The aim of Funk’s economic policy—one might call it the mainspring of

his life work—was the formation of a European economic community based

on a just and natural balance of interest of the sovereign states. Even

during the war he relentlessly pursued this goal, although the

exigencies of war and the restraints imposed on development by the war

naturally impeded these efforts at every turn. Funk has given a graphic

description of the economic Europe which he envisaged and strove to

attain in some major speeches on economic policy. Extracts from some of

these speeches, many of which received a hearing even in neutral and

enemy countries, are included in the document book.

In judging the acts of the Defendant Funk, his whole personality must

naturally be taken into consideration to some extent in investigating

the motives from which he acted. Funk was never looked upon by the

German people—as far as he was known at all—as a Party man capable of

participating in brutal outrages, using methods of violence and terror

or amassing fortunes at the expense of others. He inclined rather toward

art and literature, which preference he shared with—for instance—his

friend Baldur von Schirach. Originally, as you have been told, he wanted

to study music, and in later years he preferred to have poets and

artists in his house rather than, men of the Party and the State. In

professional circles he was known and respected as an economist and a

man with a wide theoretical and historical knowledge, who had risen from

journalism and had been a brilliant stylist. His position as chief

editor of the distinguished _Berliner Börsenzeitung_ was on a sound

economic basis; by accepting the office of Press Chief in the Reich

Cabinet at the beginning of 1933, after Hitler’s assumption of power, he

even incurred a financial loss. Therefore, he was not one of those

desperados who were glad to get into a well-paid position through

Hitler. On the contrary, he made a financial sacrifice when he took over

the State office offered him, and it therefore seems perfectly credible

that he did this out of patriotism, out of a sense of duty toward his

people, and in order to put himself at the service of his country during

the hard times of distress.

In judging the personality and character of the Defendant Funk, it is

also significant that he never held or tried to obtain any rank in the

Party. Other people who took over high State offices in the Third Reich

were given the title of an SS Gruppenführer, or were given, for

instance, the rank of SA Obergruppenführer. Funk, on the contrary, was

only a plain Party member, from 1931 until the end of the Third Reich,

who carried out his State functions conscientiously, but made no effort

to obtain any honors within the Party.

The only incident with which the Defendant Funk was reproached in this

connection was the fact that he accepted an endowment in 1940, on his

fiftieth birthday. In itself, of course, that is not a punishable act;

but the Tribunal evidently evaluated it as a moral charge against the

defendant. Therefore, we shall briefly define our position with regard

to this. We remember how this endowment came about: The President and

Board of the Reich Chamber of Economics (Reichswirtschaftskammer), as

the highest representatives of German economic life, presented him on

his fiftieth birthday with a farmhouse in Upper Bavaria and about 110

acres of ground. This farmhouse, of course, existed for the time being

only on the paper of the presentation document and had still to be

built. This presentation was expressly approved by the head of the

State, Adolf Hitler; therefore it was not made secretly to the Reich

Minister of Economics, but quite officially, without any suppression or

secrecy in the matter.

The gift subsequently turned out to be an unfortunate one for Funk, as

the building proved much more expensive than had been expected and Funk

was required to pay a very high donation tax. Funk, who, up to that

time, had never incurred debts and whose finances had always been well

regulated, now found himself plunged into debt through this “gift” of a

farmhouse. Göring heard of it and came to Funk’s assistance with a

generous sum. When Hitler heard of Funk’s financial difficulties through

Minister Lammers, he had the cash necessary to settle Funk’s financial

troubles transferred to him in the form of a gift. With this Funk was

able to pay his taxes and his debts. He used the remainder to create two

public endowments, one for dependents of officials of the Reichsbank

killed in action, the other to the same end for the staff of the

Ministry of Economics. The farm was also to become an endowment at some

later date. Funk’s treatment of the matter shows his delicacy in this

respect too. Even though such an endowment could not be legally

disputed, he felt that it was better to avoid such endowments and to

make them over to the public, since he could not refuse to accept a gift

from the head of the State.

Mr. President, I now turn to a new subject. I would propose to have a

recess now.

THE PRESIDENT: The Court will adjourn now.

[_A recess was taken until 1400 hours._]

_Afternoon Session_

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal proposes to go until 4 o’clock without a

break, if that is convenient.

DR. SAUTER: Gentlemen of the Tribunal, I have so far defined the

position of the Defendant Funk in general statements; I am now going to

deal with the criminal responsibility of the Defendant Funk on the

separate charges made against him.

The first point of the Indictment deals with the support of the seizure

of power by the Party, that is, the Defendant Funk’s Party activities

from 1931 up to the end of 1932. The Defendant Funk is alleged to have

helped the conspirators to seize power. This charge deals with the

activities of the Defendant Funk from the date of his joining the Party

in June 1931 up to the seizure of power on 30 January 1933. The

Prosecution maintains that Funk’s activities on behalf of the Party

during that period furthered the seizure of power by the National

Socialists. That is correct. The Defendant Funk himself, when

interrogated on 4 May, gave a detailed explanation of his reasons for

considering the National Socialist seizure of power the only possible

way of delivering the German people from the grave intellectual,

economic, and social distress of that time. The economic program of the

Party was, in his opinion, vague and mainly intended for propaganda. He

himself wanted to gain recognition for his own economic principles in

the Party, in order to work through the Party for the benefit of the

German people. Funk gave a detailed description of these principles

during his examination. They are based on the idea of private property,

which is inseparable from the conception of the varying capability of a

human being.

Funk demanded the recognition of private initiative and of the

independence of the creative businessman, added to free competition and

the leveling of social extremes. He aimed at the elimination of Party

and class warfare, at a strong Government with full authority and

responsibility, and at the creation of a uniform political will among

the people. His conversations with Adolf Hitler and other Party leaders

convinced him that the Party entirely accepted his principles and ideas.

In Funk’s opinion he cannot be blamed for his support of the Party in

its struggle for power. Funk believes that the discussions in this Trial

furnish absolute proof that the Party came to power quite legally. But

even the methods used by Funk to assist the Party cannot, in his

opinion, be condemned. In any case the role attributed to him by the

Prosecution does not fit the facts. The importance of Funk’s activities

is at times greatly overestimated by them; in many other instances their

judgment of these activities is completely false.

The evidence offered by the Prosecution consists mainly of references

and extracts from reference books, and especially from a book by Dr.

Oestreich, _Walter Funk—A Life for Economy_, which was submitted to the

Tribunal as Document Number 3505-PS, USA-653. The core of this evidence

is a “Program for Economic Reconstruction” by the Defendant Funk, which

is printed on Page 81 of this book and which the Prosecution calls “the

official Party declaration in the economic field” and “the economic

bible for the Party organization.” This so-called “Program for Economic

Reconstruction” forms the basis for the incorrect accusation made by the

Prosecution on Page 3 of the trial brief, to the effect that the

Defendant Funk assisted “in the formulation of the program which was

publicly proclaimed by the Nazi Party and by Hitler.”

This “Program for Economic Reconstruction,” which was read word for word

during the hearing of the Defendant Funk, actually did not contain

anything unusual, let alone revolutionary, or anything which was in any

way characteristic of the National Socialist ideology. The program

indicates the need for providing work, creating productive credits

without inflationary consequences, balancing public finances, as well as

the need for protective measures for agriculture and urban real estate,

and a redirection of economic relations with foreign countries. It is a

program which, as Funk said in his testimony, might be advocated by any

liberal or democratic party and government. The Defendant Funk only

regrets that the Party did not fully subscribe to these principles.

Later on his economic viewpoint involved him in constant difficulties

and disputes with various Party offices, especially with the German

Labor Front and the Party Chancellery, and with Himmler and most of the

Gauleiter. This is also confirmed by the witness Landfried, who

described these differences between Funk and the Party in detail in his

interrogatory. Funk had the reputation in the Party of being mainly a

liberal and an outsider. During that time, that is mainly in 1932, he

established relations between Hitler and some of the leading

personalities of German economic life. He also worked to promote

understanding for National Socialist ideas and to gain support for the

Party by trade and industry. By virtue of these activities he was

frequently described as Hitler’s economic adviser. But that was not a

Party office or a Party title.

In Document EC-440, USA-874, Funk states that Keppler, who was later

appointed State Secretary, was considered the Führer’s economic adviser

for many years before himself. By this reference Funk intended to show

that the designation “Economic Adviser to the Führer” was given by the

public to other persons also.

The period during which Funk was given Party assignments was a very

short one. That these activities were never of decisive importance may

be deduced from the fact that after the assumption of power Funk’s Party

activities ceased completely. In other fields, such as food and

agriculture, finance, and so forth, the Party incumbents who entered the

civil service as ministers or state secretaries, _et cetera_, retained

their Party office, which usually acquired greater importance. The

elimination of the sole Defendant Funk from every Party office as soon

as the assumption of power was complete shows clearly that the Party

leaders did not attach much value to Funk’s work in the Party.

In cross-examining the Defendant Funk the Soviet Russian Prosecution

showed him an article which had appeared on 18 August 1940 in the

magazine _Das Reich_ on the occasion of his fiftieth birthday

(USSR-450). In this article the author, an economist by the name of Dr.

Herle, emphasizes that Funk “as intermediary between the Party and

economic circles had become a pioneer working toward a new spiritual

attitude in German economic life.”

