Though this greatest trial of all in world history suffers from the deficiency that the chief offenders are not sitting in the defendant's box because they are either dead or not to be found, the facts ascertained have, nevertheless resulted in cogent conclusions concerning the actual responsibility. of unique and even demoniacal brutality and disregard, whereto was added in the latter years that he had lost all sense of proportion and all sefl-control.
Ruthless brutality was the principal feature of his character; this became apparent for the first time in its full force when the so-called Roehm Rebellion was suppressed in June 1934. On this occasion Hitler did not hesitate to have his oldest fellow combatants shot without any process of law. His unrestrained radicalism was further revealed in the way the war with Poland was conducted. Only because he feared an antagonistic attitude toward Germany on the part of loading circles in the Polish nation did he order their ruthless extermination. His orders at the beginning of the Russian campaign were still more drastic. Already at that time he ordered the extermination of Jewry in separate actions. humanity was alien to this man. Furthermore, the proceedings, through the depositions of all defendants, have corroborated the fact that Hitler in basic decisions was net open to any outside influence.
Hitler's basic attitude towards the Jewish question is known. He had already become an anti-semite during his time in Vienna in the years before the first world war. However no actual proofs exist that Hitler from the very beginning had such a radical solution of the Jewish question in mind as was finally effected in the annihilation of European Jewry. When the Prosecution declares that from the book "Mein Kampf" there was a direct road leading to the crematories of Mauthausen and Auschwitz, that is only an assumption, but no evidence for it has been given. The evidence speaks much rather for the fact that Hitler too wanted to see the Jewish problem in Germany solved by way of emigration. This thought, as well as the position of the Jewish part of the population under alien laws, was the official state policy of the Third Reich.
Mary of the leading antisemites considered the Jewish question as settled after the laws of 1935 had been passed. The defendant Streicher shared this opinion. A severer attitude of Hitler's in the Jewish question cannot be traced further back than to the end of 1938, or beginning of 1939. Only then it became apparent that, in case of war -which he believed was propagated by the Jews- he planned a different solution. extermination of the Jewry in case a second world war was let loose against Germany. occasion of the 20th anniversary of the day the Party was founded. And finally also his testament confirms his exclusive responsibility for the murdering of European Jewry as a whole. Hitler since the beginning of the war, there is nothing that goes to show that he visualized the extermination if the Jews right at the beginning of the war. It can be clearly seen that this last resolution, no doubt, came about when Hitler, presumably as early as 1942,saw that it was impossible to bring the war to a victorious end for Germany. minating the Jews was made -as were almost all of Hitler's plans- and criginated exclusively by himself. It can not be ascertained with certainty to what extent other, who were closely attached to Hitler, brought their infl ence to bear on him. If such influences did exist they can have only come from Himmler, Bermann and Goebbels. That much can be stated beyond any doubt at any rate that, during the decisive period from September 1939 to October 1942 Streicher -things being as they were- neither influenced Hitler nor would have been able to influence him.
At this time Streicher was living -- deprived of all his offices and com-
nection with Hitler neither personally nor by correspondence. This has been proved beyond doubt by the statementsof witness Fritz Herrworth, Adele Streicher, and the statement under oath of the defendant himself. But that Hitler was instigated to his orders of wholesale murder by his reading of the Stuermer can, I believe, not be maintained in earnest. influence at all on the man who made the decision and on the decisive order to exterminate Jewry.
