1947-05-13, #2: Doctors' Trial (late morning)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. MARX: Dr. Marx for the defendant Dr. Becker-Freyseng. Mr. President, as defense counsel of the defendant, Dr. Becker-Freyseng, I should like to ask that he be permitted leave of the morning and afternoon sessions of tomorrow, Wednesday, because it is necessary for him to have a number of discussions with me in order to prepare his defense.
THE PRESIDENT: On request of counsel for the defendant Becker-Freyseng, the defendant will be excused from attendance before the Tribunal tomorrow, Wednesday, in order to consult with his counsel in connection with his proposed defense. This, of course, is subject to the recall of the defendant if his case should be reached for trial prior to tomorrow morning or afternoon.
DR. MARX: Thank you very much, Your Honor.
VIKTOR BRACK — Resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may proceed.
DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued)
BY DR. FROESCHMANN:
Q: Witness, how was your membership in the SS concluded in the year of 1945?
A: After my return from Denmark, Bouhler's had a number of large controversies with Bormann, because Bouhler disapproved of the erection of the Home Guards, as well as the extermination order of Bormann's; for that reason Bouhler approached Goering's staff went with Goering to Obersalzberg. Then together with Goering, Bouhler was sentenced to death, and I was arrested by the SD, when I tried to establish contact with Bouhler at the Obersalzberg, and was incarcerated with Bouhler, and a number of other persons. There we were told that we had been arrested by order of Martin Bormann because of participation in Goering's treason, and that we would be shot. We were brought into the SS barracks at Salzburg the same night, Bouhler told me later the sentence was not executed, because the order had not transmitted correctly. On the evening of 30 April he received the report that Hitler was dead. This I felt freed me of my oath towards Hitler, I mingled with the Army South which came from Italy, and obtained my release.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, in order to prove the assertion which was just made by Mr. Brack, I submit the Document No. 24 from my Document Volume No. I, which is to be found on page 63. This will become Exhibit No. 16. It is an affidavit of Werner Teske, who was born on 7 January 1913. The affidavit was signed on 26 February 1947, and was certified to by me in the proper manner.
I should also like to offer the Document No. 25, which is also to be found in Document Volume No. 1, on page 65, This will become Brack's Exhibit No. 17. It is an affidavit by Fritz Goernnert, born on 18 March 1907. The affidavit was signed on 7 March 1947, and signed by him. It was again certified to by me.
I should like to ask the Tribunal to take notice of the contents of these two affidavits, which I shall dispense with reading.
BY DR. FROESCHMANN:
Q: Mr. Brack, in conclusion we should like to deal briefly with a number of questions concerning the SS which have arisen from the judgment of the International Military Tribunal and which are important when considering your alleged membership in a criminal organization. I shall put these questions before you very briefly and I should like you to answer them with either "yes" or "no" if possible and only elaborate whenever necessary.
I now ask you: Did you know that the units of the Waffen SS were active participants in the measures which have led to aggressive war?
A: No.
Q: Why did you not believe that, especially after the Sudeten countries, as well as Bohemia, Moravia, and the Memel had been occupied by the SS units?
A: According to the official publications of the German government we could not deduce that we were there concerned with aggressive acts.
Q: Did you know about the existence of the Hehnlein Free Corps?
A: No, I did not know anything about that.
Q: Did you know that in a number of Waffen SS divisions there were shootings carried out on unarmed prisoners of war and that this was general usage?
A: No, I did not know anything about that either.
Q: And did you have knowledge that SS units were used for the execution of the Germanization plans in the occupied countries and also participated in the deporting of the Jews and foreigners?
A: No.
Q: And finally, did you know that Waffen SS units were to have participated in the murder and mistreatment of the civilians of the occupied territory?
A: No, I did not know that either.
Q: Did you know they participated in the extermination of Jews, politically undesirable persons, and other atrocities?
A: No.
Q: How did you consider the subordination of the SS under the Reich Leadership SS?
A: From my own knowledge I know that the Waffen SS, from the point of view of supplies, was equipped by the SS Operational Main Office. The technical commitments and other equipment were arranged by the army and therefore had nothing to do with the Reichsfuehrer SS.
