Chapter I: N T H E (25)

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: That is right. You read any part of it that you want to as we go along, in addition to what I read.

“I am not going to tolerate a situation in which the German
insurance companies are the ones to suffer. To prevent this, I
will use my authority and issue a decree. In this, of course, I
ask for the support of the competent government agencies, so
that everything shall be settled properly and the insurance
companies will not be the ones who suffer.

“But another problem immediately emerges: It may be that these
insurance companies have re-insurance in foreign countries. If
there are such re-insurances, I would not want to give them up,
because they bring in foreign exchange. The matter must be
looked into. For that reason, I have asked Mr. Hilgard from the
insurance company to attend, since he is best qualified to tell
us to what extent the insurance companies are covered by
re-insurance against such damage. I would not want to give this
up under any circumstances.”

Is that correct?

GÖRING: That is absolutely correct.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: “I do not want to leave any doubt,
gentlemen, as to the purpose of today’s meeting. We have not
come together merely to talk again, but to make decisions; and I
earnestly ask the competent departments to take trenchant
measures for the Aryanizing of German economy and to submit them
to me as far as is necessary.”

GÖRING: That is correct.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I then skip a considerable portion, unless there is more that you wish to put in, and come to this statement:

“The State Trustee will estimate the value of the business and
decide what amount the Jew shall receive. Naturally, this amount
is to be fixed as low as possible. The State Trustee will then
transfer the business to Aryan ownership. The aim is thus
accomplished, inasmuch as the business is transferred to the
right ownership and its goodwill and balance sheet remain
unimpaired.

“Then the difficulties begin. It is easily understandable that
attempts will be made on a large scale to get Party members into
all these stores and thus give them some compensation. I have
witnessed terrible things in the past; little chauffeurs of
Gauleiter have profited so much by these transactions that they
have raked in half a million. You gentlemen know it. Is that
correct?”

And they assented.

GÖRING: Yes, I said that.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Would you care to read anything further in connection with that?

GÖRING: Perhaps only the next sentence:

“These are, of course, things which are not permissible, and I
shall not hesitate to deal ruthlessly with such underhand
dealings. If a prominent person is involved I shall go straight
to the Führer and report these dirty tricks quite impartially.”

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: That is, if any individual was attempting to profit by Jewish possessions—is that what you meant?

GÖRING: By Aryanization.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I will quote another portion:

“In other words, it must be an ordinary business transaction.
One sells his business and another buys it. If there are Party
members among the would-be purchasers, they are to be given
preference if they fulfill the same conditions. First of all
should come those who have suffered damage. After that,
preference should be given on grounds of Party membership.”

I will skip a line or two:

“This Party member should have a chance to buy the business for
as cheap a price as possible. In such a case, the State will not
receive the full price, but only the amount the Jew received.”

Is that correct?

GÖRING: Just a moment, please, I believe you skipped something.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Yes, we did. If you want to put it in, you may read it.

GÖRING: No, I want to put it quite briefly, so that it will not take too long. I said what you have already said, that all things being equal, the Party member is to be given preference, the first on the list being the member who suffered prejudice by having his business license cancelled because he was a Party member. Then follows the paragraph which you read and which is correct.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, you then speak at considerable length of the method by which you intended to Aryanize Jewish businesses, is that right?

GÖRING: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And then you take up the Aryanization of Jewish factories.

GÖRING: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You speak of the smaller factories first.

GÖRING: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Have you found the place where you speak of the factories?

GÖRING: Yes, I have found it.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I quote.

“Now the factories. With regard to the smaller and medium-sized
ones, two things will have to be made clear: First, which are
the factories for which I have no use, and which can be shut
down? Could they not be put to another use? If not, then these
factories are to be pulled down. Second, if the factory should
be needed, it will be turned over to Aryans in the same manner
as the stores.”

That is correct, isn’t it?

GÖRING: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Do you care to say any more on that subject?

GÖRING: No, those are the basic elements for the laws.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, I call your attention to the second paragraph, starting, “Take now the larger factories.” Do you find that?

GÖRING: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Dealing with the larger factories, do you not say the solution is very simple, that the factory can be compensated in the same manner as the stores, that is, at a rate which we shall determine, and the Trustee shall take over the Jew’s interest, as well as his shares, and in turn sell or transfer them to the State as he thinks fit.

GÖRING: That means any one who has any interest in the factories will receive compensation, according to the scale laid down by us.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And the reparation will be turned over to the State Trustee, will it not?

GÖRING: Yes, to the State Trustee. The matter was simply this: The Jew relinquished his ownership and received bonds. That was to be settled by the Trustee through 3 percent bonds.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, we will pass on to where you deal with the foreign Jews, do you recall that?

GÖRING: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: At that point a representative of the Foreign Office claimed the right to participate on behalf of the Foreign Minister, is that right?

GÖRING: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, now, we will pass on to the point of the conversation between yourself and Heydrich.

GÖRING: Just a moment, please. Part of the minutes are missing. All right. I have found the place where Heydrich is mentioned for the first time.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You inquired how many synagogues were actually burned, and Heydrich replied, “Altogether there were 101 synagogues destroyed by fire, 76 synagogues demolished, and 7,500 stores destroyed in the Reich.” Have I quoted that correctly?

