Now, it has been said against Funk that he himself entered the vaults of

the Berlin Reichsbank several times, and from this one felt entitled to

draw the conclusion that he must have seen what objects had been

delivered to the Reichsbank by the SS. This conclusion is obviously

wrong because the evidence shows that during the entire period of the

war Funk went to the vaults of the Reichsbank only a very few times for

the purpose of showing these vaults and the bullion of the Reichsbank

stored there to special visitors, especially foreign guests. But on

those few visits to the vaults he never saw the deposits of the SS. He

never observed what in particular the SS had deposited in his bank. This

is established beyond doubt, not only by the sworn statement of the

Defendant Funk himself, but also by the oral testimony of Vice President

Puhl and Reichsbank Councillor Thoms here in this courtroom. This

Prosecution witness, who is certainly free from suspicion and who by his

own admission volunteered to testify, has declared here under oath that

the valuables were delivered by the SS in locked trunks, boxes, and bags

and were also stored away in these containers, and that Funk was never

present in the vaults when the bank employees made an inventory of the

contents of an individual box or trunk. The witness Thoms, who was in

charge of these vaults, never saw the Defendant Funk there at all.

Therefore, Funk neither knew of the proportions which the deliveries of

the SS gradually assumed in the course of time, nor did he know that the

deposits contained jewelry, pearls, and precious stones, and also

spectacle frames and gold teeth. He never saw any of those things and

none of his officials ever reported to him about them either.

Now it is the opinion of the Prosecution that Funk, as President of the

Reichsbank, surely must have known what was kept in the vaults of his

bank; but this conclusion is also evidently mistaken and does not take

into consideration actual conditions in a large central issuing bank.

Funk, who was also Reich Minister of Economics, had in his capacity as

President of the Reichsbank no occasion whatever to bother about the

deposit of an individual customer, even if this happened to belong to

the SS. As President of the Reichsbank he did not bother about any

deposits of other clients of his bank either, since this was not his

job. On only one occasion, following a suggestion of his Vice President

Puhl, he asked Reichsführer SS Himmler—this was during his second

conversation with him—whether the valuables deposited by the SS in the

Reichsbank could be converted into cash in the legal course of business

at the Reichsbank. Himmler gave his permission and Funk passed this

information on to his Vice President Puhl. But in this matter he was

only thinking of gold coins and foreign currency, that is to say, of

those particular valuables which had to be turned in to the Reichsbank

as a matter of course in the German Reich and which could be and had to

be converted into cash by the Reichsbank. The idea never occurred to

Funk that the deposits might contain gold teeth or other such remarkable

objects which had their origin in criminal acts in concentration camps.

He heard about these things to his horror for the first time here in the

courtroom during the Trial.

The only remaining point in the statement of the witness Puhl which

might excite a certain amount of suspicion, Your Honors, was the

question of preserving secrecy, which in fact played a very important

part indeed in the examination of the witness. Vice President Puhl

stated here at the beginning of his testimony that the Defendant Funk

had told him that the matter of the SS deposits must be kept especially

secret. Funk, on the other hand, has always denied this in the most

insistent manner and declared under oath that he never talked to Puhl at

all about any such secrecy. Thus at the very beginning, here in the

courtroom, we had one statement pitted against another, oath against

oath. Vice President Puhl’s statements regarding this point, however,

seemed somewhat contradictory from the beginning. For on one occasion

Vice President Puhl said that this secrecy had not struck him as

anything extraordinary, since after all secrecy is preserved about

everything that occurs in a bank. In answer to a special question, Puhl

then stated repeatedly that he did not notice at all that the Defendant

Funk had supposedly spoken about preserving secrecy.

When, however, the affidavit of the witness Thoms of 8 May 1945 was read

and pointed out to the witness Puhl, the latter finally stated here

under oath on 15 May 1946 that it was plainly visible from this

affidavit that the desire for secrecy emanated from the SS. The SS

considered it important that this business should be transacted

secretly. The SS, as Puhl said, had been the ones originally responsible

for the imposition of secrecy. This was the literal conclusion of the

witness Puhl’s sworn statement and at the end of it he again confirmed

that the obligation for secrecy was desired and imposed by the SS.

The initial contradiction regarding this point between the statements of

the Defendant Funk and those of the witness Puhl was hereby completely

eliminated, Your Honors, in favor of the defendant. Puhl himself could

no longer maintain his original assertion that it was Funk who had

ordered the SS deposits to be kept secret. Therefore, in arriving at

your verdict, you must proceed from the premise that the statement of

the Defendant Funk is correct in this point also and deserves

preference, for he has declared under oath from the very beginning and

with the utmost certainty that he himself knew nothing about keeping

anything secret and that he had never spoken of any such secrecy to

Puhl, either. Moreover, there was absolutely no reason for Funk to say

anything to Puhl about any special secrecy, since Funk was obviously of

the opinion that the valuables involved were only of the kind which had

to be turned in and confiscated, and which came within the regular

lawful business of the Reichsbank and need not be kept secret,

regardless of whether these things which had to be turned in were the

property of a prisoner in a concentration camp or the property of a free

individual.

It was never made clear by the evidence submitted why the SS on their

part stressed the importance of preserving secrecy to Vice President

Puhl and why, furthermore, the SS opened the deposit in the name of

Melmer instead of in the name of the SS, and the Prosecution for their

part did not attach any importance to clearing up this point. However,

in any case, the demand of the SS for secrecy evidently did not strike

Vice President Puhl as unusual any more than it did the witness Thoms

who had nothing at all to do with the matter but who confirmed the fact

that this secrecy was nothing unusual. But nevertheless, Your Honors,

one thing is still a fact, namely, that nothing was kept secret from the

numerous employees of the Reichsbank about exactly what kinds of objects

were involved. On the contrary, the Reichsbank personnel was even

entrusted by Vice President Puhl with the task of sorting the valuables

delivered and converting them into cash at the pawn shop. Dozens of

Reichsbank officials who regularly entered the vaults could see the

various articles every day, and the Reichshauptkasse, an institution

entirely separate from the Reichsbank, from time to time settled

accounts for the conversion of valuables into cash with the Reich

Ministry of Finance in a quite open and thoroughly routine way.

Naturally, the Defendant Funk did not know, and still does not know

today, whether and to what extent agreements had been reached between

the Finance Minister and Reichsführer SS Himmler for accounting for the

gold articles to the Reich. He was never interested in it, and indeed it

did not concern him.

From all these facts, as shown by the evidence, one can readily conclude

that Funk himself knew nothing about the things which were turned over

to the Reichsbank at the time, and that even Vice President Puhl and

Reichsbank Councillor Thoms did not think there was anything bad

connected with the things, although Thoms, at least, had seen of what

the deposits actually consisted.

For this reason there is no longer any need to examine the obvious

question as to whether the initial statements of Puhl with regard to the

deposits of the SS should not have been received with a certain

skepticism from the very beginning. Puhl apparently had the

understandable desire at least by his written affidavit to shift

responsibility from himself to the shoulders of his President Funk in

order to free himself of his own responsibility for the unpleasant facts

of the case when he was told during his imprisonment that the gold

articles of the SS consisted mostly of spectacle frames and gold teeth

and had been taken from victims of concentration camps. At the

beginning, even Puhl apparently did not see anything wrong in the whole

business. For him the matter was an ordinary business transaction of the

Reichsbank for the account of the Reich, which he dealt with in the same

manner as he dealt with gold articles and foreign currency that had been

confiscated by the Customs Investigation Office or the Office of Control

for Foreign Currency or any other State authority. Gentlemen, whatever

one may judge the responsibility of Vice President Puhl to be, at all

events these things lie outside the responsibility of the Defendant Funk

who is the only one with whom you are concerned in connection with this

point here. In the period after this time Funk had only two or three

very brief and unimportant conversations with Puhl regarding these gold

deposits with a view to converting into cash gold coins and foreign

currency delivered in the regular way. Outside of this, Funk did not

concern himself at all with this whole matter any more. He knew even

less about the matter than Puhl, and it is not without significance that

Puhl declared here under oath that he would never have permitted these

gold objects to be deposited in the Reichsbank at all if he had had the

slightest notion that the things had been taken from concentration camp

victims under criminal circumstances by the SS. If Vice President Puhl

did not know that and could not have guessed it, then Funk could have

known even less about it, and Puhl’s initial statement which was to the

effect that—as he said at the time—“the gold articles had been

accepted by the Reichsbank with Funk’s knowledge and agreement and had

been converted into cash with the assistance of the Reichsbank

personnel,” was a grossly misleading statement to the Prosecution.