Q: In that case all the orders for the commitment of the SS originated from the army?
A: Yes, they always did and I, as a supply officer, received all my orders from the army and never from the SS.
Q: Did you know that the concentration camps were under the administration of the SS?
A: Yes, I knew that these camps were under the administration of the SS, but I always thought that the guards of the concentration camps constituted a special body of police. The political leadership of the concentration camps was under the RSHA or, as it was called before, the Gestapo Office.
Q: Did you arrive at that attitude because you knew that Heydrich was at the head of the Gestapo?
A: I arrived at that attitude because of the handling of the applications for release from the concentration camps, which could always be handed over to the Gestapo whenever they arrived at the Fuehrer Chancellery office.
Q: Witness, you already hinted and the witness Heyderich was also dealing with that question for some time; you made the acquaintance of released inmates. I now ask you, did you learn from these inmates about any mistreatment in concentration camps?
A: No, I did not. A number of inmates, after their release, came to the Fuehrer's office, but none of them made any concrete statements about any mistreatment.
It was quite impossible even for me to penetrate the cloak which had been spread by Heydrich and others over the real goings-on in the concentration camps; as I realize now, it was quite impossible.
Q: Mr. Brack, but at least you did see some of these inmates after their release. Personally could you not base on the personal impression that these inmates gave you and deduce that you were concerned with people who had been morally or physically burdened because of their long internment?
A: Yes, of course I had to gain that impression in the case of a number of these inmates.
Q: You were also saying that you spoke to these inmates, but you were only able to gain insufficient reports from them, is that right?
A: No, I had no concrete reports from them at all, not even insufficient ones. Everyone of them said I had to sign, I would not communicate to anyone about the internal conditions of the camp, they could not do that.
Q: In that case you are merely confirming what the witness Hilscher has testified here in so moving a manner that we were concerned with persons here who were perhaps wearing a mask, is that right?
A: Yes.
Q: Witness, did you hear anything to the effect that a policy of exploitation was carried out toward these inmates?
A: No.
Q: Did you ever hear about the system of slave labor?
A: No, I did not hear that. Although I knew from the inmates that they were committed for work, at no time, however, did I learn about the form of slave labor as it was actually carried out.
Q: And finally, did you hear anything to the effect that experiments were carried out on concentration camp inmates?
A: No, I heard nothing at all about that.
Q: On the basis of your general impression you have been explaining to us today concerning the quality of the SS. Could you assume that this highly disciplined organization, as you expressed, then could be used for mass murder?
A: No, no one could imagine that and I certainly did not.
Q: The International Military Tribunal has used a number of points in that connection as a criterion for the criminal nature of the individual SS men and for that reason I should like to ask you the following. Did you hear about the speeches made by Himmler in the year 1943 when he was praising the SS because of their toughness and ruthlessness?
A: No, I did not hear about these speeches.
Q: In the course of this morning's examination we shall come back to that point, but I do want to tell you now that in the year 1941 in January and in April of 1942 you had two personal conferences with Himmler. These conferences permitted you a certain insight into his personal thinking. Now I ask you whether these conferences did not permit the thought that he wanted to use the SS for the execution of such plans as were mentioned in the judgment of the International Military Tribunal.
A: I could not arrive at that conclusion, but on the other hand I assumed that he was planning these things as the head of the German Police. I could not assume that the SS was to be used for such purposes.
Q: In other words, you didn't associate the General SS with the plans of Himmler as far as you got to know them?
A: No, I did that in no way at all.
Q: Didn't your own thinking as an SS man play some part in those impressions?
A: Certainly it did because in my capacity as an SS man I never received any criminal orders.
Q: In conclusion I may state that you did not know anything about the using of the SS for criminal purposes and you neither knew about the usage of the Waffen SS for any such purpose up to the year 1945, is that right?
A: Yes, that is correct.
Q: And now one final question in this connection. Repeatedly and also in this trial mention was made of the so-called SS system, did you ever hear anything about that or did you have any thoughts about it?
A: I have not recognized in any form any existing SS system, and I, therefore, couldn't have any thoughts about it.
