1947-02-04, #3: Doctors' Trial (early afternoon)

AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 4 February 1947.)

THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.

KARL BRANDT — Resumed.

DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued).

BY DR. SERVATIUS:

Q: Witness, you were speaking of Action 14F13. Now, something similar took place in the East, in Lublin. Did you have any connection with that?

A: I heard of these events in Lublin only here. I learned that an SS Fuehrer named Lubucznik played a role in it, I did not know the name formerly. I never heard a similar name. I did not know the name Lubucznik. The other persons mentioned in that connection were not known to me either. I believe it was Doctor Eberle again, and the Doctor Schuhmann who has already been mentioned.

Q: Aside from these big actions other things happened for example, was wounded are supposed to have been effected. What do you know about that?

A: In the course of 1941 Field Marshal Keitel reported to the Fuehrer once that war wounded from the first world war were being included in the euthanasia program. He had not heard of it as an exact case but only as a rumor. The Fuehrer immediately ordered that all the evidence available on the subject should be examined. I passed on the order to that effect to Bouhler and he examined the files. That was in the early summer of '41 perhaps. It was learned that there was one clear case as follows, it was an insane person who had been drafted from the institution in 1914. He was in the army for six or eight weeks and was released again because of his mental condition and retired to the same institution. There the case history was not started over again but the old one was continued, so that it was not clear from the documents alone that he had participated in the war. In the course of the later investigations two or three other similar cases were discovered. There was, however, no case of which injury incurred during the war had led to a mental disturbance, or that a disease had been caused by any event of war.

It was a temporary service of the patients. I believe there were four altogether, as far as I can remember. The disease which led to euthanasia later had no connection with the war service. I know nothing else about that matter and the report to this effect was sent to Hitler.

Q: How about those injured in work, or those who became invalids, did you hear anything about that?

A: I heard nothing about invalids nor that any such thing was mentioned.

Q: Did you not receive reports in this connection from institutions in Pomerania?

A: In 1944, '45, I cannot state exactly whether it was '44 or the beginning of '45, at brief intervals I heard from security servicemen working in the chancellory in Berlin that in two cases in Saxony and in one case in Pomerania, euthanasia was again being carried out in mental institutions. I informed Bouhler's office immediately. I reported to the Fuehrer, and I also reported to Kreisleiter Martin Bormann, since both cases in Saxony indicated the participation of the Gauleiter. I know that the Fuehrer issued instructions to Martin Bormann immediately to have these measures stopped. Bouhler himself got in touch with the competent officers. I did not learn that these obviously limited measures were any way outside of the practice of euthanasia as it existed up to 1941. In other words, they were really seriously ill persons.

Q: Then you were led only by medical points of view in euthanasia?

A: I was concerned only in purely medical measures and considerations clearly arising from the decree itself. I, and as far as I know, Bouhler, never intensified this euthanasia in any way, on the contrary, if anything seemed questionable the fact that it was questionable led us to conclude that this was a reason against execution.

Q: You spoke of the procedure, is it true that a questionnaire form would be basis for it? 2421

A: First basis was a questionnaire.

Q: I shall show you such a questionnaire in document book 1696 PS, will you please comment on it.

(Document handed to witness.)

THE PRESIDENT: Has this document already been received in evidence, counsel?

DR. SERVATIUS: I assume so. It is in the document book. There are several questionnaires, all with the same contents. I assume that it was offered in evidence. It is on page 209, part 2.

A: The questionnaire indicated, gives indications for determining the disease. There are general registrations, whether the person is a twin, whether there are insane relatives, and then an indication about previous history, the course of the disease —.

Q: Witness, just a minute.

DR. SERVATIUS: It is Exhibit 357.

Q: Witness, will you please continue.

