1947-02-05, #2: Doctors' Trial (late morning)

THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.

CROSS EXAMINATION OF KARL BRANDT — Resumed.

BY MR. McHANEY:

Q: Herr Brandt, before the recess we were dealing with the question of your responsibility in the operation of the Euthanasia program. I have understood your testimony to be to the effect that if any crimes were committed in the operation of Euthanasia, then you were not responsible for those crimes and have been falsely charged in the Indictment; is that a correct conclusion?

A: I did not say what you have said just now. According to my opinion, my formulation was a different one. I should like to say that within this Euthanasia program, crimes were excluded according to my opinion and that one has to differentiate basically between the legal program as defined by the decree and all other matters which have happened in Lublin with sterilization and the 14-F-13, which has not been mentioned yet. All these things have nothing at all to do with the Euthanasia program and are in no way on the same medical and human level as was defined by the decree.

Q: Herr Brandt, I understand your difficulty in answering the question. The purpose of this question is, I am asking you to assume that crimes were committed pursuant to the operation of Euthanasia. It is a question of fact whether such crimes were committed, but right now, I want you to assume that and I am trying to determine who can be responsible for these crimes. I have understood your testimony in such a manner that it leads me to the conclusion that if crimes were committed; you assert you were not responsible. Is that right?

A: I did not learn that crimes occurred within the frame-work of that program. If crimes had occurred and I assume that — then they only have occurred at the Euthanasia station itself, but that too is impossible since the patients who came there only came through a number of experts who passed an opinion on them. The purpose was that within that program every person and I said that yesterday — that is every physician had to act within his own responsibility and all physicians had to act independently of one another. If anyone had committed a crime on that station, the person concerned would be responsible for that crime personally; because if he had committed such a crime he committed it contrary to the directives, which he was given as a physician.

Q: Well now, Herr Brandt, we are not getting along very fast with this point. Let us assume that there was no valid German law permitting Euthanasia and I suppose you are not ignorant of the fact that a number of German courts have already so held; I take it that you deny responsibility for the operation, the functioning of the Euthanasia program on the assumption that it was criminal; yes or no?

A: The execution was not carried out as a criminal program. I yesterday stated what reasons the physician had for his assumption that it was a legal measure and an addition, during the entire time this program was carried out, it was handled in such a manner that everyone had to assume — if he participated in the execution — that it was a legal program. In a letter from Guentler to Bouhler, it is said that there can be no legal complaints. I saw this letter here on paper, but it justifies my opinion that at that period of time we, who participated in that program, considered it as absolutely legal so that the execution of a crime during its execution cannot be considered.

Q: Well, perhaps you would be willing to give us an answer to the question if we exclude your responsibility; would you say that if the program was criminally carried out that the deceased Bouhler could be found responsible for that?

A: The entire program, and I must repeat that, was not considered by Bouhler; Bouhler was of the same opinion as I was, namely, that the Euthanasia program was not criminal. Certainly if he had assumed that it was criminal, he would not have participated in it any more than anyone else.

Q: Didn't you receive reports on the operation of the program?

A: No reports were made as far as I know, and I therefore did not receive any reports.

Q: I thought you stated that part of your responsibility, as small as it was, was to report to the Fuehrer about the operation of this program. How could you report to the Fuehrer if you didn't receive any reports or otherwise gain knowledge of what was going on?

A: I had these first discussions together with Bouhler and the Fuehrer. When you said report I thought you meant a written summary and statement, and I then said that no such reports were made. As far as directives were concerned, all of them were given orally and a report, I understood a yearly report of some report given at a certain period of time about the results of the execution, and I wanted to say that such reports were not made according to my opinion. I haven't received any, and I certainly haven't seen any.

Q: Well, how detailed knowledge did you gain of the actual functioning the program and what reports did you make to the Fuehrer?

A: With reference to the manner of the execution in the form of reports the Fuehrer was not informed by me. Whenever any exceptional questions arose and whenever something important came up which Bouhler didn't want to decide on his own initiative, he either approached Hitler himself personally or he asked me to report the matter to the Fuehrer and then inform him in turn.

