DR. FROESCHMANN: In this connection, Mr. President, I submit from my Document Book 1, Document No. 19, page 53. This will be Brack Exhibit 2. I shall read from this affidavit by a De. Albert Buerklin of Wachenhein in the Palatinate, of 27 January 1947, signed and certified by a notary. I shall read from Paragraph 4 the first and second sentences. "Brack's home was distinguished for its especially highly cultivated and refined intellectuality. Viktor Brack was brought up in this environment, and it was here that he absorbed the values of helpfulness, decency, and purity of thought."
Q (By Dr. Froeschmann) Witness, what schools did you then attend?
A First I had private instructions, because I was abroad a great deal when I was a child. Later I went to public school in Wachenheim, Duerkhein, secondary school, Realschule in Bad Duerkheim, later the Oberrealschule in Ludwigshafen and Munich.
In 1923 I was graduated in Munich. Of course, all my schooling was made uneven by the many changes, the war, and the shortage of teachers.
Q How did it happen you were graduated in Munich? Was there some event in your family life that necessitated your moving to Munich?
A In 1921 my parents were expelled from the Palatinate. My father had to find a new way of earning a living, end went to Munich. He settled in Munich as a general practitioner. He had difficulties, but they were overcome in a few years, because he had settled in a workers' quarter, in the suburbs of Munich, so that soon he had a very extensive practice.
Q Witness, then you lost your home in 1921, and your father lost his means of livelihood?
A Yes, he lost his sanatorium and then he lost his fortune through the inflation.
It was a consequence of the Treaty of Versailles, wasn't it?
A Yes, it was the result of the expulsion from the Palatinate, on the basis of that treaty.
Q At that time you were seventeen years old. Now, did these events have any influence on your further development?
A Yes, of course. We were refugees in Munich, as people today come from the cast, perhaps, and are refugees here. We were received there accordingly. We had to try to adjust ourselves anew. That, of course, made a great impression on young people.
Q You have already said that your father then settled in a suburb of Munich in a working peoples' community?
A Yes.
Q And then your father through his practice got himself back on his economic foot again. Did you then have occasion to make a closer acquaintance with your father's practice, and if so, what impressions did you gain from becoming acquainted with your father's practice?
A The practice was very extensive, because it was a suburban practice. My father needed a car to take care of his practice. He himself could not drive, and so I drove him until 1932 almost constantly when I was free, in addition to my work, in addition to my studies. I accompanied him everywhere. I got to know not only his practice but above all his patients. During these years when unemployment was constantly increasing, distress and lack of funds constantly increasing , one, of course, obtained strong impressions in these families of my father's patients.
Q. Then in the normal course of events you came in touch with families where sickness was a great calamity. Could you also note that the spiritual life of the families suffered under these circumstances?
A That is difficult to define. At that time, as a young man, I did not accept these things rationally but emotionally. It was absolutely clear to me, however, that when there was a long and serious illness of a member of the family, there was an automatic moving away of the family from the patient. That does not mean at all that this was malicious or unfeeling, but the relatives were often not able spiritually to cope with the length and extent of the sickness.
Q But in this way you experienced a certain feeling of pity for the sick person?
A No, I can not say that this just arose then. Sympathy with the sick is a natural thing in everyone, but from this personal observation it was increased. I can remember very clearly at this time a remark of my father on some occasion, "For him it would really be a release if he could die soon," but, of course, in all its implications I did not understand this remark.
Q Witness, what was it your original intention to become?
A I wanted to become a farmer. I began to study agriculture. I studied agriculture for three semesters.
Q Were you able to continue in these plans?
A No, I could not continue my plans. I changed horses. I began to study economics. I had to earn my own way. My father had enough to do to earn a living for the family, especially for my younger brothers and sisters. I did different kinds of work. I participated in motor 74l6 cycle races.
Q When did you get your diploma as an economist?
A In 1928 I got my diploma as an economist at the Technical College in Munich.
Q Up to that time or later, did you concern yourself with politics?
A I did not concern myself with politics directly. However, because of the influence of my friends and follow students, from about '23 to '27 I belonged to the artillery unit of the SS regiment in Munich, a group which had arisen from an NSDAP unit which existed before 1923, but my studies, my work, and my great interest in sports kept no away from politics.
