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?
sense of shame about that which took place towards the Jews in German, and that, at that period of time when the terror and violence began, I had a strong conflict with my conscience. I felt that a great injustice was being done in respect to the accusations levelled against me here in the indictment that I was guilty of crimes against humanity, that I carried out and gave out some laws or signed some laws which had been transmitted to me from, above. Since these laws had to be carried through so that the Jews would not be entirely without protection, and so that they would be able to have some protection, I am admitting a moral guilt and a guilt against myself, lout not a guilt that I signed the laws -- not a guilt against humanity.
Q That's right. That's what I wanted to establish.
You also told the Tribunal, I think you used the expression "often at the door but never let in", and I understand that in your own judgment, you were really a little man in this Nazi organization. Is that so?
Q That's an answer, you might want to explain it labor, but for the present, that will be sufficient.
A May I give an explanation to this. I wanted to state that among the duties I had, there were always superiors who made the final decision, and that applies to all my duties with the State.
Q Well, let's both examine come of the evidence, and see whether you were always subordinated and always a little man who didn't get in.
First of all, there's one matter that I do want to clear up before going into the general examination. You recall when Defendant Schacht was on the stand, he told the Tribunal that after he left the Reichsbank he had an office in his apartment, is that so? continued to have an office in the Reichsbank. Is that so?
A I don't know whether I said that and where I said that, but it may be. I was advised, at that time, after he had resigned, that he was still coming to the Reichsbank rather frequently, and that a room was reserved there for him and beyond that, he still had some personnel. His secretary, which he had taken away from the Reichsbank was still with him.
Reichsbank where he worked on certain bank data and where he still kept in touch with you every now and then. Isn't that so? Do you remember telling us that or not?
A No, it wasn't that way.
Q You couldn't remember, perhaps I can help you a bit. Do you remember being interrogated by Major Hiram Gans on June 2, 3, and 4 of 1945? Do you remember that? You know who was there -- Goering was there, von Krosigk was there...
Q Alright. You were asked this question. Preceding this answer there were some questions.
Questions: Did Schacht retain any Governmental position after his dismissal as President of the Reichsbank?"
Goering answered: "Reich Minister."
Question: "Did he have any functions?
Goering again answered: "He remained Minister without Portfolio."
Another question: "Were there any Cabinet meetings which he attended?"
Goering answered: "I cannot remember any Cabinet meetings at that time.
Then Funk spoke: "Schacht, after his dismissal, kept an office in the Reichsbank shere he worked on statistical data of the Reichsbank and where he still kept in touch with me every now and then."
Question: "How long did it last?"
And you answered: "After Schacht's dismissal, probably in 1943."
You made those answers, didn't you?
A That is not correct. It is not correct. I did not express myself that way. I said only that he came to the Reichsbank and that he spoke very seldom with me. He was only a...
Q You know this document, PS-2828?
Q Parts of this are already in evidence as USA Exhibit 652. Later, in another form, I shall submit this part which I have just read. from you which referred somewhat to the general feeling at the time, and also to to the fact that it was your 60th birthday.
That is so, isn't it? There was another reason for your writing that letter in connection with your birthday, wasn't there? Do you know to what I refer? didn't you? Reichsmarks for being a leading businessman in Germany, and 270,000 Reichsmarks which came out of a special account maintained by Goering and Goebbels. Hitler heard about that and ordered you to return that money and later he gave you 520,000 Reichsmarks, isn't that so?
A The first is not correct, but the latter is correct. May I explain this matter?
A The connections are entirely different. On my 50th birthday, there was to appear before me the President and Presidium of the Reich Chamber of Commerce. This was the organization of the entire German economists, and because of my 25 years of service to German economy, with the approval of the Fuehrer, they were giving me a gift and that was to be a State affair. That did not materialize, I am sorry to say. It was something that created much sorrow and they got for me a large house which was built for me and I was told that the Fuehrer wanted me to work there. There was a demand for taxes made toward me. There was such an expense that I would not carry the taxes or the upkeep. financial strait.
the film corporation joined the Chamber of Commerce and gave me this money. When the Fuehrer heard that I had money troubles, he granted 520,000 Reichsmarks to be put at my disposal and the money I received I turned into bonds and 500.000 reichsmarks I turned over to the families of the members of the Reichsbank who died during the war and 200,000 Reichsmarks I turned over to the Reichs political economy office for the families of those of the office who died in the war. income, but from the beginning, when I saw the tremendous expanses connected with it, I decided, from the beginning, that I would -- in agreement with my wife -- use this as a....