GÖRING: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, then Dr. Goebbels interposed, “I am of the opinion that this is our chance to dissolve the synagogues.” And then you have a discussion about the dissolving of the synagogues, have you not?

GÖRING: By Dr. Goebbels, yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Then, Dr. Goebbels raised the question of Jews traveling in railway trains?

GÖRING: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Let me know if I quote correctly the dialogue between you and Dr. Goebbels on that subject. Dr. Goebbels said:

“Furthermore, I advocate that Jews be banned from all public
places where they might cause provocation. It is still possible
for a Jew to share a sleeper with a German. Therefore, the Reich
Ministry of Transport must issue a decree ordering that there
shall be separate compartments for Jews. If this compartment is
full, then the Jews cannot claim a seat. They can only be given
separate compartments after all Germans have secured seats. They
must not mix with the Germans; if there is no more room, they
will have to stand in the corridor.”

Is that right?

GÖRING: Yes, that is correct.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: “Göring: I think it would be more sensible
to give them separate compartments.

“Goebbels: Not if the train is overcrowded.

“Göring: Just a moment. There will be only one Jewish coach. If
that is filled up the other Jews will have to stay at home.

“Goebbels: But suppose there are not many Jews going, let us
say, on the long-distance express train to Munich. Suppose there
are two Jews on the train, and the other compartments are
overcrowded; these two Jews would then have a compartment to
themselves. Therefore, the decree must state, Jews may claim a
seat only after all Germans have secured a seat.

“Göring: I would give the Jews one coach or one compartment, and
should a case such as you mention arise, and the train be
overcrowded, believe me, we will not need a law. He will be
kicked out all right, and will have to sit alone in the toilet
all the way.”

Is that correct?

GÖRING: Yes. I was getting irritated when Goebbels came with his small details when important laws were being discussed. I refused to do anything. I issued no decrees or laws in this connection. Of course, today, it is very pleasant for the Prosecution to bring it up, but I wish to state that it was a very lively meeting at which Goebbels made demands which were quite outside the economic sphere, and I used these expressions to give vent to my feelings.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Then Goebbels, who felt very strongly about these things, said that Jews should stand in the corridor, and you said that they would have to sit in the toilet. That is the way you said it?

GÖRING: No, it is not. I said that they should have a special compartment; and when Goebbels still was not satisfied, and harped on it, I finally told him, “I do not need a law. He can either sit in the toilet or leave the train.” These are utterances made in this connection which, however, have nothing to do with the world-wide importance of the great conflict.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Let us go down to where Goebbels brings up the subject of the German forests.

GÖRING: Just a moment. Yes. It starts where Goebbels asked for a decree which would prevent Jews from going to German holiday resorts. To which I replied “Give them their own.” And then he suggested that it would have to be considered whether we should give them their own resorts, or place some German bathing places at their disposal, but not the best ones so that people might say: “You allow the Jews to get fit by using our bathing resorts.” The question must also be considered whether it was necessary to forbid the Jews to go into the German forests. Herds of Jews are today running around in Grunewald; that is a constant provocation—and so on. Then when he broke in again, I replied very sharply, “It would be better to put a certain part of the forest at the disposal of the Jews,” as he wanted them out of the whole of the forests. Then I made the remark which seems to be of so much interest.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Let us have that remark. Is it not correct, you did state:

“We will give the Jews a certain part of the forest, and Alpers
will see to it that the various animals, which are damnably like
the Jews—the Elk too has a hooked nose—go into the Jewish
enclosure and settle down among them.”

Is that what you said?

GÖRING: Yes, I said it, but it should be linked up with the whole atmosphere of the meeting. Goebbels comes back on it again in the next sentence and says he considers my attitude provoking. I too can say I was provoked by his insistence on unimportant things, when such far-reaching and decisive matters were being discussed.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, you come to the point where you ask Mr. Hilgard from the insurance company to come in. Can you find that?

GÖRING: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Then you made a statement to Mr. Hilgard when he came in.

“The position, is as follows: Because of the justified anger of
the people against the Jews, the Reich has suffered a certain
amount of damage. Windows have been broken, goods damaged, and
people hurt; synagogues have been burned, and so forth, I
suppose many of the Jews are also insured against damage
committed by public disorder?

“Hilgard: Yes.

“Göring: If that is so, the following situation arises. The
people in their justified anger meant to harm the Jews, but it
is the German insurance companies which have to compensate the
Jews for the damage. The thing is simple enough. I have only to
issue a decree to the effect that damage resulting from these
riots shall not have to be paid by the insurance companies.”

Is that what you said?

GÖRING: Yes, I said all that.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Hilgard then outlined three kinds of insurance. He pointed out that at least as far as plate glass insurance was concerned, the majority of the sufferers were Aryans who owned buildings and that, as a rule, the Jews only rented them. Is that right?

