] | |||
| 1942 | ||||
| 26746 | 10423 | Bier, Rudolf | Koeln | |
| 2.11.1901 | divorced 19.3. | |||
| 26747 | 10424 | Beckers, Herm | Hamburg | |
| 18.9.1923 | single 19.3. | |||
| 26748 | 10444 | Bajgelmann, Isaak | Czenstochau | |
| 4.8.1909 | single 19.3. | |||
| 26749 | 10412 | Cohen, Arthur Isr | Dellwig-Westf. | |
| 15.8.1908 | single 19.3. | |||
| 26750 | 10468 | Eckhaus, Herm | Berlin C 2, | |
| 1.12.1922 | single 19.3. | |||
| 26751 | 10395 | Edel, Gerh. Isr | Nakel, | |
| 30.5.1914 | single 19.3. | |||
| 26752 | 10440 | Eisner, Otto | Bochtitz | |
| 26.4.1910. | divorced 19.3. | |||
| 26753 | 10439 | Fleischner, Rich | Kolin/Elbe | |
| 20.12.1902 | married 19.3. | |||
| 26754 | 10438 | Fried, Hans, Isr | Budweis | |
| 8.3.1919 | single 19.3. | |||
| 26755 | 10450 | Haase, Siegfried | Schoenlanke | |
| 3.8.1920 | single 19.3. | |||
| 26756 | 10436 | Hauser, Max | Kastel | |
| 15.12.1908 | single 19.3. | |||
| 26757 | 10394 | Hecht, Jacob, Isr | Hamburg-Altona | |
| 18.10.1896 | single 19.3. | |||
| 26758 | 10410 | Lubnicki, Jacob | Wuppertal/Elberf. | |
| 28.6.1918 | single 19.3. | |||
| 26759 | 10409 | Markuse, Esriel | Warschau | |
| 14.3.1897 | widower 19.3. | |||
| 26760 | 10470 | Nachmann, Erich | Ulm/D. | |
| 6.10.1907 | married 19.3. | |||
| 26761 | 10406 | Pollak, Heinr | Lemberg | |
| 30.9.1904 | married 19.3. | |||
| 26762 | 10517 | Pufe, Otto | Osternburg | |
| 16.3.1917 | single 19.3. | |||
| 26763 | 10421 | Rosenbaum, Otto Isr | Muehlheim/Ruhr | |
| 2.6.1894 | married 19.3. | |||
| 26764 | 10486 | Robalewski, Leo | Kl. Tarpen | |
| 15.12.1915 | single 19.3. | |||
| 26765 | 10595 | Rose, Reinhold | Cochelna | |
| 4.5.1907 | single 19.3. | |||
| 26766 | 10579 | Rekel, Josef | Tarnow | |
| 10.1.1909 | single 19.3. | |||
| 26767 | 10405 | Roubicek, Karl | Horovice/Boehmen | |
| 16.6.1906 | single 19.3. | |||
| 26768 | 10577 | Rwaski, Wladislaus | Kszywystock | |
| 19.6.1919 | single 19.3. | |||
| 26769 | 10509 | Rost, Hans Willi | Apolda/Weimar | |
| 15.7.1920 | single 19.3. | |||
| 26770 | 10606 | Schuensmann, Wilh | Wittenberge | |
| 23.8.1892 | widower 19.3. | |||
| 26771 | 10576 | Skratak, Viktor | Stazow | |
| 5.3.1909 | married 19.3. | |||
| 26772 | 10575 | Smigielski, Stanislaus | Coloneg | |
| 25.10.1918 | single 19.3. | |||
| 26773 | 10425 | Sommer, Arthur Isr. | Frankfurt/M. | |
| 4.12.1900 | single 19.3. | |||
| 26774 | 10578 | Sikorski, Stanislaw | Lublin | |
| 27.1.192 | single 19.3. | |||
| 26775 | 10488 | Sommer, Wenzel | Litzmannstadt | |
| 7.8.1907 | married 19.3. | |||
| 26776 | 10404 | Seitmann, Simon | Warschau | |
| 17.12.1896 | widower 19.3. | |||
| 26777 | 10594 | Sarbach, Heinz | Erfurt | |
| 28.4.1921 | single 19.3. | |||
| 26778 | 10483 | Schroff, Karl | Reilingen/ Baden | |
| 11.6.1910 | single 19.3. | |||
| 26779 | 10484 | Schilling, Aug | Rake/Wohlau | |
| 9.3.1896 | single 19.3. | |||
| 26780 | 10516 | Schueler, Manfred | Sonneberg/ Thuer. | |
| Richard | 17.9.21 | single 19.3. | ||
| 26781 | 10487 | Schmidt, Johann | Nuernberg | |
| 8.4.1900 | divorced 19.3. | |||
| 26782 | 10426 | Schindler, Ernst Isr. | Sandhofen/Mannh. | |
| 7.6.1906 | single 19.3. | |||
| 26783 | 10427 | Spira, Alfred | Wien, | |
| 20.11.1908 | single 19.3. | |||
| 26784 | 10454 | Stern, Zudik | Rozniatow | |
| 28.9.1908 | married 19.3. | |||
| 26785 | 10485 | Stuka, Wladimir | Maehr. Sternberg | |
| 8.2.1907 | married 19.3. | |||
| 26786 | 10453 | Weinberger, Erich, Isr. | Wien | |
| 16.6.1916 | single 19.3. | |||
| 26787 | 10452 | Weisz, Ignaz | Munkatesh/Ungarn | |
| 30.6.1914 | single 19.3. | |||
| 26788 | 10503 | Wallzak, Theophil | Hohensalza | |
| 19.4.1907 | single 19.3. | |||
| 26789 | 10512 | Welser, Karl | Pilgram/Prot. | |
| 10.11.1918 | single 19.3. | |||
| 26790 | 10505 | Walczyk, Josef | Bokow | |
| 24.2.1908 | married 19.3. | |||
| 26791 | 10461 | Wutkowski, Willi Max | Graudenz | |
| 16.4.1902 | divorced 19.3. | |||
| 25792 | 10506 | Wozniczka, Ignac | Kadziak | |
| 8.7.1916 | single 19.3. | |||
| 26793 | 10504 | Wasolowski, Marian | Markstaedt | |
| 29.11.1909 | single 19.3. | |||
| 26794 | 10507 | Wendolowski, Josef | Warschau | |
| 7.1.1912 | single 19.3. | |||
| 26795 | 10604 | Wolf, Karl | Ged | |
| 10.5.1903 | single 19.3. | |||
| 26796 | 10595 | Zbytniewski, Zymunt | Czekarzowice | |
| 1.1.1905 | single 19.3. | |||
| 26797 | 10592 | Zbytniewski, Zdzislaw | Czekarzowice | |
| 2.3.1910 | married 19.3. | |||
| 26798 | 10502 | Zuchowski, Felike | Lietzendorf/W. | |
| 2.8.18. | married 19.3. | |||
| 26799 | 10565 | Zimmermann, Willi | Dortmund | |
| 10.2.1917 | single 19.3. | |||
| 26800 | 10521 | Zdybik, Wladislaus | Borownica | |
| 5.4.1915 | single 19.3. | |||
| 26801 | 10480 | Zielke, Karl | Butow | |
| 4.2.1904 | married 19.3. | |||
| 26802 | 10422 | Birnberg, Markus | Kolomea | |
| 5.10.03 | divorced 19.3. |
PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-907
PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 412
EXTRACT FROM LETTER FROM DR. FRITZ MENNECKE TO HIS WIFE, 25 NOVEMBER 1941, CONCERNING HIS ACTIVITIES AS PHYSICIAN SELECTING INMATES OF CONCENTRATION CAMP BUCHENWALD FOR EUTHANASIA
Letter No. 8
Weimar, 25 November 1941,
Hotel Elephant
2058 hours
At 7 o’clock tomorrow morning we will be awakened. At about 8 o’clock we will have our coffee and then we will drive out in Schmalenbach’s car, but he himself will soon leave for Dresden again. On Thursday and Friday a meeting will be held in Pirna in connection with the action in which problems of the future will be discussed and in which Schmalenbach will take part as the medical adjutant of Herr Brack (Jennerwein). No experts will be present * * *. The first working day at Buchenwald is over. At 8:30 this morning we were out there. At first I introduced myself to the authoritative leaders. The deputy of the camp commandant is SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Florstaedt; camp physician is SS Obersturmfuehrer Dr. Hoven. At first another 40 reports of a first portion of Aryans had to be completed. The two other colleagues worked on these yesterday already. Out of these 40 I worked up about 15. After this whole portion had been worked up, Schmalenbach left for Dresden. He will not return until our work here is done. Following this, the “examination” of the patients was carried out, i. e., a presentation of the individuals and a comparison with the entries taken from the files. We did not finish this work until noon, because the other two colleagues worked only in theory yesterday, so that I had to “re-examine” those whom Schmalenbach (and I myself this morning) had prepared and Mueller did his people. At 12 o’clock we stopped for lunch * * *.
Afterwards we continued our examination until about 4 o’clock. I myself examined 105 patients, Mueller 78 patients, so that finally a total of 183 reports were ready as a first group. As a second group a total of 1,200 Jews followed, all of whom do not need to be “examined”, but where it is sufficient to take the reasons for their arrest from the files (often very voluminous!) and to transfer them to the reports. Therefore, it is merely theoretical work which will certainly keep us busy until next Monday inclusive, perhaps even longer. Of this second group (Jews), we completed today. I myself did 17, and Mueller 15. At 5 o’clock sharp, “we threw away the trowel” and went for supper * * *.
Exactly as the day I described above, the following days will pass—with exactly the same program and the same work. After the Jews, another 300 Aryans follow as a third group who will again have to be “examined”. Therefore, we are busy here until the end of next week. Then on Saturday, 6 December, we shall go home.
TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-1007
PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 413
CIRCULAR FROM GLUECKS TO CONCENTRATION CAMP COMMANDANTS, 27 APRIL 1943, STATING THAT IN THE FUTURE ONLY INSANE PRISONERS SHOULD BE USED FOR ACTION “14 F 13” (EUTHANASIA)
SS Economic and Administrative Main Office
Division Chief D Concentration Camps
D I/1/File No.: 14 f 13/L/S.—
Secret Journal No. 612/43
Oranienburg, 27 April 1943.
Subject: Action 14 f 13 in Concentration Camps.
Re: Our Order—D I/1/File No. 14 f 13/Ot/S.—Secret Diary No.
32/43 of 15 January ’43.
Enclosures: None.
[Stamp]
Top Secret
——th copy
To the Camp Commanders of the Concentration Camps
Dachau, Sachsenhausen, Buchenwald, Mauthausen, Flossenbuerg, Neuengamme, Auschwitz, Gross-Rosen, Natzweiler, Stutthof, Ravensbrueck, Riga, Hertogenbosch, Lublin, and Bergen-Belsen.
Copy to: Chief of Amt DII, III in the building.
The Reich Leader SS and Chief of the German Police has decreed that in future only insane prisoners can be selected for the Action 14 f 13 by the medical commissions appointed for this purpose.
All other prisoners unfit for work (persons suffering from tuberculosis, bedridden invalids, etc.) are definitely to be excluded from this action. Bedridden prisoners are to be given suitable work which can be performed in bed.
The order of the Reich Leader SS must be strictly observed in the future.
Requests for gasoline for this purpose will therefore be discontinued.
[Signed] Gluecks
SS Brigadefuehrer and Generalmajor of the Waffen SS
TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-891
PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 414
DIRECTIVE OF THE REICH MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR, 6 SEPTEMBER 1944, ORDERING EUTHANASIA EXTENDED TO INSANE EASTERN WORKERS
| Reich Minister of the Interior | |
| Berlin, 6 September 1944 | |
| g 9255/44 | |
| To: | |
| a. | The Reich Governor [Reichsstatthalter] (State government) |
| b. | The Oberpraesidenten (administration of the provincial association) |
| c. | The County Presidents |
| d. | The Police President in Berlin |
| e. | The Lord Mayor [Oberbuergermeister] of the Reich capital Berlin. |
| Re: | Mentally insane Eastern workers and Poles—Circular decrees of the Reich Minister of the Interior of—A g 9255/44-5100—. |
1. Due to the considerable number of Eastern workers and Poles brought into the German Reich for employment, the assignment of mental cases among them to German asylums is constantly increasing. The purpose of such assignments must be in any case the speediest possible recovery to working ability. Thus every means of modern therapy must also be applied to those mentally insane people. But due to lack of space in German institutions there can be no justification for patients who are considered incurable and, therefore, unable to work again in a reasonably short time to remain permanently or for a long time in German institutions. In order to avoid this, the following is ordered:
2. In the following list I have established for each district in the Reich a collective list for incurable mentally insane Eastern workers and Poles. They should be assigned to those institutions immediately if possible. If this is impossible due to urgency or to transportation difficulties, the institution in question should deliver their Eastern or Polish patients to the collecting institution in their respective district within one month at the most. It is not necessary to carry out the removal if the patient is considered able to leave the institution within 6 weeks at the latest.
3. It is the task of the collecting institution to decide whether the restoration of working ability might be considered within a reasonable period of time.
4. The expenses from the date of registration in the collecting institution are to be taken over by the head of the Central Financial Clearing Office of the sanatorium in Linz/Upper Danube, P. O. Box 324, which has to be informed immediately of such assignments. The fixed rate for patients of the general class will be paid to the institutions. The Eastern workers and Poles already assembled in collecting institutions are to be reported on a list immediately to the Central Financial Clearing Office. The expenses for those patient are transferred as from 1 October 1944 to the Central Accounts Office.
5. After 4 weeks, at the latest, of the registration in the collecting institution a short report on the prognosis of the case and on the question of working ability has to be sent to the head of the Central Financial Clearing Office. It is the task of that office to direct the transportation of patients from the collecting institutions to nearby special asylums in their home district.
6. Only those people are to be considered as Poles who were brought into the Reich for employment. This decree does not apply to the local Polish population.
7. The leaders of mental institutions in the districts, etc., are to be informed by their superior officials, and the leaders of welfare and private institutions by their competent higher administrative authorities. The required copies are enclosed herewith.
List of the collecting institutions
1. For East Prussia, Danzig, and West Prussia and Wartheland: Mental Institution Tiegenhof.
2. For Upper and Lower Silesia and the Sudetengau: Mental Institution Lueben.
3. For Pomerania, Mecklenburg, Kurmark, and Berlin: Mental Institution Landsberg-Warthe.
4. For Schleswig-Holstein and Hamburg: Mental Institution Schleswig.
5. For Bremen, Weser-Ems, Hanover-East, Hanover-South, and Brunswick: Mental Institution Lueneburg.
6. For the Rhine province, Westphalia, and Lippe: Mental Institution Bonn.
7. For Baden, Westmark, Wuerttemberg, and Hohenzollern: Mental Institution Schussenried.
8. For Bavaria: Mental Institution Kaufbeuren.
9. For Kurhesse, Nassau, and Land Hesse: Mental Institution Hadamar.
10. For Thuringia-Land and Province Saxony, Anhalt: Mental Institution Pfaffenrode.
11. For the Alps [Alpen] and Danube districts: Mental Institution Mauer-Oehling.
By Order:
Wiesbaden, 11 September 1944
Landeshaus
11a One copy to the County Mental Institution, Eichberg.
With the request to acknowledge and to take further steps.
By Order:
Landesrat
PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 1553-PS
PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 428
EXTRACT FROM THE FIELD INTERROGATION OF KURT GERSTEIN, 26 APRIL 1945, DESCRIBING THE MASS GASSING OF JEWS AND OTHER “UNDESIRABLES”
Deposition of Kurt Gerstein
Hearing of the massacres of idiots and insane people at Grafeneck, Hadamar, etc., shocked and greatly affected me, having such a case in my family. I had but one desire—to gain an insight into this whole machinery and then to shout it to the whole world! With the help of two references written by the two Gestapo employees who had dealt with my case, it was not difficult for me to enter the Waffen SS.
From March 10 to June 2, 1941, I was given elementary instruction as a soldier at Hamburg-Langehorn, Arnhem, and Oranienburg, together with 40 doctors. Because of my twin studies—technology and medicine—I was ordered to enter the medical-technology branch of the SS Fuehrungshauptamt (SS Operational Main Office)—Medical Branch of the Waffen SS—Amtsgruppe D (Division D), Hygiene Department. Within this branch, I chose for myself the job of immediately constructing disinfecting apparatus and filters for drinking water for the troops, the prison camps, and the concentration camps. My close knowledge of the industry caused me to succeed quickly where my predecessors had failed. Thus, it was possible to decrease considerably the death toll of prisoners. On account of my successes, I very soon became lieutenant. In December 1941 the tribunal which had decreed my exclusion from the NSDAP obtained knowledge of my having entered the Waffen SS. Considerable efforts were made to remove and to persecute me but, due to my successes, I was declared sincere and indispensable.
In January 1942 I was appointed chief of the technical branch of disinfection, which also included the branch dealing with strong poison gases for disinfection. On 8 June 1942 SS Sturmbannfuehrer Guenther of the RSHA entered my office. He was in plain clothes and I did not know him. He ordered me to get a hundred kilograms of prussic acid and to accompany him to a place which was only known to the driver of the truck. We left for the potassium factory near Collin (Prague). Once the truck was loaded, we left for Lublin (Poland). We took with us Professor Pfannenstiel, Professor for Hygiene at the University of Marburg on the Lahn. At Lublin, we were received by SS Gruppenfuehrer Globocnik. He told us, “This is one of the most secret matters there are, even the most secret. Whoever talks of this shall be shot immediately. Yesterday, two talkative men died.” Then he explained to us that at the present moment—17 August 1942—there were three installations:
1. Belcec, on the Lublin-Lvov road, in the sector of the Russian demarcation line. Maximum 15,000 persons a day. Seen!
2. Sobiber, I do not know exactly where it is located. Not seen. 20,000 persons per day.
3. Treblinka, 120 kilometers NNE of Warsaw. 25,000 persons per day. Seen!
4. Maidanek, near Lublin. Seen—in the state of preparation.
Globocnik then said: “You will have to handle the sterilization of very large quantities of clothes, 10 or 20 times the amount of the clothing and textile collection, which is only arranged in order to conceal the source of these Jewish, Polish, Czech, and other clothes. Your other duties will be to change the method of our gas chambers (which are run at the present time with the exhaust gases of an old Diesel engine), using more poisonous material, having a quicker effect: prussic acid. But the Fuehrer and Himmler, who were here on August 15, the day before yesterday, ordered that I personally should accompany all those who are to see the installations.”
Then Professor Pfannenstiel asked: “What does the Fuehrer say?” Then Globocnik, now Chief of Police and SS, from the Adriatic Riviera to Trieste, answered: “Quicker, quicker! Carry out the whole program!” And then Dr. Herbert Linden, Ministerialdirektor in the Ministry of the Interior said: “But would it not be better to burn the bodies instead of burying them? A future generation might think differently of these matters!” * * * Globocnik replied: “But, gentlemen, if after us such a cowardly and rotten generation should arise that it does not understand our work which is so good and so necessary, then, gentlemen, all National Socialism will have been for nothing. On the contrary, bronze plaques should be put up with the inscription that it was we, we who had the courage to achieve this gigantic task. And Hitler said: ‘Yes, my good Globocnik, that is the word, that is my opinion, too.’ ”
The next day we left for Belcec, a small special station of two platforms against a hill of yellow sand, immediately to the north of the Lublin-Lvov road and railway. To the south, near the road were some service houses with a signboard: “Belcec, Service Center of the Waffen SS.” Globocnik introduced me to SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Obermeyer from Pirmasens, who with great restraint showed me the installations. No dead were to be seen that day but the smell of the whole region, even from the main road, was pestilential. Next to the small station there was a large barrack marked “Cloakroom,” and a door marked “Valuables.” Next to that, a chamber with a hundred “barber’s” chairs. Then came a corridor, 150 meters long, in the open air and with barbed wire on both sides. There was a signboard: “To the baths and inhalations”! Before us we saw a house, like a bathhouse, with concrete troughs to the right and left containing geraniums or other flowers. After climbing a small staircase, we came to 3 garage-like rooms on each side, 4 × 5 meters in size and 1.90 meters high. At the back were invisible wooden doors. On the roof was a Star of David made out of copper. At the entrance to the building was the inscription, “Heckenholt Foundation.” That was all I noticed on that particular afternoon.