In this connection we may say that Funk never denied that he regarded it

as his task to construct an economic system with an obligation toward

state and community on the one hand, yet based on private ownership and

private initiative and responsibility on the other. Funk always

acknowledged and adopted the political aims and ideals of National

Socialism. The majority of the German people embraced these goals and

ideologies, as was proved by several plebiscites. Funk himself did not

suspect that all the good intentions and idealistic aims, so often

emphasized by Hitler when he came into power, would later crumble in the

blood and smoke of war and sink to such an inconceivable inhuman level.

Funk testified explicitly that he considered the authoritative form of

government—by which he meant the strong state, a responsible cabinet,

the social community, and an economic system with social obligations—a

prerequisite in order to overcome the grave intellectual and economic

crisis through which the German people were then passing. He always

expressly acknowledged that politics must have precedence over

economics.

On 30 January 1933, as Press Chief of the Reich Government, Funk took up

the State office of a Ministerial Director in the Reich Chancellery. Six

weeks later, however, the direction of press policy passed into the

hands of Dr. Goebbels, when the latter became Reich Minister for Public

Enlightenment and Propaganda; and the press department of the Reich

Government, which Funk was to have directed, was merged in the newly

established Ministry for Propaganda. For the time being he retained only

the right to make his press report personally to Reich President Von

Hindenburg and Reich Chancellor Adolf Hitler—until Hindenburg’s death.

Then this activity also came to a complete standstill, so that the

Office of Press Chief of the Reich Government existed only on paper.

This was also expressly confirmed by the Defendant Fritzsche during his

examination as a witness on 28 June.

The guilt of the defendant is inferred mainly from the fact that he was

a State Secretary in the Ministry of Propaganda. The hearing of evidence

has shown, however, that as State Secretary, Funk had nothing whatsoever

to do with actual propaganda work. He made no radio speeches, nor did he

speak at public meetings. Press policy, on the other hand, was dictated

by Dr. Goebbels in person even at that time.

Even at that time, however, Funk gave particular attention to the wishes

and complaints of the journalists. He protected the press against misuse

by official departments and made every effort to safeguard the

individuality of the press and to enable it to work in a responsible

manner.

All this has been established by a number of witnesses to whom I refer

on Pages 17 to 24; in particular by the witnesses Amann, Kallus,

Fritzsche, Oeser, and Roesen. The two latter witnesses have indeed

confirmed the fact that Funk as State Secretary in the Ministry of

Propaganda also worked energetically on behalf of Jews and such persons

as were oppressed and hindered in their spiritual and artistic work by

the legislation and cultural policy of the National Socialists. Funk did

so much on behalf of such people that he jeopardized his own official

position to such an extent that the Ministry actually considered him

politically unreliable.

[sm type begins]As to defendant’s activity in the Reich Ministry of

Propaganda, the Prosecution charges him as follows:[sm type ends]

[sm type begins]“By means of such an activity in the Ministry of

Propaganda the Defendant Funk participated in establishing the

power of the conspirators over Germany, and is particularly

responsible for the persecution of ‘political dissenters’ and

Jews, for the psychological preparation of the people for war,

and for the weakening of the strength of and will for resistance

of the victims selected by the conspirators.”[sm type ends]

[sm type begins]Also in this point of the accusation, the guilt of the

Defendant Funk has been derived almost exclusively from the fact that he

occupied the position of a state secretary in the Ministry of

Propaganda. The hearing of evidence, however, has shown that Funk had

nothing to do with actual propaganda activity in his position as State

Secretary. Funk did not deliver any speeches, either through the radio

or in public meetings. The press policy was directed by Dr. Goebbels in

person ever since the Ministry had been established. However, Funk took

care, to a large extent, of the wishes and complaints of the

journalists. He protected the press against trespassing by Government

offices and tried to secure for the press an individual look and an

activity conscious of its responsibilities. This is expressed by the

digest from the book written by Dr. Paul Oestreich: _Walter Funk—A Life

for Economy_, Document 3505-PS, Exhibit USA-653, Document Book Funk

Number 4b.[sm type ends]

[sm type begins]Some of Funk’s wordings from that period of his activity

in the Ministry of Propaganda, as for example, the sentence “the press

is no barrel organ” and the saying “the press should not be the

scapegoat of the government” later have become all but household

words.[sm type ends]

[sm type begins]As State Secretary Funk had, on the whole, only

organizational and economic tasks, he managed the financial side of the

activity of the numerous organizations and institutes which were

controlled by the Ministry of Propaganda, such as, particularly, the

Reich Broadcasting Company, further the German Trade Publicity Council

(Werberat der deutschen Wirtschaft), the State-owned film combines, the

State-owned theaters and orchestras and the State-owned press agencies

and newspapers. As to art, and according to his artistic tastes, he

occupied himself with music and theater. In the direction of the

Ministry of Propaganda, a complete separation between political tasks on

the one hand and organizational and economic tasks on the other hand

took place. This has been stated in unison by all witnesses examined on

this point. Minister Dr. Goebbels in person directed the propaganda

policy, exercising complete, absolute and exclusive control. His

assistants herein were, not his State Secretary Funk, but his old

collaborators from the propaganda organization of the Party, who, for

the most part, were taken over by him in a personal union into the newly

created Ministry of Propaganda. Funk, however, did not belong to the

propaganda department of the Party, neither before nor after the

Ministry was established. The assertion of Mr. Messersmith in his

affidavit, submitted under Document 1760-PS, according to which Goebbels

had incorporated Funk into the Party organization, is erroneous, and can

obviously be attributed to the fact that Messersmith had, as an

outsider, no insight into the division of work within the Ministry of

Propaganda, and moreover, apparently identified readily the propaganda

activity of the Party with the propaganda of the State Ministry. This

has been confirmed by the questionnaire submitted by Messersmith, as

asked for by the Defendant Funk, on May 7th, 1946, (Document Book Funk,

Supplement Number 5). This questionnaire shows that Messersmith cannot

even state whether he had a conversation with the Defendant Funk a few

times or only once; furthermore, that he does not remember any more what

topic was discussed at that time, nor in what capacity Funk was present

at this meeting. With such vague and unreliable statements of a witness

nothing, of course, can be proven.[sm type ends]

[sm type begins]As a proof of the fact that Funk had nothing to do with

the actual propaganda activity and—as the Defendant Göring has asserted

here as a witness—did not play any important part at all in comparison

to Goebbels, I refer to the affidavit of the former Reichsleiter for the

press, Max Amann, of April 17th, 1946 (Document Book Funk, Exhibit 14).

At first, the Prosecution has submitted an affidavit sworn by this

witness, of December 19th, 1945 (Document 3501-PS); the statements

contained therein have been, in the new affidavit of April 17th, 1946,

supplemented and corrected in essential points. In this new statement,

submitted to the Prosecution and to the Defense, the witness Amann gives

evidence that also, according to his knowledge, Funk, as State Secretary

in the Ministry of Propaganda, had nothing to do with the actual

propaganda activity. For the rest, the witness confirms the statements

of the Defendant Funk, namely, that he (Amann) did not know in person

the distribution of activities and the interior management of the

Ministry, and that his statements are exclusively based op information

by other persons. The witness Heinz Kallus, on the other hand, worked

for some years as an official of the Ministry of Propaganda. Kallus,

too, confirms under oath in the answers, in the questionary addressed to

him (Exhibit Number Funk-18), that on the whole Funk was engaged in

administration and financial questions, and the same was testified by

the Defendant Hans Fritzsche during his examination as a witness before

this Tribunal on June 27th and 28th.[sm type ends]

[sm type begins]In the trial brief of the Defendant Funk, Page

9—Document 3566-PS—the Prosecution submitted the notes of an

SS-Scharführer Sigismund as evidence for the importance of the position

which Funk is supposed to have held in the Ministry of Propaganda. An

official of this Ministry, by the name of Weinbrenner, is supposed to

have declared to that SS-Scharführer that it was impossible to know whom

Minister Goebbels would entrust with the office of radio superintendent,

as Goebbels took most of the important decisions only in agreement with

Under Secretary Funk. Now, Dr. Goebbels did not as a matter of course

undertake the appointment to the leading post in broadcasting without

getting in touch with Funk, the chairman of the administrative board of

the Reich Broadcasting Corporation (Reichsrundfunkgesellschaft); this,

however, does not prove anything concerning the nature and the

significance of the activity of the Defendant Funk nor of the aims he

pursued thereby. After all, the Prosecution has been able to submit but

one single document bearing the signature of Funk as Under Secretary,

namely, the fixing of a date for the coming into force of a decree for

the execution of a law concerning the Reichskulturkammer, of November

9th, 1933 (Document 3505-PS); hereof the Prosecution deduces a

responsibility or, at any rate, a co-responsibility of the Defendant

Funk for the entire legislation for the control and co-ordination of the

cultural professions (Kulturberufe).[sm type ends]

[sm type begins]This conclusion appears to be wrong; quite apart from

the fact that the point in question is the fixing of a date for a decree

concerning execution, therefore a purely formal act, it must be

emphasized that this law was decided by the Reich Cabinet of which the

Defendant Funk at that time was not a member.[sm type ends]

