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]])