1947-05-15, #3: Doctors' Trial (afternoon)

AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 15 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. Let us hurry and try to conclude. Witness, before the noon recess we stopped in the discussion of Document NO 1141, Exhibit 348. I asked you where the transport of September 18 — 20 went. You said that from this document NO-1141 you concluded that the transport went to Chelm. Do you have any further comment on this question?

A: From the documents 1144, Exhibit 342, Document Book 14, part I, page 57 in the German we see—

Q: In the English that is page 110.

A: — that Bertha Weiland frau, NO-1143, Exhibit 343, Document Book 14, part 2, page 65 —

Q: In the English Document Book 14, part I, page 126.

A: — that Wilhelm Neumann, Albert Tillmann, Gertrud Oppehheimer, Bertha Heimann, Sophie Wiesengrund and Albert Froehlich, were sent according to the before mentioned decree of the Bavarian Ministry of the Interior, on the 20th of September 1940, from the institution Eglfing. Of these, Gertrud Oppenheimer is contained in the list on page 17 of Document NO-1135, number 9. And the list of the Document Book 12, part III, NO-720, Exhibit 366, page 163.

Q: This document NO-720 is in the English Document Book 14 on page 243.

A: The other names are not contained in this list, but are in the lists previously mentioned. I do not know, but I conclude it from these documents, that on the 20th of September 1940 there were other transports leaving Eglfing-Haar.

We have no lists of them, at least they have not been submitted. I must conclude that a transport went to Chelm on this day; that in Chelm there was an observation or euthanasia institution is completely unknown to me and I certainly would have learned it, because I knew the names of the six euthanasia institutions. The assumption of the prosecution, that the persons who were removed from Eglfing-Haar on 20 September 1940, the 191 Jewish men and women were subjected to euthanasia, is incorrect and is refuted by what I just explained.

Q: Witness, you remember that the witness, Dr. Pfannmueller said that he learned later that these Jewish insane patients were sent to Lublin. You have already said that you knew nothing whatever about all these matters, that only now from examining the documents you have reached these conclusions. It is almost superfluous to ask, did you know then the name Lublin. Do you know that Jewish insane patients were sent there?

A: No, I knew nothing of that.

DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, I have covered the documents submitted by the prosecution dealing with what persons were effected by euthanasia. Now I come to the final subject of the so-called euthanasia program and I shall deal in outline only with the course and the stopping of euthanasia.

BY DR. FROESCHMANN:

Q: Witness, you have already said that the questionnaires received were sent to T-4 and that they separated those referring to foreigners. These questionnaires were not photostatted and were not sent to the experts, that only the remaining questionnaires, that is, those which did not refer to foreigners and Jews, were photostatted and sent to the experts.

I need not go into the details that were given by the witness Pfannmueller concerning the filling out and the judging of the questionnaires. I had originally intended, as in the case of Pfannmueller, to show you one or two questionnaires, not for you to judge them from the medical point of view but from the purely administrative point of view. I believe, however, that this matter has been cleared up so thoroughly that the prosecution will see no cause in cross examination to deal with the subject, and, consequently, I shall not need to show you the questionnaires which I have filled out by Dr. Pfannmueller. I shall merely ask, you heard the testimony of Doctor Pfannmueller concerning the judging of the questionnaires, the plus or minus sign, or question mark. Do you have anything to add to this testimony?

A: No, I have nothing to add. The explanation of the witness Pfannmueller was quite thorough.

Q: And is it correct that the cases designated as positive, that is by a "plus" by the chief expert, were sent to Linden's office, and that Linden's office ordered the transfer of these patients to an observation institution by orders to the transport company?

A: Yes, that is true.

Q: Do you know whether the doctor in charge after the period of observation submitted a report?

A: I don't know how that was managed, I only know that the Chief Experts were in constant contact with authorized doctors in the observation institutions concerning the selection of the patients under observation there.

Q: Is it true again that after the period of observation Linden's office again issued instructions to the transport company and thus arranged for the transfer of the patients to a euthanasia institution?

A: Yes, I mentioned that briefly yesterday.

Q: Is it true that at the same time a photostat of the opinion of the chief expert was sent to the euthanasia institution?

A: In each case a photostat was sent to the euthanasia institution because when the people arrived the photostat had to be compared with the personal data and the case history.

Q: I can conclude then that the case history and personal files were also sent to the euthanasia doctor?

A: Yes, of course, he needed them for the final opinion of the patient. He would not have been able to see that from the condition of the patient alone. He needed the case history.

Q: And now to conclude this subject, I ask you whether you can confirm what the witness, Dr. Pfannmueller has said, that the euthanasia doctor who united everything in his hands, who had the patient, the case history, the personal records, and the final medical decision as to whether this patient was to be subjected to euthanasia, or whether he was to be returned to an observation institution or to his original institution, is that correct?

A: The final responsibility lay with the executing doctor who had an absolutely unlimited veto right.

