Pawn Brokerage in Berlin, and it is dated 15 September 1942. Now, I am
not going to read all of it, although it is a very interesting document,
but as you can see, the memorandum says, “We submit to you the following
valuables with the request for the best possible utilization.” Then you
list 247 platinum and silver rings, 154 gold watches, 207 earrings,
1,601 gold earrings, 13 brooches with stones—I am just skipping
through; I am not reading all of them—324 silver wrist watches, 12
silver candle sticks, goblets, spoons, forks, and knives, and then, if
you follow down here quite a way, diverse pieces of jewelry and watch
casings, 187 pearls, four stones said to be diamonds. And that is signed
“Deutsche Reichsbank, Hauptkasse” and the signature is illegible.
Perhaps, if you look at the original, you might tell us who signed it.
FUNK: No, I do not know who signed it.
MR. DODD: You have the original?
FUNK: I do not know.
MR. DODD: Well, look at the signature there and see if you recognize it
as the signature of one of your workers.
FUNK: It says—somebody from our cashier’s office signed it. I do not
know the signature.
MR. DODD: Somebody from your bank, was it not?
FUNK: Yes, from the cashier’s department. I do not know the signature.
MR. DODD: Do you want this Tribunal to believe that employees and people
in your bank were sending lists out to municipal pawn brokers without it
ever coming to your attention?
FUNK: I know nothing at all about these events. They can only be
explained in that things were apparently delivered to the Reichsbank
which it was not supposed to keep. That is obvious.
MR. DODD: Well, I would also like you to look at Document Number
3949-PS, which is dated 4 days later, 19 September 1942, Exhibit
USA-848. Now, you will see this is a memorandum concerning the
conversion of notes, gold, silver, and jewelry in favor of the Reich
Minister of Finance, and it also says that it is “a partial statement of
valuables received by our precious metals department.” Again I think it
is unnecessary to read it all. You can look at it and read it, but the
last two paragraphs, after telling what the shipments contained as they
arrived on 26 August 1942, say:
“Before we remit the total proceeds, to date 1,184,345.59
Reichsmark to the Reichshauptkasse for the account of the Reich
Minister of Finance, we beg to be informed under what reference
number this amount and subsequent proceeds should be
transferred.
“It might further be of advantage to call the attention of the
responsible office of the Reich Minister of Finance in good time
to the amounts to be transferred from the Deutsche Reichsbank.”
And again that is signed, “Deutsche Reichsbank, Hauptkasse,” and there
is a stamp on there that says, “Paid by check, Berlin, 27 October 1942,
Hauptkasse.”
FUNK: For this document, that is, this note to the Reich Minister of
Finance, I believe I am able to give an explanation, and that is on the
basis of testimony given here by witnesses who came from concentration
camps. The witness Ohlendorf, if I remember correctly, and another one,
have testified that the valuables which had been taken from the inmates
of concentration camps had to be turned over and were delivered to the
Reich Minister of Finance. Now, I assume that the technical procedure
was that these things were first brought to the Reichsbank by mistake.
The Reichsbank, however—and I keep repeating it—could do nothing with
the pearls, jewelry, and similar items which are mentioned here, and
therefore turned over these items to the Reich Minister of Finance or
they were used for the account of the Reich Minister of Finance. That is
apparent from this document. In other words, this merely is a statement
of account sent by the Reichsbank for the Reich Minister of Finance.
That is, I believe, the meaning of this document.
MR. DODD: Well, indeed, you did hear Ohlendorf say that these
unfortunate people who were exterminated in these camps had their
possessions turned over to the Reich Minister of Finance. I believe he
testified to that effect here. Now, you also...
FUNK: That is what I heard here. These things were news to me. However,
I did not know that the Reichsbank...
MR. DODD: You have told us that twice already.
FUNK: ...that the Reichsbank dealt with these matters in such detail.
MR. DODD: Are you telling us that you did not know they dealt with them
in such detail, or that you did not know they dealt with them at all? I
think that is important. What is your answer, that you did not know they
went into them in such detail or that you did not know anything about
it?
FUNK: I personally had nothing to do with it at all.
MR. DODD: Did you know about it?
FUNK: No.
MR. DODD: You never heard of it?
FUNK: I did not know at all that any jewelry, watches, cigarette cases,
and so forth were delivered to the Reichsbank; that is news to me.
MR. DODD: Did you know that anything came from concentration camps to
the Reichsbank? Anything at all?
FUNK: Yes, the gold, of course. I already said that.
MR. DODD: Gold teeth?
FUNK: I have said that—no.
MR. DODD: What gold from the concentration camps?
FUNK: The gold about which Herr Puhl had reported to me, and I assumed
that these were coins and other gold which had to be deposited at the
Reichsbank anyway, and which the Reichsbank could utilize according to
the legal regulations. Otherwise, I know nothing about it.
MR. DODD: Just what did Himmler say to you and what did you say to
Himmler when you had this conversation, as you tell us, about this gold
from the concentration camp victims? I think the Tribunal might be
interested in that conversation. What did he say, and what did you say,
and where was the conversation held?
FUNK: I do not remember any more where the conversation was held. I saw
Himmler very rarely, perhaps once or twice. I assume that it was on the
occasion of a visit in the field quarters of Lammers, where Himmler’s
field quarters were also located. It must have been there. On that
occasion we spoke very, very briefly about that.
MR. DODD: Wait just a minute. Will you also tell us when it was?
FUNK: Possibly during the year 1943; it might have been 1944, I do not
remember.
MR. DODD: All right.
FUNK: I attached no importance whatsoever to this matter. In the course
of the conversation I put the question, “There is a gold deposit from
you, from the SS, which we have at the Reichsbank. The members of the
board of directors have asked me whether the Reichsbank can utilize
that.” And he said, “Yes.” I did not say a word about jewelry or things
of that kind or gold teeth or anything of that sort. The entire
conversation referred only very briefly to this thing.
MR. DODD: Do you mean to tell us that an arrangement was made with your
bank independently of you and Himmler, but by somebody in the SS and
somebody in your bank—that you were not the original person who
arranged the matter?
FUNK: That is right. It was not I.
MR. DODD: Who in your bank made that arrangement?
FUNK: Possibly it was Herr Puhl or maybe somebody else from the
Reichsbank Directorate who made the arrangement with one of the
gentlemen of the economic section in the SS. And I was only informed of
it by Herr Puhl very briefly.
MR. DODD: Did you know Herr Pohl, P-o-h-l, of the SS?
FUNK: I imagine it was he. Herr Pohl never spoke to me about it.
MR. DODD: You do not know the man?
FUNK: I must certainly have seen him at some time, but Herr Pohl never
spoke to me about these matters. I never spoke to him.
MR. DODD: Where did you see him, in the bank?
FUNK: Yes, I saw him once in the bank when he spoke to Puhl and other
gentlemen of the Reichsbank Directorate during a luncheon. I walked
through the room and I saw him sitting there but I personally never
spoke with Herr Pohl about these questions. This is all news to me, this
entire matter.
MR. DODD: Well, do you recall the testimony of the witness Hoess in this
courtroom not so long ago? You remember the man? He sat where you are
sitting now. He said that he exterminated between 2½ and 3 million Jews
and other people at Auschwitz. Now, before I ask you the next question I
want you to recall that testimony and I will point something out for you
about it that may help you. You recall that he said that Himmler sent
for him in June 1941, and that Himmler told him that the final solution
of the Jewish problem was at hand, and that he was to conduct these
exterminations. Do you recall that he went back and looked over the
facilities in one camp in Poland and found it was not big enough to kill
the number of people involved and he had to construct gas chambers that
would hold 2,000 people at a time, and so his extermination program
could not have got under way until pretty late in 1941, and you observe
that your assistant and credible friend Puhl says it was in 1942 that
these shipments began to arrive from the SS?
FUNK: No, I know nothing about the date. I do not know when these things
happened. I had nothing to do with them. It is all news to me that the
Reichsbank was concerned with these things to this extent.
MR. DODD: Then I take it you want to stand on an absolute denial that at
any time you had any knowledge of any kind about these transactions with
the SS or their relationship to the victims of the concentration camps.
After seeing this film, after hearing Puhl’s affidavit, you absolutely
deny any knowledge at all?
FUNK: Only as far as I have mentioned it here.
MR. DODD: I understand that; there was some deposit of gold made once,
but no more than that. That is your statement. Let me ask you something,
Mr. Funk...
FUNK: Yes; that these things happened consistently is all news to me.
MR. DODD: All right. You know you did on one occasion at least, and
possibly two, break down and weep when you were being interrogated, you
recall, and you did say you were a guilty man; and you gave an
explanation of that yesterday. You remember those tears. I am just
asking you now; I am sure you do. I am just trying to establish the
basis here for another question. You remember that happened?
FUNK: Yes.
MR. DODD: And you said, “I am a guilty man.” You told us yesterday it
was because you were upset a little bit in the general situation. I am
suggesting to you that is it not a fact that this matter that we have
been talking about since yesterday has been on your conscience all the
time and that was really what is on your mind, and it has been a shadow
on you ever since you have been in custody? And is it not about time
that you told the whole story?
FUNK: I cannot tell more to the Tribunal than I have already said, that
is the truth. Let Herr Puhl be responsible before God for what he put in
the affidavit; I am responsible for what I state here. It is absolutely
clear that Herr Puhl is now trying to put the blame on me and to
exculpate himself. If he has done these things for years with the SS, it
is his guilt and his responsibility. I have only spoken to him two or
three times about these things, that is, about the things I have
mentioned here.
MR. DODD: You are trying to put the blame on Puhl, are you not?
FUNK: No. He is blaming me and I repudiate that.
MR. DODD: The trouble is, there was blood on this gold, was there not,
and you knew this since 1942?
FUNK: I did not understand.
MR. DODD: Well, I would like to ask you one or two questions about two
short documents. It will take but a short time. You told the Tribunal
yesterday that you had nothing to do with any looting of these occupied
countries. Do you know what the Roges corporation was?
FUNK: Yes. I do not know in detail what they did. I know only that it
was an organization which made official purchases for various Reich
departments.
MR. DODD: This Roges corporation purchased on the black market in France
with the surpluses from the occupation cost fund, did it not?
