BY DR. SERVATIUS:
Q. Now, I should like to conclude this subject. I come to the Reich Research Council; you were a member of the Board of Directors of the Reich Research Council, were you not?
In 1943 I became a member of the Reich Research Council. At that time the Reich Research Council was under the Education Minister, and by a special decree in June of 1942 they removed it from the Education Minister and it was put under Generalartz Schreiber. Scientific work was to be put on a very broad basis of general science and Schreiber seemed the right man to do this. The Reich Research Council consisted of a president and an administrative machine. Then, it had a set of leadership staff, about thirty or forty branches of different types of research. There were heads of each of the specialist groups. Medicine coming under the head of Classical Medicine was placed under Sauer Wach. There were a number of Deputy Ministers. The Deputy at the head of the Reich Medical Control was Dr. Schreiber who was mentioned yesterday. Aside from the Board, and this administrative machine, the Reich Research Council, was a representative arrangement.
There were representatives of the highest Reich Authority, and from agencies of which one could assume that they had some contact with scientific work. The Plenipotentiary Minister was in it. Speer was in it. And I was also one of the members, there were over twenty. The Board did not have any right to issue instructions and could not exert any influence on the heads of the specialist group and the deputies and the Commissioners. This was not possible because the composition of this Board was not from the point of view of Profession but of Agency. And it did not in effect play any important role itself, by reason of the fact that from a military research viewpoint, the Society was founded in July 1944. This fact was not even reported to the members of the Board, and I myself learned of it only on the basis of the document. I must point out that in April 1944, shortly before the end of the War, I received an appointment from Goering himself. That is, as the individual Deputy over a specialist group to take up the point and establish medicine and to take charge of them. I was to be the Deputy General Surgeon within the Reich Research Council. I received the degree only a week before my medical agency was dissolved in 1944.
Q Were you connected with the Reich Research Council through your office of Research?
A It could only be a matter of general names which Professor Rostock has for all office chief director with Prof. Menzel. He had no right to issue instructions to the heads of specialist groups because they were undergoing supervision; there was no other connection. Rostock made all of the appointments himself.
Q What is the Ahnenerbe Society; what was your connection with it?
A Until I was arrested, I considered the Ahnenerbe Society Organization a sort of SS Administrative Agency concerned with Research in connection with antiquities of some sort. I did not know any details or any facts of anything that was done. I never had any contact with the Ahnenerbe at all. The only contact I had with Mr. Sievers is that he did not inform me I did not even know that he came from the Ahnenerbe.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, now I come to the next count of the indictment about Euthanasia. Shall I begin now or after the recess?
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, you may continue with the examination of the Defendant.
BY DR. SERVATIUS:
Q Witness, you appear to have participated in the experiments on Euthanasia. I shall show you the decree of the 1st of December, 1939, that is Doc. 360. It is in Document Book No. 14. Please discuss how this decree came about.
AAfter the end of the Polish campaign in about October, the Fuehrer was at Obersalzburg. I cannot longer clearly remember the advance but I was called to him and he told me that because of the Document, which he had received from Professor Bouhler, he wanted to carry out a solution of the Euthanasia question. He gave me general directives of how he imagined it, and the fundamental; insane persons, who were in such a condition that they could no longer take any conscious part in life.
These people were to be given relief by death. General instructions about information which he himself had received followed, and ho told me to get in touch with Boehler himself about the matter. I did so by telephone on the same day, and then I informed Hitler about my talk with Boehler. Then he sent me later the decree, not in the form in which we have it here, but in a similar form, and certain changes were made. My request was that a precaution be introduced for the participation of Doctors, and I used an expression which was familiar to me. It said that Euthanasia could be carried out on persons incurably sick with probability bordering on certainty. Since, this formulation was strange to him, it was added with the most critical judgment of their condition of sickness. This decree was signed about the end of October, which reads as follows: "Reichsleiter Bouhler and Dr. Brandt, M. D., are charged with the responsibility of enlarging the authority of certain doctors to be designated by name in such a manner that persons who, according to human judgment, are incurably ill can on the most careful diagnosis of their condition of sickness, be accorded a mercy death."
Q. Did you talk to Bouhler?
A. I talked to Bouhler only by telephone at first and after the decree was signed I did not talk to him immediately but sent the decree to him in Berlin.
