1947-05-13, #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 13 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 1.

Military Tribunal I is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.

There will be order in the court room.

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 with the exception of the Defendant Schaefer who was excused by the Tribunal yesterday.

THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will note for the record the presence of all the defendants in court save the Defendant Schaefer who is excused by the 'Tribunal for the purpose of consulting with his counsel.

Counsel may proceed.

VIKTOR BRACK — Resumed.

MR. HARDY: May it please your honor, defense counsel for the defendant Brack introduced Brack Document No. 9 and marked it as Exhibit No. 6 in yesterday's afternoon session. The prosecution raised objection to the admission of the document into evidence due to the fact that the document was executed in Brazil and apparently the original is in Spanish, which has been translated into German and is now the document on page 25 and 26. It appears here in English.

In as much as the document is only as to the character of the defendant Brack, the prosecution withdraws its objection, however, without prejudice to the right of the prosecution to object to documents of this nature in the future, inasmuch as it does not comply with the regulations of the Tribunal.

The prosecution agrees to stipulate and admit this document, if defense counsel will in turn stipulate that they will not read it into the record.

In addition to that, Your Honor, I have another point to bring up. During the course of the discussion of the Tribunal and defense counsel regarding the submitting of briefs before this Tribunal, it seems as if there was a misunderstanding of that conference wherein I explained I would make an attempt to make available closing briefs, of the prosecution before the International Military Tribunal for the defense counsel to study so that they will understand the method the Tribunal wishes to invoke here. I have one complete set of briefs in my own file and I will hand those over to defense counsel. Defense counsel apparently misunderstood and thought I was going to summit 10 briefs in the case of Ribbentrop. Well 19 separate copies are not available. I merely have one set and have made those available, and if I gave the impression that I intended to submit more than that, I must withdraw it now because that is the only copies I have available for the defense counsel.

THE PRESIDENT: In regard to the last statement by the prosecution concerning the briefs which were filed with the SecretaryGeneral in connection with the International Tribunal, counsel present have heard the statement of the prosecution to the effect that he has made available to the defense counsel the only copy of this brief which he has, that, therefore, the defense counsel will in turn have to examine that brief. For my part, I did not understand counsel for the prosecution to say that he would furnish 19 copies of the brief, but at any event, that is all that it is possible to furnish.

MR. HARDY: I have, Your Honor, furnished than with one copy of the closing brief of each defendant before the International military Tribunal.

THE PRESIDENT: The prosecution has therefore done all that it is possible in order to aid defense counsel by allowing them to study the form of the brief such as the Tribunal desires.

Did counsel for the Defendant Brack hear the statement of counsel in connection with Brack Document No. 9?

DR. FROESCHMANN (Counsel for the Defendant Brack): I have heard what the prosecutor said and am willing to dispense with reading that affidavit in such a form as to have it read into the record.

MR. HARDY: Your Honor; in addition to that; defense counsel has two other documents; I believe, of a like character to this document. I am willing to stipulate the same conditions for those two documents.

THE PRESIDENT: In view of the statement of counsel; Brack Document No. 9 offered as Brack Exhibit 6 will be received in evidence and filed as an exhibit. This ruling of the Tribunal is without prejudice to the right of the prosecution to object to other documents which fail to comply with the rules laid down by the Tribunal, and the counsel is free to object, and the Tribunal is free to reject other documents. As this ruling will constitute for precedent for the future, it will not be binding upon the prosecution nor the Tribunal, it is not decided as a precedent. With that understanding, these documents will be received in evidence.

Counsel, what are the numbers of the other two documents? What documents are they?

DR. FROESCHMANN: Document No. 8; Document Book No. 1; on page 24; and affidavit by Joseph Gerhard Ollendorff of 21 October 1946; signed by him; and perhaps I might also put in at this time Document No. 11; document book No. 1; an affidavit by Hans Ollendorff's wife; Mrs. Helma Ollendorff; of 21 March 1947; signed and certified by a notary.

This affidavit certifies the correctness of the signatures of her husband and father. Now, document No. 8 will be Exhibit Brack No. 7. and 11 of Book I will be Brack Exhibit No. 8.

THE PRESIDENT: The documents will be received with the understading announced by the Tribunal.

They will not be read but will be made part of the record before the Tribunal and will be considered for what probative value they have.

DR. FROESCHMANN: May I continue my case, your Honor?

THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, counsel, until we mark our document.

