I the one case, Exhibit 376, 64 officials who within the Reich Ministry of Justice dealt with penal matters saw the documents and my initials appear among them. The next document NO. 377 shows that I, with a few other officials had that document submitted to me for information. When I had such documents passed to for my information, I did not exercise any work function, nor was I under any obligation to do so. I merely took note and any other section was competent for dealing with the matter.
Q. Concerning the war economic section, we will refer to that later, The Prosecution has submitted a document exhibit 353 volume 5-A according to which on 22 February 1940 you had voted in favour of exercising clemency in the case of person who had been sentenced to death and who evidently was an American citizen.
Please Comment on that.
A. The document concerns opinion given by experts of the penal department of the Reich Ministry of Justice and on the Chief of that Department, Which with an ordinance of 30 April, 1940 signed by Public Prosecutor Dr. Gugler, were submitted to under Secretary Freisler. In the case of a person, who had been convicted and who was a citizen of the United States, I, on page 12 of the document, in consideration of that fact suggested that clemency be exercised.
Temporarily I was employed on preparing clemency pleas in connection with death sentences to lend support to section which normally dealt with clemency pleas in death sentences. If I regarded the deed as deserving the death sentence, as a matter of principle, I did so because it was in connection with the killing of thousands of Germans who in the former German provinces which under the Versailles Treaty had been given to Poland, had been killed at the beginning of the war. I am referring to the incidents which are will known to the Public as the Bromberg bloody Sunday. The date was 3 September 1939,
Q. The Prosecution ha.s submitted a report list according to which you dealt with death sentences from the incorporated eastern territories during the tine from 10 September, 1942 until 17 April, 1943, and made reports on them.
I am referring to Exhibit 280, Volume VII-A. Please comment on this.
A. These are death sentences which were passed on Germans whose crimes had been dealt with in my section and where I, as in the case I described before, dealt with the clemency in order to receive the two section which normally dealt with these clemency pleas.
Q. There were no Poles among the persons who has been convicted; were there?
A. There couldn't be any Poles among them because by the decree of 28 May 1942. Hitler had instructed the Minister of Justice concerning the clemency right in cases of Poles and Jews to transfer them to the Reichsstatthalter, and the presidents of the provinces of East Prussia, West Prussia, Varsig and upper Silesia.
Q. Please will you tell us whether this decree, it is Exhibit No. 356, Volume V-B, submitted by the Prosecution, page 148- please will you tell whether that is the decree of which you have spolen.
A.. Yes, it is; that is the decree of the Feich Minister of Justice of 26 May 1942. It concerns the transfer of the clemency right over Poles and Jews.
Q. After March, 1943 did you further deal with matters concerning death sentences?
A. No.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, DR. Haensel. It will be necessary for us to take our fifteen minutes recess at this time. The film is running out.
(A recess was takes)
(After recess)
THE MARSHALL: The Tribunal is again in session.
BY DR. HAENSEL:
Q. he were just discussing the Work distribution plan of the year 1943. Exhibit 510. You have the document before you?
A. Yes.
Q. Were you in a position to give an instruction independently to a general public prosecutor to have the demand made for the death penalty?
A. Counsel you first asked me whether after 1943 I had anything to do with the matter of death sentences. To that question, I answer "No", and I believe that first I have to refer to page 25 of the document where we can see the name cf the referents who from March 1943 on, had exclusively to handle matters of death sentences.
I come now to your question as to whether a referent in the Ministry could give instructions to a genera prosecutor to ask for the death sentence. He could not do that.
THE PRESIDENT: May we interrupt you? has your reference to exhibit 510?
DR. HAENSEL: Yes, 510.
THE WITNESS: The exhibit 510 is the Work Distribution plan.
DR. HAENSEL: That is the large document, your Honor, and from that work distribution plan we can draw conclusions for cur case, those conclusions which the witness has just come to.
BY DR. HAENSEL:
Q. Now the witness also answered the question, that he could not give any instructions to demand the death sentence, but who alone could give it, witness?
