One Hundred and Twentieth Day, Friday, 3 May 1946,
Morning Session 1
Afternoon Session 44
One Hundred and Twenty-first Day, Saturday, 4 May 1946,
Morning Session 80
One Hundred and Twenty-second Day, Monday, 6 May 1946,
Morning Session 103
Afternoon Session 129
One Hundred and Twenty-third Day, Tuesday, 7 May 1946,
Morning Session 166
Afternoon Session 203
One Hundred and Twenty-fourth Day, Wednesday, 8 May 1946,
Morning Session 231
Afternoon Session 246
One Hundred and Twenty-fifth Day, Thursday, 9 May 1946,
Morning Session 267
Afternoon Session 296
One Hundred and Twenty-sixth Day, Friday, 10 May 1946,
Morning Session 330
Afternoon Session 372
One Hundred and Twenty-seventh Day, Saturday, 11 May 1946,
Morning Session 410
One Hundred and Twenty-eighth Day, Monday, 13 May 1946,
Morning Session 437
Afternoon Session 467
One Hundred and Twenty-ninth Day, Tuesday, 14 May 1946,
Morning Session 496
Afternoon Session 523
One Hundred and Thirtieth Day, Wednesday, 15 May 1946,
Morning Session 559
Afternoon Session 600
ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTIETH DAY
Friday, 3 May 1946
_Morning Session_
[_The Defendant Schacht resumed the stand._]
THE PRESIDENT (Lord Justice Sir Geoffrey Lawrence): The Tribunal will
sit in open session tomorrow at 10 o’clock and will adjourn into closed
session at 12 noon.
Mr. Justice Jackson and Defendant Schacht: It is desired on behalf of
the interpreters that you should pause if possible after the question
has been put to you and if you find it necessary, owing to the condition
of the documents with which you are dealing, to read in English or speak
in English, to give an adequate pause so that those interpreters who are
interpreting from English into other languages can take over the
interpretation. Is that clear?
MR. JUSTICE ROBERT H. JACKSON (Chief of Counsel for the United States):
I owe an apology constantly to the interpreters. It is hard to overcome
the habit of a lifetime.
THE PRESIDENT: It is very difficult.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: [_Turning to the defendant._] Dr. Schacht, by the
way, the photograph Number 10 which was shown you yesterday, that was
one of the occasions on which you wore the Party Badge which you
referred to, was it not?
HJALMAR SCHACHT (Defendant): That may be.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You are quite sure of that, are you not?
SCHACHT: I cannot distinguish it clearly; but it may be, and that would
prove that the picture must have been taken after 1937.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: That is what I wanted to prove. And as a matter of
fact, it was taken after 1941, was it not? As a matter of fact, Bormann
did not come to any important official position until after 1941, did
he?
SCHACHT: Bormann?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Bormann, yes.
SCHACHT: That I do not know.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, if we return to the Four Year Plan which began
in 1936, as I understand it you opposed the appointment of Göring to
have charge of the Four Year Plan on two grounds: First, you thought
that that new plan might interfere with your functions; and secondly, if
there were to be a Four Year Plan, you did not think Göring was fit to
administer it?
SCHACHT: I do not know what you mean by “opposed.” I was not satisfied
with it and considered the choice of Göring not the right one for any
leading position in economics.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: As a matter of fact you have described Göring as a
fool in economics, have you not?
SCHACHT: Yes, as one does say such things in a heated conversation.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Or in interrogation?
SCHACHT: Interrogations are also sometimes heated.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, very soon Göring began to interfere with your
functions, did he not?
SCHACHT: He tried it repeatedly, I believe.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, he got away with it too, did he not?
SCHACHT: I do not understand what you mean by “he got away with it.”
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, this American slang is difficult, I admit. I
mean he succeeded.
SCHACHT: In July 1937 he had me completely against the wall.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: That started over a proposal that he made or a
measure that he took with reference to mining?
SCHACHT: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: He also made a speech to some industrialists, did
he not?
SCHACHT: I assume that he made several speeches to industrialists. I do
not know to which one you are referring. I presume you mean the speech
in December 1936 or so.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I am referring to the speech in which you said to
us in interrogation that Göring had assembled industrialists and said a
lot of foolish things about the economy which you had to refute.
SCHACHT: That was the meeting of 17 December 1936.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And then you wrote to Göring complaining about the
mining measures?
SCHACHT: I assume that you mean the letter of 5 August?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Right. That document is Document EC-497, Exhibit
USA-775. And in that letter of August 1937 you said this, if I quote you
correctly:
“Meanwhile I repeatedly stressed the need of increased exports
and actively worked towards that end. The very necessity of
bringing our armament up to a certain level as rapidly as
possible must place in the foreground the idea of as large
returns as possible in foreign exchange and therewith the
greatest possible assurance of raw material supplies.”
Correct?
SCHACHT: I assume it is.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And you also said this, I believe:
“I have held this view of the economic situation which I have
explained above from the first moment of my collaboration.”
That was also true, was it not?
SCHACHT: Yes, certainly.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, both of those things were true, were they not?
SCHACHT: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And then you concluded, addressing Göring:
“I ask you to believe me, my dear Prime Minister, that it is far
from me to interfere with your policies in any way whatsoever. I
offer no opinion, either, as to whether my views, which are not
in agreement with your economic policy, are correct or not. I
have full sympathy for your activities. I do believe, however,
that in a totalitarian state it is wholly impossible to conduct
two divergent economic policies.”
And that was also true, was it not?
SCHACHT: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And that was the basis on which you and Göring
disagreed so far as policy was concerned?
SCHACHT: So far as what was concerned?—Policy? I do not understand what
you mean by policy. I mean the way business was conducted.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Yes.
SCHACHT: Entirely aside from other differences which we had.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: These other differences were personal differences.
You and Göring did not get along well together?
SCHACHT: On the contrary. Until then we were on very friendly terms with
each other.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Oh, were you?
SCHACHT: Oh, yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: So the beginning of your differences with Göring
was the struggle as to which of you would dominate the preparations for
war?
SCHACHT: No.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well...
SCHACHT: I have to deny that absolutely. The differences...
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Do you want to say anything more about it?
SCHACHT: The differences which led to my resignation resulted from the
fact that Göring wanted to assume command over economic policies while I
was to have the responsibility for them. And I was of the opinion that
he who assumes responsibility should also have command; and if one has
command then he also has to assume the responsibility. That is the
formal reason why I asked for my release.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well now, I turn to your interrogation of 16
October 1945, Document 3728-PS, Exhibit USA-636, and ask if you did not
give the following testimony:
“After Göring had taken over the Four Year Plan—and I must say
after he had taken over the control of Devisen, already since
April 1936—but still more after the Four Year Plan in September
1936, he had always tried to get control of the whole economic
policy. One of the objects, of course, was the post of
Plenipotentiary for War Economy in the case of war, being only
too anxious to get everything into his hands, he tried to get
that away from me. Certainly as long as I had the position of
Minister of Economics, I objected to that...”
You made that statement?
SCHACHT: I believe that is correct.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Yes, and then you describe your last visit with him
after Luther for two months had endeavored to unite Göring and yourself.
SCHACHT: That is a mistake; it is Hitler, and not Luther.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Very well.
You described it as follows:
“Then I had a last talk with Göring; and at the end of this talk
Göring said, ‘But I must have the right to give orders to you.’
Then I said, ‘Not to me, but to my successor.’ I have never
taken orders from Göring; and I would never have done it,
because he was a fool in economics and I knew something about
it, at least.
“Question: ‘Well, I gather that was a culminating, progressive,
personal business between you and Göring. That seems perfectly
obvious.’
“Answer: ‘Certainly.’”
Is that correct?
SCHACHT: Yes, certainly.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And then the interrogator went on:
“Let us go into the duties of that job for a moment and see what
he was trying to take away from you. There are only two
possibilities, as it has been explained to me; if I am wrong,
correct me. One would be the preparation for a mobilization, and
the other would be the actual taking charge of this in the event
of war. Otherwise, the post had no meaning. So the things you
resisted his taking away from you, as I see it, were the right
to be in charge of the preparation for mobilization and,
secondly, the right to control in the event of war.
“Answer: ‘Correct.’”
Did you give that testimony?
SCHACHT: Please, Mr. Justice, you are confusing the events in relation
to time. The differences with Göring about this so-called
Plenipotentiary for War Economy occurred in the winter 1936-37; and the
so-called last conversation with Göring which you have just mentioned
took place in November 1937. I stated, I believe in January 1937, that I
was prepared to turn over the office and the activity as Plenipotentiary
for War Economy immediately to Göring. That can be found in the
memorandum from the Jodl Diary which has been frequently mentioned here.
