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.