Q: What was the nature of some of these special problems that Bouhler didn't want to take responsibility for? We might be interested in those.

A: For instance, there occurred the case of the children, children that were seven or eight years old and were to be included in this Reich Committee matter or whether they were not to be included, or the question came up whether they were too old, and in individual cases such matters were reported.

With reference to the euthanasia program there were administrative technical questions which partly were because of complaining letters and ones that started after September 1944, and then we were also concerned with letters that came from the church. At that time I came into contact with Pastor Bodenschwangler and I talked about that yesterday, and these were the matter we were concerned with.

Q: In other words, you were something in the nature of a trouble shooter were you? Didn't you receive reports on the operation of the program?

A: No reports were made as far as I know, and I therefore did not receive any reports.

Q: I thought you stated that part of your responsibility, as small as it was, was to report to the Fuehrer about the operation of this program. How could you report to the Fuehrer if you didn't receive any reports or otherwise gain knowledge of what was going on?

A: I had these first discussions together with Bouhler and the Fuehrer. When you said report I thought you meant a written summary and statement, and I then said that no such reports were made. As far as directives were concerned, all of them were given orally and a report, I understood a yearly report or some report given at a certain period of time about the results of the execution, and I wanted to say that such reports were not made according to my opinion. I haven't received any, and I certainly haven't seen any.

Q: With reference to the manner of the execution in the form of reports the Fuehrer was not informed by me. Whenever any exceptional questions arose and whenever something important came up which Bouhler didn't want to decide on his own initiative, he either approached Hitler himself personally or he asked me to report the matter to the Fuehrer and then inform him in turn.

Q: What was the nature of some of these special problems that Bouhler didn't want to take responsibility for? We might be interested in those.

A: For instance, there occurred the case of the children, children that were seven or eight years old and were to be included in this Reich Committee matter or whether they were not to be included, or the question came up whether they were too old, and in individual cases such matters were reported.

With reference to the euthanasia program there were administrative technical questions which partly were because of complaining letters and ones that started after September, 1944, and then we were also concerned with letters that came from the church. At that time I came into contact with Pastor Bodenschwangler and I talked about that yesterday, and these were the matters we were concerned with.

Q: In other words, you were something in the nature of a trouble shooter, were you?

A: That would not be correctly expressed in that way. I was asked to concern myself with these difficulties without being able to decide upon them myself.

Q: You mentioned the euthanasia of children. I take it that organization, the Reich Committee for research on severe hereditary diseases, was part of the whole euthanasia picture as set up after Hitler's letter of 1 September '39; is that right?

A: No, this Reich Committee had already been organized before. It was only up to the time of this decree it was not called euthanasia but merely a collection of these children I mentioned one case of Leipzig yesterday which had nothing to do with this committee.

Q: Well, that would be the actual killing of children did not start until after Hitler issued this letter of 1 September '1939, did it?

A: It did not take place before October since only from that moment on the authorization had begun; that is, from the time this was signed.

Q: And the extermination of these children; that is, the authority for doing that, came from this same document of 1 September 1939 addressed to you and to Bouhler; is that right?

A: Yes.

Q: Now, didn't you help formulate the questionnaires which were used in this program?

A: I was present during one conference where drafts of these questionnaires were presented. The drafts and questionnaires had been prepared by the Ministry of the Interior and we were concerned with the questionnaire in connection with the Reich Committee. The questionnaires which were prepared for euthanasia program, according to my recollection, were made without my participation. They were prepared by the expert physicians who were at the disposal of the Ministry of the Interior, if they had not already been ready at the Ministry of the Interior before October.

Q: Now, you knew Mr. Heyde and Mr. Nietsche, didn't you?

A: Yes.

Q: They were the so-called top exports for questionnaires?

A: Not at once. At first it was Heyde. Heyde, as far as I know, left either at the end of 1940 or at the beginning of 1941 and his successor was Nietsche.

