did. They subscribed a total of 3 millions and they allocated
the sum among themselves.’
“Question: ‘Who were the people who made up that subscription list?’
“Answer: ‘I think that all of them were bankers and industrialists. They represented the chemical industry, iron industry, textile industry, all of them.’
“Question: ‘Representatives of all the industries?’
“Answer: ‘All of them; all of the big industries.’
“Question: ‘Do you recall any of their names?’
“Answer: ‘Oh certainly; Krupp was there—the old gentleman, Gustav. He arose from his seat and thanked Hitler and was very enthusiastic about him at the time. And then there was Schnitzler—I think it was he—and Vögler for the United Steel Works.’”
Did you give that testimony?
SCHACHT: Certainly.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, at that meeting you have referred to Document Number D-203, which is a record of the meeting—at that meeting Göring said this in substance, did he not?
“The sacrifices which are required would be so much easier for industry to bear if it knew that the election of 5 March would surely be the last one for the next 10 years, probably even for the next 100 years.”
You heard that, did you not?
SCHACHT: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now yesterday or the day before you were interrogated about your support and about the tribute that Goebbels paid to you; and you said to the Court, “It is not my fault if Goebbels made a mistake.” Do you recall that?
SCHACHT: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And I ask you, if testifying about Dr. Goebbels you did not say this to the interrogator of the United States, on the 17th day of October 1945, Exhibit Number USA-616 (Document Number 3729-PS)?
“Question: ‘When did you become interested in becoming a co-worker of Hitler?’
“Answer: ‘I should say in the years of 1931, 1932.’
“Question: ‘And that was when you saw that he had a mass movement that was likely to take power?’
“Answer: ‘Quite right; it was growing continually.’
“Question: ‘And did you publicly record your support for Hitler in those years?’
“Answer: ‘I think I made a statement in December 1930 once at the Bavarian People’s Party, upon coming back from America. I said that there was a choice for any future Government, either to hold against 25 percent socialists, or against 20 percent National Socialists.’
“Question: ‘But what I mean—to make it very brief indeed—did you lend the prestige of your name to help Hitler come to power?’
“Answer: ‘I stated publicly that I expected Hitler to come into power for the first time that I remember in November 1932.’
“Question: ‘And you know, or perhaps you don’t, that Goebbels in his diary, records with great affection...’
“Answer: ‘Yes.’
“Question: ‘...the help that you gave him at that time?’
“Answer: ‘Yes, I know that.’
“Question: ‘November 1932?’
“Answer: ‘You say the book is called _From the Kaiserhof to the Reich Chancellery_?’
“Question: ‘That’s right; you have read that?’
“Answer: ‘Yes.’
“Question: ‘And you don’t deny that Goebbels was right?’
“Answer: ‘I think his impression was that he was correct at that time.’”
Did you give that testimony?
SCHACHT: Yes. I never doubted that Goebbels was under this impression; I merely said that he was mistaken.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Then you didn’t—Well, I won’t bother. Now, you made some extensive quotations from Ambassador Dodd yesterday, the day before. Did you not?
SCHACHT: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And let’s have this understood: Ambassador Dodd was consistently and at all times opposed to the entire Nazi outfit, wasn’t he?
SCHACHT: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: So you got no encouragement from him to be in this outfit?
SCHACHT: Oh, no.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, you testified, as I understood you, that Ambassador Dodd invited you to go to the United States of America and you say—I am quoting from Page 8670 of the record (Volume XII, Page 439):
“At that time, 1937, he called on me and urged me to go with him, or follow him as soon as possible, and change my residence to America. He said that I would find a very pleasant welcome in America. I believe he never would have said that to me if he had not had a friendly feeling towards me.”
You said that to the Tribunal?
SCHACHT: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And I think you intended to convey to the Tribunal the impression that Ambassador Dodd had great confidence in you and great friendship for you?
SCHACHT: I had that impression.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Have you read his entire diary, or did you confine yourself to reading extracts?
SCHACHT: Yes. I also know of the passage where he said, “You would make a very bad American,” or something like that.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Yes, yes, you didn’t mention that to the Tribunal.
SCHACHT: I think that would be better for the Prosecution.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, we are not disappointing you then.
Are you not familiar with his entry under the date of December 21, 1937, where he speaks of the luncheon at which you were present?
“Schacht spoke of the defeat of Germany in 1918 as wholly due to Woodrow Wilson’s bringing America into the World War. But I said Wilson’s Fourteen Points were the one great promise of international peace and co-operation, and every country on both sides had helped to defeat his purpose. Don’t you think Wilson, 50 years from now, will be regarded as one of the greatest presidents the United States has ever had? He evaded an answer but turned his attention to the Japanese-Chinese war and opposed Germany’s alliance to Japan. Then he showed the true German attitude, quoting, ‘If the United States would stop the Japanese War and leave Germany to have her way in Europe, we would have world peace.’”
SCHACHT: What is the question?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Did you make those statements?
SCHACHT: I do not know whether I said it, but even today it seems an extremely reasonable statement. I am of the opinion that it was correct with one exception, I believe...
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Yes, now let’s get this straight. As I understand you correctly, you can have peace, world peace, if Germany was left to have her way in Europe?
SCHACHT: Yes. May I say that there were various opinions about the path Germany was to take; mine was a peaceful one.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, he goes on:
“I did not comment, and others also failed to make remarks. Schacht meant what the Army Chiefs of 1914 meant when they invaded Belgium, expecting to conquer France in 6 weeks, namely; domination and annexation of neighboring little countries, especially north and east.”
SCHACHT: Am I to reply?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Did you say that?
SCHACHT: No, no.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Was that what Dodd said about your conversation?
SCHACHT: But I did not say that.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And you?
SCHACHT: No, may I...
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: What was the impression?
SCHACHT: No, may I answer please?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I ask you this question: What is the impression received over the course of his acquaintance with you by a man whom you describe as being a decent fellow and a friend of yours?
