The decision of the court will influence as a prejudice the later development of international law, and the judge of the future will be in a better position. The judges of the first international tribunals are in a fully different position than the national judge who passes his sentences on the basis of a criminal code. They have not only to interpret but the create amendments out of the spirit of international law, They are not permitted to make this task easier than it is by simply taking over into international law without any change a national perception which is familiar to them.
That the juridical comparison for objective standards docs not help us to progress is disclosed by the example of "incitement". Under continental law the incitement is of accessory nature and punished only if the deed, which was the object of the incitement, has been committed (Note 15). Incitement is punishable under Anglo-Saxon law even if the perpetrator did not actually commit the deed to which he had been incited (Note 16).
It therefore would bo possible that on the basis of the same facts a conviction would have to bo passed under one law and an acquittal under the other, depending upon which law is applied, Anglo-Saxon or continental law.
Two fundamental principles must be observed in the application of the ordinances on participation of the Control Council Law as well as in the application of any international or national criminal law; namely:
(1) There is no punishable participation if the particular circumstances of the case establish Court III Case III Final Plea Guenther Joel an emergency.
Here I refer to page 16,880 of judgment of the IMT:
"The true test which is found in varying degrees in the criminal law of most nations is not the existence of the order, but whether moral choice was in fact possible."
(2) In dubio pro roo. This sentence was granted special consideration in the judgment and its amendments versus Milch in the Milch case of Military Tribunal II in Nuernberg in March 1947.
Any doubt as to whether a deed meets the facts suggested by the international statutes must be interpreted in favor of the defendant. When hair-splitting and juridical subleties begin, punishability under international law ends. Matters which could still be included in the compass of punishment under national law after a subtle interpretation must be discarded when soon from the high level of an international court. Ho who is not found guilty in accordance with fundamental principles and without the shadow of a doubt shall not be takes to account in accordance with international law. The fact whether our subtle conceptions of the consciousness of criminality should bo taken into consideration for instance, but the International Tribunal, must be checked from this limiting viewpoint exclusively. The IMT has ruled:
"They must have known that they were acting in defiance of all international law" -
"the attacker must know that ho was doing wrong. The demands asked from such knowledge must not be inferior but superior to those asked from the consciousness of criminality.
The defendant Joel cannot be called a perpetrator.
Court III Case III Final Plea Guenther Joel Neither was he a participant -- since he lacks the"animus socii."
He has no need to claim tho benefits of tho sentence of "in dubio pro roo! I shall prove that ho is guiltless beyond any doubt.
II.
Activity of Jr. Joel as "Referent" in tho Ministry (1) As stated by the documents cf tho Prosecution covering tho time from 1 September 1939 until 17 August 1943.
The Prosecution has brought no charge for acts which happened before the outbreak of the war to bo independent crimes. Events prior to 1 September 1939 therefore have only a supplementary character and must bo taken into consideration only if they are particularly connected with later occurrences.
At the outbreak of tho war, Dr. Joel was one of the twenty-two Referenten of tho Criminal Department, one of tho sixty-four higher officials dealing with criminal cases and one of more than two hundred Referenten of the Ministry of Justice (Note 18). His Referat included offenses deriving from blackout regulations and war conditions in general (Decree against Public Enemies); violent crimes (Decree against Violent Criminals); and tho removal of foodstuffs and other vital consumer goods (War Economy Decree). Excluded from this Referat were political matters, such as high treason and treason, listening to forbidden radio stations, racial pollution, violations of tho so-called. Malicious Statements Law, seditious undermining of tho defense spirits, giving aid and comfort to the enemy, and the like. These were dealt with in other Sachreferaten. Nor was Dr. Joel concerned Court III Case III Final Plea Guenther Joel with the preparation of laws, decrees, and general directives to the judicial authorities.
He never was a member of the Legislation Department. The criminal cases conferred upon Dr. Joel's Referat referred to delicts which in all the countries directly affected by the state of war required special attention. The essential matters were offenses against the War Economy Decree which, after the application of the other emergency laws, had soon begun to run smoothly, taxed Dr. Joel's energies nearly to capacity (Note 19). His tasks consisted in preparing the decrees which served the service supervision by the Reich Ministry of Justice of the activities of the Prosecution's offices, as far as those concerned individual criminal cases according to the War Economy Decree. With attempts of the Party at preventing proceedings against its proteges particularly numerous in the very domain of the War Economy Decree. With attempts of the Party at preventing proceedings against its particularly numerous in the very domain of the War Economy Decree, Dr. Joel found in it a field of activity in which, within the scope afforded to him, ho had excelled since his appointment to the Ministry. His goal was to safeguard an independent administration of the law against any encroachments by the Party.
