1947-02-05, #1: Doctors' Trial (early morning)
Official transcript of tie American Military Tribunal in the matter of the Unit ed States of America, against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 5 February 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the Court Room will please find their seats.
The honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal I.
Military Tribunal I is now is session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, will you ascertain that the defendants are all present in Court.
THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honors, all defendants are present in the Court Room.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary General will note for the record the fact that the defendants are all present in Court.
KARL BRANDT — Resumed EXAMINATION BY DR. FROESCHMANN:
Q: Witness, yesterday in the last part of your discussion of the euethanasia program — I would like to address same questions to you in that connection, Do you know that in August, 1939, an oral order had already preceded the written decree by Hitler to Bouhler?
A: No, I do not know anything about that. However, I consider it possible because otherwise this concrete order to Bouhler would not have been given. I assume that perhaps Bouhler may have had a certain contact about the preparations which were taking place between Dr. Conti and Lammers which, at the time, were immediately discussed at Danzig in the middle of September.
Q: Yesterday you have already spoken of the exceptions — the persons who were not allowed to fall under the euthanasia program — and in this connection you lave already mentioned the war invalids.
Have I understood you correctly that those war invalids were to be excepted from the euthanasia whose mental disease was in direct connection with on injury during the World War or World War II?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you know anything about the fact that the defendant Brack, together with his collaborators, drafted the law?
A: I have only found out about it at a later period of time. At the time I did not know anything at all about it.
Q: It should be of interest for the Tribunal to know the number of insane in Germany in 1939. Would you be able to give some information about that subject to the Tribunal?
A: I cannot give the exact number for the year of 1939 to you. In general we have no idea about the number of mentally diseased in the country. The number which I know had probably been determined in the year 1934, but I cannot say that with certainty. The main contingent concerns people suffering from paralysis in all the phases of the disease. In this connection, of course, there were not only the sick persons who had to be confined to an institution but altogether a number of patients who were subjected to general medical treatment. The number was estimated at approximately one million.
The next biggest number of patients was that of schizophrenia which was located around six hundred thousand and that was out of a population of about sixty million. This schizophrenia, at the same the, represents the mental contingent for the mental institutions and that was approximately two hundred thousand. For the number of beds available, that means 70% to 80%. Of those cases of schizophrenia, approximately 20% could be cured. The remainder continued to be patients in mental institutions. The same number of approximately two hundred forty thousand patients is the number for epileptics and for the manic-depressive patients.
The statistics for the Huntington Disease stands at about 60% against the others. However, altogether, the number of mentally insane and idiots was approximated at one million. Altogether there may have been three million mental cases.
Q: How many, in your opinion, of those cases were confined to institutions?
A: Of the three million, the number of two hundred fifty thousand occupied beds in institutions. That is, about six hundred thousand wore under constant medical care and one part of them, approximately two hundred fifty thousand, were confined in hospitals while the others were treated by a private physician.
Q: Do you have an insight into the fact of hew many people were included in the euthanasia program described by you yesterday in the years 1939, 1940, 1941, until the end?
A: The number was computed from our statistics, one thousand -10 to 5 to 1, in which count is the number of persons who are healthy; ten of those are under medical care, five are under constant treatment in institutions, and one comes under the euthanasia program. That means that amongst one thousand healthy people there is one such case. That again is figured from the population of sixty million — that is, approximately sixty thousand.
Q: However you had no access to exact statistics?
A: As far as I know no statistics have been compiled.
Q: Now, one other question. Who gave orders within the euthanasia program? Did you give then or did Bouhler give then there with respect to the physicians?
A: Yesterday, I stated that the 3-4 was an office Bouhler. As far as I know the physicians were suggested on the part of the ministry of the Interior. In the course of that time I attended about four conferences which took place at the office of Bouhler where the *** expert and three other exports also attended. The remaining conferences which took place else where were carried out without my participation
Q: Could the Defendant Brack issue any independent orders within the Euthanasia Program?
A: No.
Q: Was Brack subordinated to you, witness?
A: No, Brack was not subordinated to me but was subordinated to Bouhler.
