Afternoon Session
DR. DIX: I believe, Dr. Schacht, that both of us will have to speak a little more slowly and pause between question and answer.
Now, please reply to the accusation by the Prosecution that you were an expansionist. Please define your position.
SCHACHT: Never in my life have I demanded even a foot of space that did not belong to Germany, nor would I ever entertain such an idea.
I am of the opinion that neither is it national to try to dominate and govern foreign peoples, nor is appropriation of foreign territory a politically just action.
These are two questions with which we are much concerned at present.
I might perhaps add, in order to clarify my position, just what I understand by nationalism, and just why I was against each and every form of expansionism. Just one sentence will suffice, a sentence from a speech which I made in August of 1935. On that occasion I said, and I quote:
“We want to express the belief that self-respect requires respect for others, and the upholding of our national individuality must not mean disparagement of the individuality of others; by respecting the acts of others we respect our own action; and a battle of economic competition can be won in the end only through example and achievement and not through methods of violence or craft.”
DR. DIX: According to the opinion of the Prosecution, in the year 1936 you made a public threat of war, on which occasion you are alleged to have said that the spirit of Versailles was instrumental in keeping alive war mania. I am referring to Document EC-415, a document to which the Prosecution has referred.
SCHACHT: I never understood, in the course of this proceeding, how there could be a threat of war in this quotation. The quotation concludes with the words—and I must quote in English because I just have the English words before me:
“The spirit of Versailles is perpetuated in the fury of war, and there will not be a true peace, progress, or reconstruction until the world desists from this spirit. The German people will not tire of pronouncing this warning.”
The conclusion says that the German people will not tire of pronouncing this warning. It seems to be a matter of course that hereby expression is given to the fact that I am warning others from persisting in war mania. I am not warning ourselves, but the entire world, to avoid perpetuating the spirit of Versailles.
DR. DIX: The Prosecution further accuses you in this connection that you publicly approved the idea of Lebensraum, for the German people. In this special connection reference was made to the speech you made at Frankfurt on 9 December 1936, in which you said: “Germany has too limited Lebensraum for her population.”
SCHACHT: This speech of 9 December 1936 was a speech which was solely concerned with a restoration of the colonial rights of Germany. I have never demanded any Lebensraum for Germany other than colonial space. And in this instance, again, I am surprised that just the American Prosecutor should accuse me on my efforts in this direction, because in the Fourteen Points of Wilson, which regrettably were not adhered to later on, the colonial interests of the Germans are taken into consideration. In consequence, I said, again and again: “If you want peace in Europe, give Germany an economic outlet into which Germany can develop and from which she can satisfy her needs. Otherwise Germany will be a center of unrest and a problem for Europe.”
I would like to quote one sentence only from the speech I made:
“Peace in Europe, together with the peace of the entire world, is dependent upon whether or not the densely populated areas of Central Europe will have the means of existence.”
I emphasized this viewpoint again and again, but at no time did I connect these views with the idea of an armed conflict.
I would like to quote another sentence from this same speech:
“I did not mention this consideration as to the parts of Germany which were separated from her”—and I am speaking of the losses suffered by Germany—“in order that we might draw the conclusion of warlike intentions; my entire position and my work are marshaled to the objective of bringing about peace in Europe through peaceful and sensible considerations and measures.”
THE PRESIDENT: Will you please give me the PS numbers and the exhibit numbers of those two speeches?
DR. DIX: I cannot at this moment, Your Lordship, I am sorry, but I will try to get them and submit them in writing. The last is the speech at Frankfurt, and the others...
THE PRESIDENT: That is quite all right. You will let us know in writing, will you?
DR. DIX: Yes, indeed.
SCHACHT: Perhaps if it is permitted I might refer to two other sentences from my article which was published in Foreign Affairs, the well-known American magazine, in the year 1937. I have the German translation before me, which says, in the introduction, and I quote:
“I am making these introductory remarks in order to clarify the situation. The colonial problem today, as in the past, is for Germany not a question of imperialism or militarism, but still surely and simply a question of economic existence.”
Perhaps I might refer to the point that very influential Americans were in constant accord with this view. I have a statement made by the collaborator of President Wilson, Colonel House, who made the well-known distinction between the “haves” and “have nots,” and who was especially influential in advocating consideration for German colonial interests. Perhaps I can dispense with the quotation.
DR. DIX: In this connection I should like to point to the document submitted by the Prosecution, Document L-111, Exhibit USA-630. This document is concerned with the conversation which you had with the American Ambassador Davies, and in which you are accused of having indirectly threatened a breach of peace.
SCHACHT: I have already set forth just now that I constantly said that Europe cannot have peaceful development if there are no means of livelihood for the completely overpopulated Central Europe, and I believe conditions at present show how absolutely right I was—just what an impossibility it is to feed these masses of people within Europe. And beyond that I had a keen interest in diverting Hitler’s quite misguided ideas from Eastern Europe and therefore was constantly at pains to direct his attention to the colonial problem so that I could turn his thought from the mad ideas of expansionism in the East. I recall that in 1932, shortly before he assumed office, I had a conversation with him in which for the first time I approached him on these facts and particularly told him what utter nonsense it would be to think of an expansion in the East.
Then, constantly, in the subsequent years, again and again, I spoke about the colonial problem, until at the last in the summer of 1936 I had the possibility of pursuing my ideas and Hitler gave me the mission, which I had suggested to him, of going to Paris to discuss with the French Government the possibility of a satisfactory solution of the question of colonies for Germany. This actually happened in the summer of 1936. And for the satisfaction of myself and all other friends of peace, I might say that the Government of Léon Blum, which was in office at the time, showed gratifying appreciation of this solution for Europe’s food and economic problems, and for their part stated that they were ready to deal with the colonial problem with the aim of perhaps returning one or two colonies to Germany. Léon Blum then undertook, in agreement with me, to inform the British Government about these conversations in order to secure their consent or to bring up a discussion of this problem within the British Government. That actually did take place, but the British Government hesitated for months before they finally could decide on any position in this matter and so the discussion dragged on up to the initial months of the Spanish civil war and was eclipsed and supplanted by the problems of the Spanish civil war, so that a continuation of the discussion on this colonial problem never came about.
At that time, in January of 1937, when the American Ambassador to Moscow, Ambassador Joseph Davies, visited me at Berlin, I was rather irritated by the slowness with which the British Government was meeting these suggestions, and consequently I came forth with a request for understanding and support and told Ambassador Davies about this whole matter. I tried constantly and repeatedly to gain the understanding support of representatives of the American Government. I tried again and again to advise these gentlemen about domestic conditions and developments within Germany, to tell them as much as was possible and compatible with German interests and to keep them informed. That applies to Ambassador Davies, Ambassador Dodd, Ambassador Bullitt when he was in Berlin, and so on.
This conversation with Ambassador Davies is referred to in the document which the Prosecution has submitted, Document L-111, and which is taken from the book which Ambassador Davies wrote about his mission in Moscow, and we will perhaps come back to this book later.
As the gist of my conversation with Davies I would like to quote just one sentence again, which I must again quote in English, since I have only the English book at my disposal.
“Schacht earnestly urged that some such feasible plan could be developed if discussions could be opened; and that, if successful, would relieve the European war menace, relieve peoples of enormous expenditures for armaments, restore free flow of international commerce, give outlet to thrift and natural abilities of his countrymen and change their present desperation into future hope.”
DR. DIX: In this connection the affidavit of Fuller plays an important part, that is Exhibit USA-629, and Document EC-450. According to this affidavit, you allegedly declared to Fuller that if Germany could not get colonies through negotiations she would take them. Please define your position as to this statement.
