1947-05-14, #3: Doctors' Trial (afternoon)

AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 14 May 1947.)

THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may proceed.

VIKTOR BRACK — Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued)

BY DR. FROESCHMANN (Counsel for the Defendant Brack):

Q: Witness, I remind you that you are still under oath.

A: Yes.

Q: Witness, dealing with the final chapter of euthanasia, I shall have to give you an opportunity to explain your affidavit 426, in the English Document Book Volume 14, page 10, and speak about it with reference to the point which deals with euthanasia. You have already mentioned the circumstances under which you made this statement, and you told us about the fact that you considered all the assertions by the prosecution as being justified, and you didn't offer any criticism. Would you please find out where the statements that you are making now deviate from the statements as were given by you then?

A: I never spoke of any euthanasia program, the interrogators used that word for the first time. I don't know whether I objected to that word, but, in effect, a program cannot be talked of — when speaking about a program I understand a project which is limited by time and which is planned carefully, and where success is expected at the end. In order to make the examination a little easier, I shall continue to use the word "program", although the expression itself is not correct.

The prosecution on the 10th of January 1947 said that this program was carried out from September 1939 until April 1945. That is not correct. It was stopped in August of 1941. The euthanasia program during that period of time dealt only with incurable mental patients. What happened up to August 1941 was not the execution of the program, an is asserted by the prosecution, — which had as its aim the systematic murder or execution of hundreds of thousands of human beings, the murder of insane persons, deformed children and people suffering of incurable diseases, as General Taylor said in his opening statement on 21 November 1946, on page 4 of the transcript — but it was rather an attempt to solve a problem which is as old as the history of humanity itself.

What happened after the stoppage of that program in 1941 has nothing at all to do with the execution of euthanasia, with perhaps a few singular exceptions.

Q: Witness, the prosecution has submitted the affidavit of a certain Leusser. This is prosecution document number 3864-PS, Exhibit 367, English Document Book No. 14, page 251; German document Book Volume 14, part 3, page 170. Have you that document book before you? Document Volume 14, part 3, page 251? In this document Doctor Leusser says that the transports extended from 1940 to 1941, up until 1944. What have you to say about that?

A: In paragraph 2 of that document Dr. Leusser says and I quote:

My knowledge about the occurences in the lunatic asylum at Ansbach during the war are based on information, which I received in the first place mostly from Dr. Schuch, but also from Frau Dr. Asam, one Dr. Priesmann, who was working at the asylum, but was removed on account of his membership to the party, and from the nursing personnel.

In other words, Leusser does not speak from his own knowledge but is speaking on the basis of knowledge he received from third parties. These third parties are, however, make entirely different statements. One of the nurses, as well as Asam and Schuch, places the time of the transfers up to the beginning of 1942. That is not quite correct in view of the clear period of time when Euthanasia stopped which can clearly be proved. It was august 1941. I remind you hare of the testimony of the witnesses Mennecke and Schmidt.

Q: Mr. President, with respect to the witness Ganzer I may refer to Prosecution Document 3867-PS, Exhibit 369, English Document Book 14, page 256. German Document Book 14, part 3, page 176.

A: The statement with which we are concerned can be found in his last paragraph and I quote:

I estimate that in all five transports of this kind were sent out from the Heil-und Pflege Anstalt, Ansbach, between the years 1940 and. the beginning of 1942.

Q: Now, would you please speak about NO-246.

A: During these transfers — I don't know the wording of the decree of the 1 September 1939 which was issued by Hitler, which erroneously was designated as secret.

Q: Mr. President, the decree which is just mentioned by the witness can be found in Document 630-PS, Exhibit 330, English Document Book Volume 14, page 3, and German Document Book Volume 14, part 1, page 1.

A: It says in my affidavit this decree entrusted Bouhler and Brandt with the responsibility of killing people who were not capable of life. This does not correspond with the fact but it says in the decree

Dr. Brandt and Reichsleiter [Reich Leader] Bouhler are charged with the responsibility of enlarging the authority of certain physicians to be designated by name in such a manner that person who, according to human judgment, are incurable can, upon most careful diagnosis of their condition of sickness, be accorded a mercy death.

Q: Now in your affidavit Paragraph 12 you also dealt with the purpose of the so-called Euthanasia Program and here some of your statements need also be elucidated.

A: In that connection I can only say that this entire paragraph, the same as paragraph 15 of my affidavit, does not originate from me but was drafted by the interrogating officer. At first I objected to that paragraph because I never really learned the true reasons of Hitler. I also stated that when Euthanasia was ordered and executed I did not represent the opinion that is contained in that paragraph. However, in view of everything I have realized since I actually held the point of view at the time of my interrogation that these could have been the true motives which moved Hitler. That is why I could be persuaded to sigh my name to that paragraph the contents of which don't originate from me. That refers to paragraph 12 of my affidavit.

Q: This is to be found in Document Volume 14 and it is paragraph 12 of Brack's affidavit. I quote:

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 eaters 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 use of the Armed Forces.

That is the paragraph?

A: Yes that is correct. During the interrogations I emphasized that on our part any position, any attitude as it is stated here regarding useless eaters was actually never taken. If, on the other hand, any such reasons of expediency were introduced into the debate by third parties they were almost rigidly rejected. I have already pointed out that I really need not have to resort to draw any such conclusions. I just recognized them.

