The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-09//tgmwc-09-83.03

Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-09/tgmwc-09-83.03
Last-Modified: 1999/12/8

THE PRESIDENT: The defendant Goering is giving evidence
under oath. Therefore nothing in the shape of an affidavit
ought to be put in. If you have any questions to ask him,
which he has not already answered, about the defendant
Keitel , you may ask them now. It is inappropriate to put in
a written, sworn statement, when you have a defendant giving
evidence under oath.

DR. NELTE: In the session of 25th February, 1946, this was
approved, for the reason that it would shorten the
proceedings if an affidavit were to be read and the witness
were then to state: "That is correct." I have a copy here of
the transcript of that session, if the Tribunal do not

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: May it please the Tribunal, I should
not care to object to this upon the ground that it is
written, because I think there are occasions when the
writing out of the testimony of a witness might be more
expeditious than their examination.

I object to it on the ground that it does not get us
anywhere when you include it. It starts off: "Keitel gives
the impression of a military man, an officer of the old
school." That is not testimony that gets us anywhere. I
admit that statement; he always impressed me that way. His
philosophy is dominated in the main by militaristic ideas
and concepts.

Let Keitel give us a description of himself, if we must have
one. I think an examination of this affidavit will show that
it consists of matter that has been covered, or of matter on
which another witness never ought to be interrogated. I
object to it upon the ground that it has no probative value.

THE PRESIDENT: As you are aware, Dr. Nelte, any decision
which the Tribunal made about documents was expressly made
provisionally and with the condition that the decision about
the relevancy of the document should be made when the
document was produced. If the document had been produced
before the Tribunal, they would have been able to look at
it. They have not seen the document.

The document appears, as Mr. Justice Jackson says, to be not
a document which has any evidential value at all, and as the
defendant is at present giving evidence under oath, the
Tribunal will not look at the document.

DR. NELTE: Mr. President, as the Tribunal have examined this
document and found that it is irrelevant, I accept that
decision. But it seems to me that the Tribunal -

THE PRESIDENT: We are not preventing you from asking any
questions of the witness which may be relevant, but we do
not desire to read another document from the same person who
is giving testimony.

DR. NELTE: I shall omit this affidavit. BY DR. THOMA
(counsel for defendant Rosenberg):

Q. Rosenberg was Chief of the Foreign Political Office of
the N.S.D.A.P. until 1940. Did he in this capacity, or
otherwise, personally have an influence on the foreign
political decisions of Hitler?

                                                  [Page 159]

A. I believe that the Foreign Political Office of the Party,
after the seizure of power, was never once consulted by the
Fuehrer on foreign political questions. It was established
earlier only so that certain foreign political questions
which arose within the Party could be dealt with centrally.
I am not informed in detail about the methods of that
office. As far as I know Rosenberg was certainly not
consulted on foreign political questions after the accession
to power.

Q. Therefore, you do not know details as to whether
Rosenberg had a certain influence on Hitler in the Norwegian

A. That I do not know. I stated yesterday what I know
concerning the question of Quisling and also of Rosenberg.

Q. When you were Minister President did Rosenberg become
conspicuous to you as advocating the political or police
persecution of the Church?

A. He could not advocate the persecution of the Church by
the police, and I would not have permitted any interference
by him.

Q. Do you know whether Rosenberg urged you to evacuate the
Jews to Lublin, among other places?

A. Rosenberg did not speak to me about that.

Q. Did Hitler express to you his satisfaction that Rosenberg
had not raised any objection to the Non-Aggression Pact with
the Soviet Union, concluded at that time?

A. One cannot exactly say that Hitler expressed his
satisfaction, because if Rosenberg had raised any objection,
Hitler probably would have expressed his dissatisfaction in
a very unmistakable manner. But he did state that Rosenberg,
too, apparently had understood this political step.

Q. Did Rosenberg, as Minister for the Occupied Eastern
Territories, have any influence on the employment of labour?
Was he in a specific position to prevent the employment of
the Eastern peoples?

A. A certain co-operation in regard to the employment
programme existed between the offices of Rosenberg and
Sauckel; but certainly not in the sense that Rosenberg could
have prohibited the recruiting of Eastern workers in
contradiction to the Fuehrer's order.