At that time the War Ministry, and Blomberg in particular, asked to have
me kept in the position of Plenipotentiary for War Economy, since I was
the Minister of Economy, as long as I was the Minister of Economy. You
can find the correspondence about that, which I think has already been
submitted by you to the Tribunal.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, all right; I think the dates appear in your
testimony. I am not concerned at the moment with the sequence of events;
I am concerned with the functions that you were quarreling over, and
which you described in your interrogations. And the questions and
answers which I read to you are correct; these are the answers you made
at the time, are they not?
SCHACHT: Yes, but I must say the following: If you ask me about these
individual phases, it will give an entirely different picture if you do
not single out the different periods. Mr. Justice, surely you cannot
mention events of January and November in the same breath and then ask
me if that is correct. That is not correct.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, let us get what is wrong about this, if
anything.
When was your last conversation with Göring in which you told him he
would give orders to your successor but not to you?
SCHACHT: November 1937.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, the question as to the duties of the job has
nothing to do with relation to time, has it? That is, the
Plenipotentiary for War Economy, the disagreement between you and
Göring, and in order to make it perfectly clear I will read this
question and answer to you again, and I am not concerned with time; I am
concerned with your description of the job.
“Question: ‘Let us go into the duties of that job for a moment
and see what he was trying to take away from you. Now, there are
only two possibilities, as it has been explained to me; if I am
wrong, correct me. One would be the preparation for a
mobilization, and the other would be the actual taking charge of
this in the event of war. Otherwise the post had no meaning. So
the things you resisted his taking away from you, as I see it,
were the right to be in charge of the preparation for
mobilization and, secondly, the right to control in the event of
war.’”
And you answered, “correct,” did you not?
SCHACHT: This difference...
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Can you answer me first as to whether you did give
that answer to that question, that it was correct?
SCHACHT: Yes, the minutes are correct. And now I should like...
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: All right.
SCHACHT: But now please let me finish.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: All right, go ahead with your explanation.
SCHACHT: Yes. Now I wish to say that that disagreement between Göring
and myself had absolutely nothing to do with the conversation of
November, and that it was not even a disagreement between Göring and
myself. That disagreement which you have just read about occurred in
January 1937, but it was not at all a difference of opinion between
Göring and myself because I said right away, “Relieve me of the post of
Plenipotentiary for War Economy and turn it over to Göring.” And the War
Ministry, that is, Herr Von Blomberg, protested against this, not I. I
was delighted to turn over that office to Göring.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Is there anything in writing about that, Dr.
Schacht?
SCHACHT: The documents which you have submitted here. I would like to
ask my counsel to look for these documents and to present them during
the re-examination. They have been submitted by the Prosecution.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, is it not a fact that your controversy with
Göring was a controversy of a personal character, between you and him,
for control and not a controversy as to the question of armament? You
both wanted to rearm as rapidly as possible.
SCHACHT: I do not want to continue that play with words as to whether it
was personal or anything else, Mr. Justice. I had differences with
Göring on the subject; and if you ask whether it was on armament, speed,
or extent, I reply that I was at greatest odds with Göring in regard to
these points.
I have never denied that I wanted to rearm in order to gain equality of
position for Germany. I never wanted to rearm any further. Göring wanted
to go further; and this is one difference which cannot be overlooked.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now I do not want to play upon words; and if you
say my reference to it as personal is a play upon words, you force me to
go into what you told us about Göring.
Is it not a fact that you told Major Tilley this?
“Whereas I have called Hitler an amoral type of person, I can
regard Göring only as immoral and criminal. Endowed by nature
with a certain geniality which he managed to exploit for his own
popularity, he was the most egocentric being imaginable. The
assumption of political power was for him only a means to
personal enrichment and personal good living. The success of
others filled him with envy. His greed knew no bounds. His
predilection for jewels, gold and finery, _et cetera_, was
unimaginable. He knew no comradeship. Only as long as someone
was useful to him did he profess friendship.
“Göring’s knowledge in all fields in which a government member
should be competent was nil, especially in the economic field.
Of all the economic matters which Hitler entrusted to him in the
autumn of 1936 he had not the faintest notion, though he created
an immense official apparatus and misused his powers as lord of
all economy most outrageously. In his personal appearance he was
so theatrical that one could only compare him with Nero. A lady
who had tea with his second wife reported that he appeared at
this tea in a sort of Roman toga and sandals studded with
jewels, his fingers bedecked with innumerable jewelled rings and
generally covered with ornaments, his face painted and his lips
rouged.”
Did you give that statement to Major Tilley?
SCHACHT: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Yes. And you say you had no personal differences
with Göring?
SCHACHT: Mr. Justice, I ask here again that the different periods of
time should not be confused. I found out about all these things only
later and not at the time of which you speak, that is, the year 1936.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Do you dispute the testimony of Gisevius that in
1935 he told you about Göring’s complicity in the whole Gestapo setup?
SCHACHT: I have testified here that I knew about the Gestapo camps which
Göring had set up and said that I was opposed to them. I do not at all
deny that.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: But your friendship continued despite that
knowledge.
SCHACHT: I have never had a friendship with Göring.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well...
SCHACHT: I surely cannot refuse to work with him, especially as long as
I do not know what kind of a man he is.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: All right. Let us take up foreign relations, about
which you have made a good deal of complaint here. I think you have
testified that in 1937 when you were doing all this rearming, you did
not envisage any kind of a war, is that right?
SCHACHT: No, what you are saying, Mr. Justice, is not correct. In 1937 I
did not do everything to rearm; but from 1935, from the fall of 1935 on,
I tried everything possible to slow down the rearming.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: All right. I refer you to your interrogation of 16
October 1945, and ask whether you gave these answers to these questions:
“Question: ‘Let me ask you then, in 1937 what kind of war did
you envisage?’
“Answer: ‘I never envisaged a war. We might have been attacked,
invaded by somebody; but even that I never expected.’
“Question: ‘You did not expect that. Did you expect a
possibility of a mobilization and concentration of economic
forces in the event of war?’
“Answer: ‘In the event of an attack against Germany, certainly.’
“Question: ‘Now, putting your mind back to 1937, are you able to
say what sort of an attack you were concerned with?’
“Answer: ‘I do not know, Sir.’
“Question: ‘Did you have thoughts on that at the time?’
“Answer: ‘No, never.’
“Question: ‘Did you then consider that the contingency of war in
1937 was so remote as to be negligible?’
“Answer: ‘Yes.’
“Question: ‘You did?’
“Answer: ‘Yes.’” (Document Number 3728-PS)
Did you give those answers?
SCHACHT: I have made exactly the same statements as found in this
interrogation, here before the Tribunal.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, you testified that you tried to divert
Hitler’s plan which was to move and expand to the East—you tried to
divert his attention to colonies instead.
SCHACHT: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: What colonies? You have never specified.
SCHACHT: Our colonies.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And where were they located?
SCHACHT: I assume that you know that exactly as well as I do.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You are the witness, Dr. Schacht. I want to know
what you were telling Hitler, not what I know.
SCHACHT: Oh, what I told Hitler? I told Hitler we should try to get back
a part of the colonies which belonged to us and the administration of
which was taken away from us, so that we could work there.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: What colonies?
SCHACHT: I was thinking especially of the African colonies.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And those African colonies you would regard as
essential to your plan for the future of Germany?
SCHACHT: Not those, but generally any colonial activity; and of course,
at first, I could only limit my colonial desires to our own property.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And your property, as you call it, was the African
colonies?
SCHACHT: Not I personally called them that. That is what the Treaty of
Versailles calls them—“our property.”
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Any way you wish it, you wanted the colonies you
are talking about.
SCHACHT: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You considered that the possession and exploitation
of colonies was necessary to the sort of Germany that you had in mind
creating?
SCHACHT: If you would replace the word “exploitation” by “development,”
I believe there will be no misunderstanding, and to that extent I agree
with you completely.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, by “development” you mean trading, and I
suppose you expected to make a profit out of trade?
SCHACHT: No, not only “trade” but “developing the natural resources” or
the economic possibilities of the colonies.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And it was your proposal that Germany should become
reliant upon those colonies instead of relying on expansion to the East?
SCHACHT: I considered every kind of expansion within the European
continent as sheer folly.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: But you agreed with Hitler that expansion, either
colonial or to the East, was a necessary condition of the kind of
Germany you wanted to create.
SCHACHT: No, that I never said. I told him it was nonsense to undertake
anything toward the East. Only colonial development could be considered.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And you proposed as a matter of policy that
Germany’s development should depend on colonies with which there was no
overland trade route to Germany and which, as you knew, would require a
naval power to protect them.
