operation and traffic existed between the offices in the occupied territories and the respective departments back home. and in person -- tried as hard as I could to save the occupied territories from exploitation. I fought a desperate fight indeed, a desperate struggle for the maintenance of a stable currency in these territories, because again and again it was suggested to me that I reduce the exchange rate in the occupied territories so that Germany could buy more easily and more cheaply in these countries, and I did everything that could be thought of to maintain economic order in these territories. succeeded in carrying through an increase of the exchange rate of the Danish krone, because the Danish National Bank and the Danish Government, for good reasons, asked for it. 1942 as in 1944. The memorandum of the Reichsbank for the stabilization of the cose of occupation, which I caused, was quoted here by the American Prosecutor. of Finance, the General Quartermaster, that is, the highest positions in the armed forces, and in the case of France and Denmark and other countries, also the Minister for Foreign Affairs.
territories in good order. I was successful finally in making the Reichsmarshal tissue a decree, which prohibited all German officers from buying on the back market; but that occurred after it had come to pass that in many territories many had sinned against that. of order in the occupied territories it was necessary that the social life should not be disturbed; and that, therefore, as a matter of principle I had always been against the forced deportation of foreign workers from the occupied territories to Germany. and my State Secretaries will be able to confirm that -- that it was clear to me that Sauckel was in a very difficult, indeed, desperate, situation. Again and again he demanded manpower for German; economy. But I, myself, and particularly after I had turned over the entire armament production to Speer and entered into the Central Planning, I had not only no more interest, officially speaking, that workers should be brought to Germany from abroad, but, on the contrary, I had a great interest to see that the workers remained in the occupied territories. into these territories, and particularly for that reason, as the Minister who was responsible for securing consumers foods for the population, I had a great interest to see that in the occupied territories orderly work should be done and no economic or social disturbances should occur. State Secretaries and the vice president of the Reichsbank should make their statements on this problem, because, with the carrying out of these principles and policies, they had more to do than I. plundered occupied territories and other countries, I can only say that the clearing arrangement was not introduced by us first in connection with the occupied territories or during the war, but that that was the normal way of trade between Germany and her business or trade partners, a system which had been forced upon us when -- and that has been pointed out by Schacht -- when other nations resorted to it, to use the results of German exports for payment of German debts.
real debts for merchandise, and that is important. I have said again and again that each clearing debt is a true debt of Germany and it will be repaid at the purchase value which was necessary at the time when these obligations were taken. That especially I had stated in my last speeches in Vienna in March of 1944, and in Koenigsberg in July 1944, in detail and as clearly as possible. the war that debt should be transformed into a European bond, a loan, so that it should not remain on the narrow platform of a bilateral arrangement but should be actually commercialized, from which it can be seen clearly that I considered that clearing indebtedness necessary as a true debt, such as arises from shipment of merchandise, so that the nations who had such demands on Germany could be satisfied after the war. care of at the same rates that existed at the time when that debt occurred. If, however, in peace treaties, countries would have had to pay reparations, if any such tiling would have come up, then these reparations of course could only have been paid in merchandise. Then, reasonably, it would have been necessary to establish a relation between the German debts and German demands. a true debt. That is why I have to reject the accusation that with the aid of the clearing I intended an exploitation of the occupied territories, and even stronger I have to reject the accusation that I was also responsible that the occupied territories suffered from tremendous expenses, such as the expenses for the occupation expense for the occupation troops.
I can prove that I have always objected against these charges against occupied territories, and the witnesses who will still testify can confirm this.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, the defendant has referred to two speeches before, which he held in Vienna and in Koenigsberg. These are two addresses which are concerned in part with the subject of the treatmebt of clearing debts, and deal also with the favorite subject of the defendant Dr. Funk, that is, a European economic community between Germany and her neighbor nations, that is to say, an economic community on the basis of full equality. notice of these speeches, the content of which we have mentioned, the defendant and I. That is, the speech at Vienna of the 10th of March 1944. It is Number 10 in my document book, and the speech held in Koenigsberg at the occasion of the 400th anniversary of the University in his home town, the 7th of July 1944. I repeat, 7th of July, 1944. In my document book it is Number 11, Funk Number 11.
MR. DODD: Mr. President, if this document number 11 is offered by the defendant for the purpose of showing what this defendant's policy was toward the occupied countries, I think it is proper for me to point out that the speech did not refer to the occupied countries but rather to the satellite states of Germany.