Q. It is known to you that Rosenberg repeatedly made
representations to the Fuehrer on behalf of a cultural
betterment of the Eastern European peoples, especially the

A. I was present once when Rosenberg spoke about the varying
treatment in the Occupied Eastern Territories of the peoples
living there and their cultural care. As far as I can recall
- or better said - I especially recall the conversation
dealt with the establishment or the continuation of the
University in Kiev. The Fuehrer agreed with him in his
presence, I believe. But when he had gone, the Fuehrer said
to me: "That man has peculiar worries. We have more
important things to take care of now than universities in
Kiev." That I remember.

THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps we had better adjourn now for ten

(A recess was taken.)

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, one moment, I want to speak to
Dr. Nelte first,

Dr. Nelte, in view of your application with reference to
this document which is called "Characteristics of General
Field-Marshal Wilhelm Keitel," the Tribunal have
investigated that matter and have referred to Page 4987 of
the shorthand notes, which possibly you may have had in
mind; but you seem to, have failed to notice that this very
document, "Characteristics of Keitel," was denied in the
order of the Tribunal in paragraph 2, which contains the
decision of the Tribunal after the argument in Court, and
which is set out on that page: of the shorthand notes to
which I have referred. Therefore, in the opinion

                                                  [Page 160]

of the Tribunal you have no right to offer that document
which the Tribunal have already denied.

DR. NELTE: Mr. President, I do not have the entire notes of
the session before me. But I do know that this affidavit was
refused with the explanation that, in a case where the
witness can be called, an affidavit is not to be submitted;
and that is here the case.

Thereupon, Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, in quoting this
particular document number of my document book, stated the
following: "The Tribunal may perhaps remember that in the
case of the witness Doctor Blaha, my friend, Mr. Dodd,
adopted the practice of asking the witness . . ." And this
affidavit belongs to this document.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Nelte, I am quite aware of that and I
have already referred you to the exact page of the
transcript which I have consulted. But defendants' counsel
must be perfectly well aware that the Tribunal have given no
decision in open court upon these applications for witnesses
and documents, and the Tribunal made it perfectly clear that
they would afterwards consider the applications that had
been made; in each case a written order, which was perfectly
clear, has been issued to the defendants' counsel, setting
out the witnesses who are allowed, the witnesses who are
denied, interrogatories that are allowed, and the
interrogatories that are denied, the documents that were
allowed and the documents which had been denied. In
paragraph 2 of the order is "The Characteristics of Keitel."
Therefore, in the opinion of the Tribunal that document
should never have been offered. That is all.

DR. NELTE: I tried to explain why I assumed that, in spite
of the refusal of the affidavit, the material of the
affidavit could be used in the examination of the witness.

DR. SAUTER (counsel for the defendants Funk and Schirach):

I request to be permitted to put the following questions, on
behalf of the defendant Funk.

Q. The defendant Funk joined the Party in the summer of
1931. At that time, as you know, he was the Editor-in-Chief
of the "Berliner Borsenzeitung." Is it known to you that in
this capacity he enjoyed a particular prestige with the
Press and in German economic circles?

A. I know that at that time Funk and his economic articles
in the "Borsenzeitung" were highly regarded and that he had
many connections in economic circles.

Q. We have heard that the defendant Funk is accused of
having promoted through his activities the coming to power
of the Party, and I would be interested in hearing from you
whether Funk, before the coming to power of the Party,
played any role whatsoever in the Party; or is it correct to
say that, after resigning as chief editor of the "Berliner
Borsenzeitung," he published the so-called "Economic-
Political Information Service" not for the Party but for all
economic circles, including the German People's Party?

A. May I request that the question be put perhaps more
precisely; this is a whole narration. But I can reply
briefly. Before the seizure of power I was acquainted only
with Funk's activity as editor of the "Borsenzeitung," which
I have already mentioned. And as such I heard him repeatedly
mentioned in economic circles. Only after the seizure did I
hear at all of Funk having been in the Party and of his
relationship with it. Thus his Party activity could not have
been of such tremendous significance or he would have come
to my attention in some way. So far as his "Information
Service" is concerned, whether he favoured the Democrats or
the People's Party, I know nothing about that.

