Chapter D: V. L., Berlin-Adlershof (17)

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.