1947-02-05, #3: Doctors' Trial (early afternoon)

THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.

DR. SEIDL: (Counsel for the Defendant Oberheuser): Mr. President, the Defendant Oberheuser does not feel well and, therefore, she requests permission of the Tribunal to leave the court room at 1500 hours.

THE PRESIDENT: In view of the physical condition of the Defendant Oberheuser, she may be excused at 1500 hours in accordance with her request.

CROSS EXAMINATION OF KARL BRANDT — Resumed.

BY MR. McHANEY:

Q: Herr Brandt, we were examining before the luncheon recess the instructions on filling out the questionnaires and we saw in paragraph 1 that no questionnaires were to be filled out on those persons who were capable of employment, isn't that correct?

A: It was done in such a way that after the first paragraph —

(Document book handed to witness)

— yes, that is correct.

Q: Doesn't that seem to be a bit inconsistent with your statement that these questionnaires really constituted a registration of all insane patients?

A: That does not refer to all mentally insane patients but only to those who fell within that framework. In my opinion even patients who were sick for short periods were not reported so that a registration of all patients by means of these questionnaires was not possible anyway.

Q: Well, Herr Brandt, that was what I had suggested to you this morning, namely, that these questionnaires were filled out on those persons who would be subjected to euthanasia if they fell within the judgment of the experts as being incurable, And as I recall you rejected that suggestion of mine.

A: I don't think that I have understood you correctly at the moment. The questionnaires were filled in for the purpose in order to establish general basical documents, in order to register all the patients who might be made available to euthanasia. And within the group of persons registered in this way, and whose registration took place on the basis of their physical condition, there were several exceptions; and in order to determine these exceptions certain information which exceeded those fields, which exceeded the medical fields as, for example, to their being injured in the course of the war, etcetera.

Q: Herr Brandt, since those persons who were afflicted with schizophrenia epilepsy, and the other diseases listed in paragraph 1 were not reported on, that is, questionnaires were not completed on such persons if they were capable of work, I have considerable difficulty in understanding why you insisted that questionnaires on Non-German nationals be completed. Why weren't they also exempted on the same ground that other persons were exempted, because of the ability to work?

A: In the same respect the war invalids were not exempted either and that had to be registered separately. This certainly has nothing to do with regard to their transfer to a euthanasia institute. I take it from your question that you are of the opinion that the reference on this questionnaire that Non-Germans are considered in this case was deserved to the fact in order to recognize a group of patients in such a way then, under the circumstances, to have them subjected to euthanasia. You have not expressed that but apparently your question is pointing to that fact. I have previously stated in connection with that the the foreigners were to be exempted under all circumstances. I only want to have these references understood to the effect that they were made in order to be able to determine these exemptions, that they were not to be subjected to euthanasia, and that they were not to be subjected to euthanasia perhaps for reasons of another disease.

Q: Well, Herr Brandt, you will concede that the most effective way of seeing to it that Non-German nationals were not included in the program would have been a simple order that no questionnaires were to be filled on such persons, wouldn't you say so?

A: That depends what place you believe to have the most security. No doubt it can be argued and disputed if it could be done this way or another way. Perhaps there is even a third possibility that might have been used. If this procedure was followed here in this form, then it certainly is in connection with a general registration about transferring the mental institutions, but certainly not with any other intentions.

Q: Herr Brandt, by dropping down to paragraph 2 of the instructions, isn't it true that the questions concerning ability to work came into play only when the patient had been in an asylum for at least five years?

A: I only believe that this also held in the diagnosis and judgment because with reference to the kind of occupation the difference was made if the person could constantly work, frequently, or temporarily. In any case, it was only the possibility of contacts which a subject might have to his surroundings. And certainly those were not the sole reasons which led to the judgment of diagnoses. But they could only be evaluated in connection with the other statements which had been made also.

Q: Witness, I am simply trying to make clear who was excluded from the program on the basis of ability to work, and we see in paragraph 1 that anyone who could be employed was not reported on — did not have a questionnaire filled out on him. Then we drop down to paragraph 2 which says, "All patients are to be enumerated who have been in an institution constantly for at least five years" and it is on that category of patients that the question of ability to work comes into play. If the patient had been in the asylum for only three years and, in the judgment of the chief of the asylum, could be employed or could work, then no questionnaire was filed. But if the same patient had been in the asylum for five years or more they had to file a questionnaire and then and only then did the questions in the questionnaire concerning ability to work come into play. Isn't that correct?

