Shortly after this now appointment, namely, as of 9 November 1943, Joel was promoted to the Rich rank of SS Oberstummbannfuehrer, which appointment was approved by Himmler. His political and Party career went hand in hand with his professional career, and his promotions were made by or approved by such high-ranking Nazi officials as Himmler, Bormann, Heydrich, Thierack, and Freisler - whose desperate and despicable characters are known to the world; the record in this case is replete with many atrocities and crimes committed by these leaders and members of organizations which have been declared criminal by the IMT. Thus, Joel continued to the end as the confidant and trusted protage of these most outstanding and notorious criminals of all time.
It will be remembered that ever since December 1937, Joel in his several capacities at the Ministry of Justice had, in addition to his other duties, acted as liaison officer between the Ministry and the SS, the SD, and the Gestapo. To this position a successor, Chief Public Prosecutor Franke, was appointed on 1 August 1943. Joel claims that in fact he had ceased to act as such liaison officer when Thierack assumed office as Reich Minister of Justice in August 1942. However, the record shows that even after that time Joel made numerous reports, some of which are mentioned below, relating to the execution of death penalties imposed under the law against Poles and Jews, and relating to the transfer of Poles who had received mild sentences or had been acquitted, or had served their term, to the Gestapo. These were the very duties which he had to perform in the Reich Ministry as liaison officer. Even after Thierack's appointment as Minister, Joel was connected with the interests of the Reich Security Office, and his work was productive and satisfactory in the carrying out of the plan or scheme of racial persecution and extermination of Poles and Jews. On 17 August 1943, defendant Rothenberger inducted defendant Joel into his office as General Public Prosecutor at Hamm, praised him in the highest terms, and referred to him as an SS member and also to his rank of SS Obersturmbannfuehrer.
As late as 1945, when the question of military service for Joel again arose, Gauleiter Hoffmann of South Westphalia intervened in a letter to the Reich Ministry of Justice, referring to the fact that Joel was known to be a member of the Waffen-SS, and that if he were to go into military service he would undoubtedly be assigned to the SS activities.
Under our discussion of the Night and Fog decree, reference is made to several documents which show Joel as having aided, abetted, participated in, and having been connected with, the Night and Fog scheme or plan.
Rudolf Lehmann, Lieutenant General of the Legal Department of the armed forces, stated under oath:
"These cases were, as I seem to remember, handled by von Ammon, also of that same division of the Reich Ministry of Justice. General Public Prosecutor Joel, who was in the Ministry of Justice until sometime in 1943, would be able to supply further details on this 'Nacht und Nebel' matter. Joel was General Public Prosecutor in Hamm, and a court handling 'Nacht und Nebel' cases was located at Hamm. Other courts handling 'Nacht und Nebel' cases were located at Cologne, Breslau, and at one or two other places unknown to me but which can be named by Joel."
Joel became Chief Prosecutor of the Court of Appeals in Hamm, covering all of Westphalia and the district of Essen, on 17 August 1943, which office he continued to hold until the end of the war. In this position he was in charge of the Night and Fog program for the Special Courts in Essen until 15 March 1944 when these courts were transferred farther East to Oppeln in the Kattowice district. Reports of Joel show that he attended conferences both in Hamm and in Belgium on Night and Fog matters. The record also shows that the district of which he was the highest, and therefore the most responsible, prosecuting authority was, in area and population, one of the largest in Germany.
He had under his supervision the senior public prosecutors and their staffs at the Special Courts in Epsen. It was his task to supervise the work of all prosecutors assigned to his office. The Special Courts in Essen tried more Night and Fog cases than the combined total of all other special courts and the People's Court. In law, Joel must be held to have had the responsibility of these cases. The record further shows that Joel assumed this responsibility.
A letter addressed to Joel, dated 20 January 1944, stated that in the future all Fight and For persons who were upon trial acquitted or who had served their sentences, must be turned over for custody to the Gestapo.
A letter dated 26 January 1944 from Joel to the Reich Minister of Justice complained about the delay which the defendant Lautz, Chief Prosecutor at the People's Court, caused by his failure to return files in MM cases. Joel pointed out that 84 Fight and Fog prisoners who had been held near Hamm since 1941 were still there.
