would like to call Captain Hessler as my next witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
[_The witness Hessler took the stand._]
THE PRESIDENT: Will you state your full name?
GÜNTHER HESSLER (Witness): Günther Hessler.
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 will add nothing.
[_The witness repeated the oath._]
THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Captain Hessler, when did you enter the
Navy?
HESSLER: In April 1927.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: What was your last grade?
HESSLER: Fregattenkapitän.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: You are related to Admiral Dönitz. Is that
correct?
HESSLER: Yes. I married his only daughter in November 1937.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: When did you enter the U-boat service?
HESSLER: I started my U-boat training in April 1940.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Were you given any information during your
period of training on economic warfare according to the Prize Ordinance?
HESSLER: Yes. I was informed of it.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Was the so-called “prize disc” used which
has just been submitted to you?
HESSLER: Yes, I was instructed about it.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Will you tell the Tribunal briefly just what
the purpose of this “prize disc” is?
HESSLER: It was a system of discs by means of which, through a simple
mechanical process in a very short time one could ascertain how to deal
with neutral and enemy merchant ships—whether, for instance, a neutral
vessel carrying contraband could be sunk or captured, or whether it must
be allowed to pass.
This disc has another great advantage in that it indicates at the same
time the particular paragraph of the Prize Ordinance in which the case
in question may be found. This made it possible to cut down the time
required for the investigation of a merchant ship to a minimum.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: That means that the disc was in the nature
of a legal adviser to the commander?
HESSLER: Yes.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: I now submit this disc to the Tribunal as
Exhibit Dönitz-95.
In your training were you told what attitude you were required to adopt
toward shipwrecked survivors? If so, what was it?
HESSLER: Yes. The rescuing of survivors is a matter of course in naval
warfare and must be carried out as far as military measures permit. In
U-boat warfare it is utterly impossible to rescue survivors, that is, to
take the entire crew on board, for space conditions in the U-boat do not
permit of any such action. The carrying out of other measures, such as,
approaching the lifeboats, picking up swimmers and transferring them to
the lifeboats, handing over provisions and water, is, as a rule,
impossible, for the danger incurred by the U-boat is so great throughout
the operational zone that none of these measures can be carried out
without endangering the boat too much.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: You yourself went out on cruises as
commander soon after receiving these instructions?
HESSLER: Yes.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: From when to when?
HESSLER: From October 1940 till November 1941.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: In what areas did you operate?
HESSLER: South of Iceland, west of the North Channel, in the waters
between Cape Verde and the Azores, and in the area west of Freetown.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: What success did you have against merchant
shipping?
HESSLER: I sank 21 ships, totaling more than 130,000 tons.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: You received the Knight’s Cross?
HESSLER: Yes.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: How did you act toward the survivors of the
crews of the ships you sank?
HESSLER: In most cases the situation was such that I was compelled to
leave the scene of the wreck without delay on account of danger from
enemy naval or air forces. In two cases the danger was not quite so
great. I was able to approach the lifeboats and help them.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: What were the ships concerned?
HESSLER: Two Greek ships: the _Papalemos_ and _Pandias_.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: How did you help the lifeboats?
HESSLER: First of all I gave the survivors their exact position and told
them what course to set in order to reach land in their lifeboats. In
the second place, I gave them water, which is of vital importance for
survivors in tropical regions. In one case I also furnished medical aid
for several wounded men.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Did your personal experience with torpedoed
ships dispose you to caution with regard to rescue measures?
HESSLER: Yes. The experienced U-boat commander was justifiably
suspicious of every merchantman and its crew, no matter how innocent
they might appear. In two cases this attitude of suspicion saved me from
destruction.
This happened in the case of the steamer _Kalchas_, a British 10,000 ton
ship which I torpedoed north of Cape Verde. The ship had stopped after
being hit by the torpedo. The crew had left the ship and were in the
lifeboats, and the vessel seemed to be sinking. I was wondering whether
to surface in order at least to give the crew their position and ask if
they needed water. A feeling which I could not explain kept me from
doing so. I raised my periscope to the fullest extent and just as the
periscope rose almost entirely out of the water, sailors who had been
hiding under the guns and behind the bulwark, jumped up, manned the guns
of the vessel—which so far had appeared to be entirely abandoned—and
opened fire on my periscope at very close range, compelling me to
submerge at full speed. The shells fell close to the periscope but were
not dangerous to me.
In the second case, the steamer _Alfred Jones_, which I torpedoed off
Freetown, also seemed to be sinking. I wondered whether to surface, when
I saw in one of the lifeboats two sailors of the British Navy in full
uniform. That aroused my suspicions. I inspected the ship at close
range—I would say from a distance of 50 to 100 meters—and established
the fact that it had not been abandoned, but that soldiers were still
concealed aboard her in every possible hiding-place and behind boarding.
When I torpedoed the ship this boarding was smashed. I saw that the ship
had at least four to six guns of 10 and 15 centimeter caliber and a
large number of depth charge chutes and antiaircraft guns behind the
bulwarks. Only a pure accident, the fact that the depth charges had not
been timed, saved me from destruction.
It was clear to me, naturally, after such an experience, that I could no
longer concern myself with crews or survivors without endangering my own
ship.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: When did you enter the staff of the
Commander, U-boats.
HESSLER: In November 1941.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: You were First Naval Staff Officer?
HESSLER: Yes.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Was it your task to instruct the commanders
on orders issued before they left port?
HESSLER: Yes, I did that.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: And what was the connection between the
instructions given by you and those to be given by the flotilla
chiefs—Korvettenkapitän Möhle, for instance?
HESSLER: The commanders whom I had to instruct received a complete
summary of all questions concerning procedure at sea. The flotilla
chiefs were charged with ascertaining that all commanders should receive
a copy of the most recent orders issued by Commander, U-boats. I might
say that these were limited instructions, compared with the full
instructions they received from me.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Did these full instructions include the
instructions to the commanders regarding the treatment of survivors?
HESSLER: Yes, in much the same style as the instructions I received
during my training in the U-boat school.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Was any change made in the manner of
instruction after the _Laconia_ order of September 1942?
HESSLER: Yes. I related the incident briefly to the commanders and told
them:
“Now the decision as to whether the situation at sea permits of
rescue attempts no longer rests with you. Rescue measures are
prohibited from now on.”
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Do you mean to say that during the whole of
the rest of the war—that is, for 2½ years—the commanders continued to
be told about the _Laconia_ incident, or was that only done immediately
after this incident in the autumn of 1942?
HESSLER: I would say up to January 1943 at the latest. After that, no
further mention was made of it.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: You mean, no further mention of the
incident?
HESSLER: No further mention of the _Laconia_ incident.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: But the orders issued as a result of it were
mentioned?
HESSLER: Yes, that a specific order not to take any more rescue measures
had been issued.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Did the commanders at any time receive
orders or suggestions from you or from one of your staff to shoot at
survivors?
HESSLER: Never.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Were the commanders told by you about the
order to take captains and chief engineers on board, if possible?
HESSLER: Yes.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Was it emphasized in those instructions that
this was only to take place when it could be done without endangering
the U-boat?
HESSLER: Yes.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Do you know of the incident of U-boat
_U-386_ which passed some airmen shot down in the Bay of Biscay?
HESSLER: I remember this incident very distinctly.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Then you also remember that this incident
took place in the autumn of 1943?
HESSLER: Yes.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Did Commander, U-boats, think, with regard
to this incident, that the U-boat commander should have shot at the
airmen in the rubber dinghy?
HESSLER: No, on the contrary, he was annoyed because the crew of the
aircraft had not been brought along by the U-boat.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Did any other person or persons on the staff
put forward the view I have just expressed?
HESSLER: No, we knew every one on the staff, and it is out of the
question that any member of the staff held a different opinion.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Korvettenkapitän Möhle testified that he
asked Korvettenkapitän Kuppisch, who was a member of your staff, for an
explanation of the _Laconia_ order and that Kuppisch told him about the
incident of the _U-386_; and told it in such a way as to make it appear
that Commander, U-boats, ordered the shooting of survivors.
HESSLER: That is impossible.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Why?
HESSLER: Because Kuppisch took his U-boat out to sea in July 1943 and
never returned from that cruise. The incident of _U-386_ happened in the
autumn of 1943, which was later.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Korvettenkapitän Möhle in his first
statement left the possibility open that this story about _U-386_ might
have come from you. Did you discuss this matter with him?
