That the Jewish landed property was finally expropriated during the subsequent development and that this is shown in later entries in the real estate register is a matter apart from the case of Joel. He is not in any way connected with these subsequent measures under the anti-Jewish legislation. The inclusion in the evidence panel of Mrs. Landsberger which had been criticized by the prosecution (Note 72) is quite irrelevant in this connection. According to the real estate register, Mrs. Landsberger's property was liquidated together with the properties of other Jewish owners on 8 December 1938 and returned to Mrs. Landsberger under the above mentioned revocation of Holz of 28 April 1980. Whether Mrs. Landsberger is only the wife of a Jew or herself Jewish is not shown in the real estate register, but in the real estate records. In 1938 Mrs. Landsberger was treated just like the other Jewish owners. It would not have made any change in the real estate register, if she had been a Jewess. (Note 73).
The defendant Joel was always employed by Minister Guertner whenever attempts were made, through interference by Party offices, to disturb of obstruct the due course of criminal.proceedings. This referred to the criminal cases against those Party minions who were to be granted a special procedure and against whom Dr. Joel, in support of the endangered local prosecuting authorities, took action.
Between 1933 and 1937 his intervention took place within the Central Prosecuting Authority, after its liquidation on 18 October 1937 (Note 75), by order in each individual case. Among the many statements I submitted as proofs of Dr. Joel's activity there are 10524K many instances of the valuable contribution he made towards the preservation of correctness and lawfulness in criminal procedure.
The statements of many chief prosecutors of many towns and of other officials in the administration of justice speak an eloquent language (Note 76). As regards the cooperation between a prosecuting authority and Dr. Joel the report of chief public prosecutor Hattingen of Bonn may be quoted as an example (Note 77).
Whenever in the course of this trial a criminal case in which difficulties with the Party had arisen was submitted no this court for discussion it could be ascertained that Dr. Joel had taken action.
After the outbreak of the war the defendant Dr. Joel continued the above outlined endeavours in support of the local prosecuting authorities as his main field of activity. After the induction of Herr von Haacke who had been appointed special legal adviser for Partial Criminal Law, he took over the latter's division and when the application of the martial laws was running smoothly after a short while Dr. Joel's activity was in the main restricted to was economy cases.
As already mentioned, he made it his special business to deal with the Party bosses who wanted to continue their luxurious life in war time at the expenses of the public. As in any other of his official assignments, Dr. Joel can let his actions speak for himself which show their results in hundreds of criminal case records.
I shall quote two examples. The witness Hoeller describes one of these cases. (Note 78). It refers to the criminal proceedings against the Gau Office Leader of the National Socialist Welfare 10524L Organization and SS-Standartenfuehrer Janowski in Kiel who together with several other Party officials had misappropriated food condiments and clothing which had been prepared for the bombed-out and destitute victims after the first large scale air raid on Luebook in 1942.
High officials of the Party administration in Munich and Berlin tried to thwart the measures of the public prosecutor in Kiel. The Reich Loader of the National Socialist Welfare Organization, Hilgenfeldt, interfered. Also the Gauleiter, Reich Minister Dr. Goebbels opposed the carrying-out of the proceedings. Dr. Joel made a stand for the administration of justice. He webt to Kiel and Luebeck and broke down arising opposition; he went to sec Reich Leader Hilgenfeldt in Berlin to make the demands of the law plain to him in no uncertain terms. And lastly Dr. Joel took issue with Dr. Goebbels in defense of the lawful measures of the public prosecutor in Kiel and also in the face of Dr. Goebbels insisted on the law being carried out. He would let himself be dissuaded by Dr. Geobbels. In the main trial, in which Dr. Joel assisted in person, the Gau Office Leader and two of the codefendants were sentenced to death, the others received terms of hard labor. The Sentence against the Gau Office Leader was carried out, the two other condemned were reprieved and the death sentences commuted to terms of hard labor. (Note 79).
At the same time a criminal case was pending in Berlin which led to equally serious clashes with offices of the NSDAP. The arraigned person was the Gau Office Leader of the National Socialist Welfare Organization in Berlin, Maehler, a close collaborator of Dr. Goebbel's. He was charged with offenses of all kinds against property to the detriment of the National Socialist Welfare Organization and theft of property of a French national in occupied France. Following a search in the flat of the Gau Office Leader 10524M under a warrant issued by the public prosecutor in Berlin, Dr. Goebbels learned of the investigations and started obstructing these by forbidding party officials to give information to the public prosecutor and by threatening officials of the latter.
