I can say for certainly not only I don't know of any such thing happening, but I am quite sure it didn't. As far as Munich I can say that nothing was removed without my approval. I am quite sure the oxygen meters were refused and that the Colormeter was also refused. Whether in my absence anything was furnished without my orders I cannot say.
MR. HARDY: May it please the Tribunal, if the Tribunal will bear with me I can complete my examination in about 5 minutes, and thereby complete it before the noon recess.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
Q Doctor, were you of the opinion it was necessary to conduct freezing experiments upon human beings?
A I don't know the extent of Holzloehner's freezing experiments, that results can be achieved by using human beings that cannot be achieved by using animals was quite clear to me. That is a matter of course.
Q Then you were not completely opposed to conducting freezing experiments upon human beings?
A Certainly not. I approved of the high altitude experiments which Ruff was carrying on and if freezing experiments had been used under the same clear conditions it would have been very illogical if I would have any moral misgivings. These matters always depend upon the execution. However, I must say that in the case of freezing experiments I could set up a much stronger measure, because they are connected with a great many more inconveniences to the experimental subject. These inconveniences can be adjusted by asthetics.
Q Then it is your opinion, as stated on page 36 of your Document Book, that is the second page 363 there are two pages 36, Your Honor. This is "Meltz Document No. 5. You stated in your report which was a report before the October conference in Nurnberg, as follows:
"Many people will certainly be reluctant to apply the above abrupt methods of warming to human beings without further consideration, since tho former view has always been that this kind of treatment must lead to most severe collapse.
To have, as stated above, never observed such a collapse with our animals. At the beginning of the hot bath we even found a quick increase of the muscle tonus which according to Y. Henderson, should counteract any tendency to collapse. One can, however, raise the objection that the whole process of regulating temperature by way of the skin is so different in the cases of humans and furred animals that one cannot-draw any binding conclusions. This objection is certainly worth attention and cannot be refuted by animal experiments." Then it is your opinion, as stated here, that experiments upon human beings are justified for freezing?
A May I ask you to go on reading and you will find my point of view, and I show that as this consideration, namely that there arc differences between human beings and animals which can be circumvented by considering electrical re-warming and that no objection can be made in the case of electrical rewarning. If you go on reading you will see that one of the two forms of rewarming would have to be applied in the case of human beings.
Q That is true. Now on page 37 of this same document, it states:
"One more experience with short wave warming seems to us important. Following a suggestion made by Professor Holzloehner, we warmed the animals by way of comparison with small electrodes on the neck and head only in the region of the vital centres." When did you got this suggestion from Holzloehner?
A This suggestion was made to me by Holzloehner during the conference which I mentioned, which took place in Paris in the summer of 1941. Naturally, we discussed our mutual problems regarding the cause of death by cold. Holzloehner at that time in Paris in the summer of 1941 was of the opinion that the cooling of the vital centers of the medulla oblongata was the cause of death. During the Dachau experiments Holzloehner changed this opinion and looking at the Nurnberg report of Holzloehner you will find that it is his opinion that the cold death of a human being is caused by a defect in the heart.
From this change of opinion it is clearly evident that what I was investigating here and was at that time Holzloehner's opinion, was an old opinion of his and not the opinion which he held later as a result of his experiments.
Q When did you first learn of the freezing experiments on human beings at Dachau?
A I already said that when those people came to us and asked us to carry out oxygen examinations in the blood.
Q What date was that approximately?
A That must have been in the summer of 1942, two or three months before the Nurnberg conference.
Q Did they ever ask you or send to you bodies to be sent on to Dr. Singer for autopsies?
A No.
Q And then the next time you heard about the experiments at Dachau was at the conference in October, is that right?
A Yes.
Q Did you perform these blood tests or these oxygen blood tests as requested?
A No. Werz reviewed that and ho reported it to me later. I didn't carry that out, but Werz did. I mean basically it was Werz' task to carry out oxygen tests and not mine.
Q Who was Werz?
A Werz was my oldest assistant. I told you that.
MR. HARDY: No further questions, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be recess until 1:30.
(Thereupon the noon recess was taken.)
AFTERNOON SESSION.
(The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 8 May 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. GEORG WELTZ - Resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: Has Counsel for defense any further examination of the witness?
REDIRECT EXAMINATION.
