dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
DR. NELTE: Did the Defendant Keitel at that time also state to you that he was in favor of an official warning or a note to the Allied Governments -- in respect to the well-known Dieppe case -- rather than separate court-martial proceedings without legal evidence? Goering: I think we had frequent discussions on this point. I advocated that in the case of pure terror-fliers -- that is to say, those who violated the orders of their own superiors -- there should be legal proceedings. Keitel said it would be hard to differentiate, and to carry this out. It would be more practical to send a note to the Allies to the effect that if it were not stopped, measures would have to be taken. The view that this course should be adopted was also advocated in other quarters.
DR. NELTE: Mr. President, when submitting my applications for evidence, I proposed, among other things, a characterization of Field Marshal Keitel given to me by Goering. In the session of 25 February an agreement was reached with the Prosecution that this characterization, which is in the form of an affidavit, might be submitted in the presence of the witness, that is, Goering. Am I now permitted to read you this characterization, of which you have already received the original, or may I refer to it as evidence and merely put it in? I ask this question because a part of the description which is contained in the affidavit has already been given by this witness in this interrogation.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the document that you are referring to? What is the origin of it? Is it a document drawn up by the Defendant Goering?
DR. NELTE: It is an affidavit signed by Goering, entitled, "Characteristics of Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel." It is referred to in my applications as an affidavit. Much of what is contained in it has already been said by Reich Marshal Goering.
THE PRESIDENT: The Defendant Goering is giving evidence under oath. Therefore, nothing in the shape of an affidavit ought to be put in. If you have any questions to ask him which he has not already answered, about the Defendant Keitel, you may ask them now. It is inappropriate to put in a written, sworn statement when you have a defendant giving evidence under oath.
DR. NELTE: In the session of 25 February 1946 this was approved, for the reason that it would shorten the proceedings if an affidavit were to be read and the witness were then to state: "That is correct." I have a copy here of the transcript of that session, should the Tribunal not recall.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: May it please the Tribunal, I should not care to object to this upon the ground that it is written, because I think there are occasions when the writing out of the testimony of a witness might be more expeditious than their examination. I object to it on the ground that it does not get us anywhere when you include it. It starts off: "Keitel gives the impression of a military man, an officer of the old school." That is not testimony that gets us anywhere. I admit that statement; he always impressed me that way. His philosophy is dominated in the main by militaristic ideas and concepts. Let Keitel give us a description of himself, if we must have one. I think an examination of this affidavit will show that it consists of matter that has been covered, or of matter on which another witness never ought to be interrogated. I object to it upon the ground that it has no probative value.
THE PRESIDENT: As you are aware, Dr. Nelte, any decision which the Tribunal made about documents was expressly made provisionally and with the condition that the decision about the relevancy of the document should be made when the document was produced. If the document had been produced before the Tribunal, they would have been able to look at it. They have not seen the document. The document appears, as Mr. Justice Jackson says, to be not a document which has any evidential value at all, and as the defendant is at present giving evidence under oath, the Tribunal will not look at the document.
DR. NELTE: Mr. President, as the Tribunal have examined this document and found that it is irrelevant, I accept that decision. But it seems to me that the Tribunal...
THE PRESIDENT: We are not preventing you from asking any questions of the witness which may be relevant, but we do not desire to read another document from the same person who is giving testimony.
DR. NELTE: I shall omit this affidavit.
DR. THOMA: Rosenberg was chief of the Office of Foreign Affairs of the NSDAP until 1940. Did he in this capacity, or otherwise personally, have an influence on Hitler's decisions concerning foreign policy? Goering: I believe that the Party's Central Department for Foreign Policy after the seizure of power was never once consulted by the Fuehrer on questions of foreign policy. It was established earlier only so that certain questions on foreign policy which arose within the Party could be dealt with centrally. I am not informed in detail about the methods of that office. As far as I know Rosenberg was certainly not consulted on questions of foreign policy after the accession to power.
DR. THOMA: Therefore, you do not know any details as to whether Rosenberg had a certain influence on Hitler in the Norwegian question? Goering: That I do not know. I stated yesterday what I know concerning the question of Quisling and also of Rosenberg.
DR. THOMA: When you were Prime Minister did Rosenberg become conspicuous to you as advocating the political or police persecution of the Church? Goering: He could not advocate the persecution of the Church by the police, because he had nothing to do with the police, and I would not have permitted any interference by him.
DR. THOMA: Do you know whether Rosenberg urged you to evacuate the Jews to Lublin, among other places? Goering: Rosenberg did not speak to me about that.
DR. THOMA: Did Hitler express to you his satisfaction that Rosenberg had not raised any objection to the Non-Aggression Pact with the Soviet Union, concluded at that time? Goering: One cannot exactly say that Hitler expressed his satisfaction. If Rosenberg had raised any objection, Hitler would probably have expressed his dissatisfaction in a very unmistakable manner; but he did state that Rosenberg, too, had apparently understood this political step.
