Q If the sole object of the euthanasia practice was for the benefit of the people, of the insane people, why did they exempt the operation of the decree war veterans whose insanity was due to a war injury; did you hear anyone explain that?
A Bouhler said that. War had broken out in the meantime, and Bouhler said that for war psychological reasons, one could not include include war veterans whose insanity was due to war injuries.
Q Did he say why, if it was for the benefit of the sufferer?
A That was to their disadvantage, but for psychological reasons this step was taken.
Q What psychological reasons?
A I don't know how I should say it.
Q Try.
A The fact that in the war which had begun there would again be wounded with brain injuries and injuries which might make them insane could make the relatives, if they learned about euthanasia, worry about their own relatives who were wounded and would become insane. They would feel that they too might be subjected to euthanasia. Since these relatives did not fear the long duration and the terrible condition of insanity, since they did not know it from their own experience they would have an entirely different idea of euthanasia than the people who had been under this impression for years or for decades. This was more or less the explanation which Bouhler gave at the time, but I can only give you the general sense of it.
Q But the exemption of one suffering a war injury which caused the insanity extended to those persons who were wounded in the first war in 1914 - 1915; did it not?
A No, to all of them.
Q But it did include the wounded of the first World War of 1914, '15, '16; did it not?
A Yes.
Q They had then been suffering from insanity for many years; had they not?
A Yes.
Q But it was concluded to exempt them from this method of administering a mercy death?
A Yes.
Q Was it considered that the relatives of an insane person, whose insanity was not caused by a war wound, would welcome the idea of administering to that insane person a mercy death; would the objection be limited only to relatives of war veterans?
A I cannot judge that. I acted according to Bouhler's instructions. I never thought of the matter in that way.
Q Did you think there would be any difference in the feeling of the relatives of an insane person toward administering that person a mercy death, whether that person were insane from disease or from a war wound would there be any difference in the feeling of the relatives?
AAccording to the mentality of the time and the impression of the war which had just started. I consider it possible, but I really cannot judge.
Q The order to establish euthanasia was signed by Hitler; was it not?
A Yes, by Hitler.
Q That was considered sufficient authority to proceed and act under the decree?
A Yes, it was considered sufficient.
Q Was there any limitation whatsoever upon the authority of Hitler to sign a decree ordering anything he might happen to wish?
A I don't believe that there was any limitation on Hitler, since he was the chief of the state, but that is a legal question which I cannot answer correctly.
Q I am asking you for your opinion, witness; I understand you are not a lawyer. You know of no limitation upon his authority or power?
AAs chief of the state, it seem to me that Hitler was authorized to sign any legal order.
As I said yesterday, he started the war, he ordered the invasion of Austria.
Q You said his authority to sign a legal order; what do you mean by a legal order.
A What I just said, he could sign orders which had the force of law.
Q That any order he signed, then, did have the force of law?
A Yes.
Q Who issued the order to stop the administration of euthanasia?
A It came from him.
Q Was that a written decree?
A I received this order orally.
Q That is the order to cease the operation euthanasia?
A Yes. I received it orally.
Q Do you know whether there was a written order to suspend euthanasia?
A I don't know.
Q From whom did you receive the information or the direction to stop the administration of euthanasia?
A I don't remember; it could only have been Bouhler or Brandt.
Q When was that?
A In August of 1941.
Q Where did you receive the order?
A I was in the office in Berlin, in Voss Strasse.
Q But you don't remember from whom you received it?
A No, I really cannot remember.
Q Now, as to these questionnaires that were signed by the doctors concerning these insane patients; when the questionnaire was fully completed by the medical men, where did that questionnaire go?
A This questionnaire was sent to Tiergarten Strasse 4, but I don't know exactly whether it came directly from the institution or whether it went through the Ministry of the Interior or whether it went partly through the Ministry of the Interior and partly directly.
Q But it finally came to rest at Tiergarten Strasse 4?
A Yes.
Q Who was the head of Tiergarten Strasse 4?
A The head of Tiergarten Strasse 4 was first Bohne and later Allers.
Q Who signed the final order directing that euthanasia be administered to these insane persons?
A There was no final order signed.
Q Do you mean to say that these institutions would send people to the gas chamber without any order to do so?
A No.
