In the Ministry itself, we, and particularly Joel, were continually having difficulties with Undersecretary Freisler, to whom our proceedings nearly always appeared too severe. These sometimes become open scenes. Thus I remember the time when Joel bursquely broke off his report at a department conference with Undersecretary Freisler, and after a normal leave taking left the Secretarys' room, after Undersecretary Freisler had made irrelevant replies and reproaches about his objective report of investigation proceeding against deputy Gauleiter Schmalz (Hannover), containing the reproach that he had proceeded too sharply against Schmalz."
"Even though Joel and I always had the confidence and the full approval of Minister Guertner, Under Secretary Freisler quit surprisingly dissolved the special department Central Public Prosecution in October, 1937, after a few such conflicts in which he censured our proceeding in some criminal cases of corruption as being too severe.
"Joel and I thus became general district penal Referenten in the Ministry. It is also relevant that some time later the then Chief Public Prosecutor Klemm made an accusation against Joel to the Secret State Police (Gestapo), as far as I remember, it was to Ministerialrat Director Dr. Best, that he had proceeded so severely against members of the Party because of a hostile attitude to the Party. Joe was informed officially by Dr. Best of this charge. He communicated it to Minister Guertner at once, on the latter's order, investigations were instituted by Ministerial Director Dr. Crohne against Joel and me to have this reproach cleared up. These pointed to the complete objectivity and lawfulness of the work we had done during the four years that the special branch had existed."
THE PRESIDENT: May I say to you, Dr. Haensel, that your reading of this affidavit is not to be distinguished in any way from the affidavits which we suggested to you need not be read. If it serves any purpose in connection with the examination of this witness it would be only as a leading question. Now, proceed with the examination of the witness. We will read your affidavits.
BY DR. HAENSEL:
Q Do you have anything to say concerning these statements in this affidavit?
A No. I have already explained that the dissolution of the Central Public Prosecution was also sought by some individuals within the Reich Ministry of Justice.
Q After the Central Public Prosecution was dissolved, were you ever assigned to deal with individual penal cases -- that is to say, with special cases?
A Yes, I became a district referent but, on the whole, I dealt with special assignments. The Minister of Justice Guertner, in a circular decree of the Ministry of Justice of 6 October 1937, which dissolved the Central Public Prosecution, had reserved the right to assign, in important cases, to one of his assistants the individual investigations. That happened frequently.
Q This circular decree can be found in my Document Book 1, page 8, Document # 3, and following this statement made by the witness, I want to submit it for identification as Exhibit 18.
THE PRESIDENT: Let it be marked for identification.
BY DR. HAENSEL:
Q Copy from penal administrative regulations. This circular decree shows that the right was reserved to assign Joel as referent for special individual cases.
Could you tell the Court in what field these special assignments were?
A They were penal cases which, up to then, the Central Public Prosecution had to deal with and which Minister Guertner considered especially important. After 1935, there were frequently penal cases concerning excesses and illegal activities against Jews.
Q Before we refer to Document, Exhibit 370, submitted by the prosecution, which is NG 616, in Document Book V-D, page 230, I want to put a preliminary question to you.
Before 1938, did you take any steps concerning anti-Jewish ocurrences?
A Yes, frequently. Such penal prosecutions caused special resistance on the part of the Party offices. We frequently had to intervene to support the local prosecutions. I want to give an example. At Marienburg, in East Prussia, members of the SA had committed various actions against local inhabitants who were known to be friends of the Jews, and, on that occasion, a Jewess who had relations to an SA man, was considerably ill-treated.
The Gauleiter and the SA Leaders in East Prussia objected to investigations. The competent prosecution office at Elbing could not carry out any such investigations. By order of Minister Guertner, after reporting to him, Herr von Haacke and I flew to Marienburg, carried out the investigation, and brought about the trial and sentencing of the culprits. The result was a prison term of five years.
Q It was not possible to obtain these files because they are files from East Prussia. Therefore, I took an affidavit from one of the decisive officials, Regierungsrat Marotzki, and I am offering it now, for identification, as Exhibit 19. It can be found in document book 2, on page 14. My document # 25, Marotzki Affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: Let it be marked for identification.
BY DR. HAENSEL:
Q That case is also discussed in a document already offered as Exhibit 5, that is the Jaeckel Affidavit, Document Book II, page 37, No. 9.
What did you do about the Ayranization measures that became known on the part of high Party functionaries in connection with an official of the Gestapo in Berlin?