Q: Did you select them or appoint them to their job of expertizing these questionnaires?

A: No.

Q: Who did that?

A: I believe that was done by the Ministry of the Interior, but I am sure that at the end Bouhler did it, after he had made the acquaintance of the gentlemen of the Ministry of the Interior.

Q: Did you confer with Heyde and Nietsche?

A: I remember having spoken to Heyde on two or three occasions at the place of Bouhler. I think two or three other physicians were present and it must have been at the beginning of the year of 1940.

Q: Herr Brandt, where was your office located in Berlin?

A: I had my office at the University clinic in Berlin.

Q: But, Herr Brandt, you also had an office in the Reich Chancellery, didn't you?

A: In the autumn of 1942 I instituted an office there consisting of a telephone, one room for a secretary, and one assistant, which I had there after I became Commissioner General. Before that time I had no office in the Reich Chancellery.

Q: Where was this office located with respect to Bouhler's office. Was it on the same floor of the building?

A: It may be that it was on the same floor. The Reich Chancellery was a large building amounting to three hundred meters of length, consisted of various wings and connecting corridors. There was no contact with the offices of Bouhler from the point of view of space. The offices of Bouhler were at a different wing.

Q: Now, Herr Brandt, just how far was your office in the Reich Chancellery from the office occupied by Bouhler?

A: It was necessary to go down two flights of stairs, to go through one connecting corridor located at the center of the building, then go up one flight of stairs and to the other side, then go along a corridor for about sixty meters and at the end of that corridor Bouhler's office was located.

Q: That sounds to be about a sixty minute trip; is it?

A: No, certainly not.

Q: Did Heyde and Nietsche go over these questionnaires with you in the early stages of the program?

A: I cannot remember Nietsche having been present. The discussion of the questionnaires for the purpose of euthanasia only started, according to my opinion, with reference to the questionnaire where the symptoms of the disease were mentioned. Heyde, I think, was present at that time, but I don't think that the questionnaires were drafted at that time. I think discussions took place after the questionnaires had been finished and printable. With reference to the contents and the formulation of the questionnaires, I was in no position to participate. This was carried out by the expert physicians themselves.

Q: Are you willing to swear that Heyde or Nietsche never went over one of these completed questionnaires and discussed their diagnosis with you?

A: I don't think that has happened.

Q: What orders were issued by you and Bouhler concerning the classes of persons upon whom the questionnaires were to be filled out or completed in the asylums?

A: If anything was said by me during these discussions where I participated, it could only have been concerning the fact that the medical responsibility had to play a decisive role and that the physician had to be quite clear about the measures that he took and about the manner of his export opinion that he gave, and to be aware of the responsibility which he took. I can say that generally since even at other occasions whenever any such question arose, I always maintained that point of view.

Q: Herr Brandt, you either didn't understand the question or in any event you did not answer it. I assume you were not interested in having every so-called insane person in Germany fill out one of these questionnaires. Certain classes of people were not to be considered, isn't that true?

A: There were no exceptions with reference to the filling out of the questionnaire. Later on, of course, this changed, but at first the questionnaires were filled out by all the patients who were in these institutions, and then the certain prerequisites were taken into consideration with reference to the length of stay in the institution and the progress of the disease.

Q: Herr Brandt, suppose a person had been committed to an asylum for a period of one month. Was it required that a questionnaire be filled out on such a person?

A: If a person was in the hospital institution for one month, I don't think it was necessary according to my recollection to fill out such a questionnaire. It could have been filled out if it was in reference to the disease itself such as schizophrenia, epilepsy, and it was provided that such patients should also fill out these questionnaires, but according to my opinion, it was not absolutely necessary.

Q: Well, that is what I am trying to get at. I should have supposed that there would be certain obvious classes of persons who were exempt from one program, and I should further think that you wouldn't bother yourself and spend the time and trouble in having questionnaires completed on such persons; and I have put the question to you as to what orders were issued concerning that problem. Do you know or don't you know?

