DR. DIX: Then the Indictment is wrong in this point?
SCHACHT: Yes; in this point it is absolutely wrong.
DR. DIX: Why did you not become a Party member?
SCHACHT: Excuse me, but I was opposed to quite a number of points of the
National Socialist ideology. I do not believe that it would have been
compatible with my entirely democratic attitude to change over to a
different Party program, and one which, not in its wording but through
its execution by the Party had certainly not—in the course of
time—gained any more favor with me.
DR. DIX: Therefore, you did not become a Party member for reasons of
principle?
SCHACHT: Yes, for reasons of principle.
DR. DIX: Now, a biography of you was published by one Dr. Reuther in
1937. There, also, it is correctly stated that you were not a Party
member; but the biographer gives different, more tactical reasons for
your refusing to join the Party; and he mentions the possibility of
being more influential from outside the Party and so on. Maybe it is
advisable, since the biography has been referred to in the course of the
proceedings, that you shortly state your views on this point?
SCHACHT: I believe that at the time Hitler had the impression that I
could be useful to him outside of the Party and it may be that Dr.
Reuther got knowledge of this. But I would rather not be made
responsible for the writings of Dr. Reuther, and in particular I should
like to object to the fact that the Prosecutor who presented the brief
against me described this book by Dr. Reuther as an official
publication. Of course this book is the private work of a journalist for
whom I have respect but who certainly states his own opinions and ideas.
DR. DIX: Did you speak in public on behalf of Hitler before the July
elections in 1932?
SCHACHT: Before the July elections of 1932, which brought that
tremendous success for Hitler, I was never active either publicly or
privately on behalf of Hitler, except once, perhaps, or twice—I
remember now, it happened once—Hitler sent a Party member to me who had
plans on economic, financial, or currency policies; Hitler may have told
him that he should consult me as to whether or not these plans could be
put into practice. I might tell the story briefly: It was Gauleiter
Röwer of Oldenburg. In Oldenburg the Nazis had already come to power
before 1932 and he was the Minister President there. He wanted to
introduce an Oldenburg currency of its own, a consequence of which would
have been that Saxony would have introduced its own Saxon currency,
Württemberg would have introduced its own currency, and Baden would have
had its own currency, and so on. I ridiculed the whole thing at the time
and sent a telegram to Hitler, saying that the economic needs of the
German Reich could not be cured by such miracles. If I disregard this
case, which might have constituted some sort of private connection, then
I may say that neither privately nor publicly, neither in speeches nor
in writing, have I at all been concerned with Hitler or his Party and in
no way have I recommended the Party.
DR. DIX: Did you vote National Socialist in July 1932?
SCHACHT: No, I would not think of it.
DR. DIX: The Prosecution now lists a number of points by which it wants
to prove that you were an adherent of the National Socialist ideology. I
am going to name them one by one, and I ask you to state your view on
each of them. First, that you were an opponent of the Treaty of
Versailles. Would you like to say something about that?
SCHACHT: It surprised me indeed to hear that reproach from an American
Prosecutor. The lieutenant who spoke is perhaps too young to have
experienced it himself, but he should know it from his education; at any
rate, for all of us who have lived through that time, it was one of the
outstanding events that the Treaty of Versailles was rejected by the
United States, and, if I am not wrong, rejected with the resounding
approval of the entire American people.
The reasons prompting that action were also my reasons for rejecting the
Treaty: it stood in contradiction to the Fourteen Points of Wilson,
which had been solemnly agreed upon, and in the field of economics it
contained absurdities which certainly could not work out to the
advantage of world economy. But I certainly would not accuse the
American people of having been adherents of the Nazi ideology, because
they rejected the Treaty.
DR. DIX: The Prosecution also assert that you had already been for a
long time a German National Socialist, not merely a German patriot, but
a German nationalist and expansionist. Would you like to state your
position in that respect?
SCHACHT: You, yourself, by emphasizing the word “patriot” have
recognized that one must be clear on just what a nationalist is. I have
always been proud to belong to a nation which for more than a thousand
years has been one of the leading civilized nations of the world. I was
proud to belong to a nation which has given to the world men like
Luther, Kant, Goethe, Beethoven, to mention only a few. I have always
interpreted nationalism as the desire of a nation to be an example to
other nations, and to maintain a leading position in the field of
spiritual and cultural achievement through high moral standards and
intellectual attainment.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: If it please the Tribunal, it seems to me that we
are getting very far from the relevant charges in this case, and
particularly if they are going to be preceded by a statement of the
Prosecution’s position.
