1947-05-16, #2: Doctors' Trial (late morning)

THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats.

The Tribunal is again in session.

VIKTOR BRACK — Resumed

THE PRESIDENT: Any questions to be propounded to this witness by defense counsel?

BY DR. SERVATIUS (Defense Counsel for Defendant Karl Brandt):

Q: Witness, when did you first hear of the defendant Karl Brandt's connection with euthanasia?

A: The first time, after the order was issued by Hitler to Brandt and Bouhler.

Q: That is, after the decree of September 1939?

A: I don't know the date. I only know that it was after the order was issued. Before that I had heard nothing about Karl Brandt's being connected with euthanasia.

Q: You spoke about Bohne and Allers previously. To whom were they subordinated?

A: They were subordinated to Bouhler, as can be seen from the chart which I drew.

Q: What was Professor Nietzsche's and Professor Heyde's position in connection with Karl Brandt? Were they subordinated to him? Were they his deputies, or what was the relationship?

A: There was no relationship whatsoever. Professor Heyde and Professor Nietzsche, and also, later, Professor Schneider, were the top experts working for Bouhler. I know of no relationship at all.

Q: Was Karl Brandt your superior?

A: No, Bouhler was my superior.

Q: Could Karl Brandt issue orders to you?

A: No, certainly not.

Q: Do you know of an administrative and medical department of Karl Brandt which dealt with euthanasia?

A: I know of no such department, but the interrogation officials, when interrogating me, convinced me that the administrative as well as the medical leadership at T-4 would have to be considered such departments run by Karl Brandt. However, that does not correspond with the actual situation as it prevailed at that time.

Q: Witness, was Karl Brandt to speak on the subject of euthanasia at the meeting in Munich, where the Gau offices for public health were? And did you merely represent him?

A: I don't know anything about Karl Brandt's having been intended for that purpose. I only know from Bouhler that he had been asked by Conti to speak at this meeting about Hitler's decree. I know that I then received the order from Bouhler to represent him. I had forgotten this entire affair and was reminded of it only by my interrogations.

Q: Was Karl Brandt active in drawing up the draft of the law for euthanasia, on which you worked?

A: No, Brandt didn't participate in that at all. The lawyers, physicians, and members of the Chancellery of the Fuehrer worked on it.

Q: I have no further questions to the witness.

BY DR. HOFFMANN (Defense Counsel for defendant Pokorny):

Q: Witness, you said that Himmler, in January, 1941, asked you whether there weren't physicians in Bouhler's environment who would assist him in the search for sterilization methods? Is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: Do you know, witness, to what extent Himmler told these plans to his close entourage? For instance, Heydrich?

A: From the documents which are available here, I have now learned that a copy of my letter of March 1941 was sent to Heydrich in his capacity as Chief of the Security Police and SD, and I believe also to Dr. Grawitz

Q: Witness, do you still remember that the Prosecution has submitted a document here, this is document No. 39, where the Deputy Gauleiter [regional or district leader] of Niederdonau also approached Himmler with a sterilization proposal?

A: At the moment I do not recall that document.

Q: In that case let me hand it to you. That is NO-39.

THE PRESIDENT: What is the number of the English Document Book?

DR. HOFFMANN: Your Honor, I don't know that. I only know the German.

MR. HOCHWALD: It' on page 16 of Document Book No. 6, Your Honor.

BY DR. HOFFMANN:

Q: Witness, this letter was sent by the Deputy Gauleiter of Niederdonau; his name was Gerland. Have you any idea as to how Gerland got to know of Himmler's plans?

A: I have no idea about that at all. I remember now that I found that letter when studying the documents, but I really don't know how Gerland came to make such a suggestion.

Q: Weren't you in contact with Party agencies?

A: Yes?

Q: Is it possible therefore that this suggestion was passed on by you?

A: No, certainly not.

Q: Witness, was the extermination of the Jews a crime in your opinion, too?

A: Yes.

Q: Witness, you said that you tried to prevent the extermination by X-ray sterilization, of which Himmler told you?