GÖRING: Yes, those are the details of the discussion.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And Hilgard said:

“May I draw your attention to the following facts: Plate glass
is not manufactured by the Bohemian glass industry, but is
entirely in the hands of the Belgian glass industry. In my
estimation the damage amounts to 6 millions; that is to say,
under the insurance policies, we shall have to pay the owners,
who for the most part are Aryans, about 6 millions compensation
for the glass.”

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Justice Jackson, before you pass from that page, in the third paragraph, just for the sake of accuracy, it appears that the name “Mr. Hilgard” is wrongly placed, does it not, because he seems both to put the question and to answer it.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, I think that is . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Probably the Defendant Göring put the question. It is the third paragraph on my page.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I take the minutes to read that when Hilgard appeared, Göring addressed him as “Mr. Hilgard.”

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I see.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: But it is correct, as Your Honor suggests.

GÖRING: I wish to point out what was said before concerning the broken glass. Goebbels said: “The Jews must pay for the damage,” and I said, “It is no use, we have no raw material, it is all foreign glass. That will require foreign currency. It is like asking for the moon.” Then Hilgard comes with the discussions just mentioned.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Yes, and Hilgard pointed out that:

“Incidentally the amount of damage equals about half a year’s
production of the whole of the Belgian glass industry. We
believe that the manufacturers will take 6 months to deliver the
glass.”

Do you recall that?

GÖRING: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, passing down, you come to a point at which Hilgard tells you about a store on Unter den Linden which was attacked. Can you find that?

GÖRING: He said, “The biggest incident is the case of Margraf, Unter den Linden.” Isn’t that so?

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: That is right.

GÖRING: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: “The damage reported to us amounts to 1,700,000 because the store was completely ransacked.” Is that right?

GÖRING: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: “Göring: Daluege and Heydrich, you must get me these jewels by large-scale raids.” Is that the order you gave?

GÖRING: Yes, of course, so that the stolen goods should be brought back.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Brought back to you, not to the Jews?

GÖRING: Not to me personally, I beg your pardon, that is quite clear.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Brought back to the State—you did not intend to return them to the Jews?

GÖRING: It does not say that here. The main thing is, that they should be brought back.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: “We are trying to get the loot back,” as Heydrich put it, is that right? And you added, “And the jewels?”

GÖRING: If a large jewelry shop is plundered, something must be done about it because with these valuables a great deal of trouble could be caused. Therefore, I ordered raids to be carried out to have these things, as well as other stolen goods, brought back. When a business was Aryanized, its stock was also transferred to the new owner. The main point, however, was that action should be taken against those who had stolen and plundered, and in fact 150 had already been arrested.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And Heydrich went on to report on the method of these raids after you reminded him to bring back, to get the jewels.

“It is difficult to say. Some of the articles were thrown into
the street and picked up. The same happened with the furriers.
For example, in the Friedrichstrasse in the district of Police
Station C. There the crowd naturally rushed to pick up mink and
skunk furs, _et cetera_. It will be very difficult to recover
them. Even children filled their pockets just for the fun of the
thing. It is suggested that the Hitler Youth should not be
employed on such actions without the Party’s consent. Such
things are very easily destroyed.”

GÖRING: Yes, so it says.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And Daluege then suggests:

“The Party should issue an order to the effect that the police
must immediately be notified if the neighbor’s wife—everybody
knows his neighbor very well—has a fur coat remodeled or
somebody is seen wearing a new ring or bracelet. We should like
the Party to assist in this matter.”

Correct?

GÖRING: This is absolutely correct.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, Hilgard objected to your plan of releasing the insurance companies from paying the claims, did he not?

GÖRING: Yes, this is also correct.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And he gave the reasons:

“Hilgard: If I may give the reasons for my objection, the point
is that we do a large international business. Our business has a
sound international basis, and in the interests of the foreign
exchange position in Germany we cannot allow the confidence in
the German insurance business to be shaken. If we were now to
refuse to fulfill commitments entered into by legal contracts it
would be a blot on the escutcheon of the German insurance
business.

“Göring: But it would not be if I were to issue a decree or a
law.”

Am I quoting correct?

GÖRING: Yes, and in Hilgard’s reply—and that is the reply I wanted to come to—he pointed out that the insurance companies could not get out of paying claims unless a law provided for it. If the sovereign state passes a law to the effect that the insurance sums must be forfeited to the state, then the insurance companies are no longer under any obligation.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, I suggest to you that that is not correct, but that even though you proposed to issue a decree absolving the German insurance companies, the companies insisted on meeting their obligations; and then Heydrich interposed and said: “By all means, let them pay the claims and when payment is made it will be confiscated. Thus we will save our face.”

Correct?

GÖRING: Heydrich said that, but I issued a law.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Did you not then say:

“One moment. They will have to pay in any case because Germans
suffered damage. There will, however, be a law forbidding them
to make direct payments to Jews. They will also have to make
payment for damage suffered by Jews, not to the Jews, but to the
Minister of Finance.

“Hilgard: Aha.”

GÖRING: I have just said so.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You accepted Heydrich’s suggestion, which was quite contrary to the one you made?

