Q.- That is a very material modification of your former statement, because you also said that considerable numbers were acquitted. I assume -
A.- Yes.
Q.- I assume that you do not consider that persons who were acquitted were necessarily guilty; you presume them innocent if they were acquitted don't you?
A.- Or that the evidence was not sufficient to prove them guilty.
Q.- I was interested in your conclusion that they were not innocent, not withstanding the fact that your tribunals had bound them not guilty. Now, would you tell me in what special courts the Nacht und Nebel cases were tried -- I think this is repetition, perhaps, but I should like to hear it.
A.- The circular decree of 6 February, 1942 which is contained as far as I know in Exhibit 308. In that decree the special court at Cologne is named as competent for French cases; the special court at Dortmund for the Dutch and Belgian cases; the special court at Kiel for the Norwegian cases; for the rest, the special court at Berlin. First of all one must point out that on a few days later the special court of Essen took the place of the special court at Dortmund. The competency of the special court at Berlin never took effect in practice, so that to begin with there were three special courts at Essen, Cologne and Kiel.
Q.- And that was all, wasn't it? Those were the only ones?
A.- No. They were not all because afterwards the transfer occurred in the course of time on account of the danger of invasion and air raids. The special court of Breslau replaced that of Cologne; and the special court of Essen was replaced by the special court Oppeln. Those are all.
THE PRESIDENT: That is all; thank you.
EXAMINATION BY JUDGE HARDING:
Q.- Dr. von Ammon, were there always witnesses present in the trial of Nacht und Nobel prisoners?
A.- I cannot give any detailed information on this subject. I never attended any proceedings of NN cases myself; I only received reports, but I believe that witnesses were not always present. For example, in cases where the evidence was quite clear; in cases, for example, where the defendant had confessed; for instance if it was a case of illegal possession of arms, and legal arms had been found on the defendant, and the defendant did confess, and in that case it was hardly necessary to hear any witnesses.
Q.- Weren't there, in fact, cases tried where he did not confess, on the basis of papers or investigations that were submitted from the occupied territory without the presence of witnesses?
A.- The proceedings were always conducted on the basis of results of the main trial. The investigations which had been supplied in the occupied territory by themselves were not enough for the conviction of a defendant.
Q.- You say there were not defendants ever convicted merely upon the basis of the investigations made in the occupied territories?
A.- As far as my knowledge goes, yes.
Q.- But the investigations made in the occupied territories were submitted as evidence in the case against these defendants; is that not correct?
A.- I believe that such evidence could be put to the defendants. I believe that the presiding judge, for example, put to the defendants you made such a testimony in such and such a place - are you adhering to that testimony now? But the conviction itself could only be based on the results of the trial, and could not be based upon the previous investigations which had been made in the occupied territories. Those investiga tions which had been made in the occupied territories were only made to make sure of the evidence.
Q.- You were the expert in this case, were you not, of NN prisoners?
A.- Yes, I was the expert at the Reich Ministry of Justice for NN matters. The Ministry of Justice exercised the supervision over the proceedings in these NN matters, but naturally I did not have to make any decisions on the individual cases or to play any part in the decision of individual cases.
Q.- What do you know whether or not these prisoners were convicted upon the basis of the testimony that was submitted from the occupied territory without the presents of witnesses to support the case against them?
A.- If an application for relevant evidence had been made, then it would be necessary to hear the witnesses themselves in the occupied territories.
Q.- But they were heard in the occupied territories and not were the case was tried; is that not correct?
A.- In principle not. As a rule they were examined by so-called investigating judges; he was a military judge and he did that in the occupied territory; or, they were examined by a judge of the competent court who had been especially commissioned to go to the occupied territory and to examine the witness there.
Q.- And then that evidence obtained there was submitted to the main proceedings; that was the way it was done; is that not correct?
A.- No.
Q.- And the defendant was not present when that testimony was taken in the occupied territories; is that not correct?
A.- No, the defendant was not present.
Q.- How many other duties did you have with the Ministry of Justice during the time when you were engaged in NN matters?
A.- During the whole time I was also referent for the interstate legal relations in penal matters.