Q. And what was Hitler's idea of euthanasia? What did he understand by it?
A. The decisive thing for him was what is expressed here in the decree; that incurably ill persons -- really I should have said insane, other persons were always exceptions -- a mercy death could be accorded. That is a measure ** dictated by purely humane considerations, and nothing else could be thought under any circumstances, and nothing else was ever said to me.
Q. You said that the Fuehrer gave you the assignment on the basis of a call from Bouhler. It could not have been a call from Bouhler alone. There must have been other reasons.
A. It was not a call. It was some kind of a documentary procedure which was decisive. It may be that the Fuehrer already had these documents or that Bouhler spoke to him about it. I don't know exactly. But this was not the cause of the euthanasia problems being taken up. In his book, "Kein Kampf", Hitler had referred to it in certain chapters. The law for the prevention of the birth of sick children is proof that Hitler had concretely concerned himself with such problems earlier. The law for the prevention of the birth of children of congenital disease followed the events. It was written because people with congenital diseases existed. It is a problem which affects the whole world. Similar laws have been passed in other countries.
Dr. Gehardt Wagner, who was the predecessor of Dr. Conti, at the Party rally in Nurnberg discussed these questions. I did not talk to Gerhardt Wagner at that time and had nothing to do with these things, but I have heard now that in 1935 Gerhardt Wagner had a film made presenting the problem of the insane.
It was a parently a film made in asylums with insane persons.
Q. Witness, were there not requests received by Bouhler and the Fuehrer?
A. Requests to this effect were certainly received constantly by Bouhler The Chancellery of the Fuehrer always received such things.
I only know that these requests were passed on to the Reich Ministry of the Interior. I myself know of one request in the spring of 1939 which was sent to the Fuehrer himself through his Adjutant's office. The father of a deformed child approached the Fuehrer and asked that this creature should be killed. Hitler turned this matter over to me and told me to go to Leipzig immediately -- it had taken place in Leipzig -- to confirm the fact. It was a child who was born blind, an idiot -- at least it seemed to be an idiot -- and it lacked one leg and part of one arm.
THE PRESIDENT: We will have a recess for a few moments.
(A recess was taken).
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
BY DR. SERVATIUS:
Q. Witness, you were speaking about the affair at Leipzig, and regarding this deformed child, what order did Hitler give you?
A. He gave me the order to talk with the physicians who were taking care of the child and to, first of all, test the statements of the father as to their veracity. If they were correct, then in his name I was to inform the physicians that they were permitted to carry out Euthanasia.
It was important in this respect: that this should not happen in the form toward the parents that they themselves at some other period of time should feel incriminated as a result of this Euthanasia, and, therefore, that the parents should not have the impression that they themselves had been the cause for the death of this child. I was further ordered to state that if these physicians should become involved in legal procedures, they should take care by order of Hitler that this procedure should be halted. Then Bormann also was ordered to inform the Minister of Justice, Guertner, in this case.
Q. What did the doctors who were involved say?
A. The physicians maintained the point of view that the keeping alive of such a child could actually not be justified, and it was pointed out in this respect that in maternity wards under circumstances by doctors themselves in such a case Euthanasia would be performed without anything further being said about it. Any precise instructions were not given in that respect.
Q. This problem of deformities, was it treated in any other way?
A. The problem of deformities has probably already been discussed before this case in Leipzig. However, then in the course of the summer there was work done in a more concrete form, first of all, on the part of the Ministry of the Interior, and in this case we were involved as well as special consultant to Dr. Conti -- who became Reich Minister for Health after the death of his colleague, Wagner, and then after that became State Secretary in the Ministry of the Interior, so that Dr. Linden continued to occupy himself with these matters.
Q Who was Dr. Linden?
A Dr. Linden was Ministerial Counselor in the Reich Ministry of the Interior, and he was a physician, and he was a competent official who later on was in charge of all these sanitoriums, and later on in the course of the treatment of the Euthanasia question he was appointed as exponent for all these matters.
Q What was the procedure at the time? Was Hitler informed about all these matters?
A In August of 1944 by his order I participated in a conference which took place between Dr. Linden and Mr. Bouhler and some additional men, and in its course the question of treatment of these deformities was discussed, and which also included a discussion about the method of treating those cases. On the part of the Ministry of the Interior Dr. Linden put forth documents, questionnaires, etc., which had been furnished which were then discussed once more in detail, and in this case it was the preparatory work for the later-established Reich Committee for the dealing with sick persons who were suffering from inherited diseases.