In November 1943 defendants von Ammon and Mettgenberg came to Hamm en route back to Berlin from the conferences they had attended in Holland. The purpose of their visit to Joel was to determine whether there was any available space in prison for the keeping of additional Night and Fog prisoners to be transported from The Netherlands. Joel assured them that more prisoners could be accommodated and even opposed the view of his Oberlandesmericht who stated they should not be sent to the Hamm area. They were sent to that area. In December 1943 Joel attended a conference in Brussels which he reported upon after his return to Hamm, pertaining to Night and Fog prisoners who were sent from Belgium.
The categorical denial of Joel of ever having transverred an NN prisoner or of ever having tried an MM prisoner or of ever having issued an order to transfer an NN prisoner who had been acquitted or who had served his sentence, to Gestapo custody is' no defense of his activities in connection with the custody, trial, execution, or transfer of MM prisoners after they had served their sentences or had been acquitted to the Gestapo.
The high office which he held required kin to supervise and properly handle Night and Fog cases filed in the courts where he was Chief Prosecutor. He had numerous assistants whom he necessarily had to entrust with the prosecution and carrying out of the Night and Fog program and cases arising thereunder. The fact that Joel did not actually try the Night and Fog cases himself has no significance. He did supervise the men who tried and had executed some of them and imprisoned others and transferred others who were not guilty of any crime or who had served their sentences, to the Gestapo and concentration camps.
The defendant Joel is chargeable with knowledge that the Night and Fog program from its inception to its final conclusion constituted a violation of the laws and customs of war.
We turn now to the other activities, here under indictment, of the defendant Joel.
We direct attention to a document from the Reich Ministry of Justice which contains the program for conferences among the officials of the Ministry. In each instance the name of the official who is to report is set opposite the subject for discussion. From this we gain some information as to the scope of the work assigned to Joel.
According to this program Joel was scheduled to report upon the following subjects. We quote:
"Nullification Plea, Maslanka "Nullification Pica, Beyer Bosich (Italian) Article 4 VVO "Matter of clemency Pongratz (70 year old farmer, non-delivery) "Handing over of Poles to the State Police (Cases Bartosinski and Marcziniah "Lemzinger Zoowell AG (Lenzinger Artificial Wool , Ltd.)
"Treatment of Jews and Poles, as well as Russians. Internal order of the Reichsfuehrer SS.
"Bartosinski, Pole, shall be transferred from criminal custody (3 years penal camp on account of sexual intercourse) to State Police.
"Marasyak, Pole, wanted to marry German maid in France. Detention pending investigation.
State Police demands to be turned in.
"Should there be any reports during the war on the question of mercy for Poles who have been sentenced to death on account Of the possession of weapons and other offenses and who have been pardoned to five years penal servitude with the reserve of an investigation after two to three years?
"Extortion of food ration cards, Mrs. Ritter. Chorlow, Russian from the district of Kursk, Article 2, VVO, State Police, wants to punish with police measures.
"Jakubowski, Pole, has raped German woman. He has been executed by hanging. The Criminal Police asks for a burial certificate.
"Uschake, workman, from the East, from old Soviet Russian territory, has stolen a jacket. The Secret State Police sent him to a labor education camp and requests cancellation of the order to inflict one month imprisonment."
Another significant incident relates to the case of two "deserving National Socialists". Our source of knowledge is a brief document signed by the defendant Joel. The facts stated are that a policeman and a temporary mayor "shot two Polish priests for no reason other than hatred for the Catholic clergy". On 11 June 1940, the two murderers were were sentenced to fifteen years penal servitude for manslaughter.
Joel stated that more than two years of the sentence have been served and that the Reichsfuehrer SS has asked for paidon. The document concludes as follows:
"Penal servitude changed to five years' imprisonment each. Postponement of the serving of the sentence and of the defamatory consequences for the duration of stay in a Waffen SS probation unit. Further pardon in the case of the probation. (Signed): Dr. Joel."
As early as 1937 it is clear that Joel had knowledge of conditions in concentration camps. A document marked "For the time of circulation: Secret! to 111-a. After circulation in sealed envelope to the Gestapo general files", contains the following:
"2) As far as reports concerning executions when escaping from concentration camps, etc., suicides in K. S. (concentration camp) arrive, they shall continue to be dealt with by the specialist competent for the respective subject. The general consultant for political criminal matters, however, is to be informed of the reports. They are to be submitted to him at once."
