1947-05-13, #3: Doctors' Trial (afternoon)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The Tribunal reconvened at 1330 hours, 13 May 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
VICTOR BRACK — Resumed
DR. FROESCHMANN (Counsel for the Defendant Brack): Mr. President, I previously neglected to put two documents in evidence that concerned the subject last under discussion. These are document number 2. Document Book No. 1, page 5, affidavit by Henning Von Nordeck of 31 March 1947, signed by him and certified by me. In this affidavit I draw your attention particularly to paragraph 3. I do not, however, have to read it. This will be Exhibit 28. The second document that I wish to put in is document 15, Document Book No. 1, page 39, an affidavit by Werner Best dated 25 January 1947, signed by him in that date and certified by myself. Here it is stated specifically that whole groups of inmates were released from concentration camps in what was known as an amnesty. This is Exhibit Brack 29.
DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued)
BY DR. FROESCHMANN:
Q: Let me remind you again, witness, that you are still testifying under oath. Mr. Brack, this morning we went into your activities in the Fuehrer's Chancellory, so far as was here necessary, and from many affidavits that I have I could ascertain that you were always ready to give assistance in the cares and tribulations of your fellow men, and that, particularly, in many cases you interceded in the interests of Jews. Now, an apparent contradiction to this is the chapter which we are about to enter upon, namely the count charging you with War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity, committed in first order through your sterilization proposals to Himmler in the course of 1941 and '42. I ask you now to go into this whole problem at some length.
A: Both the occurrences of November 1938 and the defamation of the Jews, both before the outbreak of the war and during the war, were not unknown to me. But I always hoped that things would gradually quiet down, and, actually, I had nothing to do with these things and could have something to do with them only if someone in search of help applied to the office where I was employed. Any intention to exterminate Jews in 1939 and 1940 was not known to me. If such intentions did exist at that time, I can only say today that the persons who had such intentions were able to keep them completely secret, hiding them behind a heavy veil.
In the summer, however, 1941, something occurred which gave me misgivings. An associate of mine belonged to Bormann's office before he came to the Fuehrer's Chancellory, Despite the tense relations between these two officers, this man still maintained personal connections with people in Bormann's office. Consequently, he knew much more about the ultimate intentions of Bormann's office than I did. One day this associate brought me the news that there was the intention to find a radical solution of the Jewish problem. Just what the solution was to be in detail could not immediately be ascertained by me. I couldn't find out whether the intention was outright extermination. There was talk of sending all the Jews to the East of Europe, primarily to Poland. At the same time, the anti-semitic attitude on the part of the Polish population was mentioned which was expected to led to pogroms was also expected.
At any rate, all these things seemed most dubious to me. However, we ourselves, were completely impotent to do anything about it. I, in my Party Office, could not find out anything more about these plans or undertake anything to frustrate them. Nevertheless, simply because our conscience made us do so, we did decide to try to do something to combat this tendency.
After we of the Party Chancellory found out that these plans existed, only Martin Bormann could be the instigator of them. Now, whether that could be traced back to a wish on the part of Hitler or whether it was Bormann's own idea, as the witness Lammers stated, that I cannot say and I do not know even today. But the essential thing for us was that Bormann was concerning himself with these matters, and when Bormann concerned himself with something, then things were very dangerous because with his radical point of view we had to count on their being carried out in an altogether ruthless fashion. There was nobody in Germany who could oppose Bormann, Hitler was the only man who could give him orders.
In the tense inimical relation between Bouhler and Bormann, there was simply no question of intervention on Bouhler's part. That simply was to be reckoned with the fact that in some form or another, either in there being deported, or in something worse, the Jews were going to have trouble. If any one had a counter suggestion, it would of course have to be more in a similar direction, but it would be intended to give the Jews a somewhat better chance. This proposal would have to be taken directly to Hitler, because only he was in a position to change Bormann's mind. Others were too weak for that.
Q: Now, Mr. Brack, in your affidavit No. 426, Exhibit 160, in this Document Book, 14 page 10, you stated:
We developed the idea of deporting Jews.
Will you please say something about that statement of yours?
A: First of all, the expression of the word "deporting" was not my word, but it was chosen by the man who drew up the affidavit. I already said what I thought — or think about this affidavit, and how it came about. I was not aware at that time of the meaning of the word. If I had, I certainly would have refused to use it. At any rate we were thinking of a re-settlement in a decent sense of the word, rather than the deportation.
Q: Now what was the political situation at this time?
A: In the Summer of 1940 the situation in Europe might be summarized as follows: After the Polish campaign Poland was divided between Soviet Russia and Germany; Belgium and Holland were in German hands, and Denmark and the Netherlands were under German control. There was an Armistice with France and a political approachment apparently, Italy was our Ally. There were good relations with Hungary and Yugoslavia, and for an outsider, such as I was, it seemed as if there was no danger from the side of the Soviet Union or from the United States of America. One heard that measures were under way with promises of success with England, and everything seemed to point to the fact that the war would soon be concluded. That is the way the normal mortal appraised the situation at that time.
Q: And what attitude then were these countries expected to take towards the Jews at the end of the war?
A: It was supposed that after the war many European countries were to adapt themselves to German legislation regarding the Jews. Thus, for all the Jews in Central Europe it would be impossible to develop further, as I said, there was a large scale re-settlement plan, which was to give the Jews a new homeland. This would both have removed Palestine as a bone of contention, and so leave the matter to the thought of settling, or proposing that the Jews be settled in Madagascar. It would not be difficult for France to give up Madagascar in exchange for a previous German Colony, that could be arranged in the peace treaty, but at any rate, such proposal could only be put into effect through Hitler, and if Hitler agreed to such a proposal, then Bormann's intentions would be automatically frustrated.
