1947-05-12, #1: Doctors' Trial (early morning)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany on 12 May 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court room will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal I.
Military Tribunal I is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the courtroom.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, you ascertain if the defendants are all present in court.
THE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honor, all the defendants are present in court.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will note for the record the presence of all the defendants in court.
Counsel may proceed.
HERMANN PFANNMUELLER — Resumed
CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued)
BY MR. HARDY:
Q: Dr. Pfannmueller, at the close of the session on Friday we were discussing the organization of the euthanasia program and I am interested in having you explain to the Tribunal in more detail the activities and events of the various conferences in the summer of 1940. I want to go back now, for the moment, to the first conference wherein you were invited by Bouhler to attend the conference, that is the first conference in the summer of 1940. Do you understand me?
A: Yes.
Q: Now, this first conference, after you arrived and the assembly was called to order, who was the presiding officer at the conference?
A: Reichsleiter [Reich Leader] Bouhler.
Q: Now, what was the subject of the conference?
A: The discussion was about dealing with incurably insane persons in institutions and their transferring to care institutions. I never had any, other idea of the purpose of this meeting.
Q: Now, after the incurably ill patients were transferred to care institutions was it decided at this conference what would be the final disposition of those particular patients?
A: At this meeting nothing was said about that. The word euthanasia was not mentioned at all. It was never mentioned.
Q: I see. Now, did Bouhler refer to any state order that this transfer must take place?
A: No.
Q: Then the discussion merely included the transfer of incurables from various institutions, such as your own, to those so-called care institutions, is that correct?
A: Yes, in my opinion. That is the impression I had.
Q: I see. You have attempted, for the benefit of the Tribunal, to recollect those in attendance at that meeting. I am fully aware of the fact that this meeting took place 7 years ago and it is with considerable difficulty that you are attempting to recollect those present. Could you tell us how many were there, that is, were there 20 people there, or thirty people, or fifty people? Do you recall that, doctor?
A: I believe there were not over twenty, rather, less. I can't say exactly.
Q: Did anyone else other than Bouhler participate and have anything to say at the meeting?
A: Yes.
Q: Who was that, do you remember?
A: Yes, I believe I can remember that there was Brack. I believe I can remember Professor Heyde, I can't remember with absolute certainty but I believe he was there. I believe I can remember Professor Heinze, I think, but I don't know for sure, that Linden was there from the Reichs Ministry of the Interior.
And I think that Conti was there too, but I can't remember these two definitely. There were other people there too. The introduction was as it usually is, I don't understand names and you just smile. But I think I can remember that during the discussion the question of incurability was discussed and I believe that Professor Heinze spoke, and I said something, and I think Professor Heyde made a remark too. That is what I remembered about this conference and what I think I can swear to.
Q: I see, did Blankenburg participate? Did he have anything to say?
A: Blankenburg — I don't know. I don't know. There was a small man whom I met later but I don't remember on what occasion. I don't believe that he was at that meeting but I can't say for certain.
Q: How about Professor Nietzsche?
A: I do not believe so. I think I not Professor Nietzsche for the first time at the second experts meeting.
Q: How about Professor Dr. Karl Brandt?
A: I believe so, I think so, but I can't say for certain but I think he was there. I didn't know that he was a professor.
Q: I see. Was Professor Doctor Kurt Blome there?
A: I don't know, I never talked to Blome. I don't know him. I don't know Blome.
Q: Well, now, Doctor, as best as you can recollect, what was the final outcome of this particular meeting, this first meeting? Was anything absolutely decided? Just what were the final results?
A: No, the final result of the meeting, as far as I can remember, was that the certain patients who were considered incurable and in need of permanent institutional care might have to be put in separate institutions.
I don't know whether the name Reich Working Union was mentioned at the time, but the main point of the meeting was that the people were to be transferred to these institutions. It was said that beds were to be released for curable cases, for curable cases which required treatment in these institutions. And during the course of those many examinations I have been thinking this over. I think it was also said that beds were also to be released for wounded, I believe, but in any case I remember only that beds were to be released for curable cases, that is, the institutions were to be exclusively institutions for curing curable cases. One of the oldest followers of practical psychiatry I was in favor of separating the curable and incurable cases and I know the suggestion very thoroughly. And I may add something that has since occurred to me. I was afraid at the time that my institution might be dissolved if I accepted many permanent cases. I think that I expressed these misgivings but after this long lapse of time you can't think ill of me if I don't remember all these details.
