A. I do not know who issued such orders. I think I can remember that such orders were issued. I think that Bormann was the most likely to give the order to destroy all the files and what not, hut I really can't tell you that exactly.
Q. Did you pass down an order of this kind?
A. I really don't know when I should have done that.
Q. I do think in connection with the Hartheim euthanasia station -- am I correct in assuming that you said that Hartheim was a euthanasia station?
A. Yes, Hartheim was a euthanasia station.
Q. Do you remember having passed down an order that Hartheim should be destroyed?
A. No, I don't remember that.
Q. I want to nut to you Document NO-2429, which will be Prosecution Exhibit 498 for identification. This is an affidavit of a certain Claussen. He states:
"That from the end of 1943 until March 1945 I was a. prisoner on duty in the Arbeitseinsatz in Mauthausen where the administrative work was accomplished for Mauthausen and sub-camps; that in this office I did clerical work, such as making reports, keeping records, and corresponding with firms who used prisoners in the operation of their business; that in the course of my duties I saw a secret teletype message which to the best of my memory was as follows:
" 'TO THE CONCENTRATION CAMPS MAUTHAUSEN SS STANDARTENFUEHRER ZIEREIS, HARTHEIM MUST BE DESTROYED IMMEDIATELY EXECUTION MUST BE REPORTED BY ORDER OF THE FUEHRER.
OBERFUEHRER BRACK' " Do you remember the teletype now?
A. No.
Q. Do you maintain that you never sent such a teletype?
A. I never sent such a teletype.
Q. I want to speak briefly now with you about the euthanasia of children, the Reich Committee for Research on severe hereditary diseases. You testified here that you had nothing whatever to do with that, is that correct?
A. I may correct myself. I said that I was not in charge. I had something to do with it and I talked about that at great length, during my examination. Please don't misunderstand me. I don't want you to understand I had nothing to do with it.
Q. What was your activity in this?
A. I had to submit to Reichsleiter Bouhler those individual files which had been completed by Linden's office regarding individual expertised cases which had to be decided. In a few cases I dealt with that personally and in other cases associates of mine did that work. In the sane way I submitted these files once or twice to Brandt personally. Normally they were sent to him because he wasn't present.
Q. Did I understand you correctly that you testified here that in the case of euthanasia of children the previous consent of the parents and relatives was required?
A. Yes. I always maintained that. I said that in euthanasia of children, contrary to the euthanasia of the insane, the consent of the parents was already obtained.
Q. The consent for what, the consent for the giving of mercy death, or the consent to the transfer in the institution of the Reich, committee?
A. No, the consent that all possible methods of treatment be used on this child , even in view of the danger that the child may die in that connection.
Q. In other words, their parents had to give their consent that Euthanasia would be administered to tho child; is that what you want to say.
A. As far as I am informed, this was not always done in this particular form. A number of parents ma e direct applications, they said we ask that this child be relieved.
Q. Just moment, I understand that, but I do want to know what happened in the case where the parent did not ask for a mercy death of the child; were they informed they had to give their consent that the child may be administered a mercy death?
A. It was put to them that they give their consent for a mercy death being granted to the child and once they had given that consent the child was transferred to a Reichs Committee Institute by the treating physician.
Q. This Euthanasia of children was top secret; was it not?
A. I no longer know that, I don't believe it.
Q. Was it official in Germany and. everybody could know about it and was informed about it; do you remember tho witness Pfannmueller testifying here he never informed the parents a sit was a top secret matter.
A. The execution of Euthanasia itself was certainly carried out in secret, but certainly I an not informed about that in detail.
Q. The treatment of children, I am only speaking about children.
A. I an only speaking about children, yes.
Q. How could it be possible if it was very secret that every official doctor in Germany, who had to report these cases, could give tho children's address and he was not supposed to know about it.
A. I beg your pardon, every person who had to deal with the secret matter was of course informed to it, that always includes tho respective treating physician or the head of the clinic.