HESSLER: No.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Are you certain of that?
HESSLER: Absolutely certain.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Did you hear of the interpretation given by
Korvettenkapitän Möhle to this _Laconia_ order?
HESSLER: After the capitulation—that is, after the end of the war and
then through a British officer.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: How do you explain the fact that of the very
few officers who received these instructions from Möhle, none raised the
question of the interpretation of this order with Commander, U-boats?
HESSLER: I have only one explanation of this; and that is that these
officers thought Korvettenkapitän Möhle’s interpretation completely
impossible, and not in agreement with the interpretation of Commander,
U-boats.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Therefore, they did not think that
clarification was necessary?
HESSLER: They did not think that clarification was necessary.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: The Prosecution’s charges against Admiral
Dönitz are based to a great extent on extracts from the War Diary of the
SKL and Commander, U-boats, documents which are in the possession of the
British Admiralty. How is it possible that all these data fell into the
hands of the British Admiralty—and _in toto_?
HESSLER: It was the Admiral’s desire that the war diaries of the U-boats
and of Commander, U-boats, which formed part of the Navy archives,
should be preserved and not be destroyed.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Did he say anything to you about this?
HESSLER: Yes, in that form, when I told him that our own staff data had
been completely destroyed.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Did he give any reason as to why he did not
want the Navy archives destroyed?
HESSLER: He wanted to keep these data until after the war, and the Naval
Operations Staff had nothing to conceal.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Is that your opinion or is that the opinion
which Admiral Dönitz expressed to you?
HESSLER: He told me, “We have a clear conscience.”
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Immediately after the capitulation you were
repeatedly interrogated on questions of U-boat warfare and you asked the
senior officer present whether the German U-boat command would be
accused by the British Navy of criminal acts. Is that right?
HESSLER: Yes.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: And what answer did you receive?
HESSLER: An unhesitating “No.”
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: I have no further questions, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any defendant’s counsel wish to ask any questions?
[_There was no response._]
The Prosecution?
COL. PHILLIMORE: With the Tribunal’s permission I would not propose to
cross-examine and ask leave to adapt my cross-examination of the last
witness because it is the same ground substantially.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
Does any other Prosecutor wish to cross-examine?
Yes, Dr. Kranzbühler?
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: I have no further questions to ask the
witness, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: In the interrogation of the Defendant Dönitz he said that
Godt and Hessler—that is you, is it not...?
HESSLER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: ...told him, “Don’t send that signal. You see, one day it
might appear in the wrong; it might be misinterpreted.” Did you say
that?
HESSLER: I do not remember. As consulting officers, we often had to
oppose orders which were being drafted, and we were entitled to do so;
but I do not remember whether Admiral Godt and I did so in this case.
THE PRESIDENT: Then later in this interrogation the Defendant Dönitz
said:
“I am completely and personally responsible for it”—that is
that order—“because Captains Godt and Hessler both expressly
stated that they considered the telegram as ambiguous or liable
to be misinterpreted.”
Did you say that this telegram was ambiguous or liable to be
misinterpreted?
HESSLER: I do not remember that point. I do not think I thought the
telegram was ambiguous.
THE PRESIDENT: And lastly the Defendant Dönitz said this:
“I would like to emphasize once more that both Captain Godt and
Captain Hessler were violently opposed to the sending of the
telegram.”
Do you say that you were not violently opposed to the sending of the
telegram?
HESSLER: It is possible that we opposed the dispatch of the telegram
because we did not consider it necessary to refer to the matter again.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you say anything to the Defendant Dönitz about this
telegram at all?
HESSLER: At the drafting of the telegram we talked it over, just as we
discussed every wireless message drafted by us. As time went on, we
drafted many hundreds of wireless messages so that it is impossible to
remember just what was said in each case.
THE PRESIDENT: You began your answer to that question: “At the drafting
of this telegram...”
Do you remember what happened at the drafting of this telegram?
HESSLER: I can remember only that in the course of the so-called
_Laconia_ incident a great many wireless messages were sent and
received; that many wireless messages were drafted; and that, in
addition, U-boat operations were going on in the Atlantic, so that I
cannot recall details of what happened when the message was drafted.
THE PRESIDENT: You said now that it was possible that you and Admiral
Godt were opposed to the sending of this telegram. Is that your answer?
HESSLER: It is possible, but I cannot say.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Dr. Kranzbühler, the witness can retire.
[_The witness left the stand._]
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Mr. President, this morning I had already
advised the Prosecution that I shall not call the fourth witness
scheduled—that is Admiral Eckardt. Therefore, my examination of
witnesses has been concluded.
THE PRESIDENT: And that concludes your case for the present?
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: That concludes my case, but with the
permission of the Tribunal I would like to clarify one more question
which deals with documents.
The Tribunal has refused all documents which refer to contraband,
control ports, and the “Navicert” system. These questions are of some
importance if I am to give a correct exposition later on.
May I interpret the Tribunal’s decision as saying that these documents
are not to be used now as evidence but that I may have permission to use
them later on in my legal exposition?
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kranzbühler, the Tribunal thinks that is a question
which may be reserved until the time comes for you to make your speech.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Thank you, Mr. President. Then I have
concluded my case.
THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now.
[_The Tribunal adjourned until 15 May 1946 at 1000 hours._]
ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTIETH DAY
Wednesday, 15 May 1946
_Morning Session_
[_The witness Emil Puhl took the stand._]
THE PRESIDENT: Will you state your full name?
EMIL PUHL (Witness): Emil Johann Rudolf Puhl.
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: Witness Puhl, you were formerly Vice President of the
Reichsbank?
PUHL: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: If I am correctly informed, you were a member of the
Directorate of the Reichsbank already at the time of Dr. Schacht?
PUHL: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: When Dr. Schacht left, you were one of the few gentlemen who
remained in the Reichsbank?
PUHL: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: You were then named by Hitler, on the suggestion of the
Defendant Funk, to be Managing Vice President of the Reichsbank?
PUHL: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: When was that?
PUHL: During the year 1939.
DR. SAUTER: During the year 1939. You have said that you were Managing
Vice President, and I presume this was due to the fact that banking was
not the special field of the Defendant Funk while you were a banking
expert, and that Funk in addition had charge of the Reich Ministry of
Economics. Is that correct?
PUHL: Yes, but there was another reason, namely, the division of
authority between official business on one side, and the handling of
personnel on the other.
DR. SAUTER: The actual conduct of business was apparently your
responsibility?
PUHL: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: Hence, the title Managing Vice President?
PUHL: Yes. May I make a few comments on this?
DR. SAUTER: Only if it is necessary in the interests of the case.
PUHL: Yes. The business of the Directorate of the Reichsbank was divided
among a number of members of the Directorate. Every member had full
responsibility for his own sphere. The Vice President was the _primus
inter pares_, his main task was to act as chairman at meetings to
represent the President in the outside world and to deal with problems
of general economic and banking policy.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, the Defendant Funk referred to you as a witness as
early as December. You know that, don’t you? And accordingly, you were
interrogated at the camp where you are now accommodated, I believe in
Baden-Baden...
PUHL: Near Baden-Baden.
DR. SAUTER: ...interrogated on 1 May?
PUHL: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: Two days later you were again interrogated?
PUHL: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: On 3 May?
PUHL: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: Do you know why the matters on which you were questioned on
3 May were not dealt with during the interrogation on 1 May?
PUHL: I have before me the affidavit dated 3 May.
DR. SAUTER: 3 May. That deals with these business affairs with the SS.
PUHL: Yes. But I was questioned on this subject already on 1 May, only
very briefly, and on 3 May there was a second interrogation for the
purpose of discussing it in more detail.
DR. SAUTER: Did you not mention these business affairs of the Reichsbank
with the SS during your interrogation on 1 May?
PUHL: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: Did you mention them?
PUHL: A short statement was made.
DR. SAUTER: During the interrogation of 1 May?
PUHL: Yes. At any rate, the statement on 3 May made during the
interrogation was only a more detailed record of what had already been
briefly discussed before.
DR. SAUTER: I have the record of your interrogation on 1 May before me;
I read through it again today. But as far as I can see, it contains no
mention at all of business affairs with the SS. You must be speaking now
of another interrogation?
PUHL: Yes.
