THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal proposes to go until 4:00 o'clock without a break, if that is convenient.
DR. SAUTER: Gentlemen of the Tribunal, until now, in general statements, I have defined the position of defendant Funk and I shall now come to the criminal responsibility of the defendant Funk on the individual points of accusation. of power by the Party, that is, the party activity of defendant Funk during the years of 1931 and until the end of 1932. by the conspirators. This point of the indictment deals with the activity of the defendant Funk from the time when he joined the party in June 1931 until the seizure of power on 30 January 1933. The indictment maintains that Funk, through interceding for the Party during that time, had expedited the seizure of power by the National Socialists. This is correct. The defendant Funk himself during his interrogation on 4 May, declared and explained in detail that he considered the seizure of the ruling power by the National Socialists the only possibility for the deliverance of the German people from the grave, intellectual, economical, and social distress of that time. The economic program of the Party was, in his opinion, vague and mainly designated for propaganda. He himself wanted to bring to bear his own economic principles in order to work through the Party for the benefit of the German people. Funk described this view point to the court in detail during his examination It is based on the idea of private property which is inseparable from the perception of the differentiation of human efficiency. Funk demanded the acknowledgment of private initiative end of the responsibility of the creative entrepreneur, free competition and a balancing of social contrasts. He aimed at the elimination of party and class warfare at astrong government with full authority and responsibility and at a uniform political will of the people. Through his conversations with Adolf Hitler and with other party leaders he became convinced that the party positively recognized these principles and ideas of his.
In Funk's opinion he cannot be blamed for his support of the Party in its struggle for power. Funk believes that, especially the discussions in this trial furnished absolute proof that the Party came to power absolutely legally. But even the ways and means by which Funk assisted the Party, can not, in his conviction, be condemned. The role thereby, however, which the prosecution attributes to him does not correspond with the facts. Funk's activity is in part, considerably overestimated in its importance, partly also is there an incorrect opinion about it. of reference books and especially of a book by Dr. Paul Oestreich: "Walter Funk, a life dedicated to economics" which was presented in evidence to the Tribunal. The care of this evidence is an "Economic Reconstruction Program" of the defendant Funk, printed on page 81 of this book which the prosecution calls,and I quote: "the official party declaration concerning the economic field" and "the economic bible for the party organization". This so-called "Economic Reconstruction Program" forms the basis for the wrong accusation of Funk, on page 3 of the trial brief, that the defendant Funk assisted "in the formulating of the program which was publicly proclaimed by the Nazi Party and by Hitler". This "Economic Reconstruction Program" which during the testimony of the defendant Funk was read word for word did, indeed contain nothing extraordinary or even revolutionary nor really logy.
The program points to the necessity of providing work, of creating pro the economic relations with foreign countries.
It is a program of which Funk government could advocate.
The defendant Funk only regrets that the party di not fully subscribe to these principles.
Due to his economic view point Funk This was also confirmed by the witness Dr. Landfried who in his interro gatory submitted as Funk Exhibit No. 16, described those differences of Funk with the Party in detail.
Funk had a reputation in the Party predominantly as a liberal and as an outsider.
During that time, that is essentially in of the German economy.
He also worked for an understanding of the national socialist ideas and for the support of the Party by the economy.
By virtue of this activity he was described as Hitler's economic adviser.
But this the designation "Economic adviser of the Fuehrer" was given by the public to Party tasks during that time.
This activity never gained any considerable impor activity of Funk ceased completely.
In the ether sectors, such as Food and as a Minister, Under Secretary, etc.
retained their party offices which generally even gained in importance.
The elimination of the defendant Funk from every party office at the moment of the assumption of power shows clearly that the Party leaders did not especially care for the party activity of Funk.
secution showed him an article which had appeared in the magazine "Das Reich' on k8 August 1940, on the occasion of Funk's 50th birthday. In this birthda article the author, an economist by the name of Dr. Herle, emphasizes that Funk "as intermediary between Party and Economy had become a peace maker for a new spiritual attitude of the German entrepreneur".