GÖRING: No, I did not accept Heydrich’s suggestion, but I issued a law to the effect that insurance money due to Jews must be paid to the Minister of Finance, as I did not agree with Heydrich that insurance money should be paid out and then surreptitiously confiscated. I went about it in a legal way and was not afraid to make the necessary law and to take the responsibility for the claims to be paid to the State, that is, to the Minister of Finance.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, the Tribunal will judge for itself, we have the evidence.

Now, Hilgard, representing the insurance companies, then raised the question that the amount of glass insurance premium was very important, that glass insurance was the companies’ greatest asset, “but the amount of the damage now caused is twice as high as in an ordinary year,” and he pointed out that the whole of the profits of the German insurance companies would be absorbed, did he not?

GÖRING: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And also the question of the number of the stores destroyed—Heydrich reported 7,500, is that right?

GÖRING: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, I call your attention to the following conversation.

Daluege . . .

Who, by the way, was he?

GÖRING: Daluege was the leader of the Schutzpolizei.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: “One question has still to be discussed.
Most of the goods in the stores were not the property of the
shopkeepers but were on consignment from other firms which had
supplied them. Now the unpaid invoices are being sent in by
these firms, which are certainly not all Jewish, but Aryan, in
respect to these goods on consignment.

“Hilgard: We will have to pay for them too.

“Göring: I wish you had killed 200 Jews instead of destroying
such valuables.

“Heydrich: There were 35 killed.”

Do I read that correctly?

GÖRING: Yes, this was said in a moment of bad temper and excitement.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Spontaneously sincere, wasn’t it?

GÖRING: As I said, it was not meant seriously. It was the expression of spontaneous excitement caused by the events, and by the destruction of valuables, and by the difficulties which arose. Of course, if you are going to bring up every word I said in the course of 25 years in these circles, I myself could give you instances of even stronger remarks.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Then Funk interposed to discuss the foreign exchange point, did he not? He contributed to the discussion, did he not, for a while? I will not bother to go into it.

GÖRING: Yes, but not everything is put down in the minutes, which are not clear on this point. I regret the minutes are incomplete. That is strange.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I join you in that.

Hilgard returned again to the subject of the profit of the insurance companies, did he not?

GÖRING: Yes, of course.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And you made this statement, did you not?

“The Jew must report the damage. He will get the insurance
money, but it will be confiscated. The final result will be that
the insurance companies will gain something, as not all damages
will have to be made good. Hilgard, you can consider yourself
damned lucky.

“Hilgard: I have no reason for that. The fact that we shall not
have to pay for all the damage is called a profit.

“Göring: Just a moment. If you are legally bound to pay 5
millions and all of a sudden an angel, in my somewhat corpulent
shape, appears before you and tells you you may keep 1 million,
hang it, is this not a profit? I should like to go 50-50 with
you or whatever you call it. I only have to look at you, your
whole body exudes satisfaction. You are getting a big rake-off.”

Am I quoting correctly?

GÖRING: Yes, of course, I said all that.

THE PRESIDENT: We will break off now.

[_The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours._]

_Afternoon Session_

DR. ALFRED SEIDL (Counsel for Defendant Hess): Mr. President, the Defendant Hess has expressed the wish to be excused from attending this afternoon’s session, because he wants to prepare himself for his examination as a witness, which will take place in the next few days. I do not believe that this will cause a delay in the proceedings, and I should like to ask the Tribunal to grant this request.

THE PRESIDENT: Certainly, on the same conditions as before, namely, that you arrange with somebody to protect your interests while you are absent.

DR. SEIDL: I will not be absent myself, only Hess.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: [_To the witness._] I would like to call your attention again to the Exhibit USA-261, Document 1816-PS. Would you turn to Part 5, where you were speaking of Margraf’s jewels that disappeared?

GÖRING: That is going back to something already dealt with.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Yes, for a time, to Part 5. I call your attention to your statement as follows:

“Now we come to the damage sustained by the Jew, the
disappearance of the jewels at Margraf’s, _et cetera_. Well,
they are gone and he will not get them refunded. He is the one
who has to suffer the damage. Any of the jewels which may be
returned by the police will belong to the State.”

Do you find that?

GÖRING: Yes, that is correct, but on the basis of the laws he was compensated for that.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, there was a representative of Austria present at this meeting, was there not?

GÖRING: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And I ask you to turn to his statement in reference to conditions in Austria, a page or so farther on.

GÖRING: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And I ask you whether he did not report to your meeting as follows:

“Your Excellency, in this matter, we have already a very
complete plan for Austria. There are 12,000 Jewish workshops and
5,000 Jewish retail shops in Vienna. Even before the National
Socialist revolution we already had, concerning these 17,000
shops, a definite plan for dealing with all tradesmen. Of the
12,000 workshops about 10,000 were to be closed definitely
. . .”

GÖRING: The interpreter did not follow . . .

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Do you find it?

GÖRING: I have found it, but the interpreter has not.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: “Regarding this total of 17,000 stores, of
the shops of the 12,000 artisans, about 10,000 were to be closed
definitely and 2,000 were to be kept open. Four thousand of the
5,000 retail stores were to be closed and 1,000 kept open, that
is, were to be Aryanized. According to this plan, 3,000 to 3,500
of the total of 17,000 stores would be kept open, all others
closed. This was decided following investigations in every
single branch and according to local needs, in agreement with
all competent authorities, and is ready for publication as soon
as we shall receive the law which we requested in September.
This law shall empower us to withdraw licenses from artisans
quite independently of the Jewish question. That would be quite
a short law.

