Brandt was put in charge of the program, together with Bouhler, by the
above-quoted letter of Hitler of 1 September 1939. His position as
highest authority in the Euthanasia Program is outlined in the affidavit
of Dr. Boehm, one of the oldest members of the NSDAP. When, in November
1940, Boehm approached Martin Bormann[98] with the request to obtain an
audience with Hitler to complain about the execution of the Euthanasia
Program, Bormann referred him to Brandt as the responsible authority for
the execution of euthanasia. As a result, Boehm had a discussion with
Brandt and when he complained, among other things, that the Euthanasia
Program was not regulated by law and should not be carried out in a
secret manner, Brandt admitted that the Minister of Justice, Guertner,
had also urged legislation. From his conversation with Bormann and
Brandt, Boehm was sure that Brandt was the leading personality in the
program. (_NO-3059, Pros. Ex. 558._) Brandt admitted that it was
necessary to set up a special organization to carry out euthanasia.
(_Tr. p. 2407._)
He, together with Bouhler, had authority over the physicians who were
participating in this program, and furthermore he had to keep Hitler
informed from the medical point of view (_English translation is
garbled, therefore reference is made to German Tr. p. 2420_) and had to
maintain contact with Bouhler. (_Tr. p. 2408._) He further admitted that
authorizations for the killing of children were submitted to him and
Bouhler. (_Tr. p. 2544._)
He stated that he resigned his job some time in 1942. (_Tr. p. 2433._)
While this is of no material significance, it is established that he
held his position as the leading figure in the program until 1944. Dr.
Ludwig Sprauer, in his affidavit, stated:
“I heard the name of Professor Dr. Karl Brandt for the first
time at a conference in Berlin in the middle of 1941. At this
conference I learned that Karl Brandt and Philipp Bouhler were
the leading figures in the Euthanasia Program. The conference
was called by Dr. Linden on behalf of the Department of the
Interior, and problems of institutions and asylums were
submitted. Dr. Linden directed the proceedings.
“To the best of my knowledge and belief, Philipp Bouhler as well
as Professor Dr. Karl Brandt were the leading figures in this
so-called Euthanasia Program from 1941 to the collapse of
Germany.
“The connection between the Department of the Interior and
Professor Karl Brandt, in the framework of the Euthanasia
Program, was that Karl Brandt gave orders to Conti and Linden,
which were passed on by these persons on behalf of the
Department of the Interior. Brandt was the dominating figure
without doubt.” (_NO-818, Pros. Ex. 373._)
The witness Wesse said in his affidavit that Brandt was in charge of the
Euthanasia Program at least until March 1944. (_NO-1428, Pros. Ex.
432._)
The witness Mennecke testified that he learned in the beginning of 1941
that the defendant Brandt was active in the Euthanasia Program. (_Tr. p.
1874._) He further testified:
“When, in 1944, I was treated as a patient in the army hospital
at St. Blasien, I found out through conversations with officers
that Professor Brandt had an essential part in the collection of
insane persons in the area of Lublin, Poland.” (_Tr. p. 1903._)
He further testified, in connection with this Lublin action, that it
must have continued up to 1944 and that it was said that insane persons
and Jews were collected in Lublin in large numbers. (_Tr. p. 1904._)
The witness Schmidt testified that Professor Brandt had the medical
direction of the program, and only in 1944 was he told that Brandt had
left the program. (_Tr. p. 1825._) He also knew that Brandt played the
leading part in the task which had to be accomplished (Euthanasia
Program), that he (Brandt) was to accomplish this task. (_Tr. p. 1847._)
Both witnesses, Schmidt and Mennecke, also testified that the chart
(_NO-253, Pros. Ex. 331_), which shows Brandt in the center of the
program, is correct. (_Tr. pp. 1833, 1876._)
The evidence shows further that Brandt gave orders in the Euthanasia
Program as late as July 1943. In a letter from the Patients Transport
Corporation, dated 20 July 1943, to the Mental Institution
Hadamar—which was, as documents and testimony show, an extermination
station—the following sentences are found:
“I order transfer of insane persons to your institution also, by
order of Professor Brandt, the Commissioner General of the
Fuehrer for Medical and Health Service. You will get, on 26 July
1943, 150 insane women from the Mental Institution Warstein if
the Reichsbahn will furnish the necessary cars as requested.”