Q: Now, witness, we need not revert to what the witness Lammers has said here because this really would be an argument which could only be included in the final plea. But is it not true that if Hitler had had the intention to designate these insane people as useless caters he would have used this expression in some manner towards Lammers, too?

A: I assume with certainty that some such expression would have been used during negotiations with Lammers if any such intentions had existed at that time. I would like to point out, however, that it would have been utterly senseless to perform Euthanasia for reasons of expediency at a time when there was a sufficient stock of nourishment and then to stop Euthanasia at a time when the events of the war required stricter measures and when lack of nourishment came about — and it is exactly in that year when Euthanasia was stopped.

Q: In that connection I submit Brack Exhibit 34 into evidence which will be Document No. 30 which is to be found in my Document Book No. 2 on page 9. This is the affidavit of Dr. Walter Schultze who was born 1 January 1894 in Hersbruck, former Ministerial Director in the Bavarian Ministry of the Interior. This is an affidavit made on 11 April 1947.

THE PRESIDENT: Will you once more give me the exhibit number that you assigned to that document?

DR. FROESCHMANN: I offer that document, Mr. President as Exhibit No. 34. This document bears the date of 11 April 1947 and was signed by Dr. Schultze. It was certified by me in the proper manner. I shall only read the following short sentences from the document. The witness says I quote:

At the end of 1939 or early in 1940 the former Bavarian Minister of the Interior and Gauleiter [regional or district leader] [District Leader] Adolf Wagner received an official visit by the Reichsleiter Bouhler.

As the Chief Medical Officer of Bavaria I was asked to attend this discussion. On this occasion Bouhler officially informed Wagner of a secret ordinance of the Fuehrer. Bouhler showed Wagner the original document which had in to top left corner the swastika and the name Adolf Hitler in gold print.

I go on reading from paragraph 3:

3. I recall the following details of this discussion:

e) We also discussed the motives for these measures and felt certain that this Fuehrer ordinance would be welcomed as a measure dictated by purely ethical reasons as explained by Bouhler. The above mentioned procedure ensured that any misuse and human error was eliminated.

4. On the strength of this discussion I was convinced and had this conviction confirmed by Wagner after Bouhlers departure, that the intentions were entirely clean and highly ethical.

6) The expression "useless eaters" I never heard mentioned by either Bouhler or Brack, nor have I heard it elsewhere.

Brack once asked me how it might be possible to re-employ the monies which would be saved as a result of the application of euthanasia for the benefit of curable cases of mental deficiency. I was very pleased at this question as it proved to me that it was intended to utilize such money for the benefit of the suffering community and not for other purposes in the National budget. However, I pointed out to Brack at the time that it was more important in my opinion to provide more beds for TB victims as TB was rapidly increasing to epidemic proportions and as there were exceptionally few TB Sanatoria in Germany.

7) Had I possibly had any doubts in this matter, Bouhlers personality would have reassured me that this sound and serious matter had been placed in good and proper hands, for I had known Bouhler for many years as an exceptionally fine, highly intellectual almost holy person.

I shall ask the Tribunal to take notice of the rest of the document. Witness, would you please continue with the discussion of your affidavit NO-426 as far as you think that you can raise any more objections that refer to Euthanasia

A: I would only shortly like to point to the question of the Reich Committee. From the very beginning I pointed out that this matter was dealt with in the Reich Ministry of the Interior by Dr. Linden and that I could only give very inexact information about that matter. What I can say today is essentially the result of conferences between my defense counsel and persons who had knowledge about these matters, as well as my own study of the files in this trial. According to this result, the Reich Committee for the Collection of People Suffering from Hereditary Diseases was not one of the tasks of the euthanasia program.

Q: Witness; this brings you to the conclusion of your attitude regarding the deviating points in your affidavit.

Mr. President; I think that it is expedient and advisable that; at this moment, I submit to the High Tribunal the chart which had been drawn by the defendant Brack and it refers to the organization of euthanasia. It forms a part of the affidavit which Brack had made in the course of the evidence on the part of the defendant Karl Brandt; when this statement of Brack was made on the 27th of January 1947 and I incorporated it in my document book #2 as Document 28, on page 5. I offer it as Brack Exhibit #35, I have had charts made for the benefit of the prosecution and for the benefit of the Tribunal which, according to their contents; exactly correspond with the chart to be found on the wall. I ask you to use this chart when following the evidence.

Witness, in the course of the evidence concerning euthanasia we can be much briefer than we originally intended because, on the one hand, the witness Hederich and mainly; the witness Pfannmueller, have spoken about the details at great length. I think that this would be in compliance with the wishes of the Tribunal and that they would desire us to proceed in a manner where I would ask you whether you have any additional statements to make to the statements which were already made by the witnesses. Let us be as brief as possible in order not to take up too much time of the Tribunal.

Witness, you are the very man who, together with Bouhler, and by order of Bouhler, from the very beginning, has been active within euthanasia. You are the man who executed Bouhler's orders. Is it correct that, in the course of the year of 1939 — and that was already stated by the defendant Brandt — repeated applications arrived at your institute emanating from parents who asked that a mercy death should be granted to their deformed children through medical interference? Is that right?

A: Yes, that is correct.

Q: Furthermore, is it correct that Hitler found out about that through his Adjutant's office?

A: Yes.

