What do you have to say, Dr. Blome, to this motive which the prosecution imputes to you?

A. This motive is not correct. The contrary can clearly be seen from my letter. In that connection I may refer to my previous explanation regarding my letter. Furthermore, I refer to the affidavit of Dr. Gundermann. (Blome 1, Blome Ex. 8.) My interest was exactly the contrary to what the prosecution tries to impute to me, for I was planning the very same thing for Germany after the war. If I had been able to carry through such an action, and had been able to show success in that action, it would have been easier for me later on to refer to the plans mentioned during the Tuberculosis Congress of 1937 by pointing out the success I had achieved in the Warthegau. Even today I realize that until we are able to bring about really effective medical treatment, or vaccination against the spread of tuberculosis, the only really practicable and effective solution is the creation of such settlement areas or reservations.

Q. Dr. Blome, from your book, entitled “Physician in Combat”, which has been submitted in evidence in its entirety as Blome Exhibit 1, it can be seen that for quite a long time you had waged war against tuberculosis. Can you tell us on the basis of your experiences whether these proposals which you made in your letter of 18 December 1942—that is, either housing the sick in tuberculosis institutions, or placing the consumptives in a reservation area—whether these suggestions were completely different from the manner of combating tuberculosis as practiced in various foreign countries up to that time, or, if not tuberculosis, other infectious diseases of the same importance as tuberculosis?

A. Naturally the plan to set up a tuberculosis settlement on a large scale does not represent anything absolutely new, because, as can be seen from the documents submitted regarding the Tuberculosis Congress, such tuberculosis settlements had existed in England and Holland in addition to Germany, with good results; but, on the other hand, the realization of this settlement idea would make an enormous difference to fight against tuberculosis generally. The war difficulties that existed in 1942 and 1943 did not permit this plan to be realized as suggested by me for the Warthegau. The fight against tuberculosis continued, however, in the usual way, as far as it was possible during the war, and as it was dealt with throughout the Reich for Germans as well.

In other countries, other experiments were made. For instance in the year 1935 certain well-known people in the city of Detroit, in America, made a large-scale experiment for the combat of tuberculosis. After preparations were made the entire population of Detroit was asked, by means of enormous propaganda by press and radio, to submit to an examination for tuberculosis, in order to find out the source of the infection. The city of Detroit had made the necessary facilities available for carrying out the examination and a certain success was obtained. In particular, nearly the whole of the colored population of Detroit reported for these examinations, whereas the American press, on the other hand, complained that this was not fully the case with the white population.

This action started in 1936 and was continued in 1937. I could not hear anything about the ultimate results because the war had started. All actions such as that action in Detroit, and small settlements in the form of little villages for consumptives, will not solve the entire problem unless done on a large scale. There is no doubt that the problem of tuberculosis has not been tackled on a large scale in the world today. The sole reason for that is that tuberculosis cannot be compared with any other contagious disease such as diphtheria, cholera, typhoid. These epidemics have a shorter course and quickly claim their victims. If that had been the case with tuberculosis the fight against it would have progressed much farther throughout the world. The tragic thing in that problem is the manner of the disease itself, the slow tricky course. That is why, in my opinion, there are nowhere in the world laws which definitely secure the isolation of infectious tubercular subjects, although such plans are being considered at all congresses dealing with tuberculosis all over the world. As far as I know nobody has made a decisive step, and I think the sole reason lies in the slow tricky course of tuberculosis, in spite of the fact that tuberculosis is regarded as having the second highest mortality of all diseases.

Q. In addition to that letter of 18 December 1942 about which we are speaking now, did you take any more steps to frustrate the plan of Greiser, namely, to liquidate all tubercular Poles, and in particular did you turn to Hitler or Himmler personally in that matter?

A. No. I did not speak to Hitler at all throughout the entire war.

Q. How about Himmler?

A. I spoke to Himmler on various occasions, but that was about one year later. At that time I had as yet no official relations with Himmler, and I did not know him. Had this happened one year later, when I already had official contact with Himmler, and had I known him better, I would not have written a letter; I would have approached Himmler personally and would have been able to frustrate the action without having to write a letter. Having written this letter I received a report through Greiser very shortly afterwards to the effect that Himmler had withdrawn his order, and that settled the affair as far as I was concerned. I was only informed that everything was handled in an orderly and legal manner in the Warthegau as regards the examination and the registration of tubercular persons.

