Q Witness, in answer to my express question you gave the name of four of your associates, I want to know very briefly, did Dr. Hevelmann, what was his attitude toward the problem, was he in favor of it, was he informed about it?
A Yes.
Q Was he very much in favor of euthanasia?
A Yes, for a purely personal reason. In his own family he had had a horrible misfortune. He had a mother who for years, I don't know how many years, was suffering from cancer and couldn't die, although she wanted to die, and ho was in favor of euthanasia because of this experience of his own.
Q And what about Vorberg?
A Vorberg was not so favorably inclined toward euthanasia, but he did fellow the order, and since he from a business point of view had something to do with the organization of this transport company, even if it was against his will, he did follow the order.
Q Well, how about Hegener?
A Hegener was very much more open minded toward this problem because he himself was connected by marriage with an important doctor who had acquainted him with the problem and he know Dr. Unger, as well as Hevelmann, who wrote the book, the manuscript of which I later used in preparing the film.
Q And the last one, Blankenburg?
AAt first he know even less than I did about the problem but later he warmed up to it, but I must say it was less for ethical reasons than for rational reasons. What the results were, the freeing of beds, for example, he was more interested than I. To me it made no difference whatever Q Now, let's go back to the meeting which Bouhler called at the beginning of August 1939.
You have already told us that as far as your remember you were at this meeting, is that right?
A It is very likely I was at tho first meeting. I can not imagine my not being there.
Q Well, what do you remember about this meeting?
AAs I said Bouhler wanted to find out tho attitude of the doctors toward the problem of the basis justification for euthanasia, which was unanimously approved by every one present. Of course, all demanded that safeguards be created. When Bouhler asked about the number of insane in Germany I remember that exactly, very different figures were given, so that we did not come to any clear idea. There were estimates between 200,000 and 600,000, but in general the number of incurable eases in the mental institutions were estimated at about thirty per-cent.
Q Witness, you have admitted that until 1939 you did not have anything to do with the problem, you did not think about it. Even more than your description this morning which gave you occasion to point out your lack of training in this line, I should like to see now how did it happen that you as a complete layman dealt with this matter. Did you try to clarify in your own mind this problem of euthanasia as an aid to die?
A First I would like to correct something. I didn't deal with the problem. I was given an order to deal with it. That, of course, I informed myself as thoroughly as I could as a layman. That was a matter of course. Immediately after tho Reichsleiter told me he had received this order I visited some of the big mental institutions in Berlin and in the neighborhood of Berlin to find out what these people looked like who are to be relieved from suffering.
I think the first one I visited was Buch, which has over 3,000 beds, and I visited Goerden, and I visited two or three other institutions in and near Berlin, and what I saw there was terrible. Even I who an only a layman, find it difficult to describe it, but I can remember some of the terrible cases clearly, because as the first ones which I had ever seen in my life, they made a lasting impression. In the institution Buch I saw a woman who was thirty-eight to forty years old, approximately, who was wearing a heavy, tough shirt, and sitting in a kind of a cage on wooden shavings. She bared her teeth at people when they came near her and she was absolutely incapable of any contact. She took her food like an animal. She did indecent things with her excrement. She was constantly obscene, she was incapable of speaking, and as the nurse told me she had been in that condition for eighteen or nineteen years.
A. (continued) In the same institution I saw a child. It was a girl of three or four years of ago. It was simply a torso. It had no arms, no legs, a big head, albino, red inflamed eyes. And, at that age it was not able to speak a single word yet. It was a terrible sight -- simply a body with a head an no possibility that a human being could develop from this creature. And, then Dr. Heinz in Goerden showed me a case, formerly a highly talented engineer who had built some big bridges abroad. This man had paralysis and the malaria cure was used too late. He had come to the clinic too late. He was quite stupid but on the other hand still aggressive. He had delusions of grandeur. He called silly scribblings blue prints. It was terrible to see these people. In Wuerttemberg/Baden I had the opportunity to visit other institutions. I saw at least ten or twelve institutions of various kinds and saw all kinds f cases but I can't describe all of them. That would be quite impossible.
Q. I think you made a mistake before when you said you saw a psychiatrist in the institution. You meant a paralytic.
A. Yes, paralytic.
Q. Now, Mr. Brack, you have described your own impressions when you visited these institutions. Did you observe various methods of treating the insane?
A. Yes I saw the curing field and the oaring field. I saw all the modern methods including therapy, electric shock, insulin, malaria antidote, etc. Then I saw the occupational therapy -- not only in the curing field but also in the caring field so that patients could be kept quiet under the necessity for working.
