sense of shame about that which took place towards the Jews in German, and that, at that period of time when the terror and violence began, I had a strong conflict with my conscience. I felt that a great injustice was being done in respect to the accusations levelled against me here in the indictment that I was guilty of crimes against humanity, that I carried out and gave out some laws or signed some laws which had been transmitted to me from, above. Since these laws had to be carried through so that the Jews would not be entirely without protection, and so that they would be able to have some protection, I am admitting a moral guilt and a guilt against myself, lout not a guilt that I signed the laws -- not a guilt against humanity.
Q That's right. That's what I wanted to establish.
You also told the Tribunal, I think you used the expression "often at the door but never let in", and I understand that in your own judgment, you were really a little man in this Nazi organization. Is that so?
Q That's an answer, you might want to explain it labor, but for the present, that will be sufficient.
A May I give an explanation to this. I wanted to state that among the duties I had, there were always superiors who made the final decision, and that applies to all my duties with the State.
Q Well, let's both examine come of the evidence, and see whether you were always subordinated and always a little man who didn't get in.
First of all, there's one matter that I do want to clear up before going into the general examination. You recall when Defendant Schacht was on the stand, he told the Tribunal that after he left the Reichsbank he had an office in his apartment, is that so? continued to have an office in the Reichsbank. Is that so?
A I don't know whether I said that and where I said that, but it may be. I was advised, at that time, after he had resigned, that he was still coming to the Reichsbank rather frequently, and that a room was reserved there for him and beyond that, he still had some personnel. His secretary, which he had taken away from the Reichsbank was still with him.
Reichsbank where he worked on certain bank data and where he still kept in touch with you every now and then. Isn't that so? Do you remember telling us that or not?
A No, it wasn't that way.
Q You couldn't remember, perhaps I can help you a bit. Do you remember being interrogated by Major Hiram Gans on June 2, 3, and 4 of 1945? Do you remember that? You know who was there -- Goering was there, von Krosigk was there...
Q Alright. You were asked this question. Preceding this answer there were some questions.
Questions: Did Schacht retain any Governmental position after his dismissal as President of the Reichsbank?"
Goering answered: "Reich Minister."
Question: "Did he have any functions?
Goering again answered: "He remained Minister without Portfolio."
Another question: "Were there any Cabinet meetings which he attended?"
Goering answered: "I cannot remember any Cabinet meetings at that time.
Then Funk spoke: "Schacht, after his dismissal, kept an office in the Reichsbank shere he worked on statistical data of the Reichsbank and where he still kept in touch with me every now and then."
Question: "How long did it last?"
And you answered: "After Schacht's dismissal, probably in 1943."
You made those answers, didn't you?
A That is not correct. It is not correct. I did not express myself that way. I said only that he came to the Reichsbank and that he spoke very seldom with me. He was only a...
Q You know this document, PS-2828?
Q Parts of this are already in evidence as USA Exhibit 652. Later, in another form, I shall submit this part which I have just read. from you which referred somewhat to the general feeling at the time, and also to to the fact that it was your 60th birthday.
That is so, isn't it? There was another reason for your writing that letter in connection with your birthday, wasn't there? Do you know to what I refer? didn't you? Reichsmarks for being a leading businessman in Germany, and 270,000 Reichsmarks which came out of a special account maintained by Goering and Goebbels. Hitler heard about that and ordered you to return that money and later he gave you 520,000 Reichsmarks, isn't that so?
A The first is not correct, but the latter is correct. May I explain this matter?
A The connections are entirely different. On my 50th birthday, there was to appear before me the President and Presidium of the Reich Chamber of Commerce. This was the organization of the entire German economists, and because of my 25 years of service to German economy, with the approval of the Fuehrer, they were giving me a gift and that was to be a State affair. That did not materialize, I am sorry to say. It was something that created much sorrow and they got for me a large house which was built for me and I was told that the Fuehrer wanted me to work there. There was a demand for taxes made toward me. There was such an expense that I would not carry the taxes or the upkeep. financial strait.
the film corporation joined the Chamber of Commerce and gave me this money. When the Fuehrer heard that I had money troubles, he granted 520,000 Reichsmarks to be put at my disposal and the money I received I turned into bonds and 500.000 reichsmarks I turned over to the families of the members of the Reichsbank who died during the war and 200,000 Reichsmarks I turned over to the Reichs political economy office for the families of those of the office who died in the war. income, but from the beginning, when I saw the tremendous expanses connected with it, I decided, from the beginning, that I would -- in agreement with my wife -- use this as a....