Q. Who told you that this plan had been withdrawn on the basis of your suggestion?

A. I heard it from Hohlfelder as well as from Perwitschky.

Q. These were the two men—

A. Hohlfelder was the commanding officer of the X-ray unit, and Perwitschky was the business manager of the association for combating tuberculosis.

Q. Did you find out how the rejection of this plan really came about, and, in particular, do you know that when Greiser’s letter was shown to him Himmler said that Hitler himself had to decide, and that Hitler himself actually did decide that this plan was to be rejected for the reasons which you, Dr. Blome, stated in your letter to Greiser? Did you hear about that later?

A. At that time I only learned from Professor Hohlfelder and Perwitschky that the reasons stated in my letter had moved Hitler to withdraw his order. I only heard of Himmler’s letter here in this courtroom, through the documents, and I am, therefore, very grateful to the prosecution for not having withheld this letter from me.

Q. Witness, when you say that this plan of Greiser’s was frustrated because of you, I must remind you of what the prosecution said here on 9 December in this courtroom. The prosecution said at that time, “We shall introduce evidence to show that the program was in fact carried out at the end of 1942 and the beginning of 1943 * * *.” And by that, the program for the liquidation of the tubercular Poles was meant. Further, “that as a result of the suggestions made by Blome and Greiser, many Poles were ruthlessly exterminated and that others were taken to isolated camps, utterly lacking in medical facilities where thousands of them died.” These were statements made by prosecution. I must again ask you very definitely, did you at any time later hear that on the basis of these proposals tubercular Poles were, in effect, exterminated?

A. No. The assertions of the prosecution are not true. Nothing happened to one Pole within the framework of this tubercular action in the Warthegau. On the contrary they received decent medical treatment.

D. Euthanasia

a. Introduction

The defendants Karl Brandt, Blome, Brack, and Hoven were charged with participation in and responsibility for the execution of the so-called “Euthanasia Program” in the course of which hundreds of thousands of human beings, including nationals of German occupied countries, were murdered (pars. 9 and 14 of the indictment). On this charge the defendants Karl Brandt, Brack, and Hoven were convicted, and the defendant Blome was acquitted.

The prosecution’s summation of the evidence on euthanasia is contained in its closing briefs against the defendants Karl Brandt and Brack. Extracts from these briefs are set forth below on pages 795 to 813. A corresponding summation of the evidence by the defense on this program has been selected from the closing brief for the defendant Karl Brandt and from the final plea for the defendant Brack. It appears below on pages 813 to 839. This argumentation is followed by selections from the evidence on pages 842 to 896.

b. Selections from the Argumentation of the Prosecution

EXTRACTS FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST THE
DEFENDANT KARL BRANDT

The Euthanasia Program

A. Procedure

On 1 September 1939 Hitler charged the defendant Karl Brandt and Reichsleiter Bouhler with the execution of the Euthanasia Program. The letter of appointment stated:

This document in no way limited the application of euthanasia to insane persons but included anyone who might be designated as “incurable.”

The witness Mennecke testified that the program was carried out in the following way:

Every German mental institution received questionnaires from the Reich Ministry of the Interior which were to be completed for each inmate of the institution and to be sent back to the Reich Ministry of the Interior. Experts then had to examine the questionnaires after they had been photostated; they had to express their medical opinion on them, and had to return them, with their opinion, to the Reichsarbeitsgemeinschaft (Reich Labor Association). (Tr. pp. 1872, 1873.)