Q. What impression did you get of this method of occupational therapy?
A. I can say nothing about it as a layman but what was done with the incurable cases was impressive. It was destroying the dignity of human creatures, making them robots -- it was not worthy of human beings.
DR. HOCHWALD: If your Honors please, I do think this line of questioning is already exhausted. The witness has given all his reasons why he pitied those people and so on. I do not think it is material.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, I am finished with this subject but I thought it necessary for the witness to tell us what he thought.
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed to some ether question of the case.
Q. Mr. Brack, through personal observation you convinced yourself of the conditions of these patients but there was still the big question -- can I give my aid to a project which shortens the life of those patients? What did you do?
A. I read the literature in this field. First I read the standard Work of Hinding-Hoche. I didn't like it very much. I read Melzer. I also read Walther. I read Barth. I also read literary works like Thomas Morus and Unger, etc. All these things -- the total effect of all the literature as well as the personal impressions which I had in the mental institutions -- as well as what I learned in talks with old psychiatrists brought me to tho idea that it was not anything bad but that it was good to help in this tasks if there was an order.
Q. Did you discuss those questions with your associates Hevelmann and Blankenburg, etc?
A. Yes, of course. We discussed the problem and details of the problem at great length.
Q. Mr. President, in this connection I should like to refer to by Brack Exhibit 27. That is Document 7 in Document Book 1, page 15, tho affidavit of Irmgard Grube, who was for many years secretary in the Chancellery of the Fuehrer and in this connection I should like to read from 2 b), only the first two sentences, and then from 4 I should like to read a little part. No. 2 b says: "Brack's most obvious characteristic was his unconditional readiness to help. Brack never refused to help anybody who asked for his assistance in an emergency. This readiness to help grew out of an absolutely decent and humane feeling. Brack tried to comprehend other people's feelings and to under stand them" And then I should like to have you consider figure 4 in this connection where the witness mentions everything that tho defendant has just described in detail.
She says that shortly before the outbreak of the War the decree was issued by Hitler. That this order was the subject of many discussions in office II and she says: "I was present sometimes during such discussions between Brack, Hefelmann, Blankenburg and Hegener to take down shorthand notes. I concluded from these discussions and explanations of these men that the discussions on this subject were taken very seriously by all concerned, they continued until late at night. All the aforementioned were convinced that this was a problem of the highest ethical importance. Reasons of expediency were entirely ruled out. I never heard Brack use the words "useless eaters", I can really not remember ever to have heard this word. Arguments and counter arguments were discussed in detail. The decisive factor was always Brack's frequently expressed views that these people were merely vegetating and their existence was of no value. Professor Nietzsche possessed an extensive library, which was concerned with the problem of euthanasia. Brack discussed in detail a number of these books with Mietzsche and studied some of them. Tho question was raised whether publications had been made concerning the progress of euthanasia in foreign countries."
I ask the court to take notice of tho rest of this number 4.
Now, witness we have already heard from the witness Hederich and you have confirmed it that the issuance of the euthanasia assignment to Bouhler had nothing to do with the Chancellery of the Fuehrer. What were the conclusions for Bouhler there and you?
A. Some machine had to be created to carry out euthanasia. All institutions had to he registered. The patients had to be registered so that an opinion could be formed on them. Individual institutions had to be found where euthanasia could be carried out in practice, etc. In view of the great number of incurable cases of insanity a great burden on the personnel had to be expected in the beginning. That could never be handled by the few people I had working at the Chancellery of the Fuehrer.
Personnel had to be found for this purpose and an office had to be found. Bouhler did this. He got rooms in the Columbus House on Potsdamer Platz and later in Tiergartenstrasse. He rented the rooms. This office was called T-4 from the number Tiergartenstrasse 4. That is where this expression comes from. This was equal in rank to KDF under Bouhler. In my improved chart I have what I forgot in tho first chart. -- This Party Control Commission. The three offices under Bouhler are equal in rank. With the exception of myself and the associates whom I have already mentioned all the personnel at this Tiergartenstrasse 4 were working voluntarily and on their own decision. Only we four were working on orders. All others were working voluntarily on their own decision. Only we four were working on orders.
All others were working on their own decision.
