In this report Dr. Joel presented to the Minister of Justice the wish asserted by the population from all parts to proceed ruthlessly against criminals who were exploiting the situation created by the aerial warfare. One can understand this request when one keeps in mind that day and night attacks carried out by bomber squadrons and single planes of the enemy air force caused innumerable victims among the civilian population, and that the few possessions that could be salvaged were stolen from the survivors.
IV. Crimes of Organizations According to paragraph II, I d relative to the IMT opinion, those are guilty who were:
(a) members of the organizations declared criminal by the IMT opinion, including the SS and the SD and who, moreover, joined after 1 September 1939; and (b) those who possessed the knowledge that those organizations were used for crimes in the sense of paragraph six of the Charter.
In its introduction to chapter nine the IMT opinion states, moreover, that its declaration should exclude those who did "not have a knowledge of the criminal purposes".
Thus, more membership alone does not render men guilty, but only those members in other respects externally indistinguishable, are liable to punishment who, in addition to the outward membership also possess the inner motive of the knowledge. The last mentioned clement, therefore, is the essential criterion of liability to punishment; it is a psychic fact, but it belongs to the objective facts of the case.
I shall return later to the exposition of the concept of knowledge as set forth in Law No. 10 and in the IMT opinion. First, I should like to examine whether Dr. Joel, by virtue of membership in the group, belongs at all in the category of those who are to be regarded as criminal because 10524EE Dr. Carl Haensel Final Plea Guenther Joel of the added knowledge.
Was he a member of the SS or the SD, first of all, from an outward viewpoint, as has been claimed by the Prosecution in points 24 and 32?
1. "Membership" a. Waffen SS Dr. Joel did not serve as a soldier during the war.
He was claimed as indispensable by the Reich Ministry of Justice and exempted from military service. Even today he is in possession of a military identity card of the army, which was issued to him on 19 January 1938 and contains as the last entry a registration note by the Army Registration Office, BerlinCharlottenburg, dated 28 June 1943. Nowhere does it contain an entry that Joel was transferred from the army to the Waffen SS. Thus, Joel never belonged to the Waffen SS. His defense classification was membership of the Replacement Reserves I of the Army, as indicated on his military identity card (Note 141).
b. General SS Nor did Joel ever belong to the General SS.
In the personnel files of the Reich Ministry of Justice submitted by the Prosecution (Note 142) there is also a copy of the original orders appointing Joel SS leader in the SD Main Office, dated 2 May 1938. The excerpt from a seniority list, dated 1 December 1933, which has been submitted by me, shows that Joel was not carried on the German SS records but on those of the "SS Haupstamt". The promotions of Joel, which were to serve the purpose of equalizing his rank to his office in the Reich Ministry of Justice, were ordered from time to time by the SD Main Office and not by the personnel office of the "General SS". The last chief of Amt III of the RSHA - the former independent SD Hauptamt, became Amt III of the RSHA after the latter was established in the course of the war - has affirmed (Note 144) that Joel was not a member of the General SS. A declaration exactly like the afore-mentioned one has been made by the former Police Superintendent Dr. Martin on behalf of Dr. Joel (Note 145). Joel's own declaration (Note 1)46) and his testimony at the cross-examination through Mr. King of 6 August 1947 10524FF Dr. Carl Haensel Final Plea Guenther Joel (Note 147) are corroborative.
All this speaks against the charge founded in subsection 32.
c. SD What is the position with regard to figure 34 of the indictment?
During the cross-examination of the defendant Joel, the Prosecution called into question whether he had held an honorary rank (Note 148). It admitted that he was not employed in a full-time capacity. Joel, however, did not sue a part of his working strength, even honorarily, for the SD.
He never worked for the SS, the police, or the SD.
Even if the Prosecution has referred to a correspondence which took place in 1940 between the Reich Ministry of Justice and the Chief of Security Police, which shows that Joel was exempted for a time from military service by the Chief of Security Police and of the SD, it can be established that Joel remained, without interruption in the legal service and did not know of these events. They are explained by the fact that the members of the SD, when they were used for military service, were employed in the Waffen SS.
The personnel files of the Reich Ministry of Justice (Note 150) contain two documents which seem to show that Joel worked for the SD. In answer to a question which I asked him, Joel explained that in one instance he took the opportunity of going to Cologne on a personal matter, in legal matters. The Gauleiter in Cologne attacked the Senior Public Prosecutor in Bonn and wanted to get him removed from office. Secretary of State Freisler did not want Joel to have a consultation with the Gauleiter; Minister Guertner was not accessible. This was the reason why Joel gave this explanation (Note 152).