Dr. Joel personally took a stand against Dr. Goebbels, carried his point and ordered the arrest of Gau Office Leader Maehler. The proceedings resulted in 4½ years of penal servitude.
The prosecuting authority had presented an affidavit of Ministerialdirigent Suchomel regarding Dr. Joel's activity. (Note 8l). He refers to Dr. Joel as one of the most ruthless section chiefs. Suchomel is right inasmuch as he means Dr. Joel's inflexible action against was profiteers who were protected by the Party. He is wrong, however, if he wants to suggest that Dr. Joel's action was inhuman. During his interrogation on 27 August 1947 (Note 82) he commented on his statement. He cannot maintain such a charge. The prosecuting authority provided me with an opportunity of proving this through their own exhibits (Note 83). During his interrogation on 3 August 1947, (Note 84) Dr. Joel discussed a letter in which the Austrian Gauleiter Ueberreither demanded that the penalty of death be imposed by the Minister of Justice on a farmer who had committed a crime against the war economy.
The defendant Joel refused to be dissuaded from his opinion that only a medium term of penitentiary was called for, which he imparted to his department hear and the minister and effected that the demand of the Gauleiter be refused. The accused was given four years in the penitentiary (Note 85).
The fact, that the defendant Dr. Joel was not the proper person for dealing with matters pertaining to death sentences and, 10524N therefore, cannot know anything about the execution of a sentence for a war economy crime on father and son, was explained by Suchomel in the cross examination (Note 86).3. Removal from the Reich Ministry of Justice In order to be able to assess the value of Joel's activity in the Reich Ministry of Justice correctly, one must bear in mind the opposition of the Party and how this took effect.
The Hamburg justice officials, Landgerichtsdirektor Wentzense and Public Prosecutor K. Stock (Note 87), have given an idea of this and have described individual cases concerning interference of the Party in the Justice system. The sector of the activity of the defendant Joel, which I presented with the aid of the documents presented by the Prosecution, shows that it was a matter of daily task for Dr. Joel to engage in disputes and conflicts with Party officials in all parts of Germany, whenever the local prosecution authorities had reached a deadlock, and that, from the first to the last day of his assignment, he carried out his task in the interest of an orderly administration of justice.
Dr. Joel had a special volume of his personal files, which dealt with complaints by Party officials about his administration of office. This is said not to exist any longer. Many, who know Dr. Joel, substatiate that he was the man the Party hated most in the Reich Ministry of Justice. Here it is only too understandable that those who fought him for years and who finally, with the help of Thierack, removed him upon the latter's accession to office, are not ready today to make official statements concerning this. Such political adversaries have also appeared in this court. I did not follow up these matters, because, without this, I can throw light on his personal difficulties with the Party and the 10524-0 police by examples and on the basis of affidavits made on behalf of Dr. Joel.
Even the first year of his activity, 1933 to 1334, was marked by the most Vehement political attacks on him, because of his especially severe measures against excesses on the part of members of the Party and its affiliations. Hans Gisevius, the witness in the trial of the main war criminals before the IMT, observed Dr. Joel's activity at close quarters up to 1935 and paid tribute to his vigorous behavior.
Until 30.6.34 Stabschef Roehm was in charge of the SA and the SS. Leading circles of the SA saw in the Public Prosecutor Joel, who ruthlessly enforced the laws, the political opponent and had put his name on the list of those who were to be removed by the SA- (Note 88). Dr. Joel, however, did not let himself be deviated by that from his conception of the tasks of the prosecution authority.
During his proceedings against the guards units of the camp "Kemna", the Gauleiter of Duesseldorf made a complaint to the then Prussian Ministerpraesident Goering. He demanded Joel's immediate removal from Office. Before that, the SA leaders and the Gauleiter in charge in Dusseldorf had complained about Dr. Joel to the Under secretary Dr. Freisler (Note 89). They had also criticized Joel's activity most vigorously and unrestrainedly in front of the Public Prosecutor General in Duesseldorf. (Note 90) Minister Guertner protected him, because he had net done anything but his duty.
