A I think that it is quite out of the question that Bouhler would have furnished the personnel to Globocnik had been known that it was Globocnik who had received the order from Himmler to exterminate the Jews. I am convinced that Bouhler would have rejected any such thought, as he actually did later, and I actually did inform him of the subject of my conversation with Himmler. At that occasion Bouhler quite openly expressed his disapproval about this, and he said, "This is the beginning of the end", I had no occasion, and Bouhler had no occasion to connect Globocnik in any way with extermination of the Jews. Both of us when visiting Lublin in September 1941 had seen all of the construction work and we saw that some of the factories were already operating. We could not imagine that these people wore to be used for anything else but working in these camps.
Q Witness, let me interpolate a question. Did you at any time during the War learn that people were committed from the T-4 for the purpose of extermination of the Jews, or have you only heard that they allegedly were committed for such a purpose?
A From my new knowledge I can say nothing. I already emphasized during my pre-interrogation that I heard at the end of 1942 that these people were allegedly used for the extermination of the Jews. Whether they were actually used for such a purpose - I still don't know that. I am convinced at first that they actually were used in the manner designated by Bouhler, namely working camps. It is possible that Globocnik later had started to use them for the extermination of the Jews, after having thought perhaps that there would be no objection on the part of Bouhler.
Q Witness, as you stated earlier, you went to the front at the end of April or beginning of May-your division was stationed in the South. In the course June 1942 did you once more return to Berlin?
A Up to the time the division went into action I went a few times to Berlin because the division was only being activated and I as supply officer had often to go to Berlin. That is why on 9 June I was in Berlin because my Commanding Officer had asked to attend the funeral of Heydrich and had to fly to Berlin.
On this occasion he also took me along in the plane. At that time, I remained in Berlin for a few days in order to do some work there.
Q One moment, Mr. President, in order to confirm the testimony of the witness Brack to the effect that on 9 June and there after which will be some importance, he was in Berlin-I should like to refer to my Exhibit Brack, 11 on page 2 para 2. This is the affidavit of Karl Wolf.
THE PRESIDENT: Page 2 of what Document book?
DR. FROESCHMANN: This is my document No. 4 page 9 of Document Book No. 1 and submitted by me as Exhibit Brack No. 11. It is on page 10, Paragraph 2. It says:
"I met Brack only infrequently during the war, so for instance at the funeral of Heydrich in Berlin on 9 June 1942."
This establishes the correctness of the testimony of the witness Brack. Witness, will you please continue.
A During these days I was in Berlin I also visited Bouhler.
He told me that Globocnik had visited him a second time and had asked that more personnel be detailed from T-4. Bouhler agreed because he thought he could dispense with some more of his personnel. After getting his agreement Globocnik took him into his confidence as the conversation progressed and told him that he had been committed by the Reichsfuehrer Himmler to help carry out the extermination of the Jews. Bouhler was quite shocked about this information and he immediateli withdrew his agreement to furnish this personnel, and he also asked that personnel which had already been detailed to him should be returned. Bouhler, as he told me, maintained the point of view that it was utterly impossible to use people for the execution of Euthnasia once they had already been used for such a terrible purpose. He said that the assignment as Globocnik was carrying through had as a result the absolute degradation and brutalization of the people involved. Globocnik however, then told him that these people wouldn't be use for that purpose, but would only be used as supervisory personnel in working camps.
Bouhler then withdrew this objection to the use of the personnel.
Q And what about you witness?
A I had already given up all hope after that conversation with Himmler that the course of this fate could be stopped in any way. But I had always hoped that foreign political considerations might perhaps dissuade Hitler form carrying out all these plans. But, if that was not the case the thought arose in me whether one shouldn't once more make the attempt to dissuade Hitler from these plans for purely practical reason, which we would. that stage of the war the labor supply played a considerable part. In all countries labor was needed forced labor began to be used because our own resources were no longer sufficient. Under these considerations one could perhaps persuade Hitler that it would be more expedient to use these Jews in Labor rather than exterminate them. I told Bouhler at that time that in the case of these 8 to 10 million European Jews there must, I am sure be a great number of Jews who are capable for work. One must put it to Hitler that it was of immense importance to save this potential labor pool. Hitler's concern that Germany itself could be endangered for the future would have to be countered by telling him that the sterilization plan could be once more put into execution, because by using this plan of permanent sterilization the danger could be removed. If Hitler would entertain that thought we imagined that so much time would lapse that the War would come to an end in the meantime. This would mean really that not only these Jews capable to work but all other Jews would be spared. Even if this deception were noticed at the end, a long time would have lapsed in the mean time.
