dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
FUNK: He himself never mentioned these things to me and until this time I did not know the type of assignments such `'Einsatzstabe" had. Ohlendorf never talked about his activity in the SD. Hayler, who knew him much better and more intimately than I did, is better qualified to give information. In any event I knew nothing of this activity of Ohlendorf, which after all he had carried on in years prior to this date, and I was very much affected to find that this man had done such things.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, I must ask you to state your position in regard to the testimony given by another witness, whom we have seen and heard in this courtroom. This witness is Dr. Blaha, who made a report in this courtroom about the conditions in the concentration camp at Dachau and who testified-as you probably will recall-that in and around Dachau it was common talk that the Reich Minister of Economics, Dr., Funk, had also been present at one of these official visits to the camp. As you recall, this witness replied to my question that he himself had not seen you, but that your name had been mentioned in this connection by other inmates. Were you ever at Dachau or at any other concentration camp?
FUNK: No, I was neither at Dachau nor in any other concentration camp.
DR. SAUTER: Can you say that with a clear conscience under your oath?
FUNK: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: The witness, Dr. Blaha, has also testified to the fact that this inspection of Dachau took place following a discussion among the finance ministers which had taken place at Berchtesgaden or Reichenhall, or somewhere in that vicinity. Therefore I ask you: Did you ever participate in a meeting of finance ministers, or at least at the time Blaha claims?
FUNK: No, I never participated in a meeting of finance ministers, because I myself was never such a minister. And at that time I did not participate in any international discussions at ale No.
DR. SAUTER: Dr. Funk, as far as your health is concerned, this is not a good day for you. You have complained about the bad pains which you are suffering today. Consequently, I do not wish put any further questions to you, except one in conclusion, which I am sure you will be able to answer briefly. Why did you remain in your office as Reich Minister of Economics and as President of the Reichsbank until the very end?
FUNK: I considered myself bound to remain in this position as long as I could, in order to serve and be of use to my people. It was precisely during the last few years of the war that my position was a very difficult one. The administration became greatly disorganized and I had to make exceptional efforts in order to procure supplies for the people, especially those who had been bombed out. I continually had to protect the supplies and supply depots from arbitrary seizures by the Gauleiter. In the case of one Gauleiter, I had to call the police. I did not follow the "scorched earth" policy which the Fuehrer had decreed, so that even after occupation by the enemy powers the supplies which were left could be used by the German people. I had had instructions from the Fuehrer to issue a decree according to which the acceptance of allied invasion currency would be high treason and punishable by death I did not issue that decree. I made every effort to prevent State property and State money from being destroyed and wasted. I saved the gold deposits and foreign exchange deposits of the Reichsbank which were in the greatest danger. Briefly, until the last minute I believed it was my duty and responsibility to carry on in office and to hold out until the very end. Especially when we Germans learned that, according to the Morgenthau Plan, the status of the German people was to be degraded into that of shepherds and goatherds; that the entire industry would be destroyed, which would have meant the extermination of 30 million Germans. And especially after Churchill had declared personally that the German people would suffer from hunger and that epidemics would break out, only one thing was possible for me and for every decent German, and that was to remain at his post and do everything within his power in order to prevent this chaos.
FUNK: I had no talent for being a traitor or a conspirator, but I always loved my fatherland passionately and my people as well, and up to the end I tried to do everything possible to serve my country and my people and to be of use to them.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, perhaps in connection with this alleged visit to a concentration camp I might refer to a questionnaire which we received from the witness Dr. Schwedler, and which is found in the supplementary volume for the Funk case as Document Number 14. This affidavit, of the contents of which I would like to have you take official notice, essentially confirm;; that, since 1 February 1938, the witness Dr. Schwedler was the daily companion of the Defendant Funk; that Dr. Funk never visited a concentration camp; and that the witness would have to know of it if it were the case. With these words, Mr. President, I conclude my examination of the Defendant Funk. I thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT: Do any of Defendants' Counsel wish to ask questions? Dr. Sauter, you said you were referring to an affidavit of Dr. Schwedler? Which was Number 14? You said you were referring to Dr. Schwedler's affidavit which you said was Number 14 in your supplementary book. It does not seem to be in ours.
DR. SAUTER: I beg your pardon, Mr. President, it is Number 13. I made a mistake. It is Number 13; in the supplementary volume, Number 13, Dr. August Schwedler. It is a questionnaire.
DR. OTTO NELTE (Counsel for Defendant Keitel): 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, you as Plenipotentiary for the Economy and Minister Frick as Plenipotentiary for Administration, on a common ground. The men in these three offices are mentioned in the Reich Defense Law of 1938. Undoubtedly, they probably exerted certain functions which might be of significance. The Prosecution in this connection spoke of a Three Man College and attributed much authority and significance to this Three Man College in connection with the point the Prosecution is making of the planning and preparation of aggressive wars. Now I ask you: Was there such a Three Man College and what were the functions of these three offices which have been mentioned, according to the Reich Defense Law?
