Q Now it was the task of the SS to defend these demonstrations. Is that what you want to say, or did it have a further task beyond that?
A The SS had no further task. That is to be seen by the name SS, which "Schutzstaffel", which a protection guard. It occupied a purely security function within the framework of the Party. From 1929 to 1933, this was the only way I could see this, since the SS rarely, if ever, was used for propaganda purposes during that time. I participated in propaganda activities only twice during that period.
Q Mr. President, as Exhibit 11, I put in now Document 4, page 9, of Document Book, affidavit by Karl Wolf, a former General in the WaffenSS and signed by him on 27 March 1947 and certified by myself. I ask the Tribunal to take notice of it and to road only from it paragraph 2, which reads:
"Brack's and my activities in the general SS was determined by, and filled with, the desire to help the many unemployed compatriots to get work and bread again, and to reinstate Germany to an honorable place in the family of nations. In the General SS, we saw nothing but the Protective Squad (Schutzstaffel) which was to guarantee the security of the leading men, exposed as they were to attacks from political opponents when appearing in public at meetings and mass rallies. To counter such attacks and to keep political events peaceful and orderly was the task of the General SS. We never observed any criminal activities of the SS during the years of our joint service 1931/33."
Witness, what attracted you to the SS particularly, what seemed to you to be its salient characteristics?
A In the SS, I saw an embodiment of the spirit of comradeship and of sacrifice such as one could not find elsewhere at that time. I did not find this spirit in sport clubs or other organizations either to the extent I found it in the SS. In the SS there was a large number of enthusiastic motorists with whom I had common sport interest. Exercising these activities in the SS kept me from doing other work in the SS.
Q Now, did your motoring activity bring you in closer touch with Himmler?
A Yes. From 1930 on often, I served as his chauffeur from that time on. I was frequently with him in the car and in this way I made his acquaintance more closely, got to know his attitude toward many fields of life. Through these conversations with Himmler I detected in him a strong idealism. He expressed, as I say, a strong degree of idealism, to me and I saw him as a man of noble traits of character in whom I felt I could have explicit confidence.
Q Was politics carried on in your circles in the SS?
A In the circles in the SS to which I belonged no politics was carried on at all. We talked about sports and technical matters. Not only for me but for the greater majority of my comrades this was the total extent of our participation in the SS. We had no notion of the general basic policy according to which the SS was being managed.
Q Then you became engaged to get married and you received an OK for this engagement from Himmler. Himmler had reproached you and it was only then you saw that certain norms were laid down according to which an SS man was expected to behave. What was the consequence of this behavior with Himmler?
AAs I say, I had not concerned myself with these matters theretofore. But then I became interested in finding out what Himmler had done with the SS, or what his intentions were in the future. And I saw in the meantime Himmler had created a Fuehrer Corps, with an SS badge and I saw that Himmler intended to make a special body of the SS. I heard it called a Guard or an Elite Troop that was to be elevated above the masses. It was his intention to achieve this through careful selection, through stern discipline. In this way he was going to create an organization on which he could rely with certainty in the future.
Q Did you take any part in this inner life of the SS?
A No, I took no further part in this inner life of the SS. From 1934 on I attended no meetings of the SS although I had frequent opportunity. I also refused to be moved to a SS Community although I should have like to have my own house.
Q Now, then, you received the death-head ring from Himmler with the date of the 30th of June, 1934. Now, will you please tell us why you received this decoration because the prosecution charges that in 1934 you received this decoration from Himmler in recognition of your services to the SS?
A This death-head ring, like the dagger and other decorations, was given to members by the Reichsfuehrer if they had belonged to the SS for quite a while even if they hadn't accomplished any particular service. This ring is dated 30 June 1934. However, I recall very definitely that I did not receive it until 1935 and I think it was 1936. I mentioned this during my interrogations. I was told, during my interrogations, that the date was 30 June 1934 and I accepted that statement by the interrogator in good faith because they said they had my SS files available and knew that. I denied it, but later believed this. That is why I signed it in the affidavit, the date 30 June 1934. However, in the meantime, I have been thinking it over and I see that the decoration was given to me much, much later.
Q Now, you are speaking of your second affidavit, are you not?
A Yes.
Q Mr. President, I now put in as Exhibit 12, Document #6, Document Book 1, Page 14, an affidavit by Dr. Werner Best, born 10 July 1903, of 18 February 1947, signed by him and certified by me. Best here concerns himself with the death-head ring its engraving and the date at which it was received corroborates exactly what the defendant Brack has said; so I ask the Tribunal to take notice of this document.
