1947-05-08, #3: Doctors' Trial (afternoon)

AFTERNOON SESSION.

(The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 8 May 1947.)

THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.

DR. GEORG WELTZ — Resumed.

THE PRESIDENT: Has Counsel for defense any further examination of the witness?

REDIRECT EXAMINATION.

BY DR. WILL (Counsel for the Defendant Weltz):

Q: Dr. Weltz, I return to the question first of all that were discussed yesterday, namely, the questions that the prosecutor directed to you during the course of yesterday's session, and I ask you, first of all, to answer the following question: Would it not have been possible to confirm the experimental series, that were discussed by Ruff and Romberg in Adlershof, outside of concentration camps? The prosecutor feels that experimenting in concentration camps could have been avoided. Now, give me a clear answer and tell me, would you have received the necessary number of experimental subjects, namely, 15, from the Luftwaffe?

A: It was difficult to find that number of volunteers for such a length of time, for the reasons Ruff has already set forth. People were not released from their officials duties so that we could have them available. So far as they were employees of the Institute, they had to continue doing their daily work so that for this reason they were not really available, at least practically not. Now, I was asked whether enough volunteers would have volunteered. There were always plenty of Luftwaffe volunteers for high altitude experiments, so far as it depended on the will of the volunteers. If we asked squadron, "who of you wishes to volunteer for high-altitude experiments?", and if we had been able be tell this squadron, "You will be relieved of your other duties for the period during which these experiments are carried out, then, of course just about every one in that squadron would have applied, because for these people high altitude experiments were something that they were familiar with. They knew that they involved no pain or unpleasantness, and the conditions brought about by these experiments were conditions which they already knew.

That we could not proceed in this way was determined by quite other factors namely the fact that during the war everyone had more work to do than he could do, that the individual offices thought it was very important that their employees should not lose a single hour from their regular work. And we had the same sort of troubles with students. If we asked what student wanted to volunteer, then a lot of students would have been ready to, but if we proceeded to the practical angle and said: "Tomorrow I want you here for a whole day," then the difficulties arose, because all these students had other obligations. This time was not at their disposal. They, of themselves, would have liked to volunteer and this apparently the difference, if one says that on the one hand, there were plenty of people in the Luftwaffe who wanted to volunteer, and, on the other hand, it turned out to be impossible, in the practical field, to get them.

Q: Now, let us assume that you had received the people from the Luftwaffe. Could Rascher have been restrained from carrying out his own experiments in Dachau?

A: Certainly not, because at the moment when on the 15th of May 1941 Rascher asked Himmler whether he could permit such experiments, and from the moment on when Himmler permitted those experiments, Rascher had the duty as SS-man towards Himmler to make use of this permission that Himmler had accorded him. Rascher always occupied a dual position. On the one hand he was a Stabsarzt [Medical Officer] of the Luftwaffe, and in this capacity stood in a clearly defined military subordination and commission, and on the other hand, Rascher was a member of the General-SS, and in this capacity he was subordinate to Himmler, and only in this capacity did he turn at the time to Himmler in order to receive permission to carry out these experiments.

Thus it was quite clear that at the moment when Himmler gave permission for the experiments Rascher certainly did take advantage of that permission.

Q: Now another question relating to your examination of yesterday. The Prosecutor among other charges accused you of being guilty of the fact that Ruff and Romberg who carried out the experiments and are in the dock today and you answered this question in the affirmative. I assume therefore that this is an admission of guilt for your person in the judicial or even moral sense, or am I wrong in that. Will you please explain your position again.

A: I can say to that that if Rascher had not been assigned to my office against my will and without my intent that then I wouldn't be in the dock here either. In the last analysis the whole indictment has come about because Rascher, contrary to our program, without our knowledge, did things that are charges in the indictment here. Neither I, nor Mr. Ruff nor Romberg are in any way responsible for that.

Q: Now I have a few questions regarding this morning's cross examination. This morning the Prosecutor suddenly showed you a new document in order to prove that Rascher did not leave on the 20th of February because of the Himmler telegram but left only later. Now I ask you first of all on the basis of what data did you determine the time for the individual occurrences, particularly the time when Rascher left your office?

A: Of course, today I do no longer have in mind the dates for occurrences that happened five years ago. I did try on the basis of the documents here in evidence to reconstruct the chronology of the dates and I believe I said very clearly in my direct examination just how I came to for on the dates that I did fix on. It was my point of departure that two dates are most certainly incompatible. In the document NO-316 it says that Rascher on the 16 of March 1942 had already been assigned to the Dachau field station of Air Research Institute, and in the Schnitzler file note, which is document 264, it says:

Rascher's assignment to Dachau must be immediately changed to an assignment to Air Research Institute Berlin-Adlershof, Dachau Field Station.

In parenthesis:

In Wentz' institute, since as Wentz tells us he will have the assignment cancelled immediately unless he takes a part.

