Would you give a specific instance of any man of ministerial rank who was put in a concentration camp?
A None of the rank of minister, no. But others, if I only think of the victims of the Roehm-Putsch of Strasser, high officials.
Q Now you testified that when you referred to severe special courts, you didn't have in mind the special court at Stuttgart?
A Because I don't know any of the sentences of the special court of Stuttgart.
Q So that you simply don't know what the sentences were?
A No, I do not recall any sentence that was ever pronounced by the Stuttgart special court.
Q Did you have a chance to discuss this knowledge of yours in this specific question with Dr. Brieger, the attorney for Cuhorst, during the intermission?
A. He only asked me whether I meant that Special Court. I said I spoke only in general.
Q. Yes. That was after -- while you were in the hall -- after you loft the witness stand today?
A. Yes.
Q. And then you simply testified in the same way in which you discussed the matter with Dr. Brieger in the hall; is that right?
A. The question was put and I answered it only with the addition that I did not know the jurisdiction of the Special Court at Stuttgart.
Q. Now, I think you said that in 1934, when you left like resigning, Hitler said that you had qualifications which made him want to keep you on for your abilities.
A. He only mentioned that he might be able to use my experiences in the interest of the Reich -- in the service of the Reich rather.
Q. Now, may I read to you a part of an affidavit made by Franz von Papen, on the 28th of September, 1946. He was discussing the summoning of Hitler to the position of Reich Chancellor. "It is correct that Dr. Meissner at times exerted a strong political influence upon the Reich President, as is the case in any intimate relationship between the Under Secretary and his superior. The defendant Gooring informed me in the following manner about his influence with respect to the creation of a Hitler government. Two or three days after the first discussion in Ribbentrop's house, on the 22nd January, 1933, Dr. Meissner had appeared in Goering's private apartment and asked whether the National Socialists would agree to his remaining in office, and had subsequently confessed about a financial scandal threatening him in the matter of Schenker.
Goering had a reply that the party was only too willing to forgot about such affairs if Dr. Meissner, on his part, would do everything in his power to promote the forming of the Hitler government. They parted having reached an agreement on this matter." Are the facts related in Franz von Papen's affidavit correct, or not?
A. That is an absolute invention; that assertion is untrue. On the occasion of that conference, which may have taken place on the 28th of January, Under Secretary Koerner was present, who can confirm that not a single word of that was spoken. During that conference Goering only said that previously I had been attacked in circles of the party as an opponent of the National Socialist formation of a government and of National Socialist tendencies, but he would see to it that these attacks would cease, or, rather he had taken care of it for quite some time already that these attacks did cease. Moreover, on that day, the 28th January, everything had long before been arranged between Papen, Hitler and Goering. I, myself, at that time was still opposed to have Hitler appointed Reich Chancellor, and stuck to the idea to have Papen as Reich Chancellor and leave Hitler in the position as Vice Chancellor.
Q. Now, in December, 1932, you wore a friend of von Papen's and also a friend of the Nationalist Herrenclub, which was a group of industrialists and business men who wore supporting Hitler; is that right?
A. I was not a friend of von Papen; neither was I a member of the Herrenclub.
Q. Were you on friendly terms with the Herrenclub?
A. Occasionally I visited the Herrenclub; when there were invitations to lectures, I frequently attended them.
Q. You said that you were an opponent at that time of National Socialism.
A. Yes.
Q. May I read you an English translation from a book which is attributed to you, and is published in 1935, on page 15 of which you say: "The National Socialist Revolution is a unique process in an entirely legal way, without the application of force, without bloodshed in a civil war; Adolf Hitler has in a few months created a unified nation." I will hand you the book.
A. It says here: "In absolute legal ways, first by use of the parliamentary means of the Weimar Constitution. Then on the basis of the enabling act which came about according to the rules of that constitution, without the use of external force, and without bloodshed in a civil war, Adolf Hitler creates in a few months from the torn party state of the Weimar system a unified German nation, with a uniform political will." That was my opinion then and I still have to say it today that it is correct. It doesn't say without bloodshed altogether and without violence altogether -- it says without bloodshed in a civil war and without external force. Moreover, I should like to say that that book, which I published together with Ministerialrat Kaisenberg, and that follow previous commentaries on Reich and Raender law, was objected to by the party, and that a second edition was no longer permitted to be published. The office for the protection of National Socialist writing prohibited it, or considered it undesirable for further publications of that book, and did not give its approval because it was not in confirmity with the National Socialist idea of the state.
