dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
DR. SAUTER: But nevertheless, Your Honors, one thing is still a fact, namely, that nothing was kept secret from the numerous employees of the Reichsbank about exactly what kinds of objects were involved. On the contrary, the Reichsbank personnel was even entrusted by Vice President Puhl with the task of sorting the valuables delivered and converting them into cash at the pawn shop. Dozens of Reichsbank officials who regularly entered the vaults could see the various articles every day, and the Reichshauptkasse, an institution entirely separate from the Reichsbank, from time to time settled accounts for the conversion of valuables into cash with the Reich Ministry of Finance in a quite open and thoroughly routine way. Naturally, the Defendant Funk did not know, and still does not know today, whether and to what extent agreements had been reached between the Finance Minister and Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler for accounting for the gold articles to the Reich. He was never interested in it, and indeed it did not concern him. From all these facts, as shown by the evidence, one can readily conclude that Funk himself knew nothing about the things which were turned over to the Reichsbank at the time, and that even Vice President Puhl and Reichsbank Councillor Thorns did not think there was anything bad connected with the things, although Thoms, at least, had seen of what the deposits actually consisted. For this reason there is no longer any need to examine the obvious question as to whether the initial statements of Puhl with regard to the deposits of the SS should not have been received with a certain skepticism from the very beginning. Puhl apparently had the understandable desire at least by his written affidavit to shift responsibility from himself to the shoulders of his President Funk in order to free himself of his own responsibility for the unpleasant facts of the case when he was told during his imprisonment that the gold articles of the SS consisted mostly of spectacle frames and gold teeth and had been taken from victims of concentration camps.
DR. SAUTER: At the beginning, even Puhl apparently did not see anything wrong in the whole business. For him the matter was an ordinary business transaction of the Reichsbank for the account of the Reich, which he dealt with in the same manner as he dealt with gold articles and foreign currency that had been confiscated by the Customs Investigation Office or the Office of Control for Foreign Currency or any other State authority. Gentlemen, whatever one may judge the responsibility of Vice President Puhl to be, at all events these things lie outside the responsibility of the Defendant Funk who is the only one with whom you are concerned in connection with this point here. In the period after this time Funk had only two or three very brief and unimportant conversations with Puhl regarding these gold deposits with a view to converting into cash gold coins and foreign currency delivered in the regular way. Outside of this, Funk did not concern himself at all with this whole matter any more. He knew even less about the matter than Puhl, and it is not without significance that Puhl declared here under oath that he would never have permitted these gold objects to be deposited in the Reichsbank at all if he had had the slightest notion that the things had been taken from concentration camp victims under criminal circumstances by the SS. If Vice President Puhl did not know that and could not have guessed it, then Funk could have known even less about it, and Puhl's initial statement which was to the effect that-as he said at the time-"the gold articles had been accepted by the Reichsbank with Funk's knowledge and agreement and had been converted into cash with the assistance of the Reichsbank personnel," was a grossly misleading statement to the Prosecution. Subsequently during his imprisonment when Puhl first learned of the true circumstances, he surely must have felt the same compunctions as Funk, however innocent the latter was in the case.
DR. SAUTER: In conclusion, Puhl declared here under oath that he would not have tolerated such transactions either, and that he would have brought the matter to the attention of the Directorate of the Reichsbank as well as to that of President Funk if he had known that the valuables were taken from victims of concentration camps and had been informed about the nature of these valuables. In connection with this topic, therefore, I come to the following conclusion: The Reichsbank certainly transacted business for the account of the Reich, the subject matter of which was derived from criminal acts of the SS; but the Defendant Funk knew nothing of this. He would not have tolerated such transactions had he known the true circumstances. Therefore, he cannot be made criminally responsible for this. The same is true, Your Honors, with regard to Reichsbank credits for the business agencies of the SS, concerning which I shall limit myself to a few sentences. In his written affidavit of 3 May 1946 the witness Puhl has given a completely misleading account of this matter also. For he stated originally that credits of 10 to 12 million Reichsmark furnished by the Gold Discount Bank upon the instruction of the Defendant Funk were used-and I am now quoting literally: "for financing production in SS factories by workers from concentration camps." In his oral examination as a witness, Puhl then was asked whether Funk had any knowledge that persons from concentration camps were employed in these factories at all. In reply to this, Puhl declared literally: "I am inclined to assume this, but I am not in a position to know it." Therefore, he was not able to give any definite evidence concerning Funk's knowledge, but only to express a conjecture. In contrast to this, Funk's own statement in regard to this matter is quite clear and convincing. It was to the effect that he knew, indeed, about the request for credit by the SS, and that he even granted it, but that he knew nothing about the nature of the SS enterprises concerned and about the people who were employed in them.