Is that true?

A: Yes, that is true.

Q: Witness, you furthermore said that according to the expert opinion of the physicians regarding x-ray sterilization, you got knowledge that one could actually sterilize human beings by using x-rays?

A: No, I didn't say that. What I said was that the method was somewhat uncertain and that I do not remember the details of this expert opinion. I do remember that it was changed.

Q: At any rate, you were not quite certain, witness, that one could not sterilize human beings by using x-rays?

A: I personally held the opinion that x-rays could not bring about permanent damage.

Q: Witness, but don't you believe that one could only have been allowed to offer Himmler some means by which no sterilization could have been effected, in order to justify one's interference?

A: Would you please repeat the question?

Q: I asked you, do you not believe that one was only justified in offering Himmler a method which under no circumstances could sterilize human beings, if one wanted to prevent sterilization?

A: Yes. That was my opinion. I was of the opinion that one would have to offer him such a method, and that is why I made that proposal.

DR. HOFFMANN: I have no further questions.

DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, would you please tell me whether I can already examine the witness in connection with the questions which have been put to him by the Judges and by some of the other defense counsel, or will I have that right only after the cross-examination by the Prosecution?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, the plan which has been followed is that counsel for defendant may re-examine the witness after all the Prosecution has been conducted. You will have the right to re-examine the witness after the Prosecution has cross-examined the witness. I would suggest, however, Counsel, the Tribunal now has your Supplement No. 3, Document Book 3, your supplement; and I think it would make for orderly procedure if counsel would introduce the documents in evidence now.

DR. FROESCHMANN: Yes, Your Honor. Mr. President, in the supplementation of my submission of evidence I now submit the following documents contained in my Supplement No. 3: Document 48, to be found on page 15. This is an affidavit by Dr. med. Walter Schultze. It boars the date of April 28, 1947, and it was signed by him and certified by me. I offer this document as Brack Exhibit 39. I dispense with reading this document, and I should like to ask the Tribunal to take notice of its contents. The document contains a factual description of the knowledge which Schultze has gained on the basis of his personal acquaintance with the defendant, and speaks about Brack's personality. I should not like now to read anything about the defendant's personality. I should further like to offer Document 49 on page 19. This is a certified copy from the book of Dr. Kogon, who has been heard here as a witness. The book is entitled "The SS State." I have included here only a sentence taken from page 229 of that book. I offer this document as Exhibit 40. I have the book available here. I was not in a position to get the necessary photostat copies since yesterday afternoon. I shall submit these photostat copies soon, and in the meantime I have handed a certified photostat copy of that book to the General Secretary. I offer that document as Exhibit 40. It confirms the fact of which the defendant Brack has already spoken, that on the occasion of Adolf Hitler's 50th birthday in the year 1939 about 2300 prisoners were released from Buchenwald alone. This is one of the so-called amnesties of which the defendant Brack was speaking.

Furthermore, I offer Document 50 which is to be found on page 20 of my supplemental volume. Hero I should like to ask for some clarification on the part of the Tribunal or the Prosecution. Document 1696-PS, Exhibit 357, which was submitted by the Prosecution as a document but which does not contain that particular page which I am submitting This page, which is not contained in the Prosecution document, I have on my part submitted to the Tribunal in order to clarify the situation to the Tribunal and support my case. I ask for the decision of the Tribunal whether I should add an exhibit number to that document or whether it is sufficient to read it here.

MR. HOCHWALD: If Your Honors please, in the photostat copy which is in the hands of the Prosecution, this page is a part of the document. Of course, I can not say whether this page is also in the copy which was handed the Tribunal as an exhibit, but anyhow we agree that this is certainly part of the document, so I do not think it necessary that Defense Counsel give this page a new exhibit number. It is a part of document 1696-PS, which is Prosecution Exhibit 357.

THE PRESIDENT: The document offered by defendant Brack should have an exhibit number, but accompanying the exhibit should be an explanation that I don't find on the document; the explanation should simply show that it is supplementary to a certain exhibit heretofore filed by the Prosecution. If counsel will prepare such an explanation and have it added to the document book it will clarify the situation, but this document will be admitted as Brack Exhibit 41.

DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, the same applies to the Document No. 51, which I shall submit next. That can be found on page 21 of my supplemental volume. This also is just one page of the Document which was already submitted by the Prosecution as PS 1696. I am submitting that page again, because the Prosecution failed to do so. I offer this Document as Exhibit Brack 42.

THE PRESIDENT: The Document will be admitted with the same explanation made in regard to Brack Exhibit 41.

DR. FROESCHMANN: I should furthermore like to offer Document No. 52, to be found on page 23 of the document book. This is a certified copy of the Ministerial Gazette of the Reich and Prussian Ministry of the Interior, 1940, Page 1437, and refers to ministerial decree on the treatment of deformed new-born children. This book has been made available to the defense from the collection of documents. I have made a certified excerpt and I shall now submit it to the General Secretary. It will receive the Exhibit No. 43. I shall at a later date also submit a photostat copy of that page, with the necessary explanation.

JUDGE SEBRING: Dr. Froeschmann —

DR. FROESCHMANN: Yes, Mr. President.

JUDGE SEBRING: In this Document No. 52 from the Ministerial Gazette of the Reich and Prussian Ministry of the Interior, Circular Decree 1 July 1940, at the very end, in the last paragraph, appears this statement:

To the Reich Governors, all regional governments other than Prussian, the Reich Commissioner for the Saar Palatinate, the County Presidents, the Police President, Berlin, the public health offices.

Do you understand that paragraph contains the officials who are to be governed by the decree?

DR. FROESCHMANN: Your Honor, as far as I am informed, there were decrees which were published only in the Ministerial Gazette; on the other hand, there were also decrees which were published only by circularizing the decree to the individual agencies.

This particular decree, an excerpt of which I am submitting to the Tribunal here, was obviously one which was published in the Ministerial Gazette, but which refers to a preceding decree dated 18 August 1939, which was not published in the Ministerial Gazette, but which was only circulated to the individual agencies as a circular decree. For that reason this decree was in addition circulated to those agencies which had the preceding decree of 18 August 1939 in their possession. The authorities mentioned, the Reich Governors, all regional governments other than Prussians, the Reich Commissioner for the Saar Palatinate, the County Presidents, the Police President in Berlin, as well as the health offices — and the latter were the most important — were informed that in accordance with the Ministerial Decree, the public health officers were to be approached in the future by the Reich Committee and were to be informed of the institute to which the particular child was to be sent. To come back to the judge's question, the official who received the authorization to send the child away was included in this decree.

JUDGE SEBRING: At that time, 1940, what regional governments other than the Prussian government existed, according to your knowledge?

DR. FROESCHMANN: There was the Bavarian Regional Government, as far as I know, and there was the Hessian Regional Government, there were the free cities of Hamburg, Bremen, and Luebeck, I believe, but I must say, I am not informed about that very well, because I did not concern myself with these questions during the war, since I was serving with the Wehrmacht.

JUDGE SEBRING: Would this include regional governments which may have been set up in the Sudeten land or in the partitioned portion of Poland or in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, or in Austria, or in any of the other occupied countries?

DR. FROESCHMANN: Your Honor, I really cannot make any judgment about that, but I do know that the only countries in question besides Germany proper where a regional government was set up, is Austria; however, there was no regional government in Poland or Alsace-Lorraine or anything like that.

The last document which I shall offer is document No. 46, the affidavit of Wolfgang Liebeneiner, as Exhibit No. 44. It is dated 28 April 1940, signed by him, and certified by a Notary. I shall only refer to a very few sentences from this affidavit — it would be too long otherwise — and I shall only emphasize the parts relevant to the case so far. I shall read the first sentence the second paragraph on page two of this affidavit. Leibeneiner was the director with whom the Defendant Brack negotiated about this film which has been mentioned. The director of the film at first agreed when Brack had not appeared yet. Then he heard that the Chancellery of the Fuehrer was involved, and had misgivings because he believed that this was a political matter, which he did not want to express in a film. He therefore says:

In my spontaneous assent, I became dubious again when Mr. von Demandowsky — that was the man in charge of the whole thing — told me that the Chancellery of the Fuehrer was interested in the production of this film, as the interference of a not only hon-artistic but even political group in our work had already on several occasions caused me trouble in my profession.