Q: Did Brack discuss medical matters with you?
A: No.
Q: Did you know that in the winter of 1941 to 1942, at the time when the catastrophe broke over the German Army in the East, members of the T-4 were assigned to carry out a rescue action in the East by order of Hitler?
A: I am of the opinion that they were already used before I visited Vienna which I have described to you; that would be already in December of 1941. These units were already used on the railway from Minsk to Smolensk. I think that this was a measure which was suggested by Dr. Todt.
Q: Do you know how long this rescue action lasted?
A: In my opinion and as far as I remember, it was concluded with the end of winter, around March or April.
Q: Then I would like to ask you the following question, witness. By virtue of this decree of Hitler of 1 September 1939, were you and Bouhler given the assignment to authorize certain physicians to give mercy deaths to incurably mentally insane — was it your opinion to obtain the assurance of Hitler that these physicians, after having performed such euthanasia, if they were threatened with legal procedures, that they should be saved from such with intervention by the administration?
A: Yes, absolutely.
Q: Therefore, in the decree of Hitler, you have seen a statement by the head of the State, according to which these physicians were excepted from any legal procedures?
A: Yes, that is quite clear. That has also been the case in the continuation of the program in 1940 and 1941.
Q: Now do you agree with me that the State did not cease interest in the life of a human-being which was worthy of protection?
A: I have not understood the previous question.
Q: I have asked the question, do you agree with me that the State has not ceased an interest in the life of a human-being worthy of protection?
A: Yes.
Q: On the authority of Hitler and being familiar with these prerequisites, that is, the incurably insane, have you seen in that the statement by the head of the State that the interest of the State ceased in the lives of these people, namely the mentally and incurably ill?
A: No, I have not seen that.
Q: And why not?
A: In this I have seen only the thought to help the condition of the person and to bring it to an end in the interest of the afflicted person. That was part of the State interest.
Q: Therefore, the reason for these statements in this case lay in the person of the patient?
A: Only in the person of the patient.
Q: Witness, now according to your medical knowledge are they alive or have they lost so much of their legal value of living that a continuation as they are for all time has lost its value for the person?
A: Yes, for the-person himself, yes.
Q: Do the so-called mentally dead belong to that group—that is, people who are in a condition of final incurable idiocy?
A: I would count those people into that group, yes.
Q: You have stated that the decision about the diagnoses as to their incurability was in the hands of experts who worked independently of each other on the individual cases, is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Now in your opinion were these experts now, in a certain sense, State Organs? I want to repeat the question: Were these physicians whose task it was to make diagnoses, through the fact that they had been given the authority, were they now in a certain sense organs of the State as far as their diagnoses were concerned?
A: With regard to the decree they have been just in that capacity, in an official position.
Q: They did not have an official position but with regard to the decree they have had that capacity. Witness, with the specialized physicians is it possible to determine such cases of incurable mental diseases with absolute certainty?
A: Within the framework of the general human considerations, yes, that possibility exists.
Q: With the insufficiency of human knowledge can a mistake occur in the person of even a physician with much experience?
A: A mistake is, of course, possible.
Q: Now, does not now a deputy of the head of the State have to bear this possibility of mistakes in mind?
A: This possibility was taken into account by the fact that a number of experts and also subsequently a number of observatory possibilities of the patients were made available to the physician: furthermore by the fact that after having been confined to an institution for 5 years, the institution where the patient was located would still subject this patient to a period of long observation.
Q: Therefore, to sum up for conclusion, you have seen in the security measures which you have just mentioned, you have seen State and medical guarantees?
A: Yes, the State and medical guarantees.
Q: Then I do not have any further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any further cross-examination of this witness on the part of any defense counsel?
There being none, the Prosecution may cross-examine.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. McHANEY:
Q: Herr Brandt, since you have just been discussing Euthanasia we shall continue on that subject. I would like to ask you how much psychiatric training you have received?
A: I have had no psychiatric training in particular.
Q: How much first-hand knowledge have you received on insane patients?
A: I am afraid I shall have to ask you to repeat the question. I did not quite understand it.
Q: I asked you how much first-hand knowledge or experience you have had with insane persons.
