THE PRESIDENT: I did not ask you to stop putting your question, You can put your question. Go on. What is the question? BY DR. SAUTER:
Q Please Dr. Funk. had been appointed General Plenipotentiary for War Economy, and on the basis of this second Reich defense law, which was the basis for my appointment, I was appointed General Plenipotentiary for Economy, because at that time it was quite clear that the special tasks concerning war economy -- that is to say, armament industry, and so on -- would not be with the Plenipotentiary for Economy, but that he essentially had to coordinate the civilian economy.
DR. SAUTER: In connection with that, Mr. President, Hay I call your attention to another document which was submitted yesterday. That is Number 3562-PS. Here the heading already has the correct title, General Plenipotentiary for Economy. That is no more "General Plenipotentiary for War Economy", and that is also a new document which was only submitted yesterday, Mr. President.
MR DODD: Just to keep the record straight, Mr. President, that document 3562-PS is in evidence, and it was submitted by Lieutenant Meltzer, at the time he presented the case against the individual defendant, Funk.
THE PRESIDENT: Hr. Dodd, am I not right in thinking that the defendant Funk stated from the outset in his examination in chief that he was appointed General Plenipotentiary for Economy?
MR. DODD: Yes, indeed, sir. That is as I thoroughly understand it.
THE PRESIDENT: And you have not challenged that?
MR. DODD: We have not challenged the fact that he said so. But we do chal lenge the fact that he, in fact, was only for economy. We do maintain that he, in fact, had much to do with the war effort as the Plenipotentiary.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. But he was not to be named that?
MR. DODD: No. And that document, 488, was not offered, anyway, for that purpose, but rather to show that the defendant was engaged in talking about what prisoners of war would do after an attack.
DR. SAUTER: Yesterday a document was produced about the interrogation of a man by the name of Hans Posse.
It is Document 3894-PS. The witness Hans Poss was State Secretary in the Ministry for Economy, and is as such Deputy Plenipotentiary for Economy. That record has been submitted by the prosecution in order to show that between Funk and Goering, allegedly, there was a struggle for power such as it is expressed here. several other points can also be used as evidence:
"The witness - He says, for instance, 'I should like to ask whether this is your opinion still of State Secretary Hans Posse'". That is Document 3894-PS page 2 of the German translation, at the botton of the page.
He was asked, "How often did you report to Funk in connection with your duties as Deputy Plenipotentiary?"
The witness answered then: "The General plenipotentiary for Economy really never went into action."
THE WITNESS: Yes; that repeats what I said again and again, and which can be confirmed and has been confirmed by everybody who has been heard about that question. That was provision which was merely on paper. BY DR. SAUTER: Funk, had worked.
Dr. Posse says: "Is it correct that the office of the General Plenipotentiary for Economy was installed with the final aim to unite all economic functions concerning, and with a view to, the preparations for war."
Then the witness answers, "The purpose was what I have just said, to coordinate the various economic interests. "It is correct that it was the aim to coordinate all economic questions, but not the purpose to prepare for war. Of course, if war preparation should become necessary, it was the task of the Plenipotentiary for Economy to be concerned with these questions and to act as a coordinator."
THE WITNESS: Mr. Posse was an old, sick man whom I had put on this job. And when I took over the ministry, I received a new State Secretary through Goering who became insane, unfortunately, later.
And then State Secretary Dr. Landfried came to me and Posse, who formally was still in the Ministry for Economy as the State Secretary. I had no job for him, and therefore I gave him that nominal title of Deputy Plenipotentiary for Economy.
Here, of course, he had consistent difficulties. The High Command of the Wehrmacht, from the very beginning, wanted to reduce the General Plenipotentia ry in his authority, which could be seen from the letter which was produced yesterday. And the civilian economy department did not want to follow his directives because they already had been subordinated, and had to follow the Plenipotentiary for the 4-Year Plan. Therefore, as a matter of fact, that unhappy General Plenipotentiary for Economy remained on paper, essentially.