A: There is a note that in every case there are adequate indications of the mental condition they are to be added. We are getting individual diseases which are mentioned, Schizophrenia, in addition to the condition, whether it is a fresh attack or a final condition. The reaction to treatment is also asked for. And then there are similar subdivisions under feeblemindedness, epilepsy. There is a question about the treatment itself, and it is asked when treatment was carried out, whether there was permanent success or not. When, it is asked about crimes as to be evaluated in judging the condition of the patient and it is asked about the value of the work of the patient.

Q: What was the purpose of this questionnaire?

A: The purpose of the questionnaire was the indications given in it which were given by a specialist were to give a picture of the disease to another specialist who was to judge the case.

Q: Do you believe that this questionnaire is adequate? Don't you think that it is too superficial to form a final judgment?

A: The questionnaire alone would probably not have been sufficient for a final judgment, it was necessary for the records of the patient himself to also be consulted but this was certainly done in critical cases by the chief expert. And when the patient was transferred the observation institution had all the records and the patient himself was observed so that there were various opportunities for control.

The other documents were added to the questionnaire to help in understanding; the entries. Then it was indicated whether the person was a foreigner or not.

Q: Now, witness, the question of crimes is included here and it is asked about paragraphs 51 and 42b of the Penal Code.

A: I have already pointed out that these questions were designed to have a standard for judging the condition of the patient himself. As it was similar to the questions of the employment of the patient it was not intended to form any legal judgment on the basis of this information.

Q: The questions about the patient's ability to work, was the purpose of that to remove persons incapable of working because they wore incapable of working?

A: Euthanasia was not intended merely to remove human beings. It was designed to free him from his sufferings. It had nothing to do with his ability or inability to work.

Q: Then if I understand you correctly these symptoms of mental deterioration, that he can no longer work, or that he has been a criminal —

A: They are to be evaluated in this connection, but they have only a partial influence on the decision. The decisive thing is the entire, the whole condition.

Q: Witness, how was the responsibility of the doctors concerned with the questionnaire divided?

A: Very individual doctor was responsible for what he did in the course of these measures which led to euthanasia. Each doctor was absolutely responsible for his judgment. The chief expert was also responsible, and the doctor at the observation institution as well as the doctor in the euthanasia institution were also responsible. It must not be assumed that the doctor involved in these measures would have been obliged to carry out euthanasia if he did not agree on the basis of his own decision.

We had the right and the duty, if he did not approve, to refuse to carry out euthanasia.

Q: Well, what did these powers mean to the doctor? Didn't this put him in a special situation?

A: First of all the doctor was given enormous responsibility. It was not only a responsibility in view of his right to decide about life and death, but was also burned by the fact that he was responsible for the continued suffering of this human being. One must mention this in order to make clear the extent of the responsibility.

Q: Now, was the responsibility on one doctor alone, or was it divided?

A: We, the responsibility belonged to each person who was concerned. I estimate ther were ten, fifteen, perhaps even twenty experts who, according to instructions and directives which they had received, togother with the cheif expert, had carried out their activity.

Q: Were these experts independent of one another?

A: The experts worked completely independently of one another, and that was how it was intended from the beginning. Not the questionnaires, but photostatic copies of there were sent to the experts so that none knew what the others had decided.

Q: Did you help to select the experts?

A: They were suggested by the Reich Ministry of the Interior and Bouhler assigned them their duties.

Q: Did you negotiate with them?

A: No.

Q: Did you instruct them?

A: No.

Q: Was there any appeal?

A: No, there was not. It was our opinion that since each judgment was independent, each successive judgment was a type of appeal, and we saw in this measure a sufficient safeguard against any excesses or failures of the system which might otherwise have occurred.

And besides, because of the necessity for secrecy no other appeal procedure was possible.

Q: Did not the physicians involved have any legal misgivings?