Q: Mr. President, that brings me to the conclusion of the point raised by the Prosecution regarding membership in the general SS and the Waffen SS and I shall now pass on to the subject of the general activity of the defendant Brack within the chancellory of the Fuehrer. I shall discuss the relationship with Bormann, Himmler and Heydrich, and his attitude toward the concentration camp questions from the years 1934 to 1940, and I shall leave aside the question of euthanasia. I shall try to do it as quickly as possible in order to get to the point of sterilization this afternoon.
Witness, I ask you to avoid repetition of everything that the witness Hederich has mentioned here in a somewhat broad form.
You may perhaps refer to his statements but please try to tell us something new. I repeat that up to the year 1932 you made the acquaintance of the Reichleiter [Reich Leader] Bouhler only passingly, is that right.
A: Yes, that is true. I only knew him superficially. In the beginning of July 1932 Bouhler offered to me the position of personal adjutant. He held, at that time the position of the Reichs business manager of the NSDAP at that time and I took that offer because I was then unemployed.
Q: Didn't you at that time make contact with Himmler?
A: I saw Himmler after I had been employed at the Brown House almost daily when we had lunch, but our relation didn't go any further than with any other good acquaintance.
Q: Well what was your attitude in general toward Himmler?
A: In general it was pleasant and Himmler certainly realized that I had a positive attitude toward national socialism and that I had a certain amount of personal confidence in him.
Q: Did you also at that time make the acquaintance of Heydrich?
A: Yes, I did make the acquaintance of Heydrich in the year 1933.
Q: And how did you judge him, briefly?
A: He seemed to me to be very suspicious, not open and really from the point of view of feeling I rejected him.
Q: At the Reich Party Rally of 1934 Bouhler received an order from Hitler to hand over the management of the NSDAP and to found a Chancellory of the Fuehrer in Berlin, is that right?
A: Yes, that is true. He asked me to go along with him because he wanted to have at least one man in this strange environment, whom he knew and in whom he had confidence.
The task itself also seemed very difficult to him and I promised him I would help him as far as I could and that I would not leave him, and then I once more returned to Munich because I had married in the meantime, and in that connection I may perhaps say that, without consideration of future criticism, I was married in my SS uniform in Church, all of my children were also members of the Church.
Q: The KAF, which is an abbreviation for the Chancellory of the Fuehrer, Heydrich said was the big chance for Bouhler and he said further that this agency was to be a very active agency for the purpose of adjusting the very many deficiencies which were connected with any utilitarian system. He did not have to deal now with the aims of the Chancellory of the Fuehrer, and I should merely ask the Tribunal to recall my document, which is document No. 14, which was Exhibit 1. This is already in evidence and it describes the aims of the Chancellory of the Fuehrer, as well as the Party Chancellory.
Q: It is true, witness, that there were applications coming in from all the various Gaus to the Party Chancellory and that they concerned all aspects of the Party and the State?
A: Yes, that is correct. Our incoming applications were enormous. Within my personal sphere of work I had to deal with about three to six hundred applications daily.
Q: And as a result of these applications you gained a very lively picture about the political, especially the Party political life and know about the general morale of the population?
A: Yes that is true. Bouhler, however, within the frame work of his own tasks was not in a position to remove these deficiencies, which became evident on the basis of these applications.
He was perhaps in a position to make corresponding criticism when he came into contact with Hitler and see to it that such deficiencies were removed. He confined himself, however, to settling these difficulties directly with the agencies which were concerned and to keep away these matters from Hitler as far as he could. He thought it to be his task to exercise a coordinated and efficient activity. In this manner the Chancellory of the Fuehrer became an assisting agency for all walks of life and gained a certain popularity as a result. However, political success could not be achieved by that Chancellory of the Fuehrer.
Q: And how about your personal activity?
A: At first I was sitting in Bouhler's ante-room. My formal title was Chief of Staff, though I was never Chief of Staff in the true sense of that word. I must admit, that I never had the personal ambition to play any political part or to gain any large position. I merely wanted to assist these people whom it was necessary to assist.
Q: The period of time during which Bouhler tried to create this chancellery as a coordinating factor in German life passed very quickly. As Hederich already testified certain circles around Hitler very soon realized Bouhler's weakness?
