But I do think that we received certain information already at that period. I could not tell you exactly whether that was in 1943 or whether it was only in 1944. When we took the necessary measures to defend ourselves against this constant watch of our steps, my collaborators will be able to testify to it. I could not tell you whether it was in the summer of 1943 or only in 1944. I could not say that from my memory.
Q:Well, now, did you at any time, ever try to exercise any influence over Himmler?
A:I never tried to exercise any influence o ver Himmler with one exception. That was when I tried to get Obergruppenfuehrer Wolff to influence Himmler to maintain peace when peace was endangered and seemed to be imperiled in September 1938. There I made efforts to use my contact with this adjutant in order to have a certain influence exerted over him.
Q:The adjutant was Wolff?
A:Yes. It was Wolff.
Q:I think you told us you gave him a shotgun? Is that right?
A:Yes.
Q:It was in the nature of a wager, was it? You bet that a war would begin and Wolf bet that it would not.
A:In discussing this situation, we made a wager. I hoped I would lose that wager because there are certain kinds of wagers you would rather lose because if you lose it, a wish come true.
Q:Defendant, Dr. Dix asked you several questions about certain organizations in which you did not serve as a member.
Do you recall during the period from 1933 to 1936 whether you ever served on an advisory committee on questions of raw material which had to be secret discussion with such persons as Keitel, Koerner, and Koeppler?
A:Keitel?
Q:Keitel.
A:Keitel. It is possible that on one occasion I spoke just one sentence to Keitel at a social gathering. That would be possible, but it is not sure.
Q:Defendant, that is not the question I am asking you. I am asking whether you participated in meetings of an advisory committee on questions of raw materials, committee meetings presided over by Goering at which Keitel, Koerner Keppler and others were present?
A:I can't remember that. I am almost certain that it did not happen. I don't know anything about it anyhow.
MR. ERVIN:If your Honor please, I would like to mark as Prosecution Echibit 778, for identification, Document NI-5380.
THE PRESIDENT:The document may be marked 778 for identification.
Q:Defendant, those are the minutes of such a discussion that took place on 26 May 1936. You might look at the list of people present, which appears on the first page, and see if that refreshes your recollection about it.
A:I remember that meeting. I remember you said Goering, Keitel, Koerner and Keppler.
Q:And others.
A:And I assumed that a meeting or a conference with these persons was involved. I do not remember Keitel at all. I do remember the meeting but that was not a meeting with 4 persons but with about 20. If you had mentioned this meeting, then I would have said of course I have attended this meeting. But there was no meeting with Goering, Keitel, Keppler and Ko erner but it was a meeting with 20 and more persons.
Q:Defendant, I am sorry I misled you on that.
A:Yes, I think you did, You misled me, really.
Q:Was this a regular organization, this advisory committee on raw materials?
A:A regular organization it was not.
Q:It did not meet frequently?
A:I think that there were 3 meetings and, as far as I can remember, I attended 2 of them, but it could not have been more that 3. I am convinced of that.
Q:You would say that the subjects taken up at all 3 of these meetings were similar to the ones discussed at this particular one?
A:Well, I could not tell you that exactly but, in a general outline, I think it was about the same, at least in the same direction.
Q:Thank you, defendant.
MR. ERVIN:The Prosecution has no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT:Does that end the cross-examination of the witness?
MR. ERVIN:That's right, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT:Dr. Dix.
RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. DIX:
Q:Herr Flick, Mr. Ervin, quite rightly, asked you about your description, accocding to which you often attended the Vorstands of your plants and tried to convince them to intervene on behalf of the foreign labor and the prisoners of war and to buy additional food for them, if necessary through black market channels. Now on the morning when this question was put to you, you told me, during the noon recess, that in the heat of the battle you unfortunately had omitted to give a few more examples of such conversations with Vorstands of your plants. Now I think that it would be advisable, in the redirect examination, to give you a chance to answer the question put by Mr. Ervin and to supplement your answer to it. I ask you to do that now.