Next morning, a few minutes before 7, I was informed that in 10 minutes the first train would arrive. And indeed, a few minutes later the first train came in from Lemberg [Lvov]; 45 cars, containing 6,700 persons, 1,450 of whom were already dead on arrival. Behind the little barbed-wire openings were children, yellow, half scared to death, women, and men. The train stopped; 200 Ukrainians, forced to do this work, opened the doors and drove all the people out of the coaches with leather whips. Then, through a huge loud-speaker, instructions were given to them to undress completely and to hand over false teeth and glasses—some in the barracks, others right in the open air. Shoes were to be tied together with a little piece of string handed to everyone by a small Jewish boy of 4 years of age; all valuables and money were to be handed in at the window marked “Valuables”, without receipt. Then the women and girls were to go to the hairdresser who cut off their hair in one or two strokes, after which it vanished into huge potato bags “to be used for special submarine equipment, door mats, etc.”, as the SS Unterscharfuehrer on duty told me.
Then the march began. To the right and left, barbed wire; behind, two dozen Ukrainians with guns. Led by a young girl of striking beauty they approached. With Police Captain Wirth, I stood right in front of the death chambers. Completely naked, they marched by, men, women, girls, children, babies, even one-legged persons, all of them naked. In one corner, a strong SS man told the poor devils in a strong deep voice: “Nothing whatever will happen to you. All you have to do is to breathe deeply; it strengthens the lungs. This inhalation is a necessary measure against contagious diseases; it is a very good disinfectant!” Asked what was to become of them, he answered: “Well, of course the men will have to work, building streets and houses. But the women do not have to. If they wish they can help in the house or the kitchen.” Once more, a little bit of hope for some of these poor people, enough to make them march on without resistance to the death chambers. Most of them, though, knew everything, the smell had given them a clear indication of their fate. And then they walked up the little staircase—and behold the picture: Mothers with babies at their breasts, naked, lots of children of all ages, naked too; they hesitate, but they enter the gas chambers, most of them, without a word, pushed by the others behind them, chased by the whips of the SS men. A Jewess of about 40 years of age, with eyes like torches, calls down the blood of her children on the heads of their murderers. Five lashes in her face, dealt by the whip of Police Captain Wirth himself, drive her into the gas chamber. Many of them say their prayers; others ask, “Who will give us the water for our death?” Within the chambers, the SS press the people closely together; Captain Wirth had ordered “Fill them up full.” Naked men stand on the feet of the others. 700-800 crushed together on 25 square meters, in 45 cubic meters! The doors are closed!
Meanwhile the rest of the transport, all naked, waited. Somebody said to me: “Naked, in winter! Enough to kill them!” The answer was: “Well, that’s just what they are here for!” And at that moment I understood why it was called the Heckenholt Foundation. Heckenholt was the man in charge of the Diesel engine, the exhaust gases of which were to kill these poor devils. SS Unterscharfuehrer Heckenholt tried to set the Diesel engine going, but it would not start! Captain Wirth came along. It was obvious that he was afraid because I was a witness of this breakdown. Yes, indeed, I saw everything and waited. Everything was registered by my stop watch. 50 minutes—70 minutes—the Diesel engine did not start! The people waited in their gas chambers—in vain. One could hear them cry. “Just as in a synagogue,” says SS Sturmbannfuehrer Professor Dr. Pfannenstiel, Professor for Public Health at the University of Marburg/Lahn, holding his ear close to the wooden door! Captain Wirth, furious, dealt the Ukrainian who was helping Heckenholt 11 or 12 lashes in the face with his whip. After 2 hours and 49 minutes—as registered by my stop watch—the Diesel engine started. Up to that moment the people in the four chambers already filled were still alive—4 times 750 persons in 4 times 45 cubic meters! Another 25 minutes went by. Many of the people, it is true, were dead by that time. One could see that through the little window as the electric lamp revealed for a moment the inside of the chamber. After 28 minutes only a few were alive. After 32 minutes all were dead! From the other side, Jewish workers opened the wooden doors. In return for their terrible job, they had been promised their freedom and a small percentage of the valuables and the money found. The dead were still standing like stone statues, there having been no room for them to fall or bend over. Though dead, the families could still be recognized, their hands still clasped. It was difficult to separate them in order to clear the chamber for the next load. The bodies were thrown out blue, wet with sweat and urine, the legs covered with excrement and menstrual blood. Everywhere among the others were the bodies of babies and children. But there is no time!—Two dozen workers were busy checking the mouths, opening them with iron hooks—“Gold on the left, no gold on the right!” Others checked anus and genitals to look for money, diamonds, gold, etc. Dentists with chisels tore out gold teeth, bridges, or caps. In the center of everything was Captain Wirth. He was on familiar ground here. He handed me a large tin full of teeth and said: “Estimate for yourself the weight of gold! This is only from yesterday and the day before! And you would not believe what we find here every day! Dollars, diamonds, gold! But look for yourself!” Then he led me to a jeweler who was in charge of all these valuables. After that they took me to one of the managers of the big store, Kaufhaus des Westens, in Berlin, and to a little man whom they made play the violin. Both were chiefs of the Jewish worker units. “He is a captain of the Royal and Imperial Austrian Army, and has the German Iron Cross 1st Class,” I was told by Hauptsturmbannfuehrer Obermeyer.
The bodies were then thrown into large ditches about 100 × 20 × 12 meters located near the gas chambers. After a few days the bodies would swell up and the whole contents of the ditch would rise 2-3 meters high because of the gases which developed inside the bodies. After a few more days the swelling would stop and the bodies would collapse. The next day the ditches were filled again, and covered with 10 centimeters of sand. A little later, I heard, they constructed grills out of rails and burned the bodies on them with Diesel oil and gasoline in order to make them disappear. At Belcec and Treblinka nobody bothered to take anything approaching an exact count of the persons killed. Actually, not only Jews, but many Poles and Czechs, who, in the opinion of the Nazis, were of bad stock, were killed. Most of them died anonymously. Commissions of so-called doctors, who were actually nothing but young SS men in white coats, rode in limousines through the towns and villages of Poland and Czechoslovakia to select the old, tubercular, and sick people and have them done away with shortly afterwards in the gas chambers. They were the Poles and Czechs of category No. III, who did not deserve to live because they were unable to work. Police Captain Wirth asked me not to propose any other kind of gas chamber in Berlin, but to leave everything the way it was. I lied—as I did in each case all the time—and said that the prussic acid had already deteriorated in shipping and had become very dangerous, that I was therefore obliged to bury it. This was done right away. The next day, Captain Wirth’s car took us to Treblinka, about 75 miles NNE of Warsaw. The installations of this death center scarcely differed from those at Belcec, but they were even larger. There were eight gas chambers and whole mountains of clothes and underwear about 35-40 meters high. Then a banquet was given in our “honor,” attended by all the employees of the institution. The Obersturmbannfuehrer, Professor Pfannenstiel, Hygiene Professor at the University of Marburg/Lahn, made a speech: “Your task is a great duty, a duty useful and necessary.” To me alone he talked of this institution in terms of “beauty of the task”; “humane cause”; and speaking to all of them he said: “Looking at the bodies of these Jews, one understands the greatness of your good work!”
TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-365
PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 507
UNSIGNED DRAFT LETTER FROM DR. WETZEL TO ROSENBERG, 25 OCTOBER 1941, DEALING WITH BRACK’S COLLABORATION IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF GAS CHAMBERS FOR THE EXTERMINATION OF JEWS
“Draft” [penciled notation]
Reich Ministry for the Occupied Territories
Referent AGR. Dr. Wetzel
Berlin, 25 October 1941
Secret
Re: Solution of the Jewish Question.
To the Reich Commissioner for the East.
Re: Your Report of 4 October 1941 Concerning Solution of the Jewish Question.
Referring to my letter of 18 October 1941, you are informed that Oberdienstleiter Brack of the Chancellery of the Fuehrer has declared himself ready to collaborate in the manufacture of the necessary shelters as well as the gassing apparatus. At the present time, the apparatus in question are not on hand in the Reich in sufficient number; they will first have to be manufactured. Since in Brack’s opinion the manufacture of the apparatus in the Reich will cause more difficulty than if manufactured on the spot, Brack deems it most expedient to send his people directly to Riga, especially his chemist Dr. Kallmeyer, who will have everything further done there. Oberdienstleiter Brack points out that the process in question is not without danger, so special protective measures are necessary. Under these circumstances, I beg you to turn to Oberdienstleiter Brack, in the Chancellery of the Fuehrer, through your Higher SS and Police Leader, and to request the dispatch of the chemist Dr. Kallmeyer, as well as of further aides. I draw attention to the fact that Sturmbannfuehrer Eichmann, the Referent for Jewish questions in the RSHA, is in agreement with this process. On information from Sturmbannfuehrer Eichmann, camps for Jews are to be set up in Riga and Minsk to which Jews from the old Reich territory may possibly be sent. At the present time, Jews being deported from the old Reich are to be sent to Litzmannstadt [Lodz], but also to other camps, to be later used as labor in the East, so far as they are able to work.
As affairs now stand, there are no objections against doing away with those Jews who are not able to work—with the Brack remedy. In this way occurrences would no longer be possible such as those which, according to a report presently before me, took place at the shooting of Jews in Vilna [Vilnyus] and which, considering that the shootings were public, were hardly excusable. Those able to work, on the other hand, will be transported to the East for labor service. It is self-understood that among the Jews capable of work, men and women are to be kept separate.
