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