as it happened in the year 1933, those in power were followed by a flood of Nazistic literature, and steps had to be taken to combat this. One could today use the technical expression "hyper denazification." This task was deliberately entrusted to Mr. Bouhler, because for this task, a task of political hygiene one needed an agency which was entirely independent of political literature. Mr. Bouhler had certain qualifications that equipped him for this task. My activity was a political organizational one, and I was to create the necessary prerequisites for the carrying out of that work.
Cortrt No. I, Case No. 1.
Q Witness, what were the positions that you held in Bouhler's office?
AAt first I was his business manager. Afterwards I developed for the commission, which contained a number of persons, a new office which I headed. Under my leadership it became a Reichshauptamt a little later. When in the year 1937 I left the Reich Ministry of Propaganda, Mr. Bouhler asked me to cooperate somewhat closer with his entire work. Within the sphere of the Fuehrer's Chancellery, the chief of which he was, he created a cultural political department.
Q Were you the head of that department?
A Yes, this department was later enlarged and was then subordinated to me.
Q As time progressed, did yon more or less represent Bouhler entirely?
A In the course of all the developments, Bouhler offered his representation to me, and I was to be the chief of staff. This intention, however, never materialized because of certain political developments. In the year 1940 Bouhler had received the order from Hitler to re-organize the educational literature. The practical execution of that work was transferred to me.
Q You just used the expression "chief of staff". In the course of time evidence, this word "chief of staff" will play a certain role. Will you please explain to the Tribunal what at that time in Germany was understood by "chief of staff"?
A Under "chief of staff" one understands the position within an agency which has to coordinate the organizational work of the various departments within that agency. In the Party structure, one could compare that position with a ministerial director in a ministry. It is a central post for administrative tasks. As for who is in charge of political matters, it is always the head of every individual department, but never the chief of staff.
Q What were the tasks of your office within the Chancellery of the Fuehrer?
A I had to co-ordinate the activities of Mr. Bouhler, which were very diverse in nature; on the one hand the Chancellery of the Fuehrer, on the other hand the activities connected with literature. In addition to such co-ordination tasks, there were individual tasks which referred to applications which were sent to Hitler, coming from the fields of science, high schools, publications, etc. I may, for instance, mention the treatment of the question of the Frobenius Institute or, for instance, the poet Walter von Molo. He sought the protection of Hitler because he felt himself oppressed by Rosenberg. He received this protection.
Q What was his name?
A Walter von Molo.
Q Thank you.
A I had to deal with a number of such questions within my department.
Q Witness, did you work temporarily at the Reich Ministry of Propaganda?
A I pointed out a little earlier that in the year of 1937 I was working in the Reich Ministry of Propaganda.
Q Would you please be very brief?
A Yes. Even at the beginning of his activity in the field of literature, Mr. Bouhler had a great deal of difficulty with regard to Dr. Goebbels, and Mr. Rosenberg at the Party publishing house. As a result of internal events, Dr. Goebbels decided in the year 1937 to employ a now staff in his literature department, and he approached Mr. Bouhler regarding me in that matter. Mr. Bouhler at that time was interested in arriving at some firm decision with reference to the difficulties as they prevailed with Mr. Rosenberg.
Q And then you again were eliminated from that department?
A Yes. In the year 1938 I left this ministry because of differences which I had with the Minister.
Q Witness, from your description of your career and your activity so far, we can conclude that you repeatedly came into contact with the former Reichsleiter Bouhler. You know that Reichsleiter Bouhler was alone the responsible person to execute euthanasia, and I am of the opinion that if Bouhler were will living, Bouhler would be sitting in the dock and not Brack. That is my opinion and not yours. I may assume, however, that considering the close relationship which is alleged to have existed between Brack and Bouhler, this similarity in attitudes may have come to light in Brack's activities, and for that reason, I should like to put a number of questions to you which deal with the personality of Bouhler, in order for the Tribunal to know what personality they are concerned with in considering the euthanasia program.
MR. HARDY: May it please Your Honor, I request that the Defense Counsel be requested to question this witness. He has a complete set of notes before him. He is reading from the notes, and in addition the question is a resume on the part of Defense Counsel. The Tribunal should be interested in hearing the witness testify, not in a legal argument hero and a set of notes up there. I think we should put it on a more legal plane than it is on right now.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, the Tribunal will be grateful if you will lead this witness to testimony in connection with the issues before the Tribunal.