This Reichsarbeitsgemeinschaft cooperated with the “Stiftung” (Charitable Foundation for Institutional Care), and the Patients Transport Corporation. The “Stiftung” was in charge of the financial side of the program, while the Patients Transport Corporation was used when patients were moved from one institution to another in order to bring them closer to the euthanasia institutions and finally into the euthanasia institutions themselves. These three organizations, Reichsarbeitsgemeinschaft, “Stiftung,” and Patients Transport Corporation, were in fact camouflaged names for the operation of the Euthanasia Program and were under the supervision of one management. They did not work independently but together. (Tr. p. 1874.)

As to the questionnaires, three experts received photostated copies, and, independently of each other, they expressed their opinion on individual cases. Then so-called top experts expressed their opinion. A list was made up of the patients who were judged subject to euthanasia, and the patients were removed from the institution to so-called collecting points, and from there were transferred to euthanasia institutes. (Tr. pp. 1877, 1878.) Non-German nationals and Jews were subjected to euthanasia as well as Germans. (Tr. p. 1881.)

The activities of the experts were extended in the early summer of 1940 to inmates of concentration camps. A doctors commission, which consisted of doctors and officials from the Euthanasia Program, filled out the questionnaires on inmates from among those who had been preliminarily selected by the camp doctors. Numerous concentration camps were visited, some of them twice, in the period between 1940 and the end of 1941. (Tr. pp. 1882, 1883.) Dr. Mennecke, who visited a number of concentration camps to select inmates, received the orders for these activities from the top experts in the Euthanasia Program and from the defendant Brack. (Tr. p. 1882.) Announcements about these trips were made from the Berlin agency of the program to the individual concentration camps. (Tr. p. 1885.) Non-German Nationals and Jews who were inmates of concentration camps were subjected to the Euthanasia Program in extensive numbers. (Tr. p. 1887.)

Another function of the Euthanasia Program was the killing of mentally and bodily deficient children. The witness Walter Schmidt testified that the agency which handled this part of the program was called the Reich Committee for Research on Hereditary and Constitutional Severe Diseases [Reichsausschuss zur wissenschaftlichen Erfassung von erb- und anlagebedingten schweren Leiden]. The questionnaires were filled out by the health departments, the chief of children’s clinics, physicians, doctors, midwives, hospitals, etc., and reports were made to Dr. Linden’s office in Berlin. Linden was a member of the Ministry of the Interior. There a committee of chief experts, on the strength of these reports, decreed euthanasia through so-called authorizing orders in the form of a photostatic copy of the report, which had been approved in writing. These activities continued until 1944. (Tr. pp. 1833, 1834.) Schmidt himself was in charge of a special department for the killing of such deformed children. (Tr. p. 1833.)

Workers from the occupied eastern territories who had become unfit for labor were executed pursuant to the Euthanasia Program. Busses belonging to the Patients Transport Corporation, which were operated by the personnel of the Patients Transport Corporation, took these victims to the extermination center of Hadamar, where they were killed. (Tr. pp. 1842-1845; NO-1116, Pros. Ex. 415.)

This evidence on the method of carrying out the program is corroborated by the affidavit of the defendant Brack (NO-426, Pros. Ex. 160), the affidavit of Pauline Kneissler (NO-470, Pros. Ex. 332), the chart drawn by Brack (NO-253, Pros. Ex. 331), as well as numerous other documents in the record.

The evidence concerning the activities of the top experts and experts of the Euthanasia Program in the various concentration camps is corroborated by the affidavit of the camp doctor of the Dachau concentration camp, Dr. Muthig (NO-2799, Pros. Ex. 497), who states that in the fall of 1941, Professor Heyde, as leader of a commission of four psychiatrists, came to the Dachau concentration camp. This doctors commission selected inmates, unable to work, for extermination by gas. Heyde was the first top expert of the Euthanasia Program. (Tr. p. 2495.) The affidavit of Dr. Gorgass reveals that he and Dr. Schumann, both of whom were active in the Euthanasia Program, visited the Buchenwald concentration camp in June 1941. Gorgass states explicitly that the purpose of this trip was to acquaint himself with the assignment of concentration camp inmates to euthanasia institutions. This visit was made on the order of Brandt, and was transmitted by the defendant Brack. (NO-3010, Pros. Ex. 503.)