Is a Referent Dr. Joel was subordinate to the Chief of the Criminal Department and his sub-department chiefs. Therefore, he never could make a decision of his own. No document of the Reich Ministry of Justice that contains a decision bears his signature. Only occasional, unimportant directives could be signed by a Referent independently (Note 20). Such a document has not been submitted to the court either.
Court III Case III Final Plea Guenther Joel A further task of Dr. Joel was, in individual criminal cases, if required, to contact the police, SS, and SD.
This task had been conferred upon him by Minister Guertner through the directive dated 19 December 1937 (Note 21). This task was likewise used by Dr. Joel to ward off encroachments by the Party and police upon the administration of justice.
Dr. Joel commenced his career - he was not claimed by Freisler, as witness Schulz erroneously assumes, but by a Referent of the Ministry (Note 22) -- as a young assistant judge, and bis his energy and eagerness to work, his sense for justice and his rigorous enforcement of the law, ho attracted Minister Guertner's attention, whoso noble character has been testified to by many witnesses. One of the adjutants of the Minister of Justice was the Nazi opponent Dohnanyi, who became a victim of the happenings on 20 July 1944. In the circle of officials not spoiled by National Socialist ideologies, Guertner included also Joel, This was the vary reason for his using him as his confidant in dealing with agencies of the Party and police, for which purpose ha would under no account take a man who made advances to the desires of the Party which were to the detriment of an orderly administration of justice and who took the side of the police, which was coordinated by Himmler on a strictly National Socialist basis (No. 23).
(a) Encroachments Upon the Administration of Justice When Minister Guertner had learned from newspaper reports that persons had been shot "while escaping" or "while offering resistance", ho commissioned Dr. Joel to establish what was going on because Dr. Joel was the liaison man to the police.
He ascertained that this was done on Hitler's personal order, and that even the newspaper reports were formulated by Hitler. There soon followed reports on Court III Case III Final Plea Guenther Joel the shooting of persons who had been sentenced to prison; but Hitler had considered the penalty to be too mild.
The efforts made by Minister Guertner and Under Secretary Schlegelberger to re-establish the jurisdiction of the judicial authorities and to bring about the cancellation of orders of this nature given by Hitler, have been discussed in detail. The valuable assistance rendered by Dr. Joel in this connection has boon recognized by all persons concerned. Dr. Fool succeeded in obtaining from the police the prolongation of the 24-hour term sot by Hitler for the execution of his order. He procured the documents for the remonstrances to be made by the Reich Ministry of Justice, prepared apologies which, forwarded to Hitler, were to prove to him that the sentences were just. Strong words contained in the amplifications made in favor of the sentences were occasionally softened by Under Secretary Freisler, in order not to provoke Hitler (Note 24). With all integrity Dr. Joel applied to the supreme agencies of the Reich against Hitler's orders (Note 25).
If Dr. Joel's remonstrances succeeded in obtaining a prolongation of the term sot for the execution of the orders, the Reich Minister of Justice via Minister Meissner could make remonstrances with Hitler, which sometime induced him to review his decision.
In one case of a hardly 18-year old sex criminal, Dr. Joel, in agreement with Minister Guertner, looked up Adjutant Schaub, who happened to be in Berlin, asked for his intervention with Hitler on behalf of the convict, wrote a letter to Schaub giving a detailed account of the facts and, when Schaub refused to intervene, looked him up a second time. Hitler then, though not canceling his Court III Case III Final Plea Guenther Joel order, did not insist on its execution either.
Thus, the convict was saved (Note 26).
In another case a defendant was, on Hitler's order, handed over to the State police immediately before the trial and without the knowledge of the Reich Ministry of Justice. Dr. Joel achieved his being brought back into the custody of the judicial authorities. (Note 27).
From the fact that Dr. Joel received three telephone calls from Hitler's adjutant conveying Hitler's orders to the Reich Ministry of Justice to the effect of handing over prisoners to the police, no punishable act can bo inferred (Note 28). The very activity of Dr. Joel consisted in offering any possible resistance to these orders of Hitler. Among his colleagues in the Criminal Department, upon whose domain Hitler's orders encroached, he was the only person who, with the aid of all possible agencies outside the Reich Ministry of Justice, tried to bring about counter measures.