A: With reference to the illness I gave no directions, and I certainly issued no orders. The questionnaires were compiled according to the possible symptoms. There are certain psychiatric illnesses which do not lead to such consequences as paralytical diseases. In consequence, the expert physicians listed the illnesses where they thought that the serious consequences would occur most frequently.

Q: Herr Brandt, suppose you had a non-German National in an insane asylum for a period of thirty days. He had just been committed and had been there thirty days. Did they fill out a questionnaire on that person or not?

A: The procedure of the filling out of questionnaires in reference to Germans or non-Germans made no difference at all. A questionnaire was filled out in the same way for a non-German as for a German. It was not the principle of nationality but it was the principle of the illness.

Q: All right, I don't think you have answered the question yet. Suppose you had two persons, one a German and one a non-German who had been in the asylum for a period of thirty days. Did they fill out a questionnaire on both such persons or one of them, and if so, which one?

A: The questionnaires were worked upon in the same way whether we were concerned with a German or a non-German.

Q: I didn't ask you whether they were worked on in the same way. I asked you if they were filled out. Now is your answer that they were filled out?

A: According to my recollection, they did not have to be filled out at that time already, but only at such a period when the patient had been in that institution for a period of five years. It depended on the length of time he stayed at the institution with reference to the question of filling out or not filling out.

Q: Herr Brandt, I am not in the least bit of a hurry. I will keep you on this stand for three days if necessary to get responses to my questions. I go back to my hypothetical question. We have two persons who have been in the asylum for thirty days. One is a German and one is a non-German National. I ask you whether they filled out the questionnaires on those two persons?

A: According to my opinion, they need not be filled out. They were only to be filled out if they had remained for another four years and eleven months in that institution.

Q: Very well. Your response is that they weren't filled out. You have testified that Euthanasia was not applied to non-German Nationals. Is that correct? Is that your testimony?

A: Yes.

Q: By whom were such orders issued?

A: This was decreed by the Fuehrer expressly.

Q: Did you get the order?

A: Bouhler and I received it. That occurred at the same time when the war wounded were accepted.

Q: And to whom did you and Bouhler issue the orders? To whom did you pass it down to?

A: Bouhler passed on this order to his own agency which worked on the questionnaires. The questions of foreigners and war wounded were dealt with within the Agency T-4. The questionnaires of war wounded and foreigners were not passed on for further working on so that a transfer of such patients could not take place.

Q: To whom did you pass down this order?

A: I didn't receive this order for myself, but this question was reported to the Fuehrer by Bouhler, and the Fuehrer decided that war wounded and foreigners were to be accepted. I think that was even before the Agency T-4 was instituted, and that means that before any questionnaires were worked upon, and I am sure that it was even before the time when questionnaires had been prepared because the designation of foreigners into questionnaires can be deduced from that cause.

Q: Well, you want to change your testimony and then say that you did not receive the order that non-German Nationals were to be excluded, that order was given only to Bouhler, and that you did nothing with respect to such order?

A: The execution of Euthanasia and the execution of his orders and directives was carried through by Bouhler in his own agency, and it was not done by me. I never entered this Agency T-4, and I never could issue any orders to them.

Q: Now just exactly to whom did Bouhler pass down this order that non-German Nationals were to be exempted?

A: This order, according to my opinion, he had to pass on to the agency which worked on these questionnaires. I didn't ask Mr. Bouhler about it. I didn't ask him to whom he passed this order since he received this order very clearly, and I am sure that he passed it on in the same form as he received it. I am not informed about the interior structure of this agency, and I was neither informed about the manner how this administrative apparatus worked in detail. I can only say that Bouhler really did that since he, I am sure, executed such an order.

Q: Well, you are assuming that he did; that is what you mean to say, isn't it?

A: If Bouhler received an order, he must have executed it.

Q: All you know is that he received the order?

A: Yes, that he received the order.

Q: Why, Herr Brandt, if this program was not to be applied to non-German Nationals were questionnaires submitted on non-German Nationals?