A: Yes, that is true, especially Martin Bormann.
Q: Martin Bormann?
A: Yes. He was the chief of Staff of the Fuehrer's Deputy in that agency and after Hess' elimination in the year of 1941 the Party Chancellery was created. The real head of that agency had always been Bormann since the very beginning in 1933.
Q: And Bormann was a hard working man, is that right?
A: Yes.
Q: He was in a position to grasp things very quickly and was in a position to adjust himself to any kind of circumstance, is that true?
A: Yes. As far as I could survey position from my agency Bormann succeeded within a very short time to gather a circle of men around him whom he formed into a strong organization very quickly which was superimposed over the Party and the State and this agency had no adjusting activity but was merely carrying on power politics.
Q: Again Heyderich told us that Bormann up until the year 1934 was somewhat indifferent to Bouhler but then when the Chancellery of the Fuehrer was founded had of necessity to bring them to a controversy. Is that true?
A: Yes, that is correct.
Q: Did Bormann take any fields of work away from the Fuehrer's Chancellery, especially in such cases where he saw personal success?
A: Yes, that is true.
Q: Did you receive insight, perhaps from hearsay, as to what his relationship to Hitler was?
A: I really can only judge that from hearsay. But according to what I learned, partly from Bouhler and partly from other people, Bormann was seemingly blindly devoted to Hitler but in reality ruled Hitler.
Q: Mention was made here already about the power and radicalism of Martin Bormann. Opposed to that was their policy as pursued by Bouhler, a so-called "solft policy"?
A: That is the expression which was used by Bouhler's political opponents, namely that he was pursuing a "soft-policy". And that, of course found a ready ear with Bormann. Because of this "soft-policy" the original controversy between Bouhler and Bormann became an enmity later and was naturally intensified.
Q: In the year 1936 Buehler gave you the leadership of the Dept. II within the Chancellery of the Fuehrer. You accepted that offer?
A: Yes.
Q: Now would you please tell the Tribunal very briefly what your official position was and in particular whether you had any authority to make any decisions.
A: Complaints from all sorts of people from all over Germany arrived at that office. I had just as little authority to make decisions as any of the other departmental heads. I was to prepare complaints, etc. for further handling. I was to raise points, etc., and the final decision rested with Bouhler. I knew Bouhler's basic conception to all these questions and I could, therefore, prepare his decisions for him because I knew how tolerant Bouhler was and I knew what his wishes were and for that reason it was simple for me to prepare such tolerant decisions.
Q: How about the result of Bouhler's reports to Hitler?
A: The result was extremely favorable. Hitler very often, and I could almost say most of the time, followed Bouhler's proposals and that, particularly in the field of the Jews and people of mixed blood, he very often adhered to the suggestion proposed by Bouhler.
Very seldom were complaints regarding political leaders who had been misusing their office given way to because in those cases Bormann would be called in. In cases like that Bouhler couldn't carry his opinion through and for that reason there was very strong controversy with Bormann.
Q: Mr. President in that connection I should like to ask you to accept a number of Documents which all refer to Brack's activity within the Chancellery of the Fuehrer which I shall not read into the record for the purpose of brevity. I should merely like you to take notice of the documents. These are: Document No. 17, Volume I, page 49. This is an affidavit of Gustav Gerhard Quast of Hornbeburg, dated 27 January 1947, signed by Gustav Quast and certified by the Notary Dr. Luedemann. This will become Brack Exhibit 18.
I should further like to submit Document No. 18 which is an affidavit by Dr. Werner Schulemann of Brunswick. This is dated 30 January 1947. It was certified by Notary H. Herdegen and it will become Brack Exhibit 19.
Furthermore, I submit Document No. 21 which is in Document Book I and is the affidavit of Albert Goderbauer dated 13 January 1947. The date 1946 in your copy is incorrect. This was certified on the 19 February 1947. It will become Brack Exhibit No. 20.
Furthermore, I should like to refer to in this connection to the Brack Exhibit No. 10 which is the affidavit of Freiherr [Barron] von Tuessling which I have already read.