We have no charge against Dr. Schacht because he opposed the Treaty of
Versailles; we concede it was the right of any German citizen to do that
by any means short of war. Nor do we object to his being a patriotic
German by any means short of war. The only purpose has been to find out
what his attitude in those matters was in connection with the charge
that he prepared and precipitated war.
To deal with philosophical matters separately from the war charge seems
to me entirely irrelevant, and I assure the Tribunal we have no purpose
in charging that it is a crime to oppose the Treaty of Versailles. Many
Americans did that. It is no crime to be a German patriot. The crime is
the one defined in the Indictment, and it seems to me we are a long way
off from that here, and wasting time.
THE PRESIDENT: What do you say to that, Dr. Dix?
DR. DIX: I was eager and glad to hear what Justice Jackson just said,
but I must quote from Wallenstein, “Before dinner we heard another
version.” There was no doubt—and once, because I thought I had
misunderstood, I even asked again—that the criminal character of the
Party program, the criminal character of the contents of _Mein
Kampf_—reproachable in itself and, to say the least, indicative of
crimes committed later—the willful opposition to the Treaty of
Versailles—and further the accusation of having been an expansionist
and nationalist, all these things have repeatedly in the course of the
proceedings here been held against Dr. Schacht in order to strengthen
the foundation of the charges made against him.
If Mr. Justice Jackson now with gratifying frankness states, “We do not
at all blame Schacht for opposing the Treaty of Versailles; we do not
assert that he was more than a patriot, that is to say, a nationalist in
the sense described before, and we do not maintain either that these our
statements are circumstantial evidence for his later co-operation, his
financial co-operation, in the rearmament program, which in turn is
proof indicative of his intent to assist in waging a war of
aggression”—if that is now stated unequivocally by the Prosecution,
then we can dispense with a great many questions which I intended to put
in the course of my examination of the witness; I would then gladly
leave the whole subject of Schacht’s expansionism and nationalism. We
have not yet mentioned expansionism; Mr. Justice Jackson has not
mentioned it either. I do not believe, however, that the Prosecution
will withdraw the accusation of expansionism, that is the expansion of
German living space in Europe. I am not sure of this but we shall
certainly hear about it. As I said, if these accusations which have been
made are withdrawn, then I can dispense with these questions and my
client need not answer them.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Of course, I made no such statement as Dr. Dix has
assumed. My statement was clearly made in the opening and clearly is
now, that he had a perfect right to be against the Treaty of Versailles
and to be a German nationalist and to follow those aims by all means
short of war. I do not want to have put in my mouth the very extensive
statements made by Dr. Dix.
My statement was made clear in the opening, and these matters as to the
Versailles Treaty and nationalism and Lebensraum, as political and
philosophical matters, are not for the Court to determine. We are not
going to ask you to say whether the Treaty of Versailles was a just
document or not. It was a document. They had a right to do what they
could to get away from it by all means short of war.
The charge against Dr. Schacht is that he prepared, knowingly, to
accomplish those things by means of aggressive warfare. That is the nub
of the case against him.
DR. DIX: Then on this point there is...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Dix, I think the case for the Prosecution has been
clear from the outset, that all these matters are only relied upon when
they were entered into with the intention of making war.
DR. DIX: Very true. I need not put these questions if the Prosecution no
longer uses these accusations as circumstantial evidence for his intent
to wage a war of aggression, but Mr. Justice Jackson has not yet made a
statement to that effect. But there seems to be no doubt—and I do not
believe that I misunderstood the Prosecution—that in order to prove Dr.
Schacht’s intention to wage a war of aggression, the Prosecution did
refer to Schacht’s opposition to the Treaty of Versailles, to his
nationalism and expansionism that is, extension of Lebensraum. We do not
want to make academic or theoretical statements about the ideas of
Lebensraum and nationalism, but as long as these ideas, which the
Prosecution concedes he is justified in holding, as long as these
characteristics are considered to be in part proof of his intent, my
client must have the opportunity of telling the Tribunal just what he
meant by Lebensraum if he ever spoke of it, which I do not yet know. But
I think, nevertheless, that there is still a matter not quite clear
between Mr. Justice Jackson and me, and that I do not quite agree either
with what was said by Your Lordship...
THE PRESIDENT: What you were asking him about was his views on
nationalism. That is what you were asking him about, his views upon
nationalism, and that seems to be a waste of time.
