THE PRESIDENT: That is certainly true. Those matters will have to be arranged in accordance with the circumstances depending upon each individual case, but an opportunity will be accorded the prosecution and accorded the defense to call witnesses up to the time that the evidence is closed under circumstances which are fair to both sides.
DR. HOCHWALD: The only thing I wanted to point out is if twenty-four hours before the closing of the case, an affidavit is submitted by either the prosecution or the defense, the opposite party is not in a position to call the witness for cross examination if the witness can not be produced before the Tribunal in such a short time.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, that is true and there would have to be a deadline fixed beyond which such affidavits or witnesses could not be offered, of course.
DR. HOCHWALD: Thank you.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, I shall certainly act in accord with the prosecution on that procedure since I am only grateful to them for the documents which they have submitted today.
BY DR. FROESCHMANN:
Q Witness, I don't know whether you noticed a little word this morning which the prosecutor used in asking one question. He asked you about your letter on sterilization plans. He asked you whether you wanted "to avoid still more ruthless measures." The word is "Still". Do you understand me? You said in your interrogation that with your suggestion you wanted to prevent the brutal measures of a Himmler and at least delay them. You answered this question to the prosecutor in the affirmative, and with this answer you would admit that your suggestion could already be considered a ruthless measure measure while, according to you, it was something entirely different, that is, to bring Himmler from his intention to use ruthless methods.
I ask you, do you intend to admit that with your suggestions you wanted "to prevent ruthless measures but not still more ruthless measures?"
A I should like to formulate that very concretely again. I wanted, as far as possible, to prevent or at least redirect all measures. I can't say it any other way.
Q Is it also true as your answer to the question of the prosecutor just indicated, if I understood it correctly, that you were convinced of the complete inefficiency of your sterilization suggestion?
A I believe I explained clearly that I was convinced that the suggestions could not be carried out in practice.
Q The prosecutor also asked you, referring to the effect that you suggested the sterilization of two to three million Jews, what was to be done with the other seven million Jews. For you, in your official capacity, was there any obligation to try to frustrate Hitler's or Himmler's plan to exterminate the Jews? Yes or no?
A No, there was no obligation.
Q The prosecution finally submitted documents to you bringing you in connection with Eichmann and a Dr. Kallmeyer and drafts by a Dr. Wetzel. Did I understand you correctly that the name Eichmann was completely unknown to you at that time and that until these documents were submitted this morning you knew nothing about the talks which Dr. Wetzel or some one else is supposed to have had with Oberdienstleiter Brack in 1941?
A Until these documents were submitted I had no knowledge of it. I can not even remember the name of Dr. Wetzel or Wetzler.
Q Mr. Brack, is it true that in the course of our many conversations I myself mentioned the name Eichmann, to find out if this Eichmann had any plans for the extermination of the Jews, and is it true that I made an application to call this Eichmann as a witness on your behalf; that this application was approved, and that it was only discovered later that Eichmann was dead?
A Yes, that is true.
Q My final question. At the end the prosecution asked you whether the sentence in the second letter of the 23rd of June 1942 "it makes no difference whether these Jews become aware of sterilization" or something like that is connected with your first letter? You said "yes". Is that true?
A Yes.
Q If I am not mistaken, during your direct examination, you said that you made this remark in the second letter because at that time in 1942 the Jews already suspected their fate and no indications that sterilization was intended would have been necessary. Do you understand my question?
AAs far as I remember, I said during my direct examination that the Jews had an idea of their fate.
Q. And my very final question, the Prosecutor this morning spoke of Document NO 426, perhaps I may formulate all of the statements in this one question. Is it correct in the formulation of this affidavit there was a fight about it, how it would be worded?
A. Yes. As far as in my condition at the time I was able to understand things or grasp things, there was a fight; but there were many things I really didn't understand, and didn't fight about them.
Q. Witness, finally I should like to ask you the most fundamental question resulting from the cross-examination; were you convinced of the legality of Hitler's Decree of 1st September 1939?
A. I was firmly convinced of the legality of that decree.
Q. Were you aware that in collaborating with the euthanasia program you were committing a penal offense?
A. No, I was not aware I was participating in a penal offense.
Q. Did you act in full cognizance of the legality of what you were doing?
A. Yes.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, I have no further questions to this witness.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Witness, please describe a euthanasia station, of what buildings did it consist?