A: First of all at the university I had my ordinary training and afterwards I had no more practical experience in teaching regarding insane patients.
Q: How many insane asylums have you been in for the purpose of observation and study?
A: I did not have any observation in or visits to insane asylums. I said yesterday that I had been to Bethel and at a later stage I once visited a special clinic at Kassel. Apart from that I have no special expert knowledge in the field of psychiatry.
Q: Let us go back to the Fuehrer's letter of 1 September 1939. That is Document 1630, Prosecution Exhibit 330. I will read it to you although I am quite sure you are very familiar with it. It is dated Berlin, 1 September 1939.
Reichsleiter Bouhler and Dr. Brandt are charged with responsibility of enlarging the authority of certain physicians to be designated by name in such a manner that persons who, according to human judgment, are incurable, can, upon a most careful diagnosis of their condition of sickness, be accorded a mercy Heath.
/s/ Adolf Hitler
This program was not limited to the incurably insane, was it?
A: It was stated in its content that in case of a verdict of incurable disease, mercy death could be granted. I do not know whether you have just mentioned insane patients. All I heard was patients.
Q: That is the point I am making, Herr Brandt. The order itself does not say "incurably insane patients" but just "incurable persons."
A: Incurable persons, yes, I see.
Q: And I therefore put the question, on to you that the program was not limited to insane persons, was it?
A: To begin with it was not a program at all. What I consider to be a program is an exact ruling on the limits within which people were to be dealt with in this matter. It was generally left open just by using, the word "patients" without quoting numbers or types of illnesses. Without that there was a definite light imposed in this matter. Since the word "patients" is used this also entails the possibility to deal with insane patients within the framework, of this euthanasia and to relieve them of the degree of illness they are suffering from.
The affair was designed for insane patients, such as T-4 at a later stage in collaboration with Dr. Linden's corresponding department in the ministry of Interior, carried out later. Individual cases of individual patients who were not insane did occur and did actually come to my knowledge. It did not come to my knowledge on the other hand that they were subjected to euthanasia. We were there concerned generally with applications coming from patients or from their relatives themselves, which either went to the Chancellery of the Fuehrer or were dealt with by the Ministry of the Interior or some other agency which transmitted them there, in such a case Bouhler's department, and, incidentally, one individual case dealt with by me which came to our clinic for observation. Generally speaking, these patients were enabled to go to a sanitarium or some other institution.
Q: Now, Herr Brandt, let's get clear at the beginning that we don't want to be quarreling about the use of the words "euthanasia program." I am going to continue to say "program"; and I understand that you disagreed with that use of the word. But I think we understand what we mean. So let's don't consume time arguing about this triviality. Now, are you ready to swear that only insane persons, incurably insane persons, were subject to euthanasia in spite of the broad Fuehrer order here which says that euthanasia can be applied to any incurable person whether insane or otherwise?
A: Yes, that is precisely what I wish to express because of the individual cases which I knew about being no more than four or five as years went by; but in regard to these cases I must say that euthanasia was not carried out and there were no corresponding authorizations coming through.
Q: You made a considerable point of the humanitarian motive in relieving these persons from pain and suffering. There is nothing in this letter which limits the applicability of euthanasia to those persons who are suffering pain, is there?
A: If I were to read through its text, I probably wouldn't come across that word, no.
Q: Well, I suggest to you that you couldn't swear to this Tribunal that the program was limited to the persons, insane or otherwise, suffering severe pain, could you?
A: We weren't concerned with pain in the case of these insane patients. We were concerned with their condition, their entire condition, their mental condition. It isn't that stupidity or being demented is a painful affair; it is defectiveness of the mental structure; and it is connected with the disintegration of a man's personality; and, of course, these people because of the disintegration of their personal structure were included in that program which you have just described.
Q: Well, I am sure that we all realize that, Herr Brandt; but you had made such a considerable point of the humanitarian motive of relieving the patient from subjective pain and suffering; and I'm putting it to you that there are a large number of persons who can be classed as insane who are in fact perfectly happy people.
Isn't that true?