DR. SAUTER: Furthermore, I point to document 3819-PS, which has also been submitted by the Prosecution. That is the minutes which the defendant has mentioned before of the meeting with Minister Lammers on the 11th of July 1944. meeting and mention is made of him only in one sentence, and I quote, on page 8 on the bottom:
"Reichsminister Funk expects considerable difficulties of inconsiderate raids, difficulties of production in non-German territories."
understand, but if one considers the entire connection, one can see that the defendant Funk wanted to warn against violent action in the recruitment of foreign workers for German production and for German armament. He warned against any violent action, against raids, Razzien, as it is called in the protocol, because thereby, in his opinion, production in the occupied territories had been seriously disturbed.
Then, Mr. President, may I mention another document. That is Document 2149 - PS, and it contains the following:
"An expert statement by the Reichsbank of the 7th of December 1942 concerning the question as to whether the expenses for the French occupation troops should be increased or not." the suggestion made by the defendant Funk, but in spite of his protests, And that expert opinion to which the defendant Funk has referred before, and which I have just quoted, was written on the 11th of December 1942. In utmost detail it presents the reasons why Funk and his Reichsbank very definitely protested against any increase in the cost of occupation. Funk concerning the cost of occupation in Greece. BY DR. SAUTER:
Q Did you hear the testimony by the witness Dr. Neubacher, who was ambassador in Rumania and Greece, and who confirmed that there, also, you tried to reduce the cost of occupation?
THE PRESIDENT: Are you going to be much longer?
DR. SAUTER I believe that I have to put some more questions. I think it would be better if we adjourned now.
(A recess was taken until 1400 hours.)
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn this afternoon at half past four.
**LTHER FUNK - Resumer BY DR. SAUTER:
Q. Professor Funk, I would like to return to the question of the socalled plundering of the occupied countries. You as Reichsminister of Economics, which you were at the time, can certainly give us information as to how, in your opinion and from your observation, the productivity of the occupied countries and their production were for Germany and her carrying on of the war.
A. The achievements of the occupied countries for the joint carrying on of the war were without doubt of great significance. As far as the occupied countries are concerned, I considered the occupied country together with the total German economy; I considered it as a joint community of production for the carrying on of the war, a joint effort for the bringing about of a new order in Europe. Even in the occupied countries, the same basic economic principles applied and were maintained, in the occupied countries as in Germany herself. the occupied countries had produced in the years 1941, 1942, and 1943, and just how much they had contributed to the joint effort. The figure I arrived at was 90-billion Reichsmarks. That certainly is an extraordinarily high figure. Of course, in this connection, one must take into consideration the fact that the currencies of the various countries were figured in Reichsmarks. That is, the decreased purchasing power of these figures cannot be expressed. In truth, therefore, the achievement of the production is of a smaller extent than these figures would show.
about two-thirds, that is-- raised about 260-billion marks. This sum was raised by Germany; in other words, almost three times as much as the occupied countries raised. the monetary system were concerned, practically until the time of the invasion, in regulating and stabilizing the currency system, in such a way that French finances at the end of the German occupation were much healthier than German finances, and that France, if those circumstances had not taken place which actually did arise later on, would have been able to reconstruct her financial system on a healthy basis. submitted here. This is document R.S.22. This is a document which deals with French deliveries to Germany. It is an official report to the French Government about forced labor in France. duced the figures which show French delivereies to Germany and the importance they had in the entire French production. These figures show that out of the entire French production with which we are dealing in these three years, on the average, 30% to 35% was sent to Germany for the joint carrying on of the war. These figures in some aspects, and especially those figures which deal with the welfare of the French economy, such as textiles, gas, electricity, and so forth, in some cases average only 5% or 6%, But that, to someone interested in social problems, if he does not look at these matters from the point of view of the carrying on of the war, but from a siphoning off of 35%, is important, and would bring about stronger repercussions for the entire economy as far as the Russian areas are concerned. As far as the war economy is concerned, indeed, my ministry was eliminated entirely from these problems; but we did make efforts to have certain factories and firms active who at their own risk could buy and sell in these areas.
regions. I was chairman of the supervisory commission of the Continental Oil Company, which was active in these regions at the responsibility of the 4-Year Plan. But I personally was only in a supervisory and financial capacity for this company.
Q. Mr. Witness, at the end of this morning's session, you spoke about the so-called Central Planning Board, a body about which we have heard a good deal; and you set forth thoroughly but briefly that you as a minister of economy had no interest in the fact that foreign workers would be transported to Germany, no matter whether for armament or other purposes.
Do I understand you correctly?
Q When was that?
Q Autumn of 1943?
