During the last 15 years we had to fill in so many questionnaires, with so many details, which had nothing to do with the original point that it does not seem at all absurd to me that we used such a procedure to receive additional information -- additional data.
Q Well, let us carry it a little further and see what happened to the questionnaires of these non-German nationals. They were filled out, presumably all over Germany, and they were then dispatched to Berlin, correct?
A Yes.
Q Now, we have heard some talk about these questionnaires being photostated; is that right?
A Yes.
Q I ask you, did they photostat the questionnaires filled out on non-German nationals?
AAccording to my opinion, no. I do not think they were further worked upon, but I am of the opinion that at the collecting point they remained as they were; so that no photostatic copies were sent to any experts.
Q In other words, at the collecting point in the T-4 in Berlin the questionnaires were sorted out so that no non-German national questionnaires were photostated; is that right?
A I am of the opinion that it was so.
Q Now, Herr Brandt, suppose I put this question to you: Were any questionnaires of non-German nationals expertized? And, your answer to that would be, no?
A I think that it is highly improbable that that was done, for in this case it would have been superfluous work for these non-Germans were executed prior to the execution of the Euthanasia. I do not think that any photostats were sent on for the purpose of expertizing.
Q Well, Herr Brandt, I am happy that we can agree on this absurdity, but I want to put this other absurdity to you. You recall the testi mony of witness Mennecke?
Do you not recall that Mennecke testified before his Tribunal that he, himself, expertized a number of non-German nationals' questionnaires?
A I do not remember this testimony in detail, but it is quite possible that he said it. If you are telling that to me now, if this superfluous work had been carried out in one or the other case, I am really not clear why it was not done because it was really superfluous; but, it is possible, even if this expertizing was carried out, then I am quite sure that a transfer of the patients was not carried out, then I am quite sure that a transfer of the patients was not carried, out as was necessary, and am of the conviction that on the basis of this procedure such foreigners were excluded. I do not know with reference to what period Mennecke spoke, and when he received such questionnaires for expertizing, but naturally I know such expertizing had no sense whatsoever.
Q Well, I think your Attorney will agree with the statement that Mennecke testified concerning the period from 1940 to 1941. Now, Witness, you apparently were mistaken when you said that these questionnaires by non-German nationals were not photostated; and you apparently also were mistaken when you stated that the questionnaires of non-German nationals were not expertized. Now, just exactly whore was the safeguard in this program which made it impossible for these non-German nationals to get transferred after those questionnaires had been expertized?
A The safeguard could only have been with the central agency in the T-4. It was not possible at and other agency as far as my opinion goes. From there the order was issued that patients were transferred through the office of Linden; and on the other hand, the transport directives were given from there, so this information must have been initiated from T-4, and there the separation between the German and nonGerman was made.
Q But you, yourself, do not know exactly where that sorting out of non-German nationals took place, do you?
A No, I do not know where it took place. It is my conviction that it could only have taken place at the central agency because only there did the questionnaires arrive with the designation "foreign", and only there did they have the possibility to separate these questionnaires, Germans and non-Germans.
Q And, that was before the questionnaires were photostated; was it not, Herr Brandt?
AAccording to my opinion that occurred before the questionnaires were photostated. The judgment and expertizing of those questionnaires was superfluous and foreigners were to be excluded.
Q If you do not know exactly where the Germans and non-Germans were sorted out, how can you swear to this Tribunal that non-German nationals were not actually transferred to a Euthanasia Station?
AA guarantee which enables me to say that is the order which was given to Bouhler very clearly, and which I am quite certain he executed. I think it is quite out of the question that when he received the order to exclude foreigners that he should have them included.
Q But, that is an assumption on your part, Herr Brandt? Is that right?
A I cannot repeat it in any other manner than I have just said it.
Q Now, Herr Brandt, we have talked about these questionnaires and the classes of persons about whom they were filled out; and you have testified that it made no difference whether a man worked or not; that they filled out the questionnaire on him. You further said that it made no difference whether he was a German or a non-German; there was no distinction made between the two and questionnaires were filled out under the same circumstances for both classes of persons. Is that right?