In this respect it can be said : Funk never denied that he regarded it his task to find a synthesis for an economy which on the one hand has an obligation toward state and community, but on the other hand is based on private ownership and private initiative and responsibility. Funk always recognized the political aims and ideals of national socialism. gies as was proven by several plebiscites. And Funk could not suspect that all these good intentions and ideal aims so often emphasized, by Hitler, with which National Socialism began its reign, would later sink in the blood and smoke of war and in an inconceivable inadequacy and inhumanity. Funk testified on the stand expressly that he considered the authoritative form of government, the strong state, a responsible cabinet, the social community and a socially minded economy a prerequisite for a removal of the then grave intellectual and economic crisis of the German people. He always clearly emphasized the primacy of politics before the primacy of the economy. up the state office of a Ministerialdirector in the Reich Chancery. The direction of the press policies however, passed after one and a half month into the hands of Dr. Goebbels when the latter became Reichsminiter for Public Enlightment and Propaganda, and the press department of the Reich Government, which Funk should have had directed up to then was merged into the newly established Ministry for Propaganda. Only for the time being he retained the personal news report to the Reich President v. Hindenburg and to the Reich Chancellor Adolf Hitler until the death of Hindenbur.
Then this activity stopped altogether also. The office of the Press Chief of the Reich Government existed practically only on paper.
This was expressly confirmed also by the defendant Fritzsche upon his examination as a witness, on 28 June. solidation of control of government and party, and, connected therewith, pers cution of the Jews of liberal professions, Reich Ministry of Propaganda. The statements referring to this point are contained in the brief which is before you, on pages 17 to 24. to this particular point, and I beg you to take judicial notice of them. I sh merely quote a few sentences in extract in this connection. as a Secretary of State in the Ministry of Propaganda. The hearing of evidence has shown, however, that in this post as Secretary of State Funk had nothing whatsoever to do with the actual propaganda activities. He didn't make any radio speeches or speeches in public meetings. Press policy, on the other ha even during that period was exclusively decided by Dr. Goebbels personally. and complaints of the journalists. He protected the press against misuse by official departments, and he made every effort to secure for the press an individual look and to enable them to work in a responsible manner. in the pages I have mentioned, pages 17 to 24, in particular, however, by the witnesses Amann, Kallus, Fritsche, Oeser, and Roosen. The two latter witness have particularly confirmed that Funk as State Secretary in the Ministry of Propaganda energetically took care of Jews and such persons who had been affected by National Socialist legislation and cultural policy in their creative efforts. Funk so interested himself with such people that he actually jeopar dized his own official position and endangered his position to such an extent that eventually he became a suspect. accusation which appears under Roman numeral IV of my brief, on page 24, name that he had partaken in the preparation of wars of aggression, a point which contained under Figure 4 of the Indictment.
The accusation against the defendant Funk is -- and I quote -- "that he with full knowledge of the aggressive plans of the conspirators participated daily in the plans and preparations for such wars."
Goering's Ministry of Economy was -- and I quote -- "made the high command of the German war economy and it became part of the Four Year Plan and then was put under Funk's command." of the Reich of 4 September 1938 Funk in his capacity as High Commissioner of Economy was explicitly entrusted with the mobilization of the German economy in time of war. was made a part of the Four Year Plan before its transfer by Goering to Funk is quite correct, but the so-called high command of the German economy was net exercised by the Reich Minister of Economy Funk but by the Commissioner for the Four Year Plan exclusively; that is to say, by the co-defendant Goering, whose instructions Funk had to follow. by special general commissioners of the Four Year Plan, who were controlled directly by Goering and received their instructions from Goering -- not from Funk. The Reich Ministry of Economy was merely the office which executed the directives of the Four Year Plan. such as the Reich Office for Economic Development and the Reich Office for Soil Investigation were formally under the supervision of the Reich minister of Economy, but didi, in fact, function as autonomous institutions of the Four Year Plan.