A:In supplementation I can say that the same measures and the same conversations which I have mentioned here, concerning the Vorstand of Mittelstahl and Maxhuette, also took place with the Vorstand at Brandenburg and, furthermore, that it took place also with the Anhalt Coal Works. In the latter case, I also remember that the executive director told me that a department chief of the Gestapo or of the competent authorities would be prosecuted because he had to such an extent authorized additional purchases of food through black market channels and that he had drawn attention to himself that way.
Now as to the question by counsel for the Prosecution concerning Lubeck, I late on remembered that I had also a conversation with the Vorstand of Lubeck and discussed this question and that in the case of Lubeck the matter was practically settled by the Hochofenwerk Lubeck added to its work plants and had an agricultural enterprise of its own and that this estate was being used for the additional food supplies for foreign labor. That is, at least, what the Vorstand of the Hochofenwerk Luebeck told me and that is what I wanted to add.
Q:Now, if conversations with specified and well defined personalities are mentioned, then it is always better not to speak of the intangible word "Vorstand" but rather to name the persons themselves, the individual persons with whom you have spoken. Now, with whom did you speak in the case of Brandenburg?
A:With Hennecke.
Q:And whom did you speak with in the case of Henningsdorf?
A:I di not even mention Henningsdorf. You know Brandenburg and Henningsdorf belong together and there I spoke with Hennecke. At the Anhalt Coal Works it was Hellberg with whom I spoke.
Q:And at Luebeck?
A:That was Fabry.
Q:Thank you. Now Mr. Ervin also questioned you with regard to the Fragebogen which you filled in during the preliminary investigations concerning the item political contributions.
In this interrogatory the decisive point, almost the exclusive point, was the fact that in this fragebogen you mentioned only the 450,000 Marks, the amount for which you had receipts, and you did not mention the further contributions of about 500,000 Marks which you remembered, according to your testimony, if not quite exactly. However, you did not list it under that item. Now I think that it would be very useful for the guidance of the Tribunal if you could explain the motives which led you to omit these 500,000 Marks in the listing at that time. Before you answer this question witness, because I don't know whether you even remember those motives, I would take the liberty to shortly mention that I, myself, during the last two years, had to fill in several dozen Fragebogens and that while I was filling in these Fragebogens I always slept very badly and, when I had filled it in, I always dreamt of this filling in and it came back as a nightmare. Now I want to ask you, did you have any misgivings to list these 500,000 Marks of which you said that you had only a very dim memory and that you had only a very dim memory and thatyou had misgivings because you did not have any receipts?
AYes, what I knew in 1947, that was that in 1932 we paid a lot of money for the Hindenburg election, and if I didn't have these receipts corresponding to 450,000 -- I mean that is just a coincidence only and if I hadn't had these receipts then I couldn't have given any figures in an affidavit and in a fragebogen.
I also stated in this fragebogen that according to my recollection it would have been more, but limiting myself to tangible figures I only remember these 500,000. That is, I only remember the 450,000. I did not remember the 500,000. Only when we made inquiries was the director who was in the plant himself, and who after all was not a member of our Berlin office, but at that time, at the time of the fragebogen, I couldn't tell yet and therefore I didn't list the 500,000 marks in the fragebogen, and I only stated that probably it is more than 450,000 which are my only amount which I can prove.
QNow, at the period when you had to fill in the fragebogen, did you knew that an incorrect filling-in of the fragebogen and even an inexact filling in, even an omission when you filled in the fragebogen was severely punishable?
AYes, I think that is the genral regulation concerning the fragebogen; but I think in the case of a payment declared as to low and mainly a payment which was against the nazis, I mean that at least it was my view, that when you stated it as less than the money you had actually paid out against the Nazis, well that could hardly be punishable, rather on the contrary, that is what I imagined, of course I couldn't tell you whether that's correct.
QIn any case you thought that you were correct and that you preferred to state less money you had paid out against the Nazis than more and that was a slight mistake. Now, from the questions Mr. Ervin asked you, it could be seen quite clearly that you are under suspicion or I hope you only were under suspicion that these 500,000 marks which are testified to by Gehlhofen were nothing else than a payment corresponding to the 450,000 marks which you previously had paid and therefore I would like to ask you the direct question.
