Q When a Chief of State gathers all the powers of the State into his own hands can, in your opinion, a Chief of State that is not a government consisting, that is to say, of many persons but one single Chief of State, decide what is right and what is wrong?
A Yes. That is the same situation that exists in any absolute monarchy where the king decides unilaterally what is right and what is wrong.
Q Now there is an ethical standard that stands above all States. Should not a Chief of State take regard for this ethical world order when deciding what is right and what is wrong?
A Yes, he should, but opinion is divided about the justifiability of Euthanasia in the whole world and it cannot be said that euthanasia is repudiated by the majority of humanity; nor can it be said that it is accepted by the majority in Germany. At any rate it could be assumed that a large part of the population shared that opinion and for very concrete reasons. I should like to assume that the majority of the group believed in the justifiability of the measure and this was justification for the Chief of State passing such a law.
Q Then, so far as you can judge, from the legal point of view did you have misgivings about the directive, the entry, and the implementation of this decree and did you believe that you were not acting in anything that was illegal?
A I believed in the absolute justifiability of that decree for euthanasia and was firmly convinced of its legal justification.
Q Witness, you are not yourself a doctor but you are the son of a doctor and you have discussed the problem of euthanasia with many doctors, how did you yourself see the problem of euthanasia from the point of view of medical professional ethics?
AAs a layman and non-doctor, I really can say nothing about that. On the basis of literature and of conversations with doctors I could only form my own opinion about that matter. Regarding medical ethics I cannot testify even if there is any such thing as special medical ethics at all and if not a part of ethics as a whole.
Certainly a doctor should see as his highest goal the aid for the patient and the effort to save the patient's life. This obligation and effort on the part of the doctor must not, however, be exaggerated. These efforts and this obligation find their natural limitations where thereapy is no longer possible and when the further existence of such a patient is of no real significance.
Q You wish to assume the conception of euthanasia for incurable patients as a whole?
A I must say frankly that after I have thought about this euthanasia problem I thought of it only in connection with incurable mentally ill persons and my answers have related only to that particular field.
Q Then, I see from your answers that you see a difference euthanasia for incurable mentally ill persons and euthanasia for persons who have incurable physical illness. Now let me ask this quite generally in the case of an insane person, is not his will to live broken against his will?
A It is possible that an insane person will retains a spark or will to live but every other living being has the same. The question of the case in an insane person is whether he is living a life that is dignified or unworthy to be lived.
Q Then what do you think should be done with such a life that is not worthy of being lived?
A The incurable mentally ill person, so far as I have seen and observed such persons myself, is from the point of view of a mentally healthy person a seriously suffering and hopelessly lost creature. He is simply a wretched remainder of what was once a whole man. In the opinion of psychiatric science and in the opinion of philosophers there are differences of opinion as to whether soul and spirit have actually vanished or whether they have been only concealed by the illness. How ever, on the whole, these creatures are persons who have lost the last remnant of contact with real life.
Q What is your opinion about the relations between the physician and the mentally ill persons under his care?
A The life of the insane person has, for himself and for his relatives, lost all purpose, and consists only of pain and misery. Just as the soul belongs in the helping hands of the priest, so the body belongs in the helping hands of the physician. Only so can the sick person really be assisted. In that case, however, this means for the doctor that his duties, particularly in view of the person's spiritual state - it is his duty to free the person from his unworthy condition or, - I might even say, - from his prison.
Q In your opinion, what considerations should move the doctor to recommend euthanasia?
A The motives would have to be purely medical and could only be an act of philanthropy toward the patient. I should like to say that he makes himself the vehicle of a more exalted love of and respect for humanity. There must be no material motives.
Q If jurists grant a certain legal right for doctors to commit euthanasia, how should they treat this matter?
A If the patient is really hopelessly incurable, that cannot be decided by a judge, only by the doctor, and it is only such conditions that come into question in the question of euthanasia....
THE PRESIDENT: (Interrupting): Counsel, it seems to the Tribunal that the witness has stated his philosophical ideas at sufficient extent, unless you have one or two more definite questions along that line.
BY DR. FROESCHMANN:
Q Could not the doctor err?
AAs Dr. Pfannmueller has already said, "to err is human." For me, as a layman, the expert's and specialist's scrutiny and observation of the patient had to suffice.
Q Witness, you have heard of complaints on the part of the church, and moreover, you were reared as a Catholic. Was it known in 1939 that...
THE PRESIDENT: (Interrupting): Counsel, I think further examination along these general lines is not enlightening to the Tribunal. Have you any other questions along more direct lines to propound to the witness?
DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, I wished only to ask the witness whether, in treating this problem, he had religious misgivings and whether the religious misgivings that were expressed to him by others were taken into his consideration. That was the purpose of this question.
THE PRESIDENT: You may ask the witness that question.
BY DR. FROESCHMANN :
Q Witness, you have heard of the objections of Church. I remind you particularly of the applications by the Episcopates of Cologne, Paderborn and Munich, who insisted that the sanctity of human life must, as divine law, under all circumstances, be observed. Now, I ask you, did you concern yourself with this problem and how, very briefly, did you justify the fact that euthanasia was nevertheless carried out?
A From the religious point of view, killing is, in itself, not an evil act. It depends what the reasons for it are. Under some circumstances, the reason for the killing can make a rood act of the killing. An unjustified killing will not meet with approval in the eyes of God. Just as He gave life, He can also take it away through humans. The Fifth Commandant "Thou shalt never kill" but simply says "Thou shalt not kill". In certain specific cases, for instance, in war, in the executing of capital sentences, and lately, the killing of an unborn child to save the life of the mother, these are all cases of a special sort, and it is a question whether a killing is justified or not, depending on the specific case.
Q Did you ever discuss these questions more elaborately with Catholic theologians?
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, the Tribunal finds no profit in these further questions along this line, unless you have some more definite practical questions to propound.
BY DR. FROESCHMANN:
Q Then I shall turn to the last chapter which must be treated solely from the point of view of the prosecution. The prosecution charges you that, by participating in the euthanasia program, you committed crimes against humanity.
Now, from the point of view of humanity, what do you have to say to this charge by the prosecution?
A The word "humanity" means a heartfelt participation in the sufferings of others. Sympathy and helpful actions arise from this feeling of humaneness. Now, all of these feelings apply in the case of euthanasia.
Q You have frequently used the words "sympathy for the patient" in your testimony. Sympathy with a sick person, was this one of the points of view that moved you to participate in the euthanasia program and made you affirm the purpose from the ethical point of view?
A For me, sympathy for the sick person was the decisive consideration that decided whether or not I affirmed the principle of euthanasia.
Q Did you consider it correct and decent from the human point of view to spare sick persons long years behind walls, or did you consider it more worthy to shorten this life through a mercy death?
A I saw this not only as humanely unworthy, but as heartless, to leave these poor creatures for years and years behind walls. That is not living any longer - what they were doing in there.
Q And now the last question. You said before that the insane person is still a man who mi ht yet have a certain will to live. This will to live is broken by what the doctor undertakes in euthanasia. Now, at the time that these things were going on, did you have some notions in your mind about this will to live?
A When one saw these sick persons one could readily see that there was no will to live in them, but one had to remember that at one time these people had been healthy and had a will of their own and this, their former will, had to be the basis for the decision whether euthanasia was to be used in the case or not. No healthy person, when he sees these wretched creatures, would wish to become such a person himself, and what we want for ourselves I believe we can assume is a wish also on the part of the sick person were he as he was formerly, healthy, so that he could form a healthy judgment.
If the sick patient was in a position to recognize the situation in which he finds himself, he himself would beg to that condition shortened. However, the nature of the disease prevents him from doing that. These were all the various considerations that led me to affirm the principle of euthanasia.
Q And you drew what conclusion from these considerations?
A I decided that these people should be released from their tormented condition.
Q Now, one last question. This was your point of view which we have treated here in a somewhat abridge form. Did these thoughts move you deeply at that time?
A Yes, of course; they did because it is no trivial matter to work on a matter, even if you are ordered to, when it is a matter of life and death for persons who used to be healthy, but I have just told you why I believed that I was justified in this, morally as well as legally, and because these thoughts moved me so greatly I attempted to make these thoughts available to the public as a whole; and it was from these considerations that the film "I Accuse" was made. One of my associates, on my incentive, pursued the idea of persuading Hitler to do away with this secrecy once these matters became a matter of general discussion and to publish the contents of the law regarding euthanasia. For this purpose, with Bouhler's approval, I got in touch with a film company. I received a manuscript which, to be sure, could not be used in that form but could be revised. The film company recommended a good director Herr Liebeneinen to me and I asked him to be of assistance in drawing up the book for this film in such a way as to make it public discussion so that one could then clearly decide whether we had pursued a correct path or whether Hitler had issued a false order. The success of the film, not only in foreign countries because of its artistic quality, but also within Germany, proved to me that the majority of people are in favor of euthanasia and that only a few, due their own convictions, reject it. This film "I Accuse", as I was later told by the film company was the film that was most frequently played of all those they had produced.