Q What did bring you to politics then, was it general considerations or something else?
AAll kinds of influences affected me, primarily, of course, the great social tension, the unemployment, the general distress; on the other hand, the fact that my parents were interested in politics, although they were not active - for all those reasons I went to political meetings, especially National Socialist meetings.
DR. FROESCHMANN: In this connection, Mr. President, I shall take the liberty of putting in from my Document Book I Document 20, page 55, Exhibit 3, an affidavit by August Pfundt, a painter in Munich, dated 27 January 1947, signed August Pfundt, certified by a Notary by the name of Nobis. I shall confine myself to reading from this affidavit only the last nine lineson page 55, where it says,"In spite of his own material needs, he Brack always, however, was helpful and willing to make sacrifices for third persons, whenever the need of others had to be mitigated. This characteristic may not have been the least reason for his taking up National Socialism, the idealistic premises of which he trusted faithfully. However, he allowed politically differently minded people to keep their own opinion, and never looked upon such persons as political adversaries who had to be combatted. I experienced this for myself, because I was an adversary of National Socialism, and at frequent meetings I discussed political questions with him."
I further submit, as Brack Exhibit 5, Document 23 from Document Book I, page 62, an affidavit by Carl Reuther of 18 March 1947, certified by the Notary's Office in Mannheim I, and I ask the Tribunal to take notice of it, I need not read it.
Q Witness, we have now reached the time when you entered political activity. Before we consider this matter further, I should like to discuss the theme that I told the Tribunal I was going to take up, namely Count IV of the Indictment, conspiracy, and I should like to ask you whether, besides euthanasia and sterilization experiments, you had any connections with the people now in the dock; nor, Mr. Brack, regarding the question of conspiracy I ask you, which of the defendants did you know before 1945?
A I knew the names of Handloser, Rostock, Genzken, and Gebhardt. I never talked to any of these men personally. I never had anything to do with them officially. I knew personally Karl Brandt, Blome, and Rudolf Brandt. I saw Rudolf Brandt a few times when I was in Himmler's office.
Aside from speaking to him, passing the time of day, I had nothing he do with him. I have known Blome since the middle or end of the 1930's, from official meetings where we saw each other and spoke to each other. Between the offices, the Chancellery of the Fuehrer on one hand, where I worked, and the Reich Chamber of Physicians on the other hand, where Mr. Blome worked, there were certainly official connections such as the Chancellery of the Fuehrer had to all Party and state agencies, but I cannot remember and I do not believe that I ever myself had any official contact with Blome.
Q Dr. Brack, let me anticipate here, within the framework of the euthanasia program you are charged with having been present at the Munich conference with Blome, and having spoken with him there; would you please say briefly whether and to what extent you had official relations or even personal relationship with Blome at this conference?
A Later I shall have to go into the meeting in detail, but about Blome I can say; I was sent to this meeting on behalf of Bouhler, as his representative. The meeting was called by Conti and not by Blome. I do not remember having seen Dr. Blome there. I cannot exclude the possibility that Blome was also at this meeting, I definitely did not have anything official to do with him at this meeting, and Blome never had any official contact with me about euthanasia.
Q How about the Defendant Professor Karl Brandt?
A I knew Karl Brandt since about 1933 or 1934. The acquaintance, however, up to 1939 was limited to very superficial contacts, as in the case of Blome. Only through the euthanasia assignment from Hitler did I come into closer contact with Brandt. I shall have to speak about that in detail later.
Q Yes, and how about the rest of the defendants?
AAll the rest of the defendants I met personally and even by name only during the trial.
Q Now, what answer do you give to the question as to whether you admit or wish to deny having taken part in a conspiracy for the commission of war crimes or crimes against humanity with any of the defendants whom you have just mentioned?
A I deny having been in a conspiracy with any of the defendants to commit war crimesor crimes against humanity.
Q So far as you were concerned, the Prosecution has made no limitation regarding certain of the experiments with which several of the defendants are charged; I must therefore assume that the Prosecution still alleges that you could have participated in experiments other than sterilization or euthanasia.
Now, I ask you, aside from euthanasia and sterilization experiments, did you have any connection with any experiments which are subjects of the indictment in this trial?
A No, I was not in contact with them, nor did I know anything about them.