FUNK: I was against this type of purchases in the black market.
MR. DODD: I am not asking you whether you were for it or against it. I
was simply asking you if it is not a fact that they did it.
FUNK: I do not know.
MR. DODD: All right. You had better take a look at Document Number
2263-PS, which is written by one of your associates, Dr. Landfried, whom
you also asked for as a witness here and from whom you have an
interrogatory. This is a letter dated 6 June 1942, addressed to the
Chief of the OKW Administrative Office:
“In answer to my letter of 25 April 1942”—and so on—“100
million Reichsmark were put at my disposal from the Occupation
Cost Fund by the OKW. This amount has already been disposed of
except for 10 million Reichsmark, since the demands of the Roges
(Raw Material Trading Company), Berlin, for the acquisition of
merchandise on the black market in France, were very heavy. In
order not to permit a stoppage in the flow of purchases which
are made in the interest of the prosecution of the war, further
amounts from the occupation cost fund must be made available.
According to information from Roges and from the economic
department of the Military Commander in France, at least 30
million Reichsmark in French francs are needed every 10 days for
such purchases.
“As, according to information received from Roges, an increase
of purchases is to be expected, it will not be sufficient to
make available the remaining 100 million Reichsmark in
accordance with my letter of 25 April 1942, but over and above
this, an additional amount of 100 million Reichsmark will be
necessary.”
It is very clear from that letter written by your associate Landfried
that the Roges corporation, which was set up by your Ministry, was
engaged in black market operations in France with money extorted from
the French through excessive occupation costs, is it not?
FUNK: That the Roges made such purchases is true. These things have
already been dealt with here in connection with the orders and
directives which the Four Year Plan gave for these purchases on the
black market. However, these are purchases which were arranged and
approved by the state organization. What we especially fought against
were the purchases without limits in the black market. I already
mentioned yesterday that I finally succeeded in getting a directive from
the Reich Marshal that all purchases in the black market were to be
stopped because through these purchases naturally merchandise was
withdrawn from the legal markets.
MR. DODD: You told us that yesterday. That was 1943. There was not much
left in France on the black market or white market or any other kind of
market by that time, was there? That country was pretty well stripped by
that time, as is shown in the letters.
FUNK: In 1943 I believe a great deal was still coming from France. There
was continuous production going on in France and it was considerable.
The official French statistics show that even in 1943 large quantities
of the total production were being diverted to Germany. These quantities
were not a great deal less than in 1941 and ’42.
MR. DODD: Well, in any event I also want you to talk a little bit about
Russia, because I understood you to say yesterday you did not have much
to do with that. Schlotterer was your man who was assigned to work with
Rosenberg, was he not?
FUNK: From the beginning I assigned Ministerial Director Dr. Schlotterer
to Rosenberg, so that only one economic department, the competent
department for the Minister for the Eastern Occupied Territories, would
work in Russia, and not two.
DR. DODD: That is all I want to know. He was assigned. And he
participated in the program of stripping Russia of machines, materials,
and goods, which went on for some considerable period of time; you knew
about it.
FUNK: No, that is not true. This man did not have this task. These
transactions were handled by the Economic Department East which, I
think, came under the Four Year Plan. As far as I know these
transactions were not handled by Minister Rosenberg and certainly not by
the Ministry of Economics.
MR. DODD: It is a different story on different occasions. I think the
best way is to read your interrogation. On 19 October 1945 you were
interrogated here in Nuremberg. You were asked this question:
“And part of the plan was to take machines, materials and goods
out of Russia and bring them into Germany, was it not?”
And you answered:
“Yes, most certainly, but I did not participate in that. But in
any case it was done.”
The next question:
“Question: Yes, and you yourself participated in the discussions
concerning these plans, and also your representative, Dr.
Schlotterer?
“Answer: I myself did not participate.
“Question: But you gave the power to act for you in that
connection to Dr. Schlotterer?
“Answer: Yes; Schlotterer represented me in economic questions
in the Rosenberg Ministry.”
FUNK: No, that is not true. This testimony is completely confused,
because Schlotterer joined the Rosenberg Ministry. He became head of the
economic department there. Also, this testimony is not true to this
extent, since we certainly sent more machines into Russia than we took
out of Russia. When our troops came to Russia everything had been
destroyed, and in order to put the economy there in order, we had to
send large quantities of machinery and other goods to Russia.
MR. DODD: Do you mean to say that you did not make these answers that I
have just read to you when you were interrogated?
FUNK: Those answers are not correct.
MR. DODD: You know, it is very interesting that you told us yesterday
that the answers to the questions put to you by Major Gans were
incorrect. I posed another interrogation to you yesterday and you said
that was incorrect. Now a third man has interrogated you, and you say
that one is incorrect.
FUNK: No, I say what I said is wrong.
MR. DODD: Well, of course, that is what I am talking about.
FUNK: That is wrong.
MR. DODD: I will submit that interrogation in evidence; it is not in
form to be submitted, but I would like to submit it a little later, with
the Tribunal’s permission.
THE PRESIDENT: You will inform us, when you do, as to the number and so
on?
MR. DODD: Yes, I will. I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Do any of the other prosecutors wish to cross-examine?
STATE COUNSELLOR OF JUSTICE M. Y. RAGINSKY (Assistant Prosecutor for the
U.S.S.R.): After Mr. Dodd’s cross-examination I have a few supplementary
questions to ask.
Defendant Funk, you testified yesterday that your Ministry at the time
of the attack on the Soviet Union had very limited functions, and that
you yourself were not a minister in the true sense of the word. In this
connection I want to ask you a few questions regarding the structure of
the Ministry of Economics. Tell me, are you familiar with the book by
Hans Quecke, entitled, _The Reich Ministry of Economics_? Do you know
about this book?
FUNK: No.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: You do not know? Are you familiar with the name
of Hans Quecke?
FUNK: Hans Quecke?
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Yes. Hans Quecke. He was a counsellor in the
Ministry of Economics.
FUNK: Quecke was a ministerial director in the Ministry of Economics.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: And he, of course, knew about the structure of
the Ministry of Economics and about its functions. Am I right?
FUNK: Certainly. He must have known about that.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: I present this book in evidence to the Tribunal
as Exhibit USSR-451, and you, Witness, will receive a photostat copy of
the section of this book in order that you can follow me. Please open it
at Page 65, last paragraph. Have you found the passage in question?
FUNK: I have not found it yet. I can only see...
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Page 65, last paragraph of the page.
FUNK: Yes.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: You have found it, yes?
FUNK: The structure of the Reich Ministry of Economics?
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: It gives the structure of the Ministry of
Economics as on 1 July 1941. Your permanent deputy was a certain Dr.
Landfried. Is that the same Landfried whose testimony was presented by
the Defense Counsel?
FUNK: Yes.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: I must ask you to follow the text:
“Landfried had under him a special department which was in charge of
fundamental questions of supply of raw materials for the military
economy.”
Defendant Funk, I am asking you...
FUNK: Just a moment. Where is that?
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: It is in Section 2, Part II. Have you found it?
FUNK: No, there is nothing here about war economy. I do not see anything
about war economy. Auslands-Organisation...
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Part II, Subparagraph 2.
FUNK: It says nothing about war economy here.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: I shall read the entire paragraph into the
record. We shall get down to the Auslands-Organisation in good time.
FUNK: This is a special section.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Yes, a special section.
FUNK: Directly subordinate to the State Secretary here is Section S,
Special Section, basic questions of the supply of raw materials, basic
questions of war economy, basic questions of...
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: It is precisely about this war economy that I
wish to speak. He was also in charge of the fundamental market policy
and of economic questions in the border territories. The ministry
consisted of five main departments. Am I right?
FUNK: Yes.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: The third main department was headed by
Schmeer? Am I right?
FUNK: Yes.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: You had a special department entitled,
“Elimination of the Jews from Economic Life.” That was in 1941? Am I
right?
FUNK: Yes; that was the time we dealt with these matters; in that
department the regulations for carrying out these orders were dealt
with. We discussed them at length yesterday.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Defendant Funk, I ask you to follow the text:
“The fourth main department was headed by Ministerialdirektor Dr.
Klucki, and this department was in charge of banks, currency, credit and
insurance matters.” Is that a fact?
FUNK: Yes.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: I presume that you must know the structure of
your own ministry and we need not waste time in further discussions. You
must know that the fifth main department was headed by State Secretary
Von Jagwitz. This department was in charge of special economic problems
in different countries. The fifth section of this department attended to
questions of military economy connected with foreign economy. Am I
right?
FUNK: Yes.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: The same department dealt with special foreign
payments as well as with the blocked deposits...
FUNK: I do not understand. This is the Foreign Trade Department. They
merely dealt with the technical carrying-out of the foreign exports.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Take the section dealing with foreign
currencies. Have you found the passage?
FUNK: Yes.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: You have found that it deals with blocked
deposits. Were you at all connected with the collaboration existing
between your ministry and the Office of Foreign Affairs of the NSDAP? Is
my question clear to you?
FUNK: Yes.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: And your ministry had a special section dealing
with these matters?
FUNK: Only this office. That can be explained in this manner. The Under
State Secretary, Von Jagwitz, who was the head of this main department,
was also active in the Auslands-Organisation. He had created a liaison
office for himself in the ministry to deal with economic questions which
came to the ministry—to this department, which was the Export
Department, the Foreign Department—via the Auslands-Organisation. This
concerned Von Jagwitz only, who at the same time was active in the
Auslands-Organisation and maintained a liaison office.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Then we are to understand that the Foreign
Political Department had special economic functions abroad, and that it
co-operated with your ministry in this sense? Is that correct?
FUNK: No, that is not correct.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Then why did this department exist?
FUNK: It was not a department, but the Under State Secretary, Von
Jagwitz, was at the same time active in the Auslands-Organisation. I do
not know in what position. He was active in the Auslands-Organisation
before he was taken into the ministry by the Reich Marshal. Then he
himself created a kind of liaison office between his department and the
Auslands-Organisation. That is, frequently economists from abroad
belonging to the Auslands-Organisation of the NSDAP came to Berlin, and
these people came to Under State Secretary Von Jagwitz and discussed
their business with him and they reported to him about their experience
and knowledge of foreign countries. I do not know any more about it.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: You wish to convince us that this was the
personal initiative of Von Jagwitz, and that you as minister knew
nothing at all about it?
