Then this also originated with Bouhler. In my opinion, in order to explain the sketch, it would be appropriate to state that also the statement in the affidavit by Brack would have to be repeated once more because also, the other sketch in this plan which refers to the subordinating agencies are also incorrect, and I would also consider the title Euthanasia Program as incorrect, because it was not described or outlined from the very beginning as far as its extension was concerned.
Q. You may put the sketch aside now. Now, I want to deal with the sketch which the defendant, Brack, has composed. I am now handing you the plan. Have you already seen the plan?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you confirm, with regard to precision, that this plan has now been drawn correctly according to your opinion?
A. In my opinion this plan looks the connecting line between Bouhler and myself; and furthermore, it is correct that the red line from Bouhler to the executing agency of Euthanasia is Tiergarten Strasse 4, and that from there also the connection for the Reich Commissioner for the mental institutions and to Dr. Linden is correct. I assume that if such an organizational plan as now drawn up, it is correct in principle at least.
Q. Of what agency was Bouhler in charge?
A. Bouhler was the Chief of the Chancellery of the Fuehrer.
Q. And with what did the Chancellery of the Fuehrer deal?
A. The Chancellery of the Fuehrer, first of all, dealt with the private matters of Hitler himself; then, it was also a receiving agency for everything that arrived in the forms of requests and complaints; and from there compensations and other assistance was granted concerning requests. And then later -
during the first Bouhler was able to make certain decisions, and then later the job was taken over by Dr. Bormann.
Q. What was the character of Bouhler?
A Bouhler made a somewhat reserved impression. He was very quiet and whenever somebody met him he gained the impression that he was dealing with an honest personality. In his character, he may have been somewhat soft.
Q What was the party political connections of Bouhler?
A He may have become a member of the party at a very early period of time. Hitler had known him for many years, and certainly before the time prior to 1923, and he had an unlimited faith in him and confidence. As a result of this fact he obtained knowledge about many things in his official capacity. He certainly could always act as a barometer toward Hitler as to the attitude and feeling of the population. I do not know anything more in detail about his office, but I have said that I made the acquaintance of Brack in 1934, as an Adjutant, and prior to the time of 1939, and later after 1941 or 1942, I did not have any closer contact with him.
Q What was the contact between Bouhler, Conti, and Lammers?
A I know of Lammers, and that a close relationship existed there, and certainly was the same with Dr. Conti, and the Ministry of Interior. Since a lot of mail arrived in the Chancellery of the Fuehrer, it was also the task of this office to distribute the mail further to the competent agencies.
Q Did Bouhler deal by himself, particularly with the Euthanasia problem?
A I assume he was also personally interested in this problem. Later on I also heard that he was one of its originators because he feared under the circumstances that existed in the individual districts, later on he would come to deal with this question individually, without having --without being able to cause the proper effect there in the districts. I cannot judge as to what extent this plan was dealt with. Now to the question of Euthanasia. When I discussed this question in October with him, he had made the decision to carry out the question and so solve the Euthanasia problem, and he maintained the same point of view which I previously stated. He has not stated anything to me about Euthanasia, as it is described by the word, nor has he made any other requests. The words "useless caters" never fell in my presence, and I do not think that they played any important major part in this problem because that refers to the consumption of food, and the number of patients concerned did not play any important part.
Q But now you must have had some personal contact with Bouhler?
A Later on I met Bouhler; that, as far as I know, was only in November. Previously I had not spoken to Bouhler because Bouhler was in Berlin and he continued to work there by himself after he had received my letters.
Q There was no special organization necessary in order to carry out Euthanasia?
A Yes, a special organization was established, and it is located in the middle, and it is sketched in pink (referring to the map before him). Shall we use the map once more? I want to assume that this representation, by dividing it into three parts, is correct. There was a Mutual Transport Company which was closely connected with the problem. Then, there was the Mutual Transport Association, which later on was connected with, and carried out the removals. Also in the Ministry of Interior there was the Reich Association for Mental Institutions which dealt with the diagnosis, and the evaluation of the questionnaires and so forth.