Counsel may proceed.

VIKTOR BRACK — Resumed.

DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued)

BY DR. FROESCHMANN:

Q: Witness, I remind you again that you are still under oath.

Witness, at the conclusion of the afternoon's session we were examining whether and to what extent you in the period between 1921 and 1933, i.e., the date of your entering political life, had personal relations with Jews. We stopped when discussing Messrs. Ollendorff, whose affidavit became the subject of some discussion. Did you continue such friendships, e.g., with Ollendorff, after 1933, too?

A: Yes, I am still friendly in the same way with Ollendorff as I was previously. I did not construe the Party anti-Semitism the way Himmler, Bermann and Heydrich did, otherwise I would not have continued these friendships.

Q: Now, it was your view that this anti-Semitism, which you just mentioned, despite and after the seizure of power, would gradually take on a more quiet form?

A: Yes, that was my opinion because I saw in the anti-Semitism that the Party preached something of a propagandists nature and believed it would soon be tempered. I was supported in this view by the various cases in which Bouhler was successful when reporting to Hitler on behalf of Jews, half-Jews, persons of mixed blood, etc. These efforts on Bouhler's part were directed toward helping Jews and persons of mixed blood not only in the Party itself but in the Wehrmacht and in civil service.

Q: Now, witness, in the course of time, as a party member, you became familiar with party's attitude toward the Jews; did this not make you doubt the correctness of your views?

A: These doubts only arose later. I knew what the Party view toward the Jew was. I considered it just that the Jews' influence should be limited in a certain way and to a certain extent. The fact that Jews had achieved much power as they had struck me as a similar situation to the power the nobility had during the influence of the Kaiser.

In the Kaiser's Germany the nobility did actually occupy all the influential positions and I found this to be unjust just as I consider the autocracy of any one class unjustifiable. I had toward the Jews no other attitude than the one that I had toward the nobility. We spoke only in terms of "Numerus Clausus" [latin: closed number] and I considered that justifiable.

Q: It did however become known that certain violent propagandists attempted considerable influence, I recall men like Streicher and his newspaper "Der Stuermer;" [The Striker] what was your attitude toward these excesses?

A: This exaggerated a wild semitism I always repudiated, Bouhler did the same and I can remember that Bouhler made the effort and was nearly successful in having "Der Stuermer" prohibited altogether. He regarded it as a destructive newspaper without culture and a detriment to the welfare of the country.

Q: Did you support Nurnberg in the struggle against Martin?

A: Yes, we did.

Q: Now, after the issuing of the Nurnberg laws, the question of anti-semitism became more crucial?

A: Of course, after these laws were passed I saw that the leadership of the country was set on eliminating the Jews from all influential positions in Germany. Within the free economy, I saw so many opportunities and possibilities for the Jews to earn a living that at first I had no misgivings, to my own office, Amt II, in the Fuehrer's Chancellery all complaints emanating from Jews and half-Jews were worked on. I have already said just what they were concerned with, these were complaints about political excesses and all sorts of other requests. I have already said that Bouhler frequently had success here.

Q: Mr. Brack, I don't want it to be thought that it is only at this moment at this trial that you discovered how enthusiastic an anti-semite you are. Let me ask you on your oath in conclusion if in your activities in the Fuehrer's Chancellery, with no regard for political or material gain, you used your influence in favor of the people concerned and particularly in affairs that concerned Jews?

A: Yes, that is correct.

Q: Did you not on the other hand have the opportunity precisely in your activities in the Fuehrer's Chancellery to work on requests from Jews and to take a negative attitude toward them if that had been your persuasion?

A: Not only would I have the opportunity, but actually that was my duty, but I could not reconcile myself to these policies.

Q: Then you actually did the opposite from what the Party doctrines requested?

A: Yes.

Q: Now, we get to the year of 1938 and to the program of the 10th of November. What influence did that event have on you?

A: This event surprised me enormously. It appeared to me not only evil, but also stupid and false. A friend of mine, the director of the Hamberg World Economic Institute, I asked to tell me what the reaction was in foreign countries, to this he made a collection of more than 600 excerpts from newspapers, which I gave to the Reichsleiter [Reich Leader], and I also sent a copy to Himmler and to the then Minister Frank.

Q: Did this ever arouse a very specific reaction in you. Let me ask the question differently. In view of these events, did you not want to resign altogether from the Fuehere's Chancellery?

