The defendant describes himself as a fanatic and seeker of truth.
He professes to have written nothing and to have expressed nothing in his pseeches which he had not taken from some authentic source and corroborated accordingly.
There is no doubt that he was a fanatic. The fanatic, however, is a man who is so possesed or convinced of an idea or an illustion, that he will not be open to any other consideration, and it convinced of the correctness of his idea and nothing else. For the psychiatrist it is a sort of mental cramp. maniac. Together with it htere is to be found, as a rule, a remarkable overestimation and overevluation of ones own personality, and its influence on the world around it. Not one of the defendants, here in trial, shows such a discrepancy between fact and fancy as does the defendant Streicher. outside world. What he actually was and is, has been shown by the trial. ment. Consider in your judgement also, that the defendant in his position as Gau-leader of Franconia, showed also many human features, that he had a great number of political prisoners released from concentration camps, which even resulted in criminal proceedings against him. It should also be mentioned that he treated, the prisoners of war, and foreign workers working on his estate, very well in very respect. be, it only will be concerned with the fate of one individual. and this defendant were never in agreement on this important question. The German people always disapproved the aims of this defendant as he expressed them in his publications and retained its own opinion of, and attitude towards, the Jews.
The assumption of the prosecution that the biased articles in the "Stuermer" had found any echo or ready acceptance among the German population, or even an attitude ready to accept criminal measures, is herewith fully refuted.
their sound sense and slowed themselves disinclined toward all acts of violence. all moral complicity and co-responsibility of those crimes before the public tribunal of the world, and will again take its place in the ranks of the nations. shall, however, place in the hands of the High Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: I call on Dr. Sauter for the Defendant Funk.
DR. SAUTER: For the defendant, Dr.Walther Funk. Gentlemen of the Tribunal, I have the task to examine the case of the defendant Dr. Walther Funk. That is to say, I am to deal with a topic which unfortunately is especially dry and prosaic. May I first make a short statement. either illegal, political, historical, of psychological matters, although such general statements, particularly within the framework of this proceedings, may appear. Such general statements have already been made by other defense counsel to a larger extent, and probably some more of them will still supplement then. Therefore, I shall limit myself to the point of view of the defense, to examine and to present to you the picture which the evidence in this trial shows, as given to the personality of the defendant Funk, of which I consider his motives the motives which may have led him. ease have proven that the defendant Funk, at no time of the National Socialist regime and in none of the eases indicted here, played a decisive role.
Funk's authority of decision was always limited by superior power of authority. The remarks made by the defendant during his personal examination, that he was allowed to proceed as for as to the door, but was never permitted to enter, has been proven by the evidence to be quite correct. last year prior to the seizure of power, that is in 1932. These, however, were of no practical significance, as they were of very short duration. From the seizure of power on Funk was never appointed to an office in the party. He was never a member of any party organization, neither of the SS nor the SA, nor of the corps of political leaders. Funk held a Reichstag-Mandate only for the brief space of slightly mere than six months prior to the seizure of power. Consequently he was not a member of the Reichstag at the time when the fundamental laws for the consolidation of National Socialist power were passed. bility for which Funk is also charged, were accepted by the Reichs-Cabinet at a time, when Funk was not yet a member of the Cabinet. He became a member, as is known, only at the close of 1937, by virtue of his appointment as Minister of Economy (Reichswirtschaftsminister) that is at a tine when Cabinet sessions no longer took place.
Funk, as press chief of the Reich-Cabinet, had neither a seat nor a vote in the cabinet and could not exert any influence whatsoever upon the contents of the bills. (I refer to the statement of Lammers). The same applies to racial laws, the so-called Nuernberg laws.
