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.
They will not be read but will be made part of the record before the Tribunal and will be considered for what probative value they have.
DR. FROESCHMANN: May I continue my case, your Honor?
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, counsel, until we mark our document.
Counsel may proceed.
VIKTOR BRACK - Resumed.
DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR. FROESCHMANN:
Q Witness, I remind you again that you are still under oath.
Witness, at the conclusion of the afternoon's session we were examining whether and to what extent you in the period between 1921 and 1933, i.e., the date of your entering political life, had personal relations with Jews. We stopped when discussing Messrs. Ollendorff, whose affidavit became the subject of some discussion. Did you continue such friendships, e.g., with Ollendorff, after 1933, too?
A Yes, I am still friendly in the same way with Ollendorff as I was previously. I did not construe the Party anti-Semitism the way Himmler, Bermann and Heydrich did, otherwise I would not have continued these friendships.
Q Now, it was your view that this anti-Semitism, which you just mentioned, despite and after the seizure of power, would gradually take on a more quiet form?
A Yes, that was my opinion because I saw in the anti-Semitism that the Party preached something of a propagandists nature and believed it would soon be tempered. I was supported in this view by the various cases in which Bouhler was successful when reporting to Hitler on behalf of Jews, half-Jews, persons of mixed blood, etc. These efforts on Bouhler's part were directed toward helping Jews and persons of mixed blood not only in the Party itself but in the Wehrmacht and in civil service.
Q Now, witness, in the course of time, as a party member, you became familiar with party's attitude toward the Jews; did this not make you doubt the correctness of your views?
A These doubts only arose later. I knew what the Party view toward the Jew was. I considered it just that the Jews' influence should be limited in a certain way and to a certain extent. The fact that Jews had achieved much power as they had struck me as a similar situation to the power the nobility had during the influence of the Kaiser.
In the Kaiser's Germany the nobility did actually occupy all the influential positions and I found this to be unjust just as I consider the autocracy of any one class unjustifiable. I had toward the Jews no other attitude than the one that I had toward the nobility. We spoke only in terms of "Numerus Clausus" and I considered that justifiable.
Q It did however become known that certain violent propagandists attempted considerable influence, I recall men like Streicher and his newspaper "Der Stuermer;" what was your attitude toward these excesses?
A This exaggerated a wild semitism I always repudiated, Bouhler did the same and I can remember that Bouhler made the effort and was nearly successful in having "Der Gtuermer" prohibited altogether. He regarded it as a destructive newspaper without culture and a detriment to the welfare of the country.
Q Did you support Nurnberg in the struggle against Martin?
A Yes, we did.
Q Now, after the issuing of the Nurnberg laws, the question of anti-semitism became more crucial?
A Of course, after these laws were passed I saw that the leadership of the country was set on eliminating the Jews from all influential positions in Germany. Within the free economy, I saw so many opportunities and possibilities for the Jews to earn a living that at first I had no misgivings, to my own office, Amt II, in the Fuehrer's Chancellery all complaints emanating from Jews and half-Jews were worked on. I have already said just what they were concerned with, these were complaints about political excesses and all sorts of other requests. I have already said that Bouhler frequently had success here.
Q Mr. Brack, I don't want it to be thought that it is only at this moment at this trial that you discovered how enthusiastic an antiSemite you are. Let me ask you on your oath in conclusion if in your activities in the Fuehrer's Chancellery, with no regard for political or material gain, you used your influence in favor of the people concerned and particularly in affairs that concerned Jews?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q Did you not on the other hand have the opportunity precisely in your activities in the Fuehrer's Chancellery to work on requests from Jews and to take a negative attitude toward them if that had been your persuasion?
A Not only would I have the opportunity, but actually that was my duty, but I could not reconcile myself to these policies.
Q Then you actually did the opposite from what the Party doctrines requested?
A Yes.
Q Now, we get to the year of 1938 and to the program of the 10th of November. What influence did that event have on you?
A This event surprised me enormously. It appeared to me not only evil, but also stupid and false. A friend of mine, the director of the Hamberg World Economic Institute, I asked to tell me what the reaction was in foreign countries, to this he made a collection of more than 600 excerpts from newspapers, which I gave to the Reichsleiter, and I also sent a copy to Himmler and to the then Minister Frank.
