Chapter D: V. L., Berlin-Adlershof (18)

Statement of Mennecke, according to which Brack was chairman of
the conference in February 1940. (_Tr. p. 1869._)

Statement of Schmidt. Karl Brandt also was not present at the
conference in February 1941, but there were present
representatives of the Reich Ministry of the Interior and of the
Reich Ministry of Justice. (_Tr. p. 1819._)

Statement of Pfannmueller, according to which the experts were
appointed by the Reich Ministry of the Interior. (_Tr. p.
7377._)

Statement of Brack, according to which the physicians were
chosen by Linden and Grawitz. (_Tr. pp. 7703, 7705._)

Affidavit of Kneissler, according to which the persons in charge
of euthanasia were instructed by Blankenburg of the Bouhler
office. (_NO-470, Pros. Ex. 332._) Karl Brandt was not
mentioned.

Affidavit of Sprauer, according to which the mental institutions
were under the control of the Reich Ministry of the Interior.
(_3896-PS, Pros. Ex. 372._) Answering a complaint of Sprauer,
Conti stated: “That is the business of the Reich Ministry of the
Interior.”

Affidavit of Jordans. (_3882-PS, Pros. Ex. 371._) Also confirms
that the mental institutions were under the control of the Reich
Ministry of the Interior.

The order for evacuation from Warstein to Hadamar was not given
at the suggestion of the Reich Defense Commissioner or for
“systematic registration”, but with regard to the air raid
danger. (_NO-892, Pros. Ex. 442._) Karl Brandt was a member of
the committee for air raid damage, and it was his special task
within this committee to allot the space available in hospitals
fairly. The order was given in 1942, after the great air raids
in the area of Cologne and the industrial areas. It refers to an
institution in the interior of Westphalia which was considered
as a reception district at that time; the euthanasia facilities
at Hadamar were removed and the institution was returned to the
former owner. (See indictment in the Hadamar Trial.[102])

Affidavit of Steinbrecher. (_Karl Brandt 84, Karl Brandt Ex.
87._) The activity of Karl Brandt on occasion of the removal of
the mental institution from Dueren shows that Karl Brandt was
not engaged as chief of the mental institutions, but in advisory
capacity beside the competent authority, because he had
influence and was charged with a special task in the field of
air raid protection, in view of his general allocation tasks.
Here Karl Brandt was able to help directly on account of his
special tasks connected with the Committee for Air Raid Damage.

Statement of Rose. (_Tr. p. 6362._) Opinion of the witness as to
affidavit, NO-872, Prosecution Exhibit 408. From this it is seen
that Karl Brandt here did not have charge of the patients, but
was to endeavor with the other authorities to have the
institution placed at his disposal.

_Real Position of Karl Brandt._ The position of Karl Brandt within the framework of the Euthanasia Program was limited.

Statement of Karl Brandt, according to which it was his task to
inform Hitler and to license physicians of the euthanasia
institutions according to the decree on the basis of personal
responsibility of the physicians. (_Tr. p. 2408._)

Statement of Brack. The witness says that Karl Brandt had
nothing to do with the carrying out of the Euthanasia Program,
“for he was the delegate of Hitler”. (_Tr. p. 7571._) He had no
office at Tiergartenstrasse 4, and to the knowledge of Brack, he
was never in the office “T 4”.

Affidavit of Reinhardt. (_Karl Brandt 5, Karl Brandt Ex. 6._)
The witness was occupied as an auditor in the office of Karl
Brandt, and he states that in this capacity he did not find in
the office of Karl Brandt any accounts or items with entries
referring to euthanasia.

Affidavit of Schaub, according to which Karl Brandt was bound to
the Fuehrer Headquarters and to Hitler and thus was not able to
make any inspections. (_Karl Brandt 80, Karl Brandt Ex. 98._)

Affidavit of Rach. (_Karl Brandt 6, Karl Brandt Ex. 7._) The
witness confirms the connection of Karl Brandt with the Fuehrer
Headquarters and with the clinic in Berlin.

_Execution_

_Position taken in the indictment_

* * * * *

_Position of the defense_

_Time._ The practice (of euthanasia) by virtue of the authorization started at the beginning of 1940 and lasted until August 1941, when it was stopped. Statement of Karl Brandt. (_Tr. p. 2431._) Statement of Brack. (_Tr. p. 7543._) According to both statements, the practice was suspended because of an oral order by Hitler to Karl Brandt. (Oral order of suspension was sufficient, since the legal ordinance itself was not revoked, because in principle euthanasia was supposed to be continued after the war. Continuation of the Reich Committee for Children.)

Suspension of euthanasia is confirmed through the following depositions: Statement by Blome. (_Tr. p. 4653._) Statement by Pfannmueller. (_Tr. p. 7348._) Statement by Dr. Schmidt. (_Tr. p. 1823._) Statement by Dr. Mennecke. (_Tr. p. 1879._) According to these testimonies, euthanasia was discontinued in Hadamar in August 1941 and the gas chambers removed. (See record of Hadamar Trial, especially indictment[103].)

The witnesses say further that euthanasia was no longer practiced at Eichberg either.

Affidavit of Irene Asam-Bruckmueller. The witness confirms
suspension in Ansbach; she places this in the year 1942.
(_3865-PS, Pros. Ex. 365._)

Affidavit of Jordans. According to this, the witness learned in
March 1942 that there had been a euthanasia program in other
institutions, too, which now had been discontinued. (_3882-PS,
Pros. Ex. 371._)

Kirchert affidavit. According to this, suspension occurred in
the summer of 1941. (_Karl Brandt 18, Karl Brandt Ex. 15._)

Mennecke correspondence. The witness writes on 15 June 1942 of
“re-commencement” of euthanasia. (_NO-907, Pros. Ex. 412._)

_Number of dead._

Statement by Karl Brandt on the number of insane falling under
the authorization of 1 September 1939. (_Tr. p. 2465._) Brack
estimates them at 50,000 to 60,000. (_Tr. p. 7610._)

Pfannmueller statement. The number of report forms which were
made out does not equal the number of persons marked for
euthanasia. This number contains only a fairly small percentage
of persons, who were judged eligible for euthanasia. (_Tr. p.
7384._)

_Registration by report forms._

_In general._

Statement by Karl Brandt. (_Tr. p. 2401._) According to this,
Karl Brandt did not assist in drawing up the report forms. They
were drafted by the Reich Ministry of the Interior (Linden).

Pfannmueller statement. (_Tr. p. 7322._) According to this, the
directives were worked out as a result of the conference of
experts at which Karl Brandt was not present.