[sm type begins]Funk stated in his examination that, during the entire

duration of his activity in the Ministry of Propaganda, he hardly gave

his signature more than three times representing Dr. Goebbels. For the

rest, the Defendant Fritzsche testified here as a witness, on June 28th,

1946, that the position of Dr. Goebbels’ long-time collaborator and

personal advisor Hanke, who later on became Under Secretary and

Gauleiter, corresponded far more to the usual position of an under

secretary in the Ministry, than the one of the Defendant Funk. It was

Hanke, too, who maintained the liaison of Minister Goebbels with the

section heads and advisers of the Ministry, a task adhering otherwise to

the under secretary in a ministry, but which was never entrusted to the

Defendant Funk, although he was an under secretary.[sm type ends]

[sm type begins]It is proven by the affidavit of the former

editor-in-chief of the _Frankfurter Zeitung_, Albert Oeser (Exhibit

Number Funk-1), and of the attorney-at-law Dr. Karl Roesen (Exhibit

Number Funk-2), as well as by the affidavits of the witness Heinz Kallus

(Document Funk-18), that the Defendant Funk, in his position as an under

secretary of the Ministry of Propaganda, energetically undertook to help

Jews and other persons who were oppressed and thwarted in their

intellectual or artistic activities by the National Socialist

legislation and cultural policy, and that he did this under heavy risks

to his own position.[sm type ends]

[sm type begins]Among the persons for whom Funk interceded were not only

Jewish editors, but also many prominent German artists, and the witness

Kallus (cf. his questionnaire in the Document Funk-18) mentions in this

connection the Jewish proprietors of a big Berlin directory publishing

firm, whom Funk had given permission to carry on with their business,

against considerable resistance of the competent section of the Ministry

and of the German trade publicity council (Werberat der deutschen

Wirtschaft). The witness Kallus stated further, that, owing to this

attitude toward the Jewish cultural workers, Funk was “suspect” to Dr.

Goebbels and to the chief of the press section, Berndt, who was known to

be particularly radical. Editor-in-chief Oeser explicitly states, as a

witness, in his affidavit (Document Book Funk Number 1) that he has made

his statements voluntarily to prove the “human attitude” of the

Defendant Funk, and gives the names of eight Jewish editors of the

_Frankfurter Zeitung_, whom Funk had given permission to carry on with

their profession. In this connection, Oeser further remarks: “He (Funk)

herewith proved his human understanding. Indeed, I have never heard from

him (Funk), in the course of our conversations, any inhuman utterances.

Owing to his (Funk’s) concessions, the endangered people obtained, in

part repeatedly, the possibility to hope and to work anew with us and to

prepare, without loss of income, their change of profession and their

emigration.” Oeser, a well-known economic journalist, who always kept

completely aloof from the Party, explicitly states that Funk, without

any doubt, exposed himself by his attitude toward the Jews.[sm type

ends]

[sm type begins]In the cross-examination of the Defendant Funk the

Prosecution referred to an affidavit, produced by the Prosecution, of an

editor called Franz Wolf; this witness expressed—Document 3954-PS,

Exhibit USA-377—the opinion that Funk may well have given those

exceptional permissions not out of human sentiments, but rather in order

to maintain the high standard of the _Frankfurter Zeitung_. By the way,

the author of the affidavit was actually one of the Jewish editors who

were given permission to further exercise their profession by Funk. The

assumption of the witness Wolf is in direct contradiction to the

positive statements of the witness Oeser. The Defendant Funk, too,

opposed this interpretation and has pointed out that at that time such

considerations were of no importance to him. In later years, when the

_Frankfurter Zeitung_ was to disappear, he had, so he said, used his

influence in order to insure the further publishing, out of material

considerations too, as this newspaper was, as an economic paper, highly

esteemed abroad and was the best commercial newspaper of the country.

However, this does not alter the fact that Funk had, at that time, used

his influence repeatedly and with success in favor of Oeser and his

collaborators, for purely humanitarian reasons.[sm type ends]

[sm type begins]The witness Kallus finally declared in his questionnaire

(Page 3 of Document Funk-18) that he remembers several occasions where

Funk made possible the emigration of Jewish people under tolerable

conditions. Kallus confirms hereby the statements of the witness Luise

Funk (Document Book Funk, Exhibit Number 3), according to which the

Defendant Funk often received, in the years when he was Under Secretary

of State in the Ministry of Propaganda, letters of thanks from Jews who

had emigrated at that time from Germany and who thanked Funk for having

given them facilities for liquidating their businesses and for having

procured them permission to take along abroad considerable parts of

their fortunes.[sm type ends]

[sm type begins]Evidence concerning this second part of the Indictment

has accordingly shown that Funk is guilty in the sense of this part of

the Indictment neither in his official capacity nor by his actions. He

has helped, as far as it was within his power, many Jews and many

individuals who were endangered and hindered in their cultural work, out

of their material and spiritual distress, although by doing so he

jeopardized his own position.[sm type ends]

Now, Gentlemen of the Tribunal, I turn to another subject—the charge

appearing under Point 4 of my brief, Page 24 onward, namely, that he

participated in the preparation of wars of aggression; a point which is

dealt with by Figure 4 of the Indictment. The accusation against the

Defendant Funk is: “that with full knowledge of the aggressive plans of

the conspirators he participated in the planning and preparation for

such wars.”

As evidence of this, the Indictment first of all points out that

Göring’s Ministry of Economics was brought under the Four Year Plan as

the “high command of the German war economy,” and was placed under

Funk’s command. The Indictment also states that according to the Law for

the Defense of the Reich of 4 September 1938 Funk, in his capacity as

Plenipotentiary for Economics, was explicitly charged with the

mobilization of German economy in case of war.

The Prosecution’s assertion that the Reich Ministry of Economics was

brought under the Four Year Plan before it was handed over by Göring to

Funk is quite correct, but the so-called “high command of the German

economy” was not in the hands of the Reich Minister of Economics, Funk,

but entirely in those of the Delegate for the Four Year Plan—that is,

the Codefendant Göring. Göring has confirmed the fact that Funk was

obliged to follow his instructions. In addition, the most important

branches of production were managed—as we have already shown—by

special plenipotentiaries of the Four Year Plan, who were under the

control of Göring and received their instructions from Göring—not from

Funk. The Reich Ministry of Economics itself was merely the office which

carried out the directives of the Four Year Plan. The Defendant Funk has

testified that some offices were only formally under his supervision and

functioned in reality as autonomous institutions of the Four Year Plan.

Funk’s position as Plenipotentiary for Economics was vigorously disputed

from the beginning. When the Defendant Funk was cross-examined, Document

EC-255 was submitted, a letter from the Reich War Minister, Von

Blomberg, to the Delegate for the Four Year Plan, Göring, dated 29

November 1937, wherein Blomberg proposes that the Defendant Funk, who

had just then, on 27 November 1937, been appointed Reich Minister of

Economics, should also be appointed Plenipotentiary for War Economy.

This was not, however, done.

Göring himself took over the Reich Ministry of Economics to begin with,

and only handed it over to the Defendant Funk in February 1938, 3 months

afterward. Then the High Command of the Armed Forces—more especially

the Army Economic Staff under General Thomas, whose name has been

mentioned repeatedly—requested that the Plenipotentiary for War Economy

should be bound in the future to follow the directives of the High

Command in all questions concerning supplies for the Armed Forces. In

this Document, EC-270, USA-840, the Economic Staff of the High Command

of the Armed Forces claims a right to direct the Plenipotentiary for War

Economy in nearly all his fields of activity.

The Defendant Funk tried by means of a conversation with Reich Marshal

Göring and a letter to Reich Minister Dr. Lammers to clarify his

position as Plenipotentiary for War Economy, and as such claimed to be

placed under the direct command of Hitler and not bound to abide by the

directives of the High Command of the Armed Forces. Göring and Lammers

concurred with Funk’s opinion. It must, however, be emphasized most

strongly that this did not affect Funk’s subordination to Göring, for

all the other supreme Reich offices and ministers directly subordinate

to Hitler’s command were also bound by the directives of the Delegate

for the Four Year Plan, that is, by Göring’s directives.

It is a remarkable fact that according to the Reich Defense Law of 4

September 1938—the Second Reich Defense Law—the Defendant Funk did not

become Plenipotentiary for War Economy, but Plenipotentiary for

Economics, without the word “War,” and that this act explicitly stated

that Funk was bound to comply with the demands of the OKW. The OKW,

therefore, won its battle against Funk in the end.

But the individual economic departments, which according to the Reich

Defense Law were under the direction of the Plenipotentiary for

Economics for his special assignments, were equally unwilling to

recognize him. In an interrogatory by the former State Secretary Dr.

Hans Posse, Funk’s deputy as Plenipotentiary for Economics (Document

3819-PS, USA-843) which was produced during the cross-examination of the

Defendant Funk, Posse states that the Plenipotentiary for Economics

“never really exercised any function.” The ministers and state

secretaries of the individual economic departments of finance,

agriculture, transport, _et cetera_, did not, according to Posse, wish

to be placed under Funk’s control, and even protested against it. Posse

also mentions the disputes which Funk had with the Four Year Plan. He

calls these conflicts “the struggle for power,” which in this connection

simply means the authority to make decisions concerning the other

economic departments. This was not a dispute between Göring and Funk;

that is untrue because obviously Funk as Plenipotentiary for the

Economics was still subordinate to Göring. Actually, this was a quarrel

among state secretaries. The individual economic departments declared

that they were subordinate to the Delegate for the Four Year Plan and

refused to recognize the right of the Plenipotentiary for Economics to

give them directives, since Funk himself was under the direction of the

Four Year Plan. The state secretaries of the Four Year Plan supported

the departments in their interpretation, and this lack of clarity and

the overlapping of competencies caused the authority to issue directives

to pass formally from the hands of the Delegate of the Four Year Plan a

few months after the outbreak of the war.