FUNK: Certainly, I knew about it. He did it with my knowledge, with my
knowledge and approval...
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Please follow the text and you had better
listen to what I want to say. I read the last paragraph which states:
“To the Main Department V is attached the office of the
Auslands-Organisation with the Reich Ministry of Economics. This
office secures the co-operation between the ministry and the
Auslands-Organisation of the Nazi Party.”
This means that no mention is made of any private initiative of Von
Jagwitz, as you tried to persuade us, but this department really was a
part of your ministry. Have you found the passage?
FUNK: Yes. Herr Von Jagwitz had this liaison office and essentially it
was limited to his person. It was a liaison office for collaboration
with the Auslands-Organisation, which was a perfectly natural procedure
in many cases. I do not see why this should be unusual or criminal.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: We shall come back to the question at a later
stage. Mr. President, I should like to pass over to another part. Would
it be convenient to have a short recess now? I have a few more questions
to ask.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well; the Tribunal will recess.
[_A recess was taken._]
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: You mentioned yesterday that you were the
Plenipotentiary for Economy, but not a plenipotentiary in the full sense
of the word. Schacht was the true plenipotentiary and you were merely a
secondary one. Do you remember your article entitled “Economic and
Financial Mobilization”? Do you remember what you wrote at that time?
FUNK: No.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Well, we are not going to waste any time on
that question. I shall remind you of it. I submit to the Tribunal in
evidence Exhibit USSR-452 (Document Number USSR-452), an article by
Funk, published in the monthly journal of the NSDAP and of the German
Labor Front, entitled “Der Schulungsbrief,” in 1939.
[_Turning to the defendant._] You wrote at that time:
“As the Plenipotentiary for Economy appointed by the Führer, I
must see to it that during the war all the forces of the nation
should be secured also from the economic point of view.”
Have you found this passage?
FUNK: Yes, I have found it.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Further on you wrote:
“The contribution of economy to the great political aims of the
Führer demands not only a strong and unified direction of all
the economic and political measures, but also above all careful
co-ordination.... Industry; food, agriculture, forestry, timber
industry, foreign trade, transport, manpower, the regulation of
wages and prices, finance, credits must be coordinated, so that
the entire economic potential should serve in the defense of the
Reich. In order to fulfill this task, the authorities of the
Reich in charge of these spheres are included in my authority in
my capacity as Plenipotentiary for Economy.”
Do you confirm that this is precisely what you wrote in 1939?
FUNK: Yes.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Is that question not quite clear to you?
THE PRESIDENT: He said, “Yes.”
FUNK: I said, “Yes”; I certainly wrote that.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: You confirm it. You know about the issue in
June 1941 of the so-called “Green File” of Göring? It was read into the
record here. These are directives for the control of economy or, rather,
directives for the spoliation of the occupied territories of the
U.S.S.R. How did you personally participate in the planning of these
directives?
FUNK: I do not know that. I do not know any more whether or not I
participated at all.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: You do not remember? How is it possible that
these documents were planned without you, Reich Minister of Economics,
the President of the Reichsbank, and Plenipotentiary for Economy and the
armament industry?
FUNK: First, at that time I was no longer Plenipotentiary for Economy. I
was never plenipotentiary for the armament industry. The powers of the
Plenipotentiary for Economy, shortly after the beginning of the war,
were turned over to the Delegate for the Four Year Plan. That has been
repeatedly confirmed and emphasized and what I did personally at that
time concerning economy in the Occupied Eastern Territories can only
have been very, very little. I do not remember it because the
administration of economy in the Occupied Eastern Territories was in
charge of the Economic Staff East and the Delegate of the Four Year
Plan, and that office, of course, co-operated with the Rosenberg
Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories. Personally I remember
only that, as I mentioned yesterday, in the course of time the Ministry
of Economics sent individual businessmen, merchants, from Hamburg and
from Cologne, _et cetera_, to the East in order to secure private
economic activities in the Eastern Occupied Territories.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Yes, we have already heard what “activities”
you dealt with. Your name for spoliation is “private economic
activities.” Do you remember the Prague Conference of December 1941—the
meeting of the economic organization—or must I remind you of it?
FUNK: No.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Not necessary?
FUNK: During the interrogations my attention was called by General
Alexandrov to this speech, and I told him at that time already that
there was a wrong newspaper report about me which I had rectified later
or after a short time.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Just a minute, Defendant Funk. You are slightly
anticipating events. You do not yet know what I am going to ask you.
First listen to me and then reply. You have informed the Tribunal that
you never attended any meeting of Hitler’s at which the political and
economic aims of the attack on the Soviet Union were discussed, that you
did not know of any purpose and of any declared plans of Hitler for the
territorial dismemberment of the Soviet Union, and yet you yourself
declared in your statement that “the East will be the future colony of
Germany,” Germany’s colonial territory. Did you say that the East would
be the future colonial territory of Germany?
FUNK: No; I denied that in my interrogation. I immediately said, after
this was presented to me, that I was speaking of the old German colonial
territories. General Alexandrov can confirm that. He questioned me at
that time.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: I have no intention of calling General
Alexandrov as a witness. I am only asking you if you did say so; was it
written as stated?
FUNK: No.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: You stated that you did not have to be
reminded, but that is precisely what was mentioned in your speech, and I
am going to quote verbatim from this speech:
“The vast territories of the eastern European region, containing
raw materials which have not yet been opened up to Europe, will
become the promising colonial territory of Europe.”
And exactly what Europe were you discussing in December 1941 and what
former German territories did you wish to mention to the Tribunal? I am
asking you.
FUNK: I have not said that. I said that I did not speak about colonial
territories, but of the old colonization areas of Germany.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Yes, but we are not speaking here of old
territories; we are speaking here of new territories which you wished to
conquer.
FUNK: The area had been conquered already. We did not have to conquer
that. That had been conquered by German troops.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: No. It was not known that they were conquered,
since you were already retreating from them.
You said that you were the President of the Continental Oil Company.
This company was organized for the exploitation of the oil fields of the
Occupied Eastern Territories, especially in the districts of Grozny and
Baku. Please answer me “yes” or “no.”
FUNK: Not only of the Occupied Territories—this company was concerned
with oil industries all over Europe. It had its beginnings in the
Romanian oil interests and whenever German troops occupied territories
where there were oil deposits, that company, which was a part of the
Four Year Plan, was given the task by the various economic offices,
later by the armament industry, of producing oil in these territories
and of restoring the destroyed oil-producing districts. The company had
a tremendous reconstruction program. I personally was the president of
the supervisory board and I mainly had to do the financing of that
company only.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: That I have already heard. But you have not
answered my question.
I asked you if this company had as object the exploitation of the Grozny
and Baku oil wells. Did the oil wells of the Caucasus form the basic
capital of the Continental Oil Company?
FUNK: No.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: No? I am satisfied with your reply.
FUNK: That is not right. We had not conquered the Caucasus and therefore
the Continental Oil Company could not be active in the Caucasus.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: All right. But Rosenberg at that time had
already made a report on the conquest and exploitation of the Caucasus.
Do you remember that here, before the Tribunal, a transcript of the
minutes of a meeting held at Göring’s office on 6 August 1942 with the
Reich Commissioners of the Occupied Territories was read into the
record? Do you remember that meeting?
FUNK: Yes.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Did you participate in this meeting?
FUNK: That I do not know. Did they speak about the oil territories of
the Caucasus in that meeting? That I do not know.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: No, I do not wish to say anything as yet. I
shall ask you a question and you will answer. I ask you: Did you
participate in that meeting?
FUNK: I cannot remember. It may very well be.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: You do not remember?
FUNK: No.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: In that case you will be shown a document. It
has already been submitted to the Tribunal, and was here read into the
record. It is Exhibit Number USSR-170; it has already been presented. As
stated at that meeting, the most effective measures for the economic
spoliation of the Occupied Territories of the U.S.S.R., Poland,
Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, and other countries were discussed. At this
meeting Defendant Göring addressed himself to you. Do you remember
whether you were present at that meeting or not?
FUNK: Yes, indeed. I remember that. But what Göring told me then refers
to the fact that, a long time after the Russian territories had been
occupied, we sent businessmen there to bring into those territories any
goods that might interest the population. For instance it says here:
“Businessmen must be sent there.... We must send them to Venice to buy
up these things in order to re-sell them in the occupied Russian
territories.” That is what Göring told me on that occasion. At least,
that is what can be read here.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: I did not ask you about that, Defendant Funk.
Were you present at that meeting or not? Could you answer that question?
FUNK: Of course. Since Göring talked to me, I must have been there. It
was on 7 August 1942.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Defendant Funk, you have replied here to
certain questions asked by Mr. Dodd regarding the increase of the gold
reserve of the Reichsbank; I should like to ask you the following
question: You have stated that the gold reserves of the Reichsbank were
increased only by the gold reserves of the Belgian Bank; but did you not
know that 23,000 kilograms of gold were stolen from the National Bank of
Czechoslovakia and transferred to the Reichsbank?
FUNK: I did not know that it had been stolen.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Then what do you know?
FUNK: I stated explicitly here yesterday that the gold deposits had been
increased mostly by the taking over of the gold of the Czech National
Bank and the Belgian Bank. I spoke especially of the Czech National Bank
yesterday.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Yes, but I am not asking you about the Belgian
Bank, but about the Bank of Czechoslovakia.
FUNK: Yes, I mentioned it yesterday. I said so yesterday...
THE PRESIDENT: He said that just now. He said that he had spoken about
the Czechoslovakian gold deposits.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Mr. President, he did not mention
Czechoslovakia yesterday and I am asking him this question today. But if
he replies to this question in the affirmative, I shall not interrogate
him any further on the matter, since he will have confirmed it.
[_Turning to the defendant._] I now pass on to the next question, to the
question of Yugoslavia. On 14 April 1941, that is, prior to the complete
occupation of Yugoslavia, the Commander-in-Chief of the German Army
issued a directive for the occupied Yugoslav territories. This is
Exhibit USSR-140; it has already been submitted to the Tribunal.