Q. I don't care what you did with it, I just want to know if you got it.
A. Yes.
Q. You also made a present out of your own pocket to the Defendant Fricke on one occasion, did n't you, giving Fricke 250,000 Reichsmarks on his birthday on 12 March 1942?
A. That I don't know.
Q. You don't remember that? Do you know anything about the other gifts that were given to the other defendants through public funds either through you and your position or to men with the Nazi Party? Do you know anything about these men or what they got from the public treasury?
A. These monies were not dispensed by me. They were dispensed by Lammers.
Q. They were public funds, weren't they? You know that Rosenberg got 250,000 marks? Did you know that?
A. No.
Q. In January 1944, you were then President of the Reichsbank?
A. Yes, but these momies did not come from the Reichsbank. These were monies or funds which were entrusted to Lammers and I assume that the monies came from Adolf Hitler. These were from other funds.
Q. Von Neurath got 250,000 marks on 2 February 1943. Do you know any thing about that? You were the President of the Reichsbank then.
A. I know nothing about that.
Q. You heard about Lammers and his 600,000 marks. You know that Keitel got 600,000 marks on 2 February 1942. You never heard about that?
A. The Reichsbank had nothing at all to do with these things at all.
Q. You know that Ribbentrop got 200,000 marks. One General Milch got 500,00 marks on January, 1941, and none of these things came to your attention:
A. I never knew anything about these matters. They were Lammer's concern and the money did not come from the Reichsbank.
Q. Now, I understood you to say that you were not the economic advisor in fact to Hitler or to the Nazi Party in the early days. That is, in your own judgment you were not? Isn't it a fact that you were generally regarded as such by the public and by the Party members and Party officials? Is that so
A. I was called that, and I said that I was called that on the basis of my activity in the year 1943 when I acted as a go-between the Fuehrer and some leading economists abroad. I acted in this capacity for a short time in the party.
Q. You called yourself the economic advisor on occasion, didn't you? At least on one occasion, during an interrogation, didn't you refer to yourself as the economic advisor? You remember that?
A. No.
Q. I think you will generally agree that you were regarded as such by the public and they thought you were?
A. I had testified already that I was called that by the across and from the press this designation went into record. I did not use this term myself.
Q. Were you the principal contact man between the Party and industry in the earlier days?
A. In the year 1932, and this is the only year which we consider Party activities because I was not active before or after this year as far as the Party was concerned. But, between Hitler and leading men of industry, I was active in bringing about discussions and also acted as a go-between. Other men also acted in that capacity.
Q. I am not asking you about other men, I am asking you if you were not a principal contact man.
You were, weren't you?
A. Yes.
Q. You acted as a go-between the Nazi Party and the big businessmen in Germany.
A. It did not take up much of my time.
Q. It took a little bit of your time. That's what you were doing?
A. Yes.
Q. You remember then, document EC-440 perhaps. It is really a statement that you made and prepared on the relations of German industry to the Party in the National Socialist leadership of the State. You remember that paper you drew up on 28 June, 1945. You also said that "Keppler, who later became State Secretary, and who served as Financial advisor to the Fuehrer before me... " You used that terminology. You recall that?
A. Keppler?
Q. Yes, he was the advisor before you. You remember that?
A. Yes.
Q. In the Propaganda Ministry, if I understand you correctly, you want the Tribunal to believe that you were merely an instrument of the Fuehrer, and that you didn't know what was going on. Is that your position?
A. No, I had quite a large task and that was the leadership of a comprehensive cultural concern. It was a film concern and the administration of the entire German radio which was a large enterprise and this was a very complicated activity. In the main I said it was an organization financially active but propaganda was carried on by Goebbels.
Q Yes. You knew the policies and the purposes of the propaganda ministries; there isn't any doubt about that?
Q You knew that, didn't you?