The letters that reached the film company regarding this film, I asked for from the film company; more than 90% of them were enthusiastically in favor and only a few were against it.
Q Witness, one last question, did you sum up your thoughts in the final words of the film spoken by the defendant Dr. Heidt in the film, were those thoughts that he spoke yours?
A Yes. We were, unfortunately, not able to get hold of the scenario. Otherwise we could have showed it to the Court.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, I intend now to put in one last affidavit from Supplementary Document Book No. 3, Document 46, page 1. However, I greatly fear that Supplementary Volume 3 is still not in the hands of the Tribunal. I just hear that it is not yet ready.
THE PRESIDENT: The book is not yet ready, but counsel may offer the document when the book is before the Tribunal. That right will be reserved to him.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Then in this connection I offer Brack Exhibit 39; the affidavit of Liebeneiner, 28th of April 1947, signed by him on that date.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, in what document book is that exhibit to be found?
DR. FROESCHMANN: That is in Supplementary Volume Book 3 on page 1. I offer it as Brack Document 46.
MR. HOCHWALD: Counsel, that is the document book which is lacking. We do not have that document book.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Yes, I understand the President to say I might put it in now.
THE PRESIDENT: I said I reserved the right to you to put it in when the document is prepared.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Let me say briefly that this document describes the negotiations between the defendant Brack and the director at that time. When the Tribunal has this supplementary Document Book I shall return to this document and ask that the right to do so may be reserved to me.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes Counsel. And if you desire to do so you may then examine the defendant upon this document.
It is not your fault that the document is not here now and every right corrected with that will be preserved to you until this document book is ready and before the Tribunal.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Thank you.
Q Witness, one last question. You have heard the point of view expressed by the Court. Speaking in your own defense now then what do you say as to the unjustifiability of the charge of the participation in the euthanasia program; were you guilty of crimes against humanity?
A In my actions and in my attitude the definitive consideration was pity for the sick person. The patient was to be helped -
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, I am at loss to interrupt you. I don't want to curb the witness, but the witness has been over this ground again and again, and in your brief and in your final argument you will have the opportunity to go over these things, and at the close of the case the witness himself may make a statement.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, I simply wanted in conclusion to have an answer to my question from him whether he believes that the way in which euthanasia was carried out and the methods used in killing millions of human beings, whether the knowledge of these things had any effect of his attitude toward euthanasia. I simply want to know what his reaction was to that. That is my last question.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness may have three minutes to express that.
A (continued) I don't even want three minutes. I feel that the charge of inhumane activity on my part because I took part in euthanasia, I feel that this is unjustified because euthanasia in the form that I have described is something that has nothing to do with what others did in misusing euthanasia.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has some questions to propound to the witness.
BY JUDGE SEBRING:
Q Witness, when adult persons were selected for euthanasia and sent by the transport to euthanasia stations for that purpose by what methods were the mercy deaths given?
A The patients went to a euthanasia institution after the written formalities were done which I need not repeat here, namely physical examination, comparison of the files, etc. Then the patients were lead to a gas chamber and there were killed by the gas carbon monoxide (CO) by the doctor.
Q Where was that carbon monoxide obtained, by what process?
A It was in a compressed gas contained, such as compressed oxygen or atzethylen is kept in for welding a big container.
Q And these people were placed in this chamber in groups, I suppose, and then the monoxide was turned into the chambers?
A Perhaps I better describe this in some detail; Bouhler's basic requirement was that the killing should not only be painless, but also should be unnoticeable. For this reason, the photographing of the patients which was only done for scientific reasons was done before they entered the chamber, so that the patients were completely diverted, and then they were lead into the gas room which they were told was a shower room. They were then in groups of perhaps 20 or 30. They were gassed by the doctor in charge.
Q Have you ever been present when a mercy death was accorded to these people by that process?
A Yes, I had to, because Bouhler wanted a report whether things were being done according to his orders and in a dignified and not brutal fashion.
Q And you found from your inspection and witnessing these ceremonies, you saw that they were being done in accordance with Bouhler's orders, in a dignified and painless sort of way?
A Yes, but let me say I was already convinced that the method was painless, but I saw also that the method made it unnoticeable to the patient that he was about to be killed.
There were benches and chairs in the chamber. What happened after a few minutes, after the gas was let in, the patient became sleepy and tired and after a few minutes they were dead. They simply went to sleep without even knowing that they were going to sleep and that was one of the most essential requirements.
Q When was the first time that you witnessed one of these procedures?
A The first time was on the occasion of an experiment with four such patients. I think it must have been December 1939 or January 1940. I know that there was snow on the ground at the time. That is why I remember these months. Bouhler, Conti, and I don't know who else, there were a few other doctors for the first time saw this being done, and on the basis of this experiment Hitler decided that only carbon monoxide was to be used for killing the patients.
