dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
DR. KAUFFMANN: Kaltenbrunner was called the successor of Heydrich. Does this apply to him in the full sense of the word?
NEUBACHER: It cannot, and that I know because...
THE PRESIDENT: That's a matter of argument. This witness' opinion cannot affect the position of Kaltenbrunner. This witness cannot testify whether he was called a successor to Heydrich or another Heydrich.
DR. KAUFFMANN: The Prosecution speak in a disdainful way that Kaltenbrunner was the successor of the illfamed Heydrich. This witness knows them both, therefore I believe...
THE PRESIDENT: The witness has already admitted that he was the successor of Heydrich. You may ask him if he was another Heydrich.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Please, will you tell whether he was called a second Heydrich?
NEUBACHER: Himmler himself used this expression...
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal feels that that is incompetent.
DR. KAUFFMANN: I understand. I now come to the next question: Is there anything to show just why Himmler selected the Defendant Kaltenbrunner?
NEUBACHER: From remarks which Himmler made to me..
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal does not think that the witness can give any evidence as to what Himmler thought. Himmler appointed him.
DR. KAUFFMANN: The witness, so far as I am told, will report something from a conversation with Himmler, which clearly shows that Himmler selected Kaltenbrunner, and no one else, because he did not fear Kaltenbrunner in any way. The Prosecution contend exactly the opposite. He therefore knows that the Prosecution's contention is entirely incorrect.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal thinks you can ask what Himmler said about the appointment, if he said anything to this witness. You can ask him what did Himmler say about the appointment to Kaltenbrunner.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Please begin, Witness.
NEUBACHER: During the course of a conversation with Himmler when I was at his office at headquarters to look at the death mask of Heydrich, Himmler said to me that he had suffered an irreparable loss by the death of this man. After Heydrich, there was not a single person who could any longer direct this gigantic office. That could only be done by the man who had built it up. Upon my question, "What about Kaltenbrunner?" Himmler said as follows: "Of course as an Austrian you are interested in that matter. Kaltenbrunner will have to become familiar with the work. He is now fully occupied with matters of interest to you, with foreign intelligence." These were the remarks of Himmler.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Do you have any knowledge of the fact that soon after he assumed office in the year of 1943, Kaltenbrunner assiduously tried to establish contact abroad, because he considered the military situation at that time as hopeless?
NEUBACHER: Kaltenbrunner was, as I know from many conversations, always striving for a so-called "talk with the enemy." He was convinced that we could not come out of this war favorably without the use of some large scale diplomacy. I did not discuss further details with him concerning the war. In Germany everyone was sentenced to death who, even to one other person, expressed a doubt about the victory of Germany.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Did Kaltenbrunner support you in your efforts to mitigate as much as possible the terror policy in Serbia?
NEUBACHER: Yes, I owe much to Kaltenbrunner's support in this respect. The German police offices in Serbia knew, through me and through Kaltenbrunner, that the latter, as Chief of the Foreign Intelligence Service, wholeheartedly supported my policy in the southeast area. I succeeded therefore in making my influence felt in the police offices, and the support from Kaltenbrunner was valuable to me in my endeavors to overthrow, with the help of sensible officers, the former system of collective responsibility and reprisals.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Do you know the basic attitude of Kaltenbrunner towards the Jewish question?
NEUBACHER: Once, I spoke very briefly with Kaltenbrunner about this subject. When rumors of a systematic action swelled up I asked Kaltenbrunner, "Is there any truth in this?" Kaltenbrunner briefly told me that that was a special action which was not under his command. He kept aloof from the action, as far as I could observe, and later-I believe it was at the beginning or the end of 1944-he told me briefly, that a new course had been adopted in the treatment of the Jews. His voice sounded the pride of his success.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Kaltenbrunner is characterized as "hungry for power." Do you know what kind of a life he led?