DR. THOMA: Did Rosenberg, as Minister for the Occupied Eastern Territories, have any influence on the allocation of labor? Was he in a specific position to prevent the employment of the eastern peoples? Goering: A certain co-operation with regard to the employment program must have existed between the offices of Rosenberg and Sauckel , but certainly not in the sense that Rosenberg could have prohibited the recruiting of eastern workers in contradiction to the Fuehrer's order.
DR. THOMA: It is known to you that Rosenberg repeatedly made representations to the Fuehrer on behalf of a cultural betterment of the eastern European peoples, especially the Ukrainians? Goering: I was present once when Rosenberg spoke about the varying treatment of the Occupied Eastern Territories, of the peoples living there, and their cultural care. As far as I can recall -- or better said -- I especially recall that the conversation dealt with the establishment or the continuation of a university in Kiev. The Fuehrer agreed with him in his presence, I believe, but when he had gone, the Fuehrer said to me: "That man, too, has his particular worries. We have more important things to take care of now than universities in Kiev." That I do remember.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps we had better adjourn now for 10 minutes. [A recess was taken.]
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter; one moment. I want to speak to Dr. Nelte first. Dr. Nelte, in view of your application with reference to this document which is called "Characteristics of General Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel," the Tribunal have investigated that matter and have referred to Page 4987 of the shorthand notes (Volume VIII, Page 233), which possibly you may have had in mind; but you seem to have failed to notice that this very document, "Characteristics of Keitel," was denied in the order of the Tribunal in Paragraph 2 which contains the decision of the Tribunal after the argument in court, and which is set out on that page of the shorthand notes to which I have referred. Therefore, in the opinion of the Tribunal you have no right to offer that document which the Tribunal have already denied.
DR. NELTE: Mr. President, I have not the entire notes of the session before me. But I know that this affidavit was refused with the explanation that, in case the witness can be called, an affidavit is not to' be submitted, and that is the case here. Thereupon, Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, in quoting this particular document number of my document book, stated the following: "The Tribunal may perhaps remember that in the case of the witness Dr. Blaha, my friend, Mr. Dodd, adopted the practice of asking the witness..." And this affidavit belongs to this document.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Nelte, I am quite aware of that and I have already referred you to the exact page of the transcript which I have consulted. But defendants' counsel must be perfectly well aware that the Tribunal have given no decision in open court upon these applications for witnesses and documents, and the Tribunal made it perfectly clear that they would afterwards consider the applications that had been made. In each case a written order, which was perfectly clear, has been issued to the defendants' counsel, setting out the witnesses who are allowed, the witnesses who are denied, interrogatories that are allowed, and the interrogatories that are denied, the documents that were allowed and the documents which had been denied. In Paragraph 2 of the order is "The Characteristics of Keitel." Therefore, in the opinion of the Tribunal that document should never have been offered. That is all.
DR. NELTE: I tried to explain why I assumed that, in spite of the refusal of the affidavit, the material of the affidavit could be used in the interrogation of the witness.
DR. FRITZ SAUTER (Counsel for Defendants Funk and Schirach ): I request permission to put the following questions, on behalf of the Defendant Funk. [Turning to the witness.] The Defendant Funk joined the Party in the summer of 1931. At that time, as you know, he was the editor-in-chief of the Berliner Borsenzeitung . Is it known to you that in this capacity he enjoyed a particular prestige with thb press and in German economic circles? Goering: I know that at that time Funk and his economic articles in the B6rsenzeitung were highly thought of and that he had many connections in economic circles.
DR. SAUTER: We have heard that the Defendant Funk is accused of having promoted the coming to power of the Party through his activities, and I would be interested in hearing from you whether Funk, before the coming to power of the Party, played any role whatsoever in the Party; or is it correct to say that after resigning as editor-in-chief of the Berliner Borsenzeitung he brought out a so-called economic-political information service, not for the Party but for all economic circles, including the German People's Party? Goering: May I request that the question be put perhaps more precisely; this is a whole narration. But I can reply briefly. Before the seizure of power I was acquainted only with Funk's activity as editor of the Borsenzeitung , which I have already mentioned. And as such I heard him repeatedly mentioned in economic circles. Only after the seizure did I hear at all of Funk's having been in the Party and of his relationship with it. Thus, his Party activity could not have been of such tremendous significance or he would have come to my attention in some way. So far as his information service is concerned, whether he favored the Democrats or the People's Party, I know nothing about that.
DR.SAUTER: Then after the seizure of power, Funk became Press Chief of the Reich Government. That is known to you? Goering: Yes.
