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.
The affi-davit of his Ministerialrat Kallus (Document Book Funk No.15 9 December 1945), and that of Frau Luise Funk (5 November 1945, Document Book Funk No.3), prove clearly, that Funk condemned such excesses to the utmost and, that he called them swinish in the face of minister Dr. Goebbels, in great excitement, and in the event of a repetition of such he threatened to resign his office.
He had, at that time already, told the almighty Goebbels into his face that one had to be ashamed of being a German. decades had exerted himself for moderation towards the Jews and political opponents and had thus earned many a letter of approciation, a man he had fought fro years to prevent any terror to raise the standard of German economic life, and who now, in one single night, saw all his efforts frustrated by the brutal fanaticism of a Dr. Goebbels. how, from entering upon his office as a minister of the Economy from February 1938, he was being pressed continuously byGoebbels and Dr. Ley to eliminate the Jews also, such as in 1933 they had been eliminated from, cultural life, from the economic life.
The witness Dr. Hayler stated here that also Himmler reproached Funk of this. Funk himself as a witness stated how, in one so years repeated difficulties arose with the workers stirred up by propaganda who sometimes no longer wanted to work with Jewish managers or did not dare to do so, and how, under the pressure of these conditions, it occurred that numerous Jewish business owners sold their business, and quite often at ruinous prices, to people Who, to the Minister of the Economy Funk, appeared to be entirely unfit for acquiring and managing of such businesses. Time and again Funk tried to oppose this irresistible condition, of strove continously to slow doon, at least, this process of aryanization; to provide for a suitable and just settlement for the Jewish business owners; and to make possible their emigration from Germany togher with allowing them to take along their belonings.
But day after day Funk came to recognize more and more that he was too weak to stop this movement, and that the radical elements around Dr. Goebbels and Dr. Ley increasingly won the upper hand, and in so doing unfortunately even were able to lean on Hitler's authority. The latter, that is, Hitler, was in the course of time won more and more for the radical treatment of the Jewish question by a few irresponsible advisors who today do not sit in the prisoners' dock. on the one side, and Goebbels and Ley on the other side, the events of 9 November 1938 burst which, as Dr. Goebbels himself later admitted toward Fritsche, were aimed directly against the person of the defendant Funk who thereby was to be confronted with accomplished facts. And through this action of November 1938, Dr. Goebbels actually readied his goal, as the witness Landfried testified. Goebbels was in the future able to refer to Hitler's own order that the Jews be completely excluded from the German economic life, although Funk, as the minister concerned, repeatedly pointed to the relations with foreign countries from which the German Reich and its economy were dependent. leering, in his capacity as a Plenipotentiary of the Four Year Plan. Namely, upon Hitler's direct orders. Funk never had any doubt that thereat Goering also was to a certain degree only a figure-head because he always knew Goering as the man who just in the jewish question had previously rejected extreme radicalism. This conception of Funk was shared by wide circles of the German people and it proved to be correct in the fateful Goering meeting on 12 November 1938, document 1816-PS. This document has been mentioned here repeatedly. 1938, Goering sharply condemned the terror acts which had occurred and declared to theGauleiters present that he would make responsible every Gauleiter personally for the acts of violence committed inhis district.
But what was the good of that? Goebbels, in the course of the second meeting, the minutes of which have been submitted to the tribunal, under No. 1816- PS, succeeded after all with his radical demands; from the result of this meeting, finally, also Funk had to come to the conclusion that the complete elimination of the Jews from German economic life could simply not be delayed any longer because the authorative circles had become far too fanatic. It became evident to Funk that legal decisions would now have to be taken if the Jews were to be protected from further acts of terror, plunder and violence and if they were to get at least some proper compensation. During this Goering meeting of 12 November 1938, Funk expressed himself again and again. Due to the efforts made by the defendant Funk supported by Goering, the Jewish businesses were first reopened, the whole procedure was taken out of the arbitrary hands of local agencies and put on a legal basis all through Germany. And, finally, this liquidation was spread over a certain period of time in order to gain time for carrying out this action. If the minutes of the Goering meeting of 12 November 1938 are read carefully, then one will ever and over again be able to find inspite of its incorrect and incomplete formulation, distinct clues which prove Funk's moderating influence; namely, his urging, mentioned, in the minutes repeatedly, to reopen the Jewish stores, and his (Funk's) proposal to let the Jews retain at least their securities and finally his rejection of Heydrich's demand to place the Jews in ghettos. It is a fact proven by the minutes of 12 November 1938, beyond doubt that Funk who opposed Heydrich's proposal and said, quotes "One did not need ghettos. The Jews could move closer together among themselves. The life of 3 million Jewish people amongst not less than 70 million Germans could surely be regulated without ghettos." Of course, at that time Funk did not succeed completely in his point of view. And so, for example, has proposal to let the Jews keep their securities was refused although Funk called attention to the fact aid that can also be seen from the minutes that a realization of the Jewish securities would suddenly flood the German stock market with securities valued at half a billion there fore would inflict serious consequences upon the German stock market.