(_NO-892, Pros. Ex. 442._)
Brandt was the person who had to be approached if one were to save a
child from euthanasia. In a letter from the Reich Committee for Research
on Hereditary and Constitutional Severe Diseases, dated 16 November
1943, to Dr. Schmidt’s sanatorium, Eichberg (as the evidence shows, a
killing station for deficient children), we find the sentence:
“On the basis of a letter directed to Professor Dr. Brandt
concerning the above mentioned, I request an elaborated
diagnosis about the mentioned Anna Gasse who is reported to be
in your institution at present.”
And further:
“If from a medical point of view such a release is warranted,
one could take into consideration whether one should not perhaps
comply with such a request in the interest of the good
reputation of the institution.” (_NO-890, Pros. Ex. 443._)
That the defendant Karl Brandt was in a position to issue instructions
and assign tasks to insane asylums in Germany is further corroborated by
the affidavit of the defendant Rose, who said that in 1943 Brandt put an
insane asylum in Thuringia at his disposal and made arrangements that
this institution would not be converted into a general hospital; and
further, that in 1944 Brandt made arrangements for the better feeding of
inmates of this asylum in order to enable Rose to proceed with his
malaria therapy. (_Tr. p. 1717._) If this statement in itself has
nothing to do with euthanasia, it shows the scope of influence and power
Brandt still commanded over insane asylums in 1943 and 1944. (_NO-872,
Pros. Ex. 408._)
According to his own testimony, Brandt was in charge of euthanasia until
1942. (_Tr. p. 2433_; _Tr. p. 2532_.) There is no proof, other than his
own statement, that he resigned his commission at that time. On the
contrary, the proof has shown that he was active in this field until
some time in 1944. In any event, the program was criminal in its
inception. The murder of concentration camp inmates pursuant to
euthanasia began as early as 1940. Non-German nationals were included in
substantial numbers. Healthy Jews were exterminated without examination.
Trained killers from euthanasia stations were sent to the East as early
as 1941 to aid in the mass murder of Jews. Persons whose only crime was
physical inability to work were subjected to euthanasia from the very
beginning. Indeed, the elimination of “useless eaters” was the principal
rationale of the whole program.
Brandt stated that an order existed which exempted non-German nationals,
but he was unable to give any explanation as to how this order operated,
who received it, and why, if such an order existed, questionnaires for
foreign nationals were filled out at all. (_Tr. pp. 2499-2503._) The
evidence has shown that non-German nationals were never exempted and
were killed in large numbers. There is nothing to be said in mitigation
for Brandt.
* * * * *
_EXTRACTS FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST
DEFENDANT BRACK_
* * * * *
_Moral and Humanitarian Justification_
In the brief against Karl Brandt the prosecution has summarized the
overwhelming proof that euthanasia, far from being “an act of grace”,
was a measure to eliminate “useless eaters” and other “undesirable”
persons. Brack himself, when questioned by the Tribunal, was unable to
explain why war veterans of the First World War (1914-18) were exempted
from this “act of grace.” (_Tr. pp. 7650, 7664._) Contrariwise, he could
not explain why this grace was extended to insane criminals,
irrespective of the length of time they had spent in an insane asylum.
(_NO-825, Pros. Ex. 358._)
Brack personally reprimanded Mennecke, who was an expert in the
Euthanasia Program, on the ground that his expert opinions were far too
soft and did not recommend euthanasia as often as he desired. (_Tr. pp.
1881, 1907._) The so-called “observation stations” where the patients,
according to Brack’s statement, were examined for several weeks by
expert doctors were nothing but collecting points for the victims. (_Tr.
pp. 1822, 1878, 1879._)
Brack admitted that the work of Binding and Hoche is considered the
standard work on euthanasia. (_Tr. p. 7633._) This work leaves no doubt
that the will to live, of even those who are most seriously ill, suffer
most gravely, and are of least use, should be fully respected, and that
any authority for the annihilation of life is excluded in cases where
the will to live must be broken. (_NO-2893, Pros. Ex. 496._) Brack
himself admitted that euthanasia is inadmissible in cases where the
patient has the will to live. (_Tr. p. 7701._) The witness Schmidt
testified that the victims, who obviously knew or suspected their fate,
had to be _forced_ to enter the busses which took them to the
extermination stations. (_Tr. pp. 1856, 1861._) This evidence is
corroborated by documentary proof. (_D-906, Pros. Ex. 376._) While many
of those victims may have been insane, they certainly did not lack the
will to live. Moreover, Brack himself admitted, when questioned by the
Tribunal, that Bouhler ordered that the arrangements for the killing had
to be made in such a way that the patients would not realize what was
being done to them. (_Tr. p. 7660._) The gas chambers where the victims
were annihilated resembled shower rooms. (_Tr. p. 7659._) The patients
were deceived into thinking that they were to take a shower bath and,
therefore, had to undress. (_Tr. pp. 7644, 7660._) Such precautions
would certainly not have been necessary if the victims had desired the
“privilege of a mercy death.”
_Action 14 f 13_[99]
* * * * *
If the testimony of Brack and Brandt as to the number of doctors who
were active in the Euthanasia Program is correct, it is clear from the
record that all doctors active in this program collaborated in Action 14
f 13. Brandt estimated the number of doctors who were charged with the
execution of the Euthanasia Program as 10 to 15 (_Tr. p. 2478_), Brack,
as 12 to 15. (_Tr. p. 7573._) Mennecke testified that about 15 doctors
from the Euthanasia Program were commissioned to carry out the
“examinations” in the concentration camps. (_Tr. p. 1891._)
Brack was unable to explain how it came about that concentration camps
inmates selected in Action 14 f 13 were killed in euthanasia stations.
(_Tr. p. 7541._)
* * * * *
_Legality_
* * * * *
Even Brack’s own documents reveal that he misinformed the legal
authorities about the legal situation in respect to the Euthanasia
Program. The ministerial director in the Reich Ministry of Justice, Karl
Engert, states in his affidavit (which, according to the defense counsel
of Brack, is “of great interest because it shows the opinion of the
influential jurists on this question”): “Brack’s statements reassured me
because, according to them, it was to be definitely assumed that a Reich
law would then be enacted in the customary form, i. e., by publication
in the Reich Law Gazette. I saw no reason why any difficulties should
arise.” (_Brack 37, Brack Ex. 37._) Needless to say, Brack did not
mention that Hitler had refused to issue such a law until after the war.
That Brack was well aware of the fact that the Euthanasia Program was a
criminal one is proved by his attempt to destroy evidence prior to the
occupation of Germany by the Allies. The affidavit of Claussen proves
that he sent the following teletype to the commandant of the
concentration camp at Mauthausen (_NO-2429, Pros. Ex. 498_):
“To the Concentration Camp Mauthausen, SS Standartenfuehrer
Ziereiss.
“Hartheim must be destroyed immediately. Execution must be
reported by order of the Fuehrer.
[Signed] OBERFUEHRER BRACK”
Brack admitted that Hartheim was a euthanasia station where the victims
of the Euthanasia Program were killed. (_Tr. p. 7714._)
_General Extermination of the Jews_
* * * * *
That the defense of Brack is fabricated is proved by other evidence in
the record. SS judge, Dr. Morgen, who investigated the criminal case of
Wirth, testified before the International Military Tribunal that when
Wirth took over the mass extermination of the Jews, he was already a
specialist in the extermination of human beings. He had previously
carried out the task of annihilating the insane. He had received this
assignment from the Chancellery of the Fuehrer, Bouhler’s office. A
system which Wirth had devised in his activities in the Euthanasia
Program made it possible to exterminate large numbers of people with the
help of only a few assistants. The same system, with a few improvements,
was employed for the extermination of the Jews. Wirth’s assignment for
the extermination of the Jews came from Bouhler’s office, from the very
office where Brack was active. Morgen investigated Wirth’s mail and
found out that the courier who brought this mail came from the Fuehrer’s
Chancellery, Tiergartenstrasse, the place where the office of the
Euthanasia Program was located. Among the people connected with this
extermination program, Morgen remembers Blankenburg, Brack’s deputy.
(_NO-2614, Pros. Ex. 504._) Brack admitted that Wirth was active in the
Euthanasia Program. (_Tr. p. 7733._) It may well be that Morgen started
his investigations in July 1943[100] but by the affidavit of Gorgass, it
is proved that Wirth received his assignment from the “Foundation”, one
of the camouflaged societies of the Euthanasia Program, as early as the
summer of 1941. (_NO-3010, Pros. Ex. 503._)
This evidence is fully corroborated by the affidavit of Gerstein.