Is there any possibility that the 500,000 marks which were paid by the Mittelstahl Industry via their director, Gehlhofen were meant for the purpose of reimbursing the 450,000 marks to the person who had paid them?
AI think that I have cleared up this matter already. The 500,000 marks after all according to the testimony of Gehlhofen were paid at a point when part of the 450,000 had not even been paid yet. The 450,000 were partly paid in June and partly as late as October while the 500,000 , according to the testimony of Gehlhofen were paid in francs. Therefore a reimbursement could not have taken place.
QNow, you have further more been asked --even in great detail -- concerning the Gelsenkirchen transaction and therefore the remark of rehabilitation, the German word, "Sanierung". Do you agree to this term, rehabilitation, "Sanierung", in the technical sense.
That is in the sense of a finacial salvation of an enterprise which normally would have been bankrupt.
ANo, I don't agree with that at all, because I don't think that it would have been necessary to sell a hundred million Gelsenkirchen shares for that purpose and to get 90 million marks of ready money for them. From the document which has been submitted here by the Prosecution, it can be seen that 38, 000,000 marks has been raised by the Reich by taking over our debts and our liabilities, and also that in the framework of this whole transaction we immediately inves ted 27 million marks by acquiring a new plant, a new industrial position, for which we paid 27 million marks.
Also there was another 25 million marks which we received in ready money. That is the wholesale price was 90 million of them were covered by the Reich's taking over our liabilities, but it has to be noted how the matter really lay with the Reich, whether the Reich made apoint of rehabilitating the Charlottenhuette or whether the Reich rather had the intention of acquiring a big power position.
In order to clear the Charlottenhuette of its liabilities, the reich would have needed only some 40 million shares of the Gelsenkirchen. But we had a hundred million, and the Reich made it a condition that we should not procure the hundred million only but even a hundred and ten million shares, and we had considerable difficulties in procuring thse lacking ten million shares. That was not easy at all. And I can also explain to you why the Reich wanted a hundred and ten million and were not satisfied with what we had. The reason was that Gelsenkirchen had capital funds of 250 millions and that the majority therefore would have been 125 million.
Fifteen million lay with the Dresdner Bank. The Dresdner Bank at that time was controlled by the Reich. And now they wanted not only our own holdings but theywanted us to deliver to them ten million marks as well--that is a hundred and ten altogether -- with the aim of having altogether 125 million and thereby acquiring half of the entire sharesholdings of all the Gelsenkirchen Company. Therefore the point for the Reich was mainly to acquire this big position of power, and concerning the plans the then Bruening Government with this power position, well, former Vice-Chancellor and Minsiter of finance Dietrich has made a radio broadcast last year concerning this question, and he said, "Now I can speak in unveiled words."-
QWell, Herr Flick, you already explained that to the Tribunal with all details. I mean the contents of the radio broadcast. I think the Tribunal knows that now.
If the Tribunal does not know these matters, then, of course -
THEPRESIDENT: ( A gesture by the President.)
Q (Continuing) Now, concerning this Gelsenkirchen transaction, -
A (Witness about to interpose)
QJust one moment. We want to clarify one more thing. The question raised in the cross examination concerning the affidavit of Herr Steinbrinck, that is the affidavit of -- well, let me say, after 28th of January, 1947 apparently at that time there were no intentions yet to indict Herr Steinbrinck because other wise my experinece shows that hardly an affidavit would have been asked from him.
But that is of no interest to the Court here.
In this affidavit Herr Steinbrinck speaks of the effects of the Gelsenkirchen transaction as a sensation.
Now, I would like to ask you if you speak of a sensation -- he even speaks of criticisms in the press and so and so forth -- now there I would like to ask you it is a matter for argument what you consider sensational, isn't it?
As far as I am concerned, I don't consider a press criticism a sensation even if I have the greatest respect for the press. But will you please tell the Tribunal, how the Bruening Governement was criticized and of course when they criticized the Government in the second place they criticized you too, didn't they? Now, didn't the opposition parties against the Bruening Governement, that is, the Social Democrats at that time, and the National Socialists-the National Socialists Party -- that is the most violent opposition against the Bruening Government --didn't they criticize also and check this whole affair in your offices, too-
A (About to interpose).