Subsequently during his imprisonment when Puhl first learned of the true

circumstances, he surely must have felt the same compunctions as Funk,

however innocent the latter was in the case. In conclusion, Puhl

declared here under oath that he would not have tolerated such

transactions either, and that he would have brought the matter to the

attention of the Directorate of the Reichsbank as well as to that of

President Funk if he had known that the valuables were taken from

victims of concentration camps and had been informed about the nature of

these valuables.

In connection with this topic, therefore, I come to the following

conclusion: The Reichsbank certainly transacted business for the account

of the Reich, the subject matter of which was derived from criminal acts

of the SS; but the Defendant Funk knew nothing of this. He would not

have tolerated such transactions had he known the true circumstances.

Therefore, he cannot be made criminally responsible for this.

The same is true, Your Honors, with regard to Reichsbank credits for the

business agencies of the SS, concerning which I shall limit myself to a

few sentences. In his written affidavit of 3 May 1946 the witness Puhl

has given a completely misleading account of this matter also. For he

stated originally that credits of 10 to 12 million Reichsmark furnished

by the Gold Discount Bank upon the instruction of the Defendant Funk

were used—and I am now quoting literally: “for financing production in

SS factories by workers from concentration camps.”

In his oral examination as a witness, Puhl then was asked whether Funk

had any knowledge that persons from concentration camps were employed in

these factories at all. In reply to this, Puhl declared literally: “I am

inclined to assume this, but I am not in a position to know it.”

Therefore, he was not able to give any definite evidence concerning

Funk’s knowledge, but only to express a conjecture. In contrast to this,

Funk’s own statement in regard to this matter is quite clear and

convincing. It was to the effect that he knew, indeed, about the request

for credit by the SS, and that he even granted it, but that he knew

nothing about the nature of the SS enterprises concerned and about the

people who were employed in them. Funk stated this under oath.

Accordingly, this credit transaction, which moreover occurred about 2

years before the affair of the SS gold deposits, that is, prior to 1940,

incriminates neither the Defendant Funk nor the witness Vice President

Puhl. At that time, in 1940, neither of them was acquainted with the

conditions in the concentration camps. They only learned about them much

later, that is, in the course of this Trial. Nor did the Defendant Funk

know that persons from the concentration camps were working in the

afore-mentioned SS factories for which the credit was intended.

Gentlemen, in this connection it appears necessary to devote a few more

sentences to a discussion of the question whether Funk ever visited a

concentration camp. The witness Dr. Blaha, who was examined here, stated

that Dr. Funk was once in Dachau in the first half of 1944. This visit

was supposed to have occurred as a sequel to a conference of the Finance

Ministers at Berchtesgaden, or in some other place in this region, in

which Funk is said to have participated. Yet, Gentlemen, when he was

examined here, the witness Dr. Blaha was unable to say that he had

personally seen the Defendant Funk in Dachau, but had only heard from

camp inmates at Dachau—that is, from other persons—that the Reich

Minister of Economics, Funk, was with many other visitors allegedly

present. He did not see him; nor would he have known him if he had. From

the very beginning Funk himself has flatly denied this visit to Dachau.

He also stated this under oath, and the affidavit made by his constant

companion Dr. Schwedler (contained in the Funk document book under

Number 13 submitted to you) proves beyond a doubt that Funk never was in

a concentration camp. Dr. Schwedler is in a position to know this, as at

that time he was the constant companion of the defendant and knew where

Funk was from day to day. Moreover, Funk was never a Finance Minister,

as the witness Dr. Blaha assumed, and never took part in a conference of

Finance Ministers. Therefore, it appears beyond any doubt that what the

witness Dr. Blaha stated here purely from hearsay is based on false

information, or he has confused Funk with another visitor, which was

very easily possible since the Defendant Funk was comparatively unknown

to the public. The conclusion, therefore, is that Funk never visited a

concentration camp and never personally became aware of the conditions

prevailing in such camps.

Now, by this assertion Funk by no means wishes to allege that he knew

nothing at all about the existence of concentration camps. Funk was

naturally cognizant of the fact, just as almost any other German, that

there were concentration camps in Germany after 1933; just as he knew

that there were and still are penitentiaries, prisons, and other penal

institutions in Germany.

But what he did not know, and what I want to stress here, was the very

large number of such concentration camps and the hundreds of thousands,

even millions, of their inmates. Equally unknown to him were the

countless atrocities committed in these camps, which first became known

only in this Trial. In particular it was only during this Trial that

Funk learned that there were extermination camps which murdered millions

of Jews. Funk had no knowledge of this; he has stated this under oath

and it also appears absolutely credible, for one of the most important

results of this Trial, in the opinion of the Defense, consists in

providing proof of the fact that the German people in general knew

nothing about the large number of concentration camps or the conditions

within them, but that on the contrary those conditions were kept secret

in such a cunning and cruel way that even the highest officials of the

Reich including the very ministers knew nothing about them.

Your Honors, the Defense have now presented their views on that part of

the Indictment which, had it been true, would have tragically

incriminated the man Funk. One may think as one pleases about acts of

violence during a political and economic struggle, especially in stormy

revolutionary periods, but in the opinion of the Defendant Funk himself

there can be no disagreement on one point, namely, with regard to the

concentration camp atrocities committed for years, especially against

the Jewish population. Anyone who participated in such unheard-of

atrocities should be made to atone for them in the severest way,

according to the opinion of the entire German people.

That is also the point of view of the Defendant Funk, which he expressed

here on 6 May 1946 when he replied to the American prosecutor from the

witness stand that as a man and as a German he felt deeply guilty and

shamed for the crimes which Germans committed against millions of poor

people.

Gentlemen, I have now reached the end of my consideration of the Funk

case as far as criminal law is concerned, and that is the duty of the

Defense in this Trial.

The examination of the evidence with regard to the Funk case has, in the

opinion of the defendant, produced proof that a legal guilt, a criminal

guilt, on his part does not exist, and that he can ask you for his

acquittal with a clear conscience because he has never committed any

criminal acts in his life.

Your task as judges will now be to find a just verdict for the Defendant

Funk, a verdict which will not make him atone for the crimes of others,

crimes he could not prevent and which he may not even have known about,

but a verdict which only establishes the degree of his own guilt and not

the degree of his political guilt, but of his criminal guilt which is

the sole object of these proceedings. This verdict should be valid not

only for today but also recognized as just in the future when we shall

view these terrible events in the proper perspective and dispassionately

as we would ancient history; a verdict, Your Honors, which will not only

satisfy the nations which you represent, but which will also be

recognized as just and wise by the German people as a whole; a verdict,

finally, which is not only destructive, retaliatory, and which will sow

hatred for the future, but one which will make it possible for the

German people to move forward toward a happier future of human dignity

and charity, of equality and peace.

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Dodd, will you or Sir David deal with this. Sir

David, I have got a document drawn up by the General Secretary which

shows in the first place, in the case of the Defendant Göring, that

there are four interrogatories which have been submitted, and to which

the Prosecution has not objected. Is that right?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That is so, My Lord, so there is no further

comment with regard to that first application.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Then, with reference to the Defendant Ribbentrop,

there are two affidavits to which there is no objection, and there are

three further affidavits which have not been received, I understand.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That is so, My Lord.

THE PRESIDENT: And one document to which the defendants’ counsel wants

to refer in its entirety, namely, TC-75, is that right?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, My Lord, that is so. There is no objection

to that.

THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps I had better go on to the end of the documents

and then call upon Dr. Horn for what he has got to say about those

three, because as far as I can see, there are only these three documents

and an affidavit for Seyss-Inquart from a man called Erwin Schotter, and

another from a man called Adalbert Joppich, which have not yet been

received.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That is so, My Lord.

THE PRESIDENT: And three letters from Seyss-Inquart to Himmler which

have not yet been produced.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That is so, My Lord.

THE PRESIDENT: Also, in the case of Fritzsche there are two

interrogatories of Delmar and Feldscher which have not yet been

received.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, with regard to the three letters of the

Defendant Seyss-Inquart, they have been received, but they have not yet

been translated into French, and I think, My Lord, the simplest way

would be if the Tribunal took it that provisionally there is no

objection but that the French Delegation reserve their right to make any

objection if, upon receiving the translation, they find there is any

objection to make.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, the French Delegation will let the

Tribunal know if they find there is any objection.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Now, with reference to the rest, so far as the

Prosecution are concerned, what are the objections, if any?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I think the only objection there is

concerns the application of Dr. Servatius for the Defendant Sauckel.