I beg you to advise me regarding your further steps.
“N. d. H. M.”
[Lightly penciled notation, meaning copy for the Minister.]
“Wet 25/10” [in ink]
PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT KARL
BRANDT 18
KARL BRANDT DEFENSE EXHIBIT 15
EXTRACTS FROM THE AFFIDAVIT OF DR. WERNER KIRCHERT, 29 JANUARY 1947, STATING THAT KARL BRANDT WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE EUTHANASIA PROGRAM
As a former medical officer of the Waffen SS, I had in 1939 a clinical assignment as medical assistant in the University Clinic of the Charité in Berlin. In September 1939 Reich Physician SS Dr. Grawitz summoned me and asked me to make a list of the German lunatic asylums and the number of their inmates, based on the data in the Reich medical calendar. The reason, I was told, was the fact that, due to the evacuation of the West Wall zone, the inmates had to be transferred to other asylums. After I had finished compiling the list and had handed it in, Grawitz sent me to Dr. Hevelmann at the Chancellery of the Fuehrer. There I learned that it was actually a matter of euthanasia of the insane, and that the transfer was only a pretext. It was pointed out to me that it was on direct orders from the Fuehrer and that Reichsleiter Bouhler had been instructed to carry it out.
At first, three institutions in different parts of Germany were mentioned. The insane people who were to come under the program were to be selected, and Heyde, as chief expert, reserved the final decision for himself. Everything was to be based on strictly medical views and only such persons were to be selected who in a psychiatric sense could be called “siech” (incurably ill).
During all the negotiations the names which were mentioned of the persons who took part were Grawitz, Hevelmann, Heyde, Blankenburg, Brack, and Bouhler. Not a single word was said about Dr. Karl Brandt. Everything at that time was still in the early stages.
Later the problem arose again, when I was department head with Reich Health Leader Dr. Conti; that was at the end of the summer of 1941 when the Fuehrer’s order came that euthanasia should be stopped. But here too the name of Professor Dr. Karl Brandt was never mentioned.
TRANSLATION OF KARL BRANDT DOCUMENT 19
KARL BRANDT DEFENSE EXHIBIT 16
AFFIDAVIT OF ALFRED RUEGGEBERG, 23 JANUARY 1947, CONCERNING RADIO DISCUSSIONS ON EUTHANASIA
I, Alfred Rueggeberg, factory owner in Marienheide, have been told by the certifying notary that I am liable to punishment if I make a false statement under oath.
I declare under oath that my statement is true and is being made to be presented as evidence to the Military Tribunal I, at the Palace of Justice in Nuernberg, Germany:
In summer 1945 I listened to a BBC broadcast from England, which was an interview between the English radio commentator (as far as I remember it was Mr. Robert Graham) and Pastor von Bodelschwingh of Bethel.
In the course of this interview Pastor von Bodelschwingh pointed out that a number of years ago the place now occupied by the radio commentator had been occupied by Professor Brandt and Herr Bouhler who, under Hitler’s orders, were discussing questions on euthanasia.
Questioned by the commentator, Pastor von Bodelschwingh said almost literally—in any case in effect—the following:
“You must not picture Professor Brandt as a criminal, but rather as an idealist.”
This radio talk left me under the impression that Pastor Bodelschwingh did not agree with the nature of Professor Brandt’s activities, yet he had a favorable opinion of his human qualities.
Gummersbach, 23 January 1947.
[Signed] Alfred Rueggeberg
TRANSLATION OF KARL BRANDT DOCUMENT 23
KARL BRANDT DEFENSE EXHIBIT 19
AFFIDAVIT OF EDUARD WOERMANN, 18 JANUARY 1947. CONCERNING DISCUSSIONS OF KARL BRANDT AND PASTOR BODELSCHWINGH ON EUTHANASIA
The Director of the Institution Bethel
Dpt. Bethel-office
Bethel, near Bielefeld, 18 January 1947
AFFIDAVIT
I, the undersigned Pastor Eduard Woermann in Bethel near Bielefeld, have been informed that I am liable to punishment if I should give a false statement under oath. I hereby affirm the following:
The director of the Bodelschwingh institutions in Bethel near Bielefeld, Pastor D. Friedrich von Bodelschwingh, who died 4 January 1946, had several discussions with Professor Dr. Karl Brandt on the question of “the extirpation of life not worth living”, in February 1941 and during the following months. Pastor D. Bodelschwingh reported about this only very discreetly within a very close circle of coworkers, to which I belonged.
He emphasized then that—
1. Though they held fundamentally different views of these measures, he had met a willingness on Professor Dr. Brandt’s part to hear the objections.
2. Professor Dr. Brandt had talked about “completely extinguished life”, while other exponents of these measures based them upon the formula “incurable” or “hopeless”.
3. Professor Dr. Brandt was aware of the fallibility of these measures, and he was prompted to act, not by brutality, but by a certain idealism which was inherent in his conception of life.
I give my permission for this statement to be presented as evidence to the International Military Tribunal I in the Palace of Justice in Nuernberg.
[Signed] Eduard Woermann
TRANSLATION OF POKORNY DOCUMENT 19
POKORNY DEFENSE EXHIBIT 27
AFFIDAVIT OF DR. HELMUTH WEESE, 19 MARCH 1947, CONCERNING USE OF CALADIUM SEGUINUM FOR STERILIZATION
I, the undersigned, Professor Dr. Helmuth Weese, resident of Wuppertal-Elberfeld, have first been duly warned that I shall be subject to punishment if I give a false affidavit. I declare under oath that my statement is true and was made to be introduced as evidence before the Military Tribunal I in the Palace of Justice of Nuernberg, Germany.
When the question is put to me whether it is to be assumed that a doctor, after studying the monograph by G. Madaus and Fr. E. Koch: “Studies of Animal Experiments,” pertaining to the question of sterilization by medication (by means of caladium seguinum (dieffenbachia seguina)), Journal for the Entire Experimental Medicine, vol. 109, p. 68, 1941, could become convinced that human beings can be sterilized with caladium seguinum, I have the following to say about it:
It is pointed out in the investigation referred to above that the authors succeeded in sterilizing rats by feeding them with extract of caladium seguinum. This is proved by mating experiments as well as by anatomical investigations. In order to effect this sterilization of both female and male rats, daily doses of ½ cc. for each rat weighing from 150-180 grams had to be administered 30-50 times and 40-90 times daily, respectively, without being certain of successful results. To apply this to a man weighing 70 kilograms, it would mean administering 200 grams of extract daily.
The investigations show abundantly that a considerable number of animals treated perished from the poisonous effects of the caladium extract. The extract therefore has no specific effect on the reproductive system. It is still completely unknown whether these harmful secondary effects are due to an element in the extract or some kind of accompanying ingredients.
Such types of unspecific injuries of the reproductive system are known to be caused in man in a similar manner also by other agents, for example, by the excessive misuse of nicotine, morphine, and the like, in which case, however, they too appear only along with most severe impairment of other functions.
First of all every doctor faces the question as to whether these experiments on rats are at all applicable to men. Madaus and Koch reject this from the start, because for them it is merely a question of determining whether the popular medical practice of making men impotent by administering sizable quantities of caladium extract can be corroborated by animal experiments.
The prerequisite for administering caladium extract to human beings in our countries would be the planting in Central Europe of caladium seguinum, the habitat of which is in tropical South America. This seems extremely improbable even to an only moderately experienced natural scientist. Even if the planting were successful, this would not necessarily mean that it produces, in our moderate zone, the same effective agents in a sufficient quantity.
Because of the unspecific effect of the caladium extract, its virulently poisonous quality, the doubt as to whether it can be planted and used in our moderate zone, I consider it extremely improbable that even a doctor of only average education will attempt with conviction the experiment of sterilizing human beings with caladium extract on the basis of the work of Madaus and Koch. Convincing papers for the problem referred to other than the work of Madaus and Koch are not known to me.
Wuppertal-Elberfeld
19 March 1947
[Signed] Prof. Dr. Helmuth Weese
EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF PROSECUTION WITNESS DR. MENNECKE[[114]]
DIRECT EXAMINATION
Mr. McHaney: Doctor, were all the concentration camp inmates selected actually insane?
Witness Mennecke: No.
Q. Will you explain your answer please?
A. By insanity we mean a disease which shows characteristic interferences with mental activity. I will not describe them but merely call them characteristics. That is what we mean by insanity. This condition was not prevalent in the majority of cases among inmates in the concentration camps.
Q. Were any inmates selected only for the reason that they were unable to work?
A. That is possible.
Q. Were people selected who had diseases other than those of the mind, such as tuberculosis?
A. Yes. Such people were also included.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
Mr. McHaney: The last question, Dr. Mennecke. Would you be willing to tell the Tribunal how you now feel about your participation in the “euthanasia” program?
Witness Mennecke: Yes. I am willing to say something on that subject. I deeply regret the fact that I was drawn into this program in 1940. After the collapse, when the total extent of the extermination of human beings became known to the public—and to me for the first time—I was ashamed that I had ever had any part in this program (even though in a subordinated position), and I am still ashamed today. That is what I have to say.
Mr. McHaney: Thank you, Dr. Mennecke. I have no further questions.
EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT BRACK[[115]]
EXAMINATION
Judge Sebring: Witness, when adult persons were selected for euthanasia and sent by the transport to euthanasia stations for that purpose, by what methods were the mercy deaths given?
Defendant Brack: The patients went to a euthanasia institution after the written formalities were concluded—I need not repeat these formalities here, they were physical examination, comparison of the files, etc. Then the patients were led to a gas chamber and were there killed by the doctors with carbon monoxide gas (CO).
Q. Where was that carbon monoxide obtained, by what process?
A. It was in a compressed gas container, like a steel oxygen container, such as is used for welding—a hollow steel container.
Q. And these people were placed in this chamber in groups, I suppose, and then the monoxide was turned into the chambers?