In October 1942 Bormann's decree came out, ordering the extermination of Jewry (Document PS 3244). This order came from Hitler, there is no doubt about that, and went to Reichsfuehrer SS Heinrich Himmler, who was changed with the actual execution of the extermination of the Jews. commissioner for Jewish Affairs Eichmann with the final execution. So, after Hitler, those three men are the main responsible ones. actually supposedly influenced them, hasnot been proved. He ascertains irrefutably that he never knew either Eichmann or Mueller, and thathis connection to Himmler was but loose and far from being friendly. merely be mentioned. From the beginning he had advocated a merciless fight against the Jews, and was, moreover, from all that we know of him, not a man who would have allowed himself to be influenced by another in matters of principle. But aside from that, a comparison of the two personalities shows, a priori, that Himmler was in every way the stronger and more superior man, so that even for this reason the exertion of any influence by defendant Streicher on Himmler may be ruled out. Streicher had a decisive influence on the men actually executing the orders; that is, on the one hand on members of special purpose groups (Einsatzrruppe and on the other hand on the executive commandos in the concentration camps and whether it was at all necessary to prepare these men spiritually and intellecutally to make them willing to execute such measures.
The Reichsfuehrer SS stated unequivocally in his speeches in Nikolajew, Posen and Charkow -- which have often been mentioned here -not only that he, with Hitler, was responsible for the final solution of the Jewish question, but also that the execution of the orders had been possible only by the utilization of forces selected by himself among the SS.
We know from Ohlendorf's testimony that the so-called Einsatzgruppen (Task force) consisted of members of the Gestapo and the SD, of companies of the Waffen SS, of members of the police force withlong years of service, and of natives. Streicher never had the slightest influence on the ideological attitude of the SS. There is no shadow of a proof among the extensive material of evidence of this trial that Streicher had any connections with the SS. The alleged enemy No. 1 of the Jews, the great propagandist for the persecution of the Jews, -- as he has been pictured as the prosecution -- the defendant Streicher, never having had the opportunity to write in the periodical "Das Schwarze Korps" (The black Corps) or even in"SS-Leithefte (SSGuide Magazine). These periodicals alone, however, as the official mouthpieces of the Reichsfuehrer SS, determined the ideological attitude of the Schutzsaffel. These SS periodicals determined their attitude toward the Jewish question. In these circles the Stuermer was read just as little as in othercircles; it was rejected. Therefore, the defendant Streicher could not have influenced ideologically the SS members of the Einsatsgruppen, far less the old soldiers of the police, and least of all the foreign units. be ideologically determined by him. Those men originated for the most part from the Totenkopfverbaende (Death Head Units), that is, the old guard units, for whom the above mentioned is true in a higher degree. Added to this is the fact that the experienced police soldiers, as well as the SS men with long years of service, were trained in absolute obedience to their leaders. Absolute obedience to a Fuehrer command was a foregone conclusion for both.
Even those experienced police men, accustomed to absolute obed-
ience, even the experienced SS, could not be, without any mere ado, entrusted by Himmler to carry out the executions of Jews. Rather, Himmler had to select men whom he trusted as heads of these execution squads and make them personally responsible, for their duties. He pointed out explicitly that he would take all responsibility and that he himself did not put pass on a definite order of Hitler. to the assertion of the Prosecution, the Elite of the Nazism become enemies of the Jews in the sense as asserted by the indictment, that the entire authority of the head of State and the Fuehrer, and of his most brutal follower, Himmler, was necessary to force uponthe men responsible for carrying out the execution orders the conviction that their order was based on the will of the authoritarian head of the State; an order which, according to their conviction, had the power of a fundamental State law and therefore was above all criticism.
Thus it was not ideological reasons, not Stretcher's instigation of those who were, as the prosecution contends, commissioned with the carrying out of annihilation thatmade these men carry out orders, but exclusively and solely the obedience to an order from Hitler transmitted to them by Himmler, and the knowledge that not to carry out a Fuehrer order, meant death.
Thus, in this respect too, Streicher's influence has not been proved. are herewith exhausted. But, on order to reach a conclusion, to form a judgment of the defendant that does full justice to the actual findings, it seems necessary to give once more a short summary of his personality and his activity under the Hitler regime. the leading advocate of the most violent determination to annihilate Jewry. defendant and his actual influence than it does to his personality. The manner in which the defendant was used in the Third Reich and called in for the propagandizing and for the final solution of the Jewish question shows the incorrectness of the conception held by the prosecution.