Questioned by the Prosecution as to whether he had been in the habit of

discussing important matters with Funk, the above-mentioned State

Secretary Posse replied: “Yes; but these discussions did not produce

results.” Posse confirms that the authority given to Göring was much

more extensive and that Göring finally dissolved the office of the

Plenipotentiary for Economics. According to Funk this happened as early

as December 1939, a few months after the outbreak of the war. Funk

retained only the formal right to issue decrees. This has also been

confirmed by Lammers. Therefore, the Codefendant Göring’s statement that

he was also of the opinion that Funk’s position as Plenipotentiary for

Economics could be described as having existed only on paper is quite

correct.

[sm type begins]Naturally the office of the Plenipotentiary for

Economics worked in continuous business relations with the other

economic departments, with the Four Year Plan, with the staff of the

department for defense economics of the German Supreme Command, and with

the Plenipotentiary for Administration, that is to say, the Reich

Minister of the Interior. As proof the Prosecution presented various

documents showing that at the meetings of the Deputy Plenipotentiary for

Economics and his staff, questions of finance, war production, labor,

and others were discussed. In this connection the office of the

Plenipotentiary once also treated the question of employing prisoners of

war in the industry, but this was an entirely theoretical discussion

(Document Number EC-488, USA Exhibit Number 842).[sm type ends]

[sm type begins]Why this General Staff economy work, which had to be

done in times of peace for the eventuality of war, should be

incriminating for the Defendant Funk is not clear. Besides, until August

1939 he personally did not take any interest in the details of these

questions. All this work of the Plenipotentiary for Economics consisted

of general preparations in case of war and did not apply to any special

war. However, when Funk’s proposition for changing over from peacetime

to wartime economy was worked out in co-operation with the other

economic departments in August 1939, the danger of war with Poland was

already pressing.[sm type ends]

Nowhere in the material presented by the Prosecution is there a single

indication of the fact that the Defendant Funk knew anything about

military and political conversations and preparations which had as their

object the planning of war—in particular, a war of aggression to be

waged by Germany. Funk was never invited to take part in any

conversations of this kind. He was, in particular, not present at the

well-known discussion with Göring on 14 October 1938, which was treated

exhaustively by the Prosecution on Page 24 of the trial brief. According

to the Prosecution, Göring during that meeting referred to an order

issued by Hitler for an unusual increase in armaments, especially

weapons of attack. The Prosecutor declared during the session of 11

January 1946 that at that meeting Göring addressed words to Funk which

were described as “the words of a man already at war.” Several documents

included in the Funk document book and submitted to the Tribunal prove,

however, beyond doubt that the Defendant Funk did not attend that

meeting at all, as he was in Sofia at the time in order to conduct

economic negotiations with Bulgaria. This exhibit, which the Prosecution

obviously intended to use as a main exhibit, is thereby invalidated. On

25 August 1939, the date of Funk’s letter to Hitler to which I referred

this morning, the German and Polish armies were already completely

mobilized and stood face to face with each other. He was, therefore,

compelled to act in that particular manner, and by that time he was no

longer able to cancel any of the preparations. All this is corroborated

by the diary kept by the witness Kallus and submitted in the Funk

document book under Number 18. The Defendant Funk stated here on the

witness stand:

“It was naturally my duty as Plenipotentiary for Economics to do

all I could to prevent the civilian section of the economy from

being shattered in the event of war, and it was also my duty as

president of the Reichsbank to increase as much as possible the

Reichsbank’s reserves of gold and foreign currency.”

He goes on to say:

“That was necessary on account of the general political tension

at the time, and it was also necessary in case no war would come

about but only economic sanctions which, in view of the

political situation at the time, one could and must expect.”

Funk likewise says:

“It was also my duty as Reich Minister of Economics to increase

production.”

That is an exact quotation from the Defendant Funk’s testimony. On this

subject the witness Puhl, who was vice president of the Reichsbank,

states in his interrogatory of 1 May, which is in the hands of the

Tribunal, that the position of the Reichsbank in the last 7 months of

Funk’s presidency before the outbreak of the war had not been materially

strengthened, and that very little business had been done in the

exchange of foreign assets for gold since January 1939. The Reichsbank’s

cautious policy in regard to gold and foreign currency, according to

this witness, was in line with its customary practice.

Puhl’s statement is important for the correct understanding of the

reference made by Funk, in his letter to Hitler of 25 August 1939, to

the conversion of foreign assets into gold. During the period of Funk’s

presidency of the Reichsbank the transactions to which he alludes were

no longer of any importance. The exaggerated phrases used by Funk in his

letter to Hitler make the contents appear much more important than they

actually were.

Funk explained this fact during his examination by saying that this

letter was a private letter of thanks, that in those days every German

was under a very great strain owing to the tense political events

throughout Europe, and that he wanted to inform his Chancellor at this

moment when the country was in danger of war, that he, Funk, had also

done his duty. This was the first and only occasion on which Funk

actively exercised his functions as Plenipotentiary for Economics.

Here I must insert something which is based upon some minutes which the

Prosecution did not submit until the hearing of evidence had been

concluded; Document 3787-PS. These are the minutes of the second meeting

of the Reich Defense Council held on 23 June 1939. Funk, as

Plenipotentiary for Economics, attended that meeting of the Reich

Defense Council, which took place about 2 months before the beginning of

the war. The text of the minutes, however, leaves no doubt whatever that

they concern general, and therefore mainly theoretical, preparations for

any war. Furthermore, to appreciate this document it must be remembered

that during the war which broke out 3 months later the whole of the

Defendant Funk’s assignments in connection with the distribution of

labor was transferred to the Four Year Plan, since the main functions of

the Plenipotentiary for Economics were formally and completely

abolished, as I have previously shown, shortly after the outbreak of

war.

To continue with my brief—the Defendant Funk has explained in detail

during his examination that up to the very end he did not believe that

war would come, but that on the contrary he thought that the Polish

conflict would be settled by diplomatic means. The accuracy of this

statement is also confirmed by the witnesses Landfried, Posse, and Puhl,

the defendant’s three closest co-workers, in interrogatories submitted

to the Court (Exhibit Numbers Funk-16 and 17 and Document 3849-PS). The

danger of war with Russia came to Funk’s knowledge for the first time

when he heard of Rosenberg’s appointment as plenipotentiary for the

unified treatment of eastern European problems in April 1941. We

remember that at that time Lammers and Rosenberg gave the Defendant Funk

the same explanations, generally speaking, as those stated to the

Tribunal here by all the witnesses heard on this question. He was told

that the reason for the preparations for war against Soviet Russia was

that the Soviet Russians were massing considerable forces along the

entire border, that they had invaded Bessarabia, and that Molotov, in

his discussions on the subject of the Baltic Sea and the Balkans, had

made demands which Germany could not fulfill. As Rosenberg stated that

the assignment given him by Hitler also included economic measures, Funk

placed a ministerial director, Dr. Schlotterer, at Rosenberg’s disposal

as liaison official. Schlotterer later took over the direction of the

economic section of the Rosenberg Ministry and joined the Economic

Operations Staff East of the Four Year Plan. The Ministry for Economics

itself and Funk had practically nothing to do with economic questions in

the occupied East and concerned themselves merely with questions bearing

on German internal economy. The Ministry for Economics had no authority

whatever to make decisions in the Occupied Eastern Territories. During

his cross-examination the Defendant Funk was shown an extract from an

interrogation of 19 October 1945, dealing with the subject “Preparations

for War against Russia” (Document Number 3952-PS, USA-875). In this

interrogation Funk stated that the Defendant Hess asked him at the end

of April 1941 whether he, Funk, had heard anything about an impending

war against Russia. Funk replied: “I have not heard anything definite,

but there seems to be some discussion along that line.”

The explanation of this conversation at the end of April 1941 between

two men who were not informed of the facts may well be that at that time

Funk did not yet definitely know the reason for Rosenberg’s assignment,

but knew only of suspicions and rumors.

On 28 May 1941 Rosenberg had a meeting with Funk (Document 1031-PS). In

this meeting, as you may recall, they discussed the question of how the

monetary problem in the East might be regulated in the event of war

against Russia and the occupation of those territories by German forces.

Gentlemen, in my opinion it is quite natural that in view of an

impending war, even a war of defense, the authorities responsible for

money matters should discuss the question of the handling of these

matters in case enemy territory should be occupied. Funk was opposed to

any solution likely to give rise to speculation; and he described the

suggested rate of exchange for marks and rubles as entirely arbitrary.

He agreed with Rosenberg that the Russian territory should have its own

national currency as soon as conditions permitted. For the rest he

demanded further investigation of these problems, especially since the

matter could not be decided in advance.

Here too, therefore, Funk approached matters with his characteristic

caution and endeavored to find a solution which would create stable

conditions from the very start. If the necessity for printing ruble

bills to meet the most urgent demands for currency was mentioned in the

discussion with Rosenberg—though not by Funk—Funk did not see anything

either unusual or criminal therein. If the currency of a country has

been depleted, it is absolutely necessary for fresh money to be provided

by the power responsible for maintaining a stable monetary system. Who

made the banknotes was of no importance to Funk; the essential point for

him was by whom the banknotes were issued and in what quantity.