A. A euthanasia station was a mental institution, for example the institution at Sonnenstein. The institution at Sonnenstein consisted of several buildings in a large piece of grounds. In those buildings were the necessary rooms for the personnel, for therapy, etc. For euthanasia specifically one of these buildings was used. It remained as it was, except that one of these rooms was arranged as a euthanasia room. I can't describe it in any other way. The euthanasia institutions were not built, and they were institutions already in existence which were used as euthanasia institutions.
Q. Were they already occupied by other sick or insane persons?
A. No. The patients were transferred there on instructions from the Ministry of the Interior.
Q. What had the buildings been used for before that?
A. That differed. One of them at Graffeneck, I believe was a home for cripples of the Samariter Foundation, and the inmates were transferred and the institution was made available for euthanasia. In this connection a Wurttemberg institution was turned over from the Wurttemberg Ministry of the Interior to the Reich Ministry of the Interior.
Q. How many of the persons to be subjected to euthanasia would be in such a station at one time?
A. I can't say. There was, of course, room for a great many, but how many were there at the same time I don't know.
Q. How long after a shipment of persons arrived at a euthanasia station would they be subjected to the euthanasia?
A. I can only say from what the doctor at the euthanasia institution told me. I said before that I was at these euthanasia institutions several times. I saw patients who had been there only a short time for observation by the euthanasia doctor, and also patients where the euthanasia doctor told me that he was still in doubt as to whether he would subject them to euthanasia, or whether he would send them back to the observation institution, or their original institution. That depended on how long the euthanasia doctor needed to observe the individual patent in order to form his own conclusion, because it was he who had the final responsibility.
Q. Would there be as many as 100 of these persons in the group of buildings at one time?
A. There were certainly buildings which would house a hundred, I believe so. I would say a hundred, yes.
Q. Was the gas chamber a separate building or just a room in one of the other buildings?
A. That was only one room in the building.
Q. But it was a room in the building and not a separate construction?
A. No, no, there was not a separate building.
Q. Where was the crematory located?
A. That varied too. In Grafeneck, I believe the crematorium was at some distance from the institution, in another building, while at Sonnenstein it was in the main building. It varied: I have no very clear recollection of that. In Sonnenstein I am pretty sure it was in the main building.
Q. And these persons were to be subjected to euthanasia, after remaining several days in the building and they were put in the gas chamber, would just think they were going to be given a shower bath?
A. I don't believe they had any idea where they were going at all.
Q. Do you mean because they were insane or incapable of having an idea or simply if they had some degree of intelligence they didn't know what was going to happen?
A. Yes, I meant the former.
Q. Do you know anything about the station at Hadamar?
A. I have already said. Hadamar is the only station of which I know nothing, because it was the last one which was built. That was when I was no longer much concerned with these things. I think that Hadamar was made a euthanasia institution in 1941.
THE PRESIDENT: Has counsel any further questions?
DR. FORESHMANN: No, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: It is now time for our no on recess.
The Tribunal will be in recess until 1:30.
(Thereupon the noon recess was taken.)
Courts No. 1 AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 19 May 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
VIKTOR BRACK - Resumed
MR. HARDY: May it please your Honor; defense counsel have called to my attention that they are desirous of having another meeting concerning the submitting of briefs to the Tribunal. Whenever it is convenient for the Tribunal, the prosecution is willing to meet with the defense counsel and the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be glad to meet with the committee from defense counsel tomorrow afternoon after the recess of the court at 3:30; also with the prosecution.
EXAMINATION BY THE COURT (Continued) BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Witness; I have one more question. He understand that you have testified that you were not familiar with the station Hadamar; but do you know whether or that euthanasia station was; generally speaking; constructed and operated along the same lines as the other stations?
A. I would assume that. However, I cannot say that with certainty, because I never actually saw Hadamar.
THE PRESIDENT: Hasany defense counsel any questions to propound to the witness?
REDIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued)
DR. HOFFMANN (Counsel for the Defendant Pokorny): Mr. President, I only have a few questions to put to the witness which arose from the cross examination.