Q: Why just Madagascar?
A: Madagascar was mentioned already by Chaim Waitzmann, in his Zionist plans. It is an island of 600,000 square kilometers. In other words considerably larger than Germany, and it has only 3,500 inhabitants. It is sparsely settled, and in the opinion of the "GO" Bulletin, it could support roughly a population of twenty million, and the accommodation of eight to ten million European Jews there fore would afford no difficulty. The climate in Madagascar covers the whole range of possible climatic conditions, and resembles the climate that is to be found in Palestine. The natural resources of coal, minerals, oil and so forth, made it likely that a firmly routed industry could grow there. Moreover there are considerable opportunities for cattle raising. The grasslands are fertile, and what would be needed was an increase of this population in order to make use of these. From the agriculture point of view, all sorts of crops could be grown there, Tobacco, wheat, cotton, etc., and, consequently this country seemed to be very appropriate for the reception of eight to ten million people.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, in this connection I put in Document No. 27 Document Book No, 1 — No. 2, correction, page 3 Exhibit No. 30, which I have already discussed during my interrogation of the witness Hederich. This is a brief excerpt from the dictionary well known in Germany as "Der grosse Brockhaus."
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, it was already offered in evidence, and rejected by the Tribunal.
DR. FROESCHMANN: I understood this rejection on the part of the Tribunal to apply only of the offering of this document in connection with the Heydrich testimony. I want to put it in explicitly here as evidence, because it substantiates Mr. Brack's testimony here. Am I incorrect in this belief, Mr. President?
THE PRESIDENT: No, I think counsel is correct. Counsel had leave to offer, it, to offer document at some later time, and you offer it now. What does counsel for the Prosecution say?
MR. HOCHWALD: The Prosecution objects against the document as immaterial.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will admit the document in evidence at this time for probative value it may have.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Then I put this in as Brack's Exhibit No. 30. I shall dispense with the reading of it.
BY DR. FROESCHMANN:
Q: Witness, in other words, the natural qualifications of Madagascar seemed to be good. Now what form of government did you conceive for the Jews who were to go there from Germany and Europe?
A: For a person who is not trained in a government, it is very difficult for him to make a proposal in this matter, so let me point out that, however, our suggestion at that time was made with no claim at all on being correct or complete. At that time we thought that the governmental form would be a government — a Jewish government under a German Governor; this set form was to end automatically when through the consolidation of the local government and the economic situation that became possible.
Q: There might raise a possible objection here, Mr. Brack. You know that the German "Government" unfortunately has received an unpleasant connotation in Germany in the last few years, because there was a general government —
— a Governor General under Frank in Poland, who permitted hundred of thousands of Jews there to be killed. These events on the part of the Governor-General in Poland in 1940, were they known to you?
A: Of those events I certainly knew nothing, and I believe nothing was known among the general population about that.
Q: In your circle where you were concerning yourself with these plans, did you know anything about the personality of the governor, and did it seem to you that this man's character was such as to make it likely that the Jews would receive normal, humane and legal rights?
A: Let me first of all go into the discussion about the government. We thought that the "government" would be necessary because for many years the economic situation of a new State; composed of immigrants would have to be so difficult that it would develop only with the help of a functioning State from the outside. In order to create a new industry, and a new industry, and a new housing, a new transportation, so forth.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, it seems to the Tribunal the witness having said he was not an expert on governmental affairs, and having stated in his opinion that the government to be maintained and set up in Madagascar would be a fair, reasonable and liberal government, the subject has been pursued long enough by the witness.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Very well, Your Honor.
BY DR. FROESCHMANN:
Q: Witness, did you think that such a plan that you have described was to be incorporated into the peace treaty and would be successful?
A: Yes, we hoped that if Bouhler, whom we intended to be the Governor, could create a new homeland for the Jews this would provide hope for all the Jews in the world. The economic connections with Germany offered better opportunities for the peace negotiations and in the future peace these connections would certainly add to the country's security.
Q: Witness, was this thought something that occurred on the spur of the moment or was it based on mutual reflection and careful thought?
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, I intended to convey to you the idea that the subject of Madagascar and the proposed colony had been gone into sufficiently as to enlighten the Tribunal on the witness' idea. I think that Madagascar can be abandoned and you can go on to the next subject.
BY DR. FROESCHMANN:
Q: Very will Your Honor.
Now, you submitted this plan to Bouhler and Bouhler submitted it in turn to Hitler?
A: Yes.
Q: However in your affidavit, under No. 16, it says:
We put the plan to Bouhler, apparently this plan was not acceptable, so we changed our attitude, etc.
Now, I don't quite understand this statement in the affidavit, it does not correspond with what you just testified.
A: We had worked out this plan with great care and given it a great deal of attention, using foreign experts as consultants.
It was not Bouhler who rejected the plan, Bouhler put it before Hitler. Now when I signed this affidavit, I did not see that this statement here in the affidavit was wrong. Bouhler adopted the plan, as is shown, and tried to persuade Hitler to accept it. Hitler, however, turned it down, and Heydrich has already testified to that effect here.
Q: Now, let us go a step further, I just mentioned Point 16 in your affidavit, which carries the heading, "Sterilization Program;" What did you mean by that?