A There was much discussion in the foreign press about the Ayranization proceedings in the Gau Berlin in the years 1934-1935. The people who carried on those Ayranizations were chiefs (Gauamtsleiter) of the Gauamt Berlin. The Regierungsrat of the Secret State Police (Gestapo) had been instigated by them to work with them. It was a case of well-known Jewish merchants, the Brothers Guggenheim, Gusowsky, Braunspan, Aaron, and Joel. Against the carrying out of investigations considerable opposition was brought into play by the Deputy of the Fuehrer, the Chancellory of the Fuehrer, the Chief of the Security Police and last, but not least, by the Gauleiter of Berlin, Dr. Goebbels.
In the focal point of all these events, these attacks, was the then Senior Public Prosecutor Lautz of Berlin. Upon the initiative of Minister of Justice Guertner, von Haacke and I intervened. After great difficulties we could remove some of the obstacles, and the proceedings against the Chiefs of the Gau Office, against the Regierungsrat of the Gestapo, and against other collaborators, took place. The results were that the Regierungsrat of the Gestapo was sentenced to seven years in a penitentiary. Similar sentences were pronounced against the Gau office chiefs of the Gau Berlin.
Q I have tried to obtain these files also from the public prosecution office in Berlin, but I was not successful. The only thing which I have received by way of documents, and which I can offer here are files of the Supreme Party Court concerning Alexander von Steinmeister who is mentioned in these proceedings. I have obtained photostatic copies of these files and am offering them, as far as they are relevant for this case, for identification as Exhibit 20. There are to be found in my document book # 1 on pages 70 an following, and they are my document # 5. The files of the Supreme Party Court concerning Steinmeister -- photostatic copies.
THE PRESIDENT: Let it be marked for identification Exhibit 20.
BY DR. HAENSEL:
Q I submit these files to you, witness, and ask you to comment particularly on page 75.
THE WITNESS: The files, which I have just received, contain on page 75 the ruling by the National Socialist German workers Party, Gau Court of Berlin, against the former Party member Alexander von Steinmeister of 13 November 1936, which shows that the proceedings -- apparently the Party Court Proceedings against von Steinmeister -- was suspended pending final decision of the criminal proceedings against Doepke and others - file number of Central Office of the Public Prosecutor Z.St.g.10b, 3/35 g.Rs.
On page 73 is the ruling showing the former Regierungsrat was expelled from the National Socialist Jurists' League. The ruling of the Gau Honor Court of Berlin is of 26 June 1946. It says there: "Regierungsrat von Steinmeister was convicted of robberty with extortion in factual connection with offenses against Section 343 of the Criminal Code, in two cases of attempted robbery with extortion in factual connection with offenses against Section 341 of the Criminal Code, of compulsion applied in office, of removal of documents, of false certification of disloyalty and sentenced to a total term of seven years in a penitentiary. Furthermore, the sentence deprived the accused of the honorary civil rights for a term of five years. The petition for appeal of the accused was dismissed through ruling of the second Senate of the Reich Supreme Court dated 1st March 1937."
DR. HAENSEL: Immediately after the discussions of these subjects, we have to deal with the Jewish programs of 1938. Did you have anything to do with this matter officially? I have submitted to you Exhibit 28, NG-629, a document from Prosecution Document Book I-b, page 59, where your name is mentioned together with Minister Guertner. It is exhibit of the Prosecution 28, Book 1-B, page 59.
THE WITNESS: Yes. Concerning the matter of the programs against the Jews in 1938, I want to state that I had something to do with the matter, Minister Guertner assigned me first of all to find out how this action originated. The Reich Minister of Justice and the Administration of Justice as well as everyone else in Germany, was surprised by these events. I received no information either from Party offices or from the police. Through the Public Prosecutor in Munich I was able to get an impression of the events.
Reich Minister Goebbels, on the occasion of the meeting of old Party functionaries in Munich on the 9th November in the Old Town Hall building, after receiving a report of the death of Herr von Rath, had incited to these excesses in a public speech. As a result of telephone calls received from Munich, the various Gauleiters started the actions throughout the entire country. Goebbels, thus started it. The chief of in the Secret Police, who was in Munich, issued two orders during the same night. In the first order he requested the chiefs of State Police offices to bet in touch with the political leaders of the NSDAP. In the second order he demanded that steps be taken against looters.
On the basis of these facts, the Reich Minister of Justice could gain the following impression; Many punishable acts had been committed, particularly arson committed against synagogues and destruction of Jewish stores. The Reich Minister had given the signal for it, and the police only interferred whenever it had received specific orders to take steps against individuals who had robbed or looted.
