dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
DR. PANNENBECKER: In that case I have no further questions. BY DR. SAUTER (Counsel for Defendant Funk): Q So as to supplement the statements already made by the witness, I have only a very few questions. Dr. Lammers, the Defendant Funk beginning with the year 1933 was the Chief of Press of the Reich Government? That is known to you? A Yes. Q You yourself at that time were in your office, weren't you? A Yes. Q Did the Defendant Funk in these capacity of Chief of press of the Reich Government exercise  any influence on decisions made by the Cabinet or upon the contents of proposed law, on the Cabinet? A That question must be answered with, "No, he may have had a certain amount of influence from the point of view of the press, that is to say, if a law had too strongly worded a heading or if there were any mistakes in its wordings but he had no influence upon the contents."  He was the Chief Of Press and as such he was first of all Ministerialdirektor and Secretary of State, and he had nothing to say about the contents. Q May was he appointed the Chief of Press -- why was he consulted for meeting? A Because of the reporting done through the press. Q That is to say, you mean only to inform the press regarding the decisions made by the Reich Cabinet? A Yes, that's right. Q But without exercising any influence on decisions or even to propose laws. A Yes, that's right. Q In that capacity of Chief Of Press of the Government, he, the defendant Funk, as you know, has held frequent press conferences with the 
     Chancellor, Hitler. Do you knew when these regular conferences of the Chief of Press of the Government with Hitler ceased? A  At the latest, they ceased one year later. These were joint conferences. Funk and I, at the beginning, had as many as three to four meetings with the Fuehrer, and these meetings became fewer during the winter of '33. Later on, in '34, after Hindenburg's death, they ceased completely. Q Who made these press reports to Hitler after that? A The Chief of Press of the Party, Dr. Dietrich. Q And with the exclusion of Dr. Funk? A Yes. Q Dr.
DR. PANNENBECKER: Lammers, the defendant Funk later on became President of the German Reichsbank. Do you know anything about the facts regarding the person who would decide about credits to be given to the Reich by the Reichsbank? A That decision was the Fuehrer's. The way it happened in practice was that the Minister of Finance would apply for a credit. He did that in duplicate. One letter was addressed to the Reich Minister of Finance, with the corresponding instructions, and the second letter was addressed to the President of the Reichsbank. Q Dr. Lammers, these technical details don't really interest us. What we are interested in is this. Did Dr. Funk, as President of the Reichsbank, have any influence regarding the question whether, and to what degree, the German Reich would be given credit, by the Reichsbank, or had a right to call on the Reichsbank for that? A Well, I can only answer your question with these technical details. All I received was those two documents. It was entirely a matter for signature. They were signed in one second by the Fuehrer, and then they were sent back. I had never had an order to negotiate with Mr. Funk, or previously, with Mr. Schacht, or the Minister of Finance. That was entirely a matter for signature;  that is all it was. Q So that according to your knowledge these directives and instructions came from Hitler and not the Reichsbank President? A The instructions were signed by the Fuehrer. Q Dr. Lammers, you have already mentioned this three-man college, or three-man collegium, which was formed during later years. Regarding 
     this three-man college or collegium, it has been stated by the prosecution that Funk was a member of this committee, shall we say, and that he was the last resort for the entry of laws during the war. A You can't say that at all. I stated already that these men acted independently, each in his own sphere, and that they hid the right to publish decrees, with the agreement of the others;   and they were very few, and quite insignificant decrees. Q You mean low-grade decrees? A Yes. Q Furthermore, Dr.