The events in Munich in 193$, occasioned by the collection, by the Catholic aid organization Caritas, which Joel, after four 10524P weeks of personal investigations, brought before the court for prosecution, led the Gauleiter and the Minister of the Interior of Bavaria to inform the Minister Dr. Guertner, that, in future, Dr. Joel would be prohibited from carrying out his office in Bavaria.
This Gauleiter also at that time demanded Dr. Joel's immediate recall from Munich (Note 91). Minister Guertner declined.
Joel's associate, Public Prosecutor Jakel, describes the intention of Gauleiter Terboven in Essen in 1936 of having Dr. Joel arrested if he should enter his Gau. This incident was a consequence of a proceedings which Joel had initialed against a friend of Terboven, an old Party member, the lord mayor of Essen, for an offense against foreign currency regulations. Dr. Joel sent the Gauleiter a rude reply and continued to visit the Rhine district as before, to create order. (Note 92.)
10524Q (original, page The Chief Public Prosecutor in Bonn impressively described his difficulties with the Party from 1933 to 1934 and stated that ho owed it to Joel's decent attitude and never failing readiness to help, that he succeeded in prosecuting Party proteges and keeping his office.
(Note 93). There were continual complaints by the proper Gauleiter in Cologne against the Chief Public Prosecutor and Dr. Joel.
In the wester part of the Reich the defendant Dr. Joel was known as that official of the Ministry "who took ruthless action against persons protected by the Party". (Note 94), "Herr Joel is playing a dangerous game, which will cause him many enemies in the Party, who would like to see him disappear today rather than tomorrow", the Chief Public Prosecutor in Duesseldorf said (Note 95).
In the southern part of the Reich it was known that Joel came to Munich in order to enforce the interests of the administration of justice in the face of the Gau leadership.
"Joel's attitude towards Party authorities was bound to expose him drastically", states a Munich Public Prosecutor, and continues to say that Joel greatly furthered objective and just decisions (Note 96).
And in the eastern part of the Reich the energetic behavior of the Central Public Prosecution in the face of the Party resulted in that the threat of being reported to them caused even stubborn political leaders to come around. (Note 97). "Dr. Joel was regarded as a man completely independent of the Party, who would not take anything".
Minister Guertner recognized Dr. Joel's merits, (original, page 46) whereas under secretary Freisler lent an ear to the complaints against Joel.
The witness, Attorney Dr. Lenz (Note 98) spoke of Joel's conflicts with Freisler. Public Prosecutor von Haacke testified in a like vein (Note 99), citing an example of those numerous disputes with Dr. Freisler The officials of the penal department again and again witnessed scenes between Dr. Freisler and Dr. Joel.
10524R In 1937, Under Secretary Dr. Freisler believed himself bound to give way to the requests of the Party officials for Dr. Joel's recall, A small clique of officials who had joined the Party before 1933 supported Freisler's intention.
He declared the Central Public Prosecution Authority as dissolved. The reason for his declaration, i.e. that the political situation had calmed down, was not a convincing one (Note 100). As Minister Dr. Guertner told Joel, it was politically more predent, not to contradict this order of Freisler. Dr. Guertner, however, safeguarded Dr. Joel's continued employment as before. This employment was effective until Thierack took office.
Dr, Joel's activity - within the sphere of the Central Public Prosecution Authority - against the arbitrary actions of the Party was successful also owing to his aptitude for including investigation officers of the Berlin policy or officials of the local state police authorities in the criminal prosecutions, since the German public prosecution is dependent on the collaboration of the police in the investigations (Note 101).
Minister Guertner's order dated 19.12.37, whereby Dr. Joel was assigned as liaison official to the policy and the SS, served to maintain that positive cooperation in the interest of the administration of justice. (Note 102).
(original, page 47)
A Ministry official tried to make complaints to the then deputy of the Chief of the Security Police and the SD against Joel, because he "constantly opposed the Party members and therefore the interests of the Party," and would therefore have to bo relieved of the tasks Minister Guertner had delegated to him (Note 103). This serious political attack forced Minister Guertner to authorize a formal investigation through the Manager of the Penal Department, Ministerialdirektor Crohne, It showed the legality of Joel's conduct (Note 104).
10524S Dr. Joel's position of trust with Minister Guertner remained undamaged.
He continued his activity as before. Complaints by the Party continued to reach Minister Guertner, but the award of an SS rank in the SD again strengthened Dr. Joel's position in prosecuting offending members of the Party or its affiliations.