In the report rendered by Minister Guertner to Goering I stated specifically that Reich Minister Goebbels was the instigator. I assumed that steps would be taken against Goebbels.
That, however, was an expectation which did not come true. To prosecute individuals who believed in the legality of the orders that same down from the NSDAP was not possible, because every court would have acquitted them because they did not think they had committed anything illegal. Therefore, with any chance of success, only such punishable acts could be prosecuted which had occurred in connection with arson or damage to objects.
I received instructions to that effect from Minister Huertner. The Party offered opposition against that. The Party wanted to leave to the Party courts any proceedings concerning the acts of the 9th and 10th of November and wanted to have the jurisdiction of the State eliminated.
Upon instructions from Minister Guertner, I negotiated twice with the chief of the Central Office of the Supreme Party Court at Munich. The first meeting resulted in an arrangement that the Party courts should come to preliminary decisions and wanted to determine themselves what cases could be transferred to the Administration of Justice. That was not in accordance with the law and could not be accepted by the Ministry of Justice.
Again I travelled to Munich, and in the second meeting we succeeded in obtaining that all matters, after all Party members or members of any party formations had received a hearing, all these matters would be turned over to the Administration of Justice for penal prosecution. Numerous penal cases were tried all over the Reich after that.
In spite of the fact that we received some clarification with the Supreme Party Court that these trials had to be carried out, local Party officers again and again made it necessary that the Reich Ministry interfere through me to overcome difficulties, which were put in the way of carrying out these proceedings.
THE PRESIDENT: Would you tell us the date of these proceedings again?
THE WITNESS: 9th and 10th of November of 1938 and our investigations which followed subsequently.
THE PRESIDENT: 1938, thank you.
THE WITNESS: Yes. Several proceedings concerning criminal acts in connection with that event were reserved by the Supreme Party Court in contravention of our arrangements. They had negotiations with Goering and also talked to Hitler, without informing the Minister of Justice about that. The Minister of Justice found out about that only several months later.
BY DR. HAENSEL:
Q: Herr von Haacke in his affidavit, Exhibit 1, which has repeatedly been quoted and which is on page 17 of my Document Book 1, mentions that together with you he had drafted a report about these events in which you tried to explain to Hitler the tremendous consequences of these actions. Do you remember that?
A: Yes, I remember that a final report was made, in which the mistreatment of persons, and damage to objects was stated.
Q: Before the files here fly away, I should like to offer Exhibit 1 for identification. It is an exhibit not yet contained in one of the document books. Therefore the same applies as to Exhibit Hattingen. I just ask to have the exhibit number reserved, Exhibit 21, for an affidavit by Carl Hoeller, my document No. 74 and that is supposed to receive the exhibit No. 21, after it has been translated.
Then we come to the events in Nurnberg, which are referred to in Prosecution Exhibit 370 which the witness Joel has before him. What can you state in connection with that document of the prosecution, Exhibit 370, NG-616, volume V D.
A: Of the events in Nurnberg, I was informed not by the chiefs of the Administration of Justice but by Police President Dr. Martin, and I immediately went to Nurnberg. I described my first impressions in Nurnberg to Minister Guertner by telephone and at the same time told him that law and order (Rechtsordnung) Franconia no longer existed. The facts are known to the Court from this document. In order to create the possibility to take action against Streicher, Goering had to be asked for support, because there was no other leading Party member who could be made to take steps against Streicher. I began to work in Nurnberg with a commission in February of 1938. The transfer of all real estate to Gauleiter Holz, which already had been secured by entry in the real estate register was nullified by my activities.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess until 1:30 o'clock this afternoon.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours).
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 5 August, 1947.)
GUENTHER JOEL - Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR. HAENSEL: (Attorney for the Defendant Joel) I will now proceed with the examination of Guenther Joel.
Q During the occurrences in Nurnberg, you belonged to the commission, which as far as I understood you, had been established by the central authorities in order to establish what illegal acts had in the main been instigated by Streicher, and to correct them.
A Yes.
Q Can you tell me whether you remember Martin, the police and SS leader?
A Yes. Martin was the president of police at Nurnberg, and I believe that during the course of two years he had kept all measures which Streicher had taken under observation and had instituted the necessary preliminary investigations, which after the events of November, 1938 after a report had been made to Goering, led to it that a commission was sent to Nurnberg.
Q Did you hear anything about it, whether at that time Martin wrote a memorandum about those events.