SCHACHT: In a German drama an intriguer is being instructed by a tyrant to bring a man of honor to ruin, and he says in reply, “Just give me one word said by this man, and I will hang him thereby.” I believe, My Lord Justices, that in this courtroom there is not a single person who at one time or another in his life has not said a rather unfortunate word. And how much easier is it when he is speaking in a foreign language of which he is not completely master.
Mr. Fuller is known to me as a respectable business man, and this discussion which he has here reproduced is indubitably done according to the best of his knowledge. He himself rightly says that even had he tried to put down the exact words he could not guarantee that each and every word has been said. But if I did say these words, then it seems only that I said we Germans must have colonies and we shall have them. Whether I said, “We shall take them,” or “We shall get them,” that, of course, it is impossible for me to say with certainty today after a period of 10 years.
The representative of the Prosecution also thought the expression, “We will take them,” a little colorless in effect and therefore I believe he just added a trifle, for he said twice in his presentation of the charges that I had said, “We will take these colonies by force,” and on a second occasion he even said, “We will take these colonies by force of arms.” But “force” or “force of arms” are not mentioned in the whole of Fuller’s affidavit. And if I had used that word or even used it only by implication, Mr. Fuller would have had to say with reason: “So you want to take colonies by force; how do you expect to do that?” It would have been utter nonsense to assert that Germany would ever have been able to take overseas colonies by force. She lacked—and always will lack—domination of the seas, which is necessary for this.
Fuller did not take exception to my manner of expression and in his conversation he immediately continued—and I quote:
“You mentioned a little while ago that necessary raw materials could not be obtained, owing to German lack of foreign exchange. Would stabilization help you?”
Therefore, rather than to become excited about the fact that I wanted to take colonies by force—something which I never said and which is contrary to my views, as I have already stated—he immediately goes on to foreign exchange and to stabilization.
DR. DIX: The prosecutor asserts further that you were interested in the conquest of neighboring territory in Europe.
SCHACHT: This matter is not quite so harmless as the previous mistake of the Prosecution. In a previous interrogation, I was accused as follows, and the prosecutor, in presenting his charges here, referred to the fact—I quote the prosecutor:
“On 16 April, on the occasion of the Paris conference on reparation payments, Schacht said, ‘Germany in general can pay only if the Corridor and Upper Silesia are returned to Germany.’ ”
This is the interrogation of 24 August 1945. According to the verbatim record of the interrogation, I answered:
“It may be that I said such a thing.”
Of course, as far as the wording of a statement, which I had made 10 to 15 years before, I did not recall it. But I did remember that in connection with the Corridor and Upper Silesia I had made a remark, and since I had to assume that if the Prosecution submitted this record to me it would be an accurate stenographic record, for that reason I did not dispute this remark which I had allegedly made and said that it might be that I said something to that effect. The Prosecution takes a “maybe” and out of that reconstructed the following sentence:
“This quotation was read to Schacht, and he said it was correct.”
This assertion by the Prosecution is therefore wrong. I said, “It may be that I said something to that effect,” but I did not say that this statement that was submitted to me was correct.
Then, fortunately, in my imprisonment here, I succeeded in getting hold of my book, a book which I wrote about the termination of reparation payments, which was published in 1931 and in which I luckily put down the text of my statement about the matter we are dealing with now. I have the exact text, and I would like to say that this book has been submitted in evidence, and from this text appears what I said verbatim:
“Regarding the problem of German food and food supplies, it is especially important that import of foodstuffs has been decreased”—I beg your pardon—“that import will be decreased.”—I am sorry again. I cannot read this—“that the import of foodstuffs will be decreased and partially made up through home production. Therefore, we cannot let the fact be overlooked that important agricultural surplus territories in the eastern part of Germany have been lost by cession and that a large territory which was almost exclusively agrarian has been separated from the Reich. Therefore the economic welfare of this territory, East Prussia, is decreasing steadily and the Reich Government must support and subsidize it. Constantly, therefore, suitable measures should be taken to eliminate these injurious conditions, which are hindering considerably Germany’s ability to pay.”
DR. DIX: Your Lordship, this is from our document book, Document Schacht-16, German Page 38, English Page 44.
SCHACHT: This quotation absolutely does not agree with the statement submitted to me in the interrogation, and in no way can we draw the conclusion in consequence that I was in favor of a return of these areas. What I demanded was that the separation of these areas be taken into consideration when Germany’s ability to pay and the payments were determined. When the prosecutor in his speech added: “I would like to point out that this is the same area over which the war started in September 1939,” I believe it is an insinuation which characterizes the prosecutor, rather than me, against whom it was intended.
DR. DIX: As part of the circumstantial evidence, that is, the indirect evidence for the will to aggression, with which you are charged, the Prosecution includes your wish—your alleged wish—for the Anschluss of Austria. Will you please take your position as to this accusation?
SCHACHT: From 1919 I considered the Anschluss of Austria inevitable and, in the national sense, that is, spiritually and culturally, it was welcome. But that economically the Anschluss of Austria would not be for Germany so much an aggrandizement as a liability. I always knew. But the wish of the Austrian people to belong, to be incorporated into Germany—I took that wish as my own and said that if here there are six and a half million people who spontaneously in 1919 and later in innumerable demonstrations expressed their wish of being incorporated into the brotherhood of Greater Germany, that was an event to which no German could be opposed, but in the interest of Austria must hail with gladness. In that sense I always favored and respected the wish of Austria to belong to the Reich and wanted it carried through as soon as external political conditions permitted it.
DR. DIX: My attention has just been called to the fact that you are still speaking too fast and that the interpretation is lagging behind a little bit. Will you please speak a little more slowly.
What was your opinion as to the incorporation of the Sudetenland into Germany?
SCHACHT: Concerning the incorporation of the Sudetenland, I never thought of any such thing. Of course, Czechoslovakia was a European problem, and it was regrettable that in that state, which had five and a half million Czechs, two and a half million Slovaks and about three and a half million Germans, the German element had no means of expression. But just because the Czechoslovakian problem was not a purely German-Czech but also a Slovak-Czech problem, I sought a solution of this problem in such a way and wished it to be in such a way that Czechoslovakia should constitute a federated state, similar perhaps to Switzerland, divided into three different, culturally separate, but politically unified areas, which would be a guarantee for the unity of a German-Czech-Slovak state.
DR. DIX: What was your opinion and attitude to the problem of war; by that I mean, as far as philosophical, ideological, and practical considerations are concerned?
SCHACHT: I always considered war as one of the most devastating things to which mankind is exposed and on basic principles throughout my entire life I was a pacifist.
DR. DIX: Dr. Schacht, during your meditative and thoughtful life you have certainly considered the fundamental and profound differences between legitimate and ethically based soldiership and militarism in its various degenerate forms. What did you mean by the latter and what was your attitude toward it, that is, militarism?
SCHACHT: Of course I saw the necessity of a country’s defense in case of war or threats, and I stood for that theory. In that sense I was always in favor of a Wehrmacht, but the profession of a soldier I consider to be full of deprivations and characterized by willingness and readiness to sacrifice, not because perhaps during a war the soldier has to give up his life—that is the duty of every citizen of military age—but because his whole aim and aspiration must be directed to the end that never must the craft which he has learned be exercised. A soldier, a career officer, who is not intrinsically a pacifist, has really in my opinion missed his calling. Consequently, I was always an opponent of every military digression and excess. I was always against militarism, but I consider that soldiership conscious of its responsibility is the highest calling which a citizen can pursue.