BY DR. WILL (Counsel for the Defendant Weltz):
Q Dr. Weltz, I return to the question first of all that were discussed yesterday, namely, the questions that the prosecutor directed to you during the course of yesterday's session, and I ask you, first of all, to answer the following question: Would it not have been possible to confirm the experimental series, that were discussed by Ruff and Romberg in Adlershof, outside of concentration camps? The prosecutor feels that experimenting in concentration camps could have been avoided. Now, give me a clear answer and tell me, would you have received the necessary number of experimental subjects, namely, 15, from the Luftwaffe?
A It was difficult to find that number of volunteers for such a length of time, for the reasons Ruff has already set forth. People were not released from their officials duties so that we could have them available. So far as they were employees of the Institute, they had to continue doing their daily work so that for this reason they were not really available, at least practically not. Now, I was asked whether enough volunteers would have volunteered. There were always plenty of Luftwaffe volunteers for high altitude experiments, so far as it depended on the will of the volunteers. If we asked squadrom, "who of you wishes to volunteer for high-altitude experiments?", and if we had been able be tell this squadrom, "You will be relieved of your other duties for the period daring which these experiments are carried out,"then, of course just about every one in that squadron would have applied, because for these people high altitude experiments were something that they were familiar with. They knew that they involved no pain or unpleasantness, and the conditions brought about by these experiments were conditions which they already knew.
That we could not proceed in this way was determined by quite other factorsm namely the fact that during the war everyone had more work to do than he could do, that the individual offices thought it was very important that their employees should not lose a single hour from their regular work. And we had the same sort of troubles with students. If we asked what student wanted to volunteer, then a lot of students would have been ready to, but if we proceeded to the practical angle and said:"Tomorrow I want you here for a whole day," then the difficulties arose, because all these students had other obligations. This time was not a t their disposal. They, of themselves, would have liked to volunteer and this apparently the difference, if one says that on the one hand, there were plenty of people in the Luftwaffe who wanted to volunteer, and, on the other hand, it turned out to be impossible, in the practical field, to got them.
Q Now, let us assume that you had received the people from the Luftwaffe. Could Rascher have been restrained from carrying out his own experiments in Dachau?
A Certainly not, because at the moment when on the 15th of May 1941 Rascher asked Himmler whether he could permit such experiments, and from the moment on when Himmler permitted those experiments, Rascher had the duty as SS-man towards Himmler to make use of this permission that Himmler had accorded him. Reseller always occupied a dual position. On the one hand he was a Stabsarst of the Luftwaffe, and in this capacity stood in a clearly defined military subordination and commission, and on the other hand, Rascher was a member of the General-SS, and in this capacity he was subordinate to Himmler, and only in this capacity did he turn at the time to Himmler in order to receive permission to carry out these experiments.
Thus it was quite clear that at the moment when Himmler gave permission for the experiments Rascher certainly did take advantage of that permission.
Q. Now anot her question relating to your examination of yesterday. The Prosecutor among other charges accused you of being guilty of the fact that Ruff and Romberg who carried out the experiments and are in the dock today and you answered this question in the affirmative. I assume therefore that this is an admission of guilt for your person in the judicial or even moral sense, or am I wrong in that. Will you please explain your position again.
A. I can say to that that if Rascher had not been assigned to my office against my will and without my intent that then I wouldn't be in the dock here either. In the last analysis the whole indictment has come about because Rascher, contrary to our program, without our knowledge, did things that are charges in the indictment here. Neither I, nor Mr. Ruff nor Romberg are in any way responsible for that.
Q. Now I have a few questions regarding this morning's cross examination. This morning the Prosecutor suddenly showed you a new document in order to prove that Rascher did not leave on the 20th of February because of the Himmler telegram but left only later. Now I ask you first of all on the basis of what data did you determine the time for the individual occurrences, particularly the time when Rascher left your office?