Q. Witness, if I understand you correctly, after receiving that information from Bouhler and after hearing that Globockik had been commissioned to exterminate the Jews in the East, you initiated the thought of stopping this terrible measure by trying once more to put to Himmler and Hitler the plan of a permanent sterilization of the Jews?
A I brought up that thought in the debate because Bouhler was so shocked, and was always asking, "How can we possibly help? How can we keep this madness from happening?" And then I thought of the sterilization program. We tried to find some possibility to help. It was like the straw which the man drowning tries to grasp.
Q Did the situation appear somewhat easier because of Heydrich's death in January, 1941?
A Yes, it seemed considerably easier. I always thought that it was Heydrich who played a considerable role in all these brutal measures. After Heydrich's death, I believed that Himmler had quieted down somewhat. Bouhler listened to all these proposals, but did not dare to approach Hitler personally. And he was right: He told me that after he as Reichsleiter had already been refused permission to carry out the Madagascar Plan he could not possibly, particularly in view of Bormann's attitude, suggest another such plan to Hitler; but he said that there was a possibility of trying it via Himmler. Then, of course, after having been rejected by Hitler once, he could not himself propose that plan, because if this plan was again rejected it would have been very unpleasant for him. He said that if I was going to do that, because of my good relationship to Himmler, that would be something entirely different, and then he would be able to support me, because I was his subordinate, in case any difficulties for me arose with Himmler.
Q Witness, when discussing this conversation you were speaking of the labor problem which began to be of paramount importance. Did Himmler, in any way, participate in the solution of this problem?
A Not directly. Himmler, as Globocnik told us, had already issued the order in tho fall that forests wore to be planted in tho Ukraine and that, of course, would have been a possibility of a large-scale labor committment.
Q And for that reason you believed that Himmler was the suitable person, needing so many workers, for you to give the argument to that workers were necessary?
A We had plenty of work but there weren't sufficient workers and, for that reason, we would have to put it to him that he would have to save as many workers as possible. How, of course, he could put that matter to Hitler in turn was his own affair but, at any rate, Himmler was the more powerful man, not Bouhler.
Q Now witness, Bouhler thought that he personally could not approach Hitler. Bouhler didn't seem to be particularly anxious to approach Himmler. How did it come about that you offered yourself in approaching Himmler?
A Bouhler almost put this offer into my mouth. He said "You can do it." His own relationship to Himmler was too estranged, and he said that he could support me in case any difficulties for me arose. I, at that time, already know that after Heydrich's death there couldn't be any immediate danger. In addition, I was already in the army. I really didn't think that he would notice so very quickly that this plan couldn't be carried out in practice - I thought that would take many months.
Q Now, Mr. Brack, let us turn to the most important point.
The prosecution has submitted tho Document NO-205. During the opening statement at the beginning of this trial it designated this letter as a sub-human and depraved report, and they said that this was no sterilization to exterminate people suffering from heriditary diseases, but that here sterilization was used for criminal purposes. You will have to admit that this assertion of the prosecution, can not be considered in view of this letter, to be without justification. I ask you now, in view of this enormous charge which was raised against you, to tell the Tribunal how you came to write this letter of 23 June 1942, and how you wanted to be understood. In this way, the Tribunal will be in a position to gain an objective picture of what happened and what was done.
A How I came to write this letter I already told you. It was as a result of that conversation with Bouhler. How this letter was actually submitted to me in the interrogations I can't remember. I saw only tho first two sentences, and also acknowledged my signature underneath it. At that time of the date of this letter I was already with the army and when this letter was first shown to me I thought that this letter couldn't possibly have originated from me. In the meantime, however, I recalled more of the details. Today I can only repeat that I do not believe that this letter originated from me in actual wording. I think that it had only been sent to me for my signature. I believe I can remember either that I drafted this letter roughly, or gave one of my collaborators the order to write it. No matter how that may be, this letter represents essentially the intentions Bouhler and I had. The significance of that letter is not in its beginning - is not in its introductory words. The significance of that letter is solely that mention is made of the possibility of the labor committment of the Jews.
