dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
HAYLER: I was an independent business man and merchant and as such first became the head of the "Economic Group Retail Trade" within the organization of industrial economy. Id this capacity I had very close contact with the Ministry of Economics. After Minister Funk had been appointed Minister for Economics I reported to him regarding the scope of my work, and on that occasion I made his acquaintance. When I was then put in charge of the "Reich Group Trade," the working relations between the organization directed by me and the Ministry, especially between the then State Secretary Landfried and the Minister himself, became very friendly. After the separation of the ministries in the autumn of 1943, the main task of the Ministry of Economics was to provide for the German people, that is, the civilian population. As head of the trade organization I was the person responsible for the sale of merchandise, that is, for the procurement of supplies, and during a conference with Minister Funk regarding the co-operation between trade' and the Ministry, Herr Landfried, who was then State Secretary, made the suggestion that Minister Funk call me into his Ministry and make me his deputy. Herr Landfried believed that under the existing conditions he himself was not strong enough to carry out this difficult task since the Ministry had been deprived of its influence on production. Then, when Minister Funk told him in reply to his suggestion that he, Landiried, was the deputy of the Minister, Landiried replied that he could not continue to carry out these tasks and that he asked to be permitted to retire and proposed that I be his successor. About two or three weeks later I was put in charge of the affairs of the State Secretary.
DR. SAUTER: When was this conference?
HAYLER: This conference took place in October 1943; my appointment came on 20 November 1943.
DR. SAUTER: So that until the autumn of 1943, Dr. Hayler, you were employed in your organizations only in an honorary capacity?
HAYLER: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: That was, I think, retail trade?
HAYLER: Yes, trade.
DR. SAUTER: And as from 1943 you became official in the Reich Ministry of Economics in the capacity of State Secretary?
HAYLER: I became an official with this position of State Secretary on 30 January 1944.
DR. SAUTER: In this position you were one of the closest collaborators of Dr. Funk?
HAYLER: I was his deputy.
DR. SAUTER: Dr. Hayler, during a conference that we had on the day before yesterday, I discussed with you the question of whether the Defendant Dr. Funk was a particularly radical man or whether, on the contrary, he acted with moderation and consideration toward others. What do you have to say to this question which may have certain importance in forming an opinion on the personality of the Defendant Funk?
HAYLER: Funk is above all very human, and always has been. Radicalism is quite foreign to his entire character and being. He is more of an artist, a man of very fine artistic feeling and scholarly ideas. I believe one can say that at no time was he a doctrinaire or dogmatic. On the contrary, he was conciliatory and anxious to settle disputes. For this reason, in Party circles in particular, he was considered too soft, too indulgent, in fact he was accused many times of being too weak. He tried to protect domestic economy from political encroachment and from unnecessary severity; and because of his respect and his regard for enterprising endeavor and out of his own responsibility to economy and to the people, he fought against unnecessary intervention in various enterprises even during the war. He protected industry against mergers end closures. This finally led to his being deprived of the responsibility for production in the decisive phase of the war. I recall from the time of my collaboration with him, when I was still in charge of the trade organization, that Funk on various occasions interceded for men in the industrial world who were in political difficulties. I believe, however, that because of these individual cases, such as his intervention on behalf of Consul General Hollaender or of Herr Pietsch, and because of his attempts to promote peace, he at that time had to expect grave consequences; also because of his intervention in the case of Richard Strauss, as is surely known, and in similar cases. I do not think these individual cases are of such importance as perhaps the following: After the catastrophe of 9 November 1938 the process of Aryanization was to be intensified in the Ministry of Economics; and at that time a few political men were forced upon the Ministry, especially Herr Schmeer. I remember distinctly that at that time Landfried in particular, as well as Funk, slowed down considerably this radicalization of the Ministry; and Funk and the Ministry were blamed for doing so.
HAYLER: After 8 and 9 November I once had a conference regarding the events of that date with Himmler, in which I voiced my complaints. Himmler on that occasion finally reproached both Funk and myself by saying, among other things: "Finally, you people on the economic side and connected with the economic management are also to blame that things have gone too far. People like Herr Schacht cannot be expected to do anything except go slow ail the time and oppose the will of the Party; but if you and Funk and all you people on the economic side had not slowed things down so much, these excesses would not have happened."
DR. SAUTER: Yes, Dr. Hayler; another question. You also worked with Dr. Funk in matters concerning the economy of the occupied territories. Dr. Funk is accused of having played a criminal part in despoiling the occupied territories as well as in destroying their currency and economic systems. Could you enlighten the Court as briefly as possible on the Defendant Funk's attitude and activities? As briefly as possible.