And a conference which I had at that time with the deputy chief of that office, Herr Hedrich, who happens to be in this building now, brought it about that the party chancery designated that book as undesirable because it stressed too much the thought of legality in the state, tho constitutionality, and did not take sufficiently into account the position of the party. He suggested that I should modify the book and that I would be able to get approval after that. After discussing it with Kaisenberg, the co-author, I rejected that.
Q. Yes.
A. That is the background of that book.
Q. You did receive the golden party badge though in 1937?
A. Yes, on the 30th January, 1937, together with the Ministers and several Undersecretaries, to my surprise, I was awarded the Golden Party Badge. Since that award was made after a cabinet meeting, that is at an official occasion, and with the reason stated that it was done on the occasion of the completion of the first full four year plan, I considered that matter a distinct award by the State in recognition for long years of service to the State, just as the other gentlemen did who were not party members.
Q. May I ask you if that was the occasion on which Eltz von Ruebenach refused to accept the badge and resigned?
A. Yes.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: That is all.
EXAMINATION BY JUDGE HARDING:
Q. What, in your opinion, was ever achieved by going part way with Hitler and party leaders?
A. I don't know just how I should understand that. I never became a member of the party and, consequently, I did not have any personal contact with the party and its leaders. I always felt that I served the German Reich and the German people, and that I would continue to serve them-
Q. My -
A. Such as I had done before, for more than one generation.
Q. My understanding of your testimony was to the effect that it was necessary for Dr. Schlegelberger to go along with certain ideas of the party and Hitler; is that correct? -- In order to achieve certain other ends?
A. Well, it is about so. We considered it the only way out of the dilemma, the danger of a civil war, and the only way to turn the revolutionary movement into the more quiet path of evolution. The only way it appeared to us was to comprise with the National Socialist Party, to come to a coalition along middle lines. That was the intention in forming the government of 30 January, 1933.
The movement at that time was so strong that the possibility to combat it with the means at the disposal of the State or to hold it down appeared non-existent or too small. And, the possibility to combat it with mental weapons by other forces of other parties, and to do that successfully, if one considered the way in which the various parties were split up, and the lack of success they had, that possibly, too, was so small that one could not expect on the ground of ideology to get back the voters which had joined that party; particularly since, at that time, we had over six million unemployed, and in spite of all efforts on the part of the Government, no improvement was achieved. Also among the parties in the Centre, such as the Volkspartei, the party of the middle there developed more and more strongly the thought that it had become necessary to find a compromise, a coalition with the National Socialists, that that was the best means to guide that large movement into more peaceful ways, to make them give up their irresponsible demagogy, by letting them participate in the practical work.
Q What was the net result of this policy?
A The net result; it led to that coalition of the 30th of January 1933, but that Government coalition did not achieve the success and the results which we had hoped to see.
Q Did the ideas of Hitler and the Party, as to the police or power of the State finally become accepted in the Ministry of Justice after the departure of Dr. Schlegelberger?
A Whether they were accepted by the Ministry, that is the Staff of the Ministry, I do not think so, but undoubtedly they were accepted by Thierack, and by those of the higher officials he had appointed and called, because Thierack's power expressed in the decree of 20 August 1942, implied literally that he had the job, to establish National Socialist administration of justice, and therein lies the answer to your question.
Q And, he did it taking office; is that correct?
A Yes, Thierack did it or at least made all the efforts to do it.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q Dr. Meissner, I have a few questions with reference to the procedures to which you testified. A preliminary question concerning the prisons; the prisons in which persons were confined, who had been sentenced to imprisonment by the court, were under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Justice; were they not?
A That is correct, your Honor.
Q Now, we come to the matter of procedure. What was the formal character of the orders which Hitler made from time to time, for the transfer of prisoners from the prisons to the Gestapo? That is the general question. I am interested in whether those orders were specific in each individual case or whether they were, some of them, in the nature of blanket orders) could you tell us about that?