Then he meets Brack and says the following, at the bottom of page 2.

Much of my surprise, I found in Mr. Brack an entirely different man than I had feared. He was immediately prepared to discuss the scenario with me.

I shall leave a bit out.

He then enlisted the aid of medical experts, Dr. Hefelmann and Professor Nietsche.

Hefelmann was not a physician but a lawyer.

A series of long discussions followed, during which the entire question was discussed.

Again I omit the next few lines. I continue with the third paragraph on page 3:

Mr. Brack was of the opinion that a law should be issued, the draft of which he showed me, which would empower a Tribunal composed of doctors and jurists and under public control to make decisions on the requests of patients.

And I read the last sentence of this paragraph

Brack wanted those against the killings to be given the opportunity, upon request, of putting forward their arguments.

And now the witness continues:

In this connection, we also discussed the position of the Church, whose interpretation of God's will has varied throughout the centuries, and in particular, the problem of when God made known his will of letting a human being die, when the artificial prolongation of such a life represents interference with the intentions of the Almighty, and when the interference of the doctor to prolong or shorten suffering can be recognized by the Church and when not, is a frequent subject of conversation.

Mr. Brack thought a great deal about all of these questions etc., and I would like to point out expressly that it was not about the supposed effect of the new law upon the Church, but rather the problem itself, which he made his own.

I shall skip the next paragraph and I continue:

A: border sphere, the inclusion in the film of which was discussed several times, naturally was the case in which an incurable patient is not in a position to request deliverance, because he is prevented from doing so by his condition, or when he makes such a request without being fully responsible, that is in the case of the insane.

I shall skip the next sentence:

Brack was for the killing for the same reasons as in the case where death was requested, that is, out of deep pity for suffering creatures, and because of the conviction that not only the distortion of the human image in some mentally ill and some physically deformed is an unbearable torture for these persons themselves, but actually represents a destruction of the body, soul and spiritual make-up of the human being. If one of these links were missing, so he argued, God's image would be destroyed and the human, no longer a human, would therefore, no longer fall within the Human Right, but would place on the actual human the duty to deal mercifully with the suffering creature.

I skip the next paragraph again, and I quote paragraph 3 on page 5: (he is now speaking of the production of the film).

Another scene, however, which Mr. Brack suggested, was carried out by us, that is the killing of a sick experimental animal through the application of ether by a sympathetic doctor (female).

Mr. Brack was present several times when work was going on in the studio; on one of these visits he brought Reichsleiter [Reich Leader] Bouhler along.

In summarizing,

— the witness says —

I would like to point out the following: The mental attitude of the persons in the film "I accuse" while not agreeing to euthanasia, is built up on the conversations and explanations which Mr. Brack had with me, and which he gave me, and was strongly influenced by him. The ethics of the film personalities, also of Dr. Lang, are evidence for the opinion of Mr. Brack in the years 1940 and 1941. The opinions of the opponents of euthanasia, which are brought up in the film, are typical of the determinations of Mr. Brack in which he tried to clarify himself as to whether his dealings were right.

Beyond this, the objective presentation of the 'pros' and 'cons' which Mr. Brack brought into the film, is not only expressive of his character, but is also without parallel in the history of films in the Third Reich.

The film, 'I Accuse' could never have been created in this form, if it had been produced under the control of the Propaganda Ministry, which permitted only black and white sketches. The cooperation with Mr. Brack gave me new courage at that time to start again in the line of art, which was considered degenerated.

And the last paragraphs:

The film 'I Accuse' was recognized by all sides, even by anti-Fascist artists, and even by the Osservatore Romano [Roman Observer], as a work of art, and general surprise was evoked that this should suddenly be possible.