DR.SAUTER: Then subsequently he became State Secretary in the Reich Propaganda Ministry. That is also known to you? Goering: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: Now I would be interested to know what his work was as Press Chief of the Reich Government. Had Funk in this work any influence on the decisions of the Reich Cabinet? Goering: I am well acquainted with the circumstances of Funk's appointment as Reich Press Chief. After the Reich Cabinet had been sworn in, the new Reich Press Chief was to be appointed. We were in a room of the Kaiserhof Hotel, and the Fuehrer did not want anyone from the press organization who was a full Party member, but someone who had had some previous press experience yet had not been so prominent in the Party or bound to it. I do not know exactly who mentioned the name of Funk. But I do know that he then said, "Good!" Funk was summoned, and I believe that it was a great surprise for him. I had that impression. The Reich Press Chief had at the time, when Hindenburg was still Reich President. [There was a pause in the proceedings.]
THE PRESIDENT: You may go on now.
DR. SAUTER: I would like to repeat the question because it was not coming through. My question was to this effect: At the time that the Defendant Funk was Press Chief in the Reich Government, that is, after the seizure of power, had he any influence at all on the decisions of the Reich Cabinet? Goering: The Reich Press Chief had no influence of any sort on the decisions of the Reich Cabinet, for his task was of a different nature.
DR. SAUTER: Then Funk became State Secretary in the Propaganda Ministry. Here I am interested to know from you whether he, while exercising this office, was prominent in any way so far as propaganda or press policies were concerned and what his tasks were at that time in the ministry, according to your knowledge of the conditions? Goering: He became State Secretary because the Propaganda Ministry took over as its main function the press and the handling of press matters. Purely propaganda activities were carried on from the beginning by Goebbels himself, who was at the same time Propaganda Chief of the Party. Funk was appointed chiefly to organize the ministry as such, and in particular to handle economic matters of the press, that is, the acquisition of press organs, by purchase, subsidy, et cetera . His specialized knowledge was mainly utilized in this field.
DR. SAUTER: Then, when Dr. Schacht retired from his offices in November 1937, Funk became his successor as Reich Minister for Economics. The appointment took place in November 1937, but he took over the Ministry only in February 1938. Can you tell us why that was so, and who directed the Ministry of Economics in th e interim? Goering: In discussing the Four Year Plan I explained that after the resignation of Schacht, I personally directed the Ministry from November 1937 to February 1938, as far as I remember, although Funk had already been designated. I did this in order to integrate again into the Ministry of Economics the economic agencies outside the Ministry which were involved in the Four Year Plan. By freeing myself of this burden I was able to administer my directives with the Ministry as such.
DR. SAUTER: A similar situation seems to have existed for the Plenipotentiary General for Economics, Dr. Schacht, if I may again point this out, retired from this office at the same time as from the Ministry of Economics, in November 1937. Funk was appointed his successor, as Plenipotentiary for Economics, however, only in 1938. What is the reason for that? Goering: He was appointed Plenipotentiary General only in 1938 due to the fact that it was only in 1938 that he actually took over the Ministry of Economics. According to an old regulation, the Plenipotentiary General for Econoniics was identical with the Reich Minister of Economics. But at this time, during the last part of Schacht's term of office, that was just a matter of form, as I have already said; for I explained that from the minute when I actually took over the Four Year Plan, I personally was de facto the Plenipotentiary General for Economics. I suggested that this office be abolished, but, as is often the case, some things remain purely for reasons of prestige, things which no longer have any real significance. The Delegate for the Four Year Plan was the sole Plenipotentiary General for the entire German economy. Since there could not be two such men, the other existed only on paper.
DR. SAUTER: The consequence was, if I may draw this conclusion -- and I ask you to reply to this -- that Dr. Funk in his capacity of Plenipotentiary General for Economics as well as President of the Reich Bank was entirely subordinate to your directives as head of the Four Year Plan. Is that correct? Goering: Naturally, according to the plenary powers that were given me, he had to comply with my economic directives as far as the Ministry of Economics and the Reich Bank were concerned. That was a reason for the change, because I could not follow this procedure with Schacht, but from the beginning, Funk adopted an irreproachable attitude toward me in this respect. The directions or the economic policy which the Reich Minister of Economics and Reich Bank President Funk carried out are fully and entirely my exclusive responsibility.
DR.SAUTER: Perhaps you remember a birthday letter which the Defendant Funk wrote to Hitler about a week before the Polish campaign, I believe on 25 August, in which he thanked the Fuehrer for something or other. In this letter Funk stated that he had prepared and executed certain measureswhich, in the case of a war, would be necessary in the field of civilian economy and finance. You will remember this letter, and it has been read already. Goering: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: Do you remember when you gave Funk these special duties? The letter is dated, I believe 25 August 1939, if I may mention this again. And when did you give this task and these directions to the Defendant Funk? Goering: Just as military mobilization, or rather mobilization preparations have to be kept up to date and have to keep pace with the political situation -- whether it be tense or relaxed, or when it changes -- economic matters also, as I mentioned in my concluding remarks yesterday, have to keep pace in the same way. Thus, I ordered thorough preparations for mobilization in this field also. In the matters of foreign exchange and finance it was the duty of the president of the Reich Bank, as of the Reich Economics Ministry, in economic matters to make all preparations which would put me in the position, in the event of war, of having the utmost security for the German people in the economic field as well. At what time exactly I ordered this I cannot tell you, for it was a general basic direct ive which was always in effect.