Q. Then approximately in 1940 50% of the German doctors know; is that right?
A. That I cannot judge, I cannot say how many there were.
Q. I will read now from your document book, Supplement 3, document 52, Brack exhibit 43 on page 23 of Supplement 3. Your Honors, the last sentence:
"It is the business of the medical officers to inform the parents of the child in question, of the treatment available in the actual institute or department chosen and to induce them to send in their child more promptly. Here the parents should be told, that in the case of individual diseases, there is a possibility of achieving certain success with treatment even in cases which hitherto had to be regarded as hopeless."
I have received the impression from what I am reading hero from your own document that the official doctors really had the task to ask the parents to give their consent to a mercy death of the child.
A. I cannot tell you anymore than I have already said, even during my interrogations, namely that that order had boon given that the consent of the parents had to be obtained , even if in one or the other case that would have to be done in a somewhat camouflaged form. In principle, the parents were to be informed that it would be better if the child wore put to sleep.
Q. So, I would like to read from page 21 of your Document book. This is your document 51, your exhibit 42, on page 21 of Supplement 2:
"By virtue of the arrangements made by the Reich Committee, the best care will be taken of the child here and everything possible in the way of modern therapy will be carried out."
Can. you read out of this sentence that the parents were informed that the children should be administered a mercy death?
A. I certainly cannot deduce that from this sentence, but you must in that. connection have the basic decree dated 18 August 1939 and in addition the discussions and the conversations with their parents had with the doctors that were treating the child.
Q. In the document which I have just road, it is exactly stated what the doctor is supposed to tell the parents. All right, let us go on, You remember that Dr. Pfannmueller testified here about the treatment of Euthanasia of a child was initiated, he invited the parents and relatives to visit the child; do you remember that?
A. Yes, Dr. Pfannmueller said that.
Q. None of the parents or relatives ever told that they themselves gave their consent to give the child the privilege of a mercy death; otherwise he would not have stated hero that it was a top secret matter and he would never have spoken to the parents about it.
A. Well, there is nothing I can say about that, I really don't know.
Q. I would like to put to you again document No. 823, this is persecution exhibit 358, it is in document book 14, part 2, page 219. Your Honor, this is a * Document which we have been speaking about at groat length yesterday afternoon. You spoke yesterday about it.
A. I have not received the Document.
Q. You testified yesterday about this document in groat length and told us why questionnaires were filled out about people who were not of German nationality or not of German or German related blood and for this simple reason these people were not administered a mercy death; is that right?
A. Yes, that is true.
Q. The Jews could not get these privileges because they were not considered Germans and also to foreigners the authorization of the Fuehrer did not apply; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Will you give me now your information why under number three, questionnaires had to be filled out for all interned criminally insane persons without the question of whether they were able to work or suffering from a disease; just all of them?
A. I don't know.
Q. You displayed considerable knowledge yesterday about this document; can't you inform us why that was done?
A. These are psychological conditions which I could not possibly evaluate. Regarding the ability to work, I also said that I could not judge to what extent the ability to work constitutes a source of psychological knowledge, and the same is true of criminality.
Q. That is absolutely right, but ** the people under number three had also to have the questionnaires filled out, whether they could work or not. You say here before "number three, or are interned as criminally insane people," and you yourself yesterday testified to the effect that it all makes a difference between point one and tho other three.
A. I did not say that.
Q. I think so.
A. I s aid very clearly that either those would be considered who are contained in paragraph one, or those of paragraph two, or paragraph three, or paragraph four! That is what I said.
Q. Can you tell mo then, why it was necessary to fill out questionnaires on all people who were interned as criminally insane persons, according to part three of the document.
A. Possibly because criminality also represents a special possibility for tho psychiatrist to judge the progress of the illness. Personally I cannot evaluate that.
Q. Did that relate to all other persons -- namely all insane persons, the privilege of mercy death that tho subjects were given?
A. No, had that been the case a directive would have had to be issued to the exports to the effect that every insane patient, in whose case this paragraph was affirmed, would have to be released for Euthanasia, I , however, never hoard of any such directives given to the experts.
Q. You testified this morning that you had no knowledge about Euthanasia carried out in Poland when questioned by the Tribunal ; is that correct?