DR. PANNENBECKER: Lammers, the defendant Goering stated during his examination that the powers which Dr. Funk has as Plenipotentiary for Economy, I think in 1938, were mainly transferred to the Plenipotentiary for the Four Year Plan, or that, therefore, at any rate, Dr. Funk's powers, generally speaking, existed only on paper. I should be very interested in knowing whether these powers of the Plenipotentiary for the Four Year Plan were not inly in fact, but formally too, transferred to the Plenipotentiary for the Four Year Plan, in other words, Goering. A That was based on a Fuehrer order, a special order issued by the Fuehrer. Q When was that, approximately? A The Four Year Plan was created in '36, and it was extended in 1940 for another four years. The special powers which Funk surrendered to the Four Year Plan are based on an agreement between Reichsmarshal Goering and Minister Funk, an arrangement which, as far as I know, had the Fuehrer's approval. Q Dr. Lammers, you have already told the Tribunal that, I think, since 1938, no meetings of the Cabinet took place any longer and that, in the end, Hitler even prohibited informal discussions among ministers. Can you tell us anything regarding the question if, and how often, the defendant Dr. Funk had an opportunity -- during the seven years he was minister -- to talk to Hitler, to report to him, and so on and so forth? A During the first years, as I have said, as Chief of the Press, he reported more frequently. Q  But I mean later. A Well, later, as Minister of Economy, he very rarely had an opportunity to see the Fuehrer. On many occasions he wasn't even consulted for conferences, conferences at which he ought to have been consulted. Quite often he complained to me about that; and I  tried in every way to include him in such conferences as far as I could, but I didn't always succeed. Q Dr.
DR. PANNENBECKER: Lammers, I have noticed that records and minutes have been read out here where it is clearly said, and I think, by you, that the defendant Funk, as Minister for Economy, had asked you that he should participate in this or that important conference, and that you had expressly stated in that recprd that the Fuehrer had refused that, or that the Fuehrer had prohibited it. May I show you an example? For instance, I recollect a meeting of January 4, 1944 -- which is document 1292-PS -- where questions of labour were discussed. In those minutes it says -- once more written by you -that the application from Funk to participate had been refused,  Can you recollect such cases, and can you give us the reasons? A Yes, I can remember such cases, but I don't know whether they were mentioned in the record. Quite possible I informed Mr. Funk -- and I tried everything to arrange that Funk would be consulted. The Fuehrer, however, refused. Q The reason? A Frequently the Fuehrer would object to it, admitting that there were reasonable objections from Funk. He was sceptical about him;  he just didn't want him there. Q Witness, in April of 1941 you are supposed to have informed defendant Funk that Rosenberg, in accordance with an order of Hitler, was appointed for the coordination of natters in the Eastern Territories. That message, you are supposed to have passed on to Goering and Keitel, as well as to Funk. From that fact the conclusion has been drawn by the prosecution that Funk was one of the deciding persons who were concerned with the preparation for aggressive war against Russia. Can you tell us if, and if possible why, you passed that message to the defendant Funk at that time? A  Either the Fuehrer told me to -- which I don't think was the case -- or I was under the impression that because of economic reasons Funk would be interested in that message. It was because of a personal relationship that I passed it on to him, and I can't recollect today that I had any particular reason. of course, I passed the same message on to others, but probably not in writing.
DR. PANNENBECKER: I think the others may have received, it verbally. Of course, as far as an aggressive war was concerned, that was not mentioned when Rosenberg was given that task. He was supposed to be a political representative for Eastern Territories. He was to work on questions referring to foreign peoples. Q Dr. Lammers, roughly at the same time -- that is to say, the spring of '41, and shortly before the beginning of the Russian campaign -- you are supposed to have had some further discussions with the defendant Funk. They are supposed to have been concerned with the question of how one could possibly expect the foreign political situation, with reference to Russia, to develop. On that occasion you are supposed to have told defendant Funk something regarding the reasons why Hitler considered the possibility of a war against Russia as predominant. What did you tell defendant Funk at that time regarding these preparations for the war at one time or another? A It can only be what I knew myself at the time, namely, information which the Fuehrer had given me, that there had been troop concentrations in Russia which had been observed, which allowed the conclusion to be drawn that a conflagration with Russia might occur. These were the words the Fuehrer used. He said that the thing with Russia would happen and that he wished that one man -- and that was Rosenberg -- should concern himself with Eastern questions, since the possibility of an armed conflict with Russia did exist. That is probably what I told Funk. I can't imagine what else I could have told him. Q. At that time, Dr. Lammers, you are supposed not only to have mentioned troop concentrations on the Russian side along the eastern frontiers of Germany, but also the Russian march into Bessarabia. A. Yes, it is possible that that was the case. Bessarabia, very proabbly. I may have even mentioned the fact that discussions which had taken place with Russia, with Molotov, had had an unsatisfactory result. Q.