A: Of course I was strongly moved by these events, and it was my intention to resign. Actually I had many other interests than simply doing negative work. My work there was observing that something was going wrong and if something was going wrong, I had to listen to complaints, make out reports and try to straighten things out where other people out of stupidity or malice made something go wrong. Now, the only way to do that is to request assistance from other offices and after a while that becomes arduous.

Q: But I want to know if the events of the 10th of November 1938 did not have some specific influence or effect on you; did you not at that time draw a plan or viewpoint?

A: Yes, I did. It was at that time I struck up various connections with private industry and received certain assurances from representatives of industry.

Q: From 1933 to 1942, in your activities in the Fuehrer's Chancellery, in many cases you used your influence in favor of Jews and half-Jews; did you on those occasions simply have the interest of the individual Jews in your mind or were you moved by some larger principle?

A: First of all, I was concerned primarily with the interest of the individual, but as more frequent and more applications of one kind came in, I saw that a struggle was underway here against an entire segment of the people and I did not consider this struggle to be a good one. The achievements of men like Mendelssoh, or Heine of Dr. Ehrlich I was always acutely aware of and I asked myself why should humanity deprive itself voluntarily of the work and help of such men as these. In recognizing these men and in the entire human evaluation of them and their tradition, I had to repudiate such a policy of hate, and that is what happened.

Q: And then later when you heard of the actual policy of extermination of Jews, what was your attitude then?

A: There was no other reaction but the effort if possible to help.

Q: Were you dumb founded at first?

A: Of course I was.

Q: You never however in your own interests failed to help a Jew who applied for help? Rather you accepted any request that came to you and did not consider your own interests, is that so?

A: Yes.

Q: That concludes my discussion of your attitude toward the Jews and now I turn to your attitude toward National Socialism. Please tell the Tribunal what you did between 1929 and 1933 for the Nazi Party?

A: From 1929, on I worked for National Socialism. Its program contained a great deal that could be of value for Germany, and at that time I saw in National Socialism the only possibility of saving the country from economic distress and unemployment.

Q: Were you what might be known as a typical National Socialist?

A: Certainly not. I was always a National Socialist with reservations That is the only way I can put it, because attacks on personal freedom, press, censorship and so forth, were contrary to my convictions. These things, I thought were either a basis for misunderstanding National Socialism as a whole or they were deviation of National Socialism into a false channel.

Q: Did you concern yourself with the Fuehrer principles?

A: First of all I didn't understand it at all. Later when the words "Fueherer principle" was used more frequently, I did concern myself with it, but I did not see right away that this Fuehrer Principle, unless it had some correctives, was not a permanently tenable form of State Government. I was deceived by the successes or by the success that National Socialism had in economic fields, and party in the field of foreign affairs, and that is why I didn't understand this at first.

Q: Did you later understand it?

A: I only understood this very late, in my pretty simple way of thinking I saw this not as a reason for criticism but as a reason to give aid and to try to repair this ill. I was an employee of the Party but certainly not a fanatical representative of its interests.

Q: Did you follows these principles in doing your work in that office?

A: I have already spoken about this in connection with my attitude toward the Jews. I followed the same policy, of course, in the conduct of the rest of my office work. I also observed these principles in my private life. In the education of my children; my wife left the NS Frauenschaft in 1936, and I did not belong to any of the various Party organizations, the DAF, the NSV, which one should really belong to and which one was always pressed to join. The Party seemed to me to be a means toward an end. I saw this end at the salvation of Germany from distress unemployment. Inner political unity was necessary to achieve this and the Party struck me as the correct means toward that end.

Q: Now, let's turn to the year 1942, the year in which you left the Fuehrer Chancellory. What was your attitude in 1942 toward National Socialism? Did you still believe that the Wechrmacht would win the War or did you have some doubt about this?

A: In 1942, I was sure that the Wehrmacht would win the War, but I hoped that after the victory there would be a change in Hitler's heart and in the leading personalities to do something better. I believed that there were many forces and men still in existence who had reserved decency and idealism in themselves. Only now, as time went on, I came to see that this was erroneous.

Q: What about Stalingrad?

A: After Stalingrad I saw that a clear cut victory for Germany was not possible any longer although I didn't believe that the War was one hundred per cent lost. I believed Germany could still remain to be a political factor in Europe and at the moment of the landing in 1944, this hope, of course, vanished as well.

Q: And form then on you saw the situation as definitely hopeless?

A: Yes.

