THE PRESIDENT: That will be marked for identification, Exhibit 46.
BY DR. HAENSEL:
Q: And the next document as Exhibit 47, Affidavit Budde, my Document #53 on page 27 in my document book #3. I shall also refer, in this connection, to Exhibit 32 which I have already announced. That is the Affidavit Hermann Ried.
THE PRESIDENT: Your Document 53 will be marked, for identification, Exhibit 47.
BY DR. HAENSEL:
Q: The indictment of 4 January 1947 has held you co-responsible for happenings in prisons under Count 14. At the Reich Ministry of Justice were you ever concerned with questions of administration of punishment?
A: No.
Q: Do you recognize the charges of the prosecution concerning the administration of punishment in the Hamm district?
A: No, not one word of the assertion made by the prosecution applies to the District of Hamm. My institutions were taken over by the occupying power without any criticism. The chief of my office for the administration of punishment at Hamm, is still in office.
Q: I am now in a position to submit a very interesting document but, unfortunately, it has not been translated yet because it was received only a short time ago. It will be my Exhibit #48 and it is a letter of complaint from the Kreisleiter at Bielefeld-Halle of 7 July 1944, about the fact that inmates in institutions under Gunther Joel's supervision were too well treated. That will be Exhibit #48, a letter from the Kreisleitung at Bielefeld-Halle.
THE PRESIDENT: We will reserve #48 for that exhibit, when and if it is presented.
DR* HAENSEL: From my document book #3 I submit, for identification as Exhibit 49, my Document 55 on page 35. It is an affidavit by Dr. Karl Henning, Senior Prosecutor at Hamm.
THE PRESIDENT: That will be marked for identification.
DR. HAENSEL: And an affidavit by the director of a penitentiary, Faber, as Exhibit 50 from my Document Book #5 on page 44. That is my Document #59.
THE PRESIDENT: That will be marked for identification.
DR. HAENSEL: I am also in a position to submit a statement by the superintendent of the prison at Hamm, Moebuss, and want to submit it as Exhibit 51. It is from my Document Book #3 on page 41. It is my Document #61.
THE PRESIDENT: That will be marked Exhibit 51, for identification.
DR. HAENSEL: Page 50.
THE PRESIDENT: That will be marked.
DR. HAENSEL: And in order to complete the group of affidavits dealing with prisons I offer...
THE PRESIDENT: (Interrupting) Just a moment, please.
JUDGE BLaIR: I don't have this document and it makes double work on me not to have it. This Document Book 3. I don't have it.
THE PRESIDENT: We must have an extra copy of Document Book 3.
(Copy of Document Book was furnished)
Alright.
DR. HAENSEL: As the last exhibit in that group, Exhibit 52, I offer the Affidavit Mueller from my Document Book #3 on page 46 my Document 60.
THE PRESIDENT: That will be marked, for identification, Exhibit 52.
BY DR. HAENSEL:
Q: May I ask you, witness, to look at Exhibit 171 of the prosecution from Book III-E, and to comment on your situation report of the 6th of February, 1945?
A: The report has my full signature. It takes account of the situation as it was at that time. It was my duty to point out to the Ministry of Justice that chaotic conditions existed in the industrial area that the bombing attacks by day and by night had caused innumerable casualties and that those who survived were robbed of whatever possessions they have saved. Then I had to consider the requests made by all parts of the population to me to take the most serious steps against criminals who took advantage of that situation.
Q: That brings me to the end of my direct questions. One more.
I just want to refer briefly again to the matter concerning Thierack. You have made several statements concerning your relations with Thierack, but I should like you to supplement the following:
Did Thierack, on the 18th of October 1944, release you for service in the armed forces?
A: Yes, he did.
Q Before that time did you have a chance to speak to him about that?
A No, one day upon my initiative, an officer of another ministry made a renewed attempt to got my release from Thierack and to have me leace the Administration of Justice. The Ministry of Justice wired to the Ministry Command at Hamm, indicating that I was no longer indipensable for the Administration of Justice. I was not officially informed of this measure, except by the Armed Forces.
