Oestreich which has been repeatedly quoted. This book contains your
biography under the title, _Walter Funk, A Life for Economy_, and has
been used by the Prosecution under Document 3505-PS, Exhibit USA-653.
Dr. Funk, I have the text of this program before me.
FUNK: Please read it.
DR. SAUTER: The whole program covers half a page only and in the main
sets forth really nothing which might be considered as characteristic of
National Socialist trends of thought?
FUNK: Well, at that time I was not yet a National Socialist or, at
least, but quite a young member of the Party.
DR. SAUTER: This economic reconstruction program must be actually read
in order to convince oneself how little it contains of the
characteristic National Socialist demands. This is a program which Funk
says might be accepted by almost any liberal or democratic or other
bourgeois party. The program is called, “Direct creation of employment
through new State and private investments.” That is the first demand.
Then productive providing of credit by the Reichsbank but no inflation,
rather the re-establishment of a sound currency and a sound financial
and credit economy to promote production.
General lowering of rates of interests paying attention to individual
conditions of the economy. Creation of a foreign trade office and a
central foreign exchange office. Reorganization of economic relations
with foreign countries, giving preference to the vital necessities of
the domestic market but with special attention to the export trade
absolutely necessary for Germany. Restoration of sound public finances,
including public insurances. Abolishment of the untenable methods of
balancing the budget. State protection for agriculture. Reorganization
of the system of house and land ownership in accordance with the
principles of productivity and national health. Expansion of the German
raw material basis, the establishment of new national industries and
trades, organization of manufactories on the basis of technical
innovations. That is all, which is comprised in this so-called economic
reconstruction program.
FUNK: This program was to be, as the Prosecution has said, the official
Party dogma on economic matters. I would have been glad if the Party had
professed these principles. In later years I had great difficulties with
these various Party offices in connection with my basic attitude on
economic policy. I was always considered, even in Party circles, as a
liberal and an outsider...
DR. SAUTER: A liberal?
FUNK: Yes. I combated all tendencies towards collectivism; and, for this
reason, I constantly came into conflict with the Labor Front. I was
supported, especially in my views regarding private property, by Reich
Marshal Hermann Göring. Even during the war, he had parts of the Hermann
Göring Works denationalized at my suggestion. I was an opponent of a
nationalized economy because a nationalized economy will always produce
only average results. Nationalized economy means sterile economy. An
economy which is without keen competition and individual rivalry will
remain stagnant and will achieve but average results. The Führer had,
formerly, always agreed enthusiastically with these principles of mine.
And it was a great disappointment to me when finally, in the last years,
the Führer turned so sharply against the bourgeois world for that meant
practically that the whole of my life’s work had failed.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, the Tribunal thinks he might get on to
something more important than his view on state economy and private
enterprise.
DR. SAUTER: Yes, Mr. President.
[_Turning to the defendant._] Dr. Funk, you know that it was precisely
on account of the big problem of unemployment at the time that Hitler
was able to grasp power. What plans did you have for the elimination of
unemployment, since you knew that just that very promise...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, we have heard nearly all the defendants on
the conditions which obtained in Germany at that time. And there is no
charge against these defendants for German economy between the years
1933 and 1939.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, I wanted to ask the Defendant Dr. Funk just
how he thought that unemployment could be abolished; for from the
testimony of other defendants, I gathered that they planned to eliminate
it by other means, such as rearmament, and so forth. As far as I know,
this was not so in his case; and I think that in judging the Defendant
Funk, the question of how he proposed to handle the elimination of
unemployment, whether by rearmament or by some other means, is of some
importance. I do not think it will take much time, Mr. President. The
Defendant Funk, I am sure, will be very brief.
Perhaps he can...
THE PRESIDENT: He can answer that in a sentence, I should think.
DR. SAUTER: Herr Funk, be as brief as possible.
FUNK: If I am to answer this in one sentence, I can say only that at
that time I envisioned the elimination of unemployment by a very precise
plan, but at any rate without rearmament, without armament...
DR. SAUTER: But, instead?
FUNK: By methods which I would have to explain. But in any event,
armament never came into question then...
DR. SAUTER: But—can you perhaps tell us in a few telling words?
FUNK: First of all, opportunities to work were offered everywhere so to
speak. It was imperative to set up a large-scale road-building program
in Germany; it was necessary to revitalize the engine industry,
especially the automobile industry, which, of course, had to be
appropriately protected. An extensive house building program was needed;
hundreds of thousands of houses were required...
DR. SAUTER: In short...
FUNK: Agriculture lacked mechanization and motorization.
I should like to give here, however, only two figures, two ratios, which
throw light on the whole situation. Up to the war two-thirds of
Germany’s total production went to private consumption and only
one-third for public needs. Up to that point, therefore, the armament
industry did not play a decisive role.
DR. SAUTER: Dr. Funk, now we will turn to another chapter.
You will remember that the Prosecution contended in their trial brief
that the evidence against you was largely circumstantial. I assume,
therefore, that it was based upon your offices rather than your actions.
For this reason I should be interested to know which Party offices you
held during the period which followed.
FUNK: Only once, in the year 1932...
DR. SAUTER: That is to say in the Party—not government offices.
FUNK: I understand. Only in the year 1932, and then for only a few
months, did I receive Party assignments, because Gregor Strasser wanted
to set up for me an office of my own, for private economy. This office,
however, was dissolved a few months later when he himself resigned from
the Party and from his offices. Then in December 1932 I was instructed
to take charge of a committee for economic policy.
DR. SAUTER: In December 1932?
FUNK: Yes. And in February 1933, that is, 2 months afterwards, I gave up
this office again. Both assignments were unimportant and never really
got going in the short time they lasted. All the gentlemen in the dock
who were in leading positions in the Party at that time can confirm
this. I never had any other Party office; so that after 1933 I received
no further assignments from the Party and no Party office either.
DR. SAUTER: Then this so-called Office for Private Economy (Amt für
Privatwirtschaft), if I understood you correctly, existed for just a few
months in the year 1932 but did not actually function. And in December
1932 you were made head of the other office, the Committee for Economic
Policy as it was called. Then a month later, in January 1933...
FUNK: February 1933.
DR. SAUTER: February 1933, shortly after the seizure of power, you gave
up this so-called office. Is that correct?
FUNK: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: Now for your connection with the Party. Were you a member of
any organization of the Party—SA, SS, or any other section of the
Party?
FUNK: I never belonged to any organization of the Party, neither SA nor
SS, nor any other organization; and as I have already said, I did not
belong to the Leadership Corps.
DR. SAUTER: You did not belong to the Leadership Corps?
FUNK: No.
DR. SAUTER: You know, Dr. Funk, that the Party functionaries, that is,
the Party veterans, and so forth, met annually in November at Munich.
You have yourself seen a film showing this anniversary meeting.
Were you ever invited to these gatherings on 8 and 9 November?
FUNK: I do not know whether I received invitations; it is possible. But
I have never been at such a gathering, for these meetings were specially
intended for old Party members and the Party veterans, in commemoration
of the March on the Feldherrnhalle. I never participated in these
gatherings, as I was averse to attending large gatherings. During all
this time I attended a Party rally only once, just visiting one or two
functions. Mass gatherings always caused me physical pain.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, did you receive the Golden Party Badge, after you
became Minister for Economics?
FUNK: No; I received that when I was still press chief of the Reich
government.
DR. SAUTER: You did not get it as Minister?
FUNK: No.
DR. SAUTER: How long were you a National Socialist deputy of the
Reichstag?
FUNK: For just a few months.
DR. SAUTER: From when to when?
FUNK: From July 1932 to February 1933. I did not get another seat,
because the Chairman of the Party, the chairman of the parliamentary
group, Dr. Frick, informed me that, by a directive of the Führer, only
the old Party members would receive mandates; and I had received a state
position in the meantime.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, in regard to the laws which are of particular
importance in this Trial, such as the Enabling Act, which practically
eliminated the Reichstag; the law forbidding political parties; or the
law for the unity of Party and State—in respect to all these laws,
which were in preparation for later developments, were you still a
member of the Reichstag at that time or had you already ceased to be
one?
FUNK: I was no longer a Reichstag deputy. But even so, I considered
these laws necessary.
DR. SAUTER: That is another question. But you were no longer a Reichstag
deputy?
FUNK: No; and I was not a member of the Cabinet, either.
DR. SAUTER: Dr. Funk, we have frequently seen and heard of an affidavit
by the American Consul General, Messersmith, dated 28 August 1945,
Document 1760-PS. He says in the passage which concerns you:
“He had been the editor of one of the leading financial journals
in Berlin before the Nazis came in and had very little open Nazi
sympathy when they did come in.”
He goes on to say:
“...later he became an ardent Nazi and one of their most
effective instruments because of his undoubted capacities in
various fields.”
That is what the American Consul General, Messersmith, says about you. I
should like to remind you of another passage from the book by Dr.
Oestreich, which I have already mentioned and which has the title
_Walter Funk, A Life for Economy_. That is 3505-PS, which has already
been used and submitted in these proceedings.
In this book the author says that the assignments given to you by the
Party, even if they covered a period of a few months only, might be
regarded as particularly important.
What can you tell us about these two quotations?
FUNK: I have already stated that I declared myself for the Party and
took up my Party work with enthusiasm. I was never attached to the
propaganda organization, as has been asserted by Mr. Messersmith. I
cannot remember that I ever knew Mr. Messersmith at all; nor do I
remember discussing Austria with him, which he also asserts.
DR. SAUTER: Nor the Anschluss of Austria to Germany?
FUNK: I cannot remember that, although of course I considered the union
of Germany and Austria necessary; but I do not recall discussing it with
Mr. Messersmith.
As far as Dr. Paul Oestreich’s book is concerned, I am sorry that the
Prosecution has used this book as a source of information. Mistakes have
arisen which could have been avoided and which I would not have to
refute here now. Oestreich was a man who was quite outside the Party.
DR. SAUTER: What was he?
FUNK: He owned a German newspaper in Chile, and for some years he was
political editor of the _Berliner Börsenzeitung_.
DR. SAUTER: Political editor?
FUNK: First of all, he naturally wanted to secure a market for his book;
and for that reason he exaggerated the importance of my position in the
Party. He may have thought that in this way he would do me a particular
favor. In any case, as things have been described there, they are not
correctly stated.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, in Document Number 3563-PS, submitted by the
Prosecution, there is a statement to the effect that you, Dr. Funk, were
described in several publications as Hitler’s adviser on economic
policy; and in another passage you are said to be Hitler’s
“Wirtschaftsbeauftragter” (Economic Plenipotentiary). Was this a Party
office, or what precisely was meant by this term? What functions is it
supposed to indicate?
FUNK: It was neither a Party office nor a Party title. The press
frequently called me so on account of my activity on behalf of the Party
in 1932, and it was obviously adopted by writers from the newspapers.
But it was neither an office nor a title. It is really nonsense to
consider my activities at that time so important; for if they had
actually been of importance, I should certainly have retained these
offices when the Party came to power.
The Reich Minister for Food and Agriculture was also a Reichsleiter;
State Secretary Reinhardt, of the Finance Ministry, was the head of the
Department for Financial Policy in the Reich Party Directorate
(Reichsleitung), _et cetera_. But there never was a “Reichsleiter für
die Wirtschaft.” When the Party came to power I left the Reichstag and
all Party organizations.