Funk's position as Plenipotentiary for Economy was vigorously attacked from the beginning. During the cross-examination of the defendant Funk by the American Prosecution a document -- EC 255 -- was submitted. This is a letter of the Reich Mar Minister von Blomberg to the Commissioner for the Four Year Plan, Goering, dated 29 November 1937, wherein Blomberg proposes that the defendant Funk, who had just -- on November 27 1937 -seen appointed Reich minister of Economy, should also be appointed General Commissioner for War Economy.
However, this was not done.
and handed it over only in February 1938, after three months, to the defendant Funk. Then the High command of the Armed Forces -- more especially the Army Economic Staff under General Thomass -- requested that the Plenipotentiary for War Economy should be bound for the future to follow the directives of the High Command for all questions connected with the supplying of the armed forces. In this document, which is EC 270, USA Exhibit 840, the High Command of the Armed Forces, the Economic Staff, claims a right to direct the General Commissioner for War Economy on nearly everyone of his fields of activity. and a letter to Reich Minister Dr. Lammers to clarify his position as General Commissioner for War Economy and asked to be placed, as Plenipotentiary for War Economy, under direct command of Hitler and not to be compelled to obey the directives of the command of the armed forces. Goering and Lammers agreed with Funk's opinion, but this has nothing to do -and this must be emphasized most strongly -- with Funk's being put under command of Goering, as all other supreme Reich offices and ministers which were put under Hitler's direct command were required to follow the directives of the Commissioner for the Four Year Plan; that is to say, Goering. defense of September 4, 1938, the defendant Funk -- this is the Second Reich Defense Law -- did not become Plenipotentiary General for War Economy but Plenipotentiary for Economy, without the word "war", and that this act explicitly stated that Funk had to obey the requests of the OKW. Accordingly, the OKW had at last carried through its wish. Reich Defense Law were under the direction of the Plenipotentiary General for the Economy for his special tasks were not willing to recognize him. During the cross-examination of the defendant Funk an interrogation of the former Under Secretary Dr. Hans Posse, Funk's deputy as Plenipotentiary General for Economics, was produced. In it the latter declared that the Plenipotentiary General for the Economy "in reality never entered into function". The ministers and Under Secretaries of the individual economic departments did not, according to the statement of Posse, wish to be placed under Funk's control and, in fact, protested against it.
He calls these conflicts "the struggle for power". In this respect nothing else is meant but the authority to make decisions with regard to the other economic departments. This was not a difference between Goering and Funk; that is wrong because it was absolutely evident that Funk even as a Plenipotentiary General for the Economy was subordinate to Goering. Actually, this was a quarrel of the under secretaries. The individual economic departments dechred that they reported to the Plenipotentiary for the Four Year Plan and refused to recognize the right of the Plenipotentiary General for the Economy -- Funk -- to give them directives because Funk himself was under the direction of the Four Year Plan. The under secretaries of the Four Year Plan, supported the departments in this interpretation. why the authority to issue directives passed a few months after the outbreak of the war from the Plenipotentiary General for the Economy formally into the hands of the Plenipotentiary of the Four Year Plan. paragraph of page 29. a single indication for the fact that defendant Funk knew anything about conversations in which a planned war -- in particular, a war of aggression on the part of Germany was discussed. Funk was never invited to any conversations of this kind. He was, in particular, not present at them conversation with Goering on 14 October 1938 which was treated exhaustively by the Prosecution on Page 24 of the Trial Brief. an order of Hitler for an unusual increase in armaments. and especially weapons of attack. The Prosecutor declared during the session of 11 January 1946 that Goering at that meeting addressed words to Funk which, as was said, "were the words of a man already at war."
Funk and which have been submitted to the Tribunal, it is unequivocally proved that defendant Funk was not present at that meeting at all because at that time he was in Sofia in order to conduct economic negotiations with Bulgaria. This exhibit of the Prosecution, which clearly was meant to be a main exhibit, is thereby invalidated. mentioned this morning, the German and Polish armies were already facing one mother and were completely mobilized. Therefore, he was compelled to act in that particular manner, and he could at that moment no longer retract any preparations. Compare therewith the interrogatory from Kallus in Document Bock Funk Number 18, who confirms that absolutely. "It was naturally my duty as Plenipotentiary General for the Economy to do all I could to prevent shocks in the civilian sector of the economy in the event of war, and it was further my duty as President of the Reichsbank to reinforce as much as possible the supply of gold and foreign currency in the Reichsbank."
