SCHACHT: Yes, I think if you read the record of the so-called “small Ministerial Council,” of the year 1936, and in particular 1938, which you yourself introduced, you will see at once that here the necessity of increased armament was emphasized. For instance, those of November or October 1936, I think.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, it was also emphasized in your documents, was it not, throughout?
SCHACHT: No.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You say that your statements of that sort were merely tactical.
SCHACHT: No, I beg your pardon. I said arm within the limits of what is economically possible and reasonable. Göring, if I may say it again, wanted to go beyond those limits.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: That is exactly the point I want to make. Your difference with Göring over rearmament was entirely a question of what the economy of Germany would stand, was it not?
SCHACHT: No. I said that the most important thing was that Germany should live and have foreign trade, and within those limits we could arm. However, it is out of the question that Germany should arm for the sake of arming, and thus ruin her economy.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well that’s the difference between you and Göring; it was over what the economy would stand, was it not?
SCHACHT: No, it was a question of the extent of rearmament. The point is, Mr. Justice Jackson, that German economy paid the price for Göring’s action. The only question is, was it reasonable or unreasonable? If I may state it pointedly, I would say that I considered Göring’s economic policy to be unreasonable and a burden to the German nation; while I considered it most important that rearmament should not be extended and that the German nation should have a normal, peacetime standard.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn.