Judgment of the International Military Tribunal[101] according to which
Frick, as Reich Minister of the Interior, is made responsible for the
carrying out of the euthanasia project.
Direct correspondence of the Bouhler office with the competent
authorities prove that Karl Brandt was not involved: Letter from
Brack to Schlegelberger. (_NO-842, Pros. Ex. 405._) Letter from
Brack to Freisler. (_NO-843, Pros. Ex. 406._) Letter from
Himmler to Brack. (_NO-018, Pros. Ex. 404._)
Complaints of the national and ecclesiastical authorities and of
civilians did _not_ reach Karl Brandt.
Complaint by Schlaich, Chief of the Mental Institution
of Stetten. This director who worked in this specialized
field does not know anything of Karl Brandt. (_NO-520,
Pros. Ex. 374._)
Affidavit of Sprauer of 23 April 1946. The witness does
not mention Karl Brandt in this affidavit. (_3896-PS,
Pros. Ex. 372._) (Only in a later affidavit of 19
November 1946, does he add a pertinent, general
statement.)
Actual complaints are transferred by the ministries to
the Bouhler office, not to Karl Brandt. (_616-PS, Pros,
Ex. 403._)
_Specific examples._
Statement of Pfannmueller, according to which the invitation for
the experts’ conference was made by Bouhler. (_Tr. p. 7316._)
Statement of Pfannmueller. Bouhler took the chair in the second
conference in Berlin; Karl Brandt was not present. (_Tr. p.
7359._)
Statement of Brack, according to which Karl Brandt made no
speeches on problems of euthanasia, and he was not expected to
do so. (_Tr. p. 7588._) This is confirmed by the testimony of
Blome.
Statement of Mennecke, according to which Brack was chairman of
the conference in February 1940. (_Tr. p. 1869._)
Statement of Schmidt. Karl Brandt also was not present at the
conference in February 1941, but there were present
representatives of the Reich Ministry of the Interior and of the
Reich Ministry of Justice. (_Tr. p. 1819._)
Statement of Pfannmueller, according to which the experts were
appointed by the Reich Ministry of the Interior. (_Tr. p.
7377._)
Statement of Brack, according to which the physicians were
chosen by Linden and Grawitz. (_Tr. pp. 7703, 7705._)
Affidavit of Kneissler, according to which the persons in charge
of euthanasia were instructed by Blankenburg of the Bouhler
office. (_NO-470, Pros. Ex. 332._) Karl Brandt was not
mentioned.
Affidavit of Sprauer, according to which the mental institutions
were under the control of the Reich Ministry of the Interior.
(_3896-PS, Pros. Ex. 372._) Answering a complaint of Sprauer,
Conti stated: “That is the business of the Reich Ministry of the
Interior.”
Affidavit of Jordans. (_3882-PS, Pros. Ex. 371._) Also confirms
that the mental institutions were under the control of the Reich
Ministry of the Interior.
The order for evacuation from Warstein to Hadamar was not given
at the suggestion of the Reich Defense Commissioner or for
“systematic registration”, but with regard to the air raid
danger. (_NO-892, Pros. Ex. 442._) Karl Brandt was a member of
the committee for air raid damage, and it was his special task
within this committee to allot the space available in hospitals
fairly. The order was given in 1942, after the great air raids
in the area of Cologne and the industrial areas. It refers to an
institution in the interior of Westphalia which was considered
as a reception district at that time; the euthanasia facilities
at Hadamar were removed and the institution was returned to the
former owner. (See indictment in the Hadamar Trial.[102])
Affidavit of Steinbrecher. (_Karl Brandt 84, Karl Brandt Ex.
87._) The activity of Karl Brandt on occasion of the removal of
the mental institution from Dueren shows that Karl Brandt was
not engaged as chief of the mental institutions, but in advisory
capacity beside the competent authority, because he had
influence and was charged with a special task in the field of
air raid protection, in view of his general allocation tasks.
Here Karl Brandt was able to help directly on account of his
special tasks connected with the Committee for Air Raid Damage.
Statement of Rose. (_Tr. p. 6362._) Opinion of the witness as to
affidavit, NO-872, Prosecution Exhibit 408. From this it is seen
that Karl Brandt here did not have charge of the patients, but
was to endeavor with the other authorities to have the
institution placed at his disposal.