Dr. Joel's behavior after the Anti-Jewish pogrom of the 9 and 10 November 1938 3voked particularly vehement attacks on him. The leadership of the NSDAP and Minister Goebbels had represented the events as a "spontaneous" expression of the will. of the German people. None of the Party officials had thought that the Criminal Justice Administration would deal with the events. And when this happened nevertheless, the right of investigating was granted only to the Party Courts, since it was purely a Party affair. By criminal investigation, the defendant Joel destroyed the fairy-tale of the spontaneous popular indignation.
(original, page 48)
In the files, he named Dr. Goebbels as the instigator, and he succeeded in maintaining the criminal jurisdiction, he succeeded also in getting the Gestapo to cooperate in the criminal proceedings. In a report to Hitler, Goebbel's role and the enormous damage to life and property were stated. All Party circles involved had combined against the defendant Joel - not the least among them, Dr. Goebbels himself. That no measures were taken against the defendant Joel was due to the impossibility of removing, at that juncture, an official who had opposed the universallyknown excesses, and to Dr. Goebbel's personal difficulties because of his relations with a foreign actress.
There had been considerable disputes with Dr. Goebbels in his capacity as Gauleiter of Berlin already during the criminal proceedings against officials of the Gau Administration Berlin because of the unlawful Aryanization of the capital of the Jewish business men, Guggenheim Bros. and of others. When dealing with the criminal pro-
10524T ceedings against the Gau office chief of the NSV, Maehler, I mentioned already that the defendant Joel - notwithstanding his lawful and correct conduct - hadto justify his action before Dr. Goebbels.
A penal matter where Dr. Joel rejected the illegal demands of the Bavarian Minister of the Interior and Hitler made a decision upon the latter's request, is also relevant here. It is the criminal matter concerning the superintendant of the state opera at the Gaertnerplatz in Munich on the count of attempted (original, page 49) rape in 1941, which was mentioned in the statement of the Senior Public Prosecutor Grosser (Note 105). The Gauleiter wanted to prohibit the prosecution, the defendant Joel had it initiated.
The Gauleiter wanted to prevent the execution of the warrant for arrest; Joel had it carried out in the hotel apartment of the superintendant; the Gauleiter removed the chief of the Munich criminal policy from office; Dr. Joel caused the prosecution to continue the investigations in Munich; the Gauleiter wanted to prevent the indictment, whereas Dr. Joel directed the Public Prosecution to prosecute. At that juncture Hitler intervened and ordered that the proceedings should be considered closed upon payment of compensation by the accused, Dr. Joel was represented as a man devoid of any political acument, who had forced Hitler to make a decision on account of a chorus girl.
Joel's relations with Freisler were severed completely in 1931, when Joel, at the suggestion of a Senior Public Prosecutor, had the brother of his Under Secretary arrested for bribery. Joel, as he had always done, opposed every attempt to influence him, and had established the criminal guilt of Freisler's brother when the latter committed suicide (Note 106).
Such events, of which I can only cite a few, endangered Joel's position in the Reich Ministry of Justice more and more. Minister Guertner held his protecting arm over him. Freisler had long since ceased to protect him. On the contrary, he considered Joel's activity in the 10524U Reich Ministry of Justice a burden.
The disapproval of Dr. Joel's activities by the Party was the reason why (original, page 50) his and von Haakes' promotion to Ministerial Councillor which was due at that time - both had been working as specialists in the Reich Ministry of Justice for six years already - was postponed for two years in favor of younger officials who were, however, old Party members and the promotion of which was therefore not opposed by the Party.
(Note 107).
Difficulties in the treatment of criminal proceedings in which members of the SS were involved could be removed by the defendant Joel and the proceedings could be carried through in order, since the former pastor Tondock, who had worked since about 1935 as an SS-liaison leader with the Reich Ministry of Justice, saw to it that SS-leading agencies did not make any attempts to prevent criminal proceedings (Note 108). But also the SS showed the same general attitude and behavior towards justice as other political circles. The dismissal of Tondock by Himmler, which took place in April 1942, after he had been on leave for more than one year, throws a significant light on the man with whom Dr. Joel has been connected.
The activities connecting the defendant Joel with the police had consisted since the beginning of the war exclusively in enforcing the lawful rights of the judiciary against the measures of the State Police.