SCHACHT: May I answer that I have already stated that Mr. Dodd was the victim of many misconceptions. In this case, too, he does not say that I said it; he says, “Schacht meant.” That was his opinion which he attributed to me. I never said that.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I so understood it; but it was the estimate of a friendly observer, I take it from you.
SCHACHT: A friendly observer who continually misunderstood; Ambassador Henderson has proved that in his book.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: He may have misunderstood Henderson; but there is never any doubt that he understood the Nazi danger from the beginning, is there?
SCHACHT: Yes; but he misunderstood my attitude.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, when you went and asked first the Foreign Minister and then Hitler to go to the United States, or have some one go to the United States, you testified, on Page 8708 of the record (Volume XII, Page 467) that you told Hitler this:
“It seems vital to me that there should be someone constantly in America who could clarify German interests publicly, in the press, _et cetera_.”
Did you say that?
SCHACHT: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, is that what you actually said to Hitler?
SCHACHT: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, I call your attention to your own letter, Document Number 3700-PS to the Reich Marshal.
“In the beginning of 1940 I proposed to the Führer that I should go to the United States in order to attempt to slow down America’s assistance to England in the matter of armaments and, if possible, to prevent America becoming involved more deeply in the war.”
I ask you, which of those is true?
SCHACHT: Both of them.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Both? Then you did not reveal to the Tribunal yesterday, when you reported the conversation, all that you had pretended that you would do in the United States, did you?
SCHACHT: No, certainly not. I wanted, for instance, to try to persuade the President to intervene for peace. That, too, I did not mention here.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, you also testified yesterday that you were never told about the extent, the type, and the speed of rearmament. Do you recall that?
SCHACHT: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: But although you had no such information, you said it was too much?
SCHACHT: I had the feeling that one ought to go slowly.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, let me remind you of certain statements made by General Von Blomberg concerning 1937.
“Answer: ‘At that time, the organization of the planned Wehrmacht was about complete.’
“Question: ‘When? 1937?’
“Answer: ‘I believe it was 1937.’
“Question: ‘Was that a plan that had been discussed with Doctor Schacht in connection with the financing, as to how big the Wehrmacht would be?’
“Answer: ‘Yes. Schacht knew the plan for the formation of the Wehrmacht very well, since we informed him every year about the creation of new formations for which we had been expending money. I remember that, in the year 1937 we discussed what the Wehrmacht would need for current expenses after a large amount had been spent for creating it.’
“Question: ‘That means that you gave Schacht a clear statement of how much money each year went into the creation of new units, new installations, and so forth, and how much you were using for the operating expenses of the Wehrmacht?’
“Answer: ‘Exactly right.’
“Question: ‘When you say that by 1937 the plan had been fulfilled, do you mean in the main?’
“Answer: ‘In the main.’”
Another question. I skip two or three irrelevant ones.
“When you say that Schacht was familiar with those figures, how were they brought to his attention?
“Answer: ‘The demands for the money needed were handed to Schacht in writing.’
“Question: ‘That means that in connection with the money which Schacht was raising for the rearmament program, he was informed of how many divisions and how many tanks and so forth would be procured through these means?’
“Answer: ‘I don’t think we put down the amount of money we would need for every tank and so forth, but we would put down how much every branch of the Wehrmacht, like the Navy or Air Force, needed, and then we would state how much was required for activating and how much for operating.’
“Question: ‘That is, Doctor Schacht could see each year how much of an increase there would be in the size of the Armed Forces as a result of the money he was procuring?’
“Answer: ‘That is certain.’”
I ask whether you deny the statements made by Von Blomberg as I have put them to you?
SCHACHT: Yes, unfortunately, I must say that I know nothing about this. A member of the Reichsbank Directorate, Geheimrat Vocke, will testify tomorrow; and I ask that you put this matter to him so that the question will be clarified. The question was not one of informing me, but of informing the Reichsbank Directorate. Everything that I knew the Reichsbank Directorate naturally also knew.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Dr. Schacht, I don’t care whether you know or didn’t know as far as the Prosecution’s case is concerned. What I am asking you these questions for is to know how far we can rely on your testimony.
SCHACHT: Yes, I understand.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: So there will be no misunderstanding about that. And you deny that Von Blomberg was telling the truth when he says, when he reported to you in writing, those facts?
SCHACHT: Yes, unfortunately I must deny it. Evidently he does not remember.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, you testified yesterday or the day before, that the so-called New Plan had nothing to do with the armament program, did you not?
SCHACHT: Nothing in particular with armament.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Oh, nothing in particular.
SCHACHT: No. I mean of course—the Tribunal was expressly asked whether I was to speak about the New Plan here or not, and the Tribunal decided that it was to be brought up at your cross-examination. I am prepared to inform you now about the New Plan before you...
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, Dr. Schacht, you have no objection to answering my questions, have you?
SCHACHT: Certainly not.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I am referring to the answer which you gave—the one which you were not allowed to give—find the Page 8732 of this record (Volume XII, Pages 484 and 485):
“Question: ‘Some of your economic policies during the time you were Minister of Economics, which have been accused as being in preparation for war, were the so-called New Plan. What was that?’”
And your answer:
“May I state first of all that the New Plan had nothing at all to do with rearmament.”
And then you went into an explanation of the New Plan which the Court did not receive, and I am asking you only this question: Did you not say, in your speech on the Miracle of Finance on the 29th day of November 1938, this—after quoting a great number of figures: “These figures show how much the New Plan contributed to the execution of the armament program as well as to the securing of our food.”
Did you say that or didn’t you?
SCHACHT: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: That is Document Number EC-611, Exhibit Number USA-622.
Now, I understood you to say in your testimony that you really didn’t have anything to do socially with Hitler or with the other Nazis and that you refused their invitation to lunch at the Reich Chancellery; and one of the chief reasons was that those present showed such abject humility to Hitler. Did you say that?
SCHACHT: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, I want to read to you from your speech, Document Number EC-501, your inaugural speech on the occasion of the Führer’s birthday. This was a public speech, by the way, wasn’t it?
