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.
Therefore, I will have to ask permission of the Court to finish that supplementary volume later, so that before that I can submit my other four volumes, that is at the end of the week these volumes will be ready and I may then submit my four volumes.
THE PRESIDENT: These inquiries are only partial for the moment and we will hope to receive a brief written statistical statement from each defendant, as indicated in my previous order, in the previous order of the Tribunal.
Court No. III, Case No. III.
Do you wish to proceed first this afternoon with the exhibits which have been offered in behalf of the defendant Joel? Or what is your pleasure in that matter?
MR. KING: It is quite immaterial, Your Honor, with me. However, it might be well, since we did interrupt the cross-examination and it will probably take ten or fifteen minutes to proceed with the crossexamination, when it is finished, when the defendant Joel is excused, to then proceed with the discussion of these books. If the Court has no choice in the matter, I think that would be preferable to us.
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
DR. HAENSEL: May I make just one remark? I have called a witness, Otto Lenz. Lenz is a very bury man who has just come from Berlin, and he is supposed to proceed to Frankfurt tomorrow to the Economic Council. I should like to ask, since my examination of this witness will not take very long, that if possible the question of the exhibits should be discussed after the examination of Lenz. I believe that it doesn't really make any difference for all of us, and we could let the witness go.
THE PRESIDENT: No objection to that? Is there any objection to that?
MR. KING: No objection to that, Your Honor.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: May Your Honor please, I have one more thing.
It has been called to my attention, with reference to the condition in the translation room, that not a single document has been allocated to approximately one dozen translators who are sitting in room 77. This constitutes an entire translation section which is idle, apparently due to poor allocation fo work in the Language Division. I call the attention of the Tribunal to that, with the request that something be done to nut these people to work in view of the condition in this courtroom.
THE PRESIDENT: Furnish us a memorandum of the information which you have just given verbally.
DR. LA FOLLETTE: I will furnish it now, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
DR. DOESSL (Counsel for the defendant Rothaug): Your Honor-
THE PRESIDENT: Have you been informed of the ruling which we made this morning? Have you been informed of the ruling?
DR. KOESSL: Yes I was very grateful for it, and I should like to ask permission to put the question before the Tribunal as to whether the witnesses which I have called for tomorrow can be examined by me tomorrow or whether it is the decision of Tribunal that the entire case of Rothaug only has to begin on Monday. The idea to hear the witnesses tomorrow was just a suggestion that I made ou of the opportunity which offered itself.
THE PRESIDENT: We have assumed that counsel was very anxious to have the time between now and Monday in the preparation of the examination of the defendant Rothaug, and we do not desire, as I said this morning, any further continuances for that defendant. You may start your entire case on Monday.
DR. KOESSL: Thank you very much indeed.
GUENTHER JOEL (Resumed) CROSS-EXAMINATION (Continued) BY MR. KING:
Q Your answer to the question I asked just before the luncheon recess was interrupted. Would you mind repeating your answer as to why investigators did not go to Hamburg to investigate the abuses in concentration camps there?
AAs far as I know, that Reich Minister of Justice, during those years in question, did not receive any reports from Hamburg. That goes for the year1933-1934. Later, when the Administration of Justice of the Reich also tool over the Administration of Justice in the Ciry of Hamburg, I no longer heard that there was a concentration Camp in Hamburg.
Q When did that occur? When did the Reich Ministry of Justice to over the Hamburg courts, the system there?
AAs far as I know, that occurred all over the Reich on the 1st of April,1935.
Q Your letter was written on the 14th of May, 1935?
A Yes.
Q Now, the concentration camp matter which you referred to there did those abuses occur prior to April 1st, is that your point?
A Yes, and that refers particularly to a camp which was near Hamburg, but in Prussian territory; that is to say in a territory which belinged to the Land Prussia.
Q Do you recall the name of that camp?
A I relieve it did not have a name, it was a so-called wild concentration camp which, after Hitler came into power, had been established similarly to Kemna and Bredow. It was a camp which was really established first in the Dlbe Valley. For example, the names "Kemna" and "Bredow" emanated from us. Bredow, the camp at Stettin, was as far as I remember, the name of the district of the city where the Vulkan Works were. That explains the name of Bredow. Kemna was also a well known factory in Wuppertal. I believe the district of the city had that name, and that was a camp on the Elbe.