And, finally, I submit the Brack Document No. 16 in Document Book I which is the affidavit of Dr. Hans Greuninger, dated 20 January 1947 and signed by him. It was certified by me and it is to be found on page 42 of the Document Book. I offer it as Exhibit 21. All these affidavits describe Brack's activity and agree in emphasizing the readiness to help of the defendant and speak of all the efforts which the defendant Brack made in his fight against injustice.
Now, witness, you were Bouhler's oldest collaborator?
A: Yes.
Q: Could Bormann assume that you too tried to maintain Bouhler's attitude of tolerance or was Bormann of a different opinion?
A: No. Bormann must have assumed and he knew me personally from Munich that I was working fully in line with Bouhler and for that reason his criticism was justified. I tried to think in a humane manner and I tried to act in that manner. I wasn't any political accounting machine. I was on a completely different level in the Jewish question as opposed to Bormann. I was opposed to the totalitarian system of the Party. I was against the limitations of personal freedom and Bormann no doubt knew that I was supporting Bouhler with these thoughts.
Q: We are now getting to the conferences which you had with Himmler and I should like to ask you, did you often meet Himmler in the years from 1935 to 1940?
A: During that time I very rarely met Himmler. We occasionally came into contact and officially only when Bouhler sent me to him to report to him. That in particular when we were concerned with releases from concentration camps. Himmler in most of these cases complied with my attitude and my wishes which were also those of Bouhler despite Heydrichs' circumstances and opposition. My relationship to Himmler was in no way particularly close. If it was a little closer there could have developed perhaps a relationship of a fatherly friend but in order to say that I must point out I met him too rarely.
Q: And what was your relationship to Heydrich?
A: My relationship to Heydrich since the beginning of my activity at Berlin were always unpleasant and tense because the work in the Chancellery of the Fuehrer often extended to fields which were under the supervision of Heydrich. After I had ostentatiously assumed an entirely different attitude and especially in view of political inmates, and since I tried, partly by order of Bouhler and partly on my own initiative, to help these people to their release, Heydrich had to oppose me. Ever since the year of 1937 I had to feel personally threatened.
Q: Yes, this was the incident about which Heyderich had reported?
A: That's right.
Q: Now, very briefly, did Heydrich consider you a man who was committing treason against National Socialism?
A: Yes, he threatened me with arrest. He said I was committing treason. He asked Bouhler to release me from my position, and things of that nature.
Q: Mr. President, in that connection, I should like to submit a document from Document Book #2, which is #29 on Page 6. An affidavit by Dr. Hans Ehlich of the 7th of February, 1947. It was signed by him and certified by me. I should like to point in particular to Paragraph 2. This will be Brack Exhibit #22. I should furthermore like to offer my Document #39 from Document Volume #2 on Page 60. This is an affidavit of Gertrude Kallmayer, dated the second of April, 1947, which was signed by her and certified by me. This will become Exhibit #23. In both of these documents the attitude of Heydrich towards the defendant Brack is illustrated and also the difficulties in which Brack, at that time, found himself. In that connection I may also remind you of the Document Brack #4, Exhibit #11, which is already in evidence which is to be found on Page 10 of that document where these controversies are also discussed.
Now, Mr. Brack, we repeatedly discussed the nature of the applications which arrived at the Chancellory and I need not deal with that any more; this field of work, these Jewish applications and complaints, etc.
Complaints from Party agencies and dealing with release of protective custody inmates brought you more and more into contact with Heydrich and Bormann, and now, would you please say in that connection what your attitude was concerning the right of the state to intern persons in an internment camp where a danger arose for that person and for general society?
A: At that time I resigned myself to the fact of a concentration camp. That was not only true of Germany. In the neighboring state of Austria there was the big concentration camp of Wollersdorf wherein the Austrian state leadership, which was then not National Socialistic, was incarcerating the German National Socialists and National Socialists who were the opponents of that regime. In view of the political situation as it prevailed in Europe at that time I didn't consider that any state had a right to do that, but I resigned myself to the fact of their existence. If, for political reasons, you do place persons into protective custody, you can only, of course, do that under the observance of all human rights and naturally, any such incarceration, can only last as long as is necessary for the protection of the state and, under protective custody, inmates would have to have a possibility to work and earn some money because one has to consider that their families are at home. That is the only conclusion one can arrive at from a idealogical point of view. This, however, has nothing to do with any incarceration of preventive custody prisoners, of criminals, but that had nothing to do with our office. We were only dealing with people who were political opponents.