DR. DIX: Now, George Messersmith, as you know, the Consul General of the United States at Berlin at one time, says in one of his various affidavits produced by the Prosecution that you had told him, and repeatedly told him, about Nazi intents of aggression. Will you please state your position in that regard?
SCHACHT: First of all, I would like to remark that of course I never made a statement of that sort, neither to Mr. George Messersmith nor to anyone else. As far as these three affidavits of Mr. Messersmith, which were submitted by the Prosecution, are concerned, I would like to make a further statement.
Mr. Messersmith asserts that he had frequent contact and numerous private conversations with me, and I would like to state here now that, according to my exact memory, I saw Mr. George Messersmith perhaps two or three times in my entire life. Mr. George Messersmith represents himself as having had numerous contacts and many private conversations with me, and he asserts further that his official capacity brought him in contact with me as President of the Reichsbank and as Minister of Economics.
I do not recall once having received Mr. Messersmith in my office. Mr. George Messersmith takes these two or three discussions and proceeds to characterize me. He calls me cynical, ambitious, egotistic, vain, two-faced. I am, unfortunately, not in a position to give an equally comprehensive picture of the character of Mr. Messersmith. But I must definitely dispute his trustworthiness.
And as a first reason for this I should like to quote a general remark by Mr. Messersmith. In his affidavit of 30 August 1945, Document 2385-PS, Mr. George Messersmith says, and I quote: “When the Nazi Party took over Germany, it represented only a small part of the German population.”
Contrary to that, I say that before the Nazi Party took over Germany it occupied about forty percent of all Reichstag seats. That percentage Mr. Messersmith calls a small part of the German population. If diplomatic reports are everywhere as reliable as in this instance, it is small wonder that nations do not understand each other.
I would still like to correct a specific remark by Mr. Messersmith. Mr. Messersmith asserts, as I have quoted just a minute ago, that his duty brought him in contact with me as Minister of Economics. In his affidavit of 28 August, 1760-PS, Mr. Messersmith says, and I quote: “During the wave of terrorist activity in May and June of 1934, I had already assumed my duties as American Chargé d’Affaires in Vienna.” In August of 1934 I became Minister of Economics, whereas, on the other hand, Mr. Messersmith, already in May of 1934, assumed his official duties in Vienna; but this does not prevent Mr. Messersmith from asserting that his official duties brought him in frequent contact with me as Minister of Economics. I believe this will suffice to gauge the capacity of Mr. Messersmith’s memory correctly.
DR. DIX: In a similar connection, the Prosecution repeatedly referred to the diary of the former ambassador in Berlin, Mr. Dodd, which was published on the basis of his private notes by his children after his death. This document has the Document Number EC-461. The Prosecution quotes from this diary repeatedly to prove that Mr. Dodd, too, considered you a warmonger. I know, of course, that you were a friend of Mr. Dodd’s, a fact which is shown in his diary. Can you tell me how the two facts can be reconciled?
SCHACHT: First of all, I might say that Ambassador Dodd was one of the most undefiled personalities I have met, an upright character, a man of unflinching fidelity to his convictions. He was a professor of history, undoubtedly a good historian. He had studied at German universities. I believe that he would turn in his grave if he could know that the notes which he put down casually in his diary were put together by his two children without commentary and printed without investigation.
Mr. Dodd, I am sorry to say, had one characteristic which made dealing with him a little difficult. I think the reason for this lay in his steadfastness of conviction, which from the first often made him appear averse to outside influence. He found it rather hard to make himself understood easily and fluently, and he was even less in a position to view opinions of others in the right light. Many things that were told him he misunderstood and saw in a wrong light.
On Page 176 in his diary, in the lower part, there is one sentence I would like to quote to illustrate the point I am trying to make. Here he says: “I talked fifteen minutes with Phipps”—the British Ambassador at that time—“about the accumulated evidence of Germany’s intense war activities.” This statement dates from the autumn of 1934 and I believe no one is able to say that in the autumn of 1934 there was any talk of a war activity on the part of Germany. Mr. Dodd uses the expression “war” undoubtedly in the place of “armament”; he says “Krieg” instead of “Aufrüstung.” In that sense, I believe he misunderstood the words.
And, as further evidence for the difficulty which one had in making the Ambassador understand, I might say that the Foreign Office asked him once to bring a secretary who would take notes of discussions with representatives of the Foreign Office, so that misunderstandings could be avoided.
I believe, therefore, that all these statements by Mr. Dodd are apt to be misunderstood. As for myself I can only say what I have already said about Mr. Messersmith, that of course I never talked about war intentions.
DR. DIX: Now, in this diary it says that he was favorably disposed towards you. Do you have any proof for this friendly attitude to you?
SCHACHT: May I perhaps refer to the correspondence with Henderson...
DR. DIX: Yes, we can deal with that later.
SCHACHT: Then I shall just confine myself to your question. Dodd was entirely friendly to me, and I respected him deeply. I saw a sign of his friendship in that shortly before his departure from Berlin in December of 1937 he visited me at my home, and this incident is also dealt with in his diary, and I would like to quote just one sentence: “I went to Dr. Schacht’s house in Dahlem. I wished especially to see Schacht, whose life is said to be in danger.”
In other words, Mr. Dodd had heard of an imminent attack on my life on the part of National Socialists, and considered it important enough and a reason for coming to my home personally in order to warn me.
A second piece of evidence of his friendship towards me can be seen from the final visit he paid me just a few days before returning to America. At that time he again called on me and told me urgently that I should go to America with him, or as soon after him as possible, that I should change my residence to America, and that I would find a pleasant welcome there. I believe he would never have said that to me had he not felt a certain degree of friendship for me.
DR. DIX: These are express services of friendship, and it can hardly be assumed that the deceased Ambassador would have done you these good services if he had considered you a warmonger and friend of the Nazis, and especially—and I would like to say this to the High Tribunal—if one remembers that Mr. Dodd was one of the few accredited diplomats in Berlin who very obviously had no sympathy of any sort for the regime in power, in fact he was wholly and fully opposed to it.
I intentionally say “the few diplomats” and, Dr. Schacht, I would like you to define your opinion on what I am saying. You will remember that those diplomats who kept aloof from Hitler’s regime politically and socially, such as the Dutch Minister, the magnificent grand seigneur Limburg-Stirum, or the Minister from Finland, the true-hearted and great Social Democrat, Wuolijoki, that most of these diplomats were recalled by their Governments. How is it that an opponent of the Nazis like Dodd did such open services of friendship to someone whom he considered a friend of the Nazis? Do you agree with my opinion?
SCHACHT: Yes. I am entirely of the same opinion.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I certainly object to going into this kind of sermonizing back and forth between the box and the bar. It seems to me that the witness has been allowed to say everything that Mr. Dodd has ever written and to put in his mind what he thinks Dodd meant. He has allowed him to go to great lengths characterizing all American representatives, but it seems to me that this is utterly off the track and improper for this witness to give a characterization of him in comparison with other ambassadors and other diplomatic representatives.
There is no request here for information about facts. I reiterate, we are not accusing Dr. Schacht here because of his opinions. We are accusing him because of very specific facts which there seems great reluctance to get to and deal with.
THE PRESIDENT: I think you should go on, Dr. Dix, and pass from this part of it, pass on from these documents.
DR. DIX: Perhaps I might mention very briefly that it is entirely far from me or from Dr. Schacht to feel impelled to express here our opinions on political or diplomatic personalities, but, on the other hand, if the Prosecution produces affidavits or diaries of these diplomats and uses these documents as pieces of evidence against the defendant in this proceeding, the defendant...
