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