This can be credited to Mr. Brack and his refined, not vain, and impartial attitude, which was at all times human.

I got to know Mr. Brack, during the months of my contact with him, as a sincere, intelligent, and above all, completely unselfish man, who, aside from this, was entirely polite during the discussions and conferences, and was always perfectly willing to listen to his partner, to reflect on his arguments, and to be convinced thereof.

Even though he was, by conviction, a National Socialist, he was far removed in character and in his behavior from that which is today called Nazism and militarism, above all, from impatience, self-justification, lies, and brutality.

I myself was never a member of the NSDAP or any of its organizations.

Your Honors, I only have to add one thing to this document. I want to emphasize that not one word of this affidavit was put into the mouth of the witness or was suggested by me. He sent it to me from Hamburg in the very form in which it is now. This concludes my submission of document Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Then, I understand, Counsel, you are not offering Brack Document No. 47?

DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, I just overlooked that. The decision regarding the submission of documents, Brack No. 47, and document No. 3, in document book No. 1, I should like to reserve in case the cross-examination by the Prosecution give me an occasion to offer these documents I shall probably not come back to them.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well, Counsel, I just wanted to be sure that you had not inadvertently overlooked it.

DR. FROESCHMANN: I dispense with the submission of document No. 33 in document book No. 2, page 21.

THE PRESIDENT: The Prosecution may cross-examine the witness.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY DR. HOCHWALD:

Q: May it please the Tribunal, Herr Brack, you are not a doctor, are you?

A: No, I am not a physician.

Q: And Bouhler wasn't a doctor either?

A: No, Bouhler was not a physician, either.

Q: Did you receive psychiatric training?

A: No, never.

Q: You were, however, very much interested in the question of euthanasia from the theoretical point of view; were you not?

A: No, I never was interested in the question of euthanasia.

Q: But after 1939, when you got the information from Bouhler that you were going to work with him in this program, you started to be interested in this question, and you read some books didn't you?

A: Yes, at that time I started to get interested in that question. I considered it my duty to inform myself about this as much as possible.

Q: Did I understand you correctly in saying the work of Binding and Hoche was the standard work on euthanasia?

A: I was told the work of Binding and Hoche was the standard work about euthanasia; in addition, however, I read some other books.

Q: Do you know this work of Binding and Hoche very well?

A: No.

Q: Do you remember whether it is a thick volume, or a small book, or what form it has, and what is in there?

A: Yes, I do remember that. It was a relatively small volume. It consisted of two parts; one part contains the chapters of interest to lawyers, Binding, and the other constituted the chapters for the psychiatrist, Hoche.

Q: You just said there was a part made up of legal matters, in German, by Professor Binding is the legal man, isn't he? So, I take it many legal questions came up in the euthanasia program; for example, whether certain persons should be informed about the true cause of death of the victims, further, attitude of the different judicial authorities, and so on. Who handled these questions in the office of Bouhler, if they were handled in the office of Bouhler at all?

A: I beg your pardon, do you mean the decisions which Bouhler made with regard to the notification of relatives?

Q: There were some people, a certain circle of people who were, in spite of the secrecy, so I understand from your testimony, who were, in spict of the secrecy of the Euthanasia program, informed about the program itself — certain doctors and possibly also certain legal people; the Ministry of Justice, and so on; who handled these questions and the correspondence which resulted from these questions?

A: These questions of a legal nature were generally dealt with by Dr. Bohne. He was assisted, as far as I know, by a certain Regierungsrat [Governing Councilor] Zervalsky or some such person.

Q: Not by you or by one of your collaborators in the Chancellery of the Fuehrer?

A: No, not by me.

Q: But, I have seen from the evidence here that you were the person who was approached in questions of an administrative nature, whether the questions came up from the legal authorities or from the SS. Do you remember they introduced some evidence, correspondence with Freissler? And you yourself, mentioned yesterday quite extensively the correspondence with Himmler and that you were twice for a conference with Himmler, and there you spoke to him about euthanasia and he spoke to you about it; is that correct?