Q Did Conti attend these conferences?
A I have never seen Conti in any conferences of this kind, and I have never heard him speak in this connection at any place.
Q To what extent did Conti deal with these matters in the Ministry of the Interior?
A It certainly is not only the question of this Reich Committee; but it is the question of dealing with deformities; and it was discussed in the Ministry of the Interior as long as the question of Euthanasia was discussed at all. At that time I did not have any knowledge of this purely administrative work, and only now I have had the possibility of getting a certain insight into the existence of all these conditions.
In the course of the Polish campaign around the middle of September, a conference took place between Dr. Conti and Mr. Lammers and the Fuehrer.
This conference took place at Zoppot near Danzig. There the question of the introduction of an Euthanasia law was discussed, and Mr. Lammers maintained the point of view that such a law would have to be worked out through the general Administration. Because of the long administrative channel connected with this, Hitler apparently objected. The whole question at that time was that no result was achieved between Hitler, Lammers and Conti.
Q. Were you at that time already informed about the matter, about the question of the legal problem with the Ministry of the Interior?
A. I was not informed at the time, and I have only been informed about it now. I did not attend these conferences, and I have neither discussed them with Conti later on nor with Lammers about the question of Euthanasia.
Q. Thus, all these incidents took place in the year 1939?
A. This conference near Danzig took place in the middle of September and when I referred to the Decree and its signing, this took place towards the end of October.
Q. Now why was this matter dealt with and started during the war?
A. I must assume that the Fuehrer was of the opinion that such a problem could, first of all, be carried out more smoothly during the war because the opposition which might have been expected from the side of the church would not play such an important part during wartime as it would in other times.
Q. Therefore, there is a large preliminary history to the Euthanasia program.
A. It certainly has been traced back to the time of 1933, and before. It would perhaps be important to point out that the decree was actually pre-dated, and the formulation only took place in October, while the date of the decree was the 1st of September 1939. This pre-dating toward the beginning of the war shows that Hitler actually believed that the introduction of this law would be easier during war time. In 1935 he is alleged to have told the former Reich physician, Wagner, that if war should ever break out, he would deal with the Euthanasia questions and that he would have them carried out.
Q. Now, if you come back once more to the text of the decree; then, you were given orders, together with Bouhler. What official position did Bouhler occupy?
A. Bouhler was Chief of the Chancellery of the Fuehrer.
Q. Just a minute, witness. In connection with this I am handing you the sketch of the Euthanasia program which was presented by the prosecution. It is NO 253; it is located in Part I of Document Book 14. At the same time I am handing to you a document, it is a sketch composed by the defendant, Brack.
Mr. President, the plan has not been translated as yet, and for the time being I have submitted a plan in German; it is not very important because I am not going to deal with details in the plan, but only the top containing the names, so that you will also be able to follow the German copy.
In connection with this sketch, the defendant Brack has given an affidavit and I want to read it. It is Document KB 8, with the sketch belonging to it No. KB 15. I want to submit both of them as Exhibit No. 3. The plan will later be presented to the Tribunal in English, and I hope it will be ready by noon. I shall now read the affidavit: "I, Victor Brack, born 11/9/1904 at Haren, near Aachen, at present a defendant before Military Tribunal 1 at Nuremberg, depos* the following affidavit, after I have been informed that violation of an oath, by standing or making false statements will result in severe punishment.
The plan submitted was Document NO 426, Exhibit No. 106; it is plan No. 253, which I am submitting, was at the time partially composed by my statements and partially according to the suggestions by Dr. Hochwald, who is an interpreter. It was drafted by members of the prosecution. At the time I objected that such an organizational plan had never existed, and now this only can be construed by me, and therefore it may contain incorrect statements. The Prosecution assured me of the fact that the plan had only been composed according to the best of my knowledge. In the meantime, I have discovered by looking at various documents of the Prosecution, and I have obtained a clearer picture than I had at the time; and, therefore, I have composed a near plan about the Euthanasia program and its organization, and it shows the relationships to the persons and offices involved in it and that they actually existed. I am submitting this sketch with the request to now submit this plan to Military Tribunal No. 1. The truth and correctness of the plan I have certified. The plan forms a vital part of this affidavit. Nurnberg, 27 January 1947. Then follows the signature of Victor Brack. And then the document concludes with the certification by Dr. Froeschmann, counsel for the defendant."