MR. DODD: Mr. President, I think perhaps I can be helpful in this
apparent confusion. The interrogatory which was authorized by the
Tribunal was taken on 1 May, but on that same day, and independent of
these interrogatories, a member of our staff also interviewed this
witness. But it was a separate interview. It wasn’t related to the
interrogatory, and I think that is the source of the confusion.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. SAUTER: Were you interrogated twice about these transactions with
the SS?
PUHL: Yes, twice during the days around 1 May; that is correct.
DR. SAUTER: Do you still remember the affidavit which you signed on 3
May?
PUHL: On 3 May, yes.
DR. SAUTER: It is the affidavit which deals with these transactions with
the SS. Are your statements in this affidavit correct?
PUHL: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, have you been interrogated on these matters again
since that time, since 3 May?
PUHL: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: When?
PUHL: Here in Nuremberg.
DR. SAUTER: When were you interrogated?
PUHL: During the last few days.
DR. SAUTER: I see. Today is Wednesday, when was it?
PUHL: Friday, Monday, Tuesday.
DR. SAUTER: Yesterday?
PUHL: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: On this matter?
PUHL: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: Was a film also shown to you here?
PUHL: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: Once or twice?
PUHL: Once.
DR. SAUTER: Had you seen this film before?
PUHL: No.
DR. SAUTER: Did you recognize clearly what was presented in the film?
PUHL: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: I ask because, as you know, the film runs very quickly and
is very short; the Prosecution showed it twice in the courtroom so that
one might follow it fairly well. Did one showing suffice to make clear
to you what the film contained?
PUHL: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: Then will you tell me what you saw in it, only what you saw
in the film, or what you think you saw.
PUHL: Yes. The film was taken in front of the safes of our bank at
Frankfurt-on-Main, the usual safes with glass doors, behind which one
could see the locked cases and containers, which had apparently been
deposited there. It was the usual picture presented by such strong
rooms. In front of these safes were several containers which had been
opened so that their contents could be seen—coins, jewelry, pearls,
bank notes, clocks.
DR. SAUTER: What sort of clocks?
PUHL: Large alarm clocks.
DR. SAUTER: Nothing else? Didn’t you see anything else in the film?
PUHL: Apart from these objects?
DR. SAUTER: Apart from these, shall we say, valuables, didn’t you see
anything else that is alleged to have been kept there?
PUHL: No, no.
DR. SAUTER: Only these valuables? Please go on.
PUHL: I noticed that among these valuables there were coins, apparently
silver coins, and also bank notes, obviously American bank notes.
DR. SAUTER: Correct.
PUHL: It was astonishing that these things were given to us for
safekeeping, because if they had come to the knowledge of our officials,
then no doubt...
DR. SAUTER: Speak slowly, please.
PUHL: ...no doubt the bank notes would have been immediately turned over
to the foreign exchange department, since, as is known, a general order
existed for the turning in of foreign bank notes which particularly were
much in demand.
Something similar applies to the coins. These, too, ought to have been
transferred to the treasury in accordance with the regulations and
routine of business, that is to say, they should have been purchased for
the accounts of the Reich.
DR. SAUTER: That is what you noticed in the film?
PUHL: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: And nothing else?
PUHL: No.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, valuable articles entrusted to the Reichsbank for
safekeeping were supposed to have been kept in the Reichsbank in that
way. Now I have been asking myself whether your Reichsbank really stored
the valuables entrusted to it in the manner apparent from the film and I
therefore want to ask this question of you: Do you as Managing Vice
President of the Reichsbank know how valuables which were handed over
for safekeeping in the strong-rooms were kept, for instance, in Berlin
or in Frankfurt, where this film was taken?
PUHL: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: Please tell the Court.
PUHL: The outer appearance of the safe installations in Berlin was
somewhat similar to that in Frankfurt, and probably similar to any other
large bank. These things were known to us as “closed deposits,” a
banking term, and were kept, as the name indicates, in closed
containers. Space for these was provided by us and paid for by the
depositors, according to the size in each case.
DR. SAUTER: Were these things kept—for instance, in Berlin or in
Frankfurt—exactly as shown in the film?
PUHL: Well, I had the impression that the things of which we are now
talking had been put there expressly for the purpose of taking the film.
DR. SAUTER: For the film. Do you recollect seeing a sack, which I think
was shown in the film, with the label “Reichsbank Frankfurt?”
PUHL: Yes, I saw a sack labeled “Reichsbank”; I cannot say whether
“Reichsbank Frankfurt.”
DR. SAUTER: As far as I know, it had “Reichsbank Frankfurt” on it. For
that reason we assumed that the film was taken at Frankfurt, and the
Prosecution confirmed that.
MR. DODD: I don’t like to interrupt but I think we should be careful
about this statement. There have been two mistakes of some slight
importance already. We didn’t show the film twice before this Tribunal
and that bag doesn’t bear the legend “Frankfurt.” It simply says
“Reichsbank.” And it was the Schacht film that was shown twice here,
because it moved rather quickly.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, will you continue with your reply to the question.
I can put it in this way: Did the Reichsbank keep gold articles and the
like in such sacks?
PUHL: If I understand you correctly, you are asking this: When valuables
were deposited with us, were they deposited in open sacks? Is that
correct?
DR. SAUTER: I do not know what procedure you had.
PUHL: We at any rate had closed deposits, as the name implies. Of
course, it may be a sack which is closed; that is quite possible.
DR. SAUTER: So far as I saw in banks at Munich, the things which were
deposited there in increased measure during the war were without
exception deposited in closed boxes or cases and the like, so that
generally the bank did not know at all what was contained in the cases
or boxes. Did you in the Reichsbank follow a different procedure?
PUHL: No, it was exactly the same. And the noticeable thing about this
sack, as has been said, is the label “Reichsbank.” Obviously it is a
sack belonging to us and not to any private person.
DR. SAUTER: Then you too, if I may repeat this to avoid any doubt, you
too kept in a closed container the valuables, which had been deposited
as “closed deposits.”
PUHL: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: Or they went to the strongboxes?
PUHL: The word “deposits” might be misleading. The closed containers
went to the strong-room. The strong-room consisted of strongboxes where
these cases or containers were deposited. Quite independent of that
arrangement, we had the “open deposits.” Open deposits are those which
by initial agreement are administered openly. The strong-rooms for these
were located in quite a different part of the building from the
so-called main strong-room.
DR. SAUTER: But presumably, we are not concerned here with these open
deposits?
PUHL: No.
DR. SAUTER: Now, Witness, I come to the deposits of the SS. These
deposits were not in Frankfurt but presumably in Berlin in the central
bank.
PUHL: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: Now, will you give details about the discussions which the
Defendant Funk had with you regarding the SS deposits. And may I ask you
to consider your replies and search your memory very carefully before
answering my questions. Naturally I shall allow you time.
First of all, what did you and the Defendant Funk discuss when you
talked about these deposits of the SS for the first time?
PUHL: I refer here to my affidavit of 3 May. I had a very simple talk
with Herr Funk. It turned on the request of the SS to make use of our
bank installations by depositing valuables for which, it was said, there
was not sufficient protection in the cellars of the SS building.
Perhaps, for the sake of completeness, I may add that “SS,” in this
connection, always means the Economic Department of the SS.
DR. SAUTER: What did the Defendant Funk speak of at the time? Did he
specify exactly what should be accepted for safekeeping?
PUHL: He mentioned valuables which the SS had brought from the Eastern
Territories, which were then in their cellars and which, above all, they
requested us to keep in safety.
DR. SAUTER: But did the Defendant Funk tell you in detail what these
valuables were?
PUHL: No, not in detail, but he said that in general they were gold,
foreign currency, silver, and jewelry.
DR. SAUTER: Gold, foreign currency, silver, jewelry...
PUHL: To which I may add that gold and foreign currency had of course to
be surrendered to the Reichsbank at any rate.
DR. SAUTER: Gold, foreign currency, silver and jewelry?
PUHL: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: And that was supposed to have been confiscated in the
Eastern Territories?
PUHL: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: Did the Defendant Funk tell you at the time why these
confiscations had been made, or who had been affected by them?
PUHL: No, that was not stated; the talk, as I have said, was brief.
DR. SAUTER: And what was your reply?
