What happened after the stoppage of that program in 1941 has nothing at all to do with the execution of euthanasia, with perhaps a few singular exceptions.
Q. Witness, the prosecution has submitted the affidavit of a certain Leusser. This is prosecution document number 3864PS, Exhibit 367, English Document Book No. 14, page 251; German document Book Volume 14, part 3, page 170. Have you that document book before you? Document Volume 14, part 3, page 251? In this document Doctor Leusser says that the transports extended from 1940 to 1941, up until 1944. What have you to say about that?
A. In paragraph 2 of that document Dr. Leusser says and I quote: "My knowledge about the occurences in the lunatic asylum at Ansbach during the war are based on information, which I received in the first place mostly from Dr. Schuch, but also from Frau Dr. asam, one Dr. Priesmann, who was working at the asylum, but was removed on account of his membership to the party, and from the nursing personnel."
In other words, Leusser does not speak from his own knowledge but is speaking on the basis of knowledge he received from third parties. These third parties are, however, make entirely different statements. One of the nurses, as well as asam and Schuch, places the time of the transfers up to the beginning of 1942. That is not quite correct in view of the clear period of time when Euthanasia stopped which can clearly be proved. It was august 1941. I remind you hare of the testimony of the witnesses Mennecke and Schmidt.
Q. Mr. President, with respect to the witness Ganzer I may refer to Prosecution Document 3867-PS, Exhibit 369, English Document Book 14, page 256. German Document Book 14, part 3, page 176.
A. The statement with which we are concerned can be found in his last paragraph and I quote:
"I estimate that in all five transports of this kind were sent out from the Heil-und Pflege Anstalt, Ansbach, between the years 1940 and. the beginning of 1942."
Q. Now, would you please speak about NO-246.
A. During these transfers - I don't know the wording of the decree of the 1 September 1939 which was issued by Hitler, which erroneously was designated as secret.
Q. Mr. President, the decree which is just mentioned by the witness can be found in Document 630PS, Exhibit 330, English Document Book Volume 14, page 3, and German Document Book Volume 14, part 1, page 1.
A. It says in my affidavit this decree entrusted Bouhler and Brandt with the responsibility of killing people who were not capable of life. This does not correspond with the fact but it says in the decree Dr. Brandt and Reichsleiter Bouhler are charged with the responsibility of enlarging the authority of certain physicians to be designated by name in such a manner that person who, according to human judgment, are incurable can, upon most careful diagnosis of their condition of sickness, be accorded a mercy death."
Q. Now in your affidavit Paragraph 12 you also dealt with the purpose of the so-called Euthanasia Program and here some of your statements need also be elucidated.
A. In that connection I can only say that this entire paragraph, the same as paragraph 15 of my affidavit, does not originate from me but was drafted by the interrogating officer. At first I objected to that paragraph because I never really learned the true reasons of Hitler. I also stated that when Euthanasia was ordered and executed I did not represent the opinion that is contained in that paragraph. However, in view of everything I have realized since I actually held the point of view at the time of my interrogation that these could have been the true motives which moved Hitler. That is why I could be persuaded to sigh my name to that paragraph the contents of which don't originate from me. That refers to paragraph 12 of my affidavit.
Q. This is to be found in Document Volume 14 and it is paragraph 12 of Brack's affidavit. I quote:
"Hitler's ultimate reason for the establishment of the Euthanasia Program in Germany was to eliminate those people confined to insane asylums and similar institutions who could no longer be of any use to the Reich. They were considered useless eaters and Hitler felt that by exterminating these so-called useless eaters, it would be possible to relieve more doctors, male and female, nurses, and other personnel, hospital beds and other facilities for use of the Armed Forces."
That is the paragraph?
A. Yes that is correct. During the interrogations I emphasized that on our part any position, any attitude as it is stated here regarding useless eaters was actually never taken. If, on the other hand, any such reasons of expediency were introduced into the debate by third parties they wore almost rigidly rejected. I have already pointed out that I really need not have to resort to draw any such conclusions. I just recognized them.
Q. Now, witness, we need not revert to what the witness Lammers has said here because this really would be an argument which could only be included in the final plea. But is it not true that if Hitler had had the intention to designate these insane people as useless caters he would have used this expression in some manner towards Lammers, too?
