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.
On Friday, I finished my statements in that respect with the words, "Conscience of duty on one side and humane feelings on the other side were the motives of the defendant Funk which held him at the post and thereby brought him into a situation which today is interpreted as criminal action and criminal activity."
speech for the defendant Funk, his motives and actions. Therefore, I shall deal with the SS gold deliveries to the Reichsbank, with the relation of the defendant Funk to the question of concentration camps. That is to say that I am going to start on page 58 of the written speech which has been submitted to you. that he was net only condemned by fate, in the year 1938, to issue executive regulations of laws which he condemned inwardly and disapproved of as no other man, but that he got associated once more, in the year 1942, in a particularly terrible manner with the persecution of the Jews; I am thinking new of the depot of the SS at the Reichsbank, of a matter, for the elucidation of which a moving picture has produced of the steel safe of the Frankfurt Branch of the Reichsbank and two witnesses were heard, Vice-president Emil Puhl and Reichsbank councillor Albert Thomas, at the preliminary proceedings on the occasion of his interrogation, on June 4th 1945 (of. P.S.-2828); at that time, however, no details were disclosed to him, and Funk has then made the some statement as he did before this tribunal, viz. that he had to deal with the matter in question but a few times and shortly, and that he had not attached any importance to it. This is the reason why he could, at first, not clearly remember those happenings any more during the proceedings here. Accordingly, he did not know anything more about than than he had mentioned. matter would be brought up in the cross-examination, in course of the proceedings. And this was done in fact by the American prosecution on May 7th 1946, and the said prosecution has submitted an affidavit of the witness, Emil Puhl, the vice-president of the Reichsbank, which at first seemed to charge heavily the defendant Funk.
Now it is remarkable that since the beginning of this trial the defendant Funk always actually referred to this witness Puhl for various points, and that he several times asked for his hearing since December 1945.
Measured by ordinary human standards, Funk wouldnot have done so if he had had a bad conscience and If he must have reckoned with the possibility of his being accused in the most serious way by his own witness in the matter of those concentration camp stories. But the oral examination of the witness Emil Puhl at this tribunal showed beyond doubt that Puhl could net uphold at all the originally incriminating statements of his affidavit, as far as the personality of Funk and his knowledge of the particulars of the deposits of the SS were concerned. (of. on this point the rectification of hisstatement in the declaration of the defense counsel to the tribunal of June 17th, 1946) had been asked at the time, occasionally by the Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler whether articles of value could be deposited in the strong rooms of the Reichsbank, which had been seized by the SS in the Eastern territories.
This question of Himmler's was at that time confirmed by Funk who also told Himmler that he should delegate somebody in order to discuss the matter with Vicepresident Puhl and settle it.
Himmler at that time declared that Gruppenfuehrer Puhl could do this and that the latter would get in touch with Vicepresident Puhl. That was all that Funk, at that time, I believe 1942, had disussed with Reich Loader SS Himmler and occasionally he also mentioned this to his Vicepresident Puhl because Puhl was actually directing the business of the Reichs Bank and therefore was competent with this affair. this question of Reich Leader SS Himmler because, as far as Funk knew the SS was at that time in charge of the entire police service in the occupied territories in the East. For that reason it often had to confiscate valuables just as the ordinary police had done in the home country, that is,, within Germany. Moreover, all gold coins, foreign currency, etc. in the occupied territories of the East had to be turned in according to the law and these deliveries in the East Territories were naturally made to the SS because no other state offices there wore equipped for that purpose. Funk also knew that the concentration camps were under the direction of the SS and thought that the valuables the SS were to deposit with the Reichsbank for safe-keeping belonged very probably to that category of valuables which the whole population wasobliged to deliver. this trial, the SS always participated in the combats, just as the German army as the latter the SS had collected the so-called booty in the abandoned and destroyed towns of the cast and had delivered it to the Reich. Therefore there was nothing extraordinary for Funk in the fact that the SS possessed gold and foreign currency and turned it in in a regular way. that there were, among the objects delivered by the SS, gold frames of spectacles, gold teeth and similar objects in extraordinary quantities which did not fall into the hands of the SS by means of legal confiscations but only by criminal acts.
If, and I emphasize, gentlemen, if it couldbe proven that defendant Funk saw such objects in the deposit of the SS these objects should naturally have roused his suspicion.