Globocnik was in charge of the extermination camps near Lublin, and
Wirth collaborated with him in the extermination of the Jews. The gas
chambers were camouflaged as “bath and inhalation” rooms and called
“Foundation” Heckenholt. Doctors’ commissions toured the towns and
villages of Poland and Czechoslovakia in order to select persons for
extermination. (_1553-PS, Pros. Ex. 428._) Brack when questioned by the
Tribunal, admitted that the gas chambers of the euthanasia stations
where the victims of the Euthanasia Program were killed were camouflaged
as “shower rooms”. (_Tr. p. 7659._) “Foundation” was one of the code
names under which the Euthanasia Program operated. (_NO-3010, Pros. Ex.
503._) The similarity between the extermination arrangement in the
euthanasia stations and that used by Globocnik and Wirth is not
coincidental.
The proof has shown that Brack himself advanced plans for the mass
extermination of the Jews. In the beginning of October 1941 Brack had a
conference with Eichmann from the Reich Security Main Office of the SS
and Wetzel of the Reich Ministry for the Occupied Territories on the
“solution of the Jewish question”. (_NO-997, Pros. Ex. 506._) Brack
declared himself ready to collaborate in the manufacture of the
necessary gas chambers and gassing apparatus for the extermination of
all Jews who were unfit to work. Since the manufacture of this apparatus
was easier to accomplish in the East, Brack agreed to send some of his
collaborators, and especially his chemist, Kallmeyer, there for this
purpose. Brack proposed outright extermination of all Jews who were
unable to work. Since Eichmann, whom Hitler had charged with the
solution of the Jewish question, was in agreement with Brack’s
proposals, no objection was voiced against the extermination of those
Jews who were unable to work with the “Brack remedy”. (_NO-365, Pros.
Ex. 507._) Kallmeyer was the technical expert on operation of the gas
chambers in the euthanasia station. (_Tr. p. 7743._)
* * * * *
c. Selections from the Argumentation of the Defense
_EXTRACTS FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF FOR DEFENDANT
KARL BRANDT_
_Euthanasia_
_Position taken in the indictment_
* * * * *
_Position of the defense_
The aim of euthanasia was to solve an old medical problem.
Statement of Karl Brandt according to which the subject of
“useless eaters” was never mentioned in the presence of Karl
Brandt. (_Tr. pp. 2397, 2434._)
Statement of Schmidt according to which the ethical points of
view were stressed during the conference of the experts in
Berlin, 1941. (_Tr. p. 1852._)
Statement of Mennecke according to which medical motives were
given at the informative conference. (_Tr. p. 1906._)
Statement of Brack regarding what was involved was the solution
of the old medical problem. (_Tr. p. 7544._)
The ethical aims of the euthanasia planned can also be seen from the
drafts of a final bill of law.
Statement of Lammers in which the witness compiled a draft
according to medical and ethical points of view. (_Tr. p.
2683._)
Statement of Brack stating that Bouhler worked out a draft in
cooperation with Brack based on scientific contributions. The
heading “Law relating to the granting of ultimate medical
assistance to incurable persons” shows the characteristic
features of the law. (_Tr. p. 7581._)
The peculiar individual attitude of Karl Brandt is of an ethical nature.
Affidavit of Schwerin-Krosigk, according to which Pastor
Bodelschwingh, chief of the mental institutions of Bethel,
declared that Karl Brandt had stated his point of view as
regards euthanasia in a respectful way, making every allowance
for the contrary opinion of Bodelschwingh. (_Karl Brandt 26,
Karl Brandt Ex. 83._)
Affidavits of Pastor Woermann. The witness, successor of Pastor
Bodelschwingh, said that Bodelschwingh had told him about the
idealistic attitude of Karl Brandt and said that Karl Brandt had
supported euthanasia for the fully extinct spirit. (_Karl Brandt
23, Karl Brandt Ex. 19._)
Affidavit of Rueggeberg. The witness reported on a radio
interview of the London radio commentator Robert Graham with
Pastor Bodelschwingh in the summer of 1945. Bodelschwingh
himself declared there that one should not consider Karl Brandt
as a criminal but as an idealist. (_Karl Brandt 19, Karl Brandt
Ex. 16._)
Affidavit of Rach. According to the statement of this witness,
Bodelschwingh visited Karl Brandt at his house in Berlin as late
as the summer of 1943 and spent an afternoon there in a friendly
discussion. (_Karl Brandt 6, Karl Brandt Ex. 7._)
Suspension of euthanasia in August 1941.