Q: Now, Mr. Brack, since I have dealt with this chapter thoroughly with you, I can assume that as this morning you did not doubt the report on children contained in the documents, you will also not wish to deny the correctness of the documents submitted by the Prosecution concerning the transfer of insane persons from the fall of 1939 until August 1941?

A: I cannot deny the accuracy of these documents.

Q: For the information of the Tribunal and of the Prosecution I remark that the documents which the defendant does not wish to contest are the following seven documents which I shall read briefly:

NO. 1133, Exhibit 335, English Document Book 14, page 86: NO 1131, Exhibit 340, document book 14, page 93; NO. 1132, Exhibit 341, English Document Book 14, page 100; NO-1134, Exhibit 344, English document book 14, page 136; NO. 817, Exhibit 368, English document book 14, page 254; NO. 827, Exhibit 375, English document book 14, page 269, and the final document is NO. 826, Exhibit No. 346, English document book No. 14, page 208.

Mr. Brack, the same answer which you have just given me concerning the transfer of insane no doubt applies also to the documents concerning the sending of questionnaires to the experts and sending them back to the Reich Working Union?

A: Yes, I do not deny their accuracy.

Q: I am speaking here only of two documents which I should like to bring to the attention of the Tribunal. These are NO. 1129, Exhibit 354, English Document Book 14, page 179, and No. 1130, Exhibit 344, English document book 14, page 188, witness, concerning document NO. 1136, Exhibit 345, of which the defense counsel has only a photostatic copy and which I was unable to find in the English document book. Do you wish to make any modification? Do you have the document?

A: Yes, I have it. Yes, the Prosecutor apparently by mistake said that 1857 patients were removed from the Eglfing-Haar institution on one day and that report is an error on the part of the prosecution, because this number 1857 appearing in column 4 of the document is the total of all patients removed from Eglfing-Haar. This is from the document itself and this column 4 contains the total of the individual figures given in column 3.

Q: Mr. President, I consider this statement important only because the Prosecution and the Tribunal might come to the mistaken impression that on one day from one institution nearly 2000 insane persons were transferred. That would, of course, throw a very peculiar light on the testimony of the witness Pfannmueller, which otherwise at least in my opinion is quite credible. The Prosecution has just kindly brought to my attention that document No. 1136 is in the English document book 14, on page 147. Witness, I conclude the questions about the documents of Pfannmueller. Now in the execution of euthanasia a number of abuses arose which lead to applications and complaints from various private persons and authorities. Will you please comment on how these complaints were dealt with and also tell us about what complaints you learned of, especially the ones which were submitted by the Prosecution.

Q: It is a matter of course that when a number like fifty to sixty thousand persons were subjected to euthanasia, a new cause of death could not be invented for each individual. There aren't that many causes of death, but because of the secrecy the true cause of death could not be given to the relatives and it was unavoidable that in certain areas such as in Wurttemberg where the population are very much inter-related, announcements with the same cause of death might be received more than once by the same family. These things, regrettable as they were, were the necessary consequence of the secrecy, which we disliked, and the relatives in part were able to check up on these things immediately. I remember the very regrettable case when the cause of death was given as appendicitis although the appendix had been removed long before that. I cannot doubt the accuracy of the documents submitted by the Prosecution in this respect.

Q: Mr. President, there are three documents concerned here, No. 828, Exhibit 361, English document book 14, page 228, also PS 628, Exhibit 362, English document book 14, page 233 and No. 840, Exhibit 363 in the English document book 14, page 235, Please continue witness.

A: I cannot deny that euthanasia under the execution of euthanasia gradually became an open secret, and thus, many parts of the population developed a feeling of legal insecurity. This is especially clear, in the matter of the Head of the Institution Statta, that is No. 520, exhibit 347, in document book 14, part 3 page 199, in the German. In this letter to the Reich Minister of Justice, Dr. Schleich speaks of this feeling of legal insecurity.

Q: Mr. President, the document which the defendant just mentioned is in the English document book 14, page 267.

A: It is equally regrettable that expedient measures were often taken — purely technical measures, such as in transport, transfers, as shown by document D-906, exhibit 376, in document book 14, part 3 page 192.

Q: English document book 14, page 271.

A: And from document NO. 665, exhibit 378, document book 14, part 3 page 218.

Q: English document book 14 page 296—

A: But one must not forget that is as is generally the case, with such matters, secrecy caused wild rumors that those rumors continued to grow. One of these documents, for example, contains the completely untrue assertion that two urns were sent to some relatives—that is only not true, but this case which created a great sensation at the time, had to be investigated very carefully at the time on order of Bouhler, and it was found that it was absolutely untrue and that the relatives concerned had considered the package of valuables which were sent to them after death as urn, and was not unpacked, and when the urn arrived the rumor spread that they had received two urns.

Q: Witness, I should like to interrupt for a moment. We need not go into great detail on the individual shortcomings with the documents now. You have stated that these things were as disagreeable to you and Bouhler, and others concerned as to any one, and that wild rumors arose which gave rise to assertion that people were being murdered, indiscriminately. But now, I should like to know from you what position Bouhler took to these complaints caused by these unfortunates circumstances?