With all his integrity he stook up also against the encroachments upon the administration of the law by the police which, after the beginning of the Russian Campaign, tried gradually to take away also the "Eastern workers" from the jurisdiction of the regular criminal courts. Today we know that this was part of Hitler's Eastern policy and that Minister Thierack cooperated in this policy in officially refusing to grant Poles and Jews the protection by the courts in 1943.
The Prosecution has submitted a list of oral reports (Note 29). They include oral reports which had boon ordered by Minister Thierack toward the end of 1942.
The general legal regulation concerning the treatment Court III Case III Final Plea Guenther Joel of foreign workers was a matter of the Generalreferent of the Criminal Department and Legislation Department of the Reich Ministry of Justice (Note 29). Ministerialdirigent Grau and Ministerialrat Mielke handled the matter.
As for the mode of procedure to be followed in principle in individual cases, this was left to the decision of the Generalreferent of the Criminal Department who acted in accordance with the directives given by the Minister and his departmental chief. Dr. Joel had been called in because in individual cases he had hitherto been working in support of the competent specialist of the Criminal Department in order to bring about the jurisdiction of the judicial authorities as against the police. This accounts for the note pertaining to the oral report on page three of the Document "Joel-Mielke". What kind of "internal directive by the Reichsfuehrer SS concerning the treatment of Poles, Jews and Russians" had been given to Minister Thierack at that time, the defendant Dr. Joel was not told. He merely reported on his individual cases, which are contained in the list. In his oral reports Dr. Joel represented the viewpoint of the law that everyone committing an offense had to answer for it in a criminal proceeding before the courts. That this point of view had until then boon successfully advocated by Dr. Joel over against the police is shown by the notes pertaining to the oral reports which, with one exception, make clear that criminal proceedings were pending with the judicial authorities.
In the transcript of a discussion of the Senior Public prosecutors at the Court of Appeal District Koeln on 8 July 1942, following a meeting in Berlin of the administration chiefs on 30 June and 1 July 1942 (Note 29b), mention is Court III Case III Final Plea Guenther Joel made of a directive by the Reich Minister of Justice, according to which Russians and Poles who had committed a criminal act were to be judged and sentenced by the courts.
This directive was given in order to disperse doubts on the part of the prosecuting authorities as to whether the State police was authorized to deal itself with accused Eastern workers. If the local judicial authorities did not succeed in safeguarding the jurisdiction of the judiciary, they had achieved that the police left the treatment to the administration of the law.
The allegation that the defendant Joel had handed over prisoners to the State police is incorrect and is refuted by the notes on this list of oral reports.
The Polish citizen Bartesinski had been sentenced to three years penal camp for prohibited sexual intercourse; the Polish citizen Marziniak had been taken into pre-trial detention for prohibited sexual intercourse. See pages two and five of the list of oral reports. Marziniak is identical with Massynski. In these cases the jurisdiction of the judiciary had been maintained. In the case of Marziniak, the supplementary note to the effect that he had intended to marry a German female servant in France, suggested that if this allegation was corroborated, the criminal well proceeding would have to be suspended. Dr, Joel as as his department chief, during the first oral report on 19 November 1942 and during the second report on 17 December 1942, refused to grant the request by the Gestapo for handing over the accused. The success of his first oral report ensues from the ordering of the second oral report. As far us Dr. Joel remembers, Minister Thierack made no decision during the second oral report.
Court III Case III Final Plea Guenther Joel The notation on the report concerning "a Russian from the District Kursk" likewise shows that a proceeding was pending against him for a violation against Article 2 of the Decree against Public Enemies.
Dr. Fool together with his departmental chief refused to hand over the accused.
The "Eastern worker from the old Soviet territory" had boon committed by the State police to a labor and reformatory camp, though he had received a one-month prison sentence for larceny. The State police therefore wished to have the prison sentence suspended. Since the convict was in a labor camp and his prison term could thus be regarded as served, Dr. Fool and his departmental chief pleaded for his return to his working place.
The suspension of the sentence was legally impossible. Minister Thierack did not oppose in this case. Here Dr. Joel pushed on the release of the convict.