_In detail._

Pfannmueller statement. (_Tr. p. 7324._) According to this, no
persons incapable of work were supposed to be registered, but
only the insane, with whom the inability to work was a special
characteristic of their diseased state.

Wesse Affidavit (in lieu of cross-examination). (_NO-129, Pros.
Ex. 105._)

Statement of Karl Brandt. (_Tr. p. 2465._) According to Karl
Brandt, the registration of Jews, foreigners, and war wounded
was presumably carried out for statistical reasons.

Statement of Brack. (_Tr. pp. 7596-8._) According to Brack the
opinion of Karl Brandt about the reasons for the inclusion of
the above-mentioned question is false and is based on “lack of
professional knowledge” by Karl Brandt. Brack says that the
questions were included only for the purpose of concealing the
practice of euthanasia in the sanatoriums and nursing homes,
from their personnel and their patients, and to veil the true
purpose of the questionnaire. (For the same reason the purpose
of the transfer was given out as “planned economic
registration.”)

Rosenau affidavit about camouflaging purpose of the report
forms. (_Karl Brandt 130, Karl Brandt Ex. 106._) Letter
concerning the registration of workhouses. (_NO-781, Pros. Ex.
379._) Not the old and disabled are registered, but only those
cases of insanity that can no longer be treated.

Brack statement. (_Tr. p. 7599._) Foreigners were sorted out in
T 4.

Brack statement. (_Tr. p. 7593._) According to this, foreigners
were exempt from euthanasia. They were screened in the central
office T 4. If single sheets for appraisal possibly went
further, then this was because of incorrect transmission.
Wounded veterans of World War I, just like Jews, were screened
at the central office T 4. Report forms were made out for Jews,
but they were not registered for the euthanasia procedure.

_Classification procedure._ The accomplishment of the
classification procedure was guaranteed by the choice of the
appraisers.

Statement by Pfannmueller. (_Tr. p. 7377._) According to this,
professional persons of proven ability were designated by the
Reich Minister of the Interior.

Statement by Mennecke. (_Tr. p. 1294._) According to this,
university professors lecturing on psychiatry at colleges were
appointed as appraisers. The appraisal was preceded by an
examination of the patient. After the appraisal a re-examination
was made in observation institutions and in the euthanasia
institutions.

According to the scheduled procedure special commissions were
appointed to examine the insane in nursing homes.

Affidavit of Irene Asam-Bruckmueller. Then came a commission
which studied the case histories; among them were two
physicians; the commission was in the institution for three
days; after three months the transfer was effected. (_3865-PS,
Pros. Ex. 365._)

Granzer affidavit. In the autumn of 1940 there was a commission
of 40 persons; all case histories were asked for and a
conference with the local staff physicians followed. An
inspection of the patients was held. (_3867-PS, Pros. Ex. 369._)

Sellmer report of 6 December 1940, Gauleiter’s office,
Franconia. According to this a commission came and examined the
files and inspected the patients. (_D-906, Pros. Ex. 376._)

Decision of the commission was based on the documents of the
institution. (_NO-660, Pros. Ex. 377._)

Pfannmueller statement. He recalls that a commission came in
1940. (_Tr. p. 7325._)

Further re-examination took place in the observation and euthanasia institutions. The physicians were authorized and obliged to judge the patients on their own responsibility. On an average 4 percent to 6 percent were rejected.

Kneissler affidavit. Witness says that individual persons were
rejected. (_NO-470, Pros. Ex. 332._)

It appears from the reports that individual patients were sent
back. (_D-906, Pros. Ex. 376._)

_Transfer of patients. Order of transfer._

Statement by Karl Brandt. “Operation Brandt” has nothing to do
with the transfer. Through inquiries at sanatoriums and nursing
homes, special Karl Brandt project concerning euthanasia order.
According to this inquiry the hospitals of the special Brandt
project accepted patients from areas endangered by air raids as
evacuation hospitals. The transfer which became necessary had no
connection with euthanasia. (_Karl Brandt 86, Karl Brandt Ex.
88._)

Schnelle affidavit. According to this “Operation Brandt” meant
the removal of patients and chronic sufferers to medicinal
baths. (_Karl Brandt 21, Karl Brandt Ex. 17._)

Miesen affidavit. According to this Karl Brandt charged them
with the manufacture of ambulances which were then lacking.
(From this it appears that up to that time other means of
transportation had to be used, among others the Red Cross, etc.,
and also the General Sick Transport Company, which had likewise
been used for transport purposes in the battle zones of the
East.) Compare also the widely popular expression “Operation
Brandt” in purely economic fields. (_Karl Brandt 28._[104])

Schieber affidavit. (_Karl Brandt 22, Karl Brandt Ex. 18._)

Grabe affidavit. (_Karl Brandt 86, Karl Brandt Ex. 88._)

Kehrl affidavit. (_Karl Brandt 90, Karl Brandt Ex. 89._)

_Order of transfer through other agencies._ Collective transport
of Jews takes place under the reference of “Initial Decree of
the State [Bavarian] Ministry [of Interior] in Munich.”
(_NO-1141, Pros. Ex. 348._)

Collective transport of Eastern workers ordered by the
Oberpraesident through Bernotat. (_NO-891, Pros. Ex. 414._)

Transfer through Munich [Bavarian] State Ministry [of Interior].
(_NO-1132, Pros. Ex. 341._)

Transfer through the Province Governor of Military District III.
(_NO-1133, Pros. Ex. 335._)

Transfer through Military District III. (_NO-826, Pros. Ex.
356._)

Transfer through Munich Ministry. (_D-906, Pros. Ex. 376._)

Motives for the transfer. The transfer from institutions was
effected for various reasons as a result of wartime conditions,
such as evacuation of districts endangered by air raids,
evacuation on account of proximity to the front and evacuation
under consideration of inner displacements.

Ganzer affidavit. (_3827-PS, Pros. Ex. 369._) According to this,
the evacuations became frequent on account of wartime conditions
and it was not easily apparent to the outsider why they were
effected. The evacuation from Warstein to Hadamar, where
reference is made to an order by Karl Brandt, could not have
taken place on account of euthanasia, as Hadamar at this time
had discontinued euthanasia. The change was made for reasons of
air raid precaution.

_Carrying out of the evacuation._

Statement of Karl Brandt. The evacuation was carried out by the
Cooperative Ambulance Company through Office T 4, which was
_not_ subordinate to Karl Brandt. The Cooperative Ambulance
Company was not employed for euthanasia transports alone.
Whenever it was used, the account was rendered through the
clearing office which settled the matter centrally.