He goes on to say, "That was necessary on account of the general . political tension at the time, and it would also have been necessary if war had been avoided and only economic sanctions had been imposed, which in view of the political situation at the time had to be expected and could be expected. It was also my duty as Reich Minister of Economy to increase production." states in his answers to the interrogatory of 1 May, which is in thehands of the Tribunal, that the position of the Reichsbank in thelast seven months of Funk's presidency before the outbreak of the war had not been materially reinforced and that the exchange of foreign assets for gold since January 1939 had been carried out on only a vary modest scale. The gold and foreign currency policy of the Reichsbank, this witness said, corresponded to the customary banking practice of long standing.
These statements of Puhl are important for the correct appreciation of Funk's references to the conversion of foreign assets into gold, in his letter to Hitler of 25 August 1939 . The transactions, in any case, at the time when Funk was President of the Reichsbank, were hardly longer of any importance.
Funk's excessive way of expressing himself to Hitler makes the contents appear much more important than they actually were. letter was a private letter of thanks and that in those days every German was under the highest tension because of the political occurrences that were getting all of Europe very much excited, and that at this time of danger of war for his country, he -- Funk -- wanted to let his Chancellor know that he, too -- that is the defendant Funk -- had done his duty. Plenipotentiary for Economy became active and busy. defendant submitted only after the end of the hearing of evidence. It is document 3787 PS. That is the minutes of the second meeting of the Reich Defense Council on 23 June 1939.
During that meeting of the Reich Defense Council, which occurred about two months before the begin ning of the War, Funk, as General Plenipotentiary for Economy, participated.
However, judging from the way it was proposed, the minutes leave no doubt whatever that we are here concerned with general, and therefore more theoretical, preparations for the event of some war or other. that during the war which broke out three months later, the tasks of the defendant Funk in the sector of distributing labor were transferred entirely to the Four Year Plan, since the General plenipotentiary for Economy, in his chief functions was, soon after the beginning of the war, completely and formally abolished, as I have previously shown. that he, right to the end, did not believe war would come, and why he did not believe it, but on the contrary, that he thought the Polish conflict would be settled by diplomatic means. The correctness of this statement is also confirmed by the witnesses Landfried, Posse and Puhl in answering the interrogatories, presented to the Court as an exhibit by the defense or by the prosecution.
The danger of war with Russia came to Funk's knowledge for the first time when he heard of Rosenberg's appointment as delegate for the unified treatment of Eastern-European problems in April of 1941. same explanations by Lammers and Rosenberg as were expressed in general before the Tribunal here by witnesses heard on this question. He was told that the reason for the preparations for war against Soviet Russia was that the Soviet Russians were massing strong troops along the entire border, that they had invaded Bessarabia, and that Molotov, in his discussions regarding theoretical territory of the Baltic Sea and the Balkans, had made demands which Germany could not fulfil. included economic measures, Fink placed Ministerialdirector Dr. Schlotterer at Rosenberg's disposal as a liaison man. Later, Schlotterer took over the direction of the economic section of the Ministry Rosenberg, and he also joined the Economic Operations Staff East of the Four Year plan.
