The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-13/tgmwc-13-123.08


Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-13/tgmwc-13-123.08
Last-Modified: 2000/02/24

CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. DODD:

Q. When did you join the Nazi Party, witness?

A. Did I understand you correctly - when I became a member
of the NSDAP?

Q. That is right.

A. December, 1931

Q. Did you hold any offices in the Party at any time?

A. No; I never held office in the Party.

Q. You were the head of a trade group in 1938, the
Reichsgruppe "Handel"?

A. I was the head of the Economic Group "Retail Trade" from
1934 on, and from 1938 on head of the Reich Group "Trade."
This organization was a part of the organization of
industrial economy and was under the Reich Ministry of
Economics.

Q. Membership in the group that you were the head of was
compulsory, wasn't it?

A. Yes.

                                                  [Page 186]

Q. When did you join the SS?

A. I joined the SS in 1933, in the summer.

Q. That was a kind of Party office, wasn't it, of a sort?

A. No, it was not an office. I became connected with the SS
because of the fact that in Munich 165 businessmen were
locked up, and because I knew Himmler from my student days -
I had not seen him again until then - and the businessmen in
Munich asked me to intercede for them in the summer of 1933.
But I had no office in the Party or in the SS.

Q. When did you become a General in the SS?

A. I never was a general in the SS. After I had been
appointed State Secretary, the Reichsfuehrer bestowed on me
the rank of a Gruppenfuehrer in the SS.

Q. A Gruppenfuehrer - isn't that the equivalent of a general
in the SS?

A. Yes and no. In the SS there was the rank of
Gruppenfuehrer and there was the rank of Gruppenfuehrer and
General of the Police or of the Waffen SS; but the
Gruppenfuehrer was not a General if it was only an honorary
rank. This could easily be seen from our uniforms, because
we did not wear a general's epaulets or a general's uniform.

Q. You know Ohlendorf pretty well, don't you?

A. Yes.

Q. He worked for you at one time. He was under your
supervision. Isn't that so?

A. I worked with Ohlendorf from 1938 on.

Q. You know, he has testified before this Tribunal that he
supervised the murdering of ninety thousand people; did you
know that?

A. I heard about that.

Q. Did you know about it at the time that it was going on?

A. No.

Q. Did you know Pohl, the SS man - P-O-H-L?

A. May I ask you for that name again?

Q. Pohl - P-O-H-L?

A. I don't remember knowing an SS man Pohl.

Q. Do you know a man called Gruppenfuehrer Pohl of the SS?

A. No-Yes, I know an Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl.
Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl was the chief of the administrative
office of the SS.

Q. Did you have conversations and meetings with him from
time to time?

A. Officially I had a few conversations with Pohl. Usually
they were very unpleasant.

Well, that's another matter. How often would you say,
between 1943 and the end, the time of your surrender, that
you met Pohl to discuss matters of mutual interest between
the SS and your own Ministry of Economics? Approximately,
because I don't expect you to give an accurate account, but
about how many times, would you say?

A. I must give a short explanation about this. Between the

Q. Give that afterwards. Give me the figure first.

A. Yes. Perhaps three or four times, perhaps only twice. I
don't know exactly.

Q. Are you telling us three or four times a year or three or
four times during the whole period between 1943 and 1945?

A. During my time in office, yes, three or four times; it
was only one year.

Q. Did you talk to him about the Reichsbank or the Ministry
of Economics co-operating in the financing of the building
of factories near the concentration camps?

A. No.

You know about that, do you?

A. No. This question was never discussed with me.

Q. What did you talk to him about?

                                                  [Page 187]

A. A great controversy h ad arisen between the Ministry of
Economics and the SS because after I had taken over the
State Secretariat in the Ministry of Economics, Himmler had
instructed me to turn over to the SS a factory which
belonged to the Gau Berlin. I fought against this and did
not obey Himmler's instructions. The files about this must
surely still be in existence. I then was instructed to
discuss this matter with Pohl. In these conferences and in a
personal conversation which Himmler requested and ordered, I
still fought against Himmler's instructions, because I was
fundamentally against the SS having industrial enterprises
of its own.

Q. Did you talk to the defendant Funk about this difficulty
with Himmler and Pohl?

A. Yes, because these difficulties resulted in Himmler
writing me a letter in December in which he told me that he
ceased to have confidence in me and that he had no desire to
work with me any more. I reported this to the defendant Funk
in December.

Q. Did Funk tell you that his Bank was helping Himmler out
in the building of factories near the concentration camps?

A. I know nothing about that.

Q. You never heard of that before now?

A. Until now I have never heard anything about Funk's or the
Ministry of Economics' co-operation in the financing of such
buildings or about anything of the sort.

Q. It is perfectly clear, I think, but I want to make
certain, that from 1943 to 1945, while you were the deputy
to Funk in the Ministry of Economics, the questions of
purchasing on the black market and so on in the occupied
countries ceased to be of any real importance, didn't they?
You said that, I understood you to say that a few minutes
ago yourself.

A. In 1944 - and my time in office virtually did not start
until 1944, since in December I had a ministry which was
totally bombed out and we did not begin working again until
January, 1944 - these questions were no longer of decisive
importance, since a process of retrogression had already set
in.

Q. All right, you also heard, witness, the Vienna speech, to
which you referred, which was made in 1944, and it had
nothing to do with the occupied countries but was directed
only at the satellite States, Are you aware of that or not?