A: In practice they no doubt did not, otherwise they would not have been able to participate. If they did have legal misgivings, they were certainly dissipated by the entire nature of the procedure itself. First they are instructed about euthanasia in the Fuehrer's chancellory by Bouhler himself. They learned that the Reich Ministry of the Interior was connected with this measure from the beginning to the end. The Ministry of the Interior had recognized the decree and acted according to it. It supplied the necessary information. It assigned tie physicians. The questionnaire went through the offices of the Ministry of the Interior and later through those of the provincial government. The institutions themselves had been supplied by the Ministry of the Interior. The ministry retained its position superior to the institution. Registration offices had been arranged in the euthanasia institutions and the physicians know that the Reich Ministry of Justice was informed. The financing of the whole things was clear and regulated so that the doctors certainly had no justification for having legal misgivings.

Q: And what do you yourself think of the question of legality?

A: One decisive point for me, perhaps, was that the head of the State himself had given me this assignment, and I certainly could not expect that I was given such a decree for any criminal action. And at a subsequent time for me as well as for the others, it was soon that everything was done as if everything was in order, and it was in order as far as we were concerned.

Q: How about the question of the approval of the patients? The Insane?

A: the question of the approval of the insane was disregarded.

The point of view was that the insane person himself is in no position to judge his situation. Those were not persons with light cases, but the worst ones. For this reason since the patient lacked understanding of his own situation, there could be no question of approval. If one were to say that the patient gave his approval, that means exactly if one says he did not approve. In individual cases where this question of euthanasia was discussed with mentally healthy persons, same persons, the point of view was gained that the patient cannot decide about himself, but that the decision must be left to the doctor alone. Through momentary pain the patient may be so deceived, just as through a relative comfort he may be deceived about the severity of his disease. Here one can judge only on the basis of the diagnoses, and considering the condition and the prognosis, and only the doctor can reach the decision. It cannot be left to the patient himself.

Q: Then what about the approval of the relatives?

A: In the case of the insane the consent of the relatives was not obtained for similar reasons. First of all, the question of secrecy was important. But more important from the medical point of view was the fact that the layman is not able to judge the condition of his sick relative. He lacks knowledge of the disease. From actual criminal considerations be could not give his consent. He can be deceived by unceitical pity, and actually the relatives were not considered in this respect. Another decisive point was that one cannot expect a relative to decide about the life or both of someone else. It was the opinion that the doctor, with the support of the state, has to take the responsibility.

especially in the case of insane persons. The relatives frequently are inclined to give their consent to Euthanasia. There is an indication in literature where in about 160 questions to relatives of idiotic children, 140 parents can consent. Also the many appeals and approvals within the Euthanasia complex showed the attitude of the relatives toward the patient, but this is no reason for giving the responsibility to the relatives, who are unable to bear it.

Q: What was the purpose of secrecy, was there something to be concealed?

A: The secrecy was certainly demanded by the Fuehrer for political reasons; mainly on account of the internal political situation in connection with the question of propaganda, and so forth. I do not believe that inner politics was the decisive thing; some solution could e found in that respect. Final resistance from the churches, for example, could not be obtained permanently.

Q: Now, witness, I show you a letter from the head of the Mental Institution, a Mr. Schleich. It was Document No. 520, Exhibit 374, Document Book 14, Part 3. This is a letter to the Reich Minister of Justice, in which this head of a mental institution objects to the procedure. Please read the letter and comment on it.

A: The letter from Mr. Schleich to the Reich Minister of Justice points out that among the people there is great uncertainty in connection with the removal and the death notices about insane persons. "Is it possible," the second paragraph says, "that such a measure is being carried out without such a law having been-proclaimed." And then it goes on. "In consequence of the complete secrecy in which these measures are being carried out not only do the wildest rumors go about among the people (for example that also people unable to work on account of age or injuries receiving during the first world war have been done away with or are to be done away with). But also the impression, —— I shall skip a little —as if a totally arbitrary manner prevailed at the selection of the persons concerned."

Q: Do you consider the attitude of the author of this letter correct?