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal thinks that if you would put questions and put them shortly, it would be much better, and we should get on much faster.
DR. DIX: Yes. In general I have put brief questions, Your Lordship. I only said this now, because I would like to follow the procedure approved, I believe, by the High Tribunal, of dealing with part of the evidence at this stage; and so I would like to bring up the reliability of Dodd’s Diary. That is Document Schacht-43 in my document book; German text, Page 194; English text, Page 202. Here we are concerned with the correspondence between the publisher of Dodd’s diary and Sir Nevile Henderson, which deals with several misstatements in the diary. I will dispense with the rather long letter by Sir Nevile Henderson—there are five folio pages—and will cite just a few sentences.
On Page 196 of the German text, Sir Nevile Henderson writes:
“Take, for instance, the first statement attributed to me about Neurath. It is entirely impossible, that I, in front of Hitler...”
and so on and so forth.
Then on the same page, in the middle of the page, next paragraph:
“And it is the same with the general discussion. It is quite inconceivable that I should have spoken, as there recorded, about Bismarck and the annexation of Czechoslovakia and other countries.”
And on the same page, a little further down, next to the last paragraph, it says:
“Nor could I possibly have said that ‘Germany must dominate the Danube-Balkan zone.’ ”
And on the next page, second paragraph:
“The remark attributed to me that England and Germany ‘must control the world’ is pure balderdash and hardly fits in with the preceding sentence about the United States.”
Now, there are other similar passages on this and the following page, but I do not believe it necessary for me to quote them. I request the High Tribunal to take official notice of this document in its entirety, and I would like to submit it as such.
[Turning to the defendant.] Dr. Schacht, a little while ago you mentioned a warning on the part of Ambassador Dodd with regard to a danger which was threatening you. Was it an attack on your life?
SCHACHT: At that time—and I only heard about this in January after Mr. Dodd told me—I was informed that the SS was planning an attack on my person. The intent was, as the technical expression then had it, “to remove” me. Something like that must have been in the air; otherwise, a foreign ambassador and the circles close to me would not have known about it.
DR. DIX: Just a little while ago you set forth how your policy rejected the use of arms in bringing about equality of German rights and means of livelihood. Did you try to do anything in a practical way to further your policy of peaceful agreement with foreign countries, for example, when you were President of the bank?
SCHACHT: My entire work as President of the Reichsbank was primarily based on the principle of working with the banks in foreign countries as harmoniously as possible, of pursuing a policy of mutual assistance and support.
Secondly, I tried to enter into personal, friendly relations with the directors of all these banks in the hope of meeting understanding for German problems, and thus of contributing to a solution by way of co-operation and mutual solution of these difficult problems which had arisen in Central Europe. The word “co-operation” (Zusammenarbeit) was the leitmotif of our circle.
DR. DIX: To turn from the directors of the banks, what about your foreign creditors?
SCHACHT: As I already said a little while ago, from the start I was in disfavor with all the money makers, those people who had profited from German loans in foreign countries for I was against Germany’s being involved in debts abroad, and I took my stand very firmly on this point.
Then later, after the misfortune which I had always predicted actually did come to pass, after the financial crash in the year 1931, these self-same financiers and money men blamed me for the fact that the interest on their money was no longer being transferred to them. Therefore in those circles I did not gain any friends, but among serious bankers and large banking institutions which were interested in constant and regulated business with Germany, I believe I made no enemies, because all measures which I later had to take in order to protect the German currency and to maintain Germany’s foreign trade, all these measures I always discussed jointly with the representatives of foreign creditors. Approximately every six months we met, and I always gave them a detailed account of German conditions. They were permitted to look into the books of the Reichsbank. They could examine and interrogate the officials of the Reichsbank and they always confirmed that I told them everything in the most frank and open manner. So that I may say that I worked in a fair and friendly way also with these men.
DR. DIX: And how did your policy of peaceful agreement affect foreign trade, export, credit, and so forth?
SCHACHT: I believe that after the happenings that have now taken place it is today even clearer than before that Germany cannot and could not live without foreign trade, and that the maintenance of export trade must be the basis for the future existence of the German nation. Consequently, I did everything in order to maintain German foreign trade. I can cite a few specific examples to supplement the general principles. I tried, for example, to do business with China in order that we might export to China. I was ready to give China credit and did. I hailed the fact that the Soviet Union kept up an extensive flow of trade with us, and I always advocated expanding and stabilizing this foreign trade in the case of Russia as well as China. About the ability and readiness to pay and the promptness of payment of the opposite parties I never had any doubts.
THE PRESIDENT: He is going into unnecessary detail in support of the allegation that he tried to maintain export trade. We do not surely need details.
DR. DIX: As far as the Soviet Union is concerned, this exposition is of great significance and relevance. It shows Schacht contrary and in opposition to the policy carried out by Hitler. Hitler was hostile to the Soviet Union and this hostility is counterbalanced by open friendliness on the part of and in the person of the Minister of Economics. If I want to prove that Schacht was pioneer of a policy of understanding between nations, even in phases where Hitler carried on a peaceful battle, so to speak, with another country, such as the war of propaganda against the Soviet Union, then, in my opinion, this point is very important for Schacht’s fundamental attitude—on one side war and on the other understanding. This is of absolute relevance.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant has made the allegation. It is for the Prosecution to dispute it in cross-examination and if they do, then the details might become material in re-examination.
DR. DIX: I believe the question has been answered, and now I shall turn to an entirely new phase of questioning.
Since it is typical of his desire for understanding and his direct basic opposition to the policy of Hitler, I would like to refer to Document Number Schacht-34, which is an affidavit, of Schniewind, the banker and Swedish Consul General at Munich. This is Exhibit 34, Page 114, of the English translation, and I would like to quote a short paragraph on Page 112 of the German text, which confirms Dr. Schacht’s remarks. Schniewind, who was a high official in the Ministry of Economics, says here:
“My department dealt with the Reich guarantees for deliveries to Russia, and thus I was in position to know that Schacht considered Hitler wrong in fighting Russia. Through much effort, he obtained Hitler’s permission to send extensive supplies, especially machines to Russia. Frequently I gained the impression that Herr Schacht favored these deliveries because, while instrumental in giving employment, they did not benefit rearmament. Herr Schacht on several public occasions pointed out with satisfaction that trade shipments to Russia were proceeding promptly and smoothly.”
There are just a few more minutes before the customary recess, Your Honor, and before we take our recess, I ask that I be permitted to reply shortly to Your Lordship’s remarks of a few minutes ago. The defendant must conduct what is, to a certain degree, a very difficult defense. The Prosecution very simply argued: “You helped to finance rearmament and this rearmament in the final analysis ended in war and not only a war but a war of aggression; therefore, you as a defendant are either a conspirator or an accomplice, and that is a war crime.”
As far as this argument is concerned, it must in my opinion be open to the defendant, first—and we shall deal with that later—to point out that rearmament as such by no means constitutes a desire for aggressive war; and secondly, to show that his acts actually indicate the exact opposite, namely, his desire for concord and peace; and for these fundamental reasons, I do beg the Tribunal not to cut me short in this evidence but rather to give me the time to carry it through in detail. This explains my desire to set forth Schacht’s policy toward the Soviet Union, a policy in which he was in direct opposition to Hitler, to bring it forth in its entirety, and also my wish to show that he worked for agreement on all levels—with directors of banks and credit furnishers—that is, he advocated a policy of give and take rather than one of unilateral terrorizing and strife.