A. I assume with certainty that some such expression would have been used during negotiations with Lammers if any such intentions had existed at that time. I would like to point out, however, that it would have been utterly senseless to perform Euthanasia for reasons of expediency at a time when there was a sufficient stock of nourishment and then to stop Euthanasia at a time when the events of the war required stricter measures and when lack of nourishment came about - and it is exactly in that year when Euthanasia was stopped.
Q. In that connection I submit Brack Exhibit 34 into evidence which will be Document No. 30 which is to be found in my Document Book No. 2 on page 9. This is the affidavit of Dr. Walter Schultze who was born 1 January 1894 in Hersbruck, former Ministerial Director in the Bavarian Ministry of the Interior. This is an affidavit made on 11 April 1947.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you once more give me the exhibit number that you assigned to that document?
DR. FROESCHMANN: I offer that document, Mr. President as Exhibit No. 34. This document bears the date of 11 April 1947 and was signed by Dr. Schultze. It was certified by me in the proper manner. I shall only read the following short sentences from the document. The witness says I quote: "At the end of 1939 or early in 1940 the former Bavarian Minister of the Interior and Gauleiter Adolf Wagner received an official visit by the Reichsleiter Bouhler.
"As the Chief Medical Officer of Bavaria I was asked to attend this discussion. On this occasion Bouhler officially informed Wagner of a secret ordinance of the Fuehrer. Bouhler showed Wagner the original document which had in to top left corner the swastika and the name Adolf Hitler in gold print".
I go on reading from paragraph 3:
"3. I recall the following details of this discussion:
"e) We also discussed the motives for these measures and felt certain that this Fuehrer ordinance would be welcomed as a measure dictated by purely ethical reasons as explained by Bouhler.
The above mentioned procedure ensured that any misuse and human error was eliminated.
"4. On the strength of this discussion I was convinced and had this conviction confirmed by Wagner after Bouhlers departure, that the intentions were entirely clean and highly ethical."
"6) The expression "useless eaters" I never heard mentioned by either Bouhler or Brack, nor have I heard it elsewhere.
"Brack once asked me how it might be possible to re-employ the monies which would be saved as a result of the application of euthanasia for the benefit of curable cases of mental deficiency. I was very pleased at this question as it proved to me that it was intended to utilize such money for the benefit of the suffering community and not for other purposes in the National budget. However, I pointed out to Brack at the time that it was more important in my opinion to provide more beds for TB victims as TB was rapidly increasing to epidemic proportions and as there were exceptionally few TB Sanatoria in Germany."
"7) Had I possibly had any doubts in this matter, Bouhlers personality would have reassured me that this sound and serious matter had been placed in good and proper hands, for I had known Bouhler for many years as an exceptionally fine, highly intellectual almost holy person."
I shall ask the Tribunal to take notice of the rest of the document. Witness, would you please continue with the discussion of your affidavit NO-426 as far as you think that you can raise any more objections that refer to Euthanasia
A I would only shortly like to point to the question of the Reich Comittee. From the very beginning I pointed out that this matter was dealt with in the Reich Ministry of the Interior by Dr. Linden and that I could only give very inexact information about that matter. What I can say today is essentially the result of conferences between my defense counsel and persons who had knowledge about these matters, as well as my own study of the files in this trial. According to this result, the Reich Committee for the Collection of People Suffering from Hereditary Diseases was not one of the tasks of the euthanasia program.
Q Witness; this brings you to the conclusion of your attitude regarding the deviating points in your affidavit.
Mr. President; I think that it is expedient and advisable that; at this moment, I submit to the High Tribunal the chart which had been drawn by the defendant Brack and it refers to the organization of euthanasia. It forms a part of the affidavit which Brack had made in the course of the evidence on the part of the defendant Karl Brandt; when this statement of Brack was made on the 27th of January 1947 and I incorporated it in my document book #2 as Document 28, on page 5. I offer it as Brack Exhibit #35, I have had charts made for the benefit of the prosecution and for the benefit of the Tribunal which, according to their contents; exactly correspond with the chart to be found on the wall. I ask you to use this chart when following the evidence.
Witness, in the course of the evidence concerning euthanasia we can be much briefer than we originally intended because, on the one hand, the witness Hederich and mainly; the witness Pfannmueller, have spoken about the details at great length. I think that this would be in compliance with the wishes of the Tribunal and that they would desire us to proceed in a manner where I would ask you whether you have any additional statements to make to the statements which were already made by the witnesses. Let us be as brief as possible in order not to take up too much time of the Tribunal.