Q During the last few days I received an affidavit from Switzerland from Gisevius, who is a well known witness of the I.M.T. trial, also from the book, "To the bitter End." Gisevius is in Switzerland and therefore unfortunately cannot be produced as a witness by me here. I knew that his statements on the character of Joel are particular importance.
It belongs to a group of exhibits already submitted, the affidavit of Ried, Exhibit 33 and the affidavit of Diels, Exhibit 4. These statements are made by a passionate opponent of the Nazi system, therefore, I ask to have exhibit 53 reserved for the submission of the affidavit of Gisevius.
THE PRESIDENT: What is that name again?
DR. HAENSEL: Gisevius, G-i-s-e-v-i-u-s, Your Honor. This brings me to the end of my direct examination.
BY DR. SCHUBERT:
Q May it please the Tribunal, may I be permitted to put a few questions to the witness?
Dr. Joel, during the years of 1933 and 1939 you were frequently in Nuernberg and had an opportunity to contact with officials of the Administration of Justice in Nuernberg and of the Party. At that time did you make the observation that the defendant Oeschey among officers of the Party in Nuernberg, especially with the members of the Gauleiters, was a well known figure?
A When I, on orders of Minister of Justice Guertner, came to Nuernberg, I never heard the name of Oeschey. At that time it did not come to my attention that Oeschey worked here as an official in the Administration of Justice or as a judge. During the investigations of the Aryanization cases at Nuernberg, I never came upon the name of Oeschey anywhere.
Q These Aryanization cases occured already in 1938; isn't that correct?
A Yes, subsequent to the Jewish program of 9 and 16 November, 1938.
Q Dr. Joel, who was at that time the President of the District Court of Appeals in Nuernberg?
AAt that time Doebig was President of the district court of appeals.
Q In these Aryanization cases, did you have anything to do with Doebig?
A Unfortunately I had nothing to do with him. When I came to Nuernberg, upon orders by the Minister, I paid a call upon the President of the District Court of Appeals and the General Prosecutor. The President of the Court of Appeals was not present at that time. While I stayed in Nuernberg I never got in touch with him and he never contacted me either.
Q Could you comment on the question as to whether Doebig was made president of the District Court of Appeals, that is the highest official of the Administration of Justice in the District of Nuernberg with the approval of Gauleiter Streicher?
AAs far as I know for the appointment of a local chief officer of the Reich Administration of Justice the approval of the Gauleiter was required. Therefore, I have to assume that for the appointment of the President of the District Court of Appeal at Nuernberg, Gauleiter must have given his approval.
Q Thank you, this finishes my examination.
BY DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: (Counsel for the defendant Rothenberger.)
Q I ask too be permitted to put a few questions to the witness. Dr. Joel, at the Reich Ministry cf Justice you had the assignment to intervene against party officials in the various districts, who interfered with the Reich Ministry of Justice. Were you over at Hamburg to take care of Administration of Justice matters or to take care of party officials?
A Minister Guertner did not give me any assignment to go to Hamburg.
Q Was Hamburg the only Gau where there was no cause to interfere against party officials because they endangered the Administration of Justice?
A That is correct. Hamburg was one of the few Gaus where I did not have anything to do.
Q Could you tell us anything about the underlying causes responsible for the fact that one did not have to interfere there; do you know the conditions there, the attitude of the responsible people?
A The fact that Minister Guertner did not send me to Hamburg makes me reach the conclusion that in Hamburg no difficulties had arisen. That is to say that in Hamburg there was no interference on the part of the party officials with the Administration of Justice and that the Justice officials in leading positions in Hamburg themselves were able to take care of these difficulties.
Q Did you knew that in Hamburg the local leader of the NSRB that is the local loader of the legal office of the Gau, and the President of the District Court of Appeals were one and the same person, Dr. Rothenberger?
A I heard about the fact that the President of the District Court of Appeals Rothenberger was also chief of the Gau, legal Office.
Q And the leader of the National Socialist lawyer's League?
A I believe so, I am not sure about that.
Q Could you give us your opinion about what effects that had that one person held these two or maybe three offices in Hamburg?
A From my position in Berlin, I could only gain the impression that these consequences were very beneficial because neither my department chief or Minister Guertner ever made any statement to the effect that there were any difficulties in the field of penal law in Hamburg.