A: I cannot say anything about the single reasons about that. It seemed simpler to have these questionnaires filled out by these institutions with the order to sort out the non-Germans.

Q: I haven't heard anything about any order to sort out non-German Nationals. All I know is that the questionnaire contains a blank label "Nationality." Are you now suggesting that orders went down to the asylums that they were to sort out non-German Nationals?

A: No. The procedure was reversed. The question of deciding upon a foreigner or non-foreigner was not left to the institution, but at the Central Station T-4 the differentiation was made on the basis of these questionnaires, these foreigners and non-foreigners, war wounded, and with reference to these questionnaires where we were concerned with war wounded and foreigners, we kept them there while the others were distributed among the experts for further treatment.

In this manner it was made impossible that during the later procedure the transfer of such a patient couldn't be made possible to an observation or Euthanasia institution.

Q: Herr Brandt, do you realize that the execution of non-German nationals in this so-called Euthanasia order would have been criminal?

A: This killing was absolutely in contrast to the order which Hitler gave in this connection, absolutely.

Q: In the face of your testimony, Herr Brandt, I must suggest to you that it appears to me quite ridiculous and absurd, that you would have put yourself to the trouble of filling out questionnaires on persons who were from the beginning exempted from the program. Why did you go to that trouble? What was the point in it?

A: Maybe it was just a general registration. Other questionnaires were attached to the original questionnaire; namely, the institute to which they belonged, and that was necessary for the purpose of statistical summation about the mental institution space that was available.

Q: You are suggesting that these questionnaires were really something in the nature of a survey of insane persons in Germany; is that right?

A: No, I do not want to say that. I want to say that in the procedure when one turned to these institutions there were further materials necessary for administrative purposes. You have to differentiate a questionnaire as to the kind of illness, and the questionnaire with reference to statistical data, which was needed.

Q: Now, Herr Brandt, the questionnaire was designed and issued for the sole purpose of implementing the Euthanasia Program, and I put it to you that it is a little incredulous that this questionnaire would be completed and filled out and sent to Berlin on a substantial group of people as to whom the program had no application.

A: I do not know whether you are putting a question to me or whether you are merely giving me your opinion about it, as it came through the translation.

Q: I am asking for your comment on the opinion which I have just expressed. Isn't that procedure a little bit absurd in your opinion?

A: No, at this time everything was compressed, summarized, as far as possible, and I know everybody knows what it means to fill in a questionnaire.

During the last 15 years we had to fill in so many questionnaires, with so many details, which had nothing to do with the original point that it does not seem at all absurd to me that we used such a procedure to receive additional information — additional data.

Q: Well, let us carry it a little further and see what happened to the questionnaires of these non-German nationals. They were filled out, presumably all over Germany, and they were then dispatched to Berlin, correct?

A: Yes.

Q: Now, we have heard some talk about these questionnaires being photostatted; is that right?

A: Yes.

Q: I ask you, did they photostat the questionnaires filled out on non-German nationals?

A: According to my opinion, no. I do not think they were further worked upon, but I am of the opinion that at the collecting point they remained as they were; so that no photostatic copies were sent to any experts.

Q: In other words, at the collecting point in the T-4 in Berlin the questionnaires were sorted out so that no non-German national questionnaires were photostatted; is that right?

A: I am of the opinion that it was so.

Q: Now, Herr Brandt, suppose I put this question to you: Were any questionnaires of non-German nationals expertized? And, your answer to that would be, no?

A: I think that it is highly improbable that that was done, for in this case it would have been superfluous work for these non-Germans were executed prior to the execution of the Euthanasia. I do not think that any photostats were sent on for the purpose of expertizing.

Q: Well, Herr Brandt, I am happy that we can agree on this absurdity, but I want to put this other absurdity to you. You recall the testimony of witness Mennecke?

Do you not recall that Mennecke testified before his Tribunal that he, himself, expertized a number of non-German nationals' questionnaires?