BY DR. HOFFMANN:
Q. Witness, when asked by the prosecution, you said that you were not a physician nor a psychiatrist.
A. Yes.
Q. But didn't you have what is generally designated as "medical interest"?
A. No, I wouldn't call it "medical interest". I would perhaps call it some understanding, because I was brought up in a physician's home.
Q. Witness, didn't you know that an attempt was made to remove cancer by X-rays?
A. No, I only knew that radium rays were used in connection with cancer.
Q. Witness, were you ever X rayed by the army or anywhere else?
A. Yes, I was X-rayed on various occasions.
Q. Didn't you notice, witness, that certain precautionary measures were taken during x-raying?
A. No, I didn't notice that, but it is possible.
Q. Witness, couldn't you imagine that X-rays could perhaps destroy tissues of the body?
I can imagine that, but I don't know in what connection or under what conditions that could be possible.
Q. Witness, didn't you have to consider that thought Then suggesting this X-ray sterilization?
A. No, no such thoughts arose within me.
DR. FROESCHMANN (Counsel for the Defendant Brack): Mr. President, to my regret, I must object to this form of questioning. I think that this matter was exhausted by the direct and cross examination.
THE PRESIDENT: I will ask defense counsel for the Defendant Pokorny the purpose of these questions.
DR. HOFFMANN(Counsel for the Defendant Pokorny): Mr. President, I should like to go back to the original affidavit made by the Defendant Brack. There is a certain discrepancy between that affidavit and his present testimony. This discrepancy between these two statements is very important also for the defense of my client. For that reason I wanted to ascertain whether the Defendant Brack actually could know nothing about the possibility of sterilization by X-rays.
TIE PRESIDENT: Counsel nay proceed as rapidly as possible. Counsel nay proceed with the interrogation along that line but make it as expeditious as possible.
DR.HOFFMANN: Yes, your Honor.
BY DR. HOFFMANN:
Q. Witness I shall once more come back to the question which I have put to you; on the basis of your medical knowledge which , after all, you had, wouldn't you have to have considered it probable that one actually could sterilize human beings by means of X-rays?
A. I should like to correct you. I had no medical knowledge. However, I could rely upon the information given to me by a physician whom I considered to be reliable and who himself had treated me with X-rays, he told me that damages to the genitals by X-rays are not possible and if they do come about they would pass away. This physician confirmed that in an affidavit.
Q. But that information was 15 years back, wasn't it?
A. Now it is 15 years ago, but at that time it was only seven or eight years. However, I am no X-ray researcher.
Q. Witness, didn't you discuss with the Defendant Pokorny, while you were here, the reason why he wrote his letter?
A. Yes, I did talk to Pokorny.
Q. Did he tell you for what reason ho wrote the letter which has been submitted here as a document?
A. I believe he hinted at the reason.
DR. HOFFMANN: Thank you. I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Any other questions to be propounded to the witness by the defense counsel?
Since there are no further questions, tho witness will be excused from the stand and resume his place.
(The witness was excused.)
THE PRESIDENT: Has counsel for the Defendant Brack any further evidence to introduce?
DR. FROESCHMANN (Counsel for the Defendant Brack): Mr. President, I forego the submission of the affidavit in my Document Book No. 1, Document 3, an affidavit by a certain Arnold Hennig, and the affidavit in my supplement No. 3, affidavit No. 47, on page 8, which is the affidavit by Kleffel, since the prosecution has given me no reason to read these two affidavits. I want to draw your attention to one affidavit, Mr. President, in connection with a matter which came up this morning. This is the Kallmeyer affidavit. I wanted to establish from this affidavit that this Kallmeyer at the end of 1940 -that is Exhibit Brack 23, Kallmeyer affidavit --- I wanted to establish that this witness says "From the year 1936 to the end of 1940 I was employed as a clerk in the Fuehrers' Chancellery." As far as I know, this Kallmeyer was known to the Defendant Brack virtually only under her maiden name Reese. Unfortunately, I can find no indication of that in the affidavit however, and I should like to add that information. Therefore I shall submit a brief supplemental statement about that name.
