A Yes, that is why I am saying it too and "because I did not have any authority to issue orders. I did not have the authority which was in accordance with my rank. Thus, I could not issue any instructions or the like to any offices in the SD.
Q Tell me how we are expected to know that you had no authority to issue orders? You designated yourself ass SS Obersturmbannfuehrer. You didn't say honorary. You did't say, "But I don't have authority to issue orders" How are we supposed to know that you didn't have that authority? What is there in the facts of your case which well help anyone to decide the question that you didn't have authority ti issue orders? Where is your SS personnel files, where else in the record or any whatever documents can you produce which would permit anyone to reach any other conclusion that you were an SS member the same as other SS members with an equivalent rank?
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. King, will you attempt to ask one question at a time please? That is a bad question.
BY MR. KING:
A The situation as I saw it was as follows: The SD Main Office appointed me. I believe there is no doubt about that because the document confirming my appointment is here. If the General SS had appointed me, the appointment would not have been carried out by the SD Main Office, but the Main Office-SS, and this did not happen. I was among the members of the SD who gave their full time to the SD. I believe there's no doubt about that here. The prosecution introduced the witness Elkar here. He was SD leader and gave his full time to that duty here in Nuernberg. Thus there remains the only the honorary assistant who had the right to wear a uniform and I believe that is what I was.
Q And that's how are supposed....
A (Interrupting), I cannot submit any document to prove this.
Q Were there any SS rules and regulations or did people decide for themselves whether they wanted to be full time active or part time honorary?
A I can't tell you that. I don't know any regulations to that effect.
Q We'll come back to this question again.
Can you tell me, within a matter of a month or two, when your liaison work with the Gestapo came to an end?
A Officially, that was never annulled but it came to an end by having Ministerial Counsel Franke appointed. I saw the document confirming his appointment for the first time here.
Q Well, all right, what day was that? I mean, what month? Do you know, approximately?
A No, but It's very easy to find out because there is an exhibit here about that which has been submitted. I believe it was July or August, 1943.
Q In other words, Franke was appointed about the time you were transferred to Hamm?
A. Yes, I believe so.
Q So you continued you liaison work up until you wore transferred to Hamm? That must have been so because you were the only one to do the job.
A No, that is not quite correct accuse I said that Theirack no longer used my services, in the document submitted by the prosecution - also, soon after Thierack assumed office - the RSHA appointed its own liaison leaders with the Ministry of Justice. This is the appointment of Sturmbannfuehrer Wanninger which was submitted here by the prosecution. I never met him.
Q Now, in Exhibit 510, which is NG 988, - now you referred to that yesterday - it is a distribution of work chart. You recall it? Page 29 in the English. I'm not sure of the page it's on in the German text. It shows that as of April, 1943, that you were still acting in your capacity as liaison officer with the SS, SD and the Gestapo. Now, I am to understand that you believe that Exhibit 510 does not portray the true state of facts at that time? April, 1943?
A That is listed in the work distribution plan. In spite of that, another document shows that already in December, 1942, Wanninger was appointed and I myself told you that Thierack did not tell me anything about these matters. This all happened without my knowledge and also, I believe, without the knowledge of the division chief who drew up this work distribution plan.
Q So that, to that extent, you think exhibit 510 is wrong?
A No, that is not what I am saying. I am only saying that I was no longer used for that service; that the opponent had appointed another one, and that apparently this person was in direct contact with Minister Thierack.
Q Take that one again.
So far as Exhibit 510 shows you as liaison nan with the SS, the SD and the Gestapo and the Ministry of Justice it is in error, is it not, according to your testimony?
A No, no that is not what I said. I said this listing of my name in the work distribution plan i correct, but already in December 1942, the RSHA had appointed another one. He was Wanninger and the prosecution submitted the document thou that effect too.
BY THE PRESIDENT: Q.X. Your point simply is this, that you were still officially the same as you had been, but another man was put in and from that time on you weren't required to perform so much duty of that kind?
A Yes, I was no longer used for that purpose.