A. No, what I said was that I know of no Euthanasia institutions in Poland.
Q. Do you know of the carrying out of Euthanasia in Poland?
A. I know nothing of the execution of Euthanasia in Poland.
Q. Did you over concern yourself with the transfer of Polish insane people?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever issue the funds for such transfers.
A. I certainly did not.
Q. Did you ever make arrangements for the transfer from the Reich cashier or Reich Treasury?
A. In principle I had to apply for funds to be given to no from the Reich Treasury for Euthanasia by order of Bouhler, but I really cannot remember the details of this.
Q. I an asking you entirely about the transfer of insane people from Poland, not in Germany or in East Prussia?
A. I cannot remember that.
Q. I want to put to you document 2908 which will be Prosecution's exhibit 499 for identification. I would like for you to read -- to read to you the first paragraph f this letter:
"The so-called Special Detachment LANG, which has been put under my command for special tasks, was ordered to Soldau in East Prussia from 21 May to 8 June 1940, according to the agreement made with the Reich Main Security Office (RSHA) and during that time evacuated 1,588 patients from the Soldau transit camp."
Do you have any recollections now?
A. No.
Q. "At that time I arranged with SS Gruppenfuehrer Rediess that an amount of RM. 10. - would have to be paid for the evacuation of each patient. There would, therefore, be a sum of DM. 15,580 to be paid into the account of the SS Main Sector Warthe, according to the agreement."
I do not want to read any further. Do you remember anything about this money?
A. No, I remember nothing at all.
Q. I would like to put to y u then document No. 2909, which will be Prosecution's exhibit No. 500 for identification. This is a letter concerned with the same subject. It is to SS Gruppenfuehrer Wolff.
"Enclosed I submit to you a demand of SS Gruppenfuehrer Koppe, addressed to the higher SS and police leader northeast, SS Gruppenfuehrer Sporrenberg, who has forwarded it t me for reply.
"The letter of SS Gruppenfuehrer Koppe deals with the evacuation of 1,558 mental institution inmates of the provincial institutions of East Prussia. To those must be added, to my knowledge, about 250 to 300 insane persons (Poles) from the area of Zichenau, which has been annexed to East Prussia."
Do you remember anything about that n w?
A. No, in no way at all.
Q. Please look at the second to last paragraph on page 4 -
Your Honor, this is wrong, it should be page 2, I am sorry.
"The advance which Criminal Commissar Lange had received from the Inspector of the Security Police and the SD, SS Oberfuehrer Rasch was taken from government funds, to my knowledge. By virtue of this fact alone the matter assumed for me the aspect of a Reich assignment."
On the left side of the paragraph is a handwritten note, your name; do you remember that?
A. Oh, it is n t here.
Q. I think it is there. Will you hand him this.
(A document was handed t the witness)
A. That is not my name.
Q. I did n t say y u wrote it, but it is your name. I did not say you wrote it.
A. I do not believe that is my name.
Q. Do you remember the case; do you r don't you?
A. I already said I kn w nothing at all about this matter.
Q. Will Your Honor permit me t - put another document to the witness So, I put to you then, document 2911, which will be Exhibit 501 for identification.
DR. FROESCHMANN: May I interrupt for a minute. I cannot see the name Brack contained in any of the two documents which have been submitted to me. All I saw was the name of Dr. Rasch.
Q. Did you ever have any telephone conversations with SS Gruppenfuehrer Wolff on this matter?
A. I do not know that.
Q. You told me just now you could not remember the case. Can you exclude the fact that v u made arrangements for the transfer of these 250 or 300 Poles?
A. I can say nothing about that, because I do not remember the entire affair in any way.
Q. But you cannot exclude it, can you?
A. What do y u mean I cannot exclude it?
q. That you advanced the plans f r this purpose, can y.u? Y u said that you could n t remember. Can you exclude the fact that y u over had anything to do with this case?
A. Yes, I would exclude the possibility.
Q. In spite of the fact your name appears n two of these three documents?
A. But, I know nothing of them.
Q. Somebody obviously got the money from y u?
A. I must read the document and see whether anyone got any money. I cannot remember anything.
Q. Is it not obvious from this note -- document 2909, which was sent to Obergruppenfuehrer Wolff that he received the letter saying you forwarded this money, and that he spoke over the telephone, or one of his people in his office spoke to you over the telephone about this matter. Is it not obvious from those two documents?