The other instance was a journey with the liaison officer between the Reichsfuehrer SS and the Reich Ministry of Justice, Sturmbannfuehrer Tondock, to inspect penal institutes within the Old Reich Territory. Joel declared that he was also in favor of this journey (Note 153). Minister Guertner had given Joel orders to accompany Tondock on visits to three penal institutes of the Administration of Justice. The liaison officer 10524GG Dr. Carl Haensel Final Plea Guenther Joel Tondock confirmed Joel's approval (Note 154).Joel was not active in the SD; his appointment was not preceded by any ancestry research.
The question as to whether or not he had any Jewish blood within the meaning of racial idealogy was never examined. He got the rank of a leader directly, without having done any service; he was not sworn in.
Major Far, the Prosecutor in the IMT trial, considered the swearing in as a presupposition for regular membership (Note 135); he did not pay any contributions to the SD nor to the Lebensborn and SS savings banks, which collected from all regular members; he did not have any training or instruction; he did not receive any SS literature and was not sent any ordinances from the SS, the SD, or the police; he did not participate in any meetings, rollcalls, or parades; he did not have any duties with regard to the SD; he did not have any rights. The personnel files submitted by the Prosecution (Note 156) would have shown this, if it had been the case.
The SD itself had no power to determine which leaders were to be considered as honorary leaders. The lawfor liberation from National Socialism and militarism dated 5 March 1946, applicable in the American Zone of occupation, has, however, raised the question, and the State Ministry for special tasks set up in Bavaria to execute this law has made a clear distinction between "leaders" of the affiliations of the NSDAP and "honorary leaders". A decree in paragraph 12 of this law dated 5 March 1946 says that "honorary leaders" are not "leaders" within the meaning of this decree. And among the resolutions of the competent legal board for the uniform interpretation and application of the lawof liberation in the United States Zone, there is a decree R.C. 32/46, which gives a definition of the honorary leaders.
"Honorary leaders are persons who were authorized to hold titles and who wore the corresponding uniform but had, however, no official authority of any kind and did not carry out the duties attached to their rank." (Note 157).
10524HH Dr. Carl Haensel Final Plea Guenther Joel These presuppositions apply to the defendant Joel and there can be no doubt that he was purely an honorary leader, particularly in viewof the way in which Joel got his rank.
Apart from this, this fact is also confirmed by the depositions of the former main department chief Wunder, of the SS personnel main office (Note 158). He states that SS honorary leaders were also carried on the roster of the SD Main Office, and what relations existed between the honarary leaders and the SS. The defendant Joel had none of the connections with the SD mentioned there; neither did he have the loose connections which honorary leaders generally had. The same happened here to a lesser degree, as for instance in the case of Herr von Neurath on whom, as was established in the IMT trial, as SS rank was bestowed. In spite of this, in its conclusion on the SS on the subject of the characterization of the criminality of the SS, the IMT verdict referred solely to Kaltenbrunner's membership and not, however, to that of von Neurath. The verdict did not want to recognize the bestowal of an honorary rank as an "official" membership.
10524II Dr. Carl Haensel Final Plea Guenther Joel I refer also the supplemental declaration of the IMT to its verdict which excludes "honorary informers" from the incriminated SD.
Joel was not even an "honorary co-worker" but was merely theholder of a rank. He comes, therefore, under the members of the SD who are hot affected by the IMT verdict.
2. "Knowledge" The indictment, however, involves the further charge that Dr. Joel also had the "knowledge" relevant for the crime of being a member of a criminal organization and I must discuss this charge as well.
My trial brief is before the Tribunal , and in it I laid down the conception of the law that this knowledge cannot consist in a mere "having heard of it", but that this knowledge has to contain more in order to fulfill the legal requirements.
The Prosecution has produced evidence which the defendant Dr. Joel does not contest, that he had the generally known knowledge of certain measures of the Party and of it s affiliations in Germany which are now laid at the door of the SS and of the police and that he had officialexperience of individual occurrences. We must discuss and establish what knowledge Joel acquired and whether Dr. Joel, in spite of the knowledge which he had, is not to be counted among those persons who are considered as members of the criminal group, in view of his attitude toward illegal measures.