Q. Witness, first of all will you give us your opinion as to the sketch of the Prosecution, and only as far as the top agencies were concerned, with which you were connected; that is without first going into the details.
A. In the Plan No. 253, which has been presented, there is a line under my name which connects to the name of Bouhler; and below there is a further line in the program of Euthanasia. This connecting line is incorrect so far as it has been drawn to my name. The administrative machinery for the execution of the Euthanasia program was an establishment which was exclusively subordinated to Mr. Bouhler. It had been established by him and it was administered by him. Likewise, the connecting line from ay name to Dr. Conti, is not correct because it did not exist at all. The upper connecting line from Bouhler to Brandt, which has been struck out in part, and which in part has been continued as a line, to Minister Brack is not correct in this form either because when anything took place as far as the administration was concerned, that is, it all connected to the Ministry of the Interior.
Then this also originated with Bouhler. In my opinion, in order to explain the sketch, it would be appropriate to state that also the statement in the affidavit by Brack would have to be repeated once more because also, the other sketch in this plan which refers to the subordinating agencies are also incorrect, and I would also consider the title Euthanasia Program as incorrect, because it was not described or outlined from the very beginning as far as its extension was concerned.
Q. You may put the sketch aside now. Now, I want to deal with the sketch which the defendant, Brack, has composed. I am now handing you the plan. Have you already seen the plan?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you confirm, with regard to precision, that this plan has now been drawn correctly according to your opinion?
A. In my opinion this plan looks the connecting line between Bouhler and myself; and furthermore, it is correct that the red line from Bouhler to the executing agency of Euthanasia is Tiergarten Strasse 4, and that from there also the connection for the Reich Commissioner for the mental institutions and to Dr. Linden is correct. I assume that if such an organizational plan as now drawn up, it is correct in principle at least.
Q. Of what agency was Bouhler in charge?
A. Bouhler was the Chief of the Chancellery of the Fuehrer.
Q. And with what did the Chancellery of the Fuehrer deal?
A. The Chancellery of the Fuehrer, first of all, dealt with the private matters of Hitler himself; then, it was also a receiving agency for everything that arrived in the forms of requests and complaints; and from there compensations and other assistance was granted concerning requests. And then later -
during the first Bouhler was able to make certain decisions, and then later the job was taken over by Dr. Bormann.
Q. What was the character of Bouhler?
A Bouhler made a somewhat reserved impression. He was very quiet and whenever somebody met him he gained the impression that he was dealing with an honest personality. In his character, he may have been somewhat soft.
Q What was the party political connections of Bouhler?
A He may have become a member of the party at a very early period of time. Hitler had known him for many years, and certainly before the time prior to 1923, and he had an unlimited faith in him and confidence. As a result of this fact he obtained knowledge about many things in his official capacity. He certainly could always act as a barometer toward Hitler as to the attitude and feeling of the population. I do not know anything more in detail about his office, but I have said that I made the acquaintance of Brack in 1934, as an Adjutant, and prior to the time of 1939, and later after 1941 or 1942, I did not have any closer contact with him.
Q What was the contact between Bouhler, Conti, and Lammers?
A I know of Lammers, and that a close relationship existed there, and certainly was the same with Dr. Conti, and the Ministry of Interior. Since a lot of mail arrived in the Chancellery of the Fuehrer, it was also the task of this office to distribute the mail further to the competent agencies.
Q Did Bouhler deal by himself, particularly with the Euthanasia problem?
A I assume he was also personally interested in this problem. Later on I also heard that he was one of its originators because he feared under the circumstances that existed in the individual districts, later on he would come to deal with this question individually, without having --without being able to cause the proper effect there in the districts. I cannot judge as to what extent this plan was dealt with. Now to the question of Euthanasia. When I discussed this question in October with him, he had made the decision to carry out the question and so solve the Euthanasia problem, and he maintained the same point of view which I previously stated. He has not stated anything to me about Euthanasia, as it is described by the word, nor has he made any other requests. The words "useless caters" never fell in my presence, and I do not think that they played any important major part in this problem because that refers to the consumption of food, and the number of patients concerned did not play any important part.
Q But now you must have had some personal contact with Bouhler?
A Later on I met Bouhler; that, as far as I know, was only in November. Previously I had not spoken to Bouhler because Bouhler was in Berlin and he continued to work there by himself after he had received my letters.
Q There was no special organization necessary in order to carry out Euthanasia?