A: No, I went to Himmler once with a question regarding euthanasia.

Q: But, he wrote to you when he got these complaints from Such about euthanasia; he wrote you a letter, didn't he?

A: Yes.

Q: So, you were the person who was approached in such questions, were you not?

A: No, I was the person to whom Himmler turned in cases like that.

Q: And what about Freissler? Freissler also turned to you, didn't he?

A: No; as it can be seen from the documents, I gave certain instructions to Freissler by order of Bounder, but Freissler did not turn to me.

Q: You contacted him by order of Bouhler; was that regularly that you handled these things for Bouhler?

A: That differed. A number of matters were dealt with by the Reichsleiter directly, and sometimes he told me: You deal with this in this or that form — and that is what I did.

Q: Was it often that he gave you such tasks to preform?

A: That varied.

Q: Was it once a week or once a month?

A: Almost daily I had to report to Bouhler; or I was called into his office to receive instructions, because I had to report to him about my entire work.

Q: You reported daily to him in connection with the question of euthanasia?

A: No, about the work of my office.

Q: I am coming back to the question which I asked you just now. Was it often that you got tasks of this kind? Tasks dealing in the euthanasia question, of a legal or administrative nature, from Bouhler?

A: Yes, I certainly did receive such assignments from Bouhler, but I cannot tell you how often.

Q: All right, I want to ask you now — I have before me document 630-PS, Prosecution's exhibit 330, document book 14, part I, page 3, your Honor. This is the letter from Hitler to Brandt and Bouhler. You have been speaking quite a while about this document, and I only want to ask you — on the bottom here — do you have the document before you?

A: No, I have not.

Q: On the bottom there is a hand written note:

Given to me by Bouhler on 27 August 1940, /s/ Guertner

Dr. Guertner was the Minister of Justice, was he not?

A: Yes.

Q: Guertner, according to this note, received the document nearly a year after its issuance. Why was he not informed earlier? He was the highest legal authority. This was a very important matter. It was the legal basis to the whole euthanasia program. How was it possible that such a far-reaching and important authorization over the life and death of 550 to 600 thousand people was not handed to Guertner earlier than that?

A: Because of secrecy Bouhler didn't want to send this letter or decree to any other agencies. Guertner, of course, was informed much earlier, but at this period of time Bouhler upon his request sent him a photostatic copy of that decree in order to keep it in his own files.

Q: I am at a loss to understand that. You told me that Bouhler certainly informed Guertner long before that time, so the authorization was not secret any more to Guertner. Why didn't he give him the document, such an important document?

A: I didn't get your question.

Q: You told me that Bouhler did not want to hand the document to Guertner because the document was top secret, did you not? By this same reply you told me that he certainly informed Guertner much earlier than 27 August 1940 about the contents of the document, I would like to know why then, after the information Guertner got from Bouhler, the thing was not secret for him any more, why he did not get the document right away from Bouhler. Can you explain that?

A: Well, perhaps I didn't express myself properly before. Bouhler didn't want to give the original or a copy out of his hand. As far as I know he informed Guertner orally much earlier in the same way as he also informed others.

In this connection I remind you of the affidavit of Schultze, who confirms how Bouhler informed the Minister of the Interior of Bavaria, Wagner, to whom he only showed the document. He didn't give it to him. I know this characteristic of Bouhler's.

Q: Isn't it a fact that Bouhler informed Guertner only after too many complaints were made to the public prosecutors all over Germany and these complaints came to Guertner, their chief, isn't that a fact?

A: I really don't know when Bouhler informed Guertner.

Q: Did you ever, or your office, receive those complaints of the public prosecutors?

A: No. We never received any complaints from the public prosecutors. We had some from the Ministry of Justice.

Q: Who handled these affairs in your office?

A: Bouhler at first dealt with these questions, and I then received orders from him to investigate the complaints that seemed to be justified. I made excerpts from these complaints or perhaps sent the original to T-4 in order to investigate whether any mistakes had been made, and I wanted to see that all mistakes which were caused by the secrecy — be avoided in the future.