A: The questionnaires have to be understood that way and then what I have just said is correct.

Q: All right, that is sufficient. So we exclude, under paragraph 1, all of those who have not been in an asylum for at least five years and who are able to work. No questionnaire is filed. Paragraph 2 — if they have been in an asylum for five years or more then a questionnaire must be filed and the questions in the questionnaire concerning ability to work are filled in. Now then, on the questionnaire under the questions dealing with employment and ability to work, is it not true that those persons who could be employed in a skillful employment, skillful work, and who had a reasonable output were excluded?

A: Were exempted from euthanasia or exempted from filling in the questionnaires?

Q: Exempted from euthanasia.

A: If such people were able to carry on some special work within their respective institutions then this was proof of the fact that their physical condition was probably not so bad that they were disintegrated personalities.

Q: Very well. I think then that the picture comes a bit clearer that the ability to work was a very substantial consideration in the operation of this program and a great deal of weight was placed upon the question of ability to work. Is that true?

A: That depends on how you interpret the words "ability to work" and on what the most emphasis is placed. The decisive point is that it may be used as a reference, together with other statements, if the patient is psychologically or severely ill or if is not severely ill but then his work has nothing to do with the effect arising from the work. That is, if the man plays a part in the war potential or not and in this case the statement contained in question 1 certainly does not have any connection but is only there in order to serve as information — additional information as to the picture of the disease.

Q: Let's turn now to one of the other questions in the questionnaire, namely that concerning race. Do you find that question?

A: That is on Sheet 2.

Q: The footnote is on Sheet 2. The footnote reads, "Of German or German related blood; of German extraction; Jew, partial Jew of Grade 1 or Grade 2; Negro, partial Negro; Gypsy, partial Gypsy; etc." Now, what was the point in having the race of the patient reported on?

A: In my opinion, that could have only been used for an evaluation in the statistics. I cannot see any other reason for it.

Q: You can see that it was not needed by the expert in diagnosing the patient's condition and thus determining whether or not euthanasia should be applied?

A: That would have nothing whatever to do with it. I cannot remember either, but I know it has been discussed — that I have been asked about it — if Jews were exempted from this program. I cannot remember if this has been the case. I would not know in this case either as far as Reich Germans were concerned.

Q: Well, I am not suggesting to you, Herr Brandt, that under any properly enacted law — valid law dealing with this subject that German Jews should be exempted, but I put the question to you of what is the value of building up another category of persons in these questionnaires?

That is, distinguishing between a Jew and an Aryan? What possible pertinency does the answer to that question have to the determination of whether euthanasia shall be applied?

A: In my opinion, it does not have any special value whatsoever. I have just said that I am of the opinion that this was only a matter for the statistics. That it was not a question, which on the basis of the statements, would have had any influence whatsoever.

Q: Of course, witness, you will concede that the question would have a great deal of pertinence if in fact euthanasia were being used as a method of exterminating the Jews, wouldn't you?

A: If that had been the case, a certain basis would have been established in this way. That is quite possible. However, Negroes and Gypsies are stated here and also "of German and German related blood". I have nothing to add to what I have previously stated or nothing came to my knowledge that such statements would have been used for any other purpose than for statistics, aside from the fact that I do not know the very close details of these questionnaires and, above all, the enclosures with further explanation and instructions and I have just seen them through these documents. I only know about the references to what extent these questionnaires might serve to assure against incorrect diagnosis.

Q: Witness, since you mentioned Gypsies, I think there is some reason to believe that the German Reich indulged in some discrimination against Gypsies as well as Jews. So there again that category of persons might possibly be of interest to T-4 and other operators of the euthanasia program.

A: I have never known T-4 in any other capacity than as an establishment which was connected with euthanasia — on the basis of Decree No. 39.

Q: Now, Herr Brandt, let's go back to the instruction leaflet and I ask you to look at paragraph 4 where it reads that "all patients are to be enumerated who are not of German nationality or are not of German or German related blood, indicating the race and nationality". You will recall, Herr Brandt, that I put a hypothetical question to you here, citing a patient of German nationality and a patient of non-German nationality who had each spent one month in an asylum.

You stated that no distinction was made on the basis of nationality. I now ask you — don't you have to change your testimony in view of the fact that paragraph 4 explicitly requires that questionnaires be completed on any and all patients of non-German nationality?