Q Well now, before or after that time had you tried any other gasses or any other means of administering Euthanasia to these people?
A No, we - and by that I mean Bouhler's organization - never used any other gas or other means.
Q You found the carbon monoxyde quite satisfactory, so you never had to resort to any other means?
A Yes, you can put it that way.
Q Now, where was it that these four people were accorded the privilege of a mercy death in December, 1939 or 1940?
A That was in the first Euthanasia station in Brandenburg.
Q And who were the subjects that were used for that experiment?
A That was four mentally incurable ill persons.
Q Do you know what institution they came from?
A No, that I don't know.
Q Were they men or women?
A Men.
Q All men. What were their ages, were they young men, middle aged men or elderly men; how would you classify them?
A I really don't remember that.
Q What can you say in regard to their nationality; do you know anything about that?
A They must have been Germans, they could not be anything but Germans, because according to regulations only German mentally ill persons were used in Euthanasia.
Q And you say Hitler was there?
A No, Hitler was not there. Bouhler was there.
Q Bouhler?
A Bouhler was there, Conti was there and I believe Brandt.
Q Karl Brandt?
A Yes, Karl Brandt.
Q Do you remember any of the other defendants who were there?
A Of the defendants here, certainly none was present excepting myself.
Q Well, then you remember that you, Bouhler, Conti and Karl Brandt were there; now do you remember any of the other gentlemen there at the time?
A Yes, I said there were some more doctors there, but none of the defendants here.
Q Dr. Pfannmueller, perhaps?
A No, Dr. Pfannmueller was certainly not there. They must have been Berlin doctors.
Q When after December of 1939 or January of 1940 was it that you again witnessed a Euthanasia procedure?
A I should say that in the course of the year of 1940 in all the Euthanasia institutions existing at that time, I personally assured myself that the Euthanasia was being correctly carried out once or twice, but I believe I recollect that the Institute Hadamar was only set up in 1941 and in that year I did not see Euthanasia being carried out, that would eliminate the Institute Hadamar.
Q The Institute at Hadamar, I think you said there were five other stations?
A Yes, there were six altogether.
Q So that during the year 1940, you assured yourself that each of the five stations on perhaps one, two or perhaps more visits that the procedure, insisted upon by Bouhler, was being carried out in a humane manner, in a painless manner by carbon monoxyde?
A Completely unnoticeable.
Q And now who were the people....let me put it this way; the first time at Brandenburg there were four people, all men?
A Yes.
Q Now, can you remember on your subsequent visits in 1940 to the other Euthanasia stations who the people were; men or women?
A Both, sometimes men and sometimes women.
Q And what can you say in regard to their nationality?
A I can only say that those were only Germans, because I am perfectly convinced that Bouhler's regulations, which rested on an order from Hitler, namely that no foreigners were to be given Euthanasia, were observed strictly by all the Euthanasia institutions.
Q Where were these stations located, witness?
A I don't understand what you mean, where they were?
Q In what part of Germany or in what part of Poland, or in what part of Czecho Slovakia, in what part of the Protectorate of BohemiaMoravia, in what part of Denmark, in what Part of Holland, in what part of France and in what part of Europe were these stations located?
A Now I understand you correctly. The first one was in Brandenburg on the Havel in the neighborhood of Berlin about 70 or 80 kilometers away. The next was the Institute Grafeneck, that was in Wurttemberg. Another institution was Sonnenstein and that is near Pirna near Dresden. There was the Institute Hartheim which was near Linz on the Danube which was in Austria. Then there was the Institute Bernburg on the Saale River near Dessau. The Institute Hadamar is in Hessen.
Q Were any of these stations located in that portion of Poland, which was occupied by the Germans in military occupation?
A No.
Q And the six stations you have just named were all the stations known to you that existed; there were just six?
A Those were the only ones, yes.
Q Witness, can you approximate the population of Germany as it existed in the year of 1939 or the year of 1940? Were there some fifty or sixty million people?
A No, roughly eighty to eighty five million.
Q Now by that when you say eighty to eighty five million, you include the entire German Reich, including Austria, the Sudetenland and the occupied territory?
AAustria and the Sudetenland but not the occupied territory.
Q And you estimate roughly there were eighty five million people?
A Yes.
Q Of that eighty five million, how many Jews would you say were living in Germany at the time who were German nationals?
A Maybe two or three million.
Q You are talking now about the Greater German Reich, including Austria and the Sudetenland?
A Yes.