Funk had closer relations to the Fuehrer only during the period of 11/2 years, in which he held regular press conferences at Hitler's in his capacity as Press chief of the Reich-Cabinet. That is from February 1933 through August 1934, up to the death of Reich President von Hindenburg. Later, Funk met Hitler only very rarely. The witness Dr. Lammers in this respect states the following: "Later he (Funk) in his capacity as Reich Minister of Economy came to see Hitler only extremely rarely. He was not consulted in many conferences, conferences at which he should have been consulted. He complained to me about this frequently. The Fuehrer often raised objections. There were various reasons against Funk. He viewed Funk sceptically and did not want him." (That is the testimony given by Dr. Lammers on 8 April 1946). Upon the question to the witness Dr. Lammers whether Funk had often expressed to him his grief about his unsatisfactory position as a Reich Minister for Economy and about his anxiety weighing heavily upon him due to the general conditions, Dr. Lammers replied: "I know that Funk had great worries and he was looking for an opportunity to discuss these with the Fuehrer. He had the fervent desire to be able to report to the Fuehrer in order to be at least partially informed about the war situation." That was in 1943 and 1944. And Lammers continues: "With the best will, it was not possible for Funk to be received by the Fuehrer and it was not possible for me to got him to the Fuehrer" was called to the Fuehrer conferences but four or five times, gives the explanation that Hitler did not need him. Hitler, up to 1942, issued his instructions in economic affairs to Goering, who, in his capacity as plenipotentiary for the Four-Year Flan, was responsible for the entire economy and, from the beginning of 1942, to Speer, who as Armament Minister, upon the grant of special authority could issue directives to all branches of production and who as of 1943 personally directed the entire production.
Therefore, Funk never played the main part but rather a subaltern role in the economy of the National Socialist Reich.
The co-defendant Goering specifically said of Funk, "Of course, according to the special authority that he was given he had to follow my directives in the field of economy and the Reichsbank. The responsibility for the directives and policy is entirely mine." that in his capacity as Armament Minister he claimed for himself from the very beginning any authority of decision in the most important economical spheres, such as coal, iron and steel, metal, aluminum, and production of machinery. The entire management of energy and the total building program prior to Speer's commission at the beginning of 1942, was under the jurisdiction of Armament Minister Todt. Funk, does not for the greater part bear on personal acts of Funk or instructions issued by him, but it bears rather on the various and manifold positions he occupied. On page 29 of the trial brief the prosecutor himself declares that the argument offered against Funk may be said to be inferential. The prosecution starts from the assumption that Funk, upon the basis of the many positions hold by him, must have had knowledge of the various happenings, which are the subject of the accusation. The indictment refers, broadly spoken, to instructions and directives, issued by Funk personally only where the decrees of execution, issued by Funk for the carrying out of the Four Year Plan for the elimination of Jews from the economic life in November 1938, were concerned. This chapter will have to bd dealt with separately.
At political and military conferences, Funk was not consulted. His position was one of a ministerial expert with very narrow limitations on authority of decisions.
As Reich Minister for Economy Punk was subordinated to the Four Year Plan; that is, Goering, later the Armament Minister, had superior authorities And finally, as was proven by the testimony of witnesses Goering, Lammers and Hayler, the Ministry for Economy assumed the status of a regular Trade-Ministry, which dealt essentially with the distribution of the consumer goods production and with technical problems in carrying out Foreign trade.
in the Reichsbank. The decision about the amount of credits to be granted to the Reich with respect to the internal financing of the war was taken away from the Reichsbank at the time of Funk assuming office as Reichsbank president. Thereby Funk is exonerated of any responsibility in the financing of the war. The responsible agency herefore was always the Reich-Finance-Minister. That is, not Funk. Finally, as General Plenipotentiary for Economy Funk's task in August 1939 solely existed in co-ordinating civil agencies of economy for such measures as would guarantee a smooth reconversion from peace to wartime economy. The result of these consultations were the proposals which Funk presented toHitler on 25 August 1939 in the letter which has been quoted several times under 699 PS. At his examination Funk stated that this letter did not portray matters correctly, since it was a purely private letter, a letter of appreciation for Hitler's birthday congratulations which he had received. This point will have to be taken up again later, since the prosecution especially emphasized the position of Funk as General Plenipotentiary for Economy. position ofFunk. With regard to the occupied territories Funk had no decisive authority whatsoever. This was demonstrated by all witnesses interrogated regarding this question. But all witnesses equally confirmed that Funk always turned against the pillage of the occupied territories. He fought against the purchases in the black markets, he was against abolishing the foreign exchange regulations in connection with Holland by which measure the German purchases in Holland were to be facilitated, he organized, as we have heard by the witness Noubacher, exports to Greece from Germany and from the Eastern European states and even sent gold there.