Now one of these documents has to be erroneous, that is to say, it must be wrong because Frau Rascher cannot on the 28th of April ask for an assignment somewhere, which according to the other document had already been given to Rascher a month earlier. This was my point of departure and I thought I could by assuming that the Schnitzler file note, namely NO. 264, has a false date on it, and that the date should not be the 28th of April but the 28th of February of 1942. Now through the submission of the new document, NO. 1359, the file note of Sievers, seems to make it clear to me that the Schnitzler file note really does bear the correct date, namely the 28 of April 1942. I must therefore confess that I cannot clarify this contradiction. Therefore, there really is the contradiction in the two documents NO. 264 and NO. 318. From the material I have available here I cannot clear up this contradiction. Purely objectively speaking this fact does nothing to change what I have said here except as to my conjecture regarding the dates which I now withdraw. Particularly it changes nothing in my statement that nothing of the Dachau experiments was reported to me. On the contrary, Sievers Document NO. 1359 corroborated anew that I asked Rascher to report to me and I placed before him the alternative of either remaining in my institute and reporting to me or leaving. It can also be seen from the Sievers document that there was no report to me on the Dachau experiments and that just was the reason for my quarrels with Rascher.

Q: I have one last question to clarify this contradiction. Now which of the two sides of this contradiction do you think is the more likely? We have the letter from Wolff on the 10 March which is a sort of official document, whereas Rascher's reputation for veracity after all I heard about him was not very great, now which do you think is correct?

A: Since my first attempt to clarify this contradiction came to naught I should not like to try again. I simply can see no way to clarify it on the basis of the material before me.

DR. WILLE: No further questions in re-direct examination.

THE PRESIDENT: Are there no further questions to the witness?

DR. TIPP: Dr. Tipp for Becker-Freysing.

THE PRESIDENT: The re-examination of this witness at this time must be limited to matters which were elicited from the witness, statements which he made on cross examination.

DR. TIPP: Very well, Mr. President, I will put only that sort of questions.

BY DR. TIPP:

Q: Professor, in the cross examination in answer to a question by the Prosecutor regarding the chain of command in your institute you said the following:

Economically and disciplinarily I was subordinate to the Luftgau [Air District] in Munich but in scientific respects to the medical inspectorate.

Mr. Hardy whereupon asked you whether that was Anthony's office and you said "yes", and from this it could be deduced that you received your orders and directives in research matters or in all scientific matters from Anthony's office, that is to say, the office for Luftwaffe medicine, for aviation medicine in the medical inspectorate or by the man in charge of those matters. Is that what you meant to say, professor, or how can you explain this remark?

A: It is as I said: Namely in the scientific respect I was subordinate to the medical inspectorate, and the medical inspectorate was represented for me either by the inspector himself or by the Chief of Staff; the technical expert did not give any orders. That went on through the inspector or the Chief of Staff. I simply wanted to say that Anthony was the department expert at the same office of the medical inspectorate from which I also received my orders from it's chief.

Q: In the cross examination you also said that in the Luftgaus there were consulting physicians. Under the term "consulting physicians" one understands that you also knew the doctors who advised the various commandants, that is the Air Fleet physicians, or the medical chiefs themselves. Now, Professor, do you mean by that that there were consulting physicians in that technical sense to the Luftgaus or their institutes. Did you say that from your personal knowledge or was what you said yesterday singly a conjecture?

A: Whether the Luftgaus had advisers that I do not know. We were concerned then with Professor Singer and I only meant that the technical experts in the various fields were also the advisers to the Luftgaus. Whether they held title of consulting physicians I do not know. Professor Singer, with whom we were then concerned, was, I believe, called "Luftgau Pathologist" or something of the sort. His official title had nothing about an adviser in it. But regarding these matters I have only partial knowledge because I had not very much to do with that.

Q: Now another question. It refers to to is Luftgau pathologist, Dr. Singer. The prosecutor said yesterday in cross-examination that from the documents it could be seen that Dr. Singer refused to collaborate through the documents and I can find no such document. Since you were interrogated yesterday about this document, I want to ask you whether you know what the reference was.

MR. HARDY: May it please Your Honors, the last question of defense counsel, I don't understand what he means. I can't get the import of the question or what he is referring to. I can't understand it at all. Will you have him rephrase the question?

THE PRESIDENT: Will Counsel repeat the question?

DR. TIPP: I asked Professor Weltz the following: The cross-examination yesterday, Mr. Hardy quoted a document and drew from this document the conclusion that the Munich pathologist, Dr. Singer, refused to work with Holzloehner and Finke in the Dachau experiments for ethical reasons. I could find no document from which that could be seen, and, therefore, I asked Dr. Weltz just that document it was.

MR. HARDY: Your Honor, that is an erroneous assumption on the part of the defense counsel. I didn't refer to a document. I merely asked Dr. Weltz from the documents in evidence was it apparent that Dr. Singer withdrew from the experiments and, if he did withdraw, was it for ethical reasons. I didn't state that such a document existed.

DR. TIPP: Then that settles that question. Now a final question.