A: I must correct myself in this form. However, I would still like to add that now as before I still maintain the opinion that the time of reporting these patients consisted of five years and, in this respect, I am also of the opinion that if the questionnaires had to be filled in by non-Germans that this probably served for some sort of statistical computation whose origin I do not exactly know. I cannot say why this was done.

Q: Witness, we understand that you are insisting that no non-Germans were exterminated pursuant to the euthanasia program, but we are now trying to investigate why it was, firstly, that questionnaires had to be filed on any non-German nationals, and secondly, why questionnaires in fact had to be filed on all non-German nationals whether or not they fell in the foregoing 3 categories listed on this instruction sheet, which applied both to Germans and non-Germans.

A: The reason, in my opinion, can only lie in some statistical evaluate. I do not know of any other reason why this formulation took place; it may be that as to other circumstances, also on the part of the Ministry of the Interior, there was a certain interest, but I do not know.

Q: Let us turn to the next page of the document, Herr Brandt. The 5th paragraph, which reads: "In cases of patients being newly admitted after the deadline date, questionnaires are to be filled out as well and to be sent to me collectively every year, on 1 February for the deadline date of 1 January and 1 August for the deadline date of 1 July." Doesn't that paragraph state, in fact, that questionnaires were completed and sent in on patients who had been in asylums for one month or less?

A: Yes, for subsequent reporting, yes.

Q: The questionnaire, however, was completed on the basis of observation made over a period of one month or less in some cases, was it not?

A: If the patients were not located in other institutions before then the questionnaires were then filled in with proper references and were sent to the collecting point.

Q: And thereafter expertized?

A: I do not consider this probable because after question 1 there is the reference as to how long the patient has been sick and in a further question there is a reference with regard to the condition of the patient. If these questionnaires were then passed on for diagnoses, it may be possible, but then the decisions of the diagnoses would have corresponded.

Q: You have testified that 2% to 4% of the persons transferred to an observation station after an affirmative decision on euthanasia by the top experts, were returned as ineligible and euthanasia was not applied — is that right?

A: As far as I can recall, there were 4% to 6%.

Q: How do you know this figure so precisely?

A: Bouhler informed me about it, that is to say, — yes, it was Bouhler he informed me of the fact with the reasons which I also stated yesterday when I mentioned the subject.

Q: Does this not indicate a rather remarkable analytical and diagnostic ability on the part of the experts, with only a two-page questionnaire to work on?

A: I also asked myself that question at the time but I was assured that a proper questionnaire would be filled in by a specialist physician and that a diagnosis would be made by a specialist physician; furthermore, it was pointed out that where the description was not sufficient for the symptons, corresponding differences could be made.

Q: But you made no personal investigation into this matter yourself, did you?

A: I had been told that it was possible on the basis of this questionnaire to obtain corresponding judgment of the condition of the patient.

Q: Does not this mean, in effect, that the great majority of patients were assigned to death without ever having been seen by the experts who passed the judgment?

A: The experts themselves never saw the patients. The experts themselves only reached the decision on the basis of the questionnaires.

Q: And you seriously suggest to this Tribunal that a psychiatrist can actually determine from this short questionnaire whether a person is incurably insane, is that right?

A: That he was to get a total impression as to the condition of the patient was assured to me by the specialist physicians who participated in this matter. After all, this was not the only diagnosis, for subsequently further medical examinations took place; in addition to this, outside of certain exceptions, they had been in an institution for a very long time so that a clear picture could be obtained as to his condition.

Q: But the first and last place where a patient was actually in a position to be physically examined was in the observation station, wasn't it?

A: In the observation station and also at the euthanasia station, because patients have also been returned by euthanasia institutes.

Q: As you had very accurate information about the percentage returned from observation stations, suppose you tell us the percentage that was returned from euthanasia stations?

A: The number 4% to 6% can be applied, as far as I can remember, to both institutes, to the euthanasia institutions as well as to the observing institutions, although I cannot say if this was in every case 4% to 6%, or a total of 4% to 6%.

Q: What instructions were issued to these observation stations and euthanasia stations about their right to over-ride the affirmative decision of the experts?

A: Nobody was ordered to carry out euthanasia if he did not agree with the findings and in observing institutes no euthanasia was carried out at all.

Q: But you do not know of any precise instructions that were issued to the observation stations and the euthanasia stations concerning their right to over-ride the opinion of the expert in Berlin?