EAYLER: I believe two facts must be stated first of all: First, the influence of the Ministry of Economy on the occupied territories was relatively limited. Secondly, during the year in which I was in the Ministry these questions were no longer particularly important. Generally speaking, the position was as follows: Funk was constantly accused of thinking more of peace than of war. The opinions he proclaimed both in his speeches and in print referred to a European economic policy; and I assume that these talks and publications or articles are before the Court.
DR. SAUTER: Yes, they are here.
EAYLER: Funk looked at the occupied territories from exactly the same point of view. He raised repeated objections to the overexploitation of the occupied territories and expressed the view that war-time co-operation should form the basis of later co-operation in peace. His view was that confidence and willingness to co-operate should be fostered in the occupied territories during the war. He expressed the view that the black market cannot be combated by the black market and that, since we were responsible for the occupied territories, we must avoid anything likely to disturb the currency and economic system of these territories. I think I remember that he also discussed the question with the Reich Marshal and defended his own point of view. He also repeatedly opposed unduly heavy occupation expenses, and always favored the reduction of our own expenditure, that is, of German expenditure in the occupied territories. In other words, he regarded the occupied territories in exactly the same way as other European countries; and this attitude is best illustrated by the speech he made in Vienna, I believe, in which he publicly acknowledged as genuine debts the clearing debts, the high totals of which were due mainly to differences in price, that is, inflationist tendencies, in the countries which delivered the goods.
DR. SAUTER: Dr. Eayler, the Defendant Funk is furthermore accused of playing a criminal part in the enslavement of foreign workers. This accusation applies particularly to the period during which you were a co-worker of Dr. Funk. Can you tell us briefly how Funk thought and acted in regard to this point?
EAYLER: There can be no question of Funk's co-operation in questions regarding the employment of foreign labor at this time, but only within the scope of his responsibility in the Central Planning Board. But it remains to be seen whether the Central Planning Board was at all responsible for the employment of workers or whether the Central Planning Board did nothing more than ascertain the manpower needs of the various production spheres. However, regardless of what the tasks of the Central Planning Board may have been, Funk's position in the Central Planning Board was the following: Funk, as Minister of Economy, was responsible for the supplies for the civilian population and for export. In the period following the separation of the ministries, no additional foreign worker I believe was employed in the production of supplies for civilians or for export. On the contrary, Funk was constantly confronted with the fact that during that time German and foreign workers were continually being removed from the production of consumer goods and put into armament production. Consequently, I cannot imagine that an accusation of this sort can be made against Funk with reference to this period of time. On this occasion I should like to emphasize another point which seems important to me. Provisioning the foreign workers was a very serious question. I believe that even Herr Sauckel will corroborate the fact that, when this question came up, Funk was at once ready-even though there- was already a great scarcity of provisions for the German people due to many air raids and destructions to release large quantities of supplies and put them at the disposal of the foreign workers.
DR. SAUTER: If I understand you correctly, he tried to see to it that the foreign workers who had to work in Germany were supplied as well as was possible with consumer articles: food, shoes, clothes, and so on.
HAYLER: Particularly shoes and clothing; Funk was not the competent authority for food.
DR. SAUTER: Shoes and clothing?
HAYLER: Yes, I have specific knowledge of thin And as a result Funk had considerable difficulty; for the Gauleiter, in view of the great scarcity of goods, did their best to secure supplies for the inhabitants of their own Gaue for whom they were responsible, and in so doing used every means which came to hand. Funk constantly had to oppose the arbitrary acts of the Gauleiter, who broke into the supply stores in their Gaue and appropriated stocks intended for the general use.
DR. SAUTER: Dr. Eayler, do you know whether Dr. Funk-I am still referring to the time when you worked with him-represented the viewpoint that the foreign worker should not be brought to Germany to work here but that rather the work itself should be taken from Germany into the foreign countries so that the foreign worker could perform his work in his home country and remain at home? Please answer that.
HAULER: I know very well that Funk represented that viewpoint and it is in accordance with his general attitude, for the political disquiet and dissatisfaction which accompany the displacement of such large masses of human beings temporarily uprooted was in opposition to the policy of appeasement and reconstruction which was definitely Funk's goal.
DR. SAUTER: I now come to the last question which I wish to put to you, Dr. Eayler. When the German armies retreated and when German territories were occupied by enemy armies, difficulties arose regarding the supplying of these territories with money. At that time Eitler is supposed to have planned a law according to which the acceptance and passing on of foreign occupation money was to be punished even by death. I am not interested now, Dr. Eayler, in finding out why Eitler planned to do this; but I am interested in finding out, if you can tell me, how the Defendant Funk reacted to this demand by Eitler and what success he had.