Affidavit by Schieber on procurement of lacking ambulance space
through the defendant Karl Brandt. (_Karl Brandt 22, Karl Brandt
Ex. 18._)

Affidavit by Miesen. (_Karl Brandt 28._[105])

Statement of Mennecke on the assignment of the Cooperative
Ambulance Company, 1941-42, in the East.

Deportation of Jews. Here a separation of the Jews according to
nationality is carried out. Poles and Jews from Bohemia and
Moravia shall not be transferred because they do not belong to
the area of the transport. This shows that the aim of the
deportation was not euthanasia, because separation according to
nationality would have been senseless. (_NO-1310, Pros. Ex.
337._)

Affidavit by Schnidtmann. He expresses his opinion on the
transfer of workers from the East on 18 September 1944; they are
to be returned to their home institutions. This would have been
superfluous in the case of intended euthanasia. (_NO-720, Pros.
Ex. 366._)

Affidavit by Rosenau. (_Karl Brandt 130, Karl Brandt Ex. 106._)

_Reasons for euthanasia._ Euthanasia was brought about on the basis of an authorization given to the directors of the euthanasia institutions on 1 September 1939. This authorization was no order to carry out euthanasia but merely gave permission to arrange for euthanasia after examination based on a critical judgment of the condition of the illness. Consequently, doctors acted on their own responsibility.

_The means for the execution of euthanasia._

Statement of Brack. According to this statement, carbon monoxide
(CO) was used as a means. This is scientifically proved to be
the least painful manner of death. The use of other methods
proves that such an execution of euthanasia does not conform
with the intended procedure, but is carried out on personal
initiative. (_Tr. p. 7743._)

Statement of Rose. (_Tr. p. 6363._) Opinion on the reduction of
food in medical institutions. (_NO-872, Pros. Ex. 403._) Rose
declares that this did not result in any particular reduction or
neglect of the patients.

_Experimental killing of insane persons._

The handing-over of patients from the institution of
Eglfing-Haar is under consideration. (_No_ euthanasia).
(_1696-PS, Pros. Ex. 357._)

_Issue of false death certificates and notices._

Meltzer opinion. (_Karl Brandt 85, Karl Brandt Ex. 94._) This
document contains an inquiry sent to 200 relatives regarding
their attitude towards euthanasia. Most of the relatives agree
to it; it is characteristic that many disagree but declare that
they do not wish to be asked and that the matter had best be
kept secret and covered up (death should come unexpectedly not
influenced by the wishes and interests of others and should not
burden the relatives). Professor Meltzer, an opponent of
euthanasia, arranged for the examination as the director of an
insane asylum in order to obtain an argument against the main
advocates of euthanasia in Germany, Binding and Hoche, and he
declared that he was surprised at the result shown by the
questionnaire.

_Euthanasia compared with Medical Euthanasia_

_Position taken in the indictment_

* * * * *

_Position of the defense_

In addition to the prescribed euthanasia based on authorization a so-called “wild euthanasia” took place, upon which the defendant Karl Brandt had no influence, and of which he had no knowledge.

_Euthanasia on Polish Nationals._ The authorization by Karl Brandt was limited to the occupied territories, which were subordinate to special administration, like the administration for the Government of Poland and the Protectorate as well as the Communication Zone. Karl Brandt therefore cannot be held responsible for the events which took place in the insane asylums in Poland. The removal of Eglfing-Haar to the occupied territories was carried out by the Cooperative Ambulance Company, but the fact of the transport shows obviously that death was not intended, as such a deportation would have been senseless. The seizure of Poles in the Polish district Zichenau by the Reich Security Main Office proves that quite another organization is at work than the organization for euthanasia in Germany, which was Appointed by the Ministry of the Interior as supervisory authority.

_Euthanasia in the Communication Zone._

Affidavit by Halder. (_Karl Brandt 116, Karl Brandt Ex. 92._)
Rumors that inmates of the insane asylum of Novgorod and others
had been killed reached Halder. He knows that Karl Brandt was
not mentioned in this connection as he held no authority in this
field and that his appearance would be particularly noticeable.

_Extermination in Auschwitz._

Letter from Brack to Himmler. (_NO-205, Pros. Ex. 163._) The
letter shows that the defendant Karl Brandt had nothing to do
with the deportation of persons to Auschwitz. Brack designates
the “men” as his “personnel” and on his own initiative offers
further personnel in his direct correspondence with Himmler.

Statement of Brack. (_Tr. p. 7530._) He points out that he had
not accused Brandt himself of having any knowledge of or part in
this, but merely that the possibility was presented to him
during the interrogation by the prosecution. He had attempted to
maintain his opinion through changes in the text of the
affidavit composed for him. The text presented to him definitely
mentioned Brandt as a confidant. It was stated there:

“It _was impossible_ for these people to participate
without the knowledge of Karl Brandt” further “that this
order _could_ have been issued by _Karl Brandt only_.”
Brack has changed the text in the best possible way and
has rearranged the sentence as follows: “It _would have
been_ impossible for these people to participate.” To
the phrase “only by order of Karl Brandt” was added
“possibly Bouhler.”

Statement of Hielscher. (_Tr. p. 5982 ff._) On
cross-examination, the witness testified to the trustworthiness
of the witness Gerstein, who since submitting the affidavit can
no longer be traced and is presumed to be hiding.

Statement of Mennecke. (_Tr. p. 1912._) The witness has not
learned any more in regard to the rumors of euthanasia in Lublin
and the participation of Karl Brandt in these matters in spite
of his particular interest.

_The Workers from the East._

Statement of Schnidtmann. (_NO-720, Pros. Ex. 366._)
Subsequently the transfer of the insane Eastern workers to a
home institution took place. No euthanasia was therefore carried
out; a transfer for this purpose would have been senseless.

_Euthanasia after Cessation in 1941_

_Position taken in the indictment_

* * * * *

_Position of the defense_

With the cessation of euthanasia in August 1941, a new procedure appeared in which Karl Brandt no longer participated. Karl Brandt personally was fully occupied with special commissions in other fields (building of hospitals; since 1942 Commissioner General; since 1944 Reich Commissioner for Health and Medical Care). The cessation was ordered during August 1941. Subsequently euthanasia was discontinued.

Statement of Schmidt. (_Tr. p. 1879._) Hadamar in August 1941.
(Compare also the documents of the Hadamar Trial,[106]
particularly indictment.)

The same applies to Eichberg in August 1941. (_Tr. p. 1879._)

Affidavit by Kirchert. According to this there was general
cessation in the summer of 1941. (_Karl Brandt 18, Karl Brandt
Ex. 15._)

Affidavit by Asam-Bruckmueller. (_3865-PS, Pros. Ex. 365._)
According to this euthanasia was also discontinued in Ansbach.