A: It was never a question at any place. The ordering of the doctors did not take place under the condition that they had to comply with the diagnosis but it was always determined in the opinion of the physician; there also the experts did not have to agree in their diagnosis.

Q: How long did a patient remain in the observation station?

A: That varied, in my opinion. The time could consist of several months; sometimes, as I have seen from the files here, it may have been from 4 to 6 or 8 weeks.

Q: Well, your opinion was to that effect. Do you actually KNOW approximately how long these people remained in the observation station?

A: I cannot state exactly how long they remained there.

Q: How big were the observation stations?

A: I cannot tell you that. As far as I know, they were whole institutions which had been established and furnished as observing institutions. I have never seen any of them.

Q: You don't know how many doctors they had per number of patients in the observation station?

A: No, I cannot tell you that.

Q: You don't know anything about their training or how expert they were.

A: These things were handled only by Bouhler together with the Ministry of the Interior. My opinion is that we dealt with mental institutions which in this case were uniformly established as observing institutes and where partial transports and larger transports were then sent to euthanasia institutes.

Q: What precautions did you take that proper examinations would be conducted at the observation stations?

A: Will you please repeat your question once more?

Q: What precautions did you take that proper examinations would be conducted at the euthanasia stations?

A: I myself have not issued any measures at all.

Q: And you do not know by your own observation that Bouhler or anyone else took any precautions, do you?

A: I am of the opinion that these positions were occupied by specialist physicians and that these specialist physicians had been instructed as to the activity and their responsibility which was connected with it.

Q: Can you name any of these experts at the observation stations?

A: I cannot give you any names of these physicians.

Q: Witness, you appreciate the importance of the issue of the manner in which this euthanasia program was conducted, do you not?

A: Yes, I know exactly.

Q: And you appreciate that the only opportunity for personal examination by a doctor on the scene was at the observation station?

A: Yes, certainly.

Q: Wasn't it part of your duty and responsibility to make very sure that the proper type of examination was conducted on these patients who were being put to death?

A: That certainly was not my task. In order to carry out this task I first of all would have had to personally visit these institutes and then I also would have had to obtain specialist training, neither of which was provided for me. I was neither able to personally visit the institutes nor did I have any specialist control or supervision.

Q: Yes, I was going to put that to you. Now, on the basis of the number of visits you made to the observation stations, which you admitted was none, are you in a position to tell the Tribunal anything?

A: I never visited any observing institutions.

Q: Yes, that is what I say, therefore, you cannot swear to this Tribunal about the manner in which the examinations were carried out there; can you?

A: I can only say that I am of the conviction that they were run in a professional manner.

Q: Can you tell us anything about your observations at the Euthanasia station?

A: I have visited one institution, that was at Grafeneck. At the beginning of the year or during the first half of the year 1940 I visited it. Few Patients were located there, there were approximately thirty patients there and I saw the patients. Then I visited the administrative office, which was established as a registration office. It was then discussed further how the question of the formal written correspondence program should function after the Euthanasia was performed. That is the only time I saw such an institution.

Q: Was there any one killed?

A: No.

Q: Do you know how these patients were killed in the Euthanasia Station?

A: They were killed by carbon monoxide.

Q: Do you know what was done with their bodies?

A: The corpses were then cremated.

Q: You saw the pictures of the Hadamar Institute in this Tribunal; did you observe the disinterment of large numbers of bodies from the general grave?

A: Yes, I have seen that.

Q: You spoke of the humane way in which these people were put to death; I cannot say that you are in a position to testify concerning that matter because of your lack of knowledge.

A: About the humane manner, will you please repeat that again?

Q: I said I think you are unable to testify about the humane manner in which these people were put to death; isn't that true?

A: I believe a big difference must be made between the pictures of Hadamar and between the Euthanasia Institutes, for example at Grafeneck. Hadamar with the corpses, who had not been cremated, certainly has nothing to do with the performance of Euthanasia, which was known until the end of 1943 and I say that for the reason that at Hadamar the corpses were not cremated, while the corpses, who were accumulated in connection with the Euthanasia program, were cremated.

Q: Is it your opinion that the Euthanasia stations were operated in the best possible manner?

A: I am of the opinion that they were conducted in the best manner, yes.

Q: You spoke of relieving these patients from great pain and suffering; do you think all these patients wanted to die?