“Göring: I shall have this decree issued today.”

GÖRING: Of course. This concerns a law for the curtailment of the heavy retail trade which, even apart from the Jewish question, would have reduced the number of retailers. That can be seen from the minutes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Very well, let us go on a little further. Do you mean to inform the Tribunal that this did not apply to Jewish shops; that it had no connection with the Jewish question?

GÖRING: I have said that independently of the Jewish question, in view of the overfilled retail trade, a limitation of the number of tradesmen would have followed, and that it can be seen from the following statement by Mr. Fischböck, which you have read, that I asked for a law which would authorize us to withdraw licenses, without any connection with the Jewish question. That would be a brief law. Whereupon I answered, “I will issue the decree today.”

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, if you will . . .

GÖRING: Naturally, above all, Jewish stores were to be eliminated, as I said in the beginning.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Please go on down two paragraphs to where this was reported:

“But I do not believe that there will be 100 stores, probably
fewer; and thus, by the end of the year, we would have
liquidated all the recognized Jewish-owned businesses.

“Göring: That would be excellent.

“Fischböck: . . .”

GÖRING: Yes, yes, that was the import of that meeting.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: “Fischböck: Out of 17,000 stores 12,000 or
14,000 would be shut down and the remainder Aryanized or handed
over to the Trustee’s office, which belongs to the State.

“Göring: I have to say that this proposal is grand. This way the
whole affair in Vienna, one of the Jewish capitals so to speak,
would be wound up by Christmas or by the end of the year.

“Funk: We can do the same thing here. I have prepared a law
elaborating that. Effective 1 January 1939, Jews shall be
prohibited from operating retail stores and wholesale
establishments, as well as independent workshops. They shall be
further prohibited from keeping employees, or offering any
ready-made products on the market; from advertising or receiving
orders. Whenever a Jewish shop is operated the police shall shut
it down.

“From 1 January 1939 a Jew can no longer be head of an
enterprise, as stipulated in the law for the organization of
national labor of 20 January 1934. If a Jew has a leading
position in an establishment without being the head of the
enterprise, his contract may be declared void within 6 weeks by
the head of the enterprise. With the expiration of this period
all claims of the employee, including all claims to maintenance,
become invalid. That is always very disagreeable and a great
danger. A Jew cannot be a member of a corporation. Jewish
members of corporations will have to be retired by 31 December
1938. A special authorization is unnecessary. The competent
ministers of the Reich are being authorized to issue the
provision necessary for execution of this law.

“Göring: I believe we can agree with this law.”

GÖRING: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now I ask you to pass a considerable dialogue relating to the Vienna situation, and I call your attention to the point at which Funk inquires of you:

“Why should the Jew not be allowed to keep bonds?

“Göring: Because in that way he would actually be given a
share.”

GÖRING: Yes, that was the purpose, to get him out of the enterprise. If he kept the bonds, on the basis of his rights as stockholder he still had an interest in the enterprise, and on the basis of ownership of stocks his will would still carry weight in the enterprise.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You turned Funk’s suggestion down that the Jews be allowed to keep bonds?

GÖRING: Yes. I replaced the bonds with securities.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, we will pass several more pages of debate, unless there is something you want to call attention to; and I come to the point where Heydrich is stating his position. I call your attention to this dialogue:

“Heydrich: At least 45,000 Jews were made to leave the country
by legal measures.

“Göring: . . .”

GÖRING: One moment, please. I find it now.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: “At least 45,000 Jews were made to leave
the country by legal measures.

“Göring: How was this possible?”

And then Heydrich tells you that: “. . . through the Jewish
societies we extracted a certain amount of money from the rich
Jews who wanted to emigrate. By paying this amount and an
additional sum in foreign currency they made it possible for a
number of poor Jews to leave. The problem was not to make the
rich Jews leave but to get rid of the Jewish mob.”

Is that correct?

GÖRING: One moment. I do not find it here yet, but generally that is correct, yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Pass on a little further. Heydrich is making suggestions and says:

“As for the isolating, I would like to make a few proposals
regarding police measures, which are important also because of
their psychological effect on public opinion.

“For example, anybody who is Jewish according to the Nuremberg
Laws will have to wear a certain badge. That is a possibility
which will facilitate many other things. I see no danger of
excesses, and it will make our relationship with the foreign
Jews easier.

“Göring: A uniform?

“Heydrich: A badge. In this way we could put an end to foreign
Jews being molested who do not look different from ours.

“Göring: But my dear Heydrich, you will not be able to avoid the
creation of ghettos on a very large scale in all the cities.
They will have to be created.”

Is that what you said?