But we heard from the witness Puhl in all certainty that defendant Funk had no knowledge of this. Yes, also that the Vice President himself did not know any particulars about it. In any case Funk never saw what particular gold objects and what quantities were delivered on the part of the SS. vaults of the Berlin Reichsbank and one felt entitled to the conclusion therefrom that he could not have helped seeing what objects had been delivered by the SS. This conclusion is obviously wrong, because the evidence shows that during the entire war Funk went to the vaults of the Reichsbank only very few times in order to show those vaults and the bullion of the Reichs Bank stored therein to visitors, especially to foreign guests. But during those few visits he never saw the deposit of the SS. He never observed what in particular the SS had deposited in his bank. This is established without doubt, not only by the deposition of the defendant Funk himself, but also by the testimony of Vice-President Puhl and the Councillor of the Reichs Bank Thomas here in this courtroom. This, certainly unsuspecting prosecution witness who offered himself as a witness declared under oath that the valuables were delivered by the SS in locked trunks, boxes and bags and were stored in these containers and that Funk was never present in the vaults when the contents of an individual box or trunk were sorted out by the employees of the bank. The witness, Thomas, who supervised the vaults, never saw defendant Funk there. Therefore, Funk neither had knowledge of the amount that the deliveries of the SS gradually had formed, nor did he know that the deposit contained jewelry, pearls and precious stones and spectacle frames and gold teeth. All that he never saw, and none of his officials ever reported to him about these things. of the Reichsbank, surely must have known what was kept in the vaults of his banks but also this conclusion is evidently false and does not take into consideration the actual conditions in a central bank of issue. Funk, who besides was Reich Minister for the Economy, had in his position of a President of the Reichsbank, no occasion whatever to look after a single deposit, even if it happened to belong to the SS.
As a president of the Reichsbank he did not look after any deposits of other clients of his bank as this was not his task. He only once, owing to an inquiry of his Vice President Puhl, asked Reich Fuehrer SS Himmler, and that was the second conversation he had with him, whether the values deposited by the SS at the Reichs Bank could be realized, i.e., in the legal course of business at the Reich Bank. Himmler answered in the positive and Funk passed this answer on to his Vice President, Puhl. that is to say, of such values which quite generally in the German Reich had to be turned in to the Reichsbank and which were and had to be realized by the latter. Never did the idea occur to Funk that the deposit contained gold-teeth or similar objects originating from criminal actions in concentration camps. He heard of this with great horror, but during the trial. way suspect, or seemed to remain suspect, was the question of secrecy. Vice President Puhl as a witness declared in the beginning that the defendant, Funk, had told him the matter of the deposits of the SS should be kept strictly secret. Funk, on the other hand, always denied this very decidedly and declared under oath that he never talked with Puhl about such secrecy at all. Now, at first sight, one statementwas pitted against the other,-- Vice President Puhl's statements referring to this point seemed slightly contradictory from the beginning, because at one time he said that this secrecy had not been anything extraordinary, because, after all, secrecy applies to every thing that occurs in a bank. Answering a special question Puhl stated repeatedly that he didnot notice whether allegedly the defendant Funk had spoken of secrecy. read and pointed out to the witness, Puhl, Puhl finally stated upon oath on 15 May 1946, that it was clearly evident therefrom, that the desire for secrecy emanated from the SS. The SS made a point of having this business transacted with secrecy. The SS, as Puhl said, "had been the originator of the obligation for secrecy." Thus reads theliteral wording of the end of the statement of the witnessPuhl to which he swore and at the con-clusion of which he again confirmed that the obligation for secrecy was desired and imposed by the SS.
point between the statementsofthe defendant Funk and those of the witness Puhl was altogether accounted for and that in favor of the defendant, Puhl himself no longer maintained his original assertion that it was Funk who had ordered the maintenance of secrecy with regard to the SS deposit. Thus we must assume that the statement--also in this statement the statement of the defendant Funk is correct also in this point, and deserves preference for he had declared from the very beginning and under oath that he himself knew nothing of a secrecy and that he had never spoken of such a secrecy to Puhl. Moreover there was no reason for Funk to yalk to Puhl about a special secrecy since Funk ostensibly was of the opinion that the valuables involved were of such nature as made their confiscation and turning in mandatory and which belonged within the regular lawful business sphere of the Reichcbank, regardless of whether these articles subject to confiscation were the property of an inmate of a concentration camp or of a free person.