I have now concluded the submission of evidence, Mr. President. I have tried to establish that the defendant Brack had humane motives in carrying out his sterilization experiments, and furthermore was not involved in the murder of 50-60,000 insane persons, but that it could only have been - and was - euthanasia. That is all I have to say and I should now like to conclude my case.
THE PRESIDENT: The affidavit which you omitted from Document Book 1 was Brack Document 3?
DR. FROESCHMANN: Yes, Brack Document 3, the affidavit of Arnold Hennig.
THE PRESIDENT: The defense counsel for defendant Brack having rested his case, the Tribunal now calls the case against the defendant Becker-Freyseng.
DR. TIPP (Counsel for the defendant Becker-Freyseng): Mr. President, Dr. Marx, the defense counsel for the defendant Becker-Freyseng, is suffering from the after-effects of a war injury and will unfortunately be unable to appear in court for a few days. With the permission of the Tribunal I shall begin the examination of the defendant Dr. BeckerFreyseng until Dr. Marx returns, which I think will be in a few days.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Tipp, you are appearing at this time at the request of Dr. Marx?
DR. TIPP: Yes, Dr. Marx asked me to examine the witness on his behalf.
THE PRESIDENT: And with the consent of the defendant BeckerFreyseng?
DR. TIPP: Yes.
TEE PRESIDENT: Then counsel may proceed.
DR. TIPP: I should first of all like to call the defendant as a witness to the witness stand.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant Becker-Freyseng will take the witness stand as a witness in his own defense.
(HERMANN BECKER-FREYSENG, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows.)
BY JUDGE SEBRING:
Q. You answer to the name of Hermann Becker-Freyseng?
A. Yes.
Q. Hold up your hand and repeat after me the oath:
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
JUDGE SEBRING: You may sit down.
DR. TIPP: Mr. President, I have one request to make to the interpreters before the beginning of this case. The word "Referent" will play a decisive role in the case of the defendant Becker-Freyseng. I know this word can hardly be translated into English by using only one word. This also applies to the word "Referat", which is hardly translatable into the English language. For that reason I should like to suggest to the interpreters that whenever the word "Referent" or "Referat" appears they should always use the German term, which I assume is quite clear to the Tribunal. I believe this will serve the clarity of the case considerably.
THE PRESIDENT: I think that for the sake of the record those terms should be explained for the record according to the signification which counsel places upon them.
DR. TIPP: Certainly, Mr. President. I would suggest that the German words be used and then in parenthesis the English translation. I think that is the best solution.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you now ask the interpreters to give the English explanation of the words?
DR. TIPP: Gladly. Will the interpreter please explain how he thinks "Referent" and "Referat" should be translated?
THE INTERPRETER: Certainly, Your Honor. The word "Referent" is the man who is assigned to a certain department in order to deal with any of the subjects that come up there.
He is an expert assigned to deal with a special department.
A "Referat" is the entire department where these special subjects are dealt with.
THE PRESIDENT: Those explanations - are they satisfactory to counsel for the prosecution and for the defense?
DR. TIPP: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, those explanations of the use of the word being now contained in the record, I don't think they need be repeated after the use of either one of those words because the explanation is contained in the record.
MR. HARDY: I might ask defense counsel, Your Honor, what other words he thinks might create a discrepancy. Is there some other definition which was used here which he thinks is erroneous, so we can clear that up now?
DR. TIPP: No, Mr. President. The difficulty, as I see it, is that various interpreters use different English expressions for that word and as a result there is no clarity in the record that the term "Referent" is meant.
THE PRESIDENT: Which term do you mean, counsel, "Referent" or "Referat"?
DR. TIPP: I am referring now to the expression "Referent". This has repeatedly been translated with different words, depending on which interpreter was speaking into the microphone. I should like to bring to your attention that at one time I had to object because that word was translated as "chief of the branch". In order to be quite explicit I should like to see that the same word is always used throughout the proceedings. I want to see to it that the English term does not change.
THE PRESIDENT: It appears that the word "consultant" in English generally corresponds with the word "Referent" as given by counsel.
DR. TIPP: I must object to that, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: I was just making the suggestion. It is perfectly satisfactory to use the words "Referent" and "Referat" with the explanation which is already contained in the record, if that is satisfactory to counsel for the prosecution and the defense.