Q Well, who signed the order directing them to administer euthanasia to these people?
A Bouhler authorized the individual euthanasia doctors under the prescribed safe guards and gave them the authority to administer euthanasia, that meant that they could administer euthanasia if the prescribed procedure of judgment and observation had been carried out.
Q Was there any order to that effect signed by Bouhler?
A There was the obligation enjoined on these doctors by Bouhler.
Q Do you mean to say that these people were gassed in these chambers without the authority of any written order?
A No, I don't mean to say that.
Q Well, who signed that written order?
A Hitler had signed it.
Q Well, Hitler established the process of euthanasia, but he never signed an order that Johann Schmidt would be administered euthanasia. Who signed an order that these individuals in these institutions should be sent to the gas chamber?
A There was not a single order in that form. It was the result of examinations by various systems, and the sum of these examinations and checks was what Hitler had wanted with his order.
Q Well, these questionnaires that were signed by the doctors must have gone some where for final action, did they not?
A Yes.
Q Where did they go?
A then the experts and the chief experts had finished with the questionnaires, and the patients had undergone their period of observation, then the questionnaires came, with the transfer list of the Ministry of Interior, to the euthanasia institutions.
Q That is Tiergarten Strasse 4?
A No.
Q Where?
A One of these six institutions I named. The questionnaires were sent there. I said yesterday that the last doctor, the one who actually administered euthanasia had to compare the questionnaire with the case history and personal data of the patient, which came with the patient.
Q Well, was there no central office in Berlin to which these questionnaires were sent by the doctors who had worked over them? I thought you said they went to T-4?
A They were sent there from the institutions where they were filled out in the beginning, but then came the whole procedure of judging each individual patient, and only when this process was finished.
Q But, where was that process accomplished; where were they judged?
A By the individual experts. Photostat copies were made of the questionnaires at Tiergarten Strasse 4, and then one photostat -you said Johann Schmidt, I shall use that name for an example -- the questionnaire about Johann Schmidt was sent in three copies to three different experts. Bouhler had ordered that these three experts could not include any doctors who were treating this patient.
Q I know, but when these three experts had accomplished the questionnaire and recommended that the subject be administered euthanasia, where did they go -- the questionnaires?
A They sent the questionnaires back to Tiergartenstrasse 4; from there the entries from the three questionnaires were transferred to a fourth copy -- the opinions of the three doctors. This fourth questionnaires of Johann Schmidt also contained the opinion of the three different experts, and this was sent to the chief expert. The chief expert then decided whether this Johann Schmidt was to be transferred to an observation institution or not. If he decided that Johann Schmidt was to be transferred to an observation institution, he informed the Reich Ministry of the Interior. The Reich Ministry of the Interior then ordered the transfer of Johann Schmidt from institution A to an observation institution. In this observation institution there was a doctor, not necessarily the head of the institution, who was authorized to observe these patients who had been transferred there. If his observations agreed with the opinion of the experts, then he drew up a list which he sent to Tiergartenstrasse 4, or the chief experts discussed that personally with him when they visited his institution and examined the patients. Who drew up the list of what patients were to be transferred from the observation institution to a euthanasia institution, I frankly do not know. Then, the Ministry of the Interior sent a list to the observation institution of the patients who were now to be transferred to a euthanasia institution; and then Tiergartenstrasse 4 sent the euthanasia institution the photostat on which the chief expert had entered the observation notations, so that the euthanasia doctor would have all the records on the patient, because he alone had to make the final decision.
Q You said, "he alone had to make the final decision". Who is "he"?
A The doctor in the euthanasia institution had to decide alone, whether, on the basis of the record and opinions which he had, he wanted to administer euthanasia to the patient or not.
Q Who was that doctor?
A There were several of them.
Q Who were they?
A I have given their names. As far as I can remember them: Dr. Baumhart, Dr. Hennecke, Dr. Schmalenbach, Dr. Eberle, Dr. Schumann, and from the documents I have got the name Dr. Boerneck, but I had forgotten that name. I had remembered his name as Berner or Berneck, something like that, but I think the name in the document is right, Boerneck. Also, there were a few others, but I do not remember their names.
Q Those were the men who gave the final order for the administration of euthanasia to Johann Schmidt or the other insane persons?
A No, they did not give any order, but they actually carried out euthanasia.