The Ministry for Economy itself had practically nothing to do with the economic questions of the occupied East, and concerned itself merely with questions which had a bearing on internal German economy. the occupied Eastern Territories. "Preparations of war against Russia", was shown an extract from an interrogation of 19 October, 1945, USA Exhibit 875. In this interrogation Funk stated that the defendant Hess had asked him, at the end of April 1941, if he, Funk, had heard anything about an impending war against Russia. Funk replied, and I quote: "I have not heard anything definite, but it seems as if there is some talk along that line." two who were not initiated, is most likely because on that date Funk did not yet exactly knew the reason for Rosenberg's commission, and was going only on presumptions and rumors. On 23 May 1941, Rosenberg had a meeting with Funk (document 1031-PS). In this meeting the question was discussed, as we can well remember, how the money problem in the East was to be regulated if a war against Russia should break out, and if those territories should be occupied by our forces. view of an imminent war, even a defensive war, the authorities responsible for money matters should discuss the question of how, in the case of occupation of enemy territory, money matters should be handled there. he called the suggested rate of exchange for marks and rubles an arbitrary act. He joined Rosenberg in his conception that the Russian territory should have its own national currency as soon as conditions would permit. For the rest, he demanded further investigation of these problems, especially since the matter could not be determined in advance. precaution and endeavored to find a solution which would bring about stable conditions.
on the part of Funk -- that ruble bills had to be printed in order to meet the most urgent demands for currency, then Funk saw neither anything unusual nor criminal therein. If a country has been depleted of its currency, then a new currency simply must be created by that power which is responsible for the maintenance of a stable monetary system. Who produced the banknotes was entirely unimportant to Funk; important for him was by whomthe banknotes were issued and in what quantity. preparations, so that the execution of such a plan --which, as I said, was not Funk's plan -- could have been intended only for a much later date.
Actually, war broke out a few weeks after this discussion. The defendant Funk knew that war with Russia was imminent. That Germany had been preparing for such a war for a long time was as little known to him as the fact that Germany would attack, and thus wage a preventive war. negotiations on Sudetenland -- in September and October 1939 he was not information Germany at all -- nor on the seizure of the remainder of Czechoslovakia. About Poland, he know that the conflict was acute, and nothing else; likewise about Russia. But in both cases he was informed only a short time before the actual outbreak of war. Regarding wars with other countries, Funk received no information whatsoever before the opening of hostilities, but only afterwards. Funk knew nothing of Hitler's intentions in the line of foreign policy, and had no knowledge whatsoever of the fact that Hitler was making any kind of plans for aggressive war. Truly, Funk concerned himself, in the summer of 1939, especially with the conversion of German economy from a peace- to a war-time basis. But to prepare the German people for a defensive war and to take economic measures necessary for a defensive war, Funk considered not only as his right but as his duty as an official of the Reich. deliberations by calling the Reichsregierung or the National Socialist Party a criminal organization which conspired against other nations, and whose sole task had been to plan and wage wars of aggression,to subjugate and enslave foreign nations, to plunder, and to Germanize other countries.
of those men closest to him, of the type of a Goebbels, Himmler and Bormann, devised and executed these criminal plans. According to the evidence heard, it cannot be doubted that even the highest officials of the State and of the Armed Forces --and in particular Funk -- were not initiated into these plans, but rather, that these plans were concealed from then by a cunning system of secrecy. A comparison with secret societies, which in other countries banded together in criminal organizations -- as, for example, the Ku-Klux-Klan in America, which was mentioned by the prosecution -- cannot be made, also for another reason. secret society with the purpose of terrorizing and committing crimes. In 1871, after scarcely six years of existence, it was --by a special law, the Ku-Klux-Klan -- expressly forbidden by the North American Government. At that time the Government even declared martial lawagainst it and fought it with every possible means. It was an organization with which the Government and Parlaiment of the United States never had any dealings at all. A man like Funk would, of course, never have joined a secret society, a criminal organization against which the Government was fighting. However, the National Socialist Party in Germany never was a secret organization, but was a party recognized by the government end considered lawful; in a special Reich law expression was given to the unity between this party and the state.