A. Perhaps I had better describe this in some detail. Bouhler’s basic requirement was that the killing should not only be painless, but also imperceptible. For this reason, the photographing of the patients, which was only done for scientific reasons, took place before they entered the chamber, and the patients were completely diverted thereby. Then they were led into the gas chamber which they were told was a shower room. They were then in groups of perhaps 20 or 30. They were gassed by the doctor in charge.
Q. Have you ever been present when a mercy death was accorded to these people by that process?
A. Yes. I had to be present because Bouhler wanted a report on whether things were being done according to his orders, and in a dignified and not a brutal fashion.
Q. And you found from your inspection and witnessing these ceremonies that they were being done in accordance with Bouhler’s orders, in a dignified and painless sort of way?
A. Yes. But let me say I was already convinced that the method was painless. And I also saw that by this method the patient did not realize that he was about to be killed. There were benches and chairs in the chamber. A few minutes after the gas was let in, the patient became sleepy and tired and died after a few minutes. They simply went to sleep without even knowing that they were going to sleep, and that was one of the most essential requirements.
Q. When was the first time that you witnessed one of these procedures?
A. The first time was on the occasion of an experiment with four such patients. I think it must have been December 1939 or January 1940. I know there was snow on the ground at the time. That is why I remember these months. Bouhler, Conti, and I don’t know who else was there, there were a few other doctors witnessing it for the first time. On the basis of this experiment Hitler decided that only carbon monoxide was to be used for killing the patients.
Q. Well now, before or after that time had you tried any other gases or any other means of administering euthanasia to these people?
A. No, we—and by this I mean Bouhler’s organization—never used any other gas or any other means.
Q. You found the carbon monoxide quite satisfactory, so you never had to resort to any other means?
A. Yes. You can put it that way.
Q. Now, where was it that these four people were accorded the privilege of a mercy death in December, 1939 or 1940?
A. That was in the first euthanasia station in Brandenburg.
Q. And who were the subjects that were used for that experiment?
A. They were four mentally incurable persons.
Q. Do you know what institution they came from?
A. No. That I don’t know.
Q. Were they men or women?
A. Men.
Q. All men. What were their ages, were they young men, middle-aged men, or elderly men; how would you classify them?
A. I really don’t remember that.
Q. What can you say in regard to their nationality; do you know anything about that?
A. They must have been Germans, they could not have been anything but Germans, because according to regulations only German mentally defective persons were used for euthanasia.
Q. And you say Hitler was there?
A. No. Hitler was not there, Bouhler was there.
Q. Bouhler?
A. Bouhler was there, Conti was there, and I believe Brandt.
Q. Karl Brandt?
A. Yes, Karl Brandt.
Q. Do you remember any of the other defendants who were there?
A. None of the defendants here was present except myself.
Q. Well, then you remember that you, Bouhler, Conti, and Karl Brandt were there; now do you remember any of the other gentlemen there at the time?
A. Yes. I said there were some more doctors there, but none of the defendants here.
Q. Dr. Pfannmueller, perhaps?
A. No. Dr. Pfannmueller was certainly not there. They must have been Berlin doctors.
Q. When after December of 1939 or January of 1940 was it that you again witnessed a euthanasia procedure?
A. I should say that during 1940 in all the euthanasia institutions existing at that time I personally assured myself once or twice that the euthanasia was being correctly carried out. But I think I recollect that the Hadamar Institute was only set up in 1941 and in that year I did not witness euthanasia being carried out, so that this would eliminate the Hadamar Institute.
Q. The Institute at Hadamar, I think you said there were five other stations?
A. Yes. There were six altogether.
Q. So that during the year 1940, you assured yourself that each of the five stations on perhaps one, two or perhaps more visits that the procedure insisted upon by Bouhler was being carried out in a humane manner, in a painless manner by carbon monoxide?
A. Completely imperceptible.
Q. And now who were the people—let me put it this way—the first time at Brandenburg there were four people, all men?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, can you remember on your subsequent visits in 1940 to the other euthanasia stations who the people were, men or women?
A. Both, sometimes men and sometimes women.
Q. And what can you say in regard to their nationality?
A. I can only say that they were only Germans, because I am perfectly convinced that Bouhler’s regulations, which rested on an order from Hitler, namely that no foreigners were to be given euthanasia, were observed strictly by all the euthanasia institutions.
Q. Where were these stations located, Witness?
A. I don’t understand what you mean, where they were?
Q. In what part of Germany or in what part of Poland, or in what part of Czechoslovakia, in what part of the Protectorate of Bohemia-Moravia, in what part of Denmark, in what part of Holland, in what part of France, and in what part of Europe were these stations located?
A. Now I understand you correctly. The first one was in Brandenburg on the Havel in the neighborhood of Berlin about 70 or 80 kilometers away. The next was the Grafeneck Institute, that was in Wuerttemberg. Another institution was Sonnenstein and that is near Pirna near Dresden. There was the Hartheim Institute which was near Linz on the Danube in Austria. Then there was the Bernburg Institute on the Saale River near Dessau. The Hadamar Institute is in Hesse.
Q. Were any of these stations located in that portion of Poland which was occupied by the Germans in military occupation?
A. No.
Q. And the six stations you have just named were all the stations known to you that existed; there were just six?
A. Those were the only ones, yes.
Q. Witness, can you approximate the population of Germany as it existed in the year of 1939 or the year of 1940? Were there some fifty or sixty million people?
A. No, roughly eighty to eighty-five million.
Q. Now by that, when you say eighty to eighty-five million, you include the entire German Reich, including Austria, the Sudetenland, and the occupied territory?
A. Austria and the Sudetenland, but not the occupied territory.
Q. And you estimate roughly there were eighty-five million people?
A. Yes.
Q. Of that eighty-five million, how many Jews would you say were living in Germany at the time who were German nationals?
A. Maybe two or three million.
Q. You are talking now about the Greater German Reich, including Austria and the Sudetenland?
A. Yes.
Q. You estimate there were between two or three million who were German nationals?
A. Roughly, yes.
Q. Now with two or three million German Jews amalgamated into the German population of eighty-five million people who were German nationals, explain, if you will, to the Tribunal why it was that the German Jews were excluded from the Euthanasia Program, if as you say it was a salutary program according to people the privilege of a mercy death for taking them out of their misery; why was it that the German Jews were not included in that program?
A. I have already stated that. As Bouhler explained it, the blessing of euthanasia should be granted only to Germans.
Q. I understand that, but I thought you said at that time there were between two and three million Germans in Germany, German citizens who were Jews?
A. Yes. That is so.
Q. Why were they not included in the program, if the privilege of the program was going to be accorded to all Germans?
A. The reason possibly lies in the fact that the government did not want to grant this philanthropic act to the Jews.
Q. They wanted to grant this philanthropic act to all Aryan Germans, but did not want to grant it to German Jews, and they did not want to grant this philanthropic act to German soldiers of the first war, who had received mental injuries growing out of their war wounds. Is that correct?
A. As I have already said, that was a great inconsistency in this procedure and we often protested. However, it was determined by considerations of a military and psychological nature.
Q. Thank you.
Q. Witness, I think you said yesterday afternoon that these six euthanasia stations were located at Bernburg, Brandenburg, Hadamar, Hartheim, Grafeneck, and Sonnenstein, is that correct?
A. Yes. That is correct.
Q. When were the gas chambers at these euthanasia stations built?
A. When the institutions were set up as euthanasia institutions.
Q. Can you remember the approximate dates?
A. No. I cannot remember the dates. I just know the years when the institutions became euthanasia institutions—approximately. I know that Grafeneck and Brandenburg were the first institutions to become euthanasia institutions. It began at the end of 1939 at the earliest, the beginning of 1940 at the latest. Sonnenstein and Hartheim were set up in the early summer 1940. In the early summer or spring. The institution at Bernburg was established in the fall or winter of 1940, Hadamar, in the winter or spring of 1941. This is as accurate as I can give it.
Q. You said the winter or spring of 1941. Do you mean the winter of 1940 or the spring of 1941? You said the winter or spring of 1941.
A. If I say winter ’41, I mean January ’41, but it might have been March too, I don’t know.
Q. And you think that Hadamar was the last one that was set up?
A. I am quite certain that Hadamar was the last one.
Q. Now, of what materials were these gas chambers built? Were they movable gas chambers, very much like the low-pressure chambers that Professor Dr. Ruff talked about, or were they something that was built permanently into the camp or installation?
A. No special gas chamber was built. A room suitable in the hospital was used, a room of necessity attached to the reception ward and to the room where the insane persons were kept. This room was made into a gas chamber. It was sealed, given special doors and windows, and then a few meters of gas piping were laid, or some kind of piping with holes in it. Outside this room there was a container, a compressed gas container with the necessary apparatus, that is a pressure gauge, etc.
Q. Now what department had the responsibility for constructing or building these gas chambers, what department of the Party or of the government?
A. No office of the Party. I don’t understand the question.
Q. Somebody had to build these chambers. Who gave the orders and who had the responsibility of building them, was that your department?
A. I assume the orders were given by the head of the institution, but I don’t know who actually did give the orders.
Q. In other words, were these chambers not built according to some specifications, plans and specifications?
A. I can’t imagine that, every chamber was different. I saw several of them.
Q. Do you know what department gave the order for having the chambers built? Was that your department under Bouhler?
A. No. It was Bouhler himself.
Q. And he gave the order to the various heads of institutions to install this chamber, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, how would the heads of each of these institutions know how to install a gas chamber unless there were certain plans and specifications given to them?
A. I never saw any such plan. I don’t know of any.
Q. Would you know how to go out and build a gas chamber unless some engineer or planner had told you? Certainly I wouldn’t.
A. I don’t know whether I would either. Presumably he called in an engineer.
Q. That’s what I’m trying to say. What engineer or group of engineers was responsible for seeing that these gas chambers were built so that they would do the job they were supposed to do?
A. There was certainly no group of engineers. I presume there was somebody at the institutions who had enough technical ability to do it. I don’t know.