Q: In the cross-examination you have said that the Luftgau physicians were subordinate to the medical Inspectorate. For many years you were a member of the Luftwaffe and know how it was organized as well as I do. Now, please tell the Tribunal whether the Luftgau doctors were directly subordinate to the Medical Inspectorate or was there an intermediary office?

A: The Luftgau doctors were subordinate most of the time to the Air fleet Doctors and thus only indirectly subordinate to the Medical Inspectorate.

DR. TIPP: Thank you.

IRE PRESIDENT: Any further questions of the witness?

The defendant Weltz may be excused from the stand and will resume his place.

(The witness was excused)

MR. HARDY: May it please Your Honors, before defense counsel continues the presentation of his documentary evidence, I should like to inquire as to whether or not Defense Counsel for Weltz intends to call another witness at this time for the Defendant Weltz and then after the completion of the Weltz case, whether or not the Defense Counsel for the Defendant Brack intends to call the Defendant Brack to the stand first or to call one of his two witnesses, or in what process so that I can gauge my work over the following few days.

DR. WILLE: Mr. President, I was about to make a statement of this question. The witness Wendt was here, having turned up on the 24th of April. Now the interrogations of Ruff and Romberg took longer than we had expected. Wendt is a doctor, an x-ray man, in Karlsruhe, and Weltz' previous assistant. I consequently released him after taking a long affidavit from him. The affidavit is here. It is about twenty typewritten pages and discusses the whole question in a perfectly satisfactory way. Now, so far, I have not yet succeeded in having this document translated into English, so that I can present it to the Tribunal only in German; and I assume that it is not possible to put it in unless we have the English translation. However, if you wish, I could tell the Tribunal, what the important points in this affidavit are without, of course, actually reading it. If you wish, I could do that in a very brief way.

THE PRESIDENT: I think it would be better to wait until the English translation is complete.

MR. HARDY: If Your Honor pleases, I would like to hear from the Defense Counsel Froeschmann for Brack and see what his intentions are and see what course he will follow in his defense.

THE PRESIDENT: Did Counsel for the Defendant Weltz understand my statement that the affidavit that he mentioned may be offered when its translation into English is completed?

DR. WILLE: Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for Defendant Brack, did you hear the question suggested by the prosecution as to whether or not you desire to call Defendant Brack to the stand before any other witnesses?

DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, in the last few days, I told the Secretary General and the prosecutor in writing that it was my intention to call first the two witnesses, Hederich and Pfannmueller, and thereafter, if it please the Tribunal, to call the defendant to the stand.

MR. HARDY: That answers my question.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well, Counsel, we understand; you may follow that procedure. Counsel may proceed.

DR. WILLE: May it please the Tribunal, I may continue my case by putting in the documents that are to be found in Document Book No. 2. First of all, I put in an affidavit by Doctor von Werz. This is of the 7th of January, 1947; Document No. 4; I put it in as Weltz Exhibit No. 11. I might say regarding this very briefly the following. Werz is Weltz' oldest collaborator. He describes his own attitude regarding the Nazi party and his participation in the freedom action of Bavaria. For this reason he was condemned to death. I might read just a few lines of want he says regarding which it seems to me indispensable that I read them. I read from page 1 of the document, a sentence from paragraph 4:

At the out-break of the war I removed my residence to Munich, as I had a sound reason for making a timely escape from persecution by the Gestapo. I was, therefore, glad to meet immediately with a good reception at the "Research Institute of Aviation Medicine" in Munich whose chief at that time was Professor Weltz.

Now from page 2 I read from the first paragraph:

As he —

namely, Weltz —

was not only willing to acknowledge the value of my scientific views, but also respected my political convictions — an attitude often scarcely compatible with his position as the head of the Institute, our association turned out to be an entirely harmonious one.

Then in his affidavit Wertz describes animal experiments at the Institute and describes, among other things, how two of Holzloehner's employees came to him for blood samples for Dachau. Professor Weltz has described that event from the witness stand. Werz describes how that permission was refused. I read the last paragraph on the page, the last sentence:

When the two members of Holzloehner's staff again turned directly to professor Weltz in an attempt to borrow, at least, an apparatus for the determination of oxygen content, he consulted me and approved of my final refusal, expressed in the strongest terms.

From page 4 of the document I read the last sentence.

I am not aware that Dr. Lutz or Dr. Wendt ever offered Weltz employment in Dachau. Such an offer was never made to me in any form whatsoever.

Now, Your Honors, I put in another affidavit from scientific assistant. This is Weltz' document No. 6; Weltz Exhibit NO. 12. Dr. Pichotka, at the end of last year, when he heard that Weltz was under indictment, by reading it in the papers, made himself available to me. They are acquainted with each other through having exchanged scientific correspondence. They collaborated scientifically since they were active in the same scientific field. Like Herr von Werz, he points out the particularly dignified manner in scientific manners that Weltz had. Thus he says that Weltz frequently had research experiments in his Institute stopped when he heard that Pichotka was working on the same subjects. Weltz wanted to give his colleague Pichotka a head start. It is also important for this trial that he states that he know of Weltz's efforts to keep a close watch on Rascher. He, therefore, also knew that Rascher, on the basis of the telegram from Himmler, was removed from Weltz.