A: This heading was not my idea either, but was the thought of the man who drew up the affidavit. If you want to define Himmler's sterilization program, you can if you want. I can clearly say here under oath that I never heard of any such program. I never heard of Madaus' work, or Clauberg's work or that of Pokorny in 1941 or 1942, nor when I signed the affidavit did I know anything. In other words, the expression "Sterilization Program" did not enlighten me at the time or I would have objected to it. It is of course possible that because of my condition at that time I was so exhausted that I could not concentrate on what I was reading there in the affidavit as Point 16 is right at the end of the affidavit.
Q: But you must have some vague recollection of something when you speak of x-ray experiments and such things; you must have known something about those things at that time; now what do you have to say about that?
A: I did have a vague recollection, I heard something or other about x-ray experiments, which were made by some doctor or other, but not in connection with anything like a sterilization program. I believe that Bouhler told me that Hitler had turned this down, but now that we have looked into it more closely and particularly and since I have seen the documents, I can say that none of that is true.
Q: In other words, you want to say that this statement which you made in this part of the affidavit presents an altogether erroneous picture?
A: It is incomplete, it is out of context and for that reason it is misleading.
Q: Now, Mr. Brack, at the end of 1940 did Himmler write you a letter? Now, this is Document NO-018, Exhibit 404, English Document Book 15 Page 172; do you have that Document Book?
A: Yes.
Q: Please take a look at it — Page 171. Let me quote —
THE PRESIDENT: We are not getting the translation in the English Document book.
THE MONITOR: He stated it was Document NO-018, Document Book 15 and corrected the error from page 172 to page 171.
BY DR. FROESCHMANN:
Q: May I quote? Himmler writes this document No. 018 to you regarding the conditions in the Euthanasia Station Grafeneck, which had become known to him and he writes:
SS-Standartenfuehrer [Colonel] Victor Brack, Staff-Leader at Reich — Leader Bouhler, Dear Brack, I hear there is great excitement on the Alb because of the institution Grafeneck.
And he says at the bottom:
May I ask for a report as to how the difficult problem was solved. Hell Hitler!
/s/ Heinrich Himmler
This letter is rather striking because Himmler is applying directly to you in the matter that concerns Euthanasia; had you theretofore communicated with Himmler regarding Euthanasia?
A: Yes. Shortly after receiving the Euthanasia assignment Bouhler sent me to Himmler to discuss Euthanasia problems, and I shall come back to this problem later. The reason for this letter from Himmler to me, Document No-018, was a letter that the highest Party judge Buch wrote to Himmler. This letter was put in as No. 002, it is also in Document Book 15, page 37 of the German.
Q: Mr. President, in the English Document book it is Document No-002, it is on page 43 and is Exhibit 392.
Please continue.
A: Now without doubt Himmler recalled my visit at that time and wrote to me with the request that I try to clear up these difficulties. I showed the letter to Bouhler and Bouhler thereupon decided that Grafeneck was no longer to be used as an Euthanasia station and sent me to Himmler to tell him so.
Q: Did you then go to Himmler?
A: In January of 1941 I went to Himmler and told him of Bouhler's decision. At that time, to be sure, I did not know that Himmler on the basis of his racial theory was at that time working on the development of a cheap and effective method of sterilization. That can be seen from document No. 440, Exhibit 14, Document Bock 6, which is an affidavit of Rudolf Brandt.
Q: This Document, Mr. President, is No. 440 and is contained in the English Document Book 6, Page 1.
Please continue.
A: According to this affidavit Himmler was interested in eliminating the Jews but still keeping their man power. Perhaps at that time he already know of Bromann's plans and did not wish to affiliate himself with these plans.
Q: What plans are you talking about?
A: The plans to exterminate the Jews which I told you about before and having known them and having been in the Party Chancellory in the course of this conversation when I told Himmler Grafeneck was to be abandoned, Himmler also told me of communications he had received from Poland, according to which the Jews there were using the temporary impotence of the Polish government to strengthen their own position and Himmler said something had to be done about this. He said something had to be undertaken to stop this because through the mixing of blood in the Polish Jews with that of the Jews from Western Europe a much greater danger for Germany was arising than even before the war, and he said it was his intention to sterilize the Jews according to reliable methods, according to a procedure which would permit mass sterilization. Operative sterilization was out of the question for one thing because you couldn't do that without leaving some scar. Then he brought up the question, could not this be done with x-ray treatment? However, I didn't know about this for sure, and in fact nobody knew about it, and especially didn't know whether the person in question could be treated without noticing something. Himmler then said that Bouhler had gathered together so many scientists and doctors in the euthanasia program, consequently I should try to hear from him what he could tell me about sterilization, and tell him to report to me again.
Q: Well, what was the effect of this communication from Himmler on you?
A: This made a great impression on me. I believed that Heydrich could have really been the instigator of all of this. In my interrogation I told the Interrogator that I regarded such a plan of exterminating the Jews as unworthy of Germany and its leaders. From what I knew of Himmler it would never have occurred to me that such a destructive idea could have originated in his mind.
Be that, however, as it may, whether the idea originated with Heydrich or Bormann, my attitude was opposed to this; and I felt that I was under obligation to do anything I could to prevent this. If I had raised the least objection to it openly I would have aroused great suspicion of myself and would have aroused an all together and false reaction in Himmler. Therefore, I had to make the best of a bad matter and had to pretend that I agreed with Himmler. Therefore, I pretended to be willing to clarify the question of mass sterilization through x-ray methods, Many years ago I had been subjected to x-ray treatment for quite a period of time and had discussed with the doctor the effect of x-rays on the human body. Now I remembered from those discussions that the effect of x-ray on the sexual organs is only of slight importance and are not lasting. Moreover, I knew that one of my associates was personally acquainted with a x-ray specialist and he told me that this specialist was conducting experiments on the effects of x-rays on the fertility of animals. However, there seemed to be no result.