PUHL: I said that this sort of business with the SS would at least be
inconvenient for us, and I voiced objections to it. I may add that we,
as the Reichsbank, were always very cautious in these matters, for
example, when valuables were offered us by foreign exchange control
offices, customs offices, and the like.
DR. SAUTER: What was the actual reason for your objections in the case
of the SS?
PUHL: Because one could not know what inconvenient consequences a
business connection of this sort might produce.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, that answer does not satisfy me. Did you or the
Defendant Funk not wish to have anything to do with the SS at all, or
was there some other reason for your objections?
PUHL: The first part of your question I answer with “no.” There was no
objection on principle, nor could there be; for, after all, every German
organization or institution had the legal right to enjoy the services of
the Reichsbank.
The circumstances arising out of these confiscations were uncomfortable,
like the confiscations of the foreign exchange control offices, _et
cetera_, which I mentioned, because one never knew what difficulties
might result.
DR. SAUTER: So that, if I understand you well—please correct me if I
interpret it wrongly—you voiced objections because these business
affairs were somewhat uncomfortable for the Reichsbank, they fell
outside the normal scope of business, and were as little welcome to you
as, for instance, deposits of the customs authorities or the foreign
exchange control offices, and so forth? Only for this reason?
PUHL: Yes. But I have to add something; we were asked whether we would
assist the SS in handling these deposits. It was immediately clear, of
course, and also expressly stated, that these deposits included foreign
currency, and also securities and all sorts of gold coins, _et cetera_,
and that the SS people did not quite know how to deal with these things.
DR. SAUTER: Did these things arrive subsequently?
PUHL: Yes. But something else happened before that. After this
conversation the head of the Economic Department of the SS, whose name
was Pohl, Obergruppenführer Pohl, contacted me. I asked him to come to
my office, and there he repeated, what I already knew, namely that he
would welcome it if we would take over these valuables as soon as
possible.
DR. SAUTER: What was your answer?
PUHL: I confirmed what we had arranged and said, “If you will designate
officials from your department, I shall inform our department, and
together they can discuss the technical details.”
DR. SAUTER: To revert to an earlier stage: What did the Defendant Funk
say when you explained during your first conversation with him that you
would not willingly take over those things because one often had a lot
of trouble with such matters?
PUHL: My objections were subordinated to the broader consideration of
assisting the SS, all the more—and this must be emphasized—because
these things were for the account of the Reich.
DR. SAUTER: Did you discuss whether these things, particularly gold,
should be converted by the Reichsbank or melted down?
PUHL: No, not in detail; it was merely said that the officials of the
Reichsbank should offer their good services to the SS.
DR. SAUTER: I do not quite understand. The good services of the
Reichsbank officials consist in receiving these valuables into
safekeeping and locking them up?
PUHL: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: Were the services of your officials to go beyond that?
PUHL: Yes, inasmuch as the SS people were to come and remove from the
containers whatever had to be surrendered.
DR. SAUTER: For instance, gold coins, foreign currency, _et cetera_?
PUHL: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: Then did you see—to come back to the question already
put—did you see what arrived, what the SS delivered?
PUHL: No, not personally. This happened far away from my office, in
quite a different building, downstairs in the strong-rooms which I, as
Vice President of the Reichsbank, would not normally enter without a
special reason.
DR. SAUTER: Did you, as Vice President, visit these strong-rooms
frequently?
PUHL: It was a habit of mine, sometimes at an interval of three months
or longer, to go through the strong-rooms; if there was some occasion
for it, for instance, when there was a visitor to be conducted or some
new installation to be discussed, or when there was something of
importance beyond mere attendance on the safes and the clients.
DR. SAUTER: But, of course, as Vice President, you had nothing to do
with attending to customers?
PUHL: No.
DR. SAUTER: And I should like to put the same question to you with
regard to the Defendant Funk. Did the Defendant Funk, who moreover
belonged to the Reichsbank only in part, go to the strong-rooms often?
If so, how often and for what reason? And did he see what had been
handed in by the SS?
PUHL: The answer is that Funk, too, went to the strong-rooms on special
occasions, for example, when there were foreign visitors. Naturally, I
would not know how often, nor whether he saw the SS deposits. That
depends on whether the strong-room officials who were conducting him
pointed them out to him.
DR. SAUTER: Did you, Witness, see the things which came from the SS—did
you see them yourself?
PUHL: No, never.
DR. SAUTER: Never?
PUHL: Never.
DR. SAUTER: Do you think that the Defendant Funk saw them?
PUHL: I cannot tell that, of course; it depends on whether the
strong-room officials pointed out specifically: “Here is the deposit of
the SS.”
DR. SAUTER: Then I presume you cannot give us any information on how
these things of the SS were actually kept or how they were packed?
PUHL: No.
DR. SAUTER: Whether in boxes or...
PUHL: No, I do not know that.
DR. SAUTER: Did you talk again about this whole affair of the SS
deposits with the Defendant Funk?
PUHL: Hardly at all, as far as I can remember. But I must certainly have
talked to him a second time, after Herr Pohl had visited me, since it
was, of course, my task and my duty to keep Funk informed of everything.
DR. SAUTER: Did the members of the Reichsbank Directorate, the board of
directors, attach a special significance to this whole matter so that
there might have been occasion to discuss it more frequently? Or was it
regarded as just an unpleasant but unimportant sort of business?
PUHL: No. At the beginning there was probably a report on it to the
meeting of the Directorate, but then it was not mentioned again.
DR. SAUTER: You cannot recollect having later again talked of the matter
with Funk? But it is possible, if I understood you correctly, that after
the settlement with SS Obergruppenführer Pohl, you may again have
reported about it briefly? Did I understand you correctly?
PUHL: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: Now, Witness, in your affidavit under Figure 5, you say that
among the articles deposited by the SS were jewelry, watches, spectacle
frames, gold fillings—apparently these dental fillings—and other
articles in large quantities which the SS had taken away from Jews and
concentration camp victims and other persons. How do you know that?
PUHL: I know that from my interrogations at Frankfurt.
DR. SAUTER: You were told about these things during your interrogations
in Frankfurt after your arrest?
PUHL: And they were shown to me.
DR. SAUTER: You had no knowledge of them while you were free and
administered the Reichsbank as Vice President?
PUHL: No, because, I repeat it again, we never discussed this in the
Directorate, since it was of no basic significance for currency or
banking policy or in any other respect.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, if at that time in 1942 you had known that these
were articles which the SS had taken away from many concentration camp
victims, would you have received them into safekeeping?
PUHL: No.
DR. SAUTER: What would you have done?
PUHL: Then we would have come to some decision on the attitude which the
bank as a whole should adopt toward this problem.
DR. SAUTER: Who would have had the decisive word?
PUHL: The decision would have been made by the Directorate of the
Reichsbank as an executive group, as a corporate body, and then it would
have been submitted to the President for countersignature.
DR. SAUTER: Earlier—I must fill in this gap in connection with your
affidavit—you expressed yourself in a rather misleading way. You stated
earlier: “This was brought to our knowledge, because the SS personnel
attempted to convert this material into gold, into cash.” And today you
say that you heard of it only after your arrest. Apparently, if I
understand you correctly, there must be...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, I do not understand why you say “earlier.” It
is the sentence which followed the sentence which you put to him.
DR. SAUTER: Yes, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Why do you say “earlier” then? Why do you say “earlier”?
DR. SAUTER: In his affidavit—if the wording of the affidavit is correct
and there is no misunderstanding—the witness said...
THE PRESIDENT: What I am pointing out to you is that the first sentence
reads like this: “The material deposited by the SS included all these
items taken from Jews, concentration camp victims, and other persons by
the SS.” And it then goes on, “This was brought to our knowledge by the
SS personnel who attempted to convert this material into cash.” What you
are now putting to him is that that acceptance was put to him earlier.
At least that is what I understood you to say.
DR. SAUTER: No; the witness said today that he was told only during his
interrogations in Frankfurt-on-Main that these articles had been taken
from concentration camp victims, _et cetera_. The affidavit, however,
can and must be interpreted in my opinion as saying that he received
this information, already before his arrest, through the SS personnel
and that apparently is not true. For that reason I asked the witness
whether this expression in the affidavit is not a misunderstanding.
Now, Witness, if I may repeat this: You first heard that these articles
belonged to concentration camp victims at your interrogation?
