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.
I know that from memorandas of clients that had been abused, especially in Oranienburg and other camps early in 1933 and I kept those memorandas in my safe. But here the guilty persons were given severe punishments in the case of Hoffmann it was 30 years. Joel said that was unheard of, he should have been sentenced to death. That was what he wanted. On the 30th of June, 1934, in the course of the Roehm Affair a number of people were dealt with. One of them was Hoffmann. Upon personal order by Goering, he was taken out of the prison. After that he had been killed, shot. Immediately after he had been shot, Joel again in the same definite manner in his department objected that this man whom he would have liked to see sentenced to death was now dealt with quietly. He didn't agree with that either, that is to say, he was in favor of a legal procedure.
Q Did he come and speak plainly about these matters, or was he very reticent?
A Joel, as myself, is impulsive. He says what he thinks, and he uses very definite terms.
Q Only in speaking to you, or to others too?
A I might have talked to Joel at home or in tavers or restaurants, in greater circles, but he never made any secrets about his thoughts, but he spoke very plainly about what he was thinking.
Q And from these statements and these matters which you heard from him, could you tell us your impressions whether he had aided many people against the Gestapo and got them out? Or was it an exception?
A I am not only convinced but I happen to know from my colleagues, whenever they were confronted with difficulties like that they went to Joel and he helped them. I knew a number of persons whom he helped.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
I happen to know 20 or 30 persons, even more.
Q Now, you are a jurist, as we are, and you know that to decide the question of a punishable membership, it is necessary to know the criminal aims of an organization. What is your impression of the knowledge of Joel and the approval on the part of Joel on the aims of the SD, as much as you know about it?
A You want an expert opinion?
A No, just as a witness, what your impression was, knowing the person of Joel at the time?
A In my opinion, Joel could not have agreed with the aims such as they have been discovered later. One can see that from the case of Hoffmann. Hoffmann was an SS leader and other cases proved that, too, where he acted against higher SS leaders. If he had agreed with these methods, he would have had no reason to do anything against it.
Q Did he interfere for Jewish colleagues, Jewish lawyers? Did he say anything about the pogrom of 1938, in anything of a judicial nature, from which you could have guessed his attitude?
A That pogrom of 1938, the so-called Crystal Week-there it could be seen for the first time in public that there was a planned incitement. Events up to that time had been of minor nature. That affair, of course, caused a great deal of commotion. I myself had conducted a great number of negotiations, because the Jews on top of it had to pay for the damage, although it hadn't been their fault. Very large amounts had been charged the widow of the painter Liebermann, a widow of 86 years. I conducted negotiations for her. She was supposed to pay 350,000 Marks because the SA had broken windows on the Kurfuertstendamm.
Q What did Joel say?
A Joel tried to institute proceedings against these people who had broken the peaces and talked to me about it. I also spoke to him about the case of Liebermann in which I was greatly interested, because I was a friend of the old lady and he said the same things I had said.
Q Was that a reason that he became popular with the higher SS leaders; or, was it different?
A I can hardly answer that question because I don't know.
Q You didn't know these gentlemen?
A I didn't know these gentlemen.
Q Perhaps you know other gentlemen with whom Joel was in contact. Applying that principle, "tell me with whom you congregate, and I will tell you who you are". Who belonged to that circle -- with whom did you see him?
A It probably wouldn't be right with whom I saw him, but my friends, those of my friends who knew him discussed it very frequently with me. We did not meet frequently in large groups but in order to mention one individual I spoke about Joel to my friend Dr. Langben, who was executed; he had been a lawyer in Berlin as I was, and he gave me the same impressions that I also had. He expressed the same opinion that I had. I also discussed Joel with the former Under-Secretary Blank -- I believe he was also hanged in connection with the 20th July 1944. During the first year of the war, I worked in the High Command of the Armed Forces, in the office which was under General Thomas. General Thomas at that time, and knew that, but it has become known later, had already made an attempt to remove the regime as far back as in 1938, and that office was a considerable coll of resistance. That was the reason why Speer was put in his place later. He was first in disfavor, and in the course of actions of July, 1944, was brought into a concentration camp and was freed only after the armistice.
Q Did he happen to know Joel?
A This General Thomas in whose office also Blank was a frequent visitor, called me frequently and asked where I knew people who were reliable and proper, and I told him that at that time there was in the Ministry of Justice -- it must have been in 1942 -- there was Ministerialrat Joel and he immediately said: "Yes, that is also my view of Joel."
Q Do you remember my former associate Etscheid; and what became of him?
A Lawyer Etscheid and his wife, who was also a lawyer, I knew very well. We were good friends. Etscheid like me was a person who never made any secret of his opinion and spoke very openly. I am sure that I, too, would have had bad experiences in the course of the actions of the 20th July, 1944, had I not been abroad with the Armed Forces.