A: Bouhler wanted all such complaints shown to himself, personally, as far as possible. That was not always possible, but in general that happened. To see how carefully these things were dealt with can be seen by the fact that Dr. Schumann, who, as head of euthanasia institution at that time, asked, for instructions as to what he was to say to a complaint he had in regard to two sisters who had died. This letter is not in the German document book. It was asked on 13 January 1947, to No. 906, exhibit 367, document book 1e, part 3, pages 191 — 216 — in the English document book 14, page 271. This letter shows that Hevelmann, one of my associates, was interested in this complaints, that was on Bouhler's instructions and that is also shown by the same document, that Dr. Linden answered this letter and took care of the matter.

Q: How were those complaints dealt with? Please distinguish between complaints from Government agencies and complaints from Church authorities?

A: Complaints from private persons were not sent to the Tiergartenstrasse 4, which was not known, but they were sent to Euthanasia Institutions. If the director and personnel of these Institutions could not settled the matter satisfactorily, then it was sent on to T-4 with a request for a decision; then it was a simple matter, they took care of it or if it was something complicated or basic, it was reported to the Reichsleiter [Reich Leader] Bouhler. Complaints from official agencies, for example authorities of justice, no matter where they were sent, were always passed on to the Reichsleiter Bouhler, we took care of them or gave the necessary instructions. For example, complaints sent to the Reich Ministry of Justice, as we learned later, were sent first to the Reich Chancellory and from there to the Ministry of Interior, And only form there the Ministry of Interior, did Bouhler learn about them. That was changed when Bouhler concluded and agreement with Guertner, that these matters were to be turned over to him directly.

Q: Mr. President, the complaints by the Justice officials are summed up in eight documents. I shall again list them for the information of the Tribunal. They are:

PS 626, exhibit 381, English Document book 15, page 8 PS 622, exhibit 384, English document bock 15, page 12, No. 836, exhibit 385, English document book 15, page 17 PS 6l8, exhibit 386, English document book 15 page 20, No 838, exhibit 388, English document book, 15, page 28, No. 844, exhibit 389, English document book 15 page 31, No. 845, exhibit 390, English document book 15, page 34, and PS 681, exhibit 397, English document book 15, page 51.

A: Complaints from the church, Protestant as well as the Catholic church could not be dealt with because of a basic instruction of Hitler 's but had to be turned over to the Reich Chancellory. These complaints of Catholic Church leaders led to a detailed discussion between the representative of the Catholic Church, Bishop Vinken and because of the opposing view of Hitler in this question, no agreement was reached at that time between the Ministry of Interior and the Catholic Church. Bouhler tried very hard to reach some adjustments and took advantages of this turn to speak to Hitler and tried to have the law passed, but again, Hitler refused. And I personally believe that the failure of these attempts to reach an agreement with the Catholic Church was the reason why Hitler ordered the stop in August 1941.

Q: Mr. President: the complaints of the Church authorities are contained in six documents, which I shall list for the information of the Tribunal, No. 189, exhibit 398, English document book 15, page 56 second No 115 exhibit 407, English document book 15, page 157; third No. 623, exhibit 400, English document book 15, page 157, No. 846, exhibit 401, English document book 15, page 158, PS 615, exhibit 402, English document book 15, page 166, and PS 616, exhibit 403, English document book 15, page 168.

Witness, what happened in August 1941, when Euthanasia was stopped?

A: The news of the order of Hitler to stop was transmittal by Brandt. In response to this order I informed Tiergartenstrasse, 4, immediately, probably Prof. Nietsche and Allers in this case, and I saw to it that all euthanasia institutions, and all euthanasia doctors learned of this order of Hitler. As soon as the order was received Euthanasia stopped completely. After some time Bouhler learned that no early resumption of Euthanasia was to be expected and he returned to euthanasia institutions to their owners, and the superfluous personnel were either to their former positions, or were dismissed.

DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, I have completed the evidence in regard to the so-called Euthanasia program by examining the defendant Brack. In this connection, the documents, which I have so far, all that remains is to submit one document that I forgot to submit this morning when I was speaking of the legality of Hitler's decree. That is Document 35, in my Document Book 12, on page 52, which I offer as Brack Exhibit No. 38. This is the affidavit of Dr. Werner Best, of the 18th of February, 1947, which is certified by me. The witness Best in this affidavit states, on the base of his superior knowledge that a Fuehrer decree or a Fuehrer order was regarded at all times as law, and that he had the power, to change, or to repeal any law, he pointed out that the Reich Cabinet had not been meeting for a long time, and that a law had developed this way so that, not only the government people, but the general population, were convinced that Hitler had the right to issue such decrees.

Now I come to the final chapter of my case. That is, the Euthanasia problem as seen from the point of view of the defendant toward this problem — because it is my opinion that the motives of the defendant may have decisive influence on the question of whether he actually committed some offense, in the judgment of the tribunal — I believe that this evidence which I shall attempt to make very brief cannot be denied the defendant.