Q: Mr. President I put in now Document No. 26, from my document book II, page 1, of 25 February 1947, an affidavit by Dr. Martin Zeller, a specialist, born 3 December 1880, living in Munich, signed by him on this same date and certified by myself. This affidavit contributes to the understanding of this matter now under discussion and I quote:
I remember distinctly that 10 to 15 years ago I spoke to Viktor Brack about x-ray injuries. Brack was worried that he might develop an x-ray injury, at that time his knee had been x-rayed. When some time afterwards he had rough hands he thought that might be an x-ray burn. I explained to him that no injuries could result from our x-ray examinations since the quantities of radiation used for diagnosis were small and besides, the more distant parts of the body (that is, in the case of a picture of the knee being taken, the hands and genitals) were not in the danger zone under modern technical conditions.
I also made the remark that even an intentional sterilization by x-ray treatment would, especially in the case of young persons, be difficult to achieve and even then only with a strong doses of prolonged radiation.
And then in paragraph 2 the witness continues:
It is quite possible that Brack in this way developed the views as brought forward, i.e., that the effect of x-rays upon the sexual organs is negligible, and that the danger of sterilization does not exist at all. The layman will not differentiate between x-ray diagnostics and x-ray therapy.
This will be Exhibit No. 31. Witness, please continue.
A: I took this associate into my confidence and told him of my intention to deceive Himmler, if only to gain time. We agreed to deceive Himmler by giving him a certificate that seemed to say that sterilization by x-ray methods was possible and we would thus get him to pursue a false path. Just what was said in this certificate I do not know any longer. At any rate there were no positive results in it so that we couldn't put it to Himmler in this form.
Q: Mr. President, let me remark in this connection, that after great efforts I have succeeded in finding the man who drew up this certificate of which the witness has just been speaking. I have found out his name and address. He lives in the Russian zone and for that reason it was not possible for me to get a copy of that certificate that he drew up at that time. However, I have made contact with this doctor and he has declared his readiness to come to Nurnberg and to give me an affidavit, because as he said it would be a matter of course that he should help an innocent man if his testimony could do so. He does remember having given this certificate to Brack or to his associates and I ask permission to reserve the right to put this affidavit in evidence as soon as I have it, and when perhaps the doctor has had a chance to speak to the witness — to the defendant.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for defendant Brack may offer the affidavit as soon as it is received so long as it complies with the evidence in the case.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Thank you, Your Honor. Witness, please continue.
A: Naturally, this factor of uncertainty had to be taken into consideration.
Q: What exactly are you speaking of?
A: I am talking about the report we received.
Q: You mean the man who drew up the certificate, the expert?
A: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Now counsel I don't want you to misunderstand me. I said Counsel may offer the affidavit, that means it is offered subject to any objection raised by the Prosecution as to the form of the affidavit or its relevancy. Yesterday the affidavits from Brazil were possibly offered by you because the Tribunal had said that they might be offered. The right to offer simply means offered subject to objection and that is not equivalent to saying that the affidavit will be received in evidence, but it may be offered. That is the sense in which I have used the word "offer" in this affidavit.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Yes, Your Honor, I understood the President and I shall only submit an affidavit which is in compliance with the regulation of this Tribunal. Would you please continue, witness?
A: My collaborator changed this certificate in its contents in such a manner that sterilization becomes apparent as something possible from a medical point of view. That is exactly what is contained in my affidavit. Thus this letter dated the 28 March 1941, originated with this document No. 203, Exhibit 161.
Q: Mr. President, with reference to the Document No. 203, Exhibit 161, you can find it in the English Document Volume VI, page 35. Let us reconstruct this letter quite shortly. I shall quote. Volume VI, page 35, addressed by Brack to Himmler, marked top secret.
Dear Reichsfuehrer:
Enclosed I sent to you for your information the report of the examination regarding the possibility of an x-ray sterilization or castration. I ask you to tell me whether anything can be done in the matter either theoretically or practically.
That is the covering letter. This covering letter, Witness, in connection with the report which is attached was considered by the Prosecution as being a serious suggestion for sterilization and Prosecution in that connection has stated that this needed no comment. What is your attitude toward it?
A: Neither the first nor the latter is correct. I admit that if one reads this letter or report without knowing the connections that impression can be created. I, therefore, have to attempt to analyze this report in order to explain to the Tribunal what we tried to achieve with this letter. I have to emphasize once more that the entire thing was a maneuver of deceit.
Q: With reference to the report which you attached to this letter NO-203 I should like to quote from it a very brief passage. It can be found in Document Volume VI, page 34 and reads:
Report on Experiments concerning X-ray Castration.
The experiments in this field are concluded. The following result can be considered as established and adequately based on scientific research.
If any persons are to be sterilized permanently, this result can only be attained by applying X-rays in a dosage high enough to produce castration with all its consequences, since high X-ray dosages destroy the internal secretion of the ovary, or of the testicles respectively.
Lower dosages would only temporarily paralyze the procreative capacity. The consequences in question are for example the disappearance of menstruation, climacteric phenomena, changes in capillary growth, modification of metabolism, etc. In any case, attention must be drawn to these disadvantages.
The actual dosage can be given in various ways, and the irradiation can take place quite imperceptibly. The necessary local dosage for men is 500-600 r, for women 300-350 r. In general an irradiation period of 2 minutes for men, 3 minutes for women, with the highest voltage, a thin filter and at a short distance, ought to be sufficient. There is, however a disadvantage that has to be put up with: as it is impossible to cover unnoticeably the rest of the body with lead, the other tissues of the body will be injured, and radiologic malaise, the so-called "Roentgenkator", [x-ray hangover] will ensue.