QJust a moment, just a moment, don't interrupt me. You already testified it for Goering's person on behalf of the NSDAP, the Nazi Party. I only ask you to give us the name of the Young Reichstag representative who came for the Social Democrat Party and checked this whole transaction on their behalf in your office.
AI am not sure whether I could tell you exactly who it was but I think it was Sollman. But I think Herr Steinbrinck knows that better.
Q.Very well, all right then, in that case I would like to ask my colleague, Flaechsner, to ask Herr Steinbrinck later on.
Now, as Gelsenkirchen, not only in 1932 but also at the occasion of this cross examination here, took such an important part, and as Mr. Ervin put it to you that apparently Bruening was in a hurry to conclude the matter and that you had the wish to fulfill your obligations or rather, the obligations of the Gelsenkirchen Company as quickly as possible, I would like to ask you -- but I am quite convinced that it is possible that you can't answer my question under certain circamstances -- did the resignation of the Bruening government in 1932, was this resignation an absolute surprise for Bruening, or didn't he already have a hunch a few days before that he would be overthrown?
A.According to the information I have it was quite a surprise. It had to be quite surprise for him who had succeeded in getting Hindenburg elected, that he was to resign so soon after the election. For all I know it was a complete surprise for him.
Q.That is quite correct. That means that he had no possibility of preparing himself for being overthrown. Now, I don't want to celebrate your sixtieth birthday with you here, but I would like to refer to it Once again. Mr. Ervin quite rightly took a remark you made during your anniversary speech of that time and pointed it out and any outsider who doesn't know the background of this remark could find in it some sort of anti-semitic aftertaste. It is true that I have taken the precaution to clarify this would be anti-semitic remark, this apparently anti-semitic remark -
MR. ERVIN:If your Honor please, I merely wanted to break in to say that this remark, I think, is in the Charlottenhuette speech and not the birthday speech. just in order to keep the record clear.
DR. DIX:That is quite correct, your Honor. I made a mistake htere. I am sorry, but it was for some sort of a celebration, I am sure.
Thank you very much, Mr. Ervin. It is very kind to point out this error to me.
Q. (Cont'd) Well, as I said, I had overlooked this remark; otherwise I would have given you the possibility already to clarify it in the direct examination. Of course, you have to know the whole background of the German economy quite exactly if you want to understand these remarks. Herr Flick, tell me, scrap iron, rags, old clothes, scrap -as a commercial utility in whose hands were these in Germany before?
A.That was mainly in the hands of Jews.
Q.Thank you. Now, if you say in the hands of Jews do you mean the Rothschilds, or the Baron Oppenheims, or the Montefiores, or was that rather another class of Jews from the social viewpoint?
A.Oh, yes, you have to say that.
Q.And I ask you now, if I may use a word of slang, as the first "goy", meaning as the first non-Jew entered these scrap transactions w were you then kidded sometimes by your friends and collaborators in a nice manner?
A.That is quite possible. In general it was quite customary to joke about these matters.
Q.Now, this remark which you made, so to say, in parentheses in your speech concerning these jokes of your collaborators, did it refer to that?
A.Well, my collaborators without exception were people who had to deal with the scrap things and with the scrap dealers. I was there amongst mining experts and I think that they had some understanding for such a silly Jewish joke.
Q.Thank you. Well, let's conclude that matter. I only wanted to demonstrate to the Tribunal that this remark had no importance and no poison at all in it, and no racial prejudice.
Now, in the further course of the cross examination reference was made to the fact that you talked to the later Reich Minister of Economy Funk, and that was apparently before the rise to power at the occasion of a collection trip of Funk in the Ruhr, that at that occasion you gave him 30,000 Marks for that collection. I think that I have memorized your answer correctly if I state it as testimony to the effect that you had no knowledge of such a trip Funk made to the Rhineland. Is my recollection correct?
A.I had no knowledge and I don't remember any trip Funk made to the Ruhr.
Q.And the payment of those thirty thousand?
