THE PRESIDENT: One moment, please. Don’t take that man away.
[_Turning to the witness._] Have you got a copy of your affidavit before
you?
PUHL: Of 3 May, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you only got one copy of it?
PUHL: I must just look—Yes, I have another copy.
THE PRESIDENT: Let me have it, please, will you?
This document will be identified, and form part of the record. It had
better be given whatever the appropriate number is.
MR. DODD: I believe, Mr. President, that it is already in evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: Not this particular document, it is not. This is the
particular document he had before him; it has got a number of manuscript
notes on it, and is in the English language.
Mr. Dodd, you had better look at it.
MR. DODD: All right, Sir.
I believe it would become Exhibit USA-851; I think that is the next
number in sequence.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit USA-851; very well.
MR. DODD: I might say I think there is one question that might be
helpful to the Tribunal with respect to this affidavit.
Herr Puhl, you personally typed up a large part of this affidavit
yourself, did you not, or wrote it up, or dictated it?
PUHL: A complete draft was put before me, and I altered it accordingly.
THE PRESIDENT: One moment; and then signed it after you had altered it?
[_The witness nodded assent._]
THE PRESIDENT: Do not nod; please answer. You said, “A complete draft
was put before me, and I altered it.” And I ask you, did you then sign
it?
PUHL: Yes.
MR. DODD: And did you also initial those places that you altered on the
original? Did you not put your initials in each place that you wanted to
make a change?
Isn’t that so?
PUHL: No; we copied it again, it was completely rewritten...
MR. DODD: I know you copied it anew. Did you not mark the places that
you wanted changed and say how you wanted it changed? You did, did you
not?
PUHL: Yes; but that is of minor importance; for instance, the word for
“Reichsbank” was changed to “Gold Discount Bank,” and there were similar
editorial changes.
MR. DODD: Well, I thought it might be helpful to the Tribunal to know
that it was rewritten and initialed.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Francis Biddle, Member for the United States): Mr.
Witness, I want to ask you a few questions. The first you heard about
these transactions was from the Defendant Funk, was it not?
PUHL: Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Did Funk tell you who had told him about them
in the SS?
PUHL: Himmler.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Himmler had spoken to Funk about this? Who
else, besides Himmler and Funk, was present when Funk talked to Himmler
about this?
PUHL: That I do not know.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You do not know if Pohl was there also?
PUHL: That I cannot say but I can say that from the very beginning the
name of the Minister of Finance was mentioned in this connection. But
whether he was personally present, I do not know.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Did Funk say to you what Himmler said to him?
PUHL: He asked that the facilities of the Reichsbank be placed at the
disposal of the SS for this purpose.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Then shortly after that, you took the matter
up at the meeting of the Board of Directors?
PUHL: Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Was Funk at that meeting?
PUHL: No, he was not.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): What did you say to the Board of Directors?
PUHL: I reported to the Directorate briefly on the transaction.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): What did you say to them?
PUHL: In a few words I described my conversation with Herr Funk and my
conversation with Herr Pohl, and I confirmed the fact that the
Reichsbank would take the valuables of the SS into their vaults.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And then did the Board of Directors approve
the action?
PUHL: Yes; there was no objection.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Now, the defendant Funk said to you that
these objects had come “from the East,” did he not?
PUHL: Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): What did you understand that he meant by that
phrase, “from the East”?
PUHL: Principally Poland, occupied Poland. But some Russian territories
might also have been included in that phrase.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You knew that this was confiscated property,
I presume?
PUHL: Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Now, you told Pohl that the Bank would
perform certain services in handling the property, did you not?
PUHL: Pohl asked me to place the good services of the Bank at the
disposal of his men. That I agreed to do.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And did those services include arranging the
property, putting it in sacks and describing it?
PUHL: That was not talked about.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I did not ask you whether it was talked
about. I asked you whether the services included arranging the property
and putting it in different kinds of containers and sacks. Is that what
you did?
PUHL: Yes, that was a matter for the decision of the treasury directors;
if they considered it necessary, they could do it.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Was that done?
PUHL: That I cannot know. It is a treasury matter.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, may I put two more questions, two very brief
questions?
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, Dr. Sauter.
DR. SAUTER: The one question, Witness, is this: You have been repeatedly
asked here who has talked to you during the past few days.