A: I do not remember this testimony in detail, but it is quite possible that he said it. If you are telling that to me now, if this superfluous work had been carried out in one or the other case, I am really not clear why it was not done because it was really superfluous; but, it is possible, even if this expertizing was carried out, then I am quite sure that a transfer of the patients was not carried out, then I am quite sure that a transfer of the patients was not carried, out as was necessary, and am of the conviction that on the basis of this procedure such foreigners were excluded. I do not know with reference to what period Mennecke spoke, and when he received such questionnaires for expertizing, but naturally I know such expertizing had no sense whatsoever.

Q: Well, I think your Attorney will agree with the statement that Mennecke testified concerning the period from 1940 to 1941. Now, Witness, you apparently were mistaken when you said that these questionnaires by non-German nationals were not photostated; and you apparently also were mistaken when you stated that the questionnaires of non-German nationals were not expertized. Now, just exactly where was the safeguard in this program which made it impossible for these non-German nationals to get transferred after those questionnaires had been expertized?

A: The safeguard could only have been with the central agency in the T-4. It was not possible at and other agency as far as my opinion goes. From there the order was issued that patients were transferred through the office of Linden; and on the other hand, the transport directives were given from there, so this information must have been initiated from T-4, and there the separation between the German and nonGerman was made.

Q: But you, yourself, do not know exactly where that sorting out of non-German nationals took place, do you?

A: No, I do not know where it took place. It is my conviction that it could only have taken place at the central agency because only there did the questionnaires arrive with the designation "foreign", and only there did they have the possibility to separate these questionnaires, Germans and non-Germans.

Q: And, that was before the questionnaires were photostatted; was it not, Herr Brandt?

A: According to my opinion that occurred before the questionnaires were photostatted. The judgment and expertizing of those questionnaires was superfluous and foreigners were to be excluded.

Q: If you do not know exactly where the Germans and non-Germans were sorted out, how can you swear to this Tribunal that non-German nationals were not actually transferred to a Euthanasia Station?

A: A guarantee which enables me to say that is the order which was given to Bouhler very clearly, and which I am quite certain he executed. I think it is quite out of the question that when he received the order to exclude foreigners that he should have them included.

Q: But, that is an assumption on your part, Herr Brandt? Is that right?

A: I cannot repeat it in any other manner than I have just said it.

Q: Now, Herr Brandt, we have talked about these questionnaires and the classes of persons about whom they were filled out; and you have testified that it made no difference whether a man worked or not; that they filled out the questionnaire on him. You further said that it made no difference whether he was a German or a non-German; there was no distinction made between the two and questionnaires were filled out under the same circumstances for both classes of persons. Is that right?

A: I said that it was my opinion that it was so.

Q: I want to show you now Document NO-825. This is Prosecution Exhibit 358. It appears on Page 216 of the English Document Book, Number 14, Part 2. Herr Brandt, I want you to turn to Page 3 in that document where it says up at the top, "Instruction Leaflet." Do you find Page 3 of the original, Herr Brandt, where it says "Instruction Leaflet"?

A: Yes. Yes, I have found it.

Q: "Instruction Leaflet. Read carefully before filling out the questionnaires."

A: Yes.

Q: There was an instruction leaflet sent to the asylums, was there not, advising them how to complete these questionnaires?

A: Yes.

Q: And this instruction leaflet tells them upon which patients the questionnaires are to be completed, doesn't it?

A: Yes.

Q: Let me read to you the first paragraph: "All patients are to be enumerated who (1) are suffering from the following illnesses and cannot be employed, or for mechanical work only, plucking or similar work, in the institution."

Now, Herr Brandt, doesn't that instruction say quite clearly that those persons who suffer from the illnesses enumerated but who can be employed, who can work, are not to be enumerated or are not to have questionnaires filled out on them?

A: I look at it in the following way. These persons had to fill in the questionnaires when they were afflicted with these diseases and, referring to Paragraph 2, when they had been in the institution for five years.

Q: Now, Herr Brandt, let's not play with one another. You can read the German language; and I don't want you to make a statement which is not quite true on the face of the document. Now, isn't it true that Paragraph 1 and Paragraph 2 are mutually exclusive? Isn't there the word "or" between Paragraph 1 and Paragraph 2?