The only time the defendant was called upon to take an active part in the fight against Jewry was in his capacity as chairman of the action-committee for the anti-Jewish boycott-day on 1 April 1933.
He showed an attitude on that day which stands in direct contrast to his utterances in the Stuermer. One can see from it that the utterances in his paper which are under scrutiny were purely for the purpose ofcreating a tendency. In spite of the fact that on that day he could haveused the entire power of the State and of the Party against Jewry, he merely orderedthe identification of Jewish places of business and the guarding of Jewish business places. In connection with this he gave explicit instructions that any molestation or act of violence against the Jews, as well as damaging of Jewishproperty, was forbidden and punishable. defendant. Not even for the ideological founding of the show-down with Jewrr was he consulted. Neither through the press nor over the radio could he express his ideas. Neither the Party in its training letters (Cchulungsbriefen), nor the organizations in their periodicals, availed themselves of his pen for the clarification of the Jewish question. ideological training of the German people. The latter was responsible for the Institute for the Investigation into the Jewish Question, but the defendant Streicher; he wasnot even contemplated as collaborator in this Institute. The defendant Rosenberg was commissioned with the arrangement of an Anti-Jewish congress in 1944. This assembly, however, never took place, but it is significant that the participation of the defendant Streicher was not even planned. drafted without his participation. He was net even called in for the drafting of the race laws which were proclaimed at the party rally in Nurnber in 1935. The defendant Streicher did not take part in any conference concerning questions of some importance during peace and war. His name is not on any list of participants, on any protocol. Not even in the actual discussions is his name mentioned once.
The fight against Jewry in the Third Reich became more severe from year to year, especially after the outbreak and in the course of the war.
In contrast to this, however, the influence of the defendant Streicher decreasedfrom year to year. Even during the year 1939 he was almost entirely pushed aside, without any connection to Hitler or other leading men of the State and Party. Since 1940 he was relieved of his office and Gau-Leader and was politically a dead man ever since.
If the defendant Streicher really had been the man whom the prosecution bel ieves him to be, his influence and his activity would have increased automatically with the intensification of the fight against the Jews.
The end would not have been, as it actually was, political impotence, and banishment, but the commission to carry out the destruction of Jewry. clumsy, crude and violent manner, the defendant Streicher as cannot be denied - has brought upon himself the hatred of the world. He has hereby created a strong feeling against him which resulted in rating his importance and his influence far beyond his real importance and which now entails the danger for him that his responsibility will be misjudged likewise. difficult task, had to limit himself to presenting those aspects and facts which allow a clear recognition in its true extent of the importance of this man and of the role which he played in the tragedy of National Socialism. iable facts and to sh oeld actions for which simply no excuse exists. in the destruction of the Main Synagogue of Nurnberg and thus allowed a place of religious worship to fall into decay. not the demolition of a building destined for religious worship, but the removal of an edifice which did not fit into the style of old Nurnberg city, and had a disturbing effect and that this, his opinion, had been shared by art experts. That this is truth, was proved by the fact that he had left the second Jewish house of worship untouched until it finally, and without him having anything to do with it, went up in flames the might from the 9th to the 10th of November. However that may be, the defendant has shown here the same ruthlessnes as in his other a ctions.