Q Dr. Joel, yesterday you mentioned that there was a radical change cf policy when Thierack assumed office in Berlin. In this connection, I would like to ask you whether Rothenberger, in your opinion, was one of the individuals whose arrival in the same sense as Thierack meant a radical change in policy?
A The officials at the Reich Ministry of Justice were aware that Thierack did not appoint Rothenberger for the position of under-secretary. Rothenberger, as president of the district court of appeals was known. It was known that Rothenberger had composed a memoradum and although we did not know the memorandum itself, at that time it was mentioned that it was a memorandum from which an attempt was to be made to cut off the interference in the field, of the administration of Justice.
THE PRESIDENT : We are quite familiar with that memorandum and know it by heart. Let us not go into that any more.
Q When Rothenberger assumed office, was he considered then an opponent of Thierack? By you and your colleagues in the Reich Ministry of Justice?
A That is hard to answer. We were of the opinion that the two didn't quite fit together. I did not know any details about the relations.
Q You didn't know anything about their personal relations, then.
A No.
Q And your opinion about the contacts between these two men are based only upon their differences in opinion as to various policies?
AAnd based upon observations during the first few months of their activity.
Q Thank you. In the spring of 1943, on the basis of an anonymous denunciation, were you assigned by Dr. Thierack as Reich Minister off Justice to conduct an investigation against Dr. Rothenberger because he had misappropriated two wardrobes?
A That is correct. Fart of my job was to handle matters of war economy of offenses committed against the rationing regulations. Therefore, a denunciation was submitted to me for which Dr. Rothenberger was charged that without the necessary ration coupons he had two wardrobes built. I was told that I had to investigate that personally. I did so, and I found out very soon that Dr. Rothenberger had submitted the required certificates of priority.
Q Therefore, there was no reason, after you had investigated the case, for that denunciation.
A No, there wasn't.
Q Did you gain the inambiguous impression that Thierack wanted to make use of these matters in order to get rid of Dr. Rothenberger as Under-Secretary, and in a manner which was very injurious to Rothenberger' s character?
A It appeared to me somewhat unusual that the Minister did not hand that denunciation to the Under-Secretary first to obtain an official statement from him.
By an official statement, probably, an investigation would have become unnecessary. As far as that is concerned, one may well say that this was a definite antagonistic step against Rothenberger.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Thank you. I have no further question.
THE PRESIDENT: Have we any further examination by Counsel for the Defense?
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. DOETZER:Dr. Doetzer, first deputizing for my colleague Dr. Koessl for the defendant Rothaug.
May it please the Tribunal, I ask to be permitted to put several questions to the witness Joel.
Q Witness, as far as you told us during the years 1939 and 1940, you have conducted numerous investigations here in Nurnberg, and in doing so, also conducted investigations concerning the participation of the Administration of Justice in Aryanization cases. Were these very detailed investigations?
A Yes, indeed, they were detailed investigations.
Q Did in the course of these investigations at any time the participation of the defendant Rothaug or his name merely occur to you?
A Neither the name Rothaug nor the name Oeschey ever appeared there.
Q Thank you. Then, as Defense Counsel for the defendant Nebelung I have to put several questions to you, witness. Witness, did you happen to know the defendant Nebelung before he was indicated in this trial?
A No.
Q Did you ever during the early years of your activity as Minister when Nebelung was President of the District Court of Appeals in Braunschweig hear of him?
A Yes, I heard of his work as president of the District Court of Appeals.
Q When was that -- during what years? The question is, could that have been the years 1935, 1936 end 1937?
A Yes.
Q What do you happen to know about the work of the defendant Nebelung as president of the District Court of Appeals at Braunschweig - what did come to your attention at the Ministry?
A I heard at that time that there was a difference of opinion between the President of the District Court of Appeals on one hand, and the SS Obergruppenfuehrer in the District of Braunschweig on the other hand; and that it was also a matter of attacks against the Administration of Justice. But that the Obergruppenfuehrer of the SS had the support of the then senior prosecutor at Braunschweig against the president of the district court of appeals.
Q Do you still remember, witness, whether the defendant Nebelung and his judges succumbed to the attacks of the SS in connection with the senior prosecutor?
A I remember that they put up a stiff fight.