PUHL: Here in Nuremberg?
DR. SAUTER: Yes, in Nuremberg. You know that several members of the
Prosecution have discussed this with you during the last few days. I
should like to establish here: Have I talked to you?
PUHL: No, I am seeing you for the first time in my life today.
DR. SAUTER: I just wanted to establish this, for the sake of
correctness. And the second question is this—actually you have already
confirmed this, but after the charge of the Prosecution I should like to
hear it from you again—in all these negotiations or in the documents
which have been submitted and which you have of course read, was mention
ever made of the fact that these things came from concentration camps?
PUHL: The word “concentration camp” was used neither during the
conversation with Herr Funk nor during the conversation with Herr Pohl.
DR. SAUTER: And Herr Funk did not give you an indication of that sort,
either.
PUHL: No.
DR. SAUTER: Then I have no further questions, Mr. President; thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness can retire, and the Tribunal will adjourn.
[_A recess was taken._]
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Dodd, you did offer 3947-PS as an exhibit, did you
not?
MR. DODD: Yes, Sir, I did, as Exhibit USA-850, I believe it was.
THE PRESIDENT: 850, was it? Yes, and then that copy of the Puhl
affidavit was USA-851?
MR. DODD: Yes, Sir, that is right. I did not offer the other affidavit
because we discovered it wasn’t sworn to as yet. I propose to do so and
with your permission I delay the date. I have that witness here. This
thing can’t go on interminably, and I don’t want to drag it on; but I
would like to offer it as an affidavit when I can have him swear to it,
and if there is going to be any demand for him I might respectfully
suggest that Dr. Sauter states it now. He is not a prisoner, Mr.
President, the witness Thoms. He is a free man in this country.
THE PRESIDENT: You are suggesting that he should be called now?
MR. DODD: If he is going to be called, I would suggest that it be done
soon.
THE PRESIDENT: If he wants to cross-examine him he should be called now.
MR. DODD: I should be glad to have him now.
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, I am representing Attorney Dr. Kauffmann for
the Defendant Göring. The Defendant Göring asked me to put two questions
to the witness Puhl during his re-examination. The questions would
probably be connected with the document which the Prosecution brought up
in cross-examination of the witness Puhl, Document 3947-PS, of which the
Prosecution read Page 2, Paragraph 3, beginning, “The Reich Marshal of
the Greater German Reich, Delegate for the Four Year Plan...”
THE PRESIDENT: One moment, Dr. Seidl. If you want to put questions to
the witness Puhl on behalf of the Defendant Göring you can do so and
Puhl will be recalled for that purpose.
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, the difficulty consists of something else. The
Defendant Göring says, and I think rightly, that he can put his
questions to the witness with reason only if he has an opportunity of
seeing the document to which the Prosecution referred. Therefore, during
the cross-examination I wanted to have the guard pass on Document
3947-PS to Defendant Göring. That was refused, however, on the grounds
that, by an order of the Commandant of the Prison, during the
proceedings documents can no longer be handed to those defendants whose
cases have already been concluded.
THE PRESIDENT: Although the document was read over the earphones the
Defendant Göring and yourself shall certainly see the document, but the
witness must be called during this sitting. You may see the document and
the Defendant Göring may see the document, but the witness must be
recalled for any questions at once.
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, only excerpts were read from the document. In
my opinion the Defendant Göring is right in saying: If I am to ask a
sensible question I must know the whole document. I think there are only
two possibilities; either the Prosecution must refrain from presenting
new material during cross-examination of the defendants whose cases are
said to have already been concluded, or the defendant must be given the
opportunity of seeing this evidence...
THE PRESIDENT: Don’t go too fast!
DR. SEIDL: ...or the defendant must be given the opportunity of seeing
the evidence newly introduced, and when only excerpts of a document are
read, he must have access to the whole document.
THE PRESIDENT: The document is only just over one page and there is only
one paragraph in it which refers to Göring. And that paragraph has
already been read. When I say one page, it is just one page of this
English copy. I think you have a German translation before you.
DR. SEIDL: I have 3½ pages.
THE PRESIDENT: There is only one paragraph which relates to Göring.
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, it is only a question of whether in the main
proceedings I may give this photostat copy to the Defendant Göring or
not. If this is possible, and...
THE PRESIDENT: You are going too fast!