Q: Did you always consider it to be a fact that any person's applications with whom you dealt was really opposing the regime?
A: On the basis of the statements made by relatives, and on the basis of the various positions taken by the agencies involved, I often saw no reason for the maintenance of that protective custody status, and as time progressed, I grew more and more skeptical towards every protective custody arrest.
Q: For that reason did you create a special department within your office?
A: Yes, after these applications for release grew more numerous I reported that question to Bouhler and Bouhler ordered that a special department within that office be created for the handling of these matters. It was a very difficult task which had to be dealt with by the head of that department. Every single case had to be evaluated and constituted a number of difficulties. One had to be in touch with the Gestapo and the Gau leadership or whoever initiated the person to be placed in the concentration camp in the first place.
Q: Mr. President, in that connection I may submit one exhibit which refers to the treatment of the application of Jewish persons of mixed blood. This the Document #10 to be found in Document Book #1 on page 27. This is the affidavit of Helma Ollendorff. I already mentioned her this morning. It was signed by her on the 14th of March, 1947, and certified by the notary there, Dr. Daimer. I am not going to read that affidavit but it illustrates very strongly the manner in which the defendant Brack, without any consideration to his person and his position had interfered on behalf of her father. This will become Exhibit #22. In connection with the question —
DR. FROESCHMANN: I beg your pardon, Your Honor. Exhibit #25. In that connection, I am submitting Document —
THE PRESIDENT: (Interrupting) Counsel, should not this exhibit be #24? Check your list, please.
BY DR. FROESCHMANN:
Q: Yes, I must correct myself once more. It should be 24. I beg your pardon.
And now I am going to submit the Document #22 from Document Book #1, Page 59, which is the affidavit of Dr. Ludwig Schmitt, dated the 26th of March, 1947, and signed by him. It was certified by the notary there, Dr. Nobis, on the same day. I should like to read the last sentence from that affidavit because it illustrates the character of the defendant Brack, and he says, I quote:
I consider it a fine, courageous and humanitarian act for Brack to repeatedly endeavor to ameliorate my circumstances in the face of danger to himself.
I must remark here that Schmitt had been in a concentration camp for a certain period of time. I quote again:
It is typical of his desire to help that he immediately gave my assistant, Frl. Dr. Richter, full details of his conversations with Himmler; Bouhler, however, could not be approached anymore and declined to do any more for me. It is my honest desire to state facts to show that Brack at that difficult time showed a humane and decent attitude.
I further submit, in that connection, Brack Document #40. This is to be found in Document Book #2, on page 64, and it will become Exhibit Brack #26. This is an affidavit of a certain Bernhard of Schweinfurt, dated the 5th of April, 1947, signed by him and certified by the notary there, Georg Lang. It will become Brack Exhibit #26. From this affidavit I shall only read the following sentences:
I am married to a Jewess.
My mother-in-law, Alice Seligstein, had her last residence in Berlin. Viktor Brack helped me three times in securing a postponement of my mother-in-law's deportation to a concentration camp. She was to be deported in October, 1941 for the first time. At her call for help, I hastened to Berlin in order to save her. All my attempts were unsuccessful. I applied to all possible offices including the Gestapo at the Alexanderplatz. In desperation I telephoned my firm. Mr. Brack was known to my firm. They called him up, recommended me, and asked him to grant my request. When I called on the Chancellery of the Fuehrer, where Brack was working, I was received by his secretary. She apparently had been informed already, and explained to me that Mr. Brack was willing to help. She took me to Mr. Vorberg, who apparently had also been informed. He promised to settle the affair immediately and he wanted to put in a word so that my mother-in-law would be excluded from the transport. I gave the personal data, of my mother-in-law.
After this I called on the Jewish community who confirmed on the following day that my mother-in-law's name had been crossed out in the list of the transport.