A. Wolff could not give me any order t give money to. any one or f r any purpose.
Q. I did not say he gave the order, but he asked y u for it, and it was used in the Euthanasia business?
A. That matter is entirely strange. I think it is quite impossible that even one pfennig had been given by Fouhler f r that purpose. I am completely excluding that possibility.
Q. How do y u then explain these two pencil notes n 2909, Brack; and 2911.
A. I can read these two notes and it is possible that it does say Brack, but I cannot explain them.
DR. HOCHWALD: If Your Honors, want to adjourn, I have n further questions to the witness n this subject.
DR. FLEMMING (For the defendant Mrugewsky): Mr. President, I shall not call the witness Scharlau, but I shall submit an affidavit by him. May I put no question, Mr. President.
The Tribunal on Thursday, last week, when discussing the form of pleas of the.argument had provided that a discussion would take place today. May I ask whether that is to take place today; if n t, when such a discuss in will take place?
MR. HARDY: Your Honors, I don't know what attitude the Tribunal has taken on this but this proposition has slipped my mind for a day or two due to other matters and if possible to arrange the meeting on Monday or Tuesday it would meet with the approval of Prosecution.
I do not remember that the meeting was fixed for today. We said tentatively last Friday we would have the meeting t his Friday and if convenient to the Tribunal we could meet the first of the week and discuss it more extensively.
THE PRESIDENT: That would be better. Counsel will consult with the Tribunal and we will discuss that in detail.
The Tribunal will now be in recess until 9:30 Monday morning.
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 19 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 1.
Military Tribunal 1 is not 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 MARSHALL: May it please your Honor, all the defendants are present in the court with the exception of the Defendant Gebhardt who is absent due to illness.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will note for the record the presence of all the defendants in court save the Defendant Gebhardt who will be excused on account of illness, pursuant to a certificate from Dr. Martin the orison surgeon. The Secretary will file the certificate for the record.
Counsel may proceed.
VIKTOR BRACK - Resumed CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR. HOCHWALD:
Q. May it please the Tribunal. Herr Brack, I have a few questions for you about your affidavit, I am referring to Document No 426, Prosecution Exhibit 160, on page 10 of Document Book 14, part 1. You signed this affidavit, did you not?
A. Yes. It is not before me though.
Q. This is the affidavit you spoke about several times; I don't think it is necessary that you have it before you, I do not want to go into the details of the document itself. Did somebody compel you to sign this affidavit?
A. Compel is certainly not the right expression. I felt innerly obliged to sign the statement without being conscious at that time that many of the things contained therein were either incorrect or incomplete. This only entered my mind later when, on the basis of the documents, I was able to ascertain that many of the things were not represented corresponding to the facts.
Q. But nobody told you you would be punished or you would have some disadvantages if you would not sign it, is that correct?
A. There was no threat expressed towards me.
A. Is it hot true that you were permitted to make changes in the wording and in every other respect in the affidavit?
A. I was permitted to make changes. It was pointed out repeatedly, however, that the word I had suggested was difficult to translate and I was therefor asked to admit another expression with which I basically did agree, but they convinced me.
Q. Is it further not true that you made changes in the affidavit, that changes were made on your suggestion and on the basis of your information?
A. Yes, a few changes were made.
Q. And what about the chart, you signed this chart. How did it come about? How was the chart made?
A. I have already described that. I think a female draftsman drew up this chart in my presence. I helped her as far as I could give any indications. I don't know to what extent I emphasized at that time that any such chart had not existed before, and that this was a completely new construction of that organization.
The sketch which I drew up did in no way answer the requirements.
Q. Bat you drew up a draft, didn't you?
A. Yes, I made an attempt to draw it up but I did not succeed.
Q. Do you remember the draft well?
A. You mean the one I signed?
Q. The draft you made yourself in the prison, not in the interrogation room.
A. No, I don't remember it. It was incomplete and insufficient.
Q. Do you remember whether there was a basic difference between the draft and the chart as to the position of Bouhler and Brandt?