DR. SAUTER: Dr. Funk, a Reich Economic Council of the Party—I repeat
the term: Reich Economic Council of the Party—has been mentioned once
or twice in the course of this Trial. What do you know about your part
in this Party organization and about the duties and domain of this Party
organization?
FUNK: I had to think for a long time before I could remember this group
at all, especially as neither Hess, Rosenberg, nor Frank remembered
anything of the kind. But I remember dimly that Gottfried Feder had a
Circle of people whom he used to call in for consultation and to which
he gave the rather pompous name of “Reich Economic Council of the
Party.” After the seizure of power this group ceased to exist. I never
attended any of its sessions, and I was very much surprised to learn
from the Indictment that I was supposed to have been the deputy chairman
of this group. This group was of no importance whatsoever.
DR. SAUTER: You mentioned Gottfried Feder.
FUNK: He was responsible for the economic program and tenets of the
Party from its establishment until it came to power.
DR. SAUTER: So he was the economic theorist of the Party from its
foundation until it came to power?
FUNK: Yes. Dr. Wagner and Keppler overshadowed him later on. Keppler was
always given the title of Economic Adviser to the Führer in public.
DR. SAUTER: Dr. Funk, if I understood you correctly, the persons whom
you mentioned just now are those whom you consider as the economic
advisers of Hitler?
FUNK: No, that is wrong.
DR. SAUTER: Well?
FUNK: Hitler did not allow anyone to advise him, especially on economic
matters. These were merely the men who dealt with problems of economic
policy in the Party leadership, both before and after my time.
DR. SAUTER: Also from the publicity angle, like Gottfried Feder?
FUNK: He did a good deal of writing; he treated the problem of the
lowering of the rate of interest, for example, in great detail.
DR. SAUTER: Dr. Funk, those were your real or supposed Party offices.
Now I turn to your State offices. After the seizure of power—that is,
at the end of January 1933—you became press chief under the Reich
Government. In March 1933, when the Propaganda Ministry was created,
that being a State Ministry, you became State Secretary in this
Propaganda Ministry under Minister Goebbels. How did that come about?
FUNK: May I give a short summary of these matters?
DR. SAUTER: One moment...
FUNK: It would go much faster than asking each question separately.
DR. SAUTER: Then I would ask you to consider at the same time the
question of why you entered the Propaganda Ministry and were made press
chief of the Reich Government, although you were usually always occupied
with economic questions.
FUNK: The Reich Marshal has already stated in his testimony; firstly,
that he never knew that I had been active in the Party at all before
1933, and secondly, that, as he himself rightly believed, my appointment
as press chief of the Reich Government came as a complete surprise. On
29 January 1933 the Führer told me that he had no one among the old
Party members who was intimately acquainted with the press and that he,
therefore, wanted to ask me to take over the position of press chief,
especially as this appointment involved regular reports to the Reich
President. The Reich President knew me and, as I may mention again later
on, very much liked me. I was often a guest at his home and was on
friendly terms with his family.
DR. SAUTER: That is, Hindenburg?
FUNK: Yes, Hindenburg.
These were the reasons which prompted Hitler to make me press chief of
the Reich Government. The press chief of the Reich Government was also a
ministerial director in the Reich Chancellery, and I did not like the
idea of suddenly becoming a civil servant, for I never had any ambitions
in that direction. But I accepted the appointment, influenced by the
general enthusiasm of that period and in obedience to the Führer’s
summons.
I gave regular press reports to him, in the presence of Lammers. These
conferences went on for a year and a half only, until the death of the
Reich President, after which they stopped. The Führer issued
instructions to the press through the Reich press chief of the Party,
Dr. Dietrich, who was later also made a State Secretary in the
Propaganda Ministry.
When the Propaganda Ministry was founded the Führer asked me to organize
this ministry, so that Goebbels would not have to deal with problems of
administration, organization, and finance. Then the Press Department of
the Reich Government, of which I had so far been in charge, was
incorporated in the Propaganda Ministry and placed under the direct
control of Goebbels. It also had its own special chief.
From that time on—that is, after only 6 weeks activity as press chief
of the Reich Government—my activities regarding the information and
instruction of the press were at an end. From then on this was done by
Goebbels himself, who generally drew a sharp line between the political
and administrative tasks of the Ministry. He brought with him his old
collaborators from the propaganda leadership of the Party to look after
propaganda.
My services were not required for political propaganda. Goebbels took
care of it through the Party organ, of which I was not a member. I had,
for instance, as Chairman of the Supervisory Council, to be responsible
for the finances of the German Broadcasting Corporation—a matter of a
hundred million—but I never broadcasted propaganda speeches. Nor did I
speak at any of the big State or Party rallies. Naturally, I fully
appreciated the importance of propaganda for state leadership and
admired the truly gifted manner in which Goebbels conducted his
propaganda; but I myself played no part in active propaganda.
DR. SAUTER: Then, if I understood you correctly, your functions in the
Propaganda Ministry, which was, of course, a state ministry, were of a
purely administrative and organizational nature; and you left the actual
propaganda to the Minister, Dr. Goebbels, and the people he brought into
the Ministry from the Party propaganda instrument. Is that correct?
FUNK: Yes. Goebbels naturally claimed the exclusive right to dispose of
all propaganda material. I did not appear beside him in the field of
propaganda at all; and other considerable restrictions were imposed on
my position as State Secretary by the fact that many assignments, looked
after in other ministries by the State Secretary, were in this case
taken care of by Goebbels’ expert, Hahnke, who was later made State
Secretary and Gauleiter.
DR. SAUTER: Hahnke?
FUNK: Yes. I do not believe that during the entire period of my activity
in the Propaganda Ministry I signed even three times as Goebbels’
deputy. One of these signatures has been nailed down by the Prosecution.
It is a signature appended to an order for the execution of a directive
and fixing the date on which it is to come into force.
DR. SAUTER: What kind of directive was that?
FUNK: The decree for the application of the law of the Reich Chamber of
Culture. The Reich Cabinet decreed legislation in connection with the
Reich Chamber of Culture. I was not a member of the Reich Cabinet; but
as State Secretary to the Propaganda Ministry I was, of course, formally
responsible, and naturally I promoted propaganda, as did everyone else
who occupied a leading position in the official or the intellectual life
of Germany. The entire cultural life of the nation was permeated with
this propaganda in a measure appropriate to the overwhelming,
fundamental significance which was rightly attached to propaganda in the
National Socialist State.
DR. SAUTER: Dr. Funk, the Prosecution has held you responsible for laws
decreed during your term of office as press chief of the
Reichsregierung. I refer, for instance, to the laws submitted under
Documents Number 2962-PS and 2963-PS. These are the laws well known to
you and which concern the abolition of civil rights in Germany and the
abolition of the parliamentary form of government. I ask you to explain,
what did you have to do with these laws? Did you as press chief under
the Reich Government have any influence on the contents and promulgation
of these laws?
FUNK: No. This question has already been answered in the negative by
both the Reich Marshal and Dr. Lammers. All I had to do was to pass on
the contents of these laws to the press, in accordance with instructions
given to me by the Führer.
DR. SAUTER: So you were surely present at the sessions of the Reich
Cabinet...
FUNK: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: And you took note of the deliberations and resolutions of
the Reich Cabinet...
FUNK: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: That was the reason of your presence there; but your sole
duty—and please tell me if I am correct—was to inform the press, after
the cabinet sessions, of the decisions made? Is that correct?
FUNK: Yes, that is correct.
DR. SAUTER: So you had no influence on the drafting or on the contents
of the laws, nor on the voting? Is that right?
FUNK: Yes, that is right. I had neither a seat nor a vote in the
Cabinet.
DR. SAUTER: Were you responsible for the press policy of the Reich
Government—and I stress: the Reich Government and not the Party?
FUNK: I have already said that I received my instructions for the press
from the Führer; that went on for 6 weeks. Then Dr. Goebbels took charge
of press policy.
DR. SAUTER: You have already said that the press reports to Reich
President Von Hindenburg ended with his death in August 1934?
FUNK: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: And also, from the same date, your press reports to Hitler,
who was then Reich Chancellor, is it not so?
FUNK: Yes, that is correct. Reich President Hindenburg had died in the
meantime.
DR. SAUTER: And afterwards the Reich press chief, that is the Party
official, Dr. Dietrich, tended more and more to occupy your place?
FUNK: Yes, Dr. Dietrich was one of the Führer’s closest collaborators;
and through him the Führer gave his instructions to the press.
DR. SAUTER: Dr. Funk, the book by Dr. Oestreich, 3505-PS, Exhibit
USA-653, which we have already dealt with, contains the following
quotation on your press policy; and I quote:
“Many of the journalists who worked in Berlin and the provinces
are grateful to Funk for the way in which he attended to their
wishes and their complaints, especially during the transition
period.
“Funk is responsible for the much-quoted saying that the press
must not be a ‘barrel-organ,’ with which he protested against
the uniformity”—to use a German word, the one-sided modeling
and leveling—“of the press and demanded individuality for it.
But he also protected the press from efforts made by various
offices to ‘grind their own ax....’”
Is that correct?
FUNK: Yes; I probably did write that; and that was my opinion. So far as
it lay within my power, I tried to protect the press from
standardization and arbitrary treatment, especially at the hands of the
government offices.
DR. SAUTER: You have already said, I believe, that you took no part in
the political direction of the Propaganda Ministry—I stress, the
political direction of the Propaganda Ministry—or in the actual work of
propaganda. Is that correct?
FUNK: Yes, that is correct.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, I turn now to a new complex. Do you wish to
have the recess now, Your Honor?
THE PRESIDENT: I think we will go straight on. We are going to adjourn
at 12 o’clock.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, I come now to your attitude on the question of
anti-Semitism. I do so because you are held more or less responsible,
along with others, for the excesses committed against the Jews. Will you
tell us on what principles your attitude was based?
FUNK: I was never anti-Semitic on the basis of racial principles. At
first I thought that the anti-Semitic demands of the Party program were
a matter of propaganda. At that time the Jews in many respects held a
dominant position in widely different and important fields of German
life; and I myself knew many very wise Jews who did not think that it
was in the interest of the Jews that they should dominate cultural life,
the legal profession, science, and commerce to the extent that they did
at the time...
The people showed a tendency toward anti-Semitism at that time.
The Jews had a particularly strong influence on cultural life and their
influence seemed to me particularly dangerous in this sphere because
tendencies which I felt to be definitely un-German and inartistic
appeared as a result of Jewish influence, especially in the domain of
painting and music. The law concerning the Reich Chamber of Culture was
created, radically excluding the Jews from German cultural life but with
the possibility of making exceptions. I applied these exceptions
whenever I was in a position to do so. The law, as I have stated, was
decreed by the Reich Cabinet, which bears the responsibility for it. I
was at that time not a member of the Cabinet. During the period of my
activities in the Propaganda Ministry, I did what I could to help the
Jews and other outsiders in cultural life.
Everyone who knows me from my activities during that period can and must
testify to that.
DR. SAUTER: I have submitted two affidavits in my document book;
Documents Number Funk-1 and 2. The first was made by the editor of the
_Frankfurter Zeitung_, Albert Oeser; and the second by a lawyer, Dr.