SCHACHT: I do not think that at all—how do you get that idea?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, you do not get to Africa overland, do you?
You have to go by water at some point, do you not?
SCHACHT: You can go by air.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: What was your trade route? You were thinking only
of air developments?
SCHACHT: No, no. I thought of ships also.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Yes. And Germany was not then a naval power?
SCHACHT: I believe we had a merchant marine which was quite
considerable.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Did your colonial plan involve rearmament by way of
making Germany a naval power to protect the trade routes to the colonies
that you were proposing?
SCHACHT: Not in the least.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Then your plan was to leave the trade route
unprotected?
SCHACHT: Oh, no. I believed that international law would be sufficient
protection.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, that is what you disagreed with Hitler about.
SCHACHT: We never spoke about that.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, in any event he rejected your plan for
colonial developments?
SCHACHT: Oh, no. I have explained here that upon my urgent request he
gave me the order in summer 1936 to take up these colonial matters.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Did you not give these answers in your
interrogation, Dr. Schacht?
“Question: ‘In other words, at the time of your talks with
Hitler in 1931 and 1932 concerning colonial policy, you did not
find him, shall we say, enthusiastic about the possibility?’
“Answer: ‘Neither enthusiastic nor very much interested.’
“Question: ‘But he expressed to you what his views were
alternatively to the possibility of obtaining colonies?’
“Answer: ‘No, we did not go into other alternatives.’”
Did you give those answers?
SCHACHT: Certainly.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, after the Fritsch affair, at least, you knew
that Hitler was not intent upon preserving the peace of Europe by all
possible means.
SCHACHT: Yes, I had my doubts.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And after the Austrian Anschluss you knew that the
Wehrmacht was an important factor in his Eastern policy?
SCHACHT: Well, you may express it that way. I do not know exactly what
you mean by it.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, do not answer anything if you do not know
what I mean, because we will make it clear as we go along. Except for
the suggestion of colonies you proposed no other alternative to his plan
of expansion to the East?
SCHACHT: No.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Never at any Cabinet meeting or elsewhere did you
propose any other alternative?
SCHACHT: No.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, as to the move into Austria, I think you gave
these answers:
“Question: ‘Actually Hitler did not use the precise method that
you say you favored?’
“Answer: ‘Not at all.’
“Question: ‘Did you favor the method that he did employ?’
“Answer: ‘Not at all, Sir.’
“Question: ‘What was there in his method that you did not like?’
“Answer: ‘Oh, it was simply overrunning, just taking the
Austrians over the head—or what do you call it? It was force,
and I have never been in favor of such force.’”
Did you give those answers?
SCHACHT: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, you have made considerable complaint here that
foreigners did not come to your support at various times in your efforts
to block Hitler, have you not?
SCHACHT: Certainly.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You knew at the time of the Austrian Anschluss the
attitude of the United States towards the Nazi regime, as expressed by
President Roosevelt, did you not?
SCHACHT: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And you knew of his speech suggesting that the Nazi
menace ought to be quarantined to prevent its spread?
SCHACHT: I do not remember; but I certainly must have read it at that
time, if it was published in Germany, as I assume it was.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Goebbels let loose a campaign of attack on the
President as a result of it, did he not?
SCHACHT: I assume I read that.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: As a matter of fact, you joined in the attack on
foreigners who were criticizing the methods, did you not?
SCHACHT: When and where? What attacks?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: All right. After the Austrian Anschluss, when force
was used, with your disapproval, you immediately went in and took over
the Austrian National Bank, did you not?
SCHACHT: That was my duty.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Yes. Well, you did it.
SCHACHT: Of course.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And you liquidated it for the account of the Reich.
SCHACHT: Not liquidated; I merged it, amalgamated it.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I beg your pardon?
SCHACHT: Amalgamated.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Amalgamated it. And you took over the personnel?
SCHACHT: Everything.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Yes. And the decree doing so was signed by you.
SCHACHT: Certainly.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Yes. And you called the employees together on 21
March 1938.
SCHACHT: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And made a speech to them.
SCHACHT: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And did you say the following among other things...
SCHACHT: Certainly.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, you have not heard it yet.
SCHACHT: Yes, I heard it during the case of the Prosecution.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, I would like to quote some of it to you and
remind you of it.
“I think it is quite useful if we recall these things to our
mind in order to expose all the sanctimonious hypocrisy exuding
from the foreign press. Thank God, these things could after all
not hinder the great German people on their way, for Adolf
Hitler has created a communion of German will and German
thought. He has bolstered it up with the newly strengthened
Wehrmacht, and he has thereby given the external aspect to the
inner union between Germany and Austria.
“I am known for sometimes expressing thoughts which give
offense; nor would I care to depart from this custom today.”
“Hilarity” is noted at this point in your speech.
“I know that there are even here in this country a few people—I
believe they are not too numerous—who find fault with the
events of the last few days. But nobody, I believe, doubts the
goal; and it should be said to all hecklers that you cannot
satisfy everybody. There are those who say they would have done
it in some other way, perhaps, but strange to say they did not
do it”—and in parentheses the word “hilarity” appears again.
Continuing with your speech—“it was done by our Adolf Hitler
(Long, continued applause); and if there is still something left
to be improved, then those hecklers should try to bring about
these improvements from within the German Reich and the German
community and not disturb it from without.” (Document EC-297)
Did you use that language?
SCHACHT: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: In other words, you publicly ridiculed those who
were complaining of the methods, did you not?
SCHACHT: If that is the way you see it.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Then you also, in addressing the personnel of the
Austrian National Bank, which you were taking over, said this:
“I consider it completely impossible that even a single person
will find a future with us who is not wholeheartedly for Adolf
Hitler. (Loud, continued applause; shouts of ‘Sieg Heil’).”
Continuing with the speech:
“Whoever does not do so had better withdraw from our circle of
his own accord. (Loud applause).”
Is that what happened?
SCHACHT: Yes, they all agreed, surprisingly.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, had the Reichsbank before 1933 and 1934 been a
political institution?
SCHACHT: No.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Had politics been in the Reichsbank?
SCHACHT: Never.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, on this day, speaking to its employees, you
said this, did you not?
“The Reichsbank will always be nothing but National Socialist,
or I shall cease to be its manager. (Heavy, protracted
applause).”
Did that happen?
SCHACHT: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, Sir, you have said that you never took the
oath to Hitler.
SCHACHT: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I ask you if this is what you, as head of the
Reichsbank, required of the employees whom you were taking over in
Austria; and I quote:
“Now I shall ask you to rise. (The audience rises.) Today we
pledge allegiance to the great Reichsbank family, to the great
German community; we pledge allegiance to our newly arisen,
powerful Greater German Reich, and we sum up all these
sentiments in the allegiance to the man who has brought about
all this transformation. I ask you to raise your hands and to
repeat after me:
“I swear that I will be faithful and obedient to the Führer of
the German Reich and the German people, Adolf Hitler, and will
perform my duties conscientiously and selflessly. (The audience
takes the pledge with uplifted hands.)
“You have taken this pledge. A bad fellow he who breaks it. To
our Führer a triple ‘Sieg Heil’.”
Is that a correct representation of what took place?
SCHACHT: The oath is the prescribed civil service oath and it is quite
in accordance with what I said here yesterday, that the oath is made to
the head of the state just as I have stated before too: “We stand united
before the German people”—I do not know exactly what the German
expression is. I hear your English version here. That oath is exactly
the same.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I have referred to Document EC-297, Exhibit
USA-632, in the course of this. That is the exhibit I have been using.
So you say that was to an impersonal head of state and not to Adolf
Hitler?
SCHACHT: Yes. One obviously cannot take an oath to an idea. Therefore,
one has to use a person. But I said yesterday that I did not take an
oath to Herr Ebert or to Herr Hindenburg or to the Kaiser, but to the
head of State as representative of the people.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You told your employees that all of the sentiments
of this oath were summed up in the allegiance to the man, did you not?
SCHACHT: No.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Is that not what you said?
SCHACHT: No, that is not correct. If you read it again, it does not say
to the man but to the leader as the head of State.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, no matter what you took the oath to...
SCHACHT: [_Interposing._] Excuse me. There is a very great difference.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, we will get to that. Whatever you took the
oath to, you were breaking it at the very time, were you not?
SCHACHT: No. I never broke the oath to this man as representative of the
German people, but I broke my oath when I found out that that man was a
criminal.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: When you plotted to cause his death?
SCHACHT: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Do you want to explain to the Tribunal how you
could cause the death of Adolf Hitler without also causing the death of
the head of the German State?