NEUBACHER: Kaltenbrunner led a simple life. He never acquired a fortune... THE PRESIDENT. The Prosecution has not called him "hungry for power." There is no charge against him as being "hungry for power."
DR. KAUFFMANN: Hungry for power and cruel. Both of these words were expressly used.
THE PRESIDENT: But being "hungry for power" or "cruel" is quite different.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes, I am just asking about the first term.
THE PRESIDENT: I was just wondering where these terms were used.
DR. KAUFFMANN: The Indictment contains both these terms: "hungry for power" and "cruel".
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): It certainly is not in the Indictment. We find no allegation in the Indictment which reads "hungry for power and cruel," and we do not recollect any mention being made in the statement in the Prosecution's case.
DR. KAUFFMANN: But I would not have had notes taken on it Otherwise. In the Indictment there is a page with the heading "Summary and Conclusion." I am referring to the last paragraph, where it says: "As all other Nazis, Kaltenbrunner was hungry for power. In order to assure himself of power he signed his name in blood-a name which will remain in memory as a symbol for cruelty, for..."
THE PRESIDENT: Where are you reading from? What are you reading from?
DR. KAUFFMANN: From the Indictment, on the last page, under the heading "Summary and Conclusion."
MR. DODD: I think I can clarify the matter. It is rather clear that the counsel is reading from my trial brief. The trial brief was never offered in evidence in court, but it was handed to the counsel
DR. KAUFFMANN: If that will not be maintained I do not need to ask any questions on that point. I now come to the next question. Do you know, Witness, whether Kaltenbrunner gave an order for the evacuation of concentration camps?
NEUBACHER: No.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Did Kaltenbrunner, from your experience and observations, do everything as chief of this office to mitigate inhuman measures or prevent their application?
NEUBACHER: I must call your attention to the fact that I was abroad for 5 years and could little observe what was happening within Germany. As I have come to know Kaltenbrunner, I do not doubt that he gave way to the illusion that he was able to influence the course of events. He was in no way capable of doing so.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Thus, I come to the last question: Do you know of a case where he used his power against a measure of the Police to liberate two church dignitaries of the Orthodox Church in Serbia?
NEUBACHER: Yes, I am familiar with that. These two church dignitaries . . .
THE PRESIDENT: How is this relevant to Kaltenbrunner?
DR. KAUFFMANN: He is accused of having persecuted the churches throughout his whole policy. The Prosecution expressly accuse Kaltenbrunner of persecuting churches, with the annihilation of Christianity as his objective; this I can say with assurance is contained in the records; and it is to this that my question refers.
THE PRESIDENT: The answer to it cannot answer any charge against Kaltenbrunner, can it?
DR. KAUFFMANN: If a defendant tried to exterminate churches, then he would not take a measure exactly opposite to that policy. The witness will be able to attest to this fact.
THE PRESIDENT: With reference to churches or with reference to individual people?
DR. KAUFFMANN: Individual people as representatives of the church of course. I do not believe you can separate the two.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal thinks that the question is incompetent.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Thank you. Then I have concluded my examining of the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn. [The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours.] Afternoon Session [The witness Neubacher resumed the stand.]
THE PRESIDENT: Have you finished, Dr. Kauffmann?
DR. KAUFFMANN: My examination of this witness is finished.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other member of the Defense want to ask questions?
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, I have some questions to put which are, of course, not in any way connected with Kaltenbrunner, but which refer to subjects which will have to be dealt with later during the case of the Defendant Funk. Since the witness can be called only once, however, I have no other choice than to put to the witness now these questions, which really ought to be put later. Witness, you said today that the German Foreign Service had sent you to Romania-I believe on questions of economy. Is it correct that during the time you were working in Romania, you were also representing and handling economic interests in Greece?
NEUBACHER: In the autumn of 1942, notwithstanding my assignment in Romania, I received a special assignment, together with an Italian financial expert, Minister D'Agostino, to prevent by proper methods the total devaluation of currency and the total disruption of the economic structure in Greece.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, were you suited for such a difficult task by training and previous experience? Please tell us briefly, which posts you held before, so that we can judge whether you were capable of carrying out this task in Greece; but please, Witness, be very brief.