Q What did you mean this morning when you said that it was never necessary to go to Hamburg because the Justice officials there were able to tale care of these thing themselves? What did you mean by that?
AAs for assignments which I received from the Reich Minister of Justice, they were to effect to support the local prosecutions of they encountered difficulties with offices of the Party. In cases of that king I just went to the offices which caused these difficulties, personally, and tried to convince these offices that it was necessary to carry out penal proceedings. If I had not received ay assignment of that kind to go to Hamburg, then I would have had to assume that the local officials--if any difficulties presented themselves-- were in a position to straighten them out personally in the interest of the Administration of Justice.
Q Such as the Public Prosecutor in Hamburg?
A If it was a matter of carrying out invertigations in criminal proceedings, it was a matter for the Public Prosecutor.
Q Dr. Joel, how do you define a Polish national, after 1 September, 1939?
A A Polish national, after the 1st of September, 1939, is exactly t the same as a Polish national before the 1st of September 1939.
Q Not Germans then?
A A Polish national is never a German.
Q Do you recall Exhibit 356, in which you review the death sentences of persons from the Occupies Eastern Territories?
A Yes.
Q Can you tell me how you can say that persons from the Occupied. Eastern Territories are not Polish but German? Would you explain that?
A The decisions in clemency matters, as far as Poles and Jews were concerned, were put into the hands of the Reichsstathalter on order of Hiler.
Q Excuse me, Fr. Joel; I meant to refer to Exhibit 280. The decree which you have just mentioned is Exhibeit 356. I am sorry; go ahead.
AAnd in the incorporated Eastern Territories, as we have heard, since for 150 year these provicnes were under Prussian or German Rule until 1918, there were many Germans. To that was added the fact that aft after the termination of the Polish campaign, numerous Germans had gone there. Therefore, in the cases of these individuals, we had to do with Germans.
Q You don't mean to imply, do you, that all of these clemency pleas which you passed on related to Germans who had gone to Poland immediatelu before or during the war and were sentenced prior to the time that you passed on their clemency matters? You don't mean that, do you?
A No, no. I said that these had to be added. In most cases they were Germans who, according to the Versailles Treaty of 1918, had been forced to become Poles and who after that part of Poland, had again become a German provine as it was before, were Germans again.
Q Let me ask you, Dr. Joel, what was the nationality of these people between the end of the first World War and up ;to the end of the Polish campaign in 1939? They were Polish nationals then, weren't they, for a period of 21 years?
A I could not say that with precision. Some of them remained Germans. Others became Polish nationals if they considered it opportune.
Q And once having become Polish nationals in that period, is it your theory that as soon as Germany conquered Poland they, ipso facto, became German nationals as a result of that conquest?
A I am not of that opinion; but they became Germans again by their own choice after Poland had been conquered and after the treaty between Germany and Russia of September, 1939, had been concluded, which regulated these matters.
Q How did they become Germans? Did they go through the official form of changing their citizenship or did they become Germans because it was politicially the thing to do by simply saying: they were Germans?
AAbout that I cannot make ay precise statements because that was a matter of the administrative agencies; but as far as I know, an arrangement was made according to which everyone had the possibility to request German citizenship.
Q When did you request German citizenship, as you were about to review their clemency matters?
THE PRESIDENT: You mean when did they request it?
MR. KING: Well, I understood the witness to say that he had the opportunity to request.
THE PRESIDENT: That is incorrect.
MR. KING: I am sorry.
BY MR. KING:
Q Now, it was of some concern to you, was it not, when you were passing on their clemency matters, to know whether or not they were Polish citizens? That is right, isn't it?
A No; I did not worry about that because, as far as I was concerned, they were Germans. Otherwise I wouldn't have had to handle these cases.
Q Just one more question. How did you know they were Germans? Who told you they were?
A From the court files and the reports which the senior prosecutors submitted, one could not see that they were foreigners. In addition to that, I knew of the decree by the Fuehrer according to which the Ministry of Justice, in handling clemeney matters, was no longer competent to handle clemency matters concerning Poles or Jews.
Q. Dr. Joel, I am at the moment looking at page 2 of the Document 698 which is Exhibit 280, and there I find a list of individuals whose death sentences you were reviewing. Now, in that list there are eight names. I am just picking these at random. Of the eight names five of them end in "ski". Do you think that is a very common ending for a good old German name?
A. I have had the experience that names ending with "ski" all the way from Breslau to Berlin were quite a common occurrence.
Q. That is, you could review names like that day after day and have no doubts in your mind that they were not pure Germans or at least of German nationality?
A. No, I had no doubts because there was always the possibility to obtain German citizenship if he had lived in that country during the time when it was still a province of Prussia.
Q. Were you finished, Dr. Joel? And in addition to that you relied on the decree, which is Exhibit 356, which said that the Ministry of Justice had no jurisdiction over Poles and Jews?
A. Yes. Other cases were not even submitted to the Ministry of Justice.
Q. All right. Can you tell me, how far it is from Hamm to Essen by the shortest good road?
A. On the shortest and best road from Hamm to Essen, about 100 kilometers.
Q. Is it that far? If it is 27 kilometers from Duesseldorf to Essen how far is it from Dusseldorf to Harm?
A. Is it just as far from Duesseldorf to Essen as it is from Duesseldorf to Hamm?
Q. No; I asked you how far it was from Duesseldorf to Hamm.
A. A little more.
Q. So it isn't quite a hundred kilometers then from Essen to Hamm. You really were not concerned, were you, with that extra distance in the transportation of NN Prisoners from Bergium? I mean, the added distance from Essen to Hamm is not sufficiently great to give you great concern, is it?
A. The transportation of NN prisoners from Essen to Hamm? I don't get it.
Q. No, no. You testified this morning that after a certain point the NN prisoners from Belgium were not transported to Hamm but, rather, were transported to Essen because it was the desire to eliminate long distance travel on the part of the authorities who had their custody and who were responsible for their prosecution.
My question is simply this: The distance between Hamm and Essen was not sufficiently great to cause any great problem, was it?
A. I believe you have misunderstood me.
Q. Will you straighten me out on that then?
A. I discussed the document which I believe refers to the presence of Dr. Mettgenberg on the 5 November 1943 in Hamm. In the course of that conference the question was raised whether the handling of NN cases should be transferred from Essen to Oppeln on account of the threat by the enemy in the West and in connection with that I said that according to the arrangement I had made with the competent Advocate General of the armed forces, that the armed forces were not interested in transporting the NN prisoners any further away from their homeland.
And I believe that there is a great difference whether one transports them in about five or six hours from Brussels to Essen or over two days across Germany to Oppeln.
That was what I referred to in discussing the distance. There weren't any NN prisoners in Hamm because Hamm has no district court. There is only a district court of appeals there and the usual small local court.
Q. When did the NN cases no longer come under your jurisdiction in Hamm? In other words, I will state it more simply: When did you try your last NN case while you were prosecutor at Hamm?
A. I never tried an NN case. I was general public prosecutor in Hamm. nor did the senior prosecutor at Essen ever try an NN case. But the NN cases that were pending there, they were handled by prosecutors and then they were tried and sentenced before the court in Essen. I never even attended a trial of that kind in Essen.
THE PRESIDENT: Just answer the question as to when the last trial of NN was held in your district regardless of whether you were there or not.
THE WITNESS: Mr. President, I can only assume. On the 15 of March, 1944, the first trials started at Oppeln. Before that date all the files, all the records, the prosecutors who were familiar with the matter and several judges were transferred from Essen to Oppeln.
THE PRESIDENT: I am trying to understand your testimony. Do you mean that you don't know when, in your district, the last persons who had been brought into Germany under the NN procedure were tried?
THE WITNESS: I could not tell you the date of the last trial.
THE PRESIDENT: Can you give us an approximation according to your best recollection?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you do that?
THE WITNESS: First of March 1944.
THE PRESIDENT: Than you.
BY MR. KING:
Q. Taking your last statement in the way that you gave it, what was the relationship between you, as chief prosecutor in Hamm, and the people who actually tried the NN Cases?
A. They were the same relations as existed in other proceedings between the general public prosecutor and the public prosecutor, with the one exception that in normal penal cases the general public prosecutor could give certain directions or instructions, concerning the way these cases were handled; but that in NN cases, according to the decree of the 6 February, 1942, they were bandied in such a way that the indictment and other matters had to be submitted to the Minister of Justice and Ms approval had to be obtained.
Q. But you could and did attempt to indicate to the Minister of Justice what the procedure should be, did you not?