A Martin did write a memorandum about the occurrences in Nurnberg, and on the basis of the work of the commission a memorandum was compiled which consisted of about 250 pages, and that memorandum gave an account of all the events connected with Striecher, and which was submitted to Goering and later on to Hitler.
DR. HAENSEL: I have tried to obtain those documents, but the Martin memorandum is no longer obtainable and the commission's memorandum is only obtainable in part. Therefore, I asked Martin to give me an affidavit about the facts with which we are concerned here, and that affidavit is contained in Document Book III, on page 1 and the following pages.
It is my Document 48, and, as such, I am now offering it for identification as Exhibit 22.
THE PRESIDENT: Let it be marked for identification.
DR. HAENSEL: The document speaks for itself. Martin knows these facts best. His memorandum was entitled "My Struggle against Streicher. In order to procure documentary evidence, I had extracte made from the Nurnberg real estate registers which I offer for identification only, for the time being, as Exhibit 23. They are contained in my Document Book III, on page 13, and the following pages: my Document No. 50. It is entitled copy from the files of the real estate register, Nurnberg-Furth.
THE PRESIDENT: Let it be marked for identification Exhibit 23.
BY DR. HAENSEL:
Q I hand these copies from the Real Estate Register to you, and I will ask you to tell the Tribunal, in brief, what is necessary to transfer property under German law, and what was the significance of the fact that you had the real estate registers corrected.
AAdditional entries were necessary. In the Nurnberg register, to begin with, notes had been entered for the transfer of property. These preliminary notes had to be removed. As the entries had been made for the benefit of Gauleiter Holz, as I established, in investigations 508 properties had been transferred for the benefit of Holz; or, at any rate preliminary entries to that effect had been made,-and then those entries had to be cancelled. As Holz had appeared on behalf of Geuleiter Streicher, against whom we were carrying out investigations, and as it was not to be expected that Holz would voluntarily agree to the preliminary entries being cancelled, Goering was asked to order Gauleiter Holz to give his consent to the retransfer. That explains the letter from the Nurnberg gestapo of 24th April, 1940, which is contained in all real estate registers. That letter shows that the preliminary entries in favor of Gauleiter Holz had been cancelled, on order of General Field Marshal Goering.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Joel, will you be so kind, whenever you remember it, to give us the approximate date of the events concerning which you are testifying -- in the future.
A Yes, Your Honor. I carried out these investigations here in Nurnberg, first approximately in December, 1938, when the president of the police informed me in Berlin about these incidents. I only stayed here for three or four days, and then I reported the matter to Minister Guertner in Berlin. The investigating commission to which I belonged was here in Nurnberg in January and February, 1939, the final report which was written here in Nurnberg, and which does not bear my signature because I had left for Berlin at an earlier date, was, as far as I remember, submitted to Goering in April, 1939. That report was sent to the Party Chancellory, but I do not know through what channels it was sent there. We, who carried out the investigations, were of the opinion that the result would be a penal proceeding before the regular courts, but that did not happen. Inspite of Minister Guertner's serious efforts, it wasn't done. On the contrary, as a result of that report, from which, as I heard later, parts were erased -- by whom I don't know--proceedings were instituted before the Supreme Party Court, and Hitler had ordered that Gauleiter Streicher was to appoint as judges three other gauleiters and that Goering, too, was to appoint three gauleiters as judges. Those six gauleiters, in 1940, with both the Chief Justice of the Supreme Party Court, Bruch presiding, set up a tribunal here, and the subject of the proceedings was the abbreviated memorandum which we had written here. The proceedings ended with a verdict being pronounced which, to my mind, was peculiar. As far as I remember it was this: Gauleiter Streicher was not suitable to be a leader of human beings. It also said that he had to leave Nurnberg, but they he would retain his rank as senior gualeiter. In effect, after that verdict had been pronounced, Streicher moved to a nearby estate Reichershof, and was no longer permitted to conduct the affairs of a Gauleiter. That was the result.
Q Let us return to the cue--police--which was used in connection with the commission because police people also sat on that commission. Please tell the Tribunal something about your connections with the police?
A In the cases where I had to carry out investigations against the opposition of party officers, I always had the support of officials of the Gestapo and criminal police. During these investigations here in Nurnberg, too, a staff official of the Gestapo from Berlin sat on the commission, in addition to a representative of the Ministry of Economics, of the Ministry of Interior, and myself. When in 1937 Freisler dissolved the central prosecution office, Minister Guertner desired that the relations with the police, which I by my investigating work in penal matters had established, were to be maintained. Minister Guertner, therefore, on the 19th of December 1937, had appointed me liaison officer with the police; on the part of the SS a liaison leader had already been in office for some time.
