Q And what was your relationship to Heydrich?
A My relationship to Heydrich since the beginning of my activity at Berlin were always unpleasant and tense because the work in the Chancellery of the Fuehrer often extended to fields which were under the supervision of Heydrich. After I had ostentatiously assumed an entirely different attitude and especially in view of political inmates, and since I tried, partly by order of Bouhler and partly on my own initiative, to help these people to their release, Heydrich had to oppose me. Ever since the year of 1937 I had to feel personally threatened.
Q Yes, this was the incident about which Hederich had reported?
A That's right.
Q Now, very briefly, did Heydrich consider you a man who was committing treason against National Socialism?
A Yes, he threatened me with arrest. He said I was committing treason. He asked Bouhler to release me from my position, and things of that nature.
Q Mr. President, in that connection, I should like to submit a document from Document Book #2, which is #29 on Page 6. An affidavit by Dr. Hans Ehlich of the 7th of February, 1947. It was signed by him and certified by me. I should like to point in particular to Paragraph 2. This will be Brack Exhibit #22. I should furthermore like to offer my Document #39 from Document Volume #2 on Page 60. This is an affidavit of Gertrude Kallmayer, dated the second of April, 1947, which was signed by her and certified by me. This will become Exhibit #23. In both of these documents the attitude of Heydrich towards the defendant Brack is illustrated and also the difficulties in which Brack, at that time, found himself. In that connection I may also remind you of the Document Brack #4, Exhibit #11, which is already in evidence which is to be found on Page 10 of that document where these controversies are also discussed.
Now, Mr. Brack, we repeatedly discussed the nature of the applications which arrived at the Chancellory and I need not deal with that any more; this field of work, these Jewish applications and complaints, etc.
Complaints from Party agencies and dealing with release of protective custody inmates brought you more and more into contact with Heydrich and Bormann, and now, would you please say in that connection what your attitude was concerning the right of the state to intern persons in an internment camp where a danger arose for that person and for general society?
AAt that time I resigned myself to the fact of a concentration camp. That was not only true of Germany. In the neighboring state of Austria there was the big concentration camp of Wollersdorf wherein the Austrian state leadership, which was then not National Socialistic, was incarcerating the German National Socialists and National Socialists who were the opponents of that regime. In view of the political situation as it prevailed in Europe at that time I didn't consider that any state had a right to do that, but I resigned myself to the fact of their existence. If, for political reasons, you do place persons into protective custody, you can only, of course, do that under the observance of all human rights and naturally, any such incarceration, can only last as long as is necessary for the protection of the state and, under protective custody, inmates would have to have a possibility to work and earn some money because one has to consider that their families are at home. That is the only conclusion one can arrive at from a idealogical point of view. This, however, has nothing to do with any incarceration of preventive custody prisoners, of criminals, but that had nothing to do with our office. We were only dealing with people who were political opponents.
Q Did you always consider it to be a fact that any person's applications with whom you dealt was really opposing the regime?
A On the basis of the statements made by relatives, and on the basis of the various positions taken by the agencies involved, I often saw no reason for the maintenance of that protective custody status, and as time progressed, I grew more and more skeptical towards every protective custody arrest.
Q For that reason did you create a special department within your office?
A Yes, after these applications for release grew more numerous I reported that question to Bouhler and Bouhler ordered that a special department within that office be created for the handling of these matters. It was a very difficult task which had to be dealt with by the head of that department. Every single case had to be evaluated and constituted a number of difficulties. One had to be in touch with the Gestapo and the Gau leadership or whoever initiated the person to be placed in the concentration camp in the first place.
Q Mr. President, in that connection I may submit one exhibit which refers to the treatment of the application of Jewish persons of mixed blood. This the Document #10 to be found in Document Book #1 on page 27. This is the affidavit of Helma Ollendorff. I already mentioned her this morning. It was signed by her on the 14th of March, 1947, and certified by the notary there, Dr. Daimer. I am not going to read that affidavit but it illustrates very strongly the manner in which the defendant Brack, without any consideration to his person and his position had interfered on behalf of her father. This will become Exhibit #22. In connection with the question......
DR. FROESCHMANN: I beg your pardon, Your Honor. Exhibit #25. In that connection, I am submitting Document.........