DR. TIPP: May I clarify that? "Consultant" in the record here is always the man who is advising, for instance, the advising physician. The position which Professor Rose had is a "consultant" but that is not a "Referent".
THE PRESIDENT: That is unimportant, counsel. The Tribunal will follow your suggestion, using the German words which have been explained to the Tribunal and for the record.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, that of course does not prejudice the right of the prosecution to maintain that the Referent is the chief of a department, I presume.
TEE PRESIDENT: If counsel for the prosecution contends that it is the proper translation of the word, the prosecution may offer expert opinions as to the meaning of the word "Referent" - the proper translation into English. The prosecution may have that right.
DR. TIPP: In that case, I may commence.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. TIPP:
Q. Witness, your name is Hermann Josef Becker-Freyseng and you were born 18 July 1910 at Ludwigshafen on the Rhine, is that correct?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. Would you please briefly describe to the Tribunal your education and training up to the time you entered college?
A. I grew up in my parent's home. My father died in the year 1917 during the First World War as a, captain in the Engineer Corps of the Reserve. We then moved to Heidelberg where I attended school. At Easter 1929 I graduated from secondary school (Humanistiches Gymnasium).
After that I started my medical studies. I studied at Heidelberg, Innsbruck, and Berlin. In Berlin in the year 1934 I passed my medical state examination.
Q. And now, witness, would you please just as briefly describe your professional activities which followed thereafter?
A. From January 1934 until July 1938 I was at first active as an intern and after that as an assistant at the Fourth Medical University Clinic of Berlin under Professor Helmut Dennig. During my clinical activity I made my doctor's thesis through experimental work. In August 1938 I became an assistant at the Aviation Medical Research Institute of the Reich Aviation Ministry in Berlin, which was under Professor Hubertus Strughold. I retained this civilian position until the capitulation. In 1944 the medical faculty of the University of Berlin granted me the decree of Doctor Med. Habil. on the basis of experimental work about so-called oxygen poisoning, and in the winter semester 1944-1945 I was appointed a lecturer on internal and aviation medicine.
Q. Now would you please describe to us your military career?
A. My basic military training I received in 1937 in the form of a so-called eight-weeks course. In the summer of 1940 I was drafted into the Luftwaffe as an Unterarzt. At first I was at an aviators examination station, working with a motorized low-pressure chamber platoon and in August 1941 I was ordered back to Berlin from the Southern Sector of the Russian front and was transferred to the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe. There I stayed until May 1944 as an assistant Referent. From then on I was a Referent in the Referat for aviation Medicine. My position as Referent I retained until 8 May 1945.
Q. Did you yourself apply for this position in the Reich Aviation Ministry, witness, or do you know in what manner you were assigned to that position? I am asking you, not for what purpose but in what manner.
A. No, I don't know.
Q. At any rate, you yourself did not try to get the position?
A. No.
Q. What military rank did you reach with the Luftwaffe?
A. After the prescribed period of more then two years, after I had been an Assistenzarzt and an Oberarzt, I was promoted in the summer of 1943 to captain in the medical corps, Stabsarzt, and I retained that rank until the end of the war.
Q. Perhaps it would be interesting to near something about your fate after the capitulation. Could you describe that to us briefly?
A. In May 1945 I got into American captivity in the Tyrol. Then I stayed in England for five weeks in an American interrogation camp; on 15 September 1945 I was released from the prisoner of war camp Aibling.
In October 1945 I was employed by the American Army Air Force as a co-worker at the Aero-Medical Center at Heidelberg. I was active there together with a number of other former aviation medical men. The German chief of the scientific department was my old chief, Professor Strughold. From there I was arrested on the 15 September, 1946.
Q. And now let us speak about your political activities. Witness, were you politically active as a student or otherwise?
A. In May 1933 I entered the NSDAP as a twenty two year old student. I held no office or rank within the party. In addition to that I was a member of the NSKK, the National Socialist motorized corps, in the medical service of which I achieved the rank of an Ober-trupp-fuehrer, which corresponds to that of a sergeant. As a paying member I belonged to the NSFK, the National Socialist Flying Corps.
Q. In addition to that were you a member of any other national socialist professional organization, as for instance the National Socialist Student League, the National Socialist Physicians League or the National Socialists Lecturers' League?