SCHACHT: I do not know. I do not remember.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You made a speech on the Führer’s birthday on the 21st of April 1937, carried in the newspapers?
SCHACHT: Maybe.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: “We are meeting together here to remember with respect and love the man to whom the German people entrusted the control of its destiny more than 4 years ago.”
And then, after some other remarks, you say,
“With the limitless passion of a glowing heart and the infallible instinct of a born statesman, Adolf Hitler, in a struggle which he led for 14 years with calm logic, has won for himself the soul of the German people.”
Was that a part of your published and public speech?
SCHACHT: I assume that you have quoted it quite correctly. I do not believe that anyone, on the occasion of the birthday celebration of the head of a state, could say anything very different. Mr. Justice, may I make one request. You have completely passed over the New Plan, while the Tribunal has pointed out that it was to be discussed here in cross-examination. If you are not going to refer to the New Plan, may I ask that the New Plan be discussed again in re-examination by my attorney.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I did not ask you what the New Plan was; I asked whether your statement that it had nothing to do with armaments was true or not. But if your solicitor wants to ask about it, it is open to ruling by the Tribunal. You quoted today Hitler’s letter of the 19th of January 1939, in which you were dismissed from the presidency of the Reichsbank; and you did not quote the concluding sentence, as I recall it, which reads, “I am happy to be able to avail myself of your services for the solution of new tasks in your position as Reich Minister.” That is a correct quotation, is it not?
SCHACHT: I refer to the testimony by the witness Gisevius, who has already said that outwardly Hitler would never indicate that there was dissension between himself and his collaborators but that he always attempted to give a false impression to the world. After January 1939 Hitler never asked for my opinion or my co-operation.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Were you asked by anyone else?
SCHACHT: No. I cited this morning the occasions when I was asked for assistance. That was in connection with Belgium, and in connection with the periodical, _Das Reich_. I think that was all.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And you performed no functions whatever in reference to Belgium?
SCHACHT: No.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, I quote your letter of the 17th of October 1940 to the Reich Minister of Economics, Document EC-504, USA-830. At that time you had ceased to be President of the Reichsbank, had you not?
SCHACHT: Yes. I was only a minister without portfolio.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: “So that the German banks in the occupied western territories need not work side-by-side, or rather against each other, you had assigned the Deutsche Bank the task of clearing the way for closer economic co-operation with Holland; and you entrusted the Dresdner Bank with the same task for Belgium.”
And you go on to describe that situation and say:
“In order to remove this difficulty, you, Herr Reich Minister, have agreed that the undersigned comply with the requests of both banking houses for a decisive expression of opinion in this question. I have subsequently discussed the situation with both banks and it was confirmed in the course of the conversation that at present there is no tendency on the part of Dutch or Belgian financial institutions to enter into general ties with the German business men.”
Do you recall?
SCHACHT: Yes, I remember it, now that you have read it to me. May I make a statement, or what was your question?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I just wondered if you remembered that.
SCHACHT: Yes, and I ask permission to make a statement. It concerns...
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: If you think it needs explaining...
SCHACHT: I would think so; but I leave that to the Tribunal. If I may speak: It concerns a rivalry between two large banks. Both these large banks approached me—as a former banker and President of the Reichsbank—to decide the matter, and I did. I really do not see what that has to do with the official participation in the Belgian administration.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And the purpose of your intervention was to avoid misunderstanding in the occupied countries between the banking interests of the occupied countries and the German banks, was it not?
SCHACHT: Certainly, they were to work together peacefully.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Yes. Although you have said to the Tribunal that you were entirely opposed to the Germans being in there at all?
SCHACHT: Of course. But now that they were there I tried to keep peace.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You also were approached by Krupp von Bohlen about raising a fund known as the “Hitler spending fund,” were you not?
SCHACHT: No.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You never were?
SCHACHT: Never.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, that is most unfortunate—that your name should be connected with...
SCHACHT: Yes, I know the letter.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You never received such a letter?
SCHACHT: Yes, I know the letter, but I was not assigned the task of raising that fund.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, you assisted in raising it, didn’t you?
SCHACHT: No.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Did you contribute to it?
SCHACHT: I personally, certainly not. I do not know what you are accusing me of.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I thought you knew about the letter from Von Bohlen.
SCHACHT: Yes, but I ask you of what are you accusing me? Please tell me.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Did you raise any money or help to organize a loan with Krupp von Bohlen in May of 1933—the Hitler spending fund?
SCHACHT: No.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: How did you answer Krupp von Bohlen’s letter asking you to do so?
SCHACHT: Would you please remind me of what Herr Von Krupp wrote to me at the time?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Have you the letter of the 29th of May?
SCHACHT: Yes, one moment, please, I have nearly finished. May I reply now? From this...
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: First of all, did you receive such a letter?
SCHACHT: Yes, of course.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: All right. Tell us what happened.
SCHACHT: In that letter Herr Von Krupp informed me that industry and other economic circles, such as agriculture, _et cetera_, intended to organize a joint Hitler fund in order to combine in one collection the unrestrained Party collections which were making the entire country insecure. He informed me of this, and also of the fact that a board of trustees was to be appointed for this Hitler fund. I want to say that I never joined the board of trustees and was not a member of it. He further informed me that the representatives of the banks, Dr. Fischer and Dr. Mosier, would contact me and inform me about these things. That is all that the letter says.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: That I offer as Exhibit Number USA-831, (Document Number D-151).
[_Turning to the defendant._] Will you look at the following letter of the 30th of May 1933, which says they had the opportunity of mentioning it to you?
SCHACHT: One moment, please. I do not think the letter is in my document book. No, it is not here.
[_The document was handed to the defendant._]
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I asked you to read the letter of the 29th of May first; one of the 29th of May and one of the 30th. The 29th of May has not been translated.
SCHACHT: I see. Just a minute. I read.
