dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
LT. BRYSON: "(3) The price and wage control must be rendered effective. The existing mismanagement must be eliminated. "(4) The use of the money and investment market must be at the sole discretion of the Reichsbank." It is clear that Schacht's fear was genuine and is a complete explanation for his departure from the scene. He had good reason to be afraid. In fact, the Finance Minister had already recognized the situation in September 1938. I refer the Tribunal to Document EC-419, Exhibit Number USA-621, which I have already submitted in evidence and which consists of a letter under date of 1 September 1938 from Krosigk to Hitler, in which Krosigk warns of an impending financial crisis. I quote from the bottom of Page 2.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that not really cumulative of what you have already read?
LT. BRYSON: We will be glad to skip it, Sir. It is cumulative. Schacht was not only afraid of a financial crisis, but he was afraid that he personally would be held responsible for it. I offer in evidence an affidavit of Emil Puhl, a director of the Reichsbank and co-worker of Schacht, dated 8 November 1945, designated as Document EC-438, Exhibit Number USA-646, and I read therefrom, beginning at the bottom of the second page: "When Schacht saw that the risky situation which he had sponsored was becoming insoluble, he was more and more eager to get out. This desire to get out of a bad situation was for a long time the 'Leitmotiv' of Schacht's conversation with the directors of the bank." In the end Schacht escaped by deliberately stimulating his dismissal from the Presidency of the Reichsbank. I offer in evidence Document 3731-PS, Exhibit Number USA-647, consisting of excerpts from an interrogation of Von Krosigk under date of 24 September 1945, and I wish to read several statements beginning at the very bottom of the second page: "I asked Mr. Schacht to finance for the Reich for the ultimo of the month the sum of 100 or 200 millions. It was this quite customary procedure which we had used for years, and we used to give back this money after a couple of days. Schacht this time refused and said that he was not willing to finance a penny because he wanted, as he said, that it should be made clear to Hitler that the Reich was bankrupt. I tried to explain that this was not the proper ground to discuss the whole question of financing because the question of financing very small sums for a few days during ultimo never would bring Hitler to the conviction that the whole financing was impossible. As far as I remember now, it was Funk who told Hitler something about this conversation; then Hitler asked Schacht to call upon him. I do not know what they said but the result certainly was the dismissal of Schacht."
THE PRESIDENT: Just give me the reference again to that document that you were reading from.
LT. BRYSON: This is the interrogation of Von Krosigk under date of 24 September 1945. I wish to read further, continuing on Page 3: "Q: 'Now did Schacht ever say anything to you to the effect that he wanted to resign because he was in opposition to the continuance of the rearmament program?' "A: 'No, he never said it in this specific form, but in some conversations he certainly spoke about it several times in his own way when he had encounters with Goering... therefore I did not take these things very seriously.' "Q: 'Well, let me put it this way, and please think carefully about this. Did Schacht ever say that he wanted to resign because he realized that the extent of the rearmament program was such as to lead him to the conclusion that it was in preparation for war rather than for defense?' "A: 'No, he never did.' "Q: 'Was Schacht ever quoted to you to this effect by any of your colleagues or by anybody else?' '`A: 'No.' "Q: 'Now, after Keitel took over the position of Chief of the Wehrmacht were there still meetings between Schacht and yourself with Keitel in place of Blomberg?' "A: 'Yes.' "Q: 'Did Schacht ever say anything at these meetings to indicate that except for the technical question of the financing through the Reichsbank directly he was opposed to a further program of rearmament or opposed to the budget of the Wehrmacht?' "A: 'No, I do not think he ever did."' The Defendant Goering has also confirmed this testimony. I refer the Tribunal to the interrogation of Goering under date of 17 October 1945, this being Document 3730-PS, Exhibit Number USA-648. I read from the interrogation of Goering on 17 October 1945, from the lower half of the third page: "Q: 'I want to ask you this specifically. Was Schacht dismissed from the Reichsbank by Hitler for refusing to participate any further in the rearmament program?' "A: 'No, because of his utterly impossible attitude in this matter regarding this advance, which had no connection with the rearmament program."' Hitler dismissed Schacht from the Reichsbank on 20 January 1939.