A. Such instructions could only come from the Chief of the Penal Department, the under-secretary or the Minister, because in case the death sentence would be passed, that Base, through the same channels, had to be referred back to the Ministry cf Justice for the decision on the clemency question.
Q. The Prosecution submitted the report cf the Senior Public Prosecutor cf Stuttgart of the 3rd cf May '41, which was received at the Ministry cf Justice and which hears the remark and I quote, "Attention Senior Public Prosecutor Dr. Joel." It is Exhibit 191, from Document Book cf the Prosecution Book No. III.
What did you have to do in such a case?
A. In a case cf this kind, where the report from the Senior Prosecutor of Stuttgart, of the 3rd of May '41, was directed to the Reich Minister of Justice, but marked for my attention, that was apparently done in order to speed it up. In the same manner as every other prosecutor I had to examine whether I was competent to deal with the case whether the law permitted the demand for the death sentence in this case, and whether the facts as described in the report justified such a demand.
If I had to answer these questions in the affirmative, then it was my duty to submit that report to the Chief of the Department, and to the referent, who had to deal with the clemency question in case the anticipated death sentence was passed.
If I answered these questions in the negative, that is to say if I thought that the Senior Public Prosecutor could not suggest that the death sentence be asked for then I had to report to the Chief cf the department, because in that case, contrary to the suggestion made by the Senior Public Prosecutor, a directive had to be issued that the demand as intended was not approved.
Q. In Document Book I, supplement, which you have before you, in addition to the document we just discussed, 510, you also find Exhibit 464. Did you find it?
A. Yes.
Q. It concerns only routine matters. Can you say anything about that briefly?
A. That document was already discussed by Ministerialdirigent Mettgenberg, and I believe I do not have anything to add to that. It goes without saying that when the referent who had nothing to do with the matter was called into the matter, he informed the referent who was really competent about it.
Q. Now I should like to put some questions to you concerning your activity in the section for War Economy. Did all cases, from all over the Reich, come to your attention?
A. No, of course it was not possible that all cases from all Over the Reich came to me. The local prosecutions reported to the Reich Ministry of Justice only on such cases where there was any doubt from the legal point of view, or in cases that were significant from any other point of view and these again outside in carrying them out.
Q. Would you please mention some cases to me which have aroused the attention of the general public throughout the whole world?
A. I do not know whether there are any cases which were significant enough or not to arouse the attention of the entire world, but I know of some cases which aroused considerable attention in Germany, and I should like to mention three of these. The case of Ortsgruppenleiter Schoener, which was tried before the Special Court at Cologne; then the penal case against the Chief of the NSV, SS Standartenfuehrer Janowski which was tried at Kiel, and the criminal case against the Gau officer Machler in Berlin, which was tried in Berlin. These cases presented in my recollection the greatest difficulties, and on account of the two last mentioned cases I had to justify myself before Minister Goebbels.
Q. How was that matter concerning Ortsgruppenleiter Schoener?
A. Ortsgruppenleiter Schoener of the NSDAP was in his profession the chief of a consumer cooperative, in the district of Aachen. He had diverted carloads of rationed foodstuffs to friends Of his within the Party.
The Gauleiter at Cologne tried to prevent the proceedings. I intervened personally. Schoener was sentenced to death, and the sentence was executed.
DR. HAENSEL: I endeavored to get the files of the prosecution at Cologne against the last mentioned Schoener, but it was not possible. Therefore I have to apply the same method that I have previously applied in cases where I am unable to submit original documents although I have tried and I have to submit affidavits instead. Concerning the Janowski case, I refer to the affidavit by Hoeller, for which exhibit number 21 was reserved.
Furthermore, I submit for identification from my Document Book No 3, my Document No. 54 as Exhibit 32. It is to be found on page 30. Affidavit of former General Public Prosecutor Kranberg. It deals, among other matters also, with the Janowski case.
THE PRESIDENT: It may be marked for identification.
DR. HAENSEL: And for another case, the case of Maehler, I submit for identification the affidavit by Ried, for exhibit No. 33. It is to be found in my Document Book No. 2, on page 62.