Q: Now what personal experience occurred during this time that affected your attitude toward National Socialism?

A: From this moment on, there began within me that serious spiritual struggle to reconcile myself to National Socialism, that criticism of Hitler and the serious mistakes he made and criticism also of my own action, and I spoke about these matters to friends at some length.

Q: Did you consider taking an active stand against the Government?

A: No, and I must honestly say I would not have been able to join a resistance movement. I was a soldier then and nothing mere, and as such I did my duty like a millions of others although with no hope of success.

DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President: in closing this chapter I should like to put in, Exhibit No. 7, from supplement No. 1 to my document book, affidavit by Friedrich Wilhelm Kleinlein of 17 April 1947, on page 4 of the supplementary volume. This is document No. 42 signed by Kleinlein and certified by myself. From September 1942 until September 1944, Kleinlein was the intelligence liaison officer for the foreign office and an this capacity was in a position to talk of many things with Brack. May I read a paragraph from this document, paragraph 3:

During these discussions past and present measures were freely criticized and in this connection, Brack emphasized to me how wrong he had thought the treatment of the Jews in his time, when they were compelled to emigrate, leaving part of their property behind. He also condemned the Jewish program of 1938.

Mr. President, this concludes also my treatment of Brack's attitude toward National Spcialism, and now I turn to the charge of the membership in the SS.

BY DR. FROESCHMANN:

Q: Mr. Brack, you are charged with remaining a member of the SS after 1 September, 1939, and thus a member of an organization declared criminal by the International Military Tribunal. You belonged both to the General SS and to the Waffen SS and were an officer in those two organizations. Please tell the Court how came you to join the General SS in 1928? Describe your career in the SS briefly, your attitude and your experiences, and then take up up the Waffen SS.

A: In 1928 or 1929, I made Himmler's personal acquaintance. My Father at that time had assisted Mrs. Himmler in a difficult child birth and this circumstances brought about closer relations between my Father and Himmler, and thus I too made the acquaintence of Buhler and others who took up relations with my father on Himmler's recommandations.

Q: You then joined the General SS under the influence of Himmler?

A: In 1929 under Himmler's influence, and I may say on his request I joined the general SS, and that brought with it automatically entry into the party. Then from 1930 to 1931; I served in a SS unit. At the beginning of 1931; I was entrusted with the leadership of a batallion of ten cmn which was to be made later into a motorized squad In 1932 I had organized a further unit which was used on special occasions.

Q: What was your SS number?

A: It was 1940.

Q: In 1930, you then received the civilian decoration of the SS, is that so?

A: Yes, that is so.

Q: What was its number?

A: 901. This happened because in the meantime a lot of men in the meantime left the SS, certainly several hundred. Thus I was one of the oldest SS members at that time. This circumstance was, of course, not without its influence on my relation with Himmler. That is how the number dropped from 1940 to 901 — my order number in the SS. Then in 1931 on Himmler's wishes I set up a motorized training unit which was used purely for motor sport purposes and nothing else. And, this unit later had great success in competitions.

Q: Mr. President, in this connection I put in as Brack Exhibit 10 Document No. 1, Document Book I, page 1. This is an affidavit by Karl Freiherr [Barron] Michel von Tuessling, born 27 July 1907, signed by him on 31 March 1947 and certified by the Internment Camp official at Regensburg. From this affidavit I read only the paragraph on page 3 which begins with the words:

There can be no question of Brack's having engaged in SS activity in the usual sense during the period from 1933 to 1939.

I should like the Tribunal to take notice of the rest of that paragraph.

Now, in 1934 you moved to Berlin. Did you do service at that time for the General SS?

A: No. From 1934 when I moved to Berlin I did no more work for the General SS.

Q: Now, what was your activities between 1929 and 1933 in the General SS?

A: Before 1933 the Party was active in many meetings and demonstrations. The political opponents of the Party, particularly the Communists, made efforts to disturb these demonstrations and did not hesitate to attack speakers and supporters. It is erroneous to believe that the SS and the SA on their own initiative went through Germany making trouble and attacking defenseless bystanders. If an SS man made use of his fists it was done in self defense. Someone would hit him and say, "Beat him; this is a Nazi" and this was the only way that he could defend himself.

Q: Now it was the task of the SS to defend these demonstrations. Is that what you want to say, or did it have a further task beyond that?