Roesen. I ask you to take judicial notice of both these documents. The
first affidavit proves that the Defendant Funk took a great deal of
trouble to protect the interests of the above-mentioned Albert Oeser,
the editor of the _Frankfurter Zeitung_, and those of a number of the
staff of this newspaper, although by doing so he was endangering his own
position. In particular, he persisted in retaining members of the staff
who were not of Aryan descent and who, therefore, in accordance with the
intentions of the Party, should no longer have been employed.
FUNK: It was not in accordance with the intentions of the Party, but in
accordance with the law passed for the Chamber of Culture that they were
no longer to be employed.
DR. SAUTER: In accordance with the law passed for the Chamber of
Culture, also.
Then Document Number 2 of the document book, an affidavit made by Dr.
Roesen, who confirms that the Defendant Funk also intervened, for
instance, on behalf of the family of the composer, Dr. Richard Strauss,
and his non-Aryan grandchildren and by so doing incurred certain
personal danger. These are just a few examples; but the defendant can
probably tell you of other cases in which he looked after people’s
interests.
THE PRESIDENT: What exhibit number are you offering those as?
DR. SAUTER: Numbers Funk-1 and 2 in the document book. I have submitted
the originals.
THE PRESIDENT: 1 and 2?
DR. SAUTER: 1 and 2.
[_Turning to the defendant._] Dr. Funk, I have just said that perhaps
you could—quite briefly—give us some more examples of cases where you
used your official position to protect intellectuals and artists, whose
views had got them into difficulties.
FUNK: Richard Strauss is a special case. That most remarkable living
composer found himself in great difficulties on account of a libretto
written by the Jew, Stefan Zweig.
I succeeded in having Richard Strauss again received by the Führer, and
the whole affair was dismissed.
Dr. Wilhelm Furtwängler found himself in similar difficulties because he
wrote an article praising the composer Hindemith; and composers with
Jewish wives, such as Lehar, Künnecke, and others who were always in
difficulties because of their efforts to evade the ban placed on the
performance of their works. I always succeeded in getting permission for
these composers to have their works performed.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant can say that he helped hundreds of Jews,
but that does not really destroy the fact that he may have acted
hostilely by signing decrees against the Jewish race—his helping a few
Jewish friends. Anyhow, I do not think that it need be gone into any
detail.
DR. SAUTER: We are of the opinion, Mr. President, that in order to judge
the character and personality of the defendant, it may be important to
know whether he signed decrees which were in any way anti-Semitic
because as an official he considered himself bound by his oath to carry
out the law of the land, or whether he signed them because he himself
was an anti-Semite who wished to persecute Jewish citizens and to
deprive them of their rights, and for this reason only...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, the Tribunal thinks that you have made the
point quite clearly that he helped Jewish friends, but it isn’t a
question which need be gone into in detail.
DR. SAUTER: I come now, in any case, Mr. President, to another point. I
want to ask the defendant how his activities in the Propaganda Ministry
developed in later years.
FUNK: In exactly the same direction that I have described here. By
degrees I came to be in charge of a large cultural economic
concern—film companies, broadcasting corporations, theaters. I was
director and chairman of the supervisory board of the Philharmonic
Orchestra and on the Council of German Economy, which dealt collectively
with the economic activities in the entire economic field at home and
abroad with the active participation of the economy itself. Those were
the main parts of my work.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, the Prosecution has submitted under Document Number
3501-PS an affidavit by the former Reich chief of the press—I
believe—Max Amann, in regard to your activities in the Propaganda
Ministry. I want to refer to this now. In that affidavit, we find the
statement that Dr. Funk—and I quote literally:
“...was to all intents and purposes Minister in the Propaganda
Ministry...”—And it says further on—and I quote again—“Funk
exercised complete control over all means of expression in
Germany: press, theater, radio, and music.”
Now, I ask you to comment on that; but you can do so quite briefly
because I have already submitted an affidavit by Max Amann to the
contrary to which I will refer later.
FUNK: Amann knew the Ministry only from the outside; and, therefore, he
had no exact knowledge of its internal affairs. My work was done in the
manner I have described. It is completely absurd to assert that under a
Minister such as Dr. Goebbels the Ministry could have been led by
someone else who was not the Minister.
Dr. Goebbels assumed such exclusive and all-embracing functions in the
field of propaganda that he dwarfed everyone else.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, I have submitted an affidavit by that same
former Reichsleiter Amann, dealing with the same subject, in the
appendix to the Funk Document Book, under Document Number Funk-14—that
will be Exhibit Number 3—and I ask you to take judicial notice of this
affidavit. I do not think I have to read it. I administered that
affidavit in the presence of and with the co-operation of a member of
the Prosecution. The essential part of this affidavit of 17 April 1946
is that Reichsleiter Max Amann also admits that Funk had nothing to do
with propaganda as such. That is to say, he did no broadcasting and
indulged in no propaganda speeches but was mainly concerned with the
organization and administration of the Ministry. Now, Mr. President, I
come to the defendant’s position as Reich Minister of Economics.
[_Turning to the defendant._] Dr. Funk, you were State Secretary in the
Propaganda Ministry until 1937. At the end of November 1937 you became
Reich Minister of Economics, after your predecessor, Dr. Schacht, had
left that post. Can you tell us with the necessary brevity—of
course—how that change took place and why you were called to that post?
FUNK: That took me completely by surprise, too. During a performance at
the opera, the Führer, who was present, took me aside in the vestibule
during an interval and told me that the differences between Schacht and
Göring could no longer be bridged and that he was therefore compelled to
dismiss Schacht from his office as Minister of Economics and was asking
me to take over the post of Minister of Economics, as he was very well
acquainted with my knowledge and experience in the field of economics.
He also asked me to contact Reich Marshal Göring who would explain
everything else.
That was the only conversation which I had with the Führer on the
subject.
DR. SAUTER: And then you spoke to Göring himself? Will you tell us about
that?
FUNK: Then I went to the Reich Marshal who told me that he had really
only intended to put a state secretary in charge of the Reich Ministry
of Economics but that later he decided that the extensive machinery of
the Four Year Plan should be merged with the machinery of the Ministry
of Economics. However, the minister would have to work in accordance
with his directives and in particular the plenipotentiaries for the
individual decisive branches of economy would be maintained and would
receive their directives directly from the Delegate for the Four Year
Plan. In order to proceed with the necessary reorganization, the Reich
Marshal himself took over the direction of the Reich Economic Ministry;
and in February 1938 he transferred it to me.
DR. SAUTER: So Göring himself was to all intents and purposes the head
of the Reich Ministry for Economics for a period of about 3 months.
FUNK: The reorganization was effected under his control. The control of
economic policy was in his hands then as well as later.
The main control offices under the Four Year Plan were maintained; for
instance, the Foreign Currency Control Office, which gave directives to
the Reichsbank; there was the Food Control Office, which gave directives
to the Food and Agriculture Ministry; the Allocation of Labor Control
Office, which gave directives to the Labor Ministry; and also the
plenipotentiaries for the separate branches of economics: coal, iron,
chemicals, _et cetera_, which were under the direct control of the
Delegate for the Four Year Plan. Some offices were also transferred in
this way to the Ministry of Economics from the Four Year Plan, which
continued to function quite independently. They included the Reich
Office for Economic Development and Research, which was under the
direction of Professor Strauch, and the Reich Office for Soil Research,
directed by State Secretary Kempner, mentioned here in connection with
Slovakia and Austria.
I tried to restore the independence of these offices. I am still in
ignorance of what these offices did. In any case, they thought
themselves responsible to the Four Year Plan rather than to the Minister
of Economy.
DR. SAUTER: Dr. Funk, the essential point of what you have just said
seems to me to be that you received the title of minister but that in
reality you were not a minister, but might have had the position of a
state secretary and that your so-called Ministry of Economics was
completely subordinated to the directives of the Four Year Plan—your
Codefendant Göring in other words—and was compelled to follow these
directives.
Did I understand it correctly?
FUNK: The latter point is correct. The Reich Marshal has clearly
expressed and confirmed that here. But the first statement is not
correct because formally, at least, I held the position of minister,
which involved a gigantic administrative domain to which the Reich
Marshal, of course, could not pay attention. The very purpose of the
reorganization was that the Reich Marshal reserved for himself the
direction and control of economic policy in the most important and
decisive matters and gave me corresponding directives, but the execution
of these was naturally in the hands of the Ministry and its
organizations. But it is true that the position of minister, in the
usual meaning of the term, did not exist. There was, so to speak, a
higher ministry. But that has happened to me all my life. I arrived at
the threshold, so to speak; but I was never permitted to cross it.
DR. SAUTER: That is not the case as far as this Trial is concerned.
Dr. Funk, the Prosecution asserts that, although you were not really a
minister with the usual responsibility and independence of a minister,
you, as Dr. Funk, Reich Economic Minister, still exercised supervision
over those parts of the German economy which were grouped under war and
armaments industry, that is, in particular, raw materials and
manufactured materials as well as mining, the iron industry, power
stations, handicrafts, finance and credit, foreign trade and foreign
currency. I refer you, Dr. Funk, to the statements on Page 22 of the
German translation of the trial brief, which I discussed with you
several days ago.
FUNK: That is formally correct. But I have already explained how matters
really were. I had nothing to do with the armament industry. The
armament industry was at first under the High Command of the Armed
Forces, under the Chief of the Armament Office, General Thomas, who was
a member of Schacht’s conspiracy, of which we have heard here. The
Armament Minister Todt, who was appointed in 1940, at once took over
from me the entire power economy; and later on I turned over all the
civilian production to Armament Minister Speer.
DR. SAUTER: What do you mean by civilian production?
FUNK: Coal, chemicals, consumer, and other goods. The main production
branches in that field already mentioned here were, as I said before,
under the Delegate for the Four Year Plan. Thus it came about that the
Ministry of Economics gradually became a new Ministry of Commerce, which
dealt only with the distribution of consumer goods.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, perhaps we might let him go on for a few
seconds longer; because I would then come in a second to the subject of
the Reichsbank President.
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly.
DR. SAUTER: Will you please continue briefly? You stopped. I believe you
wanted to say more about manpower, gold, and foreign currency—about the
competent authorities there.
FUNK: The Foreign Currency Control Office under the Four Year Plan was
the competent authority for that; and the Reichsbank had to act in
accordance with its directives—in my time, at least.
DR. SAUTER: And the direction of foreign trade?
FUNK: That was in the hands of the Foreign Office. The Minister for
Foreign Affairs obstinately laid claim to that.
DR. SAUTER: And what did the Ministry of Economics do?
FUNK: The Ministry of Economics and the Reichsbank attended to the
technical execution in this sphere, that is, the technical execution of
clearing agreements, balances, _et cetera_.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, I come now to a separate theme. I should like
now to discuss his position as President of the Reichsbank. I believe it
might be a good moment to adjourn.
THE PRESIDENT: The Court will adjourn.
[_The Tribunal adjourned until 6 May 1946 at 1000 hours._]
ONE HUNDRED
AND TWENTY-SECOND DAY
Monday, 6 May 1946
_Morning Session_
[_The Defendant Funk resumed the stand._]
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, I will continue my questioning of the
Defendant Dr. Funk. On Saturday we were discussing the appointment of
Dr. Funk as Reich Minister of Economics and now I turn to his
appointment as President of the Reichsbank.
