1947-05-14, #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 Nuernberg, Germany, on 14 May 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.

THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats.

The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal I. Military Tribunal I is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal. There will be order in the courtroom.

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, you ascertain if the defendants are all present in court.

THE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honor, all the defendants are present in the court with the exception of the defendant Becker-Freyseng, who is absent, having been excused yesterday.

THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary General will note for the record the presence of all the defendants in court save the defendant Becker-Freyseng who is excused upon request of his counsel in order to consult with his counsel.

Counsel may proceed.

DR. FROESCHMANN (Counsel for the defendant Brack): Mr. President, I have a request to make at the beginning of this morning's session. In the case Brack, which I initially imagined to be only small, it has become extended in the last six months, owing to the enormous amount of material, to one of the biggest cases of this proceeding. Altogether I had received over 750 applications, offers, and representations from people who declared themselves ready to come here as witnesses or write affidavits on his behalf. Of this large number I only submitted 36 affidavits to this Tribunal. Three of these affidavits are contained in a supplemental volume which I submitted to the Secretary General only a few days ago because they had come in too late. I should be very grateful to the Tribunal if they would ask the Secretary General to have this supplemental volume translated by tomorrow morning because at that time I hope to be finished with the direct examination of my client.

THE PRESIDENT: The clerk of the Tribunal will convey to the Secretary General the request to expedite, as much as possible, the documents referred to by counsel for the defendant Brack, and place before the Tribunal at the earliest possible time the supplemental document book to which counsel has referred.

DR. FROESCHMANN: I didn't quite get the German translation; I didn't have my switch on correctly. I was concerned with supplemental volume number 3. Thank you very much, Your Honor.

VIKTOR BRACK — Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued)

BY DR. FROESCHMANN (Counsel for the defendant Brack):

Q: Witness, I at first remind you that you are still under oath today.

A: Yes.

Q: Yesterday we concluded the session while you were talking about the time you volunteered for the Army. What happened before you joined the SS?

A: On the occasion of my mother's death I met my brother — he was a mechanical engineer and a motor transport officer in an SS division. He complained to me that he was continually receiving wrong technical orders, which in part had a result in the catastrophe resulting from the lack of motor vehicles. I, myself, while in Russia aiding the wounded people, had an opportunity to observe our motor transport problem. For that reason I decided to visit Himmler and report these matters to him in order to improve that situation, if possible.

DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, in that connection I should like to revert to Exhibit No. 5, which is the affidavit already submitted by the brother of the defendant Brack, Document 41, paragraph 3. This is to be found on page 1 of supplemental volume number 1.

BY DR. FROESCHMANN:

Q: Would you continue please.

A: I reported these matters to Himmler but subsequently, I don't know why, voiced my criticism about other matters within the SS.

Himmler quietly listened to me but then tried to convince me in his way about the correctness of what he was doing. He admitted that some things in the SS weren't as he would like them to be, and that some of the men in the SS did not quite fit into the organization. But, he said, at this critical point he needed every single one of the old SS members. He said, approximately, only if the old comrades would stand by him faithfully could the SS cleanse itself of these people who did not fit into it. He could only expect the most heavy tasks to be carried out by the old SS members. Then he suddenly stopped and told me that Hitler had some time ago given him the order for the extermination of the Jews. He said that the preparations had already been made, and I think that he used the expression that for reasons of camouflage one would have to work as quickly as possible.

He seemed to say these things devoid of any inner approval of them, but he also said them as if they were a matter of course. I had the feeling that he didn't innerly approve of these orders but he showed no sign of any mental shock. I, however, was deeply shocked to hear of these developments because now for the first time I had heard concretely, by somebody who was in a position to know, that all of these rumors were actually true; that there was in effect the intention to exterminate the Jews.

I don't know whether Himmler expected to make this impression on me. I thought that Himmler expected that I would offer my assistance in this matter. I couldn't say anything but that this seemed to me to be an enormous task and that I could not understand how Himmler could bear the responsibility before humanity for these acts. I then tried to conclude this conversation as quickly as possible, and on this occasion told Himmler that Bouhler had permitted me to volunteer for the Army and that for that purpose I had already gone to the Fuehrungshauotamt [Head Office]. After that I departed.

Q: What was the result of that conversation?