THE PRESIDENT: Would this not be a convenient time to break off now?
(A recess was taken until 1400 hours.)
Military Tribunal in the matter of: The
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, have two more questions which I wish to put to the defendant, Dr. Funk. BY DR. SAUTER:
Q Dr. Funk, before the recess we stopped at the document 3894-PS, testimony of your State Secretary Posse. I would like to quote one paragraph from page 7 of the German text and I would like to ask you whether you agree with it. The witness posse was asked by the District Attorney whether he, as Representative General Plenipotentiary for Economy, knew of the international relations, especially of the situation of the war, and he replies, on page 7, in the center: "We knew never anything about the international situation and we never heard anything about it, and if the international situation was mentioned in our discussions we could always say nothing more than our personal opinions about it." A few lines further down: "We" -- hat is himself and you, Dr. Funk -- "We always hoped that there would be no war." Do you agree with this opinion of your former State Secretary Posse?
A Yes. I have said repeatedly that until the end I did not believe that there would be a war and the same applies to my colaborators, and everyone who spoke to me at that time will corroborate this. Posse was still less informed about political and military events than I was. Consequently, it is even more true about him than about me.
Q Then I have a final question to put. Mr. Witness, you saw the picture this morning which the prosecution has presented. You were the President of the Reichsbank. Consequently, you are familiar, possibly only superficially, with the conditions in the vaults of the Reichsbank, at least, I assume, in Berlin, even though you may not have known them in Frankfurt where the film was taken; and you also know how, especially during the war, these items were kept which had been deposited with the bank in valises or in packages which were wrapped up or similar containers.
Possibly, Dr. Funk, you can make a statement on the basis of your own knowledge of the conditions regarding this small picture which we have seen. by it. The photography and especially the film are always very dangerous documents because they show many things in a different light than things actually are. I personally have the impression, and I assume the prosecution will probably corroborate this, that all these deposits of valuables as well as all these collections of valuable items came from the Kali mines, into which, at my behest, all gold, currency and other valuables of the Reichsbank had been stowed away when, due to a terrific bombing attack on Berlin, we were unable to continue our work in the Reichsbank building. The Reichsbank building alone was hit -- on February 3, 1945, during this raid -- was hit by twenty-one explosive fragmentation bombs. Only a miracle made it possible for me to come to the surface together with five thousand other people from our deeply located bunkers. At that time gold, currency and all other valuable deposits were brought to a potassium mine in Thurania and from there, it seems to Frankfurt. At least I assume so. In other words, this to a large extent, all these packages contained normal deposits by customers who had brought these locked deposits, which could not be touched by the Reichsbank, had brought them to the Reichsbank for safe keeping. Consequently, this film does not make it possible for me to differentiate which items came from donations or deliveries by the SS and which were genuine deposits. The prosecutor certainly is correct if he claims that no one is going to deposit gold teeth in a bank, but it is entirely possible that certain functionaries of the concentration camps made genuine deposits in the Reichsbank which contained such articles to save for themselves for the future. I think that is possible.
However, in conclusion I must say once more that I personally had no knowledge whatsoever of these things and of the fact that, coming from concentration Camps, jewelry diamonds and pearls and other objects in that extent were delivered to the Reichsbank. I knew nothing about it.
Reichsbank was not authorized to do this kind of business. O f course, one document, the accounting for the Finance Minister, indicates that most likely everything from the concentration camps was first brought to the Reichsbank and then the poor officials of the Reichsbank had to take it apart and send an accounting to the Finance Minister or to the pawn shops and finally had to make an accounting of all these transactions.
Therefore, I must request that a man be heard about these events; first of all, Mr. Puhl, and perhaps another man who dealt with these articles so he can explain how these things actually took place and particularly show that I personally had no knowledge, whatsoever of these events except the facts which I personally have submitted to the Court before.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, I am at the end of my interrogation of the accused Funk.