Your Lordship sees that after the interrogatories granted by the

Tribunal there are certain documents which were introduced on 3 July by

the Defendant Sauckel to be considered by the Tribunal, and then there

is a number which is lettered “A” to “I.” The Prosecution suggests that

these documents are cumulative of the large number of documents already

introduced on behalf of this defendant, and, My Lord ...

THE PRESIDENT [_Interposing_]: Just one minute, Sir David. These

documents “A” to “I,” were they applied for after the case had been

closed?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: They were submitted on 3 July, Sir. That would

be after the case had been closed.

THE PRESIDENT: But that was at the time, was it not, when we were asking

for supplementaries?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, at the very end.

THE PRESIDENT: That very day?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes. My Lord, I am sorry, but the case was not

technically closed, for that day was open for any defendant to put in.

THE PRESIDENT: Are these documents which you have just been referring

to—“A” to “I”—are they already all in the document book?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Dr. Servatius tells me they are.

My Lord, I have just been having a word with Dr. Servatius and he says

that the one to which he attaches the greatest importance is “A,” the

decree by the Defendant Sauckel as to return transportation of sick

foreign workers. My Lord, I am quite prepared on that assurance by Dr.

Servatius not to make any objection to number “A,” and Dr. Servatius, on

the other hand, says that he does not press for the others.

My Lord, there is another application which has just come in on behalf

of the Defendant Sauckel for a document. It is an affidavit by the

defendant himself, dated 29 June 1946. The Prosecution have no objection

to the application.

My Lord, I think the only other matter with regard to the Defendant

Sauckel is with regard to an affidavit from a witness called

Falkenhorst. My Lord, that again, the Prosecution submits, is

cumulative.

THE PRESIDENT: You say Falkenhorst?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Falkenhorst, Sir. My Lord, it is the very last

application on my list.

DR. ROBERT SERVATIUS (Counsel for Defendant Sauckel): Mr. President, may

I make a statement concerning the witness Falkenhorst? This witness was

called for Bormann; I waived his examination and submitted this

affidavit with the approval of the Tribunal, and since, in my opinion,

it was approved, I waived the witness. I assume that this is quite clear

and is confirmed by the Prosecution also.

THE PRESIDENT: Do you mean, Dr. Servatius, that the affidavit from

Falkenhorst had already been granted before?

DR. SERVATIUS: I assume it was granted at that time. The witness was

waiting outside and I was asked whether I would like to question him,

and I said in reply that I had an affidavit which was limited to one

particular incident and it would be sufficient if I could submit the

affidavit. He was the last witness who was supposed to be examined here,

after the end of the actual hearing of evidence.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I do not insist in the opposition in

these circumstances. My Lord, that is all the comment the Prosecution

have to make.

THE PRESIDENT: What about these two affidavits asked for by Dr.

Steinbauer from Erwin Schotter and Adalbert Joppich?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, we have not got these yet. As I

understand it, they have been admitted by the Tribunal subject to any

objection, and I am afraid we cannot tell until we have seen them.

THE PRESIDENT: I see; well, then for the rest you have no other

objections?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No other objections.

THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, we have just had another document placed

before us which contains an application on behalf of the Defendant

Sauckel to call as a witness his son Friedrich Sauckel. The Prosecution

has objected to that on the ground of irrelevance and cumulativeness.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, My Lord, that is the position.

It did not seem, on consideration of the outline of the evidence, that

the evidence of the defendant’s son would contribute anything fresh.

THE PRESIDENT: And that application was made after the 3 July? No, I see

that is wrong. It was submitted before, but it was not mentioned on 3

July.

DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, it was an application to bring the witness

here from England, since presumably he can give information regarding a

number of things. I have not yet made a formal application. It was just

a request to have him brought from England to Nuremberg for the purpose

of finding out whether he knows anything of importance, as he claims.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I would not make objection to the

defendant’s son being brought here for the purpose of Dr. Servatius’

having a talk with him and seeing whether he can contribute anything.

THE PRESIDENT: The difficulty that these sorts of applications put the

Tribunal in is that the case never closes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, My Lord, I quite agree.

DR. SERVATIUS: I did not know that the witness was in England. He was a

prisoner and there had been no news about him previously.

THE PRESIDENT: Then, Sir David, do we have an affidavit from the

Defendant Sauckel himself which you have already dealt with?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, My Lord.

THE PRESIDENT: Then there is an affidavit by the Defendant Jodl on

behalf of Kaltenbrunner; the application has been received at the

General Secretary’s office on 5 July.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, My Lord.

THE PRESIDENT: That was after the last date when the defendants’ counsel

were asked for their applications.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, My Lord, I am afraid I have not been able

to collect the views of the Prosecution on that point.

My Lord, the substance of that affidavit was contained in Dr.

Kauffmann’s speech. I do not think it really has any materiality, I mean

that there is any real—that there can be any objection to the

affidavit, because I am almost positive I remember this passage

occurring, or an equivalent passage, giving the Defendant Jodl’s views

on Kaltenbrunner in Dr. Kauffmann’s speech. My Lord, therefore, I do not

think we should occupy time discussing it and therefore I think we

should let the affidavit go in.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Then there is an application from the

Defendant Rosenberg for a document entitled “Tradition in Present

Times.” That has been objected to as cumulative.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, My Lord.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, are you wanting to say anything in support of

that application or is it sufficiently covered by your speech?

DR. THOMA: I am of the opinion that it has been sufficiently dealt with

in my speech.

THE PRESIDENT: Then, Dr. Horn, there are two affidavits, one from

Ribbentrop and one from Schulze, not yet put in. Do you want them?

DR. MARTIN HORN (Counsel for Defendant Von Ribbentrop): Mr. President,

there must be some mistake about the Schulze affidavit. I have not

submitted any Schulze affidavit or made any application for it.

THE PRESIDENT: It was a mistake. Then, as to Ribbentrop’s affidavit, are

you asking as to that or have we already dealt with that?

DR. HORN: No, I am asking that official cognizance be taken of the

affidavit of Ribbentrop, and of Document TC-75. The other two affidavits

of Thadden and Best have already been approved.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Why do you desire the Defendant Ribbentrop to make

an affidavit? He has given his evidence in full. Is it something that

has arisen since?

DR. HORN: The Defendant Ribbentrop only commented on a few documents

which were submitted to him during his cross-examination when he had an

opportunity to speak only very briefly about them. I did not want to

make my final speech any longer with a detailed discussion of the other

documents and, therefore, I have submitted this affidavit and beg the

Tribunal to approve it.

THE PRESIDENT: Then, with regard to TC-75 ...

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, that is one of our original British

documents. I have no objection to Dr. Horn using it.

THE PRESIDENT: How about the translation, though? I suppose it is a

German document, is it not?

DR. HORN: Yes, it is a German document which was only translated in part

and I have referred to the entire contents in my final plea.

THE PRESIDENT: Is it a very long document or not?

DR. HORN: No, it has only nine pages, Mr. President. The Prosecution

submitted one page of the document to the Court in evidence. Then later

I ascertained that there were two copies of the document. I then took

the second copy, which represents the complete document, and submitted

it to the Tribunal, and have had it translated.

THE PRESIDENT: It has been translated?

DR. HORN: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well then, that is all right then.

Now, Dr. Steinbauer, what about these two affidavits that you are asking

for, one from Erwin Schotter and another from Adalbert Joppich?

DR. GUSTAV STEINBAUER (Counsel for Defendant Seyss-Inquart): I have

submitted the two documents for translation and since the Translation

Division is very busy I have not received the translation yet. But I

should like to submit the two originals to the Tribunal under the

numbers already given, Seyss-Inquart-112 and 113.

THE PRESIDENT: Has the Prosecution seen the substance of the affidavits

or not?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, My Lord, we have not. My Lord, they are very

short affidavits. I will ask someone to read them in German through the

day and let the Tribunal know before the Tribunal rises tonight.

THE PRESIDENT: Was the application made before 3 July, or when was it

made?

DR. STEINBAUER: Yes, on 3 July exactly. I received both of these two

documents on 3 July through the General Secretary and presented them on

the same day.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider the matter then and they will

be glad to hear from the Prosecution if they have any objection.

DR. STEINBAUER: Mr. President, may I present one more document on this

occasion? The Tribunal had approved the interrogation of Dr. Reuter and

the day before yesterday I received the answer with the questions of the

Prosecution ...

THE PRESIDENT: What was it you were saying, Dr. Steinbauer?