A: I don't think that an insane person is a happy human being, nor do I think that the life of an insane person, considering the circumstances under which it progresses, is something which is within the keeping of human dignity. These are considerations and trains of thought with which one will have to grapple again and again. Under certain circumstances this may be nothing but an argument with words; but the fact of the condition of such patients and the fact of a condition unfit for the continuation of life -that is the decisive factor. In that connection the question of a physical, bodily pain can under certain circumstances be displaced by the psychological burden which someone will have to bear who is, for instance, suffering from the condition of depression.
Q: Of course, if you base the justification, the moral justification, on relieving people from pain and suffering, you can see that it is both consistent with that high moral principle and the wording of this Fuehrer letter to apply euthanasia to so-called hopeless cases of tuberculosis or cancer or syphilis and what not; isn't that true?
A: That is not possible. I have already said earlier to Dr. Froeschmann and I emphasized it yesterday that as far as the status is concerned it cannot be considered a burden and patients who are still in a position to be helped should be helped. The burden which is after all nothing but a burden to the budget must not under any circumstances play a part. That would be a sad condition. It is a sad condition in all civilized states that they do not raise the money and the fund essential for this purpose, both, I mean, for the supply and the welfare of such persons who are worthy of such care in insane asylums. On the other hand as to care for tuberculosis patients, I should dislike to see these people included in the euthanasia program under any circumstances. It is a principle and most decisive difference which plan a part here. I have told you earlier that euthanasia can only play a part in the interest of the patient himself and under no circumstances must any other interest, any other factor, be of significance in this connection.
If I apply this to conditions in Germany, then before the war we spent three hundred fifty millions per annum for these asylums, which in comparison to other states is a large sum of money.
In spite of this as a total expenditure it is a minimum if you consider that three hundred fifty millions a day went for the pursuits of the war, or if you compare it with the cost of a battleship, which is about the same. These funds, this equipment, and the pay for the necessary personnel is something which every well organized stated ought to raise.
Q: Now, this Fuehrer letter doesn't say that the patient has to be doomed to an early death, does it?
A: He says that if the situation is most critically judged by the doctor then the mercy deaths can be granted. In the case of incurable diseases, any other questions which might have played a part in this connection are not dealt with in writing in this decree; but appropriate instructions issued by the Fuehrer to Bouhler or to me in order to have them passed on to Bouhler for his carrying out were dealt with in that matter.
Q: Well, I don't think you answered my question. Let's put it in another way. The euthanasia program was not limited to persons who were doomed to die an early death, was it?
A: I don't know whether you are applying the words early death to the age of the person or the condition of his illness. It might have been possible — it was possible that patients were included in the program who under certain circumstances might have been able to live another two or three years; but it was not the case that with reference to the insane patient only the aged person was affected. Of importance were the questionnaire and the stage of his illness which were shown in these details and facts.
Q: Dr. Brandt, isn't it true that you can have a person of fifteen years who is suffering from incurable insanity of one sort or another, yet who may live to the ripe old age of seventy-five? Isn't that true?
A: It's most improbable. It might under certain circumstances happen occasionally, occasionally; but if someone aged fifteen is insane, it is most improbable that he will live to the age of seventy-five. I am pretty sure that this would be one of the most outstanding exceptions. Generally it wouldn't be the case at all.
The life of insane persons who fall ill at an early age usually comes to an end fairly early, too.
Q: Well, what is the average length of time than an insane person spends in an asylum in Germany?
A: I am afraid I can't tell you that, what the average figure is. It will depend on the type of disease; but I can't give you an average age, I'm afraid.
Q: Now, do you want the Tribunal to believe that the euthanasia program was applied only to such persons as in the judgment of the experts would die within a period of one year or two years? Is that what you want the Tribunal to believe?
A: I believe that the translation into German is not as clear as is necessary for me to understand your questions. Maybe I might ask you to speak a little more slowly so that the interpreter can keep the pace.
Q: I asked you, Doctor, whether you wish the Tribunal to believe that euthanasia was applied only to such persons who would in any event die within one or two years.