THE PRESIDENT: Your document 34?
DR. HANESEL: Yes, 34.
THE PRESIDENT: Let it be marked for identification Exhibit 33.
DR. HAENSEL: Yes, 33. Concerning the Maehler case, in particular witness, do you still remember whether the serious embezzlement of Maehler's was concerned mainly with the property of a French citizen in the occupied territory?
A Yes. Maehler was the Chief of the Gauamt at the Gauleitung of Berlin, and he had committed serious cases of embezzlement also to the disadvantage of a French citizen.
DR. HAENSEL: I believe that these examples will suffice to afford the Tribunal an impression of the work of Joel at the section concerning war economy.
Q I should now like to ask you to comment on various other documents concerning your term of office at the Ministry of Justice. The Prosecution has submitted Exhibit 444, which is in Volume IV, Supplement. It is schedule for reports. According to the listing in the index it charges you in connection with the transfer of prisoners to the Gestapo. Would you please comment on the various notes concerning the reports? Exhibit 444.
A Yes. First I want to comment on two notes on the reports which belong together. It is here in the German book on page 2. There is a remarks "Transfer of Poles to the gestapo; cases of Partisinski and Marschiniak." That is a report of 19 November 1942. Then another remark: "Partisinski, a Pole, is to be transferred to the Gestapo from his prison where he is serving a term; Marschiniak, a Pole, wanted to marry in France, etc. of 17 December 1942." That is on page 5. These cases go together.
These are individual cases where, for reasons of conflict which had arisen with the police, I became active as the liaison man with the police. In both cases the notes show that we had succeeded in retaining the competency of the Administration of Justice over these cases.
Partisinski had a three-year prison term; Marschiniak had been brought into the prison for investigation pending trial. During the first report to the Minister, the Department Chief, as well as myself, refused to turn these people over, and we were successful.
The notation on page 3 of that list states, and I quote: "JoelMielke: Negotiations concerning Poles and Jews; as well as Russians internal directive by the Reichsfuehrer SS. Result: The General Referat is dealing with a general directive by the Reichsfuehrer SS which goes beyond the individual case and which probably provided for transfer."
Also, the note of 17 December on page 4 of my German Document Book, under the figure "1", and I quote: "Mielke-Grau, negotiations dealing with foreign workers."
That seems to indicate that the general handling of such matters was in the hands of the General Referent and the Department for Legislation. Apparently, because of the fact that a general directive was expected, a second report was made. That was on the 19th of December. Also on the occasion of that second report, I together with the Department Chief, opposed the turning over of the prisoners who were in the hands of the Administration of Justice, because punishable acts had been committed and the Administration of Justice was doubtlessly competent. As far as I can remember, Thierack did not make any decision bout these cases. Whether later on, in individual cases of that kind, shortly before the criminal prosecution of the Eastern workers was turned over to the police entirely, he ceded the competency of the Administration of Justice, I cannot tell. The Penal Department and I, as long as we had to deal with individual cases of that nature, always refused to turn them over.
In the case of Marschiniak, who wanted to marry a German servant girl in France, that fact was entered on the list in order to distinguish the case. There were certain rules of behavior which were in force for the Poles within the area of the Reich, they had taken notice of them and had signed for the fact that they had taken notice of these rules.
If it was explained here that the marriage was in fact to come about, one would not have considered the sexual relations as illegal or punishable.
In general, I have to say this about the work that I did as a liaison man with the police: Under Guertner and Schlegelberger, the prosecutions were directed, in every case where a punishable act was committed, to refuse to turn over such individuals to the gestapo and to make a report to the Ministry. That was how such individual cases were brought to my attention, via the individual competent Referents. I was included in the process ay a liaison man, and until 1942 I always succeed with the RSHA that they refrained from demanding the turning over of these individuals. After Thierack came into office I was no longer handling such assignments, because, as I know today, as early as 18 December 1942 Thierack had turned over to the police the criminal prosecution of such individuals.