PUHL: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: And when did you learn what was contained in this deposit;
when did you know that, to pick out one example, gold teeth were
contained in it?
PUHL: Not at all. No details of this transaction were submitted to the
Directorate by the strong-room or safe officials.
DR. SAUTER: So of this, too, you heard only after your arrest?
PUHL: Of the details, yes.
DR. SAUTER: Good. Now, you speak of an agreement which, according to the
statement of Funk, Himmler, the Reichsführer of the SS, is said to have
made with the Reich Minister of Finance. What do you know about this
agreement?
PUHL: That is the agreement I have already mentioned. It was clear from
the beginning that the value of the things deposited with us was to be
credited to the Ministry of Finance.
DR. SAUTER: Not to the SS?
PUHL: No, not to the SS.
DR. SAUTER: Why not? The SS were the depositors, were they not?
PUHL: Yes, but they maintained that their actions were carried out in
the name and on behalf of the Reich and its accounts.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, do you know whether these valuables, which in some
way had been confiscated or stolen by the SS in the East, were placed as
a matter of principle at the disposal of the Reich Ministry of Finance?
PUHL: I did not quite understand the question. Are you referring to
these articles or to confiscated articles, valuables in general?
DR. SAUTER: To all valuables. I am speaking of gold, foreign currency,
and so forth, all these valuables acquired by the SS in the East; were
they all to be placed at the disposal of the Reich Ministry of Finance,
and not of the Reichsbank?
PUHL: The equivalent value?
DR. SAUTER: Yes, the equivalent value.
PUHL: The equivalent value was credited to the Reich Ministry of
Finance.
DR. SAUTER: In this connection, Witness, may I show you two accounts. I
do not know whether you have seen them. They are two accounts of the
chief cashier’s office of your bank.
PUHL: Yes, to us.
DR. SAUTER: I should like you, then, to look at them, and to tell me
whether you have seen them before and what you know about them?
PUHL: I saw these two copies—photostat copies—during my
interrogations.
DR. SAUTER: But not earlier?
PUHL: No, not earlier. And from these photostat copies it is clear—we
have just discussed it—that the equivalent value was to be credited to
the Reich Chief Cashier’s Office, as it says here; the Reich Chief
Cashier’s Office was a part of the Ministry of Finance.
DR. SAUTER: So apparently it is connected with this agreement, of which
you heard, that finally all these things belonged to the Reich Ministry
of Finance, to the Reich.
PUHL: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: Now I have one more question on this subject. And I would
like to know whether perhaps there is a misunderstanding in this case
too. You say in the affidavit that Funk told you this matter should be
kept absolutely secret; that is the wording. You did not mention this
point at all today, although we have the affidavit in front of us. Will
you say now whether this is true or whether it is a misunderstanding?
PUHL: That it should be kept secret? No.
DR. SAUTER: Yes.
PUHL: Of course, this matter was to be kept secret, but then everything
that happens in a bank must be kept secret.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, this statement cannot, of course, satisfy us. Did
you, during your interrogation of 3 May, say what is contained in this
document, namely, that the matter was to be kept absolutely secret, or
did you express yourself in different words?
PUHL: No, the wording of the affidavit is correct; the matter was to be
kept absolutely secret.
DR. SAUTER: Why?
PUHL: Why? Because, plainly, such matters are usually kept secret and
are not publicized; furthermore, these things came from the East. I
repeat what I said before, that our attitude towards confiscated
articles was always to avoid them.
DR. SAUTER: Did it strike you as unusual that the Defendant Funk spoke
of keeping the matter secret?
PUHL: No.
DR. SAUTER: Or did it not strike you as unusual?
PUHL: Not as unusual.
DR. SAUTER: Not as unusual?
PUHL: No. It was merely decided in the conversation that since we were
not willing to accept the confiscated articles of the foreign exchange
control offices and the customs offices, we should, naturally, insist on
secrecy in accepting these articles.
DR. SAUTER: Yes. But from your account of the matter, it appears that,
on one hand, you considered the business to be perfectly legal, and you
yourself say that it was perfectly legal; on the other hand, secrecy was
for you, as an old banking expert, a matter of course. Now the question
arises, why then was the subject of keeping the matter secret discussed
at all?
PUHL: Herr Funk himself had been asked to keep the matter as secret as
possible, and he passed on that request.
DR. SAUTER: When did Funk tell you that he had been asked to keep it
secret?
PUHL: I do not remember that.
DR. SAUTER: Did you not ask him why it should be kept secret, absolutely
secret, as you say? I do not know whether you still maintain “absolutely
secret”?
PUHL: Yes, a special duty of observing secrecy was to be imposed on the
officials.
DR. SAUTER: Well, what did you, as Vice President, as Managing Vice
President, say to that?
PUHL: I did not say anything because, if that had been agreed upon, then
this wish would have to be complied with.
DR. SAUTER: But you do not know whether it had been agreed upon?
PUHL: Well, I assume that it was agreed upon.
DR. SAUTER: You consider it possible?
PUHL: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: And—to repeat this—you did not at all see the articles
which arrived?
PUHL: No, not at all.
DR. SAUTER: And probably you do not know how many there were?
PUHL: No, I do not know that either; and, as I said before, I never saw
an account; that was not in conformity with our procedure, as individual
transactions were not submitted to the members of the Directorate.
DR. SAUTER: I ask because recently, when this case was discussed, it was
asserted that whole truckloads of such articles, whole truckloads had
arrived. You are already laughing and you will laugh more when I tell
you that 47 truckloads of gold were said to have arrived at your bank;
and you knew nothing about them?
PUHL: I have never heard of that.
DR. SAUTER: You heard nothing about that? Witness, we will leave this
point and turn to the second point in your affidavit of May, with which
we can deal very briefly.
I think you knew Herr Pohl, SS Obergruppenführer Pohl, of whom you spoke
just now, already in 1942?
PUHL: Yes, but none the less this was the first occasion on which Pohl
came to my office.
DR. SAUTER: This is no reproach, I just wanted to establish a fact. You
knew him as a result of this first credit transaction which took place
at an earlier time.
PUHL: Yes, that may be.
DR. SAUTER: The Defendant Funk says, you see, that as far as he can
remember this credit matter—and he did not attach any special
significance to it at the time—it was negotiated about 1940, some time
before the other transaction. Can that be true? Approximately?
PUHL: I can neither deny nor confirm that; I no longer recall the date
of the credit.
DR. SAUTER: Well, in your affidavit you state, with reference to this
credit, that the Reichsbank had granted a credit of 10 or 12 millions to
the SS, I believe to pay off a loan which the SS had taken up with
another bank. And you say that this credit was used for financing
production in factories directed by the SS, where workers from
concentration camps were employed.
Witness, I am not primarily interested in this credit as such because it
was, of course, part of your business as a bank; and the figure of, I
think, 10 or 12 millions was also not unusual. But I am interested in
how you knew that this money was to be used for SS factories in which
workers from concentration camps were employed. How did you know that?
PUHL: The application for credit came from the Economic Department of
the SS which I have mentioned before. This department was directing a
number of factories in Germany, and needed money for that purpose. The
Gold Discount Bank was prepared to give this credit, but only in the
form of regular business credits. In other words, the debtor had to
submit a balance sheet to us and at regular intervals had to report on
his production, his general financial position, his plans for the
immediate future, in short, all matters on which a debtor is bound to
inform his creditor.
The board of directors of the Gold Discount Bank conducted these
negotiations, in which the representatives of the Economic Department,
who submitted the balance sheets, naturally discussed their production
program, which was remarkable insofar as the wage figures affecting the
balance were comparatively low. And so the natural question arose: Why
is your wage account so low? The director of the Gold Discount Bank
reported on this subject to the board meeting of the Gold Discount Bank.
DR. SAUTER: You always refer to the Gold Discount Bank. The Tribunal
would be interested to know whether the Gold Discount Bank is identical
with the Reichsbank, whether it was also under the jurisdiction of the
Defendant Funk and your own, and what was its position?
PUHL: The Gold Discount Bank was an institute subsidiary to the
Reichsbank; it was founded in the twenties for various purposes, not
only for the promotion of exports, but also for the increase of
production. The capital structure...
DR. SAUTER: No, we are not interested in that.
PUHL: Practically all the shares were in the hands of the Reichsbank.