DR. SEIDL: ...and I see no reason why it should not be possible, then I
will shortly be able to ask the witness Puhl any question that may be
necessary; but I think the defendant is right in saying that he would
like to see the entire contents of a document from which only excerpts
have been read.
MR. DODD: Mr. President, I might be a little bit helpful. I would like
to point out that Dr. Seidl had the document for 10 minutes anyway
during the recess; and also I would like to point out that we did not
preclude him, as members of the Prosecution, from having it. It is a
security measure altogether.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps it will satisfy you, Dr. Seidl, if we order that
the witness Puhl be recalled at 2 o’clock for Dr. Seidl to put any
questions to him that you wish. And of course he would have the
document. He has got the document now, and of course Göring will have
the document, too.
DR. SEIDL: That is the difficulty, Mr. President. I have the document,
but on account of the existing instructions I cannot hand it to the
Defendant Göring.
THE PRESIDENT: You can give the document to Göring now.
DR. SEIDL: I am not allowed to do that.
THE PRESIDENT: I am telling you to do it, and they will let you do it.
Dr. Sauter, do you wish to cross-examine the man who has made a
statement? Do you wish to cross-examine Thoms?
DR. SAUTER: Yes, if I may.
THE PRESIDENT: You do?
DR. SAUTER: Yes. Mr. President, may I comment on what Dr. Seidl has just
said? It isn’t only a question concerning this one document which Dr.
Seidl just wanted to give to the Defendant Göring, but it is a general
question of whether during the session a defense counsel is authorized
to hand to a defendant documents which have been submitted. Hitherto
this has been allowed, but now the security ruling is that defendants
whose cases have been completed for the present may no longer be given
any documents in the courtroom by their defense counsel. Defense Counsel
feel that this is an unfair ruling, since, as the case of Göring shows,
it can very easily happen that a defendant is in some way involved in a
later case. And the request which we now direct to you and to the Court
is that Defense Counsel should again be permitted to give the defendants
documents here during the session, even if the case of the defendant in
question has already been concluded. That is what Dr. Seidl wanted to
ask you.
Mr. President, may I say something else?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Sauter? You wanted to say something more to me?
DR. SAUTER: May I also point out the following: In the interrogation
room down in the prison we have so far not been allowed to hand any
documents to the prisoners with whom we were speaking. Thus, if I want
to discuss a document with my client, I have to read the whole of it to
him. And when 10, 12, or 15 defense counsel are down there in the
evening, it is almost...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, the Tribunal is of the opinion that any
document which is handed to the defendants’ counsel may be handed to the
defendants themselves by the counsel and that it does not make any
difference that a particular defendant’s case has been closed with
reference to that rule.
DR. SAUTER: We are very grateful to you, Mr. President, and we hope that
your ruling will not in practice encounter any difficulties.
THE PRESIDENT: Well then now, you want to cross-examine Thoms?
DR. SAUTER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Is Thoms here? Can he be brought here at once?
MR. DODD: He is on his way—he is probably right outside the door.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, would the Marshal see if he is available.
MR. DODD: I have not had time, Mr. President, to have the affidavit
sworn to because I have not seen the man.
THE PRESIDENT: No, but as far as his cross-examination is concerned, he
can be put under oath here.
MARSHAL: No, Sir, he is not here yet.
MR. DODD: He is on his way.
THE PRESIDENT: He is not available.
MR. DODD: He is on his way. He was in Lieutenant Meltzer’s office a
minute ago and he went out to get him.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, he can be called then at 2 o’clock after the other
witness.
Now, Dr. Siemers, would you be ready?
DR. SIEMERS: Your Honors, may I say, first of all, how I intend to
proceed in the presentation of my case?
In accordance with the suggestion of the Court, I should like to call
Raeder as a witness in connection with all the documents which the
Prosecution has submitted against him. I have given all these documents
to Raeder so that he will have them before him on the witness stand, and
no time will be lost by handing him each one individually. The British
Delegation has kindly compiled the documents which were not included in
the Raeder Document Book, in a new Document Book 10a. I assume that this
document book is in the possession of the Tribunal.
Thus, to facilitate matters, I shall give the page number of the English
Document Book 10a or the English Document Book 10 in the case of each
document.
At the same time, if the Tribunal agrees, I intend already now to submit
from my own document books those documents which in each case are
connected with the matter under discussion. Thank you.