BY MR. KING:
Q I wonder if we could discuss just briefly some of the underlying considerations on which your transfer to Hamm was based. Can you tell me what your civil service rank was in Berlin just prior to the time you were transferred to Hamm?
A I was ministerialrat ( ministerial council). In April, 1941, I had been promoted to ministerial council.
Q Yes, that I knew. I mean , your civil service numerial rating.
A That of ministerial council.
Q The rating which determined your salary?
A You want to know how much my salary was?
Q If you want to put it that way that will be all right.
A That's very difficult to say. I believe I received 12,000 marks. I don't remember exactly. That is apparent from the schedule of salaries.
Q Yes. I thought perhaps your membered the rating by which that schedule was determined. Now, when you went to Hamm, how much mere did you get?
A Now, I understand you. As ministerial council I received 12,000 marks as a salary. In addition, I received 1200 marks as a ministerial addition that was not subject to tax. That is, 100 marks per month. In Hamm I received 14,OOO marks and all of this was subject to tax and thus I assume, but don't know for sure, that at least I did not receive any more that in Berlin.
Q Yes, that is conceivable that your not wan't any more, but according to the salary schedules of the Central office, it was actually a promotion, was it not? You were getting some 2,000 marks more than you were getting in Berlin.
A Well, about that I have to say that a promotion from a financial point of view, is only a promotion if actually I have more money in my pocket and not if I don't have more money in my pocket. As far as the question of promotion is concerned I have to say the following. The Minister of Justice, if he wanted to get me out of the Ministry, the only thing that he could do was to make my senate president or general public prosecutor, because he had to offer me a position of equal importance. If he wanted to offer me a position that was not on the same level, then he had to institute a disciplinary proceeding against me and there was probably no cause and also no possibility to do so in my case.
Q Now, if the Minister really wanted to get rid of you in 1943 he didn't have to worry about a position of equal rank. He could merely cancelled your military exemption. You're not saying it was very difficult for Thierack to get on the telephone and say: "Cancel Joel's military exemption"? That wasn't difficult. In fact he did it later, didn't he?
A Yes.
Q Well, why didn't he do it in 1943?
A I can't tell you that. I wasn't on such good terms with Thierack that I would discuss such matters with him. He didn't tell me that.
Q But you don't seriously believe, do you, that he found it possible to find a way to get rid of you because here, available, was the very most simple way and he didn't resort to it.
A Yes. Certainly. Of course that would have been possible. AMinister could do all kinds of things.
Q Do you remember what Thierack said in his efficiency report concerning you which was drawn up on the 22nd of April, 1943, and circulated, among others, to those people: The Party Chancellery, the Chief of the Reich Chancellery, the Minister of the Interior, the Minister of Finance, and to a certain number of individuals of lesser importance?
A I'm not in a position to know that.
Q Did you ever see that?
A I never had an opportunity to see personnel files up to this very day.
Q Well, this will be know to you then. Here's what Thierack says, and it comes from your personnel files:
"During the years of his activity in the Reich Ministry of Justice he has given the best proof of himself and here, as well as in his capacity as chief of the Central Prosecution, he has shown his interest in and gifts for the profession and position of public prosecutor. His whole personality and achievements eminently qualify him for the position of attorney general at the Court of Appeals at Hamm, Westphalia. He gives the absolute guarantee that he will always, without any reservation,stand for the National Socilist State and effectively represent it."
New, Dr. Joel, may I ask you, does that sound like the recommendation of a man who is about to fire a subordinate because he doesn't like him?
DR. HAENSEL: An objection. Joel, the witness, just stated that up to this very hour he had seen the personnel files. The prosecutor is citing a long lengthy passage from these files. I, therefore, request to submit it to the witness because it is impossiblo for the witness to state his opinion - to confirm or deny- if he does not know the file at all. Therefore, it is evidence based on documents and. I request that the file be submitted to him.
THE PRESIDENT: Is the document in evidence?
MR. KING: The document is not in evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: I think you should showed it to him then.
MR. KING: We'll proceed to do that in a very few moments.
THE PRESIDENT: As to your last question, however which I assume counsel was objecting to, it calls for a conclusion of the witness which the Court can make just as well as the witness. I think it was unnecessary.