GÖRING: I said that. At that time the problem was also to get the Jews together in certain parts of the cities and in certain streets, because on the basis of the tenancy regulations there was no other possibility, and if the wearing of badges was to be made obligatory, each individual Jew could have been protected.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, passing further in the discussion, I call your attention to this warning from Heydrich about, the measures which have been discussed:

“Göring: Once we have a ghetto, we could determine what stores
ought to be there and we would be able to say, ‘You, Jew so and
so, together with so and so, shall take care of the delivery of
goods,’ then a German wholesale firm will be ordered to deliver
the goods for this Jewish store. The store would then not be a
retail shop but a co-operative store, a co-operative society for
Jews.

“Heydrich: All these measures will eventually lead to the
institution of a ghetto. I must say: nowadays one should not
want to set up a ghetto, but these measures, if carried through
as outlined here, will automatically drive the Jews into a
ghetto.”

Did Heydrich give that warning?

GÖRING: Here it says so, yes, but it can be seen from the following discussion that I said: “Now comes that which Goebbels mentioned before, compulsory renting. Now the Jewish tenants will come together.” It was a question of the Jewish tenants drawing together in order to avoid the disagreeable results which arose from reciprocal subletting.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You have omitted that Funk also remarked at this point that “Jews will have to stand together. What are 3 million? Every one will have to stand up for the next fellow. Alone he will starve.”

Do you find that?

GÖRING: Yes. But in another part of these minutes it is stated very clearly: “One cannot let the Jews starve, and therefore the necessary measures must be taken.”

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Toward the close of that meeting you said the following, didn’t you?

“I demand that German Jewry as a whole shall, as a punishment
for the abominable crimes, _et cetera_, make a contribution of
1,000,000,000 marks. That will work. The pigs will not commit a
second murder so quickly. Incidentally, I would like to say
again that I would not like to be a Jew in Germany.”

GÖRING: That was correct, yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Were you joking about that too?

GÖRING: I have told you exactly what led to the fine of 1,000,000,000.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You pointed out that the chauffeurs of Gauleiter must be prevented from enriching themselves through the Aryanization of Jewish property, right?

GÖRING: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: We will now take up the subject of art.

I call your attention to Document 141-PS, Exhibit Number USA-308. That is the decree establishing priorities on the claim for Jewish art property. Do you recall that?

GÖRING: That has been mentioned several times, and I have recently spoken about it in detail.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: The order was issued as here stated, was it not?

GÖRING: Yes, certainly; I emphasized that.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: In Paragraph 5 reference is made to art objects that are suitable to be given to French museums, and which were to be sold by auction. The profit from this auction was to be given to the French State for the benefit of war widows and children. You say that this was never done?

GÖRING: I did not say that this never happened. That was my intention in that decree.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, I am asking you if it ever has been done.

GÖRING: As far as Paragraph 5 is concerned, I cannot say. I can only refer to the payments mentioned in Paragraph 2—the things that I pointed out:—which I had had effected after an estimate, and I said the other day that this amount was kept in readiness and that I repeatedly asked into which account it should be paid. And among the objects destined to go into the collection which I was to make, I had every single item valued.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Where was this amount kept?

GÖRING: In my bank, under the name “Art Funds.”

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: In what bank?

GÖRING: It was—I cannot say for sure, there were several banks—in which bank exactly the art fund was deposited, I cannot say. I would have to have the documents here for that.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: In the several interrogations you have never been able to point out where that fund is, have you?

GÖRING: I cannot say, but you would only have to question my secretary who kept account of all the funds; she can tell you quite accurately.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: This order, 141-PS, was carried out by the Rosenberg Special Staff (Einsatzstab), wasn’t it?

GÖRING: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Did you know who carried it out, who actually was there? Did you know Turner?

GÖRING: I did not understand the name.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Did you know Mr. Turner?

GÖRING: I know a certain Turner, who, however, had nothing to do with the Einsatzstab, the Rosenberg Special Staff and who, as far as I know, was in Yugoslavia.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Wasn’t State Counsellor Turner in Paris in connection with the art collections?

GÖRING: I repeat again so that no error is possible, you said Turner, T-u-r-n-e-r, or Körner, K-ö-r-n-e-r?

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Turner.

GÖRING: Körner?

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: T-u-r-n-e-r.

GÖRING: Turner—I do not know whether he had anything to do with Rosenberg’s Einsatzstab.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: But you knew him, did you not?

GÖRING: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And did you know a Dr. Bunjes?

GÖRING: Bunjes, B-u-n-j-e-s, yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You knew him?

GÖRING: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: He had to do with captured or confiscated Jewish art treasures, did he not?

GÖRING: I do not believe that Dr. Bunjes had anything to do with that. He was competent in a different field of art; but the Einsatzstab Rosenberg and certain departments of the military administration, had something to do with it.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I will ask to have you shown, so that you can follow me, to refresh your memory, Document 2523-PS, Exhibit Number USA-783, a letter from Dr. Bunjes, and ask you if this refreshes your recollection of certain events.

“On Tuesday, 4 February 1941, at 1830 hours I was ordered for
the first time to report to the Reich Marshal at the Quai
d’Orsay. Field Commander Von Behr of the Einsatzstab Rosenberg
was present. It is, of course, difficult to describe in words
the cordial atmosphere in which the conversation was held.”

Do you recall such a meeting?