He himself has to account here for his actions, the defense cannot should him. But here too it must be said that the population of Nurnberg disapproved of these actions clearly and unmistakable. It was clear to any impartial observer that the people viewed such actions with icy coldness and only by brute force could be made to put up with such measures and to witness such absurdities. opinion regarding the reopening of the question of the ritual murder myth. These articles, to be sure, found no interest whatsoever, but their tendency is clear. The only point which, beside the good faith which we have to grant him, is extenuating for the defendant is the fact that it was not he who wrote these articles, but Holz: he cannot avoid, however, that the fact is hel d against him that he allowed it to happen. part in publication of the "Stuermer" after having long since been politically crippled and sent into exile. This very fact better than anything else reveals his one track mind. at physical annihilation of the Jews and of having prepared the way for this later result with the things he published, then I would like to refer to the statements of the defend ant given under oath when he was interrogated as a witness, to which I am here referring to their full extent. articles published since its beginning there was none which asked for real acts of violence against Jews, furthermore, that among the more than thousand issues there could be found only about 15 which contained expressions, which could, be held against him in the meaning of the indictment. spee ches always had displayed ah unmistakeable tendency to briny about a wholesale and universal solution of the Jewish problem, since a partial solution of any kind, could, not have any pur pose and did not yet at the heart of the problem.
Even from this point of view, he had always expressed himself unequivocally against measures of violence of any kind, and he would never have approved of an action, as was finally carried out by Hitler in such a gruesome manner.
prove to the defendant that he ever approved of the resultant mass murder of Jewry, and I leave this decision about this to the Tribunal. He personally however refers to the fact, that he did not recieve certain know lodge of those wholesale murders before 1944, a fact which was corroborated by the statements f the witnesses Adele Streicher and Hiemer. Wochenblatt as a means of propaganda and consequently did not believe them. In his favor is the fact, that up to the fall of 1943, he did no express in any article a satisfaction over the fate of Jewry in the East. ish reservoir in the East, it cannot be surmised that he had available any source for an authentic confirmation. He might of course, have been of the opinion, that this vanishing process was not identical with physical annihilation but was rather to be considered in the light of evacuation of the collected Jewish population to foreign countries or into territory of the Soviet-Union. As no proof has been presented for that fact that the defendant had received hints from any quarters with regard to the intended extermination of Jewry, he could not have conceived such a satanic occurrence, as it appears to be absolutely inconceivable to the human mind. Certainly, it can not be assumed that the mental capacity of the defendant should have put him into a position to foresee such a solution of the Jew ish question, which could only have originated from the brain of a person no longer a master of his mind.
The defendant describes himself as a fanatic and seeker of truth.
He professes to have written nothing and to have expressed nothing in his pseeches which he had not taken from some authentic source and corroborated accordingly.
There is no doubt that he was a fanatic. The fanatic, however, is a man who is so possesed or convinced of an idea or an illustion, that he will not be open to any other consideration, and it convinced of the correctness of his idea and nothing else. For the psychiatrist it is a sort of mental cramp. maniac. Together with it htere is to be found, as a rule, a remarkable overestimation and overevluation of ones own personality, and its influence on the world around it. Not one of the defendants, here in trial, shows such a discrepancy between fact and fancy as does the defendant Streicher. outside world. What he actually was and is, has been shown by the trial. ment. Consider in your judgement also, that the defendant in his position as Gau-leader of Franconia, showed also many human features, that he had a great number of political prisoners released from concentration camps, which even resulted in criminal proceedings against him. It should also be mentioned that he treated, the prisoners of war, and foreign workers working on his estate, very well in very respect. be, it only will be concerned with the fate of one individual. and this defendant were never in agreement on this important question. The German people always disapproved the aims of this defendant as he expressed them in his publications and retained its own opinion of, and attitude towards, the Jews.
The assumption of the prosecution that the biased articles in the "Stuermer" had found any echo or ready acceptance among the German population, or even an attitude ready to accept criminal measures, is herewith fully refuted.
their sound sense and slowed themselves disinclined toward all acts of violence. all moral complicity and co-responsibility of those crimes before the public tribunal of the world, and will again take its place in the ranks of the nations. shall, however, place in the hands of the High Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: I call on Dr. Sauter for the Defendant Funk.