Decisive for the judgment of the defendant Funk is his obvious effort to save for the Jews what could be saved under the given circumstances, and thereby we must net loss sight that in all those measures Funk acted only in his capacity as Minister of the Economy, that is, as an official, who merely gave the order to execute a command which Goering, as Plenipotentiary of the Four-Year-plan, had issued on Hitler's orders. Funk thereby found himself on the very same position of constraint, as for example, the Reich Finance Minister Graf Schwerin-Kresigk, who, at the time, had to issue the orders regarding the punitive levy of 1 billion Reichsmark to be payed by the Jews or as theReich Minister of Justice and the Reich Minister of the Interior, both of whom, had issued analogous orders for execution in their respective sphere of business. cult legal question whether an official of a State, the government of which has been legally recognized by all governments of the world, is liable to legal punishment for putting into effect a law, and I emphasize, a law, which has been passed in accordance with the legal order of this State. This legal problem is entirely different from the other question whether or not the fact that an official order when given by a superior can serve as an excuse. I shall not treat this legal question because I shall leave this to theother members of the defense. I shall only treat here whether an official is liable to punishment If he puts into effect a law which has been passed by the State and confirmed aslegal, and that is entirely different from that which is dealt with by the Charter. the following: a citizen, an official, or even a soldier, cannot defend himself by pointing to the official order, given to him by his superior if this order obviously implies on illegal act especially, a crime, and if the subordinate under the existing circumstances and in due consideration of all the accompanying facts realizes or should realize that the official order is contrary to the law.
If this latter prerequisite exists, in other words, if I may qualify that, one may in general fully approve that the right not accorded to the subordinate to refer to an official order of his superior as an excuse and to maintain that he was only carrying it out. In that respect this stipulation of the Charter does not practically contain anything new, but only the confirmation and further development of legal principles which to a varying extent are recognized in the penal codes of most of the civilized nations to-day. A certain precaution, however, seems to be indicated in this matter, as on the other hand it should not be forgotten that obedience to the orders of one's superiors is and must in future remain the foundation of every government in all nations if an orderly functioning of the state administrative apparatus is to be safeguarded, and that it is very dangerous if the civil servant himself is to decide for himself whether he should keep his oath of allegiance.
But, gentlemen, in our case something different is involved: Here we are concerned with the obedience of the citizen and especially of the civil servant such as Funk at that time, to the law of the state which was lawfully promulgated in accordance with the constitutional rules of this state. If we want to obtain a just and correct answer to this question, a question which has not been treated until now, it will be pertinent to disregard entirely the German conditions and to pose the question what the decision would be if the civil servant of another, not German country, carries out a law. Let us assume for instance, some foreign country embracing a minority promulgated in accordance with its constitution a law according to which all members of this minority are to be exiled from its territory or the property of such inhabitants is to be confiscated for the benefit of the state or that the large agricultural estates of such inhabitants are to be turned over to the state or to be partitioned among other citizens. Let us assume that such a case exists and let us ask ourselves now does the civil servant in this nation really commit a crime if he carries out this lawful order? Is it really the duty of the official who is in charge of the execution of this law, or for that matter has he even the right to refuse obedience to the law and to declare that in his personal opinion the law concerned was a crime against humanity?
would to-day, gentlemen, in such a case, any state grant its civil servants the authority to examine at all whether the promulgated law is contrary to the principles of humanity or to the fluctuating norms of international law? What state would tolerate that its civil servants based upon this argument refuse the execution of a promulgate law? continue with the second paragraph on Page 53.
The Tribunal will have to decide those legal problems. But Funk in his defense may point out the fact that according to his entire ideology and to his entire background it was especially difficult for him, to issue those decrees for execution, although he believed he was only during his duty as a civil servant.
In this connection I wish to remind of Funk's circular of 6th February 1939 (3498 PS., Trial Brief Funk, page 19), where he emphasizes to his official that they had the duty to safeguard in every way an unobjectionable execution" and where he mentally already declines the personal responsibility for these measures by expressly emphasizing : "To what extent and speed the authorities given by the Four Years' Plan are to be used will depend on the decisions made by me in accordance with the directives of the plenipotentiary for the Four Year's Plan". This special reference of the defendant Funk to the legal decrees of the Four Year's Plan which was authorized to promulgate laws, originated in the desire of the defendant to express formally and solemnly, and to establish for times to me that in issuing the decrees for the execution, he fell, in the last analysis, victim to his obedience to the state, victim to his loyalty to the laws of the state to which he had sworn allegiance.