Subparagraph 9 of this directive determines the compulsory rate of
Yugoslav exchange—20 Yugoslav dinars to the German mark. And the same
compulsory rate of exchange, which had been applied to the Yugoslav
dinar, was also applied to the Reich credit notes issued by the Reich
Foreign Currency Institute.
These currency operations permitted the German invaders to export from
Yugoslavia at a very cheap rate various merchandise as well as other
valuables. Similar operations were carried out in all the Occupied
Eastern Territories, and I ask you: Do you admit that such operations
were one of the means for the economic spoliation of the Occupied
Eastern Territories?
FUNK: No.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Very well.
FUNK: That depends on the relation of the exchange rate. In some cases,
in particular in the case of France, I protested against the
underevaluation...
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Excuse me just one minute, Defendant Funk. You
have already spoken about France and I do not want to take up the time
of the Tribunal unnecessarily. I think you ought to answer my question.
FUNK: At the moment I do not know what the exchange rate between the
dinar and the mark was at that time. In general, insofar as I had
anything to do with it—I did not make the directive; that came from the
Minister of Finance and from the Armed Forces—insofar as I had anything
to do with it I always urged that the rate should not differ too greatly
from the rate which existed and which was based on the purchasing power.
At the moment I cannot say what the exchange rate for dinars was at that
time. Of course, Reich credit notes had to be introduced with the troops
because otherwise we would have had to issue special requisition
vouchers, and that would have been much worse than introducing an
official means of payment, as is now being done here in Germany by the
Allies, because working with requisition vouchers is much more
disadvantageous and harmful for the population and the entire country
than working with a recognized means of payment. We invented the Reich
credit notes ourselves.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: In other words, you wish to state that you had
nothing to do with it and that the entire matter rested with the
Ministry of Finance. Then tell me please, are you aware of the testimony
given by your assistant, Landfried, whose affidavit was submitted by
your defense counsel? You will remember that Landfried stated and
affirmed something totally different. He said that in the determination
of exchange rates in the occupied territories yours was the final and
determining voice. Do you not agree with this statement?
FUNK: When these rates were determined, I, as President of the
Reichsbank, was of course consulted and, as can be confirmed by every
document, I always advocated that the new rates should be as close as
possible to the old rates established on the basis of the purchasing
power, that is to say, no underevaluation.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Consequently, the compulsory rate of exchange
in the occupied countries was introduced with your knowledge and
according to your instructions?
FUNK: Not on the basis of my directives. I was only asked for advice.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Your advice?
FUNK: I had to give my approval. That is, the Reichsbank Directorate
formally gave the approval, but...
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: I am satisfied with your reply. I now go on to
the next question. On 29 May 1941 the Commander-in-Chief in Serbia
issued an order regarding the Serbian National Bank, which order has
already been submitted as Exhibit USSR-135. This order liquidated the
National Bank of Yugoslavia and divided the entire property of the bank
between Germany and her satellites. Instead of the National Bank of
Yugoslavia a fictitious so-called Serbian Bank was created, whose
directors were appointed by the German Plenipotentiary for National
Economy in Serbia. Tell me, do you know who was the Plenipotentiary for
National Economy in Serbia?
FUNK: It was probably the Consul General Franz Neuhausen, the
representative of the Four Year Plan.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Yes. It was Franz Neuhausen. Was he a
collaborator in the Ministry of Economics?
FUNK: No.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: He never worked in the Ministry of Economics?
FUNK: No.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: He never worked there?
FUNK: Neuhausen? No, he never worked in the Ministry of Economics.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Was he a collaborator of Göring’s?
FUNK: Yes, that is correct.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Well, he was a collaborator of Göring’s. Do you
admit that such specific currency operations, as a result of which the
Yugoslavian Government and its citizens were robbed of several million
dinars, could not have been carried out without your participation and
without the co-operation of the departments within your jurisdiction?
FUNK: I do not know in detail the directives according to which the
liquidation was carried out and by which the new Serbian National Bank
was founded, but it goes without saying that the Reichsbank participated
in such a transaction.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: I want to ask you two more questions. Together
with the unconcealed spoliation, consisting in the confiscations and
requisitions which the German invaders carried out in the Occupied
Territories of Eastern Europe, they also exploited these countries to
the limit of their economic resources by applying various exchange and
economic measures, such as depreciation of currency, seizure of the
banks, artificial decrease of prices and wages, thus continuing the
economic spoliation of the occupied territories. Do you admit that this
was precisely the policy of Germany in the Occupied Territories of
Eastern Europe?
FUNK: No.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: You do not admit this?
FUNK: In no way whatsoever.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: I now submit to the Tribunal Document USSR-453.
This is a new document, consisting of notes on a conference held by the
Reich Commissioner for the determination of prices on 22 April 1943.
Price experts from all the occupied territories attended this
conference. I shall now read into the record some excerpts from this
document. It says on Page 2:
“The 5½ million foreign workers are composed of: 1½ million
prisoners of war, 4 million civilian workers.”
The document further says:
“1,200,000 from the East, 1,000,000 from the former Polish
territories... 200,000 citizens of the Protectorate... 65,000
Croatians, 50,000 remainder of Yugoslavia (Serbia)”—and so on.
Further this document also says in connection with the equalization of
prices:
“Price equalization should be operated to the debit of the
producer countries, that is, through the Central Clearing
Office, which for the most part is to the advantage of the
occupied countries.”
On Page 14 it is stated:
“These price deliberations were of no importance for the
occupied territories, since the main interest did not lie in the
welfare of the population but in the utilization of all the
economic forces of the country.”
On Page 16 we find the following, excerpt:
“Concerning the Occupied Eastern Territories, Ministerial
Counselor Roemer has stated that prices there are far below
German prices, and so far the Reich has already reaped large
import profits.”
Mention is made, on Page 19, of Germany’s clearing debt, which amounted
to 9,300,000 marks. At the same time the clearing balance for
Czechoslovakia showed a deficit of 2,000,000; for the Ukraine of
82,500,000; for Serbia of 219,000,000; for Croatia of 85,000,000; and
for Slovakia of 301,000,000 marks.
And finally, on Page 22 of the document, it says:
“The prices in the Occupied Eastern Territories are kept at the
lowest possible level. We have already realized import profits
which are being used to cover Reich debts. Wages are generally
only one-fifth of what they are in Germany.”
You must admit that the planned robbery perpetrated by the German
invaders on so gigantic a scale could never have been carried out
without your active participation as Minister of Economics, President of
the Reichsbank, and Plenipotentiary for Economy?
FUNK: I must again stress that during the war I was no longer
Plenipotentiary for Economy. But may I state my position to this
document? First, there is the figure of the number of the workers which
were brought from the occupied territories and other foreign countries
into Germany. I have emphasized, myself, and it has been confirmed by
other statements, that I was basically against bringing in foreign
manpower from occupied territories to such an extent as to impair the
economic order in those territories. I am not even speaking about
recruitment of forced labor. I also opposed that. When an expert whom I
do not know says that the deliberations about price policy were of no
importance for the occupied territories, because the main interest did
not lie with the welfare of the population but in the exploitation of
economic forces, I must contradict that point of view. In any case, it
is not my point of view. I do not know who the man was who said that,
but it is a matter of course that a territory cannot produce well unless
the economy is kept on a good footing and prices are fixed at a level
which enables the people to exist and to maintain social order. So I
have to oppose this point of view also. As far as the clearing debt is
concerned, I explained yesterday in detail that the clearing system was
in common usage for Germany, and that I have always recognized and
confirmed that these clearing debts were genuine debts which, after the
war, had to be repaid in the currency in which they were incurred, based
on the purchasing power at that time. I do not see any spoliation here.
Moreover, I must again stress the fact that I was not competent for the
economy in the occupied territories, that I had no power to give a
directive there and that I participated only insofar as I detailed
officials to individual offices, just as all other departments did, and
that, of course, there was co-operation between these offices and the
department at home. But I cannot assume responsibility for the economy
in the occupied territories. The Reich Marshal definitely admitted that
as far as economic questions are concerned, it was his responsibility.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: I understand. You collaborated, and now you do
not wish to bear the responsibility. You say that the expert has made
the statement. But do you remember your testimony which you gave on 22
October 1945?
FUNK: I do not know what interrogation...
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: When you were asked about the compulsory
mobilization of foreign workers you were also asked if you knew about it
and if you had ever protested against it. Is that correct? You replied,
“No, why should I be the one to protest against it?”
FUNK: That is not correct. I protested against the compulsory
recruitment of workers and against so many workers having been taken out
of occupied territory that the local economy could no longer produce.
That is not correct.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: I have one last question to ask you. Do you
remember an article published in the newspaper Das Reich, dated 18
August 1940, in connection with your 50th birthday? This article is
entitled, “Walter Funk, Pioneer of National Socialist Economic Thought.”
I shall read into the record a few excerpts from this article:
“From 1931 on, Walter Funk, as personal economic adviser and
Plenipotentiary of the Führer for Economics, and therefore the
untiring middleman between the Party and German economy, was the
man who paved the way to the new spiritual outlook of the German
industrialists.
“If in the outbreak of 1933 the differences which had existed
for more than a decade in the public life of Germany between
politics and economy, and especially between politics and the
industrialists, disappeared overnight, if from the outset, the
guiding rule of all labor has been an ever-increasing
contribution towards a common end, this is due to the pioneering
work of Funk, who since 1939 has directed his speeches and his
writings to that end.”
And in the last paragraph of this article:
“Walter Funk remained true to himself because he was, and is,
and will remain a National Socialist, a fighter who dedicates
all his work to the idealistic aims of the Führer.”
The whole world knows what the ideals of the Führer were.
Do you admit that this article gives a correct appreciation of your
personality and your activities?
FUNK: Generally, yes.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: I have no more questions to ask.
[_Dr. Dix approached the lectern._]
THE PRESIDENT: What is it you wish to say, Dr. Dix?
DR. DIX: I have only one question for the witness, which was brought up
by the cross-examination of Mr. Dodd. I could not put this question any
sooner, since I am asking it only because of what Mr. Dodd said.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, go on.