DR. PANNENBECKER: In that connection, and since you have referred to the discussions with Molotov, you are supposed to have told Defendant Funk particularly that Russia was making considerable demands in the Blakans, and regarding the Baltic Sea, and that for that reason, because of these demands, Hitler did expect the possibility of war. Could that be correct? A. It is possible that we have talked about it, but I can'c recollect it for certain. Q. And then you know that an organization was established under the heading central planning board. You know that, don't you? A. Yes. Q. Defendant Funk was made a member of the central planning, and I think this was at the end of 1943. Is it correct that Funk, when he joined the central planning board, was participating no longer and no longer interested in the use of laborers in the German Labor market? A. I believe that Funk's only interest in central planning was to the extent that he was receiving raw materials for civilian production. Q. You mean in the country? A. Yes, in the country. That was as far as he was interested in central planning board, since he was responsible for distribution of these goods, and civilian production had been transferred to Minister Speer. I think that was at the very moment when the minister for armament and munitions had been changed to minister for armament and war production. I think it was in 1943. Thus Funk, was, of course, very interested in raw materials, but workers, from that standpoint, interested him very little, in my opinion, since he hadn't enough raw material to allow the civilian production to work. Q. And then, Dr.
DR. PANNENBECKER: Lammers, I have one last question:  Can you remember that Defendant Funk in the year 1944 -- I think it was in February and later on during subsequent months -- has visited you and told you of his sufferings and sorrows regarding the unsatisfactory position which he was occupyling as minister of economy and plenipotentiary for economy, and that he talked to you about the question on that occasion whether his conscience would allow that he retain his position as president of the Reichsbank and Reich economy minister, and, if yes, then why he could do so or if he could resign from his position? Perhaps you can talk about that. A. I have discussed that question frequently with Funk. It was in 1943, but particularly in 1944. I know that he was considerably worried and that he wanted very much to have an opportunity to take his worries to the Fuehrer personally. If he did remain in office then it was only because he said that during wartime he couldn't resign from his position -- that wouldn't be the right thing for a rood German to do, to resign during wartime. But that was his greatest wish -- to be able to report to the Fuehrer regarding the economic situation, and particularly about the interferences committed by the gauleiters in various districts, and that it was his greatest wish that he could report to the Fuehrer regarding the war situation and that he could talk to the Fuehrer about a possible end of the war. All this took place in the beginning of 1944. I made several attempts to take Funk to the Fuehrer, and I nearly succeeded, since I had camouflaged the real reason and pretended that there was another reason -- the question of some finances. I took it to the Fuehrer, but he found out, and although Funk had been waiting for days and days he refused, the Fuehrer refused to hear him, probably due to Bormann's efforts. So he just didn't succeed in getting to the fuehrer and I didn't succeed in taking him there.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, I have no further question. DR. DIX (Counsel for Schacht):  Mr. President, if you wish to close the session at five, then I gun afraid I have to tell you that I won't be able to finish by five, and I am reluctant to break my examination.  May I ask you, therefore, if we should extend the session or whether we should break now.