Q I can leave that point now and go on to the next point, I must concern myself here with the affidavit that you made for the Prosecution. This is Document No. 426, Exhibit 160, English Document Book 14, page 10, German Document Book 14, Volume I, Witness on 20th May 1946 you were arrested?
A Yes.
Q The next day you were sent to the prison at Traunstein, on 19 June to the Moosburg Camp, and on 24 August 1946 you were brought to Nurnberg, is that correct?
A Yes, that is right.
Q You know that earlier I objected to the submission of this affidavit in evidence, and also objected to the conclusions that the Prosecution drew from this affidavit. I should like to give you an opportunity today before this High Tribunal to make a statement regarding this, in which connection I may tell the Court that with the agreement of the Prosecution, I have in the meantime received expert testimony on the part of the prison physician. This statement of Dr. Buerkner reached me through the Prosecution a few days ago. I don't believe it is necessary to put this as a document in evidence.
I assume that both the Prosecution in its cross-examination and I in my direct examination will keep the contents of this statement in mind. Now, witness, will you please tell Tribunal in what condition you.....
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, this document he is referring to the Prosecution has agreed, as stated by defense counsel, but if he wants to use it he must offer it in evidence.
DR. FROESCHMANN: If I understood the Prosecutor correctly, he wishes this document to be put in evidence, namely the questionnaire that I sent to Dr. Buerkner, with the aid of the Prosecution, and which then was answered by him, is that correct?
MR. HARDY: May it please Your Honor, my colleague Dr. Hochwald is more familiar with this then I am, and I wish he would address the court on this matter and tell the circumstances surrounding this document.
DR. HOCHWALD: If your Honor please, I received the questionnaire of Dr. Froeschmann to the German prison doctor about a fortnight ago and attached some questions on behalf of the Prosecution to this questionnaire. All of these questions were answered by the doctor of the prison. If Dr. Froeschmann wants to use this document I do think it would be proper if he put it in evidence, the document as a whole, the answers to his questions and the answers to the questions which we put to the prison doctor.
THE PRESIDENT: Does Counsel for the Defendant understand the propositions put by the Counsel for the Prosecution?
If Counsel for the Defendant desires to use the document, the entire document should be presented before the Tribunal.
So far counsel, the decision to use the document rests with you, but if you do desire to use the document the whole document should be presented.
DR. FROESCHMANN: I take it from what the Prosecutor says that my assumption is correct, namely that the Prosecution also intends to use the document.......
THE PRESIDENT: That was not stated, Counsel. The Prosecution did not state whether or not it would use the document if you did not.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I want to clarify this point. The situation merely is this that the defense counsel submitted interrogatories to the Doctor of the prison concerning the defendant Brack. At the same time Dr. Hochwald, on behalf of the prosecution, submitted cross interrogatories to the Doctor in the prison. The doctor in the prison answered all interrogatories put by the defense and the prosecution. I submit said interrogatories are one Document in its entirety and if the defense counsel for defense desires to use said interrogatories then we request that he use the entire documents, that he submit all interrogatories, namely his interrogatories as well as the cross-interrogatories of the prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: That was the proposition as stated by the Tribunal. If counsel for Defendant Brack desires to use this document, the entire document should be placed before the Tribunal. But so far as I am advised, the choice of whether or not the Document will be used at all, rests with counsel for the defendant.
DR. FROESCHMANN:
Mr. President, I shall not use the Document, because I consider that many parts of it go too far.
THE PRESIDENT: If counsel chooses that position then the Document, of course, should not be referred to in any way in the evidence before the Tribunal. The matter will rest right where it is now.
BY DR. FROESCHMANN:
Q Witness, without reference to this Document, about which there was just a discussion, will you please purely subjectively tell your opinion of what your state of health was at that time and what the consequences were to you as a result of this state of health you found yourself in.
AAt that time I was considerably weakened by undernourishment as well as by the period in the Traunstein prison as well as in the Moosburg camp. I had some intestinal disorders, I don't know exactly of what nature, I had very painful spasms and I was under con stant medical treatment.
Besides, during the previous weeks in Moosburg, I had received very had news from my family. Two of my children had tuberculosis because of under-nourishment. My wife had been arrested repeatedly and because of similar things I was very depressed mentally and very weakened physically.