In addition, Dr. Joel interceded in many cases in which measures of the State Police had been carried out, the necessity of which could be doubted for reasons of law or other reasons. While some officials of the policy complied with his wishes, there were others who did not agree with his attitude (Note 109). People began to dislike him, not the least reason being that circles of the Party intrigued against him at the State Police.
10524V (original, page 51) Not long after the defendant Joel had maintained the interests of law in the face of the Chief of the Security Police in Prague, he was informed by a department chief of Heydrich's that he had become a "persone ingrata", (Note 110). I do not have to explain that it meant to have incurred the displeasure of the Chief of the political police.
Joel's exact report to Under Secretary Schlegelberger about the events in Prague on the occasion of the trial against Prime Minister Elias had been reported to Heydrich by Thierack (Note 111).
For this reason, Joel's position in the Ministry, politically speaking, was shaken, if not ruined. For a long time he had become intolerable to the leading men of the party. Heydrich, the Chief of the Gestapo was his active opponent, and his agencies had been informed of this fact, The last Chief of the SD has declared that the activity of Joel was regarded as ambiguous and unreliable and that Heydrich looked at him with distrust, (Note 112).
Minister Guertner died in January 1941, and Under Secretary Dr. Schlegelberger had been appointed Acting Minister. It was known that there were two candidates for the office of the Reich Minister of Justice; namely Reich Leader Frank and the President of the People's Court Thierack. When Hitler discarded Frank, Thierack was the winner. Thierack started in the office of the Reich Minister of Justice in August 1942.
(original, page 52)
There could be no doubt about it that Thierack who was a slave of the Party and of the Police and hadgot his appointment only on account of this subservience would remove every official who was disliked by these two agencies. The defendant Joel perceived this, but he also perceived that the fight for the independence of justice had come to an end, and therefore, he tried to get discharged from public service.
10524W Thierack summoned him before him soon after he had taken over office (Note 113) and told him that he had to leave the Reich Ministry of Justice.
The co-defendant Dr. Rothenberger has stated (Note 114) that Thierack demanded Joels' removal from the Reich Ministry of Justice. Dr. Joel asked to be discharged from public service, however, he had to accept Thierack's correction that he would decide what was to become of him. To be sure, a Government official could at any time demand his discharge according to Art. 60 of the German Law concerning Government officials, dated 26 January 1937. However, during the war this privilege under the above law had been restricted in so far as applications for resignation in pursuance of Art. 60 need not be accepted. Joel, therefore, tried to find work in some other administration which would eventually accept his application for resignation. He discussed the new state of affairs in the Reich Ministry of Justice and his desire to resign with a representative of the army, and the Chief of the Military Administration of Justice declared that he would find employment for a man like Dr. Joel any time (Note 116). Joel asked for the support of a former official of the administration now working in the industry to whom he described Thierack as the grave-digger of Justice and the Reich Ministry Justice as agencies of Himmler and Bormann. (Note 117) (original, page 53) He looked up the chief of the Stabsamt Goering in order to escape with the aid of a Reich agency, Thicrack's authority of command, (Note 118). All attempts of Joel were frustrated because Thierack refused to let him resign his position in the Justice Department.
After September 1942 Minister Thierack assigned Joel neither to special missions nor as a liaison man to the Police and SS. The defendant Joel, in chart of the distribution of work was still on the records as a liaison man, but in fact he was not, Thierack did not inform Joel of these measures and so it came to an inquiry by Joel at the RSHA, which 10524X as a notation of a telephone conversation appears in his SD-files (Note 119).The defendant Joel kept the War Economy Referat.
Now he counted daily on his transfer. Already since the 16 May 1943 his appointment as General Public Prosecutor had been submitted. How it became a reality all of a sudden, Dr. Joel described. (Note 120). The reason why it was not put into effect prior to the 16 August 1943; is not known.
This appointment was not a promotion as the Prosecution contends. Nor did it involve an increase of his salary. The promotion from the basic salary of salary group A la for Ministerialraete (top salary 12,600) to the individual salary of Group B 8a for General Public Prosecutors (14,000) was made up by the absence of the ministerial allowance of M1,200 which was exempt from taxation.