LT. BRYSON: Without reading, I offer in evidence Document EC-398, Exhibit Number USA-649, consisting merely of a brief note from Hitler to Schacht announcing his dismissal. From all of the foregoing it is clear that Schacht's dismissal in no sense reflected a parting of the ways with Hitler on account of proposed aggression. This fact may also be seen from Document EC-397, Exhibit Number USA-650, consisting of Hitler's letter to Schacht under date of 19 January 1939, the text of which I wish to read: "At the occasion of your recall from office as President of the Reichsbank Directorate I take the opportunity of expressing to you my most sincere and warmest gratitude for the services which you have rendered repeatedly to Germany and to me personally in this capacity during long and difficult years. Your name, above all, will always be connected with the first epoch of the national rearmament. I am happy to be able to avail myself of your services for the solution of new tasks in your position as Reich Minister." In fact, Schacht continued as Minister without Portfolio until January 1943. I wish to conclude by saying that the evidence shows: First, Schacht's work was indispensable to Hitler's rise to power and to the rearmament of Germany; second, Schacht personally was favorably disposed towards aggression and knew Hitler intended to and would break the peace; and, third Schacht retired from the scene for reasons wholly unrelated to the imminence of illegal aggression. As long as he remained in power, Schacht was working as eagerly for the preparation of aggressive war as any of his colleagues. He was beyond any doubt most effective and valuable in this connection. His assistance in the earlier phase of the conspiracy made their later crimes possible. His withdrawal from the scene reflected no moral feeling against the use of aggressive warfare as an instrument of national policy. He personally struggled to retain his position.
LT. BRYSON: By the time he lost it he had already completed his task in the conspiracy, namely, to provide Hitler and his colleagues with the physical means and economic planning necessary to launch and maintain the aggression. We do not believe that, having prepared the Wehrmacht for assault upon the world, he should now be permitted to find refuge in his loss of power before the blow was struck. This concludes our case against the Defendant Schacht, and Lieutenant Meltzer follows me with the presentation of the American case against the Defendant Funk. LIEUTENANT (j. g.) BERNHARD D. MELTZER (Assistant Trial Counsel for the United States): May it please the Tribunal, the documents bearing upon Defendant Funk's responsibility have been assembled in a document book marked "HH," which has been filed with the Tribunal and has also been made available to Defense Counsel. The same is true of the brief. The documents have been arranged in the book in the order of their presentation. Moreover, to facilitate reference, the pages of the document book have been numbered consecutively in red. I wish to acknowledge the invaluable collaboration of Mr. Sidney Jacoby, who sits to my right, in the selection and analysis of these documents. We propose to submit evidence concerning five phases of Defendant Funk's participation in the conspiracy: First, his contribution to the Nazi seizure of power; second, his role in the Propaganda Ministry and in the related agencies and his responsibility for the activities of that ministry; third, his responsibility for the unrelenting elimination of Jews, first from the so-called cultural professions and then from the entire German economy; fourth, his collaboration in the paramount Nazi task to which all other tasks were subordinated - preparation for aggressive war; and finally, we propose to mention briefly the evidence concerning his active participation in the waging of aggressive war.