A: I can't tie myself down by saying that the patient affected would have died one or two years later. Some of them might have died earlier; some of them might have died a little later. The decisive point was not that the anticipated year of death from the date of their being found was considered but what was decisive was the condition of the patient at the time, he was being considered.
Q: Bouhler was not a doctor, was he, Herr Brandt?
A: No, Bouhler was not a doctor.
Q: Now, this letter from Hitler says that you have the responsibility of enlarging the authority of certain physicians by name; did you do that?
A: Those were authorizations given to certain medical offices by Bouhler and myself jointly.
Q: It says here to enlarge their authority by name. I take that to mean that you know who these people were?
A: These doctors wore dealt with through the Ministry of the Interior, which actually had jurisdiction over these asylums and which nominated them, since neither Bouhler nor I could make a survey of these asylums to this degree, so that in fact suggestions were made by the agency concerned, who had knowledge of the personnel under their jurisdiction. Afterwards, after this designation had taken place, the authorization was then given.
Q: Did you investigate these men or cause any investigation to be made?
A: No, it was done on request of the Ministry of the Interior, which was the superior agency of that institution.
Q: But, Herr Brandt, ultimately it was your responsibility and the responsibility of Bouhler to designate those men and to authorize them, was it not.
A: With the authorization and the signing, I carried out an order which was given me, a task of the selection of these men, I mean. We ourselves could not carry out the designation of these men; and in that connection therefore we relied upon the recognized department, which right from the beginning was responsible for such institutions; and we had to rely on them; and we did rely on them.
There was no other solution in practice. Otherwise it would have been necessary for one of us to have first of all the management of such institutes in our hands; and of course that was not the situation.
Q: But as a good follower of the Fuehrer, you of course accept responsibility for their designation, isn't that right?
A: As to responsibility for the designation of these men, the designation, the selection, took place through the Ministry of the Interior, not through me.
Q: So if mistakes were made in selecting these men and they picked out a few reprehensible characters, you don't accept responsibility for that? You had nothing to do with it? Is that right?
A: No, I couldn't say that. I wouldn't say that I had nothing to do with it. The selection did take place, however, through an official agency; and also of course it was to make the difference between authorization and the actual carrying out of such an action. Authorization alone is not the only decisive factor in the putting into effect of this plan. There were various channels which were instituted; and the possibility of a wrong selection therefore appeared to us to be out of the question.
Q: Now, you must have been interested in who was being selected. Do you remember any of the names of the people who were authorized to accord a mercy death?
A: I can't tell you a single one of these names. There weren't many of them. There were chiefs of institutes. I have just read one name, Pfannmeuller; and then the name Kartell played an important part.
Q: Now, how about the name Renno?
A: It doesn't mean a thing at the moment.
Q: He was stationed at Hartheim.
A: No, the name Renno does not mean a thing to me at the moment at any rate. I did not learn of him.
Q: You knew Hartheim was one of the extermination stations?
A: In Hartheim there was a euthanasia institute, yes.
Q: I don't suppose you knew the name Christian Wirth?
A: I know him from the files. I know him from the files, without the Christian. I know the name Wirth from the files. Probably he is the same.
Q: That is very interesting. You remember that Mr. Gerstein in his affidavit said that Wirth was running this Jewish extermination camp at Treblinka. Do you remember that?
A: That's how I know the name.
Q: You mean you knew his name from the files of this case; you didn't know his name during the euthanasia, program? Is that what you mean?
A: No, I can't recollect having come across this name during the euthanasia program. I am merely trying to express the fact that I know it from the files here.
Q: I misunderstood you. Wirth I will suggest to you, also worked at Hartheim; and of course you don't know the name Schumann, do you?
A: Only now from the files did I get to know it. It wasn't known to me beforehand. I didn't even know that he was in Hartheim at any time.
Q: No, he wasn't; he was at Grafeneck. How many men were authorized to administer euthanasia? You said there were very few. I should think that you would remember them.
A: Those were the people, presumably ten to fifteen, I should assume apart from individual authorizations which had been given in connection with the Reichs Committee Children. Those, of course, were different doctors.