Witness, would you define your attitude toward this letter which I partly read?
A: I was speaking in connection with the talk I had with Himmler in the year of 1941. This becomes apparent from the paragraph "I herewith submit the result of an x-ray examination." It looks now as though in effect experiments had been carried out by scientists, which was not the case. Himmler had to be assured and that is why we had to emphasize that the experiments had been concluded and the result could be based on scientific work. Of course, we couldn't state the result as being absolutely positive. We had to leave it to Himmler himself to judge it. In the first instance it was our intention to remove Himmler's mind from that thought. That is why we chose the formulation which can be seen in that letter — "If any persons are to be sterilized permanently". It meant in effect that this was theoretically possible. At the same time however, we pointed out that this success cannot be concealed and that phenomena will arise. That obviously was done by the contents of the certificate itself and it is emphasized that permanent sterilization makes high dosage of x-ray necessary. These high dosages would then bring about the effects of castration with all of the accompanying symptoms which would be noticed immediately.
If, however, lower dosages were used you will have only stopped productive capacity for a short time. We actually said that at the end of the report, namely, that the result of sterilization could be ascertained after a comparatively short time but that it was impossible to achieve the results of bring about sterilization without being noticed, and in this way are thought are could got Himmler to give up that idea.
Q: Now, this was the first part of the letter. Now let us discuss the second part. I am again referring to the method which you suggested to Himmler. You thought at that time:
One practical way of proceeding would be, for instance, to let the persons to be treated approach a counter, where they could be asked to answer some questions or to fill in forms, which would take them 2 or 3 minutes. The official sitting behind the counter could operate the installation in such a way as to turn a switch which would activate the two valves simultaneously ( since the irradiation as to operate from both sides.) With a two-valve installation about 150-200 persons could then be sterilized per day, and therefore, with 20 such installations as many as 3000 — 4000 persons per day. In my estimation a larger daily number could not in any case be sent away for this purpose.
Mr. Brack, how could you arrive at this idea of turning switches. This is completely un-understandable for a layman.
A: Himmler wanted this procedure to be carried out as simply as possible. Therefore, we had to suggest as simple a method as are could think of. On the other hand this method increased the uncertainty of of directing the rays to the corresponding parts of the body. That is what was discussed by my collaborator with his acquaintance. We suggested this switch method to Himmler with the idea, of making this matter as simple as possible and at the same time to prevent any active x-ray reaching the body.
Furthermore, only 2-3 minutes were suggested, as the length of time for these people to be subjected to these x-rays. How we arrived at these 500-600 figures — or 350 r. — I don't know whether they were just invented or whether they were based upon something. I don't know. But looking at it as a whole it contained a number of points that were to demonstrate to Himmler that the whole thing could not be carried out. There is scientific basis for these suggestions.
Q: Mr. President, in connection with this point I have tried to get an unobjectionable irreproachable certificate for the correctness of what the defendant just stated. I shall get a certificate from a specialist. The man concerned says that this suggestion is absolutely senseless. I had, however, to wait for this certificate because I had to wait for an affidavit from another expert physician. With the permission of the High Tribunal I shall obtain a corresponding certificate from a radiologist who can make it appear credible that this entire suggestion was really scientific nonsense.
A: The possibility for Himmler to accept this proposal in spite of all these difficulties we had to take into account. We knew, however, that the preparation of any such installation would take up a long period of time, building, etc. We thought that the war would end very quickly and as I said before I didn't know there was any throat from the Wast. And, in case of peace the Plan of Madagascar which had already been rejected could once more be placed in the foreground. If on the other hand this suggestion was to be accepted and if at that time the war had not yet ended, the carrying out of this experiment on the 100-200 Jews was much loss of an evil than Himmler taking the Jews and sterilizing them en masse or doing something worse to them.
Q: Mr. Brack, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that, at that time, you had to make a decision between either killing millions of Jews or choosing the smaller evil by only suggesting this small number which you have mentioned upon whom experiments might be carried out. Is my opinion correct?
A: During my interrogations I designated this dilemma in a way by saying that this was our last way out. But, naturally, when judging these two possibilities one must take into consideration that one decides upon one possibility and, at the same time, feels an inner justification for doing so. The same way as a troop commander sacrifices a few thousand people somewhere if he can save a hundred thousand somewhere else.
Q: Now, Mr. Brack, in order to conclude this letter I want to say that you have stated the following at the end of that letter, and I quote?
In summary it may be said that having regard to the present state of radiology technique and research, mass sterilization by means of X-rays can be carried out without difficulty. However, it seems to be impossible to do this in such a way that the persons concerned do not, sooner or later, realize with certainty that they have been sterilized or castrated by X-rays.
In your covering letter you apparently mentioned your second letter, and I quote:
I request your instructions as to further theoretical or practical steps which are to be taken in this matter.
What is the significance of this latter statement?
A: By using this formulation I endeavored to keep control of the development of that matter. I never really counted on the realization of these experiments and I never had any intention to submit a serious proposal to Himmler which would cause the sterilization of millions of Jews, but if Himmler was to accept this nonsensical proposal I wanted to have a delaying effect on his idea for as long as possible.
If this suggestion had been serious on my part I would have had to be a fanatical Jew hater, and I think I have already proved that I was not such a person, and, in that connection, I may emphasize the following: At the same time I sent this letter to Himmler, influential circles made efforts that the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for cell physiology was to be transferred to an old Party member. At the head of that institute, Professor Dr. Warburg had been placed, who was a half Jew. It was the aim of these circles to obtain the merits of the research work which Warburg had been carrying on — who had incidentally won the Nobel Prize. If I had been a fanatical National Socialist I would have supported this endeavor of these circles. I, however, did exactly the opposite. I helped Warburg and I therefore sustained this institute for Germany and for the world.