LT. BRYSON: We turn now to the evidence showing that Defendant Funk actively promoted the conspirators' accession to power and their consolidation of control over Germany. Soon after he joined the Nazi Party in 1931 Defendant Funk began to hold important positions, first within the Party itself and then within the Nazi Government. Funk's positions have, in the main, been listed in Document Number 3533-PS, which is a statement signed by both Defendant Funk and his counsel. This document has been made available in the four working languages of these proceedings, and a copy in the appropriate language should be available in each of Your Honors' document books. It is accordingly requested that this document, which is Exhibit Number USA-651, be received into evidence without the necessity of its being read in its entirety. Your Honors will observe that there are some deletions and reservations after some of the items listed in Document Number 3533-PS. These were inserted by Defendant Funk. The words which he wished deleted are enclosed in parentheses. His comments are underscored and followed by asterisks. We wished to avoid troubling the Tribunal with a detailed discussion of all these contested points. Accordingly, we collected in Document 3563-PS relevant excerpts from certain German publications. This document has also been made available in the four working languages. Moreover, we submit that the Tribunal can properly take judicial notice of the publications referred to in the document. However, in order to facilitate reference, we request that it be received in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-652. In connection with Item "b" on the top of Page 1 of Document Number 3533-PS - Your Honors will find that on Page 1 of the document - Your Honors will observe that Defendant Funk has in effect denied that he was Hitler's personal economic adviser in the 1930's. However, the excerpts from the four German publications set forth on Pages 1 and 2 of Document Number 3563-PS directly contradict this denial.
LT. BRYSON: We submit that it will be clear from the documents just referred to that Defendant Funk, soon after he joined the Party, began to operate as one of the Nazi inner circle. Moreover, as a Party economic theorist during its critical days in 1932, he made a significant contribution to its drive for mass support by drafting its economic slogans. In this connection I would refer to Document 3505-PS, which is a biography entitled, in the English translation, Walter Funk - A Life for Economy. This biography was written by one Oestreich in German and published by the Central Publishing House of the Nazi Party. I offer this document in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-653. I wish to quote now from Page 1 of the translation of this document, the center of the page. The corresponding page of the German document is Page 81: "In 1931 he" that is, Funk "became a member of the Reichstag. A document of his activity at the time is the 'Economic Construction Program of the NSDAP' which was formulated by him in the second half of the year 1932. It received the approval of Adolf Hitler and was declared binding for all Gau leaders, speakers on the subject, and Gau advisers on the subject and others of the Party." Thus Defendant Funk's slogans became the economic gospel for the Party organizers and spellbinders. Defendant Funk, however, was much more than one of the Nazi Party's economic theorists; he was also involved in - the highly practical work of soliciting campaign contributions for the Party. As liaison man between the Party and the large German industrialists he helped place the industrialists' financial and political support behind Hitler. Defendant Funk, in an interrogation conducted on 4 June 1945, admitted that he helped finance the highly critical campaign of 1932. I offer in evidence Document Number 2828-PS as Exhibit Number USA-654, and I quote from the bottom of Page 43...
THE PRESIDENT: Lieutenant Meltzer, isn't this really all cumulative and detailed evidence to support what the Defendant Funk has already agreed with reference to his office? On Page 1 you have there the admission that he was a member of the Nazi Party, chief of the division of the Central Nazi Party, chairman of the committee of the Nazi Party on economic policy, and then it goes on from A to U with views of the various offices which he held and which he admits he held. But surely to go into the details of those positions is unnecessary.
LT. MELTZER: If Your Honor pleases, the admission of the various positions listed do not, in our judgment, indicate in any way Defendant Funk's participation in the fund-raising for the Nazi Party.
THE PRESIDENT: The fund-raising?
LT. MELTZER: The fund-raising. Now, it is a possible inference from those positions that he did engage in the solicitation of campaign contributions. However, it did seem to us relevant to mention most briefly direct evidence of that aspect of his activity.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, if you say there is nothing in these offices which covered the matter you are going to deal with; well and good.
LT. MELTZER: Defendant Funk, in an interrogation conducted on 4 June 1945, admitted, as I said a minute ago, that he helped to finance this highly critical campaign.
THE PRESIDENT: You see, Lieutenant Meltzer, the heading that you have so conveniently given to us is that he contributed to the seizure of power. Well now, nearly every one of the headings A to U on Page 1, which he admits, is evidence that he contributed to seizure of power. Is it your object to propose that he also helped to raise funds? The contribution to the seizure of power is not in itself a crime; it is only a step.