Gentlemen of the Bench, it is chiefly on a psychological plane on which I have to conduct the defense; that is a very sensitive and delicate field, and I again ask that my task may not be made more difficult. Then, when the witnesses are called, I for my part will most likely dispense with every witness except one, and I beg that you show me some consideration. Does Your Lordship consider it time for a recess?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly, Dr. Dix. I thought that the Tribunal has shown you every consideration, and we will now certainly have a recess.
[A recess was taken.]
DR. DIX: Dr. Schacht, what was your attitude toward the Leadership Principle? Did you not realize the danger of giving a blank check, the danger of losing your own capacity of responsibility? You have heard that Sir David considers the Leadership Principle in itself to be criminal.
SCHACHT: As to whether the Leadership Principle is criminal or not, opinions throughout history have been much divided. If we look back through Roman history we see that from time to time in dire periods of distress a leader was selected to whom everyone else was subordinate. And if I read Failure of a Mission by Henderson there, too, I find sentences in which he says:
“People in England sometimes forget and fail to realize that even dictators can be, up to a point, necessary for a period and even extremely beneficial for a nation.”
Another passage from the same book says:
“Dictatorships are not always evil.”
In other words, it depends on just what is attributed to a Führer, how much confidence one has in a Führer, and for how long a time. Of course, it is a sheer impossibility for someone to assume the leadership of a country without giving the nation from time to time an opportunity of saying whether it still wants to keep him as Führer or not. The election of Hitler as Führer was in itself no political mistake; in my opinion one could have introduced quite a number of precautionary limitations with a view to averting the danger you have mentioned. I regret to say that that was not done, and that was a great mistake. But perhaps one was entitled to rely on the fact that from time to time a referendum, a plebiscite, a new expression of the will of the people would take place by which the Führer could have been corrected, because a leader who cannot be corrected becomes a menace. I recognized that danger very well, I was afraid of it, and I attempted to meet it. May I say one more thing? Limitless Party propaganda attempted to introduce the idea of a Führer as a lasting principle into politics. That of course is utter nonsense, and I took the opportunity—I always took such opportunity whenever it was possible—of expressing my dissenting opinions publicly. I took the opportunity in an address to the Academy of German Law, of which not only Nazis but lawyers of all groups were members, and in that speech I lectured about the Leadership Principle in economics. And I expressed myself ironically and satirically, as unfortunately is my wont, and said that it was not necessary to have a leader in every stocking factory, that in fact, this principle was not a principle at all, but an exceptional rule which had to be handled very carefully.
DR. DIX: I know that, because I was present on the occasion of that address. What did you think about the ideology of the master race (Herrenvolk)?
SCHACHT: I have always considered it a very unhappy precedent to speak of a “chosen people,” or of “God’s own country,” or of things like that. As a convinced adherent to the Christian faith I believe in Christian charity, which bids me extend love to all men without regard to race or faith. I would like to mention also that the silly talk about the master race, which some Party leaders made their own, was held up to constant ridicule by the German public. That was not surprising, because most of the leaders of the Hitler Party were not exactly ideal types of the Nordic race. And in that connection, when these things were discussed among the German population, little Goebbels was referred to as “Der Schrumpfgermane”—the shrivelled Teuton.
Only one thing—I have to say this to be just—did most of the leaders of the Party have in common with the old Teutons—and that was drinking; excessive drinking was a main part of the Nazi ideology.
DR. DIX: What did you think of the so-called National Socialist Weltanschauung?
SCHACHT: Weltanschauung in my opinion is a summation of all those moral principles which enable me to acquire a clear judgment on all aspects of life. Therefore it is a matter of course that a Weltanschauung cannot take root in the tangible world, but must rise above it; it is something metaphysical, that is to say, it is based on faith, on religion. A Weltanschauung which is not rooted in religion is in my opinion no Weltanschauung at all. Consequently I reject the National Socialist Weltanschauung which was not rooted in religion.
DR. DIX: In the trial brief against you it is expressly stated that there are no charges against you with regard to the Jewish question. Nevertheless I am putting to you a few questions on this topic, because the trial brief by its very words takes from you what in the Jewish question it conceded you; that is to say, the trial brief accuses you repeatedly of Nazi ideology, in which strict observance of anti-Semitism is integral.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I simply cannot be bound by silence after this flagrant misstatement of our position made in conjunction with this witness’ testimony. It is not true that we make no charges against Dr. Schacht with reference to the Jews. What is true is that we say that he was not in complete sympathy with that aspect of the Nazi program which involved a wholesale extermination of the Jews, and he was for that reason attacked from time to time. It is further conceded that he gave aid and comfort to individual Jews, but we do charge that he believed the Jews of Germany should be stripped of their rights as citizens, and that he aided and participated in their persecution. And I do not like to have our position misstated and then be met with a claim of estoppel by silence.
DR. DIX: I have to thank you, Mr. Justice Jackson, for your clarifying statement, and it is now all the more necessary that I put in questions to Dr. Schacht, but at this moment I want to point out...
THE PRESIDENT: Please put it then.
DR. DIX: Your Lordship, it is not only a question, but it is a problem, and I should like to ask the Prosecution to clarify it now, because it still needs clarification even after the statement of Mr. Justice Jackson. If the Tribunal do not think that this is the opportune time I can bring it up later. I believe, however, that it would be right to bring it up how.
As I see it, there is a contradiction in the Indictment, and I would like it clarified, so that we shall not be at cross-purposes in our final speeches.
I can put it quite briefly. It is the question of whether Dr. Schacht is accused also of Crimes against Humanity, that is, not only the crime of conspiracy concerning the war of aggression, but also the typical crimes against humanity, for on this point the individual passages, both of the Indictment and of the Prosecution speech in which the charges were presented, are at variance. I wanted to take the liberty of pointing out the contradictory passages and to ask the Prosecution to be kind enough to state conclusively at some future occasion whether Schacht is accused also on Count Three and Four of the Indictment. In presenting the charges the Prosecution stated, and that indicates that the Prosecution will limit itself to Counts One and Two:
“Our evidence against the Defendant Schacht is limited to the planning and preparation of aggressive war and his participation in the conspiracy for aggressive war.”
Similar statements are on Page 3 of the trial brief. Also, in Appendix A of the Indictment the charges against Schacht are limited to Counts One and Two. However, on Page 1 of the Indictment we find the following:
“...accuse as guilty...of Crimes against Peace, War Crimes, and Crimes against Humanity, and of a Common Plan or Conspiracy to commit those Crimes....”
And then all the defendants are listed, including the Defendant Hjalmar Schacht.
On Page 17 of the German text of the Indictment we read:
“On the basis of the facts previously stated, the defendants”—that is, all the defendants—“are guilty.”
That is, all the defendants are guilty of Counts One, Two, Three, Four. It also states, on Page 18 of the Indictment:
“All defendants committed, from 1 September 1939 to 8 May 1945, War Crimes in Germany and in countries and territories occupied by German troops after 1 September 1939 and in Austria, Czechoslovakia, Italy, and on the high seas.”
On Page 46 it reads:
“During several years before the 8th of May 1945, all defendants committed Crimes against Humanity in Germany”
—and so forth.
Therefore, some parts of the oral presentation and of the Indictment show that the Prosecution limits its charges against Schacht to Counts One and Two, but other passages express beyond doubt that he is also accused of Crimes against Humanity.
I think it would be helpful—it need not be done immediately, but I wanted as a precaution to express it now—if at the proper time the Prosecution would state to what extent the charges apply to Schacht.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Your Honor, it will take only one moment to answer that, and I think the cross-examination—the examination should not proceed under any misapprehension.