Q Well, pursuant to whose direction, did they carry out euthanasia, the Ministry of the Interior?
A No, on nobody's order, but on the basis of the authority given them by the Fuehrer order.
Q They simply acted upon the questionnaire and carried the results into effect from their judgment on the questionnaire?
A They acted medically on the basis of the questionnaires, and the examination and the case history. Legally they could act only on the basis of the authorization of the Fuehrer, the Fuehrer decree.
Q I understand that.
THE PRESIDENT: I have no further questions.
The Tribunal will now be in recess.
(Thereupon a recess was taken).
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats.
The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Any questions to be propounded to this witness by defense counsel?
BY DR. SERVATIUS (Defense Counsel for Defendant Karl Brandt):
Q. Witness, when did you first hear of the defendant Karl Brandt's connection with euthanasia?
A. The first time, after the order was issued by Hitler to Brandt and Bouhler.
Q. That is, after the decree of September 1939?
A. I don't know the date. I only know that it was after the order was issued. Before that I had heard nothing about Karl Brandt's being connected with euthanasia.
Q. You spoke about Bohne and Allers previously. To whom were they subordinated?
a. They were subordinated to Bouhler, as can be seen from the chart which I drew.
Q. What was Professor Nietzsche's and Professor Heyde's position in connection with Karl Brandt? Were they subordinated to him? Were they his deputies, or what was the relationship?
A. There was no relationship whasoever. Professor Heyde and Professor Nietzsche, and also, later, Professor Schneider, were the top experts working for Bouhler. I know of no relationship at all.
Q. Was Karl Brandt your superior?
A. No, Bouhler was my superior.
Q. Could Karl Brandt issue orders to you?
A. No, certainly not.
Q. Do you know of an administrative and medical department of Karl Brandt which dealt with euthanasia?
A. I know of no such department, but the interrogation officials, when interrogating me, convinced me that the administrative as well as the medical leadership at T-4 would have to be considered such departments run by Karl Brandt. However, that does not correspond with the actual situation as it prevailed at that time.
Q. Witness, was Karl Brandt to speak on the subject of euthanasia at the meeting in Munich, where the Gau offices for public health were? And did you merely represent him?
A. I don't know anything about Karl Brandt's having been intended for that purpose. I only know from Bouhler that he had been asked by Conti to speak at this meeting about Hitler's decree. I know that I then received the order from Bouhler to represent him. I had forgotten this entire affair and was reminded of it only by my interrogations.
Q. Was Karl Brandt active in drawing up the draft of the law for euthanasia, on which you worked?
A. No, Brandt didn't participate in that at all. The lawyers, physicians, and members of the Chancellery of the Fuehrer worked on it.
Q. I have no further questions to the witness.
BY DR. HOFFMANN (Defense Counsel for defendant Pokorny):
Q. Witness, you said that Himmler, in January, 1941, asked you whether there weren't physicians in Bouhler's environment who would assist him in the search for sterilization methods? Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know, witness, to what extent Himmler told these plans to his close entourage? For instance, Heydrich?
A. From the documents which are available here, I have now learned that a copy of my letter of March 1941 was sent to Heydrich in his capacity as Chief of the Security Police and SD, and I believe also to Dr. Grawitz
Q Witness, do you still remember that the Prosecution has submitted a document here, this is document No. 39, where the Deputy Gaulaiter of Niederdonau also approached Himmler with a sterilization proposal?
AAt the moment I do not recall that document.
Q In that case let me hand it to you. That is NO 39.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the number of the English Document Book?
DR. HOFFMANN: Your Honor, I don't know that. I only know the German.
MR. HOCHWALD: It' on page 16 of Document Book No. 6, Your Honor.
BY DR. HOFFMANN:
Q Witness, this letter was sent by the Deputy Gauleiter of Niederdonau; his name was Gerland. Have you any idea as to how Gerland got to know of Himmler's plans?
A I have no idea about that at all. I remember now that I found that letter when studying the documents, but I really don't know how Gerland came to make such a suggestion.
Q Weren't you in contact with Party agencies?
A Yes/
Q Is it possible therefore that this suggestion was passed on by you?
A No, certainly not.
Q Witness, was the extermination of the Jews a crime in your opinion, too?
A Yes.
