THE PRESIDENT: It has been distributed in English to the Bench, has it?
MR. KING: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. KING: May I inquire of the Bench if my any chance they have their English copies of the document NG-2410, Exhibit 596, before them? There are certain corrections in signatures that appear throughout that document that I would like to make. If the Bench does not have them now, perhaps at the beginning of the next session I could take just a minute to make those corrections.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, it would be better to do it then; we haven't the exhibits now?
MR. KING: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: That is exhibit what?
MR. KING: That is Exhibit 596, NG-2410, and in connection with that exhibit I am under the impression that that document has been offered. However, even at the risk of repetition, may I offer it again now that the German copies have been made available and distributed to the defense counsel? I have the original here which I will now pass up to the representative of the Secretary General.
THE PRESIDENT: No. 596 is the Jansen case, and it has been received.
MR. KING: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: It is received.
The Secretary General has supplement II of Cuhorst documents, I understand.
THE SECRETARY GENERAL: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Have we received the English of 596?
MR. KING: Yes, yes you have.
Since distribution was originally made of NG-2245, which was Exhibit 635, we have secured, for the convenience of the Bench, two photostatic copies, and we would like to hand them up now.
THE PRESIDENT: We understand that Cuhorst documents are available for introduction. Dr. Brieger is absent.
What is all you have, Mr. Secretary?
THE SECRETARY GENERAL: Yes, Sir.
THE PRESIDENT: I think it is unnecessary to say that if there are any documents which are available for introduction they are to be introduced and counsel are responsible for getting them in. If they are available now and not offered either today or tomorrow, I think it would be entirely improper and unnecessary for us to receive them on the 13th of October. If you have got them, they must go in now. If you have a good excuse for not presenting them now, then they may come in on the morning of the argument; but if there is an unnecessary delay, it will be penalized by the rejection of the document.
DR. KOESSL (Counsel for the defendant Rothaug): May it please the Tribunal, I have my last two document books here, but I was told at the Defense Center that the English copies had to be returned yesterday because there were some pages missing. If the Tribunal agrees, I can offer these documents now for identification.
THE PRESIDENT: I think that is advisable. If there are certain pages that need to be added, that can be done as soon as they are available; but you may proceed with what you have, and any necessary corrections can be made later.
DR. KOESSL: I have nothing to add, but it is the English copies that have some defects. I don't know, either, whether the Secretary General has Rothaug document Books VIII and XI.
THE SECRETARY GENERAL: No.
DR. KOESSL: With the agreement of the Tribunal, I will now offer these documents for identification only.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. KOESSL: I can submit, finally, Rothaug Exhibit 202, for which the Exhibit No. 200 has already been reserved. This is part of Rothaug document book No. VII.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, we will take care of it.
The exhibit number first, please?
DR. KOESSL: Exhibit No. 200.
THE PRESIDENT: The document number?
DR. KOESSL: The document number is 202; the document book is VII.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
Have we received the English copies on that?
DR. KOESSL: Yes, the English copies have been submitted. Yes, the Tribunal has already received the English copies.
Document book VIII contains only three documents. They are documents 211, 212 and 213.
THE PRESIDENT: You want to identify document 211 as Exhibit 211, is that correct?
DR. KOESSL: As Exhibit 212, Your Honor, because the last exhibit number was Exhibit 211, in document book IX.
I offer these three documents, 211, 212 and 213, as Exhibits 212, 213 and 214.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 212 is document 211 in Rothaug book No. VIII?
DR. KOESSL: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 213 is Rothaug Document 212, in Rothaug book VIII; exhibit 214 is document Rothaug 213, in document book VIII?
DR. KOESSL: That is correct.
THE PRESIDENT: They will be identified. Let the exhibits me marked for identification.
DR. KOESSL: From document book No. IX, I offer Rothaug documents No. 167 and No. 167-A, as Exhibit 215.
THE PRESIDENT: You are offering them as one exhibit? One exhibit?
DR. KOESSL: Yes, as one exhibit.
JUDGE HARDING: What are the document numbers?
DR. KOESSL: Documents 167 and 167-A.
THE PRESIDENT: They will be marked for identification, exhibit 215.
DR. KOESSL: Document 214 -
THE PRESIDENT: By the way, those exhibits are in your book XI?
DR. KOESSL: Yes, they are all in my document book XI.
THE PRESIDENT: All right. They will be marked for identification.
DR. KOESSL: I offer document No. 214 as Exhibit 216.
THE PRESIDENT: Let it be marked for identification. Book XI?