(original, page 54)
The approval of the Chief of the Party Chancellery (Note 121) for an appointment to the General Public Prosecution was prescribed by law. In this a preliminary stipulation had to be observed; namely that the official had; at all times worked unreservedly for the National Socialist State. The German Civil Service Law required this prerequisite for every official; the prosecution witness Behl discussed this (Note 122). For ten years Dr. Joel had waged war against Party arbitrariness and interference by the police with the independence of the Administration of Justice, when he was removed from the Ministry by von Thierack.
III. Public Prosecutor in Hamm 1. NN - criminal cases.
(Nacht und Nebel) Dr. Joel was never concerned; in the Reich Ministry of Justice; with work on general questions of the so-called NN decree or with individual criminal cases in these districts at any time (Note 123). In view of the special duty of maintaining secrecy, decreed personnally by Hitler, Joel did not learn any details on the treatment of these NN-matters, 10524Y even in the Reich Ministry of Justice.
No document from the Reich Ministry of Justice shows any participation by Joel, not even by his initialling. He did not participate in the Reich Ministry of Justice either in meetings of the President of the Court of Appeal and of the Public Prosecutors, in whose district NN-matters were dealt with. Only when he was General Public Prosecutor in Hamm did he learn that the Chief Public Prosecutor subordinate to him in Essen had been dealing for about 1½ years with work on criminal cases against Belgian inhabitants who had been sent to him directly by the Courts Martial of the Wehrmacht, i.e., not by the General Public Prosecutor. On 17 August 1943, Joel wasinstalled in Hamm.
10524Z Dr. Carl Haensel Final Plea Guenther Joel We all still remember the report which was submitted by the Prosecution (Note 124) in which Joel introduced himself to his officials as their now chief, without uniform or any National Socialistic getup (Note 125). A short time will have to be given to him before he has struck his stride in his domain, which next to Berlin with its six million inhabitants within its legal jurisdiction was the largest Prussian district and it must further be considered that already in January 1944 the removal of the Nacht und Nebel matters to the East had been announced and had been accomplished on 15 March 1944 (Note 126).In treating the Nacht und Nebel matters I can confine myself to the proof that Joel was active in the matter only around the extreme edge as chief of an office which handled such files.
His activities in these matters were without any influence upon the basic regulations and their execution. He never took part as Public Prosecutor in any Nacht und Nebel proceedings; his subordinates received reports of the Chief Public Prosecutor in Essen, in which Nacht und Nebel matters were mentioned, and sent them on to the Reich Ministry of Justice.
When Joel came to Hamm, the proceedings took their course according to the general directives of the Ministry. The latter's approval was required for the indictments; the intended pleas for punishment; the quashing of proceedings, procurement of foreign evidence, the rescinding of the warrant to arrest. Every judgment had to be submitted to the Ministry. Joel did not change anything in this treatment nor could he change anything (Note 127).
All decisions were made in Berlin; the Hamm office merely served as an intermediary for the directives. What Joel was able to establish himself about the proceedings did not make him suspicious. The proceedings took place according to German law of procedure, German lawyers took over the defense; this was also known in Belgium, and Joel was told by the Supreme Judge of the Military Commander. The maintenance of secrecy was not strictly observed; the Belgians knew where and how their countrymen were convicted (Note 128). In the rebuttal Dr. Joel's report on a 10524AA Dr. Carl Haensel Final Plea Guenther Joel visit in Brussels has been submitted (Note 129). He already spoke on the witness stand of his trip to the Military Commander in Brussels.
This report does not change the picture. It shows that Joel left decisions to the proper authorities and, at that, to the Wehrmacht authorities, who had to decide according to the exigencies of war. Joel did not have the authority to dispense judgment on this matter; ho could not have it. The reproach that he had cut off prisoners from the outher world in an inhuman manner does not apply to him. On the contrary, the German Minister of Justice could have called him to account for failing to punish violations of the maintenance of secrecy and for thereby transgressing this decree himself. Ho could not investigate military emergencies. The occupation authorities held Dr. Joel also a whole year in a camp without allowing him to communicate with his relatives. The announcement of the death of his 73 year old father was kept from him, and only after the interim of a year did he learn about it in a 25 word communication. Since we are hero engaged in proceedings of international law, military usage must also be taken into consideration in the law which is applicable for conviction.