Q. I don't care what you did with it, I just want to know if you got it.
A. Yes.
Q. You also made a present out of your own pocket to the Defendant Fricke on one occasion, did n't you, giving Fricke 250,000 Reichsmarks on his birthday on 12 March 1942?
A. That I don't know.
Q. You don't remember that? Do you know anything about the other gifts that were given to the other defendants through public funds either through you and your position or to men with the Nazi Party? Do you know anything about these men or what they got from the public treasury?
A. These monies were not dispensed by me. They were dispensed by Lammers.
Q. They were public funds, weren't they? You know that Rosenberg got 250,000 marks? Did you know that?
A. No.
Q. In January 1944, you were then President of the Reichsbank?
A. Yes, but these momies did not come from the Reichsbank. These were monies or funds which were entrusted to Lammers and I assume that the monies came from Adolf Hitler. These were from other funds.
Q. Von Neurath got 250,000 marks on 2 February 1943. Do you know any thing about that? You were the President of the Reichsbank then.
A. I know nothing about that.
Q. You heard about Lammers and his 600,000 marks. You know that Keitel got 600,000 marks on 2 February 1942. You never heard about that?
A. The Reichsbank had nothing at all to do with these things at all.
Q. You know that Ribbentrop got 200,000 marks. One General Milch got 500,00 marks on January, 1941, and none of these things came to your attention:
A. I never knew anything about these matters. They were Lammer's concern and the money did not come from the Reichsbank.
Q. Now, I understood you to say that you were not the economic advisor in fact to Hitler or to the Nazi Party in the early days. That is, in your own judgment you were not? Isn't it a fact that you were generally regarded as such by the public and by the Party members and Party officials? Is that so
A. I was called that, and I said that I was called that on the basis of my activity in the year 1943 when I acted as a go-between the Fuehrer and some leading economists abroad. I acted in this capacity for a short time in the party.
Q. You called yourself the economic advisor on occasion, didn't you? At least on one occasion, during an interrogation, didn't you refer to yourself as the economic advisor? You remember that?
A. No.
Q. I think you will generally agree that you were regarded as such by the public and they thought you were?
A. I had testified already that I was called that by the across and from the press this designation went into record. I did not use this term myself.
Q. Were you the principal contact man between the Party and industry in the earlier days?
A. In the year 1932, and this is the only year which we consider Party activities because I was not active before or after this year as far as the Party was concerned. But, between Hitler and leading men of industry, I was active in bringing about discussions and also acted as a go-between. Other men also acted in that capacity.
Q. I am not asking you about other men, I am asking you if you were not a principal contact man.
You were, weren't you?
A. Yes.
Q. You acted as a go-between the Nazi Party and the big businessmen in Germany.
A. It did not take up much of my time.
Q. It took a little bit of your time. That's what you were doing?
A. Yes.
Q. You remember then, document EC-440 perhaps. It is really a statement that you made and prepared on the relations of German industry to the Party in the National Socialist leadership of the State. You remember that paper you drew up on 28 June, 1945. You also said that "Keppler, who later became State Secretary, and who served as Financial advisor to the Fuehrer before me... " You used that terminology. You recall that?
A. Keppler?
Q. Yes, he was the advisor before you. You remember that?
A. Yes.
Q. In the Propaganda Ministry, if I understand you correctly, you want the Tribunal to believe that you were merely an instrument of the Fuehrer, and that you didn't know what was going on. Is that your position?
A. No, I had quite a large task and that was the leadership of a comprehensive cultural concern. It was a film concern and the administration of the entire German radio which was a large enterprise and this was a very complicated activity. In the main I said it was an organization financially active but propaganda was carried on by Goebbels.
Q Yes. You knew the policies and the purposes of the propaganda ministries; there isn't any doubt about that?
Q You knew that, didn't you?
Q All right. Now, we can pass on to one other matter that I referred to earlier to clear up another matter. Do you recall that the defendant Schacht, when he was on the stand, said, I believe, at that now famous meeting where a number of industrialists were gather to greet Hitler, that he didn't take up the collection? Schacht said he didn't do it. I think he said that Goering did it or somebody else. Do you remember that testimony about Schacht on the stand?