Affidavit by Jordans. (_3882-PS, Pros. Ex. 371._) Hereby
euthanasia was also discontinued in other institutions in 1942.

(The statements regarding date of cessation may be erroneous inasmuch as they were made long after the end of 1941. It is also possible that in spite of the order to cease, some places still carried on upon the instruction of the local authorities.)

A new purpose for euthanasia is presented, which begins after the cessation. The motive is no longer medical and also has no more connection with the authorization.

Letter from Liebehenschel to the concentration camp of
Gross-Rosen of 12 December 1941 on the discharge of prisoners.
(_1151-PS, Pros. Ex. 411._)

Correspondence of Mennecke. (_NO-907, Pros. Ex. 412._) Therein a
report is made about the cooperation of a new group, concerned
with extermination. Under the date of 15 June 1942 Mennecke
speaks about the “re-commencement” of euthanasia.

Statement of Brack. The witness reports of Bouhler’s worry that
before requesting the euthanasia commission on 1 September 1939,
Bormann and other powers might wish to use the opportunity and
he feared they might abuse it (wild euthanasia).

_Legal foundations._ Karl Brandt is not acquainted with the legal foundation for such proceedings after expiration of the authorization of 1 September 1939. After the cessation of euthanasia in August 1941, the powers held on the basis of the authorization of 1 September 1939 could no longer be exercised.

Statement of Karl Brandt. (_Tr. p. 2421._) According to this,
Karl Brandt, in 1944 learned of two cases in Saxony and of one
in Pomerania where euthanasia was carried out. He forwarded this
report to Hitler, Bormann, and Bouhler because he felt that
within Bormann’s sphere extremists were at work.

_Organization._ The old organization was abandoned or considerably reduced. (Compare the indictment of the Hadamar Case[107] regarding the liquidation office.)

The physicians were dismissed in August 1941 from the Office, Tiergartenstrasse 4.

Letter from Brack to Himmler of 23 June 1942. (_NO-205, Pros.
Ex. 163._) Here he refers to the former transfer of personnel
and once more offers people from the remaining personnel.

It seems that the organization was now under the influence of Himmler. Karl Brandt was eliminated by the cessation in 1941.

Affidavit of Beringer. (_NO-808, Pros. Ex. 425._) The witness
says, “it was an open secret in the Gau that Mennecke was
charged by _Himmler_ to search the mental institutions of
Germany for insane persons.”

_Activity of the former organization._ Registration sheet.

Letter of the Reich Ministry of the Interior of 1 August 1940.
(_3871-PS, Pros. Ex. 359._) According to this all sick persons
are now to be reported. The letter is addressed to the private
clinic of Hertz at Bonn.

Testimony of Mennecke. (_Tr. p. 1902._) According to this, the
program was not resumed again in its original form.

Some of the experts had retired.

The killing no longer took place by carbon monoxide but by other means and by other methods.

In part the dead were not burned anymore but buried (as at Hadamar).

_Elimination in the Concentration Camps_

_Position taken in the indictment_

* * * * *

_Position of the defense_

Motive is not reconcilable with medical authorization; this does not allow euthanasia for political or economic reasons.

Testimony of Mennecke. (_Tr. p. 1913._) The witness explains
that the execution was a complete breach of the directive at the
start of euthanasia. “At least it had nothing to do with the
euthanasia of lunatics.”

Testimony of Karl Brandt.

_Time._

Testimony of Mennecke. (_Tr. p. 1933._) According to this Brack
spoke of undertaking an examination in the KL [concentration
camp] Oranienburg for the first time in the summer of 1940.

Testimony of Roemhild. (_Tr. p. 1659._) The witness says that a
second action 14 f 13 started in 1943 (therefore an independent
action after the suspension of 1941). From that the independent
character of the “first action 14 f 13” must be concluded, and
it is to be assumed that it was ordered by the Reich Criminal
Police Office, Berlin, as was the second action 14 f 13.

According to the testimony of Mennecke (_Tr. p. 1914_), Action
14 f 13 did not start with the first visit in 1940, but at first
it was only an expert opinion according to medical points of
view. In 1940 prisoners were examined by him in the
concentration camp Buchenwald and registration forms filled out.
At that time the examination extended to phychoses and
psychopathy.

Affidavit of Muthig. According to this a transport went from
Dachau to Mauthausen in December 1941 after examination by
Heyde. (_NO-2799, Pros. Ex. 497._)

_Order._ There were two parallel orders:

The order of the office of Bouhler in accordance with the Euthanasia Program, according to which from 1940 on the lunatics in the concentration camps were examined according to the directions.

Testimony of Mennecke. (_Tr. p. 1935._) According to this, the
order to visit the concentration camps was issued in the summer
of 1940.

The order of Himmler to submit to the special treatment of action 14 f 13, or to kill undesirable prisoners, regardless of these examinations.

Letter of 10 December 1941 regarding the special action 14 f 13.
(_1151-PS, Pros. Ex. 411._)

Affidavit of Hoven. Order by Himmler was at hand for the
execution of these actions. (_NO-429, Pros. Ex. 281._) Further
testimony of Hoven.

Report of Dr. Morgen in the proceedings against Hoven: “The
right to decide about the life or death of prisoners in the
concentration camps is assigned to the Reich Leader SS
_Himmler_.” (_NO-2366, Pros. Ex. 526._)

_Organization._ Two organizations working side by side have to be distinguished: (1) Organization for the selection of real lunatics according to the authorization of 1 December 1939. Here the organization of Bouhler is active up to summer 1941 within the framework of the former directives. (2) Organization for extermination contrary to the former directives, exclusively by Himmler and the Reich Security Main Office.

Testimony of Roemhild, about Action 14 f 13. (_Tr. p. 1641._)

Testimony of Roemhild. (_Tr. p. 1644._) According to this, Dr.
Lolling participated, and was corresponding about it with
Himmler.

Testimony of Roemhild. (_Tr. p. 1659._) According to this, the
second Action 14 f 13 started on the orders of the Reich
Criminal Police Office, Berlin.

It was the independent work of Lolling in the concentration camp
Oranienburg. (_1151-PS, Pros. Ex. 411._)

Letter from concentration camp Gross-Rosen to the institution
Bernburg. (_NO-1873, Pros. Ex. 556._)

Report on special treatment to Main Economic and Administrative
Office. (_1234-PS, Pros. Ex. 555._)

_Execution._ Nothing was done before the suspension in August 1941.