DR. STEINBAUER: That I received the approved document containing the

interrogation of the witness, Dr. Reuter, on Saturday in a German and

English translation. I should like to submit the original to the

Tribunal under Number 114.

THE PRESIDENT: What is the name of the person who was interrogated?

DR. STEINBAUER: The physician, Dr. Gero Reuter. He was questioned about

health conditions in the Netherlands. The Tribunal expressly granted me

that interrogatory.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, that will be considered, then.

DR. STEINBAUER: Then I shall submit it to the Court under Number 114.

THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, perhaps you can look at that later.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Certainly, My Lord. I understood that the

Tribunal had already approved and that this was just putting in the

answer.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, that is all.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Then, My Lord, there can be no objection.

THE PRESIDENT: I ought to say that in order to save time, all these

documents which we are now dealing with must be taken to be offered in

evidence now because some of these defendants’ cases have been finally

dealt with.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, My Lord.

THE PRESIDENT: And they must, therefore, be given the appropriate

numbers as exhibits, and defendants’ counsel must see to that. They must

give numbers to them and give them in with those numbers to the General

Secretary so that the documents will be identified as exhibits on the

record.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I appreciate that. I gather that Dr.

Steinbauer has just given that the Number 114.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, and the same applies to all the other defendants’

counsel, the counsel for Göring and Ribbentrop and the counsel for

Raeder and the other defendants, because these are dealing with a

considerable number of interrogatories and affidavits, all of which

ought to have exhibit numbers.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Your Lordship pleases.

My Lord, Dr. Siemers just wanted to know that his applications were

covered. I think he is quite safe.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Well, then, the only thing that remains is Dr.

Fritz’s on behalf of the Defendant Fritzsche. There are two

interrogatories which have not been received, as I understand, from

Delmar and Feldscher. Those have been granted, and the interrogatories

and the answers will be put in when you get them.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That is the way I understand it, My Lord.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, then, the Tribunal will consider all these matters

and make the appropriate order upon it.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Your Lordship pleases.

THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now. Wait a minute, wait a minute!

DR. EGON KUBUSCHOK (Counsel for Defendant Von Papen): In the case of the

Defendant Von Papen there are still a number of interrogatories which

have not been received. In the meantime, I have received four

interrogatories with answers, but they are still with the Translation

Division. Three interrogatories have not yet come back. I request an

opportunity to present them later on.

THE PRESIDENT: They have been granted before, I suppose? Have they been

granted?

DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes, they had already been granted, with the exception of

one affidavit which I have also dealt with here but which has not yet

been translated and has been in the Translation Division for some time.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but the application for that interrogatory had been

allowed, I suppose?

DR. KUBUSCHOK: I presented this application recently. I was told to have

this affidavit translated, but I have not yet received the translation.

I shall submit this document together with the others as soon as I

receive them from the Translation Division.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well. We will adjourn now.

[_A recess was taken._]

THE PRESIDENT: Go on, Dr. Dix.

DR. DIX: Mr. President, Gentlemen of the Tribunal. A mere glance at the

dock reveals the singularity of Schacht’s case and the story of his

imprisonment and defense. There in the dock sit Kaltenbrunner and

Schacht. Whatever the powers of the Defendant Kaltenbrunner may have

been, he was in any case Chief of the Reich Security Main Office. Until

those May days of 1945, Schacht was a prisoner of the Reich Security

Main Office in various concentration camps. It is surely a rare and

grotesque picture to see jailor and prisoner sharing a bench in the

dock. At the very start of the Trial this remarkable picture alone must

have given cause for reflection to all those participating in the Trial:

judges, prosecutors, and defense counsel alike.

Schacht was banished to a concentration camp on the order of Hitler, as

has been established here. The charge against him was high treason

against the Hitler regime. The judicial authority, the Peoples’ Court,

headed by that bloodthirsty judge, Freisler, would have convicted him,

had not his imprisonment turned into detention by the victorious Allied

Powers. Since the summer of 1944 I was assigned to defend Schacht before

Adolf Hitler’s Peoples’ Court; in the summer of 1945 I was asked to

conduct his defense before the International Military Tribunal. This,

too, is in itself a self-contradictory state of affairs. This, too,

compels all those participating in the Trial to reflect on the

personality of Schacht. One involuntarily recalls the fate of Seneca;

Nero, as a counterpart to Hitler, put Seneca on trial for revolutionary

activities. After the death of Nero, Seneca was charged with complicity

in Nero’s misgovernment and cruelties, in short, with conspiring with

Nero. A certain wry humor is not lacking in the fact that Seneca was

then declared a pagan saint by early Christianity as early as the fourth

century. Although Schacht does not indulge in such expectations, this

historical precedent nevertheless forces us to remain always conscious

of the fact that the sentence to be pronounced by this High Court will

also have to be justified before the judgment seat of history.

The picture of the Third Reich has been revealed to the Tribunal in a

thorough and careful presentation of evidence. It is a picture with a

great deal of background. An opportunity was given to depict this

background also, as far as it was possible within the limits of such a

thorough-going investigation entailing a judicial presentation of

evidence which, to be sure, though thorough enough, was nevertheless

concluded as soon as possible according to the requirements of the

Charter.

In order to learn what it was like under Hitler in German countries,

there is still enough which has been left to the intuition of the Court.

It is not possible, and never will be possible, to understand Hitler

Germany from a constitutional point of view, according to the scholarly

conceptions and views of people with a legal mind. As a scholarly topic,

“The Constitution under Adolf Hitler” is a _lucus a non lucendo_. Mark

my words, “The Constitution”—that is, the reduction of the Hitler State

to a legal system, and not the attempt as made in the final plea by

Jahrreiss, to explain the tyranny of a despot under the aspect of legal

research. A scientific sociology of the Third Reich would, although

feasible, be very difficult and therefore has not yet appeared.

Only very few Germans living in Germany knew the conditions and the

distribution of power within those circles of people who were seemingly

or actually called upon to contribute their share toward the formation

of a political will. Most Germans will be surprised when this picture is

unveiled. How much less possible was it for a foreigner to form a

correct judgment of the constitutional, sociological, and inner

political conditions of Hitler Germany at the time when the Indictment

was presented. But a correct judgment of these things was the

prerequisite for an Indictment correctly founded in both fact and law.

I am of the opinion that the members of the Prosecution were thereby

confronted with a task which defied solution. I am furthermore of the

opinion that the Prosecution would never have presented their criminal

charges against the defendants under the count of a conspiracy if they

had been able to see the distribution of political power in Hitler

Germany in the same way as this may perhaps be today possible, although

with great difficulty, for an intelligent, politically gifted observer

and listener at this Trial.

A conspiracy within the meaning of the Indictment was, as a practical

matter, not possible in Adolf Hitler’s Third Reich, as my colleagues

have already pointed out. The only thing possible in the Third Reich was

a conspiracy by the opposition against Adolf Hitler and the regime.

Several such conspiracies were formed, as was here proven. The

relationship between conspirators is somewhat different than that

between an accomplice and the chief perpetrator. The part to be played

by the individual conspirator in the execution of the common plan may

vary. Some, or a single one, of the conspirators may hold a leading

position within the conspiracy. At all times, however, co-operation is

necessary. Common usage of the term in itself precludes speaking of a

conspiracy when only one commands and all the others are merely

executive agents.

I am, therefore, of the opinion that that which was defined as a crime

here in this hall can never constitute the elements of a conspiracy

according to criminal law. Other legal factors which might enter into

the question are of no interest to me as defense counsel for the

Defendant Schacht, because no criminal charge whatsoever can be brought

against Schacht personally, as an individual, and without connecting him

with deeds of others—in other words merely on the basis of his own

actions. Schacht himself desired only the permissible and the

beneficial, and his actions served these intentions. To the extent that

he erred politically, he is in all candor prepared for the verdict of

history. Yet even the greatest dynamics of international law cannot

penalize political error. If it did this the profession of the statesman

and politician would become impossible. World history is more affected

by mistakes and errors than by correct perceptions. According to

Lessing’s wise words, the perception of absolute truth is God’s

privilege. There remains for man as his greatest blessing only the quest

for truth. _Nescis, mi fili, quanta stultitia mundus regitur_, as old

Axel Oxenstierna once said, and he was probably right.