DR. SAUTER: For the defendant, Dr.Walther Funk. Gentlemen of the Tribunal, I have the task to examine the case of the defendant Dr. Walther Funk. That is to say, I am to deal with a topic which unfortunately is especially dry and prosaic. May I first make a short statement. either illegal, political, historical, of psychological matters, although such general statements, particularly within the framework of this proceedings, may appear. Such general statements have already been made by other defense counsel to a larger extent, and probably some more of them will still supplement then. Therefore, I shall limit myself to the point of view of the defense, to examine and to present to you the picture which the evidence in this trial shows, as given to the personality of the defendant Funk, of which I consider his motives the motives which may have led him. ease have proven that the defendant Funk, at no time of the National Socialist regime and in none of the eases indicted here, played a decisive role.
Funk's authority of decision was always limited by superior power of authority. The remarks made by the defendant during his personal examination, that he was allowed to proceed as for as to the door, but was never permitted to enter, has been proven by the evidence to be quite correct. last year prior to the seizure of power, that is in 1932. These, however, were of no practical significance, as they were of very short duration. From the seizure of power on Funk was never appointed to an office in the party. He was never a member of any party organization, neither of the SS nor the SA, nor of the corps of political leaders. Funk held a Reichstag-Mandate only for the brief space of slightly mere than six months prior to the seizure of power. Consequently he was not a member of the Reichstag at the time when the fundamental laws for the consolidation of National Socialist power were passed. bility for which Funk is also charged, were accepted by the Reichs-Cabinet at a time, when Funk was not yet a member of the Cabinet. He became a member, as is known, only at the close of 1937, by virtue of his appointment as Minister of Economy (Reichswirtschaftsminister) that is at a tine when Cabinet sessions no longer took place.
Funk, as press chief of the Reich-Cabinet, had neither a seat nor a vote in the cabinet and could not exert any influence whatsoever upon the contents of the bills. (I refer to the statement of Lammers). The same applies to racial laws, the so-called Nuernberg laws.
Funk had closer relations to the Fuehrer only during the period of 11/2 years, in which he held regular press conferences at Hitler's in his capacity as Press chief of the Reich-Cabinet. That is from February 1933 through August 1934, up to the death of Reich President von Hindenburg. Later, Funk met Hitler only very rarely. The witness Dr. Lammers in this respect states the following: "Later he (Funk) in his capacity as Reich Minister of Economy came to see Hitler only extremely rarely. He was not consulted in many conferences, conferences at which he should have been consulted. He complained to me about this frequently. The Fuehrer often raised objections. There were various reasons against Funk. He viewed Funk sceptically and did not want him." (That is the testimony given by Dr. Lammers on 8 April 1946). Upon the question to the witness Dr. Lammers whether Funk had often expressed to him his grief about his unsatisfactory position as a Reich Minister for Economy and about his anxiety weighing heavily upon him due to the general conditions, Dr. Lammers replied: "I know that Funk had great worries and he was looking for an opportunity to discuss these with the Fuehrer. He had the fervent desire to be able to report to the Fuehrer in order to be at least partially informed about the war situation." That was in 1943 and 1944. And Lammers continues: "With the best will, it was not possible for Funk to be received by the Fuehrer and it was not possible for me to got him to the Fuehrer" was called to the Fuehrer conferences but four or five times, gives the explanation that Hitler did not need him. Hitler, up to 1942, issued his instructions in economic affairs to Goering, who, in his capacity as plenipotentiary for the Four-Year Flan, was responsible for the entire economy and, from the beginning of 1942, to Speer, who as Armament Minister, upon the grant of special authority could issue directives to all branches of production and who as of 1943 personally directed the entire production.
Therefore, Funk never played the main part but rather a subaltern role in the economy of the National Socialist Reich.