A I said that it was my opinion that it was so.
Q I want to show you now Document NO-825. This is Prosecution Exhibit 358. It appears on Page 216 of the English Document Book, Number 14, Part 2. Herr Brandt, I want you to turn to Page 3 in that document where it says up at the top, "Instruction Leaflet." Do you find Page 3 of the original, Herr Brandt, where it says "Instruction Leaflet"?
A Yes. Yes, I have found it.
Q "Instruction Leaflet. Read carefully before filling out the questionnaires."
A Yes.
Q There was an instruction leaflet sent to the asylums, was there not, advising them how to complete these questionnaires?
A Yes.
Q And this instruction leaflet tells them upon which patients the questionnaires are to be completed, doesn't it?
A Yes.
Q Let me read to you the first paragraph: "All patients are to be enumerated who (1) are suffering from the following illnesses and cannot be employed, or for mechanical work only, plucking or similar work, in the institution."
Now, Herr Brandt, doesn't that instruction say quite clearly that those persons who suffer from the illnesses enumerated but who can be employed, who can work, are not to be enumerated or are not to have questionnaires filled out on them?
A I look at it in the following way. These persons had to fill in the questionnaires when they were afflicted with these diseases and, referring to Paragraph 2, when they had been in the institution for five years.
Q Now, Herr Brandt, let's not play with one another. You can read the German language; and I don't want you to make a statement which is not quite true on the face of the document. Now, isn't it true that Paragraph 1 and Paragraph 2 are mutually exclusive? Isn't there the word "or" between Paragraph 1 and Paragraph 2?
A Yes.
Q All right, let's forget the answer you were about to give and divert our attention to Paragraph 1. Doesn't it state there that questionnaires are to be filled out only on these persons who have the enumerated illnesses and who cannot be employed, or for mechanical work only, plucking and similar work? Isn't that what it says?
A Yes, that's what it says there.
Q Then your testimony was quite incorrect that employment or ability to work played no part in the euthanasia program except insofar as it permitted a diagnosis of the patient? Isn't that right, Herr Brandt?
A The question of output of work as such is not listed because of the effect of the work but is listed in order to judge the health of the patient and condition of the patient. If a patient is in a situation where he can work in an institution and work in factories, as is sometimes the case with people with epileptic disease, it shows that he can under no circumstances be so severely ill that it would warrant his falling within the framework of this euthanasia program. Therein I do not see an intensification? but I see in it a safeguard in that the people who were only mildly ill but who were still in need of the institution should be excluded. It has, however, nothing to do with what the patient actually puts out in the form of work.
Q Now, Doctor, you don't seriously suggest that you cannot have persons very severely ill, incurably ill, of the diseases here listed, yet who are able to perform some work? and you are trying to insist to this Tribunal that you can automatically state a priori that if persons with these illnesses can work then there is no justification for putting them to death.
The point seems to be that if they are afflicted with the same illnesses and for one reason or another cannot work, then you put them to death; and I'm asking you if then one of the most decisive considerations is not the illness as listed in Paragraph 1 but the ability of the person to perform work.
A The ability work can only be considered when considering the condition of the patient.
It is quite absurd to think of the output. The output of work as such makes no difference at all. It plays no part. Even if it is productive, it is not decisive because whatever a man can do in such an institution is only small errands.
Q. What was it that you said wasn't important, the output?
A. I said that it was not important, that the output of work was not important, and with that I understand the calculable value of the work because it plays no p;rt whatsoever inasmuch as there are only small tasks being performed in such an institution. The output of work can only be considered when you consider the ability to work which in turn is the condition of the patient.
Q. Now, Herr Brandt, let's turn back to the questionnaire itself, one Page back in the document book. Do you find now at the bottom where it says "Kind of Employment"?
A. Yes.
Q. They apparently thought output was important for the diagnosis of the insane person because it reads "Kind of Employment, most precise designation of work and output; for example, agricultural labor, does not do much, or a locksmith, good specialist; no vague statements like domestic work, but particular ones, room cleaning, and so forth; also state always whether employed continuously, frequently, or only temporarily". Now, I think that they were very much interested in knowing quite a lot about the ability of this person to perform work, and I suggest to you that they were interested not for reasons of diagnosing the condition of the patient's mind or the nature of his illness but to find out his value as a useful worker to the German war machine. For instance, a locksmith, good specialist, who could make bomb fuses or the parts for a V-1. Do you reject that suggestion?