THE PRESIDENT: (Interrupting) Counsel, should not this exhibit be #24? Check your list, please.
BY DR. FROESCHMANN:
Q Yes, I must correct myself once more. It should be 24. I beg your pardon.
And now I am going to submit the Document #22 from Document Book #1, Page 59, which is the affidavit of Dr. Ludwig Schmitt, dated the 26th of March, 1947, and signed by him. It was certified by the notary there, Dr. Nobis, on the same day. I should like to read the last sentence from that affidavit because it illustrates the character of the defendant Brack, and he says, I quote:
"I consider it a fine, courageous and humanitarian act for Brack to repeatedly endeavor to ameliorate my circumstances in the face of danger to himself."
I must remark here that Schmitt had been in a concentration camp for a certain period of time. I quote again:
"It is typical of his desire to help that he immediately gave my assistant, Frl. Dr. Richter, full details of his conversations with Himmler; Bouhler, however, could not be approached anymore and declined to do any more for me. It is my honest desire to state facts to show that Brack at that difficult time showed a humane and decent attitude."
I further submit, in that connection, Brack Document #40. This is to be found in Document Book #2, on page 64, and it will become Exhibit Brack #26. This is an affidavit of a certain Bernhard of Schweinfurt, dated the 5th of April, 1947, signed by him and certified by the notary there, Georg Lang. It will become Brack Exhibit #26. From this affidavit I shall only read the following sentences:
"I am married to a Jewess.
"My mother-in-law, Alice Seligstein, had her last residence in Berlin. Viktor Brack helped me three times in securing a postponement of my mother-in-law's deportation to a concentration camp. She was to be deported in October, 1941 for the first time. At her call for help, I hastened to Berlin in order to save her. All my attempts were unsuccessful. I applied to all possible offices including the Gestapo at the Alexanderplatz. In desperation I telephoned my firm. Mr. Brack was known to my firm. They called him up, recommended me, and asked him to grant my request. When I called on the Chancellery of the Fuehrer, where Brack was working, I was received by his secretary. She apparently had been informed already, and explained to me that Mr. Brack was willing to help. She took me to Mr. Vorberg, who apparently had also been informed. He promised to settle the affair immediately and he wanted to put in a word so that my mother-in-law would be excluded from the tranport. I gave the personal data, of my mother-in-law.
After this I called on the Jewish community who confirmed on the following day that my mother-in-law's name had been crossed out in the list of the transport."
The next sentence:
"In view of the assistance which Mr. Brack so unselfishly rendered to my mother-in-law and my family in our greatest need I thought it only just and right to acquaint the court with my experiences with Mr. Brack when I learned some months ago that he was charged as one of the war criminals.
"I have made this statement voluntarily. No one, neither Mr. Brack nor any of Mr. Brack's friends nor anyone else who knows of this affair, induced me to make this statement. It is very well possible that Mr. Brack does not even remember the whole affair or my name."
Q. Mr. Brack, you have already been speaking about the difficulties in which you were when dealing with these applications, on which I have submitted in extracts a number of examples. Do you believe that there were only personal reasons which brought about this difference between Heydrich and yourself, or were the reasons of a deeper nature?
A. As I judge the matter now in retrospect and in the full knowledge of all these crimes, I must come to the conclusion that these were not personal matters, but matters of a fundamental nature. It must have been Heydrich's aim to exterminate all his political opponents in concentration camps. As I said before already, I could find out nothing about that from inmates who had been released. My own position was far to weak and insignificant to let me hope that I could bring about at any time a fundamental change of that situation. I could do nothing but report these matters to the Reichsleiter, or sometimes even to Himmler. At any rate we did try, through the Party Chancellory, to go beyond the applications which arrived at our office and help those who had been arrested. We simply attempted to form groups which we considered to be suitable for release and we submitted such proposals to Bouhler who then in turn discussed it with Himmler. It was in effect achieved that certain categories of persons, former participants in the war, fathers of large families, former members of oppositional parties were released in groups. I remember one figure completely, because it constituted the very first success of this nature which Bouhler had brought about.