This order was circulated secretly to all specialists for political criminal matters. Joel was listed as a political specialist.
An official report on a meeting of the Presidential Board of 1 February 1939 shows that a report was given by the Chief Public Prosecutor on developments in connection with the events of 9 to 11 November 1938 (the Jewish pogrom).
We quote:
"The Reich Minister of Justice and Senior Public Prosecutor Joel pointed out that it was impossible, of course, to handle this matter in the usual judicial manner; if the top men disregarded legal principles, it was impossible to prosecute people concerned with the execution. For instance, the viewpoint of violation of the public peace should be dropped. This is legally justified inter alia by the fact that the culprits were not conscious of any violation, since they were acting under orders. As far as the criminal offenses committed on that occasion are concerned, trifles should be dropped. Otherwise, however, proceedings can only be quashed by the Fuehrer, whereas serious criminal offenses such as rape and race defilement must be prosecuted. The order to prosecute is issued in any case by the Minister after the culprits, if they are members of the Party or of any organization, have been excluded by a special department of the Supreme Party Tribunal in Berlin."
It is self-evident that if prosecution was to take place only after a Party tribunal had excluded them, they would live a long and happy life of freedom.
Defendant Joel became a Referent in the Reich Ministry of Justice with the authority and duty to review penal cases from the incorporated Eastern territories after the occupation of Poland. In this capacity he handled many of the cases tried pursuant to the decree against Poles and Jews. In defense of these acts, Joel testified that "he felt obligated by the existing laws and so complied with them". Joel did not have the same view as other officials that after the occupation of Poland the nationals of the annexed part of Poland became German nationals.
He testified that such a Polish citizen after 1 September 1939 remained a Polish national and that "a Polish national is never a German". Joel frankly admitted that he knew he was not dealing with Germans but with foreign nationals.
In his capacity as Referent for the incorporated Eastern territories Joel, as liaison officer between the Reich Ministry of Justice and the Gestapo, took part in conferences with others from Department IV concerning the disposition of such Jewish and Polish cases. In one instance ho reported having discussed an order of Himmler's as to the treatment Poles and Jews should receive. In another instance he reported ordering the transfer of Poles who had been sentenced to a penal camp for three years to the Gestapo.
As a witness, Schlegelberger testified concerning transfers to the police, which he described as "a very sad chapter for anyone who has a sense of justice". Guertner protested against this procedure and made compilations of press reports concerning executions by the police.
"Lammers actually submitted those compilations to Hitler but told Guertner later Hitler had said that he had not given a general directive to carry out those shootings but in individual cases he could not do without these measures because the courts, that was military courts as well as civil courts, were not able to take care of the special conditions as created by the war.
And, Hammers at the same time announced that Hitler in a further case had already ordered the execution by shooting."
Schlegelberger testified further that after an order had been made for the transfer of a prisoner to the police, there was a time limit of 24 hours, at the end of which the police were required to report that the order had been executed. Schlegelberger states that Guertner charged the defendant Joel with the mission of representing the Ministry of Justice with the police in connection with these transfers. It appears that the Ministry of Justice, through Joel, was able to intervene in some cases and to prevent the transfers. Schlegelberger testified:
"* * * the attempts to intervene on the part of the Ministry of Justice were successful in some cases but, if all possibilities had been exhausted, and if in spite of that he had not succeeded in having the order issued by the police withdrawn, nothing was left but to issue the instructions to the executing authority not to offer any resistance but to hand the man over to the police when they requested him."
Nothwithstanding the reluctance with which the officials of the Ministry of Justice acted, it appears from the foregoing that they did cooperate in the transfer of prisoners to the police.
From 10 September 1942 to March 1943, Joel reviewed 105 death sentences passed by courts in the incorporated Eastern territories and in most cases gave final approval for their execution.
In his capacity as such Referent, Joel reviewed and passed upon 16 death sentences of Poles who had committed alleged crimes against the Reich or the German occupation forces. One of these Poles was born in Cleveland, Ohio, in the United States, and his death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment because Joel was fearful his execution would involve the Reich in international complications. The remaining 15 Poles were executed.