Q. Mr. President, in this connection I should like to refer to NO470, Exhibit 332, English Document Book 14, page 17, German Document Book 14 - 1, page 15. This is the affidavit of Kneissler which the Prosecution has submitted and I shall read merely one sentence. Under No. 3 "In 1939 I was summoned by the Chief of Police to report on 4 January 1940 to the Ministry of the Interior, situated in the Kolumbus building; there a man called Blankenburg talked to our group which consisted of 22 or 23 persons."
Now the witness continues: "It was completely voluntary for those persons at the meeting to assure their cooperation."
A. The personnel were paid according to the regular rates. The funds were advanced by the NSDAP Treasurer for the Ministry of the Interior. The administration of this office was first put under Bohne and, after he left, Allers. The medical direction was first under Professor Heide, later Professor Nietzsche.
Q. One question in this connection. Did the defendant Karl Brandt have anything to do with T-4?
A. I believe that during my first interrogation I expressed myself wrongly and what my affidavit says is misleading. Karl Brandt was connected with euthanasia - he was Hitler's deputy - but he had nothing to do with T-4. He did not have any office at T-4, as I said during the interrogations, and, as far as I know, he was never at T-4. I do not believe that Brandt would have come to T-4 without first saying to me or one of my assistants, "Please go with me. I should like to look at it."
Q. Now, witness, in the meantime the committee of experts which Dr. Pfannmueller mentioned - did it deal with the medical questions which came up?
A. I don't know whether Dr. Pfannmueller's words are quite clear here. I spoke at one meeting with Bouhler but there were several at which the first problems were solved and when Bouhler gave the decisions. At these sessions Brandt was perhaps a time or two. I don't think he was present at more than one or two meetings. But there were certainly four or five such meetings with Bouhler where Dr. Linden was called upon at the end each time by Bouhler because he was a medico-political expert - because he could give very good advice, and only then, after Bouhler had determined a certain group, including Heide, Neitzsche, and Dikrinis, were the split up groups of experts formed, and Pfannmueller doubtless participated in one of these conferences of experts because he was one such expert and he mentioned this meeting. At these expert meetings the directives were discussed and set down, first in general and later corrected. The directives for forming the judgment on the cases.
I personally often attended, these meetings of the experts. Of course, I could say nothing to the point but I was there and I heard what the experts were talking about.
Q. Now, at these meetings did the idea come up of sending the questionnaires to the mental institutions?
A. As far as I remember, that was settled earlier in the discussions with Bouhler and then I believe Linden and Heide appointed a committee to draw up this Questionnaire and they drafted the Questionnaire.
Q. Do you remember how the decision about the questionnaires, when they had been filled out, was to be reached?
A. Yes, that agrees with what I said in my affidavit. The questionnaire had to be judged by three experts. I said four before but there were really only three, and Dr. Pfannmueller was one of the experts. If three experts independently came to the same result - that is, that in this case mercy death could be accorded - then everything was transferred to a fourth photostat and came to the chief expert who received only such photostats to decide on. If his opinion agreed with the opinions of the other three, then the patients were transferred upon orders from the Ministry of the Interior.
Q. And where were they transferred? Where were the patients transferred to?
A. Patients were subsequently transferred to an observation institution. The creation of these observation institutions, however - by way of correction of my previous testimony - was not in 1939 but the beginning of 1940. These institutions were arranged at the suggestion of Professor Neide. In these observation institutions the patients were kept under observation for a period which depended on the nature of the case. If the result of the observation agreed with the judgment formed on the basis of the Questionnaires, then they were sent to an euthanasia institution and the doctor in the euthanasia institution made the final decision whether he wanted to submit the patient to euthanasia or not. In any case, he had an absolutely unlimited veto right in every case, just like every expert and chief expert in each case could put his plus, minus, or question mark on the form.
Q. Witness, we need not deal with the names of the experts, chief experts, or the names of the institutions because I can assume that the prosecution will come back to this matter and I shall not discuss who selected the doctors in the observation and euthanasia institutions, but I will go on to another question. That is, whether you know that, in the execution of the assignment of Hitler given to the defendant Brandt and Bouhler, the euthanasia doctors were given authorization to administer euthanasia after checking every thing that had been done by the experts and chief experts.
A. Yes, that was done. The euthanasia doctors were given, by Bouhler and Brandt, the necessary authorization which had been required by the Fuehrer.
Q. Do you know whether a list of these doctors was kept at T-4?.
A. I have already been asked about that and I can only say I do not know, but I hardly assume so since the group of authorized doctors was so very small. There were only twelve to fifteen of them. I have been told that there must have been over three hundred fifty. I could not know that, but I did not know more than twelve or fifteen.