Affidavit of Kirchert. According to this statement euthanasia
was stopped in the summer of 1941 although at that time economic
reasons had become rather more important than before. The
statement of the prosecution admits with certain limitations
that euthanasia had been stopped in August 1941. (_Karl Brandt
18, Karl Brandt Ex. 15_; _Tr. p. 1752_.)
Special responsibility and participation of Karl Brandt.
The authorization of 1 September 1939 was founded on a purely
medical point of view, namely euthanasia for incurable persons
“under _most_ careful scrutiny of their state of illness.” An
economic or political motive as the basis is therewith rejected.
The drafts for a law for further implementation of the
euthanasia idea also show medical and ethical motives.
The report sheets and memorandum slips were sent to mental
institutions _only_, which proves that euthanasia was
practically restricted to insane persons. Had the elimination of
“useless eaters” been the aim, this restriction would have been
meaningless for there were “useless eaters” in other places too
(nursery homes for cripples, hospitals, etc.). Undesirable
foreigners were rarely to be found in mental institutions at the
start of the Euthanasia Program since aliens entered the area of
the Reich only with the beginning of the allocation of foreign
labor.
The suspension of euthanasia in August 1941 argues against the
intention to eliminate “useless eaters”, for only from that time
on economic reasons of that kind acquired a certain importance.
The transfer of sick persons by order of the Reich Defense
Commissioner did not point to a special war interest but was an
administrative and local measure in order to evade difficulties
as regards competence. The Reich Defense Commissioner was a new
regional administrative office which made it possible to combine
the various offices without regard to their competencies for the
different tasks. It seems possible that it was only a
camouflage. The blank draft contains contradictions, for
according to that draft the director of a mental institution
gives directives to the general public prosecutor and refers to
a decree of the Reich Defense Commissioner. (_NO-841, Pros. Ex.
360._)
The motive of elimination of “useless eaters” appears only in
the subsequent statements of the ideological opponents as a
propaganda measure of the resistance movement where a symptom is
passed off as a motive. At the conferences, no economic reason
was given for the euthanasia measures; but this was mentioned
only as a secondary phenomenon.
The attitude of Karl Brandt himself was proved by the statements
of Bodelschwingh as the authoritative leader in matters of
medical and nursery treatment among convinced Christians.
Bodelschwingh’s attitude towards Karl Brandt would be
inconceivable if he had enforced the liquidation of all
undesirable sick persons. (_Karl Brandt 115, Karl Brandt Ex.
91._)
The statement in the judgment of the International Military Tribunal is
subject to revision on the grounds of the evidence material of this
trial.
_Legal Foundation of Medical Euthanasia_
_Position taken in the indictment_
* * * * *
_Position of the defense_
The authorization of 1 September 1939 was a sufficient legal basis.
(_630-PS, Pros. Ex. 330._) The form of the authorization was sufficient.
The sheet with the golden eagle chosen for that purpose shows the
special importance of the authorization.
No recipient was mentioned to whom the authorization in the form of a
letter may have been addressed. (_Tr. p. 2396._)
Karl Brandt took part in working out the text by inserting the
words “under the most careful scrutiny of their state of
illness.”
Statement of Lammers, expert in constitutional law. (_Tr. p.
2678-9._) According to that document the form chosen was not
usual, but such violation did occur and flaws were adjusted.
Hitler did not care about the form.
Statement of Lammers, stating that Hitler as the Fuehrer was
authorized to alter the form: “I thought him authorized to do
such things.” Apart from the form of the authorization which is
on hand here, there existed still another version. (_Tr. p.
2686._)
Statement of Pfannmueller. According to this document, the
authorization contained the passage: “To the Reich Minister of
the Interior.” The document was of a different form from the
authorization in question. (_Tr. p. 7362._)
Affidavit of Kirchert. Grawitz told the witness that there
existed an authorization with the additional signature of
Goering as the Chairman of the Reich Defense Council. (_Karl
Brandt 18, Karl Brandt Ex. 15._)
Statement of Mennecke. At the conference in 1940 the law was
read _word by word_. (_Tr. p. 1921._)
File note of the Gauleitung of Franconia dated 1 April 1940,
“The Fuehrer gave the order, the law is made.” (_D-906, Pros.