At all times, and in all documents that I am aware of, the Defendant Schacht has been accused of being guilty of Count One.
Count One, as the statement of the offense, states:
“The Common Plan or Conspiracy embraced the commission of Crimes against Peace in that the defendants planned, prepared, and initiated wars of aggression... In the development and course of the Common Plan it came to embrace the commission of War Crimes, in that it contemplated, and the defendants determined upon, and carried out ruthless war...”
And that included also Crimes against Humanity.
Our contention is that, while the Defendant Schacht himself was not in the field perpetrating these individual atrocities, he is answerable for every offense committed by any of the defendants or their co-conspirators up to the time that he openly broke with this outfit with which he became associated.
That is our contention and Dr. Dix should conduct his examination on the assumption that every charge is a charge against Schacht up to the time that he openly, and on record so that somebody knew it, became separated from the company with which he chose to travel.
DR. DIX: It is probably my fault, but I still cannot see clearly. First, I do not know what date the Prosecution means when it admits that Schacht openly broke with the regime. I must, during my examination...
THE PRESIDENT: I think you must make up your own mind as to what time it was, the time at which he openly broke.
Are you not able to hear?
DR. DIX: I have to make up my mind now?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. I think you had better go on with the evidence.
DR. DIX: All right. I can refer to the subject again later.
[Turning to the defendant.] Well then, please do not make any statements of principle concerning the Jewish question, but tell the Tribunal, and give a few examples, of what your attitude was on the Jewish question.
SCHACHT: The Jewish question came up quite early, when, in 1933, a New York banker, the late James Meier, announced his intention to visit me. I went to Hitler at that time and told him, “Mr. James Meier, one of the most respected New York bankers and a great benefactor of his old home country, Germany, will come to visit me, and I intend to give a dinner in his honor. I assume that you have no objection.” He immediately said, in a very definite and pronounced manner, “Herr Schacht, you can do everything.” I assumed that he gave me absolute freedom to keep in contact with my Jewish friends, which I did. The dinner actually took place.
I only mention this because it was the first time the Jewish question was brought up between us. At every occasion I took a definite position on the Jewish question—and wherever possible, publicly—I have always looked for that opportunity.
I will give only two examples of that.
There was a branch of the Reichsbank in Amswalde in the Province of Brandenburg. The name of the manager of that branch office was one day posted up in one of the public Stürmer boxes in his town, and termed a traitor to the people because his wife had bought 50 pfennings worth of ribbon or the like in a Jewish store. I at once approached the competent official at Amswalde and demanded the immediate removal of the placard and an immediate correction to the effect that the man was no traitor to the people. That was refused; whereupon, without asking anyone, I closed the Reichsbank branch at Amswalde. It took a number of weeks until, in the end, the Oberpräsident, who was of course also a Nazi boss, came to me and asked me to reopen the branch office. I told him, “As soon as they repudiate that affair publicly I shall reopen the branch office at Amswalde.” It took only a few days before the Oberpräsident and Gauleiter of Brandenburg, Grube, had the announcement made public in the Amswalde newspaper, in large print, and so I reopened the branch office in Amswalde. That is one example.
The second example has been mentioned briefly; I just want to sum it up once more because its effect was penetrating.
On the occasion of a Christmas celebration for the office messengers of the Reichsbank I referred to the pogrom of 9 November 1938, and I told the boys, in the presence of many—parents, Party leaders, and Party members—that I hoped they had nothing to do with these things, which should make every decent German blush with shame. But if they did they should leave the Reichsbank at once, because in an institution such as the Reichsbank, which was built up on good faith, there was no place for people who did not respect the property and life of others.
DR. DIX: May I interrupt you, Dr. Schacht, and point out to the Tribunal that in Document Number Schacht-34, which has been submitted and is an affidavit of Dr. Schniewind, on Page 118 of the German text and on Page 126 of the English text the same incident which Dr. Schacht has just related is mentioned. May I quote quite briefly:
“It is known that at the Christmas celebration of the Reichsbank in December of 1938 he”—that is Schacht—“said the following in his address to the young office boys:
“ ‘A few weeks ago things occurred in our fatherland which are a disgrace to civilization and which must turn every decent German’s face red with shame. I only hope that none of you office boys participated in them, because for such an individual there is no place in the Reichsbank.’ ”
[Turning to the defendant.] Excuse me. Please continue. You wanted to add something?
SCHACHT: When in August of 1934 I took over the Reich Ministry of Economics, of course I first put the question to Hitler: “How are the Jews in our national economy to be treated?” Hitler told me then, literally, “The Jews can be active in domestic economy in the same way as before.”
That was the directive that Hitler had promised to me, and during all the time when I was in charge of the Ministry of Economics I acted accordingly.
However, I have to add that every few weeks there was a quarrel on some Jewish question with some Gauleiter or other Party official. Also, I could not protect Jews against physical mistreatment and the like, because that came under the competence of the Public Prosecutor and not mine; but in the economic field I helped all Jews who approached me to obtain their rights, and in every individual case, I prevailed upon Hitler and succeeded against the Gauleiters and Party officials, sometimes even threatening to resign.
I believe that it is notable that the pogrom of November 1938 could only have taken place after I had resigned from my office. Had I still been in office, then that pogrom doubtlessly would not have occurred.
DR. DIX: The witness Gisevius has already testified that in the course of developments from 1933 on, fundamental changes took place in your judgment of Adolf Hitler. I ask you now, because this is a very decisive question, to give the Tribunal a detailed description of your real attitude and your judgment of Adolf Hitler in the course of the years—as exhaustively, but also as briefly, as possible.
SCHACHT: In former statements which I have made here, I have spoken of Hitler as a semi-educated man. I still maintain that. He did not have sufficient school education, but he read an enormous amount later, and acquired a wide knowledge. He juggled with that knowledge in a masterly manner in all debates, discussions, and speeches.
No doubt he was a man of genius in certain respects. He had sudden ideas of which nobody else had thought and which were at times useful in solving great difficulties, sometimes with astounding simplicity, sometimes, however, with equally astounding brutality.
He was a mass psychologist of really diabolical genius. While I myself and several others—for instance, General Von Witzleben told me so once—while we were never captivated in personal conversations, still he had a very peculiar influence on other people, and particularly he was able—in spite of his screeching and occasionally breaking voice—to stir up the utmost overwhelming enthusiasm of large masses in a filled auditorium.
I believe that originally he was not filled only with evil desires; originally, no doubt, he believed he was aiming at good, but gradually he himself fell victim to the same spell which he exercised over the masses; because whoever ventures to seduce the masses is finally led and seduced by them, and so this reciprocal relation between leader and those led, in my opinion, contributed to ensnaring him in the evil ways of mass instincts, which every political leader should avoid.
One more thing was to be admired in Hitler. He was a man of unbending energy, of a will power which overcame all obstacles, and in my estimate only those two characteristics—mass psychology and his energy and will power—explain that Hitler was able to rally up to 40 percent, and later almost 50 percent, of the German people behind him.
What else shall I say?
DR. DIX: Well, I was mainly concerned with bringing up the subject of your own change of opinion. You have said that the break in your attitude toward Hitler was caused by the Fritsch incident. You are the best witness who can give us an explanation not of Hitler’s but of your own development and your changing attitude towards Hitler.
SCHACHT: Excuse me. I think there is a basic error here. It appears from this as if I had been a convinced adherent of Hitler at some time. I was never that. On the contrary, out of concern for my people and my country, after Hitler gained power, I endeavored with all my strength to direct that power into an orderly channel, and to keep it within bounds. Therefore, there was no question of a break with Hitler. A break could only be spoken of had I been closely connected with him before. At heart I was never closely connected with Hitler, but to all appearances I worked in the Cabinet and I did so because he was after all in power, and I considered it my duty to put myself at the disposal of my people and my country for their good.