Witness, you just said that you did nothing more in the general SS. However, you remained a member. Now, why didn't you resign if you had no further interest in the General SS?
A Being a member in the SS made no further difficulties for me. It would have been more logical for me to go to the NSKK because of my interest in sport; but my superior, Reichsleiter Bouhler, was also a member of the SS. Further, I didn't want to arouse any unfavorable attention by leaving the SS and what probably decided me to remain was the fact that by belonging to the SS many things, that were associated with my work in the Fuehrer's Chancellery, could be promoted much better by me if I were a member than if I were not. For this reason, after my transfer to Berlin, I even had myself transferred to the SD from the motor unit of the SS to which I had previously belonged in order that the complaints about the justice, the Gestapo and complaints concerning concentration camp inmates could be better represented by me at the SD, because those complaints made it necessary that we remain in close touch with the officials of the Gestapo.
Q Then, I may sum up by saying that you remained a member of the General SS, for one reason, because you had friends in it from the years 1929 to 1933 and, later, because in your professional career you found it more expedient to remain there to take care of these complaints and appeals that you just mentioned?
A Yes.
Q Now, we have considered your membership in the General SS. Now, briefly, the question of the Waffen-SS. Did you have opportunity in peacetime to observe the activities of Waffen-SS units?
A No. I received my military training with the mountain regiments 98 and 99.
Q Now, why did you join the Waffen-SS instead of the Army?
A That was the result of an accidental acquaintance with a commander of a mountain division of the SS. I applied to the Waffen-SS in April of 1942 for entry into it and requested Bouhler to approve my service on the front. This was given to me at first for six months and was then extended a number of times.
Q Now, what was your opinion of the military activities of the Waffen-SS at that time?
A I regarded the Waffen-SS as an excellent military organization, because its reputation after the French Campaign was good. Its military accomplishments were everywhere acknowledged.
Q When you entered the Waffen-SS, what ranks did you have until you left at the end of the war?
AAt first, I was ordnance officer for a division. Later, I was again an ordinance officer with the quartermaster general of a corps. Then, for a time, I was the supply officer of a division, and then I was the quartermaster general of a corps. In August, 1944, my commander was sent to the Carpathians to built up a line of resistance. This proved, however, to be impossible. In October or November, 1944, I became an expert for the Waffen-SS in a combing-out action for soldiers in Denmark. Then, in March, 1945, I became a transport officer in Goering's staff.
Q I submit from supplementary volume #1, Document 43, Exhibit 13, Page 6. I do not have to read anything from this document. I simply ask the Tribunal to take notice of it. Otto Haslreiter drew up this affidavit of 17 April 1947, signed by him, certified by me. I further put in Document #5, Document Book #1, Page 12, Brack Exhibit 14, an affidavit by Herbert Geitner, living in Ambach, who also knows the defendant Brack from that period and describes the activities that Brack himself has just described. He says that he never heard of Brack's being guilty of any inhumane acts and he says further that he considers Brack incapable of committing any act of cruelty. This is signed by Geitner on 31 March 1947, and certified by a notary in Munich. I further put in from Supplemental Volume #1, Document 44, Page 8, Exhibit 15, an affidavit by one Otto Meerpohl, of 17 April 1947, signed by him and certified by me. He describes the nature of the fighting in the war zone in which Brack was then actively engaged. He describes the malicious attacks, etc. I need not go into these matters in detail. However, I ask the Tribunal to take notice of this document. I merely point out that it is his point of view that, despite the inhumane cruelty on the part of the enemies, the troops were not guilty of such things.
Tell me, Mr. Brack, did you find out of any activities on the part of the troops to which you belonged which were contrary to any regulations, to international treaties or contrary to the laws of humanity?
A I knew of no such activities. I knew, however, that my commanding officers were always against any sort of infractions and issued orders to that effect, to wit, that excesses and infractions should be punished.
Q Now, let me remind the Tribunal again of what I put in as Exhibit #11, the affidavit by Karl Wolff, Document #4, and on page 10 of Document Book #1, here Wolff mentions his meeting with Brack in Berlin in 1942 and then later speaks of his connections with Brack in the Serbian Front. It begins with the words "I met Brack only infrequently during the war."
Now, we have come to the year 1944. In this connection........
THE PRESIDENT: (Interrupting) Counsel, before proceeding with the examination, the Tribunal will be in recess.