He repeatedly rose against overburdening the occupied territories financially, especially in 1942 and 1944 against raising the occupation costs in France.
He defended the currency of the occupied countries against repeating attempts of devaluation. In the case of Denmark he achieved, even in spite of all opposition, a revalorization of the currency. Furthermore Funk fought an arbitrary stabilization of exchange on the occasion of currency regulations in occupied countries. Germany's clearing debt was always recognized by Funk as a true commercial debt also with regard to the occupied countries. This is shown especially by his proposal mentioned here to commercialize this clearing debt by a loan by Germany issued for subscription in all European countries. Funk was opposed to too strong and compulsory measures an employment of foreign labor in Germany. here. All these facts, favourably affecting the occupied countries word confirmed by the witnesses Hayler, Landfried, Puhl, Neubacher, and co-defendant Seyss-Inquart. economic and social life of the occupied territories and protect them from shocks and disturbances. He always was opposed and disinclined to radical and arbitrary measures. He rather was in favour of agreements and compromises. Even during the war Funk always thought of peace. This was stated by the witnesses Landfried and Hayler and they added that Funk was repeatedly reproached for his attitude by the leading states and party offices. Also the defendant Speer testified at his interrogation that Funk, during the war, had occupied too many workers in the consumer goods economy and that this was a reason that Funk had to give up the management of the consumer goods production in 1943. "scorched earth" policy has been proved to the Court by Speer himself, also by the witness Hayler on 7 May 1946. This witness declared that he never saw Funk so upset as in that moment when he was informed of this order for destruction. Funk gave directions, as Hayler had testified, as Reichswirtschaftsminister (ministerfor Reich economy) as Well as Reichsbankpresident (President of the Reichs bank), to protect the warehouses from the ordered destruction and toassure the supply of commodities necessary for the life of the population, also the currency transactions in the territories which were abandoned.
Funk's economic political goal, one may, indeed, say, the contents of his lifework was a European economic community on the basis of just and natural balance of interests of the soveriegn countries.
Relentlessly even during the war, he strove to reach this goal, although the elementary war necessities and the developments brought on by the war naturally hindered these efforts everywhere. The economic Europe, as Funk saw and endeavoured to see it, was impressively represented by him in some major economicpolitical speeches. Extracts from same of these speeches, often also recognized in neuter* and enemy countries, are contained in Document Book Funk No.9, 10 and 11. sonality naturally plays a role if the motives from which this defendant acted are to be ascertained. The German people looked upon Funk, that is as far as lie was known, never as a Party man win would be capable of participating in brutal outrages, violence and terror, or to amass fortunes at the cost of others. He rather shared his preference for art and literature with his friend Baldur von Schirach. Originally, as we have been told, be wanted to become a musician and in later times he much rather saw in his house poets and artists , than the men from the Party and the State. In professional circles he was known and considered as an economist, as a man with an extensive theoretical and historical knowledge who rose from journalism and was a brilliant stylist. He had an economically secure position as chief editor with the distinguished Berliner Boerson Zeitung so that he deprived himself financially when he accepted the office of press chief in the Reich Cabinet at the beginning of 1933 after Hitler's assumption of power. Therefore the was not one of those desperados who was 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 to him, and therefore it seems entirely credible that he did this out of patriotism, out of a sense of duty toward his people, to pit himself at the service of the country during hard times of distress.