DR. SAUTER: Funk stated this under oath. Accordingly, this credit transaction, which moreover occurred about 2 years before the affair of the SS gold deposits, that is, prior to 1940, incriminates neither the Defendant Funk nor the witness Vice President Puhl. At that time, in 1940, neither of them was acquainted with the conditions in the concentration camps. They only learned about them much later, that is, in the course of this Trial. Nor did the Defendant Funk know that persons from the concentration camps were working in the afore-mentioned SS factories for which the credit was intended. Gentlemen, in this connection it appears necessary to devote a few more sentences to a discussion of the question whether Funk ever visited a concentration camp. The witness Dr. Blaha, who was examined here, stated that Dr. Funk was once in Dachau in the first half of 1944. This visit was supposed to have occurred as a sequel to a conference of the Finance Ministers at Berchtesgaden, or in some other place in this region, in which Funk is said to have participated. Yet, Gentlemen, when he was examined here, the witness Dr. Blaha was unable to say that he had personally seen the Defendant Funk in Dachau, but had only heard from camp inmates at Dachau-that is, from other persons-that the Reich Minister of Economics, Funk, was with many other visitors allegedly present. He did not see him; nor would he have known him if he had. From the very beginning Funk himself has flatly denied this visit to Dachau. He also stated this under oath, and the affidavit made by his constant companion Dr. Schwedler (contained in the Funk document book under Number 13 submitted to you) proves beyond a doubt that Funk never was in a concentration camp, Dr. Schwedler is in a position to know this, as at that time he was the constant companion of the defendant and knew where Funk was from day to day. Moreover, Funk was never a Finance Minister, as the witness Dr. Blaha assumed, and never took part in a conference of Finance Ministers. Therefore, it appears beyond any doubt that what the witness Dr.
DR. SAUTER: Blaha stated here purely from hearsay is based on false information, or he has confused Funk with another visitor, which was very easily possible since the Defendant Funk was comparatively unknown to the public. The conclusion, therefore, is that Funk never visited a concentration camp and never personally became aware of the conditions prevailing in such camps. Now, by this assertion Funk by no means wishes to allege that he knew nothing at all about the existence of concentration camps. Funk was naturally cognizant of the fact, just as almost any other German, that there were concentration camps in Germany after 1933; just as he knew that there were and still are penitentiaries, prisons, and other penal institutions in Germany. But what he did not know, and what I want to stress here, was the very large number of such concentration camps and the hundreds of thousands, even millions, of their inmates. Equally unknown to him were the countless atrocities committed in these camps, which first became known only in this Trial. In particular it was only during this Trial that Funk learned that there were extermination camps which murdered millions of Jews. Funk had no knowledge of this; he has stated this under oath and it also appears absolutely credible, for one of the most important results of this Trial, in the opinion of the Defense, consists in providing proof of the fact that the German people in general knew nothing about the large number of concentration camps or the conditions within them, but that on the contrary those conditions were kept secret in such a cunning and cruel way that even the highest officials of the Reich including the very ministers knew nothing about them. Your Honors, the Defense have now presented their views on that part of the Indictment which, had it been true, would have tragically incriminated the man Funk.
DR. SAUTER: One may think as one pleases about acts of violence during a political and economic struggle, especially in stormy revolutionary periods, but in the opinion of the Defendant Funk himself there can be no disagreement on one point, namely, with regard to the concentration camp atrocities committed for years, especially against the Jewish population. Anyone who participated in such unheard-of atrocities should be made to atone for them in the severest way, according to the opinion of the entire German people. That is also the point of view of the Defendant Funk, which he expressed here on 6 May 1946 when he replied to the American prosecutor from the witness stand that as a man and as a German he felt deeply guilty and shamed for the crimes which Germans committed against millions of poor people. Gentlemen, I have now reached the end of my consideration of the Funk case as far as criminal law is concerned, And that is the duty of the Defense in this Trial. The examination of the evidence with regard to the Funk case has, in the opinion of the defendant, produced proof that a legal guilt, a criminal guilt, on his part does not exist, and that he can ask you for his acquittal with a clear conscience because he has never committed any criminal acts in his life. Your task as judges will now be to find a just verdict for the Defendant Funk, a verdict which will not make him atone for the crimes of others, crimes he could not prevent and which he may not even have known about, but a verdict which only establishes the degree of his own guilt and not the degree of his political guilt, but of his criminal guilt which is the sole object of these proceedings.