Ex. 376._)
Publication of the authorization was not necessary for its
coming into force.
Statement of Lammers says that there existed legal provisions
which had not been published. (_Tr. p. 2689._)
Affidavit of the Regional Bishop Wurm. Conti told the witness
that there existed a law that had not been published for
political reasons. (_Karl Brandt 25, Karl Brandt Ex. 82._)
The _obligation of secrecy_ does not prove the illegality of
euthanasia.
Statement of Brack. The offices were informed. The decree of 1
September 1939 was transmitted to the Reich Minister of Justice
on 27 August 1940, according to his special wish, but he had
been informed of it earlier. (_Tr. p. 7689._)
Statement of Pfannmueller. The witness states that the
obligation of secrecy was usual. “I was bound to keep Reich
matters secret. I was bound with regard to the Reich Penal
Code.” (_Tr. pp. 7343, 7397._)
Statement of Schmidt. The witness says that an ordinary
obligation of secrecy form was signed without a special threat
of punishment.
_Camouflage._
Files of the Gauleitung of Franconia concerning correspondence
with Marie Kehr. According to this, instructions were given
after they were convinced of her good sense. (_D-906, Pros. Ex.
376._)
Book of Meltzer: “The Problem of Abbreviation of Worthless
Lives.” According to a statistical summary, on the whole,
relatives of the mentally diseased do not wish to be informed.
(_Karl Brandt 85, Karl Brandt Ex. 94._)
_Recognition of the Decree._ The point of view of German literature and
the administration of justice does not consider the present state of
constitutional law. After taking cognizance of the decree, all
authorities acknowledged it as the legal basis.
Testimony of Lammers. “The Reich Minister of Justice Guertner
considered this regulation legal and stopped the pending
actions.” (_Tr. p. 2686._)
Testimony of Brack. Guertner, the Reich Minister of Justice,
declared that the decree was not to be doubted. (_Tr. p. 7590._)
Extract from the periodical “German Law” [Deutsche Justiz] 1941.
Transfer of the supreme officials of the Justice Department in
Berlin on 23 and 24 April 1941. According to this, photostatic
copies of the decree of 1 September 1939 were delivered to all
participators and its legality acknowledged by them. (_Brack 36,
Brack Ex. 36._)
Affidavit of Suchomel. This witness erroneously places the date
of the conference in the 2d half of the year 1942. That means
some time after the stoppage. (_NO-2253, Pros. Ex. 557._)
Letter of 15 July 1940 of the General Prosecutor of Stuttgart to
the Reich Ministry of Justice containing a report concerning
illegal euthanasia. The following remark is made on the letter
by the department chief of the Reich Ministry of Justice: “There
is nothing to be ordered.” (_NO-156, Karl Brandt Ex. 4._)
Schlaich to the Reich Ministry of Justice on 6 September
1940—Nothing has been attempted. (_NO-520, Pros. Ex. 374._)
Testimony of Schmidt. The witness states that during a
conference of jurists in Berlin 1941 the action was declared
legal. This refers to the conference mentioned above, as it was
mentioned in Document Brack 36, Brack Exhibit 36. (_Tr. p.
1852._)
_Preliminary Conference._ Karl Brandt did not take part in the
preliminary conference.
Testimony of Karl Brandt. According to this, Karl Brandt was
invited unexpectedly, because he was available as an
attendant-physician, when the conference with Bouhler took
place. He was uninformed before this. Preliminary conferences
concerning euthanasia took place between Hitler and Bouhler,
Hitler and Conti.
Testimony of Lammers. According to this, during a conference in
the autumn of 1939 in the presence of Lammers, a commission was
given to Conti to start euthanasia. (_Tr. p. 2668._)
Testimony of Lammers. According to this, Bouhler declared that
Hitler wanted to give him the commission to carry out
euthanasia. (_Tr. p. 2669._)
Testimony of Brack. According to this a rivalry existed between
Bouhler and Frick, Conti and Bormann, concerning the commission.
Bouhler went to Hitler and said he would consent to accept the
commission. Bouhler received the commission. (_Tr. p. 7556._)
_Particular responsibility and participation of Karl Brandt._ According
to the existing conditions of constitutional law, the decree of 1
September 1939 was to be looked upon as a legal order, and Karl Brandt,
in his capacity as a physician, could rely on the organizations of the
state and the opinions of the jurists.