As Referent, Joel was shown by captured official documents to have had knowledge that many Jewish and Polish political prisoners were being executed under the law against Jews and Poles. This matter was called to his attention because of a dispute as to who should handle the corpses of the executed prisoners. One main difficulty was that, under Himmler's orders, these corpses were to be turned over to the Secret Police for disposition. The mayor and police of Posen refused to handle the corpses of Poles and Jews who were not executed as political prisoners. Joel was thereupon instructed to handle the matter temporarily and to work out a permanent plan for such burials, which he later assisted in doing.
As Referent in the Department of Justice and as liaison officer between the Department and the SS, Joel obtained extensive information and exercised far-reaching power in the execution of the law against Jews and Poles. He therefore took an active part in the execution of the plan or scheme for the persecution and extermination of Jews and Poles.
Concerning Joel's membership in the SS and SD, a condideration of all the evidence convinces us beyond a reasonable doubt that ho retained such membership with full knowledge of the criminal character of those organizations.
No man who had his intimate contacts with the Reich Security Main Office, the SS, the SD, and the Gestapo could possibly have been in ignorance of the general character of those organizations.
We find defendant Joel guilty under Counts two, three and four.
BY JUDGE HARDING: Judge Harding continues the reading of the Judgment.
The Defendant Rothaug Oswald Rothaug was born 17 May 1397.
His education was interrupted from 1916 to 1918 while he was in the army. He passed the final law examination in 1922 and the State examination for the higher administration of justice in 1925.
He joined the NSDAP in the spring of 1938 and the membership was made effective from May 1937.
Rothaug was a member of the National Socialist Jurists' League and the National Socialist Public Welfare Association. In his affidavit he denies belonging to the SD. However, the testimony of Elkar and his own admission on the witness stand establishes that he was an "honorary collaborator" for the SD on legal matters.
In December 1925 he began his career as a jurist, first as an assistant to an attorney in Ansbach and later as assistant judge at various courts. In 1927 he became Public Prosecutor in Hof in charge of criminal cases. From 1929 to 1933 he officiated as Counsellor at the Local Court in Nuernberg. In June 1955 he became Senior Public Prosecutor in the Public Prosecution in Nuernberg. Here he was the official in charge of general criminal cases, assistant of the chief public prosecutor handling examination of suspensions of proceedings and of petitions for pardon. From November to April 1937 he officiated as Counsellor of the District Court in Schweinfurt. He was legal advisor in the Civil and Penal Chamber and at the Court of Assizes, as well as Chairman of the law assessors' court. From April 1937 to May 1943 he was Director of the District Court in Nuernberg, except for a period in August and September of 1939 when he was in the Wehrmacht. During this time he was Chairman of the Court of Assizes, of a penal chamber, and of the special court.
From May 1943 to April 1945 he was Public Prosecutor of the Public Prosecution at the People's Court in Berlin. Here, as head of Department I he handled for a time cases of high treason in the Southern Reich territory, and from January 1944, cases concerning the undermining of public morale . in the Reich territory.
Crimes charged in the indictment, as heretofore stated in this opinion, have been established by the evidence in this case. The questions, therefore, to be determined as to the defendant Rothaug are: first, whether he had knowledge of any crime so established and, second, whether he was a participant in or took a consenting part in its commission.
Rothaug's sources of knowledge have, with these of all the defendants, already been pointed out. But Rothaug's knowledge was not limited to those general sources. Rothaug was an official of considerable importance in Nuernberg. He had many political and official contacts; among these--he was the friend of Haberkern, Gau Inspector of the Gau Franconia; he was the friend and associate of Oeschey, Gau Legal Advisor for the Gau Franconia; and was himself Gauwalter of the Lawyers' League. Re was the "honorary collaborator" for the SD. According to the witness Elkar, the agent of the SD for Nuernberg and vicinity, this position was more important than that of a confidential agent, and an honorary collaborator was active in SD affairs. He testifies that Rothaug took the SD oath of secrecy.
Whether Rothaug knew of all the aspects of the crimes alleged, we need not determine. He knew of crimes as established by the evidence, and it is the function of this Tribunal to determine his connection, if any, therewith.