Witness, I believe it was in January 1939 when you also became President
of the Reichsbank as successor to Dr. Schacht. How did that appointment
come about?
FUNK: I had just returned from a journey about the middle of January
1939. I was called to the Führer and found him in a state of great
agitation. He told me that the Reich Minister of Finance had informed
him that Schacht had refused the necessary financial credits and that
consequently the Reich was in financial straits. The Führer told me, in
great excitement, that Schacht was sabotaging his policies, that he
would not tolerate the Reichsbank’s interference with his policies any
longer and the gentlemen in the Reichsbank Directorate were utter fools
if they believed that he would tolerate it. No government and no chief
of state in the world could possibly make policy dependent on
co-operation or non-co-operation of the issuing bank.
The Führer further declared that from now on he himself, on the
suggestions and demands of the Reich Minister of Finance, would fix all
credits to be given by the Reichsbank to the Reich. He had given Lammers
instructions to formulate a decree, together with the Reich Minister of
Finance, by which the status of the Reichsbank, as established by the
provisions of the Treaty of Versailles, would be changed, and whereby
the terms for the granting of credits to the Reich would be determined
by himself alone in the future.
The Führer further said that he was asking me to take over the direction
of the Reichsbank, whereupon I replied that I would be glad to comply
with his wish, but that first of all I had to have confirmation from him
that the conditions for stabilization of currency would be maintained.
The opinion, which was voiced here by a witness, that inflation would be
brought about through a further grant of credits at that time is wrong
and totally untenable. Although 12,000 millions of credit can have an
inflationary effect, 20,000 millions of credit will not necessarily tend
toward inflation if the state has the necessary authority to stabilize
prices and wages and to carry out the regulation and administration of
prices, and if the people maintain the proper discipline in this
respect, and if, finally, the money which as a result of increased
credits represents excess purchasing power is diverted through taxes or
taken up through loans; then, as far as the currency is concerned, there
is absolutely no danger.
It is a fact that the Reichsmark, up to the final collapse, was kept on
a stable basis. As far as the essentials of life are concerned, the
purchasing power of money in Germany was secure. Of course, its value
was limited insofar as consumers’ goods were produced only on a very
limited scale, for almost all production was turned over to armaments.
DR. SAUTER: Dr. Funk, have you concluded?
FUNK: Just one moment, please. I believe this is a very important
question.
In other countries as well, large credits were issued during the war
which did not in any way cause an inflation. The national debt in the
United States as well as in England was relatively, and in part even
absolutely, higher than that in Germany. And in these countries, too, a
correct financial policy overthrew the old thesis that a war would, of
necessity, bring about the destruction of the monetary value.
The German people, up to the very end, until the terrible collapse,
maintained admirable discipline. Money as a function of the state will
have its value and currency will function so long as the state has
authority to maintain it on a stable basis, to keep the economy under
control, and as long as the people themselves maintain the necessary
discipline.
Thus I took over this office not with the knowledge that Germany was now
entering an inflation period but, on the contrary, I knew well that
through maintenance of a suitable governmental policy the currency could
be protected, and it was protected. However, the basic difference
between Schacht’s position and my position lay in the fact that during
Schacht’s time the Reichsbank could determine the granting of credits to
the Reich, whereas this authority was taken from me, and the
responsibility for domestic finances, therefore, was turned over to the
Minister of Finance or of course to the Führer himself.
DR. SAUTER: Dr. Funk, I have another question. Perhaps, despite your
poor state of health today, you might be able to speak a little more
loudly so that the stenographers might understand you more easily.
Please try, and we will make this as brief as possible.
Witness, then in addition to these offices of yours which we have
discussed up to now, you finally had a further office as successor of
Dr. Schacht, namely, that of Plenipotentiary General for Economy. Can
you give us some details of your view in this connection in order to
clarify your situation, your activity, and your achievements?
FUNK: This of all the positions I had was the least impressive. As the
Reich Marshal correctly stated, and as Dr. Lammers confirmed, it existed
merely on paper. That, too, was an essential difference between the
position which Schacht had and the one which I had.
Schacht had been appointed Plenipotentiary General for War Economy. I,
on the other hand, was the Plenipotentiary General for Economy.
According to the Reich Defense Law of 1938, the Plenipotentiary General
for Economy was to co-ordinate the civil economics departments in
preparing for a war. But, in the meantime, these economic departments
had been subordinated to the Delegate for the Four Year Plan, and I, as
Plenipotentiary General for Economy, was also subordinate to the
Delegate for the Four Year Plan.
Consequently, there was confusion and overlapping in matters of
competence and authority as they had been laid down formally. The result
was a directive of the Führer just a few months after the beginning of
the war which _de jure_ and formally transferred the authority of the
Plenipotentiary General for Economy, as far as the civil economic
departments were concerned, to the Delegate for the Four Year Plan.
DR. SAUTER: When was that?
FUNK: That was in December of 1939. There remained only a formal
authority to issue directives, that is, I could sign directives on
behalf of the five civil economic departments, which, according to the
Reich Defense Law, were subordinate to the Plenipotentiary. I retained
authority over the Ministry of Economics and the Reichsbank, which I had
in any case.
DR. SAUTER: But you were subordinate even in these functions to the
Delegate for the Four Year Plan; is that correct?
FUNK: Yes, like all civil economic departments. Only with the Ministry
of Economics itself did I have a closer connection.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, in August 1939, that is, immediately before the
beginning of the Polish campaign, you in your capacity as
Plenipotentiary General for Economy summoned the civil economic offices
to a meeting for discussions, and Document 3324-PS refers to this
meeting. It seems to me important that you define your attitude on this
point also, and especially with reference to the fact that apparently
your letter to Hitler, dated 25 August, was a result of this meeting.
This matter is mentioned in your trial brief on Page 24. Will you
comment on it?
FUNK: In Schacht’s time there existed an office for the Plenipotentiary
General for Economy, and a working committee was set up which consisted
of the representatives of the various economic departments, as well as
of the Ministry of the Interior, the Plenipotentiary for Administration,
the OKW, and above all, of the Four Year Plan.
When Schacht resigned, the direction of this committee and of the office
of the Plenipotentiary for Economy was transferred to Dr. Posse, his
former State Secretary, whereas under Schacht State Counsellor Wohlthat
had headed the office and the committee. These people, of course, had
constant consultations, in which they discussed measures necessary in
the economic sphere for waging war. And this was the organization of the
Plenipotentiary for Economy which I dealt with in my speech in Vienna
which had been mentioned here. It existed alongside the Four Year Plan,
and in the main was charged with a smooth conversion of the civilian
economy into a war economy in the case of war, and with the preparation
of a war economy administration.
When, in August of 1939, there was a threat of war with Poland, I called
together the chiefs of the civil economic departments, as well as the
representatives of the Four Year Plan, and, in joint consultation, we
worked out measures necessary for converting the civilian economy into a
war economy in the case of a war with as little disturbance as possible.
These were the proposals which I mentioned in my letter to the Führer
dated 25 August 1939, at a time when the German and Polish Armies
already faced each other in a state of complete mobilization.
It was, of course, my duty to do everything to prevent dislocations of
the civilian economy in the case of a war, and it was my duty as
President of the Reichsbank to augment gold and foreign exchange assets
of the Reichsbank as much as possible.
This was necessary first of all because of the general political tension
which existed at the time. It would also have been necessary if war had
not broken out at all, but even if only economic sanctions had been
imposed, as was to be expected from the general foreign political
tension which existed at the time. And it was equally my duty, as
Minister of Economics, to do everything to increase production.
But I did not concern myself with the financial demands of the
Wehrmacht, and I had nothing to do with armament problems, since, as I
have already said, the direction of peacetime as well as war economy had
been turned over to the Delegate for the Four Year Plan.
The explanation for the fact that at that time I kept aloof from the
work of that committee is the following:
I personally did not believe that there would be war, and everyone who
discussed this subject with me at that time will confirm this. In the
months before the beginning of the war I concentrated my entire activity
on international negotiations for bringing about a better international
economic order, and for improving commercial relations between Germany
and her foreign partners.
At that time it was arranged that the British Ministers Hudson and
Stanley were to visit me in Berlin. I myself was to go for negotiations
to Paris where, in the year 1937, I had come to know some members of the
Cabinet when I organized a great German cultural fête there.
The subject of short-term foreign debts had again to be discussed and
settled—the so-called moratorium. I had worked out new proposals for
this, which were hailed with enthusiasm, especially in England. In June
of 1939, an international financial discussion took place in my offices
in Berlin, and leading representatives of the banking world from the
United States, from England, from Holland, France, Belgium, Switzerland,
and Sweden, took part in it.
These discussions led to results which satisfied all parties. At the
same time I carried out the exchange or transfer of Reichsbank assets in
foreign countries. This exchange of gold shares also was considered very
fair and satisfactory in foreign banking circles and the foreign press.
In June of that year I went to Holland to negotiate trade agreements. I
also participated in the customary monthly discussions of the
International Clearing Bank at Basel as late as the beginning of July
1939, and despite the strong political tension which existed at the time
I was convinced that a war would be avoided and I voiced this conviction
in all my discussions, at home and abroad. And this is why during those
months I was barely interested in the discussions and consultations on
the financing of the war and the shape of war economy.
I had, of course, given instructions to the Reichsbank to use its
available economic assets abroad as far as possible to obtain gold and
generally to increase our foreign assets. But in the few months of my
activity in this sphere before the war, the success of this endeavor of
mine was slight. Our gold assets and foreign assets, as they were turned
over to me by Schacht, remained on the whole unchanged until the war.
In my questionnaire to the Reichsbank Vice President, Puhl, I requested
enlightenment on these transactions, since the Directorate of the
Reichsbank and its managing director who, at that time, was Puhl, are
bound to have information on this matter. The answer to this
questionnaire, I am sorry to say, has not as yet arrived.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, you gave these details obviously to show that
despite the political tension at the time you did not even think
seriously of war.
FUNK: Not until August 1939.
DR. SAUTER: Now, in the course of these proceedings, we have heard about
a series of discussions which Hitler had with generals and other
personalities, and which concerned military and political matters. All
these were discussions which we must say today stood in closest
connection with preparations for war.
At which of these discussions were you present, and what did you gather
from them?
FUNK: I was never called into political and military discussions, and I
did not participate in any of these discussions which were mentioned
here in connection with the charge of planning an aggressive war, so far
as discussions with the Führer are concerned. I was also not informed
about the contents of these discussions. And as far as I can remember, I
was hardly ever present at the discussions with the Reich Marshal, when
they dealt with this topic.
I have been confronted here with a meeting which took place in October
of 1938.
DR. SAUTER: 14 October 1938? I can tell you the document number. It is
1301-PS.
FUNK: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: Were you present at that meeting?
FUNK: No.
DR. SAUTER: That was the meeting...
FUNK: Yes, that was the meeting in which, according to the indictment
against me, Göring pointed out that he had been instructed by the Führer
to increase armament to an abnormal extent. The Luftwaffe was to be
increased fivefold, as speedily as possible.