Moreover, the production of a new banknote requires months of

preparation, so that the execution of such a plan—which, as I said, was

in any case not Funk’s—could not have taken place until much later.

A few weeks after this discussion the war actually broke out. Funk knew

that there was danger of war with Russia. That Germany had long been

preparing for such a war was however as little known to him as the fact

that Germany would attack and thus wage a preventive war. Funk was

informed neither of the march into Austria nor of the negotiations in

regard to the Sudetenland—in September and October 1938 he was not even

in Germany—nor was he informed of the seizure of the remainder of

Czechoslovakia. In the case of Poland, he knew that the conflict was

acute, but nothing more; of Russia the same thing was true. But in both

cases he was informed even of this only a short time before the actual

outbreak of war. As far as wars with other countries were concerned,

Funk received no information whatsoever before the opening of

hostilities; he was only informed afterward.

All the facts I have mentioned form a clear indication that Funk knew

nothing of Hitler’s intentions with regard to foreign policy, and that

he had no knowledge whatsoever of the fact that Hitler was planning wars

of aggression. In the summer of 1939 Funk certainly devoted particular

attention to the conversion of German economy from a peacetime to a

wartime basis. But as an official of the Reich, Funk considered it to be

not only his right but also his duty to prepare the German people for a

defensive war and to take the necessary economic measures.

However, the Prosecution believes that it can eliminate all these doubts

by describing the Reichsregierung or the National Socialist Party as a

criminal organization which conspired against other nations, and whose

sole task was to plan and wage wars of aggression, to subjugate and

enslave foreign nations, and to plunder and Germanize other countries.

This deduction is erroneous, since those plans were devised and executed

only by Hitler himself and a few of the men closest to him, of the type

of Goebbels, Himmler, and Bormann. According to the evidence we have

heard, there can be no doubt that even the highest officials of the

State and the Armed Forces—and in particular Funk—were not informed of

these plans, but that these plans were concealed from them by a cunning

system of secrecy.

Any comparison with the secret societies mentioned by the Prosecution,

which in other countries banded together in criminal organizations, as

for example the Ku Klux Klan in America, is impossible for a further

reason. The Ku Klux Klan was organized from the start as a secret

society for the purpose of terrorizing and committing crimes. In 1871,

after scarcely 6 years of existence, it was expressly forbidden by the

North American Government through a special law, known as the Ku Klux

Klan Act. At that time the Government even imposed martial law on it and

fought it with every possible means. It was an organization with which

the Government and Congress of the United States never had any dealings.

A man like Funk would, of course, never have joined a secret society, a

criminal organization against which the Government was fighting.

However, the National Socialist Party in Germany was never a secret

organization, but was a party recognized by the Government and

considered lawful. The unity between this Party and the State was even

declared in a special Reich law. Since 1934 the leader of this Party was

at the same time the elected head of the Reich, and this head of the

State and his Government have been constantly and officially recognized

as a government by the entire world from 1933 on. It was due precisely

to this international recognition of Hitler by every foreign country—a

recognition which continued to be extended in part even during the

second World War—that Funk and millions of other Germans never doubted

the legality of the Government and that such doubts, if they ever

entered their minds, were immediately dispelled. Millions of German

officials and German soldiers assumed, just as Funk did, that they were

only doing their duty in not withholding from the head of the State the

recognition accorded to him by every country in the world.

[sm type begins]The foreign countries, their statesmen as well as their

general staffs, the press as well as the intelligence service of other

countries, were certainly better informed about the German situation and

also about the true aims of German politics than the German citizen who

had no access to foreign newspapers, who was not permitted to listen to

foreign radio stations if he did not want to land in jail or on the

scaffold, who for years lived as isolated as in jail and could not even

trust his neighbors and friends—not even his relatives—and dared not

talk things over with anybody. Even ministers knew no more about

Hitler’s true plans than any other fellow citizen and even of major

State affairs they mostly learned only afterward through the newspapers

or the radio. Who could have ever conceived the thought that foreign

states would maintain diplomatic relations with a criminal organization

and that official persons of foreign countries should recognize and call

upon a man in whom they saw the head of a band of conspirators?[sm type

ends]

As already mentioned, Funk has never denied that in his plans and

directives he naturally took into account the possibility of wars which

might some day have to be waged by Germany, just as it is part of the

duty of every general staff in the world to take such possibilities into

consideration. At that time Funk had every reason to do so in his

capacity as Minister of Economics and Reichsbank president; for the

world situation since the first World War had been so tense, and the

conflicting interests of individual nations had frequently appeared

insurmountable to such a degree that, unless he wanted to be accused of

neglecting or betraying the interests of his own people, every statesman

had to make the preparations necessary for waging war. A preliminary

activity of this kind is, therefore, not in itself of criminal

significance; and Funk has no doubt that during those years the

ministers of economics and bank presidents of other countries also

made—and had to make—similar preparations for the event of war. In the

case of Funk it is of no importance whether or not he for his part

ordered such preparations, but only whether or not he knew that Hitler

was planning aggressive wars and intended to wage such aggressive wars

in violation of existing treaties and in disregard of international law.

But Funk, as he declared under oath, did not know this, nor did he act

on this premise. Hitler’s constant affirmations of peace prevented such

a possibility from entering his mind. Today, of course, we know on the

basis of the actual events that followed and on the basis of the facts

established by these proceedings, that those peace assertions of

Hitler’s, which were still on his lips when he committed suicide, were

in reality only lies and deception. But at that time Funk regarded

Hitler’s protestations in favor of peace as perfectly genuine. It never

occurred to him at that time that he himself and the whole German nation

could be deceived by Hitler; he believed Hitler’s words just as did the

entire world, and thus he was the victim of that deception just as was

the entire world. If no blame attaches to foreign statesmen and generals

who believed Hitler’s protestations, although they certainly were better

informed on Germany’s rearmament than was Funk, the faith which he

himself had in the head of the State cannot be called a crime.

Gentlemen of the Tribunal, I have now examined the Prosecution’s

accusation that Funk had planned wars of aggression; and I turn to

another point of the Indictment, which concerns Funk’s activities in the

occupied territories and the charge of forced labor.

The Prosecution offered very little evidence against Funk on the subject

of forced labor or the slave-labor program. In the main he is held

responsible for the compulsory employment of foreign workers on the

grounds that he was a member of the Central Planning Board from autumn

1943 on. The first session of the Central Planning Board at which he was

present took place on 22 November 1943, that is to say, at an advanced

stage of the war, and after that he very rarely attended meetings. The

Defendant Speer testified to this, and it is also evident from the

minutes of the Board, which were very carefully kept. And I should like

to emphasize the fact that Funk never had anything to do with the

employment of labor either in his capacity as Minister of Economics or

as president of the Reichsbank. He was on principle opposed to taking in

too many workers from the occupied territories, especially by force,

because this interfered with the economic and the social life of these

territories. The Codefendant Sauckel and the witnesses Landfried and

Hayler have confirmed this, and it is also shown by the remarks made by

Funk himself at the meeting held in Lammers’ office on 11 July 1944

(Document 3819-PS), which was frequently quoted in Court. Here, for

instance, Funk expressed disapproval of ruthless raids to recruit

foreign workers.

If Funk sent representatives to the Central Planning Board, he did so

only to insure that the necessary raw materials were allocated to the

industries engaged in manufacturing consumer’s goods and goods for

export, but never to deal with questions of foreign labor, in which he

was not at all interested. Although the Prosecution, in cross-examining

the witness Hayler, on 7 May 1946, confronted him with a statement by

Funk during the preliminary interrogation of 22 October 1945, Document

Number 3544-PS, to the effect that he had “not racked his brain” over

these labor problems, it must also be stated on the part of the Defense

that in the next sentence of these minutes—in the same breath, so to

speak—Funk declared that he had always done his utmost to prevent

workers being taken away from their homeland, in this case France. This

second sentence, although not quoted by the Prosecution, seems to be of

special importance because it clearly reveals Funk’s disapproval of the

compulsory measures used in connection with the utilization of foreign

labor. The Defendant Speer, however, testified before the Tribunal on 20

June that the Central Planning Board made no plans at all for the

utilization of labor. Only occasional discussions on questions

concerning the utilization of labor took place here. The records

containing the actual results of the negotiations and decisions of the

Central Planning Board have not been introduced by the Prosecution. It

has been shown that Funk, who attended only a few of the meetings of the

Central Planning Board, never received the full notes but only the

minutes, which revealed nothing. Before Speer was responsible for

decisions on war production, and before Sauckel became Plenipotentiary

General for the Allocation of Labor—that is, before 1942—the question

of recruiting labor for production was dealt with by the Four Year Plan,

that is, by Göring and not by Funk. Later on applications for workers

required, as Speer has testified, were usually made by the industries

directly to the offices controlling the allocation of labor. While Funk

was still in charge of production in the Reich Ministry for Economics

and working in accordance with the directives of the Four Year Plan,

questions concerning the allocation of labor were not dealt with by the

Reich Ministry for Economics at all, but by the Plenipotentiary General

appointed under the Four Year Plan for the various branches of

industry—that is, by Göring—by means of direct negotiation with the

Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor. Speer clarified

this in connection with Document Sauckel Number 12. He also clarified

the fact that several branches of industry, such as overground and

underground construction not falling within the competency of the Reich

Minister of Economics, were cited in this document as belonging to it.