Q I refer to document Exhibit 40, which is to be found in Volume I-B of the documents submitted by the Prosecution. You have it before you now. It contains the minutes of a conference of the Senior Prosecutors of the area of the District Court of Appeal at Cologne from 18 July 1942. That was after a meeting at Berlin of the chief officials of the 30th of June and the 1st of July 1942. Reference is made to a directive from the Ministry of Justice to the effect that Russians and Poles who had committed a criminal offense were to be sentenced by the courts. Would you please continue commenting on the notations on that report list concerning clemency matters in connection with death sentences because of illegal possession of firearms?
A On page 5 of that report list there is a notation concerning a report, which reads as follows:
"Is it necessary, during the war, to report concerning clemency questions in cases of Poles who had been sentenced to death for illegal possession of arms and whose sentence has been commuted to five years in a penitentiary, with the possibility of a revision after 2-3 years?"
In connection with that I wish to say the following:
Most of the death sentences for illegal possession of arms were not executed during the time of Minister Guertner and Undersecretary Schlegelberger, but, by way of clemency pleas, were commuted to five years in the penitentiary. Beyond that, Guertner was of the opinion that serving a term of two to three years was sufficient. However, he did not want to reduce the value of the deterrent inherent in the death sentence right away by commuting to penitentiary sentences too extensively. Therefore, he commuted the death sentences to sentences of five years in the penitentiary, and had a notation made by the Penal Department that after two to three years were served, pardon should be granted. At the end of 1942, therefore, I submitted cases of that kind, because the terms had been served. Since the Chief of the Penal Department was not willing to decide these matters on his own, a report was scheduled for the newly appointed Minister Thierack.
A (continued) By referring to the background history, I suggested a generous way of handling these clemency matters, but Thierack refused. I still have to comment on two notations concerning reports. The first one is also on page 5, "Russian from District of Kursk, paragraph 2, public enemy decree, Gestapo wants to punish by applying police measures," From the reference to the paragraph, of the penal decree on can conclude that the competency of the Administration of Justice was stressed and that the penal proceedings were already pending.
At that time I had refused to have individuals turned over; so did tho Department Chief, but I cannot tell what happened later. Then there is a notation, I quote, "Jabowski, a Pole, raped a German woman. He was executed by hanging, Kripo asked that a certificate for burial should be issued." That notation has the following meaning: by excluding the competency of the Administration of Justice and without the knowledge of the Administration of Justice, the Criminal Police had dealt with that case on their own.
They wanted a certification for burial which the local prosecutor, who was a competent in this case, did -- properly--not want to grant. One could not change the facts. I suggested that, in writing and orally, protest should be made to the Reich Security Main Office (RSHA,) and that a certificate should be issued with the statement at the same time that the Criminal Police had carried out the execution.
I myself, on orders from the Minister, complained to tho Chief of the Criminal Police; for the rest, my suggestion was accepted and carried out.
Page five also contains the following notation, I quote: "An Eastern worker from the old Soviet territory stole a jacket. The gestapo transferred him to a work in a correction camp and demands that the sentence for one month in prison should be annulled." That notation shows that an ordinary trial and sentence for theft had been carried out by the Administration of Justice. However, before the Administration of Justice had the chance to make the convict serve his term, the gestapo had taken steps on their own.
The gestapo sent him to a labor and correction camp. I together with the Chief of my department, opposed the suggestion made by the Gestapo and because the Russian had already been put into a labor camp I had requested that he be returned to his place of work. Thierack did not contradict; however, the annulment of the sentence which the police had demanded, was illegal and did not take place.
Q On page 3 of the document which you have before you, you also find the notation: (I quote) "Granting clemency concerning Bichler and Daub, killed Catholic priest in May, 1940, at Posen." The grant of clemency can be found as Exhibit 255 in Book IV-a of the Prosecution. Will you please quote from that document and then make your comments on it?
A That notation on the report goes together with the clemency decision, which has already been submitted as Exhibit 255. The decision to grant clemency was made by Minister Thierack and that, in spite of our objections, and in spite of the extreme leniency expressed in the sentence. That, as far as I know, happened after contact had been taken up with Himmler who had expressed that which for granting of clemency.