Witness, you are the very man who, together with Bouhler, and by order of Bouhler, from the very beginning, has been active within euthanasia. You are the man who executed Bouhler's orders. Is it correct that, in the course of the year of 1939 - and that was already stated by the defendant Brandt - repeated applications arrived at your institute emanating from parents who asked that a mercy death should be granted to their deformed children through medical interference? Is that right?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q Furthermore, is it correct that Hitler found out about that through his Adjutant's office?
A Yes.
Q Now, what do you know about the further development of things to the extent as it was not already clarified by Pfannmueller or Hederich? I emphasize now that we are, at first, concerned with the registration of the deformed children which really the pre-history to euthanasia as it concerned insane people.
A Conti had called a committee through whom he tried to ascertain, and that as I heard from Bouhler by order of Hitler, how a basical solution could be arrived at concerning these applications. This small circle of people was called the Reich Committee for the Registration of Patients Suffering from Diseases Caused by Hereditary or Predisposition.
Q You were just saying that Conti had received the order from Hitler to call together a committee in order to bring about a basical solution of that question. Was that quite correct? Was it not rather that, at the beginning, only the known cases were to be considered and, as a result of the known cases, some medical judgment was to be formed?
DR. HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, I would ask Dr. Froeschmann not to put a question in such a leading way.
DR. FROESCHMANN: I am not conscious of having put a leading question.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may proceed. The witness may explain.
BY DR. FROESCHMANN:
A Mr. Bouhler stated clearly that Conti had received the order to search a basical solution to that problem. These cases went to various agencies and Hitler only, by accident, learned about one or another case whenever the Adjutant's office got to know about it. Conti, however, informed him that such applications arrived at various offices and, as a result, Conti received the order to search for some opportunity to register all these cases in order to enable a medical opinion to be made.
Q Witness, the witness Pfannmueller and the witness Hoderich have repeatedly mentioned the name of Dr. Linden in that connection. This Dr. Linden, as far as I can overlook the matter, seems to have played a considerable part within the framework of euthanasia. It would be expedient for you to speak somewhat about Dr. Linden and his official position because he appears in the chart in the organization of euthanasia as the Reich Plenipotentiary for Mental Institutions. May I point the Tribunal's attention to the box which can be found on the loft hand side of the chart.
A This Dr. Linden was a member of the Health Department of the Reich Ministry of the Interior which was headed by Conti. I only drew him in this plan, mentioning his strictly official capacity - namely the Reich Plenipotentiary for Mental Institutions. In addition, Linden also headed the Reich Committee for the Registration of Patients with Severe Diseases Caused by Hereditary or Predisposition. This, however, was no state position; his state position was the position of Reich Plenipotentiary for Mental Institutions and as such he was drawn under the block of Conti. He was a physician. According to my recollection, he was even a psychiatrist. What his medical political aims wore, I cannot say. At any rate, he had had a considerable experience in medical administration. Before having come to the Ministry of Interior he had already been active in medical administration. He, at first, was subordinate to Frick and after 1943 was subordinated to Himmler.
Hat his other fields of work within the Ministry of the Interior, except the Reich Plenipotentiary for Mental Institutions, I don't know. In the course of the development of the performance of euthanasia, Linden took an increasingly stronger influence in that execution. I personally knew nothing about the medical problem. I was only Bouhler's assistant. It was, however, reassuring for me to know that the Reich Ministry of the Interior had collaborated in a task which concerned it to that extent. Of course, I didn't know a number of matters which I could only find out on the basis of the documents which are available to me. If Linden was only participating in the expert questions and if he was only participating in the arrangements of the transfers, a connection between his office and the office of Tiergartenstrasse has resulted. This was possible because Bouhler was in no way opposed to his aspirations for independence and the two officials Bohne and Allers were officials of the Reich Ministry of the Interior. These two officials have been entered upon this chart and can be found under the square "Organization for the Execution of Euthanasia" -- beneath that, "Public Foundations for Institutional Care Bohne and Allers." In view of the arrangements regarding the allocations of beds considering the air situation, Linden, on his own initiative, determined when and to what institutions they were to be transferred. This is something that Bouhler originally directed, but it was then taken over by Linden.
Q. Didn't ho also designate the institutions which were taken into consideration as euthanasia institutions?
A. Yes, Linden was the only one who could designate that. He was the Reich Plenipotentiary and he had supervision over all these institutions.
Q. Very well, Witness, we already discussed that, that is a basic problem concerning deformed children; when, according to your present recollections, were these negotiations concluded within that Reich Committee?