Q Witness, you said that you tried to prevent the extermination by X-ray sterilization, of which Himmler told you?
Is that true?
A Yes, that is 'true.
Q Witness, you furthermore said that according to the expert opinion of the physicians regarding x-ray sterilization tion, you got knowledge that one could actually sterilize human beings by using x-rays?
A No, I didn't say that. What I said was that the method was somewhat uncertain and that I do not remember the details of this expert opinion. I do remember that it was changed.
Q At any rate, you were not quite certain, witness, that one could not sterilize human beings by using x-rays?
A I personally held the opinion that x-rays could hot bring about permanent damage.
Q Witness, but don't you believe that one could only have been allowed to of far Himmler some means by which no sterilization could have been effected, in order to justify one's interference?
A Would you please repeat the question?
Q I asked you, do you not believe that one was only justified in offering Himmler a method which under no circumstances could sterilize human beings, if one wanted to prevent sterilization?
A Yes. That was my opinion. I was of the opinion that one would have to offer him such a method, and that is why I made that proposal.
DR. HOFFMANN: I have no further questions.
DH. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, would you please tell me whether I can already examine tho witness in connection with the questions which have been put to him by the Judges and by some of tho other defense counsel, or will I have that right only after the cross-examination by the Prosecution?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the plan which has boon followed is that counsel for defendant may re-examine the witness after all tho Prosecution has been conducted. You will have the right to re-examine the witness after the Prosecution has cross-examined tho witness. I would suggest, however, Counsel:
the Tribunal now has your Supplement No. 3, Document Book 3, your supplement; and I think it would make for orderly procedure if counsel would introduce the documents in evidence now.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Yes, Your Honor. Mr. President, in the supplementation of my submission of evidence I now submit the following documents contained in my Supplement No. 3: Document 48, to be found on page 15. This is an affidavit by Dr. med. Walter Schultze. It boars the date of April 28, 1947, and it was signed by him and certified by me. I offer this document as Brack Exhibit 39. I dispense with reading this document, and I should like to ask the Tribunal to take notice of its contents. The document contains a factual description of the knowledge which Schultze has gained on the basis of his personal acquaintance with the defendant, and speaks about Brack's personality. I should not like now to read anything about the defendant's personality. I should further like to offer Document 49 on page 19. This is a certified copy from the book of Dr. Kogon, who has been heard here as a witness. The book is entitled "The SS State." I have included here only a sentence taken from page 229 of that book. I offer this document as Exhibit 40. I have the book available here. I was not in a position to got the necessary photostat copies since yesterday afternoon. I shall submit these photostat copies soon, and in the meantime I have handed a certified pyotostat copy of that book to the General Secretary. I offer that document as Exhibit 40. It confirms the fact of which the defendant Brack has already spoken, that on the occasion of Adolf Hitler's 50th birthday in the year 1939 about 2300 prisoners were released from Buchenwald alone. This is one of the so-called amensities of which the defendant Brack was speaking.
Furthermore, I offer Document 50 which is to be found on page 20 of my supplemental volume. Hero I should like to ask for some clarification on the part of the Tribunal or the Prosecution. Document 1696-PS, Exhibit 357, which was submitted by the Prosecution as a document but which does not contain that particular page which I am submitting This page, which is not contained in the Prosecution document, I have on my part submitted to the Tribunal in order to clarify the situation to the Tribunal and support my case. I ask for the decision of the Tribunal whether I should add an exhibit number to that document or whether it is sufficient to read it here.
MR. HOCHWALD: If Your Honors please, in the photostat copy which is in the hands of the Prosecution, this page is a part of the document. Of course, I can not say whether this page is also in the copy which was handed the Tribunal as an exhibit, but anyhow we agree that this is certainly part of the document, so I do not think it necessary that Defense Counsel give this page a now exhibit number. It is a part of document 1696, which is Prosecution Exhibit 357.
THE PRESIDENT: The document offered by defendant Brack should have an exhibit number, but accompanying the exhibit should be an explanation that I don't find on the document; the explanation should simply show that it is supplementary to a certain exhibit heretofore filed by the Prosecution. If counsel will prepare such an explanation and have it added to the document book it will clarify the situation, but this document will be admitted as Brack Exhibit 41.