These three or four mentioned business titles were common names which were used during the time that Euthanasia was being carried out. I finally mentioned the Reich Association for Mental Institutions; that was the group which, first of all, dealt with scientific evaluation of the questionnaires, the group of diagnosis, and the previously mentioned agencies which evaluated the questionnaires.
Q Where was this agency located?
A. This agency was located at Tiergarten Strasse 4, which is generally described afterwards as T-4.
Q. Were physicians working at the T-4?
A. Yes, there were physicians working at the T-4. The main diagnostician and the chief diagnostician were there. The main official agency was at this address.
Q. Now, what was your task, at the main office, at that address?
A. The task of Bouhler was collected with that of execution. My task within the entire Euthanasia Program had already been determined by the decrees. It consisted that I, together with Bouhler, had the authority over the physicians who were participating in this program, and furthermore, we had the provisional task toward the Fuehrer, himself. And, then, I had to maintain a certain contact with Bouhler, himself. And, I had to immediately inform Bouhler with regard to decisions about questions which could be debated in any way.
Q. What was your agency and how were you included in the administrative apparatus?
A. I did not have an office, and I was not included in the entire organizational machine. Outside of special authority which was given to me by virtue of decrees from the Fuehrer, I did not have any instructions or directives in any form. I was not the superior in any way toward this administrative machine.
Q. Well, who did have this superior position?
A. Bouhler; it was Bouhler's T-4, and that was his agency.
Q. What was the connection with the Reich Ministry of Interior?
A. The Reich Ministry of Interior had another agency in connection with this program in the form of Doctor Linden, who was responsible in this question that is, the Reich Committee which I have mentioned before. Between the office of Linden and the executive agency of the Euthanasia T-4, there was a corresponding direct channel.
Q. I am now submitting Document No. 156. I was unable to ascertain in what document book it is contained. It is a very short letter and I shall read it. I shall submit the report to you in the German text.
MR. McHANEY: The prosecution has not been furnished with either a copy of a German translation or an English translation of this document. I remember it is a document which we had some discussion about in the early stages of the trial. The document, itself, was submitted by the prosecution to the Defense Information Center, but was not used in the trial. I have no objections to this document. This matter was not introduced in evidence by the Prosecution, and if it is now offered it will have, of course to be an Exhibit for Earl Brandt. Furthermore, it is not certified of any one; however, I make no objections on that ground since the document was secured by the Prosecution, and we are willing to admit its authenticity. However, I think that unless the Defense Counsel rather promptly established a more smooth working procedure for the introduction of documents, and furnishing of copies and translations for the prosecution, we will be in a rather hopeless confusion with respect to the progress of the case. We will have to start maintaining files on tho Defendants documents, and it is going to be rather difficult to be going back constantly to be sure we have received copies of the documents.
JUDGE SEBRING: Mr. McHaney, is it not true that some of the confusion that is beginning to arise is because of the fact that the proper administrative agency has not yet been able to translate these documents into English?
MR. McHANEY: I am not sure that I understood the question. Will you please repeat it?
JUDGE SEBRING: I understood from Dr. Servatius that although he had been reserving exhibit numbers for some of these documents, he had not been placing them in evidence solely because of the fact that the Translation Division had not yet been able to put them into English. Is that true?
MR. McHANEY: I understood his statement to that effect.
JUDGE SEBRING: It may not have been exactly that, but I understood it in that manner.
MR. McHANEY: In so far as it applies to this document, it has been in the possession of the Defense Counsel for two or three months, so obviously there should be no difficulty in getting it transited. I am perfectly willing to have the document go in as an exhibit now, but I would ask that Dr. Servatius and the other Defense Counsel be advised that it would be necessary in order to proceed smoothly with the trial that the Prosecution be furnished with advance copies of these documents, both in English and in German, as the rules of the Tribunal prescribe. And, only that way will we be in a position to make our objections at the time to the documents as offered.