(A recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. MARX: Dr. Marx for the defendant Dr. Becker-Freyseng. Mr. President, as defense counsel of the defendant, Dr. Becker-Freyseng, I should like to ask that he be permitted leave of the morning and afternoon sessions of tomorrow, Wednesday, because it is necessary for him to have a number of discussions with me in order to prepare his defense.
THE PRESIDENT: On request of counsel for the defendant Becker-Freyseng, the defendant will be excused from attendance before the Tribunal tomorrow, Wednesday, in order to consult with his counsel in connection with his proposed defense. This, of course, is subject to the recall of the defendant if his case should be reached for trial prior to tomorrow morning or afternoon.
DR. MARX: Thank you very much, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may proceed.
BY DR. FROESCHMANN:
Q Witness, how was your membership in the SS concluded in the year of 1945?
AAfter my return from Denmark, Bouhler's had a number of large controversies with Bormann, because Bouhler disapproved of the erection of the Home Guards, as well as the extermination order of Bormann's; for that reason Bouhler approached Goering's staff went with Goering to Obersalzberg. Then together with Goering, Bouhler was sentenced to death, and I was arrested by the SD, when I tried to establish contact with Bouhler at the Obersalzberg, and was incarcerated with Bouhler, and a number of other persons. There we were told that we had been arrested by order of Martin Bormann because of participation in Goering's treason, and that we would be shot. We were brought into the SS barracks at Salzburg the same night, Bouhler told me later the sentence was not executed, because the order had not transmitted correctly. On the evening of 30 April he received the report that Hitler was dead. This I felt freed me of my oath towards Hitler, I mingled with the Army South which came from Italy, and obtained my release.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, in order to prove the assertion which was just made by Mr. Brack, I submit the Document No. 24 from my Document Volume No. I, which is to be found on page 63. This will become Exhibit No. 16. It is an affidavit of Werner Teske, who was born on 7 January 1913. The affidavit was signed on 26 February 1947, and was certified to by me in the proper manner.
I should also like to offer the Document No. 2t, which is also to be found in Document Volume No. 1, on page 65, This will become Brack's Exhibit No. 17. It is an affidavit by Fritz Goernnert, born on 18 March 1907. The affidavit was signed on 7 March 1947, and signed by him. It was again certified to by me.
I should like to ask the Tribunal to take notice of the contents of these two affidavits, which I shall dispense with reading.
BY DR. FROESCHMANN:
Q. Mr. Brack, in conclusion we should like to deal briefly with a number of questions concerning the SS which have arisen from the judgment of the International Military Tribunal and which are important when considering your alleged membership in a criminal organization. I shall put these questions before you very briefly and I should like you to answer them with either "yes" or "no" if possible and only elaborate whenever necessary.
I now ask you: Did you know that the units of the Waffen SS were active participants in the measures which have led to aggressive war?
A. No.
Q. Why did you not believe that, especially after the Sudeten countries, as well as Bohemia, Moravia, and the Memel had been occupied by the SS units?
A. According to the official publications of the German government we could not deduce that we were there concerned with aggressive acts.
Q. Did you know about the existence of the Hehnlein Free Corps?
A. No, I did not know anything about that.
Q. Did you know that in a number of Waffen SS divisions there were shootings carried out on unarmed prisoners of war and that this was general usage?
A. No, I did not know anything about that either.
Q. And did you have knowledge that SS units were used for the execution of the Germanization plans in the occupied countries and also participated in the deporting of the Jews and foreigners?
A. No.
Q. And finally, did you know that Waffen SS units were to have participated in the murder and mistreatment of the civilians of the occupied territory?
A. No, I did not know that either.
Q. Did you know they participated in the extermination of Jews, politically undesirable persons, and other atrocities?
A. No.
Q. How did you consider the subordination of the SS under the Reich Leadership SS?
A. From my own knowledge I know that the Waffen SS, from the point of view of supplies, was equipped by the SS Operational Main Office. The technical commitments and other equipment were arranged by the army and therefore had nothing to do with the Reichsfuehrer SS.
Q. In that case all the orders for the commitment of the SS originated from the army?
A. Yes, they always did and I, as a supply officer, received all my orders from the army and never from the SS.
Q. Did you know that the concentration camps were under the administration of the SS?
A. Yes, I knew that these camps were under the administration of the SS, but I always thought that the guards of the concentration camps constituted a special body of police. The political leadership of the concentration camps was under the RSHA or, as it was called before, the Gestapo Office.