A.I don't remember that either. In detail at least I have assessed the total payments to about fifty thousand marks, but I said also that it could be sixty or seventy, and I have stated the total payments before the seizure of power and after the seizure to power with one hundred fifty thousand, and I think that they didn't exceed that in general. How they were in detail I couldn't tell you.
Q.Thank you, but you think that these thirty thousand marks are certainly included in the one hundred fifty thousand?
A.Yes, that's what I think.
DR. DIX:Actually Funk is said to have been at the Ruhr, but at that time he was not a minister yet but only the commercial editor of the Berlin-Boersenzeitung, and it is said that he came back from the Ruhr very disappointed and very sorry. This is only for the guidance of the Tribunal, Your Honor, because it is very difficult to know all this development in detail. Do you know or do you remember -- because after all you have seen those fragebogens -- do you remember that the Adolf Hitler donation is not mentioned and contained in these fragebogens?
A.I couldn't tell you. I don't know. I assume -- I believe that I recall that it is mentioned there apart from the Adolf Hitler donation, but I couldn't give you exact details. I am not sure of it.
Q.Now if I would ask you as an exception that you would suppose for once and assume for once that what your lawyer tells you is true, and if I tell you that the Adolf Hitler donation is not considered as belonging to these political contributions contained in the fragebogen, do you think that this measure by the competent authority of the American power of occupation is reasonable? Just a moment, don't answer it yet. I hope that I am not reproached for suggesting that such a measure might not be quite reasonable. Now you can answer it.
A.I havn't quite understood you in the end.
Q.Well, what I mean is do you think it would be reasonable and it would be to the point if the American authority which drew up these fragebogens and printed them intentionally omitted the Adolf Hitler donation under this item of Political Contributions?
A.Well, apparently it was not ended there.
Q.Yes. That is what I mean. Well, we were talking a little bit too quickly and playing ping-pong with questions and answers.
A.Yes, it seems quite reasonable to me.
Q.Yes, to me it seems quite reasonable too.
DR. DIX:I think, your Honor, this is a convenient time to have a recess now.
(A recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL:Tribunal IV is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT:Dr. Dix. BY DR. DIX:
QHerr Flick, Mr. Ervin showed you a letter from the BrandenburgHennigsdorf. He took the viewpoint that you or your plants were concerned to try to get production contracts; the contents of this letter to which the prosecution referred consists in the main of stating that Brandenburg -Hennigsdorf protested against a decrease of the ceasing of certain types of production and says it isn't correct that you, meaning Brandenburg-Hennigsdorf, have worked badly. It is important to me that your reply and the sense of your reply should be perfectly clear to the Court. That's why I put the first question to you : Did you know this letter before it was shown to you by Mr. Ervin?
AI did not know the letter before and I said that, generally speaking, the total correspondence of all of these plants took place without ever touching our office at Berlin. Now and then we got a copy of a letter which seemed particularly interesting to the plant manager but in general this correspondence with our clients they carried on alone.
QThank you very much. You have made that clear. I just wanted to establish whether you had known it before Mr. Ervin had shown it to you?
ANo.
QBut now you do know its contents. Can you now in view of your experience of the attitude of your gentlemen explain the letter to the Tribunal? Was it a begging, imploring letter asking for further production contracts?
AI only read the letter superficially yesterday. As far as I understood it the plant is defending itself against charges made against the quality of its production and is also defending itself against the suggestion of a cancellation of the orders, as a consequence of the complaints about quality.
This would no doubt have had the general consequence that the plant would have been considered unsuitable for such deliveries and it would in general have been struck out from the list of supplies but I can't see more than that but it was largely a matter of prestige.
QA matter of prestige as far as your entrepreneur reputation was concerned?
AYes.
QI have probably summarized your answer in this term "your reputation as an entrepreneur" in order to form a bridge to the next question and I would like to ask the Court's patience if I bring it up once more. I know that you may tell me this is the fourth time that this question is being put. It is the question about the reasons why you made investments in Rombach and that these investments were not lowered even after, as you have already told the Court, in the course of the war whether that was in 1942 or 1943, you gained the conviction the war would be lost by Germany. This question had a somewhat unfortunate fate. It became so complicated that the history of its development could be described by the saying of the old Austrian Army: "Why do it simply, if you can do it in a complicated fashion." That's why I would like to ask you quite briefly and precisely, firstly, is it correct that at the time you took on the trusteeship and at the time you showed an interest in this Rombach trusteeship, straight away, you , like a good many people in Germany believed that Lorraine would become German once again? Please, "yes" or "no".