DR. KOESSL: Yes, yes, it is book XI.
May it please the Court the prosecution has made an objection concerning Exhibit 216, which is document 214. I withdraw this document.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, the exhibit is withdrawn.
DR. KOESSL: Withdrawn, yes.
Rothaug document 168, with the subdivisions Roman I through Roman VI-A, I offer as Exhibit 216. In other words, this document will get the exhibit number which I have just withdrawn.
THE PRESIDENT: That is in Book 11, is it?
DR. KOESSL: All these documents which I am about to introduce now, or which I have introduced, are in Book 11.
THE PRESIDENT: 216 will be marked for identification.
DR. KOESSL: Rothaug Document 166, I offer as Exhibit 217.
THE PRESIDENT: It is a document for identification, 217.
DR. KOESSL: Rothaug Document 203, I offer as Exhibit 218.
THE PRESIDENT: We assume, unless otherwise advised, that you are offering these only for identification at the time. It will be marked for identification.
DR. KOESSL: Yes, for identification.
Rothaug Document 234, I offer as Rothaug Exhibit 219.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be marked for identification.
DR. KOESSL: Rothaug Document 231, I offer as Exhibit 220.
THE PRESIDENT: Let it be marked for identification, Exhibit 220.
DR. KOESSL: Rothaug Document 235 I ask to be identified as Exhibit 221.
THE PRESIDENT: Let it be marked for identification 221.
DR. KOESSL: Rothaug Document 233 I offer for identification as Exhibit 222.
THE PRESIDENT: Let it be marked for identification, 222.
DR. KOESSL: Rothaug Document No. 232, I offer for identification as Exhibit 223.
THE PRESIDENT: Let is be marked for identification, 223.
DR. KOESSL: All the documents which I had available I have now submitted to the Tribunal from Document Books VIII and XI, and I have offered them for identification. When submitting my Document Book I-B, incomplete copies were handed to the Bench. I am not sure whether, since, perfect copies have been submitted - and as a matter of precaution I have brought along today three perfect copies of the Document Book Rothaug I-B. I shall be glad to make them available to the Bench.
THE PRESIDENT: We will receive them.
DR. ALTSTOETTER (For the defendant Cuhorst): Dr. Brieger has given me Document 59? Exhibit 21. This is an affidavit by Frau Magarete Scholl. As far as I know an objection was made on account of the version of the affidavit, but the matter has now been put right.
Document No. 129 -- I think the Exhibit number must be 127.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you give us again the first document to which you referred? These are Cuhorst documents; - and what was the first one you mentioned?
DR. ALTSTOETTER: Just a moment, please. What was Document No. 59? Exhibit 21. This is an affidavit of Frau Magarete Scholl.
THE PRESIDENT: That was offered before, and there was an objection--
DR. ALTSTOETTER: Yes, it was objected to because the introductory paragraph was not in order and because it was the husband of Frau Magarete Scholl - it was he who certified the affidavit, and he as husband should not have done so. The text itself has not been challe***
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment. We will mark it down. Exhibit 21 is received.
DR. ALTSTOETTER: As Document No. 129, Exhibit No. 127, I offer extracts from the "LeMonde", the French newspaper, which deals with the judiciary and the future constitution.
THE PRESIDENT: That document has not been offered before, has it?
DR. ALTSTOETTER: No, no. That has not been offered before.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit number what?
DR. ALTSTOETTER: 127 should be the next number; according to my notes, 126 was the last one - the previous one.
THE PRESIDENT: 126 was the last? I have 124.
DR. ALTSTOETTER: According to my notes 124. was Document 127, Exhibit 125, Document 124. But apparently there has been some mistake with the figures, the numbers.
THE PRESIDENT: Two more exhibits were received.
This is properly marked Exhibit 127. We had 126 before. And the document number?
DR. ALTSTOETTER: 129.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that in any book?
DR. BRIEGER: Yes, your Honors, it is in the second supplement volume. I can tell you properly now. It is contained in the supplement volume for Exhibit Document Book III. Pages 1 through 4.
THE PRESIDENT: I still don't understand. I am sorry. You said supplement II. And now you say what?
DR. ALTSTOETTER: It is not in Supplement. Volume II. I am talking of Document Book III.
THE PRESIDENT: Document Book III?
DR. ALTSTOETTER: Yes, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The Exhibit is received.
DR. ALTSTOETTER: Document 130, Exhibit No. 128. This is an extract from the Stuttgart newspaper, "Stuttparter Zeitung". The article is called, "Criminality has arisen three-fold."