This letter never reached me. It has been crossed out and apparently it was not sent, because Krupp and I had a personal conversation to which Krupp refers in the letter of the following day, 30 May; the letter begins, “As Dr. Köttgen and I had the opportunity of mentioning to you yesterday...” That apparently was a personal conversation.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Yes, and you had also said:
“You were kind enough to promise me to obtain from Messrs. Otto Christian Fischer and Dr. Mosier...full particulars, and especially information on how far banks which are public corporations can participate in this task.”
SCHACHT: No, Mr. Justice Jackson, it does not say that in the letter. Please, will you be good enough to read the letter of 29 May? Where does it say that I spoke to Dr. Fischer or would speak to Dr. Mosier?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Do you deny receiving the letter of the 29th?
SCHACHT: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You never received it?
SCHACHT: No.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Do you deny having a conversation with Krupp von Bohlen-Halbach, the substance of which is set forth in that letter?
SCHACHT: No—One moment. Please, let me answer quietly. I do not wish to be accused of anything without replying.
I did not receive that letter on 29 May, nor did I receive it later. Instead, there was a personal conversation. The subject of that conversation is contained in the letter of 30 May, which we read before and which I received. You have just asserted that I had promised Krupp von Bohlen to speak to Dr. Fischer and Dr. Mosier. The letter makes no mention of that.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Does it not say so in the memorandum which you say was replaced by a conversation? That is what I am trying to ask you.
SCHACHT: At any rate, I did not promise to talk to the gentlemen.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Anything more you want to say?
SCHACHT: No. That is enough.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, yesterday, I think it was, you testified that you had made public statements against the terror policy of the regime; and in evidence you quoted from your Königsberg speech.
SCHACHT: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Unfortunately, Dr. Schacht, you stopped just at the point where I got interested in it.
SCHACHT: Yes, that is generally the case.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: After you had stated that there are people who ran Germany—let me quote the part you quoted, because it is important in connection...
SCHACHT: Quote the whole thing.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Yes. This is what you quoted:
“Those are the people who heroically smear window panes in the middle of the night; who brand every German who trades in a Jewish store as a traitor; who condemn every former Freemason as a scoundrel, and who, in the just fight against priests and ministers who talk politics from the pulpit, cannot themselves distinguish between religion and misuse of the pulpit. The goal at which these people aim is generally correct and good.”
That is what you quoted?
SCHACHT: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now let us go on:
“The goal at which these people aim is generally correct and good. There is no place in the Third Reich for secret societies, regardless of how harmless they are. The priests and ministers should take care of souls, and not meddle in politics. The Jews must realize that their influence is gone for all time.”
That was also a part of that speech, was it not?
SCHACHT: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And you pointed out in that speech that on the Jewish problem, as you called it, legislation is being prepared and must be awaited?
SCHACHT: Yes, I had hoped so.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You assured them so, did you not?
SCHACHT: I beg your pardon? Yes, that was the intention as I gathered from my conversation with Hitler.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And you knew that the laws on the Jewish subject were on their way?
SCHACHT: Not the laws which were passed later. I always urged Hitler to give legal protection to the Jews. I wanted to see this law enacted, and I assumed that it would be done; but instead the Racial Laws of September or November, yes, November, 1935, were passed.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I have quoted from Exhibit Number USA-832, which is Document EC-433, and you say the laws you were forecasting and promising were laws for the protection of the Jews?
SCHACHT: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: We will get to that later.
You gave your reasons, which you said were reasons of principle, to the Tribunal for not becoming a Party member?
SCHACHT: Yes.
MR: JUSTICE JACKSON: Yesterday in Court, do you recall that?
SCHACHT: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now isn’t it a fact that you have told the United States Prosecution Staff that you asked Hitler whether to join the Party, and that to your great relief Hitler told you not to?
SCHACHT: Yes. Before I co-operated with him I wanted to find out whether he demanded that I should become a member of the Party. I was most relieved when he said I need not.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: So you remained out of the Party with Hitler’s consent and approval?
SCHACHT: Yes, of course. I think that is just another reason which will prove that I have never been a member of the Party.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: But you did not mention that to the Tribunal when you were giving your reasons for setting out, that Hitler had given permission?
SCHACHT: No, I thought the Tribunal would believe me anyway.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: When you received the Party golden swastika, you stated that it was the greatest honor that could be conferred by the Third Reich, did you not?
SCHACHT: I did, yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And while you didn’t wear it in your daily life, you did wear it on official occasions, you stated, did you not?
SCHACHT: Yes. It was very convenient on railroad journeys, when ordering a car, _et cetera_.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: From 1933 to 1942 you contributed a thousand Reichsmark a year to the Nazi Party?
SCHACHT: No. Yes, I beg your pardon; from 1937 to 1942.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Didn’t you say on interrogation that it was from 1933 to 1942?
SCHACHT: No, that is an error. From 1937, after I had received the swastika. Evidently that is a misunderstanding. After I had received it I said to myself, “It would be fitting—give the people a thousand marks a year, and have done with it.”
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: For upwards of ten years, not quite ten years, you accepted and held office of one kind or another under this regime, did you not?
SCHACHT: From 17 March 1933 to 21 January 1943.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And as I understand you, that during this time, at least a part of the time, Hitler deceived you, and all the time you deceived Hitler.
SCHACHT: No, oh no.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I have misunderstood you?
SCHACHT: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well now...
SCHACHT: I believe that in the first years, at least, I did not deceive Hitler.
I not only believe so, I know it. I only started to deceive him in 1938. Until then, I always told him my honest opinion. I did not cheat him at all; on the contrary...
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: What becomes, then, of your explanation that you entered his government in order to put brakes on his program? Did you tell him that?
SCHACHT: Oh, no. I should hardly have done that or he would never have admitted me into the government. But I did not deceive him about it.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Did he know your purpose in joining his government was to defeat his program by sabotage?
SCHACHT: I did not say that I wanted to defeat his program. I said that I wanted to direct it into orderly channels.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, you have said that you wanted to put brakes on it. You used that expression.
SCHACHT: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Which meant slow down? Didn’t it?
SCHACHT: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And he wanted to speed it up, isn’t that right?