Q. Very well, witness, Then we have discussed the general preparatory measures for euthanasia. Briefly, at the end of this session today I should like to go into the question in regard to this whole matter had secrecy been ordered end what effects did that have?
A. In regard to euthanasia as a whole, strict secrecy had been ordered. It had to be dealt with as top secret and the regulations, which were more stringent during the war, were that euthanasia has to be relegated to top secret. To my knowledge and my consent, no death threats were expressed, but this formulation, of course, is contained in the regulations that in case of violation of this duty of secrecy for things which are top secret the death penalty may be pronounced, but those are the general rules which were known to everyone anyhow. Besides, Bouhler forced me to accept a pseudonym which was very embarrassing to me and seemed ridiculous.
I only did so for a certain time and without making a big fuss about it I dropped it again and two of my assistants did the same thing.
Q. Now, this pseudonym was only in connection with signing documents in connection with T-4?
A. Only in connection with T-4, yes.
Q. And then, my final question on this subject. At this same time or later this secrecy led to giving special names to certain organizations, is that true?
A. Yes, secrecy was the reason why the whole organization was divided into various sub-organizations.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, I have finished this subject of secrecy and now I come to the question of the legal basis of euthanasia. That will take some time. Perhaps this would be a good time to adjourn.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now be in recess until 9:30 o'clock tomorrow morning.
(A recess was taken until 0930 hours, 15 May 1947.)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nuernberg, Germany, on 15 May 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom 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 the defendants are present with the exception of the defendants Gebhardt and Oberheuser, absent due to illness.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary General will note the presence of all the defendants in court save the defendants Gebhardt and Oberheuser, who are absent on account of illness, pursuant to certificates by the prison surgeon which will be filed with the Secretary General. These defendants will be excused pursuant to the physician's certificate, it appearing that their absence will not prejudice their case.
Counsel may proceed.
DR. FROESCHMANN (Counsel for Viktor Brack): Mr. President, it has been called to my attention that in my German Document Book 2 mistakes have been included in the mimeographing. I should like to correct them. These are in the German Document 31, Document Book 2, an extract from German Justice on page 14, paragraph 2, "Fourteen well-known church leaders had openly expressed their opinion that the bills were not in contrast to the doctrines of Christ." During mimeographing the word "not" was omitted, making the sentence read exactly the opposite of the intended meaning.
The other mistake is in Document 39 in Document Book 2. It is the affidavit of Gertrude Kallmeyer. Here it states in the original on page 62, "The Chancellory of the Fuehrer was in no contact with the Inspectorate of Concentration Camps. The Chancellory of the Fuehrer had nothing to do with it but many requests for release of concentration camp inmates were received."
This "release" (Entlassung) was changed to the word "Entlausung" which means "delousing". This, of course, gives an entirely different meaning to the word. They did not ask for delousing. These mistakes, however, are only in the German document book. Everything is correctly translated in the English.
THE PRESIDENT: I would suggest that counsel file with the Secretary General a written memorandum calling attention to these mistakes so that the Secretary General in his office may correct the original German documents on file in his office.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Yes, Your Honor.
VIKTOR BRACK - Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR. FROESCHMANN:
Q. Witness, first of all I should like to remind you that you are still under oath. Secondly, I should like to tell you that I want to finish your direct examination today, therefore, would you please make your answers as brief as possible.
A. Very well.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, I stated yesterday that I was finished with the pertinent general questions of secrecy. Last night, on looking over my record, I discovered that I still have four minor questions on this subject to put to the witness with your approval.
BY DR. FROESCHMANN:
Q. The first question, witness, did you wonder about Bouhler's announcement that the decree was strictly secret?
A. No, I did not. From my work I was accustomed to the fact that certain things had to be kept secret, and only a certain group of people were informed of them.
Q. The second question, do you know the reasons why Hitler ordered secrecy?
A. No, I did not.
Q. The third question, what was the immediate consequence of this secrecy which was ordered?
A. This resulted in the camouflage of everything connected with euthanasia, simultaneously the camouflage of the central direction and the various organizations who were executing euthanasia.
Q. What are you thinking of; what do you mean?
A. The people working with euthanasia had to come in contact with the outside world, for example, with the institutions. They had to acquire equipment, they had to be in contact with various governmental agencies, there were legal obligations, and so forth. Someone had to hear the responsibilities for these things. The individual expert was out of the question, and it couldn't be the Chancellory of the Fuehrer either, so special organizations had to be created which in my interrogations I designated as camouflage organizations.