A. I really can't tell you that.
Q. All right. We have the draft and I want the right to put to you this document NO 2758 which will be Prosecution exhibit 502 for identification, your Honor.
(Document handed to the witness.)
Q. Is this the draft?
A. Yes.
DR. HOCHWALD: If your Honor please, may the record show that the witness acknowledged this draft as the draft he made in the prison.
THE PRESIDENT: The record will show that the witness u on examination of Prosecution Exhibit for identification 502 stated that this was a copy of the draft which he made while in the prison.
BY DR. HOCHWALD:
Q. Now I want to discuss with you the sterilization of the Jews.
You testified here, in a sense, that you were opposed to the program of exterminating the Jews and, therefore, together with your collaborators, conceived and forwarded clans for a less drastic and ruthless solution of the Jewish problem, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Who was the collaborator or the former collaborator of yours who first told you that the plan of exterminating the Jews was conceived?
A. That, I think was Dr. Hevelmann.
Q. And who were the collaborators with whoa you made this plan to make to Himmler the suggestion of sterilization?
A. I can't give you the names in detail now. At any rate Dr. Hevelmann participated here.
Did Blankenburg participate in this plan about Madagascar, and so forth?
A. Yes, he certainly did participate, but the people most interested in this plan were experts which had nothing to do with the Chancellery of the Fuehrer, for instance the witness Legationsrat Rademcher, for when I had asked as a witness and there were also a number of other agencies who could inform us about the circumstances involved.
Q. But Blankenburg collaborated, did he?
A. I believe, yes.
Q. an I mistaken in as tuning that you wanted to prevent extermination of the Jews, as you and your collaborators considered this to be a crime?
A. No, that is what I testified.
Q. Did you consider the extermination of the Jews a crime?
A. Yes, we considered it a crime. we did not consider it worthy of the German people. We considered it to be irresponsible towards history. That, I think, is the expression I used.
Q. You and your collaborators were of this opinion?
A. Yes, we were of this opinion.
Q. You made the first plans, for the resettlement of the Jews in a far away country, for example in Madagascar, is that correct?
A. Yes, that is true.
Q. And when these plans were not accepted you approached Himmler with the suggestion to sterilize the Jews, but in reality you did not want the Jews to be sterilized. You did that just in order to prevent more brutal measures from the part of Himmler or Hitler, did you not?
A. That does not exactly correspond to the facts, out according to its sense it does correspond to what I intended.
Q. Is it not true that in 1941 when you forwarded your report to Himmler, -- I an referring to Document 203, Exhibit 161, Document Book 6, on page 35 to 37 of the Document Book 6, is it not true that it was then a natter of common knowledge that it was very well possible to sterilize people with X-rays, is it not?
A. I cannot judge that, it was my personal point of view that it was not possible.
Q. hell, did you not expect that Himmler would have checked the record with a specialist and would have easily found that the natters you suggested were not effected; if you were of the opinion you could not sterilize people with X-ray?
A. No, I didn't expect that, because I believed to know the mentality of Himmler sufficiently to realize that ho would positively react to any suggestions which fitted into his plans.
q. Did you not expect that every doctor who would have been charged by Himmler with the carrying out of sterilization in this suggested nor would have reported to Himmler at sterilization in such a way would be possible?
A. That is what I feared in the course of time, but I hoped that until the moment when these matters crystallized so much time would have passed that the war had cone to an end.
Q. Did you testify here according to document 205, - this is Prosecution Exhibit 163, Document 6, page 39, this is the second report to Himmler in 1942, that you did not write this letter?
A. I cannot even confirm it now with any amount of certainly whether I wrote this letter myself or whether somebody else formulated it.
Q. But I presume that you read this letter rather carefully, did you not, before you signed it?
A. I really cannot say that after so much tine has elapsed. I really don't know.
Q. How many personal letters did you write during the year to Himmler?
A. There is nothing I can say about that. At any rate there must have been very few.
Q. I do presume that if you sent one of these few letters to your highest SS Commander you read them rather carefully, did you not?