DR. SAUTER: This verdict should be valid not only for today but also recognized as just in the future when we shall view these terrible events in the proper perspective and dispassionately as we would ancient history; a verdict, Your Honors, which will not only satisfy the nations which you represent, but which will also be recognized as just and wise by the German people as a whole; a verdict, finally, which is not only destructive, retaliatory, and which will sow hatred for the future, but one which will make it possible for the German people to move forward toward a happier future of human dignity and charity, of equality and peace.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Dodd, will you or Sir David deal with this. Sir David, I have got a document drawn up by the General Secretary which shows in the first place, in the case of the Defendant Goering, that there are four interrogatories which have been submitted, and to which the Prosecution has not objected. Is that right?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That is so, My Lord, so there is no further comment with regard to that first application.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Then, with reference to the Defendant Ribbentrop, there are two affidavits to which there is no objection, and there are three further affidavits which have not been received, I understand.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That is so, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: And one document to which the defendants' counsel wants to refer in its entirety, namely, TC-75, is that right?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, My Lord, that is so. There is no objection to that.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps I had better go on to the end of the documents and then call upon Dr. Horn for what he has got to say about those three, because as far as I can see, there are only these three documents and an affidavit for Seyss-Inquart from a man called Erwin Schotter, and another from a man called Adalbert Joppich, which have not yet been received.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That is so, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: And three letters from Seyss-Inquart to Himmler which have not yet been produced.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That is so, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: Also, in the case of Fritzsche there are two interrogatories of Delmar and Feldscher which have not yet been received.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, with regard to the three letters of the Defendant Seyss-Inquart, they have been received, but they have not yet been translated into French, and I think, My Lord, the simplest way would be if the Tribunal took it that provisionally there is no objection but that the French Delegation reserve their right to make any objection if, upon receiving the translation, they find there is any objection to make.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, the French Delegation will let the Tribunal know if they find there is any objection.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Now, with reference to the rest, so far as the Prosecution are concerned, what are the objections, if any?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I think the only objection there is concerns the application of Dr. Servatius for the Defendant Sauckel. Your Lordship sees that after the interrogatories granted by the Tribunal there are certain documents which were introduced on 3 July by the Defendant Sauckel to be considered by the Tribunal, and then there is a number which is lettered "A" to `'I." The Prosecution suggests that these documents are cumulative of the large number of documents already introduced on behalf of this defendant, and, My Lord . . . THE PRESIDENT [Interposing]: Just one minute, Sir David. These documents "A" to "I," were they applied for after the case had been closed?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: They were submitted on 3 July, Sir. That would be after the case had been closed.
THE PRESIDENT: But that was at the time, was it not, when we were asking for supplementaries?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, at the very end.
THE PRESIDENT: That very day?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes. My Lord, I am sorry, but the case was not technically closed, for that day was open for any defendant to put in.
THE PRESIDENT: Are these documents which you have just been referring to-"A" to "I"-are they already all in the document book?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Dr. Servatius tells me they are. My Lord, I have just been having a word with Dr. Servatius and he says that the one to which he attac0hes the greatest importance is "A," the decree by the Defendant Sauckel as to return transportation of sick foreign workers. My Lord, I am quite prepared on that assurance by Dr. Servatius not to make any objection to number "A," and Dr. Servatius, on the other hand, says that he does not press for the others. My Lord, there is another application which has just come in on behalf of the Defendant Sauckel for a document. It is an affidavit by the defendant himself, dated 29 June 1946. The Prosecution have no objection to the application. My Lord, I think the only other matter with regard to the Defendant Sauckel is with regard to an affidavit from a witness called Falkenhorst. My Lord, that again, the Prosecution submits, is cumulative.
THE PRESIDENT: You say Falkenhorst?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Falkenhorst, Sir. My Lord, it is the very last application on my list.
DR. ROBERT SERVATIUS (Counsel for Defendant Sauckel): Mr. President, may I make a statement concerning the witness Falkenhorst? This witness was called for Bormann; I waived his examination and submitted this affidavit with the approval of the Tribunal, and since, in my opinion, it was approved, I waived the witness. I assume that this is quite clear and is confirmed by the Prosecution also.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you mean, Dr. Servatius, that the affidavit from Falkenhorst had already been granted before?
DR.SERVATIUS: I assume it was granted at that time. The witness was waiting outside and I was asked whether I would like to question him, and I said in reply that I had an affidavit which was limited to one particular incident and it would be sufficient if I could submit the affidavit. Me was the last witness who was supposed to be examined here, after the end of the actual hearing of evidence.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I do not insist in the opposition in these circumstances. My Lord, that is all the comment the Prosecution have to make.