To judge the personality and character of defendant Funk, it is further of some importance that he never held or trove toward any rank in the party.
Other people who took over high state offices in the Third Reich, for example, bestowed with the title of a SS-Gruppenfuehrer, or given the rank of a SA-Obergruppenfuehrer. Funk, on the contrary, from 1931 until the end of the Third Reich, was only a plain party member; although he took pains for a scrupulous management of hi* his state offices, he endeavoured to obtain no honors in the Party whoseever. The only thing the defendant Funk was reproached for in this connection was the fact that he accepted an endowment in 1940 on his 50th birthday. That in itself of course, was no punishable act, but was eveidently valued by *he the Tribunal as a moral charge against the defendant. Therefore, we shall define out position with regard to this briefly. We remember how this endowment came about: The president add board of the Reich Chamber of Economy (Rechswirtschaftkammer), that is the highest representatives of German economic life, presented him on his 50th birthday with a farm, of 55 hectars in Upper Bavaria. This estate, of course, existed for the time being only on the paper of the presentation document and had to be erected first. This presentation was expressively approved by the head of state, Adolf Hitler, therefore was not made secretely to the Reich Minister of Economy but in all official form without anything being suppressed or concealed. The gift consequently, turned out to be, for Funk, a fatal one, becaise the construction of the building was much more expensive than was expected, and because Funk had to pay a very high gift tax. Funk, who, until then, never had any debts and always lived in regulated conditions, came now, because of this "donation" of an estate, into debt. Goering, who heard about the, helped Funk out with a generous sum. When Hitler heard, through minister Hammers, of Funk's financial difficulties, he had transferred to him, as endowment, the cash necessary for the arrangement of his economic affairs. With AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1410 hours, 12 July 1946.)
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal proposes to go until 4:00 o'clock without a break, if that is convenient.
DR. SAUTER: Gentlemen of the Tribunal, until now, in general statements, I have defined the position of defendant Funk and I shall now come to the criminal responsibility of the defendant Funk on the individual points of accusation. of power by the Party, that is, the party activity of defendant Funk during the years of 1931 and until the end of 1932. by the conspirators. This point of the indictment deals with the activity of the defendant Funk from the time when he joined the party in June 1931 until the seizure of power on 30 January 1933. The indictment maintains that Funk, through interceding for the Party during that time, had expedited the seizure of power by the National Socialists. This is correct. The defendant Funk himself during his interrogation on 4 May, declared and explained in detail that he considered the seizure of the ruling power by the National Socialists the only possibility for the deliverance of the German people from the grave, intellectual, economical, and social distress of that time. The economic program of the Party was, in his opinion, vague and mainly designated for propaganda. He himself wanted to bring to bear his own economic principles in order to work through the Party for the benefit of the German people. Funk described this view point to the court in detail during his examination It is based on the idea of private property which is inseparable from the perception of the differentiation of human efficiency. Funk demanded the acknowledgment of private initiative end of the responsibility of the creative entrepreneur, free competition and a balancing of social contrasts. He aimed at the elimination of party and class warfare at astrong government with full authority and responsibility and at a uniform political will of the people. Through his conversations with Adolf Hitler and with other party leaders he became convinced that the party positively recognized these principles and ideas of his.
In Funk's opinion he cannot be blamed for his support of the Party in its struggle for power. Funk believes that, especially the discussions in this trial furnished absolute proof that the Party came to power absolutely legally. But even the ways and means by which Funk assisted the Party, can not, in his conviction, be condemned. The role thereby, however, which the prosecution attributes to him does not correspond with the facts. Funk's activity is in part, considerably overestimated in its importance, partly also is there an incorrect opinion about it. of reference books and especially of a book by Dr. Paul Oestreich: "Walter Funk, a life dedicated to economics" which was presented in evidence to the Tribunal. The care of this evidence is an "Economic Reconstruction Program" of the defendant Funk, printed on page 81 of this book which the prosecution calls,and I quote: "the official party declaration concerning the economic field" and "the economic bible for the party organization". This so-called "Economic Reconstruction Program" forms the basis for the wrong accusation of Funk, on page 3 of the trial brief, that the defendant Funk assisted "in the formulating of the program which was publicly proclaimed by the Nazi Party and by Hitler". This "Economic Reconstruction Program" which during the testimony of the defendant Funk was read word for word did, indeed contain nothing extraordinary or even revolutionary nor really logy.