Schacht declared here that he felt that he had been most grossly

deceived by Adolf Hitler. He thereby admitted that certain of his

decisions and actions had been wrong. The Prosecution disputes Schacht’s

good faith and imputes to him the _dolus_ of having deliberately worked

for a war of aggression as Adolf Hitler’s financial agent, thereby

becoming by implication criminally responsible, from the point of view

of the conspiracy, for all the cruelties and atrocities which were

committed by others during this war. The Prosecution itself was not able

to produce any direct proof of these allegations. They attempted to do

so first by means of alleged documentary evidence in the form of

misinterpreted statements by Schacht, torn from their context. For this

the Prosecution referred to witnesses who could not be made available

for examination before this Court because some of them were absent and

some had died. I recall, for example, the affidavits of Messersmith and

Fuller, and Dodd’s diary notes. Their lack of value as evidence was

clearly set forth to the Tribunal by Schacht during his examination. In

the interest of saving time I do not wish to repeat things which have

already been said, and which surely must still be within the

recollection of the Court.

The Prosecution further attempted to base its charges on actions of

Schacht which had been established beyond reasonable doubt. All these

arguments of the Prosecution are mistaken conclusions from allegedly

incriminating circumstances. I shall confine myself to an enumeration of

the most essential wrong conclusions. The others either result from

these directly or by analogy.

Schacht was opposed to the Treaty of Versailles, says the Prosecution.

That he was indeed. The Prosecution does not hold this opposition in

itself against him. However, it concludes from this that Schacht wanted

to do away with the treaty by force. Schacht favored colonial activity,

says the Prosecution. He did so indeed. They do not reproach him for

this, either, but conclude from this fact that he wanted to conquer the

colonies by force, and so it goes on.

Schacht as President of the Reichsbank and Minister of Economics

co-operated with Hitler, consequently he endorsed Nazi ideology. Schacht

was a member of the Reich Defense Council, consequently he was in favor

of a war of aggression. Schacht helped to finance rearmament during its

first phase until early in 1938, consequently he wanted war. Schacht

welcomed the union with Austria, consequently he approved of a policy of

violence against that country. Schacht devised the “New Plan” in

commercial policy, consequently he wanted to procure raw materials for

armament. Schacht was concerned about the possibilities of livelihood

for the excess population in central Europe, consequently he wanted to

attack and conquer foreign countries and to annihilate foreign peoples.

Over and over again Schacht warned the world against an anti-German

policy of oppression and the moral defamation of Germany, consequently

Schacht threatened war. Because no written evidence has been found that

Schacht resigned from his official positions as a result of his

antagonism to war, the conclusion is that he resigned from these

official positions merely because of his rivalry with Göring.

The list of these false conclusions could be continued _ad infinitum_.

It finds its culmination in the fallacy that Hitler would never have

come to power if it had not been for Schacht, that Hitler would never

have been able to rearm if Schacht had not helped. But, Gentlemen, this

kind of evaluation of evidence would convict an automobile manufacturer

because a taxi driver, while drunk, ran over a pedestrian. In his

speeches or writings Schacht never advocated violence or even war. It is

true that after Versailles he pointed out again and again the dangers

which would result from the moral outlawing and economic exclusion of

Germany. In this opinion he is in the best international company. It is

not necessary for me to cite before this Tribunal the numerous voices,

not of Germans, but of members of the victor states, heard soon after

the Versailles Treaty and all in the same tone as the warnings of

Schacht. Moreover, the correctness of these objections to that treaty

will be absolutely valid for all time. At no time did Schacht however

recommend, or even declare possible, other ways than those of a peaceful

understanding and collaboration. As an avowed economic politician, it

was clearer to him than to anybody else that war can never solve

anything, not even if it is won. In all of Schacht’s utterances his

pacifist attitude was expressed again and again; perhaps the shortest

and most striking of them was that statement at the Berlin Congress of

the International Chamber of Commerce, when Schacht in the presence of

Hitler, Göring, and other exponents of the Government called out to the

assembly: “Believe me, my friends, all nations desire to live, not to

die!” This pronounced pacifist attitude of Schacht is indeed confirmed

by all witnesses and affidavits.

For the few in the world—and I purposely say in the world, not only in

Germany—who from the very beginning recognized Hitler and his

Government for what they were, it certainly was a cause for anxiety and

sorrow, or at the very least puzzling, to see a man like Schacht placing

his services and his great professional ability at the disposal of Adolf

Hitler after he had come to power. The witness Gisevius also shared this

anxiety, as he has testified here. Later on he convinced himself of

Schacht’s honorable intentions through the latter’s upright and

courageous behavior in 1938 and 1939. In his interrogation Schacht

outlined for us the reasons which caused him to act in this manner. I

need not and do not wish to repeat them in the interest of saving time.

The evidence has not shown anything which would refute the veracity of

this presentation by Schacht. On the contrary, I only refer for example

to the affidavit of State Secretary Schmid, Exhibit Number 41 of my

document book, containing detailed statements on this subject on Page 2,

which are in complete agreement with Schacht’s description. A

consideration of the remaining testimony and affidavits as a whole leads

to the same result. In order to understand the manner in which Schacht

acted at that time both directly after the seizure of power as well as

after he had recognized Hitler and his disastrous activity, it is

absolutely necessary to form a clear picture of Adolf Hitler’s

pernicious spell and his system of government. For both are the soil in

which Schacht’s actions grew, and by which alone they can be explained.

I realize that one could speak about this for days and write volumes

about it if one wished to treat the subject exhaustively. However, I

also realize that before this Tribunal short references and spotlights

will be sufficient in order to gain the Tribunal’s understanding.

The disintegrating collapse of imperial Germany in 1918 presented the

German people, who were heterogeneously composed and had never become an

organic unit, with a parliamentary democratic form of constitution. I

venture to assert that all political thinking which is not directed by

selfish motives must strive for democracy, if this is also understood to

include the protection of justice, tolerance toward those of different

convictions, freedom of thought, and the political development of

humanity. These are the highest timeless ideals which, however, in their

very constitutional forms actually harbor dangers in themselves. When

democracy appeared for the first time on the European continent,

reactionary political thinkers like Prince Metternich and the like

opposed every democratic impulse, because they saw only the dangers of

democracy and not its educative qualities and historical necessity. In

pointing to these dangers they were unfortunately right. Perhaps the

cleverest nation which ever lived, the Greeks of antiquity, had already

pointed out the danger of democracy developing through demagogy to

tyranny; and probably all philosophizing political thinkers from

Aristotle to Thomas Aquinas, and down to the present time, have pointed

out the danger of this development. This danger becomes all the greater

if democratic freedom in the theoretical constitutional sense does not

arise and grow organically, but becomes more or less a chance gift to a

nation.

_En fait d’histoire il vaut mieux continuer que recommencer_, a great

French thinker once said. Unfortunately, this has made Germany the

latest and, it is to be hoped, the last example of a tyranny of a single

despot established by means of a diabolical demagogy. For there is no

doubt that the Hitler regime was the despotism of an individual, whose

parallel is to be found only in ancient Asia. In order to understand the

attitude of any individual toward this Government—not only that of

Schacht and of the Germans, but that of any person and any government in

the world which has collaborated with Hitler, and on the part of the

foreign countries such collaboration based on confidence was much

greater toward Hitler than toward any government of the intermediate

Reich or of the State of the Weimar Constitution—it is necessary to

analyze the personality of this despot, this political Pied Piper, this

brilliant demagogue who, as Schacht testified here in his interrogation

with understandable agitation, not only deceived him, but also the

German people and the whole world. In order to accomplish this deceit,

Hitler was forced to bring under the spell of his personality

innumerable clever and politically trained individuals besides Schacht,

even those outside the German frontiers. He succeeded in doing this even

with prominent foreigners, including those in leading political

positions. I shall refrain from citing names and quotations to prove

this point. The fact is generally known to the Tribunal.

I shall now skip the next lines and continue on Line 10 of the same

page. How was this influence of Hitler possible, both in Germany and

abroad? Of course, Faust also succumbed to Mephistopheles. In Germany,

all the circumstances of the conditions prevailing at that time, which

have been described here in the evidence given by Schacht and others,

favored this influence. The complete collapse of the parliamentary party

system and the resulting necessity, felt already at the time by the

existing Government, of having to rule by emergency decrees enacted

without parliamentary participation, thus establishing a dictatorship of

ministerial bureaucracy as a forerunner of the Hitler dictatorship,

produced in nearly every quarter a cry for stronger leadership. The

economic crisis and unemployment opened the ears of the masses, as

misery always does, to demagogic insinuations. The complete lethargy and

inactivity of the center and leftist parties of the time also created

among critical and intelligent observers, of whom Schacht assuredly was

one, the inward readiness and longing to welcome spirited political

“dynamics” and activity. If someone, like the sharp-witted and

perspicacious Schacht, already at that time discovered faults and dark

sides, he could hope, as Schacht did, by his very active penetration

into the Movement or by co-operation with leading State departments

quickly and easily to combat these shady aspects, which in any case

beset every revolutionary movement. “When the eagle soars, vermin settle

on his wings,” replied the late Minister of Justice Gürtner, quoting

from Conrad Ferdinand Meyer’s novel Pescara, when I pointed out these

shady sides to him after the seizure of power. These considerations are

in themselves reasonable and plausible. The fact that they contained a

political error even in Schacht’s case does not deprive them of their

good faith and honest convictions. However, we ought not to forget that

here, during the proceedings, we heard of a message from the American

Consul General Messersmith, dating from 1933, in which he joyfully hails

the report that decent and sensible people are now joining the Party

too, as this gave reason to hope that radicalism would thereby cease. I

refer to the relevant document submitted here by the Prosecution,

Document Number L-198, report Number 1184 by the American Consul General

Messersmith to the Secretary of State in Washington.