As the next document I offer an affidavit of Dr. Amann. This is Weltz Document No. 7, Exhibit 13. May I briefly explain this. Dr. Amann was a collaborator of Pichotka's, and his testimony is to the same effect.

The next documents are affidavits by former female assistants in Holtz's aviation medical institute. I offer them as Weltz Documents 8, Exhibit No.—

THE PRESIDENT: What exhibit number do you assign Weltz Document 8?

DR. WILLE: Eight is Exhibit No. 14; Document No. 9 is Exhibit No. 15.

The next is Weltz Document No. 10, an affidavit by Elizabeth Forgbert. This will be Weltz Exhibit 16. The next document is Document No. 11, which will be Exhibit No. 17. I may say a few words about this document; it is an affidavit by one Frau Erna Hoffmann, from Munich, who was in charge of a Luftwaffe rest center. She is not a Aryan, and gives information regarding Prof. Weltz's political attitude. Mrs. Hoffman was arraigned before a People's Court for undermining the defensive strength of the nation. Prof. Weltz spoke in her behalf although he exposed himself personally by so doing to great political danger.

The next document is Weltz No. 12, Exhibit NO. 18. This is an affidavit by a previous employee of the Weltz institute, Mrs. Pirner. The purpose of that affidavit is the following. Mrs. Pirner, in her boarding house, had made defeatist utterances and had said that it was madness to continue with the war. There was a trial for high treason against her. Weltz first succeeded in having the trial take place before a Luftwaffe court. In the main proceedings he, himself, volunteered from among the audience, and spoke in her behalf in such a way as to have her declared not guilty.

The next document will be Weltz Document No. 16. This will be Exhibit No. 19. This is an affidavit of Prof. Holthusen, of Hamburg, regarding Weltz's scientific significance.

As the last document in my collection, I submit Weltz document No. 22. This becomes Exhibit No. 20. This is an affidavit by Prof. Kirklin, the chief of the X-ray department of the Mayo Clinic. Kirklin here discusses his acquaintance with Weltz, as well as Weltz 's professional reputation in America scientific circles. The letter was sent directly to me by Prof. Kirklin. There is, to be sure, no certificate of signature, but since it was sent directly to me on a form from the clinic, I have no doubts as to its authenticity. I showed this letter to the Prosecutor weeks ago and he said that he approved of it. Consequently, I don't expect any objection from him.

MR. HARDY: That is perfectly right, Your Honors, I stipulated that I wouldn't object to the submission of this. I merely want to state that I do not want to create a precedent. I merely want to reserve the right to object to the introduction of documents of this type in the future.

THE PRESIDENT: Your stipulation will be without prejudice.

DR. WILLE: Mr. President, in conclusion of my case, I might now put in the certificate of authenticity regarding the Milch record, which I have received from the Secretary-General —

THE PRESIDENT: Did I understand Counsel to say that the certificate from the Secretary-General is now ready? Did I understand Counsel to say that the certificate from the Secretary-General is now prepared?

DR. WILLE: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for the Prosecution, examine the certificate.

MR. HARDY: (Examines certificate) The document is in order, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDENT: The document which is Weltz Document No. 3 is received before the Tribunal to be considered.

To save confusion, this document has been marked as Exhibit 7. The Tribunal will take judicial notice of it without its being marked an exhibit, but it is before us in this case as Exhibit 7.

Does that close Counsel's case?

DR. WILLS: Yes, that concludes my presentation.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal now calls the case against the defendant Brack.

DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President at the beginning of the submission of the evidence in the case of Brack, I shall permit myself to submit to you a short presentation, in order to illustrate the point of view from which I shall submit my evidence.

It is my intention in order to refute Counts 2 and 3 of the indictment, to call at once the witnesses Hederich and Pfannmueller, and, then in order to refute all counts of the indictment, I should like permission of the Tribunal to call the defendant Brack himself as a witness to the witness stand. During this submission of evidence I shall submit the relevant documents.

The submission of the evidence by the defendant Brack himself will include: First, a short description of his life up to his entry into political life; Secondly, to Count L, conspiracy; thirdly; his attitude towards the Jews, in the preparation for the extermination of whom he is alleged to have participated through his proposals for sterilization in connection with his attitude towards National Socialism; fourthly, his membership in the SS, with which he is charged under Count 4 of the indictment; fifthly, to a general survey of Brack's activity in the Chancellery of the Fuehrer, considering especially his attitude towards the question of preventive custody inmates, which represented a large part of his activity. I shall, furthermore, deal with sixthly, the sterilization proposals, and afterwards the connection of Brack with the extermination plans of Himmler, which was dealt with by the Prosecution on the Form 14-F-13, which was called genocide by the Prosecution. Then, seventhly, I shall deal with his participation in the euthanasia program, and his attitude towards the euthanasia program. I ask the permission of the High Tribunal to submit the evidence according to this plan.