Q: Mr. President, I am now going to submit the important document # 12, to be found in my document book on page 32 and 33, of Professor Warburg. I want to point out that this affidavit had already been handed to the Family Brack before the beginning of this trial in order to help Brack in the trial which he expected before the de-Nazification board. After the beginning of the trial I turned to Professor Warburg, asking him to change the introduction of that affidavit to fit it for the purposes of the Military Tribunal at Nurnberg. Dr. Warburg corresponded to my request and I shall now read that document and I quote:
I, Professor Warburg, scientific member of the Kaiser Wilhelm Association since 1914, director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Cell Physiology since 1931, member of the Royal Society in London, winner of the Nobel Prize for medicine, herewith give the following affidavit.
I have been advised that this affidavit will be submitted to the Military Tribunal I in Nurnberg and that I will be subject to severe penalties if I make false statements.
The Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Cell Physiology, the director of which I have been since its foundation, was established and partly supported with funds from the Rockefeller Foundation. Because of this fact, I retained my position until 1941, although I am a half-Jew.
In 1941 I was dismissed by the Kaiser Wilhelm Association. The then Chief of the Chancellery of the Fuehrer, Philipp Bouhler, learned about my dismissal and ordered his staff leader Viktor Brack to review my case.
In a few weeks Viktor Brack succeeded in having my dismissal cancelled; in this way he most probably saved my life and for science a medical research institute of world renown working exclusively for peaceful purposes.
'I did this', Brack told me on 21 June 1941, 'not for you or for Germany, but for the world.'
Considering that Brack did this at a time when racial hatred and war psychosis had reached their climax in Germany, one has to admire the courage with which Brack advanced the cause of tolerance and the peaceful work of science against the basic principles of National Socialism.
I have read the above affidavit and I have found it to be in all parts correct.
/s/ Professor Otto Warburg
The authenticity of the certificate is certified by the notary von Lewinski on the 3rd of February 1947.
In addition to that document I also —
THE PRESIDENT: (Interrupting) Counsel, will you give us an exhibit number for this document?
BY DR. FROESCHMANN:
Q: Mr. President, I beg your pardon, this will become Exhibit 32.
In addition to that document I submit Document #13 in my document volume which is the affidavit of Professor Dr. Walter Schoeller residing at Allensbach on the Lake of Constance. This will be Exhibit 33. I quote:
For many years I was a member of the Kaiser Wilhelm Society and curator of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Cell Physiology which was headed by my friend Professor Warburg. In that capacity I heard from Dr. Telschow, the Director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Society, that the Ministry of Culture has asked the Kaiser Welhelm Society to dismiss Warburg, as he was 'racially tainted', from his father's side. To prevent this I got into touch with Reichsleiter [Reich Leader] Bouhler who appeared open to my representations and entrusted his assistant in the Chancellery, Viktor Brack, with the handling of this case. Mr. Brack's efforts were completely successful. The pertinent depositions of Professor Warburg as made in his statement of 5 September 1946 are in every respect in accordance with my recollections.
This statement of 5 September 1946 is the one I mentioned earlier; namely the one Mr. Warburg made available to the Family Brack for the purposes of submission before the de-Nazification board. I sent copies of this affidavit to Professor Schoeller. He goes on:
I have carefully read the above statement and found it correct in every respect.
Signed and certified by Dr. Carl Haensel under the date of 7th of February, 1947.
Mr. Brack, you have stated on the 28th of March, 1941 that you sent this letter to Himmler.
You further stated that if there was no other evidence for the correctness of your statement you would point to the affidavit of Professor Warburg. That is the sense of what you said?
A: Yes.
Q: In order to bring this matter to a conclusion, did you experience any resistance to your efforts in connection with Warburg?
A: Yes, I had considerable difficulties. The Gestapo and Bormann learned about my endeavors on behalf of Warburg. My own collaborators warned me a few times not to bring these matters to an explosion but I did that in spite of all these difficulties and helped Professor Warburg. I was then asked to call on the Gestapo and I was given a warning by Gruppenfuehrer [General] Mueller.
Q: Witness, I must again revert to your affidavit. In this affidavit you make some mention of having made a sterilization suggestion to Hitler. Rather, that you did not send him that suggestion directly, but you discussed that question with your chief, Reichsleiter Bouhler.
A: It may well be that I discussed that matter with Bouhler. In view of the rejection of the Madagascar Plan I am sure that Bouhler would have rejected any such proposal, but I mixed these two things up and I am afraid that my memory wasn't quite clear at that time.
Q: But, Mr. Brack, a document was submitted here, the Document No. 216, Exhibit 170, which is to be found in the German document book 6, page 54, and in the English document volume 6, page 56. This is a file notice of July, 1942. This file notice originates from the defendant Rudolf Brandt and refers to a conference which took place on the 7th of July, 1942, between the Reichsfuehrer SS, SS Brigadefuehrer [Brigadier General] Professor Dr. Gebhardt, Bluecks and Klauberg.
You have the document book before you?
A: Yes.
Q: In Paragraph two the name of Professor Dr. Hohlfelder is mentioned who is an X-ray specialist in Germany. He says:
It should also be examined, preferably in cooperation with Professor Dr. Hohlfelder, an X-ray specialist in Germany, in what way sterilization of men could be achieved by X-ray treatment.