Q Do you happen to remember whether the judges at that time refused the continue certain activities? It is a matter of a disciplinary penal chamber (Dienststrafkammer)
A Well -
Q May I help you, witness.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness will be of value to the Tribunal only if he is testifying to matters which he has personal knowledge.
A I have some knowledge about matters.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead.
A From reports made to me by people in the personnel department. I personally had nothing to do with them.
Q Witness, did the personnel department also report to you against the judges who fought that struggle. Did the Reich Fuehrer SS take steps by having them demoted and expelled?
A It came to my attention, in connection with the occurrence in Braunschweig officials of the Administration of Justice who were members of the SS had been expelled from the SS.
Q Witness, didn't it become known what became of the senior prosecutor? Did he remain in the administration of Justice, or, did he have to leave?
A The senior prosecutor had to leave the Administration of Justice as far as I know.
Q Witness, did you receive the assignment from Minister Guertner in this dispute to interfere in Braunschweig?
A No, I never received any assignment of that kind.
DR. DOETZER: Thank you. I do not have any further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any other Defense Counsel who desire to make this witness their own? There appears to be none. You may cross examine.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. KING:3 Dr. Joel, first just several preliminary questions in connection with our Exhibit 56 NG-915, your personal inventory which you signed last January.
I think you recall that. Several statements are in there; as a matter of information, I would like to check them with you. You say in there that -- I quote: "I never belonged to the SS or to the SA, etc." That pertains to your testimony which you gave yesterday, is that right?
A I understood that I had stated that I never belonged to the SS and the SA.
Q That is right. And you don't want to change that. That is still
A No.
Q Yes. Then in connection with your party membership, you say you never received a membership book. Could I be enlightened as to what a membership book of the party is?
A Until the time when I was heard as a witness in the IMT trial, I always considered myself a member of the party, but I have learned here that in order to be a member one has to have a party membership book, and has to be sworn in.
Both did not occur in my case. That is why I made that statement -- in the same manner as you can find I believe in Exhibit 56.
Q Yes, that is correct. You say in connection with that statement that you never knew your party number. Is that substantially correct, too?
A Yes. The number which I stated is the number which I found on a red so-called temporary or preliminary membership card.
Q What number is that; you didn't state a number in your questionnaire because you said you couldn't remember.
A Well, it is true that I can't remember that number, but I found it here in the personal file.
Q Did you know your number before you came to Nurnberg this last time?
A No, I only know it was a number somewhere in the three millions or two millions.
Q You never knew your number?
A The number of the red membership card of course I used to know.
THE PRESIDENT: The time has arrived for our fifteen minute recess.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. King, before you commence your crossexamination, we have been again importuned on behalf of the defendant Pothaug, and we are not very greatly impressed by the reasons given on the basis of which, through his counsel, he asks for further time. It is unnecessary for us to recite the facts with reference to the time that all of these defendants have had because they are all matters of record. One consideration, however, had moved the Tribunal to give an assurance to this extent. We have agreed that the defendant Rothaug will not be required to take the witness stand at any time prior to Monday morning. The motion for extension of a period of one week is denied, and we don't want to hear any more applications for time from this defendant, by which I mean to say we think he is not entitled to any more. We have had a number of requests of this kind, most of which we consider unwarranted. This will give him a period of several days more.
The reason which moves us to this action, in part, is the fact that we desire, during this week, to have the document books which have been promised, but not yet delivered, by the defendants who have already taken the witness stant--to have them here, present then, and we will rule upon them.
One other matter. Dr. Haensel, we think it likely that you intended, before closing the examination, to offer your exhibits. You have only asked to have them marked so far. We would like also to clean up the matter of these exhibits marked for identification this week. We don't want to foreclose you the privilege of offering your exhibits, and we will allow you to do so.
MR. KING: Your Honor, with reference to some of them, we are. With reference to practically all of those that were offer this morning, we are not. I would like to suggest that Dr. Haensel make the offer in evidence of the exhibits from 11 on immediately after the lunch recess; at which time we will be in a position to tell him which exhibits we object to and why.