The co-defendant Goering specifically said of Funk, "Of course, according to the special authority that he was given he had to follow my directives in the field of economy and the Reichsbank. The responsibility for the directives and policy is entirely mine." that in his capacity as Armament Minister he claimed for himself from the very beginning any authority of decision in the most important economical spheres, such as coal, iron and steel, metal, aluminum, and production of machinery. The entire management of energy and the total building program prior to Speer's commission at the beginning of 1942, was under the jurisdiction of Armament Minister Todt. Funk, does not for the greater part bear on personal acts of Funk or instructions issued by him, but it bears rather on the various and manifold positions he occupied. On page 29 of the trial brief the prosecutor himself declares that the argument offered against Funk may be said to be inferential. The prosecution starts from the assumption that Funk, upon the basis of the many positions hold by him, must have had knowledge of the various happenings, which are the subject of the accusation. The indictment refers, broadly spoken, to instructions and directives, issued by Funk personally only where the decrees of execution, issued by Funk for the carrying out of the Four Year Plan for the elimination of Jews from the economic life in November 1938, were concerned. This chapter will have to bd dealt with separately.
At political and military conferences, Funk was not consulted. His position was one of a ministerial expert with very narrow limitations on authority of decisions.
As Reich Minister for Economy Punk was subordinated to the Four Year Plan; that is, Goering, later the Armament Minister, had superior authorities And finally, as was proven by the testimony of witnesses Goering, Lammers and Hayler, the Ministry for Economy assumed the status of a regular Trade-Ministry, which dealt essentially with the distribution of the consumer goods production and with technical problems in carrying out Foreign trade.
in the Reichsbank. The decision about the amount of credits to be granted to the Reich with respect to the internal financing of the war was taken away from the Reichsbank at the time of Funk assuming office as Reichsbank president. Thereby Funk is exonerated of any responsibility in the financing of the war. The responsible agency herefore was always the Reich-Finance-Minister. That is, not Funk. Finally, as General Plenipotentiary for Economy Funk's task in August 1939 solely existed in co-ordinating civil agencies of economy for such measures as would guarantee a smooth reconversion from peace to wartime economy. The result of these consultations were the proposals which Funk presented toHitler on 25 August 1939 in the letter which has been quoted several times under 699 PS. At his examination Funk stated that this letter did not portray matters correctly, since it was a purely private letter, a letter of appreciation for Hitler's birthday congratulations which he had received. This point will have to be taken up again later, since the prosecution especially emphasized the position of Funk as General Plenipotentiary for Economy. position ofFunk. With regard to the occupied territories Funk had no decisive authority whatsoever. This was demonstrated by all witnesses interrogated regarding this question. But all witnesses equally confirmed that Funk always turned against the pillage of the occupied territories. He fought against the purchases in the black markets, he was against abolishing the foreign exchange regulations in connection with Holland by which measure the German purchases in Holland were to be facilitated, he organized, as we have heard by the witness Noubacher, exports to Greece from Germany and from the Eastern European states and even sent gold there.
He repeatedly rose against overburdening the occupied territories financially, especially in 1942 and 1944 against raising the occupation costs in France.
He defended the currency of the occupied countries against repeating attempts of devaluation. In the case of Denmark he achieved, even in spite of all opposition, a revalorization of the currency. Furthermore Funk fought an arbitrary stabilization of exchange on the occasion of currency regulations in occupied countries. Germany's clearing debt was always recognized by Funk as a true commercial debt also with regard to the occupied countries. This is shown especially by his proposal mentioned here to commercialize this clearing debt by a loan by Germany issued for subscription in all European countries. Funk was opposed to too strong and compulsory measures an employment of foreign labor in Germany. here. All these facts, favourably affecting the occupied countries word confirmed by the witnesses Hayler, Landfried, Puhl, Neubacher, and co-defendant Seyss-Inquart. economic and social life of the occupied territories and protect them from shocks and disturbances. He always was opposed and disinclined to radical and arbitrary measures. He rather was in favour of agreements and compromises. Even during the war Funk always thought of peace. This was stated by the witnesses Landfried and Hayler and they added that Funk was repeatedly reproached for his attitude by the leading states and party offices. Also the defendant Speer testified at his interrogation that Funk, during the war, had occupied too many workers in the consumer goods economy and that this was a reason that Funk had to give up the management of the consumer goods production in 1943. "scorched earth" policy has been proved to the Court by Speer himself, also by the witness Hayler on 7 May 1946. This witness declared that he never saw Funk so upset as in that moment when he was informed of this order for destruction. Funk gave directions, as Hayler had testified, as Reichswirtschaftsminister (ministerfor Reich economy) as Well as Reichsbankpresident (President of the Reichs bank), to protect the warehouses from the ordered destruction and toassure the supply of commodities necessary for the life of the population, also the currency transactions in the territories which were abandoned.