A: I consider the attitude of the author of this letter as absolutely correct. If a physician who is in charge of an institution has no idea of what is actually going on, in my opinion it was his duty to inquire of the competent officers whether something unjustified was not being done. From the Documents, which have been submitted here —- this is the only letter of this type —- one should really wonder that no more of such letters were handed in. The necessity for such letters arose from the awkward attempt at secrecy which was not practicable. The letter was also interesting because it refers to rumors arising from the lack of clarity. I said before that in the case of the war wounded, there was something of the same kind.

Q: Were there any similar complaints?

A: I myself saw few complaints. I learned of others from Bishop Gahlen in Muenster; and from Martin Borman I learned of the letter from the Bishop of Wurm. I know, and the Documents will show, that a large number of other letters were received which were sent either to Bouhler, to the Reich Minister of the Interior through Minister Lammers, or the Reich Minister of Justice. In any case, they were sent to the nearest agency. As far as I know, only the letter which I have mentioned before from Gahlen and from Wurm were referred to, Hitler himself. Whether he learned of them later on, I do not know.

Q: Did you hear of any other objections, rumors or complaints?

A: I heard about complaints and objections, first, in the course of 1940 through Dr. Boehm, who was connected with a small group of physicians who went to see Martin Bormann, who came to see me.

He expressed his objections to the secrecy and he spoke of the rumors which I have mentioned. Then, later I was in contact for the same reasons with Pastor Bodelshwing of the Bethel Institution. I had several talks with Dr. Bodelshwing. He came to see me and I went to see him at Bethal. My contact with him was not on an administrative plane. It was out mutual need for discussion these questions. The consideration of secrecy was discussed by the two of us. The question of legality of Euthanasia on principle. We observed that there were no clear indications in the document itself, and that could be explained by the fact that the Christian Church us opposed to those ideas. It was mentioned, to a man like Luther, he was of the opinion that such deformed children should be drowned. It was said that the solution of this problem is less theological, but rather not so right, or —- the concept of pity was discussed. Talking to Pastor Bodelschwing in Bethal I visited patients with him. We were in the Children's ward and after that we discussed the individual children, not as to whether we should actually subject this particular child to Euthanasia or not, but as to whether such a creature is still a human being, whether it has any feeling itself. I recall children of eight or ten years of age, who were really nothing but a pitiful, miserable creature. Children known as "head cases" could not even set up, with on enormous head and a tiny body. And Pastor Bodelschwing also felt it is a blessing if such pitiful creatures are (pause) —— if and end if put to their lives.

We were not always of the same opinion, but it was possible for us to respect each other views and to understand each others views. Pastor Bodelschwing is of the opinion that if a legal regulation of this question was publicly made, the decision of the state would have to be binding on all, of course. That had no connection with the fact that innerly he was not closely connected with the church, and that he saw even in the most pitiful creature, a human being.

Q: Now, it was stopped. Execution of Euthanasia was prohibited. What was the reason for that?

A: The talks which I had with Pastor Bodelschwing were perhaps not the final, decisive element in this, but there were quite a few other considerations, misgivings which had arisen men while a* from the question, and-so-forth. But, the responsibility of the Church did play on important role in having Euthanasia stopped in the summer by the end of August, 1941.

The Fuehrer gave me orders, to act on these instructions and from the Headquarters I immediately passed on the news to Dr. Boehler and he did whatever was necessary. That is, the Euthanasia institutions were in this case given the order through the Reich Minister of the Interior that there was to be no further Euthanasia.

Q: Could you yourself not have stopped it sooner?

A: I believe that objections or opposition from me would not have been sufficient, to stop it. Far from that I approved Euthanasia in the for I have described it. The question at issue was the matter of secrecy.

Q: Now, was the idea of Euthanasia given up completely?

A: No, after the end of the war Euthanasia was to be resumed, and was to be carried cut further.

Q: What was the effect this stopping of Euthanasia for the organization?