Q. Then, so far as you know, someone at one of these institutions would be told by Bouhler to construct a gas chamber and he would call—the head of the institution then would call on someone, you don’t know whom, to go out and build the chamber? Is that correct?
A. That is how I imagine it.
Q. Well, wouldn’t it make a considerable difference whether the chamber was to be constructed for euthanasia by carbon monoxide or by some other means? Wouldn’t there have to be some technical information available to the head of the institution so that he could give directions to his mechanic to build the thing to do the thing it was supposed to do?
A. I must say honestly I really don’t know anything about that. I can’t judge.
Q. Do you know whether or not any department of the government, under Bouhler, or under Brandt, or under anybody else, was responsible for seeing that the gas apparatus was installed properly?
A. I don’t know, but I don’t believe so because I would probably have heard of it.
Q. How large were these gas chambers?
A. They were of different sizes. It was simply an adjoining room. I can’t remember whether they were 4 × 5 meters, or 5 × 6 meters. Simply normal sized rooms, but I can’t tell you the exact size. It was too long ago. I can’t remember.
Q. Were they as large as this courtroom?
A. No. They were just normal rooms.
Q. Well, a man of your intelligence must have some idea about the size of these rooms. The assertion “normal size” doesn’t mean anything in particular.
A. By that I mean the size of the normal room in a normal house. I didn’t mean an assembly room or a cell either. I meant a room, but I can’t tell you the exact size because I really don’t know it. It might have been 4 × 5 meters, or 5 × 6 meters, or 3½ × 4½, but I really don’t know. I didn’t pay much attention to it.
Q. Have you ever visited a concentration camp or a military camp of any kind?
A. I visited a concentration camp, and I was once in a military camp as a soldier.
Q. Have you ever seen a shower room or shower bath built into a camp of that kind where the inmates of concentration camps, or where soldiers in a military barracks, can take showers?
A. Yes, I have. In my own barracks.
Q. And would you say that this euthanasia room at the various institutions was about that dimension?
A. I think it was much smaller.
Q. Well, perhaps we can get at it this way. I thought perhaps you knew something about the mechanical construction that I supposed everybody knew something about. This room of yours that you talk about, how many people would it accommodate?
A. Yesterday I said that according to my estimate it might have been twenty-five or thirty people.
Q. And that is still your estimate today? I remember yesterday that you said that, and that is still your estimate today, it could comfortably take care of twenty-five or thirty people?
A. Yes. That’s my estimate.
Q. Now, the carbon monoxide gas that was used for the purpose of euthanasia, where did it come from? I know you said yesterday that it came out of tubes very much like oxygen came in, but where did the tubes come from? Do you know?
A. I don’t know. They were the normal steel containers which can be seen everywhere.
Q. Do you know how they reached the camp?
A. That I don’t know.
Q. Do you know whether any department of the government was responsible for furnishing the gas to the camp?
A. No. They were probably bought.
Q. You think then that perhaps the superintendent of the institution, if he wanted some carbon monoxide gas, would just walk down-town and walk into a store and buy a steel tube of it and put it under his arm and carry it on back to the camp; pay for it out of his pocket?
A. No, not out of his own pocket but through the institution. The institutions bought them, I mean.
Q. Do you know from what sources the institution bought it?
A. Yes. All the funds came from the Reich Ministry of the Interior. They were advanced by the Party treasurer.
Q. Well, now, at that time, wasn’t virtually everything in Germany of a critical nature on some sort of priority? Do you understand what I mean?
A. No.
Q. Would not the diversion of this carbon monoxide in tubes to the various institutions have to be given a priority rating and approved by someone or by some department in the government and thus be made available to the hospitals? Don’t you understand what I mean?
A. Yes, I understand. I have no idea, but I don’t believe so. Why?
Q. What was done with the bodies of these people after mercy deaths were given?
A. When the room had been cleared of gas again, stretchers were brought in and the bodies were carried into an adjoining room. There the doctor examined them to determine whether they were dead.
Q. Then what happened to the bodies?
A. When the doctor had determined death, he freed the bodies for cremation and then they were cremated.
Q. After he had freed the bodies, had determined that they were dead, they were then cremated? Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. There was a crematory built for every one of these institutions?
A. Yes. Crematoriums were built in the institutions.
Q. Do you know whether or not—what department or agency, either under the government, that is, the Reich government, or under the superintendent of the various institutions, was responsible for this detail of cremation?
A. I don’t understand. Bouhler ordered the cremation. Bouhler ordered, on principle, that the bodies were to be cremated after death. There was no office for that.
Q. Was there any report made to anyone of the fact that certain people, who had been selected for euthanasia had finally arrived at these institutions, had actually been accorded the privilege of mercy deaths and then had been cremated?
A. No. I know nothing about that.
Q. No records were kept at all?
A. Oh, I thought you said reports. Now you mean records?
Q. I don’t care what you call it. There must have been a report or record of some kind kept of these people. Was there?
A. Yes, of course. Not only the case histories, but the personal data of the individual patients were collected at the euthanasia institution and there the death records were added and whatever else was available. In my direct examination I pointed out that there were announcements to the agencies concerned, for example, the guardianship court. All these files were sent to Tiergartenstrasse 4.
Q. They were finally sent to Tiergartenstrasse 4?
A. Yes.
Q. Isn’t it true that only in that way could an accurate record or report of this program be made?
A. I didn’t understand. Whether this fact created accurate records about the people, or whether records were kept?
Q. Records were kept, were they not, of this entire transaction of each individual from the time he was expertized?
A. Yes.
Q. Until finally he was cremated?
A. Yes.
Q. And those records were filed with T-4?
A. Yes. They were kept there.
Q. Now, I believe you said that these euthanasia chambers were built to resemble shower rooms?
A. Yes. That’s how I remember it.
Q. And the only people that were accorded euthanasia were people who were incurably insane, I think you said?
A. Yes.
Q. These were people who, as you put it, on ethical grounds did not have the mental capacity either to consent or to resist the decision to grant them euthanasia, and that consequently as you viewed it, it was a humane procedure to accord them a mercy death; is that correct, did I understand you correctly?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, were these people, the ones whom you saw, so insane as not to understand where they were or what was going on around them?
A. I can only say that of course I am not a doctor and therefore not in a position to judge the condition of such patients, but when I was at such institutions I myself saw that the patients, in as far as they were able to walk, went into these chambers or rooms where they were told to go without any objection and sat down on the benches or lay down and were quite quiet.
I don’t know to what extent they realized where they were. I do know, however, that they were not in any way worried, but perfectly calm. Bouhler had ordered that the doctors were to arrange things so that the patients would not realize what was being done to them.
Q. And that was the reason that the gas chambers were constructed to resemble shower rooms, I suppose?
A. Yes.
Q. And these people thought that they were going in to take a shower bath?
A. If any of them had any power of reasoning, they no doubt thought that.
Q. Well now, were they taken into the shower rooms with their clothes on, or were they nude?
A. No. They were nude.
Q. In every case?
A. Whenever I saw them, yes.
Q. And you said, I believe, yesterday that you witnessed perhaps some 10 to 12, or 15, or 20 occasions when groups were accorded mercy deaths?
A. No. I said that I visited each of the institutions, with the exception of Hadamar, at least once, perhaps twice.
Q. And on each occasion did you witness the according of a mercy death to a group?
A. Yes.
Q. And I believe you said yesterday that some of these groups were adults, that some groups were men, other groups were women, and that on some occasions the groups were made up of both men and women, is that correct?
A. No. Apparently I did not express myself clearly. They were either men or women, but I saw both.
Q. And you think perhaps you saw as many as 20 to 30 comfortably accommodated in the chamber?
A. Yes, quite comfortably. There was plenty of room.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
Dr. Hochwald: You never cooperated in the program of extermination of the Jews, is that correct?
Defendant Brack: No. I personally never did.
Q. Is the name Eichmann, Obersturmbannfuehrer Adolf Eichmann, familiar to you?
A. Yes. I know the name now.
Q. You did not know him before? That is, during the war?
A. No, not to my knowledge.
Q. Did you know anything about his activities during the war from your own knowledge, not what you heard now?
A. I cannot remember ever having heard the name Eichmann before.
Q. In order to keep the record straight I would like to offer Document NO-2737. This is an excerpt from the judgment of the International Military Tribunal about the activities of Eichmann, and I would like to ask the Tribunal whether I should give an identification number to this document or whether the Tribunal will take judicial notice of the document.
Presiding Judge Beals: While the Tribunal will take judicial notice of the document mentioned, it would be convenient to have an identification number for the purpose of identification only.
Dr. Hochwald: So it will be Prosecution Exhibit 505 for identification; extract from the judgment of the International Military Tribunal:[[116]]
“In the summer of 1941, however, plans were made for the ‘final solution’ of the Jewish question in Europe. This ‘final solution’ meant the extermination of the Jews, which early in 1939 Hitler had threatened would be one of the consequences of an outbreak of war, and a special section in the Gestapo under Adolf Eichmann, as head of Section B-4 of the Gestapo, was formed to carry out the policy * * *
“* * * Adolf Eichmann, who had been put in charge of this program by Hitler, has estimated that the policy pursued resulted in the killing of 6,000,000 Jews, of which 4,000,000 were killed in the extermination institutions.”
Did you ever have any conferences or discussions with Eichmann concerning the extermination of the Jews and the solution of the Jewish problem?
Defendant Brack: I already said that I did not remember having heard the name Eichmann at all.
Q. I want to put to you NO-997, which is Prosecution Exhibit 506 for identification, your Honors. This is a draft of a letter from the Reich Minister for the Occupied Eastern Territories to the Reich Commissioner for the East:
“Solution of the Jewish Problem.
“Reference: Your report of 4 October 1941, concerning the solution of the Jewish problem.