The program points to the necessity of providing work, of creating pro the economic relations with foreign countries.
It is a program of which Funk government could advocate.
The defendant Funk only regrets that the party di not fully subscribe to these principles.
Due to his economic view point Funk This was also confirmed by the witness Dr. Landfried who in his interro gatory submitted as Funk Exhibit No. 16, described those differences of Funk with the Party in detail.
Funk had a reputation in the Party predominantly as a liberal and as an outsider.
During that time, that is essentially in of the German economy.
He also worked for an understanding of the national socialist ideas and for the support of the Party by the economy.
By virtue of this activity he was described as Hitler's economic adviser.
But this the designation "Economic adviser of the Fuehrer" was given by the public to Party tasks during that time.
This activity never gained any considerable impor activity of Funk ceased completely.
In the ether sectors, such as Food and as a Minister, Under Secretary, etc.
retained their party offices which generally even gained in importance.
The elimination of the defendant Funk from every party office at the moment of the assumption of power shows clearly that the Party leaders did not especially care for the party activity of Funk.
secution showed him an article which had appeared in the magazine "Das Reich' on k8 August 1940, on the occasion of Funk's 50th birthday. In this birthda article the author, an economist by the name of Dr. Herle, emphasizes that Funk "as intermediary between Party and Economy had become a peace maker for a new spiritual attitude of the German entrepreneur".
In this respect it can be said : Funk never denied that he regarded it his task to find a synthesis for an economy which on the one hand has an obligation toward state and community, but on the other hand is based on private ownership and private initiative and responsibility. Funk always recognized the political aims and ideals of national socialism. gies as was proven by several plebiscites. And Funk could not suspect that all these good intentions and ideal aims so often emphasized, by Hitler, with which National Socialism began its reign, would later sink in the blood and smoke of war and in an inconceivable inadequacy and inhumanity. Funk testified on the stand expressly that he considered the authoritative form of government, the strong state, a responsible cabinet, the social community and a socially minded economy a prerequisite for a removal of the then grave intellectual and economic crisis of the German people. He always clearly emphasized the primacy of politics before the primacy of the economy. up the state office of a Ministerialdirector in the Reich Chancery. The direction of the press policies however, passed after one and a half month into the hands of Dr. Goebbels when the latter became Reichsminiter for Public Enlightment and Propaganda, and the press department of the Reich Government, which Funk should have had directed up to then was merged into the newly established Ministry for Propaganda. Only for the time being he retained the personal news report to the Reich President v. Hindenburg and to the Reich Chancellor Adolf Hitler until the death of Hindenbur.
Then this activity stopped altogether also. The office of the Press Chief of the Reich Government existed practically only on paper.