THE PRESIDENT: What about these two affidavits asked for by Dr. Steinbauer from Erwin Schotter and Adalbert Joppich?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, we have not got these yet. As I understand it, they have been admitted by the Tribunal subject to any objection, and I am afraid we cannot tell until we have seen them.
THE PRESIDENT: I see; well, then for the rest you have no other objections? ,
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No other objections.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, we have just had another document placed before us which contains an application on behalf of the Defendant Sauckel to call as a witness his son Friedrich Sauckel. The Prosecution has objected to that on the ground of irrelevance and cumulativeness.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, My Lord, that is the position. It did not seem, on consideration of the outline of the evidence, that the evidence of the defendant's son would contribute anything fresh.
THE PRESIDENT: And that application was made after the 3 July? No, I see that is wrong. It was submitted before, but it was not mentioned on 3 July.
DR.SERVATIUS: Mr. President, it was an application to bring the witness here from England, since presumably he can give information regarding a number of things. I have not yet made a formal application. It was just a request to have him brought from England to Nuremberg for the purpose of finding out whether he knows anything of importance, as he claims.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I would not make objection to the defendant's son being brought here for the purpose of Dr. Servatius' having a talk with him and seeing whether he can contribute anything.
THE PRESIDENT: The difficulty that these sorts of applications put the Tribunal in is that the case never closes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, My Lord, I quite agree.
DR. SERVATIUS: I did not know that the witness was in England. He was a prisoner and there had been no news about him previously.
THE PRESIDENT: Then, Sir David, do we have an affidavit from the Defendant Sauckel himself which you have already dealt with?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: Then there is an affidavit by the Defendant Jodl on behalf of Kaltenbrunner; the application has been received at the General Secretary's office on 5 July.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: That was after the last date when the defendants' counsel were asked for their applications.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, My Lord, I am afraid I have not been able to collect the views of the Prosecution on that point. My Lord, the substance of that affidavit was contained in Dr. Kauffmann's speech. I do not think it really has any materiality, I mean that there is any real-that there can be any objection to the affidavit, because I am almost positive I remember this passage occurring, or an equivalent passage, giving the Defendant Jodl's views on Kaltenbrunner in Dr. Kauffmann's Speech. My Lord, therefore, I do not think we should occupy time discussing it and therefore I think we should let the affidavit go in.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Then there is an application from the Defendant Rosenberg for a document entitled "Tradition in Present Times." That has been objected to as cumulative.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, are you wanting to say anything in support of that application or is it sufficiently covered by your speech?
DR. THOMA: I am of the opinion that it has been sufficiently dealt with in my speech.
THE PRESIDENT: Then, Dr. Horn, there are two affidavits, one from Ribbentrop and one from Schulze, not yet put in. Do you want them?
DR.MARTIN HORN (Counsel for Defendant Von Ribbentrop): Mr. President, there must be some mistake about the Schulze affidavit. I have not submitted any Schulze affidavit or made any application for it.
THE PRESIDENT: It was a mistake. Then, as to Ribbentrop's affidavit, are you asking as to that or have we already dealt with that?
DR. MORN: No, I am asking that official cognizance be taken of the affidavit of Ribbentrop, and of Document TC-75. The other two affidavits of Thadden and Best have already been approved.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Why do you desire the Defendant Ribbentrop to make an affidavit? He has given his evidence in full. Is it something that has arisen since?
DR. HORN: The Defendant Ribbentrop only commented on a few documents which were submitted to him during his cross-examination when he had an opportunity to speak only very briefly about them. I did not want to make my final speech any longer with a detailed discussion of the other documents and, therefore, I have submitted this affidavit and beg the Tribunal to approve it.
THE PRESIDENT: Then, with regard to TC-75 .. .
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, that is one of our original British documents. I have no objection to Dr. Horn using it.
THE PRESIDENT: How about the translation, though? I suppose it is a German document, is it not?
DR.HORN: Yes, it is a German document which was only translated in part and I have referred to the entire contents in my final plea.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it a very long document or not?
DR.HORN: No, it has only nine pages, Mr. President. The Prosecution submitted one page of the document to the Court in evidence. Then later I ascertained that there were two copies of the document. I then took the second copy, which represents the complete document, and submitted it to the Tribunal, and have had it translated.
THE PRESIDENT: It has been translated?
DR.HORN: Yes.