A Yes. And for the first time on the 22nd of November, I attended a session of the Board. At that time, for a fact, I did not only have no interest in having foreign workers brought to Germany but as far as the economics of the thing was concerned I was interested in having the workers remain abroad, for in the occupied countries the production of consumer goods had grown so that this production, that is, French production or Belgian production, could work without being hindered, for the German populace. I was interested in not having the workers carried away, and especially was I against the fact that they be taken by force, for in that way the entire social order would be disturbed. that the German economy had workers, but these questions were not dealt with in the Ministry of Economics but either in the Four-Year Plan where a General Plenipotentiary for Labor had been active, since the beginning -
THE PRESIDENT: Surely we heard all this this morning. It was all given this morning.
DR. SAUTER: In connection with the Central Planning Board, perhaps I might refer to one more document, Mr. President. only -- a letter which you wrote at that time to Field Marshal Milch and a letter which was produced I think by the French Prosecution under No. RF -for the Republique Francaise -- 675. This document was submitted under that number, and it is that letter, Mr. Funk, in which you apologized for the fact that you participated so very infrequently at the meetings of the Central Planning Board. And at that time you sent two experts from your Ministry to the session. One of them was an expert in social welfare -- as deputy of your State Secretary, Dr. Hayler, who will be heard on the witness-stand here later, participated at this meeting and in his place Ohlendorf attended.
I should be interested in knowing, therefore, just what functions this Ohlendorf had, who ostensibly belonged to your Ministry. concerned, on the whole I was interested only in the fact that as far as the export trade was concerned, the necessary raw materials would be allocated to it, and Ohlendorf and two other experts were to be there for that purpose. Ohlendorf was brought into my Ministry with Dr. Hayler. Before that I had known Ohlendorf but vaguely -- met him at one or two meetings. I had had an extraordinarily favorable impression of him, for he ad an extremely clear head, and his thoughts were expressed in a most impressive way; Before that time I didn't even know that Ohlendorf had another position in the main Reich Security Office, for when I met him I know him as a manager for an organization of which Hayler was the director and Ohlendorf was his manager, and I know him and met him as such. Therefore, I had no objections to Ohlendorf being brought into the Ministry and to his taking over that sector which corresponded to his private and professional life, the province of trade and consumption. Reichsicherheitsamt -- main security office -- or whatever the name was, that he was active in the S.D. service; but took no exception to this activity, for I did not know about these activities; I was not convinced that anything was taking place which was not bearable -- or tenable -- to our Ministry. And he was active chiefly in the Group Handel -- Group Trade. As far as I know, he was in the Reichsicherheitsamt only as a sideline. First of all, when I found this, I was surprised in an embarrassed way and when I found out especially about the instructions and missions which he had with the special staff in Russia, whatever the names were -- about this activity of Ohlendorf -I had never heard one word about these activities. He himself never mentioned these things to me and up until the period of time I just mentioned I did not know what were the missions of these special staffs.
this -- Hayler, who knew him much more intimately than I did. carrying on for years prior to this date, I did not know of it, and I was very hard hit when I found out that this man had been working in that capacity.
Q Mr. Witness, I must ask you to define your position toward the testimony given by another witness, a witness who was here in this Tribunal, and that is the witness, Dr. Blaha, who in this court room mentioned the conditions in the concentration camp at Dachau and testified as to the conditions there, who among other things said -- as you probably will recall -that in and around Dachau it was common talk that at one of these official visits of the day the Reich Minister of Economics, Dr. Funk, had been present also. As you recall, this witness replied to my question that he actually had not seen you, but that your name had been mentioned in this connection by other inmates. My question is, Were you ever at Dachau or at any other concentration camp?
A No. I was neither at Dachau nor in any other concentration camp.
Q Can you say that with a clear conscience under your oath?
Q The witness, Dr. Blaha, has also testified to the fact that this inspection of Dachau took place in connection with a discussion among the Finance ministers which had taken place at Berchtesgaden or at Reichenhall or somewhere in that vicinity. Therefore, I am asking you, Did you ever participate in a meeting of such Finance Ministers, ever, or at the time which Blaha alleges you were there? I was never a Minister myself. And at that time I did not participate in international discussions at all.
Q Dr. Funk, as far as your health is concerned, this is not a good day for you. You have complained about terrific pains, such as you are suffering today, and consequently I do not wish to put any further questions to you, except one in conclusion which I am sure you will be able to answer briefly. The question is: Why did you remain in your office as Reich Minister of Economics and as President of the Reichsbank until the very end?