A: Yes.

Q: All right, let's forget the answer you were about to give and divert our attention to Paragraph 1. Doesn't it state there that questionnaires are to be filled out only on these persons who have the enumerated illnesses and who cannot be employed, or for mechanical work only, plucking and similar work? Isn't that what it says?

A: Yes, that's what it says there.

Q: Then your testimony was quite incorrect that employment or ability to work played no part in the euthanasia program except insofar as it permitted a diagnosis of the patient? Isn't that right, Herr Brandt?

A: The question of output of work as such is not listed because of the effect of the work but is listed in order to judge the health of the patient and condition of the patient. If a patient is in a situation where he can work in an institution and work in factories, as is sometimes the case with people with epileptic disease, it shows that he can under no circumstances be so severely ill that it would warrant his falling within the framework of this euthanasia program. Therein I do not see an intensification? but I see in it a safeguard in that the people who were only mildly ill but who were still in need of the institution should be excluded. It has, however, nothing to do with what the patient actually puts out in the form of work.

Q: Now, Doctor, you don't seriously suggest that you cannot have persons very severely ill, incurably ill, of the diseases here listed, yet who are able to perform some work? And you are trying to insist to this Tribunal that you can automatically state a priori that if persons with these illnesses can work then there is no justification for putting them to death?

The point seems to be that if they are afflicted with the same illnesses and for one reason or another cannot work, then you put them to death; and I'm asking you if then one of the most decisive considerations is not the illness as listed in Paragraph 1 but the ability of the person to perform work.

A: The ability work can only be considered when considering the condition of the patient.

It is quite absurd to think of the output. The output of work as such makes no difference at all. It plays no part. Even if it is productive, it is not decisive because whatever a man can do in such an institution is only small errands.

Q: What was it that you said wasn't important, the output?

A: I said that it was not important, that the output of work was not important, and with that I understand the calculable value of the work because it plays no part whatsoever inasmuch as there are only small tasks being performed in such an institution. The output of work can only be considered when you consider the ability to work which in turn is the condition of the patient.

Q: Now, Herr Brandt, let's turn back to the questionnaire itself, one Page back in the document book. Do you find now at the bottom where it says "Kind of Employment"?

A: Yes.

Q: They apparently thought output was important for the diagnosis of the insane person because it reads "Kind of Employment, most precise designation of work and output; for example, agricultural labor, does not do much, or a locksmith, good specialist; no vague statements like domestic work, but particular ones, room cleaning, and so forth; also state always whether employed continuously, frequently, or only temporarily". Now, I think that they were very much interested in knowing quite a lot about the ability of this person to perform work, and I suggest to you that they were interested not for reasons of diagnosing the condition of the patient's mind or the nature of his illness but to find out his value as a useful worker to the German war machine. For instance, a locksmith, good specialist, who could make bomb fuses or the parts for a V-1. Do you reject that suggestion?

A: Yes. I think it is out of the question that an insane person could be used for the production of V-1's or V-2's. This reference here in my opinion is in connection with a reference on page 2, number 3, where patients are lifted who were in those institutions ever since five years before. If a man is in one such institution for five years, it is under the circumstances quite possible that he had even been there for longer, and it is possible that he worked in such a factory and that this reference is concerned with his output of work and as such should be taken into consideration when judging the condition of the man.

When it says here, "working as a locksmith", etcetera, one would have to investigate what actually was produced in these locksmiths' workshops of the institution. It is simple repair work which is being carried out there. Partly they were used for therapeutical measures.

Q: Witness, what diagnostic judgment did you draw from the fact that one patient who had schizophrenia for five years could have a good output of alarm clocks while another patient with the same disease for the same period of time could make wood carvings, wood stoppers for bottles, with a reasonably good output. Now, what diagnostic judgment can you draw from those two hypothetical cases.

A: None whatsoever.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now recess until 1:30 o'clock.

(A recess was taken until 13:30 hours.)