In this connection, the Prosecution has submitted Document E-264 (Note 158) against Joel and tries to infer his knowledge of the "murderous practices of the SS" from it. The conclusion which the Prosecution reached is wrong. In his interrogation on 5 August 1947 (Note 159) the defendant Dr. Joel stated that he had recorded almost word for word the wishes of Goering, the motive of which was to retaliate for the horrors committed by the Russians. He also stated that he had helped to frustrate Goering's suggestion when together with the expert from the Reich Ministry of Justice he discussed the matter with the General 10524JJ Dr. Carl Haensel Final Plea Guenther Joel of the Luftwaffe Meindl.
The witness Hecker, who was interrogated here on 7 July 1947 and who was the expert from Department V for Goering's suggestion, confirmed Joel's statements (Note 160) and the statements made by General Meindl and Colonel von Brauchitsch (Note 16l) showed that no Luftwaffe formation of convicts had ever existed.
Contrary to the statement made by the Prosecution, out of these events Joel could only see one thing, that is, that no retaliation was made by the Wehrmacht for horrors committed by the Russians. During his conference with Goering in the Reich Jaegerhof in the Rominter Heath, he did not learn of any measures taken by the SS, the SD, or the police.
The Prosecution has submitted Exhibits 412 (Note 162), a report on Mathausen camp, dated 17 June 1945 (Note 163); a report on Flossenburg camp, dated 21 June 1945, and E-414 (Note 164), an affidavit of Dr. Kastner. This evidence showed that criminal acts were committed in these concentration camps, and the Prosecution infers that all the defendants who were active in the Reich Ministry of Justice from the middle of 1942 to 1945 knew that such crimes were committed. The defendant Dr. Joel did not have any knowledge of these events. During the years following 1933, he had to work on official communications on events in the concentration camps, and the evidence has shown that in spite of all opposition he pursued the prosecution of the guilty persons with great energy. After the Central Prosecuting Authorities (Zentralstaatsanwaltschaft) had been dissolved in October 1937, he had nothing further to do with such tasks,. As the witness von Haacke stated, (Note 165) the energetic action against the so-called wild concentration camps and against the maltreatment in order to bring about a truthful statement, in 1935, had the result that cases of maltreatment were only known here and there. After the beginning of the war, the Reich Ministry of Justice lost its jurisdiction over the guard personnel and the administrative personnel of the concentration camps, since the SS and police established their own jurisdiction decree of 18 October 1939.
10524KK Dr. Carl Haensel Final Plea Guenther Joel Neither in his position as specialist (Referent) nor as liaison official, Joel was -- as can be understood easily -- informed about happenings which constituted crimes, the prosecution of which it was intended to prevent.
In addition, there existed at the time for which the Prosecution wants to use these documents, a difference of opinion between the defendant Dr. Joel and Thierack and the SD, and the defendant did, therefore, not take part inconversations in which such confidential things were reported. The Prosecution submitted further E-600 (Note 166) , a secret document of the State police Wuerzburg and photographs of the evacuation of Jews from Main Frankonia.
The defendant Dr. Joel did not learn that all Jews were evacuated. But he was informed about the intention to evacuate certain Jewish families from Berlin. He not only expressed his lack of understanding for these cruel measures but was ready to oppose these measures, as far as it was possible for him to do so. In doing so he knew that people who interceded in favor of Jews were registered. Upon instigation of his superior, Under Secretary Schlegelberger, he intervened at the State Police in order to prevent the discharge of the former Reich Minister of Justice Schiffer and the former President of the Kammergericht Cohn.On the occasion of these interventions he was informed that these measures were not ordered by the State police or the SS and SD offices in Berlin, but by the General Building Inspector for the reconstruction of Berlin (Note 167), upon instigation of the Gau Leader of Berlin, Dr. Gcebbels, He succeeded in having the transfer of Schiffer prevented; the transfer of Cohn was postponed until he was brought to Theresienstadt. Both are again in Berlin in their official positions (Note 108). The defendant Dr. Joel was not informed about the mass murders and the extermination activities of the SS in the East. The special war tasks of the Chief of the Security Police and of the SD were kept secret, and he could not guess that there were other tasks than those which were generally known (Note 169). The SS had in the homeland 10524LL DR. Carl Haensel Final Plea Guenther Joel no other function than that of an office for the care of dependents of comrades who had died in action.
Now, as before, the SD forwarded to the Reich Ministry of Justice that part of its situation reports which contained the "Law and Administration" (Note170). He did not learn anything about the measures Thierack carried out together with Himmler and which are laid down in the agreement of 18 September 1942 (Note 171).