I could, in order to serve my people and to be of use to my people. Just in the last few years of the war my position was a very difficult ones a strong disorganization came into administration and I had to take great pains in order to take care of the people, especially those who had been damaged by bombs, and to supply my people with consumer goods. I had to take great efforts at all times to protect supply depots from intervention and interference by the Gauleiters. In the case of one Gauleiter, I had to got the police after him. decreed, I did not follow, so that even after the occupation by the allied powers all the supplies of consumer goods which were left could be used by the German people. I had had a directive from the Fuehrer to give out a decree according to which the acceptance of invasion currency would be high treason and should be punished by death, but I did not issue that decree, and I made all efforts to prevent State property and State money from being disturbed. Needless to say, I saved the gold deposits and other deposits of the Reichsbank which were in dire danger. Briefly, I had the duty up until the last minute to stay in office and to remain until the bitter end.
Morgenthau plan, the German people would be brought back into a nation of poverty; that industry would be destroyed; that would have meant the extermination of 30 million of Germans. And especially since Churchill had declared personally that the German people would suffer from hunger, and I wanted to prevent the breaking out of famine. Therefore, for me and for every sincere German there was only one thing possible and that was to remain at his post until the end and to do everything within his power to order to prevent and avert chaos. but I always loved my fatherland with a warm heart and I loved my people as well, and up until the end I tried to do everything possible to serve my country and my people and to be useful to them.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, perhaps in connection with this alleged visit to a concentration camp I might say, sir, there was a questionnaire exhibit which we have received from a witness, Dr. Schwedler, and which is found in the supplementary volume for the Funk case and is known as Number 14; this affidavit and the contents of which I would like to have you take official notice, concerns in its broad outlines that the witness Dr. Schwedler since the First of February, 1938, was the daily companion of Dr. Funk; that Dr. Funk never visited a concentration camp, and that the witness would have to have knowledge of such fact if it were true. Adn with these words, Mr. President, I have concluded my direct testimony and questioning of the defendant I Funk. I thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT: Do any of the Germans' Counsel wish to ask questions?
You seemed to refer to an affidavit. You said you were referring to Dr. Schwedler's affidavit which you said was Number 14 in your supplementary book. We do not have it in ours.
THE INTERPRETER: I beg your pardon, Mr. President, it is Number 13.
I misspoke. Correction: Number 13. Number 13. Dr. August Schwedler. It is a questionnaire. 13.
BY DR. NELTE (counsel for defendant Keitel):
Q Mr. Witness, I have one question which I would like to put to you. The prosecution has accused the defendant Keitel as chief of the OKW and you as Minister for Economics with General Frank, Plenipotentiary for Administration -- has joined the three of you in an accusation in connection with the Reich defense law of 1938, and the incumbents of these three offices are mentioned, and without doubt they probably exerted certain functions which might be of significance. The prosecution in this connection talk about a three-man college with a tremendous significance and authority in connection with the planning and preparation of aggressive wars. Now I should like to ask you, was there such a three-man college? And if so, what were the functions of these three offices which are mentioned, according to the Reich defense law?
the prosecution in this point is wrong, is in error. I myself never heard of this three-man committee or three-man college up until this proceeding came about. triumvirate or college of three. There were on the basis of the Reich defense law coordinating authorities for the Chief of the OKW, for the General Plenipotentiary for Administration, as well as for the General Plenipotentiary for Economics. These three could deviate from the defense laws, could give out directives upon which they had to function directly. applied only to the sphere of activity of the men involved. The giving out of laws of more special significance was carried out by the Ministerial Council for Reich Defense; but that of course only applied to the circulation problem later on. I believe there were only four or five meetings of this body. the regular way later on of issuing laws, and the decree given by the Fuehrer originated with the Fuehrer personally, and the personalities involved were only advised.
DR. NELTE: Thank you. I have no further questions.
BY DR. DIX (counsel for defendant Schacht):
Q Dr. Funk, as to the law for the regulation of national labor which was mentioned by you, you said that that was issued under your predecessor. You spoke about "my predecessor."
A No, I said my predecessors; plural.
Q Can you tell the Tribunal under whose authority that was issued? Schmidt, if I can remember correctly. And the subsequent agreement with the German Labor Front in part took place under Schacht's activity. And I would like to call your attention to the so-called Leipzig agreement.
Q Then you also mentioned that under Schacht's term of Plenipotentiary for War Economy, for this one office the witness denied the existence of this office and Schacht did the same thing. Which office did you mean? Can you describe the office that you mean?
A It wasn't an office in the sense as it might have been interpreted here. It was a committee of experts of the various departments which, according to the Plenipotentiary for War Economy, who was Schacht, or Later by me, was led. Under Schacht's term of office it was Wohlthat and in my term of office it was Posse.
Q The former State Secretary of Schacht? on the basis of the old Reich defense law and which existed before 1933?
together with the OKW. participation of the Four Year Plan representative.