DR. DIX: All right, but at what time, by what conditions, by what realization were you influenced to begin that activity which the witness Gisevius has described?
SCHACHT: My serious criticism of Hitler’s doings started already at the time of the so-called Röhm Putsch on 30 June 1934. I should like to point out first that these things occurred quite unexpectedly and took me by surprise, because I had not at all anticipated them. At that time I had told Hitler, “How could you have these people just simply killed off? Under all circumstances there should have been at least a summary trial of some sort.” Hitler swallowed these remarks and merely mumbled something about “revolutionary necessity,” but he did not really contradict me.
Then in the course of the second half of the year 1934 and the first half of the year 1935 I noticed that I had been under a misconception when I believed that Hitler did not approve of what might be considered revolutionary and disorderly Party excesses, and that he was really willing to restore a respectable atmosphere. Hitler did nothing to put a stop to the excesses of individual Party members or Party groups. Very likely the idea which recently—or I believe today—was mentioned by a witness was always in his mind: let the SA have its fling for once. That is to say, for the masses of the Party he sanctioned, as a means of recreation, so to speak, behavior which is absolutely incompatible with good order in the State. In the course of the following months my suspicions were confirmed and increased, and then for the first time, in May 1935, I took occasion to bring these matters up with him quite openly. I do not know if you want me to discuss these things now, but I am ready to tell about them.
DR. DIX: I consider it important that the Tribunal should hear from you how your original attitude towards Hitler, which you have just described, changed, and you became a conspirator against him.
SCHACHT: Well, the decisive change in my attitude came about by reason of the Fritsch incident, at the very moment when I had to recognize—and, of course, that did not come with lightning speed, but in the course of weeks and months it crystallized—that Hitler aimed at war, or at least was not prepared to do everything to avoid a war. At that moment I told myself that this was a tremendous danger which was raising its head, and that violence could be crushed only by violence.
Any opportunity of political propaganda within the German people was of course out of the question. There was no freedom of assembly. There was no freedom of speech. There was no freedom of writing. There was no possibility of discussing things even in a small group. From beginning to end one was spied upon, and every word which was said among more than two persons was spoken at the peril of one’s life. There was only one possibility in the face of that terror, which was beyond democratic reform and which barred every national criticism. That was to meet this situation with violence.
Then I came to the conclusion that in the face of Hitler’s terror only a coup d’état, a Putsch, and finally an attempt at assassination was possible.
DR. DIX: And is Gisevius right in saying that the peripeteia, the decisive turning point in your attitude resulted from your impressions and experiences in the so-called Fritsch crisis?
SCHACHT: Aside from the inherent falsehood which appeared in all actions and measures of the Party men, the Fritsch crisis provided the absolute assurance that a basic change was occurring in the conduct of political affairs, for within about 10 days Blomberg was removed, Fritsch was removed, Neurath was removed, and Hitler not only appointed so unsuitable a person as Ribbentrop to be Foreign Minister, but also in his speech in the Reichstag soon afterwards announced that from now on rearmament had to be increased even more. Consequently the Fritsch crisis was the decisive turning point in my attitude, and from then on I knew that every further peaceful attempt at controlling the torrent would fail and that only violent means could meet it.
DR. DIX: For an estimate of the Fritsch crisis may I quote now from the document which I already wanted to produce on the occasion of the interrogation of Gisevius but could not because the document was not then available to the Prosecution. The same view about the Fritsch crisis which Gisevius and now Dr. Schacht have put here was also expressed abroad by an intelligent officer with political foresight. May I point to Exhibit Number 15 of my document book (Document Number Schacht-15)? That is Page 41 of the English text, and 35 of the German text. It is a biennial report of the Chief of Staff of the United States Army to the Secretary of War for the period of 1 July 1943 to 30 June 1945. I quote one sentence from it:
“The history of the German High Command from 1938 on is one of constant conflict of personalities, in which military judgment was increasingly subordinated to Hitler’s personal dictates. The first clash occurred in 1938 and resulted in the removal of Von Blomberg, Von Fritsch, and Beck and of the last effective conservative influence on German foreign policy.”
So here also that turning point has been clearly understood. And in summary I would like to ask this question of Dr. Schacht.
[Turning to the defendant.] Were you only disappointed by Hitler, or did you consider yourself deceived by Hitler at that time? Will you answer that?
SCHACHT: The answer is that I have never felt disappointed by Hitler, because I had not expected more of him than my appraisal of his personality allowed me. But I certainly consider myself deceived, swindled, and cheated by him to the highest degree, because whatever he had previously promised to the German people and thereby to me, he did not keep afterwards.
He promised equal rights for all citizens, but his adherents, regardless of their capabilities, enjoyed privileges before all other citizens. He promised to put the Jews under the same protection which foreigners enjoyed, yet he deprived them of every legal protection. He had promised to fight against political lies, but together with his Minister Goebbels he cultivated nothing but political lies and political fraud. He promised the German people to maintain the principles of positive Christianity yet he tolerated and sponsored measures by which institutions of the Church were abused, reviled, and damaged. Also, in the foreign political field he always spoke against a war on two fronts—and then later undertook it himself. He despised and disregarded all laws of the Weimar Republic, to which he had taken the oath when he became Chancellor. He mobilized the Gestapo against personal liberty. He gagged and bound all free exchange of ideas and information. He pardoned criminals and enlisted them in his service. He did everything to break his promises. He lied to and deceived the world, Germany, and me.
DR. DIX: Let us return to the period of the seizure of power. In November 1932, you stated publicly that Hitler would become Reich Chancellor. What caused you to make that statement?
SCHACHT: That statement was caused by the fact that Hitler in the July elections of 1932 obtained 40 percent of all seats in the Reichstag for his Party. That is an election result which, if I am informed correctly, had never occurred since 1871, when the Reichstag was founded; and to me, as a democrat and a follower of democratic parliamentary government, it was quite inevitable that that man was now to be entrusted with forming a cabinet. I do not know of any alternative at the time. There was only one other possibility, one alternative, and that was a military rule. But the Cabinet of Von Papen already had had some special presidential authority and still could not maintain itself in the face of the Reichstag; and when Herr Schleicher attempted to establish a military regime without the participation of the Nazis, he failed after just a few weeks, because he found himself confronted with the alternative either of starting a civil war or of resigning.
Hindenburg and at first Schleicher as well—although at the last moment he acted differently—were always of the opinion that the Armed Forces could not face a civil war, and Hindenburg was certainly not ready to tolerate a civil war. But very unwillingly he saw himself forced by necessity to put the reins of government into the hands of the man who, thanks to his own propaganda and the incapability of all preceding governments, thanks also to the inconsiderate policy of the foreign countries toward Germany, had won the majority of German votes.
DR. DIX: You know that the Prosecution accuses you of having assisted Hitler and the Nazi regime to power. I therefore want to ask you now whether between the July elections 1932, and the day when Hitler became Chancellor—that is the 30th of January, 1933—you spoke publicly for Hitler.
SCHACHT: I want to state first that Hitler’s power was an accomplished fact in July 1932, when he secured 230 Reichstag seats. Everything else that followed must be viewed as a consequence of that Reichstag election. During that entire period—with the exception of the one interview you mentioned, in which I said that according to democratic principles Hitler must become Reich Chancellor—I can say that I did not write or publicly speak a single word for Hitler.