A: That is a question which I cannot answer in this form. I am of the conviction that the patients did not have a clear concept of their actual condition because they were insane and among them were certainly cases, which in excess of that, certainly were suffering. It is quite possible that a human being, who might be described by the simple word "crazy", might under circumstances not even realize the difference between life and death. In this form, you cannot even include such people as to the question if they want to die or if they do not want to die.

Q: I think that you will concede that possibly a substantial number of these victims were fully aware of what was happening to them; won't you?

A: I do not think so. If I go back and remember the patients whom I have seen at Grafeneck, they were very poor creatures who were all confined to bed and certainly some others may have been there who could be up and were not confined to bed, however, for the most part they more or less would have been confronted with certain death.

Q: I think you observed from the instruction sheet, which we went over together, that feeble minded persons and persons suffering from senility were subjected to the program.

A: Such patients, feeble minded of course to a severe degree and also certain forms of senility could also be included in this group.

Q: Did you employ a man by the name of Fritz Bleich?

A: Bleich came into my office in 1942 or 1943.

Q: What did he do?

A: He worked for me in the registration office.

Q: Registration of documents, mail and the like?

A: The registration of general mail matters. Furthermore in 1944 when my office was moved from Berlin, he got the mail and brought the mail back to the city.

Q: Which office was Fritz working in?

A: He worked in my office.

Q: Fritz Bleich?

A: Yes.

Q: You have stated that you had two offices in Berlin; one in the University Clinic and one in the Fuehrer's Chancellery. I ask you whether or not Fritz Bleich worked in your office at the Fuehrer's Chancellery?

A: I did not have any office in the Fuehrer's Chancellery. I had my office in the Reich Chancellery and in the Reich Chancellery was located the Chancellery of the Fuehrer, the Ministry of Lammers and Meissner and there were still several other offices.

Q: I am sorry, I made a mistake, I meant the Reich Chancellery where you did have an office. Was Fritz Bleich working in that office?

A: No, Fritz Bleich did not work in that office. My office there consisted of three rooms, one had the telephone agency, one contained the secretary and my collaborators. Bleich came there somewhat later on and it may have been as late as 1943.

Q: Now, I am asking you whether Fritz Bleich physically worked in your office in the Reich Chancellery or your office in the University Clinic?

A: No, he did not work at the University Clinic.

Q: And he was a clerk in the Reich Chancellery?

A: He was employed by me in my office in the Reich Chancellery.

Q: Herr Brandt, who would know more about the operation of the Euthanasia program; you or Fritz Bleich?

A: I believe that perhaps Fritz Bleich may have more information about it.

Q: Your clerk is better informed on these matters than you are?

A: In this case, it may perhaps be possible.

Q: If you consider the Euthanasia program to be in the interests of the patient and not for fiscal purposes, why were veterans of the first World War and those injured in the course of industrial labor exempt from this program?

A: This question is in the field where I have to say is basically not correct. According to the conditions and the sufferings of these people, it is not right to make these exceptions, however, other considerations were decisive in this case, in order to have these exceptions made. There was the consideration that because of the war and also because of the conscription of labor, the mentality of the people towards such questions would be different than in cases where only pure insanity is concerned, and because of these considerations, the exception of the war invalids and the people injured in industrial labor and the actual point of view from which the thought of Euthanasia originated, it would not have been correct to make these exceptions.

Q: You have testified that the euthanasia program would have no proper relationship to concentration camps, is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: Why is that so, weren't there insane persons in concentration camps?

A: I am of the opinion that there were no insane persons in the concentration camps.

Q: Upon what do you base the opinion, did you make any investigation to find out?

A: No, I did not. However, I maintain the natural point of view that somebody who comes into a concentration camp because of a political or other crime, would have no connection with a mental disease.

Q: But you didn't inquire as to whether there were any insane persons in concentration camps when this program started, did you?

A: No.

Q: You heard the testimony of the witness Menecke about his visits to concentration camps, what say you about that?

A: Menecke has testified that this examination, — I do not even want to call it an examination, was a medical measure, that he had the impression it was a purely political racial matter with which he had occupied himself in the case.

Q: But Herr Brandt, Dr. Menecke was one of the operating experts under T-4 in Berlin.

A: The program is I personally passed the material in 1941, and it was halted in August of that year. I do not know that after the program was halted that euthanasia was performed in one place or another on a greater scale. It is not clear to me either from what office or from what possibilities Dr. Menecke made his examinations or was able to carry out his examinations in the Buchenwald Concentration Camp. It certainly is not possible that it started with T-4, because from all that has been shown here that what took place in the concentration camps was the sole responsibility and was subject to the sole decision of Himmler. From the files concerning the subject it was shown that Herr Menecke received orders from his clerks in connection with the Inspectorate for the concentration camps.