I would like to put the request that I may call the sole witness whom I have at this time, the witness Dr. Heiler.
MR. DODD: Mr. President, may I raise one matter before the witness is excused?
This document 3894-PS that we have quoted from and have the benefit of the whole text.
So far we have both been quoting And may we ask, Mr. President, if we should do anything about getting the witness Puhl here?
We will be glad to bring him here if he
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, have you any request to make with reference to the witness Puhl, who made an affidavit?
DR. SAUTER: Regarding the witness Puhl I wanted to ask you, Mr. President, that he be brought here for cross-examination, the witness Emil Puhl.
I would have made that request anyway.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly, Dr. Sauter. The witness Puhl should be brought here.
He will be brought here as soon as possible.
DR. SAUTER: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Now the defendant can return to the do ck.
FRANZ HEILLER, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q Will you state your full name?
Q Will you repeat this oath after me: I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withheld and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down. BY DR. SAUTER:
Q Dr. Heiler, how old are you? in the Ministry of Economy under Mr. Funk? head of the department for Economy. In this position, I dealt very closely with the Ministry of Economy. reported to him regarding my type of work, and on that occasion I made his acquaintance. When I was put in charge of the Reichsgroup, Trade, there developed a working relation between my organization and the Ministry, especially with the then State Secretary Landfried and the Minister himself. We became very friendly during our working relations. task of the Ministry was the nourishing of the German people, that is, of the civilian population. organization for the sale of merchandise; that is, for the procurement of food, and during a conference with Minister Funk regarding the collaboration between Trade and the Ministry, Mr. Landfried, who was then a State Secretary made the suggestion that Minister Funk call me into his Ministry and make me his representative. Mr. Landfried believed that under the then existing conditions he himself was not strong enough to master this difficult task si the influence of the Ministry upon production had been taken away.
is, Landfried -- was the representative of the Minister, Landfried replied that he could not continue to handle this task alone and that he requested that he be permitted to retire, and he suggested that I take over his position. State Secretary.
Q When was that? my appointment came on 20 November.
Q That is, until the fall of 1943, Dr. Heiler, you were active in only an honorary position?
Q Your department was the detail? of Economy with the rank of a State Secretary? Dr. Funk?
Q Dr. Heiler, during a conference that we had day before yesterday, I discussed with you the question of whether the accused Dr. Funk was a particularly radical type of man or whether, to the contrary, he tried to be moderate and concerned with the interests of other people. What do you have to say to this question? For the judgment of the personality of the accused Funk, it is of a certain importance. human being. His entire character, his entire mannerism, is not fitted for radicalism. He is more an artist, a man who has a very fine artistic feeling and thinking.
To the contrary, he always tried to ameliorate. For this reason people within the party circles took him as too soft, too easy-going, too forgiving. Many times he was accused of being too weak. He made the attempt to keep economics safe from political interference and from unnecessary harshnesses, and due to his respect and his regard for the enterprising endeavors and for the responsibility of the people in the general economy, even during the war he fought against unnecessary intervention within the factories and trade establishments; he protected the business world against coalitions. the war the responsibility for the production was taken away from him. of the trade organization that Funk at various occasions fought for men in the trade world who were in political differences. sul General Hollaender or for Mr. Pietsch the time when he was in danger of grave consequences because he had tried to initiate peace movements; or as is probably known, at the time at which Funk fought for Richard Strauss; I don't think these individual cases are of as great importance as the following: After the catastrophe of November 9, 1938, the course of the Aryanization was also planned at a decreased pace with him, the Minister of the Economy, At that time there were a number of political men had been forced upon the Ministry, especially Mr. Speer. I recall distinctly that at that time particularly Landfried and also Funk were objecting to this radicalization of the Ministry and fought against it. Funk and the Ministry were blamed for doing this, repeatedly. the events of that date with Himmler in which I voiced my complaint. Himmler said at that time among other things, and reproached Funk and me in doing that, he said "Recently you people have been at fault that things have been driven to this point. From a Mr. Schacht nothing could be expected but constant interference and slowing down." And that he fought against the will of the party.