But, as I stated in my trial brief, the "knowledge" in the meaning of the crime of being a member of a criminal organization has to comprise much more than a mere "having heard of" which is entirely separated from the volition of the defendant which alone is relevant from the point of view of criminal law. Also a"must know" is insufficient. If in the opinion of the IMT such a philological knowledge of certain historical facts had been sufficient to pronounce the defendants guilty, it could have saved its complicated formulations; for every man in this whole world has once heard that some SS - or SD men had committed crimes during the war. Had this been the case, then the IMT could have simply restricted itself to the declaration that every member of the SS or SD, with the exception of those who were forced by the state to join these organizations , are liable to be sentenced.
In accordance with the terminology and the organic structure law 10 and the verdict of the IMT, one has, to the contrary, to arrive at the conclusion, that the wrong inherent in being a member of a criminal organization lies in the fact that they joined to further criminal aims; the defendant is either "personally implicated in the commission of acts declared criminal by Art. 6 of the Charter" or because of his member ship in spite of his "knowledge of the criminal purposes". It is, therefore, necessary that he participated as conspirator in the criminal conspiracy, and that by doing so he rendered himself guilty. I am referring to the more detailed reasons for this 10524MM Dr. Carl Haensel Final Plea Guenther Joel legal point of view which are contained in my trial brief.
In a small book which is at present being printed I have further elaborated and amplified these reasons. Please let me state with all modesty that the solution of this question of law is of vital importance not only for Doctor Joel and some co-defendants, but for hundred thousand people who expect to be sentenced on the basis of the law 10. Here it is now my task to state briefly the circumstances which refute, with regard to Doctor Joel, any suspicion of a furtherance of criminal aims through a membership, if such a membership should contrary to the above explanations, be assumed.
Dr. Joel got a uniform, not because he wanted to further the SS or the SD; he wanted just the opposite. His personnel file at the Reich Ministry of Justice shows that on 19 December 1937 he was given in addition to his tasks in the Reich ministry of Justice, a further assignment (Note 172). At the time Reich minister Dr. Guertner commissioned him to establish in criminal cases in "case of need" the connection with the Police, the SS and the WD (Note 173). Already since 1935, there had been a liaison officer between the SS and the Reich Ministry of Justice who acted upon the order of the Main Office SS Court (Gericht); the Minister of Justice was thus only in need of a liaison official with the police. (Note 174). It was the positive wish of Minister Guertner to maintain, in the interest of order and law, Joel's positive cooperation toward criminal proceedings in the years past, as consequence of his official task in the Reich Ministry of Justice, a rank was offered to Dr. Joel. The files and the statements of Hattingen (Note 175) and Ohlendorf (Note 176) prove that this did not happen upon the instigation of Joel. After he had informed his Minister of the fact that it was intended to bestow a rank upon him, and the Minister did not raise any objections, Joel accepted the offer. Before his appointment and after his appointment he only carried out the orders of Minister Guertner and worked for the purpose of safeguarding the interests of judiciary. It was out of 10524NN Dr. Carl Haensel Final Plea Guenther Joel the question for minister Guertner and him that a refusal of the offer would have forced Doctor Guertner to withdraw the order given to Doctor Joel on 19 December 1937 , and to assign this task to an other official of the Reich Ministry of Justice.
But Minister Guertner thought that Joel was just the right appointee and Joel thought that he should comply with the order of his minister. In order to do so he had to accept the offered rank . Of certain, although not decisive importance were also the discussions Joel had with Under Secretary Freisler and officials of the Party everywhere. In his official activities ageinst members of the Party and its organization it was to be expected that Joel, since he had a rank, would have a stronger position (Note 177). The old sentence has to be applied here: "By their fruits, ye shall know them". The character is shown by the actions. The attitude of Dr. Joel is shown by the successful help he offered people who were persecuted for political reasons, with regard to measures of the State Police. He offered this help in connection with his official position, but not in connection with his real sphere of official acquaintances. There were not at all favors which Dr. Joel did to acquaintances; he helped innumerable people he had never met, but who had heard of him, because he took the point of view that no human being should be deprived of his liberty, if his guilt under criminal law has not been established by a court.