Q I think that it is correct that I once more cite this document, with the approval of tho Tribunal, in order to enable every one to understand the question. It is the Document 205, Volume 6, English Document Book, page 39. The letter is not long and will only take a few minutes to read:
"Viktor Brack, SS-Oberfuehrer "Top Secret "Berlin, 23 June 1942 "Dear Reichsfuehrer:
"On the instructions of Reichsleiter Bouhler I placed some of my men - already some time ago - at the disposal of Brigadefuehrer Globocnik to execute his special mission. On his renewed request I now transferred additional personel. On this occasion Brigadefuehrer Globocnik stated his opinion that the whole Jew-Action should be completed as quickly as possible so that one would not get caught in tho middle of it one day if some difficulties should make a stoppage of the action necessary. You yourself, Feichsfuehrer, have already expressed your view, that work should progress quickly for reasons of camouflage alone. Both points which in principle arrive at the same result are more than justified as far as my own experience goes; nevertheless would you kindly allow me to submit the following argument:
"Among 10 Millions of Jews in Europe are, I figure, at least 2 to 3 millions of men and women, who are fit enough for work. Considering the extraordinary difficulties, the labor problem presents us with I hold the view that these 2 or 3 millions should be specially selected and preserved. This can however only be done, if at the same time they are rendered incapable to propagate. About a year ago I reported to you that agents of mine have completed the experiments necessary for this purpose.
I would like to recall those facts once more. Sterilization, as normally performed on persons with heriditary diseases, is here out of the question because it takes too long and is too expensive. Castration by x-rays however is not only relatively cheap, but can also be performed on many thousands in the shortest time. I think, that at this time, it is already irrelevant whether the people in question become aware of having been castrated after some weeks or months, once they feel the effects.
"Should you, Reichsfuehrer, decide to choose this way in the interest of the preservation of labor, then Reichsleiter Bouhler would be prepared to place all physicians and other personnel needed for this work at your disposal. Likewise he requested me to inform you, that then I would have to order the apparatus so urgently needed with the greatest speed."
Signed, Viktor Brack.
Witness, I ask you now to define your attitude toward that letter.
A I have already said that the significance of this letter is only the labor forces which are mentioned. I had nothing at all personally to do with the commitment of labor. It was a natter of complete indifference to me, and it would have been a matter of complete indifference to me whence Hitler or Himmler got their workers for their plans. If I had a proposal to Himmler mentioning the capability of the Jews to work it was only based upon my wish to stop this mass murder at the last minute and try to point out the possibility of permanent sterilization, which was already mentioned in my previous letter to Himmler. The pretext which I used was old and I knew that this method could really not work. I didn't concern myself with the manner any more, and no experiments had been carried through. The new thing in this suggestion is my reference to the maintenance of productive labor. After not having spoken to Himmler since April 1942 I had to find some point of attack, and I did get this point of attack by my reference to the conversation between Globocnik and Bouhler regarding the detailing of T-4 personnel. Himmler was hardly informed that Globocnik had taken Bouhler into his confidence about his extermination assignments. I had to explain that, and for this reason I made reference to the furnishing of personnel to Globocnik. If a special mission is mentioned as the purpose of this furnishing, I must say that under "special mission" I understood the large-scale work projects at Lublin, which I had visited. In this way I pointed out the manpower possibilities to Himmler. I had to make some reference to when and how Globocnik told Bouhler of his plans and for this reason I constructed this introductory sentence as you already read it. I would like to emphasize, however, that the words "on this occasion" in this letter are not at all synonomous with the words "in this connection". What it should mean is "in the course of this conversation", and that is exactly how I described it before.
Q Now, witness, you were saying how that you had written to Himmler reminding him that you had spoken to him before and telling him that you had already furnished these men from the T-4 to Globocnik In April of 1942, and you then thought:
Himmler couldn't possibly know how I came to know about Globocnik's order to exterminate the Jews, and I shall have to explain how this came about; and this is exactly why you made this introduction in this way?
MR. HOCHWALDT: Just a moment, please. I object against the explanation. This witness told us for quite a long time how he understood the letter, how he wrote the letter and why he wrote the letter. I do think it is unnecessary that defense counsel is just repeating what the witness just said from the stand.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for the Prosecution is correct. This is entirely superfluous. Objection is sustained.
Q Would you please continue, witness. We had stopped at the introduction of the letter. And now will you please pass to the contents of the letter itself?
A Now I have explained the connection with Globocnik. Furthermore, it says in the letter that the action was to be carried out as quickly as possible. I had to count on a very quick development of things. Therefore, I had to apparently agree with Himmler's and Globocnik's opinion in order to find an occasion for the letter.
