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.
The other documents were added to the questionnaire to help in understanding; the entries. Then it was indicated whether the person was a foreigner or not.
Q. Now, witness, the question of crimes is included here and it is asked about paragraphs 51 and 42b of the Penal Code.
A. I have already pointed out that these questions were designed to have a standard for judging the condition of the patient himself. As it was similar to the questions of the employment of the patient it was not intended to form any legal judgment on the basis of this information.
Q. The questions about the patient's ability to work, was the purpose of that to remove persons incapable of working because they wore incapable of working?
A. Euthanasia was not intended merely to remove human beings. It was designed to free him from his sufferings. It had nothing to do with his ability or inability to work.
Q. Then if I understand you correctly these symptoms of mental deterioration, that he can no longer work, or that he has been a criminal --
A. They are to be evaluated in this connection, but they have only a partial influence on the decision. The decisive thing is the entire, the whole condition.
Q. Witness, how was the responsibility of the doctors concerned with the questionnaire divided?
A. Very individual doctor was responsible for what he did in the course of these measures which led to euthanasia. Each doctor was absolutely responsible for his judgment. The chief expert was also responsible, and the doctor at the observation institution as well as the doctor in the euthanasia institution were also responsible. It must not be assumed that the doctor involved in these measures would have been obliged to carry out euthanasia if he did not agree on the basis of his own decision.
We had the right and the duty, if he did not approve, to refuse to carry out euthanasia.
Q. Well, what did these powers mean to the doctor? Didn't this put him in a special situation?
A. First of all the doctor was given enormous responsibility. It was not only a responsibility in view of his right to decide about life and death, but was also burned by the fact that he was responsible for the continued suffering of this human being. One must mention this in order to make clear the extent of the responsibility.
Q. Now, was the responsibility on one doctor alone, or was it divided?
A. We, the responsibility belonged to each person who was concerned. I estimate ther were ten, fifteen, perhaps even twenty experts who, according to instructions and directives which they had received, togother with the cheif expert, had carried out their activity.
Q. Were these experts independent of one another?
A. The experts worked completely independently of one another, and that was how it was intended from the beginning. Not the questionnaires, but photostatic copies of there were sent to the experts so that none knew what the others had decided.
Q. Did you help to select the experts?
A. They were suggested by the Reich Ministry of the Interior and Bouhler assigned them their duties.
Q. Did you negotiate with them?
A. No.
Q. Did you instruct them?
A. No.
Q. Was there any appeal?
A. No, there was not. It was our opinion that since each judgment was independent, each successive judgment was a type of appeal, and we saw in this measure a sufficient safeguard against any excesses or failures of the system which might otherwise have occurred.
And besides, because of the necessity for secrecy no other appeal procedure was possible.
Q. Did not the physicians involved have any legal misgivings?
A. In practice they no doubt did not, otherwise they would not have been able to participate. If they did have legal misgivings, they were certainly dissipated by the entire nature of the procedure itself. First they are instructed about euthanasia in the Fuehrer's chancellory by Bouhler himself. They learned that the Reich Ministry of the Interior was connected with this measure from the beginning to the end. The Ministry of the Interior had recognized the decree and acted according to it. It supplied the necessary information. It assigned tie physicians. The questionnaire went through the offices of the Ministry of the Interior and later through those of the provincial government. The institutions themselves had been supplied by the Ministry of the Interior. The ministry retained its position superior to the institution. Registration offices had been arranged in the euthanasia institutions and the physicians know that the Reich Ministry of Justice was informed. The financing of the whole things was clear and regulated so that the doctors certainly had no justification for having legal misgivings.
Q. And what do you yourself think of the question of legality?
A. One decisive point for me, perhaps, was that the head of the State himself had given me this assignment, and I certainly could not expect that I was given such a decree for any criminal action. And at a subsequent time for me as well as for the others, it was soon that everything was done as if everything was in order, and it was in order as far as we were concerned.
Q. How about the question of the approval of the patients? The Insane?
A. the question of the approval of the insane was disregarded.
The point of view was that the insane person himself is in no position to judge his situation. Those were not persons with light cases, but the worst ones. For this reason since the patient lacked understanding of his own situation, there could be no question of approval. If one were to say that the patient gave his approval, that means exactly if one says he did not approve. In individual cases where this question of euthanasia was discussed with mentally healthy persons, same persons, the point of view was gained that the patient cannot decide about himself, but that the decision must be left to the doctor alone. Through momentary pain the patient may be so deceived, just as through a relative comfort he may be deceived about the severity of his disease. Here one can judge only on the basis of the diagnoses, and considering the condition and the prognosis, and only the doctor can reach the decision. It cannot be left to the patient himself.