A. Of course, today I do no longer have in mind the dates for occurrences that happened five years ago. I did try on the basis of the documents here in evidence to reconstruct the chronology of the dates and I believe I said very clearly in my direct examination just how I came to for on the dates that I did fix on. It was my point of departure that two dates are most certainly incompatible. In the document NO-316 it says that Rascher on the 16 of March 1942 had already been assigned to the Dachau field station of Air Research Institute, and in the Schnitzler file note, which is document 264, it says:
Rascher's assignment to Dachau must be immediately changed to an assignment to Air Research Institute Berlin-Adlershof, Dachau Field Station. In parenthesis: In Weltz' institute, since as Wentz tells us he will have the assignment cancelled immediately unless he takes a part. Now one of these documents has to be erroneous, that is to say, it must be wrong because Frau Rascher cannot on the 28th of April ask for an assignment somewhere, which according to the other document had already been given to Rascher a month earlier. This was my point of departure and I thought I could by assuming that the Schnitzler file note, namely NO.264, has a false date on it, and that the date should not be the 28th of April but the 28th of February of 1942. Now through the submission of the new document, NO. 1359, the file note of Sievers, seems to make it clear to me that the Schnitzler file note really does bear the correct date, namely the 28 of April 1942. I must therefore confess that I cannot clarify this contradiction. Therefore, there really is the contradiction in the two documents NO. 264 and NO. 318. From the material I have available here I cannot clear up this contradiction. Purely objectively speaking this fact does nothing to change what I have said here except as to my conjecture regarding the dates which I now withdraw. Particularly it changes nothing in my statement that nothing of the Dachau experiments was reported to me. On the contrary, Sievers Document NO. 1359 corroborated anew that I asked Rascher to report to me and I placed before him the alternative of either remaining in my institute and reporting to me or leaving. It can also be seen from the Sievers document that there was no report to me on the Dachau experiments and that just was the reason for my quarrels with Rascher.
Q. I have one last question to clarify this contradiction. Now which of the two sides of this contradiction do you think is the more likely? We have the letter from Wolff on the 10 March which is a sort of official document, whereas Rascher's reputation for veracity after all I heard about him was not very great, now which do you think is correct?
A. Since my first attempt to clarify this contradiction came to taught I should not like to try again. I simply can see no way to clarify it on the basis of the material before me.
DR. WILLE: No further questions in re-direct examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there no further questions to the witness?
DR. TIPP: Dr. Tipp for Becker Freysing.
THE PRESIDENT: The re-examination of this witness at this time must be limited to matters which were elicited from the witness, statements which he made on cross examination.
DR. TIPP: Very well, Mr. President, I will out only that sort of questions.
BY DR. TIPP:
Q. Professor, in the cross examination in answer to a question by the Prosecutor regarding the chain of command in your institute you said the following: Economically and disciplinarily I was subordinate to the Luftgau in Munich but in scientific respects to the medical inspectorate. Mr. Hardy whereupon asked you whether that was Anthony's office and you said "yes", and from this it could be deduced that you received your orders and directives in research matters or in all scientific matters from Anthony's office, that is to say, the office for Luftwaffe medicine, for aviation medicine in the medical inspectorate or by the man in charge of those matters. Is that what you meant to say, professor, or how can you explain this remark?
A. It is as I said: Namely in the scientific respect I was subordinate to the medical inspectorate, and the medical inspectorate was represented for me either by the inspector himself or by the Chief of Staff; the technical export did not give any orders. That went on through the inspector or the Chief of Staff. I simply wanted to say that Anthony was the department expert at the same office of the medical inspectorate from which I also received my orders from it's chief.
Q. In the cross examination you also said that in the Luftgaus there were consulting physicians. Under the term "consulting physicions" one understands that you also know the doctors who advised the various commandants, that is the Air Fleet physicians, or the medical chiefs themselves. Now, Professor, do you mean by that that there were consulting physicians in that technical sense to the Luftgaus or their institutes. Did you say that from your personal knowledge or was what you said yesterday singly a conjecture?
A. Whether the Luftgaus had advisers that I do not know. We were concerned then with Professor Singer and I only meant that the technical experts in the various fields were also the advisers to the Luftgaus. Whether they held title of consulting physicians I do not know. Professor Singer, with whom we were then concerned, was, I believe, called "Luftgau Pathologist" or something of the sort. His official title had nothing about an adviser in it. But regarding these matters I have only partial knowledge because I had not very much to do with that.
Q. Now another question. It refers to to is Luftgau pathologist, Dr. Singer. The prosecutor said yesterday in cross-examination that from the documents it could be seen that Dr. Singer refused to collabchecked through the documents and I can find no such document. Since you were interrogated yesterday about this document, I want to ask you whether you know what the reference was.
MR. HARDY: May it please Your Honors, the last question of defense counsel, I don't understand what he means. I can't get the import of the question or what he is referring to. I can't understand it at all. Will you have him rephrase the question?
THE PRESIDENT: Will Counsel repeat the question?