Q: Now, was there anything further you recall about that meeting that you would like to tell us about?
A: No, I can not remember anything else.
Q: Well now—
A: (Continuing) Nothing else was said. I had no idea as to why that conference was called. The invitation did not say.
Q: Now, Dr. Pfannmueller, after a completion of this conference, you then, I suppose, returned to your Institute, and when did you here—
A: Yes.
Q: When did you hear again about this subject?
A: So far as I can recollect, I received the questionnaires. It had been said that the head of the Institute would receive questionnaires: in connection with registering the patients; I believe that was the first meeting, but I received the questionnaires, and had to fill them out, and I did fill them out about the so-called permanent cases.
Q: Those were questionnaires —
A: And then I believe I was told, I don't know by whom, if it was one of the men at this meting I can not say whether Brack — it was not Bouhler, but I don't know whether it was Brack, or whether it was Hefermann, who might have been there, I don't know any longer, but I remember the name from later, I was told I was to take care of these questionnaires as quickly as possible, to examine the cases quickly, and to take the questionnaires up to Berlin, because they wanted to discuss with me what mental institutions there were in Germany. Apparently, no preliminary work had been done in Berlin, and I took the two volumes works on Mental Institutions in Germany, I don't remember the year when it was published, I don't have those things with me, I took that along to be able to tell the gentlemen something about the size and number of beds, and so forth, of the various institutions.
Q: Now when you received this questionnaire, did you have filled out these which were to be filled out with only the patients in your hospital, is that correct?
A: Yes, yes, of course.
Q: After you had completed filling out these questionnaires on the patients in your hospital, then you had to send the questionnaires to Berlin, or, did you have to carry them to Berlin personally? Do you recall that?
A: I believe twice I took questionnaires to Berlin personally by request. It took a long time because I worked there carefully-I testified so in Frankfurt — I believe the rest of them were sent by registered mail to the Reich Working Union.
Q: Well, now, Dr. Pfannmueller —
A: I don't remember the address but I think it was in the Columbus House. I don't remember.
Q: Now, Dr. Pfannmueller, after those episode of receiving questionnaires to be filled out on the patients in your hospital, then there was another meeting held, that is, a meeting of the experts in the Summer of 1940. Can you tell us just what was the reason for the calling of this meeting of experts, as you understand it to be and what developed at the meeting, and what was the outcome of the meeting?
A: So far as I can recall, I shall testify, of course, about it. That conference was called, I believe, when I got a written invitation. It might be that I was asked by telephone to come, I don't know exactly. I think I got a written invitation. We met in the ante-room At then end of the corridor was Bouhler's office, and then we were taken over to a small conference room. I don't remember how many people were there, but I think that there were about twenty. So far as I can recall the conference was opened, or presided over, I don't remember exactly, by a Mr. Linden, or was it Dr. Brack, or was it somebody else, I can not remember exactly. Of the people attended, this conference, I think I can remember Brack. During the discussion I believe I can remember Professor Heinze, Professor Nietzsche, whom I got to know better at that time. I had known him before as a member of the board of the Society of German Psychiatrist and Neurologist. Then there were people from Nassau Institutes.
I can remember one of them, because I worked from thirteen to sixteen in an Institution in Nassau, that was Dr. SchneiderI beg you pardon, perhaps you can help me. I remember somebody else, Henkel, a physician or somebody like that, but —
Q: Let's see—
Q: Who must also have been a Nassau Director.
Q: I can go through a few for you and see if I can refresh your recollection to help you.
A: Please.
Q: Was Bouhler there?
A: I said that frankly that I can not remember for sure. It may be he was there for a while, but he did net preside a this meeting, otherwise, I would have remembered it.
Q: You say Victor Brack was there?
A: Yes, he spoke too, so far as I can remember.
Q: Was Blankenburg there?
A: Blankenburg was never in such a close contact with me, I would be able to remember. I talked to Blankenburg and. I can remember that he was a short man, physically small man, but I really can't know whether he was present or not. Not with certainty anyway.
Q: Was von Hegener there?
A: I don't know.
Q: Was Vorwerk there?
A: Vorwerk?
Q: Yes.