Q: Witness, you have, very thoroughly, discussed with me all points, of the Euthanasia program.

I have already asked you once, how it happened that you, as a man who had never had anything to do with such things before, and were a simple administrative official of Bouhler, considered yourself justified in collaborating in Euthanasia as a problem. I do not want any repetitions, any points that you have already discussed you may leave them out. I have gathered from your testimony that you realized that the problem was, first of all, a medical problem, and that legal considerations were involved, that complaints count from the churches — objections made from the point of view of religion, and that these complaints concerned the humane point of view. From these four points of view: legal, medical, theological, and humanitarian, — I want to ask you a very few questions. At that time. — I emphasize "at that time" — did you think about these questions?

A: Of course, I thought about these questions at that time. You yourself, in the examination of witnesses, have asked questions designated to illuminate this point of view, — but at the very beginning I would like to say that I, in my way of thinking, and my simple training am in no position to answer questions on the intellectual level of the witness Prof. Leibbrandt. I ask you to take this into consideration.

Q: I should be glad to do so and keep my question simple, and on the level that a layman can understand. You have already said that according to the development of the German legal state from 1933 to 1939 you had no doubt of Hitler's authority to issue decrees, orders, with the force of law. Is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: In your opinion, can a state issue a law to the effect, that incurably insane persons can be given a mercy death — that is, that life may be shortened?

A: I said this morning that first I had no worries at all about a the legal possibilities. First of all, I am not a lawyer, in the second place I considered the decree perfectly legal. Later, I heard from jurists, and read the writings of Binding-Hoche, and Ebermayer, and I was convinced that a state has the right to pass such a law.

And I remember at that time having read that some states in the United States, were said to have such an Euthanasia law. I remember only the name Nebraska. In England there are several societies trying to have a Euthanasia law passed, and in Switzerland too, such efforts have been going on for about twenty years.

DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, I offer as evidence of the correctness of the statement just made by the defendant, from my document book, 2, Document 32, on page 16, "Euthanasia in England" — that is an article of the year 1936 concerning the opinion of the British public at that time.

MR. HOCWALD: The prosecution objects to the admission of this document. First of all it is immaterial, What has been spoken, in 1936 in England, has nothing to do with the case before the trial. In the second place, this document is by no means an information from a British source. It is just something which was published in a German official organ; but I cannot see who translated it, who edited it, who gave a personal opinion on it. I do not know whether that is what was said in England, really. Germany was in 1936, under the Hitler regime, The official publications were governed by propaganda, and I am unable to say that what is said to have happened in England, really happened in England. This is by no means in English publication.

DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, we Germans are of course, dependent on the publications given to us by the competent authorities. I point out that this is a work called, "German Justice" — administration of justice and legal policy, which was also an official paper, issued by the Reich Minister of Justice, Dr. Guertner, not by Schlegelberger. Then on the basis of reports received from English newspapers, this publication points out that in England there were efforts, discussions, meetings, and so forth. Precisely because of its year of publication, 1936, a time when there was yet no idea of Euthanasia in Germany, it seems to me essential to confirm the testimony of the witness Brack, by the fact that three years before there existed similar efforts in other countries.

Therefore, I ask that the objection of the prosecution not be upheld.

JUDGE SEBRING: Witness, your attorney had referred to Brack Document No. 32, appearing on page 16 of the Brack Document Book II, in English. Are you familiar with that exhibit?

A: Yes.

JUDGE SEBRING: When is the first time the text matter that appears in Brack Document No. 32 came to your attention?

A: This is the first time that I received the document. From my studies of literature which I spoke of at the beginning of my testimony, but from what individual pieces of literature I do not recall, I knew the writings of Lord Moneyham who was the representative of such a movement. I know that in England such bills have got as far as Parliament and in my pre-interrogation I stated, and Prosecution will have to corroborate this, that I brought his attention to the English efforts in the question of Euthanasia. I did that at a time that I have not had the opportunity since then to see this document.

THE PRESIDENT: The objection to this being offered in evidence is sustained. The document will not be received in evidence.

BY DR. FROESCHMANN:

Q: Then, I shall dispense with putting in Document 31 in Document Book II which is an article from the Times.

A: I beg your pardon, I thought the President decided the document was accepted in evidence.

THE PRESIDENT: Objection was sustained. The document will not be received in evidence.

BY DR. FROESCHMANN:

Q: Witness, you just answered in the affirmative the question that, in your opinion, the State has the right to pass laws that incurable mentally ill persons shall be given a mercy death. Did you assume the same in Hitler's case?

A: Yes. Hitler was Chief of State in Germany. I spoke about that this morning and I should assume that Hitler knew of this basic work by Binding-Hoche and concurred in their opinion, and arrogated to him self the right to make ethical grounds and reason for this decree.

Q: When a Chief of State gathers all the powers of the State into his own hands can, in your opinion, a Chief of State that is not a government consisting, that is to say, of many persons but one single Chief of State, decide what is right and what is wrong?