A. I personally did not participate in these negotiations and I only know about them as a result of what Bouhler had told me. I know what the result of these negotiations was. This is a circular decree which was issued on the 16th of August 1939. This decree was not exactly published, but was sent to the individual administrative agencies. According to that date the negotiations must have been concluded around July.
Q. Witness, on the occasion of the examination of Hederich, I already mentioned that decree, namely the decree of August 1939, is that the decree you are speaking of?
A. Yes, that is the decree according to which all nurses and institutions had the duty to report all the births of deformed children to this Reich Committee.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, unfortunately I am not in a position to submit this decree to the Tribunal, because I have not yet the supplemental volume. However, tomorrow morning I shall have that document volume, and shall then give this document an exhibit number.
Q. Witness, did you at that time gain knowledge of this decree?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Didn't you have some peculiar feeling as a result of this decree?
A. No, I could only welcome it. As a result of this decree there was a possibility granted that all these children who had to suffer under severe physical conditions were to be registered and then were to be helped out as far as possible.
Brandt has already described one case regarding Leipsig, and I needn't mention it once more, and there was a possibility to grant mercy death to a sense in one or the other case.
Q. This duty of registration by the nurses and physicians was this to form the basis for the decision of each individual case, speaking quite generally?
A. Yes, this duty of registration was to give us the opportunity to present these cases to the Fuehrer for his decision. Of course, the Minister of the Interior would have preferred to keep the decision with its own limits, but it was determined differently.
DR. FORESCHMANN: Now we conclude our discussion about the Reich Committee and we shall now go over to the real results of the execution of euthanasia, in which Brack participated, and which has now become the subject of the indictment.
Q. Witness, up to the year 1939 did you deal with the problem of euthanasia?
A. No, up to the year 1939 I did not deal with the problem of euthanasia and my sphere of work within the Chancellory of the Fuehrer did not at all bring me in contact with any such problem. That, apart from individual cases which I have just mentioned, when parents asked for the mercy death to be granted to their deformed children, both of those applications were sent over to the Reich Ministry of the Health.
Q. When did you hear about an order by Hitler that incurable mental patients could be granted the mercy death under certain conditions?
A. I learned that and that was a complete surprise to me, at the end of July or beginning of August. This was not in connection with negotiations about the Reich Committee, but I heard it quite spontaneously from my superior Reichsleiter Bouhler, who told me one last day that Hitler had discussed that question with a closed circle and had said that he was considering the mercy death to insane people, and that Bouhler was to consider that possibility also. At that time Bouhler already said that it was Hitler's opinion that we were then concerned with persons who were unable to live, were not happy and whose existence in this World meant a moral burden to themselves, and to the members of their families.
Bouhler, I think told me on the next day that he had considered that matter, and that he had accepted the order of the Fuehrer. He asked me to tell him whether I knew anything about the problem, what my attitude was and what I thought of it.
Q. What did you tell Bouhler?
A. I at first told him quite professionally that such assignment had nothing to do with the Chancellory of the Fuehrer. That it was a purely medical matter, and it could at the best be called a matter of public hygiene, and at any rate fell within the sphere of Conti. I pointed out that Conti would be able to call a similar small committee who could discuss the question of deformed children and arrive at some decision. We, of course, didn't have any experts to do that, and we had no executive functions which would permit us to perform any such work. As far as I remember I already then pointed out that this would only bring about now conflicts with Bormann, because Conti in addition to his position as under-Secretary of State and Minister of Interior, was also simultaneously a member of the staff of Bormann. Bouhler then said that he had repeated that to the Fuehrer and had pointed out especially as to the problem of Bormann. Hitler, however, had answered that he would be ready to speak to Bormann personally. Bouhler then tried to get Frick's support, because Conti in his capacity as undersecretary of State was subordinated to Frick. His fears regarding Bormann, and also my fears, were justified because Bormann stated to Bouhler himself a few days later that the euthanasia was a matter for Conti, the Reich Health Leader, and he further said it would not be limited to incurable mental patients. Thereupon Bouhler thought that Hitler would take this assignment away from him and give it to Conti. This, however, would have meant that the entire euthanasia matter would have been transferred to Bormann's influence, which would have caused extensive mis-use. Therefore, I went to Frick and discussed these matters with Frick. Upon the advice of Frick he also made sure of the support of Goering and Himmler.
Q. Now, Witness, we don't need to go into all these details, because it would take us much too far away. Now, let us come to the period of time when Bouhler finally received this order by Hitler?