Q. Did you arrive at that attitude because you knew that Heydrich was at the head of the Gestapo?
A. I arrived at that attitude because of the handling of the applications for release from the concentration camps, which could always be handed over to the Gestapo whenever they arrived at the Fuehrer Chancellery office.
Q. Witness, you already hinted and the witness Hederich was also dealing with that question for some time; you made the acquaintance of released inmates. I now ask you, did you learn from these inmates about any mistreatment in concentration camps?
A. No, I did not. A number of inmates, after their release, came to the Fuehrer's office, but none of them made any concrete statements about any mistreatment.
It was quite impossible even for me to penetrate the cloak which had been spread by Heydrich and others over the real goings-on in the concentration camps; as I realize now, it was quite impossible.
Q. Mr. Brack, but at least you did see some of these inmates after their release. Personally could you not base on the personal impression that these inmates gave you and deduce that you were concerned with people who had been morally or physically burdened because of their long internment?
A. Yes, of course I had to gain that impression in the case of a number of these inmates.
Q. You were also saying that you spoke to these inmates, but you were only able to gain insufficient reports from them, is that right?
A. No, I had no concrete reports from them at all, not even insufficient ones. Everyone of them said I had to sign, I would not communicate to anyone about the internal conditions of the camp, they could not do that.
Q. In that case you are merely confirming what the witness Hilscher has testified here in so moving a manner that we were concerned with persons here who were perhaps wearing a mask, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Witness, did you hear anything to the effect that a policy of exploitation was carried out toward these inmates?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever hear about the system of slave labor?
A. No, I did not hear that. Although I knew from the inmates that they were committed for work, at no time, however, did I learn about the form of slave labor as it was actually carried out.
Q. And finally, did you hear anything to the effect that experiments were carried out on concentration camp inmates?
A. No, I heard nothing at all about that.
Q. On the basis of your general impression you have been explaining to us today concerning the quality of the SS.
Could you assume that this highly disciplined organization, as you expressed, then could be used for mass murder?
A. No, no one could imagine that and I certainly did not.
Q. The International Military Tribunal has used a number of points in that connection as a criterion for the criminal nature of the individual SS men and for that reason I should like to ask you the following. Did you hear about the speeches made by Himmler in the year 1943 when he was praising the SS because of their toughness and ruthlessness?
A. No, I did not hear about these speeches.
Q. In the course of this morning's examination we shall come back to that point, but I do want to tell you now that in the year 1941 in January and in April of 1942 you had two personal conferences with Himmler. These conferences permitted you a certain insight into his personal thinking. Now I ask you whether these conferences did not permit the thought that he wanted to use the SS for the execution of such plans as were mentioned in the judgment of the International Military Tribunal.
A. I could not arrive at that conclusion, but on the other hand I assumed that he was planning these things as the head of the German Police. I could not assume that the SS was to be used for such purposes.
Q. In other words, you didn't associate the General SS with the plans of Himmler as far as you got to know them?
A. No, I did that in no way at all.
Q. Didn't your own thinking as an SS man play some part in those impressions?
A. Certainly it did because in my capacity as an SS man I never received any criminal orders.
Q. In conclusion I may state that you did not know anything about the using of the SS for criminal purposes and you neither knew about the useage of the Waffen SS for any such purpose up to the year 1945, is that right?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. And now one final question in this connection. Repeatedly and also in this trial mention was made of the so-called SS system, did you ever hear anything about that or did you have any thoughts about it?
A. I have not recognized in any form any existing SS system, and I, therefore, couldn't have any thoughts about it.
Q. Mr. President, that brings me to the conclusion of the point raised by the Prosecution regarding membership in the qeueral SS and the Waffen SS and I shall now pass on to the subject of the general activity of the defendant Brack within the chancellory of the Fuehrer. I shall discuss the relationship with Bormann, Himmler and Heydrick, and his attitude toward the concentration camp questions from the years 1934 to 1940, and I shall leave aside the question of euthanasia. I shall try to do it as quickly as possible in order to get to the point of sterilization this afternoon.
Witness, I ask you to avoid repetition of everything that the witness Hederich has mentioned here in a somewhat broad form.
You may perhaps refer to his statements but please try to tell us something new. I repeat that up to the year 1932 you made the acquaintance of the Reichleiter Bouhler only passingly, is that right.