Furthermore, occasionally I also acted as a so-called district referent; and, as I stated under direct examination, as from August 1944, that is to say at the very end of the time when the general administration of justice dealt with NN prisoners, as from that day I also worked partly in the personnel department. It was always a case of my not spending all my time on my time on NN cases. That happened is what the defendant Mettgenberg said when he was under direct examination, that I always spent about fifty per cent of my time on NN cases.
JUDGE HARDING: That is all as far as I am concerned.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. KUBUSCHOK:Q.- In reply to a question by the Prosecutor, you spoke of your membership with the Oberland-Bund, and you stated that the Overland Bund on the 8th of November, 1923 took part in the so-called Hitler Putsch.
You stated that the Overland-Bund was an association -- a so-called Nationalistic Association of which many members were students. Did that Oberand-Bund, that association, at a later time ever become incorporated in the NSDAP; did that Nationalistic Association ever become a National Socialist Association by way of incorporation?
A.- No. After the Oberland-Bund on the 9th of November had participated in the Hitler Putsch, it was dissolved. I believe that at tome time later on it came back to life, but I personally no longer took any part in it. As far as I know, it never in any way was incorporated in the National Socialist movement.
Q.- How far did you participate in the events of the night of 9th November, 1923?
A.- The company of the Oberland-Bund to which I had been assigned was alerted, on the evening of the 8th of November, 1923. I was not alerted because my name was not on the alert list. I had joined the Oberland-Bund only a little time before that time.
Therefore, I was only told about it in the morning of the 9th. I then joined my company which was stationed in an inn by the Isar, at Bogenhausen, in Munich. There I spent a few hours with the company; then we marched off to the east. There we disbanded and returned to Munich one by one. That was my participation in the event of 8th of November.
THE PRESIDENT: May I ask you -- were you armed? Were you armed at that time?
A.- Yes, I had a gun.
Court No. III, Case No. III.
BY MR. KUBUSCHOK:
Q. Exhibit 545 has been submitted by the Prosecution. That contains a file note which is signed by you and it concerns the discussion of 12 October, 1943, at which criminal proceedings against the foreign workers were discussed. That file note says that your chief Dy. Vollmer was the Chairman at that time. Furthermore, it shows that you took down the minutes. In order to describe that matter particularly, I would ask you to tell us what attitude according to that transcript Dr. Vallmer took in regard to the question as to whether foreign workers were to be punished or could be punished more severely than Germans?
A. May I point out this is not correct, as the Prosecutor put it, that Vollmer took the view that foreign workers on principle were to be punished more severely than German nationals. The passage concerned rather says that the question as to whether foreign workers might be punished more harshly than German nationals can be answered in the affirmative in so far as the foreign workers, according to their personality, their origin and their attitude are more dangerous than German nationals, and a political danger. I can remember that at the time the representative of the foreign office desired that Herr Vollmer should give a general statement to the effect that foreign workers would never be punished more severely than German nationals but Vollmer could not be persuaded to make such a declaration. He then made a declaration in the way it is couched here. As far as I remember, although I cannot say for certain, this wording does not originate from me but Dr. Vollmer corrected it himself into the note which I wrote.
Q. In reply to a question which Judge Harding put to you, you stated that a NN proceedings the police records, as all records of all investigations could not be used by the Court -- only to the extent that the contents of these records were put to the defendant for him to give his opinion on them. Furthermore, you stated that occasionally witnesses were heard in the occupied territories by a so-called requested or commissioned judge. Were these two methods with regard to the results of the investigations and the usage made of examinations instituted by a Judge, were those methods ever used in a different way in NN cases than they were used in all penal cases which were tried before German Courts in accordance with the penal code of procedure which had been in existence for more than fifty years?