May I then ask that Admiral Raeder be called to the witness stand.
[_The Defendant Raeder took the stand._]
THE PRESIDENT: Will you state your full name.
ERICH RAEDER (Defendant): Erich Raeder.
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. SIEMERS: Admiral Raeder, may I ask you first to tell the Tribunal
briefly about your past and your professional career?
RAEDER: I was born in 1876 in Wandsbek near Hamburg. I joined the Navy
in 1894 and became an officer in 1897. Then normal promotion: two years
at the naval academy; in each year, three months leave to study
languages; in Russia during the Russo-Japanese War. 1906 to 1908 in the
Reich Navy Office, in Von Tirpitz’ Intelligence Division, responsible
for the foreign press and the publications _Marine Rundschau_ and
_Nautikus_.
1910 to 1912, Navigation Officer on the Imperial Yacht Hohenzollern.
1912 to the beginning of 1918, First Chief Naval Staff Officer and Chief
of Staff to Admiral Hipper who was in command of the battle cruisers.
After the first World War in the Admiralty, as Chief of the Central
Division with Admiral Von Trotha. Then two years of writing at the naval
archives: history of naval war. From 1922 to 1924, with the rank of Rear
Admiral, Inspector of Training and Education in the Navy. 1925 to 1928,
as Vice Admiral, chief of the Baltic naval station at Kiel.
On 1 October 1928 Reich President Von Hindenburg named me Chief of the
Navy Command in Berlin, at the suggestion of Reich Minister of Defense,
Gröner.
In 1935 I became Commander-in-Chief of the Navy, and on 1 April 1939
Grossadmiral.
On 30 January 1943 resigned as Commander-in-Chief of the Navy; I
received the title of Admiral Inspector of the Navy, but remained
without any official duties.
DR. SIEMERS: I should like to come back to one point. You said that in
1935 you became Commander-in-Chief of the Navy. This was only, if I am
right, a new name?
RAEDER: It was only a new name.
DR. SIEMERS: So you were head of the Navy from 1928 to 1943?
RAEDER: Yes.
DR. SIEMERS: After the Versailles Treaty Germany had an army of only
100,000 men, and a navy of 15,000 men, with officers. In relation to the
size of the Reich, the Wehrmacht was thus extremely small.
Was Germany in the twenties in a position to defend herself with this
small Wehrmacht against possible attacks by neighboring states, and with
what dangers did Germany have to reckon in the twenties?
RAEDER: In my opinion, Germany was not at all in a position to defend
herself effectively against attacks, even of the smallest states, since
she had no modern weapons; the surrounding states, Poland in particular,
were equipped with the most modern weapons, while even the modern
fortifications had been taken away from Germany. The danger which
Germany constantly faced in the twenties was...
DR. SIEMERS: One moment. Now continue, please.
RAEDER: The danger which Germany constantly faced in the twenties was a
Polish attack on East Prussia with the object of severing this
territory, already cut off from the rest of Germany by the Corridor, and
occupying it. The danger was especially clear to Germany, because at
that time Vilna was occupied by the Poles, in the midst of peace with
Lithuania; and Lithuania took away the Memel area. In the south, Fiume
was also taken away, without objection being raised by the League of
Nations or anyone else. It was, however, quite clear to the German
Government of those days that one thing which could not be allowed to
happen to Germany during that time of her weakness was the occupation of
East Prussia and its separation from the Reich. Our efforts were
therefore aimed at preparing ourselves to oppose a Polish invasion of
East Prussia with all possible means.
DR. SIEMERS: You said that it was feared that such an invasion might
take place. Did not several border incidents actually occur in the
twenties?
RAEDER: Yes, indeed.
DR. SIEMERS: Is it true that these dangers were recognized, not only by
you and by military circles, but also by the governments in the
twenties, especially by the Social Democrats and by Stresemann?
RAEDER: Yes. I already said that the government, too, realized that such
an invasion could not be allowed to happen.
DR. SIEMERS: Now, the Prosecution has accused you of conduct contrary to
international law and contrary to existing treaties, even in the time
before Hitler.
On 1 October 1928 you became Chief of the Navy Command, and thus rose to
the highest position in the German Navy. Did you, in view of the dangers
you have described, use all your power to build up the German Navy
within the framework of the Versailles Treaty, particularly with the
object of protecting East Prussia?