About eight or ten days after being sent to this prison, I was called before an interrogator in this condition, who, without informing me as to whether I was a witness or a defendant, asked me to take an oath. I did so and then I was asked and interrogated about my work at the Chancellory of the Fuehrer, my collaboration in the Euthanasia question and other things including my membership in the SS, etc. I was also asked to make a sketch of the organization of Euthanasia. That was more or less what took place in the first interrogation; this was followed by many others. I was simply not capable of coping with these interrogations and I often tried feverishly to find words to explain some event. I was mistaken about many things, I was unable to remember many things and then I allowed myself to be persuaded again and again to accept the answer which the interrogator suggested as correct, although partly because of the German language and partly because of the circumstances, it was not always exactly true. I certainly was not capable at that time of judging these things correctly. Then, in the course of the interrogations, I don't know which one it was, I asked quite clearly whether I was under indictment, whether I was a witness, a defendant or just what I was. I said under German laws one has an opportunity to refuse to testify if one can incriminate oneself. This objection was simply rejected with the remark that this was not customary before American courts, that it had never happened that somebody refused to testify and besides I was only a witness insofar as the interrogator was concerned and he did not have to decide whether I would become a defendant.
Q In one of the interrogations of 1 September 1939, you discussed Hitler's order?
A Yes, the decree was shown to me and a conversation I might say followed back and forth as to whether this decree had the power of law for us. I answered that in the affirmative as well as I was able to express myself and at the end of this talk the interrogator asked me to sign an affidavit. It was indicated by the whole interrogation that it could only be about this one point, that is whether the decree had the force of law or not. At the next interrogation, after I had said yes, of course I will sign such a statement, to my surprise I was given the affidavit which has been presented as an exhibit. It contains a considerable number of counter-statements which I had made in the course of the interrogation. They are torn out of their context, in particular in the formulation they do not follows the wording which I used and the interrogator told me, or rather the interrogator drew his conclusions, which I myself did not draw.
Q However, you did sign this affidavit; did you make corrections or any objections?
A I made various corrections, but in many cases I allowed myself to be persuaded that what was written down should be accepted. This is the only way that I can explain it. Because of the long period of time, five, six, seven and even eight years, my recollection was very incomplete in many cases, but the interrogators had written evidence, documents. In perfectly good faith, I agreed with the interrogator because since they had documents in their hands, they had to be better informed about the facts than I who had to rely on my imperfect memory. I don't think it is fair and I could not imagine that the interrogators would deceive me into making incorrect statements as was done. There is no question of any deliberately untrue statements. I could tell in detail whenever incorrect words are used, incorrect sentences or when something was thrown out of its context or where conclusions were drawn that I never expressed, I must explain this.
Q Witness, you have now stated your fundamental attitude toward this affidavit which was signed on that occasion, and I ask you to express yourself in the individual points where there are inaccuracies.
A Yes.
Q I can now turn to the next point in my case, namely regarding Victor Brack's attitude toward the Jews in the preparation for the extermination of whom he is alleged to have participated. Mr. Brack. what was your attitude toward the Jews?
A Precisely in view of the charge that I participated in the preparations for the extermination, I must state in the beginning that I never had any hatred of the Jews, neither against any individual or against Jewry as a whole. I rejected the bad ones and approved of the good ones perhaps to a higher degree than is customary some places in the world.
Q Did you have personal friends among the Jews?
A Of course I always had contact and I had some personal friendship with Jews. An old school friend of mine lived at our house and he was at our house almost every day until he went back to South America to his relatives.
Then there was another one with whom I was friendly, even after I had finished my studios, and I knew some half-Jews who were sometimes at my parents house; sometimes at our ski-hut, and even as a party member when I followed the program of the NSDAP for social reasons, and even approved the anti-Semitic paragraph of this program. It is better to add to the program that I continued to associate with the Jewish people who were my friends and remained my friends.
Q One moment.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, in this connection I should like to submit a document from my supplementary volume as No. 140. This will be Brack's Exhibit No. 5, an affidavit by his brother, Eric Brack, of 17 April 1947, signed by Eric Brack, certified to by myself on the same day, and I should like to bring your attention in this connection to paragraphs one and two. I need not read this, and I ask the Tribunal to take notice of it.