Q: Now, Herr Brandt, you are a man of intelligence out of the ordinary, and I am sure you remember Menecke's testimony quite vividly. He was called to Berlin in January 1940, given instructions about what he was to do in connection with the operation of euthanasia. In the summer of 1940 he was instructed by perhaps the defendant Brack, who issued instructions to him on at least one occasion he testified, or Heppelmann, or one of the other people mentioned on the chart concerning the euthanasia program. He was ordered by them to concentration camps and to make examinations, and he testified that he visited a number of concentration camps from the summer of 1940 until January 1942, so these visits wore started quite early in the program, and were carried out even after you say the program had ended in August of 1941. Menecke was not a concentration camp man. He was not under the direction or orders of Gleucks, Pohl or Himmler. He was a man working in the program which you assisted in setting up, and getting into operation?

A: I can only say the same thing again on the subject, I thought that within the concentration camps there were no mentally insane persons and I have never heard or discovered that such examinations had been carried out in the concentration camps, and I have not heard anything about the fact that after the summer of 1941 euthanasia was still being continued by some other agencies. Of course I have not heard anything in this respect from the concentration camps. I am also of the opinion that the fact that Menecke has been sent to camps by order of T-4, that such a decision would not be made either by T-4, without Himmler setting it up such measures could not be carried out in any camp.

Q: According to the testimony which Menecke has given here about the examinations in 1941 and the beginning of 1942, it certainly had nothing to do with the euthanasia program, as it had been determined with T-4 or either in the field concerned. Now, Witness, I don't wish to argue with you about it, but it is quite obvious it did have something to do with T-4, and Menecke's testimony was to the fact that Brack himself had ordered him to go to the camp now, there is no dispute that the concentration camps were also in the program and they had to cooperate and they did so, and I also will not argue with you about the code name, 14 F 13. The witness Menecke himself did not know that code name, but how do you explain the fact that these concentration camp operations could be carried out by personnel of the euthanasia program and they could be exterminated in an Euthanasia Institute like Bernburg without your knowledge, Witness?

A: I cannot give you any explanation to this question. I cannot say because it is not clear to me in what manner and by what procedure T-4 participated and in what way the connection was established. I can only say I did not find out anything about it, and in addition I want to state if I had found out anything about it I would have done anything in order to stop such measures which later on degenerated into just a plain form of extermination, with all possibilities available to me. In my opinion it had nothing to do with the concept of euthanasia, and I cannot possibly explain it, — first of all how this contact was established, and it is not clear to me with whom the orders for such measures were issued.

Q: What was the explanation you gave on direct examination about the 14 F 13 order being sent only to concentration camps in Bavaria and Thuringia?

A: I have stated here that my attention was drawn to the fact that the reference number 14 F 13 in connection with what Menecke has testified at one time, is concerning the district of Bavaria and then Hess and all Thuringia, and some document stated that some people were sent from the concentration camp to the Buchenwald camp in this action, — I think it was Buchenwald, and from there they were transferred to Bernburg, so that I am of the opinion that perhaps within certain areas under the Reich Defense Commissioners, are perhaps by order of Himmler, and in collaboration with Himmler; because they listened to these demands these results were carried out in this way. This is an assumption and perhaps a way to reach clarification on this point, I cannot say anything in addition about this subject.

Q: You testified the program was stopped in August 1941 due to the resistance of the church and press; is it true you got the order for the discontinuance of the program from Hitler?

A: Yes.

Q: And then you passed it on to Bouhler?

A: Yes, I passed it on to Bouhler by telephone.

Q: Why is it the cessation order was given to you since your testimony here indicates you had so little responsibility in connection with the program?

A: I was situated in the Fuhrer headquarters, and I received the order from there because I was together with Hitler.

Q: But the operation of the children's euthanasia continued until 1944?

A: It was carried on until the fall of 1944, or the late summer of 1944.

Q: Why was the distinction drawn between the two types of euthanasia?

A: Because in the question of the children we wanted to avoid and prevent the fact, also because of difficulties with their families and so on, that this should develop further. We wanted to kill and put an end to these deformities as soon as possible after they had been born.