DR. TIPP: I asked Professor Weltz the following: The crossexamination yesterday, Mr. Hardy quoted a document and drew from this document the conclusion that the Munich pathologist, Dr. Singer, refused to work with Holzloehner and Finke in the Dachau experiments for ethical reasons. I could find no document from which that could be seen, and, therefore, I asked Dr. Weltz just that document it was.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, that is an erroneous assumption on the part of the defense counsel. I didn't refer to a document. I merely asked Dr. Weltz from the documents in evidence was it apparent that Dr. Singer withdrew from the experiments and, if he did withdraw, was it for ethical reasons. I didn't state that such a document existed.
DR. TIPP: Then that settles that question. Now a final question.
Q. In the cross-examination you have said that the Luftgau physicians were subordinate to the medical Inspectorate. For many years you were a member of the Luftwaffe and know how it was organized as well as I do. Now, please tell the Tribunal whether the Luftgau doctors were directly subordinate to the Medical Inspectorate or was there an intermediary office?
A. The Luftgau doctors were subordinate most of the time to the Air fleet Doctors and thus only indirectly subordinate to the Medical Inspectorate.
DR. TIPP: Thank you.
IRE PRESIDENT: Any further questions of the witness?
The defendant Weltz may be excused from the stand and will resume his place.
(The witness was excused)
MR. HARDY: May it please Your Honors, before defense counsel continues the presentation of his documentary evidence, I should like to inquire as to whether or not Defense Counsel for Weltz intends to call another witness at this time for the Defendant Weltz and then after the completion of the Weltz case, whether or not the Defense Counsel for the Defendant Brack intends to call the Defendant Brack to the stand first or to call one of his two witnesses, or in what process so that I can gauge my work over the following few days.
DR. WILLE: Mr. President, I was about to make a statement of this question. The witness Wendt was here, having turned up on the 24th of April. Now the interrogations of Ruff and Romberg took longer than we had expected. Wendt is a doctor, an x-ray man, in Karlsruhe, and Weltz' previous assistant. I consequently released him after taking a long affidavit from him. The affidavit is here. It is about twenty typewritten pages and discusses the whole question in a perfectly satisfactory way. Now, so far, I have not yet succeeded in having this document translated into English, so that I can present it to the Tribunal only in German; and I assume that it is not possible to put it in unless we have the English translation. However, if you wish, I could tell the Tribunal, what the important points in this affidavit are without, of course, actually reading it. If you wish, I could do that in a very brief way.
THE PRESIDENT: I think it would be better to wait until the English translation is complete.
MR. HARDY: If Your Honor pleases, I would like to hear from the Defense Counsel Froeschmann for Brack and see what his intentions are and see what course he will follow in his defense.
THE PRESIDENT: Did Counsel for the Defendant Weltz understand my statement that the affidavit that he mentioned may be offered when its translation into English is completed?
DR. WILLE: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for Defendant Brack, did you hear the question suggested by the prosecution as to whether or not you desire to call Defendant Brack to the stand before any other witnesses?
DR. FROESCHMANT: Mr. President, in the last few days, I told the Secretary General and the prosecutor in writing that it was my intention to call first the two witnesses, Hederich and Pfannmueller, and thereafter, if it please the Tribunal, to call the defendant to the stand.
MR. HARDY: That answers my question.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, Counsel, we understand; you may follow that procedure. Counsel may proceed.
DR. WILLE: May it please the Tribunal, I may continue my case by putting in the documents that are to be found in Document Book No. 2. First cf all, I put in an affidavit by Doctor von Werz. This is of the 7th of January, 1947; Document No. 4; I put it in as Weltz Exhibit No. 11. I might say regarding this very briefly the following. Werz is Weltz' oldest collaborator. He describes his own attitude regarding the Nazi party and his participation in the freedom action of Bavaria. For this reason he was condemned to death. I might read just a few lines of want he says regarding which it seems to me indispensible that I read them. I read from page 1 of the document, a sentence from paragraph 4:
"At the out-break of the war I removed my residence to Munich, as I had a sound reason for making a timely escape from persecution by the Gestapo. I was, therefore, glad to meet immediately with a good reception at the "Research Institute of Aviation Medicine" in Munich whose chief at that time was Professor Weltz."
Now from page 2 I read from the first paragraph:
"As he -- namely, Weltz -- was not only willing to acknowledge the value of my scientific views, but also respected my political convictions -- an attitude often scarcely compatible with his position as the head of the Institute, our association turned out to be an entirely harmonious one."
Then in his affidavit Wertz describes animal experiments at the Institute and describes, among other things, how two of Holzloehner's employees came to him for blood samples for Dachau. Professor Weltz has described that event from the witness stand. Werz describes how that permission was refused. I read the last paragraph on the page, the last sentence:
"When the two members of Holzloehner's staff again turned directly to professor Weltz in an attempt to borrow, at least, an apparatus for the determination of oxygen content, he consulted me and approved of my final refusal, expressed in the strongest terms."