SCHACHT: Yes, perhaps.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You never allowed him to know that you had entered his government for the purpose of slowing down his rearmament program, did you?
SCHACHT: It was not necessary to tell him what I was thinking. I did not deceive him. I made no false statements, but I would hardly tell him what I actually thought and wanted. He did not tell me his innermost thoughts either, and you do not tell them to your political opponents either. I never deceived Hitler except after 1938.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I daresay. I am not asking you about a political opponent. I am asking you about the man in whose government you entered and became a part.
SCHACHT: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You don’t tell your opponents; but is it customary in Germany that members of the government enter for the purpose of defeating the head of the government’s program?
SCHACHT: I have already told you that the word defeat is incorrect. I did not intend to defeat him. I intended to slow him down; and that is indeed the custom, for that is how every coalition government is constructed. If you enter into a coalition government, you must discuss certain matters with your neighboring parties and come to an agreement about them, and you must use your influence to check certain projects of the other party. That is not a deception; it is an attempt at a compromise solution.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You claim you entered as a coalition?
SCHACHT: Yes. I explained that in a distinct and comprehensive manner.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You used the word yourself today, in describing your activities, as sabotaging his rearmament program, did you not?
SCHACHT: Yes, I did so, shall we say, after 1936. But he noticed it. That was not a deception.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You take some part of the responsibility, I take it, for the loss of the war by Germany.
SCHACHT: That is a very strange question. Please, forgive me if I say that I assume no responsibility. Since I am not responsible for the fact that the war started I cannot assume any responsibility for the fact that it was lost. I did not want war.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And when did your doubts about Hitler as a man, his integrity, first arise?
SCHACHT: I have explained that in such detail during the examination that I do not think I need repeat it.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Did that occur—I’ll put it in the terms of your interrogation, since your interrogation is a little clearer.
“In 1934”—so your interrogation runs—“he killed many people without having any legal justification or had them killed; and a few days after, in the Reichstag, he said he was the highest judge in Germany. He was certainly not, and for the first time I was shaken by his conception. It seemed to me absolutely immoral and inhuman.”
Is that correct?
SCHACHT: I said that here yesterday or the day before; exactly the same thing.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, I want to fix these dates, Dr. Schacht. You see, your purpose in this trial and mine aren’t exactly the same.
SCHACHT: No, no, I know that.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, you also received full information about the operation of the Gestapo from Gisevius in 1934 or 1935, as he testified, did you not?
SCHACHT: No, he did not say that. He said that he knew about these matters. He did not tell me everything, but I admitted earlier today—this morning—that he did inform me of certain things, and from that I drew my conclusions. At the beginning of May 1935 I had already discussed this matter with Hitler.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You were informed about the Gestapo terrorism, Reichstag Fire...
SCHACHT: The Reichstag Fire?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: ...the falsity of the purge claim...
SCHACHT: One moment, please. May I take them in order? I was not told about the Reichstag Fire until years later by the late Count Helldorf, who has been mentioned by Gisevius.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You mean Gisevius never told you about that?
SCHACHT: I think I heard it from Helldorf. I may have heard it from Gisevius, but I think it was Helldorf. At any rate, it was after 1935 that I heard about it. Until then, I did not think it was possible.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You never doubted Gisevius’ word when he told you in 1934 or 1935 as he testified, did you?
SCHACHT: One moment. He told me this either in 1934 or 1935, but not 1934 and 1935, and if he did tell me—well if Gisevius said so, I assume that it is true.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: It was then that you knew about the persecution of the churches and the destruction of the labor unions, wasn’t it?
SCHACHT: The destruction of the labor unions took place as early as May 1933.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You knew all about that, didn’t you?
SCHACHT: I did not know everything, only what was generally known. I knew exactly what every other German knew about it and what the labor unions themselves knew.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: As a matter of fact, that was one of the reasons for the contributions by yourself and other industrialists to the Nazi Party, wasn’t it?
SCHACHT: Oh, no: oh, no. There was never any question of that.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You mean that meetings of industrialists were held, and as important a thing to industry as the destruction of the labor unions was never mentioned in your conferences?
SCHACHT: I know nothing about it. Will you please remind me of something definite.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Confiscation of the properties; the putting of labor union leaders into concentration camps.
SCHACHT: I heard about that—one moment. I do not know exactly who was put into the concentration camps. I was informed about the confiscation of property because that was publicly announced; but, if I understand you correctly, I do not know what the meetings of industrialists had to do with it.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, you also knew very early about the persecution of the Jews, didn’t you?
SCHACHT: I explained yesterday exactly what I knew about the persecution of the Jews, how I acted in connection with the persecution of the Jews, and I state that as long as I was a minister I did everything to prevent these things.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I understood your generality, and I am trying to get at a little more detail about it, Dr. Schacht. Did you not testify as follows, on your interrogation on the 17th of October 1945:
“The National Socialists, as I understood from the program, intended to have a smaller percentage of Jews in the governmental and cultural positions of Germany, with which I agreed.”
SCHACHT: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: “Question: ‘Well, now, you had read _Mein Kampf_, had you not?’
“Answer: ‘Yes.’
“Question: ‘And you knew the views of Hitler on the Jewish question. Did you not?’
“Answer: ‘Yes.’”
You so testified, did you not?
SCHACHT: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: “Question: ‘Well, now, during your time as Reich Minister, statutes were passed, were they not, prohibiting all Jewish lawyers, for example, from practicing in the courts?’
“Answer: ‘Yes, that is what I said.’
“Question: ‘Did you agree with that?’
“Answer: ‘Yes.’”
Did you say that?
SCHACHT: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And you did agree with excluding...
SCHACHT: Yes, I always agreed with that principle.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Yes. And you also agreed with the principle of excluding all Jews from civil service positions, did you not?
SCHACHT: No. I want to emphasize in this connection...
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well...
SCHACHT: May I finish?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Yes.