Testimony of Mennecke. (_Tr. p. 1933._) According to this, the
first visit in 1940 was not the start. Until autumn 1941 there
was only a general examination of the insane persons.

Testimony of Mennecke. (_Tr. p. 1940._) There were no objections
regarding the examination of insane persons in the first action.

Testimony of Mennecke. (_Tr. p. 1890._) According to this,
Mennecke himself filled out the registration forms, and they
were treated in the same way as the registration forms of mental
institutions. This was only so during the first visits of
Mennecke, while the examinations were still taking place
according to the prescribed medical points of view.

After autumn 1941 another procedure was adopted. The registration forms were no longer supplied by Tiergartenstrasse 4, but produced and filled out by the inspectorate of the concentration camp.

The filling out of the registration forms is restricted to a few
points according to an order of the Reich Security Main Office.
(_1151-PS, Pros. Ex. 411._) It was sufficient to fill out the
particulars of the form underlined in red. These were name, date
of birth, religion, race, since when in institution, physical
incurable complaints, disabled soldier, offense, former criminal
offenses.

Testimony of Mennecke. (_Tr. p. 1914._) He does not know what a
physician is expected to tell from registration forms filled out
in such a way.

No expert was present. (_NO-907, Pros. Ex. 412._)

In the proceedings 14 f 13, the consideration of the disease was
not the main thing.

Here there is talk about “special treatment 14 f 13”; it has
nothing to do with euthanasia but is extermination. (_NO-158,
Pros. Ex. 410._)

Correspondence of the Main Economic and Administration Office
with the concentration camp Gross-Rosen. (_1234-PS, Pros. Ex.
555._) Only special treatment is mentioned. The word
“euthanasia” nowhere appears.

_Examination._ The fact that the Mauthausen concentration camp is mentioned as a place of execution, which was not empowered to carry out the euthanasia within the framework of the order of 1 September 1939, shows the arbitrariness of the “action.” It must be assumed that Himmler included Bernburg, favorably situated to him, in the exercise of his own full powers. The difference in the examination according to the directions and according to the proceedings applied in the concentration camp is shown in the correspondence of Mennecke.

Correspondence of Mennecke. (_NO-907, Pros. Ex. 412._)

Testimony of Mennecke. (_Tr. p. 1882._) According to this, it
later on depended only on ascertaining reasons for the arrest,
and not on the medical examination.

Letter from the concentration camp Gross-Rosen to Liebehenschel
of 25 March 1942. (_1151-PS, Pros. Ex. 411._) According to this,
a part of the “eliminated prisoners” became “fit for work”
again.

Communication of the concentration camp Gross-Rosen of 16
November 1941 about the elimination of prisoners. (_NO-158,
Pros. Ex. 410._) The killing was done at the institutions of
Bernburg and in the concentration camp Mauthausen.

_Connection of Karl Brandt with the Concentration Camps._

Affidavit of Dietzsch. (_NO-1314, Pros. Ex. 433._) According to
this, Karl Brandt was said to have been in Buchenwald.

Appendix—Affidavit of Dietzsch. (_Karl Brandt 98, Karl Brandt
Ex. 39._) Dietzsch corrects his supposition and explains he did
not see Karl Brandt in Buchenwald.

Testimony of Hoven. (_Tr. p. 9911._)

The correspondence submitted was conducted exclusively by offices of concentration camps.

Appendix—Report of Dr. Morgen shows that the right over life
and death is assigned to Reich Leader SS Himmler. (_NO-2366,
Pros. Ex. 526._) The name of Karl Brandt is not mentioned in the
correspondence.

The witness Mennecke cannot give any information about the activity of Karl Brandt within the framework of the special treatment 14 f 13 attributed to him by the indictment.

_Euthanasia Practice on Children (Reich Committee)_

_Position taken in the indictment_

* * * * *

_Position of the defense_

_Motive._ From a medical standpoint, it is a humane motive to shorten the lives of children not fit to live.

Testimony of Schmidt. (_Tr. p. 1854._) At the discussion in 1941
only medical viewpoints were dealt with. The Reich Committee was
already being prepared before the authorization of 1 September
1939 (Leipzig case).

_Time._ Execution was in force from 1940 to 1944.

Testimony of Pfannmueller. (_Tr. p. 7310._) Execution at
Eglfing-Haar did not start before 1 June 1940.

Pfannmueller letter to Reich Committee of 17 January 1941.
(_NO-1139, Pros. Ex. 346._) It refers to agreement of 10
December 1940 in connection with decision of 18 August 1939.

Kaufbeuren documents. (_1696-PS, Pros. Ex. 357._) According to
this, euthanasia was carried on in the Irrsee Institute, even
after the occupation in 1945.

Supplement, Affidavit of Weese. (_Karl Brandt 129, Karl Brandt
Ex. 105._) Opinion on the state of disease was arrived at
objectively by medical examination.

_Legal basis._ Legal basis was the authorization of 1 September 1939, which had not been suspended or annulled for the activity of the Reich Committee.

Decree regarding treatment of malformed children. (_Brack 52,
Brack Ex. 43._) Circular of 1 July 1940, published in the
Ministerial Gazette. There, compulsory reporting of malformed
and insane children is provided for.

_Organization._

Affidavit of Sprauer, according to which the direction of the
Reich Committee was in the hands of von Linden at the Reich
Ministry and not under Karl Brandt. (_3896-PS, Pros. Ex. 372._)

Testimony of Karl Brandt, according to which the direction was
with Linden of the Reich Ministry of the Interior. (_Tr. p.
2433._)

Affidavits of Engel and Schaub. Karl Brandt was attached to the
Fuehrer’s General Headquarters. (_Karl Brandt 81, Karl Brandt
Ex. 85_; _Karl Brandt 80, Karl Brandt Ex. 98_.)

Testimony of Mennecke. (_Tr. p. 1903._) Mennecke never saw a
document signed by Karl Brandt. He never saw him and never heard
him speak. Karl Brandt was only available to give advice. In a
few cases, he was consulted when there were doubts about the
final expert opinion.

Testimony of Brack. (_Tr. p. 7612._) According to this Bouhler
and Brandt voiced their opinion on the judgment of experts only
in questionable cases. Further observation was indicated if
there were doubts at all.

Testimony of Karl Brandt. (_Tr. p. 2532._) According to this,
Karl Brandt resigned from the Reich Committee in the summer of
1942. He was not used as an expert.