RAEDER: Yes, I exerted all my strength for the reconstruction of the
Navy, and I came to consider this as my life work. In all stages of this
period of naval reconstruction, I met with great difficulties; and as a
result, I had to battle in one way or another constantly throughout
those years in order to put this reconstruction into effect. Perhaps I
became rather one-sided, since this fight for the reconstruction of the
Navy filled all my time and prevented me from taking part in any matters
not directly concerned with it. In addition to material reconstruction,
I put every effort into the formation of a competent officer corps and
well-trained, especially well-disciplined, crews.
Admiral Dönitz has already commented on the result of this training of
our men and officers, and I should like only to confirm that these
German naval men earned full recognition in peacetime, both at home and
abroad, for their dignified and good behavior and their discipline; and
also during the war, when they fought to the end in an exemplary manner,
in complete unity, with irreproachable battle ethics, and, in general,
did not participate in any kind of atrocities. Also in the occupied
areas to which they came, in Norway for instance, they earned full
approval of the population for their good and dignified conduct.
DR. SIEMERS: Since for fifteen years you were head of the Navy and
reconstructed it in those years, can it be said that as chief of the
Navy you are responsible for everything that happened in connection with
this reconstruction?
RAEDER: I am fully responsible for it.
DR. SIEMERS: If I am correct, the only qualification would be the date 1
October 1928.
RAEDER: As regards the material rebuilding.
DR. SIEMERS: Who were your superiors, as regards the reconstruction of
the Navy? You could not, of course, act with complete independence.
RAEDER: I was subordinate, firstly, to the Reichswehrminister and,
through him, to the Reich Government, since I was not a member of the
Reich Government; and secondly, I also had to obey the
Commander-in-Chief of the Wehrmacht in these matters. From 1925 to 1934
the Commander-in-Chief of the Wehrmacht was Reich President Field
Marshal Von Hindenburg, and after his death on 1 August 1934, Adolf
Hitler.
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, in this connection may I submit Exhibit
Number Raeder-3, a short excerpt from the Constitution of the German
Reich. It is Number Raeder-3, in Document Book 1 on Page 9. Article 47
reads:
“The Reich President has the supreme command of all the Armed
Forces of the Reich.”
I also submit the Reich Defense Law, as Exhibit Number Raeder-4,
Document Book 1, Page 11. I have to return to it later, but now I refer
to Article 8 of the Reich Defense Law, which reads as follows:
“The command is exclusively in the hands of the lawful
superior...
“The Reich President is the Commander-in-Chief of all Armed
Forces. Under him, the Reich Minister for Defense has
authoritative powers over all the Armed Forces. At the head of
the Reich Army is a General, as Chief of the Army Command; at
the head of the Reich Navy, an Admiral, as Chief of the Naval
Command.”
These paragraphs remained in full effect under the National Socialist
regime. I refer to them only because they confirm what the witness has
said. In regard to naval reconstruction, he was thus third in authority:
Reich President, Reich Minister of Defense, and then the head of the
branches of the Wehrmacht.
Admiral, the Prosecution accuses you of building up the Navy: First, in
violation of the Versailles Treaty; secondly, behind the back of the
Reichstag and the Reich Government; and thirdly, with the intention of
waging aggressive wars.
I should like to ask you now whether the reconstruction of the Navy was
undertaken for aggressive or defensive purposes. Make a chronological
distinction, however, and speak first about the period overshadowed by
the Versailles Treaty, that is, from 1928 until the Naval Agreement with
England on 18 June 1935.
My question is: Did the reconstruction of the Navy in this period take
place for purposes of aggression as the Prosecution has asserted?
RAEDER: The reconstruction of the Navy did not in any respect take place
for the purposes of aggressive war. No doubt it constituted some evasion
of the Versailles Treaty. Before I go into details, I should like to ask
permission to read a few short quotations from a speech which I made in
1928 in Kiel and Stralsund, the two largest garrisons of my naval
station. This speech was delivered before the public during a week
devoted to an historical anniversary; and when I took up my duties in
Berlin, it was handed as my program to Minister Severing, who regarded
me with some suspicion at that time. That is the...