Also, prior to that time, I would like to discuss several defects in some of the documents, and I think we can avoid, in that way, taking the time of the Court. If Dr. Haensel and the prosecution can agree as to the contents, which isn't clear now, there is no point in bothering the Court with one of these at all.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well; that will be the order of business at 1:30 this afternoon.
You may cross-examine.
MR. KING: While we are on the subject of document books, and before I resume cross-examination, it has occurred to the prosecution that the Defense Information Center and / or the Translation Decision should be reminded that a delay in the production of the books--an unreasonable delay--seriously handicaps both the defense and the prosecution. We have not made an investigation in the last few days, but it does seen probable that cases that are not now in being are getting priority translation, ahead of the cases for which there is an urgent demand, such as the case here. I do not know what, if any power the Court has over the natter, but it has occurred to us that word from the Court might tend to remind them that there is a trial going on hear.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has already given then several words along that line. We do consider it of fundamental importance that these document books, so far as they have not been prepared, be completed and presented this week.
BY MR. KING:
Q. DR Joel, just prior to the recess we were talking about the matter of membership books, Party numbers, and how those two items affected you. I take it then, from what you said, that your lapse of memory as to your Party number. There is no question about that, is there?
A. I used to carry the red membership card in my pocket but the allied troops took it away from me.
When I carried it, I could always look the number up.
Q: Yes. So that when you say you never received a membership book, you are not saying that you had no Party indent if identification of any kind; you did have a red membership card which you carried with you and which contained the number?
A. Yes; yes, I did.
Q. And you carried that up until the end of the war.
A. Certainly; I had it among my papers.
Q. Yes. Are you familiar enough with the organization of the SS To be able to tell me whether is was customary for honorary members of the SS to have a membership number?
A. Yes; I assume so. Everybody who was somehow a member of the SS had a number.
Q. Yes; and you had a number in the SS, didn't you?
A. I had a number in the SD.
Q. You had a number in the SS too, didn't you?
A. I don't believe so.
Q. Does the number 290890 mean anything to you?
A. Yes.
Q. And what is that?
A. That is the number which is on my appointment which the SD Main Office made out in 1938.
Q. You wouldn't be likely, in your questionnaires submitted to the SS, to confuse the "SD" with "SS", would you?
A. No.
Q. I didn't think so. We will got around to that later. Now, your alleged honorary membership in the SS' if I recall your testimony correctly, was given to you while you were acting as liaison man with the SS, SD, and the Gestapo and the Ministry of Justice; is that correct?
A. I was given that rank in May of 1938, after the Minister of Justice, in December of 1937, had assigned me to be in charge of liaison and the duties connected with that.
Q. Yes, that is what you said yesterday. It is substantially correct the way I stated it; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, you left the Ministry of Justice in August 1943 did you not?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And some time prior to that according to your testimony, you were no longer a liaison nan with the SS and SD. That is right isn't it?
A I said that officially I was not informed that I was removed from that position but that Minister Thierack apparently, in agreement with Himmler, had appointed a new liaison man from the RSHA.
Q Yes, I remember your testimony, or at least I am trying to stat it bery succinctly so that we won't have to go into the testimony which you gave yesterday. I an just trying to summarize it. Yes, we are in agreement as to what you said.
Now, can you tell me Dr. Joel, why, if your membership in SS was honorary and for the purpose of serving you while you were liaison man, that you continued to hold SS membership after our work as liaison man was completed?
A Well, I assume that I can tell you that althought I am-not familiar with any regulations and provisions about such cases. Anybody who once was given such a rank could only lose it by a procedure provided for by the SD, and I assume that there was no readon to institute proceedings against me on account of my leaving the Ministry or my not being used after Thierack become Minister.
Q. Yes, I understand your explanation. Now, according to your understanding, it was just a dormant matter since no action was taken to cancel your membership, right?
A No, I did not hear anything about it.
Q Well, tell me, why were you promoted a full rank in the SS nearly a year after you left the Ministry end went to Hamm? Excuse me; that isn't correct, Why were you promoted after you went to Hamm, shortly after you went to Hamm? You were promoted in November, 1943. That doesn't sound like you were an in active or on honorary member, does it?
A I can explain that to you very easily.
Please do.
AAfter I had become General Public Prosecutor in Hamm, when I visited Berlin, at a party which had nothing to do with politics beautiful women were present.