The report was made because in December 1942, that is several months later, after the clemency decision which is contained in Document 255 had been made. Himmler had complained to Thierack that the clemency decision had not yet been carried out. That is, up to that time.
Q You closed that document book too soon. I wanted to ask you to explain the following: Your notation which I have quoted states: "They have in May 1940 murdered a Catholic priest at Posen." Was that sentence for murder of for manslaughter? And what is the difference?
A When in spring, 1940, that case was reported to us, there were considerable difficulties to be overcome to carry out these proceedings.
I personally was of the opinion at that time that a sentence for murder had to be pronounced. The court at Hohensalza in its verdict of the 1st June 1940 found manslaughter to be the case and sentenced the culprits to 15 years in a penitentiary each. From the notation, one can see that we still considered that case a case of murder.
Q And from the way it was termed here, can one see your point of view in the clemency question?
A My assistant, myself and my Department Chief considered that clemency decision quite impossible.
Q I still should like to have a statement from you concerning the case Pirzel on pare three. I quote: "Crime against war economic order; Gauleiter Ueberreither demands death sentence." The case is important because subsequently I should like to discuss the affidavit by Suchomel. Do you still remember what happened after the demand of the Gauleiter Ueberreither, and who was it.
A In the case of this notation, we are concerned with the following. A farmer had not made adequate deliveries. He had fed milk and grain to his livestock and since he was known to be an opponent or considered to be an opponent of the NSDAP the local Gauleiter Ueberreither wanted to make an example. He requested the Ministry of Justice in writing to see to it that Birzel was sentenced to death. The case was not of a kind that one could have had the prosecutor ask for a death sentence. The department chief and myself reported to Thierack and convinced him.
Ueberreither received a rejection letter and Pirzel was sentenced to four years in a penitentiary.
Q Concerning your attitude in the case, Pirzel and the entire picture of the activities, we find that the statements made by Suchomel in his affidavit are quite in contradiction. It is Exhibit 534. What do you have to say to it?
A When Suchomel was my superior as the sub-department chief and frequently deputized for the department chief, he never made any objections of this kind to me.
Files of the courts were submitted to me only on very rare occasions. I received only reports from the senior prosecutors as Suchomel knows full well, and it is quite impossible that a minimum of a hundred reports of that kind were submitted in one single day, because the yearly average of such reports received by a section was about 1,500.
Notations with the name of the defendant and the extent of the legal slaughter and of the demand for punishment made by or expected to be made by, the prosecution -- such notations had to be made when the case was submitted to the department chief. The word "Einlegen" I cannot understand. I never used it. Decisive remarks about agreeing to or disagreeing with the suggestion made by the Senior Prosecutor were only made by the chief of the department or sometimes as his deputy by Suchomel himself. If I had misgivings concerning the demands to be expected by the prosecutor or the senior prosecutor, then I had to make a report.
The War Economy case where a father and son were executed was not known to me. Nor was I the competent referent for clemency matters in cases of death sentences.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
Q I have called for Suchomel for cross-examination concerning this affidavit and I hope that he will appear here.
No, we have only two more documents concerning the period of your work at the Ministry, Exhibit 262 and 638 from Volume IV-A, and I should like to have you comment on these.
There are first the notes concerning your visit to Goering on the 24th of September, 1942, Exhibit 262.
A Upon orders by Minister Thierack, I was sent to Goering. Goering had some requests to make to the Minister of Justice. I received numerous requests from Goering, among others the suggestion which is mentioned in Exhibit 262, and, through the official channels, I submitted my notes to the Minister. I did not deal any further with the matter. The men handling these matters were the late Westphal and the witness Hecker, but I could observe that Goering's suggestions were not carried out because I accompanied Westphal when he discussed the matter with General Meindl.
Q In my endeavor to procure witnesses or documents in connection with this matter I was not able to obtain any better results than to speak to Goering's adjutant, Colonel von Brauchitsch, since Goering is dead. He is not here. He is in Garmisch, and in the last few days I received an affidavit from him for which I ask to have Exhibit #34 reserved. As soon as it is translated it will be submitted to the Prosecution that the Prosecution can state its point of view.
