From an impartial estimation of the facts, verified by the evidence presented, it is shown that the accusations arising from the testimony of the witness Gisevius are not correct. But the picture would not be complete if light were not thrown on the personality of the witness Gisevius by his own evidence. This judgment is made up from two factors:
(1) The career and the position of the witness.
(2) The trustworthiness of his information.
On Page 92 of my text I have stated in detail the functions Dr. Gisevius carried out. I have not emphasized anything which, from my point of view, might impeach him in any way for having given the evidence here which you all have heard. I have only impartially confirmed the following:
(a) He evaded military service through falsified papers put at his disposal by Oster.
(b) He lived in Germany during the whole time from 1933 without restriction of liberty, and remained in office up to 20 July 1944.
(c) He was an official of the German Reich and was in its pay from the middle of 1937 to the beginning of 1939 with the exception of leave.
(d) He was Vice Consul of the Reich in Switzerland from 1943 in the Consulate General at Zürich, placed there through Canaris as intelligence agent, and was naturally paid for it. At the same time he was in touch with the enemy’s intelligence service.
(e) He had since 1933, when he worked in the Gestapo, exact knowledge of all the horrible happenings and knew what consequences could arise there for the German people.
(f) A special circumstance, which shows the witness Dr. Gisevius in his true light, is the advice, or the suggestion, which he gave to the experienced bank specialist, Dr. Schacht, that he should allow inflation to set in and thus get the control of matters into his own hands. This suggestion leaves only two possibilities: either complete ignorance of the national economic importance and social effect of an inflation, or else a boundless unscrupulousness which completely disregards the fate of employees and workmen. An inflation brought about knowingly can be described only as a crime against the people. Schacht described it as a catastrophe. Schacht answered him, according to the record: “You want the catastrophe; I want to avoid it.”