Q: Now, what do you know about the further development of things to the extent as it was not already clarified by Pfannmueller or Hederich? I emphasize now that we are, at first, concerned with the registration of the deformed children which really the pre-history to euthanasia as it concerned insane people.

A: Conti had called a committee through whom he tried to ascertain, and that as I heard from Bouhler by order of Hitler, how a basic solution could be arrived at concerning these applications. This small circle of people was called the Reich Committee for the Registration of Patients Suffering from Diseases Caused by Hereditary or Predisposition.

Q: You were just saying that Conti had received the order from Hitler to call together a committee in order to bring about a basic solution of that question. Was that quite correct? Was it not rather that, at the beginning, only the known cases were to be considered and, as a result of the known cases, some medical judgment was to be formed?

DR. HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, I would ask Dr. Froeschmann not to put a question in such a leading way.

DR. FROESCHMANN: I am not conscious of having put a leading question.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may proceed. The witness may explain.

BY DR. FROESCHMANN:

A: Mr. Bouhler stated clearly that Conti had received the order to search a basic solution to that problem. These cases went to various agencies and Hitler only, by accident, learned about one or another case whenever the Adjutant's office got to know about it. Conti, however, informed him that such applications arrived at various offices and, as a result, Conti received the order to search for some opportunity to register all these cases in order to enable a medical opinion to be made.

Q: Witness, the witness Pfannmueller and the witness Hederich have repeatedly mentioned the name of Dr. Linden in that connection. This Dr. Linden, as far as I can overlook the matter, seems to have played a considerable part within the framework of euthanasia. It would be expedient for you to speak somewhat about Dr. Linden and his official position because he appears in the chart in the organization of euthanasia as the Reich Plenipotentiary for Mental Institutions. May I point the Tribunal's attention to the box which can be found on the left hand side of the chart.

A: This Dr. Linden was a member of the Health Department of the Reich Ministry of the Interior which was headed by Conti. I only drew him in this plan, mentioning his strictly official capacity — namely the Reich Plenipotentiary for Mental Institutions. In addition, Linden also headed the Reich Committee for the Registration of Patients with Severe Diseases Caused by Hereditary or Predisposition. This, however, was no state position; his state position was the position of Reich Plenipotentiary for Mental Institutions and as such he was drawn under the block of Conti. He was a physician. According to my recollection, he was even a psychiatrist. What his medical political aims were, I cannot say. At any rate, he had had a considerable experience in medical administration. Before having come to the Ministry of Interior he had already been active in medical administration. He, at first, was subordinate to Frick and after 1943 was subordinated to Himmler.

That his other fields of work within the Ministry of the Interior, except the Reich Plenipotentiary for Mental Institutions, I don't know. In the course of the development of the performance of euthanasia, Linden took an increasingly stronger influence in that execution. I personally knew nothing about the medical problem. I was only Bouhler's assistant. It was, however, reassuring for me to know that the Reich Ministry of the Interior had collaborated in a task which concerned it to that extent. Of course, I didn't know a number of matters which I could only find out on the basis of the documents which are available to me. If Linden was only participating in the expert questions and if he was only participating in the arrangements of the transfers, a connection between his office and the office of has resulted. This was possible because Bouhler was in no way opposed to his aspirations for independence and the two officials Bohne and Allers were officials of the Reich Ministry of the Interior. These two officials have been entered upon this chart and can be found under the square

Organization for the Execution of Euthanasia

— beneath that,

Public Foundations for Institutional Care Bohne and Allers.

In view of the arrangements regarding the allocations of beds considering the air situation, Linden, on his own initiative, determined when and to what institutions they were to be transferred. This is something that Bouhler originally directed, but it was then taken over by Linden.

Q: Didn't he also designate the institutions which were taken into consideration as euthanasia institutions?

A: Yes, Linden was the only one who could designate that. He was the Reich Plenipotentiary and he had supervision over all these institutions.

Q: Very well, Witness, we already discussed that, that is a basic problem concerning deformed children; when, according to your present recollections, were these negotiations concluded within that Reich Committee?

A: I personally did not participate in these negotiations and I only know about them as a result of what Bouhler had told me. I know what the result of these negotiations was. This is a circular decree which was issued on the 16th of August 1939. This decree was not exactly published, but was sent to the individual administrative agencies. According to that date the negotiations must have been concluded around July.

Q: Witness, on the occasion of the examination of Hederich, I already mentioned that decree, namely the decree of August 1939, is that the decree you are speaking of?

A: Yes, that is the decree according to which all nurses and institutions had the duty to report all the births of deformed children to this Reich Committee.

DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, unfortunately I am not in a position to submit this decree to the Tribunal, because I have not yet the supplemental volume. However, tomorrow morning I shall have that document volume, and shall then give this document an exhibit number.

Q: Witness, did you at that time gain knowledge of this decree?

A: Yes, I did.

Q: Didn't you have some peculiar feeling as a result of this decree?

A: No, I could only welcome it. As a result of this decree there was a possibility granted that all these children who had to suffer under severe physical conditions were to be registered and then were to be helped out as far as possible.

Brandt has already described one case regarding Leipsig, and I needn't mention it once more, and there was a possibility to grant mercy death to a sense in one or the other case.

Q: This duty of registration by the nurses and physicians was this to form the basis for the decision of each individual case, speaking quite generally?

A: Yes, this duty of registration was to give us the opportunity to present these cases to the Fuehrer for his decision. Of course, the Minister of the Interior would have preferred to keep the decision with its own limits, but it was determined differently.