The Prosecution, in its opening statement of 5 March, on Page 141 of the German transcript, expressed that you, witness, through the suggestion by Goering, I quote "became particularly well acquainted of the murder practiced against Jews in Poland and in the Soviet Union." What can you say in connection with that?
THE PRESIDENT: What exhibit is that?
BY DR. HAENSEL:
Q That is the opening speech. No exhibit, the opening speech of the 5th of March on page 141 of the German transcript. It is a charge Court No. III, Case No. 3.on which he may be able to comment.
A When I was with Goering, it was at the Reichsjaegerheim at Rohmindener Heide. Goering showed me pictures and reports which showed indescribable atrocities of Russian parachutists who had been found to be convicts behind the German combat lines. In his excitement he had conceived the thought of carrying out reprisals. I never took that suggestion seriously. It was known to me that the Army and the Waffen SS, just like armies all over the world, had units for individuals with previous convictions. I assumed that Goering also wanted to establish units of that kind in the Luftwaffe. The generals of the Luftwaffe refused. When I discussed that idea of Goering's with General Meindl, he agreed, after a few sentences, that that was out of the question. Meindl called the then Chief of General Staff of the Luftwaffe, General Jeschonek, by telephone and five minutes later the matter was dropped and nothing was done in that direction.
Q That was a remark made by the Prosecution, not a document, on which you commented, but as far as documents are concerned, there are still Exhibits 366 and 367, one after the other, on which I would like you to comment, but quite briefly.
A That deals with the duty of local police offices concerning burial. It is a notation on a letter, on which, I think, Dr. Mettgenberg has already commented. It concerns the duty of the police to bury all bodies which are not interred by their relatives and that obligation of the police applied also to bodies of individuals who had been executed. The man in charge of these matters was, as can be seep from this letter, Ministerialrat Westphal, the general referent of the department. He also had to handle the carrying out of the penal decree concerning Poles. My activity in this matter consisted of two telephone calls. It is a typical example of supporting the referent, a support which I had to give as liaison man to the police as one can see from the directive of the Minister of Justice Guertner of the 17th of December, 1937. Since nothing happened upon my suggestion, Westphal wrote a letter to the Chief of the Court No. III, Case No. 3.German Police - that is the second document.
That letter, since I had made a telephone call previously, was submitted to me for information as is customary according to the routine of a ministry.
Q I believe that takes care of it, but there is something else which appears very important. One can only get a complete picture of your work in the Ministry of Justice if you explain to us how you used your position at the Ministry of Justice and your position as liaison man to the police for the protection of people who were politically persecuted. Did you become active in that direction upon suggestions by the personnel department or by private individuals?
A Yes, that was part of my daily routine. It was very well known.
Q What kind of matters were those?
A Essentially those were cases of cancelling measures taken by the Gestapo, such as protective custody and other measures.
Q Since we are going to hear a witness on this matter, Herr Otto Lenz, and another witness, perhaps some time later, the Attorney Schultz, we only want to discuss briefly a few cases. Do you remember, for instance, the 200 Jewish legal consultants, who, in November, 1938, were taken into protective custody by the Gestapo?
A I remember numerous cases of that kind and I also remember these measures against the Jewish legal consultants. In many cases which, privately or through the personnel department or other offices of the Ministry of Justice, were brought to my attention, I have no recollection of names any more, but many of the people concerned have written to me now, here in the prison, and that made it possible for me to remember cases of support to individual persons. The 200 Jewish legal consultants had been arrested after the Jewish pogrom of 1938, not only in Berlin but throughout the entire area of the Reich. I was informed about that by the referent of the personnel department who was competent for matters of attorneys and also for Jewish legal consultants. Any reason for the arrest by the police could not be found. Upon the request Court No. III, Case No. 3.of Under-Secretary Schlegelberger, to whom that matter was also reported, I at once got in touch with the leading officials of the Gestapo at Berlin, that is, with the competent Chief of the Gestapo, the Chief of the Personnel Department.