B. Non-German Nationals and Jews

Non-German nationals and Jews, who were inmates of the concentration camps, were victims of the Euthanasia Program which operated in these camps under the code name “14 f 13.” (NO-429, Pros. Ex. 281.)

A few documents submitted by the prosecution on one “14 f 13” action in Gross-Rosen show how the Euthanasia Program operated in concentration camps. The list of concentration camp inmates of the Gross-Rosen concentration camp, who were sent to the Bernburg euthanasia station for extermination, contains many names of non-German nationals and non-German Jews. (NO-158, Pros. Ex. 410.) Jews in protective custody, Poles in protective custody, Jews who were habitual criminals, Jews who were “shirkers,” Jews who “defiled the race,” Czech “shirkers,” and Czechs in protective custody were among the inmates selected by the camp physicians for “examination” by the experts. (1151-PS, Pros. Ex. 411.)

By comparing the names on the lists contained on Documents NO-158 and 1151-PS, it is proved that, of the 240 names listed for extermination in the Bernburg euthanasia station, at least 51 were of Polish or Czech nationality. How many of the Jews listed were of non-German nationality cannot be ascertained from these documents, but a substantial number of them were born in countries other than Germany, as the list contained in Document NO-158 shows, and it is therefore apparent that a further substantial number of the inmates selected for extermination were of non-German nationality. (NO-158, Pros. Ex. 410; 1151-PS, Pros. Ex. 411.)

On 17 March 1942, 70 inmates were transferred to Bernburg for extermination. (NO-1873, Pros. Ex. 556.) Of these, 27 of the non-Jewish prisoners on the transport list were of Czech or Polish nationality. Compare transport list with list of inmates originally selected in Gross-Rosen. (1151-PS, Pros. Ex. 411.) On 19 March 1942 an additional 57 inmates arrived at Bernburg from Gross-Rosen. (NO-158, Pros. Ex. 410.) Of these, 15 of the non-Jewish prisoners of the transport list were of Czech or Polish nationality. Thus, of the total of 127 inmates proved to have been sent to Bernburg in March 1942, at least 42, or one-third of the total, were non-German citizens forcibly detained in an enemy country. That all of these inmates were exterminated in Bernburg is conclusively proved by the laconic report from Gross-Rosen to the Economic and Administrative Main Office that “special treatment of 127 prisoners was concluded on 2 April 1942.” (1234-PS, Pros. Ex. 555.)

This evidence as to Action 14 f 13 is amplified by the testimony of the witnesses Neff (Tr. pp. 600-605), Kogon (Tr. pp. 1210-13), Roemhild (Tr. pp. 1634-37, 1641), and Holl (Tr. p. 1060).

Non-German nationals and Jews other than those in concentration camps were not exempt from the program, and many of them were killed. Besides the evidence cited under A above, there is ample proof that non-German nationals were subjected to extermination from the beginning of 1940 through the war. (NO-1135, Pros. Ex. 334; NO-818, Pros. Ex. 373.) Jews of German and Polish nationality and stateless Jews were also subjected to the program. (NO-1310, Pros. Ex. 337.) Polish and Russian nationals and other non-German nationals were subjected to the program. (NO-720, Pros. Ex. 366.)

The questionnaires had a space provided for “race”, being defined: German or similar blood (of German blood), Jew, Jewish mixed breed Grades 1 or 2, Negro (mixed breed). (1696-PS, Pros. Ex. 357.) This question would have been completely unnecessary if non-Germans were exempted from the program. Questionnaires had to be filled out about all patients who were not of German nationality or German related blood, indicating their race and nationality. (NO-825, Pros. Ex. 358.) These questionnaires had to be processed by the experts. (Tr. p. 1881.) Those who were active in euthanasia never received an order that non-German nationals were to be excluded from the program. (NO-817, Pros. Ex. 368.) The witnesses Mennecke (Tr. pp. 1877, 1922) and Schmidt (Tr. pp. 1860-1) also testified to this effect. Hugo Suchomel, LL. D., the highest official after the Minister in the Austrian Federal Ministry of Justice, says in his affidavit that when Brack, as representative of the defendant Brandt, gave a lecture on euthanasia in the Ministry of Justice in 1942, he enumerated, as the classes of persons who were exempted from the program, the war-wounded and persons who had become insane as a result of air attacks. Foreigners and Jews were not mentioned among the groups of persons who were excluded. (NO-2253, Pros. Ex. 557.) Brack admits having held the lecture. (Tr. p. 7589.)