THE PRESIDENT: I think you better go on, Dr. Dix; we have nearly ten minutes. BY DR. DIX: Q. Witness, other witnesses and yourself -- you because of great experience and on the strength of your position as chief of the chancellory at the seizure of power until the collapse, have 
     stated that applications to resign were prohibited through Hitler. I don't want to put any more questions on that subject, therefore. I merely want to refer to the attempts to resign which Schacht had actually made.  May I ask you, therefore, to start with, to answer the general question with yes or no; did Schacht apply to resign or not? A Yes. Q I should now like to discuss the individual applications to resign, with you.  I can't expect you, of course, without any help, to recall individual occasions.   May I have your permission therefore, to help your memory along in connection with the first question. You remember that in March, 1937, when Schacht stopped Reichsbank credits or rather gave notice with reference to them, and when you visited him. Wat that the time of the first resignation attempt? A I remember that very accurately, since Schacht's application to resign was considered unpleasant by Hitler, aid he gave me the task to put the matter right with Schacht.   Subsequently I made several personal visits to Schacht, but he refused to withdraw his resignation, and he gave as his reason that he couldn't approve any longer of the credit policy of the Fuehrer.  He, so he says, was afraid of an inflation and from that he would have to protect the German nation.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Dix, is it necessary to go into the details? We gather that there are several offers to resign. Is it necessary to go into the details of each one? Q In that case we leave it, and it is enough for me if you can confirm, Doctor, that in March 1937 Schacht did offer to resign. A Yes, and then there was a compromise and Schacht to start with continued for yet one more year, although the Reichsbank law had intended to have him there for four years. Q Please, will you try and remember August, 1937, when Goering had issued a decree referring to mines about which it was Schacht's view that this was an infringement of his sphere, and there was a second offer to resign, wasn't there? A Yes. Q  And didn't Schacht write aletter on that occasion which was addressed to Goering, the 5th of August, a copy of which he had sent to Hitler through you? Can you remember that? A Yes. That letter was the reason why Hitler dismissed Schacht afterwards. Q Now we are coming to the war. Is it right to say that during the war Schacht repeated his offers to resign? May I remind you, for instance, of the sunnier of 1941 and a memorandum which Schacht wrote to Hitler regarding the necessity of an immediate peace? A The first offer to resign happened because it had been prohibited to listen to foreign broadcasting stations. Schacht had been forbidden like many others to listen to foreign stations, andhe considered that a reason for a complaint and offered to resign, whether in writing or verbally I can't tell you. But at any rate he was refused, and later he submitted a memorandum in which he mentioned the end of the war and the political, economic, and military situation. I had to reply to Schacht and tell him that the Fuehrer had read the memorandum and had nothing to say in reply. Subsequently, in 1942, Schacht made another inquiry, and told me to ask the Fuehrer if the Fuehrer was disposed to receive yet another memorandum. To that the Fuehrer gave me the order to write to Schacht and tell him to refrain from submitting any further memoranda.
DR. DIX: I could, Mr. President, quote the important points of that memorandum for the witness, if the Tribunal knows the details of that memorandum, which I haven't got and which could only be ascertained from the memory of the witness.  I should very much like to put them before him. If on the other hand the Tribunal is of the opinion -
THE PRESIDENT: Have you got the memorandum? DR. DIX,  No, we have only got that memorandum in our memory -- that is to say, Schacht remembers the contents.
THE PRESIDENT: If the memorandum is lost and you can prove the loss you can put  the contents of it to the witness.  If you prove the loss of the memorandum you can put the contents to the witness.   If the contents are not relevant it is no good even for the witness.   Are the contents of the document relevant?
DR. DIX: Those points which I propose to quote, yes I do consider them relevant and they arc not very long either, they are short.
THE PRESIDENT: So far as the question of proof is concerned the rule is, I think, if the document has been lost you can prove the contents of it and you can put it to the witness.  Yes, you can put the points to him Dr. Dix.
DR. DIX: The question which you put to me involves considerable responsibility.  At the moment I can assure you that in accordance with my conviction it has been lost but whether I can prove that it has been lost, that is something I cannot take the responsibility for at the moment.  I am convinced it has been lost.
THE PRESIDENT: Herr Schacht presumably is going to say it was lost. You, of course, cannot prove it yourself but I mean you can prove it by Schacht.