DR. SIEMERS: One moment. Raeder’s statements in the year 1928 show his
attitude of that time much more clearly than his present recollections;
and for that reason I think the Tribunal will agree that I submit this
speech as Exhibit Number Raeder-6, Document Book 1, Page 15. The speech
itself begins on Page 17. I shall read...
THE PRESIDENT: Yes?
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, it would take five or ten minutes, so may I
ask whether this is a proper time to adjourn? I am willing to continue,
however.
THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn.
[_The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours._]
_Afternoon Session_
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, will you please grant permission for the
Defendant Sauckel to be absent from the courtroom from the sessions of
the 16th to the 18th inclusive so that he may prepare his defense?
THE PRESIDENT: Be absent in order to prepare his defense? Yes,
certainly.
MR. DODD: Mr. President, I would like to suggest that, before the
witness Puhl is recalled, the witness Thoms be called. I think it will
save some of the Tribunal’s time. I think, from what I know of the
prospective testimony, there may be questions that will arise in the
mind of the Tribunal which it would like to put to the witness Puhl
after having heard the witness Thoms.
And also I would ask, so as to be absolutely fair to all concerned, that
the witness Puhl be in the courtroom when the witness Thoms testifies. I
think he should have that opportunity.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you any objections, Dr. Sauter?
DR. SAUTER: No, I have no objections.
MR. DODD: May we call the witness Thoms?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, call Thoms, and have Puhl somewhere in the courtroom
where he can hear.
[_The witness Thoms took the stand._]
THE PRESIDENT: Will you state your full name?
ALBERT THOMS (Witness): Albert Thoms.
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.
MR. DODD: Mr. President, I am aware that he has been called for
cross-examination. However, there are one or two matters, now material,
which were not included in the affidavit, and to save time I would like
to bring those out before the cross-examination takes place.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
MR. DODD: Herr Thoms, you executed a statement on the 8th day of May
1946. Is that so?
THOMS: Yes.
MR. DODD: And you signed it?
THOMS: Yes.
MR. DODD: And everything in it was true?
THOMS: Yes.
MR. DODD: And is true now, of course?
THOMS: Yes.
MR. DODD: I wish you would just look at it for the purposes of certainty
and identify it now. Is that the statement that you signed, Herr Thoms?
THOMS: Yes.
MR. DODD: All right. Now, I have one or two questions to ask you about
it. I wish to offer it, Mr. President, as Exhibit USA-852. You know this
gentleman sitting to your left, do you not?
THOMS: Yes.
MR. DODD: That is Mr. Puhl, is it not?
THOMS: Yes.
MR. DODD: He was the Vice President of the Reichsbank when you were
employed there.
THOMS: Yes.
MR. DODD: Now, did you ever have a conversation with Herr Puhl about any
special deposit which was coming to the Reichsbank and about which you
should maintain the utmost secrecy?
THOMS: Yes.
MR. DODD: Tell us when that conversation took place, what was said, and
if anyone else was present at the time.
THOMS: This conversation took place in the summer of 1942. I was called
to Vice President Puhl’s office by Herr Frommknecht, a Treasury
official. Herr Frommknecht took me to Herr Puhl, and there Herr Puhl
disclosed the fact that a special transaction with the office of the
Reichsführer-SS was to be undertaken. Do you want me to explain it in
detail?
MR. DODD: Tell us everything that he said to you.
THOMS: Herr Puhl told me that the affair was to be kept absolutely
secret and confidential. Not only would articles be delivered which
would be automatically taken over in the ordinary course of business of
the Reichsbank, but also the disposal of jewelry and other articles
would have to be effected. Upon my objection that we had no expert men
for such matters, he replied that we would have to find a way to convert
these articles. First I made the suggestion that these special articles
should then be sent to the Reich Main Treasury—that is, the Main
Treasury of the Reich Government—which also held all booty of the Army.
However, Herr Puhl thought that this matter should not go through the
Reich Main Treasury, but should be handled by the Reichsbank in some
other way. Thereupon I suggested that these articles could be sent to
the Municipal Pawnbroker’s Office in Berlin, exactly as the deliveries
from the confiscated Jewish property had been dealt with before. Herr
Puhl agreed to this suggestion.
MR. DODD: Now, when did the first of these shipments arrive?
THOMS: The first delivery came to the Reichsbank during the month of
August, as far as I can remember.