Q: Ten to fifteen men — well, let's see that we understand one another. Were those ten or fifteen men the men who actually gave the injection in the extermination station or herded the people into the gas chamber? Were these the ten or fifteen who were authorized to administer the mercy deaths, or was that Heyde and Nietsche and the top experts?
Now, whom are we talking about here?
A: In my opinion we are talking about those people who had authority to carry out the euthanasia as such. They were the people who had to carry out the work of experts. Will you repeat the question, please?
Q: I'm not sure that the translation came through so I'll repeat it. I understand that you are stating that ten to fifteen men were authorized actually to carry out euthanasia in the euthanasia stations?
A: I do not think that there were as many as that simultaneously. The total was that high. One or two doctors wore working in the euthanasia institutes who had authority; and, if I recollect it properly, then the total number of institutes amounted, to six, so that this would bring us to a total of twelve. But I also believe that doctors changed so that one might have dropped out and then another one would be given authority. At any rate, the figure was a very low one.
Q: I am sure they did drop out. I suggest to you that Wirth went to the East to help with the extermination of the Jews, and Schumann went, to Auschwitz to help out with, the extermination of the Jews, but I am curious to know why a man in your position with the responsibility to designate those man with authority to perform euthanasia could not remember the names of 10 or 15 non who were actually doing it. You recalled only yesterday that two to four percent of the people sent to a euthanasia station were rejected and weren't killed. I can't understand in the far of such remarkable memory that you wouldn't remember the names of 10 or 15 men?
A: I can't remember the names. I am quite sure that none of these people concerned were sent to the East with my knowledge, neither for the extermination of the Jews nor for any sterilization activities.
Q: How many euthanasia stations aid you visit?
A: I have visited on one occasion.
Q: What station did you visit and when?
A: Grafeneck. This must have been on or about the beginning of 1940. It was at a time when the first administrative set up there had begun to operate in connection——those were departments instituted in connection with ministry of the Interior. It was because of these registrar offices and news which had come from there there had been objections on Butler's part right from the word "go" and on my own part regarding the secret procedure connected therewith, and I desired to be once more informed about the problems on hand and so I went there on one occasion end saw it there myself. Apart from that I have not visited any other of these institutes.
Q: So you wort to Grafeneck in 1940; do you remember what month?
A: I can't tell you exactly which month it was.
Q: Well was it the first part of the year of the second part of the year?
A: It seemed to me it was in the first half of the year.
Q: I suppose you saw the doctors there?
A: Yes, I saw them.
Q: But you don't remember meeting Schumann who was at Grafeneck?
A: No, I don't remember the name of the doctor who was working there.
Q: Now, how many observation stations did you visit?
A: I didn't visit any. I only went to Grafeneck.
Q: I want to understand this, Grafeneck was a euthanasia station that is where the people were actually killed. I now put the question to you, how many observation stations did you visit, which is a place they stopped and they kept them before they went to the euthanasia stations?
A: I have never visited an observation station, neither an observation station nor a euthanasia station. I have only seen Graefneck is all.
Q: Now, you have testified that this letter of Hitler was pre-dated sometime in October 1939, 1 September 1939?
A: That is right.
Q: The day Poland was attacked?
A: Yes.
Q: Why was that done and what were the conditions of pre-dating the letter?
A: It was attempted, to express that this decree was the form in which during time of War such an euthanasia program could properly be carried out after the war, at least that was the interpretation of mine at a later stage after I heard about conversations between Dr. Lammers, Conti and the Fuehrer. At a later stage the program was to be defined in another form and continued. The reasons were of former desires, the reasons for pre-dating of that.
Q: I find this a most curious conception that euthanasia somehow is peculiarly applicable in a time of war rather than of peace.
A: It was meant to be continued in time of peace. I said yesterday that before that it had apparently been quite clear through the discussions on the part of the Ministry for the Interior and Dr. Lammers, and even before the War appropriate preparations had been made, but at that time, at that moment apparently these preparations had not reached such a stage of formation and also apart from this in 1935 Hitler appears to have said that in the introduction of such a law and carrying out of such a euthanasia program, it was said by him to be a good thing for the beginning of the War. He also added that he was quite clearly of the opinion that in the War the introduction of any possible objections raised by the Church would be the assist, and as far as that is concerned the dating and signing of this decree is in my opinion to be interpreted why it was signed on 1 September 1939.