THE PRESIDENT: In the interest of time, English copies of these documents should be furnished to the Prosecution, and should also be made available to the Tribunal. I do not know whether the fact that this has not been done has been due to administrative procedure or to some other reason.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, I would not like to state all of the technical difficulties which the defense has had with the translation as well as the other sections. It is very difficult to run everything smoothly and we are trying to keep these difficulties to a very small extent. With regard to this Document No. 156 I have looked through the document books because I assumed that they had already been presented as an exhibit and therefore I assumed that it had been translated because I was given this document by the prosecution. I request that it be temporarily admitted and I shall then submit it as Exhibit No. 4.
THE PRESIDENT: That procedure will be followed. The prosecution has consented to that and it's all right with the Tribunal. What number is this exhibit given? What number as to the defendant Brandt?
DR. SERVATIUS: It will be Exhibit No. 4.
THE PRESIDENT: Those are two documents, Exhibit No. 4 and Exhibit No. B.
DR. SERVATIUS: They are Exhibit 4 and 4-B. I want to read the short letter that they have not translated. The letterhead is "Chief Prosecutor, Stuttgart, 15 July 1940, secret.
"To Reich Minister of Justice "Attention of Ministerial of Dr. Stadelmann or his deputy "In office, Berlin "Subject:
Information as to the unnatural death of inmates of institutions.
"Enclosure: One anonymous letter with envelope. The enclosure address to the Chief Prosecutor at Ravensbruck.
"I enclose the following for acknowledgment. Since recent similar rumors have come to my knowledge, I request instructions if I should initiate investigations and how for this purpose the Secret State Police and the State Police I shall find at Stuttgart."
Then follows the signature. "By order of, signed Holzhaeuser" Then comes a remark.
"Dr. Freisler has discussed the matter with Holzhaeuser personally and secondly no action is to be taken and third the incident is to be kept to gether with all other matters pertaining to the subject."
This letter which has been sent to me by the prosecution has the following inclosure with it:
"The Chief of the Chancellory of the Fuehrer of the NSDAP "Berlin, W-8, 5 June 1940 "Vosstrasse 4 "Wilhelmistrasse 65 "Dear Dr. Guertner:
"This refers to the telephone conversation of the past few days. I want to inform you of the following: by virtue of the authority of the Fuehrer, I, as the sole person responsible for the execution of these tasks, have issued the necessary orders to my collaborators. In excess of this the degree of such guiding regulations does not seem necessary to me anymore."
Q. Then follows the signature which I consider to be that of Bouhler. Witness, will you state your opinion with respect to the second letter? Will you tell us whether the statement by Bouhler about his position is correct?
A. The reference of Bouhler with respect to his position within the Euthanasia question is certainly correct. I cannot also confirm that the sig nature on this document is that of Bouhler.
In this case he refers to his position at Tiergartenstrasse 4, from where this work was being carried out. As a parrallel to that there existed another outside office of the Reich Minister of the interior as far as I know in the Columbus house which has also been casually mentioned in this connection.
Q Have you ever been at that office in the Columbus house?
A I have never visited the office in the Columbus house and I have never visited the office at Tiergarten 4 either.
Q But you did work together with Bouhler. Of what did your mutual tasks consist?
A They consisted of the fact that first of all we were together with the Fuehrer to discuss foreign questions which resulted and later on the procedure was that sometimes Bouhler alone and I by myself went to the Fuehrer and then he, Bouhler, Bouhler obtained these documents again.
Q What questions were discussed there?