Q All right. Now, we can pass on to one other matter that I referred to earlier to clear up another matter. Do you recall that the defendant Schacht, when he was on the stand, said, I believe, at that now famous meeting where a number of industrialists were gather to greet Hitler, that he didn't take up the collection? Schacht said he didn't do it. I think he said that Goering did it or somebody else. Do you remember that testimony about Schacht on the stand?
Q Do you remember what you told us at the time?
Q What did you tell us?
A I said at that time that Schacht gave a brief speech; that Goering and Hitler also spoke, and that he asked those present to contribute and to raise money. He was the one who took up the collection.
Q Who?
Q Who was the one who took up the collection? I don't understand who you mean by "he".
Q That's all I wanted to know about that. not spontaneous? home to the ministry, for the first time I saw what had taken place during the night; but before that I have known nothing about the fact that these accesses and terror measures had been planned.
Q I think you misunderstood me. I didn't ask you when you first came to know about the uprisings; I asked you when you first learned that they were not spontaneous; when you first learned that they were instigated and planned by somebody else.
Q Well, how long later?
A I believe quite a good deal later. Later on there was much discussion about this matter and it was never clear just who had been the instigator of these terror and violent measures and where the order had originated from. We knew that it had come from Munich and we learned that on the 9th of November; but, whether it was Goebbels or Himmler and just how far the Fuehrer participated in this measure, I never could find out clearly. From my telephone conversation which I mentioned today, we could see one thing; that is, that the Fuehrer knew and must have known about this matter for he said the Fuehrer has decreed, and he said, also, that the Jews would be completely eliminated from the economic life; and from there on I must conclude that the Fuehrer himself knew about that.
Q Now we come to the telephone conversation. We can also see one other thing. You know that Goebbels started this business, didn't you, and that was the day after it happened? You knew it wasn't spontaneous and that's why you called Goebbels and got after him; isn't that so? to what should be done to the Jews? About six days afterwards, didn't you? I am referring to the one that was published in the Frankfurter Zeitung; your counsel referred to it this morning. that that was a spontaneous uprising, didn't you?
Q That wasn't true, was it?
AAt that time I did not know that. At that time I believed that it was really so. Very much later I found out that machinations had taken place.
telephone call to Goebbels, when you in effect blamed him for these uprisings, you were not well aware that he had started it? Is that your position? terror and how it had been carried through; that was entirely new to me.
Q If you didn't know who started it, you knew that somebody started it and that it wasn't spontaneous? make it appear to the public that it was just an uprising on the part of the German people, didn't you?
A I gave my reasons for the attempted assassination. I don't know just what was attached to the appearance and actually there was excitement among the people because of this.
Q Now I think you understand my question, Mr. Witness. You said on that occasion you used this expression "The fact that the last violent explosion of the disgust of the German people because of a criminal Jewish attack against the German people took place", and so on, and you went on. You were trying to make it appear there that this was a spontaneous reaction of the German people and I insist that you knew better and had known it for some days, hadn't you? way. That some suggestion from some source has taken place, that I know and admit.
Q All right. When did you coin the expression "crystal week"? Do you know what that expression is; where it came from?
A Crystal week?
Q You are the fellow who started that expression. You're the man, aren't you; that was your expression?
Q And you were using it because you made this Frankfurter Zeitung?
A I did use that expression once. At that time I characterized that action with that tern, yes, because much had been destroyed. 12th, when Goering and Goebels and all of the other people made their remarks about the Jews and you said you were present. You didn't make any objection that day to anything that was said, did you?
A No. I tried only to have some things put through and to carry some measures through in order to save something for the Jews, in order to save their effects. Then I put through that the stores were reopened again, so that there were slow developments along these lines. sensitive about the terrible things that had happened to the Jews, and you remember some of the suggestions that were made those days by Goering and Goebbles; they were pretty nasty things, weren't they?
Q Were you ? Well -
Q All right. You went on after that and made your Frankfurter Zeitung speech and you carried out these decrees, even though your conscience was bothering; is that so?
A Decrees had to come. I've already emphasized and reiterated that I have no pangs of conscience in that. I had conscience pangs about the reasons for that.
Q That's what I'm asking you.