The belated objection to the decree today is not made because of its
external form, but in reality because of its contents. The circumstance
that no _publication_ of the decree took place was explained with
politically intelligible reasons, corresponding to similar regulations
issued for other measures.
The _obligation of secrecy_ corresponds with the general regulations of
the administration; a warning with reference to the regulations of penal
law was usual. The so-called “death threat” is an exaggeration without
any sense; according to practice, a reference to penal regulations
concerning the revelation of secret matters had to be made where capital
punishment was provided as the severest punishment in the Reich Penal
Code. The opposition of all the persons interested in the procedure was
directed against the camouflage of measures, with its inevitable
consequences, the establishment of sham offices, the drawing-up of false
death certificates, false information for the relations.
Karl Brandt accepted these regulations because they were the necessary
consequence of the consideration not to disturb the part of the
population involved. Neither the patient nor his relatives were to be
alarmed, and the relatives had to be released from their feeling of
responsibility. This motive is expressed in the correspondence
concerning Marie Kehr, where the proper information was given and served
as reassurance and warranted an expectation of understanding.
Karl Brandt did not partake in the organization of the Euthanasia
Program. His connection with it, as an expert adviser for Hitler, is due
only to the accident that he was in the headquarters of the Fuehrer. He
received only a limited commission compared with Reichsleiter Bouhler,
who, according to his own offer, was charged with the execution of this
task.
_Organization_
_Position taken in the indictment_
* * * * *
_Position of the defense_
_Karl Brandt was not the leading person, Bouhler was the head of the
organization._ In the decree of 1 September 1939 Karl Brandt is listed
in second place, after Bouhler who had the rank of a Reich Minister.
The indictment denotes Bouhler as the chief of Karl Brandt. (_Tr. p.
1531._)
Bouhler’s letter to the Reich Minister of Justice of 5 September
1940. “On the authority of the Fuehrer and as the _only_
responsible person for all measures to be carried into effect,
_I_ have given the orders which seemed necessary to _me_ to _my_
collaborators.” (_NO-156, Karl Brandt Ex. 4a and 4b._)
Affidavit of Lammers (supplement). The witness certifies as
Bouhler’s the signature on the documents mentioned above. (_Karl
Brandt 92, Karl Brandt Ex. 86._)
Letter from Bormann sent to the Gauleitung of Franconia. Here,
too, Bouhler is quoted as the Chief of the Committee of
Physicians. (_D-906, Pros. Ex. 376._)
Testimony of Lammers, according to which Karl Brandt never
appeared before Lammers; in the Reich Ministry of Justice also;
Bouhler was the only person who made an appearance. (_Tr. p.
2672-3._)
Affidavit of Kirchert. The witness had a conference with
Grawitz, who wanted to interest him in the use of euthanasia.
Grawitz declared to the witness that _Bouhler_ was charged with
euthanasia. To him Karl Brandt had never been mentioned. (_Karl
Brandt 18, Karl Brandt Ex. 15._)
Affidavit of Prince of Hesse (supplement). The witness declares
that he protested to Hitler and Bouhler because of the
euthanasia project. Karl Brandt had not been called in at that
time, though he could have been reached at once in the Fuehrer
Headquarters. The witness is convinced that Karl Brandt was
_not_ connected with the matter _in a decisive way_. (_Karl
Brandt 115, Karl Brandt Ex. 91._)
Statement of Mennecke. The witness has never seen Karl Brandt,
nor did he receive any order from him; he only knows the
position of Karl Brandt within the framework of the euthanasia
project from hearsay. (_Tr. pp. 1903-5._)
Statement of Schmidt. The witness did not know Karl Brandt and
did not see any order signed by him. He only knows by hearsay
from Hegener that Karl Brandt “was supposed to be the medical
chief” in 1941. In 1944 the witness learned that Karl Brandt was
no longer involved, but could not state if he had still any
influence in 1942 and 1943. (_Tr. pp. 1857-8._)
_Karl Brandt had no administrative organization of his own._
_General items_
New plan of organization by Brack. (_Karl Brandt 8, Karl Brandt
Ex. 3_; _Karl Brandt 15, Karl Brandt Ex. 3_.) Testimony of Karl
Brandt. (_Tr. p. 2403._)