“I have no objection against your suggestion for the solution of the Jewish problem. Attached please find a memorandum concerning the conversation between my expert consultant, Amtsgerichtsrat Dr. Wetzel, Oberdienstleiter Brack of the Chancellery of the Fuehrer, and Sturmbannfuehrer Eichmann, expert consultant to the Reich Security Main Office. Please note the details of the matter from this memo. Will you please take the necessary steps at the Reich Security Main Office and with Oberdienstleiter Brack from the Chancellery of the Fuehrer via your Higher SS and Police Leader. Please keep me informed.
[Handwritten] F. d. H. M.
[For the Minister]
| “2d Copy | |
| “(a) | Reich Security Main Office |
| “(b) | Chancellery of the Fuehrer |
| Attention: Oberdienstleiter Brack, | |
| Copy of (1), including enclosure for information.” | |
Did you receive a copy of this letter?
A. May I first ask you what the date of this letter is?
Q. Only 1941 is mentioned here. But that is the date I told you. Did you receive a copy of this letter, Herr Brack?
A. I did not receive a copy of it nor did I even see a copy of that letter, nor do I know this Amtsgerichtsrat Wetzel.
Q. Did you have a conference with Eichmann on this problem, on the solution of the Jewish question?
A. I already said I cannot even remember the name Eichmann, nor can I remember the name Wetzel.
Q. Do you know anything about the matters discussed at this conference concerning the solution of the Jewish problem?
A. No. I know nothing.
Q. You have no idea. You never made any suggestions as to what kind of treatment or what kind of gas chambers should be used for the solution of the Jewish problem? You never did that?
A. I can remember nothing in this connection.
Q. You were questioned by the Tribunal last Friday as to whether plans were made for the construction of the gas chambers in the euthanasia stations or whether an engineer or specialist was ordered to assist the directors of the stations in setting up such gas chambers, were you not?
A. Yes.
Q. You were not able to give any information to the Tribunal on that fact, were you?
A. No. I said I didn’t concern myself with these matters.
Q. Is the name Kallmeyer, K-a-l-l-m-e-y-e-r, familiar to you?
A. Yes. But I can’t remember in which connection.
Q. His wife executed an affidavit for you here. (Brack 39, Brack Ex. 23.) Do you remember him now?
A. Yes. Yes, I remember him now.
Q. Was Kallmeyer the engineer, or was he a chemist, who made these plans for gas chambers and assisted the directors in euthanasia stations in setting up these gas chambers?
A. No. Kallmeyer had to check that the gas chambers were operating properly, but I don’t believe he made any plans for that purpose.
Q. Kallmeyer was the man who supervised these gas chambers, was he not?
A. I believe so, yes, but not for long, only for a short time.
Q. All right. And does the name Kallmeyer refresh your memory as to eventual plans you made together with Eichmann about the solution of the Jewish problem, Herr Brack?
A. No.
Q. I want to put to you Document NO-365, which will be Prosecution Exhibit 507 for identification, your Honors. This is a draft from the Reich Ministry for the Occupied Territories dated Berlin, 25 October 1941.
“Referent AGR. Dr. Wetzel
“Re: Solution of the Jewish Question
“1. To the Reich Commissioner for the East
“Re: Your Report of 4 October 1941 Concerning Solution of the Jewish question
“Referring to my letter of 18 October 1941, you are informed that Oberdienstleiter Brack of the Chancellery of the Fuehrer has declared himself ready to collaborate in the manufacture of the necessary shelters, as well as the gassing apparatus. At the present time the apparatus in question are not on hand in the Reich in sufficient number; they will first have to be manufactured. Since in Brack’s opinion the manufacture of the apparatus in the Reich will cause more difficulty than if manufactured on the spot, Brack deems it most expedient to send his people direct to Riga, especially his chemist Dr. Kallmeyer, who will have everything further done there. Oberdienstleiter Brack points out that the process in question is not without danger, so that special protective measures are necessary. Under these circumstances I beg you to turn to Oberdienstleiter Brack, in the Chancellery of the Fuehrer, through your Higher SS and Police Leader and to request the dispatch of the chemist Dr. Kallmeyer as well as of further aides. I draw attention to the fact that Sturmbannfuehrer Eichmann, the referent for Jewish questions in the RSHA, is in agreement with this process. On information from Sturmbannfuehrer Eichmann, camps for Jews are to be set up in Riga and Minsk to which Jews from the old Reich territory may possibly be sent. At the present time, Jews being deported from the old Reich are to be sent to Litzmannstadt, [Lodz] but also to other camps, to be later used as labor in the East so far as they are able to work.
“As affairs now stand, there are no objections against doing away with those Jews who are unable to work with the Brack remedy. In this way occurrences would no longer be possible such as those which, according to a report presently before me, took place at the shooting of Jews in Vilna and which, considering that the shootings were public, were hardly excusable. Those able to work, on the other hand, will be transported to the East for labor service. It is self-understood that among the Jews capable of work, men and women are to be kept separate.
“I beg you to advise me regarding your further steps.”
Herr Brack, are you still going to maintain what you said here in direct examination, namely, that you tried to protect the Jews and to save the Jews from their terrible fate and that you were never a champion of the extermination program?
A. I should even like to maintain that misuse, terrible misuse, was made of my name. I see from this letter and from the date of this letter that all these negotiations were carried out at a time when I was far away from Berlin, when I was on sick leave. If I have the possibility I hope I shall be able to bring witnesses who will testify to that effect. I must frankly admit that at this period something was going on which entirely contradicted my opinion, but this could only have been done under misuse of my name and my agency. I was not willing to participate in these things.
Q. Can you tell me, Herr Brack, where Riga and Minsk are located?
A. Riga is on the Baltic in Latvia, and Minsk is in Russia.
Q. These two places were outside Germany, were they not?
A. Yes.
Q. Prosecution has no further questions at this time.
EXTRACT FROM THE TESTIMONY OF PROSECUTION WITNESS WALTER E. SCHMIDT[[117]]
CROSS-EXAMINATION
Dr. Servatius: What kind of directives were given at that time about the execution of the Euthanasia Program?
Witness Schmidt: Well, the same directives as were finally carried out—to move the invalids from lunatic asylum to the euthanasia institution. I personally received subsequently the orders from the Reich committee which had already been discussed during that meeting.
Q. Did you at that time consider that an order for murder?
A. In no way at all. The jurists in Berlin told us that this was a legal matter, that it was a Hitler decree or a law which had been duly approved; also that the jurists had discussed whether Hitler was authorized to issue such a decree and decided in the affirmative, and we were told that this was a matter which was a quite legal—
Q. Witness, a little slower.
A. That it was a legal task of the State which had already been planned in 1932 and which was also being planned in other countries and that we would not incriminate ourselves in any way, on the contrary, a sabotage of this order would be a criminal offense. The question of secrecy was also discussed in detail and it was stated that this was a kind of law now; that the patients were not to have knowledge of such a measure beforehand because otherwise they would be excited, and that was probably the main reason why this law could not be published. In addition at that time we were at war and those kinds of measures should be kept secret in the interior.
Q. Who were the people to be concerned by the Euthanasia Program?
A. The incurably sick. However, it was not quite clear to me where the limit was to be drawn. For me personally, such a measure could only be considered in the cases of persons who were dying anyhow.
Q. Was there any mention made at that time of “useless eaters” and other economic points of view?
A. I never actually heard the words “useless eaters” at all during the war.
Q. Was it mentioned at the time that the institution had to be kept free for other purposes, and that that was the reason?
A. The reason for this measure was only touched upon briefly. We were told that these were tasks of the state which had become urgent because of the war and, yes, of a eugenic nature.
Q. How about the children?
A. At the time there was always talk about the last medical aid.
Q. Well, if I understood you correctly, the decisive viewpoint was the medical one?
A. Yes. I only observed it from the medical point of view.
Q. Now was the procedure actually carried out from this point of view? Or didn’t this so-called program actually go far beyond its limits in its execution?
A. The limits of the program were certainly exceeded to a great extent. I personally did not see it myself, but on the basis of the reports I received, I must say that excesses certainly took place.
Q. Witness, how was it in your institution with reference to excesses?
A. In my institution procedure was taken only on the basis authorized by law. We also had a therapy station. Of course, I must say, it was not very nice to watch these transports.
Q. Now, you said that later on Eastern workers were picked up?
A. Yes.
Q. Wasn’t that in excess of the original order which you received?
A. I cannot say that. I don’t know.
Q. Do you know where the order came from to transport these people away?
A. From the Ministry of the Interior. It was given to us by the superior office of the Ministry of the Interior.
Q. You mean the Reich Minister of the Interior?
A. Yes.
Q. You further mentioned that the action was concluded in August 1941, that it was stopped. Do you know the reason for this?
A. Yes. I do not know the official reason, but I heard of it unofficially. I heard that Herr von Galen protested, and that was probably why the whole procedure was stopped. I emphasize that I don’t know for certain, but anyway for me it was a reason.
Q. Well was this procedure actually stopped everywhere in the end?
A. No. When Hadamar was closed I immediately assumed that some other institution would continue this task or that the procedure would be followed up in some other way. That is also what Mr. von Hegener said when he was there.
Q. You said that these Eastern workers were collected by the same busses as before?
A. Yes. The busses were the same. They were big black busses, and we knew the drivers because they came frequently.
Q. To whom did the busses belong? To the Gauleiter’s office?
A. These busses were owned by the transport company. The Sick Transport Company in Berlin. Some of the personnel remained in Hadamar.
Q. Was there no medical personnel?
A. No. There was no medical personnel.
Q. You said something about the excesses with reference to the program.
A. One must differentiate between how things were until the action was stopped in 1941, and how it was later on.
Q. What excesses do you know of before the action was stopped in 1941?
A. You mean individually?
Q. Yes, in your institution.
A. There were none at all in our institution. The people were transported away.
Q. You acted according to directives?
A. Yes. I personally was not in charge of this action. My chief was in charge. But as far as I know no excesses were committed by the nursing personnel. Of course, some of the obstinate patients refused to enter the busses. That is natural.