Tell us who was Dr. Hohlfelder?
A: Hohlfelder was the head of the SS X-ray Unit.
Q: What do you mean by SS X-ray Unit?
A: The X-ray Unit was an institution of the SS and of Himmler. It had existed long before the War. It was committed to carry out investigations in areas which were subject to tuberculosis. A method had been found partly through Hohlfelder which made it possible for X-ray investigation to be carried out with a normal film. Such units were then established and were going through the country.
Q: But you know that from before 1941?
A: Yes, I think that took place in 1937 or 1938.
Q: Did you ever speak to Hohlfelder?
A: No, I didn't know Hohlfelder and I never talked to him.
Q: Witness, reading that document one would arrive at the thought that Himmler was consulting those X-ray specialists because he didn't quite consider your suggestion feasible which had preceded that letter; can that be possible?
A: Yes, that is possible, but in no way can be contest with that my good intention which I had when making that proposal. That of course you cannot remove. At first I received no report from Himmler's staff at all which let me conclude that he was continuing with his sterilization intentions. I was completely calm thinking that I had achieved my purpose and had deviated Himmler's mind from this sterilization idea. The Document NO 204, the reply letter from Himmler to me came to me only after a period of more than two months.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, the Document NO 204 can be found in the English Document Book Volume 6, page 38, and in the German Document Book Volume 6, page 37.
I may quote this short document in order to clarify matters:
Top Secret
addressed to
Oberstdienstleiter [Superintendent] Viktor Brack, Berlin W8 Voss Strasse 4
A little while before his departure to Greece by plane the Reichsfuehrer-SS gave me the order to thank you very much for your report about the X-ray castration experiments forwarded to us with your letter of 28 March 1941.
He has read the report with interest and will discuss this question with you at the first opportunity.
What did you concluded from this letter?
A: This letter proves to me Himmler's interest. It contains no rejection, but made the pursuance of the entire matter dependent upon another discussion. This discussion, however, did not come about, and therewith I thought I had won a considerable period of time, and that Himmler would not continue with this idea.
Q: Did you speak to Himmler some other time in the year 1941?
A: Yes, I once more dealt with Himmler in 1941 in connection with the case of Dr. Ludwig Schmitt, whose affidavit was submitted this morning.
Q: I merely wanted to ascertain whether you had anymore dealings with Himmler in the year 1941. What kind of reaction did you feel in the case of Schmitt about whom you were speaking? One moment—
DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, may I remind the Tribunal of the exhibit 25, which I have submitted this morning, which is the affidavit of Dr. Ludwig Schmitt, the most part of which I have already read. From this affidavit I shall only quote another two short paragraphs. This is in the German Document Book 2, page 59. I am sorry Document Book 1, page 59, to Schmitt. It says here:
I was first arrested for a short period in November 1933 and again on 21 April 1934 when I was detained for 1-1/2 years. I was arrested for political reasons at the personal instigation of Heydrich.
I had helped about 18 persecuted anti-fascists over the border. Among these were: The well known socialist Sternberg from Berlin, Bert Brecht's female assistant and Brecht's child, Otto Strasser and his friends.
It was Brack's opinion — as he later frankly admitted that, though he was a national socialist himself, he did not expect every German to have the same political views. It should be the right of every German to leave Germany and to adopt another country, if he disapproved the national socialistic regime. If I helped those Germans to escape, my action was prompted by idealistic motives and should not be punished by the Nazi state. That is why he fully understood my action and did not hesitate to intervene on my behalf.
And then, Witness, it continues:
In 1941 I was arrested for the third time, again for political reasons. Brack again then personally drafted together with Bouhler a petition to Himmler and kept my relatives informed about the position. He accompanied Bouhler to Himmler, and another time he called on Himmler alone in order to obtain my release. However, Himmler refused my release and declared that I would have to remain in the concentration camp for the rest of my life. Himmler also prevented all further efforts concerning myself with Hitler and warned both Bouhler and Brack not to undertake any further action on my behalf.
This is the matter of Dr. Ludwig Schmitt.
A: Yes.
Q: What reaction did you feel because of this fact?
A: This brought about an even stronger rejection of Himmler's attitude. I couldn't understand it. For many years I considered him to have a decent character and now suddenly I found that I had been wrong. All the human trends which he had demonstrated up to that point were suddenly lost. I assume that Heydrich's hand was apparent behind these matters, but of course I also erred in my opinion about Himmler.
Simultaneously I think also in the summer of 1942 some other case arose in connection with some release from the concentration camp. Bouhler had endeavored that a former officer of the Wehrmacht be released from the concentration camp and shortly before this granted release he died under suspicious circumstances in the concentration camp. There were good reasons for suspicion. He had been visited and seen by some members of his family in a completely, healthy state, and I think that he had died within two days. Bouhler discussed that matter with Himmler, all of which brought me to dispair of Himmler's attitude.
Q: Then you did have doubts about Himmler's mentality, but you didn't quite see through it yet, did you?
A: Well, I had believed in that man for too long a period of time. I thought that everything originated from Heydrich, and I thought that Heydrich was deceiving Himmler, but then for the first; time I became doubtful about Himmler himself.
Q: Did you ever hear that Himmler was pursued for sterilization intentions and in particular did you hear anything to the effect that your letter which we had mentioned in detail before, had been submitted to Pohl, the Obergruppenfuehrer [Lieutenant General] Pohl?
A: I neither received knowledge of the fact that Himmler was pursuing the sterilization intentions, nor did I know that this letter had been submitted to Heydrich, not Pohl. I only reconstructed that from the documents which I have seen here.