SCHACHT: There is no difference because unfortunately that man was the
head of the German nation.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You say you never broke the oath?
SCHACHT: I do not know what you want to express by that. Certainly I did
not keep the oath which I took to Hitler because Hitler unfortunately
was a criminal, a perjurer, and there was no true head of State. I do
not know what you mean by “breaking the oath,” but I did not keep my
oath to him and I am proud of it.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: So you were administering to your employees an oath
which you at that moment were breaking and intended to break?
SCHACHT: Again you confuse different periods of time, Mr. Justice. That
was in March 1938 when as you have heard me say before, I still was in
doubt, and therefore it was not clear to me yet what kind of a man
Hitler was. Only when in the course of 1938 I observed that Hitler was
possibly walking into a war, did I break the oath.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: When did you find him walking into a war?
SCHACHT: In the course of 1938 when, judging from the events, I
gradually became convinced that Hitler might steer into a war, that is
to say, intentionally. Then only did I break my oath.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, you stated yesterday that you started to
sabotage the government in 1936 and 1937.
SCHACHT: Yes, because I did not want excessive armament.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And we find you administering an oath to the
employees to be faithful and obedient.
Now, I ask you if you did not make this statement in interrogation:
“Question: ‘But you make this statement at the end of the oath,
after everybody has raised his hand and made his oath. Did you
say the following, “You have taken this pledge. A bad fellow he
who breaks it”?’
“Answer: ‘Yes, I agree to that and I must say that I myself
broke it.’
“Question: ‘Do you also say that at the time that you urged this
upon the audience, that you already were breaking it?’
“Answer: ‘I am sorry to say that within my soul I felt very
shaken in my loyalty already at that time, but I hoped that
things would turn out well at the end.’”
SCHACHT: I am glad that you quote this because it confirms exactly what
I have just said; that I was in a state of doubt and that I still had
hope that everything would come out all right; that is to say, that
Hitler would develop in the right direction. So it confirms exactly what
I have just said.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, I am sure we want to be helpful to each
other, Dr. Schacht.
SCHACHT: I am convinced that both of us are trying to find the truth,
Mr. Justice.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, you remained in the Reichsbank after this
Anschluss, of course?
SCHACHT: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And you remained there until later—until January
1939, if that is the date?
SCHACHT: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, after this Anschluss, the mefo bills which had
been issued began to become due, did they not, in 1938 and 1939?
SCHACHT: No, the maturity date of the first mefo bills must have been at
the earliest in the spring of 1939. They had all been issued for 5 years
and I assume that the first mefo bills were issued in the spring of
1934, so that the first mefo bills became due in the spring of 1939.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, this is the question and the answer. Correct
me if I am wrong.
“Question: ‘Well, did you in the Reichsbank utilize funds which
were available? Let me put it this way: As these mefo bills
became due, what did you do about them?’
“Answer: ‘I asked the Minister of Finance whether he could repay
them, because after 5 years he had to repay them, some in 1938
or 1939, I think. The first mefo bills would have become due for
repayment and of course he said, “I cannot.”’”
You had that conversation with the Finance Minister while you were still
President of the Reichsbank?
SCHACHT: Mr. Justice, I said that throughout our financial dealings we
became somewhat worried as to whether we would get our bills paid back
or not. I have already explained to the Tribunal that in the second half
of 1938 the Finance Minister got into difficulties and he came to me in
order again to borrow money. Thereupon I said to him, “Listen, in what
kind of a situation are you anyway for you will soon have to repay the
first mefo bills to us. Are you not prepared for that?” And now it
turned out, that was in the fall of 1938, that the Reich Finance
Minister had done nothing whatever to fulfill his obligation to meet
payment of the mefo bills; and that, of course, in the fall of 1938,
made for exceedingly strained relations with the Reich Finance Minister,
that is, between the Reichsbank and the Reich Finance Minister.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, taxes did not yield any sufficient revenue to
discharge those bills, did they?
SCHACHT: Yes; I explained already yesterday that the risk which was
taken in the mefo bills, which I have admitted from the very beginning,
was not really a risk if a reasonable financial policy were followed;
that is, if from 1938 on, further armament had not continued and
additional foolish expenditures not been made, but if instead, the money
accruing from taxes and bonds had been used for meeting the payment of
the mefo bills.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: All I am asking you at the present moment, Dr.
Schacht, is whether these bills could not have been paid out of the
revenue from taxes.
SCHACHT: Surely. Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: They could have?
SCHACHT: Of course, but that was the surprising thing, they were not
repaid; the money was used to continue rearming. May I add something in
order to give you further information?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: No, I am really not concerned with the financing; I
am merely concerned with what kind of a mess you were in at the time you
resigned.
SCHACHT: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: The mefo bills were due and could not be paid?
SCHACHT: Shortly.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: They were shortly to mature?
SCHACHT: Yes, but they could be paid. That is a mistake if you say that
they could not be paid.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, they could not be paid out of the current
year’s taxes, could they?
SCHACHT: Yes, indeed. You are not interested and do not want me to tell
you, but I am quite ready to explain it.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, you have explained it pretty well to us.
SCHACHT: You have just told me you were not interested.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Your subscriptions to the Fourth Reich Loan of 1938
had produced unsatisfactory results, had they not?
SCHACHT: They were hardly pleasing. The capital market was not good.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And you have reported on the loan that there had
been a shortage in the public subscription? And the result had been
unsatisfactory?
SCHACHT: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, did you not make this answer to the
interrogator’s question:
“Question: ‘But I am asking you whether during that period from
1 April 1938 to January 1939 you did not continue to finance
armaments?’
“Answer: ‘Sir, otherwise these mefo bills had to be refunded by
the Reich, which they could not be, because the Reich had no
money to do it; and I could not procure any money for refunding
because that would have had to come from taxes or loans. So I
had to continue to carry these mefo bills and that, of course, I
did.’”
Did you give that answer?
SCHACHT: Yes, that was quite in order—kindly let me speak, would you
not—because the Finance Minister did not make his funds available for
the repayment of the mefo bills, but instead gave them for armaments. If
he had used these funds to pay the mefo bills, everything would have
been all right.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And you carried the mefo bills which let him use
current revenues to continue the plans of rearmament after 1938, did you
not?
SCHACHT: Mr. Justice, this was the situation. A large part of the mefo
bills was already on the financial and capital market. Now, when that
market was too heavily burdened by the government, then the people
brought in the mefo bills to the Reichsbank, for the Reichsbank had
promised to accept them. That, precisely, was the great obstruction to
my policy. The Reich Finance Minister financed the armament instead of
honoring the mefo bills as he had promised.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, it was under those circumstances that you took
a position which would result in your retirement from the Reichsbank?
SCHACHT: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now we come to Czechoslovakia. Did you favor the
policy of acquiring the Sudetenland by threat of resort to arms?
SCHACHT: Not at all.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I think you characterized the manner in which the
Sudetenland was acquired as wrong and reprehensible.
SCHACHT: I do not know when I could have done that. I said that the
Allies, by their policy, gave the Sudetenland to Hitler, whereas I
always had expected only that the Sudeten Germans would be given
autonomy.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Then you approved of Hitler’s policy in handling
the Sudetenland situation? Is that what you want to be understood as
saying?
SCHACHT: I never knew that Hitler, beyond autonomy, demanded anything
else.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Your only criticism of the Czechoslovakian
situation relates to the Allies, as I understand you?
SCHACHT: Well, it also applies to the Czechs, maybe to the Germans too;
for goodness sake, I do not want to play the judge here.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, now on 16 October 1945, in Exhibit USA-636,
Document 3728-PS, I ask if you did not make these replies to questions:
“Question: ‘Now, I am coming back to the march against
Czechoslovakia which resulted in the appeasement policy, Munich,
and the cession of the Sudetenland to the Reich.’
“Answer: ‘Yes.’
“Question: ‘Did you at that time favor the policy of acquiring
the Sudetenland?’
“Answer: ‘No.’
“Question: ‘Did you favor at that time the policy of threatening
or menacing the Czechs by force of arms so as to acquire the
Sudetenland?’
“Answer: ‘No, certainly not.’
“Question: ‘Then I ask you, did it strike you at that time, did
it come to your consciousness, that the means which Hitler was
using for threatening the Czechs was the Wehrmacht and the
armament industry?’
“Answer: ‘He could not have done it without the Wehrmacht.’”
Did you give those answers?
SCHACHT: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Continuing:
“Question: ‘Did you consider the manner in which he handled the
Sudeten question wrong or reprehensible?’
“Answer: ‘Yes.’
“Question: ‘You did?’
“Answer: ‘Yes, Sir.’