DR. DIX: Witness, Mr. Dodd has put to you a record of your
interrogation, according to which Schacht, after leaving the Reichsbank,
still had a room there. You have heard the testimony of Schacht here. He
testified clearly that he did not have a room at the Reichsbank but that
the Reich Government put a room in his apartment at his disposal and
contributed to the rent, and that the Reich Government paid a secretary
whom he took with him from the Reichsbank, but who was now paid by the
Reich Government and not by the Reichsbank. That was the testimony of
Schacht. By your answer given to Mr. Dodd it was not quite clear whether
you have any doubt about the correctness of that statement by Schacht. I
ask for your opinion.
FUNK: I do not know anything about the apartment of Dr. Schacht. I was
told at the time that he still came frequently to the Reichsbank and
that a room was reserved for him. If that information was not correct,
then it is not my fault. I do not doubt that what Dr. Schacht said is
correct. He must know the arrangements concerning his apartment better
than I do.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, do you wish to re-examine?
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, we have found this final questioning of the
Defendant Dr. Funk harder to follow than the other cases, because the
translation caused serious difficulties. I have to admit, frankly, that
I have been able to understand only part of what has been said here. The
defendant may probably have had the same difficulty and therefore I
should like to reserve the right Mr. President, after I receive the
stenographic record, to make one or two corrections, if the transcript
should show this to be necessary. It has also been made more difficult
for us, Mr. President, because in the course of cross-examination a
large number of extensive documents was submitted to the Defendant Dr.
Funk. We are gradually becoming used to those surprises. Moreover, the
Defendant Funk was supposed to give answers to questions concerning
documents which he had not issued which had nothing to do with his
activities, which he...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, the Tribunal saw no sign at all of the
Defendant Funk not being able to understand thoroughly every question
put to him. And I think that therefore there is no reason for any
protest on your behalf and you should go on to put any question you wish
to put in re-examination—let us say, questions which arise out of the
cross-examination.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, on our earphones, at least on this side, we
could not understand quite a number of questions. Whether it applied to
these particular earphones or to the entire apparatus I do not know.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, if the Defendant Funk did not understand any
questions put to him, he could have said so. He did not say so. He
answered all the questions from a logical point of view, perfectly
accurately. You can ask him if you like, if he did not understand any of
the questions put to him.
DR. SAUTER: Now, Herr Funk, the Prosecution among other things has put
to you that you participated in the exploitation, the spoliation of
France. In this connection is it correct that the merchandise, the
consumer goods which came from France, were in many cases manufactured
from raw materials which had come from Germany?
FUNK: Certainly. We continuously delivered coal, coke, iron, and other
raw materials in France, so that they could produce goods—we delivered
especially those raw materials which the French did not have in the
country themselves. There was a very active exchange of production and a
very close productive co-operation between the German and French
economy. Even the same organizational methods were used.
DR. SAUTER: Dr. Funk, excerpts from an article which appeared on the
occasion of your birthday have been read before. Do you know the author
of that article?
FUNK: Yes, from the earlier years.
DR. SAUTER: Did he receive any factual material from you for that
article?
FUNK: No.
DR. SAUTER: Did he not ask for it?
FUNK: No, I did not know anything about that article beforehand. I did
not order a birthday article for myself.
DR. SAUTER: Precisely. So you did not know anything about that article
and therefore, if I understand you correctly, there is no guarantee that
what is said in this article is completely true.
FUNK: No. But I find that the tendency of the article is generally very
good. The tendency...
DR. SAUTER: Witness, the American prosecutor confronted you yesterday
with the matter of your negotiations with Rosenberg in the spring of
1941 and the fact that at that time, a few months before the march into
Russia, you had these negotiations with Rosenberg. He apparently wanted
to conclude that you had admitted, or wanted to admit, that you had
known about the intention of Hitler to wage an aggressive war against
Russia. You did not have a chance to say anything on this yesterday.
Therefore I should like to give you another opportunity now to state
very clearly what your belief was at that time concerning the intentions
of Hitler in the spring of 1941, when you negotiated with Rosenberg, and
what you knew about any possible causes for war before that time.
FUNK: As to the question of the American prosecutor, I did not
understand it to mean that I knew anything about an aggressive war
against Russia. The prosecutor spoke explicitly about preparations for
war with Russia. I myself had already made it quite clear that I was
completely surprised when the task was assigned to Rosenberg, and I was
informed by Dr. Lammers as well as by Herr Rosenberg, that the reason
for the assignment was that the Führer was expecting a war against
Russia, because Russia was deploying large numbers of troops along the
entire eastern border, because Russia had entered Bessarabia and
Bukovina and because his negotiations with Molotov brought proof that
Russia maintained an aggressive policy in the Balkans and the Baltic
area, whereby Germany felt herself threatened. Therefore preparations
had to be made on the part of Germany for a possible conflict with
Russia. Also, concerning the meeting which the American prosecutor has
mentioned, I said explicitly that the measures concerning currency which
were discussed there were approved by me, because we created thereby
stable currency conditions in the Occupied Eastern Territory. I was
therefore opposed to the idea that the German Reichsmark, which the
Russian population would not have accepted because they could not even
read it, should be introduced there.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, the Soviet Russian prosecutor has pointed out again
and again that you were not only Reichsbank President and Reichsminister
of Economics, but also Plenipotentiary for Economy. You have corrected
that already and pointed out that from the very beginning when you were
appointed, your authority as Plenipotentiary for Economy was practically
taken over by Göring, and that, I believe, in December of 1939, your
authority as Plenipotentiary for Economy was also formally turned over
to Göring.
MR. DODD: I wish to enter an objection not only to the form this
examination is taking, but as to its substance. Counsel is in effect
testifying himself, and he is testifying about matters that the witness
testified to on direct examination, and it seems clear to us that this
cannot be helpful at all to the Tribunal as a matter of re-direct
examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, is it really proper for you to get the
witness to go over again the evidence which he has already given? The
only object of re-examination is to elucidate any questions which have
not been properly answered in cross-examination. The witness has already
dealt with the topics with which you are now dealing, in the same sense
which you are now putting into it.
DR. SAUTER: I have repeated the statements only because I want to put a
question to the witness now concerning a document which was submitted
only yesterday, which had not been submitted until then, and to which I
could therefore not take any position; and because the Soviet Russian
prosecutor has again made the assertion here that the defendant also
during the war was Plenipotentiary for Economy, although that is not
correct. Mr. President...
THE PRESIDENT: I have heard myself the witness say over and over again
that he was not the Plenipotentiary General for Economy during the war.
He has repeatedly said that.
DR. SAUTER: But it has been repeated from this side. Mr. President,
yesterday a document was submitted which bears the Document Number
EC-488.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the document you want to deal with?
DR. SAUTER: Number EC-488. It was presented yesterday, and is a letter
dated 28 January 1939. On the front page it is marked in large letters
“Secret.” Here in the original is the heading, which is in capital
letters, and it reads, “The Plenipotentiary for War Economy.” So much
for the heading of the letter paper. Then the word “War” is crossed out,
so that you can read only, “The Plenipotentiary for Economy.”
Therefore, before 28 January 1939 the title of Plenipotentiary for War
Economy must have been changed to a new title, “Plenipotentiary for
Economy.” I now ask that the defendant...
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I see. The copy that we have before us has not got
the word “War” in it at all.
DR. SAUTER: It can be seen on the photostat.
THE PRESIDENT: I see it. But what is the question you want to put?
DR. SAUTER: At the time when this letter was written, the
Plenipotentiary was the Defendant Funk. I should like to ask to be
permitted to put the question to him, how it can be explained that the
title of his office—that is, Plenipotentiary for War Economy—was
changed. The question would be how it could be explained that the title
of his office, “Plenipotentiary for War Economy” had been changed to the
new title, “Plenipotentiary for Economy.”
FUNK: The reason is...
DR. SAUTER: One moment, Dr. Funk, please.
THE PRESIDENT: I did not ask you to stop putting your question. You can
put your question. Go on. What is the question?
DR. SAUTER: Go on, Dr. Funk.
FUNK: The reason was that according to the old Reich Defense Law,
Schacht had been appointed Plenipotentiary for War Economy, and on the
basis of this second Reich Defense Law, which appointed me, I was
appointed Plenipotentiary for Economy, because at that time it was quite
clear that the special tasks concerning war economy—that is to say,
armament industry, war economy proper—could no longer remain with the
Plenipotentiary for Economy, but that he had essentially to co-ordinate
the civilian economic departments.
DR. SAUTER: In connection with that, Mr. President, may I call your
attention to another document which was submitted yesterday. That is
Number 3562-PS. Here the heading already has the correct new title,
“Plenipotentiary for Economy.” That is no more “Plenipotentiary for War
Economy,” and that is also a new document which was submitted only
yesterday. Mr. President...
MR. DODD: Just to keep the record straight, Mr. President, that Document
3562-PS is in evidence, and it was submitted by Lieutenant Meltzer at
the time he presented the case against the individual Defendant Funk.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Dodd, am I not right in thinking that the Defendant
Funk stated from the outset in his examination in chief that he was
appointed Plenipotentiary General for Economy?
MR. DODD: Yes, indeed, Sir. That is as I thoroughly understand it.
THE PRESIDENT: And you have not challenged that?
MR. DODD: We have not challenged the fact that he said so. But we do
challenge the fact that he, in fact, was only for economy. We do
maintain that he, in fact, had much to do with the war effort as the
Plenipotentiary.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. But he was not to be named that?
MR. DODD: No. And that Document EC-488 was not offered, anyway, for that
purpose, but rather to show that the defendant was engaged in talking
about what prisoners of war would do after an attack.
DR. SAUTER: Yesterday a document was produced about the interrogation of
a certain Hans Posse. It is Document 3894-PS. The witness Hans Posse was
formerly State Secretary in the Ministry of Economics and as such Deputy
Plenipotentiary for Economy. That record has been submitted by the
Prosecution in order to show that allegedly there was a struggle for
power, as it says here, between Funk and Göring.
However, I should like to quote to the witness a few other points from
that record so that several other points can also be used as evidence:
Witness, State Secretary Hans Posse says, for instance—and I should
like to ask whether this is still your opinion today—that is Document
3894-PS, Page 2 of the German translation, at the bottom of the page—he
was asked, “How often did you report to Funk in connection with your
duties as Deputy to the Plenipotentiary?”
The witness answered then, “The Plenipotentiary for Economy never really
went into action.”