A. Yes. I think it is out of the question that an insane person could be used for the production of V-1's or V-2's. This reference here in my opinion is in connection with a reference on page 2, number 3, where patients are lifted who were in those institutions ever since five years before. If a man is in one such institution for five years, it is under the circumstances quite possible that he had even been there for longer, and it is possible that he worked in such a factory and that this reference is concerned with his output of work and as such should be taken into consideration when judging the condition of the man.
When it says here, "working as a locksmith", etcetera, one would have to investigate what actually was produced in these locksmiths' workshops of the institution. It is simple repair work which is being carried out there. Partly they were used for therapeutical measures.
Q. Witness, what diagnostic judgment did you draw from the fact that one patient who had schizophrenia for five years could have a good output of alarm clocks while another patient with the same disease for the same period of time could make wood carvings, wood stoppers for bottles, with a reasonably good output. Now, what diagnostic judgment can you draw from those two hypothetical cases.
A. None whatsoever.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now recess until 1:30 o'clock.
(A recess was taken until 13:30 hours.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. SEIDL: (Counsel for the Defendant Oberheuser): Mr. President, the Defendant Oberheuser does not feel well and, therefore, she requests permission of the Tribunal to leave the court room at 1500 hours.
THE PRESIDENT: In view of the physical condition of the Defendant Oberheuser, she may be excused at 1500 hours in accordance with her request.
KARL BRANDT (Resumed).
CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued).
BY MR. McHANEY:
Q Herr Brandt, we were examining before the luncheon recess the instructions on filling out the questionnaires and we saw in paragraph 1 that no questionnaires were to be filled out on those persons who were capable of employment, isn't that correct?
A It was done in such a way that after the first paragraph -
(Document book handed to witness)
--yes, that is correct.
Q Doesn't that seem to be a bit inconsistent with your statement that these questionnaires really constituted a registration of all insane patients?
A That does not refer to all mentally insane patients but only to those who fell within that framework. In my opinion even patients who were sick for short periods were not reported so that a registration of all patients by means of these questionnaires was not possible anyway.
Q Well, Herr Brandt, that was what I had suggested to you this morning, namely, that these questionnaires were filled out on those persons who would be subjected to euthanasia if they fell within the judgment of the experts as being incurable, And as I recall you rejected that suggestion of mine.
A I don't think that I have understood you correctly at the moment. The questionnaires were filled in for the purpose in order to establish general basical documents, in order to register all the patients who might be made available to euthanasia. And within the group of persons registered in this way, and whose registration took place on the basis of their physical condition, there were several exceptions; and in order to determine these exceptions certain information which exceeded those fields, which exceeded the medical fields as, for example, to their being injured in the course of the war, etcetera.
Q Herr Brandt, since those persons who were afflicted with schizophrenia epilepsy, and the other diseases listed in paragraph 1 were not reported on, that is, questionnaires were not completed on such persons if they were capable of work, I have considerable difficulty in understanding why you insisted that questionnaires on Non-German nationals be completed. Why weren't they also exempted on the same ground that other persons were exempted, because of the ability to work?
A In the same respect the war invalids were not exempted either and that had to be registered separately. This certainly has nothing to do with regard to their transfer to a euthanasia institute. I take it from your question that you are of the opinion that the reference on this questionnaire that NonGermans are considered in this case was deserved to the fact in order to recognize a group of patients in such a way then, under the circumstances, to have them subjected to euthanasia. You have not expressed that but apparently your question is pointing to that fact. I have previously stated in connection with that the the foreigners were to be exempted under all circumstances. I only want to have these references understood to the effect that they were made in order to be able to determine these exemptions, that they were not to be subjected to euthanasia, and that they were not to be subjected to euthanasia perhaps for reasons of another disease.