FUNK: Due to the confusion reigning in the German administration we ourselves could scarcely keep things straight; so it is not surprising if the Prosecution is in error on this point. I myself never heard of this three-man committee or Three Man College until this proceeding. I did not know that I belonged to such a three-man committee or Three Man College or triumvirate or anything else. On the basis of the Reich Defense Law similar powers were given to the Chief of the OKW, to the plenipotentiary for Administration and to the Plenipotentiary for Economics. These three, in deviation from the existing laws, could issue directives in which they had mutually to participate. But it was the purport of this order that these directives could only be of a subordinate nature, which on the whole applied solely to the sphere of activity of the offices involved. Legislation for more important matters was made either by the Ministerial Council for Defense of the Reich-later only by way of circulating the bill from one minister to the other-or by Fuehrer decrees. As far as I know there were only three, four, or five meetings of this body. Later, the decrees of the Fuehrer were the real, the essential way of issuing laws. They were issued by the Fuehrer personally, and the offices involved were frequently only informed of the same. Therefore the three-man committee is only a fiction.
DR. NELTE: Thank you. I have no further questions.
DR. DIX: Dr. Funk, you spoke of the law for the regulation of national labor and you said that that law was issued under your predecessor. You spoke about `'my predecessor."
FUNK: No, you are wrong; I said "predecessors."
DR. DIX: Predecessors. Can you tell the Tribunal under which Reich Minister of Economics that was issued?
FUNK: This law was issued under Reich Minister of Economics Dr. Schmitt, as far as I remember, And the subsequent agreement with the German Labor Front probably took place in part under Schacht. I particularly remember the so-called Leipzig Resolutions.
DR. DIX: Then you also mentioned that there was an of flee subordinate to Schacht as Plenipotentiary for War Economy. You will remember that the witness Vocke denied the existence of such an office of Schacht's as Plenipotentiary of War Economy, and Schacht did the same thing. Which office did you mean? Describe the office that you mean.
FUNK: It was not an office in the sense in which it might have been interpreted here. It was a committee of experts of the various departments which was led by the representative of the Plenipotentiary for War Economy, who was Schacht, and later by my representative as Plenipotentiary for War Economy. Under Schacht's term of office it was State Counsellor Wohlthat and in my term of office it was Schacht's former State Secretary, Posse.
DR. DIX: Certainly. Now is it identical with the working committee which originated on the basis of the old Reich Defense Law and which existed before 1933?
FUNK: I am not familiar with that.
DR. DIX: In any event, this working committee was composed of the various departments?
FUNK: Yes.
DR. DIX: Together with the OKW?
FUNK: With the OKW, with the Ministry of the Interior, and later, with the decisive participation of the Four Year Plan representative.
DR. DIX: And the expert for Schacht during Schacht's term was Dr. Wohlthat?
FUNK: As far as I know, yes.
DR. DIX: Then one more question. You talked about the so-called triumvirate with reference to a question by my colleague for the Defendant Keitel. The creation of the triumvirate, this activity which you have described, was after Schacht's time, I believe.
FUNK: Yes, I believe so. But there was no activity.
DR. DIX: No.
FUNK: I never participated in any session of the so-called Three Man College.
DR. DIX: No. You said it was a fiction.
FUNK: Furthermore, no meeting of these three men ever took place.
DR. DIX: No; you said it was a fiction.
DR. ROBERT SERVATIUS (Counsel for Defendant Sauckel): I have a question regarding the wages of the foreign workers. Did Sauckel make any special efforts in connection with the transfer of the wages? Do you know anything about that?
FUNK: Yes. Sauckel insisted very frequently at the Reichsbank and the Reich Ministry for Economics that there should be a largescale transfer of wages to foreign countries and the occupied territories. Naturally we were in a very difficult position here, because especially in the southeastern European countries the currencies had been greatly devaluated, and the purchasing power of German money had sunk considerably, whereas I maintained the stable rate of exchange so that the inflationary tendencies in these countries would not be strengthened and result in complete economic chaos through the fault of the currency control. Therefore we had to make additions to the payments to make up somewhat for the devaluation of the money in the occupied and other countries. Altogether, considerable sums were transferred. I would estimate these sums to be at least 2,000 million Reichsmark.
DR. SERVATIUS: Do you know whether Sauckel tried to do something about the clothing for foreign workers? Was anything done?
FUNK: He made considerable efforts, and this was particularly hard on the Ministry of Economics, because with the small amount of raw materials which the Central Planning Board had made available this Ministry had to take care of the population, and through the ever growing number of people bombed out we received ever greater demands for supplies. Yet, in spite of that, we tried to comply with the demands of Sauckel as far as possible, but of course we could not do so entirely.