The Prosecutor, according to the official record (Volume V, Pages 163,
164), asserts that, in this discussion, Göring addressed me in the words
of a man who was already at war. I was not even in Germany those days
but in Bulgaria, and consequently I could not participate in this
meeting.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, as proof of the fact that the Defendant Funk
was not in Germany at the time of this discussion with Göring on 14
October 1938 I have submitted several documents in the Document Book
Funk; they are extracts from the _Völkischer Beobachter_, Numbers 5, 6,
7, and 8 of the Funk Document Book. These documents are submitted
chiefly because they show that in fact from 13 October 1938 until 15
October 1938 Funk was at Sofia in Bulgaria, and therefore could not have
been present at the Göring meeting on 14 October 1938.
What Funk said in Bulgaria about economic relations I need not read in
detail. But I would like to refer especially to his speech of 15 October
1938, Funk Document Book Number 7, in which the Defendant Funk,
particularly in the first paragraph, declared publicly that the thought
of an economic union between the German economy and the Southeastern
European economy was in his mind, and in which Funk quite definitely
rejected a one-sided dependence of the economy of the southeastern
states on the economic system of Germany.
Therefore I beg the Tribunal to take judicial notice of these documents
as evidence and in order to save time I will not go into them further.
Witness, under Document Number PS-3562 the Prosecution has submitted a
document dealing with a conference on 1 June 1939. You yourself did not
attend this meeting, but according to the list of those present several
representatives of your Ministry were there, as well as the
representative of the Reichsbank. At this meeting the probable financial
needs of the Reich in case of a war, the productive capacity of the
Germany economy, and that of the Protectorate in case of a war were
discussed. There is a marginal note in this record which says that the
record was to be submitted to you. Can you state very briefly whether
this was actually done?
FUNK: No, it was not done. I have the document here. If this record had
been submitted to me I would have affixed my initials “W. F.” to it.
Besides, this document deals with the continuous discussions, which I
have already mentioned, about the financing of the war, and the measures
to be taken in the field of civilian economy in case of a war. The
decisive measures for the financing were naturally prepared by the Reich
Minister of Finance, and these measures were discussed at length in this
conference at which the question of meeting the expenses through taxes
was one of the chief topics. In any event, a variety of such discussions
was carried on continuously at that time among the representatives of
the various departments, and they took place in the office of the
leading staff of the Plenipotentiary for Economy. By chance I have now
found this name which earlier I could not remember: this was the
institution—the committee—which was founded in the days of Schacht and
was later continued.
DR. SAUTER: Dr. Funk, on 30 March 1939 you made a statement of your
program in a speech before the Central Committee of the Reichsbank.
I have included these excerpts from the speech which have a bearing on
this Trial in the Funk Document Book under Number 9. I am coming back to
this speech because it was delivered before the Central Committee
shortly after the defendant assumed his office as President of the
Reichsbank, and represents his program as President of the Reichsbank in
connection with various matters which have played a part here.
Dr. Funk, perhaps with just a few brief words you might give us the
essential relevant points of your speech, insofar as the Prosecution is
interested in them.
FUNK: I do not believe I need do that. I briefly mentioned a while ago
that in these months I carried on international discussions about the
necessity for a new order in international economic relations, and that
I also pointed out Germany’s readiness to play a positive part.
Therefore, I do not think I need read anything more from this speech; it
is only meant to show that at that time I did not work on preparations
for war but endeavored to bring about international economic
understanding, and that these, my efforts were recognized publicly in
foreign countries, especially in England.
DR. SAUTER: This intention to establish favorable and confident
relations with foreign countries, that is, with their financial and
economic circles, was, I am sure, a deciding factor in a later measure
to which you already referred a little while ago, namely that
compensation to foreign shareholders in the Reichsbank, who, I believe,
existed chiefly in England, Holland, and Switzerland, was assessed and
paid in a particularly loyal manner.
FUNK: Yes, I have stated that already.
DR. SAUTER: Dr. Funk, you mentioned earlier a letter which you wrote to
Hitler. This letter would be interesting to me insofar as I would like
to know just why you wrote it, and why in it you spoke of “your
proposals,” even though in the main they were concerned with things
which did not actually originate with you. Perhaps you will say a few
words about this letter.
FUNK: The tone and contents of this letter can be explained from the
general mood which existed everywhere in Germany at that time. Beyond
that it is a purely personal letter to the Führer: In it I thanked him
for his congratulations on my birthday. For this reason the letter is a
little emphatic in its style. When I spoke of “my proposals,” this may
be traced back to the fact that I had personally some time before
explained to the Führer what measures would be necessary if a war broke
out. And in the main, those were the measures which were adopted later
as a result of conferences with the other economic offices, and to which
I referred in this letter. Thus it was not quite correct for me to say
“my proposals.” I should really have said, “The proposals worked out
together with the other economic offices.”
DR. SAUTER: Dr. Funk, have you concluded?
FUNK: No. I would like to explain this whole letter with just a few
words, since it is apparently one of the pillars of the Prosecution’s
case against me.
As I have said, it was the time when the two mobilized armies faced each
other. It was the time when the entire German people were in a state of
great excitement because of the constant provocations and the
ill-treatment of the German population in Poland. I personally did not
believe that we would actually have war, for I was of the opinion that
diplomatic negotiations could again be successful in preventing the
threat of war and indeed in avoiding war itself. After the Führer’s
almost miraculous successes in foreign policy, the heart of every true
German had to beat faster in the expectation that in the East also
Germany’s wishes would be fulfilled; that is, that my separated home
province of East Prussia would be reunited with the Reich, that the old
German city of Danzig would again belong to the Reich, and that the
problem of the Corridor would be solved.
The overwhelming majority of the German people, including myself, did
not believe that this question would end in war. We were rather
convinced that England would be successful in exerting pressure on
Poland so that Poland would acquiesce in the German demands on Danzig
and the Corridor and would not bring on a war. The testimony of the
witness Gisevius must have made clear to everyone in the world that
England did nothing at that time to exert a soothing and conciliatory
influence on Poland. For if the British Government knew that a
conspiracy existed in Germany in which the Chief of the General Staff,
the Chief of the OKW, the Chief of German Armament and other leading
military personalities and generals were involved, and that an overthrow
had been prepared for the event of war, then the British Government
would have been foolish indeed if they had done anything to assuage and
conciliate Poland. The British Government must have been convinced that
if Hitler should go to war, a _coup d’état_, a revolution, an overthrow
would take place, and that, in the first place, there would be no war
and, secondly, that the hateful Hitler regime would be removed. Nobody
could hope for more.
DR. SAUTER: Dr. Funk, we do not want to talk politics, but rather return
to this letter of 25 August 1939. May I repeat the number, 699-PS. Let
us at present deal only with this letter. If I understood you correctly,
I can summarize your testimony as follows: This rather enthusiastic
letter to Hitler was written because you were hopeful that Hitler would
succeed in reuniting your home province of East Prussia with the Reich,
and would now finally settle the Corridor problem without a war. Did I
understand you correctly?
FUNK: Yes, but at the same time I feel I must state that I on my part
did everything to ensure that in the event of war, peacetime economy
would without disturbance be converted into a war economy. But this was
the only time at which, as Plenipotentiary for Economy, I was active at
all with regard to the other economic departments and the fact that I
referred to my position in this letter may be explained quite naturally,
because I was proud that I had for once done something in this official
position—for every man likes to be successful.
DR. SAUTER: Dr. Funk, we are still concerned with the question of
whether you knew of Hitler’s intent to bring about a war, especially to
wage aggressive war and to make conquests through aggressive wars. I
would like to put to you a few questions which, for the sake of
simplicity, you can answer with “yes” or “no”; I would like to know only
whether your knowledge and your presentiment agree with the statements
made by a few witnesses and some codefendants.
For example, Reich Minister Lammers testified that you found it
especially difficult to see Hitler at all, that an audience was granted
you only once in a long while, and that even on one occasion I believe
you waited for days with Lammers at headquarters for the promised
audience, and that you had to leave again without having gained
admittance. Is that correct?
FUNK: Yes, I am sorry to say.
DR. SAUTER: Now a further question: We have been confronted with several
documents which say explicitly—I believe they are records of
Lammers—that the Reich Minister of Economics, and at one time also the
Reich Foreign Minister, had requested to be called in to these
discussions, that Minister Lammers did his best to bring this about, but
that Hitler did not allow it, that he expressly barred you and the Reich
Foreign Minister from attending these discussions even though you
pointed out that important matters of your department were being dealt
with. Is that correct? Perhaps you can answer with just “yes” or “no.”
FUNK: The meeting which you mention is concerned with the deployment of
labor. I myself had no direct connection with that, and the Foreign
Minister probably did not have any marked interest in it either. So I
assume that for these reasons the Führer did not need me, for as I said
yesterday his directives for the conduct of economy were given, up to
the year 1942, to the Reich Marshal as the man responsible for that
field, and after 1942 the directives were given to Speer, because from
that date on armaments dominated the entire economic life, and all
economic decisions, by express order of the Führer, had to give way to
armament needs.
DR. SAUTER: Dr. Lammers, in his testimony on 8 April, stated—I quote:
“The Führer objected many times, namely against Funk. There were
various reasons for objecting to Funk. Hitler was skeptically
inclined toward Funk and did not want him.”
Thus for the testimony of the witness Dr. Lammers. Can you explain why
Hitler was disinclined toward you?
FUNK: No, only by the objective explanation that he did not need me.
DR. SAUTER: In other words, he considered any discussions with you
superfluous.
FUNK: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, in connection with the topic of aggressive wars, I
would be interested in the following: In the Indictment, on Page 30 of
the German trial brief, it is set forth that you personally and through
your official representatives, that is you personally as well as through
the representatives who were appointed by you, participated in the
preparation for the aggressive war against Russia, and as the sole proof
for this Document Number 1039-PS, Exhibit USA-146, is submitted. From
this document it appears that you, Defendant, at the end of April 1941,
allegedly had a discussion with Rosenberg—who was responsible for the
Eastern Territories—about the economic questions which would arise if
the plans for attack in the East were to be carried through. I ask you,
Dr. Funk, to note the date of this discussion: the end of April 1941,
just a short time before the beginning of the war against Russia. In
order to refresh your memory I want to point out that at that time, that
is, before the war against Russia, Rosenberg had already been nominated
as Hitler’s plenipotentiary for the uniform handling of problems in the
Eastern Territories. I am asking you now to define your position and to
say whether it can be derived from this discussion that you participated
in an aggressive war against Russia or its planning and preparation, and
if you did participate, how?
FUNK: I knew nothing about an aggressive war against Russia. I was very
much surprised when I learned from Lammers that the Führer had made
Rosenberg plenipotentiary for Eastern European problems. Lammers stated
here that he had me advised of this nomination for personal reasons,
because he knew that I was very much interested in economic relations
with Russia. Indeed, our mutual efforts, Russia’s as well as Germany’s,
had succeeded in considerably expanding our trade relations; for in
earlier times, that is, before the first World War, German trade with
Russia had been the decisive factor in the balance of German trade and
had amounted to several thousand million gold marks.
The Russians—I must say this here—furnished us grain, manganese ore,
and oil very promptly, while our deliveries of machines lagged behind
for the natural reason that the machines had first to be produced since
the Russian orders were mainly for specialized machines. To what extent
army supplies were sent to Russia, I do not know, as I did not deal with
these.