Q Well, Herr Brandt, you will concede that the most effective way of seeing to it that Non-German nationals were not included in the program would have been a simple order that no questionnaires were to be filled on such persons, wouldn't you say so?
A That depends what place you believe to have the most security. No doubt it can be argued and disputed if it could be done this way or another way. Perhaps there is even a third possibility that might have been used. If this procedure was followed here in this form, then it certainly is in connection with a general registration about transferring the mental institutions, but certainly not with any other intentions.
Q Herr Brandt, by dropping down to paragraph 2 of the instructions, isn't it true that the questions concerning ability to work came into play only when the patient had been in an asylum for at least five years?
A I only believe that this also held in the diagnosis and judgment because with reference to the kind of occupation the difference was made if the person could constantly work, frequently, or temporarily. In any case, it was only the possibility of contacts which a subject might have to his surroundings. And certainly those were not the sole reasons which led to the judgment of diagnoses. But they could only be evaluated in connection with the other statements which had been made also.
Q. Witness, I am simply trying to make clear who was excluded from the program on the basis of ability to work, and we see in paragraph 1 that anyone who could be employed was not reported on - did not have a questionnaire filled out on him. Then we drop down to paragraph 2 which says, "All patients are to be enumerated who have been in an institution constantly for at least five years" and it is on that category of patients that the question of ability to work comes into play. If the patient had been in the asylum for only three years and, in the judgment of the chief of the asylum, could be employed or could work, then no questionnaire was filed. But if the same patient had been in the asylum for five years or more they had to file a questionnaire and then and only then did the questions in the questionnaire concerning ability to work come into play. Isn't that correct?
A. The questionnaires have to be understood that way and then what I have just said is correct.
Q. All right, that is sufficient. So we exclude, under paragraph 1, all of those who have not been in an asylum for at least five years and who are able to work. No questionnaire is filed. Paragraph 2 - if they have been in an asylum for five years or more then a questionnaire must be filed and the questions in the questionnaire concerning ability to work are filled in. Now then, on the questionnaire under the questions dealing with employment and ability to work, is it not true that those persons who could be employed in a skillful employment, skillful work, and who had a reasonable output were excluded?
A. Were exempted from euthanasia or exempted from filling in the questionnaires?
Q. Exempted from euthanasia.
A If such people were able to carry on some special work within their respective institutions then this was proof of the fact that their physical condition was probably not so bad that they were disintegrated personalities.
Q. Very well. I think then that the picture comes a bit clearer that the ability to work was a very substantial consideration in the operation of this program and a great deal of weight was placed upon the question of ability to work. Is that true?
A. That depends on how you interpret the words "ability to work" and on what the most emphasis is placed. The decisive point is that it may be used as a reference, together with other statements, if the patient is psychologically or severely ill or if is not severely ill but then his work has nothing to do with the effect arising from the work. That is, if the man plays a part in the war potential or not and in this case the statement contained in question 1 certainly does not have any connection but is only there in order to serve as information - additional information as to the picture of the disease.
Q. Let's turn now to one of the other questions in the questionnaire, namely that concerning race. Do you find that question?
A. That is on Sheet 2.
Q. The footnote is on Sheet 2. The footnote reads, "Of German or German related blood; of German extraction; Jew, partial Jew of Grade 1 or Grade 2; Negro, partial Negro; Gypsy, partial Gypsy; etc." Now, what was the point in having the race of the patient reported on?
A. In my opinion, that could have only been used for an evaluation in the statistics. I cannot see any other reason for it.
Q. You can see that it was not needed by the expert in diagnosing the patient's condition and thus determining whether or not euthanasia should be applied?
A. That would have nothing whatever to do with it. I cannot remember either, but I know it has been discussed - that I have been asked about it - if Jews were exempted from this program. I cannot remember if this has been the case. I would not know in this case either as far as Reich Germans were concerned.
Q. Well, I am not suggesting to you, Herr Brandt, that under any properly enacted law - valid law dealing with this subject that German Jews should be exempted, but I put the question to you of what is the value of building up another category of persons in these questionnaires?
That is, distinguishing between a Jew and an Aryan? What possible pertinency does the answer to that question have to the determination of whether euthanasia shall be applied?