DR. FROESCHMANN: I only dealt with that question in order to give the Tribunal an opportunity to have a picture of the character of these two personalities which are going to be repeatedly mentioned.
BY DR. FROESCHMANN:
Q Witness, could you give us some statement about the Fuehrer's Chancellery, about the significance of the Fuehrer's Chancellery, and about the extent of your activity? Would you please do that as briefly as possible?
A Let me at first speak about the significance of the Fuehrer's chancellery.
Mr. Bouhler was the business manager of the NSDAP at first, and since in the year 1933 this activity was transferred to Mr. Schwarz, he became unemployed. When Hess assigned him to the position of the presidency of this Committee for the Protection of Literature, we also find that Hitler had arrived at the decision to re-organize his personal affairs. Previously Hess had charge of them. Simultaneously with the appointment of Hess as the Fuehrer's deputy, the situation had changed, and Hitler expressed the wish to separate personal matters from Party leadership. Within the sphere of Hess' activity, Hitler's personal matters were dealt with by Albert Bormann. Hitler, however, did not like Albert Bormann, and when he was looking for a new person to take over the personal matters, he thought of Mr. Bouhler; and that is how Bouhler came to Berlin at the end of 1934, in order to create a new office to take care of Hitler's personal affairs, with the task -
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, I understood that you desired this witness to give a brief characterization of Bouhler. If he will proceed to that subject and in a few words give a statement on Bouhler, the Tribunal would be glad to hear it.
Q Witness, I ask you to be as brief as possible. What was your personal attitude toward Bouhler? Did you enjoy his special confidence? Did you receive an insight into his personal life?
A There developed very soon a special degree of confidence between us. He gave me rather extensive insight into his personal thinking. He asked me to work closely with him, not only within our official work, but also personally. He often invited me to join his family, and the relationship was filled with confidence.
Q Did Bouhler also draw you into his confidence with regard to his opinion of his associates?
A Yes, Mr. Bouhler often took the opportunity to discuss his associates with me. At one time he asked me to submit data on the qualifications of his associates, and for this reason I got in touch with a well-known profession graphologist in Berlin.
Q What was the impression you gained of Bouhler?
A In connection with this question, I may assure you that I am perhaps the only person who is in a position to speak about Bouhler's personality, who is in a position to give some sort of comprehensive information about his inner attitude to life. For ten years I have been in close connection with him and I am sure that there is no question concerning his life that I did not have to discuss with him in detail, because literature extends throughout all spheres of life. We started from this. I may say that Mr. Bouhler was a quiet man, a man with personal reticence, a man of clean thinking. His mental attitude was generous, not at all dogmatic. He was a man that is generally called a man of liberal thinking. The differences, which resulted from different character pecularities of his could not be managed by him easily. He did not have sufficient courage. He wasn't determined enough.
Q When Bouhler exercised his activity as the head of the Chanellery of the Fuehrer, did he have any difficulties? Were difficulties caused by other persons in different agencies?
A Bouhler's work had difficulties in so far as his assignment was never clearly limited and as a result he immediately had difficulties with the Reich Chancellery, which in the meantime had been working on a number of tasks for Hitler. In addition a strong contraversy ensued with the staff of the Fuehrer's deputy situation, however, was mitigated when Hess was the chief of Hitler's staff because of Hess's personal qualities. When, however, at a later date, Martin Bormann took over the leadership of the party chancellery, the ensuing differences of opinion could not be prevented.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, in this connection I should like to submit Document No. 14 from my Document Book, which is to be found on pages 36 to 38, as Exhibit No. 1. I shall have it handed to the Secretary General. This is an extract from the National-Socialistic Year Book of 1942.
From this Year Book, I shall confine myself to reading the two paragraphs which deal with this field of the Fuehrer's chancellery and work of the so-called party chancellery. I shall start reading from Document No. 14, this paragraph:
"The Chancellery of the Fuehrer has to secure the immediate contact of the Fuehrer with the party in all questions submitted to the Fuehrer personally. There are hardly any sorrows and troubles which are not submitted to the Fuehrer in boundless confidence in his help. The dealing with pleas for remission or suspension of sentences has developed to a particularly extensive field of activity."