A The orders were issued in each specific case, and as I remember, they always were concerned with criminal cases, cases where Hitler was of the opinion that the sentence of the court in question, was not severe enough, not enough of a deterrent to prevent further crimes of that nature.
Q When such an order was made in a specific case, and in view of the fact that the prisons were under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Justice, what kind of an order was made in or under the Ministry of Justice to carry out Hitler's specific order?
A That is not known to me, your Honor; that was an internal matter of the Ministry of Justice. I assume that from the Ministry of Justice, information was passed to the Administration of Penal Institutions, to the effect that upon the request of the Gestapo, that and that man was to be transferred. I repeat that it is only the question of an Ueberstellung, a transfer, the execution of punishment is a matter of the administration; and it is a matter of the administration, if a man who has been sentenced is transferred from one penal institution to another; and since the concentration camps, to that extent, also were penal institutions, since it served also to house criminals, I find, really, nothing wrong and nothing to object to if through administrative channels an instruction was passed on to have a prisoner transferred from one place to another.
Q You fully answered my question, thank you. So far as you know, were there any cases in which Himmler or his agents caused a transfer from prisons which were under the administration of Justice to other places of confinement without any specific order of Hitler?
A I would not know about any such case. I only do know that such transfers in the beginning occurred without the Ministry of Justice being informed, and that there were difficulties in the beginning because the administration of the prisons refused to transfer such inmates without directives having been received from the General Prosecutor or the Ministry of Justice, and, that, then, the transfer could be enforced only by threat of violence. Now, I cannot tell you whether it was Guertner or Schlegelberger who told me about it. And, that was the reason for Guertner to demand of Hitler and finally achieve with Hitler, that he should be informed in order, for once, to be able to inform, on his part, the admistration of penal institutions; but, on the other hand, to have at the same time the opportunity to make objections and counter proposals.
Q Well, the prison authorities were quite within their rights, were they not, in objecting to the release of any prisoner unless there was some communication from the Ministry of Justice; is that correct?
A Yes, that is correct.
THE PRESIDENT: That is all, thank you.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: If your Honors, please -- is your Honor finished?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I have one omitted question and two questions I would like to ask as a result of the questions asked by the Bench, if I may.
THE PRESIDENT: You can ask your omitted question.
RECROSS EXAMINATION BY Mr. LAFOLLETTE:
Q You referred to the Senate President Entert; is that the same Engert who is the defendant in this case?
A Yes, that is the same man.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Do I understand the ruling of the Court that you do not care to permit me to ask any more questions; if that is the ruling I will not press it.
THE PRESIDENT: I think there is no need for any further questions.
Recross examination should be limited.
Is there any redirect examination on the part of the defense?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I have one question, but a question which probably technically cannot be considered a reexamination question. I left it out before. It concerns the point as to whether the defendant Schlegelberger has talked to the witness about the donation of 100,000 marks. I left that question out before, and I know, I now would not really be permitted to put that question in redirect. That is why I am asking.
THE PRESIDENT: I think it is unnecessary to go into that matter now.
The witness is excused.
(Thereupon the witness withdrew from the court-room.)
DR. KUBOSCHOK: May I continue with the submission of documents? I had come to Document 61, and I had just started to read page 27. With the permission of the Tribunal, I shall continue to read:
"Even if that should happen, however, in an isolated case, it is to be expected that the public prosecutor will appeal against a decision arrived at during a trial, exhibiting such fundamental defects, with the legal measures at his disposal. The Divisions (Senates) of the four District Courts of Appeal, which are the courts of last resort in Polish matters, guarantee that they display in these cases by the way in which they deal with appeals that such high principles may not be left out of consideration and that they express this clearly in the reasons given for the verdict, although this is not absolutely necessary for the establishment of the sentence itself, because it is not a revised judgment but a sentence on appeal."