BY MR. KING:
Q Yes, I have here that efficiency report which bears the initials of the individuals to whom it was sent.
(The document is handed to the witness.)
A You want me to tell you about this?
Q No, I just want you to see it.
A Do you want me to make a comment on this?
Q No, the Court has ruled no comment will be necessary from you.
THE PRESIDENT: I ruled the Prosecution's question was improper because it called for a comment of the witness on a matter which the Court could make its own conclusions on.
MR. KING: When you have finished examining it, Dr. Joel, I would like to offer it in evidence.
We would like to have marked for identification the efficiency report of Thierack concerning the defendant Joel, dated 28 April 1943 and bearing the initials of Thierack and certain other officials of the Nazi Government.
THE WITNESS: May I say one sentence in comment?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
THE WITNESS: That is very short efficiency report - noticeably short. The first part describe me as an efficient prosecutor and nothing can be said against it. The second part states that in my responsible position I give a guarantee to represent the National Socialist state. That is almost the exact working of the German Civil Service law of 1937, by which for every Civil Service employee who assumes any position. Whatever it is required that the office where he is working confirms this or makes a statement to that effect.
THE PRESIDENT: You are offering it in evidence?
MR. KING: It will be exhibit No. 549. We are not as yet able to offer it as a document because it is not yet processed, we are merely asking it be marked for identification.
THE PRESIDENT: Let it be marked for identification.
BY MR. KING:
Q. Do you recall in 1944-- this morning you said 18 October -actually I believe the personnel record will show it was in December of 1944 when Thierack did request that your military exemption be cancelled; do you remember that?
A. I doubt if Thierack personally did that, I do not know, I received the information from a military office.
Q. Do you recall who interferred for you in Hamm in 1944 and had that recommendation set aside?
A. What do you mean by cancellation, I don't understand what you mean by "cancel".
Q. As I understand the situation, Thierack asked that your exemption be cancelled, that your exemption from military service be cancelled; now my question is do you recall who in Hamm acted to have the military exemption status kept on so that you would be available for your work in Hamm; do you recall who it was who intervened at that time?
A. I personally went to the chief of the Personnel department at Prenzlau, I believe that is where he was at the time - outside of Berlin and complained that I was not informed about the matter at all, that I was not asked to comment and did not have a hearing.
Q. You don't know the part that Gauleiter Hoffmann in Hamm played in having you continue on in Hamm?
A. About the cancellation of that exemption from military service, I informed the three Gauleiters that were included m the district of the District Court of Appeals Hamm: they were the Gauleiter for the Gaus Westphalia - North; Westphalia- South and Essen and whether among them was Gauleiter Hoffmann these Reich Defense communisioners got in touch with the ministry, I do not know.
Q Well, I have a letter here which I will show you in a moment. This is a letter, which Albert Hoffmann, the Gauleiter for Westphalia South wrote to Thierack when Thierack attempted to have your military exemption cancelled. Hoffmann says in part:
"Dr. Joel belongs to the Waffen SS and in the army he would only be employed by the SS for judicial service."
Then he goes on to say that for that reason he feels it would be unwise to have you transferred.
A Yes, this is the letter from the Gauleiter of WestpahaliaSouth, signed Albert Hoffmann, 9 January 1945. That I was not a member of the Waffen SS is apparent from my military pass, which I have among papers here in jail. If I would have been drafted I would perhaps have been assigned to the Waffen SS, that is something I could not decide myself.
If Hoffmann wanted me to remain in office, --- perhaps he liked me, I don't know. He wrote this letter to the Minister.
Q So you think the political boss of the Westphalia - South Gau, when he referred to you as a Waffen SS member, he was misinformed; do you believe that?
A Yes, I believe that, certainly, because I was not called up at all.
Q You were not called up because you were believed to be indispensable for the Reich Ministry of Justice; weren't you?
A I was declared essential for the Reich Ministry of Justice, yes.
Q And that is why you were not called up; isn't it?
A Yes, I suppose, but I am not in a position to know that.