DR. FORESCHMANN: Now we conclude our discussion about the Reich Committee and we shall now go over to the real results of the execution of euthanasia, in which Brack participated, and which has now become the subject of the indictment.

Q: Witness, up to the year 1939 did you deal with the problem of euthanasia?

A: No, up to the year 1939 I did not deal with the problem of euthanasia and my sphere of work within the Chancellory of the Fuehrer did not at all bring me in contact with any such problem. That, apart from individual cases which I have just mentioned, when parents asked for the mercy death to be granted to their deformed children, both of those applications were sent over to the Reich Ministry of the Health.

Q: When did you hear about an order by Hitler that incurable mental patients could be granted the mercy death under certain conditions?

A: I learned that and that was a complete surprise to me, at the end of July or beginning of August. This was not in connection with negotiations about the Reich Committee, but I heard it quite spontaneously from my superior Reichsleiter Bouhler, who told me one last day that Hitler had discussed that question with a closed circle and had said that he was considering the mercy death to insane people, and that Bouhler was to consider that possibility also. At that time Bouhler already said that it was Hitler's opinion that we were then concerned with persons who were unable to live, were not happy and whose existence in this World meant a moral burden to themselves, and to the members of their families.

Bouhler, I think told me on the next day that he had considered that matter, and that he had accepted the order of the Fuehrer. He asked me to tell him whether I knew anything about the problem, what my attitude was and what I thought of it.

Q: What did you tell Bouhler?

A: I at first told him quite professionally that such assignment had nothing to do with the Chancellory of the Fuehrer. That it was a purely medical matter, and it could at the best be called a matter of public hygiene, and at any rate fell within the sphere of Conti. I pointed out that Conti would be able to call a similar small committee who could discuss the question of deformed children and arrive at some decision. We, of course, didn't have any experts to do that, and we had no executive functions which would permit us to perform any such work. As far as I remember I already then pointed out that this would only bring about new conflicts with Bormann, because Conti in addition to his position as under-Secretary of State and Minister of Interior, was also simultaneously a member of the staff of Bormann. Bouhler then said that he had repeated that to the Fuehrer and had pointed out especially as to the problem of Bormann. Hitler, however, had answered that he would be ready to speak to Bormann personally. Bouhler then tried to get Frick's support, because Conti in his capacity as undersecretary of State was subordinated to Frick. His fears regarding Bormann, and also my fears, were justified because Bormann stated to Bouhler himself a few days later that the euthanasia was a matter for Conti, the Reich Health Leader, and he further said it would not be limited to incurable mental patients. Thereupon Bouhler thought that Hitler would take this assignment away from him and give it to Conti. This, however, would have meant that the entire euthanasia matter would have been transferred to Bormann's influence, which would have caused extensive mis-use. Therefore, I went to Frick and discussed these matters with Frick. Upon the advice of Frick he also made sure of the support of Goering and Himmler.

Q: Now, Witness, we don't need to go into all these details, because it would take us much too far away. Now, let us come to the period of time when Bouhler finally received this order by Hitler?

A: I can't give you the exact period of time. I can only say this happened in a period of a few days, all these negotiations between Bouhler, Conti, Frick and Goering, At any rate Bouhler went to the Fuehrer and told him specifically he would accept this assignment in spite of his questionable incompetency. Hitler at that time replied that he desired a non-bureaucratic solution of this problem, because he didn't want an agency like the Reich Ministry of the Interior which had definite tracks after all to take over such a definite assignment. He said that the physicians themselves could not do it because they had no definite organization available. Hitler said that Bouhler himself was to create the necessary organization for that purpose. As far as it was necessary the Reich Ministry of the Interior should take over these things which already fall within its sphere of jurisdiction. That is in cases where the executive powers of the Reich Ministry of the Interior could alleviate the task of the euthanasia.

Q: Witness, did Bouhler tell you anything at that time concerning the secrecy concerning these matters?

A: I cannot remember that. However, I believe that he said from the very beginning that these entire matters had to be treated with the strictest confidence.

Q: Now, witness, after Bouhler had told you about these detailed suggestions by the Fuehrer; what did you do, what was your impression?

A: At first I had no idea about the extent of this assignment, no doubt I did not conceive of this entire thought to its great extent, however, after I heard the description by Bouhler about the condition of these persons, I decided to cooperate in the collaboration of that assignment. I took a number of the associates of Bouhler into confidence and asked them to cooperate.

Q: Witness, you spoke to your collaborators, you spoke to Bouhler and what was the result of all these negotiations; what problem did you solve?

A: The problem to which I was entirely alien was purely medical. We as party officials could not solve it in any way, we had to be clear about the following question: "How can the expert physicians be included in the solution of that problem?" Brandt was not a psychiatrist, Bouhler was not a physician. The reason for entrusting these two persons for the assignment was only because Hitler had special confidence in them for carrying the matter through correctly and properly. We now had the problem of getting experts, who were in line with the idea of Euthanasia and who were ready to cooperate as experts. Only in this manner could the problem be solved in a clean and correct manner.

Q: Witness, what physicians appeared to you at that time to be suitable psychiatrists for that purpose and whom in effect did you chose?