A But the decree had to come. The reasons there for, yes I admit that. Economy he didn't think those things would happen? Do you remember him saying that here the other day, do you ?
A Yes. He must have had very powerful and influential connections to the Party; otherwise, he could not have been successful.
Q You didn't have these connections in the Party, did you?
A No, I did not. I did not have these connections and I could not prevent these terror measures.
Q Well, we'll see about that your counsel has submitted on your behalf an affidavit from one Oeser, O-E-S-E-R; do you remember that man? O-E-S-E-R, do you remember him?
Q Do you remember him?
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Dodd, we'll adjourn for a bare ten minutes.
(A recess was taken) BY MR. DODD:
Q Mr. Witness, I was inquiring about this man Oeser when we recessed -- O-E-S-E-R; do you recall him?
He was one of your employees in the Frankfurter Zeitung, wasn't he? Frankfurter Zeitung, a well reputed journalist.
Q Yes. You know, don't you, that you have an interrogatory or an affidavit from him, which you are submitting to this court; it's in your document book?
Q Well, I't not asking you that's all right -- whether he did or not; I just wanted to establish that you know that he did. you were really being quite decent about the Jews in that newspaper. Isn't that so? Isn't that the sense of it; that you saved them from dismissal and so you put them under the exceptions provided in the decrees?
Q Yes, I know. Now I want to ask you this: There was a real reason, other than decency towards Jews, for your conduct with reference to that particular paper, wasn't there?
A I didn't know these people personally.
Q I don't say that you knew the people personally. I say that there was a reason, other than your feeling for Jews as people, but which you haven't told the Tribunal about yet, another reason maybe.
A In the case of the editors of the Frankfurter Zeitung?
Q Now, isn't it a fact that you and probably Hitler and, certainly Goebbles, and some of the other higher ups of the Nazi Party, decided that that paper should be left in status quo because of its vast influence abroad?
Isn't that true?
A We did not talk about that at that time. That came later. That came at the time when the Fuehrer demanded that almost all leading dailies should either be taken over by the Party or should be merged with Party papers. And at that occasion I was successful in making an exception for the Frankfurter Zeitung, as far as that decision was concerned, and the Frankfurter Zeitung continued to exist, but that was much later, years later. Here, in fact, the reason was only to help the few Jewish editors.
Q You can answer this. I just wanted to get your answer on the record because I'll have more to say about it later. Do I understand you to deny that it was your established policy to preserve the status quo of the Frankfurter Zeitung because of its influence abroad? should remain as it was. people were well known in the financial world abroad, and you didn't want to impair the usefulness of that paper abroad? That's what I'm getting at, and I say that that's why you kept them on, and not because you felt badly about their plight as Jews.
A No, not in this case. In this case that was not the reason.
Q. Very well. Now, with, respect to your activities as Plenipotentiary for the Economy and their relationship to the wars waged against Poland and the other powers, I have some questions that I would like to ask you. Now, I will tell you what it is about first so you will be aware. You are not maintaining, are you, that your position as Plenipotentiary for the Economy didn't have much to do with the affairs of the Wehrmacht?
A. Yes, that I assert. With the Wehrmacht, I had nothing to de.
Q. Now, I have in my hand here a letter which von Blomberg wrote to Goering. Do you remember that letter? It is a new document and you haven't seen it in this trial but do you remember any such letter?
A. No.
Q. Well, I ask you to be handed EC 255.
MR. DODD: Mr. President, this becomes USA Exhibit 839. BY MR. DODD:
Q. Now, in this letter from von Blomberg, I am only concerned now with the last sentence, really. You will notice that von Blomberg, in this letter, refers to the fact that Schacht had been appointed but the last sentence says, or in the next to the last paragraph first urges that you be appointed immediately and that is underlined in his letter; and in the last paragraph he says: "The urgency of unified further work on all preparations for the conduct of the war does not admit of this office being paralyzed until the 15th day of January 1933."
This letter, by the way, was written November 29, 1937. Certainly von Blomberg thought that the job that he was suggesting you for, would have some great effect upon the conduct of the war, didn't he?