A. I can't give you the exact period of time. I can only say this happened in a period of a few days, all these negotiations between Bouhler, Conti, Frick and Goering, At any rate Bouhler went to t he Fuehrer and told him specifically he would accept this assignment in spite of his questionable incompetency. Hitler at that time replied that he desired a. non-bureaucratic solution of this problem, because he didn't want an agancy like the Reich Ministry of the Interior which had definite tracks after all to take over such a definite assignment. He said that the physicians themselves could not do it because they had no definite organization available. Hitler said that Bouhler himself was to create the necessary organization for that purpose. As far as it was necessary the Reich Ministry of the Interior should take over these things which already fall within its sphere of jurisdiction. That is in cases where the executive powers of the Reich Ministery of the Interior could alleviate the task of the euthanasia.
Q. Witness, did Bouhler tell you anything at that time concerning the secrecy concerning these matters?
A. I cannot remember that. However, I believe that he said from the very beginning that these entire matters had to be treated with the strictist confidence.
Q Now, witness, after Bouhler had told you about these detailed suggestions by the Fuehrer; what did you do, what was your impression?
AAt first I had no idea about the extent of this assignment, no doubt I did not conceive of this entire thought to its great extent, however, after I heard the description by Bouhler about the condition of these persons, I decided to cooperate in the collaboration of that assignment. I took a number of the associates of Bouhler into confidence and asked them to cooperate.
Q Witness, you spoke to your collaborators, you spoke to Bouhler and what was the result of all these negotiations; what problem did you solve?
A The problem to which I was entirely alien was purely medical. We as party officials could not solve it in any way, we had to be clear about the following question: "How can the expert physicians be included in the solution of that problem?" Brandt was not a psychiatrist, Bouhler was not a physician. The reason for entrusting these two persons for the assignment was only because Hitler had special confidence in them for carrying the matter through correctly and properly. We now had the problem of getting experts, who were in line with the idea of Euthanasia and who were ready to cooperate as experts. Only in this manner could the problem be solved in a clean and correct manner.
Q Witness, what physicians appeared to you at that time to be suitable psychiatrists for that purpose and whom in effect did you chose?
A It is correct for you to say, whom did you actually get to know, because prior to that period of time I did not know anyone. Bouhler for instance had known Professor Heide through some former association, however, neither Bouhler nor I knew any other psychiatrists. For that reason Bouhler asked me to try and find Professor Heide's address. This is how I contacted Himmler for the first time regarding Euthanasia. There was no other way of getting to Heide, because we did not know his address only the fact that he was a member of the SS.
On this occasion, Bouhler repeated his promise of support, which I have already mentioned. Whether Grawitz had nominated some more experts, I do not know. I do know, however, that Dr. Linden had given a number of names of physicians to Bouhler. According to my recollection, six or more University professors were among the experts which Bouhler used.
Q Mr. President, at this time I shall submit my Document No. 38 from Document Book 2, page 57, that is an affidavit of Dr. Werner Kirchert, dated 29 January 1947, which the counsel for the defendant Karl Brandt has already submitted as Karl Brand Exhibit No. 15. I need not read it. It deals with the events which the witness has just described.
Please continue, witness.
A In any case from these first discussions, I remember definitely the name of Professor Nietzsche, Professor Dikrinis, who was the head of the Ordinariat at Berlin, Professor Kiehn from Jena, Dr. Schneider from Heidelberg, Dr. Falkenhaeuser of Kaufbeuren. Those are probably the ones who participated in the first discussions and then more experts were sworn to secrecy. The witness Pfannmueller already testified about this. They were not employed, but were on an honorary basis. From the number of these gentlemen, whom we were gradually getting to know, during the middle or beginning of August, Bouhler called a meeting in his own office, in which I and some of my associates participated.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, I did not understand that you assigned a number to Document No. 38; is that Exhibit No. 35?
DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, I did not give it any Exhibit number, because it was my impression that since this Document has already been submitted, by my colleague, Dr. Servatius, for Karl Brandt, with the Exhibit No. 15, this Document is already in evidence. Merely so that the report will be able to follow my presentation of evidence better, I have copies it again in my Document book. If the court shall consider it necessary for me to give this Document an Exhibit number, I shall of course be glad to do so.
THE PRESIDENT: It is not necessary, counsel, but it should be identified for the record. Do I understand this is Karl Brand Exhibit No. 15?