NEUBACHER: I was one of the foremost economic leaders in Austria. At the age of 28 I was a director; at 30 I was the general manager of the Viennese Settlement Corporation; and at the age of 33 I was directing a large combine in the building trade and building material industry. I was an executive of the Austrian National Bank and a member of the Austrian Customs Auxiliary Council. I was a member of the Russian Credit Committee of the City of Vienna and a member of the Commission of Experts for the investigation of the collapse of the Austrian Credit Bank Corporation. Therefore, I was qualified for this task by extensive economic experience. Moreover, I was quite familiar with the economic problems of the Balkans, since I had last worked on economic questions relating to the Balkans in the central finance administration of I. G. Farben in Berlin.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, several days ago when I visited you in prison, I gave you a report of a commission of the Royal Greek Government, addressed to the International Military Tribunal, and I asked you to read it and state your opinion. Is this report correct? Mr. President, it is Exhibit USSR-379, and it has the additional Document Number UK-82. Witness, in this report of the commission the matter is presented as if the economy of Greece had been entirely destroyed by German authorities and that Greece had been plundered, et cetera. In the end this reflects on the Defendant Funk. Please do not go into detail, but tell us briefly what is your impression in this connection.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, General Rudenko.
GEN. RUDENKO: Mr. President, I would like to make the following statement before the Tribunal: In regard to the report of the Greek Government, which was presented before the Tribunal by the Soviet Prosecution as provided by Article 21 of the Charter, it seems to me that the question of the Defense Counsel, asking the witness to give his opinion on this particular matter, should be rejected because the witness is not competent to give an opinion on the report of the Greek Government. The Defense Counsel can ask him a concrete question in regard to any particular fact, but that is all.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, if it is desired, I can, of course, put the questions individually. It will probably take a little longer, but if the Soviet Russian Prosecution so desires I agree. May I now question the witness? Witness, is it correct...
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute. Dr. Sauter, what exactly is it that you want to ask the witness about this report?
DR. SAUTER: The report of the Greek Government, which has been submitted by the Russian Prosecution, states, for instance, that Germany in its occupation of Greece plundered the country and brought about a famine by exporting an excessive amount of goods. It states that the country was charged excessive occupation costs, and that the country was heavily prejudiced by the clearing system, et cetera. Through this witness, who as the economic expert of the German Foreign Office handled these problems in Greece at that time, I propose to prove: First, that these statements are untrue; second, that this state of affairs prevailed already when the German troops marched in and was not created by the German authorities; and, last, that it was the Defendant Funk who tried repeatedly to improve matters for Greece through the clearing system and had considerable amounts of gold brought to Greece.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, can't you put a few short questions to show that the scheme which this witness introduced into Greece was in accordance with international law and was not unfair to Greece? If you could do that, that would meet the case, wouldn't it?
DR. SAUTER: Yes, that is what I wanted to do, and I am sure that the witness would have done so on his own initiative. Now, then, Witness, are you acquainted with the viewpoint of the German economic authorities, and particularly of the Defendant Funk, in regard to the question of the clearing of debts incurred by Greece and the question of how Greece was to be treated with regard to this clearing system?
NEUBACHER: Concerning the mutual financial charges and obligations, I spoke at one time to the Reich finance Minister, Schwerin Von Krosigk, and it was proposed that at some later date after the war the claims and counterclaims were to be settled on the basis of a common denominator.
DR. SAUTER: And at that time, during the war, how was the question of this clearing dealt with?