A: Vorwerk, I believe Vorwerk was present, but I don't know for certain. I believe that he was there at the end, but I don't know for sure, gentlemen. I believe that a few words were said about the transport of the patients, and that might have been Vorwerk. It was discussed they should be removed in buses. I don't know for certain.
Q: Was Professor Heyde there?
A: I think Professor Heyde was there, yes.
Q: What about Professor Nietzsche, he was there?
A: Yes, he took a very active part in the conference, in the discussion about the diagnostic and prognostic judgments of the institutional cases.
Q: Was Dr. Linden there?
A: Yes, I believe Linden was there.
Q: Was Dr. Conti there?
A: I don't think so. I don't believe that Conti was present. I can not remember having seen Conti.
Q: Dr. Blome was there?
A: I don't know Blome. I don't knew who Blome is either.
Q: Is the name of Allers familiar to you. Was Allers there?
A: Allers?
Q: Yes.
A: No, no Ahlers. He was my superior in Augsburg.
THE INTERPRETER: Allers, Allers, Allers?
A: Allers, no.
BY MR. HARDY:
Q: Was Dr. Schumann there?
A: I thought that over for a long time. I don't know for sure. I don't remember whether it was Wahlmann or Schumann. I can't tell.
Q: Was Professor Dr. Brandt there?
A: No, I believe that he was not there. I don't remember about that very well. I only have a faint recollection of him. I saw him again here during the walks. He will be able to confirm that. In my opinion I saw Professor Brandt only at this first Bouhler meeting. I cannot remember if he was at the second conference.
Q: Was Dr. Falkenhauser there?
A: Falkenhauser?
Q: Yes?
A: No, that was a very good friend of mine, my paternal friend, and my teacher. He was not there. He was not present at this conference.
Q: Was Dr. Hennecke there?
A: I believe that you misunderstood me, probably that was Menneke.
Q: Menneke?
A: Yes, Menneke.
Q: Yes, Menneke?
A: I don't remember, I can not remember Menneke. I knew Menneke only from later scientific meeting, a small convention in Heidleberg at the Psychiatric clinic, of Professor Schneider.
Q: Can you tell us now Dr. Pfannmueller what developed?
A: Excuse me for interrupting you. There were other doctors present, but I did not know them.
Q: Yes, can you tell us what developed at this meeting of experts. That was the purpose of the meeting, as you understood it; what was the final outcome? Can you kindly tell the Tribunal just what developed at this meeting?
A: The results of the meeting was mere or less what I have testified to here I was examined by Dr. Froeschmann, in my capacity of an expert. That is, in the discussion of the doctor, the medical conclusions were reached about the evaluation of the permanent cases, which were to he transferred to other institutions, and about details of the diagnosis and prognosis of cases, and in their registration; about the use of the questionnaire by doctors with scientific and practical experiences and knowledge, as experts, and to deliver that questionnaire. I believe I can remember that a questionnaire of this type such as was shown to me here was exhibited, and the technique was discussed of marking positive cases with a plus mark, and the negative cases with a minus; and the doubtful cases with a question mark.
Then I believe I can remember it was said that it was possible for the experts, if they were appointed, to make personal remarks, something about the case history of personal examinations and remarks about filling out of the questionnaires, that they were not filled out carefully. Finally, as far as I can remember, gentlemen, it was also discussed how the whole activity was organized, the preliminary expert, the chief expert, how the Government agency came in the Reichs Working union, the administrative elements and the final decision by the man in charge of the institution. Gentlemen, I cannot say with certainty whether it became obvious at this point that Euthanasia was a program. I don't remember, but I believe it was only later that I heard about Euthanasia, that is near to the time when Bouhler appeared at my institution. I cannot say with certainty, but I do not want to deny the possibility that it was said due to the treatment of the patients it might lead to their dying. I cannot say with certainty, but I believe that is all I can tell you from my own memory about this conference as far as I can remember after all these years.
I forgot one thing, gentlemen, to give you a true picture, in both conferences it was said that the discussions were top secret and that criminal proceedings would be started if anyone would declare anything about this he might be tried and it might involve the death penalty. I don't remember when I was obligated to secrecy and in what way, whether by solemnly shaking hands or at the end of the meeting when we were walking out. I cannot tell you that, but later my personnel was obligated to keep these things a top secret.