A: The SS had no further task. That is to be seen by the name SS, which "Schutzstaffel", which a protection guard. It occupied a purely security function within the framework of the Party. From 1929 to 1933, this was the only way I could see this, since the SS rarely, if ever, was used for propaganda purposes during that time. I participated in propaganda activities only twice during that period.

Q: Mr. President, as Exhibit 11, I put in now Document 4, page 9, of Document Book, affidavit by Karl Wolf, a former General in the Waffen-SS and signed by him on 27 March 1947 and certified by myself. I ask the Tribunal to take notice of it and to read only from it paragraph 2, which reads:

Brack's and my activities in the general SS was determined by, and filled with, the desire to help the many unemployed compatriots to get work and bread again, and to reinstate Germany to an honorable place in the family of nations. In the General SS, we saw nothing but the Protective Squad (Schutzstaffel) which was to guarantee the security of the leading men, exposed as they were to attacks from political opponents when appearing in public at meetings and mass rallies. To counter such attacks and to keep political events peaceful and orderly was the task of the General SS. We never observed any criminal activities of the SS during the years of our joint service 1931/33.

Witness, what attracted you to the SS particularly, what seemed to you to be its salient characteristics?

A: In the SS, I saw an embodiment of the spirit of comradeship and of sacrifice such as one could not find elsewhere at that time. I did not find this spirit in sport clubs or other organizations either to the extent I found it in the SS. In the SS there was a large number of enthusiastic motorists with whom I had common sport interest. Exercising these activities in the SS kept me from doing other work in the SS.

Q: Now, did your motoring activity bring you in closer touch with Himmler?

A: Yes. From 1930 on often, I served as his chauffeur from that time on. I was frequently with him in the car and in this way I made his acquaintance more closely, got to know his attitude toward many fields of life. Through these conversations with Himmler I detected in him a strong idealism. He expressed, as I say, a strong degree of idealism, to me and I saw him as a man of noble traits of character in whom I felt I could have explicit confidence.

Q: Was politics carried on in your circles in the SS?

A: In the circles in the SS to which I belonged no politics was carried on at all. We talked about sports and technical matters. Not only for me but for the greater majority of my comrades this was the total extent of our participation in the SS. We had no notion of the general basic policy according to which the SS was being managed.

Q: Then you became engaged to get married and you received an OK for this engagement from Himmler. Himmler had reproached you and it was only then you saw that certain norms were laid down according to which an SS man was expected to behave. What was the consequence of this behavior with Himmler?

A: As I say, I had not concerned myself with these matters theretofore. But then I became interested in finding out what Himmler had done with the SS, or what his intentions were in the future. And I saw in the meantime Himmler had created a Fuehrer Corps, with an SS badge and I saw that Himmler intended to make a special body of the SS. I heard it called a Guard or an Elite Troop that was to be elevated above the masses. It was his intention to achieve this through careful selection, through stern discipline. In this way he was going to create an organization on which he could rely with certainty in the future.

Q: Did you take any part in this inner life of the SS?

A: No, I took no further part in this inner life of the SS. From 1934 on I attended no meetings of the SS although I had frequent opportunity. I also refused to be moved to a SS Community although I should have like to have my own house.

Q: Now, then, you received the death-head ring from Himmler with the date of the 30th of June, 1934. Now, will you please tell us why you received this decoration because the prosecution charges that in 1934 you received this decoration from Himmler in recognition of your services to the SS?

A: This death-head ring, like the dagger and other decorations, was given to members by the Reichsfuehrer if they had belonged to the SS for quite a while even if they hadn't accomplished any particular service. This ring is dated 30 June 1934. However, I recall very definitely that I did not receive it until 1935 and I think it was 1936. I mentioned this during my interrogations. I was told, during my interrogations, that the date was 30 June 1934 and I accepted that statement by the interrogator in good faith because they said they had my SS files available and knew that. I denied it, but later believed this. That is why I signed it in the affidavit, the date 30 June 1934. However, in the meantime, I have been thinking it over and I see that the decoration was given to me much, much later.

Q: Now, you are speaking of your second affidavit, are you not?

A: Yes.

Q: Mr. President, I now put in as Exhibit 12, Document #6, Document Book 1, Page 14, an affidavit by Dr. Werner Best, born 10 July 1903, of 18 February 1947, signed by him and certified by me. Best here concerns himself with the death-head ring its engraving and the date at which it was received corroborates exactly what the defendant Brack has said; so I ask the Tribunal to take notice of this document.