“Question: ‘And did you have a feeling at that time, looking
back on the events that had proceeded and in your own
participation in them, that this army which he was using as a
threat against Czechoslovakia was at least in part an army of
your own creation? Did that ever strike you?’
“Answer: ‘I cannot deny that, Sir.’”
SCHACHT: Certainly not.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: But here again, you turned in to help Hitler, once
he had been successful with it, did you not?
SCHACHT: How can you say such a thing? I certainly did not know that
Hitler would use the army in order to threaten other nations.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: After he had done it, you turned in and took over
the Czech bank, did you not?
SCHACHT: Of course.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Yes. You followed to clean up economically just so
far as Hitler got the territory, did you not?
SCHACHT: But I beg your pardon. He did not take it with violence at all.
The Allies presented him with the country. The whole thing was settled
peacefully.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, we have your testimony on the part the
Wehrmacht played in it and what part you played in the Wehrmacht.
SCHACHT: Yes, I have never denied that.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: No. What I mean is this, referring to your
interrogation of 17 October (Exhibit US-616):
“Question: ‘Now, after the Sudetenland was taken over by the
Munich agreement, did you, as the President of the Reichsbank,
do anything about the Sudeten territory?’
“Answer: ‘I think we took over the affiliations of the Czech
Bank of Issue.’
“Question: ‘And you also arranged for the currency conversion,
did you not?’
“Answer: ‘Yes.’”
That is what you did after this wrong and reprehensible act had been
committed by Hitler, did you not?
SCHACHT: It is no “wrong and reprehensible” act “committed” by Hitler,
but Hitler received the Sudeten German territory by way of treaty and,
of course, the currency and the institute which directed financing had
to be amalgamated with this field in Germany. There can be no talk of
injustice. I cannot believe that the Allies have put their signature to
a piece of injustice.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: So you think that everything up to Munich was all
right?
SCHACHT: No. I am certainly of a different opinion. There was much
injustice.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Were you in this Court when Göring testified to his
threat to bomb Prague—“the beautiful city of Prague”?
SCHACHT: Thanks to your invitation, I was here.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Yes. I suppose you approved that use of the force
which you had created in the Wehrmacht?
SCHACHT: Disapproved; disapproved under all circumstances.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You did not think that was right dealing, then?
SCHACHT: No, no, that was an atrocious thing.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, we have found something we agree on, Doctor.
You knew of the invasion of Poland?
SCHACHT: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You regarded it as an unqualified act of aggression
on Hitler’s part, did you not?
SCHACHT: Absolutely.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: The same was true of the invasion of Luxembourg,
was it not?
SCHACHT: Absolutely.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And of Holland?
SCHACHT: Absolutely.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And of Denmark?
SCHACHT: Absolutely.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And of Norway?
SCHACHT: Absolutely.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And of Yugoslavia?
SCHACHT: Absolutely.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And of Russia?
SCHACHT: Absolutely, sir; and you have left out Norway and Belgium.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Yes; well, I got to the end of my paper. The entire
course was a course of aggression?
SCHACHT: Absolutely to be condemned.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And the success of that aggression at every step
was due to the Wehrmacht which you had so much to do with creating?
SCHACHT: Unfortunately.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, I intend to take up another subject and
perhaps it would be ... it is almost recess time.
THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now.
[_A recess was taken._]
MARSHAL (Colonel Charles W. Mays): If it pleases the Tribunal, the
report is made that Defendant Von Neurath is absent.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Dr. Schacht, in your direct testimony you made
reference to a film, which was taken and exhibited in Germany for
propaganda purposes, of your demeanor on the occasion of Hitler’s return
after the fall of France.
SCHACHT: May I correct that? Not I, but my counsel, spoke of this film;
and it was not mentioned that it was used for propaganda purposes. My
counsel merely said that it had been run in a newsreel, so it probably
was shown for about one week.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I will ask to exhibit that film to the Tribunal. It
is a very brief film, and the movement in it is very rapid. There is
very little of translation involved in it, but the speed of it is such
that for myself I had to see it twice in order to really see what it is.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you want to put it on now?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I would like to put it on now. It will take only a
moment, and Dr. Schacht should be placed where he can see it for I want
to ask him some questions and [_Turning to the defendant_] particularly
I may ask you to identify the persons in it.
I will ask, if I may, to have it shown twice, so that after all has been
seen you can once more see it.
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly.
[_Moving pictures were then shown._]
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I think that I, in mentioning this exhibit which I
wish to offer in evidence, spoke of it as a “propaganda film.” That was
not the language of Dr. Dix. Dr. Dix described it as a “weekly newsreel”
and as a “weekly film.”
[_Turning to the defendant._] While our memory is fresh about that, will
you tell the Court as many of the defendants as you recognized present
in that picture?
SCHACHT: In glancing at it quickly I could not see exactly who was
there. However, I should assume that almost all were present—I say that
from memory, not from the film—either in Hitler’s retinue or among
those who received him.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: While you were still President of the Reichsbank
and after the action in taking over the Czechoslovakian Bank you made a
speech, did you not, on 29 November 1938?
SCHACHT: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: It is Document EC-611, Exhibit USA-622. I am
advised that the film became Exhibit USA-835, and before I pass from it
I would like to offer the statement as to the personality of Hermann
Göring, which is Document 3936-PS, as Exhibit USA-836.
[_Turning to the defendant._] In this speech of 29 November 1938, Dr.
Schacht, if I am correctly informed—and by the way, it was a public
speech was it not?
SCHACHT: Inasmuch as it was made before the German Academy. It was
entirely public, and if it passed the censorship it certainly was also
mentioned in the papers. It was public; anyone could hear it.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You used this language, did you not?:
“It is possible that no bank of issue in peace times has carried
on such a daring credit policy as has the Reichsbank since the
seizure of power by National Socialism. With the aid of this
credit policy, however, Germany has created an armament second
to none, and this armament in turn has made possible our
political successes.” (Document EC-611)
Is that correct?
SCHACHT: That is absolutely correct, and—would you please mind letting
me talk in the future? That is correct and I was very much surprised
that it was necessary to do this in order to create justice in the
world.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: The taking over of Czechoslovakia representing your
idea of justice?
SCHACHT: I have already told you that Germany did not “take over
Czechoslovakia,” but that it was indeed presented to Germany by the
Allies on a silver platter.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Are you now saying that that was an act of justice,
or are you condemning it? I cannot get your position, Doctor. Just tell
us, were you for it? Are you today for it, or against it?
SCHACHT: Against what? Will you please tell me against what and for
what?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Against the taking over of the Sudetenland by the
method by which it was done.
SCHACHT: I cannot answer your question for the reason that, as I said,
it was no “taking over,” but was a present. If someone gives me a
present, such as this, I accept it gratefully.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Even though it does not belong to them to give?
SCHACHT: Well, that I must naturally leave up to the donor.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And although it was taken at the point of a gun,
you still would accept the gift?
SCHACHT: No, it was not taken “at the point of a gun.”
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, we will pass on to your speech. Did you say
also:
“Instead of a weak and vacillating government a single,
purposeful, energetic personality is ruling today. That is the
great miracle which has happened in Germany and which has had
its effect in all fields of life and not last in that of economy
and finance. There is no German financial miracle. There is only
the miracle of the reawakening of German national consciousness
and German discipline, and we owe this miracle to our Führer,
Adolf Hitler.” (Document EC-611)
Did you say that?
SCHACHT: Certainly. That was what I was so greatly astonished at.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: As Minister without Portfolio, what did your
Ministry consist of?
SCHACHT: Nothing.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: What employees did you have?
SCHACHT: One female secretary.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: What space did you occupy?
SCHACHT: Two or three rooms in my own apartment which I had furnished as
office rooms.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: So the government did not even furnish you an
office?
SCHACHT: Yes, they paid me a rental for those rooms.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Oh, and whom did you meet with as Minister without
Portfolio?
SCHACHT: I do not understand. Whom I met with?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, did you have any meetings? Did you have any
official meetings to attend?
SCHACHT: I have stated here repeatedly that, after my retirement from
the Reichsbank, I never had a single meeting or conference, official or
otherwise.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Did anybody report to you, or did you report to
anybody?
SCHACHT: No, no one reported to me, nor did I report to anyone else.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Then I take it that you had no duties whatever in
this position?
SCHACHT: Absolutely correct.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And you were Minister without Portfolio, however,
at the time that Hitler came back from France, and you attended the
reception for him at the railway station? And went to the Reichstag to
hear his speech?
SCHACHT: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, notwithstanding your removal as President of
the Reichsbank, the government continued to pay you your full salary
until the end of 1942, did it not?