The next paragraph deals with the execution of a sentence:
"Even if every sentence can be carried out immediately, nevertheless it is self-evident that the authority carrying out sentences will not proceed to the execution if in an actual case the possibility exists that the condemning verdict can undergo a substantial change by legal measures to the advantage of the condemned person or even be changed into acquittal. It is completely self-evident that the severest penalty will not be put into effect before it has the force of law. This is also impossible because the decision of the supreme authority as to the execution or non-execution can only be brought about after the sentence becomes valid. It has also to be expected that the executing authority will stop the execution of the penalty if it itself or the public prosecutor - perhaps because of new evidence -- arrives later at the conclusion that the condemning sentence will not be permanent, or at least reckons with the not too distant possibility of such a result of an appeal or of a retrial."
On the next page - that is page 28- I read the paragraph dealing Court III !with legal remedies:
"The public prosecutor can 'lodge an appeal against sentences passed by the judge of a local court (Amtsrichter) with the District Court of Appeal. The period of time within which an appeal is to be lodged is two weeks.' The extension of the time limit is explained not only by the poor rail and postal communications in the a annexed Eastern territories, as compared with those in the other parts of the Reich: its explanation is to be found, above all, in the fact that it is also the duty of the public prosecutor to examine whether an appeal is to be lodged in favor of the condemned person. The condemned person will quite often suggest this to him. The public prosecutor will then require a certain amount of time in order to examine whether the new statements and evidence, which the defendant has perhaps given him when he suggested an appeal, justify an appeal. For that the summary examination of evidence offered will often be necessary, end that will take a few days."
I submit this document, No. 61, as Exhibit 27.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. KUBOSCHOK: The next document, No. 62, is an affidavit by the witness obert Hecker, who has been examined before this Tribunal. The affidavit will show that in the Penal Decree for Poles, punishment provisions were included which one did not intend to abide by and did not in fact do so; that therefore the Penal Decree for Poles in order to counteract attacks of opponents, included provisions which were then disregarded when that decree was applied.
I shall read the second paragraph from that affidavit.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: May it please Your Honors, quite apart from the contents of this affidavit, I have a question with regard to its admissibility at all, and that question is based on this.
The witness Hecker was called for cross-examination in this court pursuant to affidavits which he had given to the prosecution. At that time it was made quite plain to all concerned that if other matters were desired to be elicited from the witness, he could, at that time, be made a witness for the defense.
I object to this affidavit being offered on the ground that it is not the best evidence and that the material contained therein could presumably have been elicited when the witness Hecker was on the stand.
DR. KUBOSCHOK: As far as I remember, the decision was made that in cross-examination the affiants could only be heard concerning their affidavits and the contents of their affidavits.
As to the question of credibility, that can be passed over, of course, since I could not doubt the credibility of Hecker. However, since the subject with which this affidavit deals was not touched upon by the previous affidavit. I believe that I had no right to question him on these matters in cross-examination.
Moreover, in the case of Suchomel, the Court has pointed out that even in such cases affidavits could be submitted later; at least, that is what one of my colleagues just told me.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: May the Court please, there is one point of Dr. Kuboschok's remarks which I would like to take exception to, and that is that I did not suggest necessarily that the material in this affidavit could have been elicited by him on cross-examination. I said the opportunity to secure the best evidence was available to him by making the witness his own, and that he was acquainted with that.
Moreover, with regard to the Suchomel affidavit, I believe the ruling was that the witness would be excused, subject to recall at some future time if a question arose.
I am simply objecting to this affidavit on the ground that it is not the best evidence.
DR. KUBOSCHOK: I believe one can find the answer in the general rules concerning cross-examination. In cross--examination I am not permitted to go beyond the subject which was dealt with in direct examination. In cross-examination of an affiant, therefore, I can not go beyond the scope of what was discussed in the affidavit.
TEE PRESIDENT: This raises a question which we will consider during the noon hour, and we will rule upon it when Court reconvenes at 1:30. In the meantime, we will postpone the further presentation of exhibits in order that the Court may read to counsel for both sides a ruling which we have prepared and in which I think counsel may be interested.
I suggest, Dr. Kuboschok, that you take your place here.
The Tribunal has given careful consideration to the questions which have been raised with reference to the sterilization laws and is prepared to make a ruling which we think may tend to shorten the trial of the issue concerning sterilization laws. The purpose of this ruling, stated in general terms, is to assure the defendants that it is unnecessary to introduce evidence or arguments in defense of sterilization laws if those laws are fair on their face and are fairly enforced. The ruling is made to facilitate an expeditious trial.
This is the ruling:
The Tribunal is aware of the prevalence of sterilization laws in many places as applicable to the sterilization of insane persons or to the case of carriers of hereditary diseases. We find that the wisdom and propriety of such laws is reasonably debatable, and we rule that the advocacy, enactment, or enforcement of laws for the sterilization of insane persons or of the carriers of hereditary diseases does not constitute any crime within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal, if the laws in question fairly provide for the protection by judicial process of the rights of persons affected thereby. The defendants need not defend against any action if it comes within the terms of this ruling.
In order that the defendants may not be misled by this ruling, which is in their favor, the following proviso is also set forth:
Without ruling at this time as to its weight or legal effect, the Tribunal reserves the right to hear and consider evidence tending to prove or disprove the advocacy, enactment, or enforcement of sterilization laws, decrees, orders, or practices if they tend to discriminate upon racial, political, or religious grounds against any person or group of persons, whether that discrimination appears on the face of the law, decree or order, or appears only in the manner of administration or enforcement thereof.
I have a few copies here in English; the prosecution may have one and the defense may have the rest of them.
We will recess until 1:30 this afternoon.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 2 July 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: For the benefit of defense counsel, represented at the moment solely by Dr. Kuboschok, we will say that the Tribunal desires to consider portions of the record relating to earlier rulings before we finally pass upon the admissibility of the affidavit of Robert Hecker. It will not be received at this time. I f counsel have specific references to rulings made by the Tribunal before, we will welcome the references to the transcript. In the meantime we will look it up.
DR. KUBOSCHOK: I now come to document No. 63, a decree of the Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor on the exercise of the right of pardon in the occupied territories of Poland. I point out that according to the contents of this decree, the right to grant pardons is within the competence the governor general of the occupied Polish regions. I offer this document as Exhibit 28.
THE PRESIDENT: The Hecker exhibit -
DR. KUBOSCHOK: I have not assigned any number to the exhibit as yet.
THE PRESIDENT: You have given it no number ?
DR. KUBOSCHOK: No, not as yet.
THE PRESIDENT: And you are offering 63 as Exhibit 28?
DR. KUBOSCHOK: Yes, as Exhibit 28.
THE PRESIDENT: It is received in evidence.
DR. KUBOSCHOK: The next document, No 64, I shall offer as Exhibit No. 29. I refer to the contents. It is the decree relative to the administration of civil law in the incorporated Eastern territories. I refer to Article 1, No. 1 according to which the entire civil law, that is the civil code, and according to No. 2, the entire commercial law, according to No. 7 also the entire law of procedure, including the nonlitigoius affairs, (Freiwillige Gerichtsbarkeit,) are introduced without exception.
I furthermore refer to Article 4, that is the regulation which the defendant Schlegelberger mentioned which was introduced in order to calm the opponents, which, however, in view of the nature of civil law and the nature of the litigations, had no practical importance. Furthermore, I refer to Article 5, No. 1, which was discussed by the Defendant Schlegelberger, as to whether also a charge made by a Pole had to be examined in advance by the President of the District Court of Appeals. Paragraph 2 of this Article 5 is a so-called Kannbestimmung. That means the president of the District Court of Appeals had free discretion as to whether he wanted to refer the case to the Gau-leader or the Reichsstatthalter. The President of the district Court of Appeals, therefore, was in no way bound, by this regulations. I offer this document in evidence as Exhibit 29.
THE PRESIDENT: No, 64 is Exhibit 29, is that correct?
DR. KUBOSCHOK: It is received.
DR. KUBOSCHOK: I now come to the next document, No. 65. First I have to discuss a technical question in regard to this. We are concerned with a document which was contained in the document book of the Prosecution under No. R. 139. The Prosecution did not introduce these documents as exhibits. But now I want to do so myself. Since I only have the document book and therefore no certified copies which I can make of the photostat or of the original, I am in a difficult situation in certain respects. I have made an application to the General Secretary that the photostats from the archives should be put at my disposal so that I can submit them to the Court as Exhibit. I was told that the Tribunal should give this order to the Secretary General. Therefore I request the Tribunal that these photstats should be made available to me. I shall then introduce them as exhibit.