On the occasion of Hitler's birthday in the year 1937, 4300 protective custody inmates had actually been released. In the years 1936 to 1941 the figures of those that were released, as a result of those masses released I was speaking about, must, I am sure, have increased to 10,000 or 12,000, if not 15,000. On the basis of the singular applications from the relatives to the Chancellory of the Fuehrer, to Bouhler, to Himmler, etc., at least 3,000 to 5,000 people were released. At that time we were proud of our results. Today, after knowing the enormous extent of the concentration camps, as I can now survey the numbers that were involved, I see how ridiculously low it was, what we achieved at that time. Then, however, I couldn't survey it.
DR. FROESCHMANN: To my regret, Mr. President, I learn that Supplement III is not yet available to the Tribunal. For that reason I must reserve myself the opportunity to submit at a later date a document which constitutes a short exerpt from Kogon's book "The SS State" and which is relevant in this connection. I at that time spoke about the release which was carried out as a result of Hitler's 50th birthday, and that was carried out in Buchenwald.
BY DR. FROESCHMANN:
Q. Mr. Brack, all your activities lead to a number of letters about you which were sent to Bouhler's and also lead to difficulties which were incurable for you, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. You then tried to enter the sport through intervention of Reich's Sport Leader von Tschammer und Osten?
A. That is true.
Q. Ever since 1937 you were an honorary member also of that organization and carried out sports activities there. Why didn't you carry through that intention?
A. I didn't realize my intention of transferring to sports acti vity or industry because at that time the war had broken out.
Simultaneously a decree was issued by Hitler which was a prohibition to leave any governmental agencies. Personally I was not satisfied with my work because I had too many difficulties and I saw no basic assistance was possible. The only assistance was in single cases. In the final analysis, however, I believed that I could not release the possibility of helping singular people.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, to sum up I would like to submit at this point Document No. 7, Viktor Brack Document Book No. 1, page 15, which is an affidavit of Irmgard Grube, dated the 4th of February, 1947, which was certified by the notary, Dr. Stephans, and which will become exhibit Brack No. 27. I ask you to take notice of the conditions of this affidavit because it illustrates the entire activity of Brack within the Chancellory of the Fuehrer from 1937 to 1942. This will be Exhibit 27.
This, Your Honor, brings me to the end of the complex regarding Brack's activity within the Chancellory of the Fuehrer and I shall now be in a position to go over to the subject of sterilization. I think this might be a suitable time to adjourn.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess until 1:30.
(Thereupon the noon recess was taken.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The Tribunal reconvened at 1330 hours, 13 May 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
VICTOR BRACK - Resumed
DR. FROESCHMANN (Counsel for the Defendant Brack): Mr. President, I previously neglected to put two documents in evidence that concerned the subject last under discussion. These are document number 2. Document Book No. 1, page 5, affidavit by Henning Von Nordeck of 31 March 1947, signed by him and certified by me. In this affidavit I draw your attention particularly to paragraph 3. I do not, however, have to read it. This will be Exhibit 28. The second document that I wish to put in is document 15, Document Book No. 1, page 39, an affidavit by Werner Best dated 25 January 1947, signed by him in that date and certified by myself. Here it is stated specifically that whole groups of inmates were released from concentration camps in what was known as an amnesty. This is Exhibit Brack 29.
DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR. FROESCHMANN:
Q. Let me remind you again, witness, that you are still testifying under oath. Mr. Brack, this morning we went into your activities in the Fuehrer's Chancellory, so far as was here necessary, and from many affidavits that I have I could ascertain that you were always ready to give assistance in the cares and tribulations of your fellow men, and that, particularly, in many cases you interdeeded in the interests of Jews. Now, an apparent contradiction to this is the chapter which we are about to enter upon, namely the count charging you with War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity, committed in forst order through your sterilization proposals to Himmler in the course of 1941 and '42. I ask you now to go into this whole problem at some length.
A. Both the occurrences of November 1938 and the fefamation of the Jews, both before the outbreak of the war and during the war, were not unknown to me. But I always hoped that things would gradually quiet down, and, actually, I had nothing to do with these things and could have something to do with them only if someone in search of help applied to the office where I was employed. Any intention to exterminate Jews in 1939 and 1940 was not known to me. If such intentions did exist at that time, I can only say today that the persons who had such intentions were able to keep them completely secret, hiding them behind a heavy veil.