A In the beginning some very fundamental questions were discussed. First of all the question of the veterans. That included those in the first World War. Then some persons who had become injured in the line of work and the the following were to he excluded from Euthanasia: foreigners. Thus the order only applied to German Nationals. Another exception--I cannot recall any other exceptions and by myself I could not confirm that the instructions were given to exempt Jews from the framework of Euthanasia as far as the German Nationals were concerned.
Q Now, what was the procedure?
A First of all by the use of a questionnaire all of these sick persons were to be registered. This was not so much discussed and disputed as there was a secrecy in connection with the use of Euthanasia, which had been expected by the Fuehrer. He was of the opinion that this entire Euthanasia program could be carried out without the public obtaining any considerable knowledge of it out without it having indefinite influence on the public. Mr. Bouhler as well as myself pointed cut several times that this was improbable and that perhaps it would be most appropriate to make the Euthanasia problem public. However, this was fundamentally disapproved and Hitler claimed that the administrative apparatus could not function properly in the execution; that this had to be possible.
I just mentioned the questionnaire and it was of course, necessary to state what complexes of what diseases could be concerned which were to dealt with by Euthanasia. In this respect the question of the disease, the, the conduct, The duration of the sickness, the reaction of the patient to methods of treatment, etc., played a major part. Administrative, technical institutions, registry officials which had been instituted in the ministerial institutions in connection with the Ministry of the Interior were also discussed.
Q. We will later on refer to this question again in detail. You have heard of the question 14-F-13. In what way was this action in connection with the euthanasia program?
A. The action 14-F-13 load nothing at all to do with the euthanasia program in my opinion. I only want to correct the word "program" because it has a different meaning in the case of euthanasia. Dr. Bouhler and I had instructed certain physicians to carry out euthanasia, and had given them the authority to do so. Then we were to see that these patients were then transferred to these institutions in a certain method. First of all they were registered by means of questionnaires. The questionnaires contained certain formulations which were to enable us to gain a picture about the condition of the patient.
The Reich Ministry of the Interior sent these questionnaires to mental institutions and other institutions which kept mental patients in order to have them filled in. At six month intervals these institutions had to see these questionnaires back to the Reich Ministry of the Interior after they had been completed and with the corresponding enclosures. These questionnaires were sent to Tiergartenstrasse 4 to this office which has previously been described, the Reich association for Mental Institutions. There the originals of the questionnaires were filed and photostats of them were sent to three specialist physicians who were completely independent of each other, These specialist physicians then made a diagnosis on the basis of the available information; and they made their decision either by a negative or a positive statement towards the patient. In a case where the questionnaires were sent back to Tiergartenstrasse 4 showing a three-fold positive diagnosis then they were submitted for further decisions to a chief expert who by himself now against dealt with the question.
It may perhaps be important to point out that these experts and chief experts were specialist physicians; that they were directors of large mental institutions and nursing homes; and that in part they were professors in German universities. Even if the chief experts decided positively for euthanasia, then the connection was established with Dr. Linden of the agency of the Reich ministry of the Interior, which, by virtue of its superior status, now instructed the mental institutions to send and to transfer these patients to an observatory institute.
They were then transferred there with all their case histories and documents so that this institute was able to obtain its own diagnosis and obtain its own picture aside from the questionnaires and documents which had been submitted. Even if the physician in charge there expressed himself in favor of euthanasia, another order was sent to Tiergartenstrasse 4 and another agency; and from the last mentioned agency again as a superior office, from there the order was issued to transfer the patient to a euthanasia institute. In the case of the transferring of patients, the previously mentioned Transport for Patients Company participated. That warn an office subordinated to Tiergartenstrasse 4.
In this euthanasia institute the doctor in charge there had to make his final decision. If he wanted to have the patients subjected to euthanasia or if he had any misgivings on his own initiative, from the number of patients transferred approximately four to six percent were again returned to their original institute because with the responsibility of the physician in the observatory institutes as well as in the euthanasia institutions the physician could not declare himself agreeable to euthanasia from the standpoint of the medical profession.