As early as 1939 inmates of insane asylums in occupied Poland were killed. (3816-PS, Pros. Ex. 370.) In the autumn of 1940, funds for the evacuation of 1,558 inmates of mental institutions of East Prussia and approximately 250 to 300 insane Poles were made available by the defendant Brack, who was the administrative executive of the Euthanasia Program. As these transfers were carried out by a special detachment (Sonderkommando) of the infamous SD, which was used for special tasks, there is no doubt that these insane Poles were killed. (NO-2909, Pros. Ex. 500; NO-2911, Pros. Ex. 501.) In September 1941, an order was issued that the inmates of the insane asylums in Russia, in the occupation zone of the German Army Group “Nord,” were to be killed. (NO-1758, Pros. Ex. 444.)

Eastern workers were also dealt with. (NO-1430, Pros. Ex. 429; NO-1436, Pros. Ex. 430.) Eastern workers, who had been forcibly brought into Germany, who were no longer able to work, and who were considered a burden on the mental institutions of Germany, were brought together in a collecting institution and, unless they could be discharged in a matter of six weeks, they were exterminated under the Euthanasia Program. (NO-891, Pros. Ex. 414; NO-1116, Pros. Ex. 415.) Half-Jewish healthy children (NO-1427, Pros. Ex. 431) and adult gypsies (3882-PS, Pros. Ex. 371) were also killed.

C. Inadequate Examination and Lack of Supervision

The selection and examination of the persons who were subjected to euthanasia were criminally negligent and inadequate.

The defendant Karl Brandt testified that the doctors in the Euthanasia Program were given enormous responsibility. (Tr. p. 2425.) He, together with Bouhler, had authority over the physicians who were participating in the program. (Tr. p. 2408.) He admitted, however, that he did not make observation in, or visits to, insane asylums. He was only once in the Bethel insane asylum and visited a special clinic in Kassel. He admitted having no expert knowledge in the field of psychiatry. (Tr. p. 2470.) He, the doctor of the two persons who were charged by Hitler with the execution of euthanasia (Bouhler was not a doctor), authorized the doctors to administer euthanasia. He did not make investigations as to the medical abilities of these men. (Tr. p. 2476.) He does not know one single name of the total of ten to fifteen doctors who, according to his testimony, were charged with the execution of euthanasia. (Tr. pp. 2478-9.) Brandt testified that he only visited one of the extermination stations, Grafeneck, in 1940, one time (Tr. p. 2480), and never went to an observation station. (Tr. p. 2481.) In winter 1939-1940, however, he visited, together with the defendant Brack, Bouhler, and Conti, the euthanasia station of Brandenburg, where the first gas chamber was set up. The purpose of this visit was to observe a test experiment in which four insane persons were gassed. (Tr. pp. 7645-6.)

Victims of euthanasia were condemned to death by so-called top experts who had never so much as seen the patient. The victims were only superficially examined on the basis of questionnaires. (NO-470, Pros. Ex. 332.) Pfannmueller, an expert, received no less than 159 shipments of questionnaires, averaging between 200 and 300 questionnaires each, prior to 15 April 1941, for judgment as to life and death. (NO-1129, Pros. Ex. 354; NO-1130, Pros. Ex. 355.) Since his main occupation was that of manager of an insane asylum, his judgment of the questionnaires was only a secondary activity. In a period of 18 days, this same expert passed judgment on no less than 2,058 questionnaires. (NO-1129, Pros. Ex. 354; Tr. p. 7384.)