MR. HOCHWALDT: May it please, Your Honor, I had the impression that my object was against further discussing the letter and the document as such. The defendant Brack has spoken about his letter for some time and I do think he has told the Tribunal everything about the letter. I do think that what he is referring to now is completely repetitious.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, I cannot at all agree to that opinion. The possibility must be given to the defendant Brack under all circumstances to be in a position to explain to the Tribunal exactly what he wanted to express with the letter in detail. Defendant Brack as far as I am informed, is almost through with the letter and needs only a few more sentences. I ask that the opportunity be extended to the defendant Brack to explain himself and defend himself properly on this vital point.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant may explain this letter any way he desires, but he should avoid repetition and not repeat what he has stated before. If defendant desires to make any point which he has not already made, the witness may make the explanation.
THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor. I expressed the fact that I was counting on a quick development by writing that in my opinion and from my own experience I felt that a rapid development of this procedure was more than justified. In that connection I was thinking of my experiences with euthanasia, in which I had found out that camouflage was possible. In that way I apparently agreed with Himmler as to the expediency of a quick development; but then I added that I would like him to keep something in mind; and then I said that despite the fact that his interest in a quick development was justified, he should also take into account my point of view; and this brought me to the real purpose of that letter, namely not to exterminate the Jews, but to preserve them. In order to be able to bring up my old sterilization plan, I had to remind Himmler of what he had told me in the year 1941, when he was developing his sterilization plans. That is why I furthermore adapted myself to his mentality, and his way of thinking, by saying that that could only be done if they were rendered unable to propagate. In that way, I pretended that I shared Hitler's worry that the Jews would be in a position to endanger Germany if they are not sterilized. If I say then -- and I have been asked about the significance of that sentence -- that it was immaterial whether the people in question become aware of having been sterilized or not. I did so in order to allay the suspicions Himmler must have felt as a result of my letter of March 1941, where I said that sterilization cannot be carried out without being noticed. I said that now these misgivings were not longer worthy of discussion, because knowledge of the extermination of the Jews had already penetrated into too large a circle. In the last paragraph, I once more emphasize that the labor material would have to be preserved, and I wanted to emphasize this point as strongly as possible.
I also mentioned that Reichleiter Bouhler would be able to place our physicians and other personnel needs for this work, because Himmiler might have objected that we didn't have enough physicians for the execution of that work. My last remark to the effect that we ourselves would be able to get the apparatus necessary was to give Bouhler the opportunity to delay getting the X-ray apparatus.
From the Document 208, Exhibit 166 in Document Book 6, it can be seen that the first report about the sterilization experiments had been sent on the 29th of April 1944.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, the document to which the defendant is now referring to, Document 208 can be found in the English Document Book Volume 6, page 43.
A (continued) One year and a half had passed until even a report was ready to be made. I personally don't know anything about the further development of any matter, but I can certainly conclude on this very late date that it was possible for Bouhler to delay the beginning of these experiments to a great extent.
THE PRESIDENT: Before going into discussion of this other letter, the Tribunal will be in recess.
(Thereupon a recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may proceed.
BY DR. FROESCHMANN:
Q Witness, before the recess you had concluded discussing Document No. 205 and you were dealing with Document No-206; and you had emphasized that the experiments, which were apparently performed by Dr. Schumann without your knowledge, after one and a half years came to a negative result.
A I should like to correct an error - not 206. I had referred briefly to Document No-208 which is Exhibit 166. I said that as far as I can judge now Bouhler had succeeded in delaying the beginning of the experiments by arranging that the x-ray machines were delivered late, because this time was a year and a half later. But, I myself had nothing more to do with these things from that moment on. Consequently the answer letter to Himmler, which was NO-206, did not come to my attention. Exhibit 164, on page 41 of the Document Book VI. This letter shows that Himmler accepted the slogan "workers" and now I see from this document that Himmler sent a carbon copy to Pohl. This document NO-206 also shows that Himmler wanted to perform experiments first. Thus, the delay which I had intended in case Himmler should give up his intention of exterminating the Jews had been successful, because the execution of the experiments would have been senseless if the extermination of the Jews had continued at the same time. Today I am convinced that by performing these experiments hundreds of thousands, if not more, Jews were saved. This letter also shows that Himmler in the last analysis considered me merely a middle man between himself and Bouhler because he says, "I would be grateful to Reichsleiter Bouhler if he would place physicians at my disposal." Whether my successor Blankenburg was able also to carry on delaying tactics against Hitler I do not know. Document NO-206, Exhibit 165, Document Book VI, page 42 in the English, shows that in this letter to Himmler he had agreed to establish contact with the Chief of the Main Office for Concentration Camps. That allows one to conclude that he also attempted to delay the matter, but I didn't know what assignment Bouhler had given him until these letters were submitted here during the trial.