Letter of the Reich Committee of 16 November 1943 regarding the
child Anna Gasse. (_NO-890, Pros Ex. 443._)

Testimony of Karl Brandt. (_Tr. p. 2541._) By virtue of this
letter, addressed to Karl Brandt, an inquiry by the Reich
Committee is addressed to the Eichberg Institution. This
incident is the outcome of the claim of an incompetent person.
The letter shows precisely that Karl Brandt did not have an
office of his own, but that he remitted the letter to the
competent official authority.

_Execution._

Registration was handled by the Reich Ministry of the Interior.
(_NO-1132, Pros. Ex. 341._)

The notification about the children was made, as required by law, by physicians, midwives, and clinics.

Testimony of Pfannmueller. (_Tr. p. 7312._) According to this,
the registration sheets were published in the gazette of the
Reich Ministry.

Sick records had to be attached to the report. (_NO-1133, Pros.
Ex. 335._)

Directive issued by the Reich Ministry of the Interior to the
effect that personnel and sick records are to be attached.
(_NO-1132, Pros. Ex. 341._)

Letter of 30 April 1941, with regard to the child Thalmeyer.
(_NO-1138, Pros. Ex. 349._) In that case a medical report on the
child was especially required.

Testimony of Schmidt. (_Tr. p. 1828._) According to this, the
registration followed upon information obtained from health
offices, midwives, and clinics for children.

Medical opinion was given by special advisers who cooperated with official physicians.

Affidavit of Weese. (_Karl Brandt 129, Karl Brandt Ex. 105._)

The transfer of partly Jewish children has no connection with the Reich Committee.

Directive issued by the Provincial President Bernotat of 15 May
1943 concerning the collection of part Jews. (_NO-893, Pros. Ex.
426._)

Consent of the parents.

Letter of the Reich Committee of 9 January 1943 to the health
office at Tuttlingen. (_Karl Brandt 40, Karl Brandt Ex. 84._)
There the competent authority declares that a transfer of a
child is not permissible in principle if the consent of the
parents is not given.

Testimony of Brack. (_Tr. p. 7612._) The consent of the parents
was secured by the official physician or by the physician in
charge, in other words, before the child was taken to the
clinic.

It was up to the practicing physicians to inform the parents of
the type of treatment which the child would undergo and of the
prospects of success. (_Brack 52, Brack Ex. 43._) The
probability of death was stressed.

Testimony of Karl Brandt. (_Tr. p. 2399._) According to this,
the parents were treated with care while being questioned, in
order that their conscience should not bother them later.

Testimony of Karl Brandt. (_Tr. p. 2544._) According to this the
consent of the parents was not put into writing but was given
orally and then a note made of it in the files. No child was
removed against the express wishes of the parents.

_How the killing was done._

Testimony of Pfannmueller (_Tr. p. 7331_) rebuts affidavit of
Jordans (_3882-PS, Pros. Ex. 371_). According to this, where
treatment was not possible any more, putting to sleep by
narcotics was effected by the physician of the institution.
There was no National Socialist nursing staff to carry out the
killing.

Testimony of Pfannmueller. (_Tr. p. 7304._) Comment on the
statement in the affidavit of Lehner according to which
euthanasia was not practiced on children before the war.

Testimony of Pfannmueller. (_Tr. p. 7329._) Comment on the
conference of the Bavarian Ministry of the Interior in 1942.
According to this, the starvation process had not been ordered
but on account of the general food situation no additional food
supplies were permitted which exceeded the rations of the
civilian population.

Affidavit of Weese. (_Karl Brandt 129, Karl Brandt Ex. 105._)
Graph indicating cases of death of insane persons in the
Kaufbeuren Clinic from 1910 till 1944. (_Karl Brandt 123, Karl
Brandt Ex. 93._) The graph shows that during the membership of
Karl Brandt in the Reich Committee the number of cases of death
did not really exceed those of World War I. Only after his
retirement does the curve rise suddenly.

Performance of experiments by Professor McCance on children not
fit to live in the Military Hospital, Wuppertal, in 1946. (_Karl
Brandt 93, Karl Brandt Ex. 29._)

Testimony of Brack. (_Tr. p. 7716._) According to this, the
consent of the parents was secured in some form or other.

_Authorization._ The authorization was given for each case
separately on the basis of the files.

Testimony of Pfannmueller. (_Tr. p. 7304._) About the types of
children in question.

Affidavit of Leusser. (_3864-PS, Pros. Ex. 367._) There it is
pointed out that the children stood at the lowest level of
idiocy.

Testimony of Schmidt. (_Tr. p. 1821._) The witness names the
type of diseases in question. He says that the consultants and
chief consultants gave the authorization.

Testimony of Pfannmueller. (_Tr. p. 7314._) According to this,
the authorization orders did not read that the life of the
children was to be shortened, but it was only an authorization
for treatment.

Affidavit of Schmidt. (_3816-PS, Pros. Ex. 370._) The witness
has seen many certificates of authorization, all of which were
signed by Hegener.

_Special authorization._ The Reich Committee could not issue special authorizations for adults. The signature of Hegener in individual cases is in contradiction to issued directives. It was an arbitrary evasion of the decreed cessation of euthanasia.

_EXTRACTS FROM THE FINAL PLEA FOR THE DEFENDANT
BRACK_[108]

* * * * *

The defendants in this trial, who are doctors, were accused in General Taylor’s opening speech of having committed atrocities under the guise of medical science. The defendant Brack is not one of these doctors. Brack would probably not even have appeared before you as a war criminal had his superior Bouhler been still alive. Brack worked as an expert in the Fuehrer’s Chancellery and in his field of work had nothing to do with medical problems. Nor is Brack accused by the prosecution of having participated in medical experiments.

However, Brack is accused of participation in the genocide policy of the Third Reich insofar as he participated in the Euthanasia Program and the sterilization experiments, and was conscious of their destructive purpose.

In the judgment of the IMT the word “euthanasia” or “Euthanasia Program” is not used at all. It only mentions measures that were taken for the purpose of killing all the old, mentally ill, and all those who had incurable diseases, in special institutions; this included German nationals and foreign workers who were unable to work. In the separate judgment of the defendant Frick,[109] too, only these measures are mentioned.

Any connection, or even the possibility of such a connection between these measures and persecution of the Jews, dealt with in a separate chapter, in particular with the plans drawn up in the summer of 1941 for a “final solution” of the Jewish question in Europe, was never established by the IMT nor even hinted at.

Until 1939 the word “euthanasia” was unknown to Brack as well as to large circles of the German population. That this word originally meant the “art” of dying, or to meet death with serene calm, had remained the secret of those scientists who were interested in the Greek language.