BY DR. FROESCHMANN:
Q Now, witness, please continue and give me the names of a few people who can corroborate through affidavits what you have just said?
A You have just submitted an affidavit by my own brother, who can give the names of some of our friends. Then I would like to name my friend Hans Ollendorf, who was a three-quarter Jew according to the National Socialist ist ideas, who is one of the friends of mine, even today, who has also submitted an affidavit.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, I put in now as Exhibit No. 6 Document No. 9, page 26, from my Document Book No. I, an affidavit by Dr. Hans Offonderf. I have already asked the Tribunal regarding this affidavit, which is not in exactly the form the Tribunal wishes, nevertheless, it is an affidavit which should be admitted because it is made in South America, and the Tribunal has told me that it would be acceptable.
THE PRESIDENT: Whom did you say informed you, counsel, that the affidavit would be accepted in its form? Did you say the Tribunal informed you?
DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President. On 19 February I applied in writing to the Tribunal that Dr. Hans Ollensorf and Gerhard Ollendorf had only on 5 October 1946 sent me enclosed affidavit. I stated that the originals were in my possession. That both gentlemen live in South America, and that the two men had assumed at the time that Victor Brack was not before an American Military Tribunal, but before a German denazification Court. Therefore, on the basis of the ruling of the court of 27 January 1947, I requested as the matter that these two affidavits be admitted in evidence exceptionally in the form in which they exist, and should be included in my document book, and, thereupon, on 6 March I received this letter from the Secretary-General, which I now show to the Prosecution, according to which the affidavits are admissible. I, of course, assumed that this ruling was something that originated with the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the document that counsel has stated?
MR. HOCHWALD: May I hand the document to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: It nay very likely be that this affidavit nay be received as stated in lieu of the note.
DR. FROESCHMANN: I now show the Tribunal Document No, 9, Brack's Exhibit No. 6
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, counsel, until we decide. This document from the Secretary-General says that the Tribunal approved permission on behalf of counsel for the defendant Brack to offer the documents. That does not say and that is not in regard to saying they would be admitted. That permission to counsel is given to offer them in evidence, but it would not be an admission. The Tribunal could make no ruling that the documents were admissible in evidence actually until the matter was considered. I know, however, that here the affidavit says that the following affidavit is to be presented before the denazification board, and that false statements in the affidavits are punished severely, and, therefore, declared the following on oath. I don't know. Has counsel for the Prosecution any objection to the admission of this document?
MR. HOCHWALD: According to the ruling of the Tribunal this document is not executed in the proper form, so the Prosecution, of course, objects to the offer of this document.
THE PRESIDENT: The original of the document contains some certification in Spanish, which is under the name of DeReed, or something. If some one would interpret the certificate for the benefit of the Tribunal, it might be of assistance.
DR. FROESCHMANN: May I point out to Your Honor that the translation is also there, the German translation of the original Spanish document.
THE PRESIDENT: The certification by some officer who witnessed the signature, have that translated.
DR. FROESCHMANN: This affidavit was originally in Spanish. Then at that time I had made a German translation and had it interpreted into my document book. Now there must be a translation of this into English in the English Document Book, that is, Exhibit 6, No. 9.
MR. HOCHWALD: Your Honor, I just have been informed by counsel for the defense that the original of the document is in Spanish and not in German. Moreover, I do not see any certification that this is a true and correct translation from Spanish into German. But it is not into German and I have no idea who translated this document into German. It is translated, I see, from German into English, but there is no certification whatsoever who made the translation from the Spanish into German. Now I would like to see a certification that any person who made this translation is entitled to do so.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, that is correct, counsel is correct in that the document book contains nothing concerning the translation of the document from Portugese or Spanish into German. It is now time for recess, and I would suggest this matter be discussed and considered between now and tomorrow morning, and that counsel also consider the question of the competency of the first paragraph of the affidavit, and the effect of it might well be considered, to be made in lieu of this, which may be considered by the Prosecution.
MR. HOCHWALD: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will recess until 9:30 tomorrow morning.
(Whereupon the Tribunal adjourned until 13 May 1947 at 0930 hours.)
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT OF THE AMERICAN MILITARY TRIBUNAL in the matter of the United States of America against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 13 May 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court room will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal 1.