THE PRESIDENT: Now counsel may proceed, using his evidence according to the plan he has outlined.

DR. FROESCHMANN: Thank You.

MR. HARDY: Will you kindly supply me with the spelling of the name of the first witness, please.

DR. FROESCHMHNN: Mr. President, with the approval, of the High Tribunal, I ask that the witness Hederich be called to the witness stand.

THE PRESIDENT: The Marshal will summon the witness Hederich.

KARL HEDERICH, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:

JUDGE SEBRING: The witness will raise his right hand and repeat this oath after me:

I swear by God, the almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.

(The witness repeated the oath)

JUDGE SEBRING: You may be seated.

BY DR. FROESCHMARNN:

Q: Witness, give me your personal data.

A: My name is Karl Heinz Hederich. Born on 29 October 1902 in Wunsiedel, Upper Franconia, as a son of a Secondary School Professor Hederich there.

Q: Would you please describe your general career to the Tribunal?

A: I attended the elementary school at Wunsiedel. I then entered the secondary school for a number of years. Then for several years I followed a practical profession in industry, and also worked in various building installations. In the year 1923 I went to Munich as a student, where I studied at the University. In 1925 I was graduated at Nurnberg at the Oberrealschule [secondary school]. I then went to Munich as a student to the Technische Hochschule [Technical School] and the University, and from there I went to technical high school at Danzig. In the year of 1931 I made my examination as a Diploma Engineer. In the year 1932, to get acquainted with the higher state administration, I was employed with the Reich Railway Directorate at Nurnberg.

Q: Witness, would you please speak a little slower.

A: Yes.

Q: Will you proceed?

A: The aim of my education was a university career.

Q: But you later became involved in politics. What was your political career?

A: I joined the NSDAP on 29 October for the first time. After the march on the Feldherrnhalle, in which I participated, I left the NSDAP. In December of 1932 I joined the NSDAP for the second time. In the year of 1933 I was a member of the leadership of the German Student League. In the year of 1934 I went to Reichsleiter [Reich Leader] Bouhler.

Q: Well, before you get to the Reichsleiter Bouhler, how did you become acquainted with this?

A: As the result of a number of controversies, I left the leadership of the German Student League, but in April 1934 Bouhler asked me to attend a conference in Berlin, and at the same time made the suggestion to me to enter into his sphere of activity.

Q: What were you to do there? What was your task to be there?

A: At that time he was the President of the Party Commission for the Protection of National Socialistic Literature, and he wanted some collaborators on that task. I had been recommended to him by acquaintances of his. I only knew him slightly, as a result of my conversation with him, and after having told him about my views, and after he had told him his attitude, and his opinions, I decided to accept his offer. On the 1 May 1934 I then entered his office in Munich.

Q: Witness, would you quite briefly describe to the Tribunal the work of this Commission that you are speaking of, because it will be of some importance with regard to what you will later testify to?

A: The task of this Literature Commission was the cleansing of political literature from the phenomena that appeared at that time. During every political revolution, during every political reorganization, as it happened in the year 1933, those in power were followed by a flood of Nazistic literature, and steps had to be taken to combat this. One could today use the technical expression "hyper denazification." This task was deliberately entrusted to Mr. Bouhler, because for this task, a task of political hygiene one needed an agency which was entirely independent of political literature. Mr. Bouhler had certain qualifications that equipped him for this task. My activity was a political organizational one, and I was to create the necessary prerequisites for the carrying out of that work.

Q: Witness, what were the positions that you held in Bouhler's office?

A: At first I was his business manager. Afterwards I developed for the commission, which contained a number of persons, a new office which I headed. Under my leadership it became a Reichshauptamt [Reich Main Office] a little later. When in the year 1937 I left the Reich Ministry of Propaganda, Mr. Bouhler asked me to cooperate somewhat closer with his entire work. Within the sphere of the Fuehrer's Chancellery, the chief of which he was, he created a cultural political department.

Q: Were you the head of that department?

A: Yes, this department was later enlarged and was then subordinated to me.

Q: As time progressed, did you more or less represent Bouhler entirely?

A: In the course of all the developments, Bouhler offered his representation to me, and I was to be the chief of staff. This intention, however, never materialized because of certain political developments. In the year 1940 Bouhler had received the order from Hitler to re-organize the educational literature. The practical execution of that work was transferred to me.

Q: You just used the expression "chief of staff". In the course of time evidence, this word "chief of staff" will play a certain role. Will you please explain to the Tribunal what at that time in Germany was understood by "chief of staff"?

A: Under "chief of staff" one understands the position within an agency which has to coordinate the organizational work of the various departments within that agency. In the Party structure, one could compare that position with a ministerial director in a ministry. It is a central post for administrative tasks. As for who is in charge of political matters, it is always the head of every individual department, but never the chief of staff.

Q: What were the tasks of your office within the Chancellery of the Fuehrer?