DR. FROESCHMANN: This is Exhibit Karl Brandt No. 13. I may remark regarding the other Kirchert affidavit in my Document Book No. 1 with the No. 33, dated 7 February 1947, that I shall not submit this affidavit and it can be struck out.
THE PRESIDENT: That is satisfactory, counsel.
BY DR. FROESCHMANN:
Q Now, witness, you know from the testimony of the witness Pfannmueller that this witness in particular, in answer to questions of the Prosecution, repeatedly spoke of the two meetings in which he participated; one meeting at which, in his opinion, there was merely an intended division of the mental institutions into two groups, while at the other meeting the group of experts are supposed to have met. In your following testimony, I ask you to consider Pfannmueller's testimony and to make it clear to the court whether there were only these two meetings dealing with the entire problem of Euthanasia, or whether in addition to these two meetings there were other meetings. I also consider it important that you tell the court absolutely frankly at what meetings you participated and what you did in detail, so that the impression will not be given that you are trying to keep anything secret?
A I can only say that of course there were many more than two such meetings and meetings of various different kinds, but it is quite impossible for me to give any figure. I don't know whether there were ten, twenty, fifteen, or twenty five. There were big meetings and small meetings, there were meetings which Reichsleiter Bouhler called directly, especially in the beginning. There were meetings merely of the experts, which Professor Heide, Professor Nietzsche or Professor Linden called.
There were all kinds of meetings at various times and various places and with various groups of people.
Q I should like to interpolate a question here, because I have been asked by one of my colleagues to shorten the case of the defense counsel somewhat; I ask you: was the defendant Dr. Blome involved in any way?
A From my own knowledge, I can confirm that Blome never attended any of the meetings which I attended and I did attend very many meetings. In any case, I know that he was never at Bouhler's office, as I would certainly have learned of that and I never heard anyone mention Blome in connection with Euthanasia. I have already said that I personally had nothing to do with him in connection with the Euthanasia program.
Q Witness, at the request of my colleague Sauter for defendant Blome, I should like to clarify something here. On the chart which was drawn up during the interrogation from the information given by you, that is, No. 203, it is No. 253, it says at the top to the left the name "Blome", apparently in connection with Dr. Conti, and indirectly in connection with the defendant Brandt. Will you briefly tell us whether that square Blome here was justified at all?
A In view of the heading, "Euthanasia Program", the addition of the name Blome is certainly not justified. I pointed this out at the interrogation and when I signed this chart that this was not justified but I was persuaded that Blome, as Deputy of the Reich Health Leader logically had to appear, but when I said that Blome had nothing to do with euthanasia, the second line was not put around the square in which Blome's name appears, and that is a plain square in contrast to the square of Conti and Linden. I believe that was how it happened. It is difficult for me to remember all of these things in detail, but that is how it happened I believe. It was because Blome had nothing to do with euthanasia.
Q Now, witness, please emphasize in your description those meetings which were important for the development of the euthanasia program, first of all, the first meeting which Bouhler called in order to discuss the problem itself and in order to find out the attitude of the doctors?
A These were small meetings and primarily the people whom I have already mentioned participated.
Q Just a moment, witness. I should like to hear from you from the very beginning when you speak of your associates, which associates you mean. One can assume with a degree of certainty that the Prosecution and cross examination will ask these names, and even if it is not pleasant to you to mention these names, I as your defense counsel consider it my duty to ask you to state which of your associates, no matter in what respect, had something to do with the euthanasia program.
Who were these associates?
A There were only four of my associates who had anything to do with euthanasia in any degree. That was my representative and later my successor, Blankenburg, then Hegener, and then Hevelmann and Vorberg. These are the four whom I have put in the corrected plan. All of the other associates in the Chancellery of the Fuehrer had nothing to do with euthanasia, and to a large extent were not informed about it.
Q I should like to hear that last thing again. Within the Chancellery of the Fuehrer there was the secrecy which we shall speak about later and it was kept?
A Yes, of course, that was an order, even within my own office.
Q Then this explains the fact that the witness Hederich from 1939 to 1940, as ho said, actually knew nothing about euthanasia being dealt with in your office?
A I consider the statement absolutely true. I can only emphasize it.
Q. And you, Mr. Brack, you worked with these meetings?
A Yes.
Q Did you not in private conversations with third persons say something about your activities or any hints?
A I must honestly say later I did so with a very definite intention, and later I had to deal with the film "I accuse." Of course, I told a few people who were connected with it what it was all about, but in general I held to the secrecy very strictly.