DR. DIX: I put to him that he was accused of being a nationalist and an
expansionist, and that the Prosecution therefrom drew the conclusion
that he planned an aggressive war by financing armament; now he has to
show, of course, that...
THE PRESIDENT: What Mr. Justice Jackson has pointed out is that the
Prosecution have never said that he simply held the views of a
nationalist and of an expansionist, but that he held those views and
intended to go to war in order to enforce them.
DR. DIX: Yes, Your Lordship, but it is held that these opinions were
proof—one proof among others—that he had the intention of waging
aggressive war; that they therefore constitute what we jurists should
call circumstantial evidence for his intent, to wage war, and as long as
this argument—it is no longer a charge maintained by Justice Jackson
but it is an argument of the Prosecution...
THE PRESIDENT: There is no issue about it. He agrees that he did hold
these views. Therefore it is quite unnecessary to go into the fact. The
Prosecution say he held the views; he agrees that he held the views. The
only question is whether he held them with the innocent intention of
achieving them by peaceful methods, or whether he had the alleged
criminal intention of achieving them by war.
DR. DIX: I only wish to say one more thing to that. Expansionism has not
yet been discussed. Should Dr. Schacht have had expansionist tendencies,
then Mr. Justice Jackson certainly would not say that he has no
objection. Therefore...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Dix, I think that you may ask him questions about the
expansionists, his ideas of what expansionists were, what he meant by
expansion, but for the rest it seems to me you are simply proving
exactly the same as the Prosecution have proved.
DR. DIX: I fully agree. Dr. Schacht, were you...
THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now.
[_A recess was taken until 1400 hours._]
_Afternoon Session_
DR. DIX: I believe, Dr. Schacht, that both of us will have to speak a
little more slowly and pause between question and answer.
Now, please reply to the accusation by the Prosecution that you were an
expansionist. Please define your position.
SCHACHT: Never in my life have I demanded even a foot of space that did
not belong to Germany, nor would I ever entertain such an idea.
I am of the opinion that neither is it national to try to dominate and
govern foreign peoples, nor is appropriation of foreign territory a
politically just action.
These are two questions with which we are much concerned at present.
I might perhaps add, in order to clarify my position, just what I
understand by nationalism, and just why I was against each and every
form of expansionism. Just one sentence will suffice, a sentence from a
speech which I made in August of 1935. On that occasion I said, and I
quote:
“We want to express the belief that self-respect requires
respect for others, and the upholding of our national
individuality must not mean disparagement of the individuality
of others; by respecting the acts of others we respect our own
action; and a battle of economic competition can be won in the
end only through example and achievement and not through methods
of violence or craft.”
DR. DIX: According to the opinion of the Prosecution, in the year 1936
you made a public threat of war, on which occasion you are alleged to
have said that the spirit of Versailles was instrumental in keeping
alive war mania. I am referring to Document EC-415, a document to which
the Prosecution has referred.
SCHACHT: I never understood, in the course of this proceeding, how there
could be a threat of war in this quotation. The quotation concludes with
the words—and I must quote in English because I just have the English
words before me:
“The spirit of Versailles is perpetuated in the fury of war, and
there will not be a true peace, progress, or reconstruction
until the world desists from this spirit. The German people will
not tire of pronouncing this warning.”
The conclusion says that the German people will not tire of pronouncing
this warning. It seems to be a matter of course that hereby expression
is given to the fact that I am warning others from persisting in war
mania. I am not warning ourselves, but the entire world, to avoid
perpetuating the spirit of Versailles.
DR. DIX: The Prosecution further accuses you in this connection that you
publicly approved the idea of Lebensraum, for the German people. In this
special connection reference was made to the speech you made at
Frankfurt on 9 December 1936, in which you said: “Germany has too
limited Lebensraum for her population.”
SCHACHT: This speech of 9 December 1936 was a speech which was solely
concerned with a restoration of the colonial rights of Germany. I have
never demanded any Lebensraum for Germany other than colonial space. And
in this instance, again, I am surprised that just the American
Prosecutor should accuse me on my efforts in this direction, because in
the Fourteen Points of Wilson, which regrettably were not adhered to
later on, the colonial interests of the Germans are taken into
consideration. In consequence, I said, again and again: “If you want
peace in Europe, give Germany an economic outlet into which Germany can
develop and from which she can satisfy her needs. Otherwise Germany will
be a center of unrest and a problem for Europe.”