A. As far as I know there was no essential difference here.
Q. Thank you.
I have no witness on behalf of the defendant von Ammon. I now want to submit three affidavits. I am submitting as Ammon Exhibit No. 4, an affidavit by the Bishop of the Protestant Church in Bavaria, who is at present in office. The affidavit was given on the 21 July 1947. The Bishop's name is Dr. Meiser. The factual contents of the affidavit are as follows: "The former Ministerial Councilor Wilhelm von Ammon has been known to me for a number of years. I and his father were at the same period of time members of the leadership of the Protestant Church of Bavaria and I had an opportunity to get acquainted with the spirit of the family von Ammon through familiar and social intercourse. I can say that the basic attitude of his parents' home was in accordance with the best Protestant tradition and was passed on to Herr Wilhelm von Ammon. I can testify that in the ecclesiastical struggle and afterwards he openly demonstrated his loyalty to his church. Thur, for example, when I was arrested by the Gestapo, he, together with other members of the Parish, demonstrated openly for me. Like the whole of his family, he remained loyal to the confessing Church, which had formed the ecclesiastical resistance movement against the party. In his position at the Reich Ministry of Justice he served the Confessional Church by many valuable pieces of advice, for which we asked. One must bear in mind that his work for the church was not without danger for a high official in those days. On account of my knowledge of his personality, I can testify that Herr von Ammon is a man of purest legal mindedness, who alone by his religious and humane and ethical attitude would be incapable of committing inhumane or brutal acts." I offer this affidavit as Exhibit Ammon No. 4.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. KUBORSCHOK: Exhibit 6 is an affidavit by the present Bavarian State Councillor, Staatsrat, Dr. Hans Mainzold. It was given on the 21 July 1947, I will read the factual contents of the affidavit:
"Herr Wilhelm von Ammon has been known to me since 1923. I have come to know him as a man of true Christian convictions and of the truest intention and exemplary behavior and animated by the desire to do the good and to help the right to pervail. In my capacity as a leading legal official of the Evangelic-Entherianhand Church Council in Munich, I during the time of the ecclesiastical struggle, repeatedly had occasion to contact personally Herr von Ammon as Ministerialat in the Department of Justice in cases of criminal presecution of clergymen of the confessing Church. Herr von Ammon was always accommodating and showed me means and ways by which I could make attempts to help the clergymen concerned. Thus repeatedly he gave names to me of authorities on whom I was to call, and occasionally he gave me a personal recommendation to these authorities, although for him as a member of the Reich Ministry of Justice, that meant a certain risk. I was and am of the conviction that Dr. von Ammon, according to the whole of his personality, absolutely repudiated the ideology and methods of violence of the National Socialism and in particular I do not consider him capable of any brutal actions."
I am offering this as Exhibit No.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. KUBOSCHOK: As the next exhibit, No. 6, I offer an affidavit of Baptist Lenz. Baptist Lenz is now head of the Department with the German administration of Justice in Berlin. I shall read the factual contents of the affidavit: "I have known Dr. Wilhelm von Ammon when we both belonged for several years to the former Reich Ministry of Justice in Berlin.
Herr von Ammon was a particularly efficient judge and administrative official. He was always reserved and modest and I was convinced that he would never deliberately lend a hand for an incorrect act or for a measure which was not compatible with the laws of ethics. I always had full confidence in Herr von Ammon and I know that the other colleagues did the same. From my discussions with him I gained the conviction that Herr von Ammon inwardly opposed the aim of the Nazi party and that his ideology and his legal feeling corresponded to the old school of thought and had nothing in common with the tendencies of National Socialism. I did not know at that time on what subject Herr von Ammon was working during the war at the Reich Ministry of Justice."
I am offering this affidavit as Exhibit No. 6.
THE PRESIDENT: The Exhibit is received.
DR. KUBOSCHOK: I have now concluded my submission of evidence for the defendant von Ammon. Perhaps I shall have the possibility at a later date to submit another two or three affidavits which by reason of special difficulties I have not been able to do before.
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly. The witness may be excused from the witness stand.
DR. SCHILF: Schilf for the defendant Dr. Mettgenberg. May it please the Court, Mr. Wooleyhan, after the examination of Dr. von Ammon, submitted two further documents, Exhibits 547 and 548 against Dr. Mettgenberg. I don't know why these documents were introduced at this time. According to their contents, it seems to me that they were not introduced for rebuttal of Dr. Mettgenberg's testimony as a witness. I would like to reserve the right of stating my views concerning these two documents and I wish to reserve that right now before the Tribunal.
DR. HAENSEL: May it please the Court, do you wish me to begin with the case of Guenter Joel today or do you think the time is too brief?
THE PRESIDENT: You may commence with the preliminary matters at this time.
DR. HAENSEL: To begin with, I should like to ask Guenter Joel to go into the witness stand. During the examination I shall introduce a number of documents and I shall ask Herr Joel to give his views on them. I reserve the right to call one or two witnesses afterwards.
GUENTER JOEL, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
BY JUDGE HARDING:
Q: You will hold up your right hand and repeat after me: I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath).