THE PRESIDENT: Do we understand this matter correctly, Dr. Kuboschok? Your document 65 which is to be exhibit 30, that you know now to be a copy from the photostates, do you?
DR. KUBOSCHOK: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: But you haven't the photostats in your possession?
DR. KUBOSCHOK: No, I don't have them yet. I have only the document book which the prosecution submitted and I copied from their document book for my document book.
THE PRESIDENT: Can this matter be simplified by stipulation with the Prosecution?
DR. KUBOSCHOK: I just received an answer to my application. It is in English and I can't read it so fast.
MR. WOLLEYHAN: Mr. Lafollette has made this notation on this request that Dr. Kuboschok has. It says here: July 1, 1947. R139, which appears on the first page of this document we are talking about, was never introduced because of objections of the defense, sustained by the Court. Therefore it is not in the archives. It must still be in the document room of OCC. I don't know the procedure for getting it. I assume that Defense Center can apply to the document room. If that fails, then I would suppose an application to the Court for an order on the OCC document room will get results. Signed, LaFollette.
The point is, Your Honor, that this document was not introduced into evidence by the Prosecution because of objections of the defense which were sustained, and therefore the photostats are not in the archives.
THE PRESIDENT: But your document book shows a certificate, no doubt, indicating that the instrument is authentic?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: If you have no questions as to be authenticity of it and have yourself offered it, you would have no objection to it being received?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: The matter could be handled by stipulation, Your Honor, if I may be permitted until the afternoon recess to look at the Document Book. I suggest it be postponed after the afternoon recess.
THE PRESIDENT: I think that you can stipulate in a manner satisfactory to Dr. Kuboschok. If there is no stipulation, Dr. Kuboschok we will make an order for the production of the document.
DR. KUBOSCHOK: I shall skip this document and I shall go on to the next one.
THE PRESIDENT: Wouldn't it be wise to let it keep its exhibit number? I have no doubt it will be received.
DR. KUBOSCHOK: All right. Then I shall reserve Exhibit number 30 for this document, as exhibit I shall offer 31, my document 66. It is the decree of the Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor concerning the founding of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia. I refer to Article 1, which orders the incorporation of this territory into the Greater German Reich. I refer to Article 5, according to which as guardian of the interests of the Reich, the Reich Protector of Bohemia and Moravia is designated. Moreover, I refer to the contents and ask to have it accepted as Exhibit 31.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. KUBOSCHOK: The next document, No 67, is an ordinance with regard to the decree mentioned before. Article 1 again deals with the position of the Reich Protector. I offer this document in evidence as Exhibit No. 32.
THE PRESIDENT: It is received.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The next document, Document No. 68, is an ordinance concerning legal provisions of the Reich for the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia. I refer to the contents and request you to accept it as Exhibit 33.
JUDGE BRAND: It is received in evidence.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The next document, No. 69, is an ordinance concerning the introduction of German jurisdiction in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia. I refer to Article 6 on page 57 of the Document Book. The regulation says that German subjects will come under German jurisdiction. Paragraph 2 of Article 6 says that persons who are not German subjects will come under German jurisdiction for punishable offenses only for the crimes which are mentioned there. I refer to the rest of the contents and ask you to accept it in evidence as Exhibit 34.
JUDGE BRAND: The exhibit is received.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The next document, No. 70, is an ordinance governing the execution in the jurisdiction of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia. According to Article 1, the regulations which are to apply to German subjects are laid. down. The laws which are to apply are listed. On page 65 of the Document Book is Article 15 -this lists those legal regulations which apply also to non-German subjects. I refer to the rest of the contents and ask you to receive it in evidence as Exhibit 35.
JUDGE BRAND: The Exhibit is received.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I now come to Document 71. An affidavit by Dr. Erich Schweitzer, MD, the personal physician of the defendant Schlegelberger for many years. I read from the second paragraph:
"According to my recollection, former State Secretary Dr. Schlegelberger and his family were under my medical care since the year 1937, certainly since 1938. I became very closely acquainted with the entire family as a result of the numerous illnesses which all the members of this family had during these years.