In my opinion the number of two to four percent shows two indications. First of all, that when the basis of the procedure was questionnaires and diagnosis, very clear diagnoses of the patients took place; and in the observatory as well as in the euthanasia institutes the physicians who were working there were able to decide by their own initiative and responsibility. With regard to this whatever we have heard here of the action 14-7-13 is in contrast; and in my opinion it does not have anything at all to do with the considerations which had been determined by the decree of the 1st of September 1939.
Q. Do you know the meaning of 14-F-13?
A I would say I have heard the description of l4-F-13 here for the first time. Previously I have never discovered anything at all about it; and therefore I could not have any idea. As far as I can see now on the basis of documents, it was a file mark which originated with the Economic Administrative Office of the SS.
Without knowing for certain what it really means, as far as I know, it shows clearly for the first time in the ledger of the Economic Administrative Main Office, the WVHA, which called Dr. Mennecke to Berlin or to Oranienburg in order to get some more instructions and information there.
Before, when I was asked as to the connection of euthanasia to the concentration camps, I stated that I am of the opinion that no connection could possibly have existed because the patients who were included by us in this program under normal circumstances would not be located in a concentration camp Dr. Mennecke has testified here that 14-F-13 had nothing to do with medical practice but that it was quite clearly a measure which can be traced back to racial, political reasons and that therefore it has quite a different origin.
Q. Then how do you explain the connection that physicians who worked in euthanasia matters now also make their appearance in concentration camps?
A. The connection is not clear to me. Of the two names which appear here, Dr. Ebner is unknown to me. Then occasionally this Doctor Schumann has made his appearance; and I do not have any idea about him either. I am of the opinion that this complex 14-F-13 under the circumstances may actually have been connected with what Reichsleiter Bouhler either expected or feared; and when he thought that the euthanasia program could arbitrarily be used by the individual district leaders for their own individual actions, in this case 14-F-13, in my opinion the decisive factor must have been Himmler because it is also shown here that he alone was entitled to decide as to the lives of prisoners, and. he also always made the decisions solely by himself.
Even subsequent measures after 1941 to which I shall yet refer speak for the fact that some individual actions of district leaders did play a part in this but that in the documents pertaining to 14-F-13 the fact becomes apparent that 14-F-13 did not cover all the concentration camps. But this action only made its appearance in the Bavarian area and for the most part in Hesse and Thuringia. I cannot see any connection between 14-F-13 and whatever represented euthanasia to myself.
Q. Now, I have one question about the extermination camp of Lublin.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be understood that the two documents offered, Document Number 156, were admitted in evidence as the defendant Karl Brandt's Exhibit 4.
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: It occurs to me that it possibly might be of convenience and save time if the prosecution could prepare a list of the documents which it has introduced in evidence, this being in chronological order and followed by the number of each document as an exhibit; and if that list were furnished to the defendants, it would be a comparatively simple matter for a defendant to ascertain whether or not a particular document was already in evidence and consequently had been translated into English and also the exhibit number of that document. That is just a suggestion.
The Tribunal will now recess until 1:30 o'clock.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours. ) AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 4 February 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
KARL BRANDT - Resumed.
DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued).
BY DR. SERVATIUS:
Q. Witness, you were speaking of Action 14F13. Now, something similar took place in the East, in Lublin. Did you have any connection with that?
A. I heard of these events in Lublin only here. I learned that an SS Fuehrer named Lubucznik played a role in it, I did not know the name formerly. I never heard a similar name. I did not know the name Lubucznik. The other persons mentioned in that connection were not known to me either. I believe it was Doctor Eberle again, and the Doctor Schuhmann who has already been mentioned.
Q. Aside from these big actions other things happened for example, was wounded are supposed to have been effected. What do you know about that?