I shall now read a short paragraph regarding the chancellory of the party and I quote:
"As from 12 May 1941 the Fuehrer has fully resumed the personal leadership of the party; the agency dealing with the affairs of the leader of the NSDAP is named chancellery of the party; its responsible leader is Reichsleiter Martin Bormann.
"All threads of the party work converge in the chancellery of the party. Here all internal plans and suggestions concerning the party, as well as all vital questions concerning the existence of the German nation and lying within the scope of the party, are handled for the Fuehrer. From here directives are given for the whole work of the party either by the Fuehrer himself or by his order. In this way, the unity, homogenecity and fighting power of the NSDAP as bearer of the National Socialist ideology is guaranteed."
Q Witness, I shall now continue with your examination. You have already spoken of the difficulties which Bouhler had to face as a result of taking over the Chancellery or the Fuehrer, but Albert Bormann, the brother of Martin Bormann, was his side, was he not? Didn't that create a stronger connection with the two agencies? Why not?
A No, there was an independent enmity between the two brothers for family reasons. Martin Bormann had come from the private chancellery and had then become the Adjutant of Hitler. He was a very ordinary personality without any particular distinction. He then had begun to have difficulties with his brother. There was no connection possible as a result of the connection of these two brothers.
Q Witness, in this trial, as well as in all the other trials which are dealt with by the Military Tribunals, one person plays an extraordinary part and his name was Himmler. What was Bouhler's relationship to Himmler?
A The relationship of Mr. Bouhler to Himmler was cool, reserved distant. Bouhler on the basis of his personal concept was in contrast to the ideology as it was represented by Himmler. He held no functions of any practical nature within the SS. His membership to the SS was merely formal.
Q Do you know that from your own knowledge?
A Yes. I do know that from my own knowledge, because I repeatedly had discussions of questions with Mr. Bouhler on numerous occasions; allegations were made by the SS and our attitude had to be defined.
Q Could you give us a brief character study of Himmler's personalty?
A That is not quite possible for me, because I had no personal relationship to Himmler and I therefore am in no position to characterize this person.
Q What can you say about Brack's personality? Do you know Brack? How long have you known him?
A I have known Brack for a period of 12 years. He is the oldest colleague of Bouhler. He was already active in Bouhler's office when Bouhler was still in Munich. Mr. Bouhler, when Brack was assigned to Berlin, took him along as his Chief of Staff.
Brack then embarked upon the difficulties which I have already mentioned.
Q Do you mean Bouhler's difficulties?
A Yes, the Bouhler-Bormann, difficulties, the Bouhler-Himmler difficulties, and so forth. When trying to deal with these difficulties, Brack did not always find support which would have been necessary from Mr. Bouhler, that is by reason of the connections of Bouhler which I have pictured.
Q What was Bracks attitude toward his work?
A Because of these difficulties, Brack was relieved of his position as Chief of Staff. Some of the reasons for that can be found in his personality.
Q How?
A I knew Brack as an open-minded man, who was always ready to help. He was far removed from any fanaticism intolerance or any narrowness of heart but he lacked a purposeful limitation to his concrete field of work. He lacked political consequential thinking and in my opinion these two deficiencies in the man, are the reason for his present misfortune.
Q You gave us this picture I assume on the basis of your acquaintanceship for twelve years?
A Yes. I have already said I have known Brack for 13 years. I have often visited his family; I know his parents; I know his sisters; and this qualifies me to give this judgment from here.
Q You did work with Brack in the Chancellery of the Fuehrer? Are you in a position to tell the Tribunal something about Brack's field of work as briefly as possible?
AAfter the applications for pardons, and so forth, had been taken away from Brack's field of work and were dealt with as an independent office and after he was relieved of his function as Chief of Staff, Mr. Bouhler transferred to him the so-called Department 2 of the Chancellery.