As proof for this, I was able to furnish in addition to numerous affidavits, two witnesses, both of them were lawyers and have never been Party members, but were actively opposed to National Socialism, the witnesses Lenz and Schulz. Lenz had been sentenced to a prison term in connection with the proceedings for the attempted murder of Hitler on 20 July 1944. The court will remember the statements of the witness Dr. Lenz, attorney-at-law in Berlin, made on 6 August 1947, which describe Dr. Joel's successful intervention in favor of the persecuted Catholic clergy, as well as the same statements of the witness Schulz, 10524-OO Dr. Carl Haensel Final Plea Guenther Joel attorney-at-law in Berlin, who was heard on 25 august 1947.
Also the statements of the former Ministerial Councillor Schoetensack deal with this question. (Note 177).
He describes Dr. Joel's intervention in behalf of attorneys in protective custody and his action in favor of approximately two hundred Jewish legal consultants, who had been arrested in 1938 after the pegram and were released following representations on the part of Dr. Joel. In this connection I may mention the following examples: Affidavits of Dr. Roethe (Note 178) , who recognizes Dr. Joel's measures in favor of his clients against illegal interference on the part of the Gestapo and of Party agencies; of Frau Boesel of Hannover (Note 179); whose brother was freed in 1943 from the hands of the State police by Dr. Joel after he had been acquitted by the People's Court; of Frau Kurowski-Schmitz (Note 180), whose husband was an attorney and Austrian Counsul General at Danzig and was freed in 1940 by Dr. Joel from confinement by the Gestapo; certificated engineer Roth of Prague, who was of mixed Czech origin and whose release from a labor camp was ordered by Dr. Joel in 1944 (Note 181); the affidavits of the former Ministerial Councillor Tees, at whose request Dr. Joel liberated the Rev. Praetorius from imprisonment by the Gestapo (Note 182); of Frau Kolbe of Hamburg, whose reputation was vindicated by Dr. Joel after her defamation in the "Schwarze Korps" (Note 183); of Dr. Joel's collaborator, Holler, at whose request he prevented the expulsion of a Lorrainer from Metz and obtained the release of a friend, who was to be put in a concentration camp at the instigation of a political functionary of the NSDAP (Note 184). These few examples cut of numbers of similar cases speak for themselves.
Can the assumption be upheld that illegal measures were approved or even supported and promoted by a man who served the cause of persecuted people in a manner which becomes apparent from his entire official activity and which is described in the affidavits to which 10524PP Dr. Carl Haensel Final Plea Guenther Joel reference is made?
We can obtain a complete picture of Dr. Joel's personality only by looking also at his private associations. Already while he was assessor at Kassel (February 1931 - August 1933) he had associated with people of all classes and occupations, none of whom was a Nazi sympathizer. At that time he worked in the political Department of the Public Prosecutor's Office, which had mainly to deal with criminal proceedings aainst members of the NSDAP . Dr. Joel never broke off his relations with his friends in Kassel after he had been transferred to Berlin. A dentist, a businessman, and a hotel proprietor today testify to the fact that he never worked for the NSDAP either before or after 1933 and that he was called into the Ministry of Justice at the suggestion of a colleague and not for any services for the Party, since all prerequisites for that were lacking (Note 185).
This friendship with the future government Councillor Herpell dates from this time at Kassel; this man left the public service before 1933. Herpell also knew Dr. Joel for more than twenty years. He knows from his own experience that Dr. Joel always stepped in wherever wrongs had been committed through arbitrary Party methods. He remembers that every time he met him, Joel had to conduct an investigation, at Minister Guertner's order, during which Party resistance had to be overcome. He is convinced that it would have been easy for Dr. Joel to associate with men of rank and reputation in the Party. He never noticed any such associations.
Dr. Joel had no private contacts with the officials of the Ministry apart from his personal collaborators. These were up to the beginning of the war, Public Prosecutor von Haacke, and later, after the latter's induction, District Court Judge Hoeller. After Thierack had removed Dr. Joel from the Reich Ministry of Justice, Hoeller tried to get his discharge and left the service at the beginning of 1944 (Note 186). Von Haacke knew Dr. Joel's Berlin circle of friends, which consisted of merchants, manufacturers, and artists, and knows that Dr. 10524-QQ Dr. Carl Haensel Final Plea Guenther Joel Joel did not move in Party, SS, SD, or Stapo circles (Note 187).In his opposition to arbitrary methods of the Farty and police, Dr. Joel was supported by Minister Guertner's personal Referent, Herr von Dohnanyi, a man who shared his view . Both cooperated closely while von Dohnanyi was in the Reich Ministry of Justice.