The Gold Discount Bank had a Board of Directors always headed by the
President of the Reichsbank; it also had a deputy chairman who was the
Second Vice President of the Reichsbank, and the Board of Directors
itself included a number of members of the Directorate of the
Reichsbank, and also the State Secretaries of the Ministry of Economics
and of the Ministry of Finance.
THE PRESIDENT: It is not interesting to us to know who the exact
directors of the Gold Discount Bank were.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, I wanted, in fact, to interrupt you earlier, and
tell you that what you have just related is without significance for the
Trial. To me and to the Tribunal it is only of interest to hear whether
the Defendant Funk, as far as you definitely remember, had knowledge of
these matters, of the purpose of this credit and whether he knew that in
these factories people from the concentration camps were employed? Do
you, or do you not know?
PUHL: I might assume that, but I cannot know it. At any rate, it was
known that the credit was destined for these factories.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, I cannot be satisfied with that answer because the
SS, as you have probably heard in the meantime, directed various
undertakings in which no concentration camp inmates were employed. To my
knowledge, for example, the porcelain factory at Allach did not
apparently employ concentration camp inmates. Then for example, the
entire personnel at the spas...
MR. DODD: I object to testimony by counsel. He is practically giving the
answer to this witness before he asks the question.
DR. SAUTER: Do you know whether the SS had undertakings in which no
concentration camp inmates were employed?
PUHL: I did not, of course, know every individual business run by the
SS, nor could I know in each case whether prisoners were or were not
employed.
DR. SAUTER: Was the Defendant Funk present at all during the meeting at
which this credit was discussed?
PUHL: No, he was not present; the records of the proceedings were
submitted; we always adopted that procedure.
DR. SAUTER: Then did the Defendant Funk talk at all with the people who
had given information on the unusual figures of the wage account?
PUHL: No, that was done by the Board of Directors of the Gold Discount
Bank.
DR. SAUTER: That was done by the board of the Gold Discount Bank, not by
the Defendant Funk?
Then, Mr. President, I have no further questions for the witness.
MR. DODD: I have just a few questions to ask, Your Honor.
[_Turning to the witness._] Whom have you talked to besides
representatives of the Prosecution since you have arrived here in
Nuremberg? Did you look at any paper?
PUHL: I do not know all their names, I believe a Mr. Kempner, Mr.
Margolis...
MR. DODD: I am not asking you about the gentlemen of the Prosecution. I
am asking you whom else you have talked to, if anybody, since you
arrived here in Nuremberg. That doesn’t require very much thought. Have
you talked to anybody else since you arrived here or not?
PUHL: Only to the other prisoners in the corridor of our prison.
MR. DODD: To no one else?
PUHL: No one else.
MR. DODD: Now, are you absolutely sure about that?
PUHL: Yes, absolutely.
MR. DODD: Did you talk to Dr. Stuckart over in the witness wing, and
about your testimony that you were going to give here this morning?
Answer that question.
PUHL: Dr. Stuckart is one of the prisoners in the corridor of our
witness wing.
MR. DODD: I didn’t ask you that. I asked you if you didn’t talk to him a
day or two ago about your testimony in this case?
PUHL: No.
MR. DODD: Now, I think it is awfully important to you that I remind you
that you are under oath here. I am going to ask you again if you didn’t
talk to Dr. Stuckart over in this witness wing about your testimony or
about the facts concerning Funk in this case?
PUHL: No, I talked about all sorts of general matters.
MR. DODD: You didn’t talk to four or five of those other people over
there either about your testimony or about the facts here?
PUHL: No, absolutely not.
MR. DODD: All right. You know a man by the name of Thoms, T-h-o-m-s?
PUHL: T-h-o-m-s? He was an official of the Reichsbank who worked in the
vaults of the Reichsbank in Berlin.
MR. DODD: You know the man, you do know him?
PUHL: Yes.
MR. DODD: Now, you talked to him about these deposits put in by the SS,
didn’t you, Herr Puhl?
PUHL: To Herr Thoms, no.
MR. DODD: You didn’t talk to him?
PUHL: No, I have not seen Herr Thoms at all in Nuremberg, and only from
a distance in Frankfurt.
MR. DODD: I am not referring to Nuremberg now. We will get away from
that for a minute. I mean during the time that these deposits were being
made in the Reichsbank. Did you not talk to Herr Thoms about the
deposits?
PUHL: Yes, as has been stated here in the affidavit.
MR. DODD: Well, never mind the affidavit for a few minutes. I have a few
questions I want to ask you. I am particularly interested in this matter
of secrecy. What did you tell Thoms about the requirement of secrecy
with respect to these SS deposits? Did you tell Thoms about the
requirement of secrecy with respect to these SS deposits?
PUHL: I must add that I really talked with Herr Tonetti, because he was
the person responsible; and Herr Thoms was only called in. I told both
gentlemen that it was desired the matter be kept secret.
MR. DODD: Did you say that it had to be kept a secret and that they must
not discuss it with anybody else; that it was highly secret, a special
transaction, and if anybody asked him about it, he was to say that he
was forbidden to speak about it? Did you tell that to Herr Thoms in the
Reichsbank?
PUHL: Yes, that was the sense of what I said.
MR. DODD: Well, that is what I am asking you. Why did you tell Thoms
that he was not to speak about it; that it was absolutely forbidden;
that it was highly secret, if it was just the ordinary confidence
reposed in bank officials attached to a business relationship?
PUHL: Because the Reichsbank President Funk personally conveyed this
wish to me.
MR. DODD: Well, now, I think perhaps there is some confusion in our
minds. You see, I clearly understood, and I expect others as well as the
Tribunal may have in the courtroom this morning, that you were telling
counsel for Funk that the secrecy attached to these transactions was not
extraordinary but just the ordinary secrecy or confidence that banking
people attach to their relationship with customers. Now, of course, that
wasn’t so, was it?
PUHL: The position, as I explained it earlier, is this: These
confiscated valuables were usually rejected by us when brought to the
bank; and if an exception was now being made, then it was a matter of
course that a greater amount of secrecy, a special obligation to
maintain secrecy, should be observed.
MR. DODD: I wish you would answer this question very directly. Wasn’t
there a special reason for special secrecy with respect to these
deposits by the SS? You can answer that Yes or No.
PUHL: No, I did not perceive a special reason.
MR. DODD: Then why were you telling Thoms that it was highly secret and
he was to tell anybody who asked him about it that he was forbidden to
speak about it? You didn’t ordinarily instruct your people to that
effect, did you?
PUHL: Because I myself had received this instruction.
MR. DODD: That may be so, but that was a special secrecy, wasn’t it?
That wasn’t your ordinary and customary way of doing business?
PUHL: The confiscated articles were usually rejected when they reached
us; if the exception which we made in this case became known, then it
would immediately have provided an example for others; and that we
wanted to avoid under all circumstances.
MR. DODD: You didn’t want to discuss this matter on the telephone with
Pohl of the SS, did you? You asked him to come to your office rather
than talk about it on the telephone?
PUHL: Yes.
MR. DODD: Why was that, if it was just an ordinary business transaction?
PUHL: Because one never knew to what extent the telephone was being
tapped, and thus the transaction might have become known to others.
MR. DODD: Well, you didn’t talk to anybody much on the telephone; is
that right? You were a man that never used the telephone out of the
Reichsbank? Now, I think you realize fully well that there was a special
reason in this case for not wanting to talk on the telephone and I think
you should tell the Tribunal what it was.
PUHL: Yes; the reason was, as I have said repeatedly, that from the
beginning special secrecy was desired, this desire was respected and
adhered to everywhere, also as to this telephone call.
MR. DODD: And you are still insisting that this transaction was not a
special secret transaction that you told Dr. Kempner was a
“Schweinerei.” Do you know what that word means?
PUHL: Yes.
MR. DODD: What does it mean? It means it smelled bad, doesn’t it?
PUHL: That we should not have done it.
MR. DODD: Now, you called up Thoms on more than one occasion to ask him
how the deposits from the SS were coming in, didn’t you?
PUHL: No, I saw Thoms relatively seldom, often not for months, as he
could hardly come to my office.
MR. DODD: I didn’t ask you if you saw him often. I asked you if you
didn’t call him on the telephone and ask him how the deposits were
coming along?
PUHL: No, I took no further interest in the conduct of this particular
transaction. Moreover, the requesting of a report from the cashier would
have been the proper procedure.