JUDGE HARDING: You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION.
BY DR. HAENSEL:
Q: Your name is Guenter Joel, and in Exhibit 56, NG-905, submitted on 10 March you gave an affidavit to which you can refer as regards your personal data.
Are these statements referring to your data correct, so far as you remember?
A: Yes, those statements are correct.
Q : I am now starting with my examination. When and in what capacity did you enter the Ministry of Justice?
A: I came as a court assessor and an auxiliary assistant for penal matters to the Ministry of Justice, in August 1933. I stayed at the Ministry of Justice of ten years until August 1 43. In 1941 I became Ministerial Counsellor.
JUDGE BLAIR: I am trying to get the correct exhibit number of his affidavit.
DR. HAENSEL: Exhibit 56, NG-915.
BY DR. HAENSEL:
Q: During the existence of the central prosecuting office you worked there?
A: Yes.
Q: What was the character of the central prosecuting office as an agency? Was it an independent agency?
A: No. The central prosecution was not an independent agency. It was a section of the Ministry. It had two experts and two or more assistants. It was subordinate to the head of the penal division.
DR. HAENSEL: I am submitting affidavit of von Haacke Document 4 from my document book No. 1, as Exhibit 1 in the Joel Case, Concerning the central public prosecution and its tasks, I am now going to read from Pages 9 and 10 of the German text and the pagination is the same as in the English text.
MR. KING: May it please the Court, the prosecution has not as yet seen any traces of the English document book concerning the defendant Joel and it is very difficult to follow what is being said when we do not have the document books before us.
I wonder if it would be appropriate to inquire whether we could not have them some time tonight so that we wouldn't have to delay proceedings tomorrow morning?
THE PRESIDENT: Have you a copy of the English book for the Prosecution?
DR. HAENSEL: I have a copy. Perhaps I can lead it to the Prosecutor while this session goes on.
THE PRESIDENT: You will have copies for the Prosecution, will you not?
DR. HAENSEL: I hope that by tomorrow morning those copies will be there. Th ere is only a little time left for this session. Perhaps we can manage today.
I have submitted the von Haacke affidavit as Exhibit 1 and I am now going to read from this exhibit, on Page 9 and 10, the passages which deal with the tasks of the Central Public Prosecution:
"The branch 'Central Public Prosecution' was set up on 1 August 1933, in order to support the local criminal prosecution authorities in the regular carrying out of such criminal proceedings which were impeded by offices of the Party or their affiliations. In the intoxication created by their 'seizure of power', namely, a number of Party members with little discipline and particularly members of its affiliations considered themselves to be beyond the scope of power of general penal justice and tried to oppose the carrying out of criminal proceedings against old members of the Party or its affiliations by an administration of justice which they termed 'reactionary', and its officials, whereby it occasionally came to personal attacks on the officials of justice.
As such elements were here and there protected by immature local Party leaders, the removal of these difficulties simply by issuing ministerial instructions seemed all the more inadequate to the Prussian Minister of Justice of that time in that a few chiefs of authorities of justice in the provinces obviously were lacking in the necessary energy and resoluteness vis-a-vis the Party offices concerned. For this reason a special branch was created the special character of which consisted in the fact that the 2 Referent en of this branch received authorization to assume themselves the functions of a public prosecutor there and then in cases where local justice could not prevail, and thereby secure the regular carrying out of the proceedings.
"In less difficult cases the branch was to supervise the carrying out of proceedings and eliminate any difficulties which might occur by taking suitable steps at the competent central and provincial offices.
"Joel, who was an old Party Member (P.G.) just as little as I myself, was called into the Ministry because he was described by his superior as being a particularly energetic, versatile, accurate and quick working public prosecutor."
Further particulars about the task of this Central Prosecution office will be found in the Grauert affidavit which I am submitting as Exhibit 2, Document 5 in Document Book one, Page 22.
The Schnoering affidavit, Document 6, Document Book 1, Page 24 I am offering as Exhibit 5. And from the Diels affidavit, Document 7 -
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, I am afraid you are going a little too fast for us. Exhibit 1 is the affidavit von Haacke?
DR. HAENSEL: Exhibit 1 is Haacke from which I read some passages. Exhibit 2, from which I am not going to read now, is Document 5 in Book 1.