Q. I can recapitulate briefly from the examination so far that three such organizations were created, first, the Public Foundation for Institutional Care, which was the economic Dart of the organization?
A. Yes.
Q. Then, second, the Reich Working Union for mental Institutions. What was the purpose of this organization?
A. It did the scientific work and was in contact with the mental institutions and the medical experts.
Q. And third, the Public Patient Transport Company. What was the purpose of it?
A. This organization was in charge only of the transfer of the patients.
Q. Now, briefly what was the legal form of the two organizations, the two first mentioned, organizations?
A. I can't remember clearly. It was an entity and a public law. The Transport Company was a GMBH. All three organizations were able to appear in public.
Q. Then, I have finished the subject of secrecy. Mr. President, I now cono to the chatter of preparatory measures for euthanasia and I shall discuss the legal basis of euthanasia, Hr. President, I have taken the liberty to submit as an example -- but not in order to read it into the record, merely for the legal information of the tribunal - the opinion of a well known German university professor, professor Dr. Karl Engisch in Heidelberg, as Document No. 34 in my Document Book II. Just as the Prosecution did with its various opinions and extracts from public law I intend to use this document merely as tiro basis for my final plea.
DR. HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, the exhibits offered by the Prosecution in this respect were official German commentaries and judgments of German Courts and such commentaries were all before the time of 1945. We wanted to put in these commentaries in order to show that Euthanasia was illegal in Germany even before that time. German judgments and judgments from German Courts and all these exhibits' were objected by the Tribunal and the objection of by Dr. Froeschmann against these exhibits was sustained. Therefore I object against the admission of this legal opinion which was made at Koch for this trial and wants to solve the problem which is entirely the task of the Tribunal, It is a legal opinion. It is not a statement of facts - what Dr. Froeschaman is offering.
MR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, Professor Karl Engisch in Heidelberg is a declared opponent of Euthanasia. I went to an opponent in the true aim of getting quite an objective opinion. I do not intend to use this opinion any way in this point. I intend to use it merely as means of orientation for the tribunal as to the point of view of a German legal expert who, as I said is an opponent of these ideas and I will also use it as a basis for my final plea.
I believe if I offer it only in evidence and give it an exhibit number it will be quite sufficient. I shall not mention it later, with one word.
DR. HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, Dr. Froeschmann told us himself that he is not using this legal opinion in evidence so I don't know why he is offering it.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for defense may in his argument cite any law that he desires and make any legal argument that appear to him to be sound. The weight of that argument will be for the Tribunal to determine. Jut such a document as I now offered as an exhibit clearly should not be admitted, as an exhibit in the case. Counsel will have the benefit of that in any other legal opinions or statements or judgments that he desires to use in his argument.
The objection of Prosecution to admission of this document is sustained.
Q Witness, did you consider Hitler's assignment a legally valid and public law?
A. Yes. I myself and my associates, as well as all other persons who came into contact with Hitler, considered this decree a valid legal basis for the execution of Euthanasia.
Q In your opinion did Hitler have the right to issue such a decree with binding legal force?
A In my opinion, yes, because the head of the state who marches into Austria without consulting anyone or who reaches an agreement with Statesmen of other countries or who begins of war without consulting anyone, who even before that had settled various things by cocrco, no doubt had the right in this Case to is ue a decree which would form he legal basis.
Q And to whom?
A To all Germans.
Q Did you see Hitler's handwriting from Bouhler or Brandt?
A Yes, Bouhler showed me Hitler's original handwriting and I had a photostatic copy of it in my own safe.
Q Then was that At the end of 1939 at the earliest, possibly only early in 1940 -not the date of issue.
Q In the external form of the document by Hitler did you see anything objectionable?
A No. I saw nothing objectionable. I was not able to judge whether any prescribed form might have been violated here. I would have liked to see anyone object to a document signed by Adolf Hitler no matter what the external form of it was.
Q Witness, you have stated that you considered the decree a completely valid legal statement of Hitler with the force of law?
A Yes.
Q But in repeated discussions you have told me that you were working on the draft of law. How does this agree with what you have just said?
A Such an idea would not have occured to me but the doctors and lawyers who were concerned in the matter held, the the point of view that law had to be passed.
Q How did these doctors and lawyers explain this opinion?