A: It is correct for you to say, whom did you actually get to know, because prior to that period of time I did not know anyone. Bouhler for instance had known Professor Heide through some former association, however, neither Bouhler nor I knew any other psychiatrists. For that reason Bouhler asked me to try and find Professor Heide's address. This is how I contacted Himmler for the first time regarding Euthanasia. There was no other way of getting to Heide, because we did not know his address only the fact that he was a member of the SS.

On this occasion, Bouhler repeated his promise of support, which I have already mentioned. Whether Grawitz had nominated some more experts, I do not know. I do know, however, that Dr. Linden had given a number of names of physicians to Bouhler. According to my recollection, six or more University professors were among the experts which Bouhler used.

Q: Mr. President, at this time I shall submit my Document No. 38 from Document Book 2, page 57, that is an affidavit of Dr. Werner Kirchert, dated 29 January 1947, which the counsel for the defendant Karl Brandt has already submitted as Karl Brandt Exhibit No. 15. I need not read it. It deals with the events which the witness has just described.

Please continue, witness.

A: In any case from these first discussions, I remember definitely the name of Professor Nietzsche, Professor Dikrinis, who was the head of the Ordinariat [Professorship] at Berlin, Professor Kiehn from Jena, Dr. Schneider from Heidelberg, Dr. Falkenhaeuser of Kaufbeuren. Those are probably the ones who participated in the first discussions and then more experts were sworn to secrecy. The witness Pfannmueller already testified about this. They were not employed, but were on an honorary basis. From the number of these gentlemen, whom we were gradually getting to know, during the middle or beginning of August, Bouhler called a meeting in his own office, in which I and some of my associates participated.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, I did not understand that you assigned a number to Document No. 38; is that Exhibit No. 35?

DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, I did not give it any Exhibit number, because it was my impression that since this Document has already been submitted, by my colleague, Dr. Servatius, for Karl Brandt, with the Exhibit No. 15, this Document is already in evidence. Merely so that the report will be able to follow my presentation of evidence better, I have copies it again in my Document book. If the court shall consider it necessary for me to give this Document an Exhibit number, I shall of course be glad to do so.

THE PRESIDENT: It is not necessary, counsel, but it should be identified for the record. Do I understand this is Karl Brandt Exhibit No. 15?

DR. FROESCHMANN: This is Exhibit Karl Brandt No. 13. I may remark regarding the other Kirchert affidavit in my Document Book No. 1 with the No. 33, dated 7 February 1947, that I shall not submit this affidavit and it can be struck out.

THE PRESIDENT: That is satisfactory, counsel.

BY DR. FROESCHMANN:

Q: Now, witness, you know from the testimony of the witness Pfannmueller that this witness in particular, in answer to questions of the Prosecution, repeatedly spoke of the two meetings in which he participated; one meeting at which, in his opinion, there was merely an intended division of the mental institutions into two groups, while at the other meeting the group of experts are supposed to have met. In your following testimony, I ask you to consider Pfannmueller's testimony and to make it clear to the court whether there were only these two meetings dealing with the entire problem of Euthanasia, or whether in addition to these two meetings there were other meetings. I also consider it important that you tell the court absolutely frankly at what meetings you participated and what you did in detail, so that the impression will not be given that you are trying to keep anything secret?

A: I can only say that of course there were many more than two such meetings and meetings of various different kinds, but it is quite impossible for me to give any figure. I don't know whether there were ten, twenty, fifteen, or twenty five. There were big meetings and small meetings, there were meetings which Reichsleiter Bouhler called directly, especially in the beginning. There were meetings merely of the experts, which Professor Heide, Professor Nietzsche or Professor Linden called.

There were all kinds of meetings at various times and various places and with various groups of people.

Q: I should like to interpolate a question here, because I have been asked by one of my colleagues to shorten the case of the defense counsel somewhat; I ask you: was the defendant Dr. Blome involved in any way?

A: From my own knowledge, I can confirm that Blome never attended any of the meetings which I attended and I did attend very many meetings. In any case, I know that he was never at Bouhler's office, as I would certainly have learned of that and I never heard anyone mention Blome in connection with Euthanasia. I have already said that I personally had nothing to do with him in connection with the Euthanasia program.

Q: Witness, at the request of my colleague Sauter for defendant Blome, I should like to clarify something here. On the chart which was drawn up during the interrogation from the information given by you, that is, No. 203, it is No. 253, it says at the top to the left the name "Blome", apparently in connection with Dr. Conti, and indirectly in connection with the defendant Brandt. Will you briefly tell us whether that square Blome here was justified at all?

A: In view of the heading, "Euthanasia Program", the addition of the name Blome is certainly not justified. I pointed this out at the interrogation and when I signed this chart that this was not justified but I was persuaded that Blome, as Deputy of the Reich Health Leader logically had to appear, but when I said that Blome had nothing to do with euthanasia, the second line was not put around the square in which Blome's name appears, and that is a plain square in contrast to the square of Conti and Linden. I believe that was how it happened. It is difficult for me to remember all of these things in detail, but that is how it happened I believe. It was because Blome had nothing to do with euthanasia.

Q: Now, witness, please emphasize in your description those meetings which were important for the development of the euthanasia program, first of all, the first meeting which Bouhler called in order to discuss the problem itself and in order to find out the attitude of the doctors?

A: These were small meetings and primarily the people whom I have already mentioned participated.