In the summer, however, 1941, something occurred which gave me misgivings. An associate of mine belonged to Bormann's office before he came to the Fuehrer's Chancellory, Despite the tense relations between these two officers, this man still maintained personal connections with people in Bormann's office. Consequently, he knew much more about the ultimate intentions of Bormann's office than I did. One day this associate brought me the news that there was the intention to find a radical solution of the Jewish problem. Just what the solution was to be in detail could not immediately be ascertained by me. I couldn't find out whether the intention was outright extermination. There was talk of sending all the Jews to the East of Europe, primarily to Poland. At the same time, the anti-Semetic attitude on the part of the Polish population was mentioned which was expected to led to pogroms was also expected.
At any rate, all these things seemed most dubious to me. However, we ourselves, were completely impotent to do anything about it. I, in my Party Office, could not find out anything more about these plans or undertake anything to frustrate them. Nevertheless, simply because our conscience made us do so, we did decide to try to do something to combat this tendency.
After we of the Party Chancellory found out that these plans existed, only Martin Bormann could be the instigator of them. Now, whether that could be traced back to a wish on the part of Hitler or whether it was Bormann's own idea, as the witness Lammers stated, that I cannot say and I do not know even today. But the essential thing for us was that Bormann was concerning himself with these matters, and when Bormann concerned himself with something, then things were very dangerous because with his radical point of view we had to count on their being carried out in an altogether ruthless fashion. There was nobody in Germany who could oppose Bormann, Hitler was the only man who could give him orders.
In the tense inimical relation between Bouhler and Bormann, there was simply no question of intervention on Bouhler's part. That simply was to be reckoned with the fact that in some form or another, either in there being deported, or in something worse, the Jews were going to have trouble. If any one had a counter suggestion, it would of course have to be more in a similar direction, but it would be intended to give the Jews a somewhat better chance. This proposal would have to be taken directly to Hitler, because only he was in a position to change Bormann's mind. Others were too weak for that.
Q Now, Mr. Brack, in your affidavit No. 426, Exhibit 160, in this Document Book, 14 page 10, you stated, "We developed the idea of deporting Jews." Will you please say something about that statement of yours?
A First of all, the expression of the word "deporting" was not my word, but it was chosen by the man who drew up the affidavit. I already said what I thought - - or think about this affidavit, and how it came about. I was not aware at that time of the meaning of the word. If I had, I certainly would have refused to use it. At any rate we were thinking of a re-settlement in a decent sense of the word, rather than the deportation.
Q Now what was the political situation at this time?
A In the Summer of 1740 the situation in Europe might be summarized as follows: After the Polish campaign Poland was divided between Soviet Russia and Germany; Belgium and Holland were in German hands, and Denmark and the Netherlands were under German control. There was an Armistice with France and a political approchment apparently, Italy was our Ally. There were good relations with Hungary and Yugoslavia, and for an outsider, such as I was, it seemed as if there was no danger from the side of the Soviet Union or from the United States of America. One heard that measures were under way with promises of success with England, and everything seemed to point to the fact that the war would soon be concluded. That is the way the normal mortal appraised the situation at that time.
Q And what attitude then were these countries expected to take towards the Jews at the end of the war?
A It was supposed that after the war many European countries were to adapt themselves to German legislation regarding the Jews. Thus, for all the Jews in Central Europe it would be impossible to develop further, as I said, there was a large scale re-settlement plan, which was to give the Jews a new homeland. This would both have removed Palestine as a bone of contention, and so leave the matter to the thoughr of settling, or proposing that the Jews be settled in Madagascar. It would not be difficult for France to give up Madagascar in exchange for a previous German Colony, that could be arranged in the peace treaty, but at any rate, such proposal could only be put into effect through Hitler, and if Hitler agreed to such a proposal, then Bormann's intentions would be automatically frustrated.
Q Why just Madagascar?