Funk's economic political goal, one may, indeed, say, the contents of his lifework was a European economic community on the basis of just and natural balance of interests of the soveriegn countries.
Relentlessly even during the war, he strove to reach this goal, although the elementary war necessities and the developments brought on by the war naturally hindered these efforts everywhere. The economic Europe, as Funk saw and endeavoured to see it, was impressively represented by him in some major economicpolitical speeches. Extracts from same of these speeches, often also recognized in neuter* and enemy countries, are contained in Document Book Funk No.9, 10 and 11. sonality naturally plays a role if the motives from which this defendant acted are to be ascertained. The German people looked upon Funk, that is as far as lie was known, never as a Party man win would be capable of participating in brutal outrages, violence and terror, or to amass fortunes at the cost of others. He rather shared his preference for art and literature with his friend Baldur von Schirach. Originally, as we have been told, be wanted to become a musician and in later times he much rather saw in his house poets and artists , than the men from the Party and the State. In professional circles he was known and considered as an economist, as a man with an extensive theoretical and historical knowledge who rose from journalism and was a brilliant stylist. He had an economically secure position as chief editor with the distinguished Berliner Boerson Zeitung so that he deprived himself financially when he accepted the office of press chief in the Reich Cabinet at the beginning of 1933 after Hitler's assumption of power. Therefore the was not one of those desperados who was glad to get into a well paid position through Hitler. On the contrary, he made a financial sacrifice when he took over the state office offered to him, and therefore it seems entirely credible that he did this out of patriotism, out of a sense of duty toward his people, to pit himself at the service of the country during hard times of distress.
To judge the personality and character of defendant Funk, it is further of some importance that he never held or trove toward any rank in the party.
Other people who took over high state offices in the Third Reich, for example, bestowed with the title of a SS-Gruppenfuehrer, or given the rank of a SA-Obergruppenfuehrer. Funk, on the contrary, from 1931 until the end of the Third Reich, was only a plain party member; although he took pains for a scrupulous management of hi* his state offices, he endeavoured to obtain no honors in the Party whoseever. The only thing the defendant Funk was reproached for in this connection was the fact that he accepted an endowment in 1940 on his 50th birthday. That in itself of course, was no punishable act, but was eveidently valued by *he the Tribunal as a moral charge against the defendant. Therefore, we shall define out position with regard to this briefly. We remember how this endowment came about: The president add board of the Reich Chamber of Economy (Rechswirtschaftkammer), that is the highest representatives of German economic life, presented him on his 50th birthday with a farm, of 55 hectars in Upper Bavaria. This estate, of course, existed for the time being only on the paper of the presentation document and had to be erected first. This presentation was expressively approved by the head of state, Adolf Hitler, therefore was not made secretely to the Reich Minister of Economy but in all official form without anything being suppressed or concealed. The gift consequently, turned out to be, for Funk, a fatal one, becaise the construction of the building was much more expensive than was expected, and because Funk had to pay a very high gift tax. Funk, who, until then, never had any debts and always lived in regulated conditions, came now, because of this "donation" of an estate, into debt. Goering, who heard about the, helped Funk out with a generous sum. When Hitler heard, through minister Hammers, of Funk's financial difficulties, he had transferred to him, as endowment, the cash necessary for the arrangement of his economic affairs. With AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1410 hours, 12 July 1946.)