Especially in Funk's circular of 6 February 1939, mentioned before in Trial Brief page 19, qualms of conscience are clearly expressed which had gripped Funk in those days, these qualms which, during his interrogation by an American officer on 22 October 1945, resulted in a complete nervous collapse so that Funk could not suppress his tears any more and told the interrogating officer:"Yes, I am guilty, I should have resigned at that time". These same qualms of conscience occupied the defendant during the entire trial, and we remember that Funk in the session of 6 May 1946, when this point was discussed, was so deeply shaken, that he could hardly continue to talk and that he realised that from here the disaster had started on its way, until those horrible and frightful things which we have learned here and a part of which he learned already during his imprisonment, that is the atrocities of November 1938. He felt, as he said during his interrogation on 22October 1945, "a deep shame and a heavy guilt before himself", and he still felt it to day in the same way; but he had put the will of the state, the laws of the state, above his own feelings and his warning voice, for he as a civil servant was duty bound to the state. He felt all the more bound, as these legal measures were necessary first of all for the protection of the Jews in order to save them from being completely without any rights and from further despotism and force". persons was charged with these things, he who never during his entire life made a spiteful word against a Jew but had, wherever he could, always worked for tolerance and equality even towards Jews.
Funk, on his interrogation on October 22nd, 1945, said: "I am guilty", and it is not intended to investigate here whether the defendant, when saying this, thought in any way of a criminal or only of a moral guilt which he saw in the fact that he remained in an office which compelled him to carry out laws which were incompatible with his own philosophy of life. Funk was not in a position to decide for himself the complicated legal question, whether an official of state, which had been internationally acknowledged, can be punished at all when doing nothing else but executing laws which had been passed in accordance with the laws of this state. He, the defendant Funk, did not see any "guilt" of his in the fact that he had signed, in November 1933, the executive regulations, as this had been his duty as an official. Rather, he considered himself guilty because he had remained a member of the government, although he found the acts of terror which had occurred intolerable and abhorred them; he did not get into the "conflict of conscience" whereof he spoke when he was interrogated because he acted according to the laws which he considered as necessary under the then prevailing conditions but he got into such a conflict of conscience because he had not, in such a difficult situation, listened to the voice of his conscience and had not resigned his ministerial office. But the disive motive for his attitude and his final decision to stay in the office was surely no material. His renown as a journalist and his abilities in this respect would have made it easy for him to find another suitable position. Much is to be said for the opinion that the defendant was kept in office above all by the thought that his resignation would improve nothing, that on the contrary the administration would get still more radical under an unsuitable. fanatical successor, while he could hope, if staying in office, to alleviate much distress. first place, were certainly correct up to a certain point.
His secretary of state Dr. Landfried at least has stated as witness, that further on, too.
Funk time and again had serious misgivings concerning this action against the Jews of November 1935, and very strongly showed his disapproval of all excesses and infringements of law committed by various government agencies in the course of execution. Funk could talk openly to his confident Landfried, and he often complained to him that he had not had the power to prevent such excesses. But, as he said to Landfried: "We of the Ministry of Economy should take particular care that nobody is getting unwarranted enrichment out of the Jews on the occasion of the aryanization of business firms, i.e., of their transfer into non-Jewish hands." And ministerial councillor Kallus stated,in his deposition of April 19th, 1946, the various measures which were taken at that time by Funk to protect the interests of Jewish business owners, and Kallus told us too, that Funk even personally endeavoured to ensure that his orders were correctly carried out by subordinate authorities. other were the motives, accordingly, which made the defendant stay in office and brought him thus into a situation he is charged with today as being the result of criminal action. It is six minutes of four -
THE PRESIDENT: Can you finish it by that time, Dr. Sauter?
DR. SAUTER: fell, there are fifteen more pages. If I figure it correctly it will take about a half hour.
THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn at this time.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 13 July 1946, at 1000 hours.)
THE MARSHALL: May it please the Tribunal, the defendant Ribbentrop is absent today.
THE PRESIDENT: Would it be convenient to counsel for theprosecution and for the defense if at two o'clock today we were to deal with those interrogatories and affidavits which have come in since thelast applications were made?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, it would be perfectly convenient for the prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, do you think it would be convenient for the defense counsel to deal with those matters at two o'clock?
DR. SAUTER (Counsel for the defendant Funk): Certainly.
Mr. President, I will inform the other deiense counsel that at two o'clock these applications willbe discussed.
DR. DIX (Counsel for the defendant Schacht): I am of the same opinion as my colleague, Dr. Sauter. If that were to be dens at two o'clock, however my plea would be interrupted I should be very grateful if it could be done Immediately after Dr. Sauter finishes his speech, so that I could present my plea continuously.
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly, Dr. Dix. Very well; we will do it immediately after Dr. Sauter's plea.
Yes, Dr. Sauter.
DR. SAUTER: May it please the Tribunal; before the last adjournment on Friday, at the end, I explained the position and the attitude of the defendant Funk concerning the Jewish question. On thatoccasion I pointed out that as far as the decrees of the end of 1936 were concerned, relating to the legal elimination of the Jews from the national economy, the defendant Funk acted only in his capacity as Reich official in carrying out the duties of that office.