NEUBACHER: Regarding the economic events in Greece, I can give you information based on my own observations only, starting with October 1942. At that time, when I first came to Athens, the Greek currency had already been considerably devaluated, and the circulation of banknotes had increased by something like 3,000 percent. Greece also suffered an economic setback due to the fact that, in addition to a progressing inflation, an attempt had been made to introduce in Greece a planned economy with ceiling prices along German lines. The result was, of course, that the merchants selling Greek goods suffered losses when they were paid later. On the Other hand, when I arrived there the importers of German goods made tremendous profits, because they paid Reichsmark at the rate of 60 on the clearing and resold the goods at a rate of about 30,000. This chaos, due to the inflation in connection with the attempt of introducing a planned economy on the German pattern, could be remedied only by transforming the black market in Greece into a completely free market. The two experts of the Axis Powers introduced this measure with considerable success at the end of October 1942. Within a few weeks all shops and markets were full of goods and foodstuffs; the prices of food dropped to one-fifth and prices of manufactured products to one-tenth. This success could be maintained for 4 months in spite of increasing inflation.
DR. SAUTER: Dr. Neubacher, is it true that the Defendant Funk, who was Reich Minister of Economy at that time, proposed during a conversation or in correspondence he had had with you that, in spite of the shortage of goods prevailing in Germany, a considerable amount of goods should be sent from Germany and other European countries, particularly to Greece?
NEUBACHER: Reich Minister Funk, with whom I discussed the difficulties of my task, and I both fully agreed that a maximum of goods should be transported to Greece, and certainly not only food. I secured not only 60,000 tons of food at that time but also German export goods, since it was hopeless to try to stop an inflation or the effects of an inflation on the prices, if there were no supplies. Reich Minister Funk supported exports to Greece with the view to a restoration of normal market conditions with every means at his disposal.
DR. SAUTER: You know, Witness, that since transport from Germany to Greece had become impossible, the Defendant Funk made every effort to have goods transported on neutral ships, furnished with British navicerts, from Germany to Greece in order to combat as far as possible the already impending famine.
NEUBACHER: I think that was between 1941 and 1942 when l had not yet arrived in Greece. In 1943, when shipping in Greek waters had completely stopped for us, because all ships had been torpedoed and the railroads had become the object of incessant acts of sabotage and dynamiting, I, with the help of the Swedish Minister, Alar, who directed the International Relief for Greece, applied for British navicerts for food transports to Greece. The British granted this application, and when our own means of transport had ceased to exist, the Swedish boat Halaren went from Trieste or Venice to the Piraeus once a month, loaded with German food supplies for Greece.
DR. SAUTER: And Funk, the Reich Minister of Economy at that time, played an important part in these actions, did he not?
NEUBACHER: Reich Minister of Economy Funk took a very positive interest in the Greek question, a question which is unique in the history of economy, and he supported me in my efforts with every means at his disposal.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, do you know anything about the fact that the Defendant Funk advocated in particular that the occupation costs should be kept as low as possible, and that he took the view that it would be preferable that a considerable part of the occupation costs should rather be charged to the German account so that Greece should not be overburdened? What do you know about that?
NEUBACHER: I know too little of the details of what happened in Berlin; but at long intervals I reported to Reich Minister Funk about the situation in Greece, and I know that he made my reports the basis for his own interventions. He was perfectly aware of the fact that the Greek economic problem during the war and within the blockade was so infinitely complicated that all efforts had to be made to prevent a complete dissolution of the monetary value and the economic structure; and he intervened at all times in that respect.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, did Defendant Funk act in such a way that the Greek currency, drachma currency, was devaluated, or that it deteriorated? Or did he, on the contrary, endeavor to back the drachma value, particularly for the purpose of preventing a catastrophic famine? Please state briefly what you know about that.
NEUBACHER: Reich Minister Funk always made every effort in the latter direction. He proved that by enforcing exports to Greece and finally by the grant of a considerable amount of gold for the purpose of slowing down the Greek inflation-which grant, in accordance with the Four Year Plan, involved the gravest sacrifice for Germany.