Questionnaires on patients who were in an asylum for as short a time as one month were filled out and formed the basis for judgment as to whether the particular inmate should be killed. (NO-825, Pros. Ex. 358.) Many of these questionnaires were inadequately completed so that it was impossible in any event to form a clear medical opinion. Experts were also exposed to pressure to induce them to give positive opinions. (Tr. p. 1881.) Unanimous opinion of the experts was not necessary to bring about a positive judgment which would condemn the patient to be killed. The dissenting opinion of one expert did not suffice to save the life of the patient. (Tr. pp. 1907-8.)

In a concentration camp 105 Aryans were “examined” by the expert Mennecke in an afternoon. The “examination” of 1,200 Jews, which consisted in the transcription of the reason for their arrest from the files to the reports, took only a few days. In a letter to his wife, Mennecke himself put the word “examination” in quotation marks. It is impossible that any kind of mental examination of the patients was carried out. (Tr. p. 1892; NO-907, Pros. Ex. 412.) In fact, these Jews were mentally and physically healthy. (Tr. p. 1893.) It was impossible for Dr. Heyde and his doctors commission, which was active in the Dachau concentration camp, to examine the great number of inmates selected in the short time they spent there. The examination consisted solely in the cursory study of personal records in the presence of the inmate. (NO-2799, Pros. Ex. 497.) Doctors Schumann and Gorgass screened approximately 100 concentration camp inmates during a one day’s visit in the Buchenwald concentration camp. (NO-3010, Pros. Ex. 503.)

It was not the degree of insanity which was the decisive factor in the decision as to whether or not the inmates should be killed, but rather their usefulness for work. The manner of employment, the value of work, if possible compared with the average performance of healthy persons, had to be carefully filled out in the questionnaires. (1696-PS, Pros. Ex. 357.) Valuable workers were not sent to euthanasia stations. (3865-PS, Pros. Ex. 365.)

Patients who had arteriosclerosis, tuberculosis, cancer, and other disabling illnesses were included in the program. (3896-PS, Pros. Ex. 372.) “Useless eaters” were starved to death. (3816-PS, Pros. Ex. 370; NO-823, Pros. Ex. 399.) Persons who no longer had any value to the state were considered “useless eaters.” It was pointed out that during the war healthy people had to give up their lives while these severely ill people continued to live, and would continue to live unless euthanasia was carried out. In addition, it was stated the lack of food and nursing personnel justified the elimination of these people. (Tr. p. 1906.) Concentration camp inmates were examined as to their capacity for work and their political reliability and were selected accordingly for euthanasia. (NO-2799, Pros. Ex. 497.) Questionnaires were completed on concentration camp inmates who were not insane. (NO-3010, Pros. Ex. 503.) Prior to 27 April 1943, Action 14 f 13 encompassed the execution not only of insane persons, but persons suffering from tuberculosis, bedridden individuals, and others unfit for manual work. (NO-1007, Pros. Ex. 413.) Only inmates who were no longer fit for work were to be brought before the examining commission. (1151-PS, Pros. Ex. 411.)

In the case of killing of children, a previous consultation with the parents or relatives did not take place. (3864-PS, Pros. Ex. 367.) The defense witness Pfannmueller testified that, after having received authorization to kill the individual child, he invited the relatives to visit the child because it was sick. However, he never notified the parents or guardians that he was going to kill the child, as this was a top secret matter. (Tr. p. 7394.) From the documents submitted by the defendant Brack, it is clear that the parents were deceived about the purpose of the transfer of the children to institutions where they were to be killed. It was the business of the medical officers to induce the parents to send their children to such institutions. To accomplish this, the parents were told that in the case of individual diseases there was a possibility of achieving certain successes with treatment. (Brack 52, Brack Ex. 43; Tr. p. 7717.) The parents were told that the best care would be taken of the child in such institutions and everything possible in the way of modern therapy would be carried out. (Brack 51, Brack Ex. 42.) From these documents it is clear that the parents and relatives were not only not asked for their consent in the case of killing of children, but were deceived in order to make the transfer to a euthanasia institution possible. A letter from the Reich Committee for Research on Hereditary and Constitutional Severe Diseases to the Eichberg Sanatorium shows on its face that, in the case of euthanasia of children, the consent of the parents was not sought. (NO-890, Pros. Ex. 443.) This evidence is corroborated by the affidavit of Dr. Suchomel. (NO-2253, Pros. Ex. 557.) The defendant Brack testified that the consent of the parents to the killing of children was an absolute prerequisite. The medical officers who made the arrangements for the transfer of the children to the killing stations were allegedly charged with the task of informing the parents and requesting their consent. This statement is in contradiction to Brack’s own documents, which clearly show what the parents really were told, as well as the top secret character of the program. The proof has further shown that Pfannmueller himself was one of the doctors who had, according to the decree of the Minister of the Interior of 18 August 1939, to report deformed and deficient children. (NO-3355, Pros. Ex. 553.) He himself testified that he never informed the parents about the fate their children had to expect. Brandt admitted that in the case of the killing of insane adults, the consent of the relatives was not requested and their opinion not heard. (Tr. pp. 2427-8.)