Q. Were these all extreme cases which were sent for under this Euthanasia Program?
A. Of course, it depends where the limit is drawn. One can maintain the view that a large part of the patients, perhaps, might have undergone a certain change through modern shock treatment or some other modern method of treatment. But with those cases there in which the mental disease was in a very advanced stage, in my opinion, most of the patients no longer had any chance to enjoy life.
EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT KARL BRANDT[[118]]
DIRECT EXAMINATION
Dr. Servatius: Witness, you are charged with participation in the Euthanasia Program. I shall show you the decree of 1 December [1 September] 1939. (NO-630, Pros. Ex. 330.) Please describe how this decree came about.
Defendant Karl Brandt: After the end of the Polish campaign in about October [sic], the Fuehrer was at Obersalzberg. I was called to him for some reason which I can no longer remember and he told me that because of a document which he had received from Reichsleiter Bouhler, he wanted to bring about a definite solution in the euthanasia question. He gave me general directives on how he imagined it, and the fundamentals were that insane persons who were in such a condition that they could no longer take any conscious part in life were to be given relief through death. General instructions followed about petitions which he himself had received, and he told me to contact Bouhler himself about the matter. I did so by telephone on the same day, and I then informed Hitler about my conversation with Bouhler. Thereupon he drafted a formulation of this decree, not in the form we have here, but in a similar form, and certain changes were made. My request was that a precaution be introduced because of the medical participation, and I used an expression for this which was familiar to me from expert opinions. It stated that euthanasia could be carried out on persons and then comes the formulation “who are incurable with a probability bordering on certainty.” Since this formulation was strange to him, “on the most careful diagnosis of their condition of sickness” was added. Therefore, when this decree was signed about the end of October, the text read as follows: “Reichsleiter Bouhler and Dr. Brandt are charged with the responsibility of extending the authority of certain doctors, to be designated by name in such a manner that persons who, according to human judgment, are incurably sick, can, on the most careful diagnosis of their condition of sickness, be accorded a mercy death.”
Q. Did you talk to Bouhler?
A. At first I only talked to Bouhler on the telephone and even after the decree was signed I did not talk to him immediately but sent the signed decree to him in Berlin.
Q. And what was Hitler’s idea of euthanasia? What did he understand by it?
A. The decisive thing for him was also expressed here in the decree, namely, that incurably sick persons—actually it should have read insane persons—other persons were absolute exceptions—could be accorded a mercy death. That is, therefore, a measure dictated by purely humane considerations, and nothing else could be thought under any circumstances, and nothing else was ever said to me.
Q. You said that the Fuehrer gave you the assignment on the basis of a telephone call from Bouhler? The call from Bouhler could not have been the only reason. There must have been others.
A. It was not a telephone call. There was some kind of a documentary incident which was decisive. It may be that the Fuehrer already had these documents or that Bouhler spoke to him again about them. I don’t know exactly. But this was not the cause of the Euthanasia Program being started. In his book, “Mein Kampf,” Hitler had already referred to it in certain chapters, and the law for the “prevention of the birth of children suffering from hereditary diseases” is a proof that Hitler had definitely concerned himself with such problems earlier. The law for the “prevention of the birth of children suffering from hereditary diseases” is actually a law which followed the events. It certainly arose because children with congenital diseases existed. Proof that this is a problem which affects the whole world lies in the fact that similar laws with similar formulation and contents have been passed in other countries.
Dr. Gerhardt Wagner, who was Dr. Conti’s predecessor, discussed these questions at the Party rally in Nuernberg. I did not talk to Gerhardt Wagner at that time and had nothing to do with these things. However, I hear now that in 1935 Gerhardt Wagner had a film made presenting the problem of the insane. Apparently the film was made in asylums with insane persons.
Q. Witness, did not the requests received by Bouhler and the Fuehrer play a certain part?
A. Requests to this effect were certainly constantly received by Bouhler, and the Chancellery of the Fuehrer always received such things. I only know that these requests were afterwards passed on to the Reich Ministry of the Interior. I myself know of one request which was sent to the Fuehrer himself through his adjutant’s office in the spring of 1939. The father of a deformed child approached the Fuehrer and asked that this child or this creature should be killed. Hitler turned this matter over to me and told me to go to Leipzig immediately—it was in Leipzig—to confirm the fact on the spot. It was a child who was born blind, an idiot—at least it seemed to be an idiot—and it lacked one leg and part of one arm.
Q. Witness, you were speaking about the Leipzig affair, about this deformed child. What did Hitler order you to do?
A. He ordered me to talk to the physicians who were looking after the child to find out whether the statements of the father were true. If they were correct, then I was to inform the physicians in his name that they could carry out euthanasia.
The important thing was that the parents should not feel themselves incriminated at some later date as a result of this euthanasia—that the parents should not have the impression that they themselves were responsible for the death of this child. I was further ordered to state that if these physicians should become involved in some legal proceedings because of this measure, these proceedings would be quashed by order of Hitler. Martin Bormann was ordered at the time to inform Guertner, the Minister of Justice, accordingly about this case.
Q. What did the doctors who were involved say?
A. The doctors were of the opinion that there was no justification for keeping such a child alive. It was pointed out that in maternity wards under certain circumstances it is quite natural for the doctors themselves to perform euthanasia in such a case without anything further being said about it. No precise instructions were given in that respect.
Q. Was this problem of deformities dealt with anywhere else?
A. The problem of deformities was probably discussed before this Leipzig case. However, in the course of the summer it was worked on in a more concrete form, first of all by the Ministry of the Interior. In this case, Dr. Linden participated as a special consultant, probably as representative of Dr. Conti—who became Reich Minister for Health after the death of his predecessor Wagner, and then afterwards State Secretary in the Ministry of the Interior.
Q. Who was Dr. Linden?
A. Dr. Linden was Ministerialrat in the Reich Ministry of the Interior. He was a doctor and was the competent official who was later in charge of this office for the mental institutions, perhaps he already was at the time, I don’t know exactly. Later on, during the treatment of the euthanasia question he was appointed exponent of all these matters.
Q. What was the procedure at the time? Was Hitler informed about all these matters?
A. In August 1944 he ordered me to participate in a conference which took place between Dr. Linden, Mr. Bouhler, and some other people. The question of the registration of these deformities was discussed, and also how to set about this registration. Dr. Linden, on behalf of the Ministry of the Interior, submitted pertinent documents, questionnaires, etc., which were then discussed once more in detail. It was the preparatory work for the Reich Committee for the Registration of Serious Hereditary and Constitutional Diseases, which was subsequently established.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
Mr. McHaney: Now, Witness, this is the first time that I have ever heard mentioned in connection with the Euthanasia Program that anybody’s consent had to be obtained, and I take it that it is a rather fundamental matter. Are you ready to swear to this Tribunal that the Reich committee never performed euthanasia on children without obtaining the consent of the parents of the child?
Defendant Karl Brandt: I said yesterday that the approval of the parents was necessary for the euthanasia of children, and I am of the opinion that such approval was actually given.
Q. Was the approval written approval or verbal approval?
A. That I don’t know. I cannot say.
Q. Have you ever seen any written approval?
A. I believe that during the first period when this authorization was submitted for signature to Bouhler and to me, all the other papers were together with it, such as approvals, etc. It may be that during the later period we were only concerned with the authorization papers and that the other papers were left with the Reich committee. However, I did see such letters of approval but I don’t believe that they were in writing in every case. I think they were partly given orally through the local physician or some other agency which dealt with the case.
Q. Well, Witness, let’s look at this letter again. I find some difficulty in reconciling your testimony about the necessity of consent by the relatives of the child with what’s written here in this letter. For example, the third line reads: “It seems that the relatives of Anna Gasse tried to obtain her release by every possible means.” If, Witness, it was necessary to obtain consent, why was there any question about releasing Anna Gasse?
A. I cannot say that either. According to my opinion, the child could not be kept in an institution if the parents wanted it at home.
Q. And the last sentence which reads, “If from a medical point of view such release is warranted, one could perhaps take into consideration whether one should not perhaps comply with such request in the interest of the good reputation of the institution.” Don’t you find that language just a bit restrained, Witness?
A. Yes. I think it is very restrained.
[93] Trial of the Major War Criminals, vol. I, pp. 247, 301, Nuremberg, 1947.
[94] Defendant in case before International Military Tribunal. See Trial of the Major War Criminals, Vols. I-XLII, Nuremberg, 1947.
[95] Objection to admission in evidence sustained.
[96] Ibid.
[97] Objection to admission in evidence sustained.
[98] Defendant (in absentia) before International Military Tribunal. See Trial of the Major War Criminals, vols. I-XLII, Nuremberg, 1947.
[99] Code name for the killing of non-German nationals and Jews who were inmates of the concentration camps.
[100] Trial of the Major War Criminals, vol. XX, pp. 490-1, Nuremberg, 1948.
[101] Trial of the Major War Criminals, vol. I, p. 247, Nuremberg, 1947.
[102] United States vs. Alfons Klein, et al. See Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, vol. I, pp. 46-54, London, 1947.
[103] Ibid.
[104] Not introduced in evidence.
[105] Not introduced in evidence.
[106] United States vs. Alfons Klein, et al. See Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, vol. I, pp. 46-54, London, 1947.
[107] Ibid.
[108] Final plea is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 18 July 1947, pp. 11220-11244.
[109] Defendant before International Military Tribunal. See Trial of the Major War Criminals, vol. I, pp. 298-301, Nuremberg, 1947.
[110] Literally: Nonprofit Sick Transport Company.
[111] German or of similar blood (of German blood), Jew, Jewish mixed breed Grades I or II, Negro (mixed breed).
[112] Defendant in case of United States vs. Josef Altsetoetter, et al. See Vol. III.
[113] Enclosures were not available.
[114] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 16, 17 Jan. 1947, pp. 1866-1946.
[115] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19 May 1947, pp. 7413-7772.
[116] Trial of the Major War Criminals, vol. I, pp. 250, 252-253, Nuremberg, 1947.
[117] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 16 Jan 1947, pp. 1816-1863.
[118] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Feb 1947, pp. 2301-2661.
E. Selections From Photographic Evidence
of the Prosecution