A: Yes. That is the same situation that exists in any absolute monarchy where the king decides unilaterally what is right and what is wrong.

Q: Now there is an ethical standard that stands above all States. Should not a Chief of State take regard for this ethical world order when deciding what is right and what is wrong?

A: Yes, he should, but opinion is divided about the justifiability of Euthanasia in the whole world and it cannot be said that euthanasia is repudiated by the majority of humanity; nor can it be said that it is accepted by the majority in Germany. At any rate it could be assumed that a large part of the population shared that opinion and for very concrete reasons. I should like to assume that the majority of the group believed in the justifiability of the measure and this was justification for the Chief of State passing such a law.

Q: Then, so far as you can judge, from the legal point of view did you have misgivings about the directive, the entry, and the implementation of this decree and did you believe that you were not acting in anything that was illegal?

A: I believed in the absolute justifiability of that decree for euthanasia and was firmly convinced of its legal justification.

Q: Witness, you are not yourself a doctor but you are the son of a doctor and you have discussed the problem of euthanasia with many doctors, how did you yourself see the problem of euthanasia from the point of view of medical professional ethics?

A: As a layman and non-doctor, I really can say nothing about that. On the basis of literature and of conversations with doctors I could only form my own opinion about that matter. Regarding medical ethics I cannot testify even if there is any such thing as special medical ethics at all and if not a part of ethics as a whole.

Certainly a doctor should see as his highest goal the aid for the patient and the effort to save the patient's life. This obligation and effort on the part of the doctor must not, however, be exaggerated. These efforts and this obligation find their natural limitations where therapy is no longer possible and when the further existence of such a patient is of no real significance.

Q: You wish to assume the conception of euthanasia for incurable patients as a whole?

A: I must say frankly that after I have thought about this euthanasia problem I thought of it only in connection with incurable mentally ill persons and my answers have related only to that particular field.

Q: Then, I see from your answers that you see a difference euthanasia for incurable mentally ill persons and euthanasia for persons who have incurable physical illness. Now let me ask this quite generally in the case of an insane person, is not his will to live broken against his will?

A: It is possible that an insane person will retains a spark or will to live but every other living being has the same. The question of the case in an insane person is whether he is living a life that is dignified or unworthy to be lived.

Q: Then what do you think should be done with such a life that is not worthy of being lived?

A: The incurable mentally ill person, so far as I have seen and observed such persons myself, is from the point of view of a mentally healthy person a seriously suffering and hopelessly lost creature. He is simply a wretched remainder of what was once a whole man. In the opinion of psychiatric science and in the opinion of philosophers there are differences of opinion as to whether soul and spirit have actually vanished or whether they have been only concealed by the illness. How ever, on the whole, these creatures are persons who have lost the last remnant of contact with real life.

Q: What is your opinion about the relations between the physician and the mentally ill persons under his care?

A: The life of the insane person has, for himself and for his relatives, lost all purpose, and consists only of pain and misery. Just as the soul belongs in the helping hands of the priest, so the body belongs in the helping hands of the physician. Only so can the sick person really be assisted. In that case, however, this means for the doctor that his duties, particularly in view of the person's spiritual state — it is his duty to free the person from his unworthy condition or, — I might even say, — from his prison.

Q: In your opinion, what considerations should move the doctor to recommend euthanasia?

A: The motives would have to be purely medical and could only be an act of philanthropy toward the patient. I should like to say that he makes himself the vehicle of a more exalted love of and respect for humanity. There must be no material motives.

Q: If jurists grant a certain legal right for doctors to commit euthanasia, how should they treat this matter?

A: If the patient is really hopelessly incurable, that cannot be decided by a judge, only by the doctor, and it is only such conditions that come into question in the question of euthanasia —

THE PRESIDENT: (Interrupting): Counsel, it seems to the Tribunal that the witness has stated his philosophical ideas at sufficient extent, unless you have one or two more definite questions along that line.

BY DR. FROESCHMANN:

Q: Could not the doctor err?

A: As Dr. Pfannmueller has already said, "to err is human." For me, as a layman, the expert's and specialist's scrutiny and observation of the patient had to suffice.

Q: Witness, you have heard of complaints on the part of the church, and moreover, you were reared as a Catholic. Was it known in 1939 that —

THE PRESIDENT: (Interrupting) Counsel, I think further examination along these general lines is not enlightening to the Tribunal. Have you any other questions along more direct lines to propound to the witness?

DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, I wished only to ask the witness whether, in treating this problem, he had religious misgivings and whether the religious misgivings that were expressed to him by others were taken into his consideration. That was the purpose of this question.

THE PRESIDENT: You may ask the witness that question.

BY DR. FROESCHMANN:

Q: Witness, you have heard of the objections of Church. I remind you particularly of the applications by the Episcopates of Cologne, Paderborn and Munich, who insisted that the sanctity of human life must, as divine law, under all circumstances, be observed. Now, I ask you, did you concern yourself with this problem and how, very briefly, did you justify the fact that euthanasia was nevertheless carried out?