The next sentence:
In view of the assistance which Mr. Brack so unselfishly rendered to my mother-in-law and my family in our greatest need I thought it only just and right to acquaint the court with my experiences with Mr. Brack when I learned some months ago that he was charged as one of the war criminals.
I have made this statement voluntarily. No one, neither Mr. Brack nor any of Mr. Brack's friends nor anyone else who knows of this affair, induced me to make this statement. It is very well possible that Mr. Brack does not even remember the whole affair or my name.
Q: Mr. Brack, you have already been speaking about the difficulties in which you were when dealing with these applications, on which I have submitted in extracts a number of examples. Do you believe that there were only personal reasons which brought about this difference between Heydrich and yourself, or were the reasons of a deeper nature?
A: As I judge the matter now in retrospect and in the full knowledge of all these crimes, I must come to the conclusion that these were not personal matters, but matters of a fundamental nature. It must have been Heydrich's aim to exterminate all his political opponents in concentration camps. As I said before already, I could find out nothing about that from inmates who had been released. My own position was far to weak and insignificant to let me hope that I could bring about at any time a fundamental change of that situation. I could do nothing but report these matters to the Reichsleiter [Reich Leader], or sometimes even to Himmler. At any rate we did try, through the Party Chancellory, to go beyond the applications which arrived at our office and help those who had been arrested. We simply attempted to form groups which we considered to be suitable for release and we submitted such proposals to Bouhler who then in turn discussed it with Himmler. It was in effect achieved that certain categories of persons, former participants in the war, fathers of large families, former members of oppositional parties were released in groups. I remember one figure completely, because it constituted the very first success of this nature which Bouhler had brought about.
On the occasion of Hitler's birthday in the year 1937, 4300 protective custody inmates had actually been released. In the years 1936 to 1941 the figures of those that were released, as a result of those masses released I was speaking about, must, I am sure, have increased to 10,000 or 12,000, if not 15,000. On the basis of the singular applications from the relatives to the Chancellory of the Fuehrer, to Bouhler, to Himmler, etc., at least 3,000 to 5,000 people were released. At that time we were proud of our results. Today, after knowing the enormous extent of the concentration camps, as I can now survey the numbers that were involved, I see how ridiculously low it was, what we achieved at that time. Then, however, I couldn't survey it.
DR. FROESCHMANN: To my regret, Mr. President, I learn that Supplement III is not yet available to the Tribunal. For that reason I must reserve myself the opportunity to submit at a later date a document which constitutes a short exerpt from Kogon's book "The SS State" and which is relevant in this connection. I at that time spoke about the release which was carried out as a result of Hitler's 50th birthday, and that was carried out in Buchenwald.
BY DR. FROESCHMANN:
Q: Mr. Brack, all your activities lead to a number of letters about you which were sent to Bouhler's and also lead to difficulties which were incurable for you, is that right?
A: Yes.
Q: You then tried to enter the sport through intervention of Reich's Sport Leader von Tschammer und Osten?
A: That is true.
Q: Ever since 1937 you were an honorary member also of that organization and carried out sports activities there. Why didn't you carry through that intention?
A: I didn't realize my intention of transferring to sports activity or industry because at that time the war had broken out.
Simultaneously a decree was issued by Hitler which was a prohibition to leave any governmental agencies. Personally I was not satisfied with my work because I had too many difficulties and I saw no basic assistance was possible. The only assistance was in single cases. In the final analysis, however, I believed that I could not release the possibility of helping singular people.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, to sum up I would like to submit at this point Document No. 7, Viktor Brack Document Book No. 1, page 15, which is an affidavit of Irmgard Grube, dated the 4th of February, 1947, which was certified by the notary, Dr. Stephans, and which will become exhibit Brack No. 27. I ask you to take notice of the conditions of this affidavit because it illustrates the entire activity of Brack within the Chancellory of the Fuehrer from 1937 to 1942. This will be Exhibit 27.
This, Your Honor, brings me to the end of the complex regarding Brack's activity within the Chancellory of the Fuehrer and I shall now be in a position to go over to the subject of sterilization. I think this might be a suitable time to adjourn.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess until 1:30.
(Thereupon the noon recess was taken.)