SS on their part stressed the maintainance of Secrecy towards Vice President Puhl and why, furthermore, the SS opened a deposit in the name of Melmer instead of in the name of the SS, and the prosecution on their part did not attach any importance to clarifying this point. At any rate, the demand of the SS for secrecy evidently did not strike Vice President Puhl as unusual, just as little as it did the witness Thoms, who confirmed the fact that this secrecy was nothing unusual. One fact however, Gentlemen, remains significant, namely, that before the numerous personnel of the Reichsbank was entrusted by Vice president Puhl with sorting the turned in valuables and their conversion into money at the pawn shop. Dozens of Reichsbank officials who regularly entered the vaults were in a position to see the individual articles there. The Reich Central Pay-Office (Reichshauptkasse) a separate institution, quite openly settled accounts for the conversion of valuables into money with the Reich Ministry of Finance in a regular routine manner. Funk, still today, does not know whether and to what extent agreements for settling account; with the Reich had been reached between the Finance Minister and SS Reichsfuehrer Himmler. He was never interested in it nor did it concern him. that Funk, personally, did not know of these matters and that Vice President Puhl and Reichsbank Counsellor Thoms thought nothing bad about them even though at least Thoms should have seen of what nature the deposits were. obvious question, whether the initial statements of Puhl with re gard to the deposits of the SS were not from the beginning to be received with a certain skepticism, as he, Puhl, ostensibly had the understandable desire, at least in his written affidavit, to shift responsibility upon the shoulders of his President Punk, in order to escape his own responsibility for the unpleasant facts of the case, when during his detention he was told that the gold objects of the SS consisted for the greater part of spectacle francs and gold teeth taken away from victims of concentration camps.
Originally, not even Puhl seems to have thought bad about the whole matter. For him the matter was an ordinary business transaction of the Reichsbank for the account of the Reich, which he dealt with in the same manner as he dealt with objects of gold and foreign currency that had been seized by the Customs Investigation Office or the Office of Control for foreign Currency or any other State authority. Gentlemen, whatever is the opinion of the responsibility of Vice-President Puhl, all these cases lie outside any jurisdiction of the defendant Funk, and he is the one with whom we have to deal in considering this point now. In the course of the following period Funk had only two or three short and accidental conversations with Puhl regarding these gold deposits, with a view of using the turned in gold coins and foreign currency. Otherwise Funk did not concern himself at all with the matter. He know even loss about it than Puhl, and it is not without significance that Puhl here upon oath decal red that he (Puhl) would never have permitted those objects of gold required by the SS to be brought to the vaulte of the Reichsbank, had he had the slightest notion of the fact that they were token from victims of concentration camps under criminal circumstances. If Puhl could not know or guess this, then Funk could have known even loss about it, and the initial statement of Puhl, which, in effect, said that the objects of gold were accepted by FunK for the Reichsbank intentionally and that they were made use of with the aid of the personnel of the Reichsbank, was at least a statement by Vice President Puhl grossly misleading the prosecution, Puhl, later on in captivity, when he learned of the true connections, must surely have had the same compunctions as Funk, however 15 July M LJG 3-3 innocent the latter was in the case.
Puhl, in the end, stated upon oath here that even he would not have stood for such transactions and he would have brought the matter to the attention of the cirectorate of the Reichsbank as well as to the attention of President Funk had he known that the valuables were taken from victims of concentration camps and if he had been informed about the nature of these valuables.
I therefore come to the following conclusion: Certainly the Reichsbank transacted business for the account of the Reich, the nature of which originated from criminal acts of the SS; the defendant Funk, however, know nothing of this. He would not have tolerated such transactions had he known the true circumstances. Therefore, he cannot be made legally responsible for this. credits of the Reichsbank for business agencies of the SS, and I shall limit myself to a few sentences on this. The witness Puhl, in his written affidavit of 3 May 1946, first gave an entirely wrong picture also of this matter: For he stated that credits of 10 to 12 million Reichsmark placed at the disposal of the Gold-discountbank upon instruction of the defendant Funk were used and I quote. "for financing production in SS factories by means of labour of concentration camps." whether Funk had any knowledge as to whether persons from concentration camps were engaged in those factories at all. Thereat, Puhl declared literally: " I am inclined to assume this, but I am unable to know it." Therefore, he was not able to give any definite evidence concerning Funk's knowledge, only an assumption. However, Funk's own statement in this matter is quite clear and convincing; it amounted to this, that he know, indeed, of the credit request of the SS, that he even granted it, but that he know nothing about the nature of the SS enterprises concerned and about the people working therein. Funk stated this on his oath.
This credit deal, which by the way occurred about two years before 15 July M LJG 3-4 the matter of the SS gold deposit, that is about 1940, accordingly charges neither the defendant Funk nor the witness Puhl; neither of then know at that time - 1940 - anything about the conditions in the concentration camps; both rather learned about them only much later, viz, in the course of this trial, and the defendant Funk never know that persons from the concentration camps were working in the SS factories mentioned and for which the credit is given.
tion whether Funk over visited a concentration camp. The witness Dr. Blaha, who was examined here, stated that once Funk was in Dachau in the first half of 1944. This visit was stated to have been made as a sequel to a conference of the minister of finance in Berchtesgaden or in same other place of this region, and in which Funk participated. But, Gentlemen, the witness Dr. Blaha himself did not at that time see the defendant Funk in Dachau, but only heard from other camp inmates that on the occasion of an important visit to the camp, the Reich 15 July M LJG 4-1 Minister of the Economy Funk, the, had been present.