This was expressly confirmed also by the defendant Fritzsche upon his examination as a witness, on 28 June. solidation of control of government and party, and, connected therewith, pers cution of the Jews of liberal professions, Reich Ministry of Propaganda. The statements referring to this point are contained in the brief which is before you, on pages 17 to 24. to this particular point, and I beg you to take judicial notice of them. I sh merely quote a few sentences in extract in this connection. as a Secretary of State in the Ministry of Propaganda. The hearing of evidence has shown, however, that in this post as Secretary of State Funk had nothing whatsoever to do with the actual propaganda activities. He didn't make any radio speeches or speeches in public meetings. Press policy, on the other ha even during that period was exclusively decided by Dr. Goebbels personally. and complaints of the journalists. He protected the press against misuse by official departments, and he made every effort to secure for the press an individual look and to enable them to work in a responsible manner. in the pages I have mentioned, pages 17 to 24, in particular, however, by the witnesses Amann, Kallus, Fritsche, Oeser, and Roosen. The two latter witness have particularly confirmed that Funk as State Secretary in the Ministry of Propaganda energetically took care of Jews and such persons who had been affected by National Socialist legislation and cultural policy in their creative efforts. Funk so interested himself with such people that he actually jeopar dized his own official position and endangered his position to such an extent that eventually he became a suspect. accusation which appears under Roman numeral IV of my brief, on page 24, name that he had partaken in the preparation of wars of aggression, a point which contained under Figure 4 of the Indictment.
The accusation against the defendant Funk is -- and I quote -- "that he with full knowledge of the aggressive plans of the conspirators participated daily in the plans and preparations for such wars."
Goering's Ministry of Economy was -- and I quote -- "made the high command of the German war economy and it became part of the Four Year Plan and then was put under Funk's command." of the Reich of 4 September 1938 Funk in his capacity as High Commissioner of Economy was explicitly entrusted with the mobilization of the German economy in time of war. was made a part of the Four Year Plan before its transfer by Goering to Funk is quite correct, but the so-called high command of the German economy was net exercised by the Reich Minister of Economy Funk but by the Commissioner for the Four Year Plan exclusively; that is to say, by the co-defendant Goering, whose instructions Funk had to follow. by special general commissioners of the Four Year Plan, who were controlled directly by Goering and received their instructions from Goering -- not from Funk. The Reich Ministry of Economy was merely the office which executed the directives of the Four Year Plan. such as the Reich Office for Economic Development and the Reich Office for Soil Investigation were formally under the supervision of the Reich minister of Economy, but didi, in fact, function as autonomous institutions of the Four Year Plan.
Funk's position as Plenipotentiary for Economy was vigorously attacked from the beginning. During the cross-examination of the defendant Funk by the American Prosecution a document -- EC 255 -- was submitted. This is a letter of the Reich Mar Minister von Blomberg to the Commissioner for the Four Year Plan, Goering, dated 29 November 1937, wherein Blomberg proposes that the defendant Funk, who had just -- on November 27 1937 -seen appointed Reich minister of Economy, should also be appointed General Commissioner for War Economy.
However, this was not done.
and handed it over only in February 1938, after three months, to the defendant Funk. Then the High command of the Armed Forces -- more especially the Army Economic Staff under General Thomass -- requested that the Plenipotentiary for War Economy should be bound for the future to follow the directives of the High Command for all questions connected with the supplying of the armed forces. In this document, which is EC 270, USA Exhibit 840, the High Command of the Armed Forces, the Economic Staff, claims a right to direct the General Commissioner for War Economy on nearly everyone of his fields of activity. and a letter to Reich Minister Dr. Lammers to clarify his position as General Commissioner for War Economy and asked to be placed, as Plenipotentiary for War Economy, under direct command of Hitler and not to be compelled to obey the directives of the command of the armed forces. Goering and Lammers agreed with Funk's opinion, but this has nothing to do -and this must be emphasized most strongly -- with Funk's being put under command of Goering, as all other supreme Reich offices and ministers which were put under Hitler's direct command were required to follow the directives of the Commissioner for the Four Year Plan; that is to say, Goering. defense of September 4, 1938, the defendant Funk -- this is the Second Reich Defense Law -- did not become Plenipotentiary General for War Economy but Plenipotentiary for Economy, without the word "war", and that this act explicitly stated that Funk had to obey the requests of the OKW. Accordingly, the OKW had at last carried through its wish. Reich Defense Law were under the direction of the Plenipotentiary General for the Economy for his special tasks were not willing to recognize him. During the cross-examination of the defendant Funk an interrogation of the former Under Secretary Dr. Hans Posse, Funk's deputy as Plenipotentiary General for Economics, was produced. In it the latter declared that the Plenipotentiary General for the Economy "in reality never entered into function". The ministers and Under Secretaries of the individual economic departments did not, according to the statement of Posse, wish to be placed under Funk's control and, in fact, protested against it.