The defendant is charged under Counts two, three, and four of the indictment. Under Count four he is charged with being a member of the Party Leadership Corps. He is not charged with membership in the SD.
The proof as to Count four establishes that he was Gauwalter of the Lawyers' League. The Lawyers' League was a formation of the Party and not a part of the Leadership Corps as determined by the International Military Tribunal in the case against Goering, et al.
As to Counts two and four of the indictment, from the evidence submitted, the Tribunal finds the defendant not guilty. The question of the defendant's guilt as to Count three of the indictment remains to be determined.
The evidence as to the character and activities of the defendant is voluminous. We shall confine ourselves to the question as to whether or not he took a consenting part in the plan for the persecution, oppression, and extermination of Poles and Jews.
His attitude of virulent hostility towards these races is proved from many sources and is in no wise shaken by the affidavits he has submitted on his own behalf.
The evidence in this regard comes from his own associates--the judges, prosecutors, defense counsel, medical experts, and others with whom he dealt. Among, but not limited to these, we cite the evidence of Doebig, Ferber, Bauer, Dorfmueller, Elkar, Engert, Groben, and Markl. In particular the testimony of Father Schosser is important. He testified as to many statements made by the defendant Rothaug during the trial of his own case, showing the defendant's hostility to Poles and his general attitude toward them. He stated that concerning the Poles in general, Rothaug expressed himself in the following manner:
"If he (Rothaug) had his way, then no Pole would be buried in a German cemetery, and then he went on to make the remark which everybody heard in that courtroom--that he would get up from his coffin if near to him there was a Pole being buried. Rothaug himself had to laugh because of this mean joke, and he went on to say, 'You have to be able to hate, because according to the Bible, God is a hating God'."
The testimony of Elkar is even more significant. He testifies that Rothaug believed in severe measures against foreigners and particularly against Poles and Jews, whom he felt should be treated differently from German transgressors. Rothaug feld there was a gap in the law in this respect. He states that Rothaug asserted that in his own court he achieved this discrimination by interpretation of existing laws but that other courts failed to do so. Such a gap, according to Rothaug, should be closed by singling out Poles and Jews for special treatment. Elkar testifies that recommendations were made by the defendant Rothaug, through the witness, to higher levels and that the subsequent decree of 1941 against Poles and Jews conformed to Rothaug's ideas as expressed and forwarded by the witness Elkar through SD channels to the RSHA.
This animosity of the defendant to these races is further established by documents in this case which show that his discrimination against these races encompasses others who he felf lacked the necessary harshness to carry out the policy of the Nazi State and Party to the people.
In this connection the communication of Oeschey to Deouty Gauleiter Holz, concerning Doebig, is worthy of note. In this communication many charges were made against Doebig for his failure to take action against officials under him who had failed to carry out the Nazi programs against Jews and Poles. Oeschey testified that these charges were copied from a letter submitted to him by the defendant Rothaug end that the defendant assumed responsibility for these charges. Rothaug denies that he assumed responsibility or had anything to do with the charges made, except in one immaterial instance. However, in the light of the circumstances themselves, the Tribunal accepts Oeschey's testimony in this regard, particularly in view of the unimpeached affidavit of Oeschey's secretary to the effect that these charges were copied directly by her from a letter of Rothaug's.Documentary proof of Rothaug's attitude in this respect is further found in the records of cases tried by him which will hereafter be considered.
Proof as to his animus is not shaken by his own testimony. It is confirmed by his testimony. He states:
"In my view, by introduction of the question of the socalled incredibility of Poles, the whole problem is sniffed onto another plane. It is a matter of course that a nation, which has been subjected by another nation, and which is in a state of stress--that a citizen of such a country which had been subjected to another vis-a-vis the victorious nation, finds himself in quite a different moral-ethical relationship. It is useless to shut your eyes against reality. Of course, he finds himself in a different moral relationship from the relationship in which a German citizen would find himself. It is so natural there is not point in ignoring it. There is no need to lie."
His explanations as to his feeling toward Poles, given in connection with the Schosser arrest and trial are also most enlightening but too extensive to quote here.
Concerning his participation in the Nazi policy of persecution and extermination of persons of these races, we shall confine our discussions to three cases which were tried by Rothaug as Presiding Judge.
