_Reasons for euthanasia._ Euthanasia was brought about on the basis of
an authorization given to the directors of the euthanasia institutions
on 1 September 1939. This authorization was no order to carry out
euthanasia but merely gave permission to arrange for euthanasia after
examination based on a critical judgment of the condition of the
illness. Consequently, doctors acted on their own responsibility.
_The means for the execution of euthanasia._
Statement of Brack. According to this statement, carbon monoxide
(CO) was used as a means. This is scientifically proved to be
the least painful manner of death. The use of other methods
proves that such an execution of euthanasia does not conform
with the intended procedure, but is carried out on personal
initiative. (_Tr. p. 7743._)
Statement of Rose. (_Tr. p. 6363._) Opinion on the reduction of
food in medical institutions. (_NO-872, Pros. Ex. 403._) Rose
declares that this did not result in any particular reduction or
neglect of the patients.
_Experimental killing of insane persons._
The handing-over of patients from the institution of
Eglfing-Haar is under consideration. (_No_ euthanasia).
(_1696-PS, Pros. Ex. 357._)
_Issue of false death certificates and notices._
Meltzer opinion. (_Karl Brandt 85, Karl Brandt Ex. 94._) This
document contains an inquiry sent to 200 relatives regarding
their attitude towards euthanasia. Most of the relatives agree
to it; it is characteristic that many disagree but declare that
they do not wish to be asked and that the matter had best be
kept secret and covered up (death should come unexpectedly not
influenced by the wishes and interests of others and should not
burden the relatives). Professor Meltzer, an opponent of
euthanasia, arranged for the examination as the director of an
insane asylum in order to obtain an argument against the main
advocates of euthanasia in Germany, Binding and Hoche, and he
declared that he was surprised at the result shown by the
questionnaire.
_Euthanasia compared with Medical Euthanasia_
_Position taken in the indictment_
* * * * *
_Position of the defense_
In addition to the prescribed euthanasia based on authorization a
so-called “wild euthanasia” took place, upon which the defendant Karl
Brandt had no influence, and of which he had no knowledge.
_Euthanasia on Polish Nationals._ The authorization by Karl Brandt was
limited to the occupied territories, which were subordinate to special
administration, like the administration for the Government of Poland and
the Protectorate as well as the Communication Zone. Karl Brandt
therefore cannot be held responsible for the events which took place in
the insane asylums in Poland. The removal of Eglfing-Haar to the
occupied territories was carried out by the Cooperative Ambulance
Company, but the fact of the transport shows obviously that death was
not intended, as such a deportation would have been senseless. The
seizure of Poles in the Polish district Zichenau by the Reich Security
Main Office proves that quite another organization is at work than the
organization for euthanasia in Germany, which was Appointed by the
Ministry of the Interior as supervisory authority.
_Euthanasia in the Communication Zone._
Affidavit by Halder. (_Karl Brandt 116, Karl Brandt Ex. 92._)
Rumors that inmates of the insane asylum of Novgorod and others
had been killed reached Halder. He knows that Karl Brandt was
not mentioned in this connection as he held no authority in this
field and that his appearance would be particularly noticeable.
_Extermination in Auschwitz._
Letter from Brack to Himmler. (_NO-205, Pros. Ex. 163._) The
letter shows that the defendant Karl Brandt had nothing to do
with the deportation of persons to Auschwitz. Brack designates
the “men” as his “personnel” and on his own initiative offers
further personnel in his direct correspondence with Himmler.
Statement of Brack. (_Tr. p. 7530._) He points out that he had
not accused Brandt himself of having any knowledge of or part in
this, but merely that the possibility was presented to him
during the interrogation by the prosecution. He had attempted to
maintain his opinion through changes in the text of the
affidavit composed for him. The text presented to him definitely
mentioned Brandt as a confidant. It was stated there:
“It _was impossible_ for these people to participate
without the knowledge of Karl Brandt” further “that this
order _could_ have been issued by _Karl Brandt only_.”
Brack has changed the text in the best possible way and
has rearranged the sentence as follows: “It _would have
been_ impossible for these people to participate.” To
the phrase “only by order of Karl Brandt” was added
“possibly Bouhler.”
Statement of Hielscher. (_Tr. p. 5982 ff._) On
cross-examination, the witness testified to the trustworthiness
of the witness Gerstein, who since submitting the affidavit can
no longer be traced and is presumed to be hiding.
Statement of Mennecke. (_Tr. p. 1912._) The witness has not
learned any more in regard to the rumors of euthanasia in Lublin
and the participation of Karl Brandt in these matters in spite
of his particular interest.
_The Workers from the East._
Statement of Schnidtmann. (_NO-720, Pros. Ex. 366._)
Subsequently the transfer of the insane Eastern workers to a
home institution took place. No euthanasia was therefore carried
out; a transfer for this purpose would have been senseless.
_Euthanasia after Cessation in 1941_
_Position taken in the indictment_
* * * * *
_Position of the defense_
With the cessation of euthanasia in August 1941, a new procedure
appeared in which Karl Brandt no longer participated. Karl Brandt
personally was fully occupied with special commissions in other fields
(building of hospitals; since 1942 Commissioner General; since 1944
Reich Commissioner for Health and Medical Care). The cessation was
ordered during August 1941. Subsequently euthanasia was discontinued.
Statement of Schmidt. (_Tr. p. 1879._) Hadamar in August 1941.
(Compare also the documents of the Hadamar Trial,[106]
particularly indictment.)