There is abundant proof that the German public was horrified by euthanasia and the manner of its execution. A police report stated:

D. General Extermination of the Jews

Personnel active in the Euthanasia Program also took part in the extermination of the Jews in the East from about 1941 until the liberation of the eastern territories. Some time in the second half of 1941 part of the personnel, who were until then executing the Euthanasia Program in Germany, was sent to Lublin and put at the disposal of SS Brigadefuehrer Globocnik in order to assist in the mass extermination of the Jews, which was then common knowledge in the higher circles of the NSDAP. Among the doctors who assisted in the extermination of the Jews were Drs. Eberle and Schumann, both of whom had been previously active in the Euthanasia Program in Germany. All of this Brack admitted in his pretrial affidavit:

The connection between the “Stiftung” (Charitable Foundation for Institutional Care) and the extermination camps in Lublin was also known to the lower employees of the euthanasia stations. (NO-470, Pros. Ex. 332.) The witness Gorgass stated in his affidavit that Police Captain Wirth told him, late in the summer of 1941, that he had been transferred by the Foundation for Institutional Care (which was one of the code names under which the Euthanasia Program operated) to a euthanasia institute in the Lublin area. (NO-3010, Pros. Ex. 503.) The SS judge, Dr. Morgen, who investigated the Jewish extermination program in Lublin, testified before the International Military Tribunal that Wirth, having previously carried out the task of removing the incurably insane, was a specialist in mass destruction of human beings. The office from which Wirth obtained his orders was Berlin, Tiergartenstrasse, and among the people who were connected with this operation was Blankenburg. (NO-2614, Pros. Ex. 504.) Brack admitted that Wirth was an official of the Brandenburg euthanasia station. (Tr. p. 7733.) Brandt visited Brandenburg in the winter of 1939-40. (Tr. pp. 7645-6.) The central office for the Euthanasia Program was set up in Tiergartenstrasse 4, and Blankenburg was Brack’s deputy in the Euthanasia Program. (Tr. pp. 7563 and 7707.)

The defendant Brack reported to Himmler about these activities on 23 June 1942, as follows:

The affidavit of Kurt Gerstein, which also mentions Wirth, gives a vivid description of the terrible way in which the victims were killed by the thousands by order of Globocnik. (1553-PS, Pros. Ex. 428.)

In October 1941, Brack, the administrative head of the Euthanasia Program, forwarded plans whereby Jews who were unable to work should be exterminated by gas. He declared his readiness to send some of his assistants and especially his chemist, Kallmeyer, to the East, where the necessary gassing apparatus could be easily manufactured. Eichmann, whom Hitler had charged with the extermination of the Jews, was in agreement with these plans. Consequently, there were “no objections to doing away with those Jews who are unable to work, by means of the Brack remedy”. (NO-365, Pros. Ex. 507.)

Kallmeyer, who was charged with the manufacture of the gassing apparatus and equipment, had been trained for this task in the Euthanasia Program. Previously he had been responsible for the proper operation of the gas chambers of the different euthanasia institutions. (Tr. p. 7743.) According to Eichmann’s own estimate, four million Jews were killed in extermination institutions. (NO-2737, Pros. Ex. 505.)