_Real Position of Karl Brandt._ The position of Karl Brandt within the
framework of the Euthanasia Program was limited.
Statement of Karl Brandt, according to which it was his task to
inform Hitler and to license physicians of the euthanasia
institutions according to the decree on the basis of personal
responsibility of the physicians. (_Tr. p. 2408._)
Statement of Brack. The witness says that Karl Brandt had
nothing to do with the carrying out of the Euthanasia Program,
“for he was the delegate of Hitler”. (_Tr. p. 7571._) He had no
office at Tiergartenstrasse 4, and to the knowledge of Brack, he
was never in the office “T 4”.
Affidavit of Reinhardt. (_Karl Brandt 5, Karl Brandt Ex. 6._)
The witness was occupied as an auditor in the office of Karl
Brandt, and he states that in this capacity he did not find in
the office of Karl Brandt any accounts or items with entries
referring to euthanasia.
Affidavit of Schaub, according to which Karl Brandt was bound to
the Fuehrer Headquarters and to Hitler and thus was not able to
make any inspections. (_Karl Brandt 80, Karl Brandt Ex. 98._)
Affidavit of Rach. (_Karl Brandt 6, Karl Brandt Ex. 7._) The
witness confirms the connection of Karl Brandt with the Fuehrer
Headquarters and with the clinic in Berlin.
_Execution_
_Position taken in the indictment_
* * * * *
_Position of the defense_
_Time._ The practice (of euthanasia) by virtue of the authorization
started at the beginning of 1940 and lasted until August 1941, when it
was stopped. Statement of Karl Brandt. (_Tr. p. 2431._) Statement of
Brack. (_Tr. p. 7543._) According to both statements, the practice was
suspended because of an oral order by Hitler to Karl Brandt. (Oral order
of suspension was sufficient, since the legal ordinance itself was not
revoked, because in principle euthanasia was supposed to be continued
after the war. Continuation of the Reich Committee for Children.)
Suspension of euthanasia is confirmed through the following depositions:
Statement by Blome. (_Tr. p. 4653._) Statement by Pfannmueller. (_Tr. p.
7348._) Statement by Dr. Schmidt. (_Tr. p. 1823._) Statement by Dr.
Mennecke. (_Tr. p. 1879._) According to these testimonies, euthanasia
was discontinued in Hadamar in August 1941 and the gas chambers removed.
(See record of Hadamar Trial, especially indictment[103].)
The witnesses say further that euthanasia was no longer practiced at
Eichberg either.
Affidavit of Irene Asam-Bruckmueller. The witness confirms
suspension in Ansbach; she places this in the year 1942.
(_3865-PS, Pros. Ex. 365._)
Affidavit of Jordans. According to this, the witness learned in
March 1942 that there had been a euthanasia program in other
institutions, too, which now had been discontinued. (_3882-PS,
Pros. Ex. 371._)
Kirchert affidavit. According to this, suspension occurred in
the summer of 1941. (_Karl Brandt 18, Karl Brandt Ex. 15._)
Mennecke correspondence. The witness writes on 15 June 1942 of
“re-commencement” of euthanasia. (_NO-907, Pros. Ex. 412._)
_Number of dead._
Statement by Karl Brandt on the number of insane falling under
the authorization of 1 September 1939. (_Tr. p. 2465._) Brack
estimates them at 50,000 to 60,000. (_Tr. p. 7610._)
Pfannmueller statement. The number of report forms which were
made out does not equal the number of persons marked for
euthanasia. This number contains only a fairly small percentage
of persons, who were judged eligible for euthanasia. (_Tr. p.
7384._)
_Registration by report forms._
_In general._
Statement by Karl Brandt. (_Tr. p. 2401._) According to this,
Karl Brandt did not assist in drawing up the report forms. They
were drafted by the Reich Ministry of the Interior (Linden).
Pfannmueller statement. (_Tr. p. 7322._) According to this, the
directives were worked out as a result of the conference of
experts at which Karl Brandt was not present.
_In detail._
Pfannmueller statement. (_Tr. p. 7324._) According to this, no
persons incapable of work were supposed to be registered, but
only the insane, with whom the inability to work was a special
characteristic of their diseased state.
Wesse Affidavit (in lieu of cross-examination). (_NO-129, Pros.