One solitary general decree from the Reich Ministry of Justice came through Dr. Joel's office during his term of service. This was the Edict of the Reich Minister of Justice of 21 January 1944, which ordered the turning-in of NN (Nacht und Nebel) (night and fog) prisoners who had been acquitted, or who had served their sentence, to the "State police" (Note 130). My colleagues Kubuschak and Schilf have expressed themselves about the factual contents and the scope of this edict. As far as Joel is concerned, I would like to add that this edict did not become practical for him, since the transfer of the NN matters was already announced in January, and their execution was completed by March.
Prisoners of Belgian nationality were no longer in his district at this time. The execution of punishment was carried out (Note 131) outside of the Hamm district from May 1943 on, and the NN prisoners who were in pre-trial custody had been transferred by Dr. Joel to the neighboring 10524BB Dr. Carl Haensel Final Plea Guenther Joel district because of the aerial warfare over the industrial areas of Essen.
During the few months in which the office of the General Staatsanwalt. (General Public Prosecutor) in Hamm came in contact with NN matters, Dr. Joel did not learn of a single case in which an acquitted Belgian national, or one who had served his sentence, had been turned over to the State police. Neither did the specialist assisting Joel learn of such a case (Note 132).
In a situation report dated 26 January 1944, Dr. Joel passed on a suggestion from the Chief Public Prosecutor of Essen, the gist of which was the speeding-up of the disposition of proceedings against Belgian nationals through the agency of the Oberreichsanwalt (Attorney General) at the People's Court. Because of the impending loss of the records, in consequence of the aerial warfare, he moreover suggested that they be not sent to the Reich Ministry of Justice, where the approval for the preferment of charges was applied for. Finally, he considered the approval of the Reich Ministry of Justice as superfluous if the hearing of witnesses was to take place in foreign territory (Note 133).
On the basis of these documents one cannot connect Dr. Joel with an activity which could be criminal under penal law.
The Prosecution has categorically stated that the penal institutions were "managed in a manner which in no wise differed from the one which applied for concentration camps." Among those who are to be held responsible, Dr. Joel is included (Note 134).
He never had anything to do in the Reich Ministry of Justice with matters of the execution of sentences (Note 135). The Frosecution has not produced any evidence applicable for the Hamm district. The penal institutions of this district have been taken over without objection by the British occupation authorities and the Chief of the Office of the Administration of Punishment is, even today, the same official who worked under Joel. This official, who is authoritative on the matter of the execution of punishment in the Hamm district of the Court of Appeal have been administered according to the regulations of the decree governing the 10524CC Dr. Carl Haensel Final Plea Guenther Joel execution of punishment with the limitations conditioned by war.
(Note 136) Thus, there can be no talk of inhuman treatment of the prisoners.
Neither Dr. Joel nor the Chief of his Administration of Punishment has ever learned of a case in which a prisoner was executed without the existence of a judicial sentence or without the rejection of a petition for mercy. (Note 137). Neither Dr. Joel nor the Chief of his Administration of Punishment nor the superintendent of the penitentiary of Werl know of a case in which inferior or asocial prisoners were executed due to the approach of Allied troops, by order of the Ministry, without regard for the penalties which they had to serve.
In like manner, no turning-over of asocial prisoners to concentration camps, such as Thierack had ordered and as it was carried out by officials of Department XV, took place. Dr. Joel and the superintendent of the penitentiary of Werl agreed to thwart such orders of surrendering ment. These were constantly shunted aside by reference to the valuable labor power which the prisoners represented in the penal institutions (Note 138).
The statements of the officials of the Administration of Punishment in the Hamm district go beyond this and show exactly the opposite of that which the Prosecution claims. Dr. Joel has constantly cared for his prisoners in every respect. Even in the last year of the war he had ordered the construction of a new cell block and the improvement of the toilet installations in the penitentiary Werl. The housing was a subject that was close to his heart. The housing of the work contingents, who were employed agriculturally in the Muenster region, was a model and led to complaints by the Party (Note 139).
Contrary to the instructions of the Reich Ministry of justice and the Commissars of the Reich Defense, Dr. Joel undertook a generous release of the prisoners when the enemy approached, and forbade any destruction whatsoever of the plant installations. Upon his instructions all the inmates in the court prison of Hamm were released.
The proper conduct of Dr. Joel toward the criminal prisoners locked up in his district precludes every consideration involving penal law.
10524 DD Dr. Carl Haensel Final Plea Guenther Joel In addition to the documents from the period of Dr. Joel's service in Hamm which concern NN penal matters, a situation report dated 6 February 1945 (Note 140) has been submitted.