A. In the course of 1941 Field Marshal Keitel reported to the Fuehrer once that war wounded from the first world war were being included in the euthanasia program. He had not heard of it as an exact case but only as a rumor. The Fuehrer immediately ordered that all the evidence available on the subject should be examined. I passed on the order to that effect to Bouhler and he examined the files. That was in the early summer of '41 perhaps. It was learned that there was one clear case as follows, it was an insane person who had been drafted from the institution in 1914. He was in the army for six or eight weeks and was released again because of his mental condition and retired to the same institution. There the case history was not started over again but the old one was continued, so that it was not clear from the documents alone that he had participated in the war. In the course of the later investigations two or three other similar cases were discovered. There was, however, no case of which injury incurred during the war had led to a mental disturbance, or that a disease had been caused by any event of war.
It was a temporary service of the patients. I believe there were four altogether, as far as I can remember. The disease which led to euthanasia later had no connection with the war service. I know nothing else about that matter and the report to this effect was sent to Hitler.
Q. How about those injured in work, or those who became invalids, did you hear anything about that?
A. I heard nothing about invalids nor that any such thing was mentioned.
Q. Did you not receive reports in this connection from institutions in Pomerania?
A. In 1944, '45, I cannot state exactly whether it was '44 or the beginning of '45, at brief intervals I heard from security servicemen working in the chancellory in Berlin that in two cases in Saxony and in one case in Pomerania, euthanasia was again being carried out in mental institutions. I informed Bouhler's office immediately. I reported to the Fuehrer, and I also reported to Kreisleiter Martin Bormann, since both cases in Saxony indicated the participation off the Gauleiter. I know that the Fuehrer issued instructions to Martin Bormann immediately to have these measures stopped. Bouhler himself got in touch with the competent officers. I did not larn that these obviously limited measures were any way outside of the practice of euthanasia as it existed up to 1941. In other words, they were really seriously ill persons.
Q. Then you were led only by medical points of view in euthanasia?
A. I was concerned only in purely medical measures and considerations clearly arising from the decree itself. I, and as far as I know, Bouhler, never intensified this euthanasia in any way, on the contrary, if anything seemed questionable the fact that it was questionable led us to conclude that this was a reason against execution.
Q. You spoke of the proceedure, is it true that a questionnaire form would be basis for it? 2421
A. First basis was a questionnaire.
Q. I shall show you such a questionnaire in document book 1696 PS, will you please comment on it.
(Document handed to witness.)
THE PRESIDENT: Has this document already been received in evidence, counsel?
DR. SERVATIUS: I assume so. It is in the document book. There are several questionnaires, all with the same contents. I assume that it was offered in evidence. It is on page 209, part 2.
A. The questionnaire indicated, gives indications for determining the disease. There are general registrations, whether the person is a twin, whether there are insane relatives, and then an indication about previous history, the course of the disease -- .
Q. Witness, just a minute.
DR. SERVATIUS: It is Exhibit 357.
Q. Witness, will you please continue.
A. There is a note that in every case there are adequate indications of the mental condition they are to be added. We are getting individual diseases which are mentioned, Schizophrenia, in addition to the condition, whether it is a fresh attack or a final condition. The reaction to treatment is also asked for. And then there are similar subdivisions under feeblemindedness, epilepsy. There is a question about the treatment itself, and it is asked when treatment was carried out, whether there was permanent success or not. When, it is asked about crimes as to be evaluated in judging the condition of the patient and it is asked about the value of the work of the patient.
Q. What was the purpose of this questionnaire?
A. The purpose of the questionnaire was the indications given in it which were given by a specialist were to give a picture of the disease to another specialist who was to judge the case.
Q. Do you believe that this questionnaire is adequate? Don't you think that it is too superficial to form a final judgment?
A. The questionnaire alone would probably not have been sufficient for a final judgment, it was necessary for the records of the patient himself to also be consulted but this was certainly done in critical cases by the chief expert. And when the patient was transferred the observation institution had all the records and the patient himself was observed so that there were various opportunities for control.