The case Jakubowski illuminates the procedure of the police at that time. Under conscious exclusion and without the knowledge of the administration of the law, the criminal police settled this case of rape independently. Dr. Joel reported on the matter to the Chief of the Criminal Department and to Minister Thierack in order to cause an effective protest to be lodged against this treatment and in order to prevent similar proceedings in the future. Minister Thierack agreed and Joel made personal remonstrances with the chief of the criminal police.
Dr. Joel was not the referent for clemency matters. For the treatment of questions of clemency after the passing of a death sentence, special Referenton had at all times been assigned in the Criminal Department of the Reich Ministry of Justice. According to the distribution of work of the Criminal Department of April 1943 (Note 30), the Court III Case III Final Plea Guenther Joel persons working on this matter were Ministerialrat Altemeyer and Senior Public prosecutor Ehrhardt, who appeared as witnesses before the court.
They exercised this function until the collapse. They dealt with all death sentences pronounced, within the jurisdiction of the administration of the law, as far as those were not passed for high treason, treason or other delicts to be judged and sentenced by the Peoples's Court, or as offenses against the occupation power, were directed against those persons who were subjected to the Nacht und Nobel decree. For the latter, again, other special Referenten were responsible, not Dr. Joel (Note 31).
Merely to assist the Referent for death sentence cases, Dr. Joel, by way of exception, was summoned in 1940, when Minister Guertner decreed a generous regulation concerning pardons to bo granted Poles who had been sentenced to death for being in possession of arms. All occupying powers threaten the population of the occupied countries with sentences -- even death sentences -- for being in possession of arms. The relevant Military Government Ordinance for Germany also contains this broad penal range in paragraph one, No. 9, Minister Guertner was of the opinion that one, such death sentences should be executed only in special and exceptional cases. The sentences of condemned persons were lessened on principle to penal servitude up to five years; and, further, in Minister Gartner's view, two to three years of penal servitude would suffice. On the other hand, however, ho did not like to lessen the deterring effect of the death sentence by commuting it into inadequate imprisonment. He and after his death, State Secretary Schlegelberger, had therefore commuted the death sentence to five years penal servitude providing for further pardon after two to three years of actual servitude. Herin De.Joel Court III Case III Final Plea Guenther Joel had collaborated as a special adviser in the criminal section When, toward the end of 1942, some convicted persons had served two years of servitude, Dr. Joel submitted the case to the departmental chief for pardon, making reference to Minister Guertner's previous decision.
This man, however, did not like to make the decision himself and that was the reason for the report made to Minister Thierack as mentioned in the list (Note 32). Thierack brusquely refused to carry out Minister Guertner's wishes (Note 33).
The explanation for Dr. Joel's expression of his opinion of 22 April 1940 in Document E-353 (Note 34) is as follows:
Immediately before and after the beginning of the war with Poland, numerous Germans residing in the borderland had been killed. The perpetrators were convicted by German courts which exercised jurisdiction in place of the Polish courts which no longer existed.
No exceptions can be taken against Dr. Joel's basic attitude expressed by his opinion that a participant in unlawful assemblies resulting in the bestial murder of numerous Germans was liable to the death sentence. The pardoning of a foreigner from whom a plea of clemency had been submitted by his home country was generally granted. Dr. Joel's attitude was in accordance with his custom.
Dr. Joel's collaboration in the decisions concerning clemency in cases of forbidden possession of arms or, as here, in cases concerning acts of violence, refers to Poles. These are the only cases in which Dr. Joel came into contact with questions concerning the treatment of foreigners while, during 1940, he was in the Ministry of Justice. We know that the opinion of a Referent in the Ministry carried no Court III Case III Final Plea Guenther Joel decisive force with it but represented merely his suggestion which was not at all binding for the person who had to make the decision.
After the Ministry of Justice had been taken over by Minister Thierack, Dr. Fool was employed on one more occasion in dealing with clemency questions in matters of death sentences, together with the permanent Referenten for death sentences. One list of reports (Note 35) shows him as Referent for death sentences in the "Annexed Eastern Territories". The death sentences recorded in this document, however, do not refer to Poles but to Germans.
Dr. Joel's collaboration refers to the period between 10 September 1942 and 17 March 1943 and only to verdiets in punishment of treason, high treason, or other political offenses. After the reconquering of these territories in 1939 a "repatriation" of the resident German population took place. Numerous Germans from the Altreich had been settled there. The right of pardon in connection with Poles and Jews had been transferred to the Reich governor and senior presidents of these territories by the Reich Ministry of Justice on Hitler's instruction in pursuance of a decree dated 18 May 1942 (Note 36). Only death sentences passed on German citizens, provided they had not been passed for treason or high treason or similar crimes, were dealt with temporarily by Dr. Joel as a Referent.