LT. MELTZER: Very well, Your Honor. There is one aspect, however, of his activity in that regard which I should like to mention; that is, in connection with his fund-raising activities, he was present at a meeting in Berlin early in 1933. I am referring to the document which records what went on in that meeting in order to point out that in the course of the meeting Hitler and Goering submitted an exposition of certain basic elements of the Nazi program. The reference to this meeting is found in Document 2828-PS, which Your Honors will find on Page 28 of the document book. I wish to quote the following question and answer: "Q: 'About 1933, we have been informed, certain industrialists attended a meeting in the home of Goering before the election in March. Do you know anything about this?' "A: 'I was at the meeting. Money was not demanded by Goering but by Schacht. Hitler left the room, then Schacht made a speech asking for money for the election. I was there as an impartial observer, since I was friendly with the industrialists."' The character and importance of Funk's work with the large industrialists is emphasized in the biography of Funk, which I referred to earlier, and I will simply invite Your Honors' attention to the relevant pages of that book, which are 83 and 84.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't understand why you read that passage. If you wanted to show that he was at the meeting, it would be merely sufficient to say that he was at the meeting. I don't think those two sentences that you read help us in the very least.
LT. MELTZER: If the Tribunal please, those two sentences do not refer to the meeting. Those two sentences refer to the biography which sums up the Defendant Funk's general contribution to the Nazi accession to power and I thought it might be of interest to the Tribunal to see the attitude of a German writer on this aspect of the defendant's career.
THE PRESIDENT: It seems to me you referred to the meeting.
LT. MELTZER: I was referring Your Honors to Pages 32 and 33 of the document book, and to clarify this point may I read briefly from the biography: "No less important, than Funk's accomplishments in the programmatic field in the years 1931 and 1932 was his activity at that time as the Fuehrer's liaison man to the leading men of the German industry, trade, commerce, and finance. On the basis of his past work his personal relations to the German economic leaders were broad and far-reaching. He was now able to enlist them in the service of Adolf Hitler and not only to answer their questions authoritatively but to convince them and win their backing for the Party. At that time that was terribly important work; every success achieved meant a moral, political, and economic strengthening of the vitality of the Party and contributed toward destroying the prejudice that National Socialism is merely a party of class hatred and class struggle."
THE PRESIDENT: Again, I don't see that that has helped the Tribunal in the least.
LT. MELTZER: After Funk had helped Hitler become Chancellor, as Press Chief of the German Government, he participated in the early Cabinet meetings, in the course of which the conspirators 11 Jan.46 planned the strategy by which they would secure the passage of the Presidential Emergency Decree, which was passed on 24 March 1933. Funk's presence at these meetings is revealed by Document 2962-PS which has already been received in evidence and by Document Number 2963-PS, offered as Exhibit Number USA-656. Your Honors will recall that this decree marked the real seizure of political power in Germany. Soon after this the Defendant Funk assumed an important role in the Ministry of Propaganda. The record shows that the Ministry became one of the most important and vicious of Nazi institutions and that propaganda was fundamental to the achievement of the Nazi program within Germany and outside of Germany. We do not propose to review those matters to you but rather to present evidence showing, as we have said, that the Defendant Funk took a significant part in the propaganda operations. The Ministry was established on 13 March 1933, with Goebbels as Chief and Defendant Funk as undersecretary, second in command. As undersecretary Defendant Funk was not only Goebbels' chief aide but was also the organizer of the large and complex propaganda machine. I wish to offer in evidence Document Number 3501-PS, which will be found on Page 47 of your document book as Exhibit Number USA-657. This document is an affidavit signed on 19 December 1945 by Max Amann, who held the position of Reich Leader of the Press and President of the Reich Press Chamber. I should like to read the second sentence of the first paragraph and the entire second paragraph: 'In carrying out my duties and responsibilities I became familiar with the operation and the organization of the Reich Ministry of Propaganda and Enlightenment. Funk was the soul of the Ministry, and without him Goebbels could not have built it up.