[sm type begins]Some other items had been rectified previously already

by Sauckel’s defense counsel. The various economic offices

(Wirtschaftsämter) likewise did not request manpower from the Reich

Ministry of Economics. They were, however, not offices of the Reich

Ministry of Economics, but were incorporated in the so-called

intermediate instance, that is, in the provincial authorities, or in the

Gauleitungen.[sm type ends]

[sm type begins]An important point in this connection is the

establishment of the fact that up to 1943, that is, up to the time in

which Funk was at all competent in questions of production, foreign

workers came to Germany through recruitment solely upon the basis of a

voluntary decision. With respect to this, I refer to the decree of the

Reich Minister for Labor promulgated on 30 July 1940, presented in

Funk’s book of documents under Number 12, in which the conformity with

obligations internationally agreed upon is specifically pointed out.[sm

type ends]

Finally it must be stated that Funk, at the time when he joined the

Central Planning Board, no longer had any production assignments and

could therefore no longer claim workers, so that in consequence he had

no further interest in this aspect of the Central Planning Board’s

activities.

[sm type begins]Regarding Funk’s attitude toward the economy of occupied

territory, and measures taken by him to insure the maintenance of

orderly economic conditions and especially of stable conditions of

currency, I refer to the questionnaires Landfried (Exhibit Number

Funk-16) and Puhl (Exhibit Number Funk-17), as well as to testimony of

the witnesses Hayler, Neubacher, and Seyss-Inquart. I will refer only to

Document 2263-PS, introduced by the Prosecution during cross-examination

of the Defendant Funk, a letter from the Under Secretary of the Ministry

of Economics to the Armed Forces High Command of 6 June 1942, in which

the transfer of 100 million Reichsmark from occupation money is

requested for purchases by Roges Raw Material Incorporated

(Rohstoffhandelsgesellschaft) on the black market in France.[sm type

ends]

[sm type begins]Here we deal with the purchases in occupied territories

mentioned before, resulting from instructions by the Four Year Plan.

These, however, represent exactly those purchases against which Funk

protested. His protests finally culminated in the decision of the

Delegate for the Four Year Plan (Göring) to prohibit any such further

purchases. As is known, Funk personally had no authority to issue

instructions for the occupied territories. Moreover such controlled

purchases by authorities must be looked upon in a different light from

the uncontrolled purchases of the various State, Party, and Armed Forces

agencies, against which Funk fought time and again (Questionnaire

Landfried, Document Book Number Funk-16).[sm type ends]

Summarily it must be said that the evidence submitted has proved beyond

doubt that the Defendant Funk took a great many measures to prevent the

exploitation of occupied territories and that the fact that he succeeded

in preventing the devaluation of currency in occupied countries was in

itself enough to protect them from suffering damage to an extent which

cannot be evaluated in detail.

With that, Gentlemen of the Tribunal, I leave this point of the

Indictment against Funk and turn to a further charge against him,

namely, his participation in the elimination of Jews from economic life

in November and December 1938, which forms Point 3 of the Indictment

against him.

Gentlemen, the charges which the Prosecution has made against Funk

contain many details with which, in view of the time at my disposal, I

am unable to deal fully. With regard to such details I shall refer to

statements made by Funk himself in this connection. First of all,

however, I must deal more fully with what seems to me the most important

of all the charges made against Funk, namely, that of playing a part in

the persecution of the Jews. The Defendant Funk considers this to be the

most important factor in his trial.

Gentlemen, no one in Germany has ever asserted that Funk was one of

those fanatical anti-Semites who took part in the pogroms against the

Jews or who approved of these proceedings and profited by them; Funk

always condemned such actions. This can be explained not only by his

natural disposition and the environment in which he grew up, but also by

his years of work as a journalist, mainly in connection with that

section of the press which dealt with economic policy and consequently

kept him in continuous touch with the Jewish circles of importance to

economic life. Experts in that field know, and still have respect for,

Funk who even at that time showed an attitude that was free of all

anti-Semitism, and friendly toward the Jews rather than hostile.

It is tragic to a certain extent that in spite of this the name Funk, of

all names, has been repeatedly connected in this Trial with the decree

of November 1933, as a result of which the Jews were eliminated from

economic life. Whether he liked it or not, all questions concerning the

treatment of Jews in the economic life of Germany were under the

jurisdiction of his department as Minister for Economics. As an official

it was his duty to issue the necessary executive instructions.

This was certainly particularly difficult for Funk, in view of his

tolerant attitude. At that time he had already been a civil servant of

the Reich Propaganda Ministry and the Ministry for Economics for 8

years, and yet, during all that time, the Prosecution could not cite a

single instance of any display of anti-Semitism on Funk’s part or any

evidence of his having urged or approved of the use of force, terrorism,

or injustice against the Jews. On the contrary, we know from the

statements of various witnesses that Funk repeatedly interceded for his

Jewish fellow citizens in the course of these years; that he looked

after them and tried in their interests to alleviate hardships, to

prevent encroachments on their rights, and to spare the lives and

careers of human beings, even if they were Jews or political opponents

of his own.

It is, therefore, not surprising that this man, with his wide experience

in the economic field, this man of far-reaching knowledge, with his

frankly tolerant views, was most painfully affected when on 10 November

1938 he had to witness the destruction of Jewish homes and shops in

Berlin, and when he received one report after another confirming the

fact that Goebbels and his clique, exploiting the indignation of the

populace over the assassination of a German by a Jew, were organizing

such pogroms throughout Germany, and that these outrages were leading

not only to the destruction of Jewish property, but also to the murder

of many Jews and to the persecution of many thousands of innocent

citizens.

The affidavit of this assistant, Ministerialrat Kallus (Document Book

Number Funk-15) of 9 December 1945, and that of Frau Luise Funk of 5

November 1945 (Funk Document Book Number 3), prove clearly that Funk

condemned such excesses most severely, that he was incensed to the

extent of calling them filthy outrages even when addressing Dr. Goebbels

himself, and that he threatened to resign in the event of a repetition.

Even at that time he told the mighty Goebbels to his face that one

should be ashamed of being a German.

All this, Gentlemen, expressed the justified indignation of a man who

for years had made every effort to insure moderation toward Jews and

political opponents and had received many a letter of gratitude for so

doing—a man who had fought for years to prevent terrorism, to secure

for all his fellow citizens the rights to which they were entitled, and

to raise the standard of German economic life—and who now saw all his

efforts frustrated in a single night by the brutal fanaticism of a Dr.

Goebbels.

Funk himself, during his interrogation, gave us a vivid description of

how, ever since he entered office as Minister of Economics in February

1938, he had been subjected to continuous pressure by Goebbels and Dr.

Ley to eliminate the Jews from the economic life of the country in the

same way as they had been eliminated in 1933 from its cultural life.

The witness Dr. Hayler stated here that Himmler also found fault with

Funk for this. Funk himself testified to the difficulties which again

and again occurred during those years with workers stirred up by

propaganda, who were sometimes no longer willing to work under Jewish

managers, or did not dare to do so; and how, in these oppressive

conditions, numerous Jewish owners sold their businesses—frequently at

cut prices—to people who seemed to Funk as the Minister of Economics

entirely unfit to acquire or manage such businesses. Funk tried again

and again to stem this overwhelming development. He made continual

efforts to put a brake on this process of Aryanization; to provide for a

reasonable and just settlement for Jewish owners of businesses; and to

allow them to emigrate from Germany with their property. But Funk

realized more and more clearly every day that he was too weak to stop

this movement and that the radical elements around Dr. Goebbels and Dr.

Ley were gaining the upper hand, in which they were unfortunately able

to rely on Hitler’s authority. Hitler had allowed himself in the course

of time to be won over more and more to the policy of radical treatment

of the Jewish question by a few irresponsible advisers who are not

sitting in the dock today.

The events of 9 November 1938 burst like a bombshell into this fight

between Funk and other considerate people on the one side, and Goebbels

and Ley on the other. As Dr. Goebbels himself admitted later to

Fritzsche, they were aimed directly at the person of the Defendant Funk,

who was thus to be confronted with a _fait accompli_. As the witness

Landfried testified, Dr. Goebbels did in fact attain his ends through

this operation of November 1938. Goebbels was able to refer later to

Hitler’s own order for the Jews to be completely excluded from the

economic life of Germany, although Funk, as the minister concerned,

repeatedly made allusion to the relations with foreign countries upon

which the German Reich and its economy depended.

The orders necessary to carry out this program were given by Göring in

his capacity of Delegate for the Four Year Plan, on the direct orders of

Hitler. Funk never had any doubt that in this particular affair Göring

also was to a certain degree only a puppet, because he had always known

Göring to be a man who condemned extreme radicalism in this particular

question of the Jews. Funk’s views on this point were shared by wide

circles of the German people, and the fateful Göring meeting of 12

November 1938 (Document 1816-PS) proved this to be correct. This

document has been mentioned here repeatedly. At a meeting which preceded

that of 12 November 1938, Göring sharply condemned the acts of terrorism

which had occurred and declared to the Gauleiter present that he would

make every Gauleiter personally responsible for acts of violence

committed in his district. But what was the good of that?