Q. Then what about the approval of the relatives?
A. In the case of the insane the consent of the relatives was not obtained for similar raasons. First of all, the question of secrecy was important. But more important from the medical point of view was the fact that the layman is not able to judge the condition of his sick relative. He lacks knowledge of the disease. From actual criminal considerations be could not give his consent. He can be deceived by unceitical pity, and actually the relatives were not considered in this respect. Another decisive point was that one cannot expect a relative to decide about the life or both of someone else. It was the opinion that the doctor, with the support of the state, has to take the responsibility.
especially in the case of insane persons. The relatives frequently are inclined to give their consent to Euthanasia. There is an indication in literature where in about 160 questions to relatives of idiotic children, 140 parents can consent. Also the many appeals and approvals within the Euthanasia complex showed the attitude of the relatives toward the patient, but this is no reason for giving the responsibility to the relatives, who are unable to bear it.
Q What was the purpose of secrecy, was there something to be concealed?
A The secrecy was certainly demanded by the Fuehrer for political reasons; mainly on account of the internal political situation in connection with the question of propaganda, and so forth. I do not believe that inner politics was the decisive thing; some solution could e found in that respect. Final resistance from the churches, for example, could not be obtained permanently.
Q Now, witness, I show you a letter from the head of the Mental Institution, a Mr. Schleich. It was Document No. 520, Exhibit 374, Document Book 14, Part 3. This is a letter to the Reich Minister of Justice, in which this head of a mental institution objects to the procedure. Please read the letter and comment on it.
A The letter from Mr. Schleich to the Reich Minister of Justice points out that among the people there is great uncertainty in connection with the removal and the death notices about insane persons. "Is it possible," the second paragraph says, "that such a measure is being carried out without such a law having been-proclaimed." And then it goes on. "In consequence of the complete secrecy in which these measures are being carried out not only do the wildest rumors go about among the people (for example that also people unable to work on account of age or injuries receiving during the first world war have been done away with or are to be done away with). But also the impression, ---- I shall skip a little --as if a totally arbitrary manner prevailed at the selection of the persons concerned."
Q Do you consider the attitude of the author of this letter correct?
A I consider the attitude of the author of this letter as absolutely correct. If a physician who is in charge of an institution has no idea of what is actually going on, in my opinion it was his duty to inquire of the competent officers whether something unjustified was not being done. From the Documents, which have been submitted here --- this is the only letter of this type --- one should really wonder that no more of such letters were handed in. The necessity for such letters arose from the awkward attempt at secrecy which was not practicable. The letter was also interesting because it refers to rumors arising from the lack of clarity. I said before that in the case of the war wounded, there was something of the same kind.
Q Were there any similar complaints?
A I myself saw few complaints. I learned of others from Bishop Gahlen in Muenster; and from Martin Borman I learned of the letter from the Bishop of Wurm. I know, and the Documents will show, that a large number of other letters were received which were sent either to Bouhler, to the Reich Minister of the Interior through Minister Lammers, or the Reich Minister of Justice. In any case, they were sent to the nearest agency. As far as I know, only the letter which I have mentioned before from Gahlen and from Wurm were referred to, Hitler himself. Whether he learned of them later on, I do not know.
Q Did you hear of any other objections, rumors or complaints?
A I heard about complaints and objections, first, in the course of 1940 through Dr. Boehm, who was connected with a small group of physicians who went to see Martin Bormann, who came to see me.
He expressed his objections to the secrecy and he spoke of the rumors which I have mentioned. Then, later I was in contact for the same reasons with Pastor Bodelshwing of the Bethel Institution. I had several talks with Dr. Bodelshwing. He came to see me and I went to see him at Bethal. My contact with him was not on an administrative plane. It was out mutual need for discussion these questions. The consideration of secrecy was discussed by the two of us. The question of legality of Euthanasia on principle. We observed that there were no clear indications in the document itself, and that could be explained by the fact that the Christian Chruch us opposed to those ideas. It was mentioned, to a man like Luther, he was of the opinion that such deformed children should be drowned. It was said that the solution of this problem is less theological, but rather not so right, or --- the concept of pity was discussed. Talking to Pastor Bodelschwing in Bethal I visited patients with him. We were in the Children's ward and after that we dicussed the individual children, not as to whether we should actually subject this particular child to Euthanasia or not, but as to whether such a creature is still a human being, whether it has any feeling itself. I recall children of eight or ten years of age, who were really nothing but a pitiful, miserable creature. Children known as "head cases" could not even set up, with on enormous head and a tiny body. And Pastor Bodelschwing also felt it is a blessing if such pitiful creatures are (pause) ---- if and end if put to their lives.