A. Yes, that is true. I only knew him superfically. In the beginning of July 1932 Bouhler offered to me the position of personal adjutant. He held, at that time the position of the Reichs business manager of the NSDAP at that time and I took that offer because I was then unemployed.
Q. Didn't you at that time make contact with Himmler?
A. I saw Himmler after I had been employed at the Brown House almost daily when we had lunch, but our relation didn't go any further than with any other good acquaintance.
Q. Well what was your attitude in general toward Himmler?
A. In general it was pleasant and Himmler certainly realized that I had a positive attitude toward national socialism and that I had a certain amount of personal confidence in him.
Q. Did you also at that time make the acquaintance of Heydrich?
A. Yes, I did make the acquaintance of Heydrich in the year 1933.
Q. And how did you judge him, briefly?
A. He seemed to me to be very suspicious, not open and really from the point of view of feeling I rejected him.
Q. At the Reich Party Rally of 1934 Bouhler received an order from Hitler to hand over the management of the NSDAP and to found a Chancellory of the Fuehrer in Berlin, is that right?
A. Yes, that is true. He asked me to go along with him because he wanted to have at least one man in this strange environment, whom he knew and in whom he had confidence.
The task itself also seemed very difficult to him and I promised him I would help him as far as I could and that I would not leave him, and then I once more returned to Munich because I had married in the meantime, and in that connection I may perhaps say that, without consideration of future criticism, I was married in my SS uniform in Church, all of my childred were also members of the Church.
Q. The KAF, which is an abbreviation for the Chancellory of the Fuehrer, Heydrich said was the big chance for Bouhler and he said further that this agency was to be a very active agency for the purpose of adjusting the very many deficiencies which were connected with any utilitarian system. He did not have to deal now with the aims of the Chancellory of the Fuehrer, and I should merely ask the Tribunal to recall my document, which is document No. 14, which was Exhibit 1. This is already in evidence and it describes the aims of the Chancellory of the Fuehrer, as well as the Party Chancellory.
Q. It is true, witness, that there were applications coming in from all the various Gaus to the Party Chancellory and that they concerned all aspects of the Party and the State?
A. Yes, that is correct. Our incoming applications were enormous. Within my personal sphere of work I had to deal with about three to six hundred applications daily.
Q. And as a result of these applications you gained a very lively picture about the political, especially the Party political life and know about the general morale of the population?
A. Yes that is true. Bouhler, however, within the frame work of his own tasks was not in a position to remove these deficiencies, which became evident on the basis of these applications.
He was perhaps in a position to make corresponding criticism when he came into contact with Hitler and see to it that such deficiencies were removed. He confined himself, however, to settling these difficulties directly with the agencies which were concerned and to keep away these matters from Hitler as far as he could. He thought it to be his task to exercise a coordinated and efficient activity. In this manner the Chancellory of the Fuehrer became an assisting agency for all walks of life and gained a certain popularity as a result. However, political success could not be achieved by that Chancellory of the Fuehrer.
Q And how about your personal activity?
AAt first I was sitting in Bouhler's ante-room. My formal title was Chief of Staff, though I was never Chief of Staff in the true sense of that word. I must admit, that I never had the personal ambition to play any political part or to gain any large position. I merely wanted to assist these people whom it was necessary to assist.
Q The period of time during which Bouhler tried to create this chancellery as a coordinating factor in German life passed very quickly. As Hederich already testified certain circles around Hitler very soon realized Bouhler's weakness?
A Yes, that is true, especially Martin Bormann.
Q Martin Bormann?
A Yes. He was the chief of Staff of the Fuehrer's Deputy in that agency and after Hess' elimination in the year of 1941 the Party Chancellery was created. The real head of that agency had always been Bormann since the very beginning in 1933.
Q And Bormann was a hard working man, is that right?
A Yes.
Q He was in a position to grasp things very quickly and was in a position to adjust himself to any kind of circumstance, is that true?
A Yes. As far as I could survey position from my agency Bormann succeeded within a very short time to gather a circle of men around him whom he formed into a strong organization very quickly which was superimposed over the Party and the State and this agency had no adjusting activity but was merely carrying on power politics.
Q Again Hederich told us that Bormann up until the year 1934 was somehwat indifferent to Bouhler but then when the Chancellery of the Fuehrer was founded had of necessity to bring them to a controversy. Is that true?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q Did Bormann take any fields of work away from the Fuehrer's Chancellery, especially in such cases where he saw personal success?
A Yes, that is true.
Q Did you receive insight, perhaps from hearsay, as to what his relationship to Hitler was?