A: Aside from the fact that no more Euthanasia was carried out in the Euthanasia Institution, there was no further consequences. The questionnaires continued to be sent in at six months intervals. They continued to be registered and evaluated, but nothing else was done about them.

Q: Now the Reich Committee for Deformed Children’s interest, was that also effected?

A: No, the task of the Reich Committee was not effected by the stoppage.

Q: Was there a definite problem in the Reich Committee as in the other Euthanasia institutes?

A: No, the procedure was not the same. The questionnaires in which certain entires were to be made about severe malformation. Schmidt had referred to these committees. These questionnaires were sent to the Reich Committee, which was subsidiary to the Reichsministry of Interior; from there they wore coordinated with the necessary other documents; they were filled out by midwives, and doctors and maternity hospitals. The purpose was that such deformed children were reported and were sent to the special institutions.

Q: And to whom was the authorization given?

A: In concert with Euthanasia, which had been mentioned before, the authorization was connected with the individual child; there was no general authorization that tested a case. Authorization was requested and was given.

Q: How does the consent of parents as to being necessary enter?

A: The consent of parents was necessary. The consent had to be obtained sometimes through the official position, and sometimes through the institution which reported the case, and it was Mr. Linden's task to get these documents together.

Q: And what about letting those children starve to death. Now, did you learn anything about that?

A: No, I do not believe it in that form. I believed that it was the manner of malformation in the inner organism which caused complications. I never learned anything about children, or cases of children or adults where instructions being given to let these patients starve to death. The food rations given to these institutions in my opinion were exactly the same as given to the normal consumer. Since they were not acutely sick persons, there was the idea that it was not necessary to give them special rations. The concerns bad to send food rations as to the nurses, doctors, and so on.

Q: You said before that this procedure of the Reich Committee was not effected by the stoppage which was put to Euthanasia?

A: No.

Q: Was it continued to the end of the war?

A: In the year of 1914, in the second half of 1914; Mr. Bouhler informed me that a clear execution, which were difficulties of correspondence for technical reasons, was hardly possible, and he asked us for this reason that Euthanasia be stopped here as well. In 1942 since I was no longer tied down, I gave up my authorization. I did not learn that afterwards, after the stop of 1944, any further Euthanasia approval was given for children.

Q: If I understand you correctly, the reason for stopping the activity of the Reich Committee was the technical reason of the general postal conditions at that time?

A: Yes.

Q: Did you work in this procedure until the end?

A: No, in 1942, as I have just said, I gave up the authorization which I had received since I was no longer so easily available, as would have been necessary.

Q: Now, Witness, if you consider this whole Euthanasia problem as a whole, is there not something terrible about it?

A: It has the appearance that it might look horrible, it can look inhuman, but in this light in the execution itself was not considered from that actual point of view alone when you consider what is behind it. The human beings who cannot help the selves, and whose tests show a life of suffering are to be given aid. This consideration is not inhuman. I never felt that it was not ethical or as not moral, I know that the external circumstances at the execution in spite of this sector of secrecy, and that went through the sector of secrecy, regrettable instances occurred repeatedly, irrespective of all endeavors to prevent them by the authorities. It has been said here that two urns were sent to one address. It was said that because of past diagnosis difficulties arose at the death, which is regrettable, but that this does not effect the principle, and in my opinion cannot shake this principle. If one discussed the problem of Euthanasia openly and tried to form a basic understanding, a basic mutual understanding of the fact, then in my opinion a way may be found for such execution in the future. The problem on such is not new. It has always been interested, and has been discussed for centuries.

A Professor Leibrandt mentioned the oath of Hippocrates. That means that part of it which calls upon the doctor to not to give to a patient poison even on the patient's request. This is a dogma which is the basis of our science of diagnosis to by, and our knowledge of prognosis, and the knowledge of the limits of therapy, can no longer be maintained in this form. I am convinced if this Hippocrates were alive today he would formulate his oath differently. Hippocrates was not a man who did not give life its due. In Athens about the year of 430 there was an epidemic, and Hippocrates was asked for aid. He gave the simple instruction that the patients should be left alone, nothing could be done for them. He did not do that because he had any idea of the prognosis, or the infection, for he had walls built to keep the wind out of the city; no, he did that simply from the feeling of what is health and what is sickness.