In the course of the second meeting, the minutes of which were submitted

to the Tribunal under Number 1816-PS, Goebbels ultimately succeeded in

imposing his radical demands; and the course taken by this meeting

forced Funk to admit that the complete elimination of the Jews from

German economic life could no longer be delayed for the simple reason

that the circles in power had become far too fanatical. It became

evident to Funk that legislative measures were necessary if the Jews

were to be protected from further acts of terrorism, looting, and

violence and if they were to get any reasonable compensation. During the

Göring meeting of 12 November 1938, Funk repeatedly expressed his views

again, as is shown by the records. It was due to the efforts made by the

Defendant Funk, with the support of Göring, that Jewish businesses were

reopened for the time being, that the whole procedure was taken out of

the hands of the arbitrary local agencies and put on a legal basis

throughout Germany, and finally that in order to gain time in which to

carry out this action a definite date was set for its completion. Anyone

who reads carefully the minutes of the Göring meeting of 12 November

1938 will, in spite of their incorrect and incomplete formulation, be

able to find definite and repeated indications of Funk’s moderating

influence; namely, his insistence—repeatedly mentioned in the

minutes—on the reopening of Jewish stores, his proposal that the Jews

be allowed to retain at least their securities, and finally his attitude

to Heydrich’s demand that the Jews be placed in ghettos. The minutes of

12 November 1938 prove beyond doubt that it was Funk who opposed

Heydrich’s proposal by saying: “We don’t need ghettos. Surely the Jews

could move closer together among themselves. The existence of 3 million

Jewish people among no less than 70 million Germans can be regulated

without ghettos.” This is a literal quotation.

Funk therefore wanted to save the Jews at least from being interned in

ghettos. It must be admitted that at that time Funk did not entirely

succeed in securing recognition for his point of view, so that the

proposal that the Jews should be allowed to retain their securities, for

instance, was turned down, although Funk pointed out, as the minutes

show, that to realize the Jewish securities would suddenly flood the

German stock market with securities to the value of 500 million

Reichsmark and would, therefore, have serious consequences for the

German stock market. The decisive question in judging the Defendant Funk

is not so much his success as the fact that he made an obvious effort to

save for the Jews all that could be saved in the circumstances; and we

must not lose sight of the fact that in all those measures Funk acted

only in his capacity as Minister of Economics, that is, as an official

who merely gave the order to execute a command which Göring as Delegate

of the Four Year Plan had issued on the orders of Hitler. Funk found

himself in exactly the same position of constraint, as, for example, the

Reich Minister of Finance, Graf Schwerin von Krosigk, who at that time

had to order the punitive levy of 1,000 million Reichsmark to be paid by

the Jews, or the Reich Minister of Justice and the Reich Minister of the

Interior, both of whom issued similar executive instructions in their

respective spheres. The Tribunal must decide the difficult legal

question of whether a state official whose government has been legally

recognized by all the governments of the world is liable to legal

punishment for putting into effect a law—and I emphasize the word

“law”—passed in accordance with the legislative system of this state.

This legal problem is entirely different from the other question, dealt

with in the Charter and by the Prosecution, as to whether or not the

fact that an official order was given by a superior can serve as an

excuse. I might add here that I shall not discuss this legal question

because I shall leave it to the other members of the Defense. I shall

discuss only whether an official who puts into effect a law passed by

the internationally recognized government of his country thereby becomes

liable to punishment. That is an entirely different problem from the one

dealt with by the Charter.

Gentlemen, since this has not been dealt with before, I have to state

the following; I read at the bottom of Page 50: Our natural sense of

justice fully approves that a citizen, an official, or even a soldier,

cannot defend himself by reference to the official order given him by

his superior if this order obviously implies an illegal act, and

especially a crime; and if in the existing circumstances and in due

consideration of all the accompanying facts, the subordinate realizes,

or should realize, that the official order is contrary to the law.

If the latter condition exists, in other words, if the official order

obviously constitutes a breach of the law, it may in general be fully

approved that the subordinate is not accorded the right to refer to his

superior’s official order as an excuse and to maintain that he was only

carrying out that order. In that respect this stipulation of the Charter

contains nothing essentially new, but only the confirmation and further

development of legal principles which are recognized to a varying extent

in the penal codes of most civilized nations today. A certain amount of

precaution, however, seems to be indicated in this matter, for it should

not be forgotten, on the other hand, that obedience to the orders of a

superior—not obedience to the law, but to a superior—is, and must in

future remain the foundation of every government in all nations if the

orderly functioning of the state administrative apparatus is to be

secured; and that it would be dangerous for the civil servant to decide

for himself whether to keep his oath of allegiance.

But, Gentlemen, in our case something different is involved: We are

dealing here with the obedience of the citizen and especially of the

civil servant, such as Funk was at that time, to a national law, which

was legally promulgated in accordance with the constitutional rules of

this State. If we wish to find a just and correct answer to this

complicated juridical question, which so far has not been treated in

literature, it will be pertinent to disregard entirely conditions in

Germany and the present Trial, and to ask ourselves what decision would

be given in a case where a civil servant of a different country—not

Germany—carried out a law. Let us assume for instance, that some

foreign country embracing a minority promulgated, in accordance with its

constitution, a law exiling from its territory all members of this

minority, or confiscating for the benefit of the state the property of

such inhabitants, or turning over to the state or partitioning among

other citizens the large agricultural estates of such inhabitants. Let

us assume that such a case exists and let us ask ourselves: Does the

civil servant in this nation really commit a crime if he carries out

this lawful order? Is it really the duty of the official charged with

the execution of this law to refuse to obey the law and to declare that

in his personal opinion the law concerned is a crime against humanity,

or has he even the right to do so? In such a case, Gentlemen, would any

state today grant its civil servants permission to examine whether the

law proclaimed is contrary to the principles of humanity or to the

fluctuating norms of international law? What state would tolerate the

refusal of its civil servants for such a reason to execute a law already

proclaimed?

[sm type begins]Or another example: Let us assume that the laws of a

nation decree that certain new weapons are to be introduced into the

armed forces, or that more warships are to be built, or that some

preparations have to be made for war. Should an individual civil servant

really have the right to refuse the execution of the law, even perhaps

to sabotage its execution, and then to say, by way of explanation, that

in his personal opinion concerning international law it involved the

preparation of an aggressive war, consequently an international

crime?[sm type ends]

The Tribunal will have to decide these legal problems. But Funk may

point out in his own defense the fact that by reason of his entire

ideology and background it was especially painful to him to issue these

executive instructions, although he believed he was only doing his duty

as a civil servant.

In this connection I wish to remind you of Funk’s circular of 6 February

1939 (Document 3498-PS, Trial Brief Funk, Page, 19), where he emphasizes

to his officials that it was their duty to “insure that it was carried

out in a correct manner in every respect” and where he already feels

impelled to disclaim personal responsibility for these measures by

expressly emphasizing: “How far and how rapidly the powers conferred by

the Four Year Plan are to be exercised will depend on the instructions

to be given by me in accordance with the directives of the Delegate for

the Four Year Plan.” This special reference made by the Defendant Funk

to the legal decrees of the Four Year Plan, which was authorized to

promulgate laws, originated in the defendant’s desire to express

formally and solemnly, and to establish for the future, the fact that in

issuing the executive instructions in 1938 he was a victim of his

obedience to the State, a victim of his loyalty to the laws of the State

to which he had sworn allegiance.

Funk’s circular of 6 February 1939, already mentioned on Page 19 of the

trial brief, clearly expresses the qualms of conscience which had

gripped Funk in those days, although he had not incriminated

himself—qualms which, during his interrogation by an American officer

on 22 October 1945, led to his complete nervous collapse, so that Funk

was unable to restrain his tears and told the interrogating officer:

“Yes, I am guilty; I should have resigned at that time.”

These same qualms of conscience gripped the defendant throughout the

entire Trial and are still haunting him; and we remember that in the

session of 6 May 1946, when this point was discussed, Funk was so deeply

shaken that he could hardly continue talking and finally declared here

before you, Gentlemen, that at that moment he fully realized that this,

meaning the atrocities of November 1938, was the starting point of the

chain of events leading to those horrible and frightful things of which

we have learned here, some of which he too had already heard of during

his imprisonment, and which culminated in Auschwitz. He felt, as he said

during his interrogation on 22 October 1945, “deep shame and heavy

guilt,” and he still feels it today; but he had put the will of the

State and the laws of the State above his own feelings and above the

voice of conscience since he, as a civil servant, was tied by duty to

the State. He felt these ties all the more strongly as these legal

measures were particularly necessary for the protection of the Jews in

order to save them from losing their rights completely, and from

suffering further despotism and violence. These are the very words of

the Defendant Funk; and they represent his actual feelings. Today Funk

still feels that it was a terrible tragedy that he of all people was

charged with these things—he who never during his entire life said a

spiteful word against a Jew, but had wherever he could always worked for

tolerance and equality for the Jews.