Q Well, I will tell you what the Reich Ministry of Justice said when they wanted to exempt you and if you want to see it, then I can show you.
He says: "Joel is indispensable and irreplaceable for carrying rut the tasks assigned to the Reich Ministry of Justice on the sphere of penal laws, which are important for the war effort and necessary in the interests of the defense of the Reich." Now, on the basis of that, it is conceivable to you, isn't it, that you were not called up for SS service?
A Well, all officials who were subject to draft, were declared essential in the Ministry of Justice, if the Ministry of Justice wanted to retain them. I believe that the same procedure is followed all over the world.
Q We would like to have marked for identification a letter dated 9 January 1945, addressed to Reich Minister Thierack and signed by albert Hoffmann, all on die letterhead of the Gauleiter for the Gau Westphalen - South.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be marked for identification as Exhibit 550 - Prosecution Exhibit 550.
BY MR. KING:
Q It will be submitted as an exhibit as soon as the processing can be done.
We have heard something about Hugo Suchemel in this case so far; would you explain briefly pew long Suchemel was your superior?
A He was my superior as long as he was in department III, he was also ministerial Dirigent or department chief. He the same as all Ministerial Dirigents was my superior.
Q When did he cease to become your superior?
AAfter I left the Ministry of Justice.
Q Until the time you left the ministry of Justice on 14 or 15 August at noon he was your superior; is that right?
A There were three Ministerial Dirigents and all of them were my superiors, that can be seen from the organization of the department. The Ministerial Dirigent has a higher position than the ministerial Councillor.
Q. Dr. Joel, I would like to show you a statement by Dr. Suchomel. This bears the identifying numbers of NG-10064 I would like to have you look at the second paragraph in that statement Dr. Joel.
A. Yes, I have seen it.
C. With your indulgence, may I read it, Dr. Suchomel says; "My attention was drawn to the fact that the sentences in the district of the court of appeals of Hamm were extraordinarily mild. It was said at the time that the Catholic districts were lagging especially much behind the so-called Reich average. That was correct. I am mentioning this because Dr. Joel was mentioned in my last affidavit. Dr. Joel was appointed Generalstaatsanwalt in Hamm in August, 1943. My explanation for this move was at that time that he was a man representing the severe line was sent to Hamm to adapt the administration of justice within the district of the court of appeal Hamm, which up to then was considered too mild, to the general line desired by the Ministry of Justice."
A. Am I supposed to comment on that?
Q. You may if you wish.
A. My predecessor in Homm was a lawyer who wore the Golden Party Badge. I don't believe that he lacked the necessary severity there. In April, 1943 Thierack had appointed him president of the district court of appeals and then I was transferred to Hamm. Until I arrived there, a public prosecutor there had worked as my deputy. During my term in office in Hamm, I did not issue one single instruction to my subordinate public prosecutors that they should raise the application for penalties which they intended to make. That Sachomel knows from his office in Berlin --- and apparently he knows something about everything here -- I can't say anything about that.
MR. KING: The Prosecution offers the Document NG-1006 as Prosecution' s Exhibit 551.
THE PRESIDENT: It is received as part of the cross examination.
Did you hear me? I said it is received as part of the cross examination.
BY MR. KING:
Q. This morning you testified about the matter of the defendant Rothenberger's wardrobes; the investigation you made. Can you tell me approximately when that investigation was made?
A. This investigation concerning the making of this furniture?
Q. Yes, that is it.
A. I cannot remember with certainty when that was. I believe it was in the spring of 1943;at least I believe so.
Q. And you said that it was a task which Thierack considered somewhat delicate; did you not?
A. That was not a delicate task; it was a task just as any other task.What was in the denunciation would have been true , it would have been a violation against the war economy. Thousands of such cases occurred, and, therefore, one cannot say it was a delicate matter.
Q. It was a matter which came up in the ordinary course of business ---just one of thousands.
A. Yes.
Q. No special significance attached to it?
A. No.
Q. You said in your direct examination that you never did any work for the SS or the SD; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you tell us why, that being true, that the SD was first to ask for and receive an exemption for you from the military service?