DR. DIX: Yes, Schacht willconfirm it when he becomes a witness on the stand. BY DR. DIX: Q Well the, this was in September, 1941, that is to say after the great successes in Russia by the German Army and Schacht wrote in that memorandum to Hitler that Hitler had now reached the peak of his success and that this was the  most favorable moment for him to aim at peace.  During any further duration of the war -
MR. DODD: I suggest, would it not be more proper for counsel to ask this witness first of all whether or not he recalls the contents of the memorandum before reading what purports to be the contents.
THE PRESIDENT: I think he should, yes.
DR. DIX: It has been confirmed by the witness that he recollects the contents more or less, Dr. Lammers has said so.
THE PRESIDENT: I think you had better put it to him sentence by sentence and not all at once.
DR. DIX: I am not proposing to read it, your Lordship, I am merely trying to repeat the contents as Schacht remembers them.  I cannot read it, of course, since I have not got it.
THE PRESIDENT: Would you ask the witness if he remembers what the contents were, not putting it in a leading form.
DR. DIX: Yes, I shall certainly ask him.  But I think he has answered that he cannot remoter the details accurately so I am trying to give him some aid for his memory by giving him the main points.
THE PRESIDENT: Ask him what he does remember of it. BY DR. DIX: Q Well then, Dr. Lammers, without my presenting the main points to you, what do you remember? A I think that it said in the memorandum of Schacht in the excerpts on economy, both as to Germany and abroad, that now in the autumn of 1941 the most favorable moment had come to begin negotiations to end the war and I think he also explained the world situation but I cannot remember how.   He sketched the political situation in other countries.   He talked about America Italy, Japan and he compared the factors.  The Fuehrer then looked at the memorandum and put it aside and lie said: "I have already disapproved of that, I do not want to have it." As to further details, I do not know. Q Now that you have mentioned other powers, do you remember that he had stated that the dropping out of Italy was merely a question of time, since the opposition group around the king would not give in until Mussolini was brought down? A Yes, it is possible that it did say that but I cannot remember.
THE PRESIDENT: One moment.  The Tribunal will adjourn now. (Whereupon at 1710 hours the Tribunal adjourned to reconvene at 1000 hours on Tuesday, April 9, 1946.)
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Dix.
DR. DIX: Witness, it has been pointed out that I am putting my question too soon after your answers and that you are replying to my questions too quickly.
MR. JUSTICE ROBERT H. JACKSON (Chief of Counsel for the United States): I should like to take up a matter before the examination of the witnesses, if I may ask the indulgence of the Tribunal. I regret to say that this matter of printing documents has proceeded in its abuses to such an extent that I must close the document room to printing documents for German counsel. Now, that is a drastic step, but I know of nothing less that I can do and I submit the situation to the Tribunal. We received from the General Secretary's office an order to print and have printed a Document Book Number I for Rosenberg. That document book does not contain one item in its 107 pages that, by any stretch of the imagination, can be relevant to this proceeding. It is violent anti-Semitism and the United States simply cannot be put in the position, even at the order-which I have no doubt was an ill-considered one-of the Secretary of the Tribunal, of printing and disseminating to the press just plain anti-Semitism; and that is what this document is. Now, I ask you to consider what it is. I should say it consists of two kinds of things: anti-Semitism and what I would call, with the greatest respect to those who think otherwise, rubbish. And this is an example of the rubbish we are required to print at the expense of the United States and I simply cannot be silent any longer about this: "The philosophic method suited to bourgeois society - the critical one. That holds true in a positive as well as a negative sense. The domination of purely rational form, the subjugation of nature, the freeing of the autonomous personality, all that is contained in the method of thinking classically formulated by Kant, likewise, the isolation of the individual, the inner depletion of nature and community life, the connection with the world of form which is contained in itself and with which all critical thinking is concerned." Now, what in the world are we required to print that for? Let us look at some of the anti-Semitism.