GÖRING: No, it was not important enough for me to remember it, but I do not deny it, in any case.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: We shall see if this refreshes your recollection:

“The Reich Marshal dropped the subject for the time being and
asked for the report of the present state of the seizure of
Jewish art property in the occupied western territories. On this
occasion he gave Herr Von Behr the photographs of those objects
of art that the Führer wants to bring into his possession. In
addition, he gave Herr Von Behr the photographs of those objects
of art that the Reich Marshal wants to acquire for himself.”

GÖRING: I cannot follow here.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You mean you do not find these words, or you do not recall the events?

GÖRING: No, I have not found the passage yet, and I would like to have a little time to see the context of this letter, which was neither written by me nor addressed to me.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Let me call your attention to a further paragraph of it and see if it does not refresh your recollection:

“On Wednesday, 5 February 1941, I was ordered to the Jeu de
Paume by the Reich Marshal. At 1500 o’clock, the Reich Marshal,
accompanied by General Hanesse, Herr Angerer, and Herr Hofer,
visited the exhibition of Jewish art treasures newly set up
there.”

GÖRING: Yes, I have already stated before that at Jeu de Paume I selected the art treasures which were exhibited there. That is right.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: That is right; now we are getting there.

“Then, with me as his guide, the Reich Marshal inspected the
exhibited art treasures and made a selection of those works of
art which were to go to the Führer, and those which were to be
placed in his own collection.

“During this confidential conversation, I again called the Reich
Marshal’s attention to the fact that a note of protest had been
received from the French Government against the activity of the
Einsatzstab Rosenberg, with reference to the Hague Rules on Land
Warfare recognized by Germany at the Armistice of Compiegne and
I pointed out that General Von Stülpnagel’s interpretation of
the manner in which the confiscated Jewish art treasures are to
be treated, was apparently contrary to the Reich Marshal’s
interpretation. Thereupon, the Reich Marshal asked for a
detailed explanation and gave the following orders:

“‘First, it is my orders that you have to follow. You will act
directly according to my orders. The art objects collected in
the Jeu de Paume are to be loaded on a special train immediately
and taken to Germany by order of the Reich Marshal. These art
objects which are to go into the Führer’s possession, and those
art objects which the Reich Marshal claims for himself, will be
loaded on two railroad cars which will be attached to the Reich
Marshal’s special train, and upon his departure for Germany, at
the beginning of next week, will be taken along to Berlin.
Feldführer Von Behr will accompany the Reich Marshal in his
special train on the journey to Berlin.’

“When I made the objection that the jurists would probably be of
a different opinion and that protests would most likely be made
by the military commander in France, the Reich Marshal answered,
saying verbatim as follows, ‘Dear Bunjes, let me worry about
that; I am the highest jurist in the State.’

“The Reich Marshal promised to send from his headquarters by
courier to the Chief of the Military Administrative District of
Paris on Thursday, 6 February, the written order for the
transfer to Germany of the confiscated Jewish art treasures.”

Now, does that refresh your memory?

GÖRING: Not in the least, but it is not at all in contradiction to what I have said with respect to the art treasures, with the exception of one sentence. It is pure nonsense that I should have said that I was the highest jurist in the state because that, thank God, I was not. That is something which Mr. Bunjes said, and I cannot be held responsible for every statement which anyone may have made to somebody else without my having any possibility of correcting it. As for the rest, it corresponds to the statement I made recently.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, the art objects then were loaded on cars and shipped to Berlin, were they not?

GÖRING: A part of them, yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I now call your attention to, and ask to have you shown, Document 014-PS, Exhibit Number USA-784. Now, I ask you to refresh your recollection by following this report to the Führer with me, and tell me if this conforms with your testimony:

“I report the arrival . . .”

GÖRING: I would like to point out that this report did not come from me.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I understand that. I am asking if it is right or wrong.

“I report the arrival of the principal shipment of ownerless
Jewish treasures of art at the salvage point Neuschwanstein by
special train on Saturday the 15th of this month. It was secured
by my Einsatzstab, in Paris. The special train, arranged for by
Reich Marshal Hermann Göring, comprised 25 express baggage cars
filled with the most valuable paintings, furniture, Gobelin
tapestries, works of artistic craftmanship, and ornaments. The
shipment consisted mainly of the most important parts of the
collections of Rothschild, Seligmann”—and half a dozen others.

Have you found that and is it correct?

GÖRING: I do not know whether this is correct, since the report did not come from me. The only thing which I can remember is that I was asked by the Einsatzstab to see to it that a sufficient number of special cars, box cars was put at their disposal to ship the art treasures, since Jeu de Paume was not a safe place in case of air attacks. Neuschwanstein lies south of Munich. This concerns the objects destined for the Führer.

I should like, however, to refer to the next sentence of this document, which was not written by me. It goes as follows:

“The confiscation actions of my Einsatzstab were begun in
October 1940 in Paris according to your order, my Führer.”

That coincides with what I have said in my previous statements.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And would you care to read further?

GÖRING: You mean where it says:

“Besides this special train, the main art objects selected by
the Reich Marshal—mainly from the Rothschild collection—had
previously been shipped in two special cars to Munich and were
there put into the air raid shelter of the Führerhaus.”