A: From the religious point of view, killing is, in itself, not an evil act. It depends what the reasons for it are. Under some circumstances, the reason for the killing can make a rood act of the killing. An unjustified killing will not meet with approval in the eyes of God. Just as He gave life, He can also take it away through humans. The Fifth Commandant "Thou shalt never kill" but simply says "Thou shalt not kill". In certain specific cases, for instance, in war, in the executing of capital sentences, and lately, the killing of an unborn child to save the life of the mother, these are all cases of a special sort, and it is a question whether a killing is justified or not, depending on the specific case.

Q: Did you ever discuss these questions more elaborately with Catholic theologians?

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, the Tribunal finds no profit in these further questions along this line, unless you have some more definite practical questions to propound.

BY DR. FROESCHMANN:

Q: Then I shall turn to the last chapter which must be treated solely from the point of view of the prosecution. The prosecution charges you that, by participating in the euthanasia program, you committed crimes against humanity.

Now, from the point of view of humanity, what do you have to say to this charge by the prosecution?

A: The word "humanity" means a heartfelt participation in the sufferings of others. Sympathy and helpful actions arise from this feeling of humaneness. Now, all of these feelings apply in the case of euthanasia.

Q: You have frequently used the words "sympathy for the patient" in your testimony. Sympathy with a sick person, was this one of the points of view that moved you to participate in the euthanasia program and made you affirm the purpose from the ethical point of view?

A: For me, sympathy for the sick person was the decisive consideration that decided whether or not I affirmed the principle of euthanasia.

Q: Did you consider it correct and decent from the human point of view to spare sick persons long years behind walls, or did you consider it more worthy to shorten this life through a mercy death?

A: I saw this not only as humanely unworthy, but as heartless, to leave these poor creatures for years and years behind walls. That is not living any longer — what they were doing in there.

Q: And now the last question. You said before that the insane person is still a man who mi ht yet have a certain will to live. This will to live is broken by what the doctor undertakes in euthanasia. Now, at the time that these things were going on, did you have some notions in your mind about this will to live?

A: When one saw these sick persons one could readily see that there was no will to live in them, but one had to remember that at one time these people had been healthy and had a will of their own and this, their former will, had to be the basis for the decision whether euthanasia was to be used in the case or not. No healthy person, when he sees these wretched creatures, would wish to become such a person himself, and what we want for ourselves I believe we can assume is a wish also on the part of the sick person were he as he was formerly, healthy, so that he could form a healthy judgment.

If the sick patient was in a position to recognize the situation in which he finds himself, he himself would beg to that condition shortened. However, the nature of the disease prevents him from doing that. These were all the various considerations that led me to affirm the principle of euthanasia.

Q: And you drew what conclusion from these considerations?

A: I decided that these people should be released from their tormented condition.

Q: Now, one last question. This was your point of view which we have treated here in a somewhat abridge form. Did these thoughts move you deeply at that time?

A: Yes, of course; they did because it is no trivial matter to work on a matter, even if you are ordered to, when it is a matter of life and death for persons who used to be healthy, but I have just told you why I believed that I was justified in this, morally as well as legally, and because these thoughts moved me so greatly I attempted to make these thoughts available to the public as a whole; and it was from these considerations that the film "I Accuse" was made. One of my associates, on my incentive, pursued the idea of persuading Hitler to do away with this secrecy once these matters became a matter of general discussion and to publish the contents of the law regarding euthanasia. For this purpose, with Bouhler's approval, I got in touch with a film company. I received a manuscript which, to be sure, could not be used in that form but could be revised. The film company recommended a good director Herr Liebeneinen to me and I asked him to be of assistance in drawing up the book for this film in such a way as to make it public discussion so that one could then clearly decide whether we had pursued a correct path or whether Hitler had issued a false order. The success of the film, not only in foreign countries because of its artistic quality, but also within Germany, proved to me that the majority of people are in favor of euthanasia and that only a few, due their own convictions, reject it. This film "I Accuse", as I was later told by the film company was the film that was most frequently played of all those they had produced.

The letters that reached the film company regarding this film, I asked for from the film company; more than 90% of them were enthusiastically in favor and only a few were against it.

Q: Witness, one last question, did you sum up your thoughts in the final words of the film spoken by the defendant Dr. Heidt in the film, were those thoughts that he spoke yours?

A: Yes. We were, unfortunately, not able to get hold of the scenario. Otherwise we could have showed it to the Court.

DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, I intend now to put in one last affidavit from Supplementary Document Book No. 3, Document 46, page 1. However, I greatly fear that Supplementary Volume 3 is still not in the hands of the Tribunal. I just hear that it is not yet ready.

THE PRESIDENT: The book is not yet ready, but counsel may offer the document when the book is before the Tribunal. That right will be reserved to him.

DR. FROESCHMANN: Then in this connection I offer Brack Exhibit 39; the affidavit of Liebeneiner, 28th of April 1947, signed by him on that date.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, in what document book is that exhibit to be found?

DR. FROESCHMANN: That is in Supplementary Volume Book 3 on page 1. I offer it as Brack Document 46.