Witness, you just said that you did nothing more in the general SS. However, you remained a member. Now, why didn't you resign if you had no further interest in the General SS?

A: Being a member in the SS made no further difficulties for me. It would have been more logical for me to go to the NSKK because of my interest in sport; but my superior, Reichsleiter Bouhler, was also a member of the SS. Further, I didn't want to arouse any unfavorable attention by leaving the SS and what probably decided me to remain was the fact that by belonging to the SS many things, that were associated with my work in the Fuehrer's Chancellery, could be promoted much better by me if I were a member than if I were not. For this reason, after my transfer to Berlin, I even had myself transferred to the SD from the motor unit of the SS to which I had previously belonged in order that the complaints about the justice, the Gestapo and complaints concerning concentration camp inmates could be better represented by me at the SD, because those complaints made it necessary that we remain in close touch with the officials of the Gestapo.

Q: Then, I may sum up by saying that you remained a member of the General SS, for one reason, because you had friends in it from the years 1929 to 1933 and, later, because in your professional career you found it more expedient to remain there to take care of these complaints and appeals that you just mentioned?

A: Yes.

Q: Now, we have considered your membership in the General SS. Now, briefly, the question of the Waffen-SS. Did you have opportunity in peacetime to observe the activities of Waffen-SS units?

A: No. I received my military training with the mountain regiments 98 and 99.

Q: Now, why did you join the Waffen-SS instead of the Army?

A: That was the result of an accidental acquaintance with a commander of a mountain division of the SS. I applied to the Waffen-SS in April of 1942 for entry into it and requested Bouhler to approve my service on the front. This was given to me at first for six months and was then extended a number of times.

Q: Now, what was your opinion of the military activities of the Waffen-SS at that time?

A: I regarded the Waffen-SS as an excellent military organization, because its reputation after the French Campaign was good. Its military accomplishments were everywhere acknowledged.

Q: When you entered the Waffen-SS, what ranks did you have until you left at the end of the war?

A: At first, I was ordnance officer for a division. Later, I was again an ordinance officer with the quartermaster general of a corps. Then, for a time, I was the supply officer of a division, and then I was the quartermaster general of a corps. In August, 1944, my commander was sent to the Carpathians to built up a line of resistance. This proved, however, to be impossible. In October or November, 1944, I became an expert for the Waffen-SS in a combing-out action for soldiers in Denmark. Then, in March, 1945, I became a transport officer in Goering's staff.

Q: I submit from supplementary volume #1, Document 43, Exhibit 13, Page 6. I do not have to read anything from this document. I simply ask the Tribunal to take notice of it. Otto Haslreiter drew up this affidavit of 17 April 1947, signed by him, certified by me. I further put in Document #5, Document Book #1, Page 12, Brack Exhibit 14, an affidavit by Herbert Geitner, living in Ambach, who also knows the defendant Brack from that period and describes the activities that Brack himself has just described. He says that he never heard of Brack's being guilty of any inhumane acts and he says further that he considers Brack incapable of committing any act of cruelty. This is signed by Geitner on 31 March 1947, and certified by a notary in Munich. I further put in from Supplemental Volume #1, Document 44, Page 8, Exhibit 15, an affidavit by one Otto Meerpohl, of 17 April 1947, signed by him and certified by me. He describes the nature of the fighting in the war zone in which Brack was then actively engaged. He describes the malicious attacks, etc. I need not go into these matters in detail. However, I ask the Tribunal to take notice of this document. I merely point out that it is his point of view that, despite the inhumane cruelty on the part of the enemies, the troops were not guilty of such things.

Tell me, Mr. Brack, did you find out of any activities on the part of the troops to which you belonged which were contrary to any regulations, to international treaties or contrary to the laws of humanity?

A: I knew of no such activities. I knew, however, that my commanding officers were always against any sort of infractions and issued orders to that effect, to wit, that excesses and infractions should be punished.

Q: Now, let me remind the Tribunal again of what I put in as Exhibit #11, the affidavit by Karl Wolff, Document #4, and on page 10 of Document Book #1, here Wolff mentions his meeting with Brack in Berlin in 1942 and then later speaks of his connections with Brack in the Serbian Front. It begins with the words "I met Brack only infrequently during the war."

Now, we have come to the year 1944. In this connection —

THE PRESIDENT: (Interrupting) Counsel, before proceeding with the examination, the Tribunal will be in recess.

(A recess was taken)