A: I had to co-ordinate the activities of Mr. Bouhler, which were very diverse in nature; on the one hand the Chancellery of the Fuehrer, on the other hand the activities connected with literature. In addition to such co-ordination tasks, there were individual tasks which referred to applications which were sent to Hitler, coming from the fields of science, high schools, publications, etc. I may, for instance, mention the treatment of the question of the Frobenius Institute or, for instance, the poet Walter von Molo. He sought the protection of Hitler because he felt himself oppressed by Rosenberg. He received this protection.

Q: What was his name?

A: Walter von Molo.

Q: Thank you.

A: I had to deal with a number of such questions within my department.

Q: Witness, did you work temporarily at the Reich Ministry of Propaganda?

A: I pointed out a little earlier that in the year of 1937 I was working in the Reich Ministry of Propaganda.

Q: Would you please be very brief?

A: Yes. Even at the beginning of his activity in the field of literature, Mr. Bouhler had a great deal of difficulty with regard to Dr. Goebbels, and Mr. Rosenberg at the Party publishing house. As a result of internal events, Dr. Goebbels decided in the year 1937 to employ a new staff in his literature department, and he approached Mr. Bouhler regarding me in that matter. Mr. Bouhler at that time was interested in arriving at some firm decision with reference to the difficulties as they prevailed with Mr. Rosenberg.

Q: And then you again were eliminated from that department?

A: Yes. In the year 1938 I left this ministry because of differences which I had with the Minister.

Q: Witness, from your description of your career and your activity so far, we can conclude that you repeatedly came into contact with the former Reichsleiter Bouhler. You know that Reichsleiter Bouhler was alone the responsible person to execute euthanasia, and I am of the opinion that if Bouhler were will living, Bouhler would be sitting in the dock and not Brack. That is my opinion and not yours. I may assume, however, that considering the close relationship which is alleged to have existed between Brack and Bouhler, this similarity in attitudes may have come to light in Brack's activities, and for that reason, I should like to put a number of questions to you which deal with the personality of Bouhler, in order for the Tribunal to know what personality they are concerned with in considering the euthanasia program.

MR. HARDY: May it please Your Honor, I request that the Defense Counsel be requested to question this witness. He has a complete set of notes before him. He is reading from the notes, and in addition the question is a resume on the part of Defense Counsel. The Tribunal should be interested in hearing the witness testify, not in a legal argument here and a set of notes up there. I think we should put it on a more legal plane than it is on right now.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, the Tribunal will be grateful if you will lead this witness to testimony in connection with the issues before the Tribunal.

DR. FROESCHMANN: I only dealt with that question in order to give the Tribunal an opportunity to have a picture of the character of these two personalities which are going to be repeatedly mentioned.

BY DR. FROESCHMANN:

Q: Witness, could you give us some statement about the Fuehrer's Chancellery, about the significance of the Fuehrer's Chancellery, and about the extent of your activity? Would you please do that as briefly as possible?

A: Let me at first speak about the significance of the Fuehrer's chancellery.

Mr. Bouhler was the business manager of the NSDAP at first, and since in the year 1933 this activity was transferred to Mr. Schwarz, he became unemployed. When Hess assigned him to the position of the presidency of this Committee for the Protection of Literature, we also find that Hitler had arrived at the decision to re-organize his personal affairs. Previously Hess had charge of them. Simultaneously with the appointment of Hess as the Fuehrer's deputy, the situation had changed, and Hitler expressed the wish to separate personal matters from Party leadership. Within the sphere of Hess' activity, Hitler's personal matters were dealt with by Albert Bormann. Hitler, however, did not like Albert Bormann, and when he was looking for a new person to take over the personal matters, he thought of Mr. Bouhler; and that is how Bouhler came to Berlin at the end of 1934, in order to create a new office to take care of Hitler's personal affairs, with the task —

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, I understood that you desired this witness to give a brief characterization of Bouhler. If he will proceed to that subject and in a few words give a statement on Bouhler, the Tribunal would be glad to hear it.

Q: Witness, I ask you to be as brief as possible. What was your personal attitude toward Bouhler? Did you enjoy his special confidence? Did you receive an insight into his personal life?

A: There developed very soon a special degree of confidence between us. He gave me rather extensive insight into his personal thinking. He asked me to work closely with him, not only within our official work, but also personally. He often invited me to join his family, and the relationship was filled with confidence.

Q: Did Bouhler also draw you into his confidence with regard to his opinion of his associates?

A: Yes, Mr. Bouhler often took the opportunity to discuss his associates with me. At one time he asked me to submit data on the qualifications of his associates, and for this reason I got in touch with a well-known profession graphologist in Berlin.

Q: What was the impression you gained of Bouhler?