Q: You understand I am not arguing with you that this really was a War measure. I just think there is some fundamental disagreement between us as to the reasons it was carried out during the wartime. I am suggesting to you it was carried out during wartime in order to eliminate the kind of so-called worthless lives, to clear hospitals for possible wounded soldiers, to make more doctors and nurses available for the care of the wounded soldiers, to eliminate the necessity for the care and feeding of these worthless lives.
Isn't that the reason that the program was initiated at the beginning of the War?
A: Regarding the question of food, this expression now used by us "useless eaters", let me say this to begin with, if we take into consideration 60 million population for simple reasons of arithmetic, and I then take into consideration 60,000 patients, and this work concerning them then this means nothing further than the maintenance of these 60 million people, or 6 to 8 calories per head of the population per day, and I am sure this would not be a decisive factor in the condition of the war, and another consideration if this had been decisive this certainly would not have remained stopped at a time when the food situation beginning in 1942 was infinitely more complicated, and certainly we would have restarted the program, and it would not have been dropped until the end of the war.
I think these must be decisive arguments speaking against the conception of the "useless eater" and gaining space for patients, and gaining medical offices may have been a consideration which was more of an administrative nature. It is not, however, decisive since this gaining of patients' space in amount of 60,000 beds did not play and would not have played an important part. During the war we had up to a million wounded, apart from ordinarily sick people, so that 60,000 would be a very small percentage of that. In fact the gaining of a corresponding number of beds could not be expected apart from the final gain of just a few thousand. Since the further arrival or accruing of insane persons was taking place at a very rapid rate, such considerations as I have just described were in any case without any interest whatever to the medical man concerned — to the doctors concerned. He was only concerned with his patients, not with economical, political or administrative considerations.
Q: Was it not also decided that those persons able to work should not be killed?
A: The ability to work has nothing whatever to do with these euthanasia or not euthanasia. I pointed out yesterday the question contained a statement not concerned with the extent of the program but in order to find an expression there, just as it can be in the case of a criminal person, a question of the mental condition of the person himself. We are not concerned with the process of the work of a few years there.
Q: Well, I take it then that the questionnaires were filled out on those able to work as well as those unable to work. Is that right?
A: We were not concerned with the question of subdividing them into people capable of work and people not capable of work.
What is significant is the reaction of the person to his treatment and the resulting statement as to how and to what extent he is capable of work, how he can work and what he is capable of doing, in order to form a picture about mental activity and ability to concentrate; and in order to form a picture of that and in order to find out to what extent the person himself can be a possibility, seen from that point of view.
Q: You have told us that twice already. I wish you would pay close attention to the formulation of my question, and answer it preferably in a brief manner. You said that consideration of ability to work all played a part insofar as a diagnosis of the patient's condition is concerned. I then put the question to you whether or not individuals that did not fill out questionnaires were from both those able to work and those unable to work, and I am asking you for a "yes" or "no" answer.
A: The question whether someone is capable of work or not can be answered with a "yes" or "no"! I can answer it "yes" or "no", if you put it separately with the man capable of work and the one not capable of work.
Q: Herr Brandt, you have stated that there are questions to be answered in the questionnaire which concern the ability of the men to work, the patient to work. It has to be stated whether he can work and if so what he does. Now, you state that question is not put in there for the purpose of removing from possible euthanasia those able to work, while applying euthanasia to those unable to work.
A: I understand that.
Q: I then put the question to you that quite apart from the content of the questionnaire was not required that the questionnaires in the asylums be completed and be filled out on those same persons in the asylum who were able to work as well as those unable to work. It is simply a question upon what patients did they complete questionnaires, and I have secured no answer.
A: Upon persons who for at least 5 years had been in the Institute.
Q: How was that again?
A: The questionnaires were filled in regarding patients who had been in the Institute for at least five years. And in reference to that it is possible that patients had questionnaires filled out about them who were perfectly capable of work, patients likewise who in no way were included in the euthanasia program. The institutes received instructions to send questionnaires to the agencies concerned every six months stating details about patients who had been in the Institutes for at least five years or more.