A Madagascar was mentioned already by Chaim Waitzmann, in his Sionist plans. It is an island of 600,000 square kilometers. In other words considerably larger than Germany, and it has only 3,500 inhabitants. It is sparsely settled, and in the opinion of the "GO" Bulletin, it could support roughly a population of twenty million, and the accomodation of eight to ten million European Jews there fore would afford no difficulty. The climate in Madagascar covers the whole range of possible climatic conditions, and resembles the climate that is to be found in Palestina. The natural resources of coal, minerals, oil and so forth, made it likely that a firmly routed industry could grow there. Moreover there are considerable opportunities for cattle raising. The grasslands are fertile, and what would be needed was an increase of this population in order to make use of these. From the agriculture point of view, all sorts of crops could be grown there, Tobacco, wheat, cotton, etc., and, consequently this country seemed to be very appropriate for the reception of eight to ten million people.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, in this connection I put in Document No. 27 Document Book No, 1 - - No. 2, correction, page 3 Exhibit No. 30, which I have already discussed during my interrogation of the witness Hederich. This is a brief excerpt from the dictionary well known in Germany as "Der grosse Brockhaus."
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, it was already offered in evidence, and rejected by the Tribunal.
DR. FROESCHMANN: I understood this rejection on the part of the Tribunal to apply only of the offering of this document in connection with the Hederich testimony. I want to put it in explicitly here as evidence, because it substantiates Mr. Brack's testimony here. Am I incorrect in this belief, Mr. President?
THE PRESIDENT: No, I think counsel is correct. Counsel had leave to offer, it, to offer document at some later time, and you offer it now. What does counsel for the Prosecution say?
MR. HOCHWALD: The Prosecution objects against the document as immaterial.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will admit the document in evidence at this time for probative value it may have.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Then I put this in as Brack's Exhibit No. 30. I shall dispense with the reading of it.
BY DR. FROESCHMANN:
Q. Witness, in other words, the natural qualifications of Madagascar seemed to be good. Now what form of government did you conceive for the Jews who were to go there from Germany and Europe?
A. For a person who is not trained in a government, it is very difficult for him to make a proposal in this matter, so let me point out that, however, our suggestion at that time was made with no claim at all on being correct or complete. At that time we thought that the governmental form would be a government -*- a Jewish government under a German Governor; this set form was to end automatically when through the consolidation of the local government and the economic situation that became possible.
Q. There might raise a possible objection here, Mr. Brack. You know that the German "Government" unfortunately has received an unpleasant connotation in Germany in the last few years, because there was a general government - - - a Governor General under Frank in Poland, who permitted hundred of thousands of Jews there to be killed. These events on the part of the Governor-General in Poland in 1940, were they known to you?
A. Of those events I certainly knew nothing, and I believe nothing was known among the general population about that.
Q. In your circle where you were concerning yourself with these plans, did you know anything about the personality of the governor, and did it seem to you that this man's character was such as to make it likely that the Jews would receive normal, humane and legal rights?
A. Let me first of all go into the discussion about the government. We thought that the "government" would be necessary because for many years the economic situation of a new State; composed of immigrants would have to be so difficult that it would develop only with the help of a functioning State from the outside. In order to create a new industry, and a new industry, and a new housing, a new transportation, so forth.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, it seems to the Tribunal the witness having said he was not an expert on governmental affairs, and having stated in his opinion that the government to be maintained and set up in Madagascar would be a fair, reasonable and liberal government, the subject has been pursued long enough by the witness.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Very well, Your Honor.
BY DR. FROESCHMANN:
Q. Witness, did you think that such a plan that you have described was to be incorporated into the peace treaty and would be successful?
A. Yes, we hoped that if Bouhler, whom we intended to be the Governor, could create a new homeland for the Jews this would provide hope for all the Jews in the world. The economic connections with Germany offered better opportunities for the peace negotations and in the future peace these connections would certainly add to the country's security.
Q. Witness, was this thought something that occured on the spur of the moment or was it based on mutual reflection and careful thought?
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, I intended to convey to you the idea that the subject of Madagascar and the proposed colony had been gone into sufficiently as to enlighten the Tribunal on the witness' idea. I think that Madagascar can be abandoned and you can go on to the next subject.
BY DR. FROESCHMANN:
Q. Very will Your Honor.
Now, you submitted this plan to Bouhler and Bouhler submitted it in turn to Hitler?