A. No, I belonged to none of these organizations.
Q. On the basis of the testimony of the expert who was called be the Prosecution, Professor Liebrandt, we heard something about the physicians' school at Altrehse. Can you cell us whether you at any time visited any such course?
A. No, I never visited a course at Altrehse, out in that connection I may mention that I was never compelled and I wouldn't have been compelled by the Reich Physicians' League to attend any such course. Only my local authority in Berlin, the magistrate of the city of Berlin, asked me to attend such a course, but I never did that.
Q. You were telling us before that you wanted to become a lecturer, and it is Known that lecturers would have to go through a political camp in order to get their political training. Did you participate in such a lecturers' course in a camp?
A. No, I went to no lecturers' camp, probably because there were no such camps during the war.
Q. That I think is sufficient as to your political activities. Now let us turn to your medical scientific activity. Under whose guidance did you receive your clinical specialized training?
A. I may repeat that briefly as an internal physician I was educated at the Robert Koch Hospital in Berlin under the charge of Professor Dr. Helmut Denning. That started in January 1935 and went on until July 1938. Denning had formerly been a first lieutenant in the medical corps and had been a assisting the famous clinical physician, Rudolf Von Krehl at Heidelberg, and during which our training was often assisted by a laboratory at Boston.
Q. Witness, this activity is not the subject of the charge of the prosecution. You are sitting in the dock because you participated in aviation medicine. How did you come to be active within that sphere?
A. It was my intention to complete my education as an internal physician, by additional theoretical education. For that reason I looked for some possibility to work in a physiological institute. Through my chief physician I went to Professor Strughold who was the head of the medical institute at Berlin, in whose institute certain research work was carried out regarding the questions of breathing and circulation as they came up under special conditions of aviation.
Since from the clinical point of view I was interested in the same problems, I asked to get a position to become an associate of that Institute. Professor Strughold was a student of the physiologist, Dr. Van Von Frey, and just as Denning had been active in the United States for some considerable period of time. In explanation of what Professor Liebrandt has stated here I should like to say that both of my teachers were in no way what Professor Leibrandt designated as the Nazi professors who allegedly since 1933 had been training all the medical generation which grew up after that period of time. Both of them had been university professors before 1933 and both of them are today again or rather still active in leading positions.
Q. You were telling us Dr. Becker that you went over to aviation medicine in the year 1938?
A. Yes.
Q. As on the basis of this trial it looks as if the entire aviation medicine was only designed to work for the German air force, it looks now as though this entire science from a practical point of view served for the preparation of the war. Would you please tell us something about that?
AAviation Medicine as such was carried on in all countries where there was aviation and, in particular, during the last two decades. It developed and it naturally followed aviation technique end was always in accord with the tasks of the Air Forces. The endeavors of Aviation Medicine, however, were for the maintaining of the health of the flyer and for the research regarding the necessary conditions of life as they prevail during flying. You can in that case hardly speak of any science in that connection. I may point out that the most well know Aviation physician of Italy, Professor Margaria was a priest with a catholic order at Mailani. Even after 1945 the German aviation physicians were permitted to work at the Aero Medical Center at Heidelberg and carry on the same work in which they had been active before.
Q You know witness that the Prosecution in their oral statement has designated you as a man who in spite of his youth had already achieved some scientific success. It is, of course, natural that you had yourself been the author of a few scientific theses when you became a lecturer. Could you tell us briefly about your own scientific work?
A Well, during my clinical training, as well as during my aviation medical training, I worked scientifically. A number of publications contain the result of my work.
Q Mr. President, I think that the scientific work of the defendant is important for the judgment of his personality. We have endeavored to get hold of these scientific publications but it was not possible to do all that because of the aerial war which went on in Germany. However, we have compiled the titles of all his works which list I should like to submit as Becker-Freyseng document No. 1. This can be found on pages 1 to 4 of Becker-Freyseng Document Book I and I should like to offer this list as Exhibit No. 1. We are here only concerned with this up to the year 1943. The last work could not be included because unfortunately Dr. Becker-Freyseng has not all the material for that purpose. I have the original here and Prosecution can look at it.