Q: Just a moment, witness. I should like to hear from you from the very beginning when you speak of your associates, which associates you mean. One can assume with a degree of certainty that the Prosecution and cross examination will ask these names, and even if it is not pleasant to you to mention these names, I as your defense counsel consider it my duty to ask you to state which of your associates, no matter in what respect, had something to do with the euthanasia program.

Who were these associates?

A: There were only four of my associates who had anything to do with euthanasia in any degree. That was my representative and later my successor, Blankenburg, then Hegener, and then Hevelmann and Vorberg. These are the four whom I have put in the corrected plan. All of the other associates in the Chancellery of the Fuehrer had nothing to do with euthanasia, and to a large extent were not informed about it.

Q: I should like to hear that last thing again. Within the Chancellery of the Fuehrer there was the secrecy which we shall speak about later and it was kept?

A: Yes, of course, that was an order, even within my own office.

Q: Then this explains the fact that the witness Hederich from 1939 to 1940, as he said, actually knew nothing about euthanasia being dealt with in your office?

A: I consider the statement absolutely true. I can only emphasize it.

Q: And you, Mr. Brack, you worked with these meetings?

A: Yes.

Q: Did you not in private conversations with third persons say something about your activities or any hints?

A: I must honestly say later I did so with a very definite intention, and later I had to deal with the film "I accuse." Of course, I told a few people who were connected with it what it was all about, but in general I held to the secrecy very strictly.

Q: Witness, in answer to my express question you gave the name of four of your associates, I want to know very briefly, did Dr. Hevelmann, what was his attitude toward the problem, was he in favor of it, was he informed about it?

A: Yes.

Q: Was he very much in favor of euthanasia?

A: Yes, for a purely personal reason. In his own family he had had a horrible misfortune. He had a mother who for years, I don't know how many years, was suffering from cancer and couldn't die, although she wanted to die, and he was in favor of euthanasia because of this experience of his own.

Q: And what about Vorberg?

A: Vorberg was not so favorably inclined toward euthanasia, but he did follow the order, and since he from a business point of view had something to do with the organization of this transport company, even if it was against his will, he did follow the order.

Q: Well, how about Hegener?

A: Hegener was very much more open minded toward this problem because he himself was connected by marriage with an important doctor who had acquainted him with the problem and he know Dr. Unger, as well as Hevelmann, who wrote the book, the manuscript of which I later used in preparing the film.

Q: And the last one, Blankenburg?

A: At first he know even less than I did about the problem but later he warmed up to it, but I must say it was less for ethical reasons than for rational reasons. What the results were, the freeing of beds, for example, he was more interested than I. To me it made no difference whatever Q Now, let's go back to the meeting which Bouhler called at the beginning of August 1939.

You have already told us that as far as your remember you were at this meeting, is that right?

A: It is very likely I was at the first meeting. I can not imagine my not being there.

Q: Well, what do you remember about this meeting?

A: As I said Bouhler wanted to find out the attitude of the doctors toward the problem of the basis justification for euthanasia, which was unanimously approved by every one present. Of course, all demanded that safeguards be created. When Bouhler asked about the number of insane in Germany I remember that exactly, very different figures were given, so that we did not come to any clear idea. There were estimates between 200,000 and 600,000, but in general the number of incurable eases in the mental institutions were estimated at about thirty per-cent.

Q: Witness, you have admitted that until 1939 you did not have anything to do with the problem, you did not think about it. Even more than your description this morning which gave you occasion to point out your lack of training in this line, I should like to see now how did it happen that you as a complete layman dealt with this matter. Did you try to clarify in your own mind this problem of euthanasia as an aid to die?

A: First I would like to correct something. I didn't deal with the problem. I was given an order to deal with it. That, of course, I informed myself as thoroughly as I could as a layman. That was a matter of course. Immediately after the Reichsleiter told me he had received this order I visited some of the big mental institutions in Berlin and in the neighborhood of Berlin to find out what these people looked like who are to be relieved from suffering.

I think the first one I visited was Buch, which has over 3,000 beds, and I visited Goerden, and I visited two or three other institutions in and near Berlin, and what I saw there was terrible. Even I who an only a layman, find it difficult to describe it, but I can remember some of the terrible cases clearly, because as the first ones which I had ever seen in my life, they made a lasting impression. In the institution Buch I saw a woman who was thirty-eight to forty years old, approximately, who was wearing a heavy, tough shirt, and sitting in a kind of a cage on wooden shavings. She bared her teeth at people when they came near her and she was absolutely incapable of any contact. She took her food like an animal. She did indecent things with her excrement. She was constantly obscene, she was incapable of speaking, and as the nurse told me she had been in that condition for eighteen or nineteen years.

In the same institution I saw a child. It was a girl of three or four years of ago. It was simply a torso. It had no arms, no legs, a big head, albino, red inflamed eyes. And, at that age it was not able to speak a single word yet. It was a terrible sight — simply a body with a head an no possibility that a human being could develop from this creature. And, then Dr. Heinz in Goerden showed me a case, formerly a highly talented engineer who had built some big bridges abroad. This man had paralysis and the malaria cure was used too late. He had come to the clinic too late. He was quite stupid but on the other hand still aggressive. He had delusions of grandeur. He called silly scribblings blue prints. It was terrible to see these people. In Wuerttemberg/Baden I had the opportunity to visit other institutions. I saw at least ten or twelve institutions of various kinds and saw all kinds f cases but I can't describe all of them. That would be quite impossible.