After March 1943 the defendant Joel was not employed any more in matters concerning death sentences.
My colleaguesKubuschok and Schilf have thoroughly dealt with the routine customary in the Ministry concerning decisions of clemency, and they have also argued whether any viewpoints with regard to the Law of Nations have been Court III Case III Final Plea Guenther Joel disregarded in connection with this treatment of foreigners.
In the case of my client I should like -- supplementing these legal explanations -- to make the following observation: Responsibility under the Law of Nations extends according to recognized doctrines of the Law of Nations -- only to persons who act directly for the State, because they alone are able to valuate the justification of the measures adopted. Only loading and responsible men can be prosecuted in pursuance of the Law of Nations (Note 37). The judgment of the International Military Tribunal also dealt with this problem and gave as the reason for convicting the chief war criminals who had been the defendants in these proceedings that in view of the positions they had been holding in the German government, they were bound to have cognizance of the treaties signed by Germany. Dr. Joel was, at the beginning of the war, Senior Public Prosecutor. He was a Referent in the Ministry, one of more than 200 other Deferenten. Above him was the Deputy Ministerial Director; next came the Ministerial Director, the State Secretary, and the Minister. And not even the Minister was subordinated, directly to Hitler as the supreme leader of the regime but between the Minister and Hitler there stood yet the Reich Defense Council. Dr. Joel was therefore one of the lowest members of this hierarchy. About matters concerning the Law of Nations ho did not know any more than what the regime thought necessary to lot out for the information of its subjects. It was not Joel's duty to investigate if the annexation of the reconquered former Prussian Eastern provinces announced by Hitler was justifiable from the point of view of tho Law of Nations; he only had to stand by the opinions of the regime as expressed in their laws.
Court III Case III Final Plea Guenther Joel Poland was conquered; the Polish army, the Polish administration, and the Polish courts had disappeared.
The debellatio as defined by the Law of Nations seemed to him an established fact and consequently he saw nothing extraordinary in the replacement of Polish courts by German courts. His views were supported by the German-Russian Border and Amnity Treaty of 23 September 1939, published in the Reich Legal Gazette II, of 1940, page three. It stated in its preamble that the Polish State had "disintegrated" and it defined in paragraph III that the "Now State Order" in the former Poland to the West of the demarcation line was a matter for Germany and Hast of the lino for the U.S.S.R. to establish.
Offenses tried besides possession of arms were atrocities committed up to the 17th of September 1939 (Note 38). Verdicts were given in such cases in pursuance of the laws valid for Germans and would have been given in a like manner according to the criminal laws of all cultural nations.
Even if the execution of jurisdiction in these cases by German courts was to be regarded as contrary to the Law of Nations, no deliberate participation in war crimes can bo charged against Dr. Joel.
Dr. Joel was sent by State Secretary Freisler to Prague on 30 September 1941 (Note 39) with the object of handing over to the Acting Reich Protector Heydrich, on his request, investigation documents and other documents concerning public prosecution. Upon his taking over the office of Reich Protector from Freiherr v. Neurath, Heydrich had declared martial law in agreement with Hitler, and it had been his intention to have all pending criminal cases settled Court III Case III Final Plea Guenther Joel by police courts martial.
Such a measure appeared unjustified to Dr. Joel and to involve great danger for the people concerned. Contrary to his instructions ho contacted Heydrich personally and he succeeded that all investigation documents were handed back to the Reich prosecution authorities with the exception of those connected with the criminal cases against Prime Minister Elias and the former Lord Mayor Klapke of Prague, about which Thierack and Heydyich had already arrived at a binding understanding before Dr. Joel had arrived in Prague. Most of the documents of the public prosecution authorities also went back to the administration of Justice (Note 40).
In these cases Dr. Joel stood up courageously and successfully for the restoration of justice in general and ho has thus saved many of the Czech defendants from a death sentence which they would have had to expect in court martial under martial law.
(d) Discussion of Further Documents of the Reich Ministry of Justice Pertaining Dr. Joel According to the afore-mentioned list of reports (Dote 41), Dr. Joel has initialled a clemency document concerning two convicted persons who had shot a Catholic priest in poznan in 1940.