Q Did this ever arouse a very specific reaction in you. Let me ask the question differently. In view of these events, did you not want to resign altogether from the Fuehere's Chancellery?
A Of course I was strongly moved by these events, and it was my intention to resign. Actually I had many other interests than simply doing negative work. My work there was observing that something was going wrong and if something was going wrong, I had to listen to complaints, make out reports and try to straighten things out where other people out of stupidity or malice made something go wrong. Now, the only way to do that is to request assistance from other offices and after a while that becomes arduous.
Q But I want to know if the events of the 10th of November 1938 did not have some specific influence or effect on you; did you not at that time draw a plan or viewpoint?
A Yes, I did. It was at that time I struck up various connections with private industry and received certain assurances from representatives of industry.
Q From 1933 to 1942, in your activities in the Fuehrer's Chancellery, in many cases you used your influence in favor of Jews and half-Jews; did you on those occasions simply have the interest of the individual Jews in your mind or were you moved by some larger principle?
A First of all, I was concerned primarily with the interest of the individual, but as more frequent and more applications of one kind came in, I saw that a struggle was underway here against an entire segment of the people and I did not consider this struggle to be a good one. The achievements of men like Mendelssoh, or Heine of Dr. Ehrlich I was always acutely aware of and I asked myself why should humanity deprive itself voluntarily of the work and help of such men as these. In recognizing these men and in the entire human evaluation of them and their tradition, I had to repudiate such a policy of hate, and that is what happened.
Q And then later when you heard of the actual policy of extermination of Jews, what was your attitude then?
A There was no other reaction but the effort if possible to help.
Q Were you dumb founded at first?
A Of course I was.
You never however in your own interests failed to help a Jew who applied for help? Rather you accepted any request that came to you and did not consider your own interests, is that so?
A Yes.
Q That concludes my discussion of your attitude toward the Jews and now I turn to your attitude toward National Socialism. Please tell the Tribunal what you did between 1929 and 1933 for the Nazi Party?
A From 1929, on I worked for National Socialism. Its program contained a great deal that could be of value for Germany, and at that time I saw in National Socialism the only possibility of saving the country from economic distress and unemployment.
Q Were you what might be known as a typical National Socialist?
A Certainly not. I was always a National Socialist with reservations That is the only way I can put it, because attacks on personal freedom, press, censorship and so forth, were contrary to my convictions. These things, I thought were either a basis for misunderstanding National Socialism as a whole or they were deviation of National Socialism into a false channel.
Q Did you concern yourself with the Fuehrer principles?
A First of all I didn't understand it at all. Later when the words "Fuehere principle" was used more frequently, I did concern myself with it, but I did not see right away that this Fuehrer Principle, unless it had some correctives, was not a permanently tenable form of State Government. I was deceived by the successes or by the success that National Socialism had in economic fields, and party in the field of foreign affairs, and that is why I didn't understand this at first.
Q Did you later understand it?
A I only understood this very late, in my pretty simple way of thinking I saw this not as a reason for criticism but as a reason to give aid and to try to repair this ill. I was an employee of the Party but certainly not a fanatical representative of its interests.
Q Did you follows these principles in doing your work in that office?
Ccurt 1
A I have already spoken about this in connection with my attitude toward the Jews. I followed the same policy, of course, in the conduct of the rest of my office work. I also observed these principles in my private life. In the education of my children; my wife left the NS Frauenschaft in 1936, and I did not belong to any of the various Party organizations, the DAF, the NSV, which one should really belong to and which one was always pressed to join. The Party seemed to me to be a m* means toward an end. I saw this end at the salvation of Germany from distress unemployment. Innerpolitical unity was necessary to achieve this and the Party struck me as the correct means toward that end.
Q Now, let's turn to the year 1942, the year in which you left the Fuehrer Chancellory. What was your attitude in 1942 toward National Socialism? Did you still believe that the Nechrmacht would win the War or did you have some doubt about this?
A In 1942, I was sure that the Wehrmacht would win the War, but I hoped that after the victory there would be a change in Hitler's heart and in the leading personalities to do something better. I believed that there were many forces and men still in existence who had reserved decency and idealism in themselves. Only now, as time went on, I came to see that this was erroneous.
Q What about Stalingrad?
AAfter Stalingrad I saw that a clear cut victory for Germany was not possible any longer although I didn't believe that the War was one hundred per cent lost. I believed Germany could still remain to be a political factor in Europe and at the moment of the landing in 1944, this hope, of course, vanished as well.