Q: Did you also investigate the so-called unjustified complaints?

A: Actually every complaint was investigated which created the impression that a mistake had been made. If, however, a complaint read as follows:

I state that within the area X ten or fifteen people had died at one institution within three months,

I certainly couldn't investigate any such complaint, because it merely showed facts.

Q: I want to hand you now Document NO-1328 which wall be Prosecution Exhibit 495 for identification. This is a letter from you to Schlegelberger — who was the acting Minister of Justice, was he not? — of 22 April 1941; there you have some of these complaints. Do you remember this letter, Herr Brack?

A: I don't remember this letter, I would have to read it first.

Q: Is that your signature?

A: Yes, that is my signature.

Q: You write here:

Very honored Party Member Dr. Schlegelberger, Corresponding to our agreement, I beg to refer to some details of the proofs, which were put at my disposal. I would appreciate their clarification and /or regulation.

Part 1 of the enclosure contains a report by the president of the regional court at Klagenfurt, dated 7 November 1940, on the interrogation of a counsellor at the lower court, Dr. Spusta, who made almost monstrous utterances regarding the 'Aktion' [action] in a civil verdict. Dr. Spusta's attempts to justify himself in this interrogation protocol appear completely insufficient.

Does that refer to the euthanasia program, the word "Aktion" here?

A: Yes.

Q: I go on:

In Part 11 of the enclosure, the prosecutor general at Linz reports to the Reich Minister of Justice on 28 November 1940 on an investigation procedure against assistant physician of our Hartheim institution in connection with the case Guenther Rottmann. The Prosecutor General prevented the quashing of this proceeding. Since it can be assumed that the Prosecutor General at Linz belongs to the persons who were informed by Secretary of State Freisler about the "Aktion" in August 1940, his behavior is inconceivable in every respect.

In Part IV of the proofs at my disposal, the president of the higher court at Bamberg reports on 14 January 1941 about a petition of the judge at the court at Kitzingen concerning its law officer Ramling. When his mother-in-law brought her daughter, Frau Ramling, into a mental institution because of mental sickness, she had to sign a document stating her consent teethe imminent death of her daughter. I would appreciate it very much if the law officer Ramling would be officially requested, to indicate the institution as well as the name of the director of the institution and/or the name of the admitting physician concerned, so that the matter can be investigated.

It stands to reason that within the frame of our 'aktion' relatives were never requested anything corresponding to Ramling's statement.

I request also to ask the judge at the court at Kitzingen as to give the name of the professor in a large town who is in charge of a hospital there, so that this fact can also be clarified.

Many thanks in advance for the trouble you are taking.

Heil Hitler, Your very devoted Brack

So you handled this matter in the office of Bouhler, didn't you?

A: I can remember this connection rather well because Bouhler had already told, me that the Ministry of Justice was compiling such complaints made by the Public Prosecutors. I received these complaints, as they are mentioned here, in about three or four books. I worked through these complaints in detail and took the necessary steps as far as any mistakes could be ascertained which were made at T-4. I transferred these complaints to that agency in order to prevent such mistakes in the future. As can be seen from this letter, I sent reports to the Ministry of Justice in three or four cases where mistakes had apparently been on their part, so that they could investigate these mistakes.

Q: It is a matter of fact, then, that these legal questions, so far as they came up in Bouhler's office, were handled by you, is that correct?

A: No, that is not correct. That does not constitute any dealing with legal questions.

Q: Did you concern yourself once, during the years you worked with Bouhler on this problem, as to what the opinion of the official legal authorities was as to the question of euthanasia?

A: I informed myself about the opinion of the jurists, not the opinion of the legal authorities, and I found out that opinions differed. Some were for it and others were against it. I never heard personally of any objection raised in the ministry of Justice. I heard, however, that some lawyers were against euthanasia — not all of them were for it.

Q: You lectured in the Ministry of Justice about euthanasia, did you not?