After von Dohnanyi had left , relations between the two were not broken off. Dr. Joel also intervened with the Gestapo in behalf of von Dohnanyi when the latter was arrested in 1943. Immediately before the end of the war, von Dohnanyi was liquidated by the Gestapo in the Lehrter Strasse prison.
Two of his personal friends offered to testify in his behalf and have appeared before this Tribunal: The above-mentioned attorneys Dr. Lenz and Schulz. They never regarded Dr. Joel as a "Nazi jurist" but found him to be one of the few men who proved by their actions that they consistently stood up for the law. Attorney Dr. Lenz, who had been the personal Referent of the former Prussian Minister of Justice Schmidt and of his State Secretary Hoelscher and had , up to 1933; been a member of the Center Party to which also his two superiors had belonged, had remained in the Ministry of Justice after 1933 up to 1938. From the beginning he wasopposed to National Socialism. Dr. Joel caught Dr. Lenz' attention because he was one of the few who did something to have criminal acts committed by Party members prosecuted. This applies to the time before and after an SS rank in the SD was conferred on him. Just since the time when Joel held his office of SS and police liaison officer, Dr. Lenz could always count on Dr. Joel's help against measures of the State police. Attorney Lenz, who remained Joel's friend and had full confidence in Joel's secrecy and personal reliability, made the defendant Dr. Joel acquainted with men who were determined to do away with all forcible and arbitrary measures. This happened already before the beginning of the war. Thus, Dr. Joel got in touch with Dr. Wirmer, a Berlin attorney, a member of the former Center Party 10524RR Dr. Carl Haensel Final Plea Guenther Joel who discussed with him many cases of politically persecuted people and found his support, Wirmer had been chosen for the office of Minister of Justice by Goerdeler's resistance movement.
After the attempt of 20 July 1944 he was sentenced to death and executed. Witness Lenz also got the defendant Dr. Joel in touch with Attorney Etscheit, which resulted in friendly relations of these two men. Etscheit, who was my partner for almost a decade, was known as a radical adversary of National Socialism. He was the friend of ex-Chancellor Bruening and legal advisor to the Papal Nunzio. Dr. Joel frequented his house and in many cases successfully assisted him in his care for political persecutees. When Etscheit was arrested in 1943; the witness Lenz informed Dr. Joel at Hamm. Dr. Joel at once made vigorous remonstrances to the Reich Main Security Office to obtain Etscheit's release. In this he was unsuccessful; on the contrary, Joel himself became gravely suspected on account of his intervention in Etscheit's behalf. Attorney Etscheit died in Flossenbuerg concentration camp (Note 188).
Attorney Dr. Lenz was himself charged with having been implicated in the events leading up to the attempt on Hitler on 20 July 1944. Dr. Joel heard about it and arranged a meeting with witness Dr. Lenz' wife, in order to warn his friend through her (Note 189).
Dr. Joel's friendship with attorney Schulz dates from an intervention in 1933 in behalf of a political persecutee. Schulz classes Dr. Joel among the small circle of officials who resisted Party and Gestapo methods. Through Schulz, Dr. Joel had met Attorney Langbuhn as well as others mentioned by me, had often seen Joel in the Ministry to request and obtain his help for political persecutees. Langbuhn was sentenced to death and executed after 20 July 1944.
In the last years of the war Schulz was attached to the office of General Thomas in the OKW. Thomas had, since 1938, attempted to get rid of the system. In the course of the events after the attempt on Hitler, he was put in a concentration camp and liberated only after 10524SS Dr. Carl Haensel Final Plea Guenther Joel the collapse.
In conversations between General Thomas and the former Under Secretary Blank, one of Goerdeler's associates, Blank stated his conviction that Joel must be regarded as reliable from the standpoint of those who intended to restore order in Germany. Blank and Joel knew each other.
The circles who wanted to over throw the National Socialist system regarded Dr. Joel as their "protector in the Ministry of Justice" --as Schulz said -- and when it discussed where objective and reliable people were to be found, Joel's name was mentioned for the Department of Justice (Note 190 ).
We learn from the former District Governor Diels that he had requested Joel to attend two meetings, at which the untenable situation was discussed (Note 191). Among those present were the above-mentioned Under Secretary Blank, who worked in the Otto Wolff Firm at Cologne, and the Police President of Berlin, Count Helldorf. Both were members of the Goerdeler group. Evan at the beginning of the war, Helldorf had changed from an ardent Nazi to a prominent adversary of the system. Dr. Joel, who had had official contacts with him, was informed by him of criminal proceedings which minister Goebbels in Berlin wanted to quash.