E. Legality

The evidence outlined above makes it clear that the Euthanasia Program can only be described as mass murder. This Tribunal is not called upon to define with juridical nicety what a state may lawfully legislate with respect to euthanasia. The prosecution asks only that this Tribunal find, as other tribunals have already held, that there was no valid law in the Third Reich permitting euthanasia, and that the execution of persons under the guise of euthanasia, with the connivance and assistance of certain defendants in this dock, constituted the crime of murder—a war crime and a crime against humanity.

The first and foremost authority on the legality of euthanasia as practiced under the Nazis is in the judgment of the International Military Tribunal.^[93]

These findings draw no distinction between German nationals executed under the program and non-German nationals. These executions are described with the word “murders” and constitute war crimes and crimes against humanity under the Charter and Control Council Law No. 10. This was one of the principal crimes which led to the judgment of guilty and the sentence of death against Frick.^[94]

The Review of the Deputy Theater Judge Advocate in the case of the U. S. vs. Klein, Wahlman, et al., held at Weisbaden, Germany, from 8 October through 15 October 1945 is a clear precedent that the execution of non-German nationals pursuant to the Euthanasia Program was a crime. (NO-1116, Pros. Ex. 415.)

The defendants were there charged with the execution of some 400 persons of Polish and Russian nationality, alleged to be suffering from incurable tuberculosis, at the Hadamar euthanasia station between July 1944 and April 1945. They were not charged with murdering German nationals and that issue was not considered. After taking judicial notice of the fact that foreign laborers were pressed for service in Germany, the reviewing authority held that the killings in issue were a violation of the international laws of war and of Article 46 of The Hague Convention. Three of the seven defendants were sentenced to death.

According to German law, euthanasia was nothing other than murder. Paragraph 211 of the German Criminal Code, in its old form reads:

In the new form, which was in effect from 4 September 1941 on, the section stated:

For expert commentaries on the legality of euthanasia, see NO-708 and NO-706.^[96]

The defense witness Hans Lammers, a German legal expert, testified that the Hitler letter to Bouhler and Brandt was not a law, and that official legislation was necessary to legalize euthanasia. (Tr. pp. 2672-2679.) The Reich Minister of Justice, Guertner, on 24 July 1940, wrote a letter to Lammers informing him that, as the Fuehrer had refused to issue a law it was necessary to discontinue immediately the secret extermination of insane persons. (NO-832, Pros. Ex. 393.) A copy of this letter was sent to Bouhler on 27 July 1940. (NO-833, Pros. Ex. 394.)

During Brack’s lecture in the Ministry of Justice, referred to in B above, the legal authorities present were completely misinformed about the extent of the program. From the remarks of the speaker, the impression was obtained that only a very limited circle of persons, at the utmost several hundred, throughout Germany, Austria, and the Protectorate Bohemia and Moravia, would be affected. The opinion created was that only very dangerous patients and delirious maniacs who might injure themselves would be subjected to the program. (NO-2253, Pros. Ex. 557.) This obviously was done to quiet the misgivings of the persons present. Brack, when questioned as to whether, during the lecture, he gave an approximate number of persons who would be subjected to euthanasia, could or would not give any answer. Contrary to the impression created during the conference in the Ministry of Justice, the defendants Brandt and Brack now admit that about 50,000 to 60,000 people were killed in the Euthanasia Program in Germany and Austria alone. (Tr. p. 2465; Tr. p. 7610.)

Since the end of the war, German and Austrian courts have repeatedly held that the killing of persons of any nationality under the guise of euthanasia was in violation of the German Criminal Code and punishable as murder. The witnesses Schmidt and Mennecke who testified before this Tribunal had themselves been convicted by a German court for participation in the Euthanasia Program and sentenced to life imprisonment and death, respectively.

The Court of Assizes in Berlin, at the session on 25 March 1946, found the defendants Hilde Wernicke and Helene Wieczorek guilty of murder and sentenced them to death.

The Court of Appeals in the same case rejected the appeals of both, defendants. The following quotation from the findings may be of interest: