called Three Men College, or collegium, which was supposed to have consisted of Frick, Schacht, and the Chief of the OKW. Can you tell me anything about the expression "Three Men College"?
A The "Three Men College" is quite wrong. It is not a legal conception. It was on auxiliary expression that was used, a make-shift word. These three people, the General Plenipotentiary for Administration, the General Plenipotentiary for Economy, and the Chief of the OKW each had such powers as were necessary to promulgate decrees, but they were tied down and had to get the agreement of the other two. In other words, one could give instructions after the other two had agreed, and meetings of the so-called three men college, or collegium, have never taken place. The decree, or decrees, which have originated from it are very few indeed and altogether quite unimportant. For instance, I can remember that this council has ruled on the question of reducing judges, which are matters referring to civil service, and there are one or two, in fact, a total of six or eight, and altogether quite unimportant.
Q There was later on the Ministerial Council for Reich Defense. Can you compare these two, in other words, the three and the Ministerial Council for Reich Defense?
A Do you mean the Three Men College? established, it was my principle to exclude these three men wherever possible, since it was not at all necessary. The Ministerial Council for the Reich Defense had the task to issue legal decrees which had the power of laws but it actually had nothing to do with the defense of the Reich. In other words, military matters were never discussed in this Ministerial Council for Reich Defense, nor did they negotiate on any foreign political questions or propaganda. In principle, they issued decrees which had the force of laws, and the meetings only took place until December 1939, and after that they merely used the system of written circulation of decrees, and meetings after that did not take place.
been a Central Department in the Ministry of the Interior. This Central Department has been quoted by the Prosecution as evidence for the fact that Frick had considerable administrative powers and responsibilities for occupied territories. Are you able to say anything about the Central Department?
A The Central Department had two main tasks. One was the recruiting of civil servants. The second was to give assistance in connection with the publication of laws and decrees in occupied territories. ries required personnel and because the Reich Commissioners in the occupied territories, who were directly under the Fuehrer's command, handled their problems partly through me. If one had decided to settle personnel problems within that framework, then I would have had to do it, but I had no instrument for it. I had only a staff of twelve, and I had no organization in the country, nor did I have any executive powers. Thus, the Minister of the Interior was included, since he had the civil service instrument at his disposal. in issuing decrees in the occupied territories. Was it possible for the Central Department to issue a decree referring to Norway or any occupied territory, say for instance, Norway? Could they publish such a decree?
A No, not actually. Only after the Reich Commissioner in question had agreed. publish decrees referring to any certain occupied territory?
A To my knowledge that has never happened. I do not know of a single case where the Central Department has published a decree. Interior which ruled on the question of citizenship with reference to occupied territories.
A Do you mean G erman citizenship?
ions to either the German Deputy or authorized persons in occupied territories, say the Commissioner for Norway, or did they have the right to issue instructions to the German service departments?
had the right to issue instructions in those territories for which it had not been specifically appointed. I s there any legal basis or is there any practical example where the Central Department interfered with the jurisdiction for occupied territories? in the occupied territories always was immediately subordinate to Hitler as the Fuehrer, no matter what their designation was? as were the chiefs of the civil administration, immediately to the Fuehrer. orders with reference to occupied territories where the German police was active? in co-operation with the commissioners. The Minister of the Interior had nothing to do with the police in occupied territories. the fact that Himmler was subordinate to Frick in the Ministry of the Interior? as Germany was concerned, but not as far as the occupied territories are concerned, and just how far this applied to the German Reich is another problematical question.
Q I shall come to that later in detail. Can you tell me anything about the powers of the Minister of the Interior regarding the police during that time when the police was still under the jurisdiction of the counties, 1933 to 1936? details.
Q Did he have the right to supervise?
appointed to be Reichleiter of the German police in the Ministry of the Interior, do you not? Do you know who originated that designation?
A Yes, I participated at the time. The proposal for such a title appears to have originated from Himmler. I objected to this title for two reasons. Two different matters were being thrown together; the Reich Fuehrer SS, which is a Party organization, and the State organization, the chief of the Police. The Reichsleiter SS has the rank of Reich Leader in the Party, which is equivalent to a Minister, and on the other side you have the chief of police, who has the position of a secretary of state in the Ministry of the Interior and who is subordinate to the Ministry of the Interior, but Himmler insisted, on that designation, and the Fuehrer considered that he was right. My objections were proved correct by the facts, because on one side the right to issue instructions which the Reich Minister of the Interior had with reference to the police now became extremely problematical, since Reichsfuehrer Himmler was giving instructions to police who were SS, and he could give them instructions as Reichsfuehrer SS, and the Ministry of the Interior could not interfere, and it was a habit of his that he appointed police officials as SS officers, so that you could never know in what capacity he was acting. Was he acting as member of the SS, or was he acting as a policeman? And the subordination in the Ministry of Interior later on became almost irrelevant, because, first of all, Himmler used to leave out the Chief of the German Police designation in the Ministry, and as far as administration was concerned, he merely called himself Minister of the Interior, and he no longer considered himself under the jurisdiction. When Minister Frick raised a complaint about this which he addressed to me and which I was supposed to take to the Fuehrer, the Fuehrer told me, "Tell Frick to consider Himmler as Chief of the German Police and not to interfere with him too much. He is looking after the police very well. Where possible, he ought to give him a free hand." Thus, though perhaps not by special decree, there was in practice created a limitation on the jurisdiction on the part of the Minister of the Interior, if it was not altogether cancelled.
ion over police organizations without worrying very much about what Frick wanted, but then there was a channel of orders as far as the police were concerned when Hitle himself gave orders. Did he give them to Frick or did he give them to Himmler?
A Normally the Fuehrer gave these instructions to Himmler . If he gave instructions to me which were referring to the police sector then I mostly handed then on to the Minister of the Interior or at least I informed him.
Q. Do you know anything regarding the question whether concentration camps were presented in the budget of the Reich or whether they were in the budget of the SS?
A. As far as I know -- but I can't say this for certain -- the money for concentration camps did not appear in the budget of the Reich, But what was the case was that the Reich Minister of Finance would receive an over-all payment and pay it to the Party once a year. This was taken care of by the Reich Treasurer. He, in turn, distributed it to the various Party organizations, so that the Reich Leader SS would receive an over-all payment for the SS and quite probably he used that for that finance. I can't recollect that I have over seen any figure, any sum, which was referring to concentration comps in the budget.
Q. Do you know anything regarding the fact that Himmler, giving the reason that means for concentration comps were being raised through the SS, has denied the right of the minister of the Interior to interfere with those natters?
A. No, I don't know anything about that.
Q. I now have some questions referring to another problem. Do you know anything about Himmler's efforts to kill insane persons painlessly?
A. The first time that thought occurred to Hitler was in the autumn of 1939. On that occasion the Secretary of State in the Ministry of the Interior, Dr. Conti, received the task of invertigating this problem. He was told to discuss the legal angle with me. I spoke against the execution of any such procedure but since the Fuehrer insisted I suggested that this matter should because given all legal guarantees and be ruled upon by a law, because promptly I drafted a law and the Secretary of state was then relieved of the task.
In 1940 the task was given to Reich Leader Buhler. He, Buhler, reported to the Fuehrer, and I wasn't present. And then he came to see me, and I showed him my draft of the law and stated the objections I had to the whole thing. And he left. Then I presented the draft law to the Fuehrer and he did not approve it, but he didn't turn it down altogether. However, he excluded me and he gave authority for the killing of incurable insane people to Reich Leader Buhler, and the medical officer, Professor Dr. Brandt. I didn't participate in the draft of that authority. As far as I was concerned, the the matter was settled, since the Fuehrer didn't wish to have a law and since he had given others the authority to carry it out.
Q. You have just said that the Fuehrer gave the task to the Secretary of State, Dr. Conti, in the Ministry of the Interior. Did that order go through Frick to Conti from Hitler?
A. I don't know. Secretary of State Conti was called on the telephone by the adjutant's office and he was told to call, and whether that went through Frick or not, that I don't know.
Q. Do you know anything about whether Frick himself did participate in these measures in some form or other?
A. No, nothing is known to me.
Q. Then I have a last group of questions, referring to the Protectorate in Bohemia and Moravia. when in August, 1943, Frick was appointed Protector for Bohemia and Moravia did the formal authority remain the same as before?
A. No, they were deliberately altered. In that was the immediate effect was that the Protector became a more or less decorative personality. The political guidance was to be transferred to the Minister, Frank. The Protector was merely the German head in the Protectorate, with comparatively few perogstives. He was to cooperate in forming the government in the Protectorate and furthermore he had a certain rather limited, rather small right to nominate civil servants, which in the main applied to the medium and lower grade civil servants, and then he had the right to grant pardons to sentenced criminals. Generally speaking the Minister for Bohemia and Moravia, Frank, had the duties to inform the Protector; that principally was the right which the Protector had; and apart from that, it was Hitler's wish that the Protector should not spend too much time in the Protectorate.
In fact I have had to pass that wish on to him several times. Frick's time was the head of German administration. Was State Minister Frank under Frick? head of the State to the head of the Government; in other words, State Minister Frank had political control.
Q But isn't it right to say that Minister Frank was immediately subordinate to the Fuehrer?
A No, I don't think that was the situation. I haven't got a recollection of the degree, but I don't think he was immediately his subordinate I can't tell you that for certain now. At any rate, the Fuehrer only received Mr. Frank for political discussion and not as Protector.
Q I cannot find the paper; I shall have to clarify it later. demanded that partition of authority and that to start with he refused to accept the position of Protector in Bohemia and Moravia and only when he said that outwardly, that he couldn't bear responsibility, did that partition actually take place? has been stated by me. And when this decree appeared in which the rights of the Protector were laid, down, which was a decree which wasn't published, Dr. Frick quite rightly raised the objection, saying then, "As far as the outside world is concerned, I have responsibilities which aren't known." So we published a notice in the press. In that, it said that the new Reich Protector would only have such and such rights," as I previously listed them here, such as the nomination of civil servants, the right to pardon and the right to cooperate in the forming of a government in the Protectorate. So that it had been stated to the outside world that Frick did not have the whole, full responsibility which had been held by former Reich Protectors.
partition of responsibility in the Protectorate was that Hitler didn't think that Frick would be hard enough to handle matters there?
DR. PANNENBECKER: In that case I have no further questions. BY DR. SAUTER (Counsel for Defendant Funk): have only a very few questions. Dr. Lammers, the Defendant Funk beginning with the year 1933 was the Chief of Press of the Reich Government? That is known to you?
Q You yourself at that time were in your office, weren't you? Reich Government exercise any influence on decisions made by the Cabinet or upon the contents of proposed law, on the Cabinet?
A That question must be answered with, "No, he may have had a certain amount of influence from the point of view of the press, that is to say, if a law had too strongly worded a heading or if there were any mistakes in its wordings but he had no influence upon the contents." He was the Chief Of Press and as such he was first of all Ministerialdirektor and Secretary of State, and he had nothing to say about the contents. for meeting? decisions made by the Reich Cabinet?
A Yes, that's right. propose laws.
A Yes, that's right. defendant Funk, as you know, has held frequent press conferences with the Chancellor, Hitler.
Do you knew when these regular conferences of the Chief of Press of the Government with Hitler ceased?
AAt the latest, they ceased one year later. These were joint conferences. Funk and I, at the beginning, had as many as three to four meetings with the Fuehrer, and these meetings became fewer during the winter of '33. Later on, in '34, after Hindenburg's death, they ceased completely.
Q Who made these press reports to Hitler after that?
A The Chief of Press of the Party, Dr. Dietrich.
Q And with the exclusion of Dr. Funk?
Q Dr. Lammers, the defendant Funk later on became President of the German Reichsbank. Do you know anything about the facts regarding the person who would decide about credits to be given to the Reich by the Reichsbank?
A That decision was the Fuehrer's. The way it happened in practice was that the Minister of Finance would apply for a credit. He did that in duplicate. One letter was addressed to the Reich Minister of Finance, with the corresponding instructions, and the second letter was addressed to the President of the Reichsbank.
Q Dr. Lammers, these technical details don't really interest us. What we are interested in is this. Did Dr. Funk, as President of the Reichsbank, have any influence regarding the question whether, and to what degree, the German Reich would be given credit, by the Reichsbank, or had a right to call on the Reichsbank for that? All I received was those two documents. It was entirely a matter for signature. They were signed in one second by the Fuehrer, and then they were sent back. I had never had an order to negotiate with Mr. Funk, or previously, with Mr. Schacht, or the Minister of Finance. That was entirely a matter for signature; that is all it was. instructions came from Hitler and not the Reichsbank President?
Q Dr. Lammers, you have already mentioned this three-man college, or three-man collegium, which was formed during later years. Regarding this three-man college or collegium, it has been stated by the prosecution that Funk was a member of this committee, shall we say, and that he was the last resort for the entry of laws during the war.
A You can't say that at all. I stated already that these men acted independently, each in his own sphere, and that they hid the right to publish decrees, with the agreement of the others; and they were very few, and quite insignificant decrees.
Q You mean low-grade decrees?
Q Furthermore, Dr. Lammers, the defendant Goering stated during his examination that the powers which Dr. Funk has as Plenipotentiary for Economy, I think in 1938, were mainly transferred to the Plenipotentiary for the Four Year Plan, or that, therefore, at any rate, Dr. Funk's powers, generally speaking, existed only on paper. I should be very interested in knowing whether these powers of the Plenipotentiary for the Four Year Plan were not inly in fact, but formally too, transferred to the Plenipotentiary for the Four Year Plan, in other words, Goering. Fuehrer.
Q When was that, approximately?
A The Four Year Plan was created in '36, and it was extended in 1940 for another four years. The special powers which Funk surrendered to the Four Year Plan are based on an agreement between Reichsmarshal Goering and Minister Funk, an arrangement which, as far as I know, had the Fuehrer's approval.
Q Dr. Lammers, you have already told the Tribunal that, I think, since 1938, no meetings of the Cabinet took place any longer and that, in the end, Hitler even prohibited informal discussions among ministers. Can you tell us anything regarding the question if, and how often, the defendant Dr. Funk had an opportunity -- during the seven years he was minister -- to talk to Hitler, to report to him, and so on and so forth? reported more frequently.
to see the Fuehrer. On many occasions he wasn't even consulted for conferences, conferences at which he ought to have been consulted. Quite often he complained to me about that; and I tried in every way to include him in such conferences as far as I could, but I didn't always succeed.
Q Dr. Lammers, I have noticed that records and minutes have been read out here where it is clearly said, and I think, by you, that the defendant Funk, as Minister for Economy, had asked you that he should participate in this or that important conference, and that you had expressly stated in that recprd that the Fuehrer had refused that, or that the Fuehrer had prohibited it. May I show you an example? For instance, I recollect a meeting of January 4, 1944 -- which is document 1292-PS -- where questions of labour were discussed. In those minutes it says -- once more written by you -that the application from Funk to participate had been refused, Can you recollect such cases, and can you give us the reasons?
A Yes, I can remember such cases, but I don't know whether they were mentioned in the record. Quite possible I informed Mr. Funk -- and I tried everything to arrange that Funk would be consulted. The Fuehrer, however, refused.
Q The reason? reasonable objections from Funk. He was sceptical about him; he just didn't want him there. Funk that Rosenberg, in accordance with an order of Hitler, was appointed for the coordination of natters in the Eastern Territories. That message, you are supposed to have passed on to Goering and Keitel, as well as to Funk. From that fact the conclusion has been drawn by the prosecution that Funk was one of the deciding persons who were concerned with the preparation for aggressive war against Russia. the defendant Funk at that time?
A Either the Fuehrer told me to -- which I don't think was the case -or I was under the impression that because of economic reasons Funk would be interested in that message. It was because of a personal relationship that I passed it on to him, and I can't recollect today that I had any particular reason. of course, I passed the same message on to others, but probably not in writing. I think the others may have received, it verbally. mentioned when Rosenberg was given that task. He was supposed to be a political representative for Eastern Territories. He was to work on questions referring to foreign peoples.
Q Dr. Lammers, roughly at the same time -- that is to say, the spring of '41, and shortly before the beginning of the Russian campaign -- you are supposed to have had some further discussions with the defendant Funk. They are supposed to have been concerned with the question of how one could possibly expect the foreign political situation, with reference to Russia, to develop. On that occasion you are supposed to have told defendant Funk something regarding the reasons why Hitler considered the possibility of a war against Russia as predominant. What did you tell defendant Funk at that time regarding these preparations for the war at one time or another? which the Fuehrer had given me, that there had been troop concentrations in Russia which had been observed, which allowed the conclusion to be drawn that a conflagration with Russia might occur. These were the words the Fuehrer used. He said that the thing with Russia would happen and that he wished that one man -- and that was Rosenberg -- should concern himself with Eastern questions, since the possibility of an armed conflict with Russia did exist. That is probably what I told Funk. I can't imagine what else I could have told him.
Q. At that time, Dr. Lammers, you are supposed not only to have mentioned troop concentrations on the Russian side along the eastern frontiers of Germany, but also the Russian march into Bessarabia.
A. Yes, it is possible that that was the case. Bessarabia, very proabbly. I may have even mentioned the fact that discussions which had taken place with Russia, with Molotov, had had an unsatisfactory result.
Q. In that connection, and since you have referred to the discussions with Molotov, you are supposed to have told Defendant Funk particularly that Russia was making considerable demands in the Blakans, and regarding the Baltic Sea, and that for that reason, because of these demands, Hitler did expect the possibility of war. Could that be correct?
A. It is possible that we have talked about it, but I can'c recollect it for certain.
Q. And then you know that an organization was established under the heading central planning board. You know that, don't you?
A. Yes.
Q. Defendant Funk was made a member of the central planning, and I think this was at the end of 1943. Is it correct that Funk, when he joined the central planning board, was participating no longer and no longer interested in the use of laborers in the German Labor market?
A. I believe that Funk's only interest in central planning was to the extent that he was receiving raw materials for civilian production.
Q. You mean in the country?
A. Yes, in the country. That was as far as he was interested in central planning board, since he was responsible for distribution of these goods, and civilian production had been transferred to Minister Speer. I think that was at the very moment when the minister for armament and munitions had been changed to minister for armament and war production. I think it was in 1943. Thus Funk, was, of course, very interested in raw materials, but workers, from that standpoint, interested him very little, in my opinion, since he hadn't enough raw material to allow the civilian production to work.
Q. And then, Dr. Lammers, I have one last question: Can you remember that Defendant Funk in the year 1944 -- I think it was in February and later on during subsequent months -- has visited you and told you of his sufferings and sorrows regarding the unsatisfactory position which he was occupyling as minister of economy and plenipotentiary for economy, and that he talked to you about the question on that occasion whether his conscience would allow that he retain his position as president of the Reichsbank and Reich economy minister, and, if yes, then why he could do so or if he could resign from his position? Perhaps you can talk about that.
A. I have discussed that question frequently with Funk. It was in 1943, but particularly in 1944. I know that he was considerably worried and that he wanted very much to have an opportunity to take his worries to the Fuehrer personally. If he did remain in office then it was only because he said that during wartime he couldn't resign from his position -- that wouldn't be the right thing for a rood German to do, to resign during wartime. But that was his greatest wish -- to be able to report to the Fuehrer regarding the economic situation, and particularly about the interferences committed by the gauleiters in various districts, and that it was his greatest wish that he could report to the Fuehrer regarding the war situation and that he could talk to the Fuehrer about a possible end of the war. All this took place in the beginning of 1944. I made several attempts to take Funk to the Fuehrer, and I nearly succeeded, since I had camouflaged the real reason and pretended that there was another reason -- the question of some finances. waiting for days and days he refused, the Fuehrer refused to hear him, probably due to Bormann's efforts. So he just didn't succeed in getting to the fuehrer and I didn't succeed in taking him there.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, I have no further question.
DR. DIX (Counsel for Schacht): Mr. President, if you wish to close the session at five, then I gun afraid I have to tell you that I won't be able to finish by five, and I am reluctant to break my examination. May I ask you, therefore, if we should extend the session or whether we should break now.
THE PRESIDENT: I think you better go on, Dr. Dix; we have nearly ten minutes. BY DR. DIX:
Q. Witness, other witnesses and yourself -- you because of great experience and on the strength of your position as chief of the chancellory at the seizure of power until the collapse, have stated that applications to resign were prohibited through Hitler.
I don't want to put any more questions on that subject, therefore. I merely want to refer to the attempts to resign which Schacht had actually made. May I ask you, therefore, to start with, to answer the general question with yes or no; did Schacht apply to resign or not? with you. I can't expect you, of course, without any help, to recall individual occasions. May I have your permission therefore, to help your memory along in connection with the first question. or rather gave notice with reference to them, and when you visited him. Wat that the time of the first resignation attempt?