MR. DODD: Did you tell him to get in touch with Brigadeführer Frank or
Gruppenführer or Obergruppenführer Wolff of the SS? Did you tell that to
Thoms?
PUHL: Yes, I repeat what I said earlier; when Pohl was in my office he
told me that he would appoint two people to negotiate the transaction
with the Reichsbank, and they were the two people just mentioned; I
passed on their names to the cashier’s office.
MR. DODD: What was the name under which these deposits were known in the
Reichsbank?
PUHL: I heard of the name under which these deposits were known in the
Reichsbank for the first time in Frankfurt, when I saw it in the files.
MR. DODD: Don’t you know the name Melmer, M-e-l-m-e-r?
PUHL: Yes, from my time in Frankfurt.
MR. DODD: Didn’t you on one occasion call Herr Thoms on the telephone
and ask him how the “Melmer” deposits were coming along?
PUHL: I am afraid I didn’t quite understand.
MR. DODD: Well, I say, didn’t you on one occasion at least call Herr
Thoms on the telephone in the Reichsbank and ask him how the “Melmer”
deposits were coming along?
PUHL: No, I could not have put that question because I did not know the
word “Melmer.”
MR. DODD: You don’t know that Melmer was the name of an SS man? You
don’t know that?
PUHL: No, I did not know that.
MR. DODD: I want you to look at an affidavit by Mr. Thoms, executed the
8th day of May 1946. You have seen this before, by the way; haven’t you,
you saw it yesterday? Answer that question, will you please, Mr.
Witness. You saw this affidavit yesterday, the one I just sent up to
you? You saw that yesterday, didn’t you?
PUHL: Yes.
MR. DODD: You will observe in Paragraph 5 that Thoms, who executed this
affidavit, said that he went to see you and that you told him that the
Reichsbank was going to act as custodian for the SS and the receipt and
disposition of deposits and that the SS would deliver the property,
namely gold, silver and foreign currency; and you also explained that
the SS intended to deliver numerous other kinds of property such as
jewelry, and “we must find a way to dispose of it,” and that he
suggested to you, Mr. Puhl, that:
“We transmit the items to the Reichshauptkasse, as we did in the
case of Wehrmacht booty, or that the items could be given by the
Reichsführer-SS directly to the pawnshop for disposition, so
that the Reichsbank had no more to do with it than it did in the
case of confiscated Jewish property. Puhl told me that it was
out of the question and that it was necessary that we arrange a
procedure for handling this unusual property in order to hold
the whole business secret.”
Then he goes on to say:
“This conversation with Puhl occurred just a short time,
approximately two weeks, before the first delivery, which
occurred on 26 August 1942. The conversation was in the office
of Herr Puhl; nobody else was present. I don’t remember if Herr
Frommknecht was present during the whole time; and Puhl said it
was very important not to discuss this with anybody, that it was
to be highly secret, that it was a special transaction, and if
anybody asked about it that I should say I was forbidden to
speak about it.”
And on the next page you find, in Paragraph 8, Herr Thoms says:
“I was told by Herr Puhl that if I had any questions on this
matter I was to get in touch with Brigadeführer Frank or with
Gruppenführer or Obergruppenführer Wolff of the SS. I remember
getting the telephone number of this office, and I think I
recall it was furnished me by Herr Puhl. I called Brigadeführer
Frank about this, and he stated that the deliveries would be
made by truck and would be in charge of an SS man by the name of
Melmer. The question was discussed whether Melmer should appear
in uniform or civilian clothes, and Frank decided it was better
that Melmer appear out of uniform.”
And so on.
Then, moving on down, he says, in Paragraph 10:
“When the first delivery was made, however, although Melmer
appeared in civilian clothes, one or two SS men in uniform were
on guard; and after one or two deliveries most of the people in
the Hauptkasse and almost everybody in my office knew all about
the SS deliveries.”
Then moving on again, Paragraph 12:
“Included in the first statement sent by the Reichsbank, and
signed by me, to Melmer was a question concerning the name of
the account to which the proceeds should be credited. In answer
to that I was orally advised by Melmer that the proceeds should
be credited to the account of ‘Max Heiliger.’ I confirmed this
on the telephone with the Ministry of Finance; and in my second
statement to Melmer, dated 16 November 1942, I confirmed the
oral conversation.”
Now, the next paragraph is 13:
“After a few months, Puhl called me and asked me how the Melmer
deliveries were going along and suggested that perhaps they
would soon be over. I told Puhl that the way the deliveries were
coming in it looked as though they were growing.”
And then I call your attention to the next paragraph:
“One of the first hints of the sources of these items occurred
when it was noticed that a packet of bills was stamped with a
rubber stamp, ‘Lublin.’ This occurred some time early in 1943.
Another hint came when some items bore the stamp, ‘Auschwitz.’
We all knew that these places were the sites of concentration
camps. It was the tenth delivery, in November 1942, that dental
gold appeared. The quantity of the dental gold became unusually
great.”
Now, there is another paragraph, but I particularly want to call your
attention to the fact that Thoms says you called him and asked him how
the Melmer deliveries were going, and also to the fact that you, as he
states in here, impressed upon him the need for absolute secrecy.
And now, I want to ask you, after having seen that affidavit again—and
you will recall that you told our people yesterday that that affidavit,
insofar as your knowledge was concerned, was absolutely true—now I am
going to ask you if it isn’t a fact that there was a very special reason
for keeping this transaction secret.
PUHL: In reading this statement, it is obvious that the desire for
secrecy came from the SS; and this tallies exactly with what I said
before, namely, that the SS emphasized that the desire for secrecy
originated with them. And as we heard, they went so far as to invent an
account—“Max Heiliger”—which was obviously, as is also clear from the
statement, an account for the Reich Ministry of Finance. In other words,
this tallies with what I have been saying, namely, that the obligation
to keep the matter secret, this special obligation, was desired by the
SS, and was carried out; and it applied even to the transfer of the
equivalent value. As regards the second point, that I am supposed to
have talked to Thoms, I already stated yesterday that I do not remember
such a conversation among the very great number of conversations which I
had at the bank daily. Nor can I imagine that I went to see him. That
would have been a very unusual procedure.
I do not recall the expression “Melmer deliveries” in that connection;
but I suggest that it is used in this statement for simplicity’s sake,
just to refer briefly to the subject under discussion.
MR. DODD: It isn’t too important, but of course he says you called him
on the telephone, that you didn’t go to see him. However, I offer this
as Exhibit USA-852.
THE PRESIDENT: This statement we have before us doesn’t appear to be
sworn.
MR. DODD: Well, the witness is here in Nuremberg. I will withdraw it and
have it sworn to and submit it at a later date. I wasn’t aware that it
wasn’t sworn to. He is here and available. I had him brought here in
case any question, was raised about him.
[_Turning to the witness._] Now, the Defendant Göring knew something
about these deposits, too, didn’t he? Now that we are talking this thing
all out, what about that?
PUHL: I was not aware that Herr Göring knew anything about these things.
MR. DODD: I show you a document that was found in the files of the Reich
Treasury, the Reichsbank, rather. It is Number 3947-PS, and it is a new
document. You haven’t seen this, by the way.
Now, this is a memorandum in the files, dated 31 March 1944, and it
says, its subject is:
“Utilization of jewels, and so forth, which have been acquired
by official agencies in favor of the Reich.
“According to an oral confidential agreement between the Vice
President, Mr. Puhl, and the chief of one of Berlin’s public
offices, the Reichsbank has taken over the converting of
domestic and foreign moneys, gold and silver coins, precious
metals, securities, jewels, watches, diamonds, and other
valuable articles. These deposits will be processed under the
code name ‘Melmer.’
“The large amounts of jewelry, and so forth, acquired hereby
have previously been turned over—after checking the number of
pieces and, insofar as they had not been melted down, the
approximate weights given—to the Municipal Pawn Shop, Division
III, Main Office, Berlin N 4, Elsässer Strasse 74, for the best
possible realization of value.”
I am not going to read all of it. It goes on with more material about
the pawnshop, but I want to call your attention to the paragraph
beginning:
“The Reich Marshal of the Greater German Reich, the Delegate for
the Four Year Plan, informs the Reichsbank in his letter of 19
March 1944, copy of which is enclosed, that the considerable
amounts of gold and silver objects, jewels, and so forth at the
Main Office of Trustees for the East (Haupttreuhandstelle Ost)
are to be delivered to the Reichsbank according to an order
issued by Reich Ministers Funk and Graf Schwerin von Krosigk.