A. In my opinion, it does not have any special value whatsoever. I have just said that I am of the opinion that this was only a matter for the statistics. That it was not a question, which on the basis of the statements, would have had any influence whatsoever.
Q. Of course, witness, you will concede that the question would have a great deal of pertinence if in fact euthanasia were being used as a method of exterminating the Jews, wouldn't you?
A. If that had been the case, a certain basis would have been established in this way. That is quite possible. However, Negroes and Gypsies are stated here and also "of German and German related blood". I have nothing to add to what I have previously stated or nothing came to my knowledge that such statements would have been used for any other purpose than for statistics, aside from the fact that I do not know the very close details of these questionnaires and, above all, the enclosures with further explanation and instructions and I have just seen them through these documents. I only know about the references to what extent these questionnaires might serve to assure against incorrect diagnosis.
Q. Witness, since you mentioned Gypsies, I think there is some reason to believe that the German Reich indulged in some discrimination against Gypsies as well as Jews. So there again that category of persons might possibly be of interest to T-4 and other operators of the euthanasia program.
A. I have never known T-4 in any other capacity than as an establishment which was connected with euthanasia - on the basis of Decree No. 39.
Q. Now, Herr Brandt, let's go back to the instruction leaflet and I ask you to look at paragraph 4 where it reads that "all patients are to be enumerated who are not of German nationality or are not of German or German related blood, indicating the race and nationality". You will recall, Herr Brandt, that I put a hypothetical question to you here, citing a patient of German nationality and a patient of non-German nationality who had each spent one month in an asylum.
You stated that no distinction was made on the basis of nationality. I now ask you - don't you have to change your testimony in view of the fact that paragraph 4 explicitly requires that questionnaires be completed on any and all patients of non-German nationality?
A. I must correct myself in this form. However, I would still like to add that now as before I still maintain the opinion that the time of reporting these patients consisted of five years and, in this respect, I am also of the opinion that if the questionnaires had to be filled in by non-Germans that this probably served for some sort of statistical computation whose origin I do not exactly know. I cannot say why this was done.
Q Witness, we understand that you are insisting that no non-Germans were exterminated pursuant to the euthanasia program, but we are now trying to investigate why it was, firstly, that questionnaires had to be filed on any non-German nationals, and secondly, why questionnaires in fact had to be filed on all non-German nationals whether or not they fell in the foregoing 3 categories listed on this instruction sheet, which applied both to Germans and non-Germans.
A The reason, in my opinion, can only lie in some statistical evaluate. I do not know of any other reason why this formulation took place; it may be that as to other circumstances, also on the part of the Ministry of the Interior, there was a certain interest, but I do not know.
Q Let us turn to the next page of the document, Herr Brandt. The 5th paragraph, which reads: "In cases of patients being newly admitted after the deadline date, questionnaires are to be filled out as well and to be sent to me collectively every year, on 1 February for the deadline date of 1 January and 1 August for the deadline date of 1 July." Doesn't that paragraph state, in fact, that questionnaires were completed and sent in on patients who had been in asylums for one month or less?
A Yes, for subsequent reporting, yes.
Q The questionnaire, however, was completed on the basis of observation made over a period of one month or less in some cases, was it not?
A If the patients were not located in other institutions before then the questionnaires were then filled in with proper references and were sent to the collecting point.
Q And thereafter expertized?
A I do not consider this probable because after question 1 there is the reference as to how long the patient has been sick and in a further question there is a reference with regard to the condition of the patient. If these questionnaires were then passed on for diagnoses, it may be possible, but then the decisions of the diagnoses would have corresponded.
Q You have testified that 2% to 4% of the persons transferred to an observation station after an affirmative decision on euthanasia by the top experts, were returned as ineligible and euthanasia was not applied -- is that right?
AAs far as I can recall, there were 4% to 6%.
Q How do you know this figure so precisely?
A Bouhler informed me about it, that is to say, -- yes, it was Bouhler he informed me of the fact with the reasons which I also stated yesterday when I mentioned the subject.
Q Does this not indicate a rather remarkable analytical and diagnostic ability on the part of the experts, with only a two-page questionnaire to work on?