The first case to be considered is that of Durka and Struss. Our knowledge of this case is based primarily upon the evidence of Hans Kern, the defense counsel of one of these defendants; Hermann Markl, the Prosecutor in the case; and the testimony of the defendant Rothaug.
The essential facts are in substance as follows: Two Polish girls--one, according to the testimony of Kern, 17 years of age, the other somewhat older--were accused of starting a fire in an armament plant in Bayreuth. This alleged fire did not do any material damage to the plant, but they were in the vicinity when it started and were arrested and interrogated by the Gestapo. Both gave alleged confessions to the Gestapo. Almost immediately following this occurrence, they were brought to Nuernberg by the Gestapo for trial before the Special Court.
Upon their arrival the Prosecutor in the case, Markl, was directed to draw up an indictment based upon the Gestapo interrogation. This was at eleven o'clock of the day they were tried.
The witness Kern was summoned by the defendant Rothaug to act as defense counsel in the case approximately two hours before the case came to trial. He informed Rothaug that he would not have time to prepare a defense. According to Kern, Rothaug stated that if he did not take over the defense, the trial would have to be conducted without a defense counsel. According to Rothaug, he told Kern that he would get another defense counsel. In either event the trial was to go on at once.
The trial itself, according to Kern, lasted about half an hour; according to the defendant, approximately an hour; according to Markl, it was conducted with the speed of a court martial.
The evidence consisted of the alleged confessions which one of the defendants repudiated before the court. Rothaug states that he thereupon called the Gestapo official who had obtained these alleged confessions and questioned him under oath. According to Rothaug the Gestapo official stated that the interrogations were perfectly regular. There was also a letter in evidence which it was said the defendants had tried to destroy before their capture. The witness Kern stated on cross examination that this letter had little materiality.
The defendant attempts to justify the speed of this trial upon the legal requirements in existence at this time. He states, in contradiction to the other witnesses, that a clear case of sabotage was established. This Tribunal is not inclined to accept the defendant Rothaug's version of the facts which were established.
Under the circumstances and in the brief period of the trial, the Tribunal does not believe the defendant could have established those facts from evidence.
According to the witness Kern, one of the defendants was 17 years age. This assertion as the age was not disputed. A German 18 years of age or thereunder would have come under the German Juvenile Act and would not have been subject to trial before a special court or to capital punishment. Whatever the age of the defendant in this case, they were tried under the procedure described in the Ordinance Against Poles and Jews which was in effect at this time, by a judge who did not believe the statements of Polish defendants, according to the testimony in this case. These two young Polish women were sentenced to death and executed four days after trial. In the view of this Trial, based upon the evidence, these two young women did not have what amounted to a trial at all but were executed because they were Polish nationals in conformity with the Nazi Policy of persecution and extermination.
The second case to be considered is the Lopata case. This was a case in which a young Polish farmhand, approximately 25 years of age, is alleged to have made indecent advances to his employer's wife.
He first was tried in the District Court at Neumarkt. That court sentenced him to a term of two years in the penitentiary. A nullity plea was filed in this case before the Reich Supreme Court, and the Reich Supreme Court returned the case to the Special Court at Nuernberg for a new trial and a sentence. The Reich Supreme Court stated that the judgment of the lower court was defective, since it did not discuss in detail whether the Ordinance Against Public Enemies was applicable and stated that if such ordinance was applicable - a thing which seemed probable - a much more severe sentence was deemed necessary.
The case was, therefore, again tried in violation of the fundamental principles of justice that no man should be tried twice for the same offense.
In the second trial of the case, the defendant Rothaug obligingly found that the Ordinance Against Public Enemies had been violated.
In its reasons, the court states the facts on which the verdict was based as follows:
"The wife of a farmer Schwenzl, together with the accused and a Polish girl, chopped straw in the barn. The accused was standing on the righthand side of the machine to carry out the work. Suddenly, in the middle of the work, the accused, without saying anything, touched with his hand the genitals of the wife of farmer Schwenzl, through her skirt. When she said after this unexpected action of the defendant: 'You hog, do you think I am not disgusted about anything; you think you can do that because my husband is sick', the accused laughed and touched, in spite of this dissuasion, again the genitals of the farmer's wife above her skirt.