A. That may be but in the first place, I don't know that letter and, then, I was not immediately appointed Plenipotentiary for Economy but only in the course of the year 1938 and quite sometime after, I had already been Minister for Economy and when I asked Lammers why it had taken so long until my appointment as Plenipotentiary for Economy, Lammers stated that a clarification of my relations to the Plenipotentiary for the Four-Years Plan had to be found and that was the reason why several months later I became Plenipotentiary for the Economy, because it had to be clarified that Goering would have the docisive authority for war economy --
Q. You really don't need to go into all that.
A. I never saw that letter and I don't know that letter, and I have never spoken to Blomberg about the affair.
Q. All right. You do recall perhaps that the OKW, after you were appoint ed, made some objection about the amount of authority that you had. Do you remember that?
A. No.
Q. Now, I am holding here another new document, EC-270, which I will ask that you be shown, which will be Exhibit USA-840. While you are waiting for it, I will tell you that it is a letter written on the 27th day of April, 1938. You will notice that in the first paragraph of this letter from the OKW, that the interpretation which has been put on the decree of the Fuehrer, -- the decree of the 4th of February 1938, doesn't correspond to the necessities of total warfare. find other objections with respect to your authority. Apparently at this time the OKW thought you had too much to do with what would be the war effort and finally on the last page, Mr. Witness, if you will look at this paragraph you will see this sentence on the last page of the English anyway; near the end of the letter, this sentence appears: "The war economy which is subordinated to the Plenipotentiary General represents the war economic stage of the armaments industry."
And I want you to carefully observe those words "armaments industry."
Then it goes on to say: "If this stage fails, the striking power of the Armed Forces becomes questionable."
I ask that you pay attention to the words "armaments industry" because I recall that this morning you said you had absolutely nothing to do with the armaments industry but apparently the OKW thought that you did on the 27th day of April 1938. Isn't that so?
A. I don't know this letter. I don't know the attitude of the OKW but I know the following, that the OKW especially the co-defendant Field Marshal Keitel, at that time was of the opinion that I as General Plenipotentiary for Economics should assume the authority and competence of Schacht but there was a conversation between the Reichsmarshal and Field Marshal Keitel.
Keitel has confirmed that to me, in which the Reichsmarshal very definitely stated "war economy will not be turned over to Funk" and of all these things, I can say that quite frankly and sincerely, I had not the slightest idea, I did not know what the opinion of the OKW was about my position. I never had that function because the armaments industry was never with the Minister of Economic
Q. All right. That is correct. I suppose at the time you were also aware, as you told the Tribunal, that you were really subordinate to Goering and in a very inferior position about all these things. Is that so?
A. Yes.
Q. I am going to ask you to look at another document, EC-271, which will become USA Exhibit 841, and this document consitst of a letter which you wrote to Lammers, a letter which Lammers wrote to the Chief of the High Command, Field Marshal Keitel, and one or two other letters not pertinent for the purposes of this present inquiry. It was written on March 31, 1938, and I want you to turn to the second page because that is where your letter appears. The first page is just a letter of transmittal from Lammers to Keitel, but let us look at the second page. Have you got it?
A. Yes.
Q. I am not going to read the whole letter but the second paragraph. You wrote to Lammers and you say among other things: "In connection with a trip to Austria I have among other matters talked to General Fieldmarshal Goering, also about the position of the Plenipotentiary for War-Economy. I have pointed out that contrary to the attitude of the OKW, of which I was informed, the decree of 4 February 1938 concerning the leadership of the Wehrmacht did not change the position of the Plenipotentiary for War-Economy." exclusively to the command of the armed forces, and so on, and that especially the last paragraph of that decree stated that they were dependent upon instructions of the Fuehrer.
Then you go on to say: "Moreover, to the instructions of the Fuehrer, belongs also the decision of the Reich Government 21 of May 1935, according to which the Plenipotentiary for War-Economy, in his sphere of duty as supreme Reich authority, is immediately subordinated to the Fuehrer.
"General Fieldmarshal Goering assured me that my interpretation, as mentioned above, was correct in every respect and also corresponds with the Fuehrer's opinion. Thereupon, I asked him to give me a brief written confirmataion. General Fieldmarshal Goering promised to grant this request."