He calls these conflicts "the struggle for power". In this respect nothing else is meant but the authority to make decisions with regard to the other economic departments. This was not a difference between Goering and Funk; that is wrong because it was absolutely evident that Funk even as a Plenipotentiary General for the Economy was subordinate to Goering. Actually, this was a quarrel of the under secretaries. The individual economic departments dechred that they reported to the Plenipotentiary for the Four Year Plan and refused to recognize the right of the Plenipotentiary General for the Economy -- Funk -- to give them directives because Funk himself was under the direction of the Four Year Plan. The under secretaries of the Four Year Plan, supported the departments in this interpretation. why the authority to issue directives passed a few months after the outbreak of the war from the Plenipotentiary General for the Economy formally into the hands of the Plenipotentiary of the Four Year Plan. paragraph of page 29. a single indication for the fact that defendant Funk knew anything about conversations in which a planned war -- in particular, a war of aggression on the part of Germany was discussed. Funk was never invited to any conversations of this kind. He was, in particular, not present at them conversation with Goering on 14 October 1938 which was treated exhaustively by the Prosecution on Page 24 of the Trial Brief. an order of Hitler for an unusual increase in armaments. and especially weapons of attack. The Prosecutor declared during the session of 11 January 1946 that Goering at that meeting addressed words to Funk which, as was said, "were the words of a man already at war."
Funk and which have been submitted to the Tribunal, it is unequivocally proved that defendant Funk was not present at that meeting at all because at that time he was in Sofia in order to conduct economic negotiations with Bulgaria. This exhibit of the Prosecution, which clearly was meant to be a main exhibit, is thereby invalidated. mentioned this morning, the German and Polish armies were already facing one mother and were completely mobilized. Therefore, he was compelled to act in that particular manner, and he could at that moment no longer retract any preparations. Compare therewith the interrogatory from Kallus in Document Bock Funk Number 18, who confirms that absolutely. "It was naturally my duty as Plenipotentiary General for the Economy to do all I could to prevent shocks in the civilian sector of the economy in the event of war, and it was further my duty as President of the Reichsbank to reinforce as much as possible the supply of gold and foreign currency in the Reichsbank."
He goes on to say, "That was necessary on account of the general . political tension at the time, and it would also have been necessary if war had been avoided and only economic sanctions had been imposed, which in view of the political situation at the time had to be expected and could be expected. It was also my duty as Reich Minister of Economy to increase production." states in his answers to the interrogatory of 1 May, which is in thehands of the Tribunal, that the position of the Reichsbank in thelast seven months of Funk's presidency before the outbreak of the war had not been materially reinforced and that the exchange of foreign assets for gold since January 1939 had been carried out on only a vary modest scale. The gold and foreign currency policy of the Reichsbank, this witness said, corresponded to the customary banking practice of long standing.
These statements of Puhl are important for the correct appreciation of Funk's references to the conversion of foreign assets into gold, in his letter to Hitler of 25 August 1939 . The transactions, in any case, at the time when Funk was President of the Reichsbank, were hardly longer of any importance.
Funk's excessive way of expressing himself to Hitler makes the contents appear much more important than they actually were. letter was a private letter of thanks and that in those days every German was under the highest tension because of the political occurrences that were getting all of Europe very much excited, and that at this time of danger of war for his country, he -- Funk -- wanted to let his Chancellor know that he, too -- that is the defendant Funk -- had done his duty. Plenipotentiary for Economy became active and busy. defendant submitted only after the end of the hearing of evidence. It is document 3787 PS. That is the minutes of the second meeting of the Reich Defense Council on 23 June 1939.