The converting of these objects must be accomplished in the same
way as the ‘Melmer’ deliveries.
“At the same time the Reich Marshal informs us on the converting
of objects of the same kind which have been acquired in the
occupied western territories. We do not know to which office
these objects have been delivered and how they are liquidated.”
Then there is more about an inquiry and more about this whole business,
the pawnshops, and so on. But, first of all, I want to ask you: In the
first paragraph it says “according to a confidential oral agreement
between you and the chief of one of Berlin’s public offices”—who was
this chief of the Berlin public office who had a confidential agreement
about this business with you?
PUHL: That was Herr Pohl. This is the agreement of which we spoke this
morning.
MR. DODD: That was Herr Pohl of the SS, wasn’t it?
PUHL: Yes.
MR. DODD: And that was this whole transaction; this whole SS transaction
that this memorandum is about, that much of it is about?
PUHL: This is a report from our cashier, and in line with the obligation
of secrecy the words “SS Economic Department” have been avoided and the
more general term “the head of a Berlin public office” is used.
MR. DODD: And later on in the paragraph it refers to the incoming
objects to be processed under the code name “Melmer,” M-e-l-m-e-r. That
is the name I asked you a few minutes ago if you recognized, isn’t it?
PUHL: I didn’t understand the question.
MR. DODD: Well, the last sentence in this paragraph says: “All incoming
deposits will be processed under the code name ‘Melmer.’” M-e-l-m-e-r.
That is the name I asked you about a few minutes ago, and you said you
didn’t know it.
PUHL: Yes, and this statement also shows that I couldn’t have known it,
because only now, in this statement, is it disclosed that the name
“Melmer” was used.
MR. DODD: I think if you will read it you will see that it shows just
the opposite. It says, according to the oral confidential agreement
between you and Pohl of the SS the Reichsbank took over the selling, and
so on, of gold, silver coins, and so forth. “All incoming deposits will
be processed under the code name ‘Melmer.’”
You are not telling this Tribunal that a transaction like this was going
on in your bank over which you were Vice President, under a code name,
and you didn’t know it, and you were the man who was dealing directly
with the SS man. Are you seriously saying that to this Court?
PUHL: Yes. The word “Melmer” was never used in my presence. But our
treasury directors could use code words for the accounts of clients who
preferred not to give their own names and the names of their
institutions; and the treasury made use of a code word in this case too.
MR. DODD: You will observe that this is the second time this morning
that we have run across the name Melmer. Herr Thoms says you used that
term in talking to him, and now we find it in one of your own bank
memorandums, which is a captured document. Are you still saying that you
don’t know the term?
PUHL: This memorandum wasn’t made for me, but for the responsible
treasury official. And specifically in order to acquaint him with the
arrangements made by the treasury, the memorandum states under what code
name this transaction will be carried out.
MR. DODD: Herr Puhl, look up at me a minute, will you. Didn’t you tell
Lieutenant Meltzer, Lieutenant Margolis, and Dr. Kempner, when they were
all together with you, that all of this business with the SS was common
gossip in the Reichsbank? These gentlemen who are sitting right here,
two of them at the United States table and one up here. You know them.
Now I want you to think a minute before you answer that question.
PUHL: We talked of the fact that the secret was not kept, and in the
long run it is not possible to keep a permanent secret in a bank; but
that has nothing to do with it. What we were speaking of just now were
the technical details, how this sort of transaction was carried out;
those details did not become general knowledge. What naturally could not
be avoided was the transaction as such becoming known.
MR. DODD: Now, in case you don’t understand me, we are not talking about
that. I think you cannot help but remember because this is only a day or
so ago, and in this building, you had a conversation with these
gentlemen, didn’t you? And I am now asking you if it isn’t a fact that
you told them that this whole SS transaction with the bank was common
gossip in the bank.
PUHL: There was a general whisper in the bank about this transaction;
but details were, of course, not known.
MR. DODD: Are you worried about your part in this? I think that is a
fair question in view of your affidavit in your testimony. Are you
concerned about what you had to do with this business? Are you?
PUHL: No. I myself, once the matter had been set in motion, had nothing
further to do with it. And in the statement, which you have submitted,
Herr Thoms himself admits that he did not see me at all for months. The
Directorate never discussed this matter in its meetings and was never
approached for a decision.
MR. DODD: You know, when the Defendant Funk was on the stand, he said
that you were the one who first told him about the SS business. Is that
your version of it?
PUHL: No. My recollection is that the first conversation took place in
the office of President Funk; and he told me, for reasons which I stated
earlier, that we wanted to oblige the SS by taking over these
“deposits”—that was the word used.
MR. DODD: You put it more strongly than that the other day when you
thought about it, when you said “Can you imagine Himmler talking to me
instead of Funk”? Do you remember saying that to these gentlemen?
PUHL: I’m sorry I didn’t understand the last question.
MR. DODD: Well, it is not too important. I say, don’t you remember
telling these gentlemen, Lieutenant Meltzer, Lieutenant Margolis, don’t
you remember making this statement that Himmler wouldn’t talk to you as
Vice President of the Bank, but that he would talk to Funk. You were
quite upset when we told you that Funk had said that you were the man
who originated this.
PUHL: Yes.
MR. DODD: You got terribly upset about it. Don’t you remember that?
PUHL: Yes.
MR. DODD: Finally, this question: Are you serious in saying that you
didn’t know about these deposits until you were interrogated in
Frankfurt, or what the nature of them was? In view of the Thoms
affidavit, this exhibit that I have just shown you, and the whole
examination this morning, do you want your testimony to close with the
statement that you actually didn’t know what was in these deposits at
any time?
PUHL: I saw the statement put before me today, the statement by the
treasury official put before me today, for the first time in Frankfurt,
and never before. Moreover, I did not and could not, as Vice President,
concern myself with the details of this transaction, for I was
responsible for general economic and currency policy and for credits and
such things. Besides, we had a whole staff of highly qualified officials
in our treasury office; and if it had been necessary, they would have
had to make a report to the Directorate of the Reichsbank.
MR. DODD: Of course you don’t deny that you knew there were jewels and
silver and all these other things in the deposits, do you?
PUHL: The German term “Schmucksachen,” jewelry, was always used.
MR. DODD: All right! Let’s see what you did know was in the deposits?
You knew there was jewelry, some jewelry, there. You knew there was some
currency. You knew there were coins. You knew there were other articles.
Now, the only thing you didn’t know was the dental gold; is that so?
PUHL: That is true, certainly. It was known from the outset, and Herr
Pohl had told me, that the greater part of these deposits contained
mainly gold, foreign currency, silver coins, and, he added, also “some
jewelry.”
MR. DODD: Well, now, the question I think you can answer simply is:
Everything that is mentioned in your affidavit except the dental gold
you did know was on deposits from the SS. Don’t you understand that
question? I don’t think it is complicated. You don’t need to read
anything, Herr Puhl. If you will just look up here, I am asking you if
you know about everything that is mentioned in your affidavit except the
dental gold.
PUHL: Well, I knew about jewelry, but I did not know in detail what kind
of jewelry it was.
MR. DODD: I am not asking you about details. I am simply asking if you
did know it was there. You knew there was currency there, and you knew
there were other articles there. Those are about the only things that
are mentioned excepting the dental gold, and that is the one thing you
seem now not to have known.
PUHL: Yes, I knew, in general, that the deposits contained gold and
foreign currency, and I repeat that the jewelry...
MR. DODD: And jewelry?
PUHL: I knew that there was jewelry.
MR. DODD: So the only thing you say now you didn’t know was the dental
gold. That is all I am asking you. Why don’t you answer that? It doesn’t
take very long. Isn’t that so? The only thing you didn’t know was the
dental gold.
PUHL: No.
MR. DODD: Well, what else is mentioned you didn’t know about?
PUHL: Spectacle frames, for example, were also mentioned.
MR. DODD: You didn’t know about those either? All right, I will include
those, spectacle frames and dental gold. These are the two things you
didn’t know about?
PUHL: Information I received contained only the general term “jewelry.”
MR. DODD: They are the two matters that you had the most to worry about,
aren’t they, eyeglass frames and dental gold?