FUNK: I must repeat what I said again and again, and what has been
confirmed by everybody who has been heard on that question. That was a
post which was merely on paper.
DR. SAUTER: Then the witness was asked to what final end you, Dr. Funk,
had worked.
It says, “Dr. Posse, is it correct that the office of Plenipotentiary
for Economy was established to the final end of uniting all economic
functions with a view to the preparation for war?”
Then the witness answered, “The purpose was what I have just said—to
co-ordinate the various conflicting economic interests. But there was no
talk about the preparation for war.”
And on the same page, on Page 4, at the bottom, the witness says, I
quote:
“It is correct that the aim was to co-ordinate all economic
questions, but the purpose was not to prepare for war. Of
course, if war preparation should become necessary, it was the
task of the Plenipotentiary for Economy to concern himself with
these questions and to act as a co-ordinator.”
FUNK: Herr Posse was an old, sick man, whom I had put in this post. He
was formerly State Secretary under Schacht, and when I took over the
ministry, I received a new State Secretary through Göring who,
unfortunately, later became insane. And then State Secretary Dr.
Landfried came to me, and Posse, who formally was still in the Ministry
of Economics as State Secretary, was without a job. Therefore I made him
an executive officer attached to the Plenipotentiary for Economy.
Here, of course, he had constant difficulties from the very beginning.
The High Command of the Armed Forces or the War Economy Staff wanted to
reduce the authority of the Plenipotentiary, as can be seen from the
letter which was presented yesterday. And the civilian economy
department did not want to follow his directives because they already
had been subordinated to and had to follow the directives of the
Delegate for the Four Year Plan. Therefore, as a matter of fact, that
unhappy Plenipotentiary for Economy held a post which to all intents and
purposes existed only on paper.
THE PRESIDENT: Would this not be a convenient time to break off now?
[_The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours._]
_Afternoon Session_
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, I have two more questions which I wish to put
to the Defendant Dr. Funk.
[_Turning to the defendant._] Dr. Funk, before the recess we stopped at
Document 3894-PS, the testimony of your State Secretary Posse. I should
like to read one passage on Page 7 of the German text and ask you
whether you agree with it. The witness Posse was asked by the
Prosecution whether he, as Deputy Plenipotentiary for Economy, knew
about the international relations, especially about the war situation
and so forth, and he says, on Page 7, in the middle:
“We never knew anything about the international situation and we
never heard anything about it, and if the international
situation was mentioned in our discussions we could always voice
merely our personal opinions.”
And a few lines further down:
“We”—he means apparently himself and you, Dr. Funk—“We always
hoped that there would be no war.”
Do you agree with this opinion of your former State Secretary Posse?
FUNK: Yes. I have said repeatedly that until the end I did not believe
that there would be a war, and the same is true of my colleagues, and
everyone who spoke to me at that time will corroborate this. Herr Posse
was, of course, still less informed about political and military events
than I was. Consequently, that also applies to him.
DR. SAUTER: Then I have a final question to put, Witness. You have seen
the film which the Prosecution has presented. Now, you were the
President of the Reichsbank. Consequently you are familiar, possibly
only superficially with the conditions in the vaults of the Reichsbank,
at least, I assume, in Berlin, if not in Frankfurt, where the film was
taken; and you also know how, especially during the war, these items
which had been deposited with the bank in trunks or packages and the
like were safeguarded. Possibly, Dr. Funk, on the basis of your own
knowledge of the conditions you can make a statement regarding this
short film which we have seen.
FUNK: I was completely confused by this film and most deeply shocked.
Photography and especially films are always very dangerous documents
because they show many things in a light different from what they really
are. I personally have the impression, and I believe the Prosecution
will probably corroborate this, that all these deposits of valuables and
this entire collection of valuable items came from the potassium mines
where, at my instigation, all gold, foreign currency and other valuables
of the Reichsbank had been stored away when, because of a terrific
bombing attack on Berlin, we were no longer able to work in the
Reichsbank. The Reichsbank building alone in this one raid on 3 February
1945 was hit by 21 high explosive bombs; and it was only by a miracle
that I was able to reach the surface from this deep cellar together with
5,000 other people. Gold, foreign currency, and all other deposits of
valuables were then taken to a potassium mine in Thuringia and from
there apparently to Frankfurt, I assume. So this concerns, to a large
extent, normal deposits by customers who had placed their valuables,
their property, in these safe deposits which could not be got at by the
Reichsbank. Consequently I cannot tell from this film which of these
items were deliveries by the SS and which were genuine deposits. The
Prosecutor certainly is correct when he says that no one would deposit
gold teeth in a bank. It is, however, quite possible that certain
functionaries of concentration camps made genuine deposits in the
Reichsbank which contained such articles, to safeguard them for future
use. I think that is possible. However, in conclusion I must say once
more that I had no knowledge whatsoever of these things and of the fact
that jewelry, diamonds, pearls, and other objects were delivered from
concentration camps to the Reichsbank to such an extent. I knew nothing
about it; it was unknown to me, and I personally am of the opinion that
the Reichsbank was not authorized to do this kind of business. It is
certainly clear from one document, which contains an account for the
Minister of Finance, that most likely everything from the concentration
camps was first brought to the Reichsbank and then the unfortunate
officials of the Reichsbank had to sort it, send it on to the Minister
of Finance—or rather to the pawnbroker who was under the Minister of
Finance—and prepare a statement of account. Therefore, I must request
that someone be examined on these matters—first of all Herr Puhl
himself, and perhaps someone else who was concerned with these
things—in order to explain what actually took place and above all, to
show that I personally had no knowledge whatsoever of these matters
except for the few facts which I myself have described to the Court.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, I have finished my interrogation of the
Defendant Funk, and I should now like to ask permission to examine the
only witness whom I can call at this time, the witness Dr. Hayler.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
MR. DODD: [_Interposing._] Mr. President, may I raise one matter before
the witness is excused? This Document 3894-PS, that we have quoted from
and that the defendant has quoted from, contains a number of other
quotations and I think it would be well if we submitted the whole
document in the four languages; and I shall be prepared to do that so
the Tribunal will have the benefit of the whole text. So far we have
both been quoting from it, but I think it would be most helpful to the
Court if it had the whole text.
And may we ask, Mr. President, shall we make arrangements or should I do
anything about getting the witness Puhl here?
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, have you any request to make with reference
to the witness Puhl, who made an affidavit?
DR. SAUTER: Regarding the witness Emil Puhl I beg to request, Mr.
President, that he be brought here for cross-examination. I was going to
make that request in any case.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly, Dr. Sauter, the witness Puhl should be
brought here. He will be brought here as soon as possible.
DR. SAUTER: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Now the defendant can return to the dock.
[_The witness Dr. Hayler took the stand._]
THE PRESIDENT: Will you state your full name?
HAYLER (Witness): Franz Hayler.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath after me: I swear by God—the
Almighty and Omniscient—that I will speak the pure truth—and will
withhold and add nothing.
[_The witness repeated the oath._]
THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down.
DR. SAUTER: Dr. Hayler, how old are you?
HAYLER: 46 years.
DR. SAUTER: Are you a professional civil servant, or how did you get
into the Ministry of Economics under Dr. Funk?
HAYLER: I was an independent business man and merchant and as such first
became the head of the “Economic Group Retail Trade” within the
organization of industrial economy. In this capacity I had very close
contact with the Ministry of Economics. After Minister Funk had been
appointed Minister for Economics I reported to him regarding the scope
of my work, and on that occasion I made his acquaintance. When I was
then put in charge of the “Reich Group Trade,” the working relations
between the organization directed by me and the Ministry, especially
between the then State Secretary Landfried and the Minister himself,
became very friendly.
After the separation of the ministries in the autumn of 1943, the main
task of the Ministry of Economics was to provide for the German people,
that is, the civilian population. As head of the trade organization I
was the person responsible for the sale of merchandise, that is, for the
procurement of supplies, and during a conference with Minister Funk
regarding the co-operation between trade and the Ministry, Herr
Landfried, who was then State Secretary, made the suggestion that
Minister Funk call me into his Ministry and make me his deputy. Herr
Landfried believed that under the existing conditions he himself was not
strong enough to carry out this difficult task since the Ministry had
been deprived of its influence on production. Then, when Minister Funk
told him in reply to his suggestion that he, Landfried, was the deputy
of the Minister, Landfried replied that he could not continue to carry
out these tasks and that he asked to be permitted to retire and proposed
that I be his successor. About two or three weeks later I was put in
charge of the affairs of the State Secretary.
DR. SAUTER: When was this conference?
HAYLER: This conference took place in October 1943; my appointment came
on 20 November 1943.
DR. SAUTER: So that until the autumn of 1943, Dr. Hayler, you were
employed in your organizations only in an honorary capacity?
HAYLER: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: That was, I think, retail trade?
HAYLER: Yes, trade.
DR. SAUTER: And as from 1943 you became official in the Reich Ministry
of Economics in the capacity of State Secretary?
HAYLER: I became an official with this position of State Secretary on 30
January 1944.
DR. SAUTER: In this position you were one of the closest collaborators
of Dr. Funk?
HAYLER: I was his deputy.
DR. SAUTER: Dr. Hayler, during a conference that we had on the day
before yesterday, I discussed with you the question of whether the
Defendant Dr. Funk was a particularly radical man or whether, on the
contrary, he acted with moderation and consideration toward others. What
do you have to say to this question which may have certain importance in
forming an opinion on the personality of the Defendant Funk?
HAYLER: Funk is above all very human, and always has been. Radicalism is
quite foreign to his entire character and being. He is more of an
artist, a man of very fine artistic feeling and scholarly ideas. I
believe one can say that at no time was he a doctrinaire or dogmatic. On
the contrary, he was conciliatory and anxious to settle disputes. For
this reason, in Party circles in particular, he was considered too soft,
too indulgent, in fact he was accused many times of being too weak. He
tried to protect domestic economy from political encroachment and from
unnecessary severity; and because of his respect and his regard for
enterprising endeavor and out of his own responsibility to economy and
to the people, he fought against unnecessary intervention in various
enterprises even during the war. He protected industry against mergers
and closures. This finally led to his being deprived of the
responsibility for production in the decisive phase of the war.