A: In connection with this question, I may assure you that I am perhaps the only person who is in a position to speak about Bouhler's personality, who is in a position to give some sort of comprehensive information about his inner attitude to life. For ten years I have been in close connection with him and I am sure that there is no question concerning his life that I did not have to discuss with him in detail, because literature extends throughout all spheres of life. We started from this. I may say that Mr. Bouhler was a quiet man, a man with personal reticence, a man of clean thinking. His mental attitude was generous, not at all dogmatic. He was a man that is generally called a man of liberal thinking. The differences, which resulted from different character peculiarities of his could not be managed by him easily. He did not have sufficient courage. He wasn't determined enough.

Q: When Bouhler exercised his activity as the head of the Chancellery of the Fuehrer, did he have any difficulties? Were difficulties caused by other persons in different agencies?

A: Bouhler's work had difficulties in so far as his assignment was never clearly limited and as a result he immediately had difficulties with the Reich Chancellery, which in the meantime had been working on a number of tasks for Hitler. In addition a strong controversy ensued with the staff of the Fuehrer's deputy situation, however, was mitigated when Hess was the chief of Hitler's staff because of Hess's personal qualities. When, however, at a later date, Martin Bormann took over the leadership of the party chancellery, the ensuing differences of opinion could not be prevented.

DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, in this connection I should like to submit Document No. 14 from my Document Book, which is to be found on pages 36 to 38, as Exhibit No. 1. I shall have it handed to the Secretary General. This is an extract from the National-Socialistic Year Book of 1942.

From this Year Book, I shall confine myself to reading the two paragraphs which deal with this field of the Fuehrer's chancellery and work of the so-called party chancellery. I shall start reading from Document No. 14, this paragraph:

The Chancellery of the Fuehrer has to secure the immediate contact of the Fuehrer with the party in all questions submitted to the Fuehrer personally. There are hardly any sorrows and troubles which are not submitted to the Fuehrer in boundless confidence in his help. The dealing with pleas for remission or suspension of sentences has developed to a particularly extensive field of activity.

I shall now read a short paragraph regarding the chancellory of the party and I quote:

As from 12 May 1941 the Fuehrer has fully resumed the personal leadership of the party; the agency dealing with the affairs of the leader of the NSDAP is named chancellery of the party; its responsible leader is Reichsleiter Martin Bormann.

All threads of the party work converge in the chancellery of the party. Here all internal plans and suggestions concerning the party, as well as all vital questions concerning the existence of the German nation and lying within the scope of the party, are handled for the Fuehrer. From here directives are given for the whole work of the party either by the Fuehrer himself or by his order. In this way, the unity, homogenecity and fighting power of the NSDAP as bearer of the National Socialist ideology is guaranteed.

Q: Witness, I shall now continue with your examination. You have already spoken of the difficulties which Bouhler had to face as a result of taking over the Chancellery or the Fuehrer, but Albert Bormann, the brother of Martin Bormann, was his side, was he not? Didn't that create a stronger connection with the two agencies? Why not?

A: No, there was an independent enmity between the two brothers for family reasons. Martin Bormann had come from the private chancellery and had then become the Adjutant of Hitler. He was a very ordinary personality without any particular distinction. He then had begun to have difficulties with his brother. There was no connection possible as a result of the connection of these two brothers.

Q: Witness, in this trial, as well as in all the other trials which are dealt with by the Military Tribunals, one person plays an extraordinary part and his name was Himmler. What was Bouhler's relationship to Himmler?

A: The relationship of Mr. Bouhler to Himmler was cool, reserved distant. Bouhler on the basis of his personal concept was in contrast to the ideology as it was represented by Himmler. He held no functions of any practical nature within the SS. His membership to the SS was merely formal.

Q: Do you know that from your own knowledge?

A: Yes. I do know that from my own knowledge, because I repeatedly had discussions of questions with Mr. Bouhler on numerous occasions; allegations were made by the SS and our attitude had to be defined.

Q: Could you give us a brief character study of Himmler's personalty?

A: That is not quite possible for me, because I had no personal relationship to Himmler and I therefore am in no position to characterize this person.

Q: What can you say about Brack's personality? Do you know Brack? How long have you known him?

A: I have known Brack for a period of 12 years. He is the oldest colleague of Bouhler. He was already active in Bouhler's office when Bouhler was still in Munich. Mr. Bouhler, when Brack was assigned to Berlin, took him along as his Chief of Staff.

Brack then embarked upon the difficulties which I have already mentioned.

Q: Do you mean Bouhler's difficulties?

A: Yes, the Bouhler-Bormann, difficulties, the Bouhler-Himmler difficulties, and so forth. When trying to deal with these difficulties, Brack did not always find support which would have been necessary from Mr. Bouhler, that is by reason of the connections of Bouhler which I have pictured.

Q: What was Bracks attitude toward his work?

A: Because of these difficulties, Brack was relieved of his position as Chief of Staff. Some of the reasons for that can be found in his personality.

Q: How?

A: I knew Brack as an open-minded man, who was always ready to help. He was far removed from any fanaticism intolerance or any narrowness of heart but he lacked a purposeful limitation to his concrete field of work. He lacked political consequential thinking and in my opinion these two deficiencies in the man, are the reason for his present misfortune.