DR. SERVATIUS: To what extent was clothing material delivered? Can you give any figures?
FUNK: No, I cannot.
DR. SERVATIUS: Do you know anything about Sauckel's attitude towards Himmler, since, according to the Prosecution, he collaborated with him?
FUNK: I remember one particular incident. When I had fled to Thuringia with my gold reserve and the rest of my foreign exchange I called on Sauckel one evening; State Secretary Keppler, who has been mentioned here frequently, was also present. In the course of the conversation Sauckel and Keppler got into a terrific dispute with Himmler. Sauckel told Himmler quite plainly that he had destroyed the administrative unity in Germany; that he was mainly responsible for the disorganization of the 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. SERVATIUS: I have no further questions.
DR. EGON KUBUSCHOK (Counsel for the Defendant Von Papen): Is it true that after Von Papen's speech at Marburg in June 1934 Hitler asked you to go to Reich President Von Hindenburg at his country estate in Neudeck and to tell him the following: Vice Chancellor Von Papen, because he was forbidden to make his speech public, had asked to be allowed to resign. This resignation would have to be granted, because Von Papen through his speech at Marburg was guilty of a severe breach of Reich Cabinet discipline.
FUNK: When Reich President Von Hindenburg was at his estate at Neudeck he frequently invited me to visit him. I have already mentioned that I associated with him on familiar terms. A visit like this took place when the matter of the Von Papen speech at Marburg arose, and the Reich Marshal suggested to the Fuehrer, as far as I recall, to have me inform the Reich President about this incident. The Fuehrer had me do this, and I told the Reich President that a conflict had arisen between the Fuehrer and Von Papen because of a certain speech. I did not know the contents of this speech, since in the meantime its publication had been forbidden. Then the Reich President simply replied, "If he does not maintain discipline, then he must be prepared to take the consequences."
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Thank you.
DR. HEINZ FRITZ (Counsel for Defendant Fritzsche): Witness, when and where did you meet your Codefendant Fritzsche? , FUNK: When he was active in the press section of the Propaganda Ministry. One day he appeared before me and wanted money for "Transocean," and I granted him this money.
DR. FRITZ: You were State Secretary in the Propaganda Ministry at that time?
FUNK: Yes.
DR. FRITZ: That was in what year?
FUNK: That must have been in 1933 or 1934.
DR. FRITZ: When he came to you, did you know what position Fritzsche had in the Propaganda Ministry at that time?
FUNK: I knew that he was in the press section.
DR. FRITZ: Was this a leading position which he had? Was he perhaps head of a department?
FUNK: No. At that time the head of this department was Dr. Hahnke as far as I remember. Later it was Berndt.
DR. FRITZ: Could you observe whether Fritzsche was in any close contact with Dr. Goebbels?
FUNK: I was never called in to attend any of the discussions which Dr. Goebbels had daily with his experts. That was done through his personal assistant, Dr. Hahnke who later became State Secretary. But since Fritzsche was not the head of a department I assume that he was not called in to these discussions either. As far as I know mostly the heads of departments were called to these discussions, but certainly not Fritzsche.
DR. FRITZ: Then according to your knowledge, in your capacity as State Secretary at that time, he was not one of the closer collaborators of Dr. Goebbels, if I understood you correctly.
FUNK: At that time I do not believe so. Of course, I do not know what took place later.
THE PRESIDENT: The Prosecution?
MR. DODD: Witness, can you hear me?
FUNK: Yes.
MR. DODD: We have listened to your testimony since late Friday afternoon, 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?
FUNK: I said this morning that I had a deep sense of guilt and a deep sense of shame about the things which were done to the Jews in Germany, and that at the time when the terror and violence began I was involved in a strong conflict with my conscience. I felt, I could almost say, that a great injustice was being done. However, I did not feel guilty in respect to the Indictment against me here, that is, that according to the Indictment I was guilty of Crimes against Humanity because I signed the directives for carrying out laws which had been issued by superior offices-laws that had to be made so that the Jews would not be entirely deprived of their rights, and so that they would be given some legal protection at least in regard to compensation and settlement. I am admitting a guilt against myself, a moral guilt, but not a guilt because I signed the directives for carrying out the laws; in any event not a guilt against humanity.
MR. DODD: All right. That's what I wanted to thoroughly understand. You also told the Tribunal, that you-I think you used the expression "often at the door but never let in," and I understand that to mean that in your own judgment you were really a little man in this Nazi organization. Is that so?
FUNK: Yes...
MR. DODD: All right. That's an answer. You might want to explain it later, but for the present purposes that will do.
FUNK: May I give an explanation to this. I wanted to state that in the position I held, there were always higher authorities which made the final decision. That was the case in all the positions I held in the State. MR. DODD; Well, let's both examine some of the evidence, and see whether or not you were in fact 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 the 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?