“Since the election on March 5th, some of the more important

thinking people in various parts of Germany have allied

themselves with the National Socialist movement, in the hope of

tempering its radicalism by their action within rather than from

without the Party.”

But what Messersmith very reasonably says of ordinary Party members of

that time, naturally applies also, _mutatis mutandis_, to the man who

offered his co-operation in a leading Government post. The reasons

Schacht gave for his decision at the time to accept the post of

President of the Reichsbank and later of Reich Minister of Economics

are, therefore, thoroughly credible in themselves and have no immoral or

criminal implication. Schacht, indeed, has acknowledged his activity. He

only lacked the intuition to recognize at the outset the personalities

of Hitler and some of his henchmen for what they were. But that is no

punishable act; neither does it indicate any criminal intention. This

intuition was lacking in most people both within and without the German

frontiers. The possession of intuition is a matter of good fortune and a

divine gift unfathomable by reason. Every man has his limitations, even

the most intelligent. Schacht is certainly very intelligent, but in this

case reason prevailed at the cost of intuition. In the last analysis

this process can only be fully appreciated when those mysterious forces

are taken into account which affect world events, and of which

Wallenstein says: “The earth belongs to the evil spirit, not to the

good” where he speaks of “the sinister powers of evil which lurk in the

bowels of the earth.” Adolf Hitler was a prominent example of these

powers of darkness and his influence was all the more nefarious since he

lacked the grandeur which accompanies Satan. He remained a

half-educated, completely earth-bound bourgeois who also lacked any

sense of the law. The Defendant Frank said truly of him that he hated

jurists, because the jurist appeared to him as a man of law, as a

disturbing factor in the face of his power. Thus he could promise

everything to everybody and not keep his promise, for a promise to him

meant only a technical instrument of power, and signified no legal or

moral obligation.

Neither was the pernicious influence of Himmler and Bormann detected by

Schacht at this time, or probably by anybody else. Yet all those crimes

that are now covered by the Indictment matured within this very trio,

for to Himmler politics were identical with murder, and in his purely

biological view he regarded human society as a breeding farm and never

as a social and ethical community. A personality like Adolf Hitler, and

his effect upon men, even including such intelligent men as Schacht, can

only be correctly judged by following the prophetic vision of the poet,

as I have already just tried to do, thereby achieving insight otherwise

inaccessible to the mind of man. The demon undoubtedly became incarnate

in Adolf Hitler to the detriment of Germany and the world, and perhaps I

can summarize by quoting—and this is absolutely necessary for an

understanding of Schacht’s conduct, as well as that of all those others

who deliberately and in all purity of heart offered their services to

Hitler—a passage from Goethe, which in a few words sums up and

discloses the mystery. Here lies the key to the understanding of all

those who flocked to follow Hitler. May I quote from “Poetry and Truth,”

Part 4, Book 20, as follows:

“Although the demoniac can manifest itself in everything

material and immaterial, and indeed be singularly apparent in

beasts, it assumes its most extraordinary form when associated

with man, and constitutes a power which if not contrary to is

yet a disturbing element in the moral world order. There are

innumerable names for the phenomena which are brought to light

in this way. For all philosophies and religions have tried both

in prose and in poetry to solve this riddle and to dispose of

the matter once and for all, which they may well continue to do

in the future. But the demoniac assumes its most dreadful form

when it manifests itself preponderantly in any one human being.

During my lifetime I have had occasion to observe several such

persons, either closely or from afar. They are not always the

most distinguished persons, either in intellect or in talent,

and they rarely excel by their goodness of heart; yet a

tremendous force emanates from them, and they exercise an

incredible power over every creature and even over the elements,

and none can tell how far such influence will extend. No

coalition of moral forces can prevail against them; it is in

vain that the better part of humanity attempts to put them in

disrepute as victims of deception, or as impostors. The masses

are attracted to them. They seldom or never find contemporary

equals, and nothing short of the universe itself, against which

they begin the fight, can overcome them; and these observations

may perhaps have inspired that curious but monstrous saying:

_Nemo contra Deum, nisi Deus ipse_.”

I think I have demonstrated that the fact that he served Hitler does not

incriminate Schacht and that it can by no means be concluded from this

act that at that time he embodied the criminal deeds of Hitler and his

regime into his own intentions. He did not even think them possible.

Therefore he followed no dolus eventualis either; on the contrary:

Insofar as the violent character of the regime disturbed him he believed

he would be able, through his appointment to an important post, to

contribute to the abolition and prevention of those attendant phenomena

of which he also disapproved, and to aid Germany’s recovery within his

sphere of activity in a decent and peaceful manner.

That being the case, not the slightest reproach could be made against

him for not only serving Hitler after the seizure of power, but also for

helping him to gain control. This latter charge is, therefore,

completely immaterial as evidence of criminal behavior or of criminal

intent. However, there is no need for this argument at all, since as a

matter of fact Schacht did not help Hitler to gain power. Hitler was in

power when Schacht began to work for him. Hitler’s victory was already

assured when the July elections of the Reichstag in 1932 brought him no

less than 230 seats. These represented about 40 percent of the total

votes. There had been no such election result for any party for decades.

But the immediate political future was thereby established under a

Government headed by Hitler, thanks to the very rules of the German

democratic Constitution and every other democratic constitution. Any

other path was beset with the danger of civil war.

It was only natural that Schacht, who at that time honestly believed in

Hitler’s political mission, did not wish to take this path. It was

likewise natural that he should take an active part whenever he believed

that thereby he might be able to prevent harmful radicalism in the

economic political domain. A wise French statesman says:

“Every epoch confronts us in some way with the task of creating

benefits or preventing abuses. For this reason, in my opinion, a

patriotic man can and must serve any government which his

country appoints for itself.”

By serving Hitler, Schacht, in his opinion, was serving his country and

not Hitler. This opinion may have been the greatest of mistakes, and it

has subsequently revealed itself as completely erroneous as far as

Hitler was concerned, yet Schacht can never be criminally charged for

acting as he did at that time, neither directly nor circumstantially.

And indeed we must not forget that the Hitler of 1933 not only seemed to

be a different man from the Hitler of 1938 or even of 1941, but actually

was different. Schacht has already referred during his interrogation to

this transformation, which was caused by the poison of mass worship.

Moreover, the transformation of such personalities is a psychological

law. History proves this in Nero, Constantine the Great, and many

others. In the case of Hitler there exist many irreproachable witnesses

for the truth of this fact, irreproachable in the sense that a purpose

or an intention to violate the law, to raise terrorism to a principle,

and to attack mankind with a war of aggression, can never be imputed to

them. I merely wish to quote a few of them. I could multiply the

quotations a hundredfold. In 1934 Lord Rothermere wrote an article in

the _Daily Mail_, entitled: “Adolf Hitler from Close By.” I quote only a

few sentences:

“The most prominent figure in the world today is Adolf Hitler

... Hitler stands in direct line with those great leaders of

mankind who seldom appear more than once in two or three

centuries ... it is delightful to see that Hitler’s speech has

considerably brightened his popularity in England.”

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Dix, I thought the Tribunal had refused to allow the

writings of Lord Rothermere to be put in evidence or used.

DR. DIX: I interpreted the decision of the High Tribunal barring

quotations from Lord Rothermere from the document book to mean—and this

is also the reason given in the Indictment—that this was a matter for

argument which should not be submitted in evidence as a fact, and that

it would be irrelevant in the hearing of the evidence that Rothermere

and others were of this opinion; and from this I drew the

conclusion—and I am still of the opinion today that this conclusion is

correct—that in the course of my argument, that is, in the course of my

appraisal of the evidence, I could cite passages from the literature of

the entire world, insofar as it is known, in order to support a line of

thought. That Rothermere said that is not a fact which I want to submit

to the Tribunal as evidence, but only in support of the assertion

forming part of my argument that not only Schacht but also other

intelligent and prominent people, even outside of Germany, at first had

the same opinion of Hitler’s personality ...