"But that you and Funk and all of the gentlemen with him in the Economy, if you had not slowed it down as you did, these excesses would not have happened,"
Q You collaborated with Dr. Funk also regarding those questions which concerned the economy of the occupied territories. Dr. Funk is accused of having participated in the spoliation of the occupied territories as well as of the destruction of the currency there and the economy in those countries, having done that in a criminal manner. Could you in as short a time as possible give us a few instructions regarding the attitude and the activities of the defendant Funk? Make it as short as you can.
A I believe two things must be stated at first. First, the influence of the Ministry of Economy upon the occupied territories was relatively limited; two, during a year during which I was active inthe Ministry these questions had ceased to be of particular importance. In general the following comment can be made to this question: Funk was constantly accused of thinking more of peace than of war. In all his publications, oral as well as written, he publicized his thoughts regarding a European economic policy; and I assume that these talks and these publications, that is, articles, are before the Court today. - He repeatedly spoke against a too strong exploitation of the occupied territories and took the position that the collaboration during the war was in the final analysis the basis of a future peaceful collaboration. He took the position that even during the war the confidence and readiness to collaborate should obtain in the economies of the occupied territories. He took the position that at no time the black market could be fought with a black market and we, out of the responsibility which we had for the occupied territories, should avoid everything which would bring disorder into the currency and into the economy of these territories.
marshal regarding these questions and had given him his viewpoint quite frankly. He also spoke against the exaggeration of the occupation costs, spoke repeatedly against them, and constantly fought for a lessening of the German expenses in the occupied territories. occupied territories than he had towards all the other European countries, and this attitude is best illustrated by the fact that in his speech in Vienna, if I remember correctly, he declared before the whole world that the clearing - which to a great extent could be traced to the inflationary tendencies in the delivering countries - he recognized these as genuine debts.
Q Dr. Heiler, the accused Funk is, furthermore, accused of participating in a criminal manner in the enslavement of foreign workers. This accusation particularly hits the time during which you were a collaborator of Dr. Funk. Could you tell us, as shortly as possible, how Funk thought regarding this point and how he acted regarding this point? could only be claimed, as far as Funk is concerned, during the time I was with him, within the framework of his responsibility within Central Planning. responsible for the procurement of foreign workers, or whether Central Planning did nothing more than ascertain the manpower needs of the various production spheres. However, regardless of what the tasks of Central Planning may have been, Funk's position within Central Planning has been the following. and export. During the time after the separation of the ministries, I believe no foreign worker was brought into production for the civilian procurement or production for export. To the contrary, Funk was informed constantly of the fact that, during that time, German and foreign workers were constantly removed from the production of consumer goods and put into armament production. accusation of this sort could be made against Funk. important to me. The supply for the foreign workers was a very serious question. I believe that even Mr. Sauckel will corroborate the fact that when this question came about, Funk was at once ready -- that is, in spite of the great existing need which was already present on the part of the German people, due to the many air raids, Funk took large amounts of supplies and put them at the disposal of the foreign workers. the foreign workers who worked in Germany and saw to it that they were supplied as well as was possible with food, shoes, clothes, and so on.
A Particularly shoes and clothing; Funk had no authority over the food question. I know this case which I mentioned, very correctly. Funk had a great deal of difficulty because of this for the Gauleiters, the District Leaders, due to the tremendous lack of goods, did their best to secure supplies for the inhabitants of their own districts, and they used every means to do that. Funk had a constant fight against the acts of Gauleiters, who took stocks which were reserved for the general supply, which were broken open and used individually.