SCHACHT: I stated yesterday that that is not correct. I received my
salary from the Reichsbank, which was due to me by contract, but a
minister’s salary was not paid to me. I believe that as Minister I
received certain allowances to cover expenses, I cannot say that at the
moment; but I did not receive a salary as a Minister.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, I will return to your interrogation of 9
October 1945 and ask you whether you gave these answers to these
questions on that interrogation:
“Question: ‘What salary did you receive as Minister without
Portfolio?’
“Answer: ‘I could not tell you exactly. I think it was some
24,000 marks, or 20,000 marks. I cannot tell you exactly, but it
was accounted on the salary and afterward on the pension which I
got from the Reichsbank, so I was not paid twice. I was not paid
twice.’
“Question: ‘In other words, the salary that you received as
Minister without Portfolio during the period you were also
President of the Reichsbank was deducted from the Reichsbank?’
“Answer: ‘Yes.’
“Question: ‘However, after you severed your connection with the
Reichsbank in January 1939, did you then receive the whole
salary?’
“Answer: ‘I got the whole salary because my contract ran until
the end of June 1942, I think.’
“Question: ‘So you received a full salary until the end of June
1942?’
“Answer: ‘Full salary and no extra salary, but from the 1st of
July 1942 I got my pension from the Reichsbank, and again the
salary of the Ministry was deducted from that, or vice versa.
What was higher, I do not know; I got a pension of about 30,000
marks from the Reichsbank.’”
And on 11 July 1945, at Ruskin, you were questioned and gave answers as
follows:
“Question: ‘What was the date of your contract?’
“Answer: ‘From 8 March 1939, 1940, 1941, 1942. Four years. Four
years’ contract.’
“Question: ‘You were really then given a four-year appointment?’
“Answer: ‘That is what I told you. After 1942 I got a pension
from the Reichsbank.’
“Question: ‘What was the amount of your salary and all other
income from the Reichsbank?’
“Answer: ‘All the income from the Reichsbank, including my fees
for representation, amounted to 60,000 marks a year, and the
pension is 24,000. You see, I had a short contract but a high
pension. As Reich Minister without Portfolio, I had another, I
think also 20,000 or 24,000 marks.’”
Now, is that correct?
SCHACHT: The salaries are stated on paper and are correctly cited here
and I have indeed claimed that I was paid by one source only. I was
asked, “What salary did you receive as Reich Minister?” I stated the
amount, but I did not receive it, as it was merely deducted from my
Reichsbank salary. And the pension, as I see here, is quoted wrongly in
one case. I believe I had only 24,000 marks’ pension, while it says here
somewhere that it was 30,000 marks. In my own money affairs I am
somewhat less exact than in my official money affairs. However, I was
paid only once, and that is mainly by the Reichsbank up to—and that
also has not been stated here correctly. It was not the end of 1942, but
the end of June 1942, that my contract expired. Then the pension began
and it too was paid only once. How those two, that is, the Ministry and
Reichsbank, arranged it with each other is unknown to me.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, you were entitled to a salary and a pension
both, and one was offset against the other; is that what you mean? And
that arrangement continued as long as you were a part of the regime?
SCHACHT: It is still in effect today. It has nothing to do with the
regime. I hope that I shall still receive my pension; how else should I
pay my expenses?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, they may not be very heavy, Doctor.
When General Beck resigned, he asked you to resign, did he not?
THE PRESIDENT: Just a minute; it is quite unnecessary for anyone present
in Court to show his amusement by laughter.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Were you asked to resign when General Beck
resigned?
SCHACHT: No, he did not say that.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Have you in mind the testimony given by Gisevius
here?
SCHACHT: Yes. It was a mistake on the part of Gisevius.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Oh, well, in any event, when General Beck resigned,
it was called sharply to your attention?
SCHACHT: He paid me a visit and told me about it a few days before his
retirement. I assume that was about the end of August or the beginning
of September of 1938.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And you say that no proposal was made to you at
that time that you should resign along with Beck?
SCHACHT: No, nothing was said about that. Beck saw me in my room; he did
not mention anything of this sort, and it was not discussed by us.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Did it ever occur to you that resignation would be
the appropriate way of expressing your protest against these things
which you now say you disapprove?
SCHACHT: No, I do not at all believe that a resignation would have been
the means to achieve that which had to be done, and I also regretted it
very much that Beck retired. That which happened, Mr. Justice, was
caused by an entirely false policy—a policy that partly was forced upon
us, and partly, I am sorry to say, was not handled properly by us. In
February, Neurath was dismissed. In the fall Beck stepped out; in
January 1939 I was dismissed. One after the other was gotten rid of. If
it had been possible for our group—if I too may now speak of a
group—to carry out a common action, as we hoped for and expected, then
that would have been an excellent thing. However, these individual
retirements served no purpose whatsoever; at least, they had no success.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You felt that Beck should have stayed at his post
and been disloyal to the head of the State?
SCHACHT: Absolutely.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And, in all events, you continued in every public
way throughout the period, until the fall of France, to hold yourself
out as a part of the government and a part of the regime, did you not?
SCHACHT: Well, I never considered myself a part of the regime exactly,
because I was against it. But, of course, ever since the fall of 1938 I
worked towards my own retirement, as soon as I saw that Hitler did not
stop the rearmament but continued it, and when I became aware that I was
powerless to act against it.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, when did you start working towards your own
retirement?
SCHACHT: Pardon me; I did not understand—to work towards what?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: When did you start working towards your own
retirement from office.
SCHACHT: After Munich and after we realized that we could no longer
expect disarmament or a stopping of rearmament by Hitler and that we
could not prevent a continuation of the rearmament; so, within the
circles of the Reichsbank Directorate, we began to discuss this question
and to realize that we could not follow the further course of
rearmament. That was the last quarter of 1938.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And all of these events of which you disapproved
never were of sufficient consequence to cause you to resign and withhold
a further use of your name from this regime?
SCHACHT: Until then I had still hoped that I could bring about a change
for the better; consequently I accepted all the disadvantages entailed
with my remaining in office, even facing the danger that some day I
might be judged, as I am today.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You continued to allow your name to be used at home
and abroad despite your disapproval, as you say, of the invasion of
Poland?
SCHACHT: I never was asked for my permission, and I never gave that
permission.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You knew perfectly well, did you not, that your
name meant a great deal to this group at any time and that you were one
of the only men in this group who had any standing abroad?
SCHACHT: The first part of your statement I already accepted yesterday
from you as a compliment. The second part, I believe, is not correct. I
believe that several other members of the regime also had a “standing”
in foreign countries, some of whom are sitting with me here in the
prisoners’ dock.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Any foreign observer, who read affairs in Germany,
would have obtained the understanding that you were supporting the
regime continuously until you were deprived of the office of Minister
without Portfolio, would they not?
SCHACHT: That is absolutely incorrect. As I have stated repeatedly
yesterday and also during my direct examination, I was always referred
to in foreign broadcasts as a man who was an opponent of this system,
and all my numerous friends and acquaintances in foreign countries knew
that I was against this system and worked against it. And if any
journalist can be mentioned to me today who did not know this, then he
does not know his business.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Oh, do you refer to the letter which you wrote to
the New York banker Leon...?
SCHACHT: Leon Fraser.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, at the time you sent that letter to
Switzerland, there was a diplomatic representative of the United States
in Berlin, was there not?
SCHACHT: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And you knew he had a pouch communication at least
once a week and usually once a day with Washington?
SCHACHT: Yes, I did not know it, but I assumed it.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And, if you wanted to communicate with the
Government of the United States or with an official of the United
States, you might have communicated through the regular channels?
SCHACHT: I did not desire to communicate with the American Government or
with an American official. I merely desired to re-establish my
connection with a friend who had invited me in January to come to the
United States, and I made reference to this previous correspondence
between him and me in January.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: That disposes of the Fraser matter then.
Now, Dr. Schacht, while you were Minister without Portfolio, aggressive
wars were instituted, according to your testimony, against Poland,
against Denmark and Norway in April of 1940, against Holland and Belgium
in May of 1940; in June there was the French armistice and surrender; in
September of 1940 there was the German-Japanese-Italian-Tripartite Pact;
in April of 1941 there was an attack on Yugoslavia and Greece, which you
say was aggressive; in June of 1941 there was the invasion of Soviet
Russia, which you say was aggressive; on 7 December 1941 Japan attacked
Pearl Harbor, and after the attack declared war on the United States; on
8 December 1941 the United States declared war on Japan, but not on
Germany; on 11 December 1941, Germany and Italy declared war on the
United States; and all of these things happened in the foreign field and
you kept your position as Minister without Portfolio under the Hitler
Government, did you not?