A I remember that very accurately, since Schacht's application to resign was considered unpleasant by Hitler, aid he gave me the task to put the matter right with Schacht. Subsequently I made several personal visits to Schacht, but he refused to withdraw his resignation, and he gave as his reason that he couldn't approve any longer of the credit policy of the Fuehrer. He, so he says, was afraid of an inflation and from that he would have to protect the German nation.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Dix, is it necessary to go into the details? We gather that there are several offers to resign. Is it necessary to go into the details of each one? Doctor, that in March 1937 Schacht did offer to resign. continued for yet one more year, although the Reichsbank law had intended to have him there for four years. issued a decree referring to mines about which it was Schacht's view that this was an infringement of his sphere, and there was a second offer to resign, wasn't there?
Q And didn't Schacht write aletter on that occasion which was addressed to Goering, the 5th of August, a copy of which he had sent to Hitler through you? Can you remember that?
A Yes. That letter was the reason why Hitler dismissed Schacht afterwards.
Q Now we are coming to the war. Is it right to say that during the war Schacht repeated his offers to resign? May I remind you, for instance, of the sunnier of 1941 and a memorandum which Schacht wrote to Hitler regarding the necessity of an immediate peace? listen to foreign broadcasting stations. Schacht had been forbidden like many others to listen to foreign stations, andhe considered that a reason for a complaint and offered to resign, whether in writing or verbally I can't tell you. But at any rate he was refused, and later he submitted a memorandum in which he mentioned the end of the war and the political, economic, and military situation. I had to reply to Schacht and tell him that the Fuehrer had read the memorandum and had nothing to say in reply. Subsequently, in 1942, Schacht made another inquiry, and told me to ask the Fuehrer if the Fuehrer was disposed to receive yet another memorandum. To that the Fuehrer gave me the order to write to Schacht and tell him to refrain from submitting any further memoranda.
DR. DIX: I could, Mr. President, quote the important points of that memorandum for the witness, if the Tribunal knows the details of that memorandum, which I haven't got and which could only be ascertained from the memory of the witness. I should very much like to put them before him. If on the other hand the Tribunal is of the opinion -
THE PRESIDENT: Have you got the memorandum?
DR. DIX, No, we have only got that memorandum in our memory -- that is to say, Schacht remembers the contents.
THE PRESIDENT: If the memorandum is lost and you can prove the loss you can put the contents of it to the witness. If you prove the loss of the memorandum you can put the contents to the witness. If the contents are not relevant it is no good even for the witness. Are the contents of the document relevant?
DR. DIX: Those points which I propose to quote, yes I do consider them relevant and they arc not very long either, they are short.
THE PRESIDENT: So far as the question of proof is concerned the rule is, I think, if the document has been lost you can prove the contents of it and you can put it to the witness. Yes, you can put the points to him Dr. Dix.
DR. DIX: The question which you put to me involves considerable responsibility. At the moment I can assure you that in accordance with my conviction it has been lost but whether I can prove that it has been lost, that is something I cannot take the responsibility for at the moment. I am convinced it has been lost.
THE PRESIDENT: Herr Schacht presumably is going to say it was lost. You, of course, cannot prove it yourself but I mean you can prove it by Schacht.
DR. DIX: Yes, Schacht willconfirm it when he becomes a witness on the stand. BY DR. DIX: great successes in Russia by the German Army and Schacht wrote in that memorandum to Hitler that Hitler had now reached the peak of his success and that this was the most favorable moment for him to aim at peace. During any further duration of the war -
MR. DODD: I suggest, would it not be more proper for counsel to ask this witness first of all whether or not he recalls the contents of the memorandum before reading what purports to be the contents.
THE PRESIDENT: I think he should, yes.
DR. DIX: It has been confirmed by the witness that he recollects the contents more or less, Dr. Lammers has said so.
THE PRESIDENT: I think you had better put it to him sentence by sentence and not all at once.
DR. DIX: I am not proposing to read it, your Lordship, I am merely trying to repeat the contents as Schacht remembers them. I cannot read it, of course, since I have not got it.