Q Dr. Heiler, do you know whether Dr. Funk, during your time -- I always speak about the time during which you collaborated with him -whether Dr. Funk fundamentally took the viewpoint that the foreign worker should not be brought to Germany to work here, but, to the contrary, that the work itself should be taken from Germany into the foreign country so that the foreign worker could perform his work in his own home country and remain at home? to his general conception. The political disquiet and dissatisfaction which followed the movement of these large masses of human beings and the temporary uprooting of these people -- these movements were contrary to the policy of peace and rebuilding, which certainly was the policy of Funk.
Q I now come to my last question. The last question I wish to put to you is the following. occupied by enemy armies, difficulties arose regarding the supply of these territories with money. At that time Hitler is supposed to have planned a law according to which the acceptance and passing on of foreign occupation money was to punished even by death. I am now interested, Dr. Heiler, in finding our not why Hitler planned to do this, but I only want to know, if you know it, how the defendant Funk acted in regard to this demand by Hitler and what success he had with it. interesting. I have rarely seen Funk as depressed as at that time, after he had taken cognizance of the so-called "scorched earth" law.
I believe he was the first minister who, at that time, created two very clear directives. One directive was from the Ministry of Economy in which he clearly directed that where German people are, the administration of economy must remain; where there is need of supply, the State must take care of the people and make sure their supply is safe. Reichsbank President. In this he directed that in the same manner, as there was an economic administration, the money market was to be administered by the remaining offices of the Reichsbank, and it was their task to keep the money market safe. the Fuehrer had already arrived in the Ministry of Economy. He demanded, at that time, the issuing of a lawful directive according to which the acceptance of occupation money was forbidden for every German; the punishment for doing it was death. Mr. Funk objected actively to this directive. He was very energetic about it. I believe he had the help on Mr. Lammers. He phoned headquarters repeatedly, and finally succeeded in causing the retraction of the directive of the Fuehrer.
Q Have you finished?
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, I have no further questions to put to the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Do any of the other defendants' counsel wish to ask any questions?
(No response)
Does the prosecution wish to cross-examine?
BY MR. DODD:
Q When did you join the Nazi Party, Mr. Heiler? Party?
Q Did you hold any offices in the Party at any time?
A No; in the Party, I had no office whatsoever.
Q You were the head of a trade group in 1938, the Reichsgruppenhandel? then on, Reich Group Trade. This organization was part of the organization of the economy and was subject to the Reichsministry of Economy. wasn't it?
Q When did you join the SS?
Q That was kind of a Party office, wasn't it, of the sort?
A I had no office there. There was no office. I became connected with the SS through the fact that in Munich 165 businessmen were locked up and I knew Himmler therefore from my student days. I had never seen him until then and the businessmen in Munich asked me to intercede for them in the summer of 1933 but I had no office in the Party or in the SS.
Q When did you become a General in the SS?
A I was never a general in the SS. After I had become a State Secretary, the Reichsfuehrer gave me the grade of a group leader of the SS.
Q A gruppenfuehrer -- isn't that the equivalent of a general in the SS?
A Yes and no. In the SS, there was a grade of a gruppenfuehrer and there was also a grade of a gruppenfuehrer and general of the police or the Waffen SS but the gruppenfuehrer, it was not a general but it was only an honorary grade. We had to make this recognizable because we did not wear the general's epaulets and not a general's uniform.
Q You know Ohlendorf pretty well, don't you?
Q He worked for you at one time. He was under your supervision. Isn't that so? the murdering of ninety thousand people; did you know that?
Q Did you know about it at the time that it was going on?
Q Did you know Pohl, the SS man -- P-O-H-L?
A May I ask you for that name again?
Q Pohl -- P-O-H-L?
A I don't remember. I don't remember to have known an SS man Pohl.
Q Do you know a man called "Gruppenfuehrer Pohl of the SS?"
A No -- Yes, I know an Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl. Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl was the chief of the economy department of the SS.