Q: Dr. Pfannmueller, after the completion of this meeting when did you for the first time, as far as you can recall, hear that Euthanasia was to be applied in the case of these incurables, after they had been first recorded in the questionnaire by the chief doctor of the institute when they were hospitalized; when did you first hear that the final disposition would be to accord these patients a mercy death? Do you understand the import of the question, doctor?
A: Yes, I know what you mean, but I was not able to formulate all of your statement.
Q: Then was the first time that you heard or were informed that Euthanasia was to be applied to these incurable patients?
A: As far as I can remember, the first time was when Bouhler visit me, I believe late in the summer of 1940, at my institution. I believe I suspected it before hand, but as far as I can remember I was told by telephone from Berlin about nine in the morning that Bouhler was going to visit me and I was not to leave the office. The call had been announced and then I was told me was going to visit my institution. I waited at the office and told the official that when the Reichsleiter came, he should be shown into my office. Then Reichsleiter Bouhler came to my office and asked me to show him around the institution. I took him to various buildings, I showed him the treatment building, the reception room, the acute cases, the very old patients and I showed him the purely anti-social departments, also the head working details. At the end of the discussion, I asked Reichsleiter Bouhler to tell me whether Euthanasia measures were responsible for the transfer of these patients. And then I saw the decree of the Fuehrer for the first time. If you ask me about the date at the top of it, I must tell you that I cannot remember. I looked at the decree and I know that there was the insignia at the left top of it. They told me in Frankfurt that it was in gold, but it was not in gold, I would have noticed it immediately. It was black sign. It was not a photostatic copy, but whether it was a carbon copy or not I cannot say. I thought it was the original, according to the signature Adolf Hitler at the bottom at the right, but I don't know for sure. I always thought that the names Brandt and Bouhler were on two different lines, but it could have been on the some line I am not sure. I cannot remember that it talked about incurably sick people, but it talked about incurably insane people. I may be mistaken, but I think at the bottom at the left, it said, "To the Reich Ministers." I think it said Reichs Ministers. I read the decree, then I said to Bouhler and asked him what would be done when Euthanasia would begin.
He did not give me any answer, he said that the law was being worked out, the regulation for the execution for this law were being worked out. That was the sense of what he said and also that the law would be published at the proper time. I said that it might be expedient to have a plebiscite on this question, but Bouhler for political reasons rejected this, he said it was impossible for this to be done because there was a war on. That is more or less what I discussed with Bouhler at that time and Bouhler said he was strongly impressed by many of the things he had seen. He had a terrible impression he said of many departments in which there were the terrible cases we have discussed here already.
Q: Now, Professor, when did you first receive conclusive knowledge, that is became fully aware, of the fact that those persons declared permanently incurable were to be accorded a mercy death?
A: I learned that in the way in which the general population learned it. The transports were taken away from my institution, the first ones were by motor bus. I think Vorwerk was present at the first transport, but I am not sure, however, I think he was there. The transports left and I don't know if it was after the first or second transport, I don't remember the date exactly, but I think it was in the late fall of 1940 or the spring of 1941 but I cannot tell you exactly, in any case after the second transport approximately it was said that patients in these transports had died, because the relatives had in the meantime received the death notice. There were a number of rumors which were spread among the relatives, who visited the patients on the usual visiting days. They came out from Munich by train to my institution and the rumors were spread on the train. One or two people came to me and told me about the death of the patients and that is how I learned about it. Then I believe I received instructions, I don't know whether it was from Berlin or Munich, I think from Berlin, I was to work out a letter to the effect that by order of the Reich Defense Commissioner, within the framework of planned economy measures, registration was to take place in the mental institutions. Something like that such and such a patient had been transferred for this reason to another institution.
This was all that I was told and that the relatives would be informed by the other institution about the patients arrival and his well being. That is how it was as far as I can remember.
Q: Well now Doctor when did the occasion arise of necessity for you to ask your employees in the institute to take an oath, similar to the oath that we see here in the Documents that they would keep secret all the activities concerning this particular phase of your work; when did that occasion arise? Doctor, in Document Book No. 17, there is on the next page, page 8, an affidavit on an obligation signed by Erich Frank, I presume Erich Frank was one of your employees?
A: That was my administrator, deputy administrator as the administrator was away in the war.