A: Yes.

Q: What did you tell these gentlemen as to how many people approximately in Germany would be administered a mercy death? How many persons?

A: I don't believe that I mentioned any number there.

Q: What impression could these gentlemen have about the number of people who should get the privilege of mercy death by this action?

A: As far as I remember, these matters weren't discussed at all. I first showed them Hitler's decree; secondly, I presented to them the draft of the law which had been worked upon. On the other hand, Heyde spoke about the medical execution.

Q: What was the impression Heyde gave to these people? How many persons possibly would be privileged to get a mercy death in connection with this action?

A: I don't know whether Heyde mentioned any numbers, either. I only know that no objection was raised during that meeting against the problem of euthanasia.

Q: Did you tell in this lecture who would be exempted from the privilege?

A: I don't believe that I said that. I think that that was mentioned by Heyde.

Q: Are you sure about that?

A: I said "I believe". I really don't know any more.

Q: It was mentioned, wasn't it? These classes of people who were exempted were mentioned?

A: I really can no longer say today.

Q: Can you tell me about this work of Binding and Hoche? You are very familiar with this work, aren't you?

A: No, I am not. I said that I studied this work, and I already stated yesterday that I didn't particularly like it. I said that I was more favorably disposed toward another book, the one by Melzer. I didn't particularly understand the legal statements made by Binding.

Q: That was the only reason why you did not like this book by Binding and Hoche, or had you other reasons too to dislike it?

A: I really can't tell you that at the moment. I only know that it didn't seem as clear to me as other books.

Q: But you are familiar with the principles stated there, aren't you?

A: Partly perhaps.

Q: I have the impression from this book that these authors by no means ask for the right to kill incurable mental patients no longer capable of work or eventually even incurable, but only suggested killing of incurable imbeciles — and, so far as I know, there is a difference between an insane person and an imbecile — in accordance with some formal legal procedure, a very complicated legal procedure, implemented with every possible decree. Is that correct? Am I correct in assuming that that is the principle on which the book of Binding and Hoche is based?

A: Well, I must tell you quite frankly that I really cannot confirm whether you are right or not. I didn't quite agree with what Binding says about denying the right of life to the patient. That is how I conceived his opinion. On the other hand, I always thought that it was a duty to aid the patient by granting him mercy death. I think that I was on a different level, although I arrived at the same aim.

Q: So, in other words, your opinion then about the mercy death or about the privilege of mercy death went much farther than the opinion of Binding and Hoche? Isn't that correct?

A: No, not farther but different.

Q: And where is the difference?

A: Binding has said that the incurably insane person no longer has a life which is legal property. This is a purely legal concept under which I couldn't imagine anything. Whether the life of an incurable patient constitutes a legal property or not I cannot judge. I really cannot judge whether mercy death could be granted to such a person. What was important to me was the question of whether he is suffering to such an extent that one is justified in relieving him of that suffering. This is an argument that I understood.

Q: But there are very many insane who are not suffering at all, aren't there? Who have no pains? Who are, many times, feeling subjectively quite well? Who do not want to die? Is it possible to administer to such people the mercy death, according to your opinion, or according to the opinion of Binding?

A: Well, I really cannot judge that. Please ask a physician.

DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, I object to this type of questioning. Mr. President, you will remember that the Tribunal yesterday afternoon forbade me to deal with the problem of euthanasia as regards the legal and medical point of view. I think that this ruling should also be applied to the prosecution.

MR. HOCHWALD: If Your Honors please, the witness stated at great length yesterday his personal position to the problem.

THE PRESIDENT: The cross-examination is proper. The objection is overruled. If, on cross-examination, the prosecution opens up avenues which were not proper upon direct examination, upon re-direct examination counsel for the defendant might be permitted to ask certain questions. But the difference between direct examination and cross-examination is pronounced. The objection will be overruled.

At this time the Tribunal will be in recess, and today it will be in recess until 2:00 o'clock.

(A recess was taken until 1400 hours, 16 May 1947.)