Ex. 105._)
Statement of Karl Brandt. (_Tr. p. 2465._) According to Karl
Brandt, the registration of Jews, foreigners, and war wounded
was presumably carried out for statistical reasons.
Statement of Brack. (_Tr. pp. 7596-8._) According to Brack the
opinion of Karl Brandt about the reasons for the inclusion of
the above-mentioned question is false and is based on “lack of
professional knowledge” by Karl Brandt. Brack says that the
questions were included only for the purpose of concealing the
practice of euthanasia in the sanatoriums and nursing homes,
from their personnel and their patients, and to veil the true
purpose of the questionnaire. (For the same reason the purpose
of the transfer was given out as “planned economic
registration.”)
Rosenau affidavit about camouflaging purpose of the report
forms. (_Karl Brandt 130, Karl Brandt Ex. 106._) Letter
concerning the registration of workhouses. (_NO-781, Pros. Ex.
379._) Not the old and disabled are registered, but only those
cases of insanity that can no longer be treated.
Brack statement. (_Tr. p. 7599._) Foreigners were sorted out in
T 4.
Brack statement. (_Tr. p. 7593._) According to this, foreigners
were exempt from euthanasia. They were screened in the central
office T 4. If single sheets for appraisal possibly went
further, then this was because of incorrect transmission.
Wounded veterans of World War I, just like Jews, were screened
at the central office T 4. Report forms were made out for Jews,
but they were not registered for the euthanasia procedure.
_Classification procedure._ The accomplishment of the
classification procedure was guaranteed by the choice of the
appraisers.
Statement by Pfannmueller. (_Tr. p. 7377._) According to this,
professional persons of proven ability were designated by the
Reich Minister of the Interior.
Statement by Mennecke. (_Tr. p. 1294._) According to this,
university professors lecturing on psychiatry at colleges were
appointed as appraisers. The appraisal was preceded by an
examination of the patient. After the appraisal a re-examination
was made in observation institutions and in the euthanasia
institutions.
According to the scheduled procedure special commissions were
appointed to examine the insane in nursing homes.
Affidavit of Irene Asam-Bruckmueller. Then came a commission
which studied the case histories; among them were two
physicians; the commission was in the institution for three
days; after three months the transfer was effected. (_3865-PS,
Pros. Ex. 365._)
Granzer affidavit. In the autumn of 1940 there was a commission
of 40 persons; all case histories were asked for and a
conference with the local staff physicians followed. An
inspection of the patients was held. (_3867-PS, Pros. Ex. 369._)
Sellmer report of 6 December 1940, Gauleiter’s office,
Franconia. According to this a commission came and examined the
files and inspected the patients. (_D-906, Pros. Ex. 376._)
Decision of the commission was based on the documents of the
institution. (_NO-660, Pros. Ex. 377._)
Pfannmueller statement. He recalls that a commission came in
1940. (_Tr. p. 7325._)
Further re-examination took place in the observation and euthanasia
institutions. The physicians were authorized and obliged to judge the
patients on their own responsibility. On an average 4 percent to 6
percent were rejected.
Kneissler affidavit. Witness says that individual persons were
rejected. (_NO-470, Pros. Ex. 332._)
It appears from the reports that individual patients were sent
back. (_D-906, Pros. Ex. 376._)
_Transfer of patients. Order of transfer._
Statement by Karl Brandt. “Operation Brandt” has nothing to do
with the transfer. Through inquiries at sanatoriums and nursing
homes, special Karl Brandt project concerning euthanasia order.
According to this inquiry the hospitals of the special Brandt
project accepted patients from areas endangered by air raids as
evacuation hospitals. The transfer which became necessary had no
connection with euthanasia. (_Karl Brandt 86, Karl Brandt Ex.
88._)
Schnelle affidavit. According to this “Operation Brandt” meant
the removal of patients and chronic sufferers to medicinal
baths. (_Karl Brandt 21, Karl Brandt Ex. 17._)
Miesen affidavit. According to this Karl Brandt charged them
with the manufacture of ambulances which were then lacking.
(From this it appears that up to that time other means of
transportation had to be used, among others the Red Cross, etc.,
and also the General Sick Transport Company, which had likewise
been used for transport purposes in the battle zones of the
East.) Compare also the widely popular expression “Operation
Brandt” in purely economic fields. (_Karl Brandt 28._[104])