Q Did you have conversations and meetings with him from time to time?
A Officially, I had a number of conversations with Pohl. Usually they were very unpleasant.
Q Well, that's another matter. How long would you say, between 1943 and the end of the time of your surrender, you met with Pohl to discuss matters of mutual interest between the SS and your own Ministry of Economics? Approximately, because I don't expect you to give an accurate account, but how many times, would you say?
Q Give that afterwards. Give me the figure first.
A Yes. Perhaps three or four times, three or four times, perhaps only twice. I don't know. times during the whole period between 1943 and 1945?
A During my time in office, yes, three or four times; it was only one year. Economics cooperating in the financing for the building of factories near the concentration camps?
Q You don't know about that, do you?
A No. This question was never discussed with me.
Q What did you talk to him about? Ministry of Economy and the SS. The reason was: After I had taken over the State Secretariat in the Ministry of Economy, Himmler told me to turn over a factory outside of Berlin to the SS. I fought against this and I did not obey this directive by Himmler. There must be papers testifying to that. I then was directed to discuss this matter with Pohl during these conferences and during a personal conversation which Himmler demanded and ordered, I still fought against Himmler's directive because basically I was against the SS running their own factories. Himmler and Pohl? Himmler wrote me a letter in which he told me that he had ceased to have confidence in me and he wrote verbally that he had no desire to collaborate with me any more; that he had no more confidence in me.
This, I told to the defendant Funk in December. building of factories near the concentration camps?
Q You never heard of that before now? or the Ministry of Economy with the So, within the framework of financing such purposes. from 1943 to 1945, while you were the deputy to Funk in the Ministry of Economics, the questions of purchasing on the black market and so on in the occupied countries ceased to be of any real importance, didn't they. I understood you to say that a few minutes ago yourself. December I had a ministry which was toally bombed out, we did not get started to work again in January 1944. During that time, these questions were no more of a decisive importance, since the development was retrogressing already.
Q You also were, Mr. Witness, at the Vienna speech, to which you referred, which was made in 1944 and it had nothing to do with the occupied countries but was directed only at the satellite states. Are you aware of that or not?
A The talk in Vionna? Koenigsberg and Vienna, dealt not directly with the occupied territory but with Europe as a whole. Now, have you read that speech?
A Yes, I have heard the speech. It directly had nothing to do with it. about forced labor, you know, don't you, that he took an attitude of unconcern about the forcing of people to come to Germany. Do you know that?
Q Well, you know he has said on interrogation that he didn't bother his head about it, although he knew that people were being forced to go to Germany against their will. Are you aware of that?
Q All right. If you did know it, would that make some difference to you and would you change your testimony some?
Q Very well. Perhaps I can help you by reading to you from his interrogation of October 22, 1945, made here in Nurnberg. Among other things, he was asked these few questions and made a few answers.
"As a matter of fact, you were present at many meetings of the Central Planning Board, were you not," he was asked. Funk answered and said: "I only joined the meetings of the Central Planning Board when I required something for my small sector; that is to say, something to do with export and consumer goods in industries; for example, iron, and I had to fight on each occasion to get just a few thousand tons for my consumer goods industry."
The next question was: "Question: But during those meetings you attended, you heard, did you not, discussions concerning forced labor?" Funk answered: "Oh, yes, I did."
"Question: And you knew from those meetings, that the policy was to bring in more and more foreign workers to the Reich against their will?" Funk answered: "Yes, certainly."
"Question: And you never objected to that, I take it?" Funk answered: "No, why should I have objected. It was somebody else's task to bring these foreign workers in."
"Oh yes: did you believe it was legal to take people against their will from their homes and bring them into Germany" was the last question that I want to quote to you. He answered: "Well, many things happen in wartime which aren't strictly legal. I have never wracked my brains about that." oath on an interrogation here, would that change your view about Funk and would it cause you to change the testimony which you have given before the Tribunal here today?