A. Yes.
Q. However in your affidavit, under No. 16, it says:
"We put the plan to Bouhler, apparently this plan was not acceptable, so we changed our attitude, etc." Now, I don't quite understand this statement in the affidavit, it does not correspond with what you just testified.
A. We had worked out this plan with great care and given it a great deal of attention, using foreign experts as consultants.
It was not Bouhler who rejected the plan, Bouhler put it before Hitler. Now when I signed this affidavit, I did not see that this statement here in the affidavit was wrong. Bouhler adopted the plan, as is shown, and tried to persuade Hitler to accept it. Hitler, however, turned it down, and Hederich has already testified to that effect here.
Q. Now, let us go a step further, I just mentioned Point 16 in your affidavit, which carries the heading, "Sterilization Program;" What did you mean by that?
A. This heading was not my idea either, but was the thought of the man who drew up the affidavit. If you want to define Himmler's sterilization program, you can if you want. I can clearly say here under oath that I never heard of any such program. I never heard of Madaus' work, or Clauberg's work or that of Pokorny in 1941 or 1942, nor when I signed the affidavit did I know anything. In other words, the expression "Sterilization Program" did not enlighten me at the time or I would have objected to it. It is of course possible that because of my condition at that time I was so exhausted that I could not concentrate on what I was reading there in the affidavit as Point 16 is right at the end of the affidavit.
Q. But you must have some vague recollection of something when you speak of x-ray experiments and such things; you must have known something about those things at that time; now what do you have to say about that?
A. I did have a vague recollection, I heard something or other about x-ray experiments, which were made by some doctor or other, but not in connection with anything like a sterilization program. I believe that Bouhler told me that Hitler had turned this down, but now that we have looked into it more closely and particularly and since I have seen the documents, I can say that none of that is true.
Q. In other words, you want to say that this statement which you made in this part of the affidavit presents an altogether erroneous picture?
A. It is incomplete, it is out of context and for that reason it is misleading.
Q. Now, Mr. Brack, at the end of 1940 did Himmler write you a letter? Now, this is Document NO-018, Exhibit 404, English Document Book 15 Page 172; do you have that Document Book?
A. Yes.
Q. Please take a look at it - Page 171. Let me quote...........
THE PRESIDENT: We are not getting the translation in the English Document book.
THE MONITOR: He stated it was Document NO-018, Document Book 15 and corrected the error from page 172 to page 171.
BY DR. FROESCHMANN:
Q. May I quote? Himmler writes this document No. 018 to you regarding the conditions in the Euthanasia Station Grafeneck, which had become known to him and he writes:
"SS-Standartenfuehrer Victor Brack, Staff-Leader at Reich - Leader Bouhler, Dear Brack, I hear there is great excitement on the Alb because of the institution Grafeneck."
And he says at the bottom:
"May I ask for a report as to how the difficult problem was solved. Hell Hitler! (signed) Heinrich Himmler."
This letter is rather striking because Himmler is applying directly to you in the matter that concerns Euthanasia; had you theretofore communicated with Himmler regarding Euthanasia?
A. Yes. Shortly after receiving the Euthanasia assignment Bouhler sent me to Himmler to discuss Euthanasia problems, and I shall come back to this problem later. The reason for this letter from Himmler to me, Document No-018, was a letter that the highest Party judge Buch wrote to Himmler. This letter was put in as No. 002, it is also in Document Book 15, page 37 of the German.
Q. Mr. President, in the English Document book it is Document No-002, it is on page 43 and is Exhibit 392.
Please continue.
A. Now withought doubt Himmler recalled my visit at that time and wrote to me with the request that I try to clear up these difficulties. I showed the letter to Bouhler and Bouhler thereupon decided that Grafeneck was no longer to be used as an Euthanasia station and sent me to Himmler to tell him so.
Q. Did you then go to Himmler?
A. In January of 1941 I went to Himmler and told him of Bouhler's decision. At that time, to be sure, I did not know that Himmler on the basis of his racial theory was at that time working on the development of a cheap and effective method of sterilization. That can be seen from document No. 440, Exhibit 14, Document Bock 6, which is an affidavit of Rudolf Brandt.
Q. This Document, Mr. President, is No. 440 and is contained in the English Document Book 6, Page 1.
Please continue.