You see, the Hippocrates oath is also cited today, an it is said that patients and sufferers are not to be given any poison, and a doctor simply declares and asserts such a thing, that is, either a his, or a hypocrisy. There is no doctor today who does not give a suffering patient narcotics, and tries to make the final hour of a dying person easier. One can say that is not euthanasia. In any case it is against the oath of Hippocrates. It begins by not giving the patient who is expected to die any more heart stimulants.

The next step is to give him narcotics. One may hang a copy of the Oath of Hippocrates in one's office but nobody pays any attention to it. The patient expects the doctor to help him and the relatives also expect it and I may mention in this same connection that since I have read in a newspaper that the sick person was finally released from his suffering. But these thoughts nave nothing to do with the concept of demonic order which Mr. Leibrandt mentioned. It is shown by the fact that today, and perhaps at this very moment, in other countries the question of euthanasia is again being discussed. The exponents of it — churches are joining together, Evangelical and Methodist, and the physicians' leagues are joining them. I know it is said if one knows that a doctor has nothing to do with euthanasia then he could lose the confidence of his patient.

This confidence of a patient which has once been won is not capital that one holds for interest. As I see it, the duty of the doctor is to earn it anew at every contact with his patient and the same is true of institution. One cannot say that an institution's reputation is taken away, the institution is not there to preserve a reputation, it is there to take care of sick persons and to help them. If one speaks of institutions one must have an idea of what that is. one hundred years ago was the beginning when the larger institutions were first opened. I remember the name of Ferell of Zurich. But, in reality, these institutions are gold cages.

One may well say that life behind these walls is the most horrible, the most unfortunate for a human being that there is. In the last few weeks and months pictures have been published in ma azines which show something comparable to what has been said about concentration camps and it has even been called that. The people are not for these institutions. There have always been difficulties in the financing of them, and there is no modern state where this question is not repeatedly discussed. It is said that such a thing; is necessary — the state should be willing to supply this money and where positive aid can be given, where human beings can be given care of human beings, they should get it. And from the church side too, I should like to mention Luther again. It was often unnatural.

If, in connection with our practice of euthanasia in 1940 and 1941 letters were received in large numbers which were quite understanding that is another factor in favor of it. I do not want to refer to the large amount of literature concerning euthanasia itself. In many cases one copies from another and the problem is avoided. But one thing seems necessary to me — that if anybody wants to judge the question of euthanasia he must go into an insane asylum and he should stay there with the sick people for a few days. Then we can ask him two questions; the first would be whether he himself would like to live like that, and the second, whether he would ask one of his relatives to live that way — perhaps his child or his parents. The answer cannot be connected with the concept of demonic order but it will be deeply felt gratitude far his own health and the question of whether it is more humane to help such a being to find a peaceful end or to care for it further — this answer results without being expressed.

In this connection I have a reference to literature where; it says about having a child with a hereditary brain disease kept alive fr three and one-half years and that this creature screamed for three and one-half years. I see nothing particular humane in this. One can say that the execution is not very pleasant and the death of a human being can be horrible, but everything in life that is biological is not pleasant — it can be horrible and unaesthetic and unpleasant. One can say that of everything from the beginning, to the end of digestion, but, in the last analysis, this constitutes life and it is necessary. An operation is not pleasant but it can be useful, and the bloody act of birth is certainly not pleasant nor is the end of life, which may last for days, pleasant. What is important is how one considers these processes. They became bearable to us and grew into what they are in reality by seeing in them something enlightening. I believe if one holds thus point of view then in the consideration about euthanasia a poor suffering creature is included in this thought which in reality goes far beyond the limited earthly existence, that they can be included in the concept of existence altogether, and to mention Hippocrates once more and his period when one spoke or Logos and ordering understanding, I believe that the doctor can create the necessary scientific basis for euthanasia and the theologian can work it into his work and the lawyer and the state authority can give the doctor the opportunity to help human beings, including such miserable creatures.