THE PRESIDENT: In what document book is it?
DR. ALTSTOETTER: Document Book III, pages 3 and 6. It comes after the other document.
THE PRESIDENT: It is received.
DR. ALTSTOETTER: Document No. 131, Exhibit No. 129, extracts from "Stuttgart Zeitung" headed "The Death Penalty for Railway Thieves". It was also contained in Document Book 3 and it appears on page 7.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. ALTSTOETTER: Document 132, Exhibit 130, extracts from "Stuttgart Zeitung" headed "The Workers Warn You".
THE PRESIDENT: Book 3?
DR. ALTSTOETTER: Yes, Book 3, page 8.
THE PRESIDENT: Are these exhibits -- are these exhibits in Book 3 which we have already received?
DR. BRIEGER: May I continue now because after all I am rather better informed. Namely, in Document Book 3, but in the document book which I think was submitted to the Tribunal yesterday, or perhaps it ** only today. That was the difficulty with which I have been fighting the last few days.
THE PRESIDENT: We are not expecting any explanations about your difficulties; we know about them. I have no book before me today which shows these numbers. Where are the English versions of Documents 129 to 132?
DR. BRIEGER: I asked the Defense Information this morning again whether the English version of this text is ready and I was told not, and that was the reason that after today I wasn't ready to submit those documents to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: You can revoke the order receiving them and have them marked for identification.
THE SECRETARY GENERAL: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibits are not here in the English version. The orders receiving them in evidence are in each case as to Exhibit 127 to 130 inclusive rescinded and those documents will be marked for identification only. They will be received when we receive the English copies.
DR. BRIEGER: Document 127 through Document 130 - that is the documents you are referring to, Your Honor?
THE PRESIDENT: That is what we stated.
DR. BRIEGER: All right.
THE PRESIDENT: Marked for identification. And now when we receive them will they be in a document book which will be marked Document Book 3? We were informed a moment ago that they were in Document Book 3.
DR. BRIEGER: No, it will be a supplemental volume, supplementing Document Book 3.
THE PRESIDENT: We will make the correction.
DR. BRIEGER: Now, I am going to submit to the Tribunal Cuhorst Document No. 134. The exhibit number being 131. I assume that the Tribunal has before it a supplement for Document Book 2, is that so? This supplement--
THE PRESIDENT: That is correct.
DR. BRIEGER: This supplement should contain Documents 134 through 136, and I attach particular importance to this affidavit, and I will refer to the Raeder affidavit which has already been offered. I am referring you to the exhibit number. I am anxious to avoid a misunderstanding arising in connection with the Petra case, and that might have happened quite easily if we had only had the previous affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 131 in Document 134, Cuhorst Supplement Book 2, is received in evidence.
DR. BRIEGER: As Cuhorst Document 135 with Exhibit No. 132, I offer the affidavit by Dinkelacker, deposed on the 13th of September 1947. This affidavit had been offered once before; the prosecution made an objection and I have since put it right.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. BRIEGER: As Cuhorst Exhibit 133 I offer Cuhorst Document 136, an affidavit by Helmut Baumert, dated the 12th of September 1947. This document, too, was offered to the Tribunal once before. In view of an objection made by the prosecution, I had to withdraw it because the preamble was not in the proper form.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received, Exhibit 133.
DR. BRIEGER: I have come to the end for today. These are all the documents which I have. I would ask the Tribunal to accept my apologies for not having appeared here sooner today. I had a very good reason because of my wound received in the war I had to go and see the doctor. He had asked me to go and see him several times, and at last I had to go.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel is excused. The Secretary General, Dr. Brieger, has given us a memorandum. Perhaps we could make some progress by inquiring with reference to Cuhorst Exhibit 2. My notes and those of the Secretary General show Exhibit Number 2 was reserved for Document 32. Has anything been done about that?
DR. BRIEGER: Document No. 2?
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit No. 2.
DR. BRIEGER: Exhibit No. 2.
THE PRESIDENT: Document 32 in your book 2-A-B.
DR. BRIEGER: Your Honor, I don't know at the moment what that relates to. I should be able to tell you early this afternoon.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you make a notation, please?
DR. BRIEGER: Certainly, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: There are certain other numbers also, if you are prepared to do so. Will you report on Exhibit 2?
DR. BRIEGER: Exhibit 2 again.
THE PRESIDENT: 6.
DR. BRIEGER: 2, 6.
THE PRESIDENT: 21.