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Dix, the Tribunal has already indicated its refusal

to allow this to be used as evidence, because it does not pay any

attention to the opinions expressed by this author. Therefore, we think

it would be better if you went on to some other part of your argument.

DR. DIX: Then I ask—the Tribunal surely has a translation of my final

speech before it—that I be allowed to quote a short passage from Sumner

Welles, and then a passage, which seems very important to me, from the

book written by the last British Ambassador. I should be very grateful

if I could quote both of these two passages for, if one wants to prove

that even an intelligent man can hold a certain opinion and is entitled

to hold it, then I do not know but what the most obvious and convincing

proof for that lies in the fact that other intelligent and completely

objective people also held the same view. I shall lose an important

point of my argument if I am not permitted to quote the two short

passages, and I should like to ask that they be heard briefly; it is

only the quotation from Sumner Welles and Henderson.

THE PRESIDENT: I have not said anything about Sumner Welles. It was only

because we had expressly excluded the writings on this subject of Lord

Rothermere that we thought it was inappropriate that you should quote

him. I do not think we excluded these other books to which you here

refer in your speech and therefore we thought you might go on to that.

DR. DIX: I quote from Sumner Welles’ book _Time for Decision_, published

in New York in 1944:

“Economic circles in each of the western European democracies

and the New World welcomed Hitlerism.”

And it is only right, when Great Britain’s last Ambassador in Berlin,

even during the war, states on Page 25 of his book:

“It would be highly unjust not to recognize that a great number

of those who joined Hitler and worked for him and his Nazi

regime were honest idealists.”

Further on he makes this interesting remark:

“It is possible that Hitler was an idealist himself in the

beginning.”

And the Government of the United Kingdom would surely never have

concluded a naval treaty with Hitler Germany in April 1935, and

therewith have contributed in the interests of justice to a modification

of the Versailles Treaty, if they had not had entire confidence in

Hitler and his Government. Finally, the same holds true for all the

international treaties concluded by Hitler, including the treaty

concluded with Russia in August 1939. And it is a striking fact, even

today, that so intelligent a man of such high ethical standing as the

late British Prime Minister Chamberlain declared in a speech as late as

January 1939—at a time when Schacht had already long been treading the

dark paths of conspiracy against Hitler, in the face of the events of

1938—that he had gained the definite impression from Hitler’s recent

speech that these were not the words of a man who was making

preparations to plunge Europe into another war. I do not doubt that

these words were not spoken as a matter of tactics, but reflected the

speaker’s true opinion. Such examples could be quoted in great number.

Is it desired to deny to a German, in 1933 and the following years, the

right to come to the same opinion about Hitler in good faith?

The fact that Schacht did not enter office as Minister of Economies

until after 30 June 1934 is not inconsistent with this either. Only in

retrospect does the full enormity of these events become clear. In June

1934 we were still in the midst of revolutionary turmoil, and history

will be able to show similar occurrences in any revolution of this kind.

I do not have to give detailed proof of this, nor do I wish to do so.

The events of 30 June provided just as little, if not less, motive for

Schacht to turn away from Hitler with disgust, as they did for the

governments in the world who not only continued diplomatic relations

with Hitler in full confidence, but also rendered him great honors and

allowed him to score important successes in foreign policy, especially

after 1934.

If Schacht, however, cannot be criminally charged with the fact that he

placed himself at the disposal of Hitler’s Government, it is surely

completely superfluous, indeed it would be beside the point, to attempt

to make long statements in excuse of individual acts, such as his

petition addressed to the Reich President in 1932, or his letter to

Hitler in the same year. Anybody who knows life can find a thoroughly

natural explanation for them in the fundamental attitude of Schacht. If

this attitude is proved to be unobjectionable from the point of view of

criminal law and the rules of evidence, then no such documents can be

used in argument against Schacht. It is the principle that matters. The

same holds true for Schacht’s participation in the so-called meeting of

industrialists. On this subject I should only like to remark by way of

correction that Schacht neither presided at this meeting nor

administered these funds exclusively for the National Socialist Party.

Now one witness here has passed judgment on Schacht’s attitude toward

the seizure and consolidation of power during this period:

“Schacht was an untrustworthy person,” he said. “Schacht

betrayed the cause of democracy at that time. I therefore

refused in 1943 to join a Government proposing to overthrow

Hitler with Schacht’s participation.”

This was the former Minister Severing who, according to his own

statement, relinquished his ministerial chair and premises on 20 July

1932, when the Berlin Chief of Police and two police officers called on

him, demanding his withdrawal with the assertion that they had been

authorized to do so by the Reich President. Severing withdrew, as he

said himself, to avoid bloodshed. In spite of the great respect which I

feel toward Severing’s clean political character, I am forced to my

regret to deny him any right to pass competent judgment on statesmen

who, unlike him and his Government coalition, did not remain

lethargically passive. Severing and his political friends indeed bear a

disproportionately greater responsibility than Hjalmar Schacht for Adolf

Hitler’s seizure of power because of their indecision and, finally,

their lack of political ideas; but they do not have to answer for this

to any judge except history. And this responsibility will be all the

greater since the witness indeed makes the claim that at that time he

had already recognized that Hitler’s accession to power meant war. If

one may really believe that he possessed this correct political

intuition, then his responsibility, and that of his political friends,

will be all the greater in view of their passivity on that and later

occasions, and again this responsibility will be disproportionately

greater than that of Hjalmar Schacht. Our German workers are certainly

no greater cowards than the Dutch. Our hearts rejoiced to hear a witness

here describe the manly courage of Dutch workers who dared to strike

under the very bayonets of the invading army. The following which

Severing and his political friends deservedly had in the German working

class might perhaps have induced them not to watch the dissolution of

the trade unions with such dull passivity as was the case in 1933, had

only their natural leaders such as Severing and his colleagues been a

little more daring and willing to expose themselves. In the last resort,

the Kapp revolt in 1923 was also overcome by the general strike of the

workmen. The Hitler regime was not so strong in 1933 that it did not

have to fear the truth of the poet’s words addressed to the workers:

“All wheels stand still at your strong arm’s will.” The National

Socialist Government at that time was quite well informed about this and

was consequently apprehensive. This is also apparent from Göring’s

interrogation on 13 October 1945, the transcript of which was quoted and

submitted by Professor Kempner on 16 January 1946. Göring said: “You

must consider that at that time the activity of the Communists was

extraordinarily strong and that our new Government as such was not very

secure.” But even this strong arm which I have just mentioned required a

guidance which was denied to the working class and for which men like

Severing would have been indicated. In all justice they will have to

account for their passivity, not before the judge in a criminal court,

but before history. I do not presume to pass a final judgment. I confine

myself to revealing this problem and to attributing a full and

embarrassing measure of self-righteousness to the witness Severing,

although I respect him as a man, if he feels himself called upon to

accuse others, when studying the question as to who from the view point

of history is guilty of the seizure and consolidation of power by

Nazism—especially if, in contrast to Schacht, he intuitively foresaw

the later evolution of Hitler—instead of submitting himself with

humility to the judgment of history, relying on his undoubtedly

unimpeachable views and his undoubtedly pure intentions.

Let us always bear in mind, in the interest of historical truth, that

especially at the beginning of the Nazi rule there were only two power

groups, with the exception of foreign intervention, which could perhaps

have liberated Germany, namely, the Army and the working class,

provided, of course, that both were under the proper leadership.

I had to go into more detail on this point because such a detrimental

remark by such a blameless and distinguished man as Severing brings with

it the danger of unjust deductions regarding my client. It would have

been agreeable to me if I could have been spared this discussion of

Severing’s incriminating testimony. Severing has further brought the

charge of political opportunism against Schacht. In politics, to be

sure, the boundary between opportunism and statesmanlike conduct

dictated by expediency is very fluid. Before appraising Schacht’s

conduct in 1932 and 1933 as opportunistic, his past should also have

been considered. After 1923 this past lived in the public eye. It has

partly been a subject of these proceedings, partly it is already known

to the Court. This past speaks rather for the fact that Schacht does

what he judges to be right, not only with a great disregard of

consequences, but also with great courage. Indeed, he has also proved

this courage as a conspirator against Hitler, as is bound to appear from

an examination of this activity as conspirator, and as Gisevius

expressly described here.