A. The speech in Vienna?

Q. Yes, the speech in Vienna in 1944.

A. Yes, it is true, I have already said that. Both the
speech in Konigsberg and the speech in Vienna did not deal
directly with the occupied territories, but with Europe as a
whole. I -

Q. Did it deal with the occupied territories directly or
indirectly? Now, have you read that speech?

A. I heard the speech. Quite definitely it had nothing to do
with them directly.

Q. Finally, in view of your testimony concerning Funk and
what he thought about forced labour, you know, don't you,
that he took an attitude of unconcern about the forcing of
people to come to Germany. Do you know that?

A. No.

Q. Well, you know he has said during interrogation that he
didn't bother his head about it, although he knew that
people were being forced to go to Germany against their
will. Are you aware of that?

A. No, I am not aware of that.

Q. All right. If you did know it, would that make some
difference to you and would you change your testimony?

A. I am not aware of that, that Funk is supposed to have had
this attitude or -

Q. Very well. Perhaps I can help you by reading to you from
his interrogation Of 22nd October, 1945, made here in
Nuremberg. Among other things, he was asked these few
questions and made a few answers:

                                                  [Page 188]

  "As a matter of fact, you were present at many meetings
  of the Central Planning Board, were you not?"
  
  Funk answered and said:
  
  "I was present at the meetings of the Central Planning
  Board only when something was required for my small
  sector; that is to say, something which had to do with
  the export and consumer goods industries as, for example,
  iron. I had to put up a fight on each occasion to get
  just a few thousand tons for my consumer goods industry."
  
  The next question was: "Yes, but during those meetings
  you attended, you heard, did you not, discussions
  concerning forced labour?"
  
  Funk answered: "Yes."
  
  Question: "And you knew from those meetings, that the
  policy was to bring in more and more foreign workers to
  the Reich against their will?"
  
  Funk answered: "Yes, certainly."
  
  Question: "And you never objected to that, I take it?"
  
  Funk answered: "No, why should I have objected? It was
  somebody else's task to bring these foreign workers into
  the Reich."
  
  "Did you believe it was legal to take people against
  their will from their homes and bring them into Germany"
  was the last question that I want to quote to you. He
  answered: "Well, many things happen in wartime which
  aren't strictly legal. I have never worried about that."

Now, if you know that to be his attitude from his statements
made under oath during an interrogation here, would that
change your view about Funk, and would it cause you to
change the testimony which you have given before the
Tribunal here today?

A. I can testify only to those things which I myself know. I
cannot remember any such statements by Funk. I do know, and
I remember distinctly, that we frequently spoke about the
occupied territories about the later development in Europe
which was to and could result from co-operation. We also
spoke about the procuring of workers and that Funk
fundamentally had a viewpoint different from the one that
prevailed, and that he was not in agreement with these
things. I can merely repeat this and if you question me here
as a witness, I can say only what I know.

Q. Did you go over all of your questions and answers with
Dr. Sauter before you took the witness stand? You knew what
you were going to be asked when you came here, did you not?

A. Dr. Sauter gave me an idea what he would question me
about and what he was interested in.

MR. DODD: I have no further questions.

THE PRESIDENT: Do any other members of the prosecution wish
to cross-examine? Dr. Sauter, do you want to re-examine?

DR. SAUTER: No.

THE PRESIDENT: The witness can retire.

(The witness retired)

DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, there are a few interrogatories
missing, some of which have already arrived and are being
translated. I request that later, perhaps after the case
against defendant Schirach, I be permitted to read these
interrogatories. And then, Mr. President, I should like to
say something of a general nature. I have already read
extracts from various documents and requested that all of
them be admitted as evidence and I should like to repeat
this request for all these documents. With that I shall have
finished my case for Funk.

Mr. President, may I make another request at this moment,
namely, that during the next few days the defendant von
Schirach be excused from being present at

                                                  [Page 189]

the sessions in Court so that he can prepare his case. In
his absence I shall look after his interests or else, when I
am not here, my colleague, Dr. Nelte, will. Thank you very
much.

THE PRESIDENT: Who is appearing for the defendant Schirach?

DR. SAUTER: I am; and when I cannot be present, then Dr.
Nelte will. One of us will always be in Court and look after
his interests.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, very well, Dr. Sauter. Now the Tribunal
will adjourn for ten minutes.

(A recess was taken.)

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, there was a document which you
did not refer to. I think it was an affidavit of a witness
called Kallus. Were you offering that in evidence? It was an
interrogatory of Heinz Karl Kallus.

DR. SAUTER: The Kallus interrogatory, Mr. President, has
already arrived and at the moment it is in the process of
translation. I shall submit it as soon as the translation
has been received by the prosecution.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, we have an English translation.

DR. SAUTER: I believe, Mr. President, that what you have is
an affidavit by Kallus, and in addition there is a Kallus
interrogatory, which is in process of translation and which
I shall submit later.

THE PRESIDENT: This takes the form of an interrogatory,
questions and answers, what I have in my hand. I am only
asking whether you want to offer that.

DR. SAUTER: Yes, I offer that in evidence. I request that
judicial notice be taken of it.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well. You gave it a number then, did
you? What number will it be?

DR. SAUTER: Exhibit No. 5, if you please.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well.

Now, Dr. Kranzbuhler.


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.