The leader of this party was at the same time from 1934 the elected head of the Reich and this head of the state and his government have from 1933 on constantly been officially recognized as a government by the entire world. It was just because of this international recognition of Hitler by all the foreign countries, a recognition which was still maintained even during the second world-war, that Funk and millions of other Germans never doubted the lawfulness of the government and that such doubts, if they ever tried to enter his mind, were nipped in the bud, and millions of German officials and German soldiers assumed exactly like Funk that they were only doing their duty in not denying this head of the state the recognition which all the countries of the world gave him. continue on Page 37. and regulations he naturally also thought of the possibility of wars which Germany perhaps some day might have to wage, exactly as every general staff as a matter of duty has to give consideration to such possibilities. At that time there existed for Funk every reason thereto; for the world situation since the first world-war was so tense and the conflicting interests of the individual nations appeared often insurmountable to such an extent that every statesman had to make the necessary preparations for war if he did not want to be accused of negligence or of betrayal of the interests of his own people. There fore such preparatory activity in itself had no criminal significance, and Funk does not doubt at all that the ministers of economics and the bank-presidents of other countries also during those years made preparations similar to his for the event of war, and had to make them. For the question, of legal punishment in Funk's case it is not essential whether or not he, for his part, ordered such preparations, but exclusively whether or not he know that Hitler was planning aggressive wars and that he intended to wage such aggressive wars in violation of existing treaties and under disregard of international law.
But Funk, as he declared under oath, did not know this and did not go on such assumptions either. Due to Hitler's constant affirmations of peace such possibilities never entered his mind. Today of course we know, on the basis of the actual events of the time that followed and on the basis of the facts established by this proceedings that those peace-assertions of Hitler's, which were on his lips yet when he committed suicide, were in reality only lies and deception. But, at that time, Funk took these peace-affirmations of Hitler's to be the absolute truth. It never entered Funk's mind at that time that he and the whole German nation could be deceived by Hitler; but rather did Funk trust Hitler's words exactly as did the whole world, and thus become a victim of that deception as did the whole world. If foreign statesmen and generals are not reproached for having believed Hitler's peace-affirmations, although they surely must have been much better informed about Germany's re-armament than Funk, then one cannot now because of the faith he had in the head of the state, accuse him of a crime. prosecution that Funk had planned aggressive wars, and I come to a further chapter of the indictment concerning Funk's activities in the occupied territories, and the chapter of forced labor. of "Forced Labor" or "Slave-Labor-Program" (as the prosecution calls it) is only scanty. In the main he is held responsible for the forcible employment of foreign man-power on the grounds that, since autumn 1943, he was a member o the "Central Planning." He attended a session of Central Planning Board for the first time on 22 November 1943 and later only very rarely, as was stated by the defendant Speer as witness and as is shown by the minutes of this board which were very carefully kept. With questions of direction of labor -- and I should like to underline this specifically -- Funk never concerned himself at all. He was in principle opposed to drawing too many laborers, especially by force, out of the occupied territories because this disturbed the economic life and the social order of these territories. Sauckel, Landfried and Hayler have affirmed this, and the same is disclosed by Funk's personal remark.
in the here frequently mentioned conferences with Lammers on 11 July 1944 (Document 3819-PS), where, for example, Funk expressed himself against "Ruthless police raids." the purpose that they should see to it that the necessary raw-materials were assigned to the industries of the consumer's goods and for export, but never on account of the questions of foreign labor in which he was not at all interested. If the prosecution confronted the witness Hayler during a crossexamination on 7 May 1946 (Page 9070 of the German transcript) with a statement by Funk from the preliminary interrogation of 22 October 1945 (3544 PS), wherein Funk declared that he had "not racked his brain" over these laborproblems, then it must also be stated that in the next sentence of this protocol, so to speak under the same breath, Funk declared that he had always none has utmost to prevent the hauling away of laborers from their homeland. e.g. France, This second sentence, although it was not quoted, seems to be of special importance because it also reveals Funk's declining attitude against the forcible measures used in connection with direction of labor, particularly foreign labor. Now it has been deposed by the defendant Speer in the session of the Tribunal on 20 June that Central Planning made no plans at all for direction of labor. Only occasionally discussions on direction of labor questions took place here. Not the stenographic notes introduced here, but rather the protocols, contain the actual results of the negotiations and the decisions of the Central Planning. But these protocols have not been introduced by the prosecution. He has been proven. Funk, who attended the sessions of central planning only a few times never received the stenographic notes, but only the protocols for his information and from there, nothing could be seen about that. previous to the time when Speer made the decisions, regarding war-production, and before Sauckel became plenipotentiary General for Direction of Labor, i.e. before 1942, were questions of procurement of manpower for production discussed in the Four-Years-plan. Later too, demands for he labor required were, in the main, as Speer has testified, presented in direct negotiations between the industries and the offices for direction of labor.