They are those most precious works of art which I had designated for the Führer, and which were to be sent, at the wish of the Führer, to the air raid shelter. This had nothing to do directly with my affairs, but I did not dispute the fact, and I have explained it in detail.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: When you were examined by the American Foreign Assets Commission, you estimated your art objects as having a value, at the time you turned them over to the government, of 50 million Reichsmark, as I recall it. Am I right?

GÖRING: That is not quite correct. The Commission insisted on a valuation, and the discussion continued a long time backwards and forward. I expressly told the Commission that I could not assess the value because I did not have the objects in hand nor a list of them, and I could not quote them from memory; furthermore, that the estimates were subject to fluctuation depending on the one hand upon the prices art lovers might pay and, on the other, upon the actual market value. Since I did not see a copy of the minutes, in spite of my pleas, and especially as minutes of this nature often give rise to misunderstandings, I can only acknowledge the records which I have signed.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, do you question this fact? “When I gave the news to the Minister of Finance I estimated the value at that time at 50 million marks.” Did you say that or did you not?

GÖRING: I cannot estimate the value. I only told the Finance Minister that the entire collection, including my own, would be turned over to the State. And since I know my passion for collecting, I thought that it was quite possible that something might suddenly happen to me, and that as I had put my entire fortune into these works of art, the entire collection might possibly become State, that is, public property, and my family would thus be deprived of every means of subsistence. I therefore asked him to provide for a pension or some compensation for my family. That was the negotiation with the Finance Minister, to which he can testify.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: What proportion of your art collection was acquired after 1933?

GÖRING: I did not understand the question.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: What proportion of your art collection was acquired after 1933?

GÖRING: That I could not say in detail—quite a number of pictures and statues.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, you have claimed that some part of your art collection you bought?

GÖRING: Certainly.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And in connection with that some inquiry was made into your financial transactions, was there not?

GÖRING: I do not know who made the inquiries.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, you were asked, were you not, about your receipt of 7,276,000 Reichsmark from the Reemtsma cigarette factory?

GÖRING: No, I was never asked about that.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You were never asked about it?

GÖRING: No, neither about the amount nor about the cigarette factory, nor anything else.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Let me refresh your recollection about that. Did you not tell them and did you not tell Colonel Amen in interrogations that this money was given to you by this cigarette factory and that their back taxes were canceled?

GÖRING: No, I even denied that their back taxes were ever canceled. I remember now that the question was put to me in a different connection. A sum of money was set aside for the so-called Adolf Hitler Fund, and this amount the Führer put at my disposal for general cultural tasks.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: By the cigarette factory?

GÖRING: Not by the cigarette factory; a number of business men subscribed to the Adolf Hitler Fund, and Mr. Reemtsma gave me this sum from the fund in the course of the years, after agreement with the Führer. A part of it was allotted to the State theaters, another part for building up art collections, and other cultural expenditure.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, you were interrogated on the 22d day of December 1945 by the External Assets Branch of the United States Investigation of Cartels and External Assets, were you not?

GÖRING: May I first say explicitly that I had been asked whether I would be ready to make any statements about it, and was told that these statements would in no way be connected with this Trial. Therefore the presence of my defense counsel would not be necessary. This was expressly told me, and was repeated to me by the prison authorities, and before the interrogation it was again confirmed to me that these statements should in no way be brought in in connection with this Trial. However, that is all the same to me. You may produce them as far as I am concerned. But because of the method employed, I desire to have this made known here.

DR. STAHMER: I protest against the use of the statements for the reason that has just been given by the witness. I myself sometime ago—I think it was around Christmas—was asked by, I believe, members of the United States Treasury whether they could interrogate the Defendant Göring on questions of property, adding expressly that I did not have to be present at the interrogation because this had nothing to do with the Trial, and would not be used for it.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I am not able either to affirm or deny, and therefore I will not pursue this subject further at this time. I do not believe that any stipulation was made that these facts should not be gone into. I was not informed of it, and if there has been, of course, it would be absurd.

[_Turning to the witness._] Now, you were asked about receiving some art objects from Monte Cassino.

GÖRING: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I ask you if it is not the fact that an altar statue taken from the Cassino Abbey was brought and delivered to you, and that you expressed great appreciation for it.

GÖRING: I am glad to be able to clarify this affair also. After the monastery of Monte Cassino had been completely destroyed by shelling and had been defended by a paratroop division, a delegation arrived one day bringing along a statue of some saint, entirely worthless from an artistic point of view, as a souvenir of this destroyed monastery. I thanked the men and showed the statue to the curator of my art collection, and he also considered the statue as of absolutely no value. It then remained in the box and was put away somewhere. The other . . .

THE PRESIDENT: I do not think this is coming through sufficiently loud for the shorthand writers to hear.

GÖRING: The rest of the art treasures from Monte Cassino, according to my knowledge, were shipped in the following manner: A large part, especially those objects which belonged to the old monastery itself, was sent to the Vatican. I must assume this from the fact that the abbot of the monastery sent me and my division a letter written in Latin in which he expressed his extreme gratitude for this action.