Q Who was that?
A Since 1935 the liaison leader for the SS with the Reich Ministry of Justice had been a Sturmbannfuehrer Tomdok. He was a Protestant clergyman in Silesia, leaving his clerical profession, he took up office with the SS. Until 1942 he stayed in that office, that is to say, very nearly until I myself left the Ministry of Justice.
DR. HAENSEL: I have tried to find out Tondok's whereabouts, and after months of searching, quite recently I did succeed in locating him. Probably I shall be able to submit an affidavit by him. The Prosecution with reference to the appointment of Guenther Joel to be liaison officer with the police and SS, has, in document 410, NG 587, Volume IX-A, of the prosecution Documents page 84, drawn the following conclusions:
THE PRESIDENT: You refer to Exhibit 410?
DR. HAENSEL: Exhibit 418? No. 410--4-1-0.
Q Would you please in brief explained the difference between a liaison leader appointed by the SS, as for example Tondok, and your appointment to be liaison man with Guertner?
A Exhibit 410, and the ordinance contained in it by Minister of Justice Guertner, dated 19 December 1937, reveals that I, as liaison man for Department III, that is of the department which dealt with individual cases at the Ministry of Justice, was appointed to that office. At the time of that appointment I was not a member of the SS or SD.
Q When Minister Guertner gave you that commission on December 19, 1937, a commission which we have already discussed here, did you have a rank in the SS or SD conferred on you, or was the rank in both organizations conferred on you: I am referring to Prosecution Document Exhibit 423, NG 747, Volume IX-B, page 124.
A I assume you are referring to the SS or the SD files which I do not have before me, but that is apparent too, from the personnel files of the Ministry of Justice, and that on the following page. That since on the 19th of December 1937, Minister Guertner appointed me liaison man with the police, on the 2nd of May I received a rank in the SD. Main office, SD Hauptant of those days. The document confirming the appointment is contained in the personnel files of the Ministry of Justice.
Q Did you swear an SS oath?
A I never swore an SS oath or an SD oath, or any other oath in connection with my appointment.
Q Did you pay monthly dues?
A No, I did not pay any dues wither.
Q Did you make contributions to the Lebensborn or SS divisions fund, if you didn't contribute to the SS itself.
A No, I didn't make contributions to either fund.
Q Did you do any work for the SD?
A No.
DR. HAENSEL: I now introduce to begin with, for identification the affidavit by Ohlendorf in my document book 2 on page 68, my document No. 36 which will bear exhibit number 24, for the time being I offer it for purposes of identification. This document which speaks for itself, shows that Guenther Joel, was not a member of the general SS, Allgemeine SS. Was the offer of a rank on the part of the SD connected with your work in the Rhineland, where Gauleiter and Under-Secretary Freisler had made difficulties for you?
A Yes, that is right. Many arguments with the Gauleiter of the Rhine Province, or rather with the Gauleiters of the Rhine provinces on account of the regular carrying out of penal proceedings with the laws, were witnessed by the chief of the SD at Duesseldorf. He had supported the Senior Public Prosecutor in the Rhine Province against the Gauleiters. I had made his acquaintance in my official capacity in Bonn. In 1938 he had been transferred to Berlin, and he saw to it that I had a rank conferred on me.
Q Would you please again glance at B-410, on page 91 of Volume B-9A. There the prosecution has submitted a message by the chief of the Security Main Office (RSHA) to the Reich Ministry of Justice, and according to that information from the 2nd to 9th of May 1939, you did work for the SD as your main official task.
I would like to know whether it was done on behalf of the SD?
A No, I did that work for the Reich Ministry of Justice the Gauleiter of Cologne, on account of some penal proceedings had had arguments with the Senior Public Prosecutor of Bonn. The Gauleiter of Cologne wanted to have the Senior Public Prosecutor discharged and requested the Reich Minister of Justice to do so. I repeatedly called on the Gauleiter of Cologne, to protect the Senior public Prosecutor in question. At that moment I once again wanted to go in to the same step with the Gauleiter on behalf of the Senior Public Prosecutor. Freisler forbad me to go to Cologne. Minister Guertner was not available. I asked Standartenfuehrer Glatze, who had been transferred from Duesseldorf to Berlin, to let me have the information, which has been entered into these personnel files and intended to go to Cologne against the will of Freisler. That was what happened. I did go to Cologne, at that time and I restrained the Gauleiter of Cologne from making representations in person to Reich Minister Guertner to have the senior Prosecutor in Bonn discharged. That conversation was successful.