THE PRESIDENT: What page?
DR. HAENSEL: Page 22. .This is the Grauert affidavit on Page 22. I am offering it as Exhibit 2.
THE PRESIDENT: Page 19 of the English?
DR. HAENSEL: It starts on Page 19.
MR. KING: Naturally the Prosecution objects to the offering of these in evidence at this time on the principle that we at least ought to see them before they are offered.
THE PRESIDENT: The Court will not rule on them at this time. I am just trying to get them marked.
DR. HAENSEL: The Grauert Document No. 5 had the Exhibit No. 2. The next exhibit which I am offering is the following document; Document 6, Exhibit 3. It is the Schnoering affidavit, Page 24. It is the next one. And as Exhibit 4, I offer the Document 7 which follows as the next one in the Document Book and which is to be found on Page 33.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will reserve its rulings on these affidavits until counsel has had opportunity to examine them and we will now recess until tomorrow morning at 9:30.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 5 August 1947, at 0930 hours.).
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America against Josef Alstoetter, et al. defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 5 August, 1947, 0930-1630, Justice Brand presiding:
THE MARSHAL: The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal III.
Military Tribunal III is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, will you ascertain if the defendants are all present.
THE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honors, all of the defendants are present in the court room with the exception of the defendant Barnickel, who has been excused by the prison physician, and the defendant Engert who is absent due to illness.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant Engert has been excused and the defendant Barnickel is excused on the report of the prison physician and the Tribunal will request the Marshal to ascertain the condition of the defendant Barnickel. We regret his absence.
You may proceed.
MR. KING: May it please the Court, we have been advised that the document books 2 and 3 for the defendant Joel will probably be presented today, in addition to document book I, the presentation of which started last evening. The Prosecution has yet to receive books 2 and 3. We received book I yesterday afternoon between three and three-thirty. We do not believe that counsel for defendant Joel is in any way responsible for the delay since he has pointed out the distribution of the books is made by the information center. However, it does place the Prosecution under a considerable handicap., to be faced with the presentation of these documents without having seen the hook. We feel, however, that because of the wish that the proceedings go on in an expeditious way that the document should be presented and marked for identification and the Court reserve the question of whether or not they should be admitted in evidence until after the Prosecution has had time to examine them.
That time, I think, should be a minimum of twentyfour hours. Now in the event that the defense counsel for Joel wish to cross examine - complete their direct examination, and the Prosecution is asked to cross examine. I will state at this time, and since all of the whole of the documents apparently are going in before, we will have an opportunity to cross examine, that we will request that our cross examination be delayed until we have had an opportunity to examine the books, because I believe we will have an opportunity to recall the defendant Joel to the stand. We have no objection, as I have already said to the case proceeding, but it is only that we do want the opportunity to examine them before the cross examination and before they are admitted in evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, please, doctor. It is obvious that the Prosecution should have the opportunity to examine the documents before they are finally received in evidence and you, Dr. Haensel may proceed having your documents marked for identification and carrying on in all respects as if they were received in evidence and the Court will simply reserve its ruling until counsel has an opportunity to examine the documents.
One other matter was brought to our attention this morning. We have no personal knowledge concerning it, but the defense information center advises that it is not in all cases receiving the forty-eight hour notice which should precede the calling of a witness to the stand, and it is desired that defense counsel observe that rule so that the Secretary General and the Court and Prosecution may be advised as to when a witness is to be called pursuant to the rule which the defense information center is following.
DR. HAENSEL: May I state two things with reference to these proceedings? As witnesses are concerned. I hope that in the course of this afternoon the witness, Otto Lenz, from Berlin will arrive, but he has not yet arrived at this moment. I have been allowed to call that witness and I would suggest that if the Prosecution wants anniinterval between direct examination and cross examination to give it the opportunity to examine the documents, that I call him during that interval if he arrives.
THE PRESIDENT: I should think counsel might agree upon some such procedure.
MR. KING: It is somewhat difficult to examine document books and at the same time pay attention to what a witness is saying and prepare to cross examine the witness. However, it may be that the witness will appear at a time during the day when it will give us another night for examination of the books. Unfortunately, I will have to be the one to examine the books and similarly I will have to be here during the cross examination of the witness, so perhaps we can wait until the witness appears, and I am sure that Dr. Haensel and the Prosecution can work out some satisfactory arrangement.