Military Tribunal I is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the court room.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, you ascertain if the defendants are all present in court.
THE MARSHAL: May it please your honor, all the defendants are present in court with the exception of the Defendant Schaefer who was excused by the Tribunal yesterday.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will note for the record the presence of all the defendants in court save the Defendant Schaefer who is excused by the 'Tribunal for the purpose of consulting with his counsel.
Counsel may proceed.
VIKTOR BRACK - Resumed.
MR. HARDY: May it please your honor, defense counsel for the defendant Brack introduced Brack Document No. 9 and marked it as Exhibit No. 6 in yesterday's afternoon session. The prosecution raised objection to the admission of the document into evidence due to the fact that the document was executed in Brazil and apparently the original is in Spanish, which has been translated into German and is now the document on page 25 and 26. It appears here in English.
In as much as the document is only as to the character of the defendant Brack, the prosecution withdraws its objection, however, without prejudice to the right of the prosecution to object to documents of this nature in the future, inasmuch as it does not comply with the regulations cf the Tribunal.
The prosecution agrees to stipulate and admit this document, if defense counsel will in turn stipulate that they will not read it into the record.
In addition to that, Your Honor, I have another point to bring up. During the course of the discussion of the Tribunal and defense counsel regarding the submitting of briefs before this Tribunal, it seems as if there was a misunderstanding of that conference wherein I explained I would make an attempt to make available closing briefs, of the prosecution before the International Military Tribunal for the defense counsel to study so that they will understand the method the Tribunal wishes to invoke here. I have one complete set of briefs in my own file and I will hand those over to defense counsel. Defense counsel apparently misunderstood and thought I was going to summit 10 briefs in the case of Ribbentrop. Well 19 separate copies are not available. I merely have one set and have made those available, and if I gave the impression that I intended to submit more than that, I must withdraw it now because that is the only conies I have available for the defense counsel.
THE PRESIDENT: In regard to the last statement by the prosecution concerning the briefs which were filed with the SecretaryGeneral in connection with the International Tribunal, counsel present nave heard the statement of the prosecution to the effect that he has made available to the defense counsel the only copy of this brief which he has, that, therefore, the defense counsel will in turn have to examine that brief. For my part, I did not understand counsel for the prosecution to say that he would furnish 19 copies of the brief, but at any event, that is all that it is possible to furnish.
MR. HARDY: I have, Your Honor, furnished than with one copy of the closing brief of each defendant before the International military Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: The prosecution has therefore done all that it is possible in order to aid defense counsel by allowing them to study the form of the brief such as the Tribunal desires.
Did counsel for the Defendant Brack hear the statement of counsel in connection with Brack Document No. 9?
DR. FROESCHMANN (Counsel for the Defendant Brack): I have heard what the prosecutor said and am willing to dispense with reading that affidavit in such a form as to have it read into the record.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor; in addition to that; defense counsel has two other documents; I believe, of a like character to this document. I am willing to stipulate the same conditions for those two documents.
THE PRESIDENT: In view of the statement of counsel; Brack Document No. 9 offered as Brack Exhibit 6 will be received in evidence and filed as an exhibit. This ruling of the Tribunal is without prejudice to the right of the prosecution to object to other documents which fail to comply with the rules laid down by the Tribunal, and the counsel is free to object, and the Tribunal is free to reject other documents. As this ruling will constitute for precedent for the future, it will not be binding upon the prosecution nor the Tribunal, it is not decided as a precedent. With that understanding, these documents will be received in evidence.
Counsel, what are the numbers of the other two documents? What documents are they?
DR. FROESCHMANN: Document No. 8; Document Book No. 1; on page 24; and affidavit by Joseph Gerhard Ollendorff of 21 October 1946; signed by him; and perhaps I might also put in at this time Document No. 11; document book No. 1; an affidavit by Hans Ollendorff's wife; Mrs. Helma Ollendorff; of 21 March 1947; signed and certified by a notary.
This affidavit certifies the correctness of the signatures of her husband and father. Now, document No. 8 will be Exhibit Brack No. 7. and 11 of Book I will be Brack Exhibit No. 8.
THE PRESIDENT: The documents will be received with the understading announced by the Tribunal.