At these meetings the defendant Dr. Joel reported Hitler's, Himmler's, and Bormann's illegal terror measures and Thierack's new policy in the Administration of Justice. All were agreed that all lovers cf order must now join forces. Blank, Count Helldorf, and Diels were arrested. A chauffeur had listened to the conversations and had denounced the participants. Blank and Count Helldorff were sentenced to death and executed in the trial on the events of 20 July 1944. Diels was released as he could prove his innocence. Defendant Dr. Joel was not arrested because apparently the denouncer did not know his name (Note 192).
The witness Hans Bernd Gisevius, who was examined in the trial 10524TT Dr. Carl Haensel Final Plea Guenther Joel of the main war criminals and who was one of the leading opponents of Hitler, Himmler, and Bermann, tells us that among his political friends Joel's name was often mentioned, since he was considered one of the few public prosecutors who showed civil courage in their dealings with the Party and Gestapo (Note 193).I have named to the Tribunal a few men whom Dr. Joel often met.
All of them were active opponents of the Hitler regime and many of them became its victims. They can no more testify in his favor. Those who survived the time of persecution know about him and recognized from Dr. Joel's words and actions that he was opposed to a system of arbitrary methods. They counted him among their confidential friends.
It is probably of particular importance that the first Minister of Justice of the State of Nordrhein-Westfalen, to which the district of the Hamm District Court of Appeal now belongs, who has been confined by the British Military Government for Germany, made an affidavit in Dr. Joel's behalf. I am of the opinion that the official representative of the judicial authorities, whose task it was to eradicate the Nazi methods of justice, must have a specially delicate ear for National Socialist undertones. But he could not ascertain these in Dr. Joel's case; on the contrary, he was convinced of the opposite (Note 194).
I request that the defendant Dr. Joel be acquitted.
10524UU Note 1 English Transcript (Tr.) p. 136 " 2 Tr. p. 137 " 3 A. Hensel "Die Rangordnung der Rechtsquellen" in "Handbuch des deutschen Staatsrechts" 1932, Vol.
II, p. 324 " 4 United Nations Information Office, "War and Peace Aims", 1946, p. 116 " 5 Roosevelt "Amerika und Deutschland", p. 95 " 6 Mezger, "Strafrecht", 1931, p. 411 " 7 Sayre, Harvard Law Review 1935, p. 399 " 8 Tr. of the Joint Session of Military Tribunals I, II, III, IV and on 9 July 1947, p. 30 " 9 Kenny, "Outlines of Criminal Law", 1904, p. 79 " 10 JNT Judgment, American Journal of International Law, VI, 41, p. 266 " 11 Tr. of the Joint Session on 9 July 1947, p, 2, decision of Tribunal No. II on 18 July 1947 and decision of Tribunal No. II on 11 July 1947 " 12 Doelle-Zweigert, Kommentar zum Gesetz Nr. 52, Stuttgart 1947, p. 25 " 13 Mezger, "Strafrecht", 1931, p. 442 " 14 Vol.
55, p. 60, vol. 56, p. 329, vol. 57, p. 144, vol. 58, p. 279 a.o.
" 15 Frank, Kommentar 1926, p. 116 " 16 Kenny, "Outlines of Criminal Law", 1904, p. 79 " 17 The Law of the Charter, Par.
6 " 18 Exhibit 510 - NG 988, Interrogation of Altmeyer 15/16 July, Tr. p. 5287 " 19 Affidavit Hoeller, Joel-Exh.
21, Doc. 74, Book V, under No. 4, Interrogation of Altmeyer 15/16 July, Tr. p. 5295 " 20 Joel-Exh.
30, Doc. 1, I, p. 2 " 21 Exh.
410, - NG 587, p. 6 Note 22 Examination of the witness Schulz, Tr. p. 9546 " 23 Affidavit von Haacke, Joel-Exh.
1, Doc. 4, I, p. 15 a/16 " Hoeller, Joel-Exh.
21, Doc. 74, V. p. 12 " 24 Affidavit Hoeller, Joel-Exh.
21, Doc. 74, V. p. 16 under No. 25 c " 26 Exh.
284 - NG 190, Interrogation of Joel, Tr. p. 6538 Interrogation of Schlegelberger, Tr. p. 4459 " of Meissner, Tr. p. 4622 " of Gramm, Tr. p. 4737 Affidavit Hoeller, Joel-Exh.