Q: I think you made a mistake before when you said you saw a psychiatrist in the institution. You meant a paralytic.

A: Yes, paralytic.

Q: Now, Mr. Brack, you have described your own impressions when you visited these institutions. Did you observe various methods of treating the insane?

A: Yes I saw the curing field and the caring field. I saw all the modern methods including therapy, electric shock, insulin, malaria antidote, etc. Then I saw the occupational therapy — not only in the curing field but also in the caring field so that patients could be kept quiet under the necessity for working.

Q: What impression did you get of this method of occupational therapy?

A: I can say nothing about it as a layman but what was done with the incurable cases was impressive. It was destroying the dignity of human creatures, making them robots — it was not worthy of human beings.

DR. HOCHWALD: If your Honors please, I do think this line of questioning is already exhausted. The witness has given all his reasons why he pitied those people and so on. I do not think it is material.

DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, I am finished with this subject but I thought it necessary for the witness to tell us what he thought.

THE PRESIDENT: Proceed to some other question of the case.

Q: Mr. Brack, through personal observation you convinced yourself of the conditions of these patients but there was still the big question — can I give my aid to a project which shortens the life of those patients? What did you do?

A: I read the literature in this field. First I read the standard Work of Hinding-Hoche. I didn't like it very much. I read Melzer. I also read Walther. I read Barth. I also read literary works like Thomas Morus and Unger, etc. All these things — the total effect of all the literature as well as the personal impressions which I had in the mental institutions — as well as what I learned in talks with old psychiatrists brought me to the idea that it was not anything bad but that it was good to help in this tasks if there was an order.

Q: Did you discuss those questions with your associates Hevelmann and Blankenburg, etc?

A: Yes, of course. We discussed the problem and details of the problem at great length.

Q: Mr. President, in this connection I should like to refer to by Brack Exhibit 27. That is Document 7 in Document Book 1, page 15, the affidavit of Irmgard Grube, who was for many years secretary in the Chancellery of the Fuehrer and in this connection I should like to read from 2 b), only the first two sentences, and then from 4 I should like to read a little part. No. 2 b says:

Brack's most obvious characteristic was his unconditional readiness to help. Brack never refused to help anybody who asked for his assistance in an emergency. This readiness to help grew out of an absolutely decent and humane feeling. Brack tried to comprehend other people's feelings and to under stand them

And then I should like to have you consider figure 4 in this connection where the witness mentions everything that the defendant has just described in detail.

She says that shortly before the outbreak of the War the decree was issued by Hitler. That this order was the subject of many discussions in office II and she says:

I was present sometimes during such discussions between Brack, Hefelmann, Blankenburg and Hegener to take down shorthand notes. I concluded from these discussions and explanations of these men that the discussions on this subject were taken very seriously by all concerned, they continued until late at night. All the aforementioned were convinced that this was a problem of the highest ethical importance. Reasons of expediency were entirely ruled out. I never heard Brack use the words "useless eaters", I can really not remember ever to have heard this word. Arguments and counter arguments were discussed in detail. The decisive factor was always Brack's frequently expressed views that these people were merely vegetating and their existence was of no value. Professor Nietzsche possessed an extensive library, which was concerned with the problem of euthanasia. Brack discussed in detail a number of these books with Mietzsche and studied some of them. The question was raised whether publications had been made concerning the progress of euthanasia in foreign countries.

I ask the court to take notice of the rest of this number 4.

Now, witness we have already heard from the witness Hederich and you have confirmed it that the issuance of the euthanasia assignment to Bouhler had nothing to do with the Chancellery of the Fuehrer. What were the conclusions for Bouhler there and you?

A: Some machine had to be created to carry out euthanasia. All institutions had to be registered. The patients had to be registered so that an opinion could be formed on them. Individual institutions had to be found where euthanasia could be carried out in practice, etc. In view of the great number of incurable cases of insanity a great burden on the personnel had to be expected in the beginning. That could never be handled by the few people I had working at the Chancellery of the Fuehrer.

Personnel had to be found for this purpose and an office had to be found. Bouhler did this. He got rooms in the Columbus House on Potsdamer Platz and later in . He rented the rooms. This office was called T-4 from the number Tiergartenstrasse 4. That is where this expression comes from. This was equal in rank to KDF under Bouhler. In my improved chart I have what I forgot in the first chart. — This Party Control Commission. The three offices under Bouhler are equal in rank. With the exception of myself and the associates whom I have already mentioned all the personnel at this Tiergartenstrasse 4 were working voluntarily and on their own decision. Only we four were working on orders. All others were working voluntarily on their own decision. Only we four were working on orders.

All others were working on their own decision.

Q: Mr. President, in this connection I should like to refer to NO 470, Exhibit 332, English Document Book 14, page 17, German Document Book 14 — 1, page 15. This is the affidavit of Kneissler which the Prosecution has submitted and I shall read merely one sentence. Under No. 3:

In 1939 I was summoned by the Chief of Police to report on 4 January 1940 to the Ministry of the Interior, situated in the Kolumbus building; there a man called Blankenburg talked to our group which consisted of 22 or 23 persons.

Now the witness continues:

It was completely voluntary for those persons at the meeting to assure their cooperation.

A: The personnel were paid according to the regular rates. The funds were advanced by the NSDAP Treasurer for the Ministry of the Interior. The administration of this office was first put under Bohne and, after he left, Allers. The medical direction was first under Professor Heide, later Professor Nietzsche.