Q Did Herr Hattingen play any part in that affair?
A Yes, he did. That is the senior Public Prosecutor in Bonn of whom I have spoken.
DR. HAENSEL: I would like to refer to the fact that Exhibit No. 14 has been provided by me, which is the affidavit of Hattingen. I will submit it after it has been translated.
Q Please tell the Tribunal What you considered to be the sphere of activities of the SD.
A When I was offered a rank in the SD I knew that SD offices in the Reich had t o make reports about all spheres of life. They submitted those reports to the SD main office in Berlin, which existed in those days, and that office compiled monthly situation reports.
DR. HAENSEL: In this connection, we do not want to repeat what has already been said here in connection with the Schlegelberger case. For example, I refer to his Exhibit 92, from Schlegelberger document book IV, at page 74, and the quotation there.
Q I would suggest that you have another look at document book IX-B, page 244-A, and deal with it. That contains the SD personnel files; Exhibit 423, NG-747. Will you look at that, at page 139. That mention a trip which you made with Tondok to the Occupied Western Territories. Was that not work done on behalf of the SD or the SS?
A That work was not done for the SD. It was like this:
After the SS and Police jurisdiction had been set up by the decree of 18 October 1939, the Main Office SS intended to establish prisons of its own. The liaison leader of the SS with the Minister of Justice Tondok had asked Minister Guertner to be allowed to inspect prisons. At the request of Minister Guertner I accompanied Tondok and showed him the prison Dietz-Lahn, Rottgau-Darmstadt, and a prison for juveniles. All those prisons were within the territory of the old Reich, and we did not make a trip to the occupied territories.
Q The personnel files which you have before you, however, show that you were promoted with the SD. Why was that done?
A When the SD rank was conferred on me I had been promised that that rank would gradually be adapted to the official rank I held at the Reich Ministry of Justice. However, that never happened. One of the reasons which was given to me in 1940 was that that would have to be made dependent on my getting married.
Q That is shown in the files, that business about getting married.
I would like to ask you whether, until you left the Ministry of Justice, you were liaison man with the Police. At the same time, however, I ask you to take a lock at document 423, NG-747, from IX-B. Would you look at the note?
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel in order to avoid confusing this Tribunal, will you please speak of the exhibit number without calling it the document number, with reference to the prosecution's exhibits?
DR. HAENSEL: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Please refer first to the exhibit number.
DR. HAENSEL: The document is NG-747, the exhibit number is 423, and it is contained in volume IX-B.
BY DR. HAENSEL:
Q My question is: Until you left the Ministry of Justice, wore you liaison man with the police?
A No. When Thierack assumed office he no longer made use of my services. Through Himmler he asked a liaison man of the RSHA to be appointed with the Ministry of Justice, and later be appointed Ministerial Councellor Franke to be his liaison man with the RSHA.
Q Did you know about Thierack's opposition to you, and why?
A I knew that after Thierack had assumed office I would be removed from the Ministry. I also knew that my presence in Prague, in connection with the Elias case, had caused Heydrich's displeasure. As I knew that Thierack and Himmler co-operated closely, there could be no doubt that I would have to disappear when Thierack assumed office.
Q Is a note in the personnel files connected, perhaps, with these matters? I am referring to a note about your inquiry to the SD, Exhibit bl, Volume I-B.
A Yes; concerning the change in the appointment of the liaison man the RSHA, Theirack never said anything about that to me. Therefore, when I heard that the RSHA, through the intervention of Thierack with Himmler's had received its own liaison man, I made an inquiry, in December of 1942, and it was confirmed to me.
DR. HAENSEL: In this connection I wish to introduce, for purposes of indentification, as Exhibit 23, an affidavit by Ohlendorf, which appears in my document book II at page 66.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 24?
DR. HAENSEL: No, exhibit 25.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel has not yet given the Tribunal opportunity to direct that exhibit 24 be marked for identification, That will be done.
No. 25 is marked for identification.
DR. HAENSEL: For identification, yes.
Exhibit 24 for identification was a document in volume II, at page 68, also by Ohlenforf. That is another affidavit; it is not the same as Exhibit 25, which is the affidavit by Ohlendorf at page 66. Those are two diff rent documents I am referring to.
THE PRESIDENT: And we have then marked separately as Exhibits 24 and 25 for identification respectively.