And so I was surprised by the appointment of Rosenberg. He called on me
for a short discussion in which he told me that the task given to him by
the Führer also included handling of economic problems. Thereupon I
placed a ministerial director in my ministry, Dr. Schlotterer, at
Rosenberg’s disposal to work on these problems. And when the Ministry
for Eastern Affairs was founded, as far as I know, in July, Dr.
Schlotterer, with some of his colleagues, took over the direction of the
economic department in Rosenberg’s Ministry. And simultaneously, as far
as I remember, Dr. Schlotterer became a member of Economic Operational
Staff East. This was the institution of the Four Year Plan which has
been mentioned repeatedly here during the proceedings and which dealt
with all economic problems in the Occupied Eastern Territories.
Beyond that, I had nothing to do with these matters. Naturally I asked
Lammers as well as Rosenberg just what this signified, and both of them
told me that the Führer was of the opinion that a war with Russia would
become unavoidable, that along the entire Eastern Front the Russians had
concentrated large reinforcements, that the discussions with Molotov, in
which I had no part at all, had been unsatisfactory, that the Russians
were making demands regarding the Baltic, the Balkan regions, and the
Dardanelles, which could not be accepted by Germany, by the Führer. At
any rate, this affair was as complete a surprise to me as to the German
people, and I am convinced that this war was a great shock to the German
people.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness spoke of July. Did he mean July 1940?
DR. SAUTER: As far as I know, July 1941.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean July 1941? That was after the war with Russia
had begun. The witness can answer for himself, I suppose, can he not?
[_Turning to the defendant._] Did you mean July 1940?
FUNK: The discussion with Rosenberg was at the end of April or the
beginning of May 1941, and the Rosenberg Ministry was founded in July
1941.
DR. SAUTER: I now turn to a different point raised by the Prosecution.
You are accused of having, as Reich Minister of Economics, committed
punishable acts in connection with the criminal plan to persecute the
Jews and to eliminate them from economic life. These are the happenings
of November 1938. Will you therefore now describe your activity in this
respect.
FUNK: May I ask the Tribunal to give me time for a rather detailed
account on this topic. Then the points which we will treat later can be
dealt with much more briefly. This is the charge of the Prosecution
which really affects me most gravely.
When I took over the Ministry of Economics in February 1938, I very soon
received demands from the Party, and especially from Goebbels and Ley,
to eliminate the Jews from economic life, since they could not be
tolerated. I was told that people were still buying in Jewish stores,
and that the Party could not permit its members to buy in such stores;
the Party also took offense at the fact that some high state officials,
and in particular their wives, were still shopping in such stores. The
sectional chairmen of the Labor Front refused to work with Jewish
managers. There were constant clashes, I was told, and there would be no
peace if the measures which had already been introduced here and there
were not extended gradually to eliminate the Jews completely from
economic life.
The Law for the Organization of National Labor, which was decreed under
my predecessors and which was also carried through by them in agreement
with the German Labor Front, had assigned political and Party functions
also to domestic economy. The plant manager was also responsible to the
Party and above all to the State.
Some Jewish managers readily succumbed to the pressure and sold their
businesses and enterprises to people and at prices of which we did not
approve at all. I had made private agreements with individual Jewish
leading men in banking, heavy industry, and the big stores, and had thus
brought about their withdrawal from positions in economic life. There
was no peace, and we had to try within a certain time and in line with
certain legal decrees to force back and gradually eliminate Jewish
influence from economic life. In this connection, I personally always
represented the view that, first of all, the process should be carried
out slowly, with intervals of time; secondly, that the Jews should be
given adequate compensation, and thirdly, that one might leave certain
economic interests in their hands, especially their security holdings;
and I particularly emphasized this in the meeting with Göring which has
been mentioned here so frequently.
Now while these developments were taking shape, the terrible happenings
of the night of 9-10 November 1938, originating in Munich, burst upon us
and affected me personally very deeply. When I drove to my ministry on
the morning of 10 November, I saw on the streets and in the windows of
the stores the devastation which had taken place and I heard further
details from my officials in the Ministry. I tried to reach Göring,
Goebbels, and I think Himmler, but all were still traveling from Munich.
Finally I succeeded in reaching Goebbels. I told him that this terror
was an affront against me personally, that through it valuable goods
which could not be replaced had been destroyed, and that our relations
with foreign countries, upon which we were particularly dependent at
this time, would now be disturbed noticeably.
Goebbels told me that I personally was responsible for this state of
affairs, that I should have eliminated the Jews from economic life long
ago, and that the Führer would issue an order to Reich Marshal Göring
according to which the Jews would have to be completely eliminated from
economic life; I would receive further details from the Reich Marshal.
This telephone conversation with Goebbels was confirmed by him later,
and witnesses will verify this.
The next day, 11 November, I was informed that there was to be a meeting
on the 12th with Göring in his capacity as Delegate for the Four Year
Plan, for the purpose of settling the Jewish problem. The Delegate for
the Four Year Plan had given instructions to the Ministry to prepare a
draft for a decree which was to be the basis of laws for the elimination
of the Jews from economic life.
On the 12th this meeting, which has been discussed here frequently, took
place. There was a discussion with the Reich Marshal in the morning at
which the Gauleiter were present. The Reich Marshal was highly excited;
he said that he would not tolerate this terror and that he would hold
the various Gauleiter responsible for what had happened in their Gaue.
After this meeting I was therefore comparatively relieved, but at the
meeting, of which the record has been read here several times, Goebbels
very soon produced his very radical demands and thereby dominated the
whole of the proceedings.
The Reich Marshal became increasingly angry and in this mood he gave way
to the expressions noted in the record. Incidentally, the record is full
of gaps and very incomplete. After this meeting it was clear to me that
now indeed the Jews would have to be eliminated from economic life, and
that in order to protect the Jews from complete loss of their rights,
from further terror, attacks, and exploitation, legal measures would
have to be decreed. I made provisions, and so did the Minister of
Finance, the Minister of the Interior, the Minister of Justice, and so
on, for the execution of the original decree of the Delegate for the
Four Year Plan in which the transfer of Jewish businesses and Jewish
shares to trustees was stipulated. The Jews were compensated by 3
percent bonds, and I always saw to it that, as far as the Ministry of
Economics was involved in this, this decision was carried out faithfully
and according to the law and that the Jews did not suffer further
injustice. There was at that time certainly no talk of an extermination
of the Jews. However, a plan for the organized emigration of the Jews
was briefly discussed at that meeting. I personally did not participate
in any way in the terroristic, violent measures against Jews. I
regretted them profoundly and sharply condemned them. But I had to
authorize the measures for the execution of those laws in order to
protect the Jews against a complete loss of rights, and to carry through
in an orderly manner the legal stipulations which were made at that
time.
DR. SAUTER: Dr. Funk...
THE PRESIDENT: We had better adjourn now.
[_A recess was taken._]
DR. SAUTER: Witness, before the intermission we last spoke of your
activity concerning the decrees for the exclusion of Jews from economic
life and you told us about the minutes of the session with Göring on 12
November 1938. That is Document Number 1816-PS.
You have already mentioned that the minutes of that conference were
poorly edited and are full of omissions, but we can see from these
minutes that you openly and definitely exerted a restraining influence
and that you tried to save one thing or another for the Jews. I see, for
instance, from the minutes that during the conference you repeatedly
maintained that the Jewish stores should be reopened again speedily. Is
that correct?
FUNK: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: You also pleaded, according to the minutes, that the Jews
should be able to keep their shares and interests. That is shown in a
question which you put. Is that correct?
FUNK: I have already said that I had thought, up to the time of that
conference, that the Jews could keep their securities; and in the course
of the conference I said that it was quite new to me that the Jews
should also surrender the securities they possessed. Ultimately they got
3 percent government bonds in settlement, but they had to hand over all
their shares and other interests.
I was also against a ruling of that kind because the Government would
then take over a huge number of securities and the conversion of such
securities was of course difficult.
DR. SAUTER: From the minutes it also appears that Heydrich was in favor
of placing the Jews in ghettos, and you recall that the Prosecution has
already mentioned that here.
What was your attitude, Dr. Funk, to Heydrich’s proposal at that time?
FUNK: I was against ghettos for the simple reason that I considered a
ghetto a terrible thing. I did not know any ghettos, but I said that 3
million Jews can surely live among 70 million Germans without ghettos.
Of course, I said that the Jews would have to move together more
closely, and one would have to assist the other, for it was clear to me,
and I also said so during the conference, that the individual Jew could
not exist under the conditions which were now being created for him.
DR. SAUTER: In that connection, Mr. President, may I be permitted to
point out two affidavits which I included in the Funk Document Book
under Number 3 and Number 15, and may I ask you to take official notice
of their complete contents as evidence?
Affidavit Number 3 in the document book, on Page 12 of the text, is one
by the defendant’s wife, signed by her about the beginning of the Trial
on 5 November 1945. From that affidavit, of which I shall summarize the
essential passages, we can see that at the time of the excesses against
the Jews in November 1938 the defendant, together with his wife and his
niece, was in Berlin, and therefore not in Munich where the so-called
“Old Fighters” were assembled and where Minister Dr. Goebbels quite
suddenly and to the surprise of everyone gave the order for these Jewish
pogroms. Frau Funk confirms in her affidavit that her husband, as soon
as he heard of these excesses, called Dr. Goebbels over the telephone in
great excitement and asked him:
“Have you gone crazy, Goebbels, to commit such outrages? It
makes one ashamed to be a German. Our whole prestige abroad is
being lost. I am trying day and night to preserve the national
patrimony and you throw it recklessly out of the window. If this
beastly mess does not stop immediately, I will throw everything
overboard.”
That literally was the telephone conversation which at that time the
defendant had from Berlin with Dr. Goebbels. And the remaining contents
of that affidavit are concerned with intercessions which the defendant
made for individual Jewish acquaintances. And, Gentlemen, there is a
similar vein in the affidavit by Heinz Kallus, who was ministerial
counsellor in the Ministry of Economics under the Defendant Funk.
I have submitted this affidavit as Number 15 of the Funk Document Book.
It is dated 9 December 1945, and this witness also confirms that Funk
was, of course, extremely surprised by these excesses, and that he
thereupon immediately got in touch with the competent authorities in
order to prevent further outrages.
Thus these affidavits largely confirm the account which the Defendant
Funk himself has given. In connection with this affair concerning the
Jews, I should like to return to Document Number 3498-PS, which can be
found on Page 19 of the trial brief against Funk. That is a circular
letter by Funk of 6 February 1939, published in the official gazette of
the Reich Ministry of Economics, and from it I quote:
“To what extent and rate the authority of the Four Year Plan is
to be used depends on instructions given by me in accordance
with the directives of the Delegate for the Four Year Plan.”
I quote this because, here again, in an official publication of that
time, the Defendant Funk expresses clearly that, in this field too, he
had merely to obey and to execute the directives of the Four Year Plan.
Is that correct, Dr. Funk?