DR. BRIEGER: 21.
THE PRESIDENT: 22.
DR. BRIEGER: 22.
THE PRESIDENT: 45.
DR. BRIEGER: 45.
THE PRESIDENT: 67 and 124.
DR. BRIEGER: If I understand Your Honor correctly, the Tribunal has not yet received these documents?
THE PRESIDENT: According to the notation which the Secretary General has given me, that is correct. They have been identified, but not received. That is correct, isn't it? I have not mentioned the two which were rejected.
DR. ORTH (Counsel for defendant Altstoetter): Your Honor, my Document Book 4 has not yet been translated into English and has not yet been handed to the Secretary General therefore, but Document Book 4, which contains Altstoetter Documents 86 through 99, I should like to offer now as Exhibit 4 for purposes of identification.
THE PRESIDENT: Your purpose was to offer the entire book as Exhibit 4.
DR. ORTH: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be marked for identification, Exhibit 4 for identification. You follow the procedure before and put A, B, C on that for each separate instrument in the document book.
Those exhibits which have been identified may be offered and received if there is no objectionable ground at a later time.
DR. KUBUSCHOK (Counsel for defendant von Ammon): I have submitted one supplement book; however, the translation is not yet available. This supplement book contains three affidavits which I am offering as exhibits for identification.
THE PRESIDENT: What will be the number of the supplement book?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: One, Supplement Book Number One. The first document is an affidavit by Dr. Otto Renaud. I offer it as Exhibit No. 7.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be marked for identification.
The second document is an affidavit by Dr. Otto Osterkamp. I offer it as Exhibit No. 8.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there document numbers on those exhibits?
DR. KUBUSCHOCK: Identical. The document No. is 8. As Document and Exhibit No. 9 I offer Dr. Bachl's affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be marked for identification.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Now I should like to make a brief comment on the original von Ammon document book. Exhibits No. 1 through 6 I introduced at the time and when I submitted them the English translation was not yet available. In the meantime the English translation has been furnished. I believe that those exhibits were finally received at the time but I would like to make sure whether they were in fact received. The numbers are one through six.
THE PRESIDENT: Take a few moments to make sure. Von Ammon Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 have all been received.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: May I now say a few words on behalf of my colleague, Dr. Haensel? The witness Schulz for the defendant Joel has now arrived. Dr. Haensel would be able to examine him today but he would ask you to have his examination put off until three o'clock this afternoon.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, is there anything else to consume the time from one-thirty to three? If not, we should like to have the examination at one-thirty.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Well, all I can do is tell you about Dr. Haensel's request. The witness arrived a few minutes ago and I think he wants to talk to him first.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any volunteers for one-thirty this afternoon?
Will you advise Dr. Haensel to be prepared to examine his witness at one-thirty this afternoon? Mr. King, have you any matters to present?
We will recess until one-thirty this afternoon.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing recovened at 1330 hours, September 25, 1947)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. HAENSEL (Attorney for the Defendant Guenther Joel): I ask to be permitted to examine the witness Hans Heinrich Schulz.
HANS HEINRICH SCHULZ, a witness on crutches, took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE BLAIR: If it is uncomfortable for you, just remain seated and hold up your right hand and repeat after me the following oath:
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. HAENSEL:
Q. Witness, please give the Tribunal your full name, first name and last name, where you are living, and when and where you were born.
A. Hans Heinrich Schulz, born on the 23d of June, 1905, at Hannover. At present I live at Ueberlingen, Lake Constance, Strandweg 54. I am an attorney at Berlin. I did not resume my work, because I was seriously injured and my leg is slowly recovering.
Q. Will you please also make a statement whether you were a member of the National Socialist Party or any of its formations?
A. At no time. At no time was I a member of the NSDAP or any of its formations.
Q. When you were informed that among the defendants of this trial there was Guenther Joel, you offered to testify about his activity in the ministry?
A. Yes, that is to say, not so much about his work in the ministry, but about that part of his work which was during the time when I had contact with him.
Q. When did you meet Dr. Joel first? Did you have any personal contacts with him, and for how long?
A. I am from Hannover and I studied and graduated in Goettingen. Many of my colleagues were from Kassel. Also Assessor Joel at that time came from Kassel. In the spring of 1933, it may have been in the month of May, he came to the Ministry of Justice of Berlin. At that time I was an assessor, and I applied to be admitted to the bar. In the middle of August, I became an attorney in Berlin, but even before that time I worked together with my partner. On the occasion of such work, I made the acquaintance of Assessor Joel. Shall I explain further?
Q. Yes, please do and tell us what you know of your own knowledge?
A. One of our clients was a Landrat -- Robert Tornow, I believe was his name -- who had been a Landrat in the so-called systemtime. He had been arrested by the new regime in 1933 and he was persecuted, particularly by Gauleiter Koch, and assessor, I no longer remember his name, I think Kuehne, or something like that -- they were conducting the so-called clean-ups over East Prussia. They persecuted that man. We took over his defense and for about three years we were forced to fight for him, until finally in a trial in Koenigsberg, East Prussia he was acquitted. Now at that time it was exceedingly difficult to conduct a real defense, unless one had the possibility of contacts, or possibility of approaching people in the ministry, and, if I remember correctly, in the course of an attempt to gain such contacts, I made Joel's acquaintance.
I believe that four or five times I succeeded in getting the man out of prison, always after approaching people in the Ministry. That was a certain amount of aid in our case and it meant for me if we had difficulties in such matters that I found Joel a sympathetic listener and he was against that very severe attitude, of these people in East Prussia and he saw to it that these procedures, were carried out in an orderly manner. Then I had another case-I could tell you the name, I think -- and when I approached Joel with the request to help me in this case also he did so.
Q. Tell me, Witness, you said that in 1933, in the beginning of 1933, in Spring, you were in assessor and Guenther Joel was also an assessor.
A. Excuse me. I passed my examination and on the same day asked for my release from civil service in order to become an attorney. In other words, I was just appointed.
Q. I want to get a further explanation about that word, "assessor." Is that the beginning of the higher career. What is the position of assessor, a high or low position?
A. That is just the beginning, the lowest position, For the first years normally one worked without pay an has a so-called "Kommissorium", and after that trial period where it has been established by the recommendations of his superiors that he has the proper experience and capability, a man is given a special assignment. In other words, it is the starting point after one has passed the Stage's examination, the second examination, and those of us who became attorneys, were assessors only until we were admitted to the bar and registered as attorneys.
Q. Now to refer to Guenther Joel. You said he was also an assessor, at that time; that was a beginning, is that right?
A. Yes, I can't tell you how long he had been an assessor, but at that time he was at the lowest level of the higher justice service.
Q. Yes, but now the question arises how it came about that with that relatively low rank at that time he was in a position to offer such important support under circumstances, such as you have described, and on what was that based?
A. That was based on the fact that in 1933 altogether, if I may say so, the youth was put into the foreground. Young people and new people were supported everywhere and these young people particularly showed a great deal of initiative in the one of the other direction. Thus I saw in the beginning already that Joel had the ability to turn masters in a way which according to his position, he would not normally have been expented to and I remember it particularly in connection with the case during which we had a conference with Crohne. Ministerial Director Crohne said that the officials in Koenigsberg and the General Public Prosecutor in Koenigsberg probably knew best whether they should keep the person in prison or not and just by his attitude, Joel succeeded in changing Crohne's mind and made him say yes, we could release him.
Q. You said that great emphasis was placed on youth at that time, on young people. Now that energetic and courageous attitude which Joel assumed, was that in evidence all around, or do you happen to know that he excelled among the officials whom you knew at that time?
A. I should like to say that when I saw him first in 1933, I hadn't known him before. I might have approached somebody I knew at the time. I knew from the beginning, in the first discussion we had that here was a man who in a decent way was ready to go against abuses.
In the case of Robert Tornow, we were convinced that the latter was a definitely decent man who became the victim of these prosecutions in East Prussia. Joel also was of the opinion that this was the case where a man of quality and merit who should not be in prison and the trial has borne that out.
Q. And did Joel have the support of the Ministry as a whole? Or did you have the impression that it wasn't quite simple for him, that he did this not without difficulties in his own house, so to say?
A. I may well say that at that time I could not answer that question. Later on, that is, during the years, 1936, 1937, and up to 1943, I felt frequently that Joel particularly was the man to whom one could go with the hope for success. I knew of others and that it was not favorable to approach them. One finds out about these matters, And by somewhat closer contact which I had with Joel later, it became a matter of fact, a matter of course, for me whenever I was confronted with a difficult case with a Special Court or Party organizations who had committed perpetrations or the Gestapo, that I said first I must to Joel and in a greet many cases, when we could do so, when he agreed on the facts, never failed to give his full support.
Q. From your answer I can see that for almost ten years-that is to say almost for the whole period of a "Thousand Years' Reich"-you were in contact with Joel. Do you happen to remember that several ministers changed? Perhaps you can tell us who was the first minister, who came afterwards, and perhaps you happen to know what the effect was on the position of Joel with the various chiefs of the Ministry?
A. I discussed that frequently with Joel. One has to realize that I didn't just go and ask them to release this or that defendant for me, but we discussed in great detail, and when we became acquainted and friendsnow I am using the familiar "Du", towards the defendant Joel, I mean this was how far our friendship went, we frequently discussed internal conditions in the Ministry. We were of course, interested in these matters and I happen to know that at the beginning the State Under-Secretary Freisler brought him to Berlin. However, I also know that it was Freisler who a few years later was not only dissatisfied with Joel, but I would say was hostile to him. The way it came about was the following:
In 1933 there were vast circles in Germany who thought that wearing a brown shirt, as such, or belonging to the NSDAP or SA or similar organization that that alone makes a man decent. That is to say, if somebody stole a car while wearing a brown shirt then he probably only used it for official business and could do such things but when wearing civilian clothes he would have been a criminal, to put it very drastically and I got in contact with that opinion very frequently and I personally did so, because there was sort of an antagonism between me and prominent members of the Students' League.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
Q To come back to Joel now. You mentioned the antagonism between Joel and Freisler; do you remember the situation when Guertner died and Schlegelberger as Under-Secretary deputized for him. What happened later, and who came after Schlegelberger?
A There was a change in personnel in the ministries. Thierack came in as Minister.
Q What was it to Joel?
A Joel's position which was already shaken became altogether intolerable.
Q Did he tell you so?
A He told me frequently without limitation that he could not bear it any longer, that he personally had to suffer too much from antagonism and there were too many difficulties for him, and he didn't like to remain and would like to leave the Ministry?
Q All right, let's speak about the question of leaving. Did he tell you that he tried to get out, and did he succeed? What was the situation, according to what you know about it?
A I was interested, of course, that he should stay as long as possible, because I thought it highly desirable that a valuable and upright man who really tried to do objective and proper work should remain there, because not only for him, but also for other attorneys in Berlin he offered help. For us he was the man who really helped us.
Q Now one day you heard that Guenther Joel had been given rank in the SD. Didn't you become suspicious about that? Or what was the effect on you? What was your explanation for that?
A One day Joel told me that he had become a liaison officer with the police or the SS -- I am not quite sure about that, whether it was police or SS -- and that Minister Guertner had assigned him to that task and that he had accepted it, because he was not one of those people in the ministry who had been a party member for a long time and he always had difficulties if he wanted something and that it wouldn't be bad if he could use that position as a liaison man also in order to Court No. III, Case No. 3.exert his personal influence more successfully.
Q You said that you would have regretted it if Joel had not remained in the Ministries. Does that also refer to the rank in the SD?
A I couldn't say that. I didn't discuss that in particular, because Joel didn't make much about the fact of having that rank in the SD. I saw him many times during the years from 1938 to 1943 and I don't think I can remember ever having seen him in uniform, whereas during the war, particularly in Germany, there was hardly anybody walking around without an uniform. He always regularly wore civilian clothes. It could have been that he wore once a uniform, but I don't believe I saw him. I don't remember seeing him in uniform.
Q I believe I remember that he was at your wedding?
A Yes.
Q Wasn't he in uniform there? That was the custom, wasn't it?
A Yes, I was married in 1938 and various men were in uniform. An uncle of mine was in the uniform of a Labor Service Office. A friend of mine was in the Air Force uniform. He was a major of the reserve corps.
THE PRESIDENT: That is not a very important matter.
Q Now to discuss individual cases. I don't want to tire you nor the Tribunal. I refer to an affidavit which I received from you. You have it before you. It is my Document 68 in Document Book III, and you referred to a number of cases. We only want to refer to one briefly. It is one concerning the concentration camp of Bredow. Can you tell us just a little about that?
A Yes, that may be interesting. I knew the man Hoffmann who had been killed in connection with the 30th of June 1934. Hoffmann I had seen once - I don't know when -- but I did know him personally, was in charge of the concentration camp Bredow. That was the first case that became publically known. It was very early, in the fall of 1933, it must have been, and in that Bredow case several SS leaders had committed atrocities that were quite unheard of. Joel by speaking to Court No. III, Case No. 3.Goering succeeded that case was taken up and he also succeeded that very severe penalties or punishments against the culprits were given and that was quite new at the time - because some matters of that kind had occurred more frequently in 1933.