During the course of centuries the meaning of this word changed. It first became the expression for the attempt of the physician—originating in human compassion, developed by medical science—to alleviate the end of a dying person by soothing his pain. But then the meaning of the word, and with it the concept of euthanasia, was expanded, and towards the end of the 19th century it meant assistance in dying through an abbreviation of life if the life of the suffering person had lost its value in view of immediate and painful death, or as a result of an incurable disease.

It is a fact that this kind of euthanasia has been applied throughout the world since time began and can be traced back to the Twelve Tables of Ancient Rome and to the epoch of state socialism in antiquity.

The assertion of the prosecution that euthanasia was the product of National Socialism and its racial theories can be indisputably refuted by history.

Even if the prosecution is of a different opinion, the Tribunal cannot overlook the fact that the testimony of Karl Brandt, Brack, Pfannmueller, Hederich, Schultze, Grabe, Gertrud Kallmeyer, and Walter Eugen Schmidt, all stated independently that the measures started according to Hitler’s will in the autumn of 1939 only applied to incurable, mentally ill persons, and were suspended in 1941. For these measures, the participants used the word and the concept of “euthanasia” in the meaning of the final medical assistance, whether justly or injustly, will be discussed later.

It is not uninteresting to note that the word “Euthanasia Program” appears for the first time in the Brack affidavit (_NO-426, Pros. Ex. 160_), which was drawn up by the prosecution after several interrogations; Brack at that time was in a state of physical and mental exhaustion and, therefore, not in a position to realize clearly what he said.

The defense, in agreement with the prosecution, refrained from presenting an expert medical opinion, but did not, as the prosecution now asserts, refuse to present it.

I regret very deeply that the prosecution, when using the word “Euthanasia Program” coined by them, characterizes without sufficient proof the euthanasia applied in 1939-1941 for the incurably sick as the conscious and deliberate precursor of the different actions of annihilation which mark the milestones of the mental and moral ruins left to the German people by men who had become insane.

If the prosecution had been sure of their assumption, they would not have had to submit those extremely doubtful documents with which they tried to prove in cross-examination that the defendant Brack participated in planning the mass extermination of the Jews.

* * * * *

How, in the face of such insufficient evidence which is opposed by numerous cases of intervention for Jews in that period of time—I only recall the cases Warburg and Georgii—and in the face of Brack’s sworn statements about his attitude towards Jewry, can the prosecution assert that Brack participated in planning the extermination of the Jews? In this way, the prosecution closed the circle incriminating Brack, which they drew round the euthanasia of incurable mental patients, the Action 14 f 13, and the final measures to exterminate the Jews.

I wish to stress again that everything that happened after the stop in August 1941 in the way of abuse by the euthanasia institutions had nothing to do with the euthanasia of the incurably insane which was supported by Brack. An opposing view would only be suitable to make a historical record which is not supported by the weight of the judgment of the International Military Tribunal, but merely corresponds to a conjecture which in the decisive points themselves is void of every substantiated basis.

* * * * *

d. Evidence

_Prosecution Documents_

Pros. Ex.
Doc. No. No. Description of Document Page
NO-426 160 Extract from the affidavit of 842
defendant Brack, 14 October 1946,
describing administrative details
and procedure of the Euthanasia
Program.
615-PS 246 Letter from Dr. Hilfrich, Bishop of 845
Limburg, to the Reich Minister of
Justice, 13 August 1941,
protesting against the killing of
mentally ill people.
NO-429 281 Extract from the affidavit of 847
defendant Hoven, 24 October 1946,
concerning the transfer of
concentration camp inmates to
euthanasia stations for
extermination.
630-PS 330 Letter from Hitler to Karl Brandt 848
and Bouhler, 1 September 1939,
charging them with the execution
of euthanasia.
NO-1135 334 Confirmation, 30 August 1940, of the 848
transfer of mental patients with
list of transferred patients
attached.
1696-PS 357 Letter from Dr. Conti to the Mental 849
Hospital in Kaufbeuren, 16
November 1939, requesting that
questionnaires (attached) be
filled out for individual
patients; letter from the General
Sick Transport Company to the
Mental Hospital in Kaufbeuren, 12
May 1941, stating that the company
would remove mental patients;
report from the Provincial
Association for Social Welfare in
Swabia, 6 May 1941, that all
transferred patients had died;
letter from Gaum, 24 November
1942, to Dr. Leinisch stating that
epileptics would be made available
for research.
3896-PS 372 Extract from the affidavit of Dr. 853
Ludwig Sprauer, 23 April 1946,
concerning the organization of the
Euthanasia Program.
NO-520 374 Letter from the chief of the 854
institution for feeble-minded in
Stetten to Dr. Frank, 6 September
1940, requesting that euthanasia
be carried out only after legal
basis was created.
NO-660 377 Note by Sellmer, 6 December 1940, 855
describing the method of selection
for euthanasia.
NO-018 404 Letter from Himmler to Brack, 19 856
December 1940, requesting that
Euthanasia Station Grafeneck be
discontinued and that motion
pictures be shown to dispel
rumors.
NO-842 405 Letter from Brack to Dr. 857
Schlegelberger, 18 April 1941,
forwarding forms for euthanasia
and suggesting that death
notifications should not follow a
stereotyped form.
NO-158 410 Letter from Hirche, administrator of 858
the Mental Institution Bernburg,
to camp commandant of the
Gross-Rosen concentration camp, 19
March 1942, with list of inmates
transferred from the concentration
camp to Bernburg.
NO-907 412 Extract from letter from Dr. Fritz 861
Mennecke to his wife, 25 November
1941, concerning his activities as
physician selecting inmates of
concentration camp Buchenwald for
euthanasia.
NO-1007 413 Circular from Gluecks to 862
concentration camp commandants, 27
April 1943, stating that in the
future only insane prisoners
should be used for Action “14 f
13” (euthanasia).
NO-891 414 Directive of the Reich Minister of 863
the Interior, 6 September 1944,
ordering euthanasia extended to
insane Eastern workers.
1553-PS 428 Extract from the field interrogation 865
of Kurt Gerstein, 26 April 1945,
describing the mass gassing of
Jews and other “undesirables.”
NO-365 507 Unsigned draft letter from Dr. 870
Wetzel to Rosenberg, 25 October
1941, dealing with Brack’s
collaboration in the construction
of gas chambers for the
extermination of Jews.