SCHACHT: With regard to the principle of the dominating Jewish influence in government, legal, and cultural questions I have always said that I did not consider this influence to be of advantage either to the German people and Germany, which was a Christian state and based on Christian conceptions, or to the Jews, since it increased the animosity against them. For these reasons I was always in favor of limiting Jewish participation in those fields, not actually according to the population, but nevertheless limiting them to a certain percentage.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, let’s go on with the interrogation. The interrogations are always so much briefer than the answers made in court where the press is present, if I may say so.
Did you not give these answers:
“Question: ‘Now, with respect to civil service. There was this Aryan clause that was put in. Did you agree with that legislation?’
“Answer: ‘With the same limitation.’
“Question: ‘Now, did you ever express yourself in the Cabinet or elsewhere to the point that you wanted these restrictions put in, restrictions you have been talking about?’
“Answer: ‘I don’t think so; useless to do it.’
“Question: ‘You say “useless to do it?”’
“Answer: ‘Yes.’
“Question: ‘I thought you said at one time or another that the reason you stayed in is because you thought you might have some influence on policy.’
“Answer: ‘Yes.’
“Question: ‘You didn’t consider this as important enough a matter to take a position on it?’
“Answer: ‘Not an important enough matter to risk a break.’”
SCHACHT: To break, that is right.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Then, you were asked this:
“You certainly signed a law with respect to the prohibition of Jews receiving licenses to deal in foreign currencies.”
Do you remember that?
SCHACHT: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: “Answer: ‘Yes, maybe.’
“Question: ‘You were in favor of that?’
“Answer: ‘I don’t remember the details of that question.’
“Question: ‘Well, it is not a matter of details. The question is a matter of discrimination.’
“Answer: ‘Yes.’”
You said that?
SCHACHT: Yes, certainly.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You were in favor of that legislation, or were you not?
SCHACHT: Is that the question now, or from the interrogation?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I am asking you now.
SCHACHT: Yes. I agreed to it. Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You were in favor of it. Well, you were not when you were interrogated.
SCHACHT: You can see how difficult it is.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: The question then was, you were in favor of it, and you said:
“‘I wasn’t in favor, but I had to sign it.’
“Question: ‘Well, you were the only one who signed it. You were the Reich Minister of Economics?’
“Answer: ‘Yes.’
“Question: ‘And, obviously, it was a bill which was put in by your Ministry, was it not?’
“Answer: ‘Yes.’”
Is that correct?
SCHACHT: Yes, I assume so. You see, in these matters it was a question of degrees. I have just explained the principles of my policy. The extent to which these individual laws went is a question of politics. Today, you can say what you like about it.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, you also favored the law, and signed the law, prohibiting all Jews from being admitted to examinations for public economic advisors, for co-operatives, for example.
SCHACHT: Yes, possibly. I do not remember but probably it is right.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And you also approved a law imposing the death penalty on German subjects who transferred German property abroad, or left German property abroad.
SCHACHT: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And of course you knew that that affected, chiefly and most seriously, the Jews who were moving abroad.
SCHACHT: I hope that the Jews did not cheat any more than the Christians.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, the death penalty on German subjects for transferring German property abroad was your idea of a just law?
SCHACHT: I do not understand. My idea?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Yes.
SCHACHT: It was an idea of the Minister of Finance, and I signed it.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, the question was then asked you after these were recited:
“Well, now, was there a matter of conscience involved, or was there not?”
And you answered:
“To some extent, yes, but not important enough to risk a break.”
SCHACHT: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And the question:
“Yes. In other words, you had quite another objective which was more important?”
SCHACHT: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: “Well what was that objective, Dr. Schacht?” I am still reading. It saves time.
SCHACHT: Oh, pardon me.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: “Answer: ‘Well, the objective was to stay in power and to help carry this through in an ordinary and reasonable way.’
“Question: ‘That is to say, the restoration of the German economy?’
“Answer: ‘Quite.’
“Question: ‘And the completion of the armament program?’
“Answer: ‘The completion of the international equality, the political equality of Germany.’
“Question: ‘By means of armament, as you yourself have said?’
“Answer: ‘Also by means of armament.’”
SCHACHT: All correct, and I stand by that today.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Yes. So the armament question was so important that you didn’t want to risk any break about the Jews.
SCHACHT: Not the armament question, but the equality of Germany.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, now, I just asked you “by means of armament, as you yourself have said.”
SCHACHT: And I say, also by means of armament. That is one of the means.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And it is the only one that was used ultimately, wasn’t it?
SCHACHT: No, it was not. There were other ones.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: We will get to that in time.
Now, isn’t it a fact that you also approved the law dismissing all Jewish officials and notaries public?
SCHACHT: That is possible.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And you wrote to Blomberg on the 24th of December 1935 giving your motives, did you not, saying this:
“The economic and illegal treatment of the Jews, the anti-Church movement of certain Party organizations, and the lawlessness which centers in the Gestapo are a detriment to our rearmament task which could be considerably lessened through the application of more respectable methods, without abandoning the goals in the least.” (Exhibit Number Schacht-13).
You wrote that, did you not?
SCHACHT: Yes. I quoted it myself yesterday.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, as to the rearmament program, you participated in that from three separate offices, did you not?
SCHACHT: I do not know which offices you mean, but please go ahead.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I will help you to list them. In the first place, you were Plenipotentiary for War.
SCHACHT: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: That was the secret office at first.
SCHACHT: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You were President of the Reichsbank. That was the financial office.
SCHACHT: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And you were Minister of Economics, in which position you had control with the minister for the general economic situation.
SCHACHT: Yes. This word “control” is such a general term that I cannot confirm your statement without question, but I was Minister of Economics.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, let us take up first this position of Plenipotentiary for War. You have testified that this position was created for two purposes: (a) Preparation for war; (b) Control of the economy in event of war.
Is that correct?
SCHACHT: That means preliminary planning in case war should come, and the direction of economy when war had broken out. In other words, a preparatory period and a later period in the event of war.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And, you were asked about your functions and gave these answers, did you not, “As the Chief of Staff provides for mobilization from a military point of view... so you were concerned with it from the economic point of view.”