I had no idea of their existence and later I never asked Bouhler what happened in this matter and whether he made any doctors or one doctor available. I can merely say from hearsay that Dr. Schumann was made available, but if this was done by Bouhler then Bouhler certainly urged Dr. Schumann to take as much time as possible with the experiments. Now I can refer again to Document NO-208, Exhibit 166, page 43 of the English Document Book VI. This last letter, which was submitted by Prosecution in this connection, indicates clearly that the delay which at least I intended, even if complete success was impossible, did occur, because the letter was written only one and one half years later. I don't know what Schumann's work was that is mentioned here. I don't know about it. That Blankenburg in this letter asserted that Himmler had asked me to continue Schumann's work is not true. Such a request as seems to be mentioned in this letter was never expressed to me by Himmler. Blankenburg apparently concluded from the letter - NO-206, Exhibit 164 - that Himmler was making such a request. That is, however, wrong, because in this letter Himmler says that he himself is interested in having the experiments carried out. The request to make the doctors available to him proves that Himmler himself wanted to arrange for and carry out these experiments. The letter which I just mentioned, NO-208, Exhibit 166, on page 43 in the English Document Book VI, proves finally that in practice the procedure suggested was a perfectly good method.
Q Witness, we have finished the discussion of these letters which the Prosecution submitted to prove your collaboration in the Program for the Extermination of the Jews. You have explained everything to the Court. I need not repeat. I should merely like to express my personal opinion and ask whether it is true, and whether you admit, that actually you were acting with a humane intention and from stupidity let yourself be involved in a matter which you did not understand. Is that true?
A Yes, that is true.
Q Now, Mr. Brack, the names of two doctors mentioned in these letters which were the subject of discussion at your interrogation one is Dr. Schumann, who has been mentioned repeatedly, and the other is Dr. Eberl. In the course of this trial the Prosecution has repeatedly expressed the suspicion that Schumann had some connection with the T-4. Euthanasia Program or participated in the extermination of the Jews. Can you quite briefly give the Court your personal knowledge about these matters?
A Dr. Schumann was the head of a Euthanasia Institute and in part also acted as an psychiatric expert. I say Schumann the last time in the Rescue work in the East where he was in charge of a medical post. As far as I recall, after that he left the service of the Euthanasia organization and resumed his private practice. When and where he was assigned to the sterilization experiments I do not know. But, I must assume that Bouhler did that himself with the intention, however, of delaying the sterilization experiments, since Schumann was personally known to him. I myself had nothing to do with this appointment. It was long after my time. Dr. Eberl was also know to me from T-4; of his participation in the 14F13 drive I know nothing. Of his activity in an extermination camp I heard about in 1943 once or twice through third parties. He also, when the Euthanasia program was stopped, left the organization of T-4, I believe, because I never saw him again.
Q Now, witness, I come back to the affidavit 426, Exhibit 160, English Document Book 14, page 10, and it is No. 15 that interests me at this point. I shall quote:
"Among the doctors who assisted in the Jewish extermination program, were Eberle and Schumann. Schumann performed medical experiments on prisoners in Auschwitz. It would have been impossible for these men to participate in such things without the personal knowledge and consent of Karl Brandt. The order to send those men to the East could have been given only by Himmler to Brandt, possibly through Bouhler."
But it says there very definitely that you had knowledge about this, that Schumann performed medical experiments on prisoners in Auschwitz and also that these experiments could not have taken place without the defendant Dr. Karl Brandt knowing about it. This does not agree with your testimony so far. What can you tell us about that?
A The inclusion of this paragraph in the affidavit was not done by me, but by the person who drew up the affidavit. I was told that paragraph 15, just like paragraph 12, came from me. At first, I refused to sign it but I was told that that was merely a logical conclusion from all the things that I had said before. As I have just said, I told them that I had heard from a third party that Eberle had participated in the extermination of the Jews. I did not mention the name of Dr. Schumann in connection with the extermination of the Jews because I knew nothing about it. When the affidavit was given to me, I saw in number 15 that Schumann was mentioned in this connection. I therefore demanded that the sentence be added that Schumann had not carried out "sterilization experiments", and then I changed the expression to "medical experiments". And it was the same with the matter of Brandt's knowledge. I objected to this formulation because the fact was quite unknown to me, and the interrogator said "was impossible", would be changed to "it would have been impossible", to indicate that it was merely a deduction.