Q And form then on you saw the situation as definitely hopeless?
A Yes.
Q Now what personal experience occurred during this time that affected your attitude toward National Socialism?
A From this moment on, there began within me that serious spiritual struggle to reconcile myself to National Socialism, that criticism of Hitler and the serious mistakes he made and criticism also of my own action, and I spoke about these matters to friends at some length.
Q Did you consider taking an active stand against the Government?
A No, and I must honestly say I would not have been able to join a resistance movement. I was a soldier then and nothing mere, and as such I did my duty like a millions of others although with no hope of success.
DR. FROESCHMANN:
Mr. President: in closing this chapter I should like to put in, Exhibit No. 7, from supplement No. 1 to my document book, affidavit by Friedrich Wilhelm Kleinlein of 17 April 1947, on page 4 of the supplementary volume. This is document No. 42 signed by Kleinlein and certified by myself. Prom September 1942 until September 1944, Kleinlein was the intelligence liaison officer for the foreign office and an this capacity was in a position to talk of many things with Brack. May I read a paragraph from this document, paragraph 3:
"During these discussions past and present measures were freely criticized and in this connection, Brack emphasized to me how wrong he had thought the treatment of the Jews in his time, when they were compelled to emigrate, leaving part of their property behind. He also condemned the Jewish program of 1938."
Mr. President, this concludes also my treatment of Brack's attitude toward National Spcialism, and now I turn to the charge of the membership in the SS.
BY DR. FROESCHMANN:
Q Mr. Brack, you are charged with remaining a member of the SS after 1 September, 1737, and thus a member of an organization declared criminal by the I M T. You belonged both to the General SS and to the Waffen SS and were an officer in those two organizations. Please tell the Court how came you to join the General SS in 1928? Describe your career in the SS briefly, your attitude and your experiences, and then take up up the Waffe SS.
A In 1928 or 1929, I made Himmler's personal acquaintance. My Father at that time had assisted Mrs. Himmler in a difficult child birth and this circumstances brought about closer relations between my Father and Himmler, and thus I too made the acquaintence of Buhler and others who took up relations with my father on Himmler's recommandations.
Q You then joined the General SS under the influence of Himmler?
A In 1929 under Himmler's influence, and I may say on his request I joined the general SS, and that brought with it automatically entry into the party. Then from 1930 to 1931; I served in a SS unit. At the beginning of 1931; I was entrusted with the leadership of a batallion of ten cmn which was to be made later into a motorized squad In 1932 I had organized a further unit which was used on special occasions.
Q What was your SS number?
A It was 1940.
Q In 1930, you then received the civilian decoration of the SS, is that so?
A Yes, that is so.
Q What was its number?
A 901. This happened because in the meantime a lot of men in the meantime left the SS, certainly several hundred. Thus I was one of the oldest SS members at that time. This circumstance was, of course, not without its influence on my relation with Himmler. That is how the number dropped from 1940 to 901 - my order number in the SS. Then in 1931 on Himmler's wishes I set up a motorized training unit which was used purely for motor sport purposes and nothing else. And, this unit later had great success in competitions.
Q Mr. President, in this connection I put in as Brack Exhibit 10 Document No. 1, Document Book I, page 1. This is an affidavit by Karl Freiherr Michel von Tuessling, born 27 July 1907, signed by him on 31 March 1947 and certified by the Internment Camp official at Regensburg. From this affidavit I read only the paragraph on page 3 which begins with the words "There can be no question of Brack's having engaged in SS activity in the usual sense during the period from 1933 to 1939".
I should like the Tribunal to take notice of the rest of that paragraph.
Now, in 1934 you moved to Berlin. Did you do service at that time for the General SS?
A No. From 1934 when I moved to Berlin I did no more work for the General SS.
Q Now, what was your activities between 1929 and 1933 in the General SS?
A Before 1933 the Party was active in many meetings and demonstrations. The political opponents of the Party, particularly the Communists, made efforts to disturb these demonstrations and did not hesitate to attack speakers and supporters. It is erroneous to believe that the SS and the SA on their own initiative went through Germany making trouble and attacking defenseless bystanders. If an SS man made use of his fists it was done in self defense. Someone would hit him and say, "Beat him; this is a Nazi" and this was the only way that he could defend himself.