[_Turning to the witness._] You had resigned your office as President of
the Reichsbank. What did you do then?
SCHACHT: I went to the small estate which I owned in the country and
lived there as a private citizen. Then in 1930 I made a trip to the
United States. I departed shortly or immediately after the Reichstag
elections of September 1930 and went to New York via London. There I
lectured for about two months on questions which were presented to me by
American friends.
DR. DIX: When did you first get in touch with the National Socialist
ideology, with the Party, and with Hitler personally, and when, in
particular, did you read the Party program and Hitler’s _Mein Kampf_?
SCHACHT: With the exception of a single occasion I have never in my life
concerned myself with Party politics. Even at the age of 26 I was
offered a sure electoral district in the Reichstag, which I did not
accept, since I have never been interested in Party politics. My
interest always lay in the field of economics and financial policy but,
of course, for public affairs I always had a general interest, arising
from a concern for the future of my country and my people.
Therefore, in 1919, I participated in the foundation of the Democratic
Party.
May I say a few words here about my background and spiritual upbringing?
My father, throughout his life, adhered to democratic ideals. He was a
Freemason. He was a cosmopolitan. I had, and I still have, numerous
relatives on my mother’s side in Denmark and on my father’s side in the
United States, and to this day I am on friendly terms with them. I grew
up among these ideas and I have never departed from these basic
conceptions of Freemasonry and democracy and humanitarian and
cosmopolitan ideals. Later I always remained in very close contact with
foreign countries. I traveled much, and with the exception of Ireland
and Finland there is no country in Europe which I have not visited. I
know Asia down to India, Ceylon, and Burma. I went to North America
frequently, and just before the Second World War broke out I intended to
travel to South America.
I want to emphasize this in order to show that I was never interested in
Party politics. Nevertheless, when in the elections of September 1930
Hitler’s party suddenly and surprisingly obtained 108 seats, I began to
take an interest in the phenomenon; and on board ship going to the
United States I read _Mein Kampf_ and, of course, also the Party
program. When I arrived on the other side the first question was what
was my opinion about Hitler and the Party, because naturally everyone
was talking about this event in Germany. In my first publication at that
time—it was an interview—I uttered an unequivocal warning and said,
“If you people abroad do not change your policy towards Germany, then
you will soon have very many more adherents of Hitler in Germany than
there are now.” Throughout that period of 2 months I spoke about 50
times in public meetings, and I always met with understanding in the
question of reparations, the mistakes of the Versailles Treaty, and the
economic difficulties of Germany, and I returned with the impression
that the whole American attitude, the attitude of the American people
toward us, was indeed rather friendly. Not on my initiative but by
coincidence, I got in touch with the adherents of the National Socialist
Party. A friend of mine, a bank director, invited me at the beginning of
December 1930 to dine with him at his house and to meet Hermann Göring
there. I did so and gained no really definite impression from Göring’s
statements and conduct. He was in every respect reserved, modest, and
well-mannered, and he invited me to his house in order to meet Hitler.
At the beginning of January my wife and I dined with Göring and his wife
one evening at their home, and on that occasion, Fritz Thyssen was also
invited. It had been planned that Hitler should come also and talk with
us. I say again now that Göring’s apartment was extremely modestly and
simply styled. We had a plain pea soup and bacon and particularly
Göring’s first wife made an excellent impression. After supper Hitler
appeared, and the ensuing conversation was conducted in such a way that,
let us say, 5 percent of it was contributed by us, and 95 percent by
Hitler. What he said concerned national questions, in which he agreed
absolutely with us. No extravagant demands were stated, but on the other
hand the national necessities of Germany were definitely emphasized. In
social questions Hitler expressed a number of good ideas; he was
especially intent on avoiding class struggle and on eliminating strikes,
lock-outs, and wage disputes by decisive intervention of the State in
labor relations and the direction of economic affairs. There was no
demand for abolishing private enterprise, but merely for influence in
its conduct. It seemed to us these ideas were quite reasonable and
acceptable. Aside from that, he revealed practically no knowledge in the
field of economy and financial policy, though on that evening he did not
claim to know anything about these subjects. He merely asked that we as
representatives of economy should have understanding for his ideas and
give him factual advice. That was the purpose of that evening.
DR. DIX: I shall refer to this first conversation with Adolf Hitler
later, but I should like to return now to the question I have put before
concerning your attitude to the Party program and the ideology developed
in the book, _Mein Kampf_. I am stressing this because, as you have
heard, the gentlemen of the Prosecution are of the opinion that certain
parts of the Party program as such and also parts of the book, _Mein
Kampf_, are of a criminal character, and that their criminal character
was recognizable immediately upon their publication. Therefore I should
like to ask you to explain in detail your attitude at the time, and
possibly also your attitude today, toward the Party program and the
ideology of National Socialism as it appears in the book _Mein Kampf_.
SCHACHT: From the proceedings in this Court so far I have not gained the
impression that the opinion of the Prosecution concerning the criminal
character of the Party program is a uniform one. I am unable to see in
the Party program as such any sign of criminal intentions.
Federation of all Germans, which always plays a great role, is always
claimed only on the basis of the right for self-determination. A
position for Germany in foreign politics is demanded as constituting
equality of the German nation with the other nations; that this involved
the abolition of the discriminations which were imposed upon the German
people by the Versailles Treaty is quite clear.