Q And Joel and Etscheid?
A Etscheid; Langbeem, Wirmer, Roothe, my partner and many others of my colleagues in Berlin had the custom of speaking frankly and I spoke about Joel to Etscheid occasionally, that is to say I knew that also Etscheid considered Joel his contact man in the Ministry of Justice; to whom he could always go for help. Etscheid died in a concentration camp; I don't know whether it was sentence or whether he was killed; at any rate, he is dead.
Q Tell me something about Donani who is frequently mentioned in connection with the Ministry?
A Donani was Reichagerichtsrat, Reich Supreme Court Counselor, and had been the personal referent of Minister Guertner before. I knew him; I know that he was in good relations with Joel; he also was executed in the course of the 20th July.
Q Do you consider that those friendly relations would have been possible if Joel had agreed to the aims of the SD?
A I should not think so. Those men certainly knew that Joel in spite of the rank in the SD, in spite of his membership in the party, that Joel was on their side.
DR. HAENSEL: Thank you. That is all.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any other direct examination? There being none, you may cross examine.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. KING:Were it not for the fact that the cross examination will be very short, I would ask the witness if he would care to rest before we go farther; but, I only have two or three questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Is the witness ready to proceed?
A I thank you. Yes, indeed.
BY MR. KING:
Q Just one, possibly two questions concerning the case Hoffman about which you have testified. Now, as I understand it, the man Hoffman was sentenced to fifteen years in the penitentiary as a result of Joel's investigations and, according to your testimony, his efforts.
A Yes.
Q Now, then; while he was in the penitentiary the Roehm putsch occurred; is that right?
A Yes, yes.
Q And that was on June 30th, 1934?
A Yes.
Q And at which time Hoffmann, who was in the penitentiary, was killed in the Roehm putsch. Can you tell me why this man who was serving a sentence in the penitentiary happened to be killed in this putsch? Was he turned over to the SA people by the prison authorities?
A Hoffmann was -- I don't know whether on the basis of a legal sentence, was in the Hoabit investigation prison.
Q Yes.
AAnd by a telephone call -- I don't know whether the phone call came from Goering himself, but at least from the office of the Prime Minister, and the request was made to have him released. They called them up, "give us this man Hoffmann", and Hoffmann on the same day in Lichterfelde, where all the executions took place, was shot dead by one of the commands that were carrying out these executions. The prosecutor probably from the files will see that in the Reichtag's speech made by the Reichs Chancellor, where it said "at that moment I was the supreme law, of the German people". Not only mention was made of the revolting SA leaders, but that on that occasion several other cases were dealt with; the case of Hoffmann was one of these other cases.
I was interested, if I may still say that, therefore, I was interested in that case Hoffmann because his wife was a school mate of my wife, and even later by way of the family I obtained information about that case. That is why I remember that case so well.
Q Did you over discuss with Joel the reasons as to why this man was released from the penitentiary sentence so that he could be shot in the Roehm Putsch? Did Joel ever discuss that with you?
A Yes, very definitely, about that demand to have him released that it was absolutely wrong, and I remember that so well because Herr Joel himself had been in favor of having that man sentenced to death because considerable atrocities had been committed in camp Bredow, and still afterwards he said "since he has received a sentence of only fifteen years by the court, it was absolutely unheard of that he was killed in that way." I not only spoke to Joel about it but also with his assistant and colleague, a Mr. von Haacke, who is a Ministerialrat now. He happened to be with him in the general public prosecution and they worked together in the same room, and he made the same remarks that Joel made.
Q Do you recall who the SA leaders called in order to have Hoffmann released to be executed?
A That I could no longer say. The SS leaders were not the ones who called for his release, at least not according to my knowledge. It was the office of the Prime Minister Goering, either Goering himself that made that request or some one from his office, and that request came through the Ministry of Justice that he had to be released; and he was released and shot.
A I assume the official on duty -- the official of the higher level who was on duty that day.
Q Well now, you are an old employee of the Ministry of Justice. You know the organizational set-up; who would have been the -- what office, what office would have been the logical office to make this release?
A There must be a misunderstanding, Mr. Prosecutor. I was never; I never worked in the Ministry of Justice. I studied in my training with the courts; I passed the examination and immediately thereafter I became an attorney; and particularly because not being a party member, as a civil service employee not being a member of the party, I would not have had any chance at all in a civil service career to achieve any higher position. When I was appointed assessor, on the very day when I was informed that I had passed my examination successfully, when I received my certificate, I requested to be released from the civil service. I was never in the Ministry therefore.
Q Can you answer my question notwithstanding that; if you know?
A Unfortunately, that is not possible. I know there was a duty office that is to say an official on duty.
Q What department would that have been in; would you say, if you know?