Q. Then after the seizure of power, Funk became Press Chief
of the Reich Government. That is known to you?

A. Yes.

                                                  [Page 161]
Q. Then subsequently he became State Secretary in the Reich
Propaganda Ministry. That is also known to you?

A. Yes.

Q. Now I would be interested to know what his work was as
Press Chief of the Reich Government. Had Funk in this work
any influence on the decisions of the Reich Cabinet?

A. I am well acquainted with the circumstances of Funk's
appointment as Reich Press Chief. After the Reich Cabinet
had been sworn in, the new Reich Press Chief was to be
appointed. We were in a room of the Kaiserhof Hotel and the
Fuehrer did not want anyone from the Press organisation who
was a full Party member, but someone who had had some
previous Press experience yet had not been so prominent in
the Party or bound to it. I do not know exactly who
mentioned the name of Funk. But I do know that he then said,

Funk was summoned, and I believe that it was a great
surprise for him; I had that impression. The Reich Press
Chief had at the time when Hindenburg was still Reich
President ...

(At that point there was a mechanical interruption.)

THE PRESIDENT: You may go on now.


Q. I would like to repeat the question because it was not
coming through. My question was to this effect:

At the time that the defendant Funk was Press Chief in the
Reich Government, that is, after the seizure of power, had
he any influence at all on the decisions of the Reich

A. The Reich Press Chief bad no influence of any sort on the
decisions of the Reich Cabinet, for his task was of a
different nature.

Q. Then Funk became State Secretary in the Propaganda
Ministry. In this case I am interested to know from you
whether he, while exercising this office, was prominent in
any way so far as propaganda policies or Press policies were
concerned. What were his tasks at that time in the Ministry,
according to your knowledge of the conditions?

A. He became State Secretary because the Propaganda Ministry
took over, as its main functions, the Press and the handling
of Press matters. Purely propaganda activities were carried
on from the beginning by Goebbels himself who was at the
same time Propaganda Chief of the Party. Funk was appointed
chiefly to organise the Ministry as such, and in particular
to handle economic matters of the Press, that is, the
acquisition of Press organs, by purchase, subsidy, etc. His
specialised knowledge was mainly utilised in this field.

Q. Then, when Dr. Schacht retired in November, 1937, Funk
became his successor as Reich Minister for Economics. The
appointment took place in November, 1937, but he took over
the Ministry only in February, 1938. Can you tell us why
that was so, and who directed the Ministry of Economics in
the interim?

A. In discussing the Four-Year Plan I explained that after
the resignation of Schacht, I personally directed the
Ministry from November, 1937, to February, 1938, as far as I
remember, although Funk had already been designated. I did
this in order to integrate again into the Ministry of
Economics the economic agencies outside the Ministry which
were involved in the Four-Year Plan. By freeing myself of
this ballast I was able to administer my directives with the
Ministry as such.

Q. A similar situation seems to have existed for the
Plenipotentiary-General for Economics, Dr. Schacht, if I may
again point this out, retired from this office at the same
time as from the Ministry of Economics, in November, 1937.
Funk was appointed as his successor, as Plenipotentiary for
Economics, however, only in 1938. What is the reason for

                                                  [Page 162]

A. He was appointed Plenipotentiary-General only in 1938 due
to the fact that it was only in 1938 that he actually took
over the Ministry of Economics. According to an old
regulation, the Plenipotentiary-General for Economics was
identical with the Reich Minister of Economics. But at this
time, during the last part of Schacht's term of office, this
was just a matter of form, as I have already said; for I
explained that, from the minute when I actually took over
the Four-Year Plan, I personally was de facto the
Plenipotentiary-General for Economics.

I suggested that this office be abolished, but, as is often
the case, some things remain for purely prestige reasons,
things which no longer have any real significance. The
Trustee for the Four-Year Plan was the sole Plenipotentiary-
General for the entire Germany economy. Since there could
not be two such men, the other existed only on paper.

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor

© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012

This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and to combat hatred. Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.

As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.