I recall from the time of my collaboration with him, when I was still in
charge of the trade organization, that Funk on various occasions
interceded for men in the industrial world who were in political
difficulties. I believe, however, that because of these individual
cases, such as his intervention on behalf of Consul General Hollaender
or of Herr Pietsch, and because of his attempts to promote peace, he at
that time had to expect grave consequences; also because of his
intervention in the case of Richard Strauss, as is surely known, and in
similar cases. I do not think these individual cases are of such
importance as perhaps the following: After the catastrophe of 9 November
1938 the process of Aryanization was to be intensified in the Ministry
of Economics; and at that time a few political men were forced upon the
Ministry, especially Herr Schmeer. I remember distinctly that at that
time Landfried in particular, as well as Funk, slowed down considerably
this radicalization of the Ministry; and Funk and the Ministry were
blamed for doing so.
After 8 and 9 November I once had a conference regarding the events of
that date with Himmler, in which I voiced my complaints. Himmler on that
occasion finally reproached both Funk and myself by saying, among other
things:
“Finally, you people on the economic side and connected with the
economic management are also to blame that things have gone too
far. People like Herr Schacht cannot be expected to do anything
except go slow all the time and oppose the will of the Party;
but if you and Funk and all you people on the economic side had
not slowed things down so much, these excesses would not have
happened.”
DR. SAUTER: Yes, Dr. Hayler; another question. You also worked with Dr.
Funk in matters concerning the economy of the occupied territories. Dr.
Funk is accused of having played a criminal part in despoiling the
occupied territories as well as in destroying their currency and
economic systems. Could you enlighten the Court as briefly as possible
on the Defendant Funk’s attitude and activities? As briefly as possible.
HAYLER: I believe two facts must be stated first of all: First, the
influence of the Ministry of Economy on the occupied territories was
relatively limited. Secondly, during the year in which I was in the
Ministry these questions were no longer particularly important.
Generally speaking, the position was as follows: Funk was constantly
accused of thinking more of peace than of war. The opinions he
proclaimed both in his speeches and in print referred to a European
economic policy; and I assume that these talks and publications or
articles are before the Court.
DR. SAUTER: Yes, they are here.
HAYLER: Funk looked at the occupied territories from exactly the same
point of view. He raised repeated objections to the over-exploitation of
the occupied territories and expressed the view that wartime
co-operation should form the basis of later co-operation in peace. His
view was that confidence and willingness to co-operate should be
fostered in the occupied territories during the war. He expressed the
view that the black market cannot be combated by the black market and
that, since we were responsible for the occupied territories, we must
avoid anything likely to disturb the currency and economic system of
these territories.
I think I remember that he also discussed the question with the Reich
Marshal and defended his own point of view. He also repeatedly opposed
unduly heavy occupation expenses, and always favored the reduction of
our own expenditure, that is, of German expenditure in the occupied
territories. In other words, he regarded the occupied territories in
exactly the same way as other European countries; and this attitude is
best illustrated by the speech he made in Vienna, I believe, in which he
publicly acknowledged as genuine debts the clearing debts, the high
totals of which were due mainly to differences in price, that is,
inflationist tendencies, in the countries which delivered the goods.
DR. SAUTER: Dr. Hayler, the Defendant Funk is furthermore accused of
playing a criminal part in the enslavement of foreign workers. This
accusation applies particularly to the period during which you were a
co-worker of Dr. Funk. Can you tell us briefly how Funk thought and
acted in regard to this point?
HAYLER: There can be no question of Funk’s co-operation in questions
regarding the employment of foreign labor at this time, but only within
the scope of his responsibility in the Central Planning Board. But it
remains to be seen whether the Central Planning Board was at all
responsible for the employment of workers or whether the Central
Planning Board did nothing more than ascertain the manpower needs of the
various production spheres. However, regardless of what the tasks of the
Central Planning Board may have been, Funk’s position in the Central
Planning Board was the following:
Funk, as Minister of Economy, was responsible for the supplies for the
civilian population and for export. In the period following the
separation of the ministries, no additional foreign worker I believe was
employed in the production of supplies for civilians or for export. On
the contrary, Funk was constantly confronted with the fact that during
that time German and foreign workers were continually being removed from
the production of consumer goods and put into armament production.
Consequently, I cannot imagine that an accusation of this sort can be
made against Funk with reference to this period of time.
On this occasion I should like to emphasize another point which seems
important to me. Provisioning the foreign workers was a very serious
question. I believe that even Herr Sauckel will corroborate the fact
that, when this question came up, Funk was at once ready—even though
there was already a great scarcity of provisions for the German people
due to many air raids and destructions—to release large quantities of
supplies and put them at the disposal of the foreign workers.
DR. SAUTER: If I understand you correctly, he tried to see to it that
the foreign workers who had to work in Germany were supplied as well as
was possible with consumer articles: food, shoes, clothes, and so on.
HAYLER: Particularly shoes and clothing; Funk was not the competent
authority for food.
DR. SAUTER: Shoes and clothing?
HAYLER: Yes, I have specific knowledge of this. And as a result Funk had
considerable difficulty; for the Gauleiter, in view of the great
scarcity of goods, did their best to secure supplies for the inhabitants
of their own Gaue for whom they were responsible, and in so doing used
every means which came to hand. Funk constantly had to oppose the
arbitrary acts of the Gauleiter, who broke into the supply stores in
their Gaue and appropriated stocks intended for the general use.
DR. SAUTER: Dr. Hayler, do you know whether Dr. Funk—I am still
referring to the time when you worked with him—represented the
viewpoint that the foreign worker should not be brought to Germany to
work here but that rather the work itself should be taken from Germany
into the foreign countries so that the foreign worker could perform his
work in his home country and remain at home? Please answer that.
HAYLER: I know very well that Funk represented that viewpoint; and it is
in accordance with his general attitude, for the political disquiet and
dissatisfaction which accompany the displacement of such large masses of
human beings temporarily uprooted was in opposition to the policy of
appeasement and reconstruction which was definitely Funk’s goal.
DR. SAUTER: I now come to the last question which I wish to put to you,
Dr. Hayler. When the German armies retreated and when German territories
were occupied by enemy armies, difficulties arose regarding the
supplying of these territories with money. At that time Hitler is
supposed to have planned a law according to which the acceptance and
passing on of foreign occupation money was to be punished even by death.
I am not interested now, Dr. Hayler, in finding out why Hitler planned
to do this; but I am interested in finding out, if you can tell me, how
the Defendant Funk reacted to this demand by Hitler and what success he
had.
HAYLER: Two facts can be established in regard to this point, which
should be of interest to the Tribunal. I have rarely seen Funk as
depressed as at that time, after he had received information about the
so-called “scorched earth decree.” I believe he was the first minister
to issue at that time two very clear decrees, one from the Ministry of
Economics, in which he gave definite instructions that wherever German
people were an administration of economy in some sort of form must
remain; where it is necessary that people be provided for, the State
must continue to provide for these people.
The second decree was issued at the same time by the President of the
Reichsbank, in which he decreed that the money market had to be cared
for by the remaining offices of the Reichsbank in the same way that
economy was to be cared for.
Regarding your question itself, I recall very distinctly that the Führer
himself, it was said, had demanded of the Ministry of Economics the
issuing of a legal regulation according to which the acceptance of
occupation money was forbidden to every German on pain of death. Herr
Funk opposed this demand very energetically, I believe with the help of
Herr Lammers. He himself telephoned headquarters repeatedly and finally
succeeded in having the Führer’s directive withdrawn.
DR. SAUTER: Have you finished, Dr. Hayler?
HAYLER: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, I have no further questions to put to the
witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Do the other Defendants’ Counsel wish to ask any
questions?
[_No response._]
Does the Prosecution wish to cross-examine?
MR. DODD: When did you join the Nazi Party, Mr. Witness?
HAYLER: Did I understand you correctly—when did I become a member of
the NSDAP?
MR. DODD: That is right.
HAYLER: December 1931.
MR. DODD: Did you hold any offices in the Party at any time?
HAYLER: No; I never held office in the Party.
MR. DODD: You were the head of a trade group in 1938, the Reichsgruppe
“Handel”?
HAYLER: I was the head of the Economic Group “Retail Trade” from 1934
on, and from 1938 on, head of the Reich Group “Trade.” This organization
was a part of the organization of industrial economy and was under the
Reich Ministry of Economics.
MR. DODD: Membership in the group that you were the head of was
compulsory, wasn’t it?
HAYLER: Yes.
MR. DODD: When did you join the SS?
HAYLER: I joined the SS in 1933, in the summer.
MR. DODD: That was a kind of Party office, wasn’t it, of a sort?
HAYLER: No, it was not an office. I became connected with the SS because
of the fact that in Munich 165 businessmen were locked up and because I
knew Himmler from my student days—I had not seen him again until
then—the businessmen in Munich asked me to intercede for them in the
summer of 1933. But I had no office in the Party or in the SS.
MR. DODD: When did you become a general in the SS?
HAYLER: I never was a general in the SS. After I had been appointed
State Secretary, the Reichsführer bestowed on me the rank of a
Gruppenführer in the SS.
MR. DODD: A Gruppenführer—isn’t that the equivalent of a general in the
SS?
HAYLER: Yes and no. In the SS there was the rank of Gruppenführer and
there was the rank of Gruppenführer and general of the Police or of the
Waffen-SS; but the Gruppenführer was not a general if it was only an
honorary rank. This could easily be seen from our uniforms, because we
did not wear a general’s epaulets or a general’s uniform.
MR. DODD: You know Ohlendorf pretty well, don’t you?
HAYLER: Yes.
MR. DODD: He worked for you at one time. He was under your supervision.
Isn’t that so?
HAYLER: I worked with Ohlendorf from 1938 on.
MR. DODD: You know, he has testified before this Tribunal that he
supervised the murdering of 90,000 people; did you know that?
HAYLER: I heard about that.
MR. DODD: Did you know about it at the time that it was going on?
HAYLER: No.
MR. DODD: Did you know Pohl, the SS man—P-o-h-l?
HAYLER: May I ask you for that name again?
MR. DODD: Pohl—P-o-h-l?
HAYLER: I do not remember knowing an SS man Pohl.
MR. DODD: Do you know a man called Obergruppenführer Pohl of the SS?