If during his interrogation on 22 October 1945 Funk said: “I am guilty,”

it need not be investigated here whether the defendant intended these

words to apply to his criminal guilt, or only to a moral guilt which he

saw in the fact that he had remained in an office which compelled him to

carry out laws incompatible with his own philosophy of life. Funk was

not in a position to decide for himself the complicated legal question

of whether an official of an internationally acknowledged state can be

punished at all if he only carries out laws passed in accordance with

the legal constitution of this state. For the Defendant Funk his “guilt”

did not lie in the fact that he had signed the executive instructions in

November 1938, since this had been his duty as an official, rather did

he consider himself guilty because he had remained a member of the

Government although he found the acts of terror which had occurred

intolerable, and abhorred them; he was not involved in the “conflict of

conscience,” of which he spoke when he was interrogated, because he

acted according to the laws which he considered necessary under the

conditions prevailing at the time. This conflict was a result of the

fact that he had not, in this difficult situation, listened to the voice

of his conscience and had not resigned his ministerial office. But the

decisive reasons for his attitude and his final decision to remain in

office in spite of his feelings about the matter were certainly not

material considerations. His reputation as a journalist and his

abilities as such would easily have enabled him to find another suitable

position. Much is to be said for the opinion that the Defendant was held

in office above all by the thought that his resignation would in no way

improve matters, but that on the contrary the administration would

become still more radical under an unsuitable and fanatical successor,

while by staying in office he might hope to alleviate much distress.

These considerations, which may have guided the Defendant Funk in the

first place, were certainly correct up to a point. His State Secretary,

Dr. Landfried, at least has testified that later on too Funk often

expressed serious misgivings concerning the action taken against the

Jews in November 1938 and showed very strong disapproval of all excesses

and infringements of the law committed by various Government agencies in

carrying out the action. Funk could talk openly to his confidant

Landfried, and he often complained to him that he had no power to

prevent such excesses. But, as he said to Landfried: “We of the Ministry

of Economics should take particular care to see that no one makes

illicit profits out of the Aryanization—that is, the transfer to

non-Jewish ownership—of business firms.” And Ministerialrat Kallus

described in his deposition of 19 April 1946 the various measures taken

at that time by Funk to protect the interests of Jewish owners. Kallus

also told us that Funk even made personal efforts to insure that his

orders were carried out by his subordinates in a proper manner.

Gentlemen, thus a sense of duty on the one hand, and humane feeling on

the other, were the motives which kept the defendant in office and thus

brought him into a situation where he is today charged with criminal

action.

Mr. President, I am now coming to a new subject and I have altogether

about 15 more pages. Does the Court wish to adjourn now? It is 6 minutes

to 4.

THE PRESIDENT: Can you finish it by that time, Dr. Sauter?

DR. SAUTER: There are 15 more pages; I should say about 8 or 9 minutes.

On further thought, Mr. President, it will take about half an hour.

THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn at this time.

[_The Tribunal adjourned until 15 July 1946 at 1000 hours._]

ONE HUNDRED

AND SEVENTY-EIGHTH DAY

Monday, 15 July 1946

_Morning Session_

MARSHAL: May it please the Tribunal, the Defendant Ribbentrop is absent

today.

THE PRESIDENT: Would it be convenient to Counsel for the Prosecution and

the Defense if at 2 o’clock today we were to deal with those

interrogatories and affidavits which have come in since the last

applications were made?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE (Deputy Chief Prosecutor for the United Kingdom):

My Lord, it would be perfectly convenient for the Prosecution.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, do you think it would be convenient for the

Defense Counsel to deal with those matters at 2 o’clock?

DR. SAUTER: Certainly, Mr. President; I will inform the other defense

counsel that these applications will be discussed at 2 o’clock.

DR. RUDOLF DIX (Counsel for Defendant Schacht): I agree with my

colleague, Dr. Sauter, that this should be done. But if this is done at

2 o’clock it will interrupt my final speech. I should be very grateful

if it could be done immediately after Dr. Sauter finishes his speech, so

that I could present my plea coherently. It would be very awkward if I

were interrupted.

THE PRESIDENT: Certainly, Dr. Dix. Very well; we will do it immediately

after Dr. Sauter’s plea.

DR. SAUTER: May I speak now, Mr. President?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Sauter.

DR. SAUTER: May it please the Tribunal; before the adjournment on

Friday, I explained in conclusion the position and the attitude of the

Defendant Funk with respect to the Jewish question. On this occasion I

pointed out that in connection with the executive instructions issued

late in 1938 on the legal exclusion of the Jews from economic life, the

Defendant Funk acted only in his capacity as a Reich official and in the

performance of the duties of that office.

On Friday, I finished my statements in that respect with the words:

It was a sense of duty on the one hand, and humane feeling on the other,

which kept the Defendant Funk in office and thus brought him into a

situation where he is today charged with criminal action.

Now, Gentlemen of the Tribunal, I turn to the last chapter of my

appraisal of the Defendant Funk, of his motives and actions, and will

now deal with the gold deliveries by the SS to the Reichsbank, and with

the relation of the Defendant Funk to the concentration camp question.

That is to say, I am going to refer to Page 58 of the written speech

which has been submitted to you.

It is a peculiar tragedy in the life of the Defendant Funk that he was

not only forced by fate in the year 1938 to issue executive instructions

for laws which he always inwardly condemned and repudiated more than

anybody else, but that once again, in the year 1942, he became involved

in a particularly horrible manner with Jewish persecutions. I am

thinking now of the deposits made by the SS in the Reichsbank, that is

to say, the matter on which a film was shown here of the steel vault of

the Frankfurt Branch of the Reichsbank and about which two witnesses

have testified, namely, Vice President Emil Puhl and Reichsbank

Councillor Albert Thoms.

The Defendant Funk was already examined about this matter of the gold

deposits at the preliminary proceedings on 4 June 1945, (see 2828-PS);

at that time, however, no details were disclosed to him, and Funk made

the same statement then as he did before this Tribunal, namely, that he

was only briefly told about the matter in question on a few occasions,

and that he had not attached any importance to it at all. That is also

the reason why the Defendant Funk could not at first recall those

happenings very well during the proceedings here. He did not know

anything more about them than he had already said.

Nevertheless, Gentlemen of the Tribunal, Funk had to expect that this

matter would be brought up in the Trial, at any rate in the

cross-examination. And this was actually done by the American

Prosecution on 7 May 1946, who submitted an affidavit by the witness

Emil Puhl, Vice President of the Reichsbank, in which at first sight

Puhl appeared to make serious accusations against the Defendant Funk.

Now it is remarkable that since the beginning of this Trial the

Defendant Funk has repeatedly referred to this very witness Puhl for

various points, and that since December 1945 he has repeatedly requested

that the latter be interrogated. Measured by ordinary human standards,

Funk would certainly not have done this if he had had a bad conscience

and had reason to expect to be compromised in the most damaging way by

his own witness regarding the concentration camp matter. But the oral

examination of the witness Emil Puhl here before this Tribunal showed

beyond a doubt that Puhl could no longer in any way maintain the

incriminating statements in his affidavit, as far as the character of

the Defendant Funk and his knowledge of the particulars of the SS

deposits were concerned.

It is true that Funk, as he recalled after Puhl’s testimony (and

concerning this I submitted on 17 June 1946 a corrected copy of his

sworn testimony), was once asked by Reichsführer SS Himmler whether

articles of value which had been seized by the SS in the Eastern

Territories could be deposited in the vaults of the Reichsbank. Funk

answered this question in the affirmative and told Himmler that he

should delegate somebody to discuss the matter with Vice President Puhl,

and settle the details. Himmler at that time told Funk that his

Gruppenführer Pohl could do this and that the latter would get in touch

with Vice President Puhl. That was all that Funk at that time, I believe

in 1942, had discussed with Reichsführer SS Himmler and which he on that

occasion also repeated to his Vice President Puhl who was actually

directing the business of the Reichsbank and therefore responsible for

this affair.

There was nothing extraordinary in this question of Reichsführer SS

Himmler, at least nothing which Funk could recognize. For, as far as

Funk knew, the SS was at that time in charge of the entire police

service in the Occupied Eastern Territories. For that reason it often

had to confiscate valuables just as the ordinary police did in the

interior, that is, within Germany. Moreover, all gold coins, foreign

currency, _et cetera_, in the Occupied Eastern Territories had to be

turned in according to law, and these deliveries in the Eastern

Territories were naturally made to the SS, because there were no other

state offices equipped for that purpose. Funk also knew that the

concentration camps were under the direction of the SS and thought that

the valuables which were to be given to the Reichsbank by the SS for

safekeeping belonged very probably to that category of valuables which

the entire population was obliged to deliver.

Finally, as has been ascertained in the course of this Trial, the SS was

constantly just as much engaged in the fighting in the East as the Armed

Forces, and like the latter the SS had also collected so-called booty in

the abandoned and destroyed towns of the East and delivered it to the

Reich. Therefore, there was nothing at all extraordinary for Funk in the

fact that the SS possessed gold and foreign currency and brought it in

for delivery in the regular way.

Now, the essential point in this whole business is the question whether

the Defendant Funk knew or saw that among the objects delivered by the

SS there were unusual quantities of gold spectacle frames, gold teeth,

and similar objects which had come into the hands of the SS not through

legal but criminal confiscations. If—and I emphasize, Gentlemen, if—it

could be proven that the Defendant Funk had seen such objects in the

deposits of the SS, this would naturally have caused him some surprise.

But we heard the witness Puhl say in the most positive way that the

Defendant Funk had no knowledge of this and, indeed, that Vice President

Puhl himself knew no further details about it. In any case Funk never

saw what particular gold objects and what quantities the SS delivered.