MR. HOCHWALD: Counsel, that is the document book which is lacking. We do not have that document book.

DR. FROESCHMANN: Yes, I understand the President to say I might put it in now.

THE PRESIDENT: I said I reserved the right to you to put it in when the document is prepared.

DR. FROESCHMANN: Let me say briefly that this document describes the negotiations between the defendant Brack and the director at that time. When the Tribunal has this supplementary Document Book I shall return to this document and ask that the right to do so may be reserved to me.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes Counsel. And if you desire to do so you may then examine the defendant upon this document.

It is not your fault that the document is not here now and every right corrected with that will be preserved to you until this document book is ready and before the Tribunal.

DR. FROESCHMANN: Thank you.

Q: Witness, one last question. You have heard the point of view expressed by the Court. Speaking in your own defense now then what do you say as to the un-justifiability of the charge of the participation in the euthanasia program; were you guilty of crimes against humanity?

A: In my actions and in my attitude the definitive consideration was pity for the sick person. The patient was to be helped —

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, I am at loss to interrupt you. I don't want to curb the witness, but the witness has been over this ground again and again, and in your brief and in your final argument you will have the opportunity to go over these things, and at the close of the case the witness himself may make a statement.

DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, I simply wanted in conclusion to have an answer to my question from him whether he believes that the way in which euthanasia was carried out and the methods used in killing millions of human beings, whether the knowledge of these things had any effect of his attitude toward euthanasia. I simply want to know what his reaction was to that. That is my last question.

THE PRESIDENT: The witness may have three minutes to express that.

A: (continued) I don't even want three minutes. I feel that the charge of inhumane activity on my part because I took part in euthanasia, I feel that this is unjustified because euthanasia in the form that I have described is something that has nothing to do with what others did in misusing euthanasia.

DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, no further questions.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has some questions to propound to the witness.

BY JUDGE SEBRING:

Q: Witness, when adult persons were selected for euthanasia and sent by the transport to euthanasia stations for that purpose by what methods were the mercy deaths given?

A: The patients went to a euthanasia institution after the written formalities were done which I need not repeat here, namely physical examination, comparison of the files, etc. Then the patients were lead to a gas chamber and there were killed by the gas carbon monoxide (CO) by the doctor.

Q: Where was that carbon monoxide obtained, by what process?

A: It was in a compressed gas contained, such as compressed oxygen or acetylene is kept in for welding a big container.

Q: And these people were placed in this chamber in groups, I suppose, and then the monoxide was turned into the chambers?

A: Perhaps I better describe this in some detail; Bouhler's basic requirement was that the killing should not only be painless, but also should be unnoticeable. For this reason, the photographing of the patients which was only done for scientific reasons was done before they entered the chamber, so that the patients were completely diverted, and then they were lead into the gas room which they were told was a shower room. They were then in groups of perhaps 20 or 30. They were gassed by the doctor in charge.

Q: Have you ever been present when a mercy death was accorded to these people by that process?

A: Yes, I had to, because Bouhler wanted a report whether things were being done according to his orders and in a dignified and not brutal fashion.

Q: And you found from your inspection and witnessing these ceremonies, you saw that they were being done in accordance with Bouhler's orders, in a dignified and painless sort of way?

A: Yes, but let me say I was already convinced that the method was painless, but I saw also that the method made it unnoticeable to the patient that he was about to be killed.

There were benches and chairs in the chamber. What happened after a few minutes, after the gas was let in, the patient became sleepy and tired and after a few minutes they were dead. They simply went to sleep without even knowing that they were going to sleep and that was one of the most essential requirements.

Q: When was the first time that you witnessed one of these procedures?

A: The first time was on the occasion of an experiment with four such patients. I think it must have been December 1939 or January 1940. I know that there was snow on the ground at the time. That is why I remember these months. Bouhler, Conti, and I don't know who else, there were a few other doctors for the first time saw this being done, and on the basis of this experiment Hitler decided that only carbon monoxide was to be used for killing the patients.

Q: Well now, before or after that time had you tried any other gasses or any other means of administering Euthanasia to these people?

A: No, we — and by that I mean Bouhler's organization — never used any other gas or other means.

Q: You found the carbon monoxide quite satisfactory, so you never had to resort to any other means?

A: Yes, you can put it that way.

Q: Now, where was it that these four people were accorded the privilege of a mercy death in December, 1939 or 1940?

A: That was in the first Euthanasia station in Brandenburg.

Q: And who were the subjects that were used for that experiment?

A: That was four mentally incurable ill persons.

Q: Do you know what institution they came from?

A: No, that I don't know.

Q: Were they men or women?

A: Men.

Q: All men. What were their ages, were they young men, middle aged men or elderly men; how would you classify them?

A: I really don't remember that.

Q: What can you say in regard to their nationality; do you know anything about that?

A: They must have been Germans, they could not be anything but Germans, because according to regulations only German mentally ill persons were used in Euthanasia.

Q: And you say Hitler was there?

