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.

* * * * *