SCHACHT: Mr. Justice...
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Did you not and is that not a fact?
SCHACHT: Yes, and I wish to add something to this. From dozens of
witnesses who have testified here, and from myself, you have heard again
and again that it was impossible unilaterally to retire from this office
because, if I was put in as a minister by the head of a government, I
could also be retired only with his signature. You have also been told
that at various times I attempted to rid myself of this ministerial
office. Besides the witnesses’ testimony from countless others,
including Americans, to the effect that it was well known that Hitler
did not permit anyone to retire from office without his permission. And
now you charge me with having remained. I did not remain for my
pleasure, but I remained because I could not have retired from the
Ministry without making a big row. And almost constantly, I should say,
I tried to have this row until finally in January 1943 I succeeded; and
I was able to disappear from office, not without danger to my life.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, I will deal with your explanation later. I am
now getting the facts.
You did not have an open break with Hitler, so that you were not
entirely out of office until after the German offensive broke down in
Russia and the German armies were in retreat and until after the Allies
had landed in Africa, did you?
SCHACHT: The letter by which I brought about the last successful row is
dated 30 November 1942. The row and its success dates from 21 January
1943, because Hitler and Göring and whoever else participated in
discussing it, needed 7 weeks to make up their minds about the
consequence of my letter.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Then by your letter it plainly shows that you
thought the ship was sinking, was it not; that means that the war was
lost?
SCHACHT: My oral and written declarations from former times have already
shown this. I have spoken here also about this. I have testified on the
letter to Ribbentrop and Funk; I have presented a number of facts here
which prove that I never believed in the possibility of a German
victory. And my disappearance from office has nothing whatsoever to do
with all these questions.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, meanwhile, while you were remaining as
Minister without Portfolio because you thought it might be dangerous to
resign, you were encouraging the generals in the army to commit treason
against the head of the State, were you not?
SCHACHT: Yes, and I should like now to make an additional statement to
this. It was not because of threatening danger to my life that I could
not resign earlier. For I was not afraid of endangering my life because
I was used to that ever since 1937, having constantly been exposed to
the arbitrariness of the Party and its heads.
Your question as to whether I tried to turn a number of generals to high
treason, I answer in the affirmative.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And you also tried to get assassins to assassinate
Hitler, did you not?
SCHACHT: In 1938 when I made my first attempt, I was not thinking as yet
of an assassination of Hitler. However, I must admit that later I said
if it could not be done any other way, we would have to kill the man, if
possible.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Did you say, “We will have to kill him,” or did you
say, “Somebody else will have to kill him,” Dr. Schacht?
SCHACHT: If I had had the opportunity I would have killed him, I myself.
I beg you therefore not to summon me before a German court for attempted
murder because in that sense I am, of course, guilty.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, now, whatever your activities, they were
never sufficiently open so that the foreign files in France, which you
say were searched by the Gestapo, had an inkling of it, were they?
SCHACHT: Yes, I could not announce this matter in advance in the
newspapers.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And the Gestapo, with all its searching of you,
never was in a position to put you under arrest until after the 20 July
attack on Hitler’s life?
SCHACHT: They could have put me under arrest much earlier than that if
they had been a little smarter; but that seems to be a strange attribute
of any police force.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And it was not until 1943 that the Hitler regime
dismissed you? Until that time apparently they believed that you were
doing them more good than harm?
SCHACHT: I do not know what they believed at that time, hence I ask you
not to question me about that. You will have to ask somebody from the
regime; you still have enough people here.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You have now contended that you knew about the plot
of 20 July on Hitler’s life?
SCHACHT: I knew about it.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You knew that Gisevius says you did not know about
it?
SCHACHT: I already stated yesterday that I was informed not only of
Goerdeler’s efforts but that I was thoroughly informed by General
Lindemann, and the evidence of Colonel Gronau has been read here. I also
stated that I did not inform my friends about this, because there was a
mutual agreement between us that we should not tell anyone anything
which might bring him into an embarrassing situation in case he were
tortured by the Gestapo.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Do you recall that Gisevius said that there were
only three civilians that knew about that plot which was carefully kept
within military personnel?
SCHACHT: You see that even Gisevius was not informed on every detail.
Naturally, he cannot testify to more than what he knew.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And so, Dr. Schacht, we are to weigh your testimony
in the light of the fact that you preferred, over a long period of time,
a course of sabotage of your government’s policy by treason against the
head of the State, rather than open resignation from his cabinet?
SCHACHT: You constantly refer to my resignation. I have told you and
proven that no resignation was possible. Consequently your conclusion is
wrong.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: All right! Now let us see. In your interrogation on
16 October 1945, Exhibit USA-636, some questions were asked you about
the generals of the Army, and I ask you if you were not asked these
questions and if you did not give these answers:
“Question: ‘I say, suppose you were Chief of the General Staff
and Hitler decided to attack Austria, would you say you had the
right to withdraw?’
“Answer: ‘I would have said, “Withdraw me, Sir.”’
“Question: ‘You would have said that?’
“Answer: ‘Yes.’
“Question: ‘So you take the position that any official could at
any time withdraw if he thought that the moral obligation was
such that he felt he could not go on?’
“Answer: ‘Quite.’
“Question: ‘In other words, you feel that the members of the
General Staff of the Wehrmacht who were responsible for carrying
into execution Hitler’s plan are equally guilty with him?’
“Answer: ‘That is a very hard question you put to me, Sir, and I
answer, “yes”.’”
You gave those answers, did you not? Did you give those answers?
SCHACHT: Yes, and I should like to give an explanation of this, if the
Tribunal permits it. If Hitler ever had given me an immoral order, I
should have refused to execute it. That is what I said about the
generals also, and I uphold this statement which you have just read.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I am through with him, Your Honor, except that I
would like to note the exhibit numbers. The petition to Hindenburg
referred to yesterday is 3901-PS, and will become Exhibit USA-837. The
Von Blomberg interrogation of October 1945 is Exhibit USA-838.
DR. HANS LATERNSER: (Counsel for General Staff and High Command of the
German Armed Forces): Mr. President, I request that the statement of the
Defendant Schacht insofar as it was cited and becomes part of the
minutes be stricken from the record. The question, as I understood it,
was whether he considered the General Staff to be just as guilty as
Hitler. This question was answered in the affirmative by the Defendant
Schacht in this examination. The question and the answer—the question
to begin with is inadmissible and likewise the answer because a witness
cannot pass judgment on this. That is the task of the Court. And for
this reason I request that this testimony be stricken from the record.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: May it please the Tribunal, I do not, of course,
offer this opinion of Schacht’s as evidence against the General Staff or
against any individual soldier on trial. The evidence, I think, was as
to the credibility of Schacht and as to his position. I do not think
that his opinion regarding the guilt of anybody else would be evidence
against that other person; I think that his opinion on this matter is
evidence against himself in the matter of credibility.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Dix.
DR. RUDOLF DIX (Counsel for Defendant Schacht): The question by Justice
Jackson was not whether Schacht considered the generals guilty, but the
question was whether it was correct that Schacht, in an interrogation
previous to the Trial, had given certain answers to certain questions.
In other words, it was a question about an actual occurrence which took
place in the past and not a question about an opinion or a judgment
which he was to give here. As Schacht’s counsel, I am not interested in
this passage being stricken from the record, except to the extent that
these words remain: “I, Schacht, would never have executed an immoral
order and an immoral demand by Hitler.” So far as the rest of this
answer of Schacht is concerned I, as his defense counsel, declare that
it is a matter of indifference to me.
DR. LATERNSER: Mr. President, after the declaration of Justice Jackson,
I withdraw my objection.
MAJOR GENERAL G. A. ALEXANDROV (Assistant Prosecutor for the U.S.S.R.):
Mr. President, may I begin my cross-examination?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: Defendant Schacht, when answering the questions put to
you by your counsel, you informed us of the circumstances under which
you first became acquainted with Hitler and Göring. You even remembered
a detail such as the pea soup with lard which was served for supper at
Göring’s house.
What I am interested in now are some other particulars, rather more
relevant to the case, of your relations with Hitler and Göring. Tell me,
on whose initiative did your first meeting with Hitler and Göring take
place?
SCHACHT: I have already stated that my friend, Bank Director Von Stauss,
invited me to an evening in his home so that I might meet Göring there.
The meeting with Hitler then took place when Göring asked me to come to
his home—that is, Göring’s home—to meet Hitler.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: For what reasons did you, at that time, accept the
invitation to meet Hitler and Göring?
SCHACHT: The National Socialist Party at that time was one of the
strongest parties in the Reichstag with 108 seats, and the National
Socialist movement throughout the country was extremely lively.