It was possible immediately to set free the 200 Jewish legal consultants in Berlin. Those in the Reich were also released, but a few days later.
Q I believe that that subject is designed more than any other for submission of affidavits. A large number of letters were spontaneously sent to me when the charges of the indictment against Joel became known and I believe that the documents best speak for themselves, documents which, in this connection, I would like to submit. I am only sorry that I have to bother the Tribunal by submitting for identification several exhibits.
As my Exhibit #35 I shall submit, from my document book II, the document 42, on page 75.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
The affidavit Hermann Schoetensack.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit may be marked for identification Exhibit 35.
DR. HAENSEL: The next document from this book is my document No. 43, which I offer as Exhibit No. 36, that begins on page 82, that is the affidavit by Dr. Kurowski-Schmitz.
THE PRESIDENT: It may be marked for identification.
DR. HAENSEL: Then follows Document No. 44 on page 86, which will be Exhibit No. 37.
THE PRESIDENT: It may be marked.
DR. HAENSEL: And on page 90 in the same book, there is my document No. 45, which will be Exhibit No. 38, an affidavit by Koeper.
THE PRESIDENT: It may be marked.
DR. HAENSEL: In this connection, there is in document book 3, I beg your pardon, in the same document book No. 2, Exhibit 39, it is my document no. 45, correction my document no. 46. That is the affidavit Roth on page 93.
THE PRESIDENT: It may be marked Exhibit No. 39.
DR. HAENSEL: And then in document book 3, also in this connection, affidavit by Emilie Boesel on page 66, my document No. 66, which will be exhibit 40.
THE PRESIDENT: That will be marked Exhibit 40 for identification.
DR. HAENSEL: From the same book, Affidavit by Klinke on Page 69, my document No. 67, which is to receive Exhibit No. 41.
THE PRESIDENT: That will be marked.
DR. HAENSEL: And this concludes this group of questions from document book 3, page 62, the affidavit Roethe, my document no. 64 and it is to become exhibit No. 42.
THE PRESIDENT: Let it be marked.
BY DR. HAENSEL:
Q Dr. Joel, that concludes your activities in the Ministry, and I come now to your work as general public prosecutor (Generstaatsanwalt);
Court No. III, Case No. III.
according to your personnel data on 16 May 1943 you were appointed general public prosecutor and on 17 August 1943 you were introduced in Hamm, Exhibit 54, Volume 1-A; how did it come about that you were transferred from the Ministry of Justice?
A When the Ministry of Justice was taken over by Minister Thierack, it was clear to me and everyone else, the old Gurtner-that Schlegelberger's policy would be abandoned. Thierack, as everybody knew, owed his appointment to important personalities in the party. That Thierack himself and the people around him wanted to get me out of the Ministry was known beyond doubt.
Q But how did you actually get concrete information about this and what did you do after you obtained that information; what did you do yourself?
A Official knowledge of my intended transfer from the Ministry, that is my final transfer out of the Ministry, I obtained twelve hours before I was introduced into my office in Hamm. About the fact that I had to leave the Ministry, I was informed by Minister Thierack immediately after he assumed office. He called me into his office and told me that I had to get out of the Ministry. Immediately after he assumed office, I tried to get out of the Administration of Justice and to find a position in other parts of the Civil Service or, as I would have preferred, in private economy. In writing and orally, I made numerous attempts to leave the Administration of Justice through the Foreign Office, through the Legal Department of the Army, through the Four Year Plan and through the Armament Ministry.
Q Do you happen to remember the name of anybody whom you approached, names which could assist me with submitting affidavits?
A I received the answer from the Foreign Office through Dr. Best, as for the Amy Administration of Justice, the Chief, Herr von Boggelberg had stated he would be willing to give me a job, as for the Four Year Plan, it was Ministerial Counciller Gritzbach and in the Armament Ministry, President Clasen.
Q The evidence in this connection is to be found in Exhibit 4 Court No. III, Case No. III.