Land and soil was demanded for the nutrition of our people and the
settlement of our excess population. I cannot see any crime in that,
because after land and soil was expressly added in brackets the word
“colonies.” I have always considered that as a demand for colonies,
which I myself supported a long time before National Socialism came into
existence. Rather strange and, in my opinion, going somewhat beyond the
limits were the points concerning the exclusion of Jews from civil
rights, but on the other hand it was reassuring that the Jews were to be
under the protection of the Aliens’ Law, that is, subject to the same
laws which applied to foreigners in Germany. I would have wished and
always demanded that this legal protection should under all
circumstances be given to the Jews. Unfortunately they were not given
that protection. For the rest it was emphasized that all citizens should
have equal rights and duties.
Promotion of popular education was stressed as being beneficial, and
also gymnastics and sports were demanded for the improvement of public
health. The fight against deliberate political lies was demanded, which
Goebbels afterwards conducted very energetically. And, above all, demand
was made for the freedom of all religious denominations and for the
principle of positive Christianity.
That is, in essence, the content of the National Socialist Party
program, and I cannot see anything criminal in it. It would, indeed,
have been quite peculiar if, had this been a criminal Party program, the
world had maintained continuous political and cultural contact with
Germany for two decades, and with the National Socialists for one
decade.
As far as the book, _Mein Kampf_, is concerned, my judgment has always
been the same from the very beginning as it is today. It is a book
written in the worst kind of German, propaganda of a man who was
strongly interested in politics, not to say a fanatical, half educated
man, which to me Hitler has always been. In the book _Mein Kampf_ and in
part also in the Party program there was one point which worried me a
great deal, and that was the absolute lack of understanding for all
economic problems. The Party program contained a few slogans, such as
“Community interests come before private interests,” and so on, and then
the “breaking up of subjection to financial interests” and similar
phrases which could not possibly signify anything sensible. The same
held true for _Mein Kampf_, which is of no interest from the point of
view of economic policy and consequently had no interest for me.
On the other hand, as regards foreign policy _Mein Kampf_ contained, in
my opinion, a great many mistakes, because it always toyed with the idea
that within the continent of Europe the living space for Germany ought
to be extended. And if nevertheless I did co-operate later on with a
National Socialist Reich Chancellor, then it was for the very simple
reason that expansion of the German space toward the East was in the
book made specifically dependent upon the approval of the British
Government. Therefore, to me, believing that I knew British policy very
well, this seemed Utopian and there was no danger of my taking these
theoretical extravagances of Hitler any more seriously than I did. It
was clear to me that every territorial change on European territory
attempted by force would be impossible for Germany, and would not be
approved by the other nations.
Besides that, _Mein Kampf_ had a number of very silly and verbose
statements but, on the other hand, it had many a reasonable idea, too; I
want to point out that I liked two things especially: first, that anyone
who differs with the government in political matters is obliged to state
his opinion to the government; and secondly, that, though the democratic
or rather parliamentary government ought to be replaced by a Führer
government, nevertheless the Führer could only remain if he was sure of
the approval of the entire people, in other words, that a Führer also
depended on plebiscites of a democratic nature.
DR. DIX: Dr. Schacht, you have now described the impression which you
gained from your first conversation with Adolf Hitler, as well as from a
study of the Party program and _Mein Kampf_. Did you believe that you
would be able to work with Adolf Hitler and what practical conclusions
did you derive from that first conversation with Hitler?
SCHACHT: To work with Adolf Hitler was out of the question for me
personally, since I was a private citizen and not interested in Party
politics and consequently after that conversation I did nothing at all
to create for myself any personal relations with the Hitler circles. I
simply went back to my farm and I continued to live there as a private
citizen. So personally, for myself I did not draw any conclusions but I
drew another conclusion. I have already said that naturally I had the
future of my country at heart. After that conversation I repeatedly
emphasized to Reich Chancellor Brüning and implored him when forming and
heading the Cabinet to include the National Socialists in it, because I
believed that only in this way the tremendous impetus, the tremendous
propagandistic fervor which I had noticed in Hitler, could be caught and
harnessed—by putting the National Socialists to practical government
work. One should not leave them in the opposition where they could only
become more dangerous, but one should take them into the government and
see what they could achieve and whether they would not acquire polish
within the government. That was the suggestion and the very urgent
request I made to Brüning, and I might say that according to my
impression Hitler would at that time have been quite ready to do that.
Brüning could under no circumstances be won over to such a policy and in
consequence was later crushed.
DR. DIX: Let us stop for a moment and deal with the Party. The
Indictment states that you were a Party member. Now, Göring has already
said that Hitler conferred the Golden Party Emblem only as a sort of
decoration. Do you have anything new to add to that statement made by
Göring?
SCHACHT: I do not know whether it has been mentioned here; the Golden
Party Emblem was in January 1937 given to all Ministers and also to all
military personalities in the Cabinet. The latter could not become Party
members at all; therefore the award of the Party emblem did not entail
membership. As to the rest I think Göring has testified from the witness
stand. I might mention one more thing. If I had been a Party member,
then doubtlessly when I was ousted from my position as Minister without
Portfolio in January 1943, the Party Court would have gone into action,
since a case of insubordination to Hitler would have been evident. I was
never before the Party Court and even when on the occasion of my
dismissal the return of the Golden Party Emblem was demanded from me, I
was not told that I was being dismissed from the Party, since I was not
in the Party. I was only told “return the Golden Emblem of the Party
which was conferred upon you,” and I promptly complied.