Now, you wrote that letter to Lammers, didn't you, on the 31st day of March 1938? Yes or no?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. You were trying to have supreme authority and make yourself answerable only to the Fuehrer and that is what this one sentence was about, and that is what document #C-270 referred to and this is your answer to the OKW's objection that you had too much power. This doesn't look like you were a little man, does it, Mr. Witness?
A. Yes. I just wanted to clarify the position but later it was not clarified in that sense but in the sense that I was dependent upon the directives of the Reichsmarshal and I wrote this letter in order to try to achieve clarification, but in detail I do not remember it.
Q. You told Lammers --
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Dodd, isn't this letter that you have just read the very letter which is referred to in the letter which you put to him immediately before?
MR. DODD: Yes, sir, it is. It referred to EC-271. I am sorry, I meant 270.
THE PRESIDENT: GB- No. 649/38 is the letter you just read. Will you look at the first paragraph of EC-27o; the letter referred there, criticizing the defendant Funk's letter, you just read.
MR. DODD: Yes, it is, your Honor. BY MR. DODD:
Q. My point here, Mr. Witness, is tht, you see, you told the Tribunal that you really just worked for Goering; that you didn't have much to say about these things but now we find that you were writing a letter asserting your supreme authority and saying now "it is a fact that I am really only answerable to Hitler" and, you see, those two are quite inconsistent.
What have you got to say about that?
A. Yes; in fact, I was never successful.
Q. Now, let us see if you weren't. You turn another page in that document and you will find another letter from Lammers, written on the 6th day of April 1938, and it is written to you, and he tells you that you are just right in what you understood to be your position; that you are indeed only subordinate to the Fuehrer and that he has sent a copy of your letter to both Fieldmarshal Goering and the Commander of the OKW. Now, what do you say about that?
that post, but in fact I never succeeded because the Reichsmarshal himself stated later that he would never turn over the war economy to me, and in fact, the former authority of the Plenipotentiary for Economy was turned over to the Four-Year Plan by a decree of the Fuehrer of December 1939.
Q Well, is that your answer? at least, that you really didn't have much to do with the planning of any aggressive wars, and that your activities were restricted to regulating and controlling the home economy, so to speak. Now, actually on the 28th of January 1939, which was some months before the invasion of Poland, you were considering the use of prisoners of war, weren't you?
A That I don't know. EC-483, which becomes USA-842. This is an unsigned letter, a captured document from your files. This letter, by the way, was transmitted under the signature of Sarnow, You know who he was; he was your deputy. its subject is "Re: Employment of Prisoners of War." Then it goes on to say:
"Under the Reich Defense Law of 4 September 1938, I have the direction for the economic preparations for the Reich Defense, except the armament industry."
Then it goes on, "For the utilization of labor..." and so on. the sentence in the second paragraph which says:
"The deficit in labor has to be made up by the employment of eventual prisoners of war as far as possible and practical. The preparations, therefore, have to be made in close cooperation with the OKW and GBW. The offices under my jurisdiction will be informed."
Remember that communication?
A No, I have never seen that letter, never signed it. But that letter belongs to the things about which I spoke this morning. The Office of the General Plenipotentiary for Economy --here I see "War Economy" scratched out -- continuously had to do with these things. I personally had nothing to do with it.
Q Well now, that is rather playing with words. This was your ministry that was making these suggestions, and your principal deputy who transmitted this letter, isn't that so?
Q (Interposing) Now, you look up in the right hand corner of that letter and it says "The Plenipotentiary General for the Economy" and then it gives the address and the date.
A Yes, and it is signed "By Order of Sarnow."
Q That's right, and he was your principal deputy, wasn't he?
Q What was he? My main deputy, who was in charge of that office, was Posse.
A (Interposing) As I have said before, I personally did not deal with these things. the man was Posse, then in the second paragraph of that letter you can find his name: AI can refer to the statements of Colonel General Keitel, Secretary of State Dr. Posse..." involved in this thing, weren't they?
Q All right. Now, you remember the document 3562 PS. It was introduced here as USA Exhibit 662. It is the minutes of a meeting, set out by Dr. Posse, your deputy, which discussed a memorandum for financing the war, and you talked about that this morning and you said that despite the fact there is a note on it "to be shown to the Minister," you never saw it.