From page 4 of the document I read the last sentence. "I am not aware that Dr. Lutz or Dr. Wendt ever offered Weltz employment in Dachau. Such an offer was never made to me in any form whatsoever."
Now, Your Honors, I put in another affidavit from scientific assistant. This is Weltz' document No. 6; Weltz Exhibit NO. 12. Dr. Pichotka, at the end of last year, when he heard that Weltz was under indictment, by reading it in the papers, made himself available to me. They are acquainted with each other through having exchanged scientific correspondence. They collaborated scientifically since they were active in the same scientific field. Like Herr von Werz, he points out the particularly dignified manner in scientific manners that Weltz had. Thus he says that Weltz frequently had research experiments in his Institute stopped when he heard that Pichotka was working on the same subjects. Weltz wanted to give his colleague Pichotka a head start. It is also important for this trial that he states that he know of Weltz's efforts to keep a close watch on Rascher. He, therefore, also knew that Rascher, on the basis of the telegram from Himmler, was removed from Weltz.
As the next document I offer an affidavit of Dr. Amann. This is Weltz Document No. 7, Exhibit 13. May I briefly explain this. Dr. Amann was a collaborator of Pichotka's, and his testimony is to the same effect.
The next documents are affidavits by former female assistants in Holtz's aviation medical institute. I offer them as Holtz Documents 8, Exhibit No.-
THE PRESIDENT: What exhibit number do you assign Weltz Document 8?
DR. WILLE: Eight is Exhibit No. 14; Document No. 9 is Exhibit No. 15.
The next is Weltz Document No. 10, an affidavit by Elizabeth Forgbert. This will be Weltz Exhibit 16. The next document is Document No. 11, which will be Exhibit No. 17. I may say a few words about this document; it is an affidavit by one Frau Erna Hoffmann, from Munich, who was in charge of a Luftwaffe rest center. She is not a Aryan, and gives information regarding Prof. Weltz's political attitude. Mrs. Hoffman was arraigned before a People's Court for undermining the defensive strength of the nation. Prof. Weltz spoke in her behalf although he exposed himself personally by so doing to great political danger.
The next document is Weltz No. 12, Exhibit NO. 18. This is an affidavit by a previous employee of the Weltz institute, Mrs. Pirner. The purpose of that affidavit is the following. Mrs. Pirner, in her boarding house, had made defeatist utterances and had said that it was madness to continue with the war. There was a trial for high treason against her. Weltz first succeeded in having the trial take place before a Luftwaffe court. In the main proceedings he, himself, volunteered from among the audience, and spoke in her behalf in such a way as to have her declared not guilty.
The next document will be Weltz Document No. 16. This will be Exhibit No. 19. This is an affidavit of Prof. Holthusen, of Hamburg, regarding Weltz's scientific significance.
As the last document in my collection, I submit Weltz document No. 22.
This becomes Exhibit No. 20. This is an affidavit by Prof. Kirklin, the chief of the X-ray department of the Mayo Clinic. Kirklin here discusses his acquaintance with Weltz, as well as Weltz 's professional reputation in America scientific circles. The letter was sent directly to me by prof. Kirklin. There is, to be sure, no certificate of signature, but since it was sent directly to me on a form from the clinic, I have no doubts as to its authenticity. I showed this letter to the Prosecutor weeks ago and he said that he approved of it. Consequently, I don't expect any objection from him.
MR. HARDY: That is perfectly right, Your Honors, I stipulated that I wouldn't object to the submission cf this. I merely want to state that I do not want to create a precedent. I merely want to reserve the right to object to the introduction of documents of this type in the future.
THE PRESIDENT: Your stipulation will be without prejudice.
DR. WILLE: MR. President, in conclusion of my case, I might now put in the certificate of authenticity regarding the Milch record, which I have received from the Secretary-General...
THE PRESIDENT: Did I understand Counsel to say that the certificate from the Secretary-General is now ready? Did I understand Counsel to say that the certificate from the Secretary-General is now prepared?
DR. WILLE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for the Prosecution, examine the certificate.
MR. HARDY: (Examines certificate) The document is in order, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The document which is Weltz Document No. 3 is received before the Tribunal to be considered.
To save confusion, this document has been marked as Exhibit 7. The Tribunal will take judicial notice of it without its being marked an exhibit, but it is before us in this case as Exhibit 7.