Q Just a minute, witness. In the original affidavit which was given to you for your signature did it say "it was impossible for these men to participate in such things without the knowledge of Brandt"?
A I can't say that with absolute certainty, but I do believe I can remember it.
Q I'm asking you, witness, because you said "was" was changed to "would have been"?
A Yes, that's what I remember, but I can't say for certain. I did not want to sign this wrong sentence, but I was told again and again that this was only a deduction, and if this deduction, which merely reproduces your opinion is not true, it is quite possible for Brandt to correct it. I was in a condition at that time which did not allow me to realize that I was in no way obligated to accept a deduction of other people as my own deduction, and that is how it came about that I signed #15.
Q And then at the end it reads, "possibly through Bouhler". Did you put that in?
A Yes, because I did not know the relationship between Himmler and Brandt, while I knew, through the euthanasia assignment, how Bouhler and Brandt worked together.
Q Now, witness, in #16, and this brings me to the end of this affidavit, there is a sentence, "Himmler demanded that a name of a doctor be given him. Schumann, as far as I can recall, gave me and Bouhler a report on his experiments." Is that true?
A That does not really correspond to the facts. That was what the interrogator told me - that Himmler asked for a specialist doctor. I was not able to check the correctness of this statement and assumed that it was correct. The report which is mentioned in #16 was not the 1944 report, which is mentioned in Document No. 208. It refers to a vague recollection of mine of information from Schumann that he himself had some knowledge of X-ray matters and had earlier carried out experiments in it. The report which he gave in 1944 I learned about only here.
Q Then, I have finished the discussion of the charge of sterilization. Do you have anything more to say on this subject?
A I can only say that I believe that in my testimony so far I have explained that I never had any intention of exterminating the Jewish people, but attempted to achieve the contrary, to protect the Jews and save them from a terrible fate. That I attempted something that was far beyond my power, my position, my ability, I must admit is true. But since, in all my life, I have always been helpful toward and never had any hatred of Jews, I can't imagine why I should have become a champion of the extermination of the Jews.
Q Are you finished? Mr. President, I should like to make one brief remark concerning sterilization. I have endeavored to have the associates of the defendant Brack concerned with this subject found. My efforts and the efforts of the prosecution, as far as I am informed, have been unsuccessful.
For that reason, I must unfortunately depend on the testimony of the defendant Brack alone in this connection. I am convinced that if I had succeeded in finding one of the men who are mentioned, as a witness, the Court would hear a confirmation of Brack's statement. I conclude my evidence in regard to sterilization experiments and now I turn to the charge that Brack collaborated in euthanasia for as a preliminary step toward genocide. Witness, you know that on the basis of the testimony of the witness Mennecke, the prosecution attempts to bring you into connection with the superficial - almost too weak a word - examination of political prisoners, Jewish prisoners, prisoners in preventive custody, in the concentration camps. What do you have to say to this charge of the prosecution?
A True, the prosecution called euthanasia a preliminary step toward genocide. Considering the documents and the witnesses available to the prosecution, I can understand such an assumption on the part of a representative of the United States. The secrecy which surrounded Hitler's decree of the 1st of September, 1939, and the elimination of political opponents, prisoners of war, members of other nations, and finally, the murder of millions of Jews could and had to perhaps give the prosecution the impression that the government of Germany, from the beginning of the war, had the intention of making the euthanasia arrangement an instrument to be used against all real or imaginary enemies of Germany, within the framework of an ostensible euthanasia program. This assumption, however, is definitely mistaken -- that euthanasia, in the hour of its birth, had been intended as such a method, or that the thought could have even arisen that, for reasons of expediency, the whole German people were to be freed from the so-called "useless eaters" and then, in the future course of events, enemies of Germany would be exterminated under the pretext of euthanasia. When euthanasia was introduced, we welcomed it, because it was based on the ethical principle of sympathy and had humane considerations in its favor, of the same sort that the opponents of euthanasia claim for their own ideas.
I admit that there were imperfections in its execution, but that does not change the decency of the original idea, as Bouhler and Brandt and I myself understood it.
Q Witness, we know from the case so far that, in the course of time, euthanasia installations were used for this Action 14-F-13 and everything that followed. Do you consider it possible that Himmler, from your knowledge of things today, might have gotten such ideas from some words which Hitler dropped in conversation and from these ideas created the Action 14-F-13? Is it possible that men like Himmler, knowing that these sterilization experiments would be unsuccessful these experiments that we were just speaking about - that he, in applying euthanasia, with these means and methods saw a more useful tool than the useless sterilization experiments?