Q: This obligation by Erich Frank is dated 20 February 1942, and then on Page 7 there is an obligation of contract so to speak, signed by three women. That is dated April, 1941, I don't happen to have any others here at the present time, but when did it become necessary for you to require your employees to sign such obligations or contracts? If Defense Counsel has German Document Book 17, I would appreciate it if he would submit it to the witness for his perusal.
A: Yes, please. I can remember both these documents, that is, I can only remember seeing photostatic copies. These photostatic copies were shown to me during an interrogation here. I don't remember the date. Was it in October or when?
DR. FROESCHMANN (For Defendant Brack): Mr. President, may I interrupt for a moment? I should merely like to point out that this obligation in Document Bock 17, Page 7 refers to proceedings before the Reich Committee, that is, regarding children, while the one on Page 8 refers to measures regarding the adult incurably insane patients.
THE WITNESS: I may say the following: These two obligations have nothing to do with euthanasia. They were drawn up after the creation of the Reich Committee especially for children, expressly at the suggestion of one of the men who asked me to set up this Reich Committee Station in my institution. That is completely separate from euthanasia. That is why I didn't follow you, Mr. Prosecutor, because the Reich Working Committee — Reich Working Union and Reich Working Committee were confused. The two things were entirely separate in my mind. This is something about the Reich Committee, and it referred only to this personnel. For the moment I didn't remember these obligations at all during the interrogation here. I thought they were forgeries. But I thought it over for a long time, and then I remember that I had to issue them. That was after the visit, as far as I can remember, after I had to send the pediatrician to Berlin, and he came back and told me it was top secret, and that the person working on it had to be obligated to secrecy. That referred only to my administration and to the personnel for observation and treatment in the Reich Committee Station, that is the nursing personnel.
Now, to go over to the Reich Working Union, the real euthanasia, Gentlemen, I never issued any written obligation. I said to the personnel, I don't remember exactly when, that the transports were to be kept secret, that they were not to be discussed or talked about. It was not merely secrecy of the official to which he obligates himself under an oath of office, but beyond that there were things which one does not talk about, because the personnel discussing them might start rumors. I said, "I don't talk about it either."
A man visited me once at the institution. I think it was Dr. Schmalenbach. He came from Berlin, and he suggested to me — He had questionnaires from me that he was checking on, the questionnaires, to see whether the patients who were reported there were called ready for transfer from me. That is, he had a certain supervision. I had a fight with him because I objected to that. He was a rather young man. I was an old, experienced psychiatrist, and I said that I considered this thing and took care of it carefully with my physicians and my own personnel, and I didn't think this was necessary, but I couldn't object. Of course I couldn't do anything about it. He said to me, "Is your personnel obligated to secrecy?" I said, "I told them in January that they would keep it secret, but I did not tell them that there was a death penalty." He said, "You have to tell them that before our conference begins." This was a conference with the heads of all the departments and the heads of the nursing personnel and I objected to that. I said, "Dr. Schmalenbach, if you have such an assignment you can do it yourself," and at the beginning of this conference about the patients, he did so. I didn't.
MR. HARDY: Approximately when did that occur, Doctor? The conference.
A: Again I must say that I really can't remember the time. I can only reconstruct that it must have been after four or five or maybe even six transports. I can't say exactly, but several transports left before that time because patients who were on transport lists, I had keep them back, the same thing that I discussed on the telephone with Falkenhauser, that I refused, if I was supposed to give up a patient, and I thought that the prerequisites for transfer and possible euthanasia were not given I retained the patient.
That is not a defense on my part but proof that as an expert I took seriously the safeguards involved in the procedure.
Q: This conference that took place, that is the conference wherein your employees and your employed personnel were warned and told of the secret nature of this work, that must have taken place in the fall or winter of 1940, is that about right, after the fourth or fifth transport, is that correct?
A: I can't say for sure. I don't remember exactly when the transports began. I can only say that it might have been in the winter. I don't know for sure. I think it was warm in the office, but it might have been in the spring of 1941 or the winter of 1940. I don't know exactly when, but transports left before that time.
Q: Now, Dr. Pfannmueller, did you ever see anyone refuse to participate in this work, that is, any of your employees that did. not wish to take this oath of secrecy when they were asked to do so?