Does that close Counsel's case?
DR. WILLS: Yes, that concludes my presentation.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal now calls the case against the defendant Brack.
DR. FROESCHMAHN: Mr. President at the beginning of the submission of the evidence in the case of Brack, I shall permit myself to submit to you a short presentation, in order to illustrate the point of view from which I shall submit my evidence.
It is my intention in order to refute Counts 2 and 3 of the indictment, to Call at once the witnesses Hederich and Pfannmueller, and, then in order to refute all counts of the indictment, I should like permission of the Tribunal to call the defendant Brack himself as a witness to the witness stand. During this submission of evidence I shall submit the relevant documents.
The submission of the evidence by the defendant Brack himself will include: First, a short description of his life up to his entry into political life; Secondly, to Count L, conspiracy; thirdly; his attitude towards the Jews, in the preparation for the extermination of whom he is alleged to have participated through his proposals for sterilization in connection with his attitude towards National Socialism; fourthly, his membership in the SS, with which he is charged under Count 4 of the indictment; fifthly, to a general survey of Brack's activity in the Chancellery of the Fuehrer, considering especially his attitude towards the question of preventive custody inmates, which represented a large part of his activity. I shall, furthermore, deal with sixthly, the sterilization proposals, and afterwards the connection of Brack with the extermination plans of Himmler, which was dealt with by the Prosecution on the Form 14-F-13, which Was called genocide by the Prosecution. Then, seventhly, I shall deal with his participation in the euthanasia program, and his attitude towards the euthanasia program. I ask the permission of the High Tribunal to submit the evidence according to this plan.
THE PRESIDENT: Now counsel may proceed, using his evidence according to the plan he has outlined.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Thank You.
MR. HARDY: Will you kindly supply me with the spelling of the name of the first witness, please.
DR. FROESCHMHNN: Mr. President, with the approval, of the High Tribunal, I ask that the witness Hederich be called to the witness stand.
THE PRESIDENT: The Marshal will summon the witness Hederich.
KARL HEDERICH, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE SEBRING: The witness will raise his right hand and repeat this oath after me:
I swear by God, the almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath)
JUDGE SEBRING: You may be seated.
BY DR. FROESCHMARNN:
Q Witness, give me your personal data.
A My name is Karl Heinz Hederich. Born on 29 October 1902 in Wunsiedel, upper Franconia, as a son of a Secondary School Professor Hedcrich there.
Q Would you please describe your general career to the Tribunal?
A I attended the elementary school at Wunsiedel. I then entered the secondary school for a number of years. Then for several years I followed a practical profession in industry, and also worked in various building installations. In the year 1923 I went to Munich as a student, where I studied at the University. In 1925 I was graduated at Nurnberg at the Oberrealschule. I then went to Munich as a student to the Technische Hochschule and the University, and from there I went to technical high school at Danzig. In the year of 1931 I made my examination as a Diploma Engineer. In the year 1932, to get acquainted with the higher state administration, I was employed with the Reich Railway Directorate at Nurnberg.
Q Witness, would you please speak a little slower.
A Yes.
Q Will you proceed?
A The aim of my education was a university career.
Q But you later became involved in politics. What was your political career?
A I joined the NSDAP on 29 October for the first time. After the march on the Feldherrnhalle, in which I participated, I left the NSDAP. In December of 1932 I joined the NSDAP for the second time. In the year of 1933 I was a member of the leadership of the German Student League. In the year of 1934 I went to Reichsleiter Bouhler.
Q Well, before you got to the Reichsleiter Bouhler, how did you become acquainted with this?
AAs the result of a number of controversies, I left the leadership of the German Student League, but in April 1934 Bouhler asked me to attend a conference in Berlin, and at the same time made the suggestion to me to enter into his sphere of activity.
Q What were you to do there? What was your task to be there?
AAt that time he was the President of the Party Commission fcr the Protection of National Socialistic Literature, and he wanted some collaborators on that task. I had been recommended to him by acquaintances of his. I only knew him slightly, as a result of my conversation with him, and after having told him about my views, and after he had told him his attitude, and his opinions, I decided to accept his offer. On the 1 May 1934 I then entered his office in Munich.
Q Witness, would you quite briefly describe to the Tribunal the work of this Commission that you are speaking of, because it will be of some importance with regard to what you will later testify to?
A The task of this Literature Commission was the cleansing of political literature from the phenomena that appeared at that time. During every political revolution, during every political reorganization.