Consequently, I was more or less interested in making the acquaintance
of the leading men of this movement whom up to then I did not know at
all.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: But you declared that you were invited by Göring
himself. Why did Göring especially invite you?
SCHACHT: Please ask Herr Göring that.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: Did you not ask him yourself?
SCHACHT: Herr Göring wished me to meet Hitler, or Hitler to meet me.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: What for? With what aim in mind?
SCHACHT: That you must ask Herr Göring.
GEN, ALEXANDROV: Do you not think that Hitler and Göring intended—and
not unsuccessfully at that—to inveigle you into participating in the
fascist movement, knowing that in Germany you were an economist and
financier of repute who shared their views?
SCHACHT: I was uninformed about the intentions of these two gentlemen at
that time. However, I can imagine that it was just as much a matter of
interest for these gentlemen to meet Herr Schacht as it was for me to
meet Herr Hitler and Herr Göring.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: Then it was a matter of purely personal interest; or
were other considerations involved, of a political nature? You yourself
understood that your participation in the fascist movement would be of
advantage to Hitler, inasmuch as you were a well-known man in your own
country?
SCHACHT: As far as I was concerned, I was only interested in seeing what
kind of people they were. What motives these two gentlemen had are
unknown to me, as I have already stated. My collaboration in the fascist
movement was entirely out of the question, and it was not given...
GEN. ALEXANDROV: Tell me, please...
SCHACHT: Please let me finish. My collaboration was not given before the
July elections of 1932. As I have stated here, the acquaintance was made
in January 1931, which was 1½ years before these elections. Throughout
these 1½ years no collaboration took place.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: Tell me, was your acquaintance with Hitler and Göring
exclusively limited to these meetings, or had you already met them
before Hitler came into power?
SCHACHT: Until July 1932 I saw Hitler and Göring, each of them, perhaps
once, twice, or three times—I cannot recall that in these 1½ years. But
in any case there is no question of any frequent meetings.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: Then, how do you explain your letter to Hitler of 29
August 1932 in which you offered your services to Hitler? You remember
this letter?
SCHACHT: Yes.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: How do you explain it?
SCHACHT: I have spoken about this repeatedly. Will you be so kind as to
read it in the record?
GEN. ALEXANDROV: Please repeat it once more, briefly.
THE PRESIDENT: If he has been over it once, that is sufficient.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: When, and by whom were you first invited to participate
in the future Hitlerite Government and promised the post of President of
the Reichsbank?
SCHACHT: The President of the Reichsbank did not hold a position in the
government, but was a high official outside the government. The first
time that there was any talk in my presence about this post was on 30
January 1933, when I accidentally ran into Göring in the lobby of the
Kaiserhof Hotel, and he said to me, “Ah, there comes our future
President of the Reichsbank.”
GEN. ALEXANDROV: When answering the questions of your counsel, you
declared that the fascist theory of race supremacy was sheer nonsense,
that the fascist ideology was no ideology at all, that you were opposed
to the solution of the Lebensraum problem by the seizure of new
territories, that you were opposed to the Leadership Principle within
the Fascist Party and even made a speech on this subject in the Academy
of German Law, and that you were opposed to the fascist policy of
exterminating the Jews.
Is this right? Did you say this when answering the questions put by your
counsel?
SCHACHT: Yes, we both heard it here.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: Well, then tell me, what led you to fascism and to
co-operation with Hitler?
SCHACHT: Nothing at all led me to fascism; I have never been a fascist.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: Then what induced you to co-operate with Hitler since
you had adopted a negative attitude toward his theories and the theories
of German fascism?
THE PRESIDENT: General Alexandrov, he has told us what he says led him
to co-operate with Hitler. I think you must have heard him.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: But it did, in fact, take place?
[_Turning to the defendant._] In reply to a question by your counsel as
to why you did not emigrate, you stated that you did not wish to be a
simple martyr. Tell me, did you not know the fate which befell Germany’s
outstanding personalities, who held democratic and progressive ideas
when Hitler came to power? Do you know that they were all exiled or sent
to concentration camps?
SCHACHT: You are confusing things here. I did not answer that I did not
want to be a martyr to the question of whether I wanted to emigrate; but
I said, “Emigrants—that is, voluntary emigrants—never served their
country,” and I did not want to save my own life, but I wanted to
continue to work for the welfare of my country.
The martyr point was in connection with a question following, as to
whether I expected any good to have resulted for my country if I had
died as a martyr. To that I replied, “Martyrs serve their country only
if their sacrifice becomes known.”
GEN. ALEXANDROV: You related it somewhat differently. I shall,
nevertheless, repeat my question.
THE PRESIDENT: I would be very grateful if you would repeat this
question.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: Do you know the fate which befell the foremost men of
Germany, men who held progressive and democratic ideas when Hitler came
to power? You know that all these people were either exiled or sent to
concentration camps?
SCHACHT: I expressly stated here that when I spoke of emigrants I meant
those who were in exile, who did not leave the country under compulsion
but left voluntarily—those are the ones I was speaking about. The
individual fates of the others are not known to me. If you ask me about
individual persons, I will tell you regarding each one of these people,
whether I know his fate or not.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: The fate of these great men is universally known. You,
one of the few outstanding statesmen in democratic Germany, co-operated
with Hitler. Do you admit this?
SCHACHT: No.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: You testified—and I am obliged to refer once again to
the same question—that the entry in the Goebbels diary of 21 November
1932 was false. Once again I remind you of this entry which Goebbels
wrote, and I quote:
“In a conversation with Dr. Schacht I found that he fully
reflects our viewpoint. He is one of the few who fully agrees
with the Führer’s position.”
Do you continue to say that this entry does not conform to reality?
This is the question which I am asking you.
SCHACHT: I have never claimed that this entry was false. I only claimed
that Goebbels got this impression and he was in error about it.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: But according to your statement this entry does not
conform to reality, to your attitude toward Hitler’s regime. Is that the
case or not?
SCHACHT: In the general way in which Goebbels represents it there, it is
wrong; it is not correct.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: Why did you not lodge a protest? After all, Goebbels’
diary, including this entry, was published.
SCHACHT: If I would have protested against all the inaccuracies which
were printed about me, I would never have come to my senses.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: But do you not see, this is not exactly an ordinary
excerpt from Goebbels’ diary—and he was rather an outstanding statesman
in fascist Germany—for he describes your political views; and if you
were not in agreement with him it would have been appropriate for you,
in some way or other, to take a stand against it.
SCHACHT: Permit me to say something to this. Either you ask me—at any
rate I should not like to have here a two-sided argument if it is only
one-sided. I say that the diary of Goebbels is an unusually common piece
of writing.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: The witness, Dr. Franz Reuter, your biographer and
close friend, in his written affidavits of 6 February 1946, presented to
the Tribunal by your counsel as Document Schacht-35, testified to the
following: “Schacht joined Hitler in the early thirties and helped him
to power...”
Do you consider these affidavits of the witness Dr. Franz Reuter as
untrue, or do you confirm them?
SCHACHT: I consider them wrong.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: How far did you personally participate to help bring
Hitler to power? I continue this question: Under what circumstances and
for what purpose did you, in February 1933, organize a meeting between
Hitler and the industrialists? This subject has already been mentioned
before.
SCHACHT: I did not help Hitler to come to power in any way. All this has
been discussed here at great length. In February 1933 Hitler had already
been in power quite some time. As to finances and the industrial
meetings of February 1933, that has profusely been gone into.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: What particular role did you play in this conference?
SCHACHT: This, too, has been discussed in detail. Please read about it
in the record.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: I have already familiarized myself with the reports but
you have not explained events sufficiently clearly. In order to shed
some more light on the question I shall refer to Defendant Funk’s
testimony of 4 June 1945. This is Document Number 2828-PS. I quote
Defendant Funk’s testimony:
“I was at the meeting. Money was not demanded by Göring but by
Schacht. Hitler left the room, then Schacht made a speech asking
for money for the election. I was only there as an impartial
observer, since I enjoyed a close friendship with the
industrialists.”
Does this testimony of the Defendant Funk represent the truth?
SCHACHT: Herr Funk is in error. Document D-203 has been presented here
to the Court by the Prosecution...
GEN. ALEXANDROV: But...
SCHACHT: Please do not interrupt me. The Prosecution has submitted this
document, and this document shows that Göring directed the request for
financial aid and not I.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: In this connection Defendant Funk declared that this
speech was made by you and not by Göring. I ask you now, which statement
represents the truth?
SCHACHT: I have just told you that Herr Funk is in error and that the
evidence of the Prosecution is correct.