DR. SAUTER: What powers did Funk have in the issuing of regulations, et cetera , for the economic administration in the occupied territories? Goering: I can no longer remember in detail now. The general directive he received from me. How far and to whom he, proceeding from this directive, issued departmental instructions in his special field in the occupied territory, I cannot say in detail; but they always resulted from my personal responsibility.
DR. SAUTER: Is it correct that the Four Year Plan in the occupied territories had special plenipotentiaries and departments, to the exclusion of Funk, for carrying out your directives? Goering: In some areas of the occupied territory this was the case. In other areas I made use of the departments existing there; and if I considered it necessary I gave directives to the Economics Ministry also to have this or that done with regard to the occupied territories.
DR. SAUTER: Then during the war the Ministry of Armaments was created, I believe in the spring of 1940. Is it correct that in the course of the war to an ever increasing degree, the authority of the Reich Ministry of Economics and, in the end, the entire civilian production also were transferred to that ministry, so that finally the Ministry of Economics remained as a commerce ministry only? Goering: At my suggestion, my urgent suggestion, the Fuehrer created a Ministry of Munitions under the then Minister Todt. This strictly munitions ministry became, in the course of further developments, the Armaments Ministry under Minister Speer , and gradually more and more tasks were transferred to it. As armament was the focus of the whole economy and everything else in economy had to be brought exclusively into this focus, a number of tasks of the Ministry of Economics were transferred to the Ministry of Armaments, in particular the whole of production. It is correct that in the end the Ministry of Economics, by and large, was left a hollow shell retaining only very subordinate departments.
DR. SAUTER: Now, I have a final question regarding the Defendant Funk. It is a question in connection with the matter of the Central Planning Board, that is, concerning the matter of foreign workers. I would be interested to learn whether you know, Witness, that Funk was called to attend the meetings of this Central Planning Board for the first time at the end of November 1943, and never before that time? Is that known to you? Goering: I know of the Central Planning Board. I never interfered in their internal matters. 1 cannot state exactly when Funk was called to this board. With the recruiting of foreign workers, however, he had nothing to do.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, if you will permit me, I have a few brief questions on behalf of the Defendant Schirach. [Turning to the witness.] Do you know whether the so-called "Flying HJ," a subdivision of the Hitler Youth, ever received flying training? Goering: The Flying HJ pursued the sport of gliding exclusively. After this training was completed, these men were taken into the National Socialist Flier Corps, the former Reich Air Sports League, and there continued their training in aircraft flying.
DR. SAUTER: Then another question: Did any conferences take place between you and the Defendant Schirach, especially while he was Reich Youth Leader, which were concerned with the question of military training, or pre-military training of youthin flying? Did such conferences take place or not? Goering: Whether we discussed these matters occasionally I do not know. There was no need for official conferences, because the situation was entirely clear. The Flying Hitler Youth were interested in gliding, and after they had received preliminary training they were taken into the flying corps.
DR. SAUTER: Do you recall the chart we were shown on the wall representing the organization of the Reich Cabinet? In the lower part, below the remark "other participants in Cabinet meetings," this chart showed the name of the Defendant Schirach along with Bohle, Popitz, Dietrich, and Gerecke. For that reason I would like now to put the following question to you: Was Schirach ever a member of the Reich Cabinet, or what functions or rights did he have in this connection? Goering: The Reich Cabinet as such consisted solely of the Reich Ministers. We differentiated between two kinds of sessions, Cabinet sessions and Ministerial Council sessions. The Cabinet sessions were normally attended by the ministers and their state secretaries. In some cases when special subjects were to be discussed, ministerial directors, or higher officials of the ministries concerned, could be called in for a short report. Then there were the so-called highest Reich posts. The Reich Youth Leadership was also one of these. If, therefore, legislation affecting the Reich Youth Leadership was to be discussed by the Cabinet, and Schirach learned about it, he could, by virtue of his position as Reich Youth Leader, request to be called to this meeting. On the same basis the Chief of the Reich Chancellery could order him to attend such a meeting. These representatives never attended the other regular Cabinet sessions. I believe I attended almost all sessions and, as far as I know, Schirach was never present. In contrast to that were the Ministerial Council sessions to which only Reich ministers were admitted and no one else.