We were not always of the same opinion, but it was possible for us to respect each other views and to understand each others views. Pastor Bodelschwing is of the opinion that if a legal regulation of this question was publically made, the decision of the state would have to be binding on all, of course. That had no connection with the fact that innerly he was nost closely connected with the church, and that he saw even in the mose pitiful creature, a human being.
Q. Now, it was stopped. Execution of Euthanasia was prohibited. What was the reason for that?
A. The talks which I had with Pastor Bodelschwing were perhaps not the final, decisive element in this, but there were quite a few other considerations, misgivings which had arisen men while a* from the question, and-so-forth. But, the responsibility of the Church did play on important role in having Euthanasia stopped in the summer by the end of August, 1941.
The Fuehrer gabe me orders, to act on these instructions and from the Headquarters I immediately passed on the news to Dr. Boehler and he did whatever was necessary. That is, the Euthanasia institutions were in this case given the order through the Reich Minister of the Interior that there was to be no further Euthanasia.
Q Could you yourself not have stopped it sooner?
A I believe that objections or opposition from me would not have been sufficient, to stop it. Far from that I approved Euthanasia in the for I have described it. The question at issue was the matter of secrecy.
Q Now, was the idea of Euthanasia given up completely?
A No, after the end of the war Euthanasia was to be resumed, and was to be carried cut further.
Q What was the effect this stopping of Euthanasia for the organization?
AAside from the fact that no more Euthanasia was carried out in the Euthanasia Institution, there was no further consequences. The questionnaires continued to be sent in at six months intervals. They continued to be registered and evaluated, but nothing else was done about them.
Q Now the Reich Committee for Deformed Childrens interest, was that also effected?
A No, the task of the Reich Committee was not effected by the stoppage.
Q Was there a definite problem in the Reich Committee as in the other Euthanasia institutes?
A No, the procedure was not the same. The questionnaires in which certain entires were to be made about severe malformation. Schmidt had referred to these committees. These questionnaires were sent to the Reich Committee, which was subsidiary to the Reichsministry of Interior; from there they wore coordinated with the necessary other documents; they were filled out by midwives, and doctors and maternity hospitals. The purpose was that such deformed children were reported and were sent to the special institutions.
Q And to whom was the authorization given?
A In concert with Euthanasia, which had been mentioned before, the authorization was connected with the individual child; there was no general authorization that tested a case. Authorization was requested and was given.
Q How does the consent of parents as to being necessary enter?
A The consent of parents was necessary. The consent had to be obtained sometimes through the official position, and sometimes through the institution which reported the case, and it was Mr. Linden's task to get these documents together.
Q And what about letting those children starve to death. Now, did you learn anything about that?
A No, I do not believe it in that form. I believed that it was the manner of malformation in the inner organism which caused complications. I never learned anything about children, or cases of children or adults where instructions being given to let these patients starve to death. The food rations given to these institutions in my opinion were exactly the same as given to the normal consumer. Since they were not acutely sick persons, there was the idea that it was not necessary to give them special rations. The concerns bad to send food rations as to the nurses, doctors, and so on.
Q You said before that this procedure of the Reich Committee was not effected by the stoppage which was put to Euthanasia?
A No.
Q Was it continued to the end of the war?
A In the year of 1914, in the second half of 1914; Mr. Bouhler informed me that a clear execution, which were difficulties of correspondence for technical reasons, was hardly possible, and he asked us for this reason that Euthanasia be stopped here as well. In 1942 since I was no longer tied down, I gave up my authorization. I did not learn that afterwards, after the stop of 1944, any further Euthanasia approval was given for children.
Q If I understand you correctly, the reason for stopping the activity of the Reich Committee was the technical reason of the general postal conditions at that time?
A Yes.
Q Did you work in this procedure until the end?
A No, in 1942, as I have just said, I gave up the authorization which I had received since I was no longer so easily available, as would have been necessary.