Q: Now, I think we are about to get the answer. You state then that questionnaires were completed then at least on one class of persons who had been in the asylum at least five years, and that questionnaires were filled out on such persons irresponsive of ability to work?
A: Yes.
Q: Well, I trust you see the importance of the question, because if in fact the requirement wad that questionnaires be filled out only on those persons who had been in the asylum for five years, and those who also were unable to work then there might be a serious question as to whether or not really ability to work was not a very great and compelling consideration in the applicability of the program to insane persons.
I don't get a clear picture of just what you did to get this euthanasia program in operation, and what you did after it was functioning; would you go ever that just briefly now, please; what did you do to get the program under way and what did you do after it was functioning, briefly and concisely?
A: I had nothing to do with the putting into effect of the program. The carrying out of this program was headed by Mr. Bouhler. In fact during that period I myself, with a few exceptions caused by difficult circumstances, such as the Fuehrer being in Berlin, I did not come to Berlin myself during all the years, and in 1942 I was tied down in the Fueherer's Headquarters where I had no deputy for the carrying out of the program and preparations, and which were mentioned carried out by Bouhler in collaboration with Linden's agency.
I myself was present during just a few conferences held by Bouhler but my function was to be able to inform the Fuehere repeatedly from the point of view of general medical considerations regarding any special causes, any special events which might occur in the carrying out of the program ain in connection with which it might have appeared necessary to Bouhler to have the decision of the Fueherer obtained.
Apart from that it was my task as designated earlier to authorize, together with Bouhler, the doctors' selections for the program. On the chart, which is hanging behind me, it is apparent in my opinion just how Bouhler, through the corresponding channels of orders, authorized the carrying out of the euthanasia program, and how from that the channels lead off to the agent concerned in the Ministry of the Interior. My function within the carrying out of that program was individual, not in any way in existence apart from the authority, the authorization which I have told you about.
Q: Well, you have spent considerable time telling us what you didn't do. The only two things that I think you said that you did do were to assist Bouhler in cooperation with Guertler in designating the doctors to perform the euthanasia, and also as acting as something in the nature of a liaison man between the Fuehrer and Bouhler and the rest of the program, is that right?
A: That was in fact my actual function in that connection, with one difference though, that I did not designate, I did not select the doctors. I gave them the authority, the selection and designation came from the Minister of the Interior.
Q: I take it that although you and Bouhler were charged with the responsibility for this program, you in fact, do not accept that responsibility here before the Tribunal?
A: For the carrying out of such, no, and I might call your attention to Bouhler's letter to the Minister of Justice, Guertler, in which he states quite clearly he alone was responsible for the carrying out of the program. I, myself, could not have been responsible for the carrying out of the program since during the period this program was running, during the period of 194l, I was in practice and never in Berlin, with the exception of a few days and was working in an office away from Berlin and it was never planned in this connection that I should be at the head of the program, or its carrying out or that I should supervise it from the point of view of a medical expert. I could not have been in control because I was not a psychiatric expert, but a surgeon.
Q: Well, now Herr Brandt, euthanasia involves a considerable medical problem; how could a layman like Bouhler formulate all these plans to carry out the program, a rather elaborate structure? It seems to me that possibly you must have conferred with Bouhler and jointly reached some understanding of the mechanics of the program, the questionnaire, the form of the questionnaire, the places where euthanasia was to be carried out and a whole host of problems which your Fuehrer surely must have had some interest in?
A: These matters which you have just mentioned were principally discussed between Bouhler and Dr. Linden's department, and not with me; because firstly, I have no knowledge as to the number and situations of these asylums, and secondly, the interest, — perhaps that is not quite the right word — should I say perhaps my participation in the matter was connected with general medical problems, but not special medical problems, which the chief expert or experts had dealt with and were dealing with. I had said earlier that I had not actually participated in the conferences dealing with these matters, and in fact the authorizing of the medical experts too was carried out by Bouhler and not by me.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will he in recess.
(A recess was taken)