SCHACHT: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You answered, “certainly.” And your position as Plenipotentiary for War was of equal rank with the War Ministry, was it not?
SCHACHT: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And, as you told us, those charged with responsibility in event of war were: First, the Minister of War and the Chief of the General Staff of the Wehrmacht; and, secondly, on an equal footing, Dr. Schacht, as Plenipotentiary for Economics. Is that correct?
SCHACHT: I assume so, yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And in January of 1937 you wrote this, did you not?
“I am entrusted with the preparation of the war economy according to the principle that our economic war organization must be so organized in time of peace that the war economy can be directly converted in case of emergency from this peacetime organization and need not be created at the outbreak of war.”
SCHACHT: I assume that that is correct.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And who was your Deputy in that office? Wohlthat?
SCHACHT: I think Wohlthat.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, those being your functions as Plenipotentiary for the War Economy, let’s turn to your functions as President of the Reichsbank.
You said that the carrying out of the armament program was the principal task of the German policy in 1935, did you not?
SCHACHT: Undoubtedly.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: There is no doubt that you voluntarily assumed the responsibility for finding financial and economic means for doing that thing.
SCHACHT: No doubt.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And you were the financial and economic administrator in charge of developing the armament industry of Germany.
SCHACHT: No.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You were not?
SCHACHT: No, in no way.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, I may have misunderstood you.
“Question: ‘Now, in connection with this development’”—I am referring to your interrogation of the 16th of October 1945, Exhibit USA-636 (Document Number 3728-PS), Page 44—“‘Now in connection with this development of the armament industry, you charged yourself as the financial and economic administrator of it.’
“Nodding your head.”
SCHACHT: I beg your pardon?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Nodding your head.
SCHACHT: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: “You charged yourself”—I will ask the whole question so you will get it.
SCHACHT: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: “Now, in connection with this development of the armament industry, you charged yourself as the financial and economic administrator of it.”
The record says that you nodded your head. The next question was:
“And in that connection you took various steps. Would you be good enough to describe for us the larger steps which you took with reference to this goal of rearmament, first, internally, and, second, with respect to foreign nations?
“Answer: ‘Internally, I tried to collect all money available for financing the mefo bills. Externally, I tried to maintain foreign commerce as much as possible.’”
Did you make those answers, and are they correct?
SCHACHT: I am sure that you are correct.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And your purpose in maintaining foreign trade was to obtain enough foreign exchange to permit the imports of raw materials, not manufactured, which were required for the rearmament program. Is that not correct?
SCHACHT: That is the question that is put to me. Now comes the answer. Please, will you read the answer?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: What is your answer now?
SCHACHT: My answer today is that that was not the only aim.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Not the only aim?
SCHACHT: Right.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: But that was the primary aim, was it not?
SCHACHT: No, not at all.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: All right, what was the other aim?
SCHACHT: To keep Germany alive, to assure employment for Germany, to obtain sufficient food for Germany.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Which was your dominant aim?
SCHACHT: The food supply in Germany and work for the export industry.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, I should like to go over one or two of these documents with you as to your aim. I refer to Document 1168-PS of May 3, 1935.
SCHACHT: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Title, “Financing of Armament,” Exhibit Number USA-37.
“The following comments are based on the assumption that the completion of the armament program in regard to speed and extent is the task of German policy and that accordingly everything else must be subordinated to this aim, insofar as this main goal is not endangered, by neglecting other questions.”
Did you write that?
SCHACHT: Not only did I write it, but I handed it to Hitler personally. It is one of twin documents, one of which has already been submitted in evidence and discussed in detail by the Prosecution. I did not receive the second document.
When my defense counsel examined me I stated here that I was intent on stopping the Party collections and Party moneys, which were extracted everywhere from the German people, because it was extremely difficult for me to get the money to finance the armament program and the mefo bills.
I could only get that point across to Hitler if I told him that of course this was being done in the interests of armament. If I had told him that this was done...
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Yes, but...
SCHACHT: No, please let me finish. If I had told him that this was done for the building of theaters, or something similar, it would have made no impression on him. However, if I said it must be done because otherwise we could not arm, that was a point which influenced Hitler and that is why I said it. I admitted that and explained it during the examination by my attorney.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And you didn’t call that misleading him?
SCHACHT: I would not call it “misleading”; I would call it “leading.”
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: But leading without telling him the true motives which actuated you, at least.
SCHACHT: I think you can be much more successful in leading a person if you do not tell him the truth than if you do tell him the truth.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I am very glad to have that frank statement of your philosophy, Dr. Schacht. I am greatly indebted to you. Well, you devised all kinds of plans, one for the control of foreign exchange, blocked foreign accounts; and mefo bills was one of the principal ones of your devices for financing was it not?
SCHACHT: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, I don’t care about the details of mefo bills, but I would like to ask you this. Isn’t it correct, as you testified in the inquiry of the 16th of October 1945—Exhibit Number USA-636—as follows:
“Question: ‘Actually, as a matter of fact, let me ask you this. At the time when you started the mefo bills, for example, there were no ready means available for financing the rearmament?’
“Answer: ‘Quite.’
“Question: ‘That is to say, through normal budget finance methods?’
“Answer: ‘Not enough.’
“Question: ‘Also, you were limited at that time by the statute of the Reichsbank which did not permit you to give anything near the sufficient credit which was required by the armament program.’
“Answer: ‘Quite.’
“Question: ‘And you found a way?’
“Answer: ‘Yes.’
“Question: ‘And the way you found was by creating a device in effect which enabled the Reichsbank to lend, by a subterfuge, to the Government what it normally or legally could not do?’
“Answer: ‘Right.’”
Is that true?
SCHACHT: That was my answer.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: The following questions were then asked:
“I understand that basically what was built up in Germany in the way of an armament industry, a domestic economy that was sound, and a Wehrmacht, the efforts that you put in from 1934 to the spring of 1938, when mefo financing stopped, were responsible in large part for the success of the whole program.
“Answer: ‘I don’t know whether they were responsible for it, but I helped a great deal to achieve that.’”