A: No, Hitler was not there. Bouhler was there.

Q: Bouhler?

A: Bouhler was there, Conti was there and I believe Brandt.

Q: Karl Brandt?

A: Yes, Karl Brandt.

Q: Do you remember any of the other defendants who were there?

A: Of the defendants here, certainly none was present excepting myself.

Q: Well, then you remember that you, Bouhler, Conti and Karl Brandt were there; now do you remember any of the other gentlemen there at the time?

A: Yes, I said there were some more doctors there, but none of the defendants here.

Q: Dr. Pfannmueller, perhaps?

A: No, Dr. Pfannmueller was certainly not there. They must have been Berlin doctors.

Q: When after December of 1939 or January of 1940 was it that you again witnessed a Euthanasia procedure?

A: I should say that in the course of the year of 1940 in all the Euthanasia institutions existing at that time, I personally assured myself that the Euthanasia was being correctly carried out once or twice, but I believe I recollect that the Institute Hadamar was only set up in 1941 and in that year I did not see Euthanasia being carried out, that would eliminate the Institute Hadamar.

Q: The Institute at Hadamar, I think you said there were five other stations?

A: Yes, there were six altogether.

Q: So that during the year 1940, you assured yourself that each of the five stations on perhaps one, two or perhaps more visits that the procedure, insisted upon by Bouhler, was being carried out in a humane manner, in a painless manner by carbon monoxide?

A: Completely unnoticeable.

Q: And now who were the people — let me put it this way; the first time at Brandenburg there were four people, all men?

A: Yes.

Q: Now, can you remember on your subsequent visits in 1940 to the other Euthanasia stations who the people were; men or women?

A: Both, sometimes men and sometimes women.

Q: And what can you say in regard to their nationality?

A: I can only say that those were only Germans, because I am perfectly convinced that Bouhler's regulations, which rested on an order from Hitler, namely that no foreigners were to be given Euthanasia, were observed strictly by all the Euthanasia institutions.

Q: Where were these stations located, witness?

A: I don't understand what you mean, where they were?

Q: In what part of Germany or in what part of Poland, or in what part of Czechoslovakia, in what part of the Protectorate of Bohemia-Moravia, in what part of Denmark, in what Part of Holland, in what part of France and in what part of Europe were these stations located?

A: Now I understand you correctly. The first one was in Brandenburg on the Havel in the neighborhood of Berlin about 70 or 80 kilometers away. The next was the Institute Grafeneck, that was in Wurttemberg. Another institution was Sonnenstein and that is near Pirna near Dresden. There was the Institute Hartheim which was near Linz on the Danube which was in Austria. Then there was the Institute Bernburg on the Saale River near Dessau. The Institute Hadamar is in Hessen.

Q: Were any of these stations located in that portion of Poland, which was occupied by the Germans in military occupation?

A: No.

Q: And the six stations you have just named were all the stations known to you that existed; there were just six?

A: Those were the only ones, yes.

Q: Witness, can you approximate the population of Germany as it existed in the year of 1939 or the year of 1940? Were there some fifty or sixty million people?

A: No, roughly eighty to eighty five million.

Q: Now by that when you say eighty to eighty five million, you include the entire German Reich, including Austria, the Sudetenland and the occupied territory?

A: Austria and the Sudetenland but not the occupied territory.

Q: And you estimate roughly there were eighty five million people?

A: Yes.

Q: Of that eighty five million, how many Jews would you say were living in Germany at the time who were German nationals?

A: Maybe two or three million.

Q: You are talking now about the Greater German Reich, including Austria and the Sudetenland?

A: Yes.

Q: You estimate there were between two or three million who were German nationals?

A: Roughly, yes.

Q: Now with two or three million German Jews amalgamated into the German population of eighty five million people, who were German nationals, explain, if you will, to the Tribunal why it was that the German Jews were excluded from the Euthanasia program, if as you say it was a salutary program according to people the privilege of a mercy death for taking them out of their misery; why was it that the German Jews were not included in that program?

A: I have already said that. As Bouhler explained it, the philanthropic act of Euthanasia should be granted only to Germans.

Q: I understand that, but I thought you said at that time there were between two and three million Germans in Germany, German citizens who were Jews?

A: Yes, that is so.

Q: Why were they not included in the program, if the privilege of the program was going to be accorded to all Germans?

A: The reason possibly lies in the fact that the Government did not want to grant this philanthropic act to the Jews.

Q: They wanted to grant this philanthropic act to all Aryan Germans, but did not want to grant it to German Jews and they did not want to grant this philanthropic act to German soldiers of the first war, who had received mental injuries growing out of their war wounds; is that correct?

A: As I have already said, that is a great inconsistency in this procedure and we often protested, however, considerations of a military and psychological nature determined that.

Q: Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, the Tribunal has now received supplemental document book three. Counsel in the morning session, after the Tribunal propounds a few more questions to the witness, you may offer the documents in that book before the Tribunal.

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

(The Tribunal adjourned at 1535 Hours until 0930 Hours, 16 May 1947.)