While the production of the Reich-Ministry for Economy, according to the instructions of the Four-Year-Plan, still was under the care of Funk, those direction of labor questions were not dealt with by the Reich-Ministry for Economy but rather by the Plenipotentiaries-General of the Four-Year-Plan, appointed for the various branches of industry negotiated directly with the Plenipotentiary-General for Direction of Labor or with his competent offices. Speer rectified this in regard to the document Sauckel Exhibit No. 12 and likewise the fact, that several branches of industry such as the construction department, which do not belong there, were in this document cited as coming under the competency of the Reich-Minister of Economy. Planning, no longer had any tasks to fulfill in the production, and consequently could no longer demand workers for such. the middle of the page, to say that the evidence submitted has proven beyond doubt that the defendant Funk always opposed the exploitation of occupied territories by various measures, and that by the very fact that he succeeded in preventing the devaluation of currency in occupied countries, they were protected from harm the extent of which cannot be evaluated individually. dictment against Funk, and I turn to another chapter of the indictment against Funk; that is, his participation in the elimination of Jews from economic life, Which is treated as Point 3 in the indictment against Funk. details with respect to accusations raised against Funk by the Indictment but I shall refer to statements given by Funk with respect hereto; I must first. however, deal more fully with a problem, which to me seems the most important in the whole of the accusation against Funk, namely the reproach, that he participated in any manner in the persecution of the Jew . This question appears to me, to be the most decisive for judging of defendant Funk before this Tribunal.
to those fanatic anti-Semites who participated in or approved of the pogroms against the Jews or who derived benefit from these actions; Funk always declined that sort of thing. The explanation for this fact is to be found not only in his natural disposition and the milieu in which he grew up but also in his decades of journalistic activity mostly in that part of the press, which dealt with economic policies and, consequently, kept him in continuous touch with the valuable circle of Jews in economic life. Experts know and speak highly about it even today, that Funk, at that time already, showed an attitude that was free of all antisemitism and appeared to be far more friendly towards the Jews than hostile.
It is somehow tragic, that in spite of this, Funk's name in this trial has been repeatedly connected with the decree of November 1938, by which the elimination of Jews from economic life was carried out.
Whether he liked it or not, all questions which concerned the treatment of Jews in the economic life of Germany were under the jurisdiction of his department as Minister for Economy. As an official it was his duty to issue the necessary decree for execution. for Funk, in view of his tolerant attitude. He had, at that time, been a state official of the Reich propaganda Ministry and the Ministry for Economy for 8 years already, and yet the prosecution could not ascertain a single case during that time, in which Funk has shown an anti-semitic attitude, where he had incited people towards the Jews. It could not cite a single instance when he would have approved of, or preached violence, terror or injustice. On the contrary, we know from statements of various witnesses, that Funk interceded, during all those years, on behalf of Jewish fellow-citizens in those years, tire and again that he was concerned about them, and in their interests sought to alloviate hardships, to prevent encroachments on their rights and to rescue the existence of human beings, even if they were Jews or political opponents. rich experience in the economic field, this man of far-reaching knowledge, with his outspoken tolerant views, was most painfully affected when, on 10 November 1938, he had to witness the destruction of Jewish homes and shops in Berlin. One incoming report upon another confirmed the fact, that Goebbels and his clique exploited the excitement of the populace over the assisination of a Jew of a German, organized such origrams through Germany, and that the outrages led not only to the destruction of Jewish property, but also to the murder of many Jews, and to the persecution of ninety thousands of innocent fellow-citizens.