Q: Now, I understood you say on direct examination that you continued in some association with euthanasia until 1942; is that correct?

A: Until 1942, no. Euthanasia was discontinued in the summer of 1941.

Q: And your testimony is that you had nothing further to do with euthanasia after August 1941?

A: That is something different. I have stated that in the year 1942 I resigned the authority which I had been given by the special decree. That refers to the authority with regard to the children of the Reich Committee.

Q: Well, that's what I was trying to get straight. Now, precisely when did you resign the authority which you received on 1 September 1939?

A: I resigned this authority in the spring of 1942.

Q: Well, you should be able then to give us some information about what happened to the personnel in T-4 and in other parts of the euthanasia program

A: I cannot say that.

Q: You said questionnaires continued to be sent in and evaluated after August 1941; is that correct?

A: Yes, certainly the questionnaires continued to be worked on because this material was passed on to euthanasia institute. In this case it would be 1941.

Q: Did they continue to expertize the questionnaires?

A: I assume that perhaps they continued to handle them, but I cannot say it with certainty.

Q: In other words, they continued to do everything except execute the patients, is that right?

A: That may have been the case during the first time there, yes.

Q: Isn't this another one of these absurdities? Why were they going through all these useless motions when the German Reich was in such pressing need of doctors and other medical personnel?

A: I believe that the matter of the diagnosis were also discontinued, and only that for the time being a diagnosis was given because these questionnaires were still arriving and for the time being the personnel was still available and they were occupied with organizational matters. An office had been established and we wanted to restrain from dissolving it completely for the time being. That was the only reason.

Q: Well, does it seem a bit senseless to continue to file these questionnaires in view of the fact that it could normally be expected that thousands of these patients would probably die before the end of the war from natural causes or they might recover and be without -

A: That would have been senseless in part to continue with these questionnaires. I do not even know if these questionnaires were completely discontinued. I cannot say that.

Q: Were you familiar with the fact that the German Government was indulging in repressive measures against Jews?

A: At the time I did not know anything about these measures in the form as I know of them today. I did not know any more than what could be seen generally; that certain groups of Jews were first of all given a certain distinguishing mark and that later on it became generally clear that they had been settled in certain areas. Outside of this I did not knew anything.

Q: You did not know that Jews were being systematically exterminated?

A: No, I did not know that.

Q: Do you now admit that they were, in fact, systematically murdered?

A: No, I did not know it.

Q: I am asking you if you now know it?

A: Yes, now I know that this has happened to a great extent. Through this trial and after I was arrested it came to my knowledge. I did not know of it before.

Q: Herr Brandt, how do you explain that the extermination of some sixty thousand Germans, using your own figures, in the euthanasia program was common knowledge in Germany as the proof in this case has shown, while a man in your high position did not know that Jews numbering in seven figures were being executed?

A: I do not believe that a number of seven figures was generally known in Germany.

Q: Well, will you make an admission about something less than seven figures?

A: No, I do not want to do that either, but I only want to point out in this way that the number as such is not the decisive factor because if sixty thousand insane persons were known, then, of course, the seven figure number of the Jews would most certainly have been generally known, but this has not been the case. The fact that euthanasia became public — that can be traced back to the opposition by the church and the fact that the church discussed these questions, and therefore it became known more concretely with regard to the Jews. I have not heard anything like it. I am convinced that the number of these who had never heard of it or who did not know anything about it within the Reich will be enormous, certainly within the Reich.

Q: I take it from your statement that the reason for that is that there was no opposition to the Jewish extermination?

A: It just was not known.

Q: Herr Brandt, did you issue orders directly or indirectly to the Patients Transport Corporation for the transfer of inmates?

A: No, I did not issue any such orders.

Q: Is the name Blankenburg familiar to you?

A: Blankenburg, yes.

Q: Did you give Blankenburg orders directly or indirectly for the transfer of inmates of insane asylums to euthanasia stations such as Grafeneck, Hadamar, Hartheim, Bernburg?

A: No, I did not give him any such orders.

Q: After the euthanasia program allegedly came to a stop in 1941 did you ever issue orders directly or indirectly to one of the euthanasia stations that inmates of insane asylums should be transferred to these stations?

A: No.

Q: I would like to put to you Document NO-892.

MR. McHANEY: If the Tribunal Please, it might be appropriate to take the afternoon recess at this time until she can locate the exhibit.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be at recess for a few minutes.

(A recess was taken.)