A They said that Hitler's secrecy order is known to only a limited number of persons. Euthanasia, however is not a matter which can be left to the individual or the government but effects everyone In the long run it cannot be kept secret from the public. Primarily people want to know what conditions are required for Buthanasia and whjt safeguards have been introduced so that there will be no issue of it. That, of course, if possible only if a law is proclaimed with definite provisions but that does not mean that the decree itself does not appear perfectly binding.
Q Did you agree with this opinion?
A I was not able to judge. I carried out Bouhler's assignment and I worked on the drafting of a law.
Since I didn't understand these matters myself I asked lawyers and doctors to suggest various opinions of the law.
Q And, briefly what did this law contain?
A Basically it contained all provisions which are necessary for the execution of euthanasia and practice, a very cumbersome processof judging tha patients, all kinds of legal precautions which would prohibit any misuse of euthanasia from a legal or medical point of view. I remember the title now-law for granting medical aid to the incurably sick persons.
Q Was this law to put an end to all the secrecy?
A Yes, of course. That was something that we all rejected. In my institution I have already said what I personally said at the time about the secrecy. Something that I consider right I don't have to keep a secret.
Q Now I should like to interpolate a question. This draft took some time to work out didn't it?
A Yes. I was revised several times. The first draft was finished rather quickly but it was improved again and again. I assume there were ton if not more revisions.
Q Why was this law not passed?
A I don't know. I know that Bouhler brought it to hitler's attention repeatedly, hitler refused-he approved of the contents, out said that he didn't want it made public before the end of the war.
Q Did you learn Hitler's reason for this opinion?
A No.
Q Did Bouhler and Brandt repeatedly ask Hitler to have this law passed?
A Yes, I know of that the Case of both of them. I know, as I just said, that Bouhler submitted this draft to Hitler personally and beyond that I learned from Bouhler, as well as Brandt, that they had repeatedly asked the Fuehrer to make public the law which he already know about.
Q Is a copy of this draft available?
A I don't know. I've given you all the addresses where it might be. It was sent to various state agencies and also to other people; to church authorities, for example, because the opinion of the church was very important, but, unfortunately, no copy of this draft has been found. I have also tried to reconstruct it, but that would be too long to give all those details here.
Q Did you doubt the validity of the law because of the element of secrecy?
A No, I said before that, in many cases, the Fuehrer issued secret decrees and this did not affect the validity in any way. For example, the creation of the Ministerial Council for the Defense of the Reich. That was a secret decree with the absolute force of law.
Q Now, the decree docs not speak of incurably insane, but incurably sick. That means that tuberculosis patients, cancer patients, etc., could also be subjected to euthanasia if the prerequisites required in the law were given.
A Yes, that is true, but I said before I saw the decree itself for the first time perhaps in 1939, more likely in 1940 - Bouhler showed it to me. In his instructions to me, Bouhler only spoke of the incurably insane. I never received any instruction about incurably sick persons being included in euthanasia; only incurably insane. Only cases where the mental condition had led to a complete destruction of personality and the life expectation - physical life of the insane is not of nay importance in that connection.
Q According to the defendant Karl Brandt, the decree was dated back to the 1st of September 1939. Do you know why this particular date was chosen?
A No, I do not know that. Bouhler didn't tell me.
Q Witness, to conclude this subject I should like you to discuss Document No. 253, Exhibit 331 the chart which the prosecution has submitted, and your new chart of the organization of euthanasia.
Mr. President, I have submitted this as Exhibit 35 yesterday.
Witness will you please answer the following questions briefly:
Did you draw tho prosecution's chart yourself?
A No, I did not draw that myself. It was done by someone else.
Q Did you make a sketch for it?
A I tried to make a sketch, but it did not succeed.
Q. And what objections do you still have today to this chart insofar as you have not already mentioned them?
A First of all, the organization. Bohne and Allers office and Heydo and the transport company are directly under Brandt. Also the experts and chief experts. That is not correct. This whole organization - this whole machine was not under Karl Brandt. This can be seen from my corrected chart, what the actual subordination was. Then, neither I myself nor my associates had any supervisory relationship to the experts or the other agencies of T-4 and there was no right on our part to give instructions. The instructions came from Bouhler. Then, in this prosecution chart, tho B and E institutions - the observation and euthanasia institutions were presented as being directly under the euthanasia authorities. That is not true. They were still under the Reich Ministry of Interior, as always.
Q Witness, from the chart of tho prosecution I see that the observation and euthanasia institutions were not, as you say under the organization in general, but were directly under the experts and then indirectly under T-4. Am I not right?