FUNK: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: Dr. Funk, you said earlier that in keeping with your entire
past and your basic principles, and in keeping with your entire
philosophy, you considered as particularly severe the charge concerning
the elimination of Jews from economic life. And in this connection I
want to put to you that during an interrogation in Nuremberg on 22
October 1945, you finally broke into tears and told the interrogating
officer, “At that time I should have resigned. I am guilty.” And this
was quoted literally on one occasion in the course of the proceedings.
Perhaps you can tell us how that remark and that breakdown on your part
occurred which I find mentioned in the record.
FUNK: I had at that time just been brought from hospital into prison.
DR. SAUTER: Dr. Funk, one question...
FUNK: I did not know before that I had been accused of being a murderer
and a thief and I do not know what else. I was sick for 9 or 10 weeks,
and from the hospital bed I was brought here during the night. During
those days my interrogations here started immediately. I must admit that
the American officer who interrogated me, Colonel Murrey Gurfein,
conducted the interrogation with extreme consideration and forbearance
and again and again called a halt when I was unable to go on. And when I
was reproached with these measures of terror and violence against the
Jews I suffered a spiritual breakdown, because at that moment it came to
my mind with all clearness that the catastrophe took its course from
here on down to the horrible and dreadful things of which we have heard
here and of which I knew, in part at least, from the time of my
captivity. I felt a deep sense of shame and of personal guilt at that
moment, and I feel it also today. But that I issued directives for the
execution of the basic orders and laws which were made, that is no crime
against humanity. In this matter I placed the will of the State before
my conscience and my inner sense of duty because, after all, I was the
servant of the State. I also considered myself obliged to act according
to the will of the Führer, the supreme Head of the State, especially
since these measures were necessary for the protection of the Jews, in
order to save them from absolute lack of legal protection, from further
arbitrary acts and violence. Besides, they were compensated and, as can
be seen from the circular letter which you have just quoted, I gave
strict instructions to my officials to carry out these legal directives
in a correct and just way.
It is terribly tragic indeed that I in particular am charged with these
things. I have said already that I took no part in these excesses
against the Jews. From the first moment I disapproved of them and
condemned them very strongly, and they affected me personally very
profoundly. I did everything, as much as was within my power, to
continue helping the Jews. I never thought of an extermination of the
Jews, and I did not participate in these things in any way.
DR. SAUTER: Dr. Funk, as you are just speaking of the fact that you did
not think of an extermination, an annihilation of the Jews, I want to
refer to a document which has been quoted before: Number 3545-PS; it was
submitted by the Prosecution. As you may recall, this is the photostat
of the _Frankfurter Zeitung_ of 17 November 1938, an issue which
appeared only a few days after the incidents with which we are now
concerned. In that issue of the _Frankfurter Zeitung_ a speech of yours
was published in which you deal with the legal measures for the
exclusion of Jews from German economic life, and you will recall that
the Prosecutor, in his speech of 11 January 1946, charged you, and I
quote: “...that the program of economic persecution of the Jews was only
part of a larger program for their extermination.”
And that is in conformity with a phrase in your trial brief which says
that it was merely a part of, literally, “a larger program for the
extermination of the Jews.” Now, in all the statements which you made
during that time, I nowhere find an indication that you favored an
extermination, an annihilation of the Jews, or that you had demanded it.
What can you say about that view of the Prosecution?
FUNK: Never in all my life, orally or in writing, have I demanded an
extermination or annihilation of the Jews or made any statement to that
effect. Apparently this is an utterance of the Prosecutor, which, in my
opinion, is based only on imagination or the state of mind in which he
has viewed the things from the beginning. I myself have never advocated
the extermination of the Jews and I did not know anything of the
terrible happenings which have been described here. I did not know
anything. I had nothing to do with them; and afterwards, as far as I
recall, I never took part in any measures against the Jews, since these
matters were no longer dealt with in my departments. With the exception
of these legal measures, these executive orders, I do not believe that
within my departments I ever again authorized anything further connected
with Jewish affairs.
DR. SAUTER: Is it correct, Dr. Funk, that in connection with the
carrying out of these directives which you had to issue, you yourself
intervened on behalf of a large number of individuals who had to suffer
under these directives and who approached you personally for aid, and
that you did this in order to mitigate the effect of these decrees?
FUNK: I saw to it that these directives were followed in a fair way and
according to the laws. However, the carrying out of these decrees was
the responsibility not of the Ministry but of the district president and
of the offices dependent on the Gauleiter in the Reich. Many complaints
reached me about the manner in which Aryanization was carried out, and
my officials will confirm that I intervened in every case when I was
informed of such abuses. I even dismissed an official of that department
when I heard of incorrect behavior; later I also parted with the
department head.
DR. SAUTER: Why?
FUNK: Because these abuses had occurred. Just as previously I had done
everything in my power to aid the Jews to emigrate by making foreign
currency available to them, so now, in carrying out these directives, I
did everything in my power within the scope of possibility to make
things bearable for the Jews.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, this question as to what Funk’s attitude was
in practice toward the carrying out of these decrees which he himself as
an official had to issue—this question I have also treated in a
questionnaire approved by you, which has been submitted to the former
State Secretary Landfried. That questionnaire was returned some time ago
but it was discovered that a wrong questionnaire had been sent out by
the office, and the correct answer was received only on Saturday. It is
now being translated and I assume that this correct answer, this
testimony of State Secretary Landfried, will be submitted to you in the
course of the day and that it can then be entered in the appendix as
Document Number 16. I presume, nevertheless, that there will be no
objection to my reading the short answer of the witness Landfried in
connection with this matter. Herr Landfried was from 1939 to 1943 state
secretary...
THE PRESIDENT: Has the Prosecution seen the document?
DR. SAUTER: Yes, the Prosecution has the document.
MR. THOMAS J. DODD (Executive Trial Counsel for the United States): We
haven’t seen this document. We have seen the German text. I don’t read
German and I haven’t had an opportunity to read it. It hasn’t been
translated.
THE PRESIDENT: The document can be submitted after the Prosecution has
seen it. You needn’t submit it at this moment. Have you any other
witness or not?
DR. SAUTER: Not in connection with this topic.
THE PRESIDENT: No, no, but are there any other witnesses at all?
DR. SAUTER: One witness, Dr. Heidler, but for other subjects.
THE PRESIDENT: And presumably the defendant will be cross-examined.
DR. SAUTER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: These documents will be translated by then.
DR. SAUTER: Yes. Mr. President, if you so desire, then I will have to
submit that document later, separately.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: Dr. Funk, I come now to an accusation which, according to my
knowledge, has not been mentioned in the trial brief yet; it concerns
the problem of the occupied territories, that is, the spoliation of the
occupied territories, costs of occupation, clearing systems,
stabilization of currency, and the like. The Prosecution asserts that
you actively participated in the program of criminal exploitation in the
occupied territories. That can be found in the record of the proceedings
on 11 January 1946 (Volume V, Page 167). That accusation is not further
specified, but in the session of 21 February (Volume VIII, Page 60)
there is a mere reference to a decree of the Reich Minister for the
Occupied Eastern Territories, the Defendant Rosenberg. That decree was
submitted by the Prosecution as Document Number 1015-PS; it is a decree
by the Minister for the East, Rosenberg, to the Reich commissioners in
the Occupied Eastern Territories. The decree informs the Reich
commissioners of the task of the Einsatzstab Rosenberg—it has already
been mentioned here on several occasions—namely, that of safeguarding
objects of cultural value. I think I may assume that the Reich Ministry
of Economics had nothing to do with cultural treasures as such. But—and
that is very peculiar—it appears from Rosenberg’s letter of 7 April
1942 that a copy of it went not only to various other offices but also
to you, that is to say, to the Reich Minister of Economy. And from that
fact—apparently from that fact alone—the Soviet prosecutor has deduced
the charge that you actively participated in the spoliation of the
occupied territories. I had to explain the connection in such detail in
order to show exactly with what we are dealing. Can you speak quite
briefly about it?
FUNK: Up to the time of this Trial I did not even know what the
Einsatzstab Rosenberg was, what its tasks were, what it was doing. I
have no knowledge that the Ministry of Economics had anything at all to
do with the safeguarding of cultural treasures. I cannot say anything
about it.
DR. SAUTER: You cannot say anything about this?
FUNK: No, not with regard to the Einsatzstab Rosenberg. About the policy
in the occupied territories, I can say a great deal...
DR. SAUTER: That does not interest us now.
FUNK: But you will probably want to hear that later.
DR. SAUTER: Then, Dr. Funk, in the questionnaire sent to Dr. Landfried
which I have mentioned before, I asked five or six questions concerning
your attitude to the economic policies in the occupied territories. I
also put questions to him on whether you had given directives to the
military commanders or the Reich commissioners for the occupied
territories, or the heads of the civil administration in
Alsace-Lorraine, and so on. Furthermore, I asked whether it is correct
that economic directives also for the occupied territories did not come
from you as Reich Minister of Economics but from the Delegate for the
Four Year Plan. Then I asked about your attitude toward the question of
exploitation of occupied territories, particularly in the West, the
black market, devaluation of currency, and the like.
I cannot read the statements of the witness Landfried at this moment,
because, through an error in the office, the answers from Landfried
arrived only last Saturday. Since your personal testimony is now being
heard, do you yourself wish to add anything to these questions, or would
you just like to underline what I shall submit to the Tribunal as soon
as I have received the translation? I put this question because it is
practically the last opportunity for you to refer to these subjects.
FUNK: I should like to state my position on various matters, but the
details of these problems can naturally be better explained by the state
secretaries than by myself.
Concerning the directives to occupied territories, the Reich Marshal, as
well as Reich Minister Lammers, has stated here that I, as Reich
Minister for Economics, had no authority to issue instructions. The
Reich Marshal, during his testimony here, stated, and I marked it down,
“For the directives and the economic policies carried out by the
Minister of Economics and Reichsbank President Funk, the responsibility
is fully and exclusively mine.”
And concerning the occupied territories, he also said that if I had
issued special instructions in the course of official business between
the ministry and the administrative offices in the occupied territories,
then they derived from the general directives of the Reich Marshal and,
as he said, were always based on his personal responsibility.
The position was that directives to the occupied territories in the
economic field could only be given by the Delegate for the Four Year
Plan. The carrying out of economic policy was the task of the military
commanders or the Reich commissioners who were directly subordinate to
the Führer. The military commanders, as well as the Reich commissioners,
had under them officials from the various departments; among them, of
course, also officials from the Ministry of Economics and the
Reichsbank; and even private enterprise was represented. There was, of
course, close co-operation between the offices of the military
plenipotentiaries, the Reich commissioners, and the representatives of
the various home departments, with the exception of occupied territories
in Russia where the Reich commissioners were subordinate to a special
minister, that is, the Reich Minister for the Occupied Eastern
Territories. This was an exception, but if we as a ministry wanted to
have anything done by the military commanders or the Reich
commissioners, we had to make a request or procure an order from the
Delegate for the Four Year Plan.
The same applies to the heads of the civil administration in
Alsace-Lorraine and in other territories where a civil administration
had been set up. Here also, the numerous departments of the Ministry of
Economics and the Reichsbank had no direct authority to issue
directives.
However, I emphasize again that of course close official contact existed
between the directing authorities in the occupied territories and the
respective departments in Germany.