DR. FROESCHMANN:
Mr. President, the same applies to the Document No. 51, which I shall submit next. That can be found on page 21 of my supplemental volume. This also is just one page of the Document which was already submitted by the Prosecution as PS 1696. I am submitting that page again, because the Prosecution failed to do so. I offer this Document as Exhibit Brack 42.
THE PRESIDENT: The Document will be admitted with the same explanation made in regard to Brack Exhibit 41.
DR. FROESCHMANN: I should furthermore like to offer Document No. 52, to be found on page 23 of the document book. This is a certified copy of the Ministerial Gazette of the Reich and Prussian Ministry of the Interior, 1940, Page 1437, and refers to ministerial decree on the treatment of deformed new-born children. This book has been made available to the defense from the collection of documents. I have made a certified excerpt and I shall now submit it to the General Secretary. It will receive the Exhibit No. 43. I shall at a later date also submit a photostat copy of that page, with the necessary explanation.
JUDGE SEBRING: Dr. Froeschmann...
DR. FROESCHMANN: Yes, Mr. President.
JUDGE SEBRING: In this Document No. 52 from the Ministerial Gazette of the Reich and Prussian Ministry of the Interior, Circular Decree 1 July 1940, at the very end, in the last paragraph, appears this statement:
"To the Reich Governors, all regional governments other than Prussian, the Reich Commissioner for the Saar Palatinate, the County Presidents, the Police President, Berlin, the public health offices."
Do you understand that paragraph contains the officials who are to be governed by the decree?
DR. FROESCHMANN: Your Honor, as far as I am informed, there were decrees which were published only in the Ministerial Gazette; on the other hand, there were also decrees which were published only by circularizing the decree to the individual agencies.
This particular decree, an excerpt of which I am submitting to the Tribunal here, was obviously one which was published in the Ministerial Gazette, but which refers to a preceding decree dated 18 August 1939, which was not published in the Ministerial Gazette, but which was only circulated to the individual agencies as a circular decree. For that reason this decree was in addition circulated to those agencies which had the preceding decree of 18 August 1939 in their possession. The authorities mentioned, the Reich Governors, all regional governments other than Prussians, the Reich Commissioner for the Saar Palatinate, the County Presidents, the Police President in Berlin, as well as the health offices -- and the latter were the most important -- were informed that in accordance with the Ministerial Decree, the public health officers were to be approached in the future by the Reich Committee and 'were to be informed of the institute to which the particular child was to be sent. To come back to the judge's question, the official who received the authorization to send the child away was included in this decree.
JUDGE SEBRING: At that time, 1940, what regional governments other than the Prussian government existed, according to your knowledge?
DR. FROESCHMANN: There was the Bavarian Regional Government, as far as I know, and there was the Hessian Regional Government, there were the free cities of Hamburg, Bremen, and Luebeck, I believe, but I must say, I am not informed about that very well, because I did not concern myself with these questions during the war, since I was serving with the Wehrmacht.
JUDGE SEBRING: Would this include regional governments which may have been set up in the Sudeten land or in the partitioned portion of Poland or in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, or in Austria, or in any of the other occupied countries?
DR. FROESCHMANN: Your Honor, I really cannot make any judgment about that, but I do know that the only countries in question be sides Germany proper where a regional government was set up, is Austria; however, there was no regional government in Poland or Alsace-Lorraine or anything like that.
The last document which I shall offer is document No. 46, the affidavit of Wolfgang Liebeneiner, as Exhibit No. 44. It is dated 28 April 1940, signed by him, and certified by a Notary. I shall only refer to a very few sentences from this affidavit -- it would be too long otherwise -- and I shall only emphasize the parts relevant to the case so far. I shall read the first sentence the second paragraph on page two of this affidavit. Leibeneiner was the director with whom the Defendant Brack negotiated about this film which has been mentioned. The director of the film at first agreed when Brack had not appeared yet. Then he heard that the Chancellery of the Fuehrer was involved, and had misgivings because he believed that this was a political matter, which he did not want to express in a film. He therefore says:
"In my spontaneous assent, I became dubious again when Mr. von Demandowsky -- that was the man in charge of the whole thing -- told me that the Chancellery of the Fuehrer was interested in the production of this film, as the interference of a not only hon-artistic but even political group in our work had already on several occasions caused me trouble in my profession."