A: I redoubled my efforts to get to the front and I tried to conclude the formalities as quickly as possible. Now a fate was taking its course, which I did not think I could successfully oppose. I saw before me a possibility to do something for my nation in a decent way. However, I wanted to get away from an office and a Fuehrer whose radicalism I had begun to realize more and more and where my reason would not allow me to cooperate any longer. I thought that only as a soldier could I put distance between these things and myself. I did only what many of other comrades had already done before, comrades who no longer wanted anything to do with the high leadership and who went to the front.

Q: Now Mr. Brack then I think at the end of April or the beginning of May you went to the front, but wasn't there another event in April which may be of some importance for the Tribunal?

A: Yes. Before I left I met — and by accident, we could ascertain the date, the 19th of April — I met Globocnik at a concert on the 19th of April in Berlin. Globocnik asked me whether Reichleiter [Reich Leader] Bouhler was in Berlin and whether he could speak to him. I said, yes, Bouhler was there and he could visit him. Globocnik did that and Bouhler told me after this conversation that Globocnik had asked him to furnish him supervisory personnel fur his working shops in Berlin, which was to be taken from the T-4 euthanasia program. Reichsleiter [Reich Leader] Bouhler said he complied with this request of Globocnik, but he reserved the right that these people should return to him as soon as the execution of the euthanasia was once more started. I approximately remember the words of Bouhler who said:

Here these people will be used in a productive capacity, because they would be working in the camps, and as soon as I need them I shall get them once more.

Bouhler told me I was to issue a directive to T-4 that these peoples were to be furnished. These people were then separated from the organization and were detailed to him.

Q: Witness, there is a document available here, NO-205, Exhibit 163, English Document Book, volume 6, page 39. This is the well known second letter in which you concerned yourself with euthanasia proposals. You write on the 23 June 1942, and the letter is addressed to Himmler:

On the instructions of Reichleiter Bouhler I placed some of my men — already some time ago — at the disposal of Brigadefuehrer [Brigadier General] Globocnik to execute his special mission.

Have you the document before you?

A: Yes, I have it.

Q: As far as I read this introduction in this letter, is it a reference to the conversation you had with Globocnik, for is it in reference to the directive which Bouhler gave you as a result of that conversation which you had with Globocnik?

A: Yes.

Q: Witness, I once more revert to your affidavit NO 426. There is a paragraph in that affidavit entitled:

Connection between the "E" program, the euthanasia program, and SS Brigadefuehrer Globocnik.

Would you please define your attitude toward this rather strange title in your affidavit?

A: The formulation of that title does not originate from me. It was chosen by the author of that affidavit.

When I was interrogated I did not know anything about any connection between Globocnik and the euthanasia program. The interrogator perhaps thought it expedient to formulate that title in such a manner. As a matter of fact there was no connection between the execution of euthanasia and whatever Globocnik was doing. The one was euthanasia, mercy death for sick people whose existence could really not be called living any longer, and the other meant the murder of hundreds of thousands of Jews. At that time I didn't really pay any attention to the title but limited myself to the text, as far as I could understand it.

Q: Witness, in other words you want to say that when submitting this affidavit, as far as you were in a position to follow it, you attached more importance to the text contained in your statement than you did to the titles given to the various chapters within your affidavit? For that reason you did not attach the importance to this heading, which seems to establish a connection between euthanasia and Globocnik, that an outside observer might?

A: I didn't really understand it in its significance.

Q: Now in this statement you were referring to this personnel which was to be furnished for Lublin. With reference to paragraph 14 within your affidavit, is there anything you would like to add? Did you at that time perhaps remember the matter somewhat differently? It says here:

The Fuehrer asked me to send this personnel to Lublin, after a conference with Himmler, at the disposal of the Brigadefuehrer Globocnik.

A: At that time I really didn't know it exactly. I really didn't know what the connections were at that time. As a matter of fact it was Globocnik who discussed that matter with Bouhler and not Himmler. My limitation in that sentence, as I believe, is really justified.

Q: Then you go on to say:

Bouhler asked me to furnish those personnel which could be released because of the stoppage of the action.

This does not quite correspond with your statement now, because now you only say you were going to furnish a part of these people.

A: I already stated that at the time that we were only concerned with a small part of the people, about twenty to thirty, only a small part of them were released. Even after the euthanasia as such was stopped, the scientific and preparatory work, however, was still going on.

Q: You stated during your interrogation what you have said to the Tribunal today, that Bouhler told you at that time that he wanted to reserve the right to use that personnel later for euthanasia?