A. That depends entirely on the situation. It depends when such a letter is put before you for signature. I can no longer tell you that.
Q. But the topics of the letter were of a quite important nature, were they not, so I do expect you rather carefully read the thing whether it fitted into the plan you made?
A. I have already testified that I consider the possibility that this letter was sent on to me to the front for my signature. If it has arrived when I happened to be in some critical situation it is quite possible that I didn't read it too carefully, but just signed it in order to get rid of it. After so much time I can really give you no information on that.
Q. You heard here the testimony of the witnesses Levy and Berlitzky?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you still, after hearing this testimony, of the opinion that your suggestions were made for the benefit of the Jews?
A. At any rate it is my opinion that these suggestions delayed this action considerably and thereby prevented much evil being caused. During my direct-examination I already pointed out that the first report which was not in itself submitted here, but of which we had the covering letter, was only made about an year and a half later, so that the dealy is quite obvious and easily recognizable. I don't know whether I remember correctly, but I believe that the witness Berlitzky stated that the sterilization experiment on him only took place in the year 1943.
Q. I hand you now this second letter of Himmler and would ask you a few questions in connection with it; will you look at the second paragraph of this letter; this is Document 205, Your Honors, Prosecution Document 163, Document Hook 6, page 39, and in the second paragraph it states:
"Among 10 millions of Jews in Europe are, I figure, at least 2-3-millions of men and women, who are fit for work." It seems to me your plan would have only worked for these 2 or 3 million; what would have happened to the other 7 or 8 million; you are speaking only in this plan of organization of the people who are able to worm. What did you expect would happen to the 7 or 8 million who were not able to work?
A. I expected the very same thing to happen to then as to the two or three million. In connection with what I have already testified during my direct examination, to the effect that in the year 1942 the war possibilities from my point of view were not bad at all and that we actually counted on a quick end to the war, since we continued to advance in Russia. If I could bring about a certain delay in this action I hoped that in conditions of peace we could, under circumstances, carry through the Madagascar plan, which had previously been rejected.
Q. But I do see the dealy only -
Perhaps you can advise me, - but I do see the delay only with regard to the people you attempted to be sterilized. I do not see the dealy for the 7 or 8 million who were not able to work and therefore would not be sterilized, is that correct?
A. No, it certainly is not correct. Until one can select people who are fit to work, until the entire organization is set up, months and months must necessarily elapse.
Q. You speak in the same document about the people whom you placed at the disposal of Globocnick. Was Wirt among the people you placed at the disposal of Globocnick? I mean the director of the Brandenburg euthanasia station.
A. No, he was not the director of the euthanasia station. He was the official, the registry official.
Q. I mean this Wirt; who was active in Brandenburg.
A. He certainly was not among them, because after the stop of the action in 1941 many releases were ordered by Bouhler and it became superfluous; if I may call it that way, to maintain the registry offices; and also other offices became superfluous. For instance; we no longer needed trained nurses; therefore; a great number of employees of the euthanasia organization were either dismissed or insofar as they were put at our disposal only they were sent back to their old offices.
Q. Right; but did you say that Wirth was among them or not; Wirt?
A. I assume with certainty that Wirth cannot have been among them because Wirth was a police officer and as such was sent back and put at the disposal of his superior agency in August or September 1941.
Q. What about Schumann? He was the chief doctor in a euthanasia station; was he not?
A. Yes, Schumann was the head of the euthanasia station. I saw him for the last time on the occasion when we tried to rescue the wounded in the Winter 1941-42.
Q. Was Schumann among the doctors you put at the disposal of Himmler for the examination in the concentration camps?
A. I put no physicians at the disposal of Himmler for the purpose of the extermination of Jews.
Q. No, I said examinations in the concentration camps. We mentioned this in your interrogation and you spoke of it in your direct examination and also with me on Friday. This examination which was carried out on orders from Himmler in different concentration camps. Did you not say that you went to T-4 and asked that certain doctors be put at the disposal of Himmler and that among them was Schumann along with other doctors for the examinations in concentration camps?