DR. DIX: Did you, during the time when the reorganization of the Reich Cabinet was discussed, speak to Hindenburg on behalf of Hitler’s Chancellorship?
SCHACHT: I have never in consultations with any of the competent gentlemen, be it Hindenburg, Meissner, or anyone else, contributed towards exerting any influence in favor of Hitler, nor did I participate in any way in the nomination of Hitler to be Reich Chancellor.
DR. DIX: The prosecutor accuses you in that connection of putting the prestige of your name at the disposal of Hitler in November 1932, and he refers to a statement made by Goebbels in the latter’s book, From the Kaiserhof to the Reich Chancellery. What can you say about that?
SCHACHT: I would never have expected that this apostle of truth, Goebbels, would once more be mobilized against me here, but it is not my fault if Herr Goebbels made a mistake.
DR. DIX: The prosecutor also states that you provided the funds for Hitler in the Reichstag elections of 5 March; that is said to have happened in an industrial meeting on which there is an affidavit by the industrialist Von Schnitzler, Document Number EC-439, Exhibit USA-618. What do you have to say about that? It is our Number 3 of our document book, Page 11 of the English copy.
SCHACHT: In February of 1933, at the time when Hitler was already Reich Chancellor and the elections of 5 March were to furnish a basis for the shape of the new government, Hitler asked me whether, at the occasion of a meeting which Göring was to call and which would have the purpose of raising funds for the elections, I would be good enough to take the role of his banker. I had no reason for refusing to do that. The meeting took place on 26 February.
And now the prosecutor has made it appear that during that meeting I had solicited election funds. The Prosecution themselves, however, have presented a document, D-203, which apparently is meant to be a record of the election speech made by Hitler on that evening...
DR. DIX: May I interrupt you and point out to the Tribunal that it is our Exhibit Number Schacht-2, on Page 9 of the English text. Excuse me. Please, will you kindly go on.
SCHACHT: D-203. That document closes with the following sentence:
“Göring then passed very cleverly to the necessity that other circles not taking part in this political battle should at least make the financial sacrifices required.”
Therefore from that report which was submitted by the Prosecution, it can be seen very clearly that not I but Göring pleaded for funds. I only administered these funds later, and, in the affidavit by Schnitzler, Document EC-439, Page 11, the Prosecution have carefully left out these decisive passages which do not accuse, but exonerate me. I quote the two sentences, therefore, as follows—I am sorry, I have to quote in English because I have only the English text in front of me:
“At the meeting Dr. Schacht proposed raising an election fund of as far as I remember three million Reichsmarks. The fund was to be distributed between the two ‘allies’ according to their relative strength at the time. Dr. Stein suggested that the Deutsche Volkspartei should be included, which suggestion, if I remember rightly, was accepted. The amounts which the individual firms were to contribute were not discussed.”
It can be seen from this that the election fund was not collected only for the Nazi Party, but for the Nazi Party and the national group which was its ally and to which, for instance, also Herr Von Papen and Hugenberg belonged, and which during that very meeting was extended to comprise a third group, the German People’s Party. It was, therefore, a collective fund for those parties who went into the election campaign together, and not just a Nazi fund.
DR. DIX: The Prosecution have mentioned those laws which were decreed after the seizure of power, and which introduced and then established the totalitarian rule of the Nazis and of Hitler. We have to consider the question of your personal responsibility as a later member of the cabinet and I must discuss these laws with you in detail; for the present I just want to remind you of them generally: First, the Enabling Act; then the law about the prohibition of parties and the establishment of one Party; the law about the unity of Party and State; the law decreeing the expropriation of the SPD and the trade unions; the law about civil service associations; the law about the legal limitation of professions for Jews; the law instituting the Peoples’ Court; the law legalizing the murders of 30 June 1934; and the law about the merger of the offices of the Reich Chancellor and the Reich President in the person of Hitler. How do you, as a member of the Cabinet, define your personal responsibility with respect to these laws?
SCHACHT: When all these laws were issued I was not a Cabinet member. I had no vote in the Cabinet. I had a vote in the Cabinet only after 1 August 1934, at which time the last disastrous law, the merger of the offices of Reich Chancellor and Reich President was decreed. I did not participate in the discussions preceding this law, nor did I vote on it. I had absolutely no part in any of these laws.
DR. DIX: I do not know whether I mentioned it, but I want to protect you against a misunderstanding. This does not apply to the merger of the offices of the Reich President in the person of Hitler, after Hindenburg’s death?
SCHACHT: Of course, I did not take part in that either.
DR. DIX: And why not?
SCHACHT: Because I was not then in the Cabinet. I received my official nomination as Minister on 3 or 4 August. I did not take part in the deliberations on that law. I did not vote for it, and did not sign it.
DR. DIX: But in the Indictment it is stated that you were a member of the Reichstag. Then as a member of the Reichstag you would have voted for these laws, inasmuch as, actually, after 1933 only unanimous votes were cast in the Reichstag?
SCHACHT: Yes. Unfortunately, there is much in the trial brief which is not correct. During my entire life I was never a member of the Reichstag. One look into the Reichstag Handbook could have enlightened the Prosecution that also during that time I was not a member of the Reichstag.
I had nothing to do with all these laws either as member of the Cabinet or of the Reichstag, because I had been neither during that time.
DR. DIX: Did Adolf Hitler actually take an oath to the Weimar Constitution?
SCHACHT: Of course Hitler took an oath to the Weimar Constitution when he became Reich Chancellor, to Reich President Von Hindenburg. In taking that oath he swore not only to respect the constitution but also to observe and fulfill all laws unless they were lawfully changed.
DR. DIX: Was the Weimar Constitution ever formally repealed?
SCHACHT: No, the Weimar Constitution has never been repealed.
DR. DIX: In your view was the Leadership Principle established anywhere legally or constitutionally?
SCHACHT: The Leadership Principle was not established by a single law, and the subsequent attempt to reduce the responsibility of the individual ministers—and that affects me, too—by saying that it had become prescriptive law, is not correct. The responsibility of the ministers continued to exist, my own also, and was kept down only by the terror and the violent threats of Hitler.
DR. DIX: The questions whether the Enabling Act referred to the Führer or to the Cabinet; whether the first Cabinet after 1933 was a National Socialist one or a combination of the parties of the right; and the question of the development of Hitler into an autocratic dictator, all these I have already put to the witness Lammers. I do not wish to repeat them, but do you have to add anything new to what Lammers has testified?
SCHACHT: I made only two notes. In Hitler’s Reichstag speech on 23 March 1933 he said, “It is the sincere desire of the National Government...”—not the National Socialist, as it is always referred to later, but the National Government.
And the second point: In the proclamation to the Wehrmacht which Defense Minister Von Blomberg issued on 1 February 1933 this sentence occurs:
“I assume this office with the firm determination to maintain the Reichswehr, in accordance with the testament of my predecessors, as a power factor of the State, above Party politics.”
This and other factors already mentioned convinced me that the Cabinet would be a national coalition cabinet, whereas Hitler, by his rule of terror and violence, formed a pure Nazi dictatorship out of it.
DR. DIX: The quotation mentioned by Schacht is in our document book, Document Number Schacht-4, Page 14 of the English text. Now, when you became Minister of Economics...
THE PRESIDENT: It is 5 o’clock; the Tribunal will adjourn.
DR. DIX: Mr. President, may I ask a question? Do we continue tomorrow, because tomorrow is the first of May, and there is some uncertainty whether there will be a session tomorrow or not?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, the Tribunal will go on tomorrow.