Q: You gave us this picture I assume on the basis of your acquaintanceship for twelve years?

A: Yes. I have already said I have known Brack for 13 years. I have often visited his family; I know his parents; I know his sisters; and this qualifies me to give this judgment from here.

Q: You did work with Brack in the Chancellery of the Fuehrer? Are you in a position to tell the Tribunal something about Brack's field of work as briefly as possible?

A: After the applications for pardons, and so forth, had been taken away from Brack's field of work and were dealt with as an independent office and after he was relieved of his function as Chief of Staff, Mr. Bouhler transferred to him the so-called Department 2 of the Chancellery.

The department was called "Political Complaints." The tasks of that office were not quite easily described too harmonious, because there was an abundance of questions and applications directed to Hitler which arrived at this office. There was a huge number of complaints. This is why it is difficult to explain this field of work from my own knowledge. I can illustrate the condition there, because I was present whilst Bouhler was sorting the mail when Hitler himself entered the room unnoticed, and after having looked at all this work he said "I know that there may be numerous enormous purposeless applications and letters by people who just grumble or denounce among that heap of mail, but I think that in one case or another questions may come up where the persons concerned are calling for help, where valid situations of emergency exist, and I demand that those be helped." That, of course, gets a very thorough dealing with the correspondence necessary. We often had mail and it constituted applications for pardons and releases from concentration camps. There were applications regarding racial questions regarding mitigation in dealing with the Jewish question. There were complains and applications with reference to the hereditary laws for the prevention of hereditary diseases.

Q: Did you ever discuss certain difficulties with the defendant Brack which he experienced when dealing with these matters in connection with a third person who played a public part at that time? I am now particularly referring to Martin Bormann, whom you just mentioned, and I am also referring to Obergruppenfuehrer [Lieutenant General] Heydrich.

A: In both cases because of a number of reasons great controversy ensued, and that for different reasons. In the case of Heydrich I know that Heydrich wanted the elimination of Brack from Bouhler's office, because he did not agree with the attitude of the defendant.

Q: What was that attitude?

A: In the case of Heydrich this was mostly concerned with complaints regarding the work of the Gestapo and questions regarding the release from concentration camps. I remember on the basis of a report which I received from Bouhler, because he was accumstomed to discuss all these basic questions with me, that Heydrich had demanded that he should separate himself from Mr. Brack, because he would have to accuse Mr. Brack of a grave breach of confidence. I don't know this incident in its details. I only know the basic attitude of Mr. Brack towards that incident. For that reason I know that we were here concerned with a breach of confidence as Heydrich called it regarding the questions of secrecy of SD files concerning a defendant of the SD.

Q: Do I understand you correctly, witness, it seems to be that Brack had given a defendant, an accused of the SD, insight into these documents in order to enable him to defend himself?

A: Yes, that is correct. Some person had been charged with something and Brack enabled that person to gain insight into the documents.

Q: That is sufficient. Thank you. How about the affair with Bormann, why did he quarrel with Bormann?

A: The difficulties with Bormann lie somewhere else. These difficulties find their reasons in the controversy between Mr. Bouhler and Mr. Bormann. The enmity of Mr. Bormann to Brack, which he only considered one point of opposition because his desires were extended through the entire field of work of Bouhler. From Bormann we always received complaints that the attitude of department two too was not rigid enough in its ideological outlook according to Bormann's ideas. He thought that this attitude was too mild. He wanted that a change he effected by Mr. Bouhler. Bormann succeeded in eliminating Bouhler's right of reporting to Hitler about questions of release from concentration camps, and so forth. This, of course, had as its result a radicalization, because naturally the manner in which these matters were reported to Hitler had its effect in the decision that Hitler reached.

DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, I only put these questions because this relationship between Martin Bormann and Bouhler and Brack and Bouhler will play a considerable part later on. I ask you to excuse my taking up so much time of the Tribunal.

MR. HARDY: Enough time has been taken up with this question, exactly one hour, and I fail to see the materiality of the testimony thus far. I can't see the connection, I can't understand the testimony. After the witness is through testifying the Prosecution may well request an affidavit or something so that we can have a clarification of the testimony. The issues against Brack are very simple, the connection between Brack and Buehler are quite simple. This witness on the stand has testified he perhaps knows more about the activities of Brack than any man alive and I think we can get the facts of this case quickly rather than going around Robin Hood's barn in this manner.

THE PRESIDENT: Does counsel expect to continue with the examination of this witness in the morning?

DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, I have concluded two-thirds of the examination of the witness Hederich. What I want to hear now refers essentially to euthanasia.

THE PRESIDENT: If the witness will testify to some facts relevant to the issues before the Tribunal we will hear him again in the morning; but I would suggest in the meanwhile that you talk the matter over with the witness and instruct him to answer to questions directly and rather more briefly and give the facts which will be of assistance to the Tribunal.

The Tribunal will now recess until nine-thirty tomorrow morning.

The Tribunal will meet the Committee.

(The Tribunal adjourned at 15:27 hours.)