HAYLER: No—Yes, I know an Obergruppenführer Pohl. Obergruppenführer
Pohl was the chief of the administrative office of the SS.
MR. DODD: Did you have conversations and meetings with him from time to
time?
HAYLER: Officially I had a few conversations with Pohl. Usually they
were very unpleasant.
MR. DODD: Well, that’s another matter. How often would you say, between
1943 and the end, the time of your surrender, that you met with Pohl to
discuss matters of mutual interest between the SS and your own Ministry
of Economics? Approximately, because I don’t expect you to give an
accurate account, but about how many times, would you say?
HAYLER: I must give a short explanation about this. Between the...
MR. DODD: Give that afterwards. Give me the figure first.
HAYLER: Yes. Perhaps three or four times, perhaps only twice. I do not
know exactly.
MR. DODD: Are you telling us three or four times a year or three or four
times during the whole period between 1943 and 1945?
HAYLER: During my time in office, yes, three or four times; it was only
one year.
MR. DODD: Did you talk to him about the Reichsbank’s or the Ministry of
Economics’ co-operating in the financing of the building of factories
near the concentration camps?
HAYLER: No.
MR. DODD: You know about that, do you?
HAYLER: No. This question was never discussed with me.
MR. DODD: What did you talk to him about?
HAYLER: A great controversy had arisen between the Ministry of Economics
and the SS because after I had taken over the State Secretariat in the
Ministry of Economics, Himmler had instructed me to turn over to the SS
a factory which belonged to the Gau Berlin. I fought against this and
did not obey Himmler’s instructions. The files about this must surely
still be in existence. I then was instructed to discuss this matter with
Pohl. In these conferences and in a personal conversation which Himmler
requested and ordered, I still fought against Himmler’s instructions,
because I was fundamentally against the SS having industrial enterprises
of its own.
MR. DODD: Did you talk to the Defendant Funk about this difficulty with
Himmler and Pohl?
HAYLER: Yes, because these difficulties resulted in Himmler’s writing me
a letter in December in which he told me that he ceased to have
confidence in me and that he had no desire to work with me any more. I
reported this to the Defendant Funk in December.
MR. DODD: Did Funk tell you that his bank was helping Himmler out in the
building of factories near the concentration camps?
HAYLER: I know nothing about that.
MR. DODD: You never heard of that before now?
HAYLER: Up until now I have never heard anything about Funk’s or the
Ministry of Economics’ co-operation in the financing of such buildings
or about anything of the sort.
MR. DODD: It is perfectly clear, I think, but I want to make certain,
that from 1943 to 1945, while you were the deputy to Funk in the
Ministry of Economics, the questions of purchasing on the black market,
and so on, in the occupied countries ceased to be of any real
importance, didn’t they? You said that; I understood you to say that a
few minutes ago yourself.
HAYLER: In 1944—and my time in office virtually did not start until
1944, since in December I had a Ministry which was totally bombed out
and we did not get started working again until January 1944—these
questions were no longer of decisive importance, since a process of
retrogression had already set in.
MR. DODD: All right. You also were, Mr. Witness, at the Vienna speech to
which you referred, which was made in 1944; and it had nothing to do
with the occupied countries but was directed only at the satellite
states. Are you aware of that or not?
HAYLER: The speech in Vienna?
MR. DODD: Yes, the speech in Vienna in 1944.
HAYLER: Yes, it is true; I have already said that. Both the speech in
Königsberg and the speech in Vienna did not deal directly with the
occupied territories, but with Europe as a whole. I...
MR. DODD: Did it deal with the occupied territories directly or
indirectly? Now, have you read that speech?
HAYLER: I heard the speech. Quite definitely it had nothing to do with
them directly.
MR. DODD: Finally, in view of your testimony concerning Funk and what he
thought about forced labor, you know, don’t you, that he took an
attitude of unconcern about the forcing of people to come to Germany? Do
you know that?
HAYLER: No.
MR. DODD: Well, you know he has said on interrogation that he didn’t
bother his head about it, although he knew that people were being forced
to go to Germany against their will. Are you aware of that?
HAYLER: No, I am not aware of that. I had with Funk...
MR. DODD: All right. If you did know it, would that make some difference
to you; and would you change your testimony some?
HAYLER: I am not aware of the fact that Funk is supposed to have had
this attitude or...
MR. DODD: Very well. Perhaps I can help you by reading to you from his
interrogation of 22 October 1945, made here in Nuremberg. Among other
things, he was asked these few questions and made a few answers:
“As a matter of fact, you were present at many meetings of the
Central Planning Board, were you not?”
Funk answered and said:
“I was present at the meetings of the Central Planning Board
only when something was required for my small sector; that is to
say, something which had to do with the export and consumer
goods industries as, for example, iron. I had to put up a fight
on each occasion to get just a few thousand tons for my consumer
goods industry.”
The next question was:
“Yes, but during those meetings you attended, you heard, did you
not, discussions concerning forced labor?”
Funk answered: “Yes.”
“Question: ‘And you knew from those meetings that the policy was
to bring in more and more foreign workers to the Reich against
their will?’”
Funk answered: “Yes, certainly.”
“Question: ‘And you never objected to that, I take it?’”
Funk answered:
“No, why should I have objected? It was somebody else’s task to
bring these foreign workers into the Reich.
“Did you believe it was legal to take people against their will
from their homes and bring them into Germany?” was the last
question that I want to quote to you. He answered: “Well, many
things happen in wartime which aren’t strictly legal. I have
never racked my brains about that.”
Now, if you know that to be his attitude from his statements made under
oath on an interrogation here, would that change your view about Funk
and would it cause you to change the testimony which you have given
before the Tribunal here today?
HAYLER: I can testify only to those things which I myself know. I cannot
remember any such statements by Funk. I do know and I remember
distinctly that we frequently spoke about the occupied territories,
about the later development in Europe which was to, and could, result
from co-operation. We also spoke about the procuring of workers and that
Funk fundamentally had a viewpoint different from the one that prevailed
and that he was not in agreement with these things. I can merely repeat
this and if you question me here as a witness, I can say only what I
know.
MR. DODD: Did you go over all of your questions and answers with Dr.
Sauter before you took the stand? You knew what you were going to be
asked when you came here, didn’t you?
HAYLER: Dr. Sauter gave me an idea what he would question me about and
what he was interested in.
MR. DODD: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Do any other members of the Prosecution wish to
cross-examine? Dr. Sauter, do you want to re-examine?
DR. SAUTER: No.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness can retire.
[_The witness left the stand._]
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, there are a few interrogatories missing, some
of which have already arrived and are being translated. I request that
at a later occasion, perhaps after the case against Defendant Schirach,
I be permitted to read these interrogatories. And then, Mr. President, I
should like to say something of a general nature. I have already read
extracts from various documents and requested that all of them be
admitted as evidence and I should like to repeat this request for all
these documents. With that I shall have finished my case for Funk.
Mr. President, may I make another request of you at this moment, namely,
that during the next few days the Defendant Von Schirach be excused from
being present at the sessions in Court so that he can prepare his case.
In his absence I shall look after his interests or else, when I am not
here, my colleague Dr. Nelte will. Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT: Who is appearing for the Defendant Schirach?
DR. SAUTER: I am; and when I cannot be present, then Dr. Nelte will. One
of us will always be in Court and look after his interests.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, very well, Dr. Sauter. Now the Tribunal will adjourn
for 10 minutes.
[_A recess was taken._]
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, there was a document which you didn’t refer
to. I think it was an affidavit of a witness called Kallus. Were you
offering that in evidence? It was an interrogatory of Heinz Karl Kallus.
DR. SAUTER: The Kallus interrogatory, Mr. President, has already arrived
and at the moment it is in the process of translation, I shall submit it
as soon as the translation has been received by the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we have got a translation into English.
DR. SAUTER: I believe, Mr. President, that what you have is an affidavit
by Kallus, and in addition there is a Kallus interrogatory, which is in
process of translation and which I shall submit later.
THE PRESIDENT: This takes the form of an interrogatory, questions and
answers, what I have in my hand. I am only asking whether you want to
offer that.
DR. SAUTER: Yes, I offer that in evidence. I request that judicial
notice be taken of it.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well; you gave it a number then, did you? What
number will it be?
DR. SAUTER: Exhibit Number 5, if you please.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. SAUTER: Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, Dr. Kranzbühler.
FLOTTENRICHTER OTTO KRANZBÜHLER (Counsel for Defendant Dönitz): Mr.
President, first I should like to ask the permission to have a
secretary, in addition to my assistant, in the courtroom, in order to
facilitate the submission of documents.
With the permission of the Tribunal, I shall first submit a number of
documents; and I shall use the document book of the Prosecution and the
document books which I have submitted. These document books consist of
four volumes. The table of contents is in Volume I and in Volume III.
In the first document of the document book of the Prosecution, Exhibit
USA-12 (Document Number 2887-PS), I should like to correct an error in
translation which may be of significance. It says there, in the German
text, under “1939,” “Konteradmiral, Befehlshaber der Unterseeboote,” and
that in the English text has been translated by “Commander-in-Chief.”
The correct translation should be “Flag Officer of Submarines.” That
point is of importance in regard to the fact that Admiral Dönitz, until
his appointment as Commander-in-Chief of the Navy in 1943, was not a
member of the group which the Prosecution terms criminal.
I should like to call the attention of the Tribunal back to Exhibit
GB-190 (Document Number D-652 (a-b)). That is a sea-chart which the
Prosecution has submitted. This chart shows the position of the German
submarines to the west of England on 3 September 1939, and the
Prosecution uses that chart as evidence for the question of aggressive
war.
The Prosecution says, rightly, that these U-boats must have left their
home bases at an earlier date. The first document, which I offer as
Dönitz-1, is to prove, first, that this belongs in the category of
measures resorted to in times of crisis such as were taken by every
nation in Europe at this time, and that they were in no way preparatory
measures for an aggressive war against England, because such a war was
not planned.
I shall read from this document—document book, Page 1. It is an excerpt
from the War Diary of the Naval Operations Staff of September 1939, and
I read the entry of 15 August:
“Prepared (for Case White) the following measures:”
THE PRESIDENT: What page?
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Page 1 of the document book, Volume I.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.