Q You estimate there were between two or three million who were German nationals?
A Roughly, yes.
Q Now with two or three million German Jews amalgamated into the German population of eighty five million people, who were German nationals, explain, if you will, to the Tribunal why it was that the German Jews were excluded from the Euthanasia program, if as you say it was a salutary program according to people the privilege of a mercy death for taking them out of their misery; why was it that the German Jews were not included in that program?
A I have already said that. As Bouhler explained it, the philanthropic act of Euthanasia should be granted only to Germans.
Q I understand that, but I thought you said at that time there were between two and three million Germans in Germany, German citizens who were Jews?
A Yes, that is so.
Q Why were they not included in the program, if the privilege of the program was going to be accorded to all Germans?
A The reason possibly lies in the fact that the Government did not want to grant this philanthropic act to the Jews.
Q They wanted to grant this philanthropic act to all Aryan Germans, but did not want to grant it to German Jews and they did not want to grant this philanthropic act to German soldiers of the first war, who had received mental injuries growing out of their war wounds; is that correct?
AAs I have already said, that is a great inconsistency in this procedure and we often protested, however, considerations of a military and psychological nature determined that.
Q Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, the Tribunal has now received supplemental document book three. Counsel in the morning session, after the Tribunal propounds a few more questions to the witness, you may offer the documents in that book before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal will be in recess until 9:30 o'clock tomorrow morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned at 1535 Hours until 0930 Hours, 16 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 Nurnberg, Germany, on 16 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 the defendants are present in the court with the exception of the Defendants Gebhardt and Oberheuser, absent due to illness.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will note for the record the presence of all the defendants in court save the Defendants Gebhardt and Oberheuser. The Tribunal has certificates from the prison surgeon certifying that Defendants Gebhardt and Oberheuser are unable to attend court on account of illness. Pursuant to these certificates, these defendants will be excused from attendance before the Tribunal today, it appearing their absence will not prejudice their case.
The Secretary-General will file the medical certificates.
The Tribunal has some further questions to propound to the witness.
VIKTOR BRACK - Resumed EXAMINATION BY THE COURT (Continued) BY JUDGE SEBRING:
Q Witness, I think you said yesterday afternoon that these six euthanasia stations were located at Bernberg, Brandenburg, Hadamar, Hartheim, Grafeneck and Sonnenstein, is that correct?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q When were the gas chambers at these euthanasia stations built?
A When the institutions were set up as euthanasia institutions
Q Can you remember the approximate dates?
A No, I cannot remember the dates. I just know the years when the institutions became euthanasia institutions -- approximately. I know that Grafeneck and Brandenburg were the first institutions, the first to become euthanasia institutions. It began at the end of 1939, at the earliest, the beginning of 1940, at the latest. I might say in the early summer of 1940 Sonnenstein and Hartheim were set up. In the early summer or in the spring. And the institution at Bernberg was set up in the fall or winter of 1940. Hadamar, in the winter or spring of 1941. This is as accurate as I can give it.
Q You said the winter or spring of 1941. Do you mean the winter of 1940 or the spring of 1941? You said the winter or spring of 1941.
A If I say winter '41, I mean January '41, but it might have been March too, I don't know.
Q And you think that Hadamar was the last one that was set up?
A I am quite certain that Hadamar was the last one.
Q Now, of what materials were these gas chambers built? Were they movable gas chambers very much like the low pressure chambers that Professor Dr. Ruff talked about, or were they something that were built permanently into the camp or installation?
A No special gas chamber was built. A room suitable in the planning of the hospital was used, a room attached to the reception ward, and the room where the insane persons were taken, where they were kept. That was made into a gas chamber. It was sealed, it was given special doors and windows, and then a few meters of gas pipe were laid, some kind of pipe with holes in it. Outside of this room there was a bottle, a compressed bottle, with the necessary apparatus, necessary instruments, a pressure gauge, etc.
Q Now what department had the responsibility for constructing or building these gas chambers, what department of the party or of the government?
A No office of the party. I don't understand the question.
Q Somebody had to build these chambers. Who gave the orders and who had the responsibility of building them, was that your department?
A The orders, I assume, were given by the head of the institution but I don't know who actually gave the orders.
Q In other words, were these chambers not build according to some specifications, plans and specifications?
A I can't imagine that, every chamber was different. I saw several of them.
Q Do you know what department gave the order for having the chambers built? Was that your department under Bouhler?
A No, that was Bouhler himself.
Q And he gave the order to the various heads of institutions to install this chamber, is that correct?
A Yes.
Q Now, how would the heads of each of these institutions know how to install a gas chamber unless there were certain plans and specifications given to them?