A: Yes, I stated that at the time. I said that Bouhler was worried, that Bormann would carry on with the euthanasia program if he didn't control it any longer, and that then a misuse was to be expected, and I further stated it was my opinion that this personnel would be used in the work camps. Perhaps I didn't emphasize that sufficiently when I was interrogated at that time, because my memory at that time wasn't clear enough. It was quite clear that Bouhler only furnished personnel for that purpose, and under the condition that they would only be used in the work camps.

Q: Witness, the Prosecution asserts that Bouhler, in full knowledge of the purposes for which they were to be used, had furnished T-4 personnel to Globocnik in order to exterminate the Jews. You were previously speaking of a conversation with Himmler which took place in the beginning of April 1942. According to your further statement Globocnik, on the 19th or 20th April 1942, had spoken to Bouhler.

I can then understand the point of view of the Prosecution when they say that on the occasion of this visit of 20 April 1942, Bouhler, by request of Globocnik, furnished that personnel to him for the purpose of the extermination of the Jews. You know what the witness Hederich had testified here about Bouhler.

We need not repeat it. I am asking you, however, knowing the mentality and the personality of the Reichleiter Bouhler, do you consider it possible, or would you say that it was out of the question, that Bouhler in that conversation of the 20 April 1942, furnished the personnel of T-4 to Globocnik for the purpose of the extermination of the Jews? Have you anything that could make you believe that, yes or no?

A: I think that it is quite out of the question that Bouhler would have furnished the personnel to Globocnik had been known that it was Globocnik who had received the order from Himmler to exterminate the Jews. I am convinced that Bouhler would have rejected any such thought, as he actually did later, and I actually did inform him of the subject of my conversation with Himmler. At that occasion Bouhler quite openly expressed his disapproval about this, and he said, "This is the beginning of the end", I had no occasion, and Bouhler had no occasion to connect Globocnik in any way with extermination of the Jews. Both of us when visiting Lublin in September 1941 had seen all of the construction work and we saw that some of the factories were already operating. We could not imagine that these people were to be used for anything else but working in these camps.

Q: Witness, let me interpolate a question. Did you at any time during the War learn that people were committed from the T-4 for the purpose of extermination of the Jews, or have you only heard that they allegedly were committed for such a purpose?

A: From my new knowledge I can say nothing. I already emphasized during my pre-interrogation that I heard at the end of 1942 that these people were allegedly used for the extermination of the Jews. Whether they were actually used for such a purpose — I still don't know that. I am convinced at first that they actually were used in the manner designated by Bouhler, namely working camps. It is possible that Globocnik later had started to use them for the extermination of the Jews, after having thought perhaps that there would be no objection on the part of Bouhler.

Q: Witness, as you stated earlier, you went to the front at the end of April or beginning of May — your division was stationed in the South. In the course June 1942 did you once more return to Berlin?

A: Up to the time the division went into action I went a few times to Berlin because the division was only being activated and I as supply officer had often to go to Berlin. That is why on 9 June I was in Berlin because my Commanding Officer had asked to attend the funeral of Heydrich and had to fly to Berlin.

On this occasion he also took me along in the plane. At that time, I remained in Berlin for a few days in order to do some work there.

Q: One moment, Mr. President, in order to confirm the testimony of the witness Brack to the effect that on 9 June and there after which will be some importance, he was in Berlin — I should like to refer to my Exhibit Brack 11 on page 2 para 2. This is the affidavit of Karl Wolf.

THE PRESIDENT: Page 2 of what Document book?

DR. FROESCHMANN: This is my document No. 4 page 9 of Document Book No. 1 and submitted by me as Exhibit Brack No. 11. It is on page 10, Paragraph 2. It says:

I met Brack only infrequently during the war, so for instance at the funeral of Heydrich in Berlin on 9 June 1942.

This establishes the correctness of the testimony of the witness Brack. Witness, will you please continue.

A: During these days I was in Berlin I also visited Bouhler.

He told me that Globocnik had visited him a second time and had asked that more personnel be detailed from T-4. Bouhler agreed because he thought he could dispense with some more of his personnel. After getting his agreement Globocnik took him into his confidence as the conversation progressed and told him that he had been committed by the Reichsfuehrer Himmler to help carry out the extermination of the Jews. Bouhler was quite shocked about this information and he immediately withdrew his agreement to furnish this personnel, and he also asked that personnel which had already been detailed to him should be returned. Bouhler, as he told me, maintained the point of view that it was utterly impossible to use people for the execution of Euthanasia once they had already been used for such a terrible purpose. He said that the assignment as Globocnik was carrying through had as a result the absolute degradation and brutalization of the people involved. Globocnik however, then told him that these people wouldn't be use for that purpose, but would only be used as supervisory personnel in working camps.