The department was called "Political Complaints." The tasks of that office were not quite easily described too harmonious, because there was an abundance of questions and applications directed to Hitler which arrived at this office. There was a huge number of complaints. This is why it is difficult to explain this field of work from my own knowledge. I can illustrate the condition there, because I was present whilst Bouhler was sorting the mail when Hitler himself entered the room unnoticed.
and after having looked at all this work he said "I know that there may be numerous enormous purposeless applications and letters by people who just grumble or denounce among that heap of mail, but I think that in one case or another questions may come up where the persons concerned are calling for help, where valid situations of emergency exist, and I demand that those be helped. That, of course, gets a very thorough dealing with the correspondence necessary. We often had mail and it constituted applications for pardons and releases from concentration camps. There were applications regarding racial questions regarding mitigation in dealing with the Jewish question. There were complains and applications with reference to the hereditary laws for the prevention of hereditary diseases.
Q. Did you ever discuss certain difficulties with the defendant Brack which he experienced when dealing with these matters in connection with a third person who played a public part at that time? I am now particularly referring to Martin Bormann, whom you just mentioned, and I am also referring to Obergruppenfuehrer Heydrich.
A. In both cases because of a number of reasons great controversy ensued, and that for different reasons. In the case of Heydrich I know that Heydrich wanted the elimination of Brack from Bouhler's office, because he did not agree with the attitude of the defendant.
Q. What was that attitude?
A. In the case of Heydrich this was mostly concerned with complaints regarding the work of the Gestapo and questions regarding the release from concentration camps. I remember on the basis of a report which I received from Bouhler, because he was accumstomed to discuss all these basical questions with me, that Heydrich had demanded that he should separate himself from Mr. Brack, because he would have to accuse Mr. Brack of a grave breach of confidence. I don't know this incident in its details. I only know the basic attitude of Mr. Brack towards that incident. For that reason I know that we were here concerned with a breach of confidence as Heydrich called it regarding the questions of secrecy of SD files concerning a defendant of the SD.
Q. Do I understand you correctly, witness, it seems to be that Brack had given a defendant, an accused of the SD, insight into these documents in order to enable him to defend himself?
A. Yes, that is correct. Some person had been charged with something and Brack enabled that person to gain insight into the documents.
Q. That is sufficient. Thank you. How about the affair with Bormann, why did he quarrel with Bormann?
A. The difficulties with Bormann lie somewhere else. These difficulties find their reasons in the controversy between Mr. Bouhler and Mr. Bormann. The enmity of Mr. Bormann to Brack, which he only considered one point of opposition because his desires were extended through the entire field of work of Bouhler. From Bormann we always received complaints that the attitude of department two too was not rigid enough in its ideological outlook according to Bormann's ideas. He thought that this attitude was too mild. He wanted that a change he effected by Mr. Bouhler. Bormann succeeded in eliminating Bouhler's right of reporting to Hitler about questions of release from concentration camps, and so forth. This, of course, had as its result a radicalization, because naturally the manner in which these matters were reported to Hitler had its effect in the decision that Hitler reached.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, I only put these questions because this relationship between Martin Bormann and Bouhler and Brack and Bouhler will play a considerable part later on. I ask you to excuse my taking up so much time of the Tribunal.
MR. HARDY: Enough time has been taken up with this question, exactly one hour, and I fail to sec the materiality of the testimony thus far. I can't see the connection, I can't understand the testimony. After the witness is through testifying the Prosecution may well request an affidavit or something so that we can have a clarification of the testimony. The issues against Brack are very simple, the connection between Brack and Buehler are quite simple. This witness on the stand has testified he perhaps knows more about the activities of Brack than any man alive and I think we can get the facts of this case quickly rather than going around Robin Hood's barn in this manner.
THE PRESIDENT: Does counsel expect to continue with the examination of this witness in the morning?
DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, I have concluded two-thirds of the examination of the witness Hederich. What I want to hear now refers essentially to euthanasia.
THE PRESIDENT: If the witness will testify to some facts relevant to the issues before the Tribunal we will hear him again in the morning; but I would suggest in the meanwhile that you talk the matter over with the witness and instruct him to answer to questions directly and rather more briefly and give the facts which will be of assistance to the Tribunal.
The Tribunal will now recess until nine-thirty tomorrow morning.
The Tribunal will meet the Committee.
(The Tribunal adjourned at 15:27 hours.)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 9 May 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court room will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal I.
Military Tribunal I is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the courtroom.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, you ascertain if the defendants are all present in court.
THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honor, all defendants are present in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will note for the record the presence of all the defendants in court.