_Defense Documents_

Doc. No. Def. Ex. No. Description of Documents
Karl Brandt 18 Karl Brandt Ex. Extracts from the affidavit of Dr. 871
15 Werner Kirchert, 29 January 1947,
stating that Karl Brandt was not
involved in the Euthanasia
Program.
Karl Brandt 19 Karl Brandt Ex. Affidavit of Alfred Rueggeberg, 23 872
16 January 1947, concerning radio
discussions on euthanasia.
Karl Brandt 23 Karl Brandt Ex. Affidavit of Eduard Woermann, 18 873
19 January 1947, concerning
discussion of Karl Brandt and
Pastor Bodelschwingh on
euthanasia.
Pokorny 19 Pokorny Ex. 27 Affidavit of Dr. Helmuth Weese, 19 874
March 1947, concerning use of
caladium seguinum for
sterilization.

_Testimony_ Page Extracts from the testimony of prosecution witness Dr. Mennecke 875 Extracts from the testimony of defendant Brack 876 Extract from the testimony of prosecution witness Walter E. Schmidt 890 Extracts from the testimony of defendant Karl Brandt 892

PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-426
PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 160

EXTRACT FROM THE AFFIDAVIT OF DEFENDANT BRACK, 14 OCTOBER 1946,
DESCRIBING ADMINISTRATIVE DETAILS AND PROCEDURE OF THE EUTHANASIA
PROGRAM

* * * * *

_The Euthanasia Program_

4. The Euthanasia Program was initiated in the summer of 1939. Hitler issued a secret order to Professor Dr. Karl Brandt, Reich Commissioner for Medical and Health Matters, and at that time personal physician to the Fuehrer, and to Philipp Bouhler, charging them with responsibility for the killing of human beings who were unable to live, that is, the according of a mercy death to incurably insane persons. Prior to the issuance of this secret order, Bouhler had a conference with Dr. Brandt and Dr. Leonardo Conti, the Reich Chief for Public Health and State Secretary in the Ministry of Interior. On the basis of this order of Hitler, Bouhler and Brandt were to select doctors to carry out this program. Inasmuch as the insane asylums and other institutions were functions of the Ministry of Interior, Dr. Herbert Linden became the representative of the Ministry of Interior. Dr. Karl Brandt and Philipp Bouhler appointed Professor Dr. Heyde and Professor Dr. Nietsche along with several other medical men to aid in the execution of this Euthanasia Program.

5. Professor Dr. Karl Brandt was in charge of the medical section of the Euthanasia Program. In this capacity, as shown in the chart I have drawn, dated 12 September 1946, Dr. Karl Brandt appointed as his deputies Professor Heyde and Professor Nietsche. In charge of the administrative office under Brandt was first Herr Bohne and later Herr Allers. Three different names were used by Brandt’s section in order to disguise the activities of the organization. The names of the organization are as follows:

Reich Association—Mental Institutions.

Charitable Foundation for Institutional Care.

General Patient Transport Company.

6. In the early stages of this program, Dr. Karl Brandt visited Philipp Bouhler and discussed with him many details of this program. As a matter of fact, after such meetings between Brandt and Bouhler, I received many orders, more often from Bouhler than from Brandt directly.

7. In my capacity as Chief of Office II of Bouhler’s Chancellery, I was ordered to carry out the administrative details of the Euthanasia Program. My deputy was Werner Blankenburg, who eventually became my successor, that is, in the beginning of 1942 when I joined the Waffen SS. Von Hegener, Reinh, Vorberg, and Dr. Hevelmann were members of my staff.

8. In the Ministry of the Interior, Dr. Linden was in charge of the Euthanasia Program and his deputy was Ministerialrat Franke. The Department for Public Health in the Ministry of the Interior had authority over all insane asylums of the Reich, and in this position, my department as well as the office of Dr. Brandt maintained close liaison in order to operate this Euthanasia Program efficiently.

_The Procedure_

9. By order of Dr. Linden, the directors of all insane asylums in the Reich had to complete questionnaires for each patient in their institutions. These questionnaires were drafted by Bouhler, Heyde, Nietsche, and others in several of their many conferences. The questionnaires were then forwarded to the Ministry of the Interior to be distributed to the various insane asylums and similar institutions. Theoretically, Dr. Linden’s office had the questionnaires returned and then forwarded them to the administrative section of the office of Dr. Brandt. The program was so arranged that photostats of each questionnaire were to be sent to four experts consisting of about 10 to 15 doctors. I do not remember the names of all the members of this panel, but Dr. Pfannmueller, Dr. Schumann, Dr. Faltlhauser, and Dr. Rennaux are fresh in my memory in this connection. Each of these experts indicated by making a certain comment on the questionnaire whether or not the patient could be transferred to an observation institution and eventually killed. The questionnaire was then forwarded to a senior expert. According to the regulation, the senior expert was only entitled to order the transfer of the patient when all four experts voted for the transfer. This senior expert also marked the questionnaire and then submitted it to Dr. Linden who ordered the insane asylum to transfer the patient to one of the observation institutions. Offhand I can remember, among others, the names of the following observation institutions: Eglfing-Haar, Kempten, Jena, Buch, Arnsberg.

10. At these institutions the patients were under the observation of the doctor in charge for a period of 1 to 3 months. The physician had the right to exempt the patient from the program if he decided that the patient was not incurable. If he agreed with the opinion of the senior expert, the patient was transferred to a so-called Euthanasia Institution. I can recall the names of the Euthanasia Institutions—

Grafeneck—under Dr. Schuman.

Brandenburg—under Dr. Hennecke.

Hartheim—under Dr. Rennaux.

Sonnenstein—under Dr. Schmalenbach.

Hadamar—(I do not remember under whose leadership).

Bernburg—under Dr. Behnke or Dr. Becker.

In these institutions the patient was killed by means of gas by the doctor in charge. To the best of my knowledge, about fifty to sixty thousand persons were killed in this way from autumn 1939 to the summer of 1941.

11. The order issued by the Fuehrer to Brandt and Bouhler was secret and never published. The Euthanasia Program itself was kept as secret as possible, and for this reason, relatives of persons killed in the course of the program were never told the real cause of death. The death certificates issued to the relatives carried fictitious causes of death such as heart failure. All persons subjected to the Euthanasia Program did not have an opportunity to decide whether they wanted a mercy death, nor were their relatives contacted for approval or disapproval. The decision was purely within the discretion of the doctors. The program was not restricted to those cases in which the person was “in extremis”.

12. Hitler’s ultimate reason for the establishment of the Euthanasia Program in Germany was to eliminate those people confined to insane asylums and similar institutions who could no longer be of any use to the Reich. They were considered useless objects and Hitler felt that by exterminating these so-called useless eaters, it would be possible to relieve more doctors, male and female nurses, and other personnel, hospital beds and other facilities for the armed forces.

_Reich Committee for Research on Hereditary Diseases and Constitutional
Susceptibility to Severe Diseases_