A Yes, a special organization was established, and it is located in the middle, and it is sketched in pink (referring to the map before him). Shall we use the map once more? I want to assume that this representation, by dividing it into three parts, is correct. There was a Mutual Transport Company which was closely connected with the problem. Then, there was the Mutual Transport Association, which later on was connected with, and carried out the removals. Also in the Ministry of Interior there was the Reich Association for Mental Institutions which dealt with the diagnosis, and the evaluation of the questionnaires and so forth.
These three or four mentioned business titles were common names which were used during the time that Euthanasia was being carried out. I finally mentioned the Reich Association for Mental Institutions; that was the group which, first of all, dealt with scientific evaluation of the questionnaires, the group of diagnosis, and the previously mentioned agencies which evaluated the questionnaires.
Q Where was this agency located?
A. This agency was located at Tiergarten Strasse 4, which is generally described afterwards as T-4.
Q. Were physicians working at the T-4?
A. Yes, there were physicians working at the T-4. The main diagnostician and the chief diagnostician were there. The main official agency was at this address.
Q. Now, what was your task, at the main office, at that address?
A. The task of Bouhler was collected with that of execution. My task within the entire Euthanasia Program had already been determined by the decrees. It consisted that I, together with Bouhler, had the authority over the physicians who were participating in this program, and furthermore, we had the provisional task toward the Fuehrer, himself. And, then, I had to maintain a certain contact with Bouhler, himself. And, I had to immediately inform Bouhler with regard to decisions about questions which could be debated in any way.
Q. What was your agency and how were you included in the administrative apparatus?
A. I did not have an office, and I was not included in the entire organizational machine. Outside of special authority which was given to me by virtue of decrees from the Fuehrer, I did not have any instructions or directives in any form. I was not the superior in any way toward this administrative machine.
Q. Well, who did have this superior position?
A. Bouhler; it was Bouhler's T-4, and that was his agency.
Q. What was the connection with the Reich Ministry of Interior?
A. The Reich Ministry of Interior had another agency in connection with this program in the form of Doctor Linden, who was responsible in this question that is, the Reich Committee which I have mentioned before. Between the office of Linden and the executive agency of the Euthanasia T-4, there was a corresponding direct channel.
Q. I am now submitting Document No. 156. I was unable to ascertain in what document book it is contained. It is a very short letter and I shall read it. I shall submit the report to you in the German text.
MR. McHANEY: The prosecution has not been furnished with either a copy of a German translation or an English translation of this document. I remember it is a document which we had some discussion about in the early stages of the trial. The document, itself, was submitted by the prosecution to the Defense Information Center, but was not used in the trial. I have no objections to this document. This matter was not introduced in evidence by the Prosecution, and if it is now offered it will have, of course to be an Exhibit for Earl Brandt. Furthermore, it is not certified of any one; however, I make no objections on that ground since the document was secured by the Prosecution, and we are willing to admit its authenticity. However, I think that unless the Defense Counsel rather promptly established a more smooth working procedure for the introduction of documents, and furnishing of copies and translations for the prosecution, we will be in a rather hopeless confusion with respect to the progress of the case. We will have to start maintaining files on tho Defendants documents, and it is going to be rather difficult to be going back constantly to be sure we have received copies of the documents.
JUDGE SEBRING: Mr. McHaney, is it not true that some of the confusion that is beginning to arise is because of the fact that the proper administrative agency has not yet been able to translate these documents into English?
MR. McHANEY: I am not sure that I understood the question. Will you please repeat it?
JUDGE SEBRING: I understood from Dr. Servatius that although he had been reserving exhibit numbers for some of these documents, he had not been placing them in evidence solely because of the fact that the Translation Division had not yet been able to put them into English. Is that true?
MR. McHANEY: I understood his statement to that effect.
JUDGE SEBRING: It may not have been exactly that, but I understood it in that manner.
MR. McHANEY: In so far as it applies to this document, it has been in the possession of the Defense Counsel for two or three months, so obviously there should be no difficulty in getting it transited. I am perfectly willing to have the document go in as an exhibit now, but I would ask that Dr. Servatius and the other Defense Counsel be advised that it would be necessary in order to proceed smoothly with the trial that the Prosecution be furnished with advance copies of these documents, both in English and in German, as the rules of the Tribunal prescribe. And, only that way will we be in a position to make our objections at the time to the documents as offered.