Counsel may proceed.
KARL HEINRICH HEDERICH - Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR. FROESCHMANN(Counsel for the Defendant Brack):
Q. Witness, might I remind you first of all that you are still under oath. Yesterday you had been speaking about the Defendant Brack' activities in Department 2 of the Fuehrer's Chancellory. I want to put this question to you. Did Brack in this office, Department 2 that is, have authority to make decisions on his own?
A. No.
Q. This authority to make decisions, did Reichsleiter Bouhler handle that alone?
A. Yes.
Q. What was the relationship between Bouhler and Brack with regard to the point whereby Brack knew Bouhler's attitude regarding the treatment of tasks assigned to him, Bouhler?
A. The relationship was such that Brack had to know Bouhler's attitude regarding this sphere of influence of his.
Q. Yesterday you had already talked about the fact that Bouhler's attitude as Chief of the Chancellory had been a tolerant one, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you been able to make sure that Brack's attitude regarding the treatment of tasks which approached him, particularly regarding the release of concentration camp inmates and applications coming from various half-Jewish persons, was tolerant?
A. As far as I had opportunities to learn of Brack's activities, I saw them as being tolerant and generous.
Q. Another question. The Defendant Brack during his interrogation has spoken about a so-called Madagascar plan which in 1940 came up for discussion in the Chancellory of the Fuehrer and was dealt with there. Do you have any knowledge of a Madascar Plan?
A. Yes.
Q. What do you know about it? What was the aim of that plan?
A. It was the aim of that plan to defelope and submit suggestions regarding the solution of the problem of homeless Jews which was to be solved by creating a new order in Europe which would give them a state system of their own. This was done from the point of view adopted by German policy of the time, namely, with consideration of the situation in Palestine and the Arab question.
Q. You've just spoken about the situation in Europe --I think that must be a mistake, you mean the situation in the world? Or was your statement aiming at the Jews living in Europe at the time?
A. In connection with the Madascar Plan, I'd heard at the time that the possibility existed that the war would come to an end, and correspondingly that suggestion had been made to Great Britain, and in connection several plans of a different nature had been developed and in this connection I came across the problems contained in the Madagascar plan.
Bouhler in his sphere of work had it dealt with or dealt with it himself.
Q. This Madagascar Plan, did that have an anti-Jewish tendency?
A. As far as I am able to speak on the strength of my own knowledge here, no. It was my impression that this was an effort, as I'd said at the beginning, to solve the problem of homeless Jews by means of creating a special state.
Q. This special state, was that to create a home for the Jews on the Island of Madagascar? Is that correct?
A. Yes.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, may I have your permission is this connection to quote from my document book, Volume No. 2, page 3. I am referring to Document NO 27, and it is Exhibit No. 2, which I would like to offer to the Tribunal at this point. It merely contains-
MR. HARDY: The prosecution has not yet received Document Book No. 2 of the Defendant Brack.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has not received the volume either.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, may I remark in this connection that my document books have been handed to the Secretary-General's office three or four weeks ago, and that, therefore, I had the right to expect that these document books would be at the disposal of the Tribunal at the time. Only the Appendix 3 could be completed during recent days because a number of exhibits were contained therein which I myself only received in recent days. I need not read the document I referred to, I am merely offering it to the Tribunal with the request that you take judicial notice of it.
THE PRESIDENT: Will counsel again refer to the document number in his book.
DR. FROESCHMANN: It is Document No. 27, in the 2nd volume of my document book, and it is on page 3. It merely contains extracts from the encyclopedia and it deals with the psychological facts of Madagascar.
THE PRESIDENT: What exhibit number do you assign to this document?
DR. FROESCHMANN: Exhibit No. 2, Mr. President.
MR. HARDY: May it please your Honor, the Secretary-General has put at my disposal a copy of Document Book No. 2, and if defense counsel cares to introduce it now, the prosecution will agree. However, I have an objection to the document in as much as the document is concerning the proposed plan to send the so-called homeless Jews to Madagascar, and this Tribunal is not dealing with matters of that nature. It appears to the prosecution that the document is immaterial and I object to its admission in evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the materiality of this document, counsel?
DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, in the course of the examination of the Defendant Brack I shall deal with the circumstances in detail why Brack particularly, and his collaborators, turned their thoughts upon the Island of Madagascar. The objection might be raised that that island was so uneconomical that the plan of settling Jews there could be considered just as cruel as their destruction, the extermination of the Jews, and in order to help this High Tribunal, which, I assume, of course, has full knowledge of these matters, it should also have a documentary basis to decide upon, and I had taken the liberty of submitting the document. That was all I was aiming at through it.
THE PRESIDENT: Defendant Brack is directly charged by the indictment with certain specific offenses. The Tribunal is in doubt as to the probative value in connection with any such proof as you mentioned as bearing upon the issues in this case, in so far as Defendant Brack is concerned.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Defendant Brack wishes to deal with the allegation of the prosecution that he had been hostile to the Jews and that he had participated in the plans of the extermination of the Jews, and wants to prove that his attitude was directly opposite to this and he has always done everything possible in order to counteract the plans of Jewish extermination that he had heard of.
That is, of course, the reason why this Madagascar Plan, of which the defendant has spoken during his interrogation, is considered to be relevant by me.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal is of the opinon that the matter--at least at this time -- is entirely without any probative value in connection with the issue before this Tribunal. The objection will be sustained with leave to re-offer the document later. As the evidence developes it may be determined that the letter has some probative value, but at this time the objection is sustained. The document will not be admitted.
BY DR. FROESCHMANN:
Q. Witness, when and how did you learn of the euthanasia, measures adopted in Germany?
A. May I at this point draw your attention to my affidavit dated the 28th of June of last year which Dr. Robert Servatius submitted to the International Military Tribunal in Nurnberg?
Q. That document is not a document which I myself have submitted and therefore you cannot refer to it, but I do think that you can tell the Tribunal such parts of that document as may be of interest with regard to this special question which I put to you.
DR. FROESCHMANN: May I ask the Tribunal to give permission that witness Hederich may read from the affidavit submitted to the International Military Tribunal, such a few sentences as can answer the question which I have put to him just now?
THE PRESIDENT: The Document to which you refer has not been called to the attention of the Tribunal with the request that the Tribunal take judicial notice of the document.
DR. FROESCHMANN: The document was submitted during the trial before the International Military Tribunal.
It was submitted by my colleague, Dr. Servatius, as an exhibit.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand that, but it hasn't as yet been brought to the attention of this Tribunal. The Tribunal would like to examine the document.
MR. HARDY: May it please your Honor, the document referred to is obviously an affidavit of the witness on the stand. If he is going into the problem of euthanasia or the issues in this case, the witness is here, he can ask the witness without bothering with this document, or asking the court to take notice of another document. He has the witness available and can question him on that point.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to examine the document. Will you submit it to the Tribunal?
DR. FROESCHMANN: The document is in the hands of the witness. I myself don't have it.
(Document in question is handed to the Tribunal.)
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any English translation of this document available?
DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, I myself don't have an English translation because I myself wasn't going to refer to the document. It was the witness who wanted to know something from it and inform the Tribunal of these parts.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the witness may use the document to refresh his recollection, answer any questions that are material to this inquiry.
BY DR. FREOSCHMANN (Continuing)
Q Witness, I repeat my question as to when and how did you learn of the euthanasia measures adopted in Germany, and I also would like to ask you to use the document in the sense which the President has just instructed you.
A Of the so-called euthanasia procedure, I heard at the beginning of 1940, when the matter had to some extent already made considerable progress, and according to my recollection there were sources of the clergy who got into touch with the Catholic Church and the Protestant Church, sources with whom I was working together.
Q So that until the beginning of 1940 you had no knowledge that Bouhler or Brack were occupying themselves in any way with euthanasia measures, is that right?
A That is correct, I had no knowledge.
Q Did you speak about this with Brack?
A I don't think that I talked about these questions in detail with the defendant, but I did speak about them in detail to Bouhler.
Q In this connection I am only interested in one single question. Did Bouhler tell you in this connection about the fact that euthanasia measures which he was carrying out, or had carried out, had been discussed by him with judicial sources in the Reich?
A That was a very focal point of Bouhler's and one of the leading problems which occupied him for a long time.
Q What did Bouhler tell you about that at the time, as to whether he considered Hitler's decree of the 1st of September 1938 to be a legal basis of legal nature?