21, Doc. 74, V, p. 14/15/16/17 under No. 24/27 Affidavit Gired, Joel-Exh.
27, Doc. 33, II, p. 58/59 " 26 Interrogation of Joel, Tr. p. 6539 Affidavit Hoeller, Joel-Exh.
21, Doc. 74, V, p. 16 under No. 26 " 27 Interrogation of Lammers, Tr. p, 5618 " 28 Exh.
284 - NG 190, p. 11/12 " 29 Exh.
444 - NG 812 " 29a Exh.
444- NG 812, p. 4 (on the top of the page) " 29b Exh.
40 - NG 673 " 30 Exh.
51C - NG 988 " 31 Exh-. 510 - NG 988, Interrogation Altmeyer, Tr. p. 5246 and Interrogation Suchomel, Tr. p. 7765 " 32 Exh.
444 - NG 812, p. 5 under No. 12 " 33 Joel-Exh.
21, Doc. 74, V.p. 11 under No. 18 " 34 NG 211 - Exh.
353, p. 12 " 35 Exh.
280 - NG 698 " 36 Exh.
356 - NG 126, Exh. 351 - NG 309, Exh. 352 - NG 305 " 37 JMT-Transcript 17.
1,47, Speech of the french chief prosecutor de Mentbon " 38 Lautz-Doc.
No. 70 " 39 Exh.
480 - NG 699, Exh. 558 - NG 2335, Exh. 374 - NG 081 " 40 Affidavit Hoeller, Joel-Exh.
21, Doc. 74, V, p. 17 under no. 28 Interrogation Lautz, Tr. p. 5857 " 41 Exh.
444 - NG 812, p. 3 under No. 6c Note 42 Exh.
255 - NG 640 " 43 Interrogation Joel, Tr. p. 6556, Affidavit Hoeller, Exh.
21, Doc. 74, V, p. 6 under No. 9 " 44 Exh.
191 - NG 719 " 45 Exh.
28 - Doc. 28, II, p.27 " 46 Joel- Interrogation, Tr. p. 6548 " 47 Exh.
366 - NG 318, Exh. 367 - NG 329 " 49 Exh.
410 - NG 587, p. 6 " 50 Interrogation of Joel, Tr. p. 6560 " 51 Exh.
376 - NG 767 " 52 Exh.
377 - NG 766 " 53 Affidavit Hoeller II, Joel-Exh.
97, Doc. 99, VI " 54 Exh.
464 - NG 1103 " 55 Research Studies of the State College of Washington, Vol.
XIII, No. 2, June 1945, P. 120 " 56 Affidavit Grauert, Joel-Exh.
2 - Doc. 5, I, p. 20 under No. 1 " von Haacke, Joel-Exh.
1 - Doc. 4, I, p. 12 " Diels, Joel-Exh.
4 - Doc. 7, I, p. 34 under No. 1 Interrogation of Joel, Tr. p. 6484 " 57 Affidavit von Haacke, Exh.
1 - Doc. 41 I, p. 12.
" Grauert, Joel-Exh. 2, Doc. 5. I, p. 21 under No. 4 " Diels, Joel-Exh.
4, Doc. 7, I, p. 36 under No. 4 " Jaeckel, Joel-Exh.
5, Doc. 30, II, p. 35 under No. 3 Interrogation Schulz, Tr. p. 9538 " 58 Exh.
120 - NG 249 " 59 Affidavit Winckler I, Joel-Exh.
7, Doc. 11, I, p. 55 " " III, Joel-Exh.
8, Doc. 13, I, p. 60 " Kreisel, Joel-Exh.
6, Doc. 9, I, p. 51 " Pamous, Joel-Exh.
55, Doc, 14, 1. p. 66 " Drels, Joel-Exh, 4, Doc.
7, I.
" Grauert, Joel-Exh. 2, Doc. 5, I, p. 21 under No. 2 " Schnoering, Joel-Exh.
3, Doc 6, I, p. 26 " Winckler II, Joel-Exh.
9, Doc. 12, I, p. 58 Joel- Exh. 10, Doc. 10, I, p. 54 " " 30, Doc.
1, 1. p. 2 " 60 Exh.
120 - NG. 249, p. 15 - 19 " 61 Klemm-Exh.
19, 20 and 21 in Klemm-Doc. Book III Affidavit von Haacke II, Joel-Exh. 86, Doc. 88, V, p. 51 Note 62 Affidavit von Haake, Joel-Exh.