Then he meets Brack and says the following, at the bottom of page 2.
"Much of my surprise, I found in Mr. Brack an entirely different man than I had feared. He was immediately prepared to discuss the scenario with me." I shall leave a bit out.
"He then enlisted the aid of medical experts, Dr. Hefelmann and Professor Nietsche." Hefelmann was not a physician but a lawyer. "A series of long discussions followed, during which the entire question was discussed." Again I omit the next few lines. I continue with the third paragraph on page 3:
"Mr. Brack was of the opinion that a law should be issued, the draft of which he showed me, which would empower a Tribunal composed of doctors and jurists and under public control to make decisions on the requests of patients."
And I read the last sentence of this paragraph: "Brack wanted those against the killings to be given the opportunity, upon request, of putting forward their arguments." And now the witness continues:
"In this connection, we also discussed the position of the Church, whose interpretation of God's will has varied throughout the centuries, and in particular, the problem of when God made known his will of letting a human being die, when the artificial prolongation of such a life represents interference with the intentions of the Almighty, and when the interference of the doctor to prolong or shorten suffering can be recognized by the Church and when not, is a frequent subject of conversation.
"Mr. Brack thought a great deal about all of these questions", etc., "and I would like to point out expressly that it was not about the supposed effect of the new law upon the Church, but rather the problem itself, which he made his own."
I shall skip the next paragraph and I continue:
"A border sphere, the inclusion in the film of which was discussed several times, naturally was the case in which an incurable patient is not in a position to request deliverance, because he is prevented from doing so by his condition, or when he makes such a request without being fully responsible, that is in the case of the insane."
I shall skip the next sentence:
"Brack was for the killing for the same reasons as in the case where death was requested, that is, out of deep pity for suffering creatures, and because of the conviction that not only the distortion of the human image in some mentally ill and some physically deformed is an unbearable torture for these persons themselves, but actually represents a destruction of the body, soul and spiritual make-up of the human being. If one of these links were missing, so he argued, God's image would be destroyed and the human, no longer a human, would therefore, no longer fall within the Human Right, but would place on the actual human the duty to deal mercifully with the suffering creature."
I skip the next paragraph again, and I quote paragraph 3 on page 5: (he is now speaking of the production of the film).
"Another scene, however, which Mr. Brack suggested, was carried out by us, that is the killing of a sick experimental animal through the application of ether by a sympathetic doctor (female).
Mr. Brack was present several times when work was going on in the studio; on one of these visits he brought Reichsleiter Bouhler along.
"In summarizing," the witness says, "I would like to point out the following: The mental attitude of the persons in the film "I accuse" while not agreeing to euthanasia, is built up on the conversations and explanations which Mr. Brack had with me, and which he gave me, and was strongly influenced by him. The ethics of the film personalities, also of Dr. Lang, are evidence for the opinion of Mr. Brack in the years 1940 and 1941. The opinions of the opponents of euthanasia, which are brought up in the film, are typical of the determinations of Mr. Brack in which he tried to clarify himself as to whether his dealings were right.
"Beyond this, the objective presentation of the 'pros' and 'cons' which Mr. Brack brought into the film, is not only expressive of his character, but is also without parallel in the history of films in the Third Reich.
"The film, 'I Accuse' could never have been created in this form, if it had been produced under the control of the Propaganda Ministry, which permitted only black and white sketches. The cooperation with Mr. Brack gave me new courage at that time to start again in the line of art, which was considered degenerated."
And the last paragraphs:
"The film 'I Accuse' was recognized by all sides, even by anti-Fascist artists, and even by the Osservatore Romano, as a work of art, and general surprise was evoked that this should suddenly be possible.
This can be credited to Mr. Brack and his refined, not vain, and impartial attitude, which was at all times human.
"I got to know Mr. Brack, during the months of my contact with him, as a sincere, intelligent, and above all, completely unselfish man, who, aside from this, was entirely polite during the discussions and conferences, and was always perfectly willing to listen to his partner, to reflect on his arguments, and to be convinced thereof.
"Even though he was, by conviction, a National Socialist, he was far removed in character and in his behavior from that which is today called Nazism and militarism, above all, from impartience, selfjustification, lies, and brutality.
"I myself was never a member of the NSDAP or any of its organizations."