DR. SAUTER: You say "a considerable amount of gold." There was very little gold in Germany during the war. Can you tell us how large the amount of gold was which the Defendant Funk sent to Greece at that time for the purpose of backing the drachma to some extent and preventing the impending catastrophe? How large was the amount?
NEUBACHER: All told, one and one third million pounds sterling were invested in Greece and Albania, to my recollection.
DR. SAUTER: One and one third million pounds sterling?
NEUBACHER: Greece and Albania got that amount.
DR. SAUTER: And now, Witness, I have a last question. Is it correct that all these efforts on the part of the German economic management and the German Minister of Economy were often frustrated and foiled, particularly by Greek merchants? To quote just one example, there were cases where German factories sold German engines for 60 drachmas to Greek merchants-that is to say, 60 drachmas which had actually no value-and the Greek merchant sold these same engines which they had bought for 60 drachmas from Germans to the German Armed Forces at 60,000 drachmas apiece. These are supposed to be cases which you discovered and on which you reported to the Defendant Funk, and that is why I am asking you whether that is true.
NEUBACHER: I have the following comment to make about that. It did, in fact, happen, but I want to state that the Greek businessmen had to do that in consequence of inflation and the black market. The Greek people are much too intelligent to be caught up in an inflation. Every child there is a businessman. Therefore, the only possible method for counteracting this obvious speculation, which in itself is not dishonest, was that of converting the black market into a totally free market on sound business lines; and that was the end of these experiments.
DR. SAUTER: This transformation of the black market into a free market, a problem which also played an important part in France, was brought about by your activity in agreement with the Defendant Funk?
NEUBACHER: Yes, I introduced this measure together with my Italian colleague D'Agostino at the end of October 1942.
DR. SAUTER: Thank you very much, Witness. Mr. President, I have no further questions.
DR. STEINBAUER: Mr. President, Members of the Military Tribunal, for your information I am going to examine the witness on the question of the Anschluss. Witness, you have described to the Tribunal your economic activities. Were you not active politically as well?
NEUBACHER: I was politically active as the chairman of the Austro-German People's Union.
DR. STEINBAUER: What were the aims of that Austro-German People's Union?
NEUBACHER: The Austro-German People's Union was an organization which stood above parties and religious denominations, and which, in a onesided manner, aimed at revising the Anschluss prohibition in the peace treaties by solving the question of the Austro-German Anschluss peacefully through plebiscite. In the executive committee of this Austro-German People's Union, all parties were officially represented with the exception of the National Socialist and Communist Parties. The German organization of the same name was under the leadership of the Social Democratic President of the German Reichstag, Paul Loebe.
DR. STEINBAUER: Thank you. I have here a list of the executive committee which is dated 1926. You appear as chairman and Stoats rat Paul Speiser as deputy. Dr. Arthur SeyssInquart is named as treasurer, and then there is Dr. Benedikt Kautsky, one Georg Stern, Hofrat and President of the Banks' Association, and a certain Dr. Stolper. Is that correct?
NEUBACHER: Yes.
DR. STEINBAUER: Why did all these members who represented different party lines and religious denominations strive toward the Anschluss at that time?
NEUBACHER: After the conclusion of the Treaties of Versailles and St. Germain, a movement on the broadest basis started in Austria for the union of this country, which was suffering from severe economic depression, with Germany. Men from all parties and all religions joined this movement, as you can see from the names which you, Herr Doctor, have just mentioned.
DR. STEINBAUER: Do you know by which way and under what conditions this was intended in 1918, especially with regard to the position of Vienna as capital of the Reich and seat of the Court?
NEUBACHER: There were no clear ideas about the technical form of such a distant goad; but every Austrian, on the basis of a historically well-founded pride, was agreed that the city of Vienna should rank as the second capital of Germany.
THE PRESIDENT: I am sorry. The Tribunal isn't really concerned with whether or not any Anschluss was desirable, or whether it was just or not. The Tribunal is concerned with whether it was obtained by violence and force. Most of this evidence does not seem to be relevant at all.