AYes.
QIs it correct that you abandoned in the course of the war this belief in the favorable end to the war for Germany?
AYes, that's correct, too.
QHow do you explain or shall I ask another question first? Is it correct that even after you had come to realize that the war would end unfavorably for Germany your investment policy with regard to Rombach did not change but, on the contrary, funds were invested in improvements in the Rombach installations?
AYes, that's true.
QSo the answer is "yes." Now, I submit to you, at that time you had come to the results you could surely no longer expect that Lorraine would become German?
AQuite correct, yes. We certainly couldn't expect that.
QThen what were your motives in investing further funds in Rombach?
AI think I have already explained this once.
QFour times.
AI can repeat it.
A.I can repeat it because we did not want anybody to say about us that the enterprise was being let run to seed at the expense of the owners and because our reputation as entrepreneurs and our prestige were connected and at stake in the matter. It just was not our viewpoint.
Q.That is clear. The Rombach case requires one further elucidation. I will once again formulate some brieg questions for this purpose. Who were the shareholders of the Rombach G.M.B.H.?
A.The Harpener-Bergbau A.-G. with 51 per cent. and Maxhuette with 49 per cent.
Q.Second question; Who would have received the dividends if Rombach had paid any dividends?
A.The dividends would have gone to the shareholders, to Harpener and to Maxhuette.
Q.Were any dividends paid?
A.No.
Q.If no dividends were paid, there are three possibilities. Supposing that profits were made by Rombach. If such profits were made, they were either carried over or they must have been used for investments. Which of these two things happened if profits were made? I believe you already said they were.
A.Profits were made. I cannot give you accurate information about how these were used. I do not think they were carried over.
Q.At any rate, dividends were not paid?
A.No. They were not. I con say that for certain.
Q.And you agreed with my legal, or if you like economic view, that in the case where a company makes profits and does not pay dividends, only two things can happen with these profits either they are carried over or they are -re-invested for the improvement of the installation?
A.Yes. In general I believe that is true unless, of course, it is a question of accounting. But I do not think that has anything to do with the use of the money. The fact remains, we did not pay dividends.
We interested on a large scale. That I believe is the question that is being put.
JUDGE RICHMAN:Did you put any new money into that enterprise, any money from any other enterprises? Was it merely the money that you made in this particular enterprise that you placed back into it to invest and to make improvements and so forth? Is that the fact?
A.At the beginning, we took up big bank credits, quite a number of millions, apart from the own capital of Rombach.
Q.Excuse me, Herr Flick, just a moment. Just a moment. I want to prevent this unhappy problem..... What does "we" mean in this question. Who took up the credit?
A.The Rombacher-Huettenwerke. They were founded with 500,000 Marks capital of their own in the beginning. This working capital was not sufficient. Then they took up big bank credits, the amount of which I cannot say exactly from memory, but which I estimate at a number of millions. That is quite certain. It may have been four or five million. They had credits given on our guarantee. We guaranteed this sum, that is Maxhuette and Mittelstahl, I velieve but Herr Kaletsch will know that for certain.
JUDGE RICHMAN:All I was trying to get at was whether any money had come from Maxhuette or Mittelstahl or any of those other concerns that youowned that went into this Rombach enterprise. Of course you guaranteed the credit, as I understand from your statements just now, but you did not put any other money in it out of enterprises that you already owned?
THE WITNESS:At first, the only money of our own was the company capital of 500,000 Marks, its own capital. Then I wanted to say that the enterprise was financed by bank credits under our guarantee. These bank credits were re-paid out of the profits of Rombach to a large extent in the course of the years.
THE PRESIDENT:But the capital you put in to purchase the shares still remained there? That is, was that repaid in any way?