But let us go back with Schacht to the year 1923. At that time he

stabilized the mark against all parties interested in inflation; in 1924

he blocked credits against all hoarders of foreign currency; in 1927 he

deprived the exchange speculators of the credit basis for their exchange

manipulations. From 1925 to 1929 he fought against the debt and

expenditure policy of the municipalities and thereby incurred the enmity

of all the mayors. In 1929 he signed the Young Plan and thus defied the

opposition of the heavy industry circles and continuing this policy, he

fought openly since 1934 against the perversions and abuses of the Nazi

ideology and never personally carried out a plan or an order which was

contrary to his conscience or his sense of justice.

Every statesman must make certain concessions during a time of

fanaticism. Certain sticklers for morality—of whom there are many

today—who demand a steely hardness for the protection of principles,

should not forget that steel has two qualities, not only solidity but

also flexibility.

My Lord, I have now finished one particular section; the next one would

take longer. I certainly will not finish it until after 1 o’clock. I

should be grateful if Your Lordship would call the noon recess now. I am

now coming to Appendix Number 1 ...

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Dix, I think you had better go on until 1 o’clock.

DR. DIX: Your Honors, in the translated copy which you have before you,

there are two appendices at the end. I had to employ this device because

the matters dealt with in this annex occurred after I had given my

speech to be translated. Therefore, I had to work in my comments on this

subject somehow, and could only do it by way of an appendix.

And so I now come to the reading of Appendix 1, which is at the back,

and to the opinion of the testimony of Gisevius as expressed by my

colleague, Dr. Nelte, since I am here concerned with evaluating the

testimony of witnesses.

Insofar as my colleague Dr. Nelte criticized the objective reliability

of the testimony of Gisevius regarding his statements incriminating the

Defendants Keitel, Göring, and so on, I refrain from any statements. The

Prosecution may take any standpoint it desires. This is not my task.

But now Dr. Nelte has also attacked the subjective credibility of

Gisevius in the personal character of this witness and thus also

indirectly the reliability of his testimony concerning Dr. Schacht. This

demands a statement of my opinion, and a statement of a very fundamental

nature.

Your Honors, it is here that minds part company. A gap that cannot be

bridged opens up between Schacht’s standpoint and the standpoint of all

those who adopt the train of thought with which Dr. Nelte attempts to

discredit the character of Gisevius, the deceased Canaris, Oster, Nebe,

and others. I most certainly owe it to my client, Dr. Schacht, to state

the following fundamental point very clearly and unequivocally:

Patriotism means loyalty to one’s fatherland and people and fight

without quarter against anyone who criminally leads one’s fatherland and

people into misery and destruction. Such a leader is an enemy of the

fatherland; his actions are infinitely more dangerous than those of any

enemy in war. Every method is justified against such a criminal State

leadership, and the motto must be: _à corsaire, corsaire et demi_.

High treason against such a State leadership is true and genuine

patriotism and as such highly moral, even during war. Who could still

entertain the slightest doubt after the findings of this Trial, and

finally after the testimony of Speer about Hitler’s cynical remarks

regarding the destruction of the German people, that Adolf Hitler was

the greatest enemy of his people, in short, a criminal toward this

people, and that to remove him any means were justified and any,

literally any, deed was patriotic. All those on the defendant’s bench

who do not recognize this are worlds apart from Schacht.

I had to make this point in order to clear the atmosphere. After this

fundamental clarification I can refrain from refuting details in Dr.

Nelte’s attacks against Dr. Gisevius. Insofar as Dr. Nelte fails to see

any willingness for active service among these resistance groups to

which Dr. Schacht belonged, I need only point to the many hundreds who

were hanged on 20 July alone; Schacht numbers among the very few

survivors, and he too was to be liquidated in Flossenbürg. I point to

the dead victims of the political judiciary of the Hitlerian State whose

numbers run into thousands. Truly, the waging of a war of conspiracy

against Hitler and the necessity for cunning and dissimulation in

connection therewith were no less dangerous to life and limb than

exposing one’s self at the front.

During the very fair cross-examination conducted by my colleague, Dr.

Kubuschok, Gisevius immediately admitted his mistake resulting from the

ban on publication, in the affair of Papen’s resignation. I have nothing

more to say about this.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn.

[_The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours._]

_Afternoon Session_

DR. DIX: May it please the Tribunal, I had concluded with the

consideration of the probative value of the statements made here by the

witnesses Severing and Gisevius.

Now, on concluding the evaluation of Schacht’s conduct up to about 1935

and entering the period from 1935 to 1937, I would emphasize once more

that in order to save time I will not repeat the arguments which were

presented to the Tribunal in detail during the cross-examination, as for

instance the nonparticipation of Schacht in the legislation which led to

the total disregard for international law, because this took place

before his entry into the Cabinet. The decisive event for the

stabilization of Hitler’s power, the merging of the offices of the Reich

President and of the Chancellor of the Reich in the person of Hitler,

also lay outside his co-operation and responsibility. By this decree the

Army took its oath to Hitler. The Chancellor of the Reich not only had

police authority as heretofore but also authority over the Army. It is

not my task to investigate who bears the political responsibility and

thus the historic guilt for this law; in any case, it is not Schacht.

All the basic anti-Jewish laws were also enacted before he entered into

office as a minister. He was completely surprised by the subsequent

Nuremberg Laws. The decree dealing with the exclusion of the Jews from

German economic life dated 12 November 1938 and the ordinance concerning

the use of Jewish property and possessions of 3 December 1938 were

issued after he had left his post as Minister of Economics and thus

without his active collaboration. The same applies to the decree

excluding Jews from the Reich Labor Service, which moreover probably

hardly inconvenienced them. The law providing for the death penalty for

secret reserves of foreign exchange, the so-called Law of Betrayal of

the People, was not directed specifically against the Jews but solely

against big industry and high finance; also it was not evolved by

Schacht but by the Minister of Finance. Schacht did not want to effect a

breach of relations on account of such laws because he believed it was

his duty to perform a more important task. In any case, this can hardly

be regarded as important, for in the Jewish question Schacht, by his

public speeches and his reports to Hitler, showed such a favorable

attitude toward the Jews that it would be unjust to disqualify him

politically and morally for such a reason, much less from the angle of

criminal law. As examples I would remind you of the Reichsbank speech

after the anti-Jewish pogrom in November 1938, the speech at Königsberg,

the memoranda of the year 1935, and so forth. In the Third Reich Schacht

was considered the most courageous and active protector of the Jews. I

only remind you of the letter of the Frankfurt businessman, Merton,

which was submitted to the Court, and of the illuminating statement of

the witness Hayler. According to the latter, when Hayler reproached

Himmler for the events of November 1938, he replied that after all it

had been the fault of the economic administration that matters had

reached such a point. Of a man like Herr Schacht one could not expect

anything better than that he should exercise a constant restraining

influence in the Jewish question and be opposed to the will of the

Party.

In response to my further inquiry Justice Jackson defined this specific

charge of the Prosecution as follows: Schacht is not being charged with

anti-Semitism, but for activities which have a causal connection with

the atrocities committed against the Jews within the framework of the

planned war of aggression. Thus it follows that a denial of guilt as to

a war of aggression leads with compelling logic to the denial of any

guilt as to the atrocities which were committed against the Jews during

the war. Justice Jackson made some phases of the legislation in respect

to the Jews during Schacht’s term as Minister the subject of his

cross-examination. I shall refrain from this part of the

cross-examination; going into the questions put to Schacht and answered

by him is irrelevant according to the Charter and the previously

mentioned authentic interpretation of this part of the Indictment by

Justice Jackson. The anti-Semitic legislation of the Third Reich and the

personal attitude of an individual defendant toward it are, according to

the Charter, relevant in these proceedings only insofar as they are

connected with other crimes which are subject to punishment according to

the Charter, as for example the conspiracy to wage war, mass

extermination, and so forth. According to the Charter they cannot

constitute an offense in themselves, not even one against humanity. Only

those defendants are punishable for their deeds who can be proved to

have participated in the planning of a war of aggression with its

resulting inhuman consequences for the Jews. A prerequisite for their

conviction on this account, however, is that they recognized and desired

this goal and its result. There exists no purely objective liability for

the outcome in criminal law. According to the Charter, he who desired

the war and thus also the inhuman actions connected with it is

punishable; but the incriminating activity must always have occurred in

the course of the execution of such a plan. This purely legal

consideration in itself excludes the conviction of Schacht on the

grounds of atrocities against the Jews.