SCHACHT: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And you were asked as follows, on the 17th of October 1945:
“In other words, in effect you are not taking the position that you are not largely responsible for the rearming of the German Army?
“Answer: ‘Oh no, I never did that.’
“Question: ‘You have always been proud of that fact, I take it.’
“Answer: ‘I wouldn’t say proud, but satisfied.’”
Is that still your position?
SCHACHT: In reply to that I should like to say: The question of mefo bills was quite certainly a system of finance which normally would never have been attempted. I made a detailed statement on this subject when I was questioned by my attorney. On the other hand, however, I can say that this question was examined by all legal experts in the Reichsbank and by means of this subterfuge, as you put it, a way was found which was legally possible.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: No, I didn’t put it that way; you said so.
SCHACHT: No, no. I mean the sentence you have just quoted as being my answer. I beg your pardon. The matter was investigated from a legal viewpoint, and we assured ourselves that it could be done in this way. Moreover, I am still satisfied today that I contributed to the rearmament, but I wish that Hitler had made different use of it.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, on your 60th birthday Minister of War Blomberg said that, “Without your help, my dear Mr. Schacht, there could have been no rearmament,” did he not?
SCHACHT: Yes, those are the sort of pleasantries which one exchanges on such occasions. But there is quite a bit of truth in it. I have never denied it.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: That is the way it looks to me.
Now, when you finally made some suggestion that the armament should stop or slow up, as I understand, you made that suggestion without knowing what the armament was.
SCHACHT: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: The only thing you were judging by was financial conditions, was it not?
SCHACHT: Oh, no.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, what was it?
SCHACHT: I did, of course, have a general impression of these matters because General Thomas always discussed them with me. However, I do not remember that General Von Blomberg gave me detailed information about what he thought. Of course, I was informed in a general way regarding the progress made by the armament program, and that is why I said “more slowly.” My opinion was strengthened because of the general conditions.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well now, let’s see what reasons you gave in Document Number EC-286. That is Exhibit Number USA-833:
“I am therefore of the opinion that we should promote our export with all resources by a temporary”—and I emphasize the word “temporary”—“decrease of armament.”
SCHACHT: Decrease?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Decrease, yes, temporary.
SCHACHT: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I emphasize “temporary,” and you emphasize “decrease.”
SCHACHT: Oh no, no; I agree with you.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: “And that further, with reference to the Four Year Plan, we should solve only those problems which appear most pressing. Among these I include the oil-fuel program, the buna program, and the program of developing ore resources, insofar as this development does not of itself require large amounts of raw materials which must be withheld from export.
“On the other hand, all other measures of the Four Year Plan should be postponed for the time being. I am convinced that by such a policy our export could be increased so greatly that there would be a certain improvement in our exhausted stocks, and that the resumption of the strengthened armament would again be possible in the not too distant future, from the point of view of raw materials. I am unable to judge to what extent a temporary postponement of armament would have military advantages. However, I presume that such a pause in armament would not only have advantages for the training of officers and men, which has yet to be done, but that this pause would also afford an opportunity to survey the technical results of previous armament and to perfect the technical aspect of armament.”
Now that you addressed to Göring, did you not?
SCHACHT: That is perfectly possible. I cannot remember the letter, but it looks quite like one of mine.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Yes; and you were correctly giving to Göring your true views; were you not?
SCHACHT: No; I believe that this was merely a tactical letter. I think that I was mainly trying to limit armament. If I had told him that we wanted to stop arming, Göring would probably have denounced me to the Führer accordingly. Therefore I told him, “Let’s stop for the time being”—temporary. I also emphasize “temporary.” It was a tactical measure to convince Göring that for the time being it should be temporary.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Then, with your fellow officers in the Government you were also using tactical statements which did not represent your true views?
SCHACHT: That was absolutely necessary.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: When did it cease to be necessary, Dr. Schacht?
SCHACHT: Cease?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Yes; when did it cease to be necessary?
SCHACHT: I think it more important to ask when it commenced; when it started.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well?
SCHACHT: During the first years I did not do it, of course, but later on I did to a considerable extent. I could say always; it never stopped.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Has it stopped now?
SCHACHT: I have no more colleagues, and here before this Tribunal I have nothing to tell but the truth.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, on the 24th of September, 1935—December—you wrote EC-293, which is Exhibit Number USA-834, and used this language, did you not:
“If there is now a demand for greater armament, it is, of course, not my intention to deny or change my attitude, which is in favor of the greatest possible armament and which I have expressed for years both before and since the seizure of power; but it is my duty to point out the economic limitations of this policy.”
SCHACHT: That is very good.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And that is true?
SCHACHT: Certainly.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, there came in the Four Year Plan in 1936?
SCHACHT: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You did not like the appointment of Göring to that position?
SCHACHT: I thought he was unsuited and, of course, it made an opening for a policy which was opposed to mine. I knew perfectly well that this was the start of exaggerated armament, whereas I was in favor of restricted rearmament.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Why do you say that Göring’s appointment meant exaggeration of armament? Can you point to anything that Göring has said in favor of rearmament that is any more extreme than the things you have said?
SCHACHT: Oh yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, will you do it?
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.
[_The Tribunal adjourned until 3 May 1946 at 1000 hours._]
TRANSCRIBER NOTES
Punctuation and spelling have been maintained except where obvious printer errors have occurred such as missing periods or commas for periods. English and American spellings occur throughout the document; however, American spellings are the rule, hence, “Defense” versus “Defence”. Unlike Blue Series volumes I and II, this volume includes French, German, Polish and Russian names and terms with diacriticals: hence Führer, Göring, Kraków, and Ljoteč etc. throughout.
Although some sentences may appear to have incorrect spellings or verb tenses, the original text has been maintained as it represents what the tribunal read into the record and reflects the actual translations between the German, English, French, and, most specifically with this volume, Russian documents presented in the trial.
An attempt has been made to produce this eBook in a format as close as possible to the original document presentation and layout.
[The end of _Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal Vol. 12_, by Various.]