Bouhler then withdrew this objection to the use of the personnel.

Q: And what about you witness?

A: I had already given up all hope after that conversation with Himmler that the course of this fate could be stopped in any way. But I had always hoped that foreign political considerations might perhaps dissuade Hitler from carrying out all these plans. But, if that was not the case the thought arose in me whether one shouldn't once more make the attempt to dissuade Hitler from these plans for purely practical reason, which we would, that stage of the war the labor supply played a considerable part. In all countries labor was needed forced labor began to be used because our own resources were no longer sufficient. Under these considerations one could perhaps persuade Hitler that it would be more expedient to use these Jews in Labor rather than exterminate them. I told Bouhler at that time that in the case of these 8 to 10 million European Jews there must, I am sure be a great number of Jews who are capable for work. One must put it to Hitler that it was of immense importance to save this potential labor pool. Hitler's concern that Germany itself could be endangered for the future would have to be countered by telling him that the sterilization plan could be once more put into execution, because by using this plan of permanent sterilization the danger could be removed. If Hitler would entertain that thought we imagined that so much time would lapse that the War would come to an end in the meantime. This would mean really that not only these Jews capable to work but all other Jews would be spared. Even if this deception were noticed at the end, a long time would have lapsed in the mean time.

Q: Witness, if I understand you correctly, after receiving that information from Bouhler and after hearing that Globockik had been commissioned to exterminate the Jews in the East, you initiated the thought of stopping this terrible measure by trying once more to put to Himmler and Hitler the plan of a permanent sterilization of the Jews?

A: I brought up that thought in the debate because Bouhler was so shocked, and was always asking, "How can we possibly help? How can we keep this madness from happening?" And then I thought of the sterilization program. We tried to find some possibility to help. It was like the straw which the man drowning tries to grasp.

Q: Did the situation appear somewhat easier because of Heydrich's death in January, 1941?

A: Yes, it seemed considerably easier. I always thought that it was Heydrich who played a considerable role in all these brutal measures. After Heydrich's death, I believed that Himmler had quieted down somewhat. Bouhler listened to all these proposals, but did not dare to approach Hitler personally. And he was right: He told me that after he as Reichsleiter had already been refused permission to carry out the Madagascar Plan he could not possibly, particularly in view of Bormann's attitude, suggest another such plan to Hitler; but he said that there was a possibility of trying it via Himmler. Then, of course, after having been rejected by Hitler once, he could not himself propose that plan, because if this plan was again rejected it would have been very unpleasant for him. He said that if I was going to do that, because of my good relationship to Himmler, that would be something entirely different, and then he would be able to support me, because I was his subordinate, in case any difficulties for me arose with Himmler.

Q: Witness, when discussing this conversation you were speaking of the labor problem which began to be of paramount importance. Did Himmler, in any way, participate in the solution of this problem?

A: Not directly. Himmler, as Globocnik told us, had already issued the order in the fall that forests were to be planted in the Ukraine and that, of course, would have been a possibility of a large-scale labor commitment.

Q: And for that reason you believed that Himmler was the suitable person, needing so many workers, for you to give the argument to that workers were necessary?

A: We had plenty of work but there weren't sufficient workers and, for that reason, we would have to put it to him that he would have to save as many workers as possible. How, of course, he could put that matter to Hitler in turn was his own affair but, at any rate, Himmler was the more powerful man, not Bouhler.

Q: Now witness, Bouhler thought that he personally could not approach Hitler. Bouhler didn't seem to be particularly anxious to approach Himmler. How did it come about that you offered yourself in approaching Himmler?

A: Bouhler almost put this offer into my mouth. He said "You can do it." His own relationship to Himmler was too estranged, and he said that he could support me in case any difficulties for me arose. I, at that time, already know that after Heydrich's death there couldn't be any immediate danger. In addition, I was already in the army. I really didn't think that he would notice so very quickly that this plan couldn't be carried out in practice — I thought that would take many months.

Q: Now, Mr. Brack, let us turn to the most important point.

The prosecution has submitted the Document NO-205. During the opening statement at the beginning of this trial it designated this letter as a sub-human and depraved report, and they said that this was no sterilization to exterminate people suffering from hereditary diseases, but that here sterilization was used for criminal purposes. You will have to admit that this assertion of the prosecution, can not be considered in view of this letter, to be without justification. I ask you now, in view of this enormous charge which was raised against you, to tell the Tribunal how you came to write this letter of 23 June 1942, and how you wanted to be understood. In this way, the Tribunal will be in a position to gain an objective picture of what happened and what was done.

A: How I came to write this letter I already told you. It was as a result of that conversation with Bouhler. How this letter was actually submitted to me in the interrogations I can't remember. I saw only the first two sentences, and also acknowledged my signature underneath it. At that time of the date of this letter I was already with the army and when this letter was first shown to me I thought that this letter couldn't possibly have originated from me. In the meantime, however, I recalled more of the details. Today I can only repeat that I do not believe that this letter originated from me in actual wording. I think that it had only been sent to me for my signature. I believe I can remember either that I drafted this letter roughly, or gave one of my collaborators the order to write it. No matter how that may be, this letter represents essentially the intentions Bouhler and I had. The significance of that letter is not in its beginning — is not in its introductory words. The significance of that letter is solely that mention is made of the possibility of the labor commitment of the Jews.

Q: I think that it is correct that I once more cite this document, with the approval of the Tribunal, in order to enable every one to understand the question. It is the Document 205, Volume 6, English Document Book, page 39. The letter is not long and will only take a few minutes to read:

Viktor Brack, SS-Oberfuehrer [Senior Colonel]

Top Secret — Berlin — 23 June 1942

Dear Reichsfuehrer:

On the instructions of Reichsleiter Bouhler I placed some of my men — already some time ago — at the disposal of Brigadefuehrer Globocnik to execute his special mission. On his renewed request I now transferred additional personel. On this occasion Brigadefuehrer Globocnik stated his opinion that the whole Jew-Action should be completed as quickly as possible so that one would not get caught in the middle of it one day if some difficulties should make a stoppage of the action necessary. You yourself, Reichsfuehrer, have already expressed your view, that work should progress quickly for reasons of camouflage alone. Both points which in principle arrive at the same result are more than justified as far as my own experience goes; nevertheless would you kindly allow me to submit the following argument:

Among 10 Millions of Jews in Europe are, I figure, at least 2 to 3 millions of men and women, who are fit enough for work. Considering the extraordinary difficulties, the labor problem presents us with I hold the view that these 2 or 3 millions should be specially selected and preserved. This can however only be done, if at the same time they are rendered incapable to propagate. About a year ago I reported to you that agents of mine have completed the experiments necessary for this purpose.

I would like to recall those facts once more. Sterilization, as normally performed on persons with hereditary diseases, is here out of the question because it takes too long and is too expensive. Castration by x-rays however is not only relatively cheap, but can also be performed on many thousands in the shortest time. I think, that at this time, it is already irrelevant whether the people in question become aware of having been castrated after some weeks or months, once they feel the effects.

Should you, Reichsfuehrer, decide to choose this way in the interest of the preservation of labor, then Reichsleiter Bouhler would be prepared to place all physicians and other personnel needed for this work at your disposal. Likewise he requested me to inform you, that then I would have to order the apparatus so urgently needed with the greatest speed.

/s/ Viktor Brack

Witness, I ask you now to define your attitude toward that letter.

A: I have already said that the significance of this letter is only the labor forces which are mentioned. I had nothing at all personally to do with the commitment of labor. It was a matter of complete indifference to me, and it would have been a matter of complete indifference to me whence Hitler or Himmler got their workers for their plans. If I had a proposal to Himmler mentioning the capability of the Jews to work it was only based upon my wish to stop this mass murder at the last minute and try to point out the possibility of permanent sterilization, which was already mentioned in my previous letter to Himmler. The pretext which I used was old and I knew that this method could really not work. I didn't concern myself with the manner any more, and no experiments had been carried through. The new thing in this suggestion is my reference to the maintenance of productive labor. After not having spoken to Himmler since April 1942 I had to find some point of attack, and I did get this point of attack by my reference to the conversation between Globocnik and Bouhler regarding the detailing of T-4 personnel. Himmler was hardly informed that Globocnik had taken Bouhler into his confidence about his extermination assignments. I had to explain that, and for this reason I made reference to the furnishing of personnel to Globocnik. If a special mission is mentioned as the purpose of this furnishing, I must say that under "special mission" I understood the large-scale work projects at Lublin, which I had visited. In this way I pointed out the manpower possibilities to Himmler. I had to make some reference to when and how Globocnik told Bouhler of his plans and for this reason I constructed this introductory sentence as you already read it. I would like to emphasize, however, that the words "on this occasion" in this letter are not at all synonymous with the words "in this connection". What it should mean is "in the course of this conversation", and that is exactly how I described it before.