Q: One question in this connection. Did the defendant Karl Brandt have anything to do with T-4?

A: I believe that during my first interrogation I expressed myself wrongly and what my affidavit says is misleading. Karl Brandt was connected with euthanasia — he was Hitler's deputy — but he had nothing to do with T-4. He did not have any office at T-4, as I said during the interrogations, and, as far as I know, he was never at T-4. I do not believe that Brandt would have come to T-4 without first saying to me or one of my assistants, "Please go with me. I should like to look at it."

Q: Now, witness, in the meantime the committee of experts which Dr. Pfannmueller mentioned — did it deal with the medical questions which came up?

A: I don't know whether Dr. Pfannmueller's words are quite clear here. I spoke at one meeting with Bouhler but there were several at which the first problems were solved and when Bouhler gave the decisions. At these sessions Brandt was perhaps a time or two. I don't think he was present at more than one or two meetings. But there were certainly four or five such meetings with Bouhler where Dr. Linden was called upon at the end each time by Bouhler because he was a medico-political expert — because he could give very good advice, and only then, after Bouhler had determined a certain group, including Heide, Neitzsche, and Dikrinis, were the split up groups of experts formed, and Pfannmueller doubtless participated in one of these conferences of experts because he was one such expert and he mentioned this meeting. At these expert meetings the directives were discussed and set down, first in general and later corrected. The directives for forming the judgment on the cases.

I personally often attended, these meetings of the experts. Of course, I could say nothing to the point but I was there and I heard what the experts were talking about.

Q: Now, at these meetings did the idea come up of sending the questionnaires to the mental institutions?

A: As far as I remember, that was settled earlier in the discussions with Bouhler and then I believe Linden and Heide appointed a committee to draw up this Questionnaire and they drafted the Questionnaire.

Q: Do you remember how the decision about the questionnaires, when they had been filled out, was to be reached?

A: Yes, that agrees with what I said in my affidavit. The questionnaire had to be judged by three experts. I said four before but there were really only three, and Dr. Pfannmueller was one of the experts. If three experts independently came to the same result — that is, that in this case mercy death could be accorded — then everything was transferred to a fourth photostat and came to the chief expert who received only such photostats to decide on. If his opinion agreed with the opinions of the other three, then the patients were transferred upon orders from the Ministry of the Interior.

Q: And where were they transferred? Where were the patients transferred to?

A: Patients were subsequently transferred to an observation institution. The creation of these observation institutions, however — by way of correction of my previous testimony — was not in 1939 but the beginning of 1940. These institutions were arranged at the suggestion of Professor Neide. In these observation institutions the patients were kept under observation for a period which depended on the nature of the case. If the result of the observation agreed with the judgment formed on the basis of the Questionnaires, then they were sent to an euthanasia institution and the doctor in the euthanasia institution made the final decision whether he wanted to submit the patient to euthanasia or not. In any case, he had an absolutely unlimited veto right in every case, just like every expert and chief expert in each case could put his plus, minus, or question mark on the form.

Q: Witness, we need not deal with the names of the experts, chief experts, or the names of the institutions because I can assume that the prosecution will come back to this matter and I shall not discuss who selected the doctors in the observation and euthanasia institutions, but I will go on to another question. That is, whether you know that, in the execution of the assignment of Hitler given to the defendant Brandt and Bouhler, the euthanasia doctors were given authorization to administer euthanasia after checking every thing that had been done by the experts and chief experts.

A: Yes, that was done. The euthanasia doctors were given, by Bouhler and Brandt, the necessary authorization which had been required by the Fuehrer.

Q: Do you know whether a list of these doctors was kept at T-4?.

A: I have already been asked about that and I can only say I do not know, but I hardly assume so since the group of authorized doctors was so very small. There were only twelve to fifteen of them. I have been told that there must have been over three hundred fifty. I could not know that, but I did not know more than twelve or fifteen.

Q: Very well, witness, Then we have discussed the general preparatory measures for euthanasia. Briefly, at the end of this session today I should like to go into the question in regard to this whole matter had secrecy been ordered end what effects did that have?

A: In regard to euthanasia as a whole, strict secrecy had been ordered. It had to be dealt with as top secret and the regulations, which were more stringent during the war, were that euthanasia has to be relegated to top secret. To my knowledge and my consent, no death threats were expressed, but this formulation, of course, is contained in the regulations that in case of violation of this duty of secrecy for things which are top secret the death penalty may be pronounced, but those are the general rules which were known to everyone anyhow. Besides, Bouhler forced me to accept a pseudonym which was very embarrassing to me and seemed ridiculous.

I only did so for a certain time and without making a big fuss about it I dropped it again and two of my assistants did the same thing.

Q: Now, this pseudonym was only in connection with signing documents in connection with T-4?

A: Only in connection with T-4, yes.

Q: And then, my final question on this subject. At this same time or later this secrecy led to giving special names to certain organizations, is that true?

A: Yes, secrecy was the reason why the whole organization was divided into various sub-organizations.

DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, I have finished this subject of secrecy and now I come to the question of the legal basis of euthanasia. That will take some time. Perhaps this would be a good time to adjourn.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now be in recess until 9:30 o'clock tomorrow morning.

(A recess was taken until 0930 hours, 15 May 1947.)