EAYLER: Two facts can be established in regard to this point, which should be of interest to the Tribunal. I have rarely seen Funk as depressed as at that time, after he had received information about the so-called "scorched earth decree." I believe he was the first minister to issue at that time two very clear decrees, one from the Ministry of Economics, in which he gave definite instructions that wherever German people were an administration of economy in some sort of form must remain; where it is necessary that people be provided for, the State must continue to provide for these people. The second decree was issued at the same time by the President of the Reichsbank, in which he decreed that the money market had to be cared for by the remaining offices of the Reichsbank in the same way that economy was to be cared for. Regarding your question itself, I recall very distinctly that the Fuehrer himself, it was said, had demanded of the Ministry of Economics the issuing of a legal regulation according to which the acceptance of occupation money was forbidden to every German on pain of death. Herr Funk opposed this demand very energetically, I believe with the help of Herr Lammers. He himself telephoned headquarters repeatedly and finally succeeded in having the Fuehrer's directive withdrawn.
DR. SAUTER: Have you finished, Dr. Hayler?
HAYLER: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, I have no further questions to put to the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Do the other Defendants' Counsel wish to ask any questions? [No response.] Does the Prosecution wish to cross-examine?
MR. DODD: When did you join the Nazi Party, Mr. Witness?
HAYLER: Did I understand you correctly-when did I become a member of the NSDAP?
MR. DODD: That is right.
HAYLER: December 1931.
MR. DODD: Did you hold any offices in the Party at any time?
HAYLER: No; I never held office in the Party.
MR.DODD: You were the head of a trade group in 1938, the Reichsgruppe "Handel"?
HAYLER: I was the head of the Economic Group "Retail Trade" from 1934 on, and from 1938 on, head of the Reich Group "Trade." This organization was a part of the organization of industrial economy and was under the Reich Ministry of Economics.
MR. DODD: Membership in the group that you were the head of was compulsory, wasn't it?
HAYLER: Yes.
MR. DODD: When did you join the SS?
HAYLER: I joined the SS in 1933, in the summer.
MR. DODD: That was a kind of Party office, wasn't it, of a sort?
HAYLER: No, it was not an office. I became connected with the SS because of the fact that in Munich 165 businessmen were locked up and because I knew Himmler from my student days-I had not seen him again until then-the businessmen in Munich asked me to intercede for them in the summer of 1933. But I had no office in the Party or in the SS.
MR. DODD: When did you become a general in the SS?
HAYLER: I never was a general in the SS. After I had been appointed State Secretary, the Reichsfuehrer bestowed on me the rank of a Gruppenfuehrer in the SS.
MR. DODD: A Gruppenfuehrer-isn't that the equivalent of a general in the SS?
HAYLER: Yes and no. In the SS there was the rank of Gruppenfuehrer and there was the rank of Gruppenfuehrer and general of the Police or of the Waffen-SS; but the Gruppenfuehrer was not a general if it was only an honorary rank. This could easily be seen from our uniforms, because we did not wear a general's epaulets or a general's uniform.
MR.DODD: You know Ohlendorf pretty well, don't you?
HAYLER: Yes.
MR. DODD: He worked for you at one time. He was under your supervision. Isn't that so?
HAYLER: I worked with Ohlendorf from 1938 on.
MR. DODD: You know, he has testified before this Tribunal that he supervised the murdering of 90,000 people; did you know that?
HAYLER: I heard about that.
MR. DODD: Did you know about it at the time that it was going on?
HAYLER: No.
MR. DODD: Did you know Pohl, the SS man-P-o-h-l?
HAYLER: May I ask you for that name again?
MR. DODD: Pohl-P-o-h-l?
HAYLER: I do not remember knowing an SS man Pohl. MR.DODD Do you know a man called Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl of the SS?
HAYLER: No-Yes, I know an Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl. Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl was the chief of the administrative office of the SS.
MR. DODD: Did you have conversations and meetings with him from time to time?
HAYLER: Officially I had a few conversations with Pohl. Usually they were very unpleasant.
MR. DODD: Well, that's another matter. How often would you say, between 1943 and the end, the time of your surrender, that you met with Pohl to discuss matters of mutual interest between the SS and your own Ministry of Economics? Approximately, because I don't expect you to give an accurate account, but about how many times, would you say?
HAYLER: I must give a short explanation about this. Between the...
MR. DODD: Give that afterwards. Give me the figure first.
HAYLER: Yes. Perhaps three or four times, perhaps only twice. I do not know exactly.
MR.DODD: Are you telling us three or four times a year or three or four times during the whole period between 1943 and 1945?
HAYLER: During my time in office, yes, three or four times; it was only one year.
MR.DODD: Did you talk to him about the Reichsbank's or the Ministry of Economics' co-operating in the financing of the building of factories near the concentration camps?
HAYLER: No.
MR. DODD: You know about that, do you?
HAYLER: No. This question was never discussed with me.
MR.DODD: What did you talk to him about?