Q: Now, witness, you were saying how that you had written to Himmler reminding him that you had spoken to him before and telling him that you had already furnished these men from the T-4 to Globocnik In April of 1942, and you then thought:

Himmler couldn't possibly know how I came to know about Globocnik's order to exterminate the Jews, and I shall have to explain how this came about; and this is exactly why you made this introduction in this way?

MR. HOCHWALDT: Just a moment, please. I object against the explanation. This witness told us for quite a long time how he understood the letter, how he wrote the letter and why he wrote the letter. I do think it is unnecessary that defense counsel is just repeating what the witness just said from the stand.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for the Prosecution is correct. This is entirely superfluous. Objection is sustained.

Q: Would you please continue, witness. We had stopped at the introduction of the letter. And now will you please pass to the contents of the letter itself?

A: Now I have explained the connection with Globocnik. Furthermore, it says in the letter that the action was to be carried out as quickly as possible. I had to count on a very quick development of things. Therefore, I had to apparently agree with Himmler's and Globocnik's opinion in order to find an occasion for the letter.

MR. HOCHWALDT: May it please, Your Honor, I had the impression that my objection was against further discussing the letter and the document as such. The defendant Brack has spoken about his letter for some time and I do think he has told the Tribunal everything about the letter. I do think that what he is referring to now is completely repetitious.

DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, I cannot at all agree to that opinion. The possibility must be given to the defendant Brack under all circumstances to be in a position to explain to the Tribunal exactly what he wanted to express with the letter in detail. Defendant Brack as far as I am informed, is almost through with the letter and needs only a few more sentences. I ask that the opportunity be extended to the defendant Brack to explain himself and defend himself properly on this vital point.

THE PRESIDENT: The defendant may explain this letter any way he desires, but he should avoid repetition and not repeat what he has stated before. If defendant desires to make any point which he has not already made, the witness may make the explanation.

THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor. I expressed the fact that I was counting on a quick development by writing that in my opinion and from my own experience I felt that a rapid development of this procedure was more than justified. In that connection I was thinking of my experiences with euthanasia, in which I had found out that camouflage was possible. In that way I apparently agreed with Himmler as to the expediency of a quick development; but then I added that I would like him to keep something in mind; and then I said that despite the fact that his interest in a quick development was justified, he should also take into account my point of view; and this brought me to the real purpose of that letter, namely not to exterminate the Jews, but to preserve them. In order to be able to bring up my old sterilization plan, I had to remind Himmler of what he had told me in the year 1941, when he was developing his sterilization plans. That is why I furthermore adapted myself to his mentality, and his way of thinking, by saying that that could only be done if they were rendered unable to propagate. In that way, I pretended that I shared Hitler's worry that the Jews would be in a position to endanger Germany if they are not sterilized. If I say then — and I have been asked about the significance of that sentence — that it was immaterial whether the people in question become aware of having been sterilized or not. I did so in order to allay the suspicions Himmler must have felt as a result of my letter of March 1941, where I said that sterilization cannot be carried out without being noticed. I said that now these misgivings were no longer worthy of discussion, because knowledge of the extermination of the Jews had already penetrated into too large a circle. In the last paragraph, I once more emphasize that the labor material would have to be preserved, and I wanted to emphasize this point as strongly as possible.

I also mentioned that Reichleiter Bouhler would be able to place our physicians and other personnel needs for this work, because Himmler might have objected that we didn't have enough physicians for the execution of that work. My last remark to the effect that we ourselves would be able to get the apparatus necessary was to give Bouhler the opportunity to delay getting the X-ray apparatus.

From the Document 208, Exhibit 166 in Document Book 6, it can be seen that the first report about the sterilization experiments had been sent on the 29th of April 1944.

DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, the document to which the defendant is now referring to, Document 208 can be found in the English Document Book Volume 6, page 43.

A: (continued) One year and a half had passed until even a report was ready to be made. I personally don't know anything about the further development of any matter, but I can certainly conclude on this very late date that it was possible for Bouhler to delay the beginning of these experiments to a great extent.

THE PRESIDENT: Before going into discussion of this other letter, the Tribunal will be in recess.

(Thereupon a recess was taken.)