A. Yes. I have already read that in the personnel files. Until today I did not know. I can only explain that as follows: Namely, that at the beginning of the war it was apparently provided that members of the SS or SD should not be drafted into the Wehrmache , but into the Waffen SS.
Q. And aside from that, though, you know nothing more about that incident.
I mean the intervention of the SD with the military.
A. I saw the correspondence with Freisler here; before that I did not know it.
Q. While you were in Hamm, Dr. Joel, in addition to the fourteen thousand dollars --- fourteen thousand marks salary, what special expenses did you get. There was a special expense account for persons holding your position. Do you recall approximately what that was?
A. I believe I got an expense account of six hundred marks.
Q. Six hundred marks a month ?
A. No, not a month -- a year.
Q. And that is compared with a much higher expense account which you received in your former job in Berlin.
A. That cannot be compared with the expense account in Berlin. I received as my personal expenses an amount to one hundred marks a month, and the six hundred marks about which you are speaking which I received in Hamm, that and some marks more, I used in one single evening because I had invited everybody in my office to a party on one evening, and that was a purpose of that money.
Q. You referred yesterday, Dr. Joel, to a letter dated the 14th of May, 1935. It is your Exhibit 11; your Document No. 8.
A. Yes.
Q. You recall that letter ?
A. Yes.
Q. I understood you correctly, did I not, that you were one of the two or three investigators who helped the minister compose that letter.
A. Yes.
Q. The principal purpose of that letter was to point out certain abuses that went on in concentration camps in Kemna, Stettin and Hohenstein.
A. Yes.
Q. Now, can you tell me how the information which was reported in that letter was gathered? Did the investigators , such as yourself, go to these places and determine the facts on their own observations?
A. Personally I went to Eaterwagen, Bredow, Kemna, and I did not go to the camps themselves, but I carried on the investigations in the manner in which a prosecutor usually carried out investigations; and these investigations I used as a basis of the report to the Minister Guertner; and Minister Guertner added them to his representations at the highest Reich offices. And, finally he addressed this letter of protest to Minister Frick.
Q. Whose duty was it to punish the offenders who had caused these abuses in the concentration camps. Was it the duty of the local prosecutors; was it the duty of the central prosecuting office in Berlin?
A. That was under the competence of the local prosecutor's office.
Q. And when the local prosecuting offices failed, then the central prosecuting office, of which you were a member, in Berlin stepped in to do the job which they failed to do; is that right?
A. We were there for the purpose of supporting the local prosecutions on orders of the Minister. We did not have our own machine . After all, there were only two prosecutors, and two associates in our office.
Q. Yes. Now, in cooperating with the local prosecutors, do you consider it likely that the local prosecutor and is superiors knew about the facts which made up the charges against the men who ran these concentration camps?
A. The complaint reasons, the local prosecutor offices were cooperating that they also could form a picture of the situation.
Q. Right; that follows. Now, how about their superiors; how about the local prosecutor's superiors; would you expect that they would know about this?
A.. The superiors of the local public prosecutions, that is the senior public prosecutor.
Q. And all of the public prosecutors would know about it.
A. I assume so that they had knowledge of it because the local senior public prosecutor and the competent general public prosecutor would consult together with them.
Q. In any given case, how about it, the president of the court system; would he be likely to know about it?
A. I don't know. In my activity I never spoke to judges; we avoided that -- speaking to judges.
Q. Now, tell me again, why didn't you send a representative to Hamburg to look into the abuses of the concentration camps there?
A. I did, first of all, not find out anything about Hamburg.
Q. You mentioned it in your report.
A. Yes. It says Hamburg, there; it is in Prussian territory, where there was a camp near Wilhelmsburg; it entered the administration of the Purssian administration only in 1935. In 1934 only the Prussian and Reich Ministry of Justice became part of the Reich. Hamburg and Wilhelmsburg remained.
THE PRESIDENT: We will recess until 1:30 this afternoon.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours, 6 August 1947).
AFTERNOON SESSION (The Tribunal re-convened, at 1330 hours 6 August 1947)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court room will please find their seats. There will be order in the court room.