LT. MELTZER: Goebbels once stated to me that Funk was his 'most efficient man.' Funk exercised comprehensive control over all of the media of expression in Germany; over the press, the theater, radio, and music. As Press Chief of the Government and later as undersecretary of the Ministry, Funk held daily meetings with the Fuehrer and a daily press conference in the course of which he issued the directives governing the materials to be published by the German press." In addition to his position as undersecretary, Funk had many other important jobs in the Propaganda Ministry and in its subordinate agencies. These positions have already been' listed in Document 3533-PS. I wish, however, to refer in particular to Funk's position as vice-president of the Reich Chamber of Culture. This position was, of course, related to his functions in the Propaganda Ministry. In his dual capacity he directly promoted two vital and related Nazi policies. The first was the regimentation of all creative activities in the interests of Nazi political and military objectives. The second was the complete elimination of Jews and dissidents from the so-called cultural professions. A full discussion of the methods by which these policies were effectuated has been included in the brief which was submitted as part of Document Book E. Accordingly, we will not go into that matter now unless the Tribunal wishes us. In view of the Defendant Funk's major role in the Propaganda Ministry, it is natural to find Nazi writers stressing his responsibility for the Nazi perversion of culture. In this connection, I Will simply invite the Tribunal's attention to Pages 94 and 95 of Oestreich's biography, which has already been referred to. After Defendant Funk left the Ministry- of Propaganda and became Minister of Economics in 1938, he continued to advance the anti-Jewish program. For example, on 14 June 1938 he signed a decree providing for the registration of Jewish enterprises.
LT. MELTZER: This decree, which became the foundation for the ruthless economic persecution which followed, is found in the Reichsgesetzblatt, 1938, Part I, Page 627. It is requested that the Tribunal take judicial notice of this reference to the Reichsgesetzblatt and all subsequent references. May I add that the brief on Defendant Funk gives the document numbers of translations of decrees and other German publications of which the Tribunal will be requested to take judicial notice.
THE PRESIDENT: Would that be a convenient time to break off?
LT. MELTZER: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Before we do so, Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, I see that one of the counsel, Colonel Phillimore, I think, is proposing to call certain witnesses. The Tribunal would like to know who those witnesses are and what subject their evidence is going to deal with.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Would the Tribunal like to know now? I would like to let them know, if it is convenient.
THE PRESIDENT: If you could, it would be convenient now.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes. The first witness is Korvettenkapiten Moehle, who was a captain on Defendant Doenitz' staff; and he will prove the passing on the Doenitz order of 17 September 1942. 1 think that is the main point that he deals with.  I think he deals also with the destruction of some rescue ships, but that is the main point. The second witness is Lieutenant Heisig. He will deal primarily with lectures of the Defendant Doenitz in which he advocated the destruction of the crews of merchant ships. That is the general effect of the evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. [The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours.] Afternoon Session
THE PRESIDENT: Lieutenant Meltzer, are you intending to call any witnesses this afternoon?
LT. MELTZER: No, Sir. There is another member of the Prosecution, Sir, who I believe is intending to call a witness - Mr. Dodd.
THE PRESIDENT: In connection with the case against Funk?
LT. MELTZER: No, Your Honor. :
THE PRESIDENT: Or in connection with the case against somebody else?
LT. MELTZER: Yes, Sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Who is it in connection with, Raeder?
LT. MELTZER: I believe Mr. Dodd might offer...
THE PRESIDENT: Raeder, is it?
LT. MELTZER: No, Sir. Mr. Dodd might offer a better explanation than I on the purpose of calling the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Dodd?
MR. THOMAS J. DODD (Executive Trial Counsel for the United States): Yes, Sir. Your Honor, the witness is offered in connection with the Defendants Rosenberg, Funk, Frick, Sauckel, and Kaltenbrunner.
THE PRESIDENT: I see. The evidence relates to concentration camps, does it?
MR. DODD: It does, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: I see.
MR. DODD: This witness would have been called at the time that we presented the other proof, except for the fact that he, was before the military court at Dachau at that time and was not available.
THE PRESIDENT: I see; thank you.