I met the former Colonel Freiherr von Morff, who had been made a personnel chief of the Waffen SS by the chief of the police. This Colonel asked me whether I had a rank in the SD and what my rank was, and when I told him that my rank was that of Sturnbahnfuehrer he told me that that was a rank that was appropriate for a Krimialrar - a criminal judge - that it did not at all suit the position of a General Public Prosecutor and that he would undertake some steps so that this rank of mine as Sturmbahnfuehrer would be somehow approximated rank in my civilian profession. I answered him neither with yes nor with no.
Q. And that is how you came to an Obersturmbahnfuehrer; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Now along about the 24th of October, 1944-
JUDGE HARDING: May I interrupt you? Was that in the SS or the SD?
MR. KING: This is in the SS.
THE WITNESS: That is a question that can be debated. There are members of the SD who received a rank in the SD and there are members of the SD who did not receive a rank, and that there are members of the SD who, at the same time, are carried on the books of the SS. The SD main office appointed me in 1939. At that time the SD was an independant organization with its own SD main office. This SD main office, after the RSHA was created -- I believe that was in 1940 -- was incorporated in the RSHA. I believe as Department No. 3 that is the situation as I see it and this is, I believe, also in accordance with the view of the IMT.
THE PRESIDENT: The fact remains, does it not, that the title Oberstrumbahnfuehrer is a title in the SS.
THE WITNESS: Yes, but not of the General SS.
BY MR. KING:
Q. Dr. Joel, how did. you usually describe your membership?
A. Pardon me?
Q. How did you usually describe your membership? Did you say you were an honorary member in the SD? Did you say you were SS and give your rank or how did you describe yourself where it was necessary to do so?
A. Of course, I wrote SS Sturmbannfuehrer. I told you already I was not in the General SS, but I was SS leader at the SD main office. That can be seen quite clearly from the appointment that is in the documents.
Q. And what is that expected to convoy to the people to whom that information was sent? When you say, "I, Guenther Joel, am at present Obersturmbannfuehrer in the SS," and stop there, what is that supposed to convoy to the people who get that letter? Does that say anything about SD? Does that say anything about honorary membership? How do you distinguish that from the run-off-the-mill SS member?
A. Not at all. I did not worry about such matters at all. Why should I have worried about it?
Q. Did you ever complain because you were being wrongly listed? You are aware, of course, that the public prints occasionally refer to you as SS Sturmbannfuehrer or Obersturmbannfuehrer. Did you ever complain to anyone about misapplication of title or was that some one else's worry, as you say?
A. I never complained about the appointment. I knew that I was carried on the list of the SD main office and not at the main office SS. Why should I complain?
THE PRESIDENT: Merely to clarify your last question as to why you should be interested, your interest now becomes very normal because of the fact that you were charged with membership in a criminal organization.
THE WITNESS: The question which the Prosecutor addressed to me referred, as far as I understood it, to a time in the past and at that time I could not assume that this activity in the SS or SD or the Gestapo would later on be described as criminal; and my answer was to be understood in the light of that fact, namely, answer is that at that time I did not worry about such things.
BY MR. KING:
Q You will perhaps recall in Exhibit 423, the records of the SS personnel office, a letter which you wrote to the SS main office on the 24 of October 1944 and, as I said a few moments ago, you designated yourself as SS Oberstumbannfuehrer, and you see nothing unusual in that? What you really meant to say was that you were an honorary member in the SD but it was just a lip of the typewriter that it came out the other way. Is that right?
A I cannot recall that letter, but I did not make any distinction at all because it is obvious that there are SS leaders in the SD main office and leaders of the General SS.
Q All right. Are now sticking to your story that you were an honorary member or have we forgotten about that?
A Well an honorary member a man who has a formal right to wear a uniform and does not have any authority to issue orders to subordinates and I did not have that authority.
Q So, therefore, you think you were an honorary member; is that right?
A Yes, I believe so, because I was not a member in my main capacity.
Q You mean you didn't work full time at it?
A I was an official of the Ministry of Justice anyhow.
Q Yes, I know. What you mean is that you did not work full time, one hundred percent of your time, on SS activities; is that right? And for that reason you fell you were an honorary member?