A: No, no one refused. I only had four people here and they had nothing to do with the Reich Working Union. These were the three nurses in Document Book 17, these three nurses and my deputy administrator, Erich Frank. Otherwise I didn't administer any oath.
Q: I am referring to the group in 1940, the conference you held wherein you refused to tell your employees, and your visitor, Dr. Schmalenbach, was there, who administered the oath or told the employees of the secrecy of the mission and so forth. I am referring to that time, and did anyone refuse to continue their work there?
A: No, no. All the personnel, all the doctors who were there were the heads of departments and all the chief nursing personnel who were present attended the meeting. I believe a protest would have had no value. It was a discussion about the condition of the patients. Gentlemen, it was necessary, so that nothing would happen, that the doctors and the nurses be present, but nobody objected. It was an oral talk without any discussion.
It was an order, you know. It was an order that they come. A statement by Schmalenbach was what it was.
Q: Now, Doctor, here in 1940 then, in the fall or the winter, after the visit by Bouhler, you, for the first time realized that eventually the patients leaving in transports would go to other institutions and be accorded mercy deaths, that is, if their condition was such that they were suffering and that a mercy death would be the proper thing to do. Was that the first time, in the fall or winter of 1940 that you realized that?
A: I believe that was about that time. The rest was assumption but I thought at any rate that this time I heard of it for the first time. A time when the [illegible] was to begin was never mentioned. I don't know that at all. I always thought that at first there would be a general registration of all German institutions and that Euthanasia measures might then subsequently be ordered by the agencies in Berlin which I had nothing to do with.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, I believe that the time when the witness learned of Euthanasia has been discussed so long and so often that no more questions on the subject are necessary and I ask that Prosecution go on to another subject.
THE PRESIDENT: Objection on the part of counsel for defendant Brack is over-ruled. Counsel may proceed.
BY MR. HARDY:
Q: Dr. Pfannmueller, when I asked you about the administering of oaths to some employees, I was referring to page 4 of Document Bock 17 that you have in front of you. Do you still have that there? This is German Document No. 1313. I believe it is on page a of your Document Book — a letter from Hoelzel to you. Now, would you kindly read that through and explain to the Tribunal just what the situation was at that time?
A: This letter which I read once before when I was looking at the documents I cannot remember. It is a letter from Oberarzt [Senior Physician] Dr. Hoelzel from the year of 1940 in which he states he was at Scwanzsee near Kitzbuchel on leave. I can't remember the letter because at this time nothing had been said about Euthanasia at all, I assume, Gentlemen that the date in this letter is wrong, I assume so.
I don't know whether Dr. Hoelzel who went over to the Supply office, although I asked him to remain at my institution. He explained his resignation by saying that his career would be advanced better in the Supply Office. There were many such cases among psychiatrists at that time. I asked him to stay and what was the immediate cause for this letter I don't remember if I over received it. But of all this in 1940 I can't imagine that. What was Dr. Hoelzel to collaborate with and what way was he to collaborate. He had no collaboration except what every doctor in every institution in Germany had to do. And I don't know of a single case in which an institutional doctor in Bavaria or head of an institute in Bavaria, after the beginning of the removal of patients and after these measures the concept of Euthanasia became generally known, decided to resign. I don' t know of a single case. Therefore, I don't understand it at all. Does he mean conference of the Schmalenbach type or release of the patients. I don't know but the date, gentlemen, I must put throe question marks after it. And, I can't remember this letter at all.
Q: Now, Dr. Pfannmueller, at the bottom of the letter, I note here on the English copy I have, it status — in handwriting appears the following language "Received 29 August 1940 1600 hours" and then initialed Pfannmueller. Now, do you wish for me to get the original copy we have here or the photostatic copy and see whether or not that date is different?
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal desires to have the original of this document procured and shown to the witness.
MR. HARDY: Will the Secretary General kindly go to the Document Division and bring Document No. 1313 which is in English Document Book No. 17. Miss Johnson will give you the Exhibit number.
DR. PFANNMUELLER: May I add something. A reception notice of time — I never had any such stamp as long as I was director at Egelfing-Haar. It never happened that a date was recorded on incoming mail. I must assume that that was added later. It is very difficult for me to say that it is a forgery but — it never was done by me.
MR. HARDY: We will wait until the original document arrives, doctor, and we will then go into another subject.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now be in recess while the original document is being procured.