The clemency decision itself was submitted by the Prosecution. This decision was made by Minister Thierack, on Himmler's demand, against the protest of the Chief of the Criminal Branch and of Dr. Joel. A colleague of Dr. Joel, Hoeller, confirms his statements (Note 43).
A report from the Senior Public Prosecutor of Stuttgart of 3 May 1941 is addressed to the "Reich Minister of Justice, c/o Senior Public Prosecutor Dr. Joel" (Note 44). It refers Court III Case III Final Plea Guenther Joel to a case of fatal maltreatment of a prison superintendent committed by prisoners whom the public prosecution intended to accuse under the decree concerning violent criminals of 5 September 1939 (Note 45), pleading for a death sentence.
Dr. Joel had no reasons for any objection and submitted the report to this section chief and afterwards to the Referenten responsible for dealing with the expected death sentence (Note 46).
According to Document E-366 of the Prosecution (Note 47), the defendant Dr. Joel telephoned the Chief of the State police and of the ordinary police by request of the respective Referent in order to remind them of their duty to bury persons executed in Poznan. A letter sent subsequently by Ministerial Councillor Westphal to the Chief of the German police on the same matter was submitted to Dr. Joel for his information as customary in the routine of the Reich Ministry of Justice. This is a typical example of the support which a Referent enjoyed from the hands of a liaison official to the police. This part of Dr. Joel's duties was established by Dr. Guertner's decree of 17 December 1937 (Note 49). The sectional Referent General was Ministerial Councillor Westphal (Note 50).
Two letters from the Reich Ministry of Justice were submitted to Dr. Joel for his information. One is a ministerial decree of 20 January 1939 regulating the execution of the Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honor in the Sudeten-German Area of 15 September 1935 (Note 51). In the second letter of 11 December 1939, the Chief public Prosecutor of Poznan airs the question of to what extent illegitimate sexual intercourse between Jews and Germans in the annexed Eastern territories would be punishable (Note 52).
Court III Case III Final Plea Guenther Joel All of the 64 higher officials employed in the criminal section of the Reich Ministry of Justice took notice of the first mentioned decree, and the second letter was also submitted to Dr. Joel and other officials for their information Such documents submitted to Dr. Joel for his information were not obligatory to him for taking action, and he has not actually acted in connection with these documents either.
The dealing with general questions concerning the Law for the Protection of German Blood and German. Honor fell under the jurisdiction of the law-making section. Individual cases of this kind were handled in the criminal section by a special Referent.
Since Dr. Joel never had to deal with criminal cases concerning race pollution, ho never got to know of the criminal case against Schaps in Cologne, as offered in the rebuttal dealing with reports addressed "To the Reich Minister of Justice, c/o Ministerial Councillor Dr. Joel." His address had boon used by mistake (Note 53).
Finally Dr. Joel's name appears in a document (Note 54) referring to the official working channels within the criminal section and between the criminal section and the public prosecution, Considering this and other individual documents I am unable to discover any proof of Dr. Joel's connection with any sort of criminal relevant activity.
2.
Survey of Dr. Joel's General Activity in the Reich Ministry of Justice One of the most interesting documents on Hitler's ascent and the reasons for his fascinating the German peoples is offered by the publication of the present United States Chief Prosecutor, professor Dr. Kempner, written by him in Court III Case III Final Plea Guenther Joel 1930 when he was Senior Government Councillor in the Ministry of the Interior (Note 55). Dr. Kempner at that time was of the opinion that the NSDAP was a Party guilty of high treason because it wanted to overthrow the State.
It was a secret memorandum which was accessible to only a few officials in the highest brackets. But more interesting than the content of the memorandum is the fact that nobody believed it. If the high officials had only had the slightest idea of all that Hitler caused later on they would have eliminated him at that time. A simple order of expulsion would have sufficed. But nobody believed in the danger but, on the contrary, the people, ensnared by chaotic confusion hoped of Hitler that ho would restore order. If you want to understand clearly the difference between the American and German basic attitude toward the State, and you must do that if you want to pronounce a just verdict, you can best do that if you compare the following quotation from the Bible: "Everybody be subject to the authority which has power over him." "Obey the Lord more than men." The first phrase was the key word of Martin Luther which ho imprinted on the Germans and by which he recognized the sovereignty of their rulers. The second CORRECTION SHEET MORNING SESSION 18 October, 1947 The following pages 10524a to 10524-uu, inclusive are to be incorporated in the transcript following page 10524.