I myself—and witnesses will confirm this in questionnaires still
outstanding, or in person—made the greatest efforts to protect the
occupied territories from exploitation. I fought a virtually desperate
struggle throughout the years for the maintenance of a stable currency
in these territories, because again and again it was suggested to me
that I should reduce the exchange rate in the occupied territories so
that Germany could buy more easily and more cheaply in these countries;
I did everything that could be thought of to maintain economic order in
these territories. In one case, in Denmark, I even succeeded, in the
face of opposition from all other departments, in raising the value of
the Danish krone, because the Danish National Bank and the Danish
Government requested it for justifiable reasons.
I opposed the increase of occupation costs in France in 1942 as well as
in 1944. The memorandum of the Reichsbank which I authorized was quoted
here by the American Chief Prosecutor.
The occupation costs were determined not by the Minister of Economics
and the President of the Reichsbank but by the Minister of Finance and
the Quartermaster General—in other words, by the highest Wehrmacht
commands—and in the case of France, Denmark, and other countries, also
by the Minister for Foreign Affairs.
Therefore, I did whatever I could possibly do—whatever was within my
power—to keep the economy of the occupied territories in good order. I
was successful finally in persuading the Reich Marshal to issue a decree
which prohibited all German personnel from buying on the black market;
but that happened only after many abuses in this respect had already
occurred.
I want to emphasize also that I considered it necessary for the
maintenance of order in the occupied territories that social life there
should not be disturbed, and that, therefore, as a matter of principle I
was always against the forced or excessive deportation of foreign
workers from the occupied territories to Germany.
I also expressed this in a conference with Lammers, which has been
mentioned here. My state secretaries can confirm that. On the other hand
it was naturally clear to me that Sauckel was in a very difficult,
indeed desperate, situation. Again and again manpower for German economy
was demanded of him. But, particularly after I had turned over the
entire civil production to Speer and engaged in central planning, it was
not only not to my advantage, from the point of view of my work, that
manpower was brought to Germany from abroad, but it was indeed in my
interest that the workers should remain in the occupied territories
since the production of consumer goods had been transferred to a large
degree to these territories; for as minister responsible for providing
consumer goods to the population I had a great interest in seeing that
orderly work should be done in the occupied territories and that no
economic or social disturbances should occur.
I believe, however, that it will be more to the purpose if my two state
secretaries and the Vice President of the Reichsbank, the acting
Director of the Reichsbank, Puhl, make detailed statements on these
problems, because they were more closely connected than I with carrying
matters into practice.
If the accusation is made against me that with the aid of the clearing
arrangements we spoliated occupied territories and foreign countries, I
can only say that the clearing arrangement was not originally introduced
by us in our dealings with the occupied territories or during the war,
but that it was the normal method of trade between Germany and her
business partners. It was a system which had been forced upon us—and
that has been pointed out by Schacht—when other nations resorted to
using the proceeds of German exports for the payment and amortization of
German debts.
At all times, however, I have emphasized that the clearing debts were
real debts for merchandise, and that is important. I have said again and
again that this clearing debt was a genuine debt of the Reich and would
be repaid at the rate, the purchase value which was in force at the time
when we entered into these obligations. I especially stated that, in
detail and as clearly as possible, in my last speeches in Vienna in
March 1944, and in Königsberg in July 1944.
Beyond that, in July, I made the suggestion that after the war the
clearing debt should be transformed into a European loan, so that it
should not remain on the narrow plain of a bilateral exchange of goods
but be effectively commercialized; from this can be seen distinctly that
I always considered that clearing debt a genuine debt, so that the
nations in the occupied territories who had such claims on Germany could
and would be satisfied with the war—and, as I constantly emphasize, at
the same rates that existed at the time when the debt was incurred. If,
however, the countries would have had to pay reparations on the basis of
peace treaties, then these reparations of course, quite reasonably,
could only have been paid in goods; and then, equally reasonably, it
would have been possible to create a balance between German debts and
German claims.
But I never left any doubt about the fact that the clearing debt was to
be considered a true debt. Therefore, I have to reject the accusation
that with the aid of the clearing system we exploited the occupied
territories. And I have to reject even more strongly the accusation that
I share responsibility for the burden of unbearable expenses,
particularly occupation costs and other outlays of money, which were
imposed on the occupied territories. It can be proved that I always
objected to excessive financial burdening of the occupied territories.
The witnesses will later testify and confirm this.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, the defendant has referred to two speeches
which he made in Vienna and in Königsberg. These are two addresses which
deal in part with the subject of clearing debts, and in part also with
the defendant’s favorite subject of a European economic union between
Germany and her neighbor nations, that is to say, an economic union on
the basis of full equality.
In the interest of time, may I just ask that judicial notice be taken of
these speeches, the essential content of which has been stated partly by
the defendant and partly by me: The speech of the defendant at Vienna on
10 March 1944, Number 10 in my document book, and the speech in
Königsberg on the occasion of the 400th anniversary of the university of
his home province, on 7 July 1944, Number 11 in my document book.
MR. DODD: Mr. President, if this Document Number 11 is offered by the
defense for the purpose of showing what this defendant’s policy was
toward the occupied countries, then I think it is proper for me to point
out that the speech did not refer to the occupied countries but rather
to the satellite states of Germany.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, may I also call attention to Document Number
3819-PS, which has already been submitted by the Prosecution. That is
the record, which the defendant has mentioned, of the meeting with
Minister Lammers on 11 July 1944.
According to this record, the Defendant Funk was present at that
meeting, and mention is made of him in one sentence only; I quote, on
Page 8 at the bottom: “Reich Minister Funk expects considerable
disturbances of production in non-German territories in case of ruthless
raids.”
This sentence, if taken from its context, is difficult to understand,
but viewed in its proper connection, it makes it clear that the
Defendant Funk wanted to warn against violent action in the recruitment
of foreign workers for German production and for German armaments. He
warned against any violent measures—against raids, as they are called
in the protocol, because thereby, in his opinion, production in the
occupied territories would be disturbed.
Then, Mr. President, may I mention another document. It is Document
Number 2149-PS, and it contains the following: A statement of the
Reichsbank, dated 7 December 1942, “concerning the question of
increasing French contributions to occupation costs.”
May I say in advance that the cost of occupation in France was
increased, but not upon the suggestion of the Defendant Funk and not
with his approval, but in spite of his protest. And this statement to
which the Defendant Funk has referred, and which I have just quoted—it
is dated 11 December 1942—lists in detail the reasons why Funk and his
Reichsbank very definitely protested against any increase in the cost of
occupation.
In this connection, may I be permitted to question the Defendant Dr.
Funk on the cost of occupation in Greece.
[_Turning to the defendant._] Did you hear the testimony of the witness
Dr. Neubacher, who was Minister to Romania and Greece, and who confirmed
that there, also, you tried to reduce the cost of occupation?
THE PRESIDENT: Are you going to be much longer?
DR. SAUTER: Yes, I believe, Mr. President, it would be better if we
adjourned now. I still have to put a few questions.
[_The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours._]
_Afternoon Session_
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn this afternoon at half-past
four.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, I would like to return to the question of the
so-called spoliation of the occupied countries. As Reich Minister of
Economics, which you were at the time, you can certainly inform us from
your personal experience and observation of the contribution of the
occupied territories to Germany’s war effort.
FUNK: The achievements of the occupied territories for the joint
carrying on of the war were without doubt of great significance. I have
always regarded the occupied territories synchronized with the total
German economy as one great productive organism for carrying on the war,
which would lead to a new order in Europe. Usually the same basic
economic principles applied in the occupied countries as in Germany. In
1944 I had statistics compiled to show just how much the occupied
countries had produced for the war effort in the 3 years of 1941, 1942,
and 1943, and we reached the figure of 90,000 million Reichsmark. That
is certainly an extraordinarily high figure, but one must not forget
that the currencies of the various countries were converted into
Reichsmark. That is, the reduced purchasing power of the various
currencies is not expressed in these figures. In truth, therefore, the
production is lower than these Reichsmark figures might show.
At the same time Germany utilized at least two-thirds of her entire
production, that is, about 260,000 million marks worth, for the European
war effort, in other words, almost three times as much as the occupied
countries. Almost up to the time of the invasion I succeeded, in the
case of France, in regulating the financial and monetary system and thus
also the economic and social order to such an extent that, at the end of
the German occupation, French finances were actually much healthier than
German finances, and if it had not been for the circumstances resulting
from the elementary impact of the war, France would have been able to
construct a healthy monetary system on this basis.
My statistics are confirmed to a certain degree by a document which was
submitted here. This is Exhibit RF-22 (Document Number F-515), and deals
with the French deliveries to Germany. It is an official report to the
French Government about forced labor in France. In this report there are
tables on Pages 38, 39, and 40 showing the amount of French deliveries
to Germany in proportion to the entire French production. These figures
show that out of the entire French production with which we are dealing,
in these three years an average of 30 to 35 percent was sent to Germany
for the joint war effort. In some fields, and especially those which are
necessary for the provisioning of the French population, such as
textiles, pharmaceutical supplies, gas, electricity, and so forth, these
figures are considerably lower and in some cases amount to only 5 or 6
percent. But as an economist I admit without hesitation that if these
matters are not regarded from the point of view of the joint carrying on
of the war and the joint economic relationship, a deduction of 35
percent means a lot and must naturally have serious repercussions for
the entire economy.
I have no specific figures at hand for the Russian territories. The
Ministry of Economics itself was entirely excluded from the war economy
of these territories; we merely attempted to allow certain firms or
companies to operate in these territories as private enterprises there,
that is to say, they were to buy and sell at their own risk. I did not
participate otherwise in the management of these regions outside of the
fact that I was chairman of the supervisory board of the Continental Oil
Company, which operated in these regions in conformity with the
provisions of the Four Year Plan and the orders of the Wehrmacht. But I
personally, as chairman of the supervisory board, had only to manage the
financial affairs of this company.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, at the end of this morning’s session you spoke of
the so-called Central Planning Board, a body about which we have heard a
good deal. You stated, although quite briefly, that as Minister of
Economics you had no interest in the fact that foreign workers were
transported to Germany, no matter whether for armament or other
purposes. Did I understand you correctly?
FUNK: That applies to the time when I became a member of the Central
Planning Board.
DR. SAUTER: When was that?
FUNK: I was called into the Central Planning Board in the fall of 1943,
when I turned over all production matters to Speer and when, for the
first time, on 22 November 1943 I attended a session of the Board. At
that time I not only had no interest in having foreign workers brought
to Germany but actually, from the economic aspect, I wanted to have the
workers remain abroad, for the production of consumer goods had, to a
large extent, been shifted from Germany to the occupied countries so
that in other words this production, that is, French production or
Belgian production, could work unhindered for the German populace; I did
not want the workers taken away, and particularly I did not want them to
be taken away by force, for in that way the entire order and the whole
social life would be disturbed.
Before that time, as Minister of Economics, I was naturally interested
in seeing that the German economy had workers. However, these questions
were not dealt with in the Ministry of Economics, but either in the Four
Year Plan, where a Plenipotentiary General for Labor had been active
from the beginning...
THE PRESIDENT: [_Interposing._] Surely we heard all this this morning.
It was all given this morning.
DR. SAUTER: In connection with the Central Planning Board, perhaps I
might refer to one more document, Mr. President.