Q: Now, Mr. Brack, you know that it is the Prosecution's position that you didn't only participate in the extermination of Jewry by writing this letter alone, but that you sent a further letter to Himmler in 1942; in this connection in particular you are brought in connection with a very infamous name, Globochik; would you please inform the Tribunal when and under what circumstances you made Globochik's acquaintance?
Beginning with September I accompanied Bouhler on a ride to the former Governor-General Frank. We then met Globocnik and I made his acquaintance at that time.
Q: What was the subject of your conversation with Globocnik?
A: I did not have any conversation with him at all. I just listened to what he said to Bouhler. Globocnik told Bouhler about his entire work in Poland; about his special assignment according to which the people who had been removed from Germany were committed for work in Poland. Furthermore, he said that factories were to be instituted in the Ukraine with similar installations as in the concentration camp of Dachau, which were to be instituted by the governor-general.
Q: Did Globocnik give you an opportunity to view and inspect this work which was being created?
A: I went to one of these works accompanied by the Reichsleiter, where a number of things were produced. Part of the workers were housed in barracks, and part of them in town, some had been residing there, and some had been re-settled. So far as I can remember, they were producing shoes, motor cars, small furniture, and there were some tailor shops. These other things I still remember. I am sure that there were a few thousand Jews there who were working there. In this rather great factory I saw nothing about any torture, or anything like that. The physical condition was good, and they seemed to be nourished properly.
Q: Now, Mr. Brack, did Globocnik at that time tell you about the exploitation of labor — of the Jewish labor, which was intended by Pohl?
A: No. There was no mention made of any exploitation. There was only mention made of proper commitment of that labor.
Q: In that case you saw —
A: What I saw was absolutely positive creative work.
Q: It was no concentration camp, was it?
A: No. It was a big work compound. There were no barbed wires, or anything like that.
It looked just like any other large factory.
Q: Did you on this opportunity notice anything of any installations which could serve as any extermination of Jews? Did you see any gas chambers, or anything like that. Did you possibly hear something of such chambers from Globocnik, or somebody else?
A: No, neither did I hear of anything like that, nor did I see anything which attracted my particular attention. It was my impression that this was an absolutely normal factory compound.
Q: When was that again?
A: It was in the Fall of 1941. I think the beginning of September 1941.
Q: Now in the late Fall of 1941 you left for a considerable period of time, and that at the end of October 1941 you came back from your leave, is that true?
A: Yes.
Q: During that time a certain decision arose within you, as you have told me, which matured, may I put it that way?
A: I wanted to volunteer for the front. I wanted to join the Army, because I did not like the entire political development. So far as I could judge, Hitler's aims became more and more radical. I personally was watched by the chief of the Gestapo. I was warned by him and Himmler warned me because of my interference in the case of Schmitt, and there were many similar measures so that I saw no longer any possibility for positive work to be done on by me. When voicing this intention I found intensive resistance on the part of many of my friends. They said if I loft my post, there would be nobody left to whom one could turn in case of political difficulties, and who, disregarding any personal agency, was always ready and willing to help, even political opponents.
Q: Mr. Brack, may I catch up with something I forgot a little while ago. You were saying that Globocnik had been talking about a special assignment?
A: Yes, a few special assignments.
Q: You know that the expression "special assignment" has gained a very unpleasant meaning during the trial here in Nurnberg, because one even likes to understand by "special assignment" special treatment, and special treatment in that regard seems today to have purely a meaning of liquidation. Now when Globocnik was discussing his special assignment in connection with the commitment of labor consisting of Jews, did you have the idea that it meant extermination?
A: No, no idea at all. I heard the expression "special treatment" of this meaning here for the first time.
Q: Had you known about this expression "special treatment" from your physical activity?
A: No, of course not.
Q: Now may I continue where I interrupted before. We now return to the time of the end of October, or the beginning of November, which brings us before Christmas of 1%1. What happened Christmast of 1941?
A: My intentions of becoming a soldier, and going to the front were assisted by a special assignment from Hitler. The Armament Ministry Todt previously reported to Hitler that the Army alone could not deal with the problem of housing, and winter aid to the troops in Russia during that catastrophe in the winter of 1941, which has been discussed here in detail, and I shall dispense with repeating it in detail. The Fuehrer ordered at that time that my medical institution, that all sanitary institutions would have to help in that matter, and among them was Bouhler's Institution which dealt with euthanasia. I asked Bouhler for permission to take a few buses and some of his personnel, and to participate in this aid action within the framework of the Todt organization. I must state here that in August 1741 euthanasia had been interrupted by order of Hitler, and a large part of the personnel for that reason was released. In spite of that, the personnel was not used, and many of them were in a position to participate in this aid action.
In the Winter of 1941 I went to the East, and in January 1942 a larger group also went to the East for that purpose. That can be seen from a letter written by the witness Menneke to his wife.
Q: When did you return from the East, in order to bring this chapter to a conclusion?
A: I returned at the beginning of March. The details about my activity there ought to be listed here.
Q: Well, then, you returned to Berlin?
A: Yes, when I returned to Berlin, my mother died within a few days. Up to that time I had been obliged to look after her, and now that was no longer necessary. I had no personal concerns at home any longer, and, I, therefore, volunteered for the front. Of course, with the approval of Reichsleiter Bouhler. But something happened in the meantime, there was a conversation with Himmler.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, I am now coming to the second conversation between Brack and Himmler, which will take up some time, in which Himmler told Brack about his far reaching plan, and perhaps it would be advisable to take a recess now.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will take recess until 9:30 o'clock tomorrow morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 14 May 1947 at 0930 hours.)