HAYLER: A great controversy had arisen between the Ministry of Economics and the SS because after I had taken over the State Secretariat in the Ministry of Economics, Himmler had instructed me to turn over to the SS a factory which belonged to the Gau Berlin. I fought against this and did not obey Himmler's instructions. The files about this must surely still be in existence. I then was instructed to discuss this matter with Pohl In these conferences and in a personal conversation which Himmler requested and ordered, I still fought against Himmler's instructions, because I was fundamentally against the SS having industrial enterprises of its own.
MR. DODD: Did you talk to the Defendant Funk about this difficulty with Himmler and Pohl?
HAYLER: Yes, because these difficulties resulted in Himmler's writing me a letter in December in which he told me that he ceased to have confidence in me and that he had no desire to work with me any more. I reported this to the Defendant Funk in December.
MR.DODD: Did Funk tell you that his bank was helping Himmler out in the building of factories near the concentration camps?
HAYLER: I know nothing about that.
MR.DODD: You never heard of that before now?
HAYLER: Up until now I have never heard anything about Funk's or the Ministry of Economics' co-operation in the financing of such buildings or about anything of the sort.
MR.DODD: It is perfectly clear, I think, but I want to make certain, that from 1943 to 1945, while you were the deputy to Funk in the Ministry of Economics, the questions of purchasing on the black market, and so on, in the occupied countries ceased to be of any real importance, didn't they? You said that; I understood you to say that a few minutes ago yourself.
HAYLER: In 1944-and my time in office virtually did not start until 1944, since in December I had a Ministry which was totally bombed out and we did not get started working again until January 1944-these questions were no longer of decisive importance, since a process of-retrogression had already set in.
MR. DODD: AL. right. You also were, Mr. Witness' at the Vienna speech to which you referred, which was made in 1944; and it had nothing to do with the occupied countries but was directed only at the satellite states. Are you aware of that or not?
HAYLER: The speech in Vienna?
MR.DODD: Yes, the speech in Vienna in 1944.
HAYLER: Yes, it is true; I have already said that. Both the speech in Konigsberg and the speech in Vienna did not deal directly with the occupied territories, but with Europe as a whole. I...
MR.DODD: Did it deal with the occupied territories directly or indirectly? Now, have you read that speech?
HAYLER: I heard the speech. Quite definitely it had nothing to do with them directly.
MR. DODD: Finally, in view of your testimony concerning Funk and what he thought about forced labor, you know, don't you, that he took an attitude of unconcern about the forcing of people to come to Germany? Do you know that?
HAYLER: No.
MR. DODD: Well, you know he has said on interrogation that he didn't bother his head about it, although he knew that people were being forced to go to Germany against their will Are you aware of that?
HAYLER: No, I am not aware of that. I had with Funk...
MR.DODD: AL. right. If you did know it, would that make some difference to you; and would you change your testimony some?
HAYLER: I am not aware of the fact that Funk is supposed to have had this attitude or...
MR. DODD: Very welt Perhaps I can help you by reading to you from his interrogation of 22 October 1945, made here in Nuremberg. Among other things, he was asked these few questions and made a few answers: "As a matter of fact, you were present at many meetings of the Central Planning Board, were you not?" Funk answered and said: "I was present at the meetings of the Central Planning Board only when something was required for my small. sector; that is to say, something which had to do with the export and consumer goods industries as, for example, iron. I had to put up a fight on each occasion to get just a few thousand tons for my consumer goods industry." The next question was: "Yes, but during those meetings you attended, you heard, did you not, discussions concerning forced labor?" Funk answered: "Yes." "Question: 'And you knew from those meetings that the policy was to bring in more and more foreign workers to the Reich against their will?' " Funk answered: "Yes, certainly." "Question: 'And you never objected to that, I take it?' " Funk answered: "No, why should I have objected? It was somebody else's task to bring these foreign workers into the Reich. "Did you believe it was legal to take people against their will from their homes and bring them into Germany?" was the last question that I want to quote to you. He answered: "Well, many things happen in wartime which aren't strictly legal. I have never racked my brains about that." Now, if you know that to be his attitude from his statements made under oath on an interrogation here, would that change your view about Funk and would it cause you to change the testimony which you have given before the Tribunal here today?
HAYLER: I can testify only to those things which I myself know. I cannot remember any such statements by Funk I do know and I remember distinctly that we frequently spoke about the occupied territories, about the later development in Europe which was to, and could, result from co-operation. We also spoke about the procuring of workers and that Funk fundamentally had a viewpoint different from the one that prevailed and that he was not in agreement with these things. I can merely repeat this and if you question me here as a witness, I can say only what I know.
MR.DODD: Did you go over all of your questions and answers with Dr. Sauter before you took the stand? You knew what you were going to be asked when you came here, didn't you?
HAYLER: Dr. Sauter gave me an idea what he would question me about and what he was interested in.
MR.DODD: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Do any other members of the Prosecution wish to cross-examine? Dr. Sauter, do you want to re-examine?
DR. SAUTER: No.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness can retire. [The witness left the stand.7