FUNK: Yes, he said that.
MR. DODD: Now of course you have told us, on another occasion, that he continued to have an of lice in the Reichsbank. Isn't that so?
FUNK: I don't know whether I said and where I said that, but it may be so. I was informed, at the time when he resigned, that he still went to the Reichsbank rather frequently, and that a room was reserved there for him. In addition he still had some personnel, a secretary whom he had taken with him from the Reichsbank-and that is all I know.
MR. DODD: Another question. You told us, on another occasion, that he had an of lice in the 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?
FUNK: No, it wasn't like that. Schacht seldom...
MR. DODD: If you don't remember, then I perhaps can help you a little bit. Do you remember being interrogated by Major Hiram Gans of the United States Army on June 2, 3, and 4 of 1945? Do you remember that? You know who was there-Goering was there, Von Krosigk was there, Lammers was there....
FUNK: Yes.
MR. DODD: All right. You were asked this question, weren't you, or rather, preceding this answer there were some questions? Question: "Did Schacht retain any governmental position after his dismissal as President of the Reichsbank?" Then Goering put in an answer: "Reich Minister." Then another question: "Did he have any functions?" Goering again answered: `'He remained Minister without Portfolio." Then another question: 'Were there any Cabinet meetings he attended?" Goering answered again: "There were no Cabinet meetings at that time." Question: "Then it was purely honorary?" Goering said: "Practically." Then you interposed with this statement (Funk is speaking): "Schacht, after his dismissal, kept an office in the Reichsbank, where 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 this last?" Answer: "This lasted until Schacht's dismissal as Minister, probably in 1943." You made those answers, that answer, did you not?
FUNK: That is not correct. I did not express myself that way. I said only that I had been informed that he came to the Reichsbank frequently, that there was a room reserved for him and that he very seldom spoke to me. He seldom called on me. That was not translated correctly. N140
MR. DODD: You know what I am reading from, do you not? You know this Document, Number 2828-PS?
FUNK: No.
MR. DODD: Parts of this are already in evidence as Exhibit USA-654. And later, in another form, I shall submit this part which I have just read. Counsel Sauter, for you, this morning referred to a letter which you had written to Hitler, I believe it was in 1939, a very fulsome letter which you said was somewhat due to the general feeling at the time and also to the fact that it was about your 50th birthday. Is that so? There was another reason for your writing that letter in connection with your birthday, wasn't there? Do you know to what I refer?
FUNK: Yes.
MR. DODD: You received 520,000 Reichsmark from Hitler as a birthday present?
FUNK: No, that is not correct.
MR. DODD: Didn't you receive a present from Goering and Goebbels . . .
FUNK: Yes...
MR. DODD: Wait a minute till I get through-you don't seem to remember-you received a present from Goering and Goebbels in the first instance which had been made up of 250,000 Reichsmark from leading businessmen in Germany and 270,000 Reichsmark which came out of special accounts maintained by Goering and Goebbels. Then Hitler heard about that and ordered you to return that money because of the fact that some of it came from industry, and he himself gave you a so-called donation to the sum of 520,000 Reichsmark, isn't that so?
FUNK: The first is not correct, but the latter is correct. But may I explain the details; they are of a completely different nature.
MR. DODD: Go ahead.
FUNK: On my fiftieth birthday the President and Directorate of the Reich Chamber of Economics, the chief organization of the entire German economy, called on me and declared that because of my more than 20 years of service to German economy they wanted, with the approval of the Fuehrer, to make me a gift of an estate in Bavaria. That was a doubtful present, for later I had much worry and trouble because of it. A large house was built there because, as I was told, the Fuehrer had said that he also wanted me to work there. The taxes were so high, however, that I could not pay them, nor the remaining construction costs, either. Thereupon I did not appeal to Goering, but Goering heard about it and had 300,000 Reichsmark given to me in order to help me out of my financial straits. I did not receive any money from Goebbels, but with the approval of Goebbels the film corporation joined the Chamber of Economics in giving me this money. When the Fuehrer heard of the difficulties I had in paying taxes and making other payments he put a sum of 500,000 Reichsmark at my disposal. With the other money I received I made two donations, one of 500,000 Reichsmark to the Reichsbank for the families of the members of the Reichsbank killed during the war and another of 200,000 Reichsmark to the Reich Ministry of Economics for the families of members of that office who died in the war. I was able to live in, and pay for the upkeep of, this large house and grounds only because I had a relatively large income. However, from the beginning, when I saw the tremendous costs and expenses connected with it particularly in taxes, et cetera, I decided, in agreement with my wife, that after my death this estate should again be donated either to the Reichsbank or to my East Prussian homeland. I also discussed this several times with the Reichsbank Directorate.