A I really can only judge that from hearsay. But according to what I learned, partly from Bouhler and partly from other people, Bormann was seemingly blindly devoted to Hitler but in reality ruled Hitler.
Q Mention was made here already about the power and radicalism of Martin Bormann. Opposed to that was their policy as pursued by Bouhler, a so-called "solft policy"?
A That is the expression which was used by Bouhler's political opponents, namely that he was pursuing a "soft-policy". And that, of course found a ready ear with Bormann. Because of this "soft-policy" the original controversy between Bouhler and Bormann became an enmity later and was naturally itensified.
Q In the year 1936 Buehler gave you the leadership of the Dept. II within the Chancellery of the Fuehrer. You accepted that offer?
A Yes.
Q Now would you please tell the Tribunal very briefly what your official position was and in particular whether you had any authority to make any decisions.
A Complaints from all osrts of people from all over Germany arrived at that office. I had just as little authority to make decisions as any of the other departmental heads. I was to prepare complaints, etc. for further handling. I was to raise points, etc., and the final decision rested with Bouhler. I knew Bouhler's basic conception to all these questions and I could, therefore, prepare his decisions for him because I knew how tolerant Bouhler was and I knew what his wishes were and for that reason it was simple for me to prepare such tolerant decisions.
Q How about the result of Bouhler's reports to Hitler?
A The result was extremely favorable. Hitler very often, and I could almost say most of the time, followed Bouhler's proposals and that, particularly in the field of the Jews and people of mixed blood, he very often adhered to the suggestion proposed by Bouhler.
Very seldom were complaints regarding political leaders who had been misusing their office given way to because in those cases Bormann would be called in. In cases like that Bouhler couldn't carry his opinion through and for that reason there was very strong controversy with Bormann.
Q Mr. President in that connection I should like to ask you to accept a number of Documents which all refer to Brack's activity within the Chancellery of the Fuehrer which I shall not read into the record for the purpose of brevity. I should merely like you to take notice of the documents. These are: Document No. 17, Volume I, page 49. This is an affidavit of Gustav Gerhard Quast of Hornbeburg, dated 27 January 1947, signed by Gustav Quast and certified by the Notary Dr. Luedemann. This will become Brack Exhibit 18.
I should further like to submit Document No. 18 which is an affidavit by Dr. Werner Schulemann of Brunswick. This is dated 30 January 1947. It was certified by Notary H. Herdegen and it will become Brack Exhibit 19.
Furthermore, I submit Document No. 21 which is in Document Book I and is the affidavit of Albert Goderbauer dated 13 January 1947. The date 1946 in your copy is incorrect. This was certified on the 19 February 1947. It will become Brack Exhibit No. 20.
Furthermore, I should like to refer to in this connection to the Brack Exhibit No. 10 which is the affidavit of Freiherr von Tuessling which I have already read.
And, finally, I submit the Brack Document No. 16 in Document Book I which is the affidavit of Dr. Hans Greuninger, dated 20 January 1947 and signed by him. It was certified by me and it is to be found on page 42 of the Document Book. I offer it as Exhibit 21. All these affidavits describe Brack's activity and agree in emphasizing the readiness to help of the defendant and speak of all the efforts which the defendant Brack made in his fight against injustice.
Now, witness, you were Bouhler's oldest collobarator?
A Yes.
Q Could Bormann assume that you too tried to maintain Bouhler's attitude of tolerance or was Bormann of a different opinion?
A No. Bormann must have assumed and he knew me personally from Munich that I was working fully in line with Bouhler and for that reason his criticism was justified. I tried to think in a humane manner and I tried to act in that manner. I wasn't any political accounting machine. I was on a completely different level in the Jewish question as opposed to Bormann. I was opposed to the totalarian system of the Party. I was against the limitations of personal freedom and Bormann no doubt knew that I was supporting Bouhler with these thoughts.
Q We are now getting to the conferences which you had with Himmler and I should like to ask you, did you often meet Himmler in the years from 1935 to 1940?
A During that time I very rarely met Himmler. We occasionally came into contact and officially only when Bouhler sent me to him to report to him. That in particular when we were concerned with releases from concentration camps. Himmler in most of these cases complied with my attitude and my wishes which were also those of Bouhler despite Heydrichs' circumstances and opposition. My relationship to Himmler was in no way particularly close. If it was a little closer there could have developed perhaps a relationship of a fatherly friend but in order to say that I must point out I met him too rarely.