A I also asked myself that question at the time but I was assured that a proper questionnaire would be filled in by a specialist physician and that a diagnosis would be made by a specialist physician; furthermore, it was pointed out that where the description was not sufficient for the symptons, corresponding differences could be made.
Q But you made no personal investigation into this matter yourself, did you?
A I had been told that it was possible on the basis of this questionnaire to obtain corresponding judgment of the condition of the patient.
Q Does not this mean, in effect, that the great majority of patients were assigned to death without ever having been seen by the experts who passed the judgment?
A The experts themselves never saw the patients. The experts themselves only reached the decision on the basis of the questionnaires.
Q And you seriously suggest to this Tribunal that a psychiatrist can actually determine from this short questionnaire whether a person is incurably insane, is that right?
A That he was to get a total impression as to the condition of the patient was assured to me by the specialist physicians who participated in this matter. After all, this was not the only diagnosis, for subsequently further medical examinations took place; in addition to this, outside of certain exceptions, they had been in an institution for a very long time so that a clear picture could be obtained as to his condition.
Q But the first and last place where a patient was actually in a position to be physically examined was in the observation station, wasn't it?
A In the observation station and also at the euthanasia station, because patients have also been returned by euthanasia institutes.
Q As you had very accurate information about the percentage returned from observation stations, suppose you tell us the percentage that was returned from euthanasia stations?
A The number 4% to 6% can be applied, as far as I can remember, to both institutes, to the euthanasia institutions as well as to the observing institutions, although I cannot say if this was in every case 4% to 6%, or a total of 4% to 6%.
Q What instructions were issued to these observation stations and euthanasia stations about their right to over-ride the affirmative decision of the experts?
A Nobody was ordered to carry out euthanasia if he did not agree with the findings and in observing institutes no euthanasia was carried out at all.
Q But you do not know of any precise instructions that were issued to the observation stations and the euthanasia stations concerning their right to over-ride the opinion of the expert in Berlin?
A It was never a question at any place. The ordering of the doctors did not take place under the condition that they had to comply with the diagnosis but it was always determined in the opinion of the physician; there also the experts did not have to agree in their diagnosis.
Q How long did a patient remain in the observation station?
A That varied, in my opinion. The time could consist of several months; sometimes, as I have seen from the files here, it may have been from 4 to 6 or 8 weeks.
Q Well, your opinion was to that effect. Do you actually KNOW approximately how long these people remained in the observation station?
A I cannot state exactly how long they remained there.
Q How big were the observation stations?
A I cannot tell you that. As far as I know, they were whole institutions which had been established and furnished as observing institutions. I have never seen any of them.
Q You don't know how many doctors they had per number of patients in the observation station?
A No, I cannot tell you that.
Q You don't know anything about their training or how expert they were.
A These things were handled only by Bouhler together with the Ministry of the Interior. My opinion is that we dealt with mental institutions which in this case were uniformly established as observing institutes and where partial transports and larger transports were then sent to euthanasia institutes.
Q What precautions did you take that proper examinations would be conducted at the observation stations?
A Will you please repeat your question once more?
Q What precautions did you take that proper examinations would be conducted at the euthanasia stations?
A I myself have not issued any measures at all.
Q And you do not know by your own observation that Bouhler or anyone else took any precautions, do you?
A I am of the opinion that these positions were occupied by specialist physicians and that these specialist physicians had been instructed as to the activity and their responsibility which was connected with it.
Q Can you name any of these experts at the observation stations?
A I cannot give you any names of these physicians.
Q Witness, you appreciate the importance of the issue of the manner in which this euthanasia program was conducted, do you not?
A Yes, I know exactly.
Q And you appreciate that the only opportunity for personal examination by a doctor on the scene was at the observation station?
A Yes, certainly.
Q Wasn't it part of your duty and responsibility to make very sure that the proper type of examination was conducted on these patients who were being put to death?
A That certainly was not my task. In order to carry out this task I first of all would have had to personally visit these institutes and then I also would have had to obtain specialist training, neither of which was provided for me. I was neither able to personally visit the institutes nor did I have any specialist control or supervision.