Q Do you remember what you told us at the time?
Q What did you tell us?
A I said at that time that Schacht gave a brief speech; that Goering and Hitler also spoke, and that he asked those present to contribute and to raise money. He was the one who took up the collection.
Q Who?
Q Who was the one who took up the collection? I don't understand who you mean by "he".
Q That's all I wanted to know about that. not spontaneous? home to the ministry, for the first time I saw what had taken place during the night; but before that I have known nothing about the fact that these accesses and terror measures had been planned.
Q I think you misunderstood me. I didn't ask you when you first came to know about the uprisings; I asked you when you first learned that they were not spontaneous; when you first learned that they were instigated and planned by somebody else.
Q Well, how long later?
A I believe quite a good deal later. Later on there was much discussion about this matter and it was never clear just who had been the instigator of these terror and violent measures and where the order had originated from. We knew that it had come from Munich and we learned that on the 9th of November; but, whether it was Goebbels or Himmler and just how far the Fuehrer participated in this measure, I never could find out clearly. From my telephone conversation which I mentioned today, we could see one thing; that is, that the Fuehrer knew and must have known about this matter for he said the Fuehrer has decreed, and he said, also, that the Jews would be completely eliminated from the economic life; and from there on I must conclude that the Fuehrer himself knew about that.
Q Now we come to the telephone conversation. We can also see one other thing. You know that Goebbels started this business, didn't you, and that was the day after it happened? You knew it wasn't spontaneous and that's why you called Goebbels and got after him; isn't that so? to what should be done to the Jews? About six days afterwards, didn't you? I am referring to the one that was published in the Frankfurter Zeitung; your counsel referred to it this morning. that that was a spontaneous uprising, didn't you?
Q That wasn't true, was it?
AAt that time I did not know that. At that time I believed that it was really so. Very much later I found out that machinations had taken place.
telephone call to Goebbels, when you in effect blamed him for these uprisings, you were not well aware that he had started it? Is that your position? terror and how it had been carried through; that was entirely new to me.
Q If you didn't know who started it, you knew that somebody started it and that it wasn't spontaneous? make it appear to the public that it was just an uprising on the part of the German people, didn't you?
A I gave my reasons for the attempted assassination. I don't know just what was attached to the appearance and actually there was excitement among the people because of this.
Q Now I think you understand my question, Mr. Witness. You said on that occasion you used this expression "The fact that the last violent explosion of the disgust of the German people because of a criminal Jewish attack against the German people took place", and so on, and you went on. You were trying to make it appear there that this was a spontaneous reaction of the German people and I insist that you knew better and had known it for some days, hadn't you? way. That some suggestion from some source has taken place, that I know and admit.
Q All right. When did you coin the expression "crystal week"? Do you know what that expression is; where it came from?
A Crystal week?
Q You are the fellow who started that expression. You're the man, aren't you; that was your expression?
Q And you were using it because you made this Frankfurter Zeitung?
A I did use that expression once. At that time I characterized that action with that tern, yes, because much had been destroyed. 12th, when Goering and Goebels and all of the other people made their remarks about the Jews and you said you were present. You didn't make any objection that day to anything that was said, did you?
A No. I tried only to have some things put through and to carry some measures through in order to save something for the Jews, in order to save their effects. Then I put through that the stores were reopened again, so that there were slow developments along these lines. sensitive about the terrible things that had happened to the Jews, and you remember some of the suggestions that were made those days by Goering and Goebbles; they were pretty nasty things, weren't they?
Q Were you ? Well -
Q All right. You went on after that and made your Frankfurter Zeitung speech and you carried out these decrees, even though your conscience was bothering; is that so?
A Decrees had to come. I've already emphasized and reiterated that I have no pangs of conscience in that. I had conscience pangs about the reasons for that.
Q That's what I'm asking you.
A But the decree had to come. The reasons there for, yes I admit that. Economy he didn't think those things would happen? Do you remember him saying that here the other day, do you ?
A Yes. He must have had very powerful and influential connections to the Party; otherwise, he could not have been successful.
Q You didn't have these connections in the Party, did you?