Q: Now, Witness, what was Hitler's point of view? Did he ask anything un-medical of you?

A: No, he did not.

Q: Do you know whether he know anything about the Extermination 14 F 13?

A: I do not know whether he knew anything about that. I did not know this term earlier and I never heard it from him.

Q: Then did he say anything to you in favor of extermination — anything that indicated that?

A: No, he did not.

Q: Do you believe that he knew what was going on?

A: I do not believe that Himmler carried out these measures without Hitler's knowledge. It is my opinion that he know about it in same form. The question is whether he gave the orders or whether he gave hints so that Himmler carried them out in this form. The relationship between Himmler and Hitler may have been similar to that between Martin Bermann and Hitler. In that connection, it was certainly so that if Hitler made some statement in the course of conversation, Martin Bermann passed it on as an order from the Fuehrer. If Hitler perhaps said in conversation: "A man like Pastor Niemoeller can't be let out of a camp. Such people are to be treated in such and such a way" then Martin Bermann reported to Himmler that "Paster Niemoeller is to be kept in a concentration camp for the rest of his life". It is possible that Hitler and Himmler were in a similar relationship; that — I am basing this again on Martin Bermann — Hitler did not actually give an order but that he knew that Martin Bermann would pass on a statement of his in this form and, on the other hand, that Martin Bermann passed on an order or a statement which had the effect of an order.

Q: Witness, must one not assume that both thoughts were united in Hitler's mind, Medical extermination and euthanasia, and that Hitler learned of them?

A: This necessarily did not exist. Aside from the fact that I knew nothing about it, it was one of Hitler's characteristics — that events and plans and projects were kept so secret that actually only two people learned about them. I am thinking of Prince Philip of Hesse with whom he talked at the Fuehrer Headquarters. He had supper with him once and after supper he went out of the room and was arrested at the door. I am thinking of the beginning of the campaign in France. We left Berlin by train the night before toward Hamburg. Everything was arranged to go from there by ship to Norway. Even the officers of his entourage were not informed that there would be a war with France. At night near Lehrte on the way to Hamburg the train turned and went toward the west where the fighting had already begun. It was so with many measures. Then there was no reason that more men — the very smallest circle of people — would know about such measures. I can say that of the circles around Hitler one person did not discuss his tasks and assignments with others unless the Fuehrer himself felt it necessary or spoke about it.

Q: Then you learned nothing through Adolph Hitler about the extermination matter?

A: No.

Q: As you consider the whole thing do you feel today that you are incriminated by euthanasia in any way?

A: No. I do not feel that I am incriminated. I am convinced that what I did in this connection I can bear the responsibility for it before my conscience. I was motivated by absolutely humane feelings. I never had any other intentions. I never had any other belief than that these poor miserable creatures, that the painful lives of these creatures were to be shortened. The only thing that I regret in this connection is that external circumstances brought it about that pain was inflicted on the relatives. But I am convinced that these relatives have overcome this sorrow today and that they themselves feel that their dead relatives were freed from suffering.

Q: Mr. President, I have no further questions to put to the witness.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal was informed at noon that the defendant Oberheuser desired to be excused at three o'clock for reasons of health. Does her counsel know whether that information is correct?

DR. SEIDL (for Oberheuser): I heard nothing about that.

THE PRESIDENT: If for reasons of her health the defendant Oberheuser desires to be excused at three o'clock from further attendance of the afternoon session of court she may be so excused. Counsel may obtain information whether such absence on account of her health is desired. If it is necessary shy may be excused. The Tribunal will now have a short recess.