Q And the expert for Schacht under Schacht's term was Dr. Wohlthat.
Q Then one more question. You mentioned a triumvirate and the activity as described by you is after Schacht's time, I believe.
A Yes. But there was no activity. I never participated in any session of the so-called three-men college.
A No meeting ever took place. No meeting of these three men ever took place.
DR. SERVATIUS: Attorney Servatius, on behalf of Sauckel. BY DR. SERVATIUS:
Q I have a question regarding the wages of foreign workers. Did Sauckel, as far as the transfer of the wages were concerned, take special pains in that connection? Do you know anything about that?
A Yes. Sauckel, like the Reichsbank and the Reich Ministry for Economics, insisted very frequently that on a large scale there would be transferring of wages to foreign countries. As a matter of course, we were in a difficult position here, especially since in the Southeastern European countries the currencies had been devaluated strongly, and the purchasing power of the currency that obtained there had sunk, whereas I stuck to the stable course of exchange so that I would not strengthen any inflationary tendency and bring about entire chaos as far as currency was concerned. Therefore, in addition to the regular wages, we had to give additional payments to make up for the devaluation of the money in other countries. All in all, large sums were transferred. I would estimate these sums to be at least two billion Reich Marks. something for the clothing of foreign workers? Was anything done?
blow for the Minister of Economics, because this ministry had just a few raw materials at its disposal which had been allocated to it by the Central Planning Board. It had to take care of the population, and through the always growing number of people who were damaged by bombs, more and more demands for supplies were made to us. But, in spite of that, we tried to comply with the demands of Sauckel, but of course we could not grant them in their entirety.
Q In what scope was clothing material delivered? Do you know any figures about that?
A No, I don't know.
Q Do you know anything about the attitude of Sauckel to Himmler? According to the Prosecution, he collaborated with Himmler. deposits, I had fled to Thuringia to a subterranean hideout. In the evening I called on Sauckel, at which meeting State Secretary Keppler, who has been mentioned here frequently, was present also. terrific dispute about Himmler. Sauckel accused Himmler in a very unequivocal way that he was the destroyer of administrative unity in Germany; that he was carrying the main guilt for the disorganization which had taken place in German administration, for through the SS he had created a state within a state. Sauckel said further: "How can the people keep discipline if the top men of the Reich themselves cannot keep discipline?"
DR. KUBUSHOK: Dr. Kubuschok, on behalf of von Papen.
BY DR. KUBUSCHOK: Papen in June of 1934, asked you to go to the Reichspresident von Hindenburg, to his country estate in Neudeck and to tell him the following: speech, he had asked for his resignation. This resignation would have to be granted, because von Papen through his speech at Marburg was guilty of a gross error against the Reich Cabinet. Neudeck he frequently invited me to visit him. I have already mentioned that I was on friendly and familiar terms with him. A visit like this was imminent when the matter of the von Papen speech at Marburg arose, and the Reichsmarshal suggested to the Fuehrer, as far as I recall, to have me instructed along the lines to tell the Reich President about this matter. there was a conflict between the Fuehrer and von Papen, and that conflict had arisen because of this speech. I did not know the contents of this speech, since the publication of this speech was in effect. Then the Reich President replied only, "If he cannot keep discipline, then he has to be prepared for the consequences."
DR FRITZ: Dr. Fritz, on behalf of the defendant Fritzche.
BY DR. FRITZ:
Q Witness, when and where did you meet you co-defendant Fritzche? the press section -- one day he appeared before me and wanted money, and I granted this money to him.
Q That was in what year? Propaganda Ministry at that time?
Q Was this a leading position which he had? Was he an editor, or was he leader of a division ?
A No. At that time the leader of this department was Dr. Hanke. Goebbels, worked with him very closely?
A Dr. Goebbels had discussions daily with his experts. I never was called in to attend any of these discussions, and this was carried out by an expert, Dr. Hanke. But since Fritzsche was not the leader of a department I assume that he was not called in to these discussions either, because these discussions were mostly for the heads of departments, as far as I know, but certainly not Fritzsche. at that time, he did not belong to the closer collaborators of Dr. Goebbels, if I understood you correctly. He was not one of the close collaborators.
AAt that time I do not believe so. What took place later, that of course I don't know.
THE PRESIDENT: The Prosecution? BY MR. DODD:
Q Mr. Witness -and, as we understand it from your statements, you admit none of the charges made against you in the Indictment in any degree, with possibly one exception. I am not clear as to whether or not you were making an admission this morning with respect to your part in the persecution of the Jews. Would you tell us now whether or not you intended to admit your own guilt or the part that you played in the persecution of the Jews?