The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: We have a few matters to dispose of before proceeding further with the examination.
It will be the order of the Court as to the case of each defendant that counsel for the respective defendants submit to the Court in writing a brieg statement showing the total number of document books which they propose to introduce and the numbering which will be assigned to the several books, as for instance Book I, Book II, Book 1-A, or whatever other numbering device is adopted, the memorandum also to contain the total number of the books which have been submitted to the defense center for translation and preparation with the appropriate assigned numbers of each such book and the date on which each such book was submitted for translation and preparation if that has been done; and, thirdly, a statement of the total number of document books which have been received and are ready for use in and before the Tribunal, together with the assigned numbers of such books. This information will be of exceedingly great benefit and convenience to the Tribunal. I should like to have it by tomorrow at four-thirty or at the latest Friday morning.
We also have before us a petition by the respondent, Karin Huppertz, which appears to request a postponement, of the punishment for a probartion period and also apparently a pardon. The Tribunal has considered the natters set forth in the petition. We find nothing therein which we have cot given careful consideration to before the judgment of the Tribunal was pronounced. Therefore, there is no occasion for hearing further argument upon the matters which have been fully determined. The motion is denied in full.
Mr. Lafollette.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Yes
THE PRESIDENT: In view of the fact that the transcript will not be in the bands of defense counsel for a day or two at least, I wonder if it would be possible for your office to prepare a brief memorandum such as the one which I have just read with reference to the report which we have required of defense counsel so that it night be give, to defense counsel today?
MR LAFOLLETTE: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: So that they may see just what we have asked for.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I will prepare them and bring them into court, I will bring them into the court room before Court closes today so that they may go to the defense information center.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much Are there any document books which are available for use today as to the cases of defendants who have already testified. I understand there are some.
MR. SCHILF: For the defendant, Klemm.
May it please the Tribunal, I have just made an inquiry for the document books concerning the case of Klemm and was told that this afternoon I would receive some document books. I have received some this morning. I was also told that document book No. 6 for Klemm, which I submitted for translation on the 3rd of July has not yet been delivered by the translation department. Therefore, I am confronted with the problem now to submit tomorrow, if the Court approves, my document books with the exception of document book No. 6, which as I have said hasn't yet been translated, or the translation of which has not yet been finished, and, therefore, if the Tribunal does not want to have these books submitted all at one time I could submit tomorrow those which are ready.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Your Honor, please, I don't know how many hooks there are for the defendant Klemm. The Prosecution has received Books 1, 2, and 3, and we have had those for about a week.
We also have received 1, 2-A, 3-A, and 4-C of the defendant Lautz. I believe that 1, 2-A and 3-A have already been introduced and also that 4-C has been distributed to us. If I might inquire of Dr. Schilf how many books are there for the Defendant Klemm, how many books do you have - nine? And of that number all of them we understand are available except book 6.
DR. SCHILF: Yes.
LAFOLLETTE: I will try to get the defense center to get some to me but we may proceed with what I have and I am sure we can waive the 24 hour ruling on it tomorrow.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand that Lautz 4-A is ready. The Secretary General has five copies.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: They have been distributed to the Prosecution. We have it.
THE PRESIDENT: Do I recollect correctly that there was one more book for the defendant Schlegelberger? Was there to be one more book for him?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: A supplementary book which I shall submit.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it ready?
DR. KUBOSCHOK: No, it isn't.
TEE PRESIDENT: Is there a document book for the defendant Mettgenber.
DR. SCHILF: No.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the status with reference to the document books for the defendant Rothenberg?
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Mr. President, yesterday I made inquiry about them and the answer I received was that the English copies of the four main volumes with the exception of one volume are supposed to be ready. The German copies, however, are not ready, but are expected to be ready by the end of this week, so that I could begin submitting the four volumes in German and the English which would be completed by the beginning of next week, that is just if after Dr. Schilf has finished his submission of evidence. I am not sure about that and then I have a supplemental volume which is still in the translation department and which will onlycome into the mimeograph department by the end of the week.