THE PRESIDENT: I hope you can. The Court has been requested by the requirements for an expeditious trial to press on with numerous defense counsels when they would have been happy to have had more time and we feel we should also press on with the Prosecution in like manner. You may proceed.
Defendant Joel - Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION - Continued BY DR. HAENSEL:
Q Yesterday, we interrupted the examination when vac had reached the point when the Central Office of Prosecution was under discussion, I would ask you now to give us an account of the work you did at the Central Prosecution office. Would you do th t by giving us a few examples by way of explanation.
A The work of the Central Prosecution office consisted in supporting the local prosecution when third parties made difficulties and these difficulties always and exclusively were made by party authorities. That fact had caused the minister to appoint two referents of the ministry of justice as public prosecutors who at the request of the ministry all over the Reich territory were entitled to exercise functions of public prosecutors.
In November, 1933, I, for the first time was commissioned by the Minister and I went to Ayen in the District of Koblenz where an offense had been committed. There SS member after the election of 12 November, 1933, had ill treated political opponents, because evidently they had fought against the Nazi party. Neither the interrogation nor the arrest of the accused could be instituted by the competent Prosecution at Koblenz. Together with a Berlin police detachment I went to the place where the offense had occurred and I myself arrested the offenders and I saw to it that proceedings were instituted against them at the Cologne Court; all of them were sentenced to prison terms.
Q Yes, I now quote from the affidavit of Grauert which was submitted yesterday. It is on page 21, document Book I, volume I, page 21, figure 3:
"At the end of 1933, according to a report to the Ministry of Justice, members of the Social democratic and Roman Catholic parties were illegally arrested in Meyen, Government District of Coblenz, Rhineland, by local SS members. The interference of the local communal Police authorities were lacking in exercising power. After a personal report to me, Joel immediately placed himself at disposal in order to drive up in lorries, with a division of the Field Constabulary, to the place of action, in spite of partially iced roads. He released the arrested persons, transferred the culprits he had caught and arrested to Cologne where he handed them over to the local authority of justice for the purpose of instituting a criminal procedure. They were all condemned to imprisonment." This is from the files of the office of Koblenz, which I have asked for but I have not received them.
Please continue, witness.
A The main functions of the Public Prosecutors of the Prosecuting office in those days was action against so-called wild concentration camps which had been instituted by the SA and SS and where political opponents of the Nazi party were kept under arrest and were ill treated.
I first went into action on account of a report from the Fredo camp near Stettin and Esterwegen in the Northwest of Germany. I went there at the instructions of Minister Guertner.
The Gauleiter was opposed to instituting criminal proceedings against the guards of the Bredow Camp near Stettin, and the Police President, the SS Oberfuehrer, took the same attitude, My assistant, von Haacke, and I, called on both of these men and we told them that proceedings would be instituted.
To begin with, it was impossible to institute investigations at Stettin. With the aid of the Chief, Diels, who was then Chief of the Prussian Police, Goering was personally told about this state of affairs. A report was made to him, and Goering was told that the camp must be dissolved. Goering complied, and we did carry out investigations. The Gaulieter and the Police President were removed from their office; the culprits were sentenced to long terms in the penitentiaries up to ten years.
I am now going to speak of Esterwegen Camp. The dissolution and proceedings on account of the Esterwegen Camp were opposed by SS Obergruppenfuhrer, Duesseldorf. The competent senior public prosecutor at Osnabrueck was unable to take action. I asked the Undersecretary at the Ministry of the Interior, to whom the police were subordinated, to let me have a police detachment. I went to Esterwegen and, although we were threatened by armed resistance, we started investigations. I saw to it that the Security police disbanded the guards. The camp was dissolved; investigations were carried out against the culprits, and the matter was handed over to the competent prosecution office.
DR. HAENSEL: An allover picture of the difficulties in taking action against these wild concentration camps, and Joel's activity therein, is obtained from the Grauert affidavit, which I have already introduced as Exhibit 2. It is contained in document book I, at pages 19 to 21. I shall now quote from page 19:
"On the 14 April 1933, when I was nominated State Secretary in the Prussian Ministry of Interior, Guenther Joel was occupied as Public Prosecutor for special tasks in the Prussian Ministry of Justice.