THE PRESIDENT: In the interest of time, English copies of these documents should be furnished to the Prosecution, and should also be made available to the Tribunal. I do not know whether the fact that this has not been done has been due to administrative procedure or to some other reason.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, I would not like to state all of the technical difficulties which the defense has had with the translation as well as the other sections. It is very difficult to run everything smoothly and we are trying to keep these difficulties to a very small extent. With regard to this Document No. 156 I have looked through the document books because I assumed that they had already been presented as an exhibit and therefore I assumed that it had been translated because I was given this document by the prosecution. I request that it be temporarily admitted and I shall then submit it as Exhibit No. 4.
THE PRESIDENT: That procedure will be followed. The prosecution has consented to that and it's all right with the Tribunal. What number is this exhibit given? What number as to the defendant Brandt?
DR. SERVATIUS: It will be Exhibit No. 4.
THE PRESIDENT: Those are two documents, Exhibit No. 4 and Exhibit No. B.
DR. SERVATIUS: They are Exhibit 4 and 4-B. I want to read the short letter that they have not translated. The letterhead is "Chief Prosecutor, Stuttgart, 15 July 1940, secret.
"To Reich Minister of Justice "Attention of Ministerial of Dr. Stadelmann or his deputy "In office, Berlin "Subject:
Information as to the unnatural death of inmates of institutions.
"Enclosure: One anonymous letter with envelope. The enclosure address to the Chief Prosecutor at Ravensbruck.
"I enclose the following for acknowledgment. Since recent similar rumors have come to my knowledge, I request instructions if I should initiate investigations and how for this purpose the Secret State Police and the State Police I shall find at Stuttgart."
Then follows the signature. "By order of, signed Holzhaeuser" Then comes a remark.
"Dr. Freisler has discussed the matter with Holzhaeuser personally and secondly no action is to be taken and third the incident is to be kept to gether with all other matters pertaining to the subject."
This letter which has been sent to me by the prosecution has the following inclosure with it:
"The Chief of the Chancellory of the Fuehrer of the NSDAP "Berlin, W-8, 5 June 1940 "Vosstrasse 4 "Wilhelmistrasse 65 "Dear Dr. Guertner:
"This refers to the telephone conversation of the past few days. I want to inform you of the following: by virtue of the authority of the Fuehrer, I, as the sole person responsible for the execution of these tasks, have issued the necessary orders to my collaborators. In excess of this the degree of such guiding regulations does not seem necessary to me anymore."
Q. Then follows the signature which I consider to be that of Bouhler. Witness, will you state your opinion with respect to the second letter? Will you tell us whether the statement by Bouhler about his position is correct?
A. The reference of Bouhler with respect to his position within the Euthanasia question is certainly correct. I cannot also confirm that the sig nature on this document is that of Bouhler.
In this case he refers to his position at Tiergartenstrasse 4, from where this work was being carried out. As a parrallel to that there existed another outside office of the Reich Minister of the interior as far as I know in the Columbus house which has also been casually mentioned in this connection.
Q Have you ever been at that office in the Columbus house?
A I have never visited the office in the Columbus house and I have never visited the office at Tiergarten 4 either.
Q But you did work together with Bouhler. Of what did your mutual tasks consist?
A They consisted of the fact that first of all we were together with the Fuehrer to discuss foreign questions which resulted and later on the procedure was that sometimes Bouhler alone and I by myself went to the Fuehrer and then he, Bouhler, Bouhler obtained these documents again.
Q What questions were discussed there?
A In the beginning some very fundamental questions were discussed. First of all the question of the veterans. That included those in the first World War. Then some persons who had become injured in the line of work and the the following were to he excluded from Euthanasia: foreigners. Thus the order only applied to German Nationals. Another exception--I cannot recall any other exceptions and by myself I could not confirm that the instructions were given to exempt Jews from the framework of Euthanasia as far as the German Nationals were concerned.
Q Now, what was the procedure?
A First of all by the use of a questionnaire all of these sick persons were to be registered. This was not so much discussed and disputed as there was a secrecy in connection with the use of Euthanasia, which had been expected by the Fuehrer. He was of the opinion that this entire Euthanasia program could be carried out without the public obtaining any considerable knowledge of it out without it having indefinite influence on the public. Mr. Bouhler as well as myself pointed cut several times that this was improbable and that perhaps it would be most appropriate to make the Euthanasia problem public. However, this was fundamentally disapproved and Hitler claimed that the administrative apparatus could not function properly in the execution; that this had to be possible.