A That could only have been in the department for penal law, which had to handle the sphere under which that crime would have come; the department under Ministerial-director Crohne probably.
Q Did Joel over take any action against this request for the release of this SA man Hoffmann? You said he was excited about it and talked to you about it. Did he ever take any other than that so far as you know?
A The conversation which I reported did not take place on the 30th of June. I personally preferred during those five days not to be in Berlin. My conversation with Joel and von Haacke may have taken place on the 4th or 5th of July, 1934, and on that occasion there was some excitement; that case was discussed and both Joel and Haacke spoke very strongly against the fact that this mam had been dragged out and shot.
Mr. Prosecutor, therefore, I am not in a position to evaluate whether Joel before that execution took place had any idea of that matter. All I know is that he, von Haacke and attorney Roethe stated our opinion that we were against these executions which were just used as an opportunity to do away with a personal enemy, and I know that for weeks and months he has tried to institute proceedings.
Q You misunderstood me. Aside from telling you that he was against crime, I ask you whether he did anything about it so far as you know after the execution occurred. Now, if you don't know of any particular steps that he took, I don't expect you to answer, of course, but I thought perhaps since you know him so well that you may have noted some action he took personally.
A I knew that in the Ministry frequently, time and again, he tried to succeed with Freisler and other officials to achieve that regular proceedings should be carried out against those who had committed these illegal executions. Especially mention was made about executions in Breslau and executions of leading Catholics in Berlin. Those had been the leaders of the Catholic Action Katholische Aktion, and had been shot. And these people, particularly on the basis of their entire attitude could not possibly have had anything to do with the Roehm putsch; that was quite out of the question. Against these murderershe tried to institute proceedings. In the end, because of a statement made by Hitler, he failed to bring that about.
Q So the answer to my question is no, you did not hear of any specific action he took in connection with that after the execution, is that right?
A No.
Q You said that Freisler came from Kassel and Freisler was responsible for bringing Joel into the Ministry, is that your statement in that connection?
A That must have been right that he came together with those people from Kassel. There were several of them, not only he.
Q Yes. Now, it is quite conceivable to you, is it not that when Freisler brought Joel to Berlin he thought Joel was a pretty good National Socialist, otherwise he wouldn't have brought him, is that right?
A I can imagine that Freisler considered him a good National Socialist.
Q Now, I believe you stated in your affidavit that when Joel was promoted to a new position in Hamm you lost track of him, is that right, or at least you didn't have the close connection you had while he was in Berlin?
A No, that goes a little further, I believe I said that because I went into the Army I lost track. On the 4th of May 1943 I left Berlin and since that time I have not been in Berlin at all, except brief stays on leave.
Q Different reasons but the same result, you didn't have contact with him after that. Then you didn't know about his subsequent promotion in the SS after he reached Hamm, did you?
A No, I know nothing about that. I didn't see him again since May 1943.
Q Now did you ever see - I think you said you never say Joel in a SD uniform, did you ever see him in an SS uniform?
A No, I have said before, that I considered it quite impossible that I ever saw him. I considered it out of the question that I ever saw him in an SD uniform but I said it was possible I may have seen him once in a uniform.
At any rate of the hundreds of times when I saw him it was always in civilian clothes.
Q Yes, one moment. We have no further questions.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q Witness, may I ask you a few questions briefly.
It would be interesting if you can tell us in connection with the case of the old Jewish lady, I think you said over eighty years old, who was required to pay for the damage which the SA had done. Can you tell us by what government authority or purported authority she was required to make such payments?
A Yes, your Honor, may I interpolate, she was the widow of the well known Jewish Artist, Max Liebermann, who is very famous all over the world. I know the case very well because it was not only Frau Liebermann, but a large number of Jews who were in the same situation, and many of them came to me and asked me to negotiate for them. This is the way it happened; the Reich Propoganda Minister, some official of the Ministry, I do not happen to know who it was, called the Elders of the Jewish Community of Berlin and told them that the Jewish Community by imposing a levy on their members had to make good that damage, the total damage was so and so many marks, I don't know how much it was altogether and now the Council of Elders, that is to say, the administrative officials of the Jewish community were forced to take their income and lists of income and try to establish a percentage of the levy which the individual Jewish person had to pay and in that connection there were great difficulties because many of these people had lot a great deal already through Reich Flight Tax and through confiscation and so on. I remember the entire amount was tremendous and if one went to the Elders of the Jewish community one could achieve that reductions were made. For instance, in this case, Liebermann, but I can't remember the amount, - I think I brought it down to 280,000 marks